An Empirical Study of the Efficacy of Integrating
the Teaching of Dictionary Use into a Tertiary
English Curriculum in Hong Kong
Amy Chi
RESEARCH REPORTS
General Editor: Gregory James
VOLUME FOUR
An empirical study of the efficacy of
integrating the teaching of dictionary use
into a tertiary English
curriculum in Hong Kong
Amy Chi
LANGUAGE CENTRE
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
This report is a shortened, edited version of the author’s thesis, ‘A study of dictionary use teaching’, for which she was awarded the degree of PhD at Macquarie
University, Sydney, 2003.
Language Centre
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Copyright © November 2003. All rights reserved.
ISBN 962-7607-21-5
Postal Address: Language Centre,
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, CHINA
Telephone:
(852) 2358 7880
Facsimile:
(852) 2335 0249
Dedication
To my father, James Chi.
Contents
Editorial Foreword
Acknowledgements
Synopsis
Chapter One: Introduction
xi
xiii
xv
1
Background
The computer era in pedagogical lexicography
User-oriented pedagogical lexicography
1
1
1
Rationale
On dictionary use
On dictionary use teaching
3
3
4
Chapter Two: Literature review
7
The use of dictionaries and dictionary use training in Hong Kong
7
Perspectives on dictionary use from the three stakeholders in the
lexicographical triangle
9
Research issues in the field of pedagogic lexicography
Diversity of the scope of research studies
Qualitative or quantitative nature of research studies
Testing dictionary use
Dictionary use training
12
12
13
14
15
A review of various dictionary use topics
Pronunciation symbols and stress marks
Alphabetical ordering
Collocation
Style labels
Language and culture
15
15
19
22
24
30
Chapter Three: Research design
Introduction
Aims
Hypotheses
Procedure
First stage – Survey on dictionary use
39
39
39
39
40
41
Aims
Design
Second stage – An experimental study on teaching dictionary use
Aims
Design
Statistical analysis
Chapter Four: Survey on dictionary use
Findings
41
41
42
42
42
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
Questions 1–4
Questions 5–11
Questions 12–13
Questions 14–18
Discussion
Ownership of dictionaries
Dictionary use skills
Students’ perceptions regarding dictionaries in learning
Teachers’ role and perspectives in providing dictionary use
training to students
Focus of dictionary use training
48
48
49
53
Implications for the second stage of the study
Proposed contents
Proposed methodology
58
58
59
Chapter Five: An empirical research study
55
57
61
Collocation and style labelling
Test design
Pre-test results and analysis
Sub-questions 1 and 2
Sub-question 3
Sub-question 4
Treatment
Post-test results, analysis and implications
61
61
61
62
63
64
68
69
Language and culture
Test design
Pre-test results and analysis
Treatment
Post-test results, analysis and implications
73
73
74
76
77
Alphabetical ordering
Test design
Marking system
81
81
81
viii
Pre-test results and analysis
Treatment
Post-test results, analysis and implications
82
85
85
Pronunciation symbols and stress marks
Test design
Pre-test results and analysis
Treatment
Post-test results, analysis and implications
Errors possibly resulting from students confusing symbols
with letters
Errors possibly induced by the three dictionaries selected
91
91
92
93
94
Chapter Six: Evaluation questionnaire and conclusion of the study
103
96
97
Evaluation questionnaire
103
Conclusion of the study
105
References
(A) Dictionaries
107
(B) Books and articles
108
Appendix I: Pre-test questions
117
Appendix II: Post-test questions
121
ix
x
Editorial Foreword
This is a timely study of dictionary use training. What few studies there are on users’ dictionary consultation strategies, particularly in the context of English as a second or foreign language (see e.g. Nesi 1994; Alzi’abi 1995; Kent 2001) demonstrate that a good
deal is taken for granted both by teachers and dictionary compilers. Despite the varied
innovations adopted in recent years by the major dictionary publishers to make their
works more generally accessible and informative than hitherto, studies have shown that
users are generally unaware of the new potential of the dictionary as a language-learning
tool. In this Report, Amy Chi shows that teachers’ and lexicographers’ assumptions
about users’ abilities and knowledge are not always justified, and that significant improvements can be made by formal training in dictionary use, even at tertiary level:
Rudimentary retrieval skills alone, such as knowing the ordering of the English alphabet,
will be inadequate for those who want to benefit fully from what is being offered in the
latest pedagogical dictionaries. Retrieval skills, and knowledge of how to identify a dictionary suitable for one’s use [cf. Koren 1997], must be acquired. It is chimerical to believe that these stages come spontaneously: that, N[on] N[ative] English-speaking users …
would, without training have the initiative, ability and knowledge to search through the
many new dictionaries available and find one to suit their needs … [and] that users will
teach themselves how to use a particular dictionary by referring to the introductory pages
at the front of the book, and be able to use the dictionary to solve their problems.
Chi shows how training in specific features of dictionary entries can significantly enhance the long-term benefits users gain from a dictionary, and can make a major contribution to users’ language learning strategies. The dictionary becomes, then, not a quickreference mechanism, but an active and important pedagogical tool to be exploited in a
variety of productive ways.
References
Alzi’abi, S. E. 1995. Missing words and missing definitions: NL Arabic speakers’ use of EFL dictionaries.
PhD, University of Wales.
Kent, D. 2001. Korean university freshmens’ [sic] dictionary use and perceptions regarding dictionaries.
Korea TESOL Journal 4, 1, 73–92.
Koren, S. 1997. Quality versus convenience: Comparison of modern dictionaries from the researcher’s,
teacher’s and learner’s points of view. TESL-EJ2, 3, 1–11.
Nesi, H. 1994. The use and abuse of EFL dictionaries: How learners of English as a foreign language read
and interpret dictionary entries. PhD, University of Wales.
xi
xii
Acknowledgements
I owe a debt of gratitude to Sr Mary Olga Lam for nurturing my early years at Good
Hope School.
I am most grateful to my supervisor, David Blair, for his guidance and encouragement.
Professor Gregory James, my external supervisor, has been a great mentor to me. His
comments on various topics of my thesis were inspiring and helped shape the framework
of this study.
I should like also to express my gratitude to Dr Manyu Wong of the Department of
Mathematics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, for her critical comments and constructive advice on my statistical analyses.
I particularly appreciate the help of Elizabeth Stewart and Luke O’Connor who proofread part of my work.
Special thanks go to my colleagues in the Language Centre, Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, particularly to Anna Yu, for the support they have shown while
I was working on my study.
I hope that all those I have mentioned, as well as innumerable others, both in Hong Kong
and Australia, to whom I am indebted in many ways, will see this study as a fitting tribute to their encouragement.
Amy Chi
Hong Kong
November 2003
xiii
xiv
Synopsis
Current dictionaries for learners of English are made to be user-friendly, to contain many
innovative features to simplify the look-up process, and to include the linguistic information that assists learners in acquiring the target language. However, existing research
studies have revealed how little non-native learners of English are aware of the potential
of such dictionaries. One of the methods that has been suggested by researchers in the
field of pedagogical lexicography to address the problem is to teach these students how
to use dictionaries. This study advocates that an effective way of teaching such reference
skills is as a component of an existing English language course. Through an empirical
research design, this study explores the efficacy of teaching dictionary use explicitly to
non-native learners through experience with a conventional English enhancement course
at tertiary level in Hong Kong. The study was carried out with the use of tailor-made
teaching materials on dictionary use items identified to be relevant to the needs of these
tertiary students, and to the nature of the existing English course at the university which
they were attending. Through statistical and qualitative analyses, the study proves that
such an approach is effective in disseminating the knowledge and skills required of students in using English learners’ dictionaries to solve specified linguistic problems. Based
on the findings, it is recommended that support and training should be provided to English teachers to ensure that they are conversant with the development of, and innovations
in, English learners’ dictionaries.
xv
xvi
Chapter One: Introduction
BACKGROUND
The computer era in pedagogical lexicography
The dictionary has long been recognised as a useful language learning and reference
tool by teachers and learners, its role being particularly relevant to learners of foreign
languages. The past two decades have witnessed the burgeoning of new dictionaries
specifically for learners of English as a foreign language (EFL), as well as the revision of established ones. Both types of dictionaries make use of large corpora for important information on the latest trends in language use, thus making the dictionary a
more valuable tool in EFL teaching and learning when compared with the first generation of these dictionaries more than half a century ago.
The publication of Idiomatic and Syntactic English Dictionary1 or A Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, and the later editions, brought Oxford University Press
years of supremacy in the field, until its major rival the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English appeared on the scene in 1978. Nonetheless, it was the introduction of corpus-based lexicography in the late 1980s, as manifested in Collins
COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1987), that really shook the old paradigm
of dictionary making.
Since then, pedagogical EFL lexicography has experienced fundamental changes and
the field has become extremely vigorous and competitive. 1995 was a momentous
year in the field when four learners’ dictionaries – three revised editions and one new
dictionary – were published almost simultaneously.
User-oriented pedagogical lexicography
While adopting the computer to construct corpora as reference sources to facilitate
dictionary compilation, dictionary publishers have also distinguished the new generation of learners’ dictionaries from earlier ones by a shift of focus – from the makers
and the products to the users. Almost a decade and a half ago, Hartmann (1987a:121)
asserted that “the users’ perspective has always been there, at least implicitly, but in
recent years it has slowly gained in status and is beginning to affect the whole field of
lexicography”. This shift has since been accelerated by the advent of the computer in
pedagogical dictionary making. Users’ reference skills and needs in using dictionaries
are now seriously considered and the new generation of learners’ dictionaries includes
many innovations which compilers claim to be user-oriented, such as defining vocabulary, sign-posting, and indications of word frequency; cf. Rundell (1999:42):
… it is clear that these products [MLDs] have proved highly responsive – in both design and content – to the needs and demands of their users, and have consequently improved much faster and more comprehensively than any other type of dictionary.
1
Retitled The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (ALD1) in 1952.
1
The advent of the learner-oriented era of dictionary making was also announced by a
series of research studies which advocated the importance of the role of users in the
dictionary compiling process. Two major collections of influential articles, of importance for later development of research in the field, were Dictionaries and their users
(1979), edited by R. R .K. Hartmann; and The dictionary and the language learner:
Papers from the EURALEX seminar at the University of Leeds, 1–3 April 1985 (1987)
edited by A. P. Cowie. Other significant studies include Béjoint (1981, 1989), Cowie
(1983, 1984, 1989, 1999), Tono (1984, 1989), Stein (1986, 1989), Hartmann (1987a,
1987b, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1995, 1999), Tomaszczyk (1979, 1987), Diab (1990)
and Bogaards (1998a, 1998b).
Over the last two decades, some 500 research studies or papers in the area of dictionary use have appeared (Dolezal & McCreary 1999). However, the output is minimal
when compared with other areas within the discipline of lexicography. Most of the
results obtained from the studies have not been based on empirical data, but on researchers’ intuitions or experience (McCreary & Dolezal 1998). Moreover, the focuses of such studies have mostly been on investigating how students retrieve information from dictionaries, and what their perceived needs in using the reference book
are, largely from the point of view of lexicographers, or publishers. Though most research results have indicated that dictionary use is a skill that needs to be taught, studies in the teaching of the skill are still relatively scarce.
For the new generation of English learners’ dictionaries to be used effectively, nonnative (NN) English-speaking users are required “to have full understanding of what
today’s dictionaries seek to offer and how they do so” (Tickoo 1989b:184). Rudimentary retrieval skills alone, such as knowing the ordering of the English alphabet,
will be inadequate for those who want to benefit fully from what is being offered in
the latest pedagogical dictionaries. Retrieval skills, and knowledge of how to identify
a dictionary suitable for one’s use, must be acquired. It is chimerical to believe that
these stages come spontaneously: that, NN English-speaking users first would, without training, have the initiative, ability and knowledge to search through the many
new dictionaries available and find one to suit their needs. This would imply that they
understand the innovative features found in current dictionaries, are able to identify
their own needs and match them with the claims made by various dictionaries, and
then successfully pick the right one(s). The assumption goes further: that users will
teach themselves how to use a particular dictionary by referring to the introductory
pages at the front of the book, and be able to use the dictionary to solve their problems. Finally, they will be so satisfied with the dictionary that they will continue using
it in their learning. Such assumptions are unrealistic.
Existing studies have revealed how little NN English-speaking learners of English are
aware of the potential assistance that the new generation of EFL dictionaries can offer. They have also shown that few learners use dictionaries to assist their learning,
and that their knowledge of the reference book is extremely limited (Béjoint 1981;
Strevens 1987). The excitement and changes that practitioners in the field of EFL
lexicography have been experiencing do not seem to have reached the client group of
their products. There appears to be a wide gap between lexicographers and elementary
level users. Innovative features geared to the needs of this group of users have to be
introduced if the dictionaries are to serve their clients well. There is a need to bridge
this gap and I believe the task involves work and effort from three stakeholders,
2
namely English teachers, NN English-speaking learners (mainly tertiary students in
Hong Kong in the present study) and pedagogical lexicographers (including dictionary publishers). I have, in papers and conference presentations in the past, termed the
three stakeholders the ‘lexicographical triangle’. This echoes what Cowie (1983:143)
advocates,
… a gap exists – a gap that needs to be closed by deliberate teaching – between traditionally determined attitudes and habits on the one hand and lexicographical understanding and expertise on the other.
Explicit teaching of dictionary use is deemed essential to assist students at school or
tertiary level to learn, and the teaching should be done via an English curriculum
(Béjoint 1981; Kipfer 1987; Battenburg 1991; Cowie 1999).
RATIONALE
On dictionary use
Atkins and Varantola (1997, 1998) postulate that in order to identify the skills required to enable students to use dictionaries better to assist their learning, we need to
uncover what actually happens when they use their dictionary; what assumptions users have when they use the reference tool; what kinds of words they look up and how
they interpret what they find. This view, that users’ needs, habits and skills in using
reference books, should be the basis of the compilation of an ideal learner’s dictionary, is generally accepted by modern lexicographers.
Pedagogical lexicographers should take into consideration recent research findings,
such as those on the frequency of use of dictionaries, and those studies which have
shown that the most sought-after feature in a learner’s dictionary is the definition, and
that many users just stop at the first sense of a polysemous entry (Quirk 1974;
Tomaszczyk 1979; Béjoint 1981; Greenbaum et al. 1984; Tono 1984; Atkins &
Knowles 1990; Battenburg 1991; Nuccorini 1994; Chi & Yeung 1998).
These areas of concern have been the subject of much recent research in pedagogical
lexicography, albeit on different scales, with different subject groups and focuses, and
carried out in various countries.
As more and more research findings reveal, many NN English-speaking users are ignorant about the information which monolingual English learners’ dictionaries
(MLDs) provide, and are unskilled in using dictionaries to assist their learning. Data
also suggest that the frequency of use of dictionaries is low. Nevertheless, some researchers have begun to doubt the reliability and value of such data; cf. Cowie
(1999:187):
There seems little point in trying to assess the ability of students to retrieve information
of whose existence they are hardly aware or to judge their performance of activities
which they have seldom tackled.
3
How far lexicographers can rely on data obtained from such a user group to shape the
future of EFL dictionaries is doubtful. Furthermore, obtaining data about users does
not necessarily help lexicographers to produce an ideal dictionary. In the process of
discovering what actually happens when learners use their dictionaries, many idiosyncratic preferences or habits may be uncovered. There are variables in data analysis
which could be abundant and diversified, making it difficult to arrive at any conclusive and reliable generalisations. Does there really exist an ideal learner’s dictionary
for all, when the user group is composed of learners of English from many different
cultural, linguistic and geographical backgrounds?
Moreover, if one examines the existing research studies on dictionary use carried out
in the last three decades, one notices that the focus of these studies has been very
similar. The point of interest has mostly been tapping users’ existing knowledge
and/or skills in using dictionaries.
There is a need, then, to widen the field of research studies on dictionary use, including expanding their scope and the focus. First, the existing research findings call for a
range of studies on triangulation, and ultimately, reliability. Second, diversified research studies, in terms of adopting various approaches and methodologies, and focusing on different contents and subjects, might help to reveal information on dictionary users to complement existing knowledge. For example, there are other ways to
tackle the problem posed by Atkins and Varantola in their large-scale research study
on dictionary use (1998). They attempted to draw upon similarities of a variety of NN
English-speaking users, hoping that generalisations could be made to help with the
compilation of an ideal dictionary for all users. Instead of tapping what users already
have, and taking up the somehow impossible task of producing an ideal dictionary for
all, the research question could have been tackled differently, focusing on investigating how and what to teach in order to help users use the specially designed features in
existing dictionaries.
On dictionary use teaching
While some researchers (e.g. Whitcut 1986; Atkins 1998; Rundell 1998, 1999) advocate the need to compile an ideal dictionary for NN English-speaking users, others
arrive at the conclusion that teaching dictionary use explicitly could help users exploit
these reference works (cf. Béjoint 1981; Kipfer 1987; Battenburg 1991; Chi & Yeung
1998; Chi 1998; Cowie 1999). Crystal (1986:79) asserts,
There are merits in both approaches, with publishers on the whole leaning towards the
first, and academics on the whole leaning towards the second. But both are required in
order to create my ideal users in their ideal lexicographical world.
However, up to the present, little research has focused on investigating what and how
dictionary reference skills could be taught. The paucity of interest among researchers
and work done on this area is perplexing. I suspect many current research studies on
dictionary use were carried out with the emphasis on making or refining dictionaries,
and targeting users as informants, rather than as beneficiaries. Little progress has been
made since Battenburg’s (1991:111) comment:
4
Up till this point, considerable attention has been paid to examining MLD entries and
making various recommendations as to how they can be improved to better serve learners. Emphasis, however, must also be placed upon teaching students how to use the
words they already possess.
Furthermore, rather than demonstrating to users the fundamental concepts in dictionary compilation, teaching should focus on how to use a dictionary to learn. Underhill
(1985:103) claims that, “most teachers would agree that one of their main tasks is to
help learners to help themselves, and one way of working towards this is to train them
to be effective users of a good MLD”.
A second reason for the lack of research in this area could be that with a client group
which is massive and diversified, it will not be easy for researchers to reach a consensus on what to include in teaching dictionary use. Hartmann (1999:10) expresses his
worry over this point, commenting, “while we may be well aware of the fact that reference skills are important, we are not really sure about how they can best be taught,
and how they should be incorporated into the overall pattern of teaching materials,
learning styles and examination syllabuses”.
A third reason for the lack of research into teaching dictionary use may be due to the
commercial status of the reference books, which I believe has become an obstacle in
fostering co-operation amongst researchers. At a special workshop on dictionary use,
in the research forum on the topic, at EURALEX ’98, I presented my viewpoint on
user training on dictionary reference skills, suggesting it called for the support of the
three stakeholders of the ‘lexicographical triangle’, and advocating that pedagogical
lexicographers, and the publishers they work with, need to take a more active role in
subsidising and providing training for users in dictionary use. At that point, a representative from the publisher of a major EFL learner’s dictionary intervened to remark
that since EFL dictionaries had become a lucrative business in a highly competitive
market, publishers are rivals for buyers. She continued that the chance of having all
these publishers collaborate in providing dictionary use training was slight. Her remark appeared to indicate that negotiations had reached an impasse at that point.
However, I think her intervention truly reflected one of the major obstacles in teaching dictionary use. I believe research into the teaching of dictionary use has not yet
begun.
Bearing in mind such considerations as user differences, restrictions posed upon lexicographers in the compiling process, and publishers’ economic concerns, it is not hard
to conclude that a perfect dictionary for all does not exist. Similarly, it is also impossible to draw upon a list of teaching items which could meet the needs of every individual user.
However, if lexicographers and teachers alike wish learners to use dictionaries to assist their own learning, a structured and systematic teaching of dictionary use should
be instigated. Research findings to date have revealed that many learners are ignorant
of both what can be found in dictionaries and how to use them to meet their own
needs. Bogaards (1995, cited in Hulstijn & Atkins 1998) sums up dictionary use from
the perspective of this group of users – first, the learners do not like using a dictionary;
second, they do not know how to use one.
5
The present study, instead of further exploring users’ reference habits or refining understanding of their various needs in using dictionaries, focuses on developing dictionary use teaching, in particular the necessary methodology and the required teaching materials.
Second/Foreign language teaching began long before it gained academic status and
became regarded as worthy of scientific research. In the past, not knowing much
about how learners learn to speak a second/foreign language did not prevent practitioners from experimenting with new teaching methodologies and producing materials.
Foreign language teaching methodologies and materials have continuously been
evolving and changing. As a result, data on learners and their ways of learning a second/foreign language have been emerging from classroom teaching or classroombased research studies; these in turn provide invaluable feedback for the development
and refinement of teaching methodologies and materials design. The discipline of
English as a Second/Foreign Language has been vigorous and productive, and demonstrates well how teaching and research complement and supplement each other.
It is proposed in this study that research into dictionary use could be modelled on the
example of research development in second/foreign language teaching. More and better informed data on our dictionary users could be revealed when studies on teaching
dictionary use begin, compared with the data collected from existing research studies.
I support Hulstijn and Atkins (1998:11) in that “fine-tuning comes from subsequent
interaction of user and human dictionary”.
With regard to launching the teaching of dictionary use, the view commonly shared
by proponents in the field is summarised by Battenburg (1991:115):
Skills and strategies for using dictionaries should be taught in every second and foreign
language classroom, for students are not only learning about dictionaries but also about
language. Such instruction should continue throughout students’ academic careers
rather than being relegated to a class period or two at the beginning of the term.
Hence, this study proposes teaching materials be based on common features such as
the information categories shared by all English learners’ dictionaries, and on a basic
understanding of the reference needs of the subject users. Also, the materials employed will be integrated into an existing English Language syllabus. As regards
teaching methodology, current ESL/EFL teaching approaches will be used as a starting point. Using dictionaries to assist the learning of English will be taught explicitly
in the classroom, supplemented by communicative activities, discussions and short
talks. Guidance from the teacher will be available throughout the process.
6
Chapter Two: Literature review
THE USE OF DICTIONARIES AND DICTIONARY USE TRAINING IN HONG
KONG
The reference book has always enjoyed high status in Chinese culture, being regarded
as a “teacher who cannot talk”. Dictionaries are believed to be the most reliable alternative to real teachers. Mastery of the use of the dictionary facilitates autonomous
learning, and so lessens students’ dependence on parental assistance when revising or
doing homework. According to the results of a survey I conducted in 1997 among 270
Form 6 and 7 students from ten local secondary schools (Chi & Yeung 1998), only
1% of the subject population did not own any dictionary. The rest of the students
owned at least one English or English/Chinese dictionary.
Since June 1997, the local education system has been undergoing fundamental
changes. Based on the recommendations of the Education Commission Report No. 6
(December 1995), the Education Department of Hong Kong has made drastic changes
in the teaching medium at secondary school level. Over 300 secondary schools, from
a total of 400, have been compelled to switch to using Chinese as the medium of
teaching – teachers were to use Cantonese for giving instructions and use textbooks
written in Chinese.
The effect of the change of language medium in teaching has had on students’ learning performance has yet to be assessed, but the change in the whole direction of education will have a bearing on future teaching of dictionary use in Hong Kong. Currently, many teachers, when they defend the choice of monolingual over bilingual dictionaries, argue that L2-medium teaching provides students with exposure to the target language. This premise may need further consideration; with the change of status
of English from a medium of instruction to a curriculum subject, using MLDs is likely
to become more taxing for students than before. Under these circumstances, it is safe
to postulate that bilingual or bilingualised (James 2003) dictionaries will gain a more
prominent role in the classroom than previously.
From my own observation, the need for bilingual, or particularly bilingualised, dictionaries, has never ceased among local students. Most students would purchase a
MLD as advised or required by the school authority. In the presence of the teachers,
they might use it; however, when they are on their own, it would be the bilingualised
one that they would consult most frequently. This supposition has been proved by
findings I obtained from the first part of the present study (refer to Chapter 4). Further, it was found that the majority of subject students owned both a monolingual and
a bilingualised dictionary.
Although students may possess a dictionary or dictionaries, it does not follow that
they know how to use it or them. Due to the ‘inherent impediment’ of such a ‘deaf
and dumb teacher’, students need to make much effort and learn special skills in order
to understand, or to learn from, the dictionary, especially at the initial stages of using
the book to assist learning.
7
Before 1995, the teaching of dictionary skills was not incorporated explicitly as part
of the teaching and learning of English in Hong Kong. English syllabuses prescribed
by the Education Department gave guidelines to primary and secondary schools on
language teaching, but did not include the teaching of dictionary skills. Not surprisingly, dictionary skills have not been included in textbooks for use in the English
classroom. This, I believe, has adverse effects on students’ use of dictionaries to assist
the learning of the language.
The first official mention of the teaching of dictionary skills is found in the booklet,
Bridging English across primary and secondary education, issued by the Curriculum
Development Institute (1995) in response to the need to help primary students from
Chinese-medium schools to bridge the gap as they enter English-medium secondary
schools. It was recommended that the basic skills which help students to learn and use
English effectively at secondary school should be taught. Dictionary skills were included under these “basic skills”, along with study skills, reading skills, library skills
and enquiry skills. The teaching of dictionary skills is also found in the revised English syllabus for primary schools published in August 1996. Similarly, in the new syllabuses for secondary schools 1–5 and 6–7, published in 1999, dictionary skills are
suggested as an important strategy necessary for students to assist their learning. At
levels 6–7, these skills are subsumed under reference skills and explained in the sentence “using dictionary skills to find out about pronunciation, usage and grammar”
(28); whereas in the guidelines for the secondary levels 1–5 (101), these skills are
given their own subheading and the following descriptors:
•
checking the spelling of words;
•
using a simple phonetic system for pronunciation;
•
understanding the explanations of words and the examples provided;
•
choosing the appropriate explanation; and
•
checking their own language use against the explanation and examples in
the dictionary.
In short, since dictionaries formerly lacked an official status in local primary and secondary curricula, training in their use is likely to have been non-systematic, if not altogether overlooked. I believe this may have led to students’ ignorance of, or negligence in, using dictionaries to assist their learning. With official recognition in the
English syllabus, dictionary skills now have a chance to find their place in the classroom. But again, this depends on other factors such as whether the EFL publishers
recognise their importance and include them in textbooks. Recognition will also depend on teachers’ attitude and knowledge of dictionary use and training, the class
hours available and so on.
Up to now, not very much research related to dictionary use among students in Hong
Kong has been undertaken. Completed projects are either doctoral theses or individual
experiments, most of which have remained unpublished. One such carried out in 1996
with the aim of determining the habits of Hong Kong students in using dictionaries to
learn in English (Chi & Yeung 1998), showed that the use of dictionaries is instrumentally linked to students’ academic studies and that most students believed that
8
they could benefit from using dictionaries largely to assist learning. The subjects included 600 students from ten different secondary schools and an English-medium
university. The results show that even though some students have in the past been
taught how to use dictionaries to learn, there appears to be a discrepancy between the
teaching focuses of the teachers and students’ real needs. Taylor (1996) conducted a
survey of Hong Kong primary, secondary and tertiary teachers’ views on the use of
dictionaries and the implications of these views. Through questionnaires and interviews, he found that the major reason for teachers not teaching or revising dictionary
use in class, or not encouraging students to use dictionaries in class, was that of time
constraint. Since dictionary use was not included in the syllabus, they did not want to
spend time on it.
PERSPECTIVES ON DICTIONARY USE FROM THE THREE
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE LEXICOGRAPHICAL TRIANGLE
Some EFL lexicographers advocate that the communicative approach to language
teaching has adverse effects on students’ attitudes, knowledge and skills in using dictionaries to assist their learning. Herbst and Stein (1987:121) summed up well the
general feeling that EFL lexicographers held over the issue: with the prevalence of the
approach in foreign language teaching, they assert that linguistic accuracy, in which
dictionaries play a supportive role to foreign learners, had been lessened, if not sacrificed, for communicative competence.
Semantic precision, situational appropriateness and grammatical correctness have all
too often and too readily been set aside and even discredited …. It thus seems that
much of the present-day emphasis in foreign language teaching not only discourages
dictionary training but actually runs counter to it.
They believe that the change in teaching approach had had a detrimental effect on the
status and the use of dictionaries as viewed by learners. Tono’s (1989) study on the
relationship between the use of an English dictionary and reading comprehension indicated that more errors appeared when dictionaries were not consulted. Furthermore,
other studies have disclosed that a high percentage of mistakes that students made in
their work could have been avoided, or corrected by themselves, if they had consulted
a relevant dictionary and carried out the search in a proper way (Herbst & Stein 1987;
Tomaszczyk 1987).
With data showing how unskilled and uninformed students are toward their dictionaries, what EFL lexicographers have done so far is: on one hand, to produce more userfriendly dictionaries, making the information in the books more transparent than in
the older editions (Crystal 1986; Whitcut 1986; Atkins 1998; Rundell 1998, 1999);
and on the other hand, to produce dictionary workbooks to provide guidance to potential users of the dictionary, both teachers and students.
1995 was an important year in EFL lexicography. Four monolingual dictionaries were
published that year: three were revised versions of existing ones, viz. the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (5th edition), Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English (3rd edition) and Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (2nd edition), one
was new, Cambridge International Dictionary of English. All prided themselves on
9
being innovative, learner-friendly and giving learners information on most current
English.
Also, in response to the difficulties that have been found among learners in using dictionaries, dictionary workbooks were produced to provide guidance: each of the four
learners’ dictionaries mentioned above has its own dedicated workbook.
While we have lexicographers reaching out to discover more about users’ needs and
problems in using dictionaries, others postulate that lexicographers should not be
blamed for the problem with learners under-using, or not using, dictionaries to learn.
Indeed, Frawley (1988:208) argues,
It is not at all clear to me why we ought to make dictionaries more learner-friendly by
changing them to be more in accord with learners’ needs. No other book caters to its
learners in such a way – least of all a reference book – and I am not yet convinced that
such changes will increase the ‘usability’.
Indeed, dictionaries have become more friendly in the last twenty years and this progress has been real and sensible. I believe it is time to concentrate on the other vital
aspects of dictionary use such as providing explicit training to users. Such training
would help unskilled users to appreciate and utilise dictionaries prepared by sophisticated lexicographers.
Furthermore, students’ improper use of dictionaries is not confined to looking up
words in paper version of the books, but also involves electronic dictionaries. Although pocket-sized electronic dictionaries are not inexpensive, they have been gaining popularity among NN English-speaking learners. While many learners believe
that the electronic device is invaluable in assisting them to learn, they tend to overlook that paper and electronic dictionaries are in fact, the same dictionary! Take for
example, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s English–Chinese Dictionary of Current
English (4th edition): the major differences between the two versions are in their presentation and total weight. Electronic dictionaries exempt users from the chore of having to go through pages in the look-up process, and are more portable than paper versions. Otherwise, both types of dictionaries share the same resources and potential in
helping users to tackle linguistic problems. Similarly, the dictionaries may present
users with the same traps if they are not used properly.
For example, studies have revealed that most students tend to choose the first sense of
a word with a long entry, without regard to whether the sense chosen is the most appropriate or accurate for the given context (Tono 1984; Nuccorini 1994). The same
problem is intensified with the use of electronic dictionaries, since the size of the
screen of such dictionaries can accommodate a limited number of words at the same
time. For instance, the word spread (as a verb) is given eight senses in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (4th edition). In such a case, users
may not even notice the senses beyond the first two if they use the electronic version
to look up the word.
Advances in technology have brought about changes in the presentation of dictionaries, enabling users to have quicker and easier access to information than previously.
In order to be fully utilised to assist learning, however, dictionaries still depend on
10
their users’ knowledge and skills in exploiting them. Several on-line dictionaries are
easily accessible and available free of charge. However, these dictionaries have
largely been compiled for the use of native speakers, or very advanced learners of
English. Users with low levels of language proficiency find the dictionaries frustrating, taxing their linguistic competence in the process of word search; many learners
do not benefit from such dictionaries.
Furthermore, many NN English-speaking learners have been passive or reliant on
their teachers in deciding which dictionaries to purchase or, how and when to use
them in their work. In turn, these students’ attitudes toward the use of the dictionaries
are very much influenced by their teachers, the English curriculum and examinations,
and other external factors such as the availability of dictionaries, financial considerations, or individual preferences. So, a more significant stakeholder than the students, affecting dictionary use, is the EFL teacher.
By not being an explicit part of the English language curriculum in the past, and certainly not in the examination system up to present, dictionaries have not been given an
active role in the classroom. Though some teachers may have found their students
lacking the skills of using dictionaries, they have not devoted the time to teach these
skills in class. Those who have taught the skills have not found the results to be satisfactory. For example, in the survey I carried out with Yeung (1998), we found that
there appeared to be a discrepancy between the teachers’ focuses and the students’
real needs in the use of dictionaries in Hong Kong. In our study, we asked 300 postsecondary school students (aged 17–18) to fill out a questionnaire which aimed at uncovering how they had been using dictionaries to assist their learning. Around onethird of the subjects claimed that they had received training on using dictionaries.
Among those who admitted they had received training, 75% said they had been taught
the meanings of dictionary symbols for grammatical information. However, in the
same questionnaire, it was found that grammar was the last item that the subjects answered they would look up quite often, very often or all the time.
Even if teachers are willing to spend extra time to teach, and to prepare materials on
teaching or using dictionaries in class, they may not be able to find additional lesson
time for this. Herbst and Stein (1987:121) postulate that the solution to this problem is
to make dictionary use into a test that all students have to take, so that they would be
forced “to acquire the full range of dictionary-using skills (and also to oblige the
teacher to teach and practise them)”. This is a rather hardline approach, but the suggestion does reflect how difficult the battle is.
In fact, the latest English learners’ dictionaries require more than a teacher’s personal
experience to master their use, not to mention teaching students how to use them to
assist their learning. Rudimentary retrieval skills alone, such as knowing the ordering
of the Latin alphabet, are inadequate (Cowie 1983). What both teachers and students
need is a “full understanding of what today’s dictionaries seek to offer and how they
do so” (Tickoo 1989b:184). Teachers themselves will thus need training to discern the
innovative features found in current dictionaries in order to teach students how to use
them. However, up to the present, comprehensive and systematic training on this topic
in general, has been non-existent.
11
Teaching materials, such as dictionary workbooks, are available commercially, aiming at training users to use a particular dictionary. However, these workbooks tend to
be dictionary-specific and “emphasize the advantages of their attendant dictionaries to
the almost total exclusion of any shortcomings” (Stark 1990:4) and “do not specify
the prospective learner beyond that of dictionary purchaser” (ibid.) (cf. Béjoint 1994).
In order to make the training appropriate to the level and needs of one’s own students,
much work is needed to adapt and rewrite the material. Other available teaching materials tend to be diffuse and disorganised.
Although opinions on what dictionaries to use, and when and how to use them to assist learning, differ from teacher to teacher, the majority of teachers seem to share the
fundamental belief that dictionaries are helpful in assisting their students to learn the
target language. Researchers such as Béjoint (1981), Kipfer (1987), Battenburg
(1991) and Cowie (1999) advocate the teaching of dictionary use to users explicitly
via an English curriculum. According to findings of a questionnaire (2000) I gave to
170 Hong Kong secondary school teachers asking them various questions regarding
dictionary use, all except two – who did not answer this question – believed that dictionaries could help students to learn English. Moreover, dictionaries continue to appear on local school booklists. In a wider sense, it is not a coincidence that the majority of researchers working in the field of pedagogic lexicography have been English
language teachers.
RESEARCH ISSUES IN THE FIELD OF PEDAGOGIC LEXICOGRAPHY
Diversity of the scope of research studies
Existing research studies on dictionary use in the field of pedagogic lexicography
mainly focus on tapping users’ knowledge and/or skills in using dictionaries. This
idea dates back to when Barnhart (1962) carried out his work aimed at finding out the
information category that learners most sought when they used dictionaries. Since
then, this theme has recurred in many research studies of pedagogic lexicography.
In addition, doubts have been expressed over the choices of tasks researchers here designed for their studies. According to Dolezal and McCreary (1999:xii):
… there is no broad agreement on just what ‘tasks’ a learner or dictionary user accomplishes (or even needs to accomplish) to effectively make use of any dictionary.
Furthermore, Atkins and Varantola (1998) suggest that questions which resemble
teaching exercises in the classroom that some researchers asked subject students to
complete might not truly reflect how these students use dictionaries in their everyday
learning. Also, the methods lexicographers have employed in uncovering users’
knowledge and/or skills in using dictionaries have been found [so far] to be repetitive.
According to the data McCreary and Dolezal (1998) obtained, reports on dictionary
use that have been released in the past three decades have either been opinion surveys
with the use of questionnaires, or anecdotal reports.
There is a need to expand and diversify the scope of research work in the field. Indeed, there are other facets of dictionary use studies that call for attention. These in-
12
clude research into teaching dictionary use, investigation of the possibilities of localising monolingual learners’ dictionaries to suit users with various geographical, linguistic and cultural backgrounds; and the exploration of the functions of the international
lexicographical research societies in propagating dictionary use among users. Furthermore, studies on dictionary use and users should take a more global view than at
present, since MLDs serve a worldwide client group. Classifying learners according
to proficiency categories of advanced, intermediate or elementary is inadequate, if not
arbitrary.
It is unfortunate that research work on pedagogical lexicography outside Europe has
been scarce, scattered, and on relatively small scale. More, and more systematic, studies are needed to supplement the Europe-based findings existing in the field, to provide a more complete picture of dictionary use and users of MLDs.
Qualitative or quantitative nature of research studies
According to the data obtained by McCreary and Dolezal (1998), of the 460 studies
that have been carried out in the past three decades in the field, only fourteen research
articles have been found to be empirical in nature, taking into account the independent
and dependent variables. Many of the existing studies have been opinion surveys with
the use of questionnaires. However, researchers are well aware of the criticism of using questionnaires to elicit data. Hatherhall (1984:184) questions, “are subjects saying
what they do, or what they think they do, or what they think they ought to do, or indeed a mixture of three?” Hence, empirically based studies are much preferred in
carry out research.
Reliability of the data obtained from subjects is another area of concern. Researchers
have to be alert when trying to elicit users’ knowledge of, and in finding out, their
habits in using dictionaries, since subjects might not have enough knowledge of, or
experience in giving, comments on dictionaries. In Hausmann’s (1986:109) view,
Many dictionary learners – even those with a higher level of education – are lacking in
lexicographic knowledge and cannot tell the difference between a superior and an inferior dictionary. Only when the public knows as much – if not more – about dictionaries
as the publishers will the market be able to exert pressure on the publishers to improve
dictionary quality.
It would be too demanding to expect users to be knowledgeable about the making of
the dictionaries they are using. Also, the reliability of the data is open to doubt since
most research studies have already proved how infrequently dictionaries have been
consulted, and how low the users’ level of reference skills is. Hence, knowing about
users’ habits or preferences would not provide researchers with much useful information for fine-tuning dictionaries or deriving means to assist users to exploit dictionaries for their studies. In fact, further investigation in this area will be fruitless if learners remain ignorant and/or if they are not using dictionaries. It would be rewarding to
start eliciting users’ opinions and tapping their habits in the use of dictionaries after
they have become better informed of, and are actively using, dictionaries to assist
their learning. As Hulstijn and Atkins (1998:11) state, “ fine-tuning comes from subsequent interaction of user and human dictionary”.
13
Testing dictionary use
Testing dictionary use is to a large extent an unexplored area. Tests that have been
carried out so far in the field, following Shohamy’s (1998:102) classifications of language testing in general, could be regarded mostly as performance tests. Shohamy
used Wesche’s (1992) description of performance testing in her article and states:
… performance tests require test takers to perform language which is anchored in a
specific context employing authentic tasks that the language user is expected to perform in a well-defined context either of school or the workplace and integrating linguistic, situational, cultural and affective aspects.
In dictionary use testing, it is common to find researchers asking students to use dictionaries to perform a vocabulary, reading, writing or translation task (Bensoussan et
al. 1984; Tono 1984, 1989; Nesi & Meara 1991, 1994; Fisher 1994; Nesi 1994, 1996;
Atkins 1998; Atkins & Varantola 1998; Bogaards 1998a). These tasks have been in
the forms of standard language tests, with subject students allowed, or in some cases
instructed, to use dictionaries to complete the tasks. The objectives of these tests are
similar: to find out whether users perform differently with the help of dictionaries;
second, how well dictionaries can assist users to achieve linguistic goals.
Such tests unavoidably contain many variables and it is not easy to establish correlations, or make generalisations based on the results obtained. Possible variables including quantifying subjects’ linguistic competence, the degree or amount of help the dictionaries have provided for users during the test, and the impact of such help on the
subjects’ performance. Furthermore, subjects from some tests might come from a
wide range of linguistic and cultural backgrounds while others might not share a similar level of English proficiency. In addition, the quantity of research studies in the
field is limited and not many of them have been replicated for comparison. Without a
rich source of data and/or substantial evidence, making generalisations from the results at his stage seems premature. From data presented by McCreary and Dolezal
(1998), and my own observations and reading, I find Hartmann’s (1987b:27) remark
on lexicographical research more than a decade ago still pertinent:
Research into dictionary use still tends to be small-scale, often non-representative, noncomparable (even contradictory!), non-correlational, and non-replicable. This partly
explains the tentative nature of many of the findings, which frequently have the status
of ‘informed opinion’ rather than valid generalisation.
Furthermore, the validity of using results of a reading or writing test to determine users’ knowledge and/or skills in using a dictionary, and in how well a selected dictionary serves its clients is open to doubt.
I believe performance tests as such constitute an appropriate step forward in the area
of dictionary use testing. Based on existing methodologies and results, testing in dictionary use should expand and further develop. For example, the manifestation of
such performance ability can be shown via different modes of test. When Shohamy
(1998:104) illustrates the historical development of language testing, she suggests five
eras, with the last being the latest development:
14
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Discrete-point testing
Integrative language testing
Communicative
Performance testing
Alternative assessment
She concludes that the advent of the last era is the result of “the realisation that language knowledge is a complex phenomenon, made up of different language types
whereby mastering one is no guarantee of mastering the others”. She advocates the
necessity of adopting this kind of multiple assessment in language testing since they
are “capable of tapping these knowledge types” (ibid.).
Following this line of thought, dictionary use testing should go beyond performance
tests to the next stage, having multiple assessments as the final goal. How can we
achieve this goal and what is the next stage? First, performance tests will only be
more informative if we have better informed subjects than at present. Second, exercises resembling users’ everyday real needs should be adopted while designing tests
on dictionary use. Third, an empirical testing method is required to investigate how
well students could use the information in the dictionary, so their knowledge and ability, and the function of the dictionary, will be truly reflected in the data.
Dictionary use training
Reports on dictionary use training in the form of explicit teaching are scarce. The few
studies that have made an attempt to teach dictionary use include Tono (1984), Kipfer
(1987), and Nesi & Meara (1994). These studies aimed at finding out the success that
teaching has on improving users’ consultation skills.
In Kipfer’s study, a group of American high-school pupils were taught the use of the
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. The aim of the study was “to find out
what effects direct instruction in the use of learners’ dictionaries would have” (op.
cit.: 47). She adapted the materials found in the LDOCE workbook and the outcome
was highly favourable. Students performed well in the test she gave on the items
taught on the whole and they praised the dictionary for its typography, illustrations,
and clarity of explanations. She concludes (ibid.: 49),
The results of the tests supported my initial hypothesis that direct teaching of dictionary
reference skills can be an effective means of improving language understanding.
A REVIEW OF VARIOUS DICTIONARY USE TOPICS
Pronunciation symbols and stress marks
Dolezal and McCreary (1999) comment that in the field of pedagogic lexicography,
pronunciation is among the few other elements of dictionary entries, namely, illustrations and etymology, which have attracted little interest among researchers in the
field. In addition, to my knowledge, the little available literature on the subject has
mostly focused on discussing the art and craft of recording and presenting the lan-
15
guage, including arguing the differences in the presentation of particular phonemes,
and the question of how much information should be included of different varieties of
English (e.g. Gimson 1981; Piotrowski 1987; Herbst 1991, 1996; Takebayashi 1998).
Although Piotrowski’s (1987) discussion of the indication of English pronunciation
concerned bilingual dictionaries, several points that he raises over users’ needs shed
light on discussion over the needs of MLD users in general. He advocates the necessity of finding out what users are able to make of the pronunciation transcriptions
provided in dictionaries, and whether there is a particular method of putting the transcription which may influence learners of English in their speaking skills. Further, he
cites Berkov (1977:13, in translation) that “the problem of interpretation of transcriptions boils down to the following: the lexicographer should make explicit assumptions
as to the amount of phonetic knowledge the user should have” (op. cit.:44).
We need more than just the lexicographer’s assumptions, but empirical research on
dictionary users informing us how well MLDs have been serving their customers. The
little existing research work in this area indicates that both the pronunciation symbols
and stress marks have been underused or ignored by users (Tomaszczyk 1979; Béjoint
1981; Diab 1990; Chi & Yeung 1998).
Gimson (1981:251) asserts that learning how to use pronunciation information is crucial to NN English-speaking learners, who have little chance of practising the language with native English speakers or of exposure to the target language environment. He further suggests that,
… the foreign user regards such information as essential, if only to elucidate some of
the complexities of our orthography. … but the foreign user, who can rarely be expected to have the native speaker’s intuition about English, needs help nearer the surface which is explicit and not dependent to any large extent on conversion rules.
If the information is important to NN English-speaking learners, why has it not been
found widely and frequently used? Herbst and Stein (1987:121) advocate that the
communicative approach in EFL teaching is to be blamed. With the teaching focus set
mainly on training NN English-speaking learners for communicative competence,
other facets of the target language such as grammar and pronunciation have, very often, been neglected in the classroom. In addition, this teaching approach might have
affected students’ attitude toward the role of dictionaries in their learning. They assert
(ibid.) that,
A corollary of this approach [communicative] is the overemphasis on speaking to the
detriment of writing. Semantic precision, situational appropriateness and grammatical
correctness have all too often and too readily been set aside and even discredited… It
thus seem that much of the present-day emphasis in foreign language teaching not only
discourages dictionary training but actually runs counter to it.
Some studies suggest that the symbols are too difficult to use (e.g. Nisbet 1994; Fraser
1997) – the sight of the string of symbols could be too overwhelming, and users
scared off. The symbols may overtax the ability of users, who may prefer simply to
guess the pronunciation from the spelling. Many users give up because they do not
think it is worth spending the time decoding the symbols.
16
Some researchers also argue that the IPA symbols are not easy even for native speakers to use (e.g. Kirkpatrick 1985; Nisbet 1994), and that they are not self-explanatory.
If, however, they are still regarded as a useful piece of information to NN Englishspeaking users, the provision of training in both the use of pronunciation keys and
materials concerning stress is needed: cf. Battenburg (1991), who concludes that,
“when at all possible, lexicographers need to demystify the IPA and more fully illustrate pronunciation” (ibid.:36). While specifying the responsibilities of lexicographers, he also notes that both teachers and users of the EFL dictionaries have not
been helping themselves in utilising dictionaries. He asserts (ibid.:37),
Although materials and audio tapes illustrating pronunciation are available for the
LDOCE and the OALDCE, few teachers or students are aware of their existence. Until
now, the main problem with pronunciation is that MD users are unable to understand or
unwilling to consult the introductory material explaining this system.
Empirical research studies on uncovering how users use the pronunciation information in dictionaries are rare and those that do exist have, to my knowledge, been carried out with native English speakers as subjects. In both the Nisbet (1994) and the
Fraser studies (1997), though the notations were found not to be effective in serving
users, the value of the IPA symbols in EFL dictionaries was not denied. Fraser (op.
cit.:200) postulates that the system would work for trained users and that, by far, it is
the method which gives “trained users an unambiguous representation of pronunciation”. Both researchers suggest if proper training were provided to users on how to
use the symbols, their worth would be felt.
With regard to stress marks, as far as I am aware, not many research studies have been
conducted. EFL lexicographers seem to be content with the IPA convention of presenting the stress mark(s) of words – putting a stroke(s) before the stressed syllable(s)
of a word – since most EFL dictionaries have adopted this (Gimson 1981).
COBUILD’s presentation of the information is slightly different from the other two
selected dictionaries of current study – it underlines the vowel(s) in the stressed syllable(s). This convention, however, does not distinguish clearly whether the stress in a
polysyllabic word is primary or secondary. In fact, to some NN English-speaking users, the concept of word stress is not easy to comprehend. Whether the few lines of
instruction given in dictionaries indicating how stress marks are applied are enough to
explain the topic is open to doubt. Based on my teaching experience and classroom
observations of how Chinese students use the stress marks provided by dictionaries, I
have found that many of them have problems such as in identifying the syllable
boundaries of multi-syllabic words and in distinguishing the differences between primary and secondary stresses.
To my knowledge, no teaching materials or methodologies on dictionary use training
have been published or explicitly discussed in the field so far. Nor have I found any
records of teaching pronunciation symbols and/or stress marks as part of dictionary
reference skills. In order to obtain information on teaching both these topics in the
second part of the current study, I turned to the discipline of ESL/EFL teaching. In
fact, the role of pronunciation teaching has not always been central in EFL classrooms. Its position very often depends on whether it could fit into the theoretical
framework of the teaching approach advocated at the time. Pronunciation teaching has
expanded from the teaching of just phonetics, to including phonology; and from the
17
studying of segmental features, to the inclusion of suprasegmentals. The changes in
pronunciation teaching reflect the theoretical framework of the teaching approach in
vogue (Stern 1992). Gairns and Redman (1986) affirm the function of the dictionary
in second or foreign language learning to be invaluable to students for “students who
become proficient at recognising these [the use of phonemic transcription and stress
marking, they] will be even more self-sufficient” (ibid.:81). Brown (1992:8) stresses
that, “all good modern learners’ dictionaries use phonetic symbols to indicate pronunciation, and learners must therefore be familiar with them”. He further argues that
“explicit pronunciation teaching should appear in every ELT lesson” as an integral
part of “the language as a whole and not studied as a phenomenon divorced from the
process of communication” (ibid.:13).
Celce-Murcia et al. (1996:7) further suggest that,
This focus in language as communication brings renewed urgency to the teaching of
pronunciation, since both empirical and anecdotal evidence indicates that there is a
threshold level of pronunciation for nonnative speakers of English; if they fall below
this threshold level, they will have oral communication problems no matter how excellent and extensive their control of English grammar and vocabulary might be.
In other words, the communicative teaching approach is believed to be complementary to both teaching of pronunciation and dictionary use. What needs to be
done next, according to Celce-Murcia et al. (ibid.), is for the role pronunciation teaching plays in the classroom, and how to teach it, to be identified. Brown (1992) proposes that whether a NN English-speaking learner is able to carry out a communication task successfully or not depends on whether the message conveyed is intelligible
to the interlocutor. Hence, intelligibility of speech is an important aspect of pronunciation teaching in the classroom. In Stern’s (1992) view, accurate pronunciation is
important to successful communication. He asserts that, “if we reflect on what communication involves, namely understanding and being understood, there is no question that serious defects in pronunciation cannot be tolerated” (ibid.:115).
If being able to pronounce accurately and intelligibly is of crucial importance to NN
English-speaking learners, how can English teachers achieve these goals? Parish
(1977, cited in Celce-Murcia et al. 1996:29) suggests that “teachers must have at their
disposal a working knowledge of articulatory phonetics, theories of second-language
phonological acquisition, and an up-to-date command of techniques and procedures to
use in the classroom”. Brown (1992:6) shares this view: “a grounding in phonetics is
clearly required in preparatory TEFL courses” for teachers need “phonetic knowledge
to understand how problem sounds such as / / as in thin are produced.” Thus, not
only are teachers expected to have a sound theoretical background in the area of
pronunciation, but also to be knowledgeable in applying the relevant teaching
methodology and in curriculum design.
Although much has been expected of, there has not been substantial support available
to English teachers. Stern (1992) states, for example, that until that time, not much
thought had been given to designing syllabuses which incorporated pronunciation
teaching. Materials were available for the teaching of consonants and vowels, but
there were problems of “converting this information into classroom procedures”
(Brown 1992:12). As regards teaching methodology, Stern (op. cit.) suggests that the
18
teaching focus should be on making learners realise the importance of clear and intelligible pronunciation to ensure successful communication in the target language. For
advanced learners, he recommends “a systematic attack” on areas found to be problematic and difficult for the specific group. Also, it is the teacher’s decision as to
which teaching materials are to be employed, taking into consideration all the constraints he or she faces, including accessibility to dictionaries, and students’ needs.
Alphabetical ordering
Prior to the advent of printing, reference books produced in Europe were predominantly presented according to themes or topics. The first monolingual dictionary was
A Table Alphabeticall by R. Cawdrey, published in 1604. Due to the problems of
spelling variants and derived forms, alphabetisation at that stage was experimental
(Osselton 1989). This concept of using alphabetical ordering to align words only
started to gain ground with the advent of printing technology (McArthur 1986). Since
then, this convention has become the norm in mainstream dictionary making in
Europe, or in places where the Latin alphabet is used to record dictionary entries.
The convention was adopted by EFL lexicographers preparing MLDs. Rundell (1988)
postulates that MLDs have retained many of the conventions used in native-speaker
dictionaries. These replications, he argues, are to the detriment of language learners
using these dictionaries. Nevertheless, conventions such as alphabetical ordering, and
the arrangement of homonyms and polysemes used in native-speakers’ dictionaries
have, to a large extent, been adopted by MLDs. This was partly for ease of printing in
both cases, and because dictionary users generally are used to this format of presentation (cf. Landau 1984; Jackson 1988).
All MLDs adopt the letter-by-letter method in entering headwords alphabetically.
There are, however, two different approaches to the treatment of words such as derivatives and compounds. Svensén (1993:227) states,
The grouping of related words while retaining alphabetical order certainly saves space.
But from the educational point of view one often falls between two stools, since the
etymological and morphological relationship constantly comes into conflict with alphabetical order, so that the nest has to be interrupted.
The macrostructure of all MLDs follows the convention of alphabetical ordering in
arranging entries. LDOCE and COBUILD share a similar policy, with all forms of the
words following a strict alphabetical order, taking no account of spaces, hyphens or
abbreviations. OALD, however, has kept to its traditional structure, listing derivatives
and compounds stemming from the headword as subentries. The two styles of entry
represent two distinct dictionary-making systems; there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Herbst (1996) disapproves of the OALD convention, considering it a weakness of the
5th edition of the dictionary. He argues that the nesting of all the derivatives and compound words of a headword creates unnecessary obstacles for users searching for
them. Since these words do not occur in the most noticeable position on the left, and
do not follow alphabetical order, they are not obvious, and consequently the diction-
19
ary taxes users unnecessarily. He admits, however, that strict alphabetical ordering
may obscure the semantic relationships between words, as indeed his opponents
would claim. Nevertheless, he refutes the idea that when users look up a word from
the dictionary, their main focus would be the semantic relationship; it is instead, he
argues, on the word meaning.
Lexicographers believe, on the other hand, that users of a dictionary should be shown
the relationships of words stemming from the same root. In this way, users, mostly
NN English-speaking users, will be able to develop a sense of semantic and morphological relationships within the lexicon (Cowie 1999), and this is important for their
learning of the target language, in particular in expanding their vocabulary. The policy
adopted in the 4th edition, and continued in the 5th edition, is summarised by Cowie
(op. cit.:149):
… it was decided that unless derivatives and compounds were entirely opaque they
should be nested in the entry for the first element, with derivatives placed first. To aid
quick retrieval, individual derivatives and compounds were aligned with the edge of the
column, each category being introduced by its own identifying symbol.
When comparing the four editions of MLDs published in 1995, Bogaards (1996) proposes to assess the dictionaries based on a set of criteria specific to the language
learning situation. He further divides the use of the dictionaries into two main categories, namely for receptive and productive purposes, and introduces three focuses of
comparison – findability, comprehensibility and usability of the dictionary information. With regard to alphabetical ordering, Bogaards (ibid.:284) points out that easy
access is important to users in the receptive process. This is because,
[as] paying attention to a particular word may loosen the link with the text as a whole,
especially when the search procedure takes some time, it is important for [the learner]
that he can find an answer to his problem as quickly as possible. The simplest way of
finding a word is to look it up in the alphabetical list. Whenever a form is not in its alphabetical place, the learner will have to step back from his text and wonder where he
might find what he is looking for.
In such a case, LDOCE and COBUILD should be praised for their word arrangement,
(cf. Herbst 1996). However, in assessing the dictionaries’ findability for productive
purposes, Bogaards (op. cit.:300) points out that, “due to the alphabetical ordering of
the words, the elements [the learner] needs will seldom be presented together”.
Bogaards further suggests users’ needs in using MLDS should be based on whether
they have been serving their clients well or not. In fact, the question of whether semantically related words should be nested also appears in English–Chinese dictionaries for non-native speaking learners of Chinese.
Every Chinese character, 字 (zì), is individual graphically and phonologically, but not
necessarily semantically. Some Chinese characters carry meaning on their own such
as the words dà 大 (‘big’) and chē 車 (‘car’). Most take meanings when they are in
compounds 辭 (cí). There is a general convention in Chinese dictionaries that a single
character is presented as headword, and from the entry, all the compound words (multiple-character entries) are nested. This policy applies both to dictionaries with entries
20
arranged in alphabetical order of hànyŭ pīnyīn (漢語拼音), the romanisation of Chinese pronunciation used in the People’s Republic of China, or an order following the
radical index of Chinese characters. In the latter case, the shape and the number of
strokes that the radical of the character, and the total number of strokes the character
is made up of, will be used to determine the location of the character in the dictionary.
Characters identical in romanisation will be distinguished and ordered according to
the four tones of the language. Characters on the same tone will have their first stroke
used to determine their order of entry in the dictionary. All compounds are nested under the entry of the first character of the combinations. At one glance, users are shown
how the character works with others to form (different) meanings. This convention
facilitates understanding in vocabulary building for both native and non-native Chinese learners. This convention of arranging headwords is being adopted in all Chinese
dictionaries and in most bilingual Chinese–English dictionaries. The ABC Chinese–
English Dictionary (1996), edited by De Francis, was to my knowledge, the first major Chinese–English dictionary that broke with convention and has words arranged
according merely to the pronunciation, and following a strict alphabetical order. The
alphabetical arrangement in the dictionary strictly follows the spelling conventions
used in hànyŭ pīnyīn. According to the Introduction (p. xii) of the dictionary:
In contrast to the convention character approach adopted by most dictionaries, our primary basis for selection of monosyllabic entries has been the likelihood that they will
actually be encountered as free forms, that is by themselves, rather than as mere components of multi-syllabic terms.
This breakthrough was made with the help of computer knowledge, and De Francis
(ibid.) claimed that this arrangement would facilitate machine translation between the
two languages, Chinese and English, in the future. One of the major concerns about
this innovative idea, which is linked to our current topic of alphabetical ordering in
MLDs, is that the change was made at the expense of the graphical and semantic links
between words. Many Chinese characters take meanings only when they are used
with other characters, and often the meanings of the compounds are closely related.
Hence, the entry arrangement that the ABC Chinese–English Dictionary adopted
might have an adverse influence on learners of Chinese when they begin to learn the
Chinese characters, and to expand their lexical repertoire.
The macrostructure of Chinese monolingual and bilingual Chinese–English dictionaries is introduced here to illustrate the specific problem that Chinese learners
may have in using EFL dictionaries. Using a dictionary effectively relates to one’s
reference skills and Béjoint (1989:210) argues that these skills have no language
boundaries.
The reference skills of the users should not be underestimated…. The point is particularly important to bear in mind for learners of a foreign language, whose reference
skills are partly carried over from their first to their second language…. It is their linguistic knowledge that is poor, not necessarily their reference skills, which have many
things in common across languages.
What Chinese learners of English bring with them is the expectation of finding derivatives and compounds nested in the entry of the base word in an English dictionary.
Not being familiar with what is meant by a strict alphabetical system such as adopted
21
by LDOCE or COBUILD, this group of learners might not be able to find the words
they need in these two dictionaries. This problem was observed both in the pilot tests
of the current study and in my teaching dictionary use in the past. In the case of these
learners, I surmise that the convention adopted by OALD would be more appreciated,
though this does not imply automatically that they will understand the symbols the
dictionary adopted for illustrating derivatives and compound words. Proximity in location of these words allows users to see all the semantically related words at a
glance, and this may ease their comprehension of the word(s) in search.
Herbst’s (1996) paper provides an appropriate conclusion to our discussion here.
There he asserts that the relevance and the use of the four MLDs published in 1995 to
the users vary according to the users’ purposes in using the dictionaries and their
‘educational setting’. Differences may be brought forth as a result of different cultural
and/or linguistic backgrounds, as in the case of the Chinese learners of English under
discussion.
Collocation
With the advent of the computer era in pedagogical lexicography in the 1980s, compilers could take into consideration both the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of
words as they went through evidence of corpora. Since then, lexicographers have
shown not only how English words are used in combinations, but also their frequency
of appearance in large corpora. Based on these objective data, COBUILD 1st edition
(1987) transformed the process of determining word collocates from being mostly
subjective views of lexicographers, who, to a large extent, depended on their intuition,
experience and wisdom, to an objective, corpus-based analysis. Herbst (1996:336)
comments that the central role collocations assumed in the use of language, found in
all four MLDs published (either as a revised edition or a brand new product) in 1995
is, “quite obviously a reflection of the computational analysis of large corpora”.
The focus of the concept of collocation in pedagogical lexicography has been mainly
on the treatment of such information in dictionaries (Cowie 1981b; Benson 1989;
Howarth 1996). Following Hausmann’s (1979) terms ‘base’ and ‘collocator’, the view
commonly taken by lexicographers is that, in a dictionary which is meant to be used
mainly for encoding purposes, “selection [of items] needs to be made among a large
range of possible collocators to illustrate the use of a base; for decoding purposes
idiosyncratic meanings of collocators are shown in the limited context of certain
bases” (Howarth 1996:171). In short, there should be a distinction in the selection and
arrangement of collocational information according to the intended purpose of the
dictionaries. However, most MLDs serve the NN English-speaking learners for both
encoding and decoding purposes (cf. Jackson 1988). These dictionaries include a
good number of well-defined headwords, with comprehensive and comprehensible
definitions. At the same time, they also provide abundant information on word syntax,
illustrative examples, pronunciation, spelling and so on – information essential to help
the foreign user in the production of the language.
While it is worth pondering whether these dictionaries are able to serve their users
satisfactorily in both areas, whether or not they could play a dual role in the presentation of collocational information is open to doubt. For example, following Howarth’s
22
(1996) description, an encoding dictionary will select and arrange collocations under
the base entry (usually a noun); while in a decoding one, they will be arranged under
the collocator (adjectives or verbs). Most collocational information provided by current learners’ dictionaries is subsumed under the collocator entry (Cop 1990), with its
use being illustrated in the examples. Paradoxically, the arrangement presumes that
the NN English-speaking users would benefit from the collocational information
while modelling the illustrative sentences for encoding purposes (Cowie 1978, 1984;
Drysdale 1987; Battenburg 1991). This discrepancy manifests one of the mismatches
between theory and practice within the discipline. With an international clientèle, and
as commercial products, learners’ dictionaries cannot always be in total accord with
theories being advocated in the discipline. Hence, NN English-speaking learners will
be able to benefit from collocational information from the dictionaries only if they
have been trained, or explicitly informed where to retrieve it. In the words of Benson
(1989) – there exists a need for a specialised collocational dictionary. The two prominent dictionaries which specialise in providing collocational information are the Selected English Collocations (1982) and the BBI Combinatory Dictionary (1986).
NN English-speaking users need help in word combinations since “collocational
mismatches are frequent in the language production of second language learners”
(Carter 1987:66); hence, it would be natural to assume that such information would
have a high frequency of look-ups among foreign users. In practice, this has not been
the case. According to major research findings on dictionary use and users’ needs,
foreign users use the dictionaries mainly for decoding purposes, with definitions being
the most sought after information category (Quirk 1974; Tomaszczyk 1979; Béjoint
1981; Hartmann 1987a; Chi & Yeung 1998), followed by other categories such as
syntactic information, examples and pronunciation, each ranking differently in various research studies. Howarth (1996) postulated that the reason why foreign users
have not generally used much of the collocational information provided in dictionaries was either because, they were ignorant of the concept of collocation, or that they
lacked the knowledge and/or skills to look it up. Cross-referencing, as adopted by
some learners’ dictionaries (Battenburg 1991), could help to guide users to the collocational information as arranged in the dictionaries. However, dictionaries might
adopt different conventions in their treatment of collocations, hence a more long-term
and satisfying solution, to avoid such mismatches, would be to provide users with
training which includes: first, an introduction to the concept of collocation and its importance in their language learning; second, an introduction to the conventions employed by various learners’ dictionaries in displaying the information; third, exercises
for users to apply the information to accomplish various linguistic tasks.
Although the foregoing has raised existing problems that practitioners in the field are
facing with regard to collocation, they should not be taken as obstacles preventing researchers from exploring ways to help foreign learners acquire competence in the
area, or to solve related problems. It is certain that foreign learners, especially those at
advanced level, require support in finding collocations (Benson 1989). If the teaching
of collocation is still an unsettled issue, another way to approach it could be to teach
learners about collocation. The phenomenon of collocation exists in all languages and
it will not be hard to explain the concept through reference to the foreign learners’
experience in learning, and their knowledge of, their native tongue. The concept is not
hard to understand and once it is mentioned, learners can identify this to be an area
that they have problems with in their learning of a foreign language (Howarth 1996).
23
Since it is difficult to anticipate what words or word combinations learners will encounter, thus making it almost impossible to design a collocation curriculum for them,
explaining the concept to learners and letting them explore on their own could be a
better alternative. Gaining an awareness of collocation, learners may be more sensitive to word combinations while reading, and in their writing. Such learning from
one’s exposure or experience in the language learning process may be slow to take
effect, but is not unrewarding. The role of a language teacher, hence, will be to provide opportunities and guidance for the learners when sought. In Howarth’s words
(1996:169):
Although a teacher is needed to draw the learner’s attention to the phenomenon, much
of the development of phraseological competence outlined above results from the
learner working independently, since individual cognitive styles will have a great influence on the rate and manner of progress.
However, since foreign language learners do not have native-speaker intuition in
judging whether the word combinations they hypothesised or generalised are acceptable or not, they would need an authority for confirmation, or consultation. This
should be the role of a learner’s dictionary. Coady (1997:287) asserts that “learners
should be provided with both definitional and contextual information about words” in
the process of vocabulary acquisition and that dictionaries play an important role.
Style labels
Style labels which provide words with information that indicates their status or special
uses have long been a convention in general English dictionaries. Compilers of MLDs
also view this feature as essential to the NN English-speaking users.
A special symbol or abbreviated term used in REFERENCE WORKS to mark a word or
phrase as being associated with a particular USAGE or LANGUAGE VARIETY.
(Dictionary of Lexicography 1998:80)
As early as the first Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1952), diatopical labels such as giving the words fall and sidewalk the label ‘(U.S.A)’, and
diaphasic labels such as the formality of words, were given (Cowie 1999). With respect to the selection of words to be given style or status labels, the decision must take
account of the needs of the foreign user. The view generally held by practitioners is
that, in particular, the user should be warned of words which carry negative implications (Cowie ibid.), for example, taboo and obscene words, or words which carry derogatory or offensive implications. This is important to the foreign user because, as
Battenburg (1991:75) points out,
Recording and describing taboo words in dictionaries may help users avoid embarrassment in certain situations. At the very least, MLDs should be able to assist students
in comprehending these terms. Second and foreign language learners need this information because it is often difficult to understand the exact meaning of taboo words in another language, and this material is rarely covered in the classroom. In addition, it is not
always possible to ask native speakers about such usage.
24
Labels are usually listed in a special column inside the front cover or on the introductory pages of a learner’s dictionary. However, not all dictionaries provide an exhaustive list of the labels used. In the OALD 5th edition (OALD 5), though subject labels
such as anatomy and grammar are also used in the dictionary, for reasons not known
they are not included in the label list. Moreover, labels indicating regional variations
of English, such as Australian (Austral) and New Zealand (NZ), are presented in the
dictionary under “abbreviations”. The conventions of presentation adopted by the
LDOCE 3rd edition (LDOCE 3) appear to be more systematic than its Oxford counterpart. There is no information-overlapping on the lists of abbreviations and labels, as
in OALD 5; also, all the labels are clearly listed and defined under the same heading.
The prevalence of sociolinguistics in the late 1970s, I believe, has also influenced the
designation of stylistic or status labels in learners’ dictionaries published during this
time. Topics such as gender, varieties and register in language use, which have been
widely discussed in the discipline impacted on pedagogical lexicographers in their
decision as to which words the NN English-speaking learner might need additional
information on with regard to their ‘social meaning’. Once the wordlist had been identified, the words would be assigned appropriate style or status labels in dictionaries.
For example, it was OALD 4 (1989) which first introduced the label that denoted sexist implication. Furthermore, Cowie (1999:166) comments,
The inclusion in ALD4 of words and senses restricted to various parts of the Englishspeaking world, and their distinctive marking in the dictionary reflected the growing international character of English.
This study postulates further that it could also be due to the growing awareness of regional variation of English by sociolinguists during the time when the dictionary was
compiled.
One way that may demonstrate whether the compilation of OALD 4 may have been
influenced by sociolinguistics is by examining the number and varieties of stylistic or
status labels found in OALD 3 and OALD 4. Earlier on, we discussed how important
it was for the foreign learner to obtain the ‘social meaning’ of words for the sake of
their application of the language, and how this view was shared by most lexicographers. However, according to Cowie (1999:162), the information did not feature
prominently in the first two editions of OALD.
But the labels adopted were unevenly applied, by no means all types of restriction
which called for a label were given one (thus, informality was sometimes taken account
of but not formality), and, above all, no attempt was made at that stage to organize the
various labels into systematic groupings. Lists were set out for the first time in ALD 3
(1974) and further elaborated in the revised impression of 1980.
The recognition of the importance of presenting this type of information systematically, and more plentifully, could have been due to the threat from its rival publication the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978). This claim is supported by Cowie’s comment on the development of usage labelling in the various editions of the Advanced Learners’ dictionaries. He states (1999:162),
Lists [on labels] were set out for the first time in ALD3 (1974) and further elaborated in
the revised impression of 1980. By that time, LDOCE1 had already been giving close
25
attention to style and register labelling. Later, as the new editions of the 1980s were
planned and compiled, it became clear that usage labelling was a matter calling for
vigilance and sensitivity, especially in the treatment of vocabulary relating to gender
and race.
It is our surmise that the change was also brought about by the influence of sociolinguistics on foreign language teaching and learning in the late 1970s. Cowie (1995)
asserts that the compilations of OALD 3 and 4 were in close tie with changes in society, and this was manifested in their headword lists and senses included for certain
entries. He states (op. cit.:293),
The third edition of OALD (1974) captured at many points the political, economical
and social transformations of the previous decade. It mirrored the cultural revolution of
the sixties and early seventies (recording disco, flower power, acid, pop festival) and
proclaimed its awareness of the social and environmental issues of the time (with aggro, drop-out, defoliation). The fourth edition voiced the continuity humanitarian concerns of the eighties, …
This change could also be observed in the number and choices of stylistic labels assigned to words in the two editions. To substantiate this claim, words within the partial article stretch facet2 to fiction inclusive, of both the editions were examined3. The
results are revealing. The number of words with stylistic labels in OALD 4 doubled
(32%) when compared with OALD 3; words having one label increased by 8%, and
those with two labels, doubled (4.3%). It was also in this edition that words were first
assigned more than two labels. Moreover, when compared with the previous edition,
three more varieties of labels were used in OALD 4. A summary of the results is
given in Table 1:
Table 1: Summary of findings of examination of headwords facet–fiction in OALD 3/OALD 4.
Total number of headwords, facet–fiction
Total number of words with stylistic/status label
Number of headwords with one label
Number of headwords with two labels
Number of headwords with more than two labels
Number of varieties of labels
OALD 3
251
48 (19.1%)
42 (16.7%)
6 (2.4%)
0
19
OALD 4
256
82 (32%)
63 (24.6%)
11 (4.3%)
8 (3.1%)
22
2
The range of words was selected randomly. The page number where the word was found,
and which headword to starting counting from and where to end were all randomly assigned
by the computer.
3
Only labels assigned to the various senses of major alphabetical entries were included in the
examination.
26
Variety4 of stylistic labels
Diachronic
Diaevaluative
Diafrequential
Diaintegrative
Diamedial
Dianormative
Diaphasic
Diastratic
Diatechnical
Diatextual
Diatopic
*Total number
OALD 3
3
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
2
3
19
OALD 4
2
4
0
0
0
0
3
1
6
2
4
22
*Note: The number counted was based on the frequency of the appearance of the labels, which may
not necessarily refer to the same words in different editions.
Not much change was found in OALD 5 when compared to OALD 4, but a marked
change occurred in the latest edition OALD 6, where the number of headwords with
usage labels assigned has increased by more than 10% when compared with the previous edition. The number of headwords with two labels has also increased by nearly
6%.
Table 2: Summary of findings of examination of headwords facet–fiction in OALD 3–6.
Total number of headwords,
facet–fiction
Total number of words with
stylistic/status label
Number of headwords with
one label
Number of headwords with
two labels
Number of headwords with
more than two labels
Number of variety of labels
OALD 3
251
OALD 4
256
OALD 5
260
OALD 6
386
48 (19.1%)
82 (32%)
83 (31.9%)
164 (42.5%)
42 (16.7%)
63 (24.6%)
66 (25.4%)
112 (29%)
6 (2.4%)
11 (4.3%)
12 (4.6%)
40 (10.4%)
8 (3.1%)
5 (1.9%)
12 (3.1%)
0
19
22
23
27
With regard to varieties of labels used, the results indicate no change in the number
recorded between OALD 4 and OALD 5. OALD 6, however, is the only edition
which has provided the foreign user with diafrequential and diamedial information.
Thus, this latest edition offers a wider variety of labels for the range of words selected. This newest edition also contains the greatest number of labels which are of
various types; see Table 3.
4
The classification is based on the table on usage labels found in Dictionary of lexicography
(1998:151).
27
Table 3: Variety of stylistic labels at headwords facet–fiction in OALD 3–6.
Variety of stylistic labels
Diachronic
Diaevaluative
Diafrequential
Diaintegrative
Diamedial
Dianormative
Diaphasic
Diastratic
Diatechnical
Diatextual
Diatopic
*Total number
*Note:
OALD3
3
3
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
2
3
19
OALD4
2
4
0
0
0
0
3
1
6
2
4
22
OALD5
2
6
0
0
0
0
3
1
6
0
3
22
OALD6
2
5
1
0
2
0
2
1
8
2
4
27
The number counted was based on the frequency of the appearance of the labels, which may
be necessarily refer to the same words in different editions.
To summarise, the prevalence of sociological theories in foreign language teaching
and learning in the late 1970s influenced pedagogical lexicography. This is manifested in the choice of headwords, definitions and, as this study will prove, in the stylistic/status labels of learners’ dictionaries, for example, in the various editions of the
OALD published from the late 1980s until now. The changes that took place in the
3rd and 4th editions of the dictionary demonstrate an increased awareness on the part
of the pedagogical lexicographers of the needs of foreign learners aiming at pragmatic
usage of the target language.
With regard to their user-friendliness, Herbst (1996) offers the criticism that abbreviations used to represent different status or style labels in learners’ dictionaries are
‘non-transparent’, and thus tax users unnecessarily with extra work. The COBUILD is
an exceptional case, for such information was integrated into its definitions, and presented in complete sentences. This style of presentation, however, takes up valuable
space. The lexicographers of the OALD series seemed to have adopted fewer labels,
in order to make the dictionary user-friendly. For example, compared with its 2nd edition, which included 63 labels, the 5th has only 23 on the label list. Nevertheless, we
have to be cautious since the change is deceptive. OALD 5 has not presented every
subject label the dictionary has included. All that can be concluded is that the label list
presented in OALD 5 appears to be less overwhelming to users than those found in
the previous editions.
In the latest (6th) edition 2000, the number of labels is one less than in the 5th. Again,
subject labels are not all presented in the label list. However, more changes were
found in the choice and application of the labels in the new edition. For example, labels denoting rhetorical speech or writing, euphemistic expressions, catchphrases and
Scottish expressions were taken out of the new edition, while three new labels – rare
words, spoken and written expressions were introduced.
Moreover, in OALD 6 it is claimed that special effort has been made to render the labels easier for the NN English-speaking user to follow than in the previous editions.
For instance, the full form of the words was adopted, instead of the use of abbreviations. Thus, instead of using approv. and fig., the new edition uses approving and
figurative. Furthermore, terms such as derogatory and jocular have been replaced by
28
commoner words disapproving and humorous. The editor of OALD 6 explained that
these changes are the result of research findings on NN English-speaking users’ reference skills, which indicated that the target users had problems understanding abbreviations used in the dictionary, such as approv. for approving and fml for formal.5 As
for items such as technical words, the new edition kept most, with only minor
changes. For example, the word vector was labelled as mathematics and lexicon as
linguistics in both OALD 5 and OALD 6; but schizophrenia, which was denoted as
medical in OALD 5, was not given the same label in the new edition.
The lexicographers of this new edition should be given credit for their concern with
users’ needs and difficulties in using labels. Moreover, since language use changes,
revision of the status or stylistic labels given to words is deemed essential. However,
it seems that some of the changes may have oversimplified the issue. Furthermore, in
avoiding one trap, the lexicographers have fallen into another. I will use the label disapproving used in OALD 6 to illustrate.
This label was used to replace derogatory which had been used in the previous editions of the dictionary. The change made to the choice of the terms nonetheless has
not extended to their meanings or definitions.
OALD 5 – (derog) Derogatory expressions show that the user feels disapproval or
scorn, eg brat, fuddy-duddy, pedantic.
OALD 6 – disapproving expressions show that you feel disapproval or contempt, for
example blinkered, faceless, jumped-up.
With the words contempt and scorn sharing similar meanings (in LDOCE 3, the word
contempt is given to explain scorn for), the differences between the two explanations
are that: first, OALD 6 has adopted a personal approach in addressing the user; and
second, the illustrative words selected by both editions are different. Nevertheless, it
is arguable that denotative and connotative meanings of the words derogatory and
disapproving are equivalent, or even synonymous. In fact, the meanings of the two
words are different according to the definitions provided by OALD 6.
disapproving /
sb./sth: a disapproving glance/tone/look
OPP
ING4dis ap prov ing ly
/ adj. showing that you do not approve of
APPROV-
adv.: He looked disapprovingly at the row of empty wine bottles.
derogatory /
a SYN
critical attitude towards sb
; AmE
/ adj. showing
INSULTING: derogatory remarks/comments
There is indeed a clear distinction in attitude and in the degree of intensity in the two
words. Not believing that somebody or something is good or acceptable is very different from showing a critical attitude towards somebody. This is further evident with
the word insulting, given as a synonym of derogatory.
5
S. Wehmeier gave a talk on the making of the newest edition of Oxford Advanced Learners’
Dictionary (6th edition) to ASIALEX members in Hong Kong during her visit to the Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology in October 2000.
29
This ambiguity extends to the choice of words that both the editions have selected to
illustrate the use of the two labels. The two sets of words are completely different; the
three words used in OALD 5 (derogatory) were brat, fuddy-duddy and pedantic;
whereas blinkered, faceless and jumped-up were used in OALD 6 (disapproving).
Both sets of words, and the stylistic or status labels attached to them are shown in Table 4:
Table 4: Contrast of labelling in OALD 5/OALD 6.
Illustrative
words
brat
fuddy-duddy
pedantic
blinkered
faceless
jumped-up
Labels given in the
definitions of OALD 5
Derogatory
Informal derogatory or jocular
Derogatory
British, figurative, derogatory
Nil
British, informal
Labels given in the
definitions of OALD 6
Informal, disapproving
Informal
Disapproving
Disapproving
Disapproving
British, informal, disapproving
The lexicographers of OALD 6 applied the label disapproving to substitute for derogatory used in OALD 5 for the three words brat, pedantic and blinkered, when in
fact the two labels carry different connotations, as we have discussed.
The changes that have taken place in OALD 6 in the area of stylistic or status labelling, although intended to make the dictionary more user-friendly, could in fact cause
NN English-speaking users more problems than do them a service. This is evidenced
in the oversimplified treatment of the label derogatory.
The situation is further complicated if the same label is adopted by various dictionaries to imply different meanings, such as the label disapproval in OALD 6 and, for example, COBUILD 2. The Dictionary of lexicography (1998:80) explains that “as the
INFORMATION necessary to support a particular decision is not always available
and boundary lines between different usage features are fluid, consistency is rarely
achieved”. More than a decade ago, Tickoo (1989b) and Battenburg (1991) cautioned
lexicographers that this inconsistency might cause more harm than good to users. For
example, users may not be able to apply the knowledge they acquire while using one
particular dictionary to the use of the others. This problem had already been noted by
Marckwardt (1973:377):
To begin with, no one using a dictionary should ever accept as conclusive the application of any of these labels in one dictionary without verifying it in two or three others:
The criteria for applying these labels are so hazy and inconsistent that uncritical acceptance of the judgment of one dictionary is perilous indeed.
However, the problem has not been rectified. Over a decade later, Tickoo (1989b:196)
postulated that “a major task in lexicography may thus be the search for more dependable, perhaps uniform, guidelines to make the labels fully dependable”.
Language and culture
30
According to Béjoint (1988:139), “dictionaries are not normally used for the systematic acquisition of linguistic knowledge; they are used for finding an ad hoc solution
to a particular problem of comprehension or production.” Then the role of dictionaries
in reading activities would mainly be to provide meaning(s) of the word in question.
Once this has been found, most users would probably return to their reading material;
cf. Svensén (1993:10):
When reading, one is not normally interested in the spelling of words or in their construction, as these are already obvious from the text. Instead, it is usually the meanings
of words and expressions which are sought.
A good learner’s dictionary would be able to provide NN English-speaking users with
linguistic information such as the semantic and syntactic quality of the lexical item. It
would, however, be the job of the users to apply what they have looked up to understand how the word is related to the context where it is found.
While some research studies have revealed that the availability of dictionaries has no
significant effects on the scores of reading tests (e.g. Bensoussan et al. 1984; Nesi &
Meara 1991), others discovered that contextual cues, not dictionary entries, if efficiently used, are more important to readers for the understanding of word meanings
(e.g. Fisher 1994). Moreover, the interruption that takes place while the reader consults a dictionary may affect the continuity of the text and, arguably, the reader’s understanding of it, are open to doubt.
However, when readers come across words which impede their understanding of the
reading context, they need to stop and check their meanings. The question is, then,
whether users can differentiate between unfamiliar words which can be guessed from
the context and those which need to be looked up for understanding or clarification.
Also, can it be assumed that when readers turn to a dictionary for help, they know
how to use it? Scholfield (1999:14–15) expresses concerns over these questions:
The identification of the word or phrase that is causing a problem, and so is a candidate
for dictionary look-up, is often passed over as a non-issue. Indeed research on dictionary use often takes the form of having subjects look up words that the researcher has
identified, so there is no chance for problems at this point to show themselves.
Scholfield’s worry is over users’ not identifying, or misidentifying, the lexical items
that they may have difficulties with in their reading. Problems arise, for example,
from idiomatic phrases which are made up of simple words and are unmarked in the
text as “set phrases”. Such misunderstandings may deceive readers into believing that
they know the meaning of the words or phrases already, and thus continue with their
reading. At the end, readers may either have misinterpreted the meaning of the entire
text, or failed to comprehend the text fully. Words which might pose such kinds of
problem to readers include those which carry culture-specific meanings.
One’s language, thought and culture are all inter-related and “the most obvious influence of language and culture on thought is that of vocabulary” (Valdes 1986b:3).
Kramsch (1998:3) asserts that “language is the principal means whereby we conduct
our social lives. When it is used in the contexts of communication, it is bound up with
culture in multiple and complex ways”. But how much are EFL learners aware of the
31
close relationship among these three aspects: language, thought and culture? Are they
aware of the fact that the words they read, or use in their writing, have culture-specific
meanings or implications? Sometimes when learners say they have understood a text,
they have in fact not.
With respect to working on reading comprehension tasks in the target language,
Laufer (1997) postulates that there are three major obstacles for non-native learners of
English: a) words you don’t know, b) words you think you know and, c) words you
can’t guess. Under the category of words you think you know, she suggests the following five types:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Words with a deceptive morphological structure,
Idioms,
False friends,
Words with multiple meanings,
Synforms.
She argues that these deceptively transparent words create many problems among NN
English-speaking learners in reading comprehension because they are not aware of
them. If they were to realise or suspect that these might be words they did not know,
or were unsure of, they might check; or might be more cautious in making a guess, or
drawing a conclusion. Since they think they know them, the resulting damage can be
even greater than if they do not know them. A distortion of the meaning of a deceptively transparent word in a context might eventually lead to the distortion of a
learner’s understanding of the whole text. For example, many Chinese learners of
English would have misinterpreted the following sentence due to their cultural background.
John has refused to let his father pay for his school fee because he considers the money
that his father has is blood money.
Native speakers of English or people who understand the term ‘blood money’ probably would consider John to be a person with a strong sense of righteousness. NN
English-speaking learners of English who do not know the term would tend to take
the surface meaning of the words blood and money, and form the association of the
two. Most of them would be satisfied with the understanding that the source of the
father’s money is related to blood, and few would try to find out whose blood it is or
was. In Chinese culture, the money that parents work hard for to raise their children
and pay for their education is generally regarded as money earned with sweat and
blood 血汗錢 . From my own experience, most Chinese learners of English would
interpret the sentence being that John is a filial son and he does not want to use his
father’s hard-earned money for his education; and that his father is a good parent who
has worked hard with the hope that the money would help his son to a bright future.
Culture-bound words are those with denotative or connotative meanings, and are
closely tied in with the community, the historical background and the people that
share the particular language; and they could well be added as the sixth category of
problematic words to Laufer’s list. For example, a phrase such as open Pandora’s box
is an allusion to a story in western classical mythology; a simple word like pubs carries references to a nation’s (Britain) history and societal norms. Such culture-specific
32
words could also be proper nouns – names of places, celebrities, or television programmes.
A lack of awareness or knowledge that words are culture-bound, inhibits learners in
reading authentic materials. Furthermore, not understanding the references used by
native speakers in writing or speaking, may also lead to communication breakdown or
misunderstanding. According to Béjoint (1981:210), “for such words, foreign students, even at a fairly advanced level, need to be given information about the connotative value”.
The needs of foreign users for culture specific information are not unfamiliar to lexicographers. Research studies carried out in the past two decades by researchers such
as Tomaszczyk (1979) and Béjoint (1981), have demonstrated that this is an area
where foreign users need help from their dictionaries; cf. Zgusta (1989:3):
Since language is embedded in culture, cultural data are important to the learner not
only for steering his linguistic behavior but frequently for choosing the correct lexical
equivalent. Such cultural information can be understood in a broad way, so that it can
pertain to political and administrative realities of the country or countries whose language is being learned, and so on. Undoubtedly, a good part of this information is of
encyclopedic character; be this as it may, it belongs to what the learner has to learn.
However, existing literature in the area of pedagogical lexicography relating to culture
generally discusses the theory and practicalities of the issue, in relation to dictionary
making. So far, no new editions or new MLDs have yet included such information as
a major component.
One of the major publications in the field of lexicography that touched on this issue
recently is Culture, Ideologies, and the Dictionary: studies in Honour of Ladislav
Zgusta (Kachru & Kahane 1995). Most of the articles in this book, were dedicated to
the discussion of cultural elements in dictionaries and dictionary-making. For example, that by Whitcut alerts lexicographers to cultural assumptions when deciding what
and how much information on the target language is to be presented in their dictionaries, in order to avoid cultural bias.
The paper by Cowie is the only one that is solely dedicated to discussion of the issue
from the perspective of users’ needs. He discusses the cultural information found in
all four editions of what is currently known as the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cowie argues that learners’ dictionaries “can serve as the mirror both of the
conscious (or unconscious) social value and judgements of its compilers, and of the
chief social and ideological concerns of the period of compilation” (op. cit.:294). This
was written in response to Rey’s (1987) comment that the cultural content found in
the pedagogical dictionary was low. In Cowie’s discussion of the cultural themes
found in various editions of the OALD, entries were picked to illustrate that the various editions of the dictionaries have a selection of words which reflected society during the time the books were compiled. For instance, the inclusion of words related to
Japan round the time of the Second World War, such as Manch(o)ukuo and Manchuria in the first edition (1948); flower power and pop festival which reflected ‘the cultural revolution’ in the West in the sixties and early seventies, in the third edition
(1974); and words such as credit transfer and cash point in the fourth (1989) edition,
33
which mirrored the consumer society at the time when the dictionary was being compiled.
The premise of Cowie’s argument is taken mostly from a lexicographer’s point of
view, not from that of users. In his conclusion (op. cit.:294), he states,
… the learner’s dictionary can serve as the mirror both of the conscious (or unconscious) social values and judgements of its compilers, and of the chief social and ideological concerns of the period of compilation.
However, how much this function would help NN English-speaking learners in acquiring the target language is open to doubt. For example, I presume that NN Englishspeaking learners would rather want to know about the culture or information of the
people of the target language or the community they live in, in this case, probably
Britain and America than words related to Japan at the time of the Second World
War!
The illustration of gender choice used in OALD 4 and later editions shows the lexicographers’ awareness of the issue such as, “featuring women in a wider range of professional roles” (Cowie 1999:291). This editorial decision is to be complimented, but
it is doubtful whether this subtle demonstration of the equality of the sexes would be
detected by users, and thus benefit them. Another question that is worth pondering
over is whether this is a true reflection of the culture of the people who speak the target language, or of what they aspire to be. This is indeed one of the major problems
that lexicographers have to face when deciding what aspects to include in the dictionary as representing the culture of the native speakers. Crowther (1999:217), expresses
retrospective concern over the making of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary (1992):
Far more problematic is the selection process for and the content of the true-specific
items to be included. There are few if any recognized specialists in this area and it is
not always easy for lexicographers on their own to identify what is specific to their own
culture.
Another example of this kind of subtlety is found in the choice of examples and the
clustering of derivatives and compounds in specific entries of various editions of the
OALD. Cowie (1999) explains that the clustering of semantically related words helps
reflect subtle changes in political, economic and social behaviour as perceived by the
lexicographers and he used the word market for illustration. He argues (ibid.:293),
“these additions capture the increasing use of market in oblique senses and reflect a
shift in the focus of economic activity from the producer towards the marketing director, the economic analyst and the commodity dealer.”
However, this kind of information could well pass as a non-issue by the majority of
users, judging from research findings on users’ reference skills, which reveal how little users know of, and use, their dictionaries. Information on cultural aspects offered
in the dictionary needs to be more transparent and precise should the lexicographers
want users to benefit from it.
34
Using a subtle and indirect approach of presenting cultural information as the OALDs
applies to British MLDs. This is different from the tradition of dictionary making in
America and European countries, such as France where the inclusion of encyclopedic
information in general dictionaries is long-established and the expected norm (Crowther 1999). The exclusion of encyclopedic information on lexical items from learners’
dictionaries should be reassessed by the compilers of British MLDs, since this is a
facet of the language on which NN English-speaking users would likely to seek help
in dictionaries. Cf. Kokawa and Yamada (1998:343): “we would like to consider an
EFL dictionary complete only when it teaches learners linguistic (including pragmatic) knowledge as well as cultural or encyclopedic aspects of the language, which
relate to the ‘content’ of communication.”
EFL learners require not just the linguistic aspects of the target language, but facts as
well. Very often, “[when] encountering extra-linguistic items or senses with encyclopedic extension, the user of the conventional EFL dictionary has to go to the trouble
of turning to other sources (e.g. the native speaker’s monolingual dictionary, the bilingual dictionary, or the encyclopedia)” (Kokawa & Yamada: ibid.). Tomaszczyk’s
(1979) study showed that 71% of subjects looked up, or expected dictionaries to
carry, proper names of people and places. Béjoint’s (1981), investigation of French
students of English using monolingual English dictionaries, revealed that 55% sometimes looked for words that the researcher defined as encyclopaedic, and 53% sometimes looked up culture-specific information. In Hartmann’s (1982) study on English–
German bilingual dictionaries used by British students, it was found that 62% would
look up culture-specific information in their dictionaries. Though the major needs of
NN English-speaking users in using English dictionaries may still be for seeking syntactic and semantic information about the language, the need or expectation to be able
to consult the book for information on culture-bound words or knowledge is evident.
Bool and Carter (1989) acknowledge the difficulties, posed by everyday cultural activities such as reading the newspaper, that are faced by advanced NN Englishspeaking users. To this end, they argue that teaching vocabulary or lexicographic materials is of little help. They postulate that fixed expressions, for instance, “can be
opaque or transparent depending on the degree of cultural knowledge a learner needs
to draw upon for purposes of decoding the expression” (ibid.:174). NN Englishspeaking users face difficulties in decoding contexts with such linguistic components
because not only the expressions, but also the text which contains them, would assume readers have a shared understanding of the cultural setting to which the piece of
writing relates. Steffensen and Joag-Dev (1984:60–61) assert that “if readers possess
the schemata assumed by the writer, they understand what is stated and effortlessly
make the inferences intended. If they do not, they distort meaning as they attempt to
accommodate even explicitly stated propositions to their own existing knowledge
structures”. These kinds of schemata, they explain, are “abstract cognitive structures
which incorporate generalised knowledge about objects of events” (ibid.:53) as proposed by Anderson et al. (1978) in their schema theory of reading.
With the knowledge and experience NN English-speaking learners have obtained,
mostly from their own cultural background, upbringing and linguistic competence in
their native language, they can form inferences from the text by linking up all the
fragments or sections, while reading in the target language. For example, in a passage
that describes a birthday party of a child in either a British or American family, activi35
ties such as singing a birthday song and making a birthday wish, or items such as a
birthday cake with lighted candles on top of it, could be something exotic to an EFL
reader. For example, in Chinese culture, candles are used mainly at funerals, weddings, and religious and ancestral ceremonies. A Chinese reader who has no contact
or experience with described western culture would take time to comprehend all the
activities, and all the items included in such a text. However, with a common understanding that someone’s birthday is a joyous event that sometimes calls for celebration in Chinese families, the reader could infer the activities which took place, and the
items included in the party, would be parallel to those that would have taken place in
a traditional Chinese family. With some adjustments – instead of having a birthday
cake, Chinese children usually receive reddened boiled eggs from their parents,
whereas noodles which symbolise long life would generally be birthday gifts for the
aged – the Chinese reader may be able to comprehend the situation.
Using knowledge or/and experience what they already possess as a reference, NN
English-speaking learners could judge how far they have understood the text. In doing
so, however, this may also constrain their interpretation of the text, since the background information and assumptions of the writer may not correspond with the readers’. In such circumstances, the reader may misinterpret the text or be perplexed by
what he or she has read.
When teachers are able to identify “the scope of interference” (Steffensen & Joag-Dev
1984:61) which is inhibiting EFL students from comprehending the text, then they
can help “either by contrasting the event to a formally or functionally similar one in
the native culture or by providing enough information about such events so that the
student has some of the necessary cultural context” (ibid.). This could be achieved by
introducing learners to tools which offer insights into the word or phrase in question –
a quick reference which gives readers an introduction to the topic which they can use
to build on their understanding of the rest of the text. One of the options available is a
dictionary which can play a dual role, acting both as a reference tool targeted at this
particular clientèle group, and providing both denotative and connotative meanings
(culture-specific) of words.
With a tradition of providing principally linguistic information for lexical items, English MLDs such as the OALD, LDOCE and COBUILD have not included culturally
loaded words or information, and NN English-speaking learners who seek extralinguistic senses of words, might find these dictionaries inadequate to cater for their
needs. Daglish (1995:330) argues:
Learners’ dictionaries that home in too narrowly on any of these considerations will not
have a lucrative market; trying to appeal to all such categories will almost inevitably dilute any strengths that a solid focus would bring.
It is my surmise that for this reason, and possibly others yet to be discovered, EFL
lexicographers and/or publishers would hesitate over breaking new ground to produce
a new genre of EFL dictionaries which include such information. Dictionaries such as
the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (1992) (LDELC) and the
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Encyclopedic Edition
(1992) (OALDE) were compiled with the needs of NN English speakers for encyclopedic information and are, I believe, a compromise. Both these dictionaries could be
36
regarded as a hybrid of a learner’s dictionary and an encyclopedia, since they are both
based on the texts of existing learners’ dictionaries from the same publishing houses
respectively, with the addition of encyclopedic entries or information. According to
Summer (1992:Preface),
The full text of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English is the basis for the
book and institutions in order to provide advanced learners of English with a full reference resource in one book.
These hybrid dictionaries enjoy the advantages of having potential users who already
possess the experience, and perhaps the skills, of using them to learn. From the users’
point of view, they are being offered a type of dictionary which is tailor-made for
them in all aspects. The nature and the information provided by this type of encyclopedic dictionary particularly suit the needs of NN English-speaking learners at tertiary
level, who have to read plenty of authentic English materials which may contain a
relatively high percentage of culturally loaded words. While engaging in decoding
activities, these students need an easy-to-use reference tool which will provide them
with answers with sufficient information to let them go on with their reading. For
such cases, a specialised dictionary of business or engineering might be too technical,
or too specific in its collection of words, while a full encyclopedia can be too overwhelming.
Although the OALDE and LDELC both contain culturally marked terms, which is the
major concern of our discussion here, the latter was selected for this study because the
choice and depth of the encyclopedic information it provides match the level and
needs of our subject students. As mentioned earlier, the dictionary would mostly be
used for quick reference – to gain sufficient information to let users carry on with
their reading. The extra-linguistic information provided in the dictionary should thus,
in my opinion, be extensive, but not necessarily with in-depth syntactic information.
Furthermore, the subject students are not majoring in English or linguistics, with aspirations of studying the language in a scholarly manner. In fact, for the majority, English is a tool to help them learn their core subjects (Business and Engineering), and an
international language that they have to master for their future careers. The nature of
reading involved is largely not technical, but based around everyday life incidents or
knowledge of the two major English-speaking countries, the USA and Great Britain.
I believe the information provided by the LDELC would be able to meet students’ needs
in completing the writing task, for according to Britto (1995:126), “[The LDELC] excels
other comparable dictionaries in diversity, quantity, and make-up. It is ideal, therefore,
for those who like to see in a dictionary a little bit of information on all sorts of topics.”
Kokawa & Yamada (1998) give credit to the dictionary for its presentation of articles
and notes (which gives cultural and encyclopedic information) for they are good for
“quick reference and learning/mnemonic purposes”. They also praise the dictionary for
accompanying most of the features selected with pictorial illustrations or diagrams, thus
making the search more approachable, and easy to follow. Crowther (1999:218), editor
of the OALDE, admits that, “LDELC clearly has a wider coverage of popular youth
culture than does OALDE … ”.
37
38
Chapter Three: Research design
INTRODUCTION
Scientific research studies of dictionary use study are scarce. Among those existing,
Crystal (1986) observed that most were based on “conventional wisdom”. This view
is shared by Hartmann (1987b:27) who asserts that research studies in the field were
found “often [to be] non-representative, noncomparable … non correlational, and
non-replicable”. More than a decade after this comment was made, the situation remains unchanged, with McCreary and Dolezal (1998:613) noting that “most of the
research published by practicing lexicographers and linguists interested in the dictionary use has been either anecdotal reports or opinion surveys based on surveyquestionnaires given to college students”.
The present study is empirical in nature, with the objective of uncovering information,
supported by empirical data. It consists of two stages, each involving over two hundred students. All the subject students were in their first of three years of study at the
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology when the investigation was
launched. The subject groups consisted of male and female students, sharing similar
educational, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used at various stages to analyse the data obtained. It is my hope that
the two approaches will complement each other in uncovering the subjects students’
dictionary use habits, and exploring the effectiveness of explicit teaching dictionary
use to them. In this way, a composite picture of the research findings can be obtained.
Also, since this enquiry consists of two parts, covering several areas of dictionary reference skills and foreign language study, a combined approach was deemed to be appropriate for eliciting and analysing data of different nature.
Aims
There are three aims in this project: first, to discuss students’ habits and choices when
using dictionaries to assist their learning of English; second, to investigate what content and methodology are effective in teaching or learning dictionary use; finally, to
evaluate the effectiveness of explicit teaching of dictionary skills for improving students’ reference abilities.
Hypotheses
1. Students are ignorant of most of the linguistic information provided by the
English learners’ dictionaries that were selected for this study.
2. Students do not use most of the linguistic information provided by the
English learners’ dictionaries that were selected for this study to solve linguistic problems.
3. Explicit teaching of dictionary skills within an English syllabus has no effect on students’ performance in solving linguistic problems.
39
Procedure
The study comprised two stages, with the data from the first being the base of, and
providing indicators for, the second with regard to both the content and methodology
to be used in the treatment (explicit teaching on dictionary use). The first part included a questionnaire aimed at uncovering subject students’ habits, attitudes, and
knowledge in using dictionaries to assist their learning of English. 248 first year students completed the questionnaire. On a voluntary basis, some of the students who
had completed the questionnaire were interviewed to validate their answers, and to
elicit further insights into the questions asked in the questionnaire. The answers were
then tallied, and analysed to enable them to complement the design of the second part
of the study.
This second part consisted of three subject groups – Control Group, Experimental
Group One (Ex1) and Experimental Group Two (Ex2). Subject students from the first
two groups were in their first year of studies in the same academic year; while Ex2
students were those who entered the university the following year. The total number
of students was 186. There were four parts in the second stage of the study: pre-test,
treatment, a questionnaire to elicit feedback on teaching materials and methodology,
and a post-test to students of the two experimental groups. All three groups of students sat for the pre-test during their English lesson at the beginning of a semester.
Treatment in the form of explicit teaching dictionary use in class was given to the two
experimental groups. There were some variations in the teaching of the two groups in
terms of teaching methodology and material but the most obvious difference was in
the number of items taught (see Table 5).
Table 5: Content of the treatment given to the two experimental groups (Ex1, Ex2).
Experimental Group
Number of teaching items
Ex1
6
(1) Pronunciation
(2) Stress marks
(3) Alphabetical ordering
Teaching content
(4) Collocation
(5) Style labelling
(6) Language and
culture
Ex2
3
A comparison of the performance of Ex1 and Ex2 in the post-test will help verify my
postulated supposition, namely, that based on the findings of the pilot tests and my
experience in teaching the topics, items 4–6 are relatively easier for students to acquire than items 1–3, The results would shed light on issues such as whether with respect to dictionary use, different levels of difficulty of learning among the various
items selected exist. Teaching of the listed items was integrated into a mandatory
English course for all Year One students entering the University.
A questionnaire was given to both experimental groups in the lesson before they
completed the post-test, to elicit feedback on the teaching methodology and content
employed. All three subject groups completed the post-test in their last English lesson
of the semester. The data were used to support analysis of how effective explicit
teaching of dictionary use skills was on users’ acquisition of them.
40
First stage – Survey on dictionary use
Aims
1. To discover how subject students have been using dictionaries in their
learning.
2. To obtain data on subjects’ habits in using dictionaries which would
then form the basis for providing indicators for the second part of the
study.
Design
A questionnaire comprising of 19 questions, in six sections, was designed as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ownership and choice of dictionaries (Q.1–Q.4)
Perception of the role of dictionaries in learning (Q.5–Q.11)
Frequency of use and students’ needs in using dictionaries (Q.12–Q.13)
Use of monolingual English dictionaries (Q.14–Q.15)
Look-up strategies applied to finding words in a monolingual English
dictionary (Q.16–Q.17)
6. Dictionary use training on using a monolingual English dictionary
(Q.18–Q.19)
The questionnaire was given to subject students during class time. The whole process
took approximately 15–20 minutes for all the classes. As mentioned previously, an
interview was included for this part of the study. The aim of the interview was twofold – to verify and complement the data obtained from the questionnaire. Because of
timetable clashes, the invitation for the interview was opened only to the four classes
that I taught. The classes consisted of one of Computer Engineering students, one of
Computer Science and two of Business students. Fifteen subjects, approximately 6%
of the total number who had successfully completed the questionnaire, attended the
interviews.
The interviews were carried out either in the Self-Access Centre discussion room or in
my own office. The questions were examined one by one according to the order presented in the questionnaire. Students were asked to clarify and elaborate on the answers they gave. Sometimes they would be prompted into explaining why they gave,
or elaborating on specific answers. However, they were given the freedom to decide
what and how much they wanted to say about the questions. The interviews were carried out in Cantonese, later transcribed and translated into English.
All subject students were taking a first-year English course entitled ‘English Enhancement Course’ (LANG 001), organised and designed by the Language Centre of
the University. This course was compulsory for these students who had failed to obtain a distinction (A, B) or credit (C) in their Use of English matriculation examination. The selection of classes for the study was based on their availability and on my
teaching schedule. It also depended on the goodwill of the teachers who agreed to allow students to complete the questionnaire in class. All the questionnaires were completed and collected during class time. After discarding the incomplete ones, 248 (13
students per class on average) remained and were used in the analysis.
41
Second stage – An experimental study on teaching dictionary use
Aims
1. To discover to what extent students know how to retrieve information
presented in various dictionaries which are intended to help them to learn
English.
2. To examine whether integrating the teaching of dictionary use in an English syllabus is effective in training students to use such dictionaries to
assist learning.
3. To discern attitudes of subject students towards receiving explicit dictionary use training.
Design
Certain paradigmatic features need to be considered in providing dictionary use training.
Dictionary use training should not be an end to itself, since dictionaries
are published to help learners to perform linguistic tasks. Its role is supplementary and complementary.
Training should provide learners with some basic principles for using a
dictionary to assist learning. The teaching content should thus comprise
the pedagogic features shared by most MLDs, instead of a particular one.
The materials should first demonstrate to learners the variety of dictionaries available in the market; second, the differences, including information categories and ways of presentation, existing among various dictionaries; and finally, the need to be an informed and critical user in order to
exploit the help available from the dictionaries most effectively.
An important training focus should be to show learners the options that
they have when approaching, or becoming familiar with, a new dictionary.
Learners should be sensitised to dictionaries, through using them for linguistic tasks in their learning process. For example, for revisiting language items already learned, such as alphabetical ordering and basic
grammatical information (verb and noun); or introducing new features
offered by the new generation of MLDs, such as word frequency, signposting or use of complete sentences to give explanations.
The current study is empirical in nature. The mode adopted was: pre-test, followed by
treatment and a subsequent post-test, in four stages, viz:
42
Pre-test
Treatment (explicit teaching)
Questionnaire (feedback)
Post-test
Control group and Ex1 group
The subjects were Year One students from two consecutive years, in their first semester (Fall) at HKUST. In the first year (Control group and Ex1), there were 1216 students spread over seven classes, with four classes of students majoring in Business
and three in Engineering. Classes ranged from 13 to 18.
The decision as to which classes would be treated as control or experimental groups
was made by drawing lots, with the target of having half the number of classes for
each. Since the number of Engineering classes was odd, it was decided to have two
classes of experimental and one of control.
Ex (18)
School of Business
Ex (18)
C (18)
Ex
C
(n)
C (19)
School of Engineering
Ex (20)
Ex (15)
C (13)
= experimental group
= Control group
= number of students in the class
Ex2 group
Students who made up this group had entered the university a year after students who
were in the Control and Ex1 groups. The group consisted of three classes from the
School of Business and one from Engineering, totalling 727 students. The number of
students in each class was 18. As with the previous two groups, the classes that Ex2
students attended were also assigned by the University. In order to maximise the
number of subjects and to facilitate statistical measurement, all four classes belonging
to the experimental group were provided with dictionary use training (treatment).
All classes, from both the years, were intact groups, randomly assigned to me by the
University.
6
7
One student from LANG 103A (Engineering/experimental group) withdrew from the class
during the second week, leaving the total subject population as 120 for the pre-test. Ten
students were absent from the lesson when post-test was conducted.
Only 70 students attended during the lessons when the pre-test and post-test were given.
43
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests were applied to determine firstly whether students from all groups had
performed similarly in the pre-test (Comparison A). If they had, then we could conclude that we had a homogeneous subject group, with respect to their knowledge of
the use of and/or knowledge for the dictionaries selected for the test. Secondly, we
wanted to investigate whether within each group there was any difference in their reference skills before and after taking the English course (Comparison B). In the case of
the two experimental groups, this meant examining the effect of the treatment on the
students’ reference skills. Thirdly, we wanted to determine in the post-test whether
there was any difference in the performance of the two experimental groups who had
received explicit teaching on dictionary use, when compared with the Control group
(Comparison C).
Table 6: Structure of test procedures with control and experimental groups.
Comparison
A
Control
Ex1
Ex2
B
Pre-test vs Post-test
Control vs Ex1 vs
Ex2 (only in Pretest)
Pre-test vs Post-test
Pre-test vs Post-test
C
Control vs Ex1
(Post-test)
Control vs Ex2
(Post-test)
Ex1 vs Ex2
(Post-test)
Identical question types and formats were used in both the pre-test and post-test. The
two tests also shared the same total number of questions. The types of questions asked
can be divided into two categories: first, to ask respondents to arrange a sequence of
words according to certain order; thus the successive response of the sequence was
dependent. The second type of question required respondents to answer four subitems independently. The Weighted Rank Correlation Method was applied to the first
category of questions while a simplified version of the Rasch Model was used in the
latter with both aiming at estimating the respondents’ ability in using the selecting
dictionaries to solve the linguistic problems presented to them.
After we had proved that the two sets of questions used in pre-test and post-test were
of no difference statistically, we continued to examine whether there existed any difference in the level of difficulty of the sub-questions of each section in both pre-test
and post-test. The test was carried out using the number of right answers that students
gave in both the tests. Any differences found among the sub-questions would be adjusted by a scoring system adopted to reflect students’ performance in both tests.
The scoring system adopted in this study was calculated based on the number of correct answers that students obtained in the validation test. A score would be assigned to
each individual sub-question in all sections of both the pre-test and post-test, with the
exception of the section on alphabetical ordering (Q.7). The proportion of the number
of right answers on each item was inversely related to the difficulty of the individual
item, that is, a higher score was assigned to questions on which students performed
less satisfactorily. This was based on the assumption that these questions might require relatively more knowledge, or sophisticated skills, on the part of the students,
which fewer might possess. Hence, students who answered these questions correctly
would be awarded a higher score.
44
Chapter Four – Survey on dictionary use
FINDINGS
Questions 1–4
Q.1:
Q.2:
Q.3:
Q.4:
Do you own any dictionaries?
Which dictionary(ies) do you own? Please ✓ the appropriate box(es).
Which two dictionaries listed above do you use most frequently?
If your answer for Question 1 is “NO”, why don’t you own any dictionary?
Please ✓ as many as are appropriate.
Table 7: Respondents’ indications of their first and second most frequently used dictionaries.
Most
frequently
used
Names of dictionaries
Monolingual English
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary
Chambers Universal Learner’s Dictionary
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
Other (monolingual)
Sub-total:
Bilingual/bilingualised English/Chinese
Oxford Advanced Learner’s English–Chinese Dictionary
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English with Chinese translation
A New English–Chinese Dictionary
The English–Chinese Dictionary
The Pinyin Chinese–English Dictionary
Chinese–English Dictionary
A Modern Chinese–English Dictionary
Other (bilingual/bilingualised)
Sub-total:
Electronic (pocket-sized)
Franklin
Golden
Instant-dict
Lexicomp
Sharp
Vocal
Wonderful
Other (electronic)
Sub-total:
Total:
Note:
Second most
frequently
used
21
6
5
0
1
8
41
31
13
13
0
0
25
82
106
22
30
7
8
0
0
2
1
17
156
7
1
1
0
0
14
60
0
9
19
5
0
0
0
2
35
232
1
6
12
0
0
0
0
1
20
162
Three students did not complete their answers on dictionaries they used most frequently, and 73 did not report their second most frequent use. These were excluded
from the tabulation here.
The data indicated that all of the subject students owned at least one; with 2.1% of the
respondents owning only monolingual, while 11.1% only bilingual or bilingualised
(English/Chinese) dictionaries. One student from the whole subject population admit45
ted owning just an electronic dictionary. Most students owned a combination of
monolingual and bilingualised (38.7%), or a combination of all three types (37.4%);
6.8% of students owned a combination of bilingualised and electronic dictionaries,
and 3.4% a combination of monolingual and electronic dictionaries.
Answers to Q.3 revealed that the Oxford Advanced Learner’s English–Chinese Dictionary (OALD E/C) was the most popular, and chosen as the most frequently used
dictionary by 106 students, and the second most frequently used dictionary by 30 students. Table 7 shows the respondents’ other choices.
No response was given by any student to Q.4.
Questions 5–11
Students were asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements
(Q.5–Q.11) that were designed to uncover their perception of the role of dictionaries
in learning. Students’ responses to statements about their attitudes towards using dictionaries to assist learning (Q.5–Q.7) were, to a large extent, affirmative.
Table 8: Responses to Q.5 to Q.7.
Q.5–Q.7 – Statements
1
2
3
5. Dictionaries are useful in helping stu40.4% 58.3%
1.3%
dents to learn English.
6. Dictionaries are useful in helping me to
19.1% 71.5%
6%
learn English.
7. A good learner doesn’t need to go to
0.4%
1.3%
40%
dictionaries for help.
1 = Strongly agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly disagree
4
5
0%
0%
0.9%
2.6%
54.5%
3.8%
5 = I don’t know
Students’ responses to the statements presented in Q.8–Q.11 on using a dictionary to
assist learning were also encouraging. 92.7% of the respondents disagree or strongly
disagree with the statement (Q.8) which suggested there is little use looking up the
meaning of a word from dictionaries because it will be forgotten soon. As for Q.9,
64.7% of students answered disagree or strongly disagree with the statement “often
the dictionaries do not contain the meaning of the word in question”. Moreover,
slightly more than half of the students (54.5%) disagree or strongly disagree with the
statement (Q.10) “dictionaries are not helpful because not many students know how to
use them to assist learning”. Also, 53.6% gave the same disagree or strongly disagree
response to the statement “using dictionaries is time consuming and often students
don’t have the time” (Q.11).
Questions 12–13
Q.12: How often do you refer to a dictionary?
Q.13: On what occasion do you use a dictionary? Please
ate.
46
as many as are appropri-
72.3% of the respondents said they used the dictionary all the time, very often and
quite often during term time and 25.5% during vacation. The results to Q.13 are presented in the following (see Table 9):
Table 9: Responses to Q.13.
Occasions when dictionaries would be used
while reading at leisure
while reading for your studies
while writing at leisure
while writing for your studies
for vocabulary building
while playing word-games
for general interest
Other
f = frequency
f
112
223
71
220
73
47
60
6
Questions 14–18
Q.14–Q.18 referred only to the use of English MLDs. Eight students answered that
they had never used one before, and hence did not provide answers to these questions.
Q.14: How often do you look up the following information in your English dictionary? Please put a in the appropriate box for all the items listed below.
The information categories included were pronunciation, spelling, definition, grammar, examples and notes on usage. The most frequently referenced category was definition with 87.7% of respondents giving all the time, very often & quite often as answers. Spelling was the second most referenced category and the same three responses
totalled 75.3%. The least frequently referenced information was notes on usage: the
percentage of students answering all the time, very often and quite often being only
21% (see Table 10).
Table 10: Responses to Q.14.
Information categories
Pronunciation
Spelling
Definition
Grammar
Examples
Notes on usage
1 = All the time 2 = Very often
1
2.2%
10.1%
30.8%
4.8%
11.5%
1.3%
3 = Quite often
2
3
4
5
2.6%
15.4%
39.2%
40.5%
31.1%
33.9%
21.6%
3.1%
37.9%
18.9%
10.1%
2.2%
25.1%
32.6%
33%
4.4%
27.3%
30.4%
26.9%
4%
6.2%
13.7%
22.9%
55.9%
4 = Occasionally 5 = Never
Q.15: When you look up the meaning of a word from a dictionary and find that there
are several explanations, do you go through all the explanations before you
decide which one is most appropriate to be used?
Q.16: How do you usually decide which one best explains your words? Please the
most appropriate box.
Over three-quarters of the respondents (78.4%) claimed that they would go through
all the senses given in a polysemous entry before deciding which one(s) met their
needs. 51.1% said they would use the examples given in dictionaries to decide which
47
sense was most appropriate to be used. 22% answered grammatical information and
19.4% chose the explanation they understood best.
Q.17: Have you ever been taught in class how to use a dictionary to assist your
learning of English? (Is your answer is Yes, go to Q.18).
Q.18: Which dictionary skills were taught? Please AS MANY AS are appropriate.
63.4% answered No to this question. Among those who answered they had received
teaching on dictionary use (36.6%) in Q.18, more than half of them said they had
learned the IPA symbols (65.1%) and symbols that represent grammatical information
(63.9%). Slightly half of these respondents (50.6%) answered they had received
teaching on modelling their writing by using examples provided in dictionaries.
Q.19: Will you attend workshops which give you information and training on using
various dictionaries to assist learning of English held on campus?
The majority of the subject population (74.5%) responded that they would attend the
workshops suggested.
DISCUSSION
Ownership of dictionaries
The phenomenon of students reporting ownership of one, or, more than one dictionary, remained consistently high in both the pilot tests and in the current study, with an
average reported ownership among the three of over 98%. The high percentage of reported ownership of dictionaries supported what I have previously noted, namely that
reference books have always enjoyed a high status in Chinese culture. When the subject students were asked about their perceptions on the roles of dictionaries for students in general (Q.5), 98.7% agreed or strongly agreed that dictionaries were useful
in helping students to learn English. Local schools also reaffirm the status of dictionaries for students in general studies, with special emphasis given to learning languages. These responses to Q.2 confirmed the supposition I had made previously that
most students owned a bilingual or bilingualised dictionary. According to the data,
38.7% of students owned both a monolingual and either a bilingual or a bilingualised
dictionary. Yet, 2.1% of the students owned only the former whereas there 11.1% answered that they owned only the latter. 3.4% of the students owned both a bilingual or
bilingualised, and an electronic dictionary.
Q.3 revealed that the OALD E/C and LDOCE E/C were the dictionaries the students
consulted most frequently. In fact, almost the same percentage of students owned all
three types of dictionary – monolingual, bilingual or bilingualised, and electronic
(37.4%), as those who owned either of the first two (38.7%).
From the points of view of lexicographers and dictionary publishers, the reported high
percentage of dictionary ownership among subject students is encouraging. Paradoxically, the students’ choice of dictionaries did not follow the belief held by many local
teachers, who prefer English monolingual to bilingual or bilingualised dictionaries for
their students. In general, students are highly respectful of their teachers’ opinions re-
48
garding the choice of these reference books. As such, monolingual dictionaries should
have constituted a larger percentage both in terms of students’ ownership and in their
frequency of use, but this was not the case.
In the interviews, some students explained that their preference for using a bilingual
or bilingualised dictionary over a monolingual was because of concerns that they
would not be able to understand the definitions in English. For example, Student E
said, “Instead of being helpful, the English definitions would only confuse me more”.
Several of the students admitted that they only read the Chinese language definitions
when referencing words in such dictionaries. These revelations of students’ habits in
using bilingual or bilingualised dictionaries suggest that these students have a presupposition that one needs to have a good command of English if one wants to use a
monolingual dictionary. I surmise that this assumption has prevented many local students from using a monolingual dictionary to assist in their learning. For this reason,
many students are ignorant of the innovative and user-friendly features that the new
generation of MLDs offer. These students also have a misconception that the function
of a bilingual or bilingualised dictionary is merely for explanations written in their
native language, and/or one-to-one equivalents. For example, Student E said during
the interview that he found the Chinese language in the dictionary (bilingual/bilingualised) more direct and simple. That was why he preferred to use this type
of dictionary instead of the monolingual; whereas Student H answered that he mostly
used the two bilingualised dictionaries he owned because they provided meanings in
Chinese. Thus the time he required to reference words was shorter, and this was very
important to him.
Dictionary use skills
Although the majority of the subject students reportedly owned at least one dictionary, this does not necessarily mean that they were using, and/or would know how to
use it to assist their learning of English.
First, the set of questions was aimed at soliciting students’ opinions on the use of dictionaries in learning and their responses were overwhelmingly positive. The majority
of the respondents (98.7%) strongly agreed or agreed that “dictionaries are useful in
helping them to learn English” (Q.5) whereas 90.6% chose the same two answers for
the statement, “dictionaries are useful in helping [them] to learn English” (Q.6).
94.5% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “a good learner
doesn’t need to go to dictionaries for help” (Q.7). When asked about their use of dictionaries to assist learning, most students (92.8%) disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the statement “there is no use looking up the meaning of the word in question
because it will be forgotten soon” (Q.8).
Second, more than half of the respondents (64.7%) rejected the statement “often the
dictionaries do not contain the meanings of the word in question” (Q.9) by answering
strongly disagree or disagree. Also, 54.5% of them strongly disagree or disagree with
the statement “dictionaries are not helpful because not many students know how to
use them to assist learning” (Q.10); and 53.6% of students gave the same answers to
the statement “using dictionaries is time consuming and often students don’t have the
time” (Q.11).
49
Responses to Q.14 revealed many students were not practising what they believed
would be beneficial to their learning of English. The question asked students how often they referenced the six stated information categories, which are commonly found
in MLDs. Almost two-thirds of the subjects answered that they had never, or only occasionally, used information on pronunciation (79.7%) and notes on usage (78.9%) in
the dictionaries. On the other hand, if we summarise the percentages of answers all
the time, very often and quite often in Q.14, definition was the most frequently sought
information category. Even in this case, the number of students who asserted that they
would use this information category all the time only totalled 30.8%. Spelling ranked
second in the most frequently sought information category among all six, and students
responding all the time were found to be 10.1%, followed by examples 11.5% and
grammar 4.8%. These responses did not correlate with the students’ initial positive
responses, nor did these responses indicate students’ frequent use of the dictionaries.
Although the students had shown strong and positive beliefs regarding the roles dictionaries played in their learning of English, when cross-testing these beliefs, they
were found not fully utilising their dictionaries.
I surmise one of the reasons for this phenomenon is that many students have anxiety
over, or little knowledge of, using dictionaries to assist their learning. As discussed
previously, providing dictionary use training to students has not been widely practised
locally. This was evident when subject students were asked whether they had been
taught how to use a dictionary to assist their learning of English (Q.17). Only 36.6%
of them gave an affirmative answer. Furthermore, among these 83 students who answered they had received training, 65.1% said they had received training on reading
phonetic symbols (Q.18). In other words, the number of students reporting they had
received dictionary training was small; and when students were provided with dictionary use training, much of the teaching focus was on learning the sound symbols
and not on the other categories.
Interestingly, our data (Q.14) also reveal that subject students used the information
category pronunciation the least. We could extrapolate to some extent from the findings that this was somehow related to teaching, and/or learning of dictionary skills.
First, it could be that teachers’ perceptions of their students’ needs are not identical to
the students’ perceptions. Second, it could be that poor teaching and/or learning had
prevailed. Third, that the pronunciation symbols were too complex for learners, and
thus had discouraged the students from using them.
When the students were asked whether they would attend workshops on dictionary
use training (Q.19), the majority (74.5%) gave an affirmative answer. During the interviews, the students were requested to write two skills they would most like to learn
in the suggested workshops. Pronunciation symbols ranked top of the list, suggesting
it was highly probable that the teachers had been accurate in meeting their students’
needs or demands. As I have noted, the IPA symbols overtax users, especially NN
English-speaking students, and intimidate English teachers. Thus, it would not be surprising if poor teaching and learning had prevailed in these cases; or that those students who claimed they had received training in the symbols, were actually discouraged as a result, and did not use them in their learning.
We have noted a response rate of 34.9% who answered they had not received any
training in sound symbols. This situation was reaffirmed from answers obtained in the
50
interviews. When students were asked to give reasons to explain why they had not
been using information on pronunciation, in general the answer they gave was that
they had not been taught how to use the symbols. Furthermore, findings (Q.7) revealed that the majority (63.4%) of the subject students had not received any training
in dictionary use. Thus, it is highly possible that students lack knowledge of, and
skills in, using the sound symbols, and this skill gap might have been the main reason
behind their under-use of the information.
With respect to the information category grammatical information, according to Jackson (1988:176), being able to provide accurate and detailed information “so that correct and natural sentences can be encoded” was the “requirement that learners’ dictionaries score significantly over monolingual native-speaker dictionaries and over
many bilingual dictionaries”. Yet, findings from the questionnaire indicated that this
rich source of information only ranked fourth on the list of information categories
most sought, with 4.8% of students answering all the time, 25.1% very often and
32.6% quite often. In the interview, students were asked to clarify what kind of
grammatical information they would reference from dictionaries, and the needs were
found to be very basic. The majority only used symbols that indicate the part of
speech of a word. Five interviewees said they would reference prepositions, two the
spelling of irregular verbs and to check whether the noun they were referencing was
singular or plural, and one the spelling of comparative adjectives and phrasal verbs.
“The most detailed and extensive syntactic information in learners’ dictionaries is
that given for verbs” (Jackson 1988:180). Yet, the findings indicate that there was a
mismatch in what was regarded as important by the lexicographers versus what was
needed by their users. OALD E/C was found to be the most frequently used dictionary
according to results of Q.3, but the data suggest that the renowned and abundant information on the syntax of verbs, of which the dictionary has always been proud,
seemed to have been passed over by the majority of students in this study. The level
of students’ lookups on syntax was found to be basic, and the knowledge and skills
required to retrieve the information they sought were rudimentary. Nevertheless, of
those students who said they had been taught how to use dictionaries by their teachers, 63.9% said they had received training on how to use the syntactic codes or labels
used in dictionaries. The under-use and/or no use of grammatical information resemble(s) the case with pronunciation symbols. I surmise that both instances share similar
problems with the users’ lack of knowledge and skills in using the information.
The problems that grammatical information presented to the teaching and learning of
dictionary retrieval were slightly different from those concerned with sound symbols.
Unlike the teaching of the IPA symbols, the teaching of grammar has a long history in
EFL pedagogy. With the prevalence of the communicative approach, grammar lost its
central position in the classroom. Currently, some local schools or teachers might
supplement their teaching of English with grammar, but the content is mostly superficial. This might explain why the kind of grammatical information that subjects reportedly referenced was mostly basic. On the other hand, EFL lexicographers struggled to
describe thoroughly and clearly the syntactic structure of the language while trying to
be economical in terms of space. Using coding systems, abbreviations and grammatical terminology are deemed unavoidable. Yet, this is not done without a cost. The information is becoming less transparent, and without training, users may not be able to
understand how to retrieve it.
51
Notes on usage ranked second to last as an information category students most frequently used. Only 1.3% of students answered they would reference the information
all the time, 6.2% very often, 13.7% quite often, 22.9% occasionally and 55.9% never.
Both the OALD E/C and LDOCE E/C, the respondents’ two most frequently consulted dictionaries contain usage notes so as to provide users with further assistance to
study the language. This low frequency of use suggests either there was again a mismatch between the lexicographers’ and students’ needs, or the students were ignorant
about the feature, and hence had not used it. In fact, when I briefed students on how to
complete the questionnaire, I discovered that the majority of the students did not
know the existence of such a note feature. I needed to instruct the class on how to access this information in dictionaries and explain the kind of help it could offer them in
their English learning.
As regards examples, 50.6% of the students who said they had received dictionary use
training answered that they had learned how to use examples of a given word for reference to be used in their own writing (Q.18). And in Q.14, examples ranked third as
the most frequently sought information category. The data suggest that teachers who
had taught their students to use examples as references for their writing correctly anticipated their students’ needs, or their teaching had positive effects on students’
learning. However, if one examines the data obtained from Q.16, one may hesitate
over drawing such a conclusion. This was because examples was used by 51.1% of
the students to determine the appropriate sense to be used in a polysemous entry. In
other words, examples had been read for understanding of the words in search. In the
interview, students were asked why they used the examples and the answers are summarised as follows:
Table 11: Reasons given by interviewees for using examples in dictionaries.
Reasons
1. To supplement definitions given to the word for understanding
2. To supplement grammatical information given to the word for understanding
3. To help in writing, e.g. sentence making
f = frequency of occurrences
f
3
4
6
The responses revealed that although half of the number of students (42) who had received training in using examples to write actually applied the skill in their learning,
the use of examples was found to have gone beyond providing help of such nature
(encoding). Half of the subject student population (118) was discovered to rely on the
information for decoding purposes. Moreover, though it seems to be important for
teachers to teach the topic, examples only ranked third (after definition and spelling)
in Q.14 as the information category that students sought most in the dictionary.
Spelling ranked as the second most sought information category, and the data suggest
that dictionaries have been functioning mainly as a spell-checker for students. This
view is supported by findings obtained from the interview where students were asked
which type of words whose spelling they usually looked up in a dictionary. The answers were as follows:
52
Table 12: Types of words students commonly looked up in dictionaries, for spelling.
Reasons
1. Words already known but have forgotten
2. New words heard or seen somewhere
3. Check for alternate spelling of words
4. Spelling of irregular verbs
5. Clarify the spelling of words that look similar
f = frequency of occurrence
f
10
4
1
1
1
Students’ perceptions regarding dictionaries in learning
Research findings to date have revealed that students fail to utilise dictionaries satisfactorily to solve linguistic tasks. Some interviewees expressed that occasionally they
faced difficulties in using dictionaries:
Q.8:
“I could not find words I was looking for from the dictionary. Or, it
only provided the part of speech of the word but not its meaning, and
how it could be used, for example, with the word collectively”.
Q.8:
“To a large extent, I could not find in dictionaries the meanings of
words I had doubts with”.
Q.8:
“Almost half of the searches I made were unsuccessful”.
Q.8:
“ The meanings of words that I found from dictionaries often failed to
fit into the contexts where the question words were”.
Q.10: “I think not many students understand the information given by a dictionary, for example, the grammatical information. Also, I think students may have problems in deciding which meaning to choose for the
word in question if the dictionary provides more than one meaning. All
these are possible problems when using a monolingual dictionary”.
Q.10: “I think most students only choose and use the first explanation in the
definition, disregarding whether it is appropriate or not to the context
where the word in question is found. Also, most students do not know
the pronunciation symbols”.
Q.10: “I do not know how to use some of the information found in the dictionary, for example, the IPA and grammatical information”.
Some researchers (e.g. Atkins 1998; Rundell 1998, 1999) suggest such problems
could have been caused because the dictionaries which users referenced failed to
serve them, and could be resolved if better dictionaries were produced. Summers
(1988) argues that the dictionary may not be able to provide answers to all questions
that students encounter in their learning processes, but it is a useful tool that helps
non-native users “to gain further understanding of the range of use of new language,
leading eventually to accurate production, mainly in writing” (ibid.:123). However,
she comments that students are not well trained to use the dictionary to best advan-
53
tage. In the previous section, we discussed how infrequently students used the information categories provided by MLDs and the data presented seem to suggest that students were either ignorant about the information provided, or they lacked the skills
required to retrieve the information. However, data obtained from Q.10 suggest that
more than half of the subjects believed that students in general knew how to use dictionaries and that they were helpful to assist learning. In this question, 42.1% of students disagreed and 12.3% strongly disagreed with the statement. During the interview, some interviewees claimed that using dictionaries to assist learning was not difficult. The reason they all gave was that since all the words in dictionaries were arranged according to the order of the English alphabet, students should not have any
problem referencing words.
In general, the subject students also held high opinions of the function of dictionaries
in language learning. All the interviewees asserted that dictionaries were useful in vocabulary learning and they argued that should students encounter difficulties learning
new words from dictionaries, this would be due to personal problems. Some of them
answered that if students had referenced words in a dictionary, they would retain
some memory of the words when they saw them again. If not, then they could reference them repeatedly in the dictionaries, after which they should be able to remember
them. Those who failed, as suggested, should think of ways to help themselves overcome the problem. In fact, one interviewee reported that he used a notebook to record
words he had referenced from dictionaries. He would note down the word, its definition, and an illustrative example; and he would review words in his notebook from
time to time.
The interviews revealed a very interesting finding about students’ attitudes toward
dictionaries. The students interviewed expressed their reliance on and anxieties over
using dictionaries to assist their learning. Regardless of unsuccessful attempts in their
lookups, and of the fact that using a dictionary can be time-consuming, the students
held quite a high opinion of it. Furthermore, some interviewees were very ready to
pardon the dictionary or dictionaries for not being able to provide assistance; several
did not hesitate to place the blame on themselves, or the users. For example, one student answered disagree in Q.9 which states “often the dictionaries do not contain the
meanings of the word in question” while admitting that almost half of the searches he
made were unsuccessful. He further commented that this could have been because he
did not know how to search for information in the dictionaries. In another case, the
student disagreed with the statement and explained that whether or not using dictionaries was time-consuming depended on the purpose of the search. If one encountered
a difficult word while working on assignments for one’s English language class, no
matter how long it took, one would still spend the time to reference the required information. This attitude might have prevented students from seeking external help,
mainly from their teachers, when they faced problems in their look-up process. To
improve their skills in using dictionaries for their learning, or, learn of the innovative
features provided by the new generation of user-friendly dictionaries, skilled and patient instruction is required.
Another point to note here is, although the majority of students’ responses to Q.9–
Q.11 appeared to support answers to Q.5–Q.8, there is a major variance. Unlike the
responses to Q.5–Q.8, with the majority of students sharing the same opinion that dictionaries were helpful to learners of English, the answers obtained for Q.9–Q.11 indi54
cate there was a split opinion from respondents toward the use of the dictionaries. In
Q.9, 20.4% of students answered strongly agree or agree while 30.6% of them gave
the same affirmative answers to Q.10. Q.11 states “using dictionaries is time consuming and often students don’t have the time” and 43% answered strongly agree or
agree. Moreover, the percentages of students giving I don’t know as answers were
relatively higher in Q.9–Q.11 compared to Q.5–Q.8. Based on this, I postulate that
although the majority of students firmly believed that dictionaries were generally useful in assisting their learning of English, many hesitated over, or had problems, actually using them in their learning. The split in opinion as measured by responses to
Q.9–Q.11 suggests that students’ strong faith in the role that reference books played
in their learning would diminish if their problems in using dictionaries prevailed, or
they would become disillusioned after numerous unsuccessful encounters.
Table 13: A comparison of answers obtained to Q. 5–Q.11.
Statements
5.
Dictionaries are useful in helping students
to learn.
6. Dictionaries are useful in helping me to
learn English.
7. A good learner doesn’t need to go to dictionaries for help.
8. There is no use looking up the meaning of
a word from dictionaries because it will be
forgotten soon.
9. Often the dictionaries do not contain the
meanings of the word in question.
10. Dictionaries are not helpful because not
many students know how to use them to
assist learning.
11. Using dictionaries is time consuming and
often students don’t have the time
Strongly agree/
agree
Strongly disagree/
disagree
98.7%
1.3%
90.6%
6.8%
1.7%
94.5%
4.3%
92.8%
20.4%
64.7%
30.6%
54.5%
43%
53.6%
Teachers’ role and perspectives in providing dictionary use training to
students
In the interviews, all students reported that the dictionaries they owned had been purchased when they were studying in secondary school. Half of them answered that the
dictionary or dictionaries they purchased had been recommended by their teachers.
Other considerations students took into account before deciding which dictionary to
buy included the perceived prestige of the dictionary, its popularity among peers, and
its price. Teachers’ influence regarding the choice of dictionaries used by their students was also brought up in Béjoint’s (1981) study where he discovered 96% of his
French students of English expressed that they only bought the dictionaries their
teachers recommended. These students also admitted that they did not know of any
dictionaries other than those their teachers suggested. For this reason, it seems essential to ensure that this stakeholder (the teacher) of the ‘lexicographical triangle’ attains
a solid understanding of dictionaries, and knows how to teach students to use them to
support their English learning.
55
Many scholars in the field have advocated the importance of providing teacher training on dictionary use. Marckwardt (1973:379) asserted that dictionary use training
should be taken as “an important part of the formal preparation of every English
teacher”. Cowie (1981a:205) took the view that it is the teachers’ responsibility to
make users “more aware of the riches which their monolingual dictionaries already
contain”. This was echoed by Herbst and Stein (1987), who advocated that EFL
teacher training should include lexicography, for student teachers would need to guide
their students in using reference books in the future.
How prepared were Hong Kong’s local teachers in providing dictionary use training
and knowledge to their students? A questionnaire (Chi 2000) which aimed to uncover
the beliefs and practices of English teachers at local secondary schools concerning the
teaching of dictionary use was distributed at a seminar organised by a dictionary publisher.
The questionnaires were completed by 170 8 teachers, with findings reflecting that
these teachers, as the student subjects of the current study, held strong convictions as
to the role dictionaries play in their students’ learning. All of them gave affirmative
answers when they were asked whether they thought dictionaries could help students
to learn English. When the teachers were asked whether they had received any training on how to use these tool books to help students learn English, almost half of them
(45.5%) answered No. Those who reportedly had some knowledge of the topic had
obtained it mostly by attending dictionary publishers’ seminars or workshops. Their
training was generally ad hoc or incidental. The findings from this questionnaire suggest the importance of educating teachers on dictionary use, so that they are able to
convey the knowledge to their students. These findings concur with pedagogic lexicographers’ recommendations made over the past three decades which have yet to be
acted upon.
This problem of lacking support for dictionary use instruction was intensified by the
constraints of time that these teachers faced in classrooms. When asked whether they
had ever taught students how to use the information provided by an English dictionary
to assist their learning, 24.8% of the teachers gave a negative answer. Among them,
26 gave the reason that they had a tight teaching schedule whereas 21 expressed that
they did not know what to include in their teaching.
The findings mirror Taylor’s (1996) study in which he elicited the main reasons that
secondary school teachers gave for not getting students to use dictionaries, or not
making more use of them. He reported that time constraints of having to cover a traditional syllabus prevented the introduction of dictionary skills training. The same answers were obtained from his subjects who were teaching at tertiary level. Faced with
such problems, these teachers welcomed training on dictionary use. When they were
asked in our questionnaire whether they would like to receive any support to assist
them in teaching students how to use English dictionaries, 78.4% gave an affirmative
answer.
8
There were 175 questionnaires originally, but five were discarded since they were incomplete.
56
The data from the current survey on students suggests that if we want to have wellinformed students using dictionaries to learn, first we will need to have teachers who
are knowledgeable of the resources and the application of MLDs to the learning of
English. In this way, students would be better assured those dictionaries recommended are relevant to their needs. However, the data from the teachers’ survey reflect that though the teachers shared the same view as their students over the usefulness of dictionaries, they were in need of support before they could diffuse the information. For example, they would require training to guide them through the rich resources of dictionaries and demonstrations to illustrate how they could assist students
in their learning. Further, they needed to be shown how to integrate dictionary use
into an existing English curriculum under the present time-constraints, since this is
not part of the traditional English syllabus.
Focus of dictionary use training
When students of the current study were asked whether they would attend training
workshops on dictionary use, 74.5% gave affirmative answers. The number of students reportedly wanting to join the workshops was encouraging for teachers. It
showed the positive attitude students hold toward dictionaries to assist their learning.
On the other hand, the number could be worrying for lexicographers, for it might also
suggest the degree to which students do not comprehend the full set of resources that
current dictionaries provide them with. Despite the conventional methods of dictionary workbooks, introductory pages in the forematter of the dictionary, and, from the
perspective of lexicographers, a transparent and self-explanatory information retrieval
system, the data seem to suggest users are relatively ignorant about how to utilise information in dictionaries to assist their learning. Indeed, the interviews revealed that
the knowledge students wanted to obtain from the workshops was, to a large extent,
basic. Skills that students suggested included the following:
Table 14: The types of skills students preferred from the proposed dictionary use workshop.
Skills
To use the IPA
To understand symbols used in dictionaries
To understand the grammatical information coding system
To choose a dictionary that can help me to express myself in English
To decide on the meaning most appropriate to be used in a polysemous
entry
6. To know more about what dictionaries can offer
7. To look up collocational information
f = frequency of occurrence
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
f
12
5
3
2
1
1
1
Moreover, responses to Q.12 and Q.13 indicate the majority of students used dictionaries for instrumental purposes. In Q.12, students were asked how often they referred
to a dictionary during the two given periods of time and the answers (in Table 15) reflect clearly that they used dictionaries mainly for their studies.
57
Table 15: Results for Q.12.
Period of time
During term time
During vacation
1 = All the time 2 = Very often
1
2
3
4
5
0.9%
28.1%
43.4%
27.2%
0.4%
0%
6%
19.6%
64.7%
9.8%
3 = Quite often 4 = Occasionally 5 = Never
Furthermore, the purposes for their use of dictionaries Q.13 were to a large extent, for
reading (94.9%) and writing (93.6%) for study. With the majority of students using
dictionaries for study purposes, it is only natural to integrate the training into their
learning. This coincides with the professional recommendations of English teachers,
as we have previously discussed. They have expressed a strong desire to include the
training in the English curriculum for such reasons as saving time and gearing the
training toward the learning needs of students, thus making the training more focused.
If this is the direction desired for teaching of dictionary use to students, there is a need
to investigate how to integrate dictionary use training into an existing English syllabus.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SECOND STAGE OF THE STUDY
Response to the questionnaire indicated that students’ perception of the role of dictionaries in learning was positive. However, the data also suggest that though dictionaries may be regarded as useful, its use has not always been easy, or fully understood.
If we want students to exploit fully the rich semantic and syntactic resource of MLDs,
lexicographers and English teachers need to find solutions to solve the existing disparity between sophisticated dictionaries and their users, who have only rudimentary retrieval skills and limited knowledge of utilising dictionaries to assist learning. In order
to maintain students’ goodwill and trust in dictionaries, they need to know how to use
dictionaries. Again, structured dictionary use training was found to be a rarity among
local teachers. Based on the information in the teachers’ questionnaire we have discussed, I set the focus of the second part of the current study on exploring teaching
material and methodology, in particular exploring the possibilities of, or uncovering
the difficulties in, teaching dictionary use systematically and explicitly within the
constraints of an established and traditional English syllabus.
Proposed contents
The data reflect students’ ignorance of, or prejudice about, MLDs, with some students
not even having experience in using them. Hence, I surmise that many students have
no knowledge of the changes in the new era of MLDs – features that have made the
dictionaries user-friendly and accessible. One of the main focuses of teaching dictionary use in the second stage thus should be on demystifying dictionaries. This could be
achieved by providing an introductory session on dictionaries aiming at disclosing
both the user-friendly and the innovative features that characterise the new generation
of MLDs. The data obtained from the questionnaires and interviews also indicate several areas of dictionary use which students expressed interest in learning. The IPA
sound symbols and a general understanding of the symbols used by dictionaries in
disseminating semantic and syntactic information were the two areas that had the
highest response frequency in the interviews when students were asked to list two top-
58
ics they preferred to learn most in a dictionary use training workshop. These would be
the bases of the dictionary use teaching that I would integrate into the English course
that has been designated for the experimental syllabus in the second stage of the current study.
Training materials used should be tailor-made so that they can be integrated smoothly
into the teaching objectives of a course. This also would guarantee that the knowledge
and skills would not be taught out of context or in isolation, and thus not make them
appear to be mechanical and irrelevant to students’ needs. There are also factors such
as time constraints and the rigidity of the course, governed by a standard assessment
based on the existing English syllabus to be considered.
Finally, the following contents were decided upon:
1. Symbols used in the dictionaries including the IPA and stylistic labels;
2. The macrostructure of MLDs with particular focus on conventions all
MLDs use in arranging words – the English alphabetical ordering system;
3. A distinctive feature of MLDs which specifically provides students with
assistance in their writing;
4. A learner’s dictionary which concentrates on providing students with information on culture-specific words which they often encounter while
reading authentic materials.
On top of the knowledge and skills suggested here, the teaching in general aimed at
dispelling students’ misconceptions over the usability of dictionaries in their learning.
As students would be better informed of the resources of dictionaries and how to apply them in their studies, and through practices during classes, I believe they would
better utilise the resources that current dictionaries provide them with.
Proposed methodology
Since most English syllabuses are linked to a form of assessment and constrained by
course time, there is not much room for manoeuvering the teaching objectives and
contents. I postulate that dictionary knowledge would be best suited for introduction
as an alternative methodology to supplement students’ existing learning strategies.
While using dictionaries to solve learning problems, students would be shown, and
given the opportunities to practise, the skills necessary to retrieve information from
the resources of dictionaries.
The teaching methodology to be adopted for dictionary use teaching should be comparable to the teaching objectives and materials of the set English course to be taught
– in the present case, the communicative approach. The essence of the teaching would
be to use the linguistic tasks that the course required as the ground for the introduction
of the selected dictionary features to students. Concurrently, the teaching would be
geared to provide students with activities and hands-on experience through which
they would have to practise retrieving information from dictionaries using their newly
acquired knowledge or skills.
59
60
Chapter Five: An empirical research study
COLLOCATION AND STYLE LABELLING
Test design
A typical collocation activity requires learners to match collocates with given terms
(Coady & Huckin 1997:250). The present tests9 have also adopted this method to discover students’ knowledge in this area. Students were given a list of verbs to match
with the nouns or noun phrases given. There are three questions in style labelling,
each one is divided into two parts. The first part required students to select an appropriate answer from two choices, based on the situation given. The selected stylistic or
status symbols for the three questions include diaevaluative (approving or derogatory), diatopic (British or American) and diaphasic (formal or informal) or channel of
communication (spoken or written), respectively. The words used in the questions are
simple ones which students would recognise, since the testing focus is on discovering
whether students were aware of the connotative meaning that the words carry, and
were able to apply them appropriately in the context provided. In the second part, students were asked to give reasons for the choices they had made in the first part of the
questions and the main objective was similar. However, in this part of the questions,
students were allowed to use their native language (Chinese) to give reasons for their
answers. This option was given because data from the pilot test and interviews
showed that some students did not put in their reasons because they were not confident in expressing themselves in English, not because they were not willing to make
the effort to do so. Allowing students to use their native language to give answers was
deemed pertinent to this set of questions, whose aim was to uncover students’ awareness of the issue rather than their linguistic proficiency.
Pre-test results and analysis
Under the topic collocation, the average of number of right answers in all four subquestions was 50.8% in all three groups (see Table 16). However, the average correct
rate of the first three of the four sub-questions was less than 50% as compared to subquestion 3 (SQ.3). Students performed better in SQ.3, with about 80% of them (all
three groups) obtaining the right answer. With the results obtained from the validation
test, a score was assigned to the different questions. Statistically, no significant difference (p = 0.7837), based on their mean scores in all the four V+N combinations, was
found among the three groups.
Table 16: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.3 in the pre-test.
Average number of right answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
51%
45.9
Ex1
48.6%
45.7
Ex2
52.9%
48.7
A closer examination revealed that each of the first three sub-questions contained a
high percentage of students giving the same wrong answers. Since the frequencies of
occurrence of the rest of the distractors were spread evenly across the three sub9
Refer to Appendix I for pre-test questions and Appendix II for post-test questions.
61
questions, it was worth pondering on the common erroneous answers that students
gave. Answers which students chosen mistakenly in the first three sub-questions and
their percentages are as follows:
Table 17: Erroneous responses to first three sub-questions of Q.3 in the pre-test.
Question
Correct
combinations
Erroneous
combinations
1
Meet a challenge
(43.5%)
*Take a challenge
(40.3%)
2
Make an appearance
(32.5%)
*Show an appearance
(35.6%)
3
Give a laugh
(47.6%)
*Make a laugh
(37.2%)
I postulate that the students’ mistakes in the first three sub-questions (SQ.1–SQ.3)
represent two possible pitfalls: their L1 interference (SQ.1 & SQ.2), and interlingual
confusion (SQ.3). In the following, I shall examine students’ answers to all subquestions based on these two suppositions.
Sub-questions 1 and 2
The equivalents of meet a challenge and make an appearance in Chinese are 接受挑
戰 and 露面 respectively. The Chinese verb 接受 is translated as take, whereas the
whole phrase make an appearance is equivalent to the Chinese phrase 露面, in which
the first character, 露, is equivalent to show in English. I suspect that L1 interference
caused 40% of students to give these erroneous answers. To verify my belief, I
searched a Chinese learner corpus10 of half a million words for the erroneous strings
take a challenge and show an appearance. However, no significant findings resulted.
Nevertheless, in the search, I discovered that, the word challenge had a low frequency
of use, with only 26 occurrences11 in a million, with these occurrences mostly of use
as either an adjective or a noun. The findings are summarised as follows:
Table 18: Occurrences of challenge in HKAL corpus (n = 26).
Word form
Adjective
Noun
Verb
Adverb
Frequency
10
10
4
1
Of the ten occurrences the word used as a noun, there were only four when it was
used following a V+N pattern. The erroneous use of the word challenge with the verb
take appeared once in these four:
take [a] challenge
accept [a] challenge
face challenges
*are challenge[s]
I then searched for the same word in a native speaker corpus12. The findings indicated
10
Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination 1994 Use of English Paper on writing.
I only consider one word before the base word and exclude any determiner, pronoun or
connective.
12
Great Britain GCSE 1994 Paper on General Studies. The corpus has half a million words.
11
62
that native speakers used the word challenge mainly as a verb: of the 50 occurrences
of the word in the NS corpus, it appeared 37 times as a verb, eight times as a noun and
five as an adjective. However, the frequency of use of the word in a V+N pattern in
the NS corpus was also low, with only three occurrences, viz.,
rebuff challenges
face a challenge
created a challenge
In the case of the word appearance, 151 occurrences were found in the Hong Kong
learner corpus, with 26 of these with the words used in a V+N pattern; 21 occurrences
were found in the NS corpus with no instance of the V+N pattern. No erroneous sequences were found in the data.
Findings from both the corpora demonstrated that the words challenge and appearance were not commonly used in the V+N pattern either by local learners or native
speakers of English. Yet, of the four V+N occurrences, take the challenge appeared
once. The same string appeared in the findings of an empirical research study based
on a one-million-word learner corpus of Year One students studying at HKUST, carried out by Chi et al. in 1994, who found that students’ L1 had interfered with their
choice of verbs collocating with the nouns under examination. They concluded that
when students have no knowledge, or are in doubt, of the verb that collocates with the
noun they intend to use, they would search for it from their native language.
Sub-question 3
48% of the students found the right collocate for the noun laugh: give a laugh. This
collocate was provided in all the three learners’ dictionaries and in the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (LDELC), either explicitly as collocational
information presented in italic font, or subsumed under the illustrative examples.
However, 37.2% of students gave make a laugh as the answer. My hypothesis is that
they were confused about the way dictionaries provided information on the different
word forms of the same word. Laugh can be used both as a verb and a noun; the information concerning the meaning and usage of the word received different treatments in each dictionary. Information about the word laugh used as a noun is not always apparent. To locate the information, students would have to understand the conventions adopted by the dictionaries.
OALD treats the noun form of the word as a derivative. Hence, when students search
through the headwords on the page where the word is located, they will encounter
laugh as a verb followed by the headword laughing. Unless they are aware of the
OALD’s convention of a triangle symbol to indicate a derivative, they need to read
through the verb entry to discover information on the word used as a noun. In
COBUILD, the noun form of laugh is even more ambiguously located: it is introduced merely by a triangle symbol given immediately after the examples which illustrate how the word can be used as a verb! Both the LDELC and LDOCE present the
noun form of the word as a separate entry and thus provide the clearest information.
The presentation of the information is crucial, because I suspect that students’ erroneous answers in the test were due either to their linguistic incompetence, or to confu63
sion over the idiomatic usage of (don’t) make me laugh. In the cases of OALD and
COBUILD, the obscure location of the noun form of the word might well have prevented students from discovering it, and its collocate give. Moreover, in all the dictionaries, information on the usage of the word laugh as a verb was provided before
that of the noun, although the methods of presentation differed. When the students
searched through the dictionaries, they would come across (don’t) make me laugh before they reached the explanation on the noun form of the word. They may have failed
to realise that in such usage, the word is functioning as a verb, and thus was irrelevant
to their search. Further, students were possibly unaware of the dictionary conventions
such as (v.) and (n.) used to indicate the different functions of the headword. Alternatively, once they had found a phrase under the headword laugh that resembled the
question pattern, the students may have stopped their search and given that as their
answer. The high percentage of students making the same error leads me to hypothesise that in this case, one of the major explanations lies in the students’ linguistic incompetence and/or their insufficient dictionary search skills.
Sub-question 4
By contrast with the other three sub-questions, 80% of students answered reach a
consensus correctly. The word consensus was identified as a problematic word in
V+N collocation in Chi et al.’s (1994) study, where it was discovered that students
frequently used the verb make to combine with this word, thus resulting in producing
make a consensus in their writing. In the present case, the test results indicate that dictionary use training has helped students choose the correct collocate for the word. It
would thus be interesting to discover why students performed so well in this question
but not in the others. First, as I have suggested earlier, students may have made mistakes by relying on their L1 instead of consulting their dictionaries for the collocate.
The high rate of correct answers to SQ.4 suggests students had no difficulty in looking up the information in a dictionary, if we assume that students obtained the right
answer because they had looked the word up in dictionaries.
According to the classification of the COBUILD dictionaries on word frequency, appearance and challenge belong to the set of words identified by four diamonds
whereas consensus has only two. In other words, the first two words occur in the top
75% of the COBUILD corpus, whereas the usage of the word consensus is less frequent. According to COBUILD, there are only 3,200 words in English that belong to
the two-diamond word category. I surmise that most students would have learned, and
would be familiar with, the words appearance and challenge and this could be the
reason why some of them chose to rely on their intuition, rather than use dictionaries
for the collocates of these. Correspondingly, many students may not have known the
word consensus or been familiar with it; thus they would be likely to look up its collocate in a dictionary to obtain the right answer.
However, success in finding the right answer still depends very much on whether one
can locate the relevant information. Consensus can only be used as a noun, and in
only one sense; therefore the entry is less complex than, for example, that of the word
laugh (SQ.3). The COBUILD entry provides the word consensus but does not indicate
the collocate. The other two learners’ dictionaries and the LDELC however either
present it in the example (OALD) or give explicit collocational information. The sim64
plicity of the entry may then have contributed to the students’ success in locating the
information. The analyses of the four sub-questions here imply that if students are
aware of the phenomenon of collocation, and are thus able and willing to use dictionaries to look up such information, there is a high chance of them getting the right collocates for a given word. This point was taken into consideration when designing
teaching materials for the experimental group.
In style labelling, the question was made up of two parts with three sub-questions
each. Students were required first to choose one of two given synonymous words
whose use would be appropriate to the context (Q.4A). Then they had to provide an
explanation in English or Chinese for their choice of answer (Q.4B). Comparison of
the performance of students from all three groups in style labelling shows that the
former had a much higher average rate of correct answers (see Table 19).
Table 19: Overall results of Q.4A and Q.4B in the pre-test (based on number of right answers
obtained).
n = 191
Q.5
(A)
(B)
Right answers
Right answers
(1)
81.7%
36.6%
(2)
33.5%
10.5%
(3)
25.1%
13.6%
In the three sub-questions in Part A, over 80% of students were able to choose slim in
SQ.1 (see Appendix I); but fewer than 40% of the students gave an appropriate explanation (Part B) as to why they had chosen this word, instead of skinny. With respect to
the other two sub-questions (SQ.2 & SQ.3), few students were able either to choose
the right answers (Part A) or give appropriate reasons (Part B) in support. In Part A of
SQ.2 and SQ.3 respectively, only 33.5% and 25.1 % of students obtained the correct
answers. In Part B of both the sub-questions, only 10.5% and 13.6% respectively answered successfully. Fewer of them knew why the words flat (SQ.2) and understand
(SQ.3) were more appropriate in the sentences than the other two options provided.
Statistically, no significant difference was found among the three student groups in
both Part A (p = 0.0355) and Part B (p = 0.9357) of Q.4 based on total score (see Table 20).
Table 20: Students’ performance in all three sub-questions of Q.4A and Q.4B in the pre-test.
Average number of right answers in all four subquestions
Mean score of all three sub-questions
4A
4B
4A
4B
Control
50%
21.3%
50.6
19.1
Ex1
50.7%
18.8%
51.5
15.1
Ex2
40.5%
21%
40
16.3
Findings obtained from both sets of questions in style labelling indicate that half or
more than half of the students from all three groups failed to comprehend the nuances
of the social meanings in their choice of words, and so made inappropriate choices for
the contexts provided. The majority of those who gave the right answers, however,
failed to explain why they did so (there were a few cases when students picked the
wrong word for the right reasons). In the following, I will examine closely the errors
students made, to try to uncover reasons to account for students’ performance in Part
B of the question. My first step is to classify the erroneous answers (see Table 21).
65
Table 21: Classification and number of erroneous answers found in sub-questions of 4B.
Number of erroneous answers found in SQ.1 = 91, SQ.2 = 128 & SQ.3 = 122
Classifications
Samples of students’ answers
(A) Following dictionary
(SQ.1)
definitions
-‘skinny’ means very thin in a way that is unattractive. Thus,
slim is more suitable
-slim is more attractive than skinny
(SQ.2)
-‘apartment’ seems like contain kitchen, toilet, sitting room and
bedroom
-apartment are often used for rent
(SQ.3)
-The Principal must have be try to understand the case by
thinking about them
- it [figure out] means to think about a situation until he understand
(B) Giving status labels
(SQ.1)
-it [slim] was more polite to say that people are thin enough
(SQ.2)
-it’s [Apartment] is more formal to say so
(SQ.3)
-figure out seems more polite
(C) Based on personal
(SQ.1)
preferences, feel-the meaning of ‘slim’ is more suitable
ings, and experience -skinny is not suitable to describe the dream of the youngsters
(SQ.2)
-the word apartment is more attractive and eye-catching
-it [apartment] sounds better
(SQ.3)
-understand is obviously wrong in this sentence
-‘understand’ is more clear word to express ‘know’
(D) Based on contextual (SQ.1)
clues
-nil
(SQ.2)
-nil
(SQ.3)
-[I chose figure out because] the case is under investigation
-[I chose understand because] the case is under investigation
without solving, but figure out means a problem which has
already been solved
(E) Based on genre
(SQ.1)
-nil
(SQ.2)
-it is an advertisement, “apartment” is more understandable
-flat occupies less space in advertisement
(SQ.3)
-figure out is more commonly used in this kind of newsletter
(F) Based on syntactic
(SQ.1)
considerations
-skinny is used when following by a noun
(SQ.2)
-nil
(SQ.3)
-[translation involved] ‘could not figure out’ is an indirect
clause, therefore it is more formal. “could not understand’ is a
direct clause, it should not be spoken by the teachers to the
parents
66
(G) Others (including
those not found in
the above classifications, and all incomplete and incomprehensible answers)
(SQ.1)
-the concept of slim among people has been changed in an
unhealthy way
-slim can be used to describe about hope, prospect while
skinny cannot only used to described about body
(SQ.2)
-apartment is of higher class and the condition is better than
flat
-the description of size and the environment of my choice
seems better than that of a flat
(SQ.3)
-the principal has to express his ideas
-principal is embarassed if he doesn’t understand something
All the four selected dictionaries have labelled the words apartment and flat as
American and British English respectively. This does not, however, apply to all the
selected words students encountered in the questions. Both the words skinny and slim
were given diaevaluative labels in OALD and LDELC, but not in the other dictionaries. In COBUILD, for example, although a pragmatic sign was given in the extra column to both words, there was no mention of their diaevaluative nature. Furthermore,
the words figure out and understand, are not provided with status labels in any of the
selected dictionaries. Hence, students might have had to look up both the words given
in the sentence when they attempted each question, or search through one or more
than one dictionary to obtain the status labels, as in the cases of both SQ.1 and SQ.3.
This means that more time, effort and a higher level of retrieval skills were demanded
from the students tackling these two questions. This could be a probable explanation
for students’ poor performance. The high rate of correct answers to SQ.1 does not accord with this premise, however. This is further supported by the low percentage
(33.5%) of students choosing flat as the answer for SQ.2 (A), with only 10.5% of students giving the right explanation for their choice of answer (SQ.2B).
Instead of construing the poor performance of students as being due to the drudgery of
the look-up process, I postulate that the problem resulted from students’ lack of pragmatic knowledge, or the implications that many English words carry. They also lack
knowledge of the conventions adopted by different dictionaries to present such information.
First, students’ own attitude towards dictionary use, or their habits in using one to assist learning, seem to have blinded them to the availability of other information in a
dictionary entry. Research studies support the widely accepted belief that a high percentage of dictionary users use this resource mainly to look up word definitions. Until
now, no general conclusion has been reached as to why users perceive the dictionary
function to be so narrow. In the case of SQ.2, some 22% of students provided answers
which were taken directly from dictionary definitions of the two words flat and
apartment. On these students, the stylistic symbols (information), presented mostly at
the beginning of word entries, seemed to have made no impact at all. I found that students copied the definitions of the word apartment straight from the entry. The first
sense of the entry gave the symbol or definition of the word to mean a flat in British
English but this was ignored; instead, these students copied the second sense of the
word (that apartments are for rent) as their answers.
67
Furthermore, in SQ.2, 42.2% of students gave erroneous answers, which I have classified as ‘others’: among these, 77.8% speculated the answers would be related to the
differences in size, location, style and cost of a flat or an apartment. In SQ.3, over
41% of the students’ answers were founded on their personal feelings towards, or
preferences for, one of the two words. This suggests that either they had not for some
reason used the dictionaries to look up stylistic information, or they not yet obtained
the knowledge and/or skills to be able to do so.
The concept of words carrying social meaning exists in students’ native language, for
instance, approving is 褒詞 and derogatory is 貶詞 in Chinese. Words such as 節儉
(‘frugal’) imply approbation; 懦弱 (‘cowardice’) on the other hand has derogatory
connotations. Moreover, the kinds of answer students were required to supply in
Question 4(A) and (B) were clearly demonstrated with the use of an example, so they
should have been able to understand what was required. Yet, most of the erroneous
answers obtained still focused on the semantic value of the words. The reasons could
be twofold: first, students may not have transferred the social awareness acquired in
their native language to English, and so were unable to apply it to the target language.
Second, they might not have realised that their chosen dictionary contained this kind
of information.
Treatment
The idea of the dictionary as a self-access tool, offering NN English-speaking users
information on different facets of the language can be based on the two assumptions
that students know of their existence and understand the concepts such as the phenomena of collocation and pragmatic usage of the language, and that they know
where such information is located in the dictionary for retrieval. To achieve these
ends, the treatment provided to Ex1 students included the following:
1. to sensitise students to the phenomena of collocation and possible pragmatic
usage of some words in English;
2. to familiarise students with the conventions adopted in various dictionaries to
present information, both on collocations and stylistic or status labels.
Responses from students during my previous teaching experience on collocation and
style labelling, and in the pilot teaching, indicate that explicit teaching of these topics
and of the conventions used in dictionaries can be very effective; moreover, the time
required to achieve a positive result is short. Hence, I identified collocation and style
labelling as “less demanding items” and would try them out only once in the current
study with Ex1.
The concept of collocation was introduced during a lesson when subject students were
learning how to paraphrase texts they had read for their own research papers, as required by the English course they were attending. This was illustrated with the help of
an example with which students were familiar from the Chinese. I quoted two fourword phrases 天下太平 and 世界和平, both of which mean ‘world peace’ and asked
students whether the first two characters of each of these phrases could be used interchangeably. The example illustrates to students the concept of collocation since the
exchange is possible both grammatically and semantically. However, as students an68
swered, the phrases would appear to be odd to non-native speakers of Cantonese.
Once students were able to grasp the idea of fixed usage or word combinations, the
word effort was used to illustrate the phenomenon in the English language. A worksheet with the words opinion and advice was designed to help students go through the
dictionary entries for both words to discover, firstly how collocational information
was presented in a learner’s dictionary, and secondly, sensitise them to the different
range of collocates that each word takes. Half of the lesson time (25 minutes) was
spent on this.
The concept of pragmatic usage of words was introduced in the following lesson. After specifying steps that students were required to include in their research paper, I
gave them a handout on style labelling. Students were then asked to provide a euphemistic word to substitute for toilet. Then the explanation and examples given by
OALD were used to introduce the possible contexts where euphemistic expressions
were deemed appropriate. Students’ knowledge in their own native language was
drawn upon for comparison. For example, the euphemistic expression to refer to
somebody who has passed away is 去世 ‘pass away’, as opposed to the direct 死去
‘die’. Other labels denoting diaevaluative, diaphasic and diatopic features were introduced and used for further illustration.
When the concept had been strengthened among students, pages describing dictionary
labels were shown on transparencies. Students were reminded of the variations in the
conventions adopted in different dictionaries. Also, they were instructed to read the
introductory pages for more information, and in case of doubts about the stylistic label
given in one dictionary, to consult another for confirmation. In short, the lesson aim
was to nurture a sense of inquisitiveness about the topic and to make students aware
of the information available in the various dictionaries. To consolidate their learning,
students were asked to work on several questions on a worksheet. The task involved
looking up status labels for given words, and deciding whether the words had been
appropriately used in the sentences provided.
Post-test results, analysis and implications
Only Ex1 received teaching on collocation, and the post-test results indicate that the
treatment had great impact on the performance of students from this group.
Table 22: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.3 in the post-test.
Average number of right answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
63%
62.7
Ex1
80%
79.6
Ex2
63.6%
62.9
Ex1 students had the highest average number of right answers in all four subquestions among the three groups. Statistically significant differences in the post-test
performance based on scores were found when Ex1 was compared with Control group
(p = 0.0167) and Ex2 (p = 0.0061); whereas no difference was found between Control
and Ex2 (p = 1). When the pre-test and post-test results of each group of students
were compared individually, statistically significant differences were found in the performance of all three groups in both the tests. The mean difference of Control group
69
was 18.6 whereas Ex2 was 14.4. Ex1 students had the most significant improvement
among the three groups with a mean difference of 34.4 (p = 0.0077).
Since results from the validation tests indicate the two sets of questions (pre-test and
post-test) were similar in difficulty level, the cause(s) for the improvement discovered
could probably relate to the English course which all the three groups of students attended. The course or the classroom activities might have motivated students to use
dictionaries to look up words in the post-test. As a result, all three groups performed
better in the post-test than in the pre-test on collocation. However, it is important to
note that it was Ex1 students, who had received treatment on the topic, made the most
of, and showed evidence of the progress among the three.
Specific errors made by students in all three groups were spread evenly across the distractors and thus are too insignificant to justify further investigation. Except in the
first sub-question of Part A, Ex1 students obtained better results in all the subquestions in Parts A and B of style labelling when compared with the other two
groups who had not received any training. The Ex1 group performed particularly well
in SQ.3 of Part A; 80% of them obtained the right answer. Moreover, their performance in all the questions in Part B greatly surpassed that of the other two groups; in
SQ.2, indeed, the difference was doubled. Hence, the results indicate that Ex1 students’ awareness and knowledge of the social implications of carry were raised by the
training provided.
Table 23: Students’ performance in all three sub-questions of Q.4A and Q.4B in the post-test.
Average number of right answers in all four subquestions in %
Mean score of all three sub-questions
4A
4B
4A
4B
Control
58.7%
31.1%
55.4
35
Ex1
63.1%
53.8%
60.6
58.7
Ex2
55.7%
33.3%
52.1
35.1
Although the percentage of Ex1 students obtaining the right answers in sub-questions
of Part A was the highest among the three groups, statistically no significant difference (p = 0.4446) was found among the three groups of students. Yet Ex1 students’
performance in Part B exceeded that of the other two groups, and statistically significant differences were found when their results were compared to Control group (p =
0.0033) and Ex2 (p = 0.0176). There was a significant increase in the number of Ex1
students who were able to provide a satisfactory explanation, based on the pragmatic
concern about the use of the language, to justify the choices they had made in the Part
A of the questions after treatment was provided. As for the other two groups, no statistically significant difference was found between them (p = 1) in Part B of the question.
When the pre-test and post-test results of the three groups in Part B of the question
were compared within the groups, only Ex1 students were found to have made improvement, and the progress was significant. The mean score difference of Ex1 in pretest and post-test (21.5) was the highest among the three groups. It was 13 times
higher than Control group’s (1.6) and 4.7 times with Ex2’s (4.6). Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found among students in Ex1 in both the tests (p =
0.0004). In Part A of the question, no statistically significant difference was found in
the performance of the three groups in either test. Following the method adopted in
70
analysing students’ errors in the pre-test, I have classified the post-test erroneous answers in a similar way to that carried out in the pre-test. The aim was to discover
problems that students faced in tackling this set of question. The classification is as
follows:
Table 24: The classification and number of erroneous answers found in Q.4B.
Number of erroneous answers found in:
SQ.1: Control n=34, Ex1 n=44, Ex2 n=41, SQ.2: Control n=30, Ex1 n=22, Ex2 n=40
SQ.3: Control n=24, Ex1 n=20, Ex2 n=34
Classifications
(A) Following dictionary
definitions
(B) Based on genre
(C) Giving status labels
(D) Based on personal
preferences, feelings, and experience
Samples of students’ answers
(SQ.1)
-publicity is the activity of making information, opinions etc know
to the public
-it [propaganda] is the information that is spread in a planned or
official way, esp by a government
(SQ.2)
-it [trousers] is a piece of clothing that covers the lower half of the
body
-pants mean underwear
(SQ.3)
-it [muck up] means he fail to achieve something
-[I chose have done poorly] because mucked up means do things
very silly
(SQ.1)
-it is a word use for government announcement
(SQ.2)
-nil
(SQ.3)
-nil
(SQ.1)
-publicity is formal
(SQ.2)
-it [trousers] is formal
(SQ.3)
-it is from school to parent, it [mucked up] was more polite to use
this
(SQ.1)
-publicity is more commonly used and it is more easily to now
because it comes from the word “public”
-this term [propaganda] is usually used by government
(SQ.2)
-[I chose trousers because] ‘pants’ is for casual wear
-trousers are likely to be a uniform
(SQ.3)
-[I chose mucked up because] the meaning match
-repeat Form 2 is quite serious that only ‘done poorly’ will not
have this result
71
(E) Others (including
those not found in
the above classifications, and all incomplete and incomprehensible answers)
(SQ.1)
-government should public the live information
-[I chose Propaganda because] we have particular ideas (AIDS)
want particular people(teenagers) to know
(SQ.2)
-[I chose trousers because] pants is something old-styled and
only exist in the old age
-[I chose trousers because] school uniform is not for exercise
(SQ.3)
-mucked up is talk about Paul Chan’s wanting but there have not
talk about this
-[I chose have done poorly because] talking exam
Based on these classifications, the erroneous answers obtained from all three groups
were found to be similar in kind and in frequency, except that a relatively higher percentage of students from Ex2 based their answers on the word definitions provided by
the dictionaries; only a small percentage of Ex1 students however, were found to be
making error type (B) in their answers (see Table 25).
Table 25: Error types and their frequency of appearance in Q.4B.
Control
Ex1
Ex2
Error types and their frequency of appearance
A
B
C
D
E
23.9%
–
28.4%
28.4%
19.3%
23.3%
5.8%
31.4%
28%
11.6%
34.8%
–
27.8%
20%
17.4%
Initially students lacked knowledge of the topics of collocation, and of style labelling.
This was indicated by the pre-test results, and was also observed during classroom
teaching. Subsequent explicit teaching given on the topics was concise and effective.
The affirmative results of Ex1 in both topics support my claim that being taught the
concepts of collocation and style labelling, and the relevant dictionary conventions,
was undemanding for subject students, in that teaching the necessary skills and
knowledge to enable them to use a dictionary to look up information on both areas
would not require much lesson time, but would be very effective, and therefore justified.
It is important to note, however, that in this study the teaching about collocation, style
labelling, and the way such information is presented in dictionaries, was fairly basic.
For instance, in the area of collocation, further issues, such as whether one’s native
language affects one’s frequency in using specific word forms to begin a search, and
whether this coincides with the conventions adopted by dictionaries in presenting information, requires further investigation. With respect to style labelling, there is still a
long list of such labels to be presented to students, and convention differences among
dictionaries to be explained. Such questions need answering if we wish to ensure users have a high success rate in locating information in dictionaries. The success of
teaching the topics in this study helps to throw light on how to achieve this goal. The
phenomena of collocation and pragmatic usage of words exist also in the subject students’ native language and this factor facilitated the learning and teaching in this
study. It follows that if the topics are to be introduced in a dictionary use syllabus,
students’ knowledge of their native language should be exploited.
72
The unsatisfactory performance of Ex2 in questions on both collocation and stylistic
labelling suggests that knowledge of, and skills in, dictionary use are item-specific,
and are not transferable. The teaching that this group of students received on other
areas of dictionary use seems to have had no effect in developing their knowledge and
skills in looking up in the dictionaries other linguistic information they had not been
taught explicitly. Neither did the teaching succeed significantly in raising students’
general awareness of the possible linguistic resource in the dictionaries so that they
would have the initiative to search them for answers they needed. This sheds light on
the syllabus design of dictionary use teaching, in that each topic or skill should be
treated as an individual item when it is presented to students. Further, the habit of utilising the potential linguistic resource of dictionaries in assisting the learning of the
language should be included in students’ curricula.
LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
Test design
The current study has adopted what Valette (1986) postulates as a common type of
language test which researchers have usually adopted to uncover the awareness of NN
English-speaking learners of the target language culture. In deciding what kinds of
questions to set for the test, I referred to both the LDELC and Valette for ideas and
suggestions on culture tests. One of the items that Valette included in her test was
‘linguistic cultural referent’, since, she argued, a foreign learner would need to understand conversations conducted by native speakers or written work they produced. Frequently, she continued, the learner will find the conversations or work contain many
cultural referents. Valette (ibid.:189) used the State of Florida as example:
… is not just one of the fifty states, nor is it simply a southern state: it is a place where
elderly people retire and where college students go for spring vacation. Therefore, an
American would interpret a reference to Florida differently than a reference to Alabama
or South Carolina.
Cultural referents were also brought up in the Preface of the LDELC (1992):
The connotations of some of the items entered here, many of them for the first time in a
reference book, are often essential to the full understanding of a passage. For example,
what associations do native-speakers of English naturally have with items such as Rolls
Royce or the National Enquirer? It is surely necessary to understand the reputation for
high quality associated with the name Rolls Royce in order to understand a sentence
like Our company provides a Rolls Royce service, and so this information is clearly
stated in the definition.
Following this line of thought, four sub-questions were set, each representing an aspect of British or American culture. It is important to note that these questions should
not be taken individually, and treated as pointers to indicate what the subject students
lack in a particular area; nor as a whole to mean cultural knowledge of the two target
countries that students do, or do not possess. Instead, answers obtained from subject
students on the four questions should be interpreted as indicators of the general
awareness students have shown of words with cultural loading, and their knowledge
73
and/or ability to use the selected dictionaries to answer the questions. The cultural aspects found in both the pre-test and post-test are:
In the pre-test: (1) People (Elvis Presley); (2) Places (Stratford-on-Avon); (3)
Literature (A Christmas Carol); and (4) Festivals (Thanksgiving)
In the post-test: (1) Literature (Robinson Crusoe); (2) Institutions and organisations (Public school); (3) Entertainment (Lone Ranger);
and (4) People (Cockney)
According to interviews carried out after the pilot tests, some students claimed that
they did not answer the sub-questions because they found it difficult to give explanations in English. Therefore, in the pre- and post-tests, since the objective of the questions was to elicit students’ understanding of facts, not linguistic knowledge, students
were given the option to answer the questions in their native language.
Pre-test results and analysis
The number of students giving correct answers was low in all four sub-questions. An
average of 10% of students answered SQ.2 and SQ.3 correctly. Results students obtained in SQ.1 were the highest among the four, with 38.7% of students answering the
question correctly. In SQ.4 only 23% of students obtained the right answer. Based on
the mean scores of the three groups, no statistically significant difference was found
(p = 0.3346) among them.
Table 26: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.5 in the pre-test.
Average number of right answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
25%
22.7
Ex1
21.8%
18.6
Ex2
25.4%
22.9
When we examine closely the mistakes made by students, using textual clues to guess
the answers was the approach the majority applied in tackling the questions (with an
average 47% of students in all four sub-questions). The following are some examples
illustrating how students used the information provided in the questions to work out
their answers.
Sub-questions (1–4)
(1) Peter wants to be like Elvis when
he grows up. Although Elvis has
been dead for so many years,
people from all over the world still
remember him. What do you think
Peter wants to do when he grows
up?
Students’ answers using contextual clues
(a) He wants to be admired or respected by other
people
(b) He wants to be a famous person that even
when he died one day, other people may still
remember him.
(c) He wants to be like Elvis
(d) A famous person
(e) Somebody who is famous and contributes
much for the country
74
(2) It is indeed one of the greatest
honours for an actor to play the
role of Romeo in the theatre in
Stratford-on-Avon. Why is it considered to be one of the greatest
honours for someone to play at
the theatre in Stratford-on-Avon?
(3) Mr Lee is as selfish as Scrooge.
Nobody likes to work for him. Who
was Scrooge?
(4) Mary said, “I must get hold of a
ticket to fly to my parents’ house
in LA for dinner tomorrow. It’s
Thanksgiving!” Why is it important
for Mary to be home on Thanksgiving?
(f) Because the theatre is well known.
(g) Because it seems that only the top actor can
do this and this shows his status.
(h) It is because there is someone been famous
after play at there.
(i) A place where are well known and gether lots
of artists, so actor can gain lots of international
reputations.
(j) a selfish person who nobody likes to work for.
(k) Someone who is selfish and everybody hates
him.
(l) A person who is very selfish and difficult to
communicate.
(m) Scrooge is a person who is very selfish.
(n) A meaning festival to let Mary shows her respect to her parents.
(o) Mary wants to express gratitude to her parents.
(p) She hopes to get a ticket successfully and not
be late for home.
(q) Thanks for her parent’s taking care of her
since she was born.
SQ.2 has the highest percentage (69.1%) of students deriving their answers from the
context clues. The guesses were mainly based on students’ general knowledge on
what usually made an actor (f, g and h), or a theatre (i) famous. SQ.4 has 50.3% of
students using this technique to guess the answers. The word Thanksgiving, or the
phrase ticket to fly to, was the key in the guessing game. In addition, the answers obtained also suggest that students drew on their own cultural background while they
were making guesses. Some of the answers, such as (n), (o) and (q) reflect the traditional Chinese respect for filial affection and/or duty. The following example best illustrates this point:
Thanksgiving is just like “Spring Festival [in Chinese characters] ” of Chinese which
all family members should be gather together
The Spring Festival is another name for the lunar Chinese New Year. On Chinese
New Year’s Eve, it is a tradition for Chinese to go home to gather for a ‘reunion dinner’ with their family, and to welcome the coming of the new year together. This is a
custom still very much followed by the Chinese in Hong Kong. Moreover, filial reciprocation is still highly honoured, and practised in the local community. The evidence
leads us to assume that students have taken the Thanksgiving dinner in the US to be
the cultural equivalent of the Chinese custom.
Some guesswork, however, was quite superficial, such as (c) and (m), where students
merely repeated what was provided in the statements. These students were, in the
strictest sense, not really answering the questions. The headwords Scrooge (SQ.3) and
Thanksgiving (SQ.4) were both treated as entries in all the three MLDs used in the
test. From the answers given, it was evident that some students looked up the two
words/names in one or other of these three dictionaries.
In SQ.3, 30% of the answers failed to provide sufficient information. Most of them
were taken directly from the three learners’ dictionaries provided in the test. Nonethe-
75
less, these dictionaries provide only the extended meaning of the name Scrooge,
and/or when it is used antonomasically to mean a person who is mean with money
(OALD) or hates spending money (LDOCE). Though the name was presented with a
capital letter S in OALD, it is only presented as a singular noun with a derogatory usage. The information provided by both dictionaries in their explanation to the word is
insufficient, if not confusing. COBUILD’s definition is a combination of those in the
other two dictionaries, thus inheriting the flaws found in both.
The number of students found using the three MLDs for the meaning of Thanksgiving,
and getting the answer wrong, was very low (3.7%), since definitions of the word
provided by the dictionaries were comprehensive, pointing out clearly the origin of
the festival. Hence, those who used the learners’ dictionaries would have been able to
answer the question satisfactorily. Giving completely irrelevant answers in the test,
such as taking Scrooge as “a powerful leader of a country”, and Elvis as “an engineer”, the wrong interpretation, was infrequent. In general, relatively few students
used any of the dictionaries provided to answer the questions. A very small number of
students did use the LDELC to look up the meanings of the words, but most of them
still got the answer wrong, because they picked irrelevant information in the entries,
and failed to answer the questions. There were some quite revealing answers to the
questions. For example, three students answered that Scrooge was a duck or a cartoon
character who loved money very much, whereas one said he was a fat man in a movie.
The former response was probably derived from a cartoon by Walt Disney, whereas
the latter was from a film shown a few years ago, which adapted the novel A Christmas Carol, finding it a modern setting.
The majority of students were found to use contextual clues in answering the questions in the pre-test. This could have been the result of their reading habits or their
lack of awareness over words with cultural loading. The mistakes may have occurred
because the cultural specific words appeared to be what Laufer (1997) has referred to
as “words or phrases that students thought they knew”. This false belief and unfounded confidence have hindered students from looking up the meanings of the
words in question.
Treatment
Since LDELC is basically the LDOCE with the addition of cultural notes, what students have learned previously on how to use a learner’s dictionary could be applied,
and enhanced, when they consult this. In terms of referencing skills, there seemed to
be no need to provide students with extra input at this point. Second, the dictionary
has also proved to be user-friendly in the pilot teaching that I have done with tertiary
students at various levels of English proficiency, from first-year undergraduate to
postgraduate. Responses from students have shown that explicit teaching on the use of
the LDELC has been highly effective, and the time required to achieve positive results
short. The dictionary was thus identified as ‘straightforward item’ and would be tried
out only once with Ex1.
The main focus of the teaching is to make students aware of the inadequacies or special nature of learners’ dictionaries with regard to the exclusion of extra-linguistic information on lexical items. Since many words in English contain cultural allusions,
76
there is a need to extend learners’ use of dictionaries which contain encyclopedic information, particularly on culturally loaded words. Furthermore, the rationale behind
introducing the LDELC is to sensitise students to the existence of a variety of dictionaries, other than learners’ dictionaries, which aim at helping NN English-speaking
learners with different aspects of the language, and meeting different needs.
That words might have cultural allusions was mentioned in class as part of the treatment in this study before students began reading extensively for the research project
required by the English course they were attending. Since one of the major sources
students would be using for information was international news magazines, excerpts
from Time were chosen as teaching material to illustrate the point. Items selected, according to the classification of the LDELC, belonged to (7) People (e.g. Harry Truman), (11) Entertainment (e.g. Stevie Wonder and Kermit the Frog), and (14) Classical mythology (e.g. King Midas). Students were asked to explain what implications
the writers wanted to convey in the sentences when they referred to the highlighted
proper nouns. Most students’ understanding of the sentences shown was superficial.
They failed to identify the names and explain why they were included in the sentences. It was then that the dictionary was introduced, and students were given time to
look up the names. Students were again asked to explain their understanding of the
sentences with reference to the names mentioned, after which two caricatures of Bill
Gates and Stevie Wonder were shown to them to reiterate that cultural allusions are
often used in authentic reading material as references for a point or a remark.
Students were reminded to be aware of these types of words and to look them up in a
dictionary with culture-specific information. Students were shown further examples of
cultural notes and pictorial illustrations located in the dictionary. The teaching took
about twenty-five minutes (half the lesson).
Post-test results, analysis and implications
Results of Ex1 students in the post-test and compared favourably with the other two
groups.
Table 27: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.5 in the post-test.
Average number of right answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
42.4%
67.2
Ex1
70%
84
Ex2
40%
62.3
When compared with the other two groups who had not received any treatment, Ex1
performed better in all four sub-questions of this section. An average of 70% of the
group gave correct answers to all four sub-questions, whereas an average of only
42.4%, was found with the Control group, and 40% with Ex2. The students in Ex1
also obtained a 90.8% correct rate for SQ.4, and 78.5 % for both SQ.1 and SQ.3, and
a 32% for SQ.2. Statistically, a significant difference was found in the results between
Ex1 and Control group (p < 0.0001), and Ex1 with Ex2 (p < 0.0001). No statistical
significant difference was found between Control group and Ex2 (p = 1). A small percentage of students in the Ex1 tried to look up answers to the questions in LDELC,
but selected inappropriate information and hence responded to the questions incorrectly. For example, SQ.4 was couched in these terms:
77
I think our new boss Ms Lane is a Cockney. She speaks with a very strong accent.
Where do you think Ms Lane comes from?
Some students successfully identified the word to look up and chose to make a search
using the LDELC, but they failed to pick the appropriate part of the cultural note
given for the question and thus failed to score a point. The part they chose was Bow
Bells, the bells of a church in the city of London. In all four questions, 15.8% of Ex1
students made such mistake. An average of only 4% of students from the Control
group and Ex2 committed the same error. Thus there was a small group of students in
Ex1, who although able to identify the right dictionary to be used for culturally specific information, required more training on how to interpret the information given
before they could choose the relevant part of it to answer the questions.
When compared with the other two groups, Ex1 was found to have a very low percentage of students using contextual clues in answering the questions. The average
was twice as low (15.4%) as the average of the other two groups in all four questions.
Among the three groups, the least number of unattempted questions was found with
Ex1 with an average of all four sub-questions totalling 3.8%. The Control group had
an average of 13.6%, and Ex2 21.1%. When the results of the three groups in the pretest and post-test were compared, it was found that all three groups obtained better
results in the post-test. It is important to note that Ex1 students’ progress shown in the
post-test was the best among the three groups (p < 0.0001). The mean score difference
of results Ex1 obtained in the pre-test and post-test was 66. The mean difference of
Ex1 has outperformed Ex2 by almost half (39.6), and the Control group by one-third
(45.2).
Teaching on the topic and the use of the dictionary had a positive effect on the performance of students. First, from the results of pre-test, it was found that all subject
students had a low awareness of culturally loaded words. This was demonstrated in
the answers that these students gave in the test, which suggested that they had only a
general or superficial understanding of the meaning of the sub-questions asked. This
lack of awareness was also manifested clearly in class. In teaching Ex1 students to use
the LDELC, I chose the following sentence for illustration, from Time (October 12,
1998):
In the immortal words of Kermit the Frog, it’s not easy being green. But Kermit
doesn’t know what hard is: it is much, much more difficult to be a Teletubby; …
Students were asked to explain the sentence verbally. From their replies, it was evident that they had no knowledge of the reference to Kermit the Frog, and failed to appreciate the association the writer was trying to make in the sentence. In general, they
could not understand either why the frog was mentioned in the sentence, or why it
was given the name Kermit. Also, they were lost when asked about the implications
behind the “immortal words” of the frog, and its relationship with a Teletubby. From
reading the sentence, students could gather what the writer wanted to say was “it was
difficult to be a Teletubby”, but they failed to appreciate the underlying implications
of the sentence and the nuances of the choice of the two characters compared. Syntactically, it was a simple sentence but since students did not have any knowledge of the
two animated characters, it was quite meaningless to them. In another case when Bill
Gates was compared to King Midas, a character from ancient Greek mythology, stu-
78
dents were puzzled at the analogy since they did not know the story of King Midas.
They could not appreciate the humour of the caricature of Bill Gates in ancient Greek
style costume shown in the article.
Results from the pre-test also suggested that most subject students lacked appropriate
inquisitiveness. As they lacked the desire to get the precise meanings of words, much
of the information in the context of what they were reading was lost. This kind of
reading habit shown by students in the tests confirmed Herbst and Stein’s (1987)
worry as to how the current EFL teaching approach aimed mainly at communicative
competence, might offer students a “false sense of security” of “knowing the language”. This lack of an inquisitive approach among students was also manifested during the tests. In both the pre-test and post-test, students were given explicit instructions to use the dictionaries provided to complete the tasks, but results indicated that
using contextual clues was the most commonly applied method. In fact, the technique
was found to have been excessively and indiscriminately applied by students in general in both the tests. In the case of Ex1 students, we could detect a change of this attitude or behaviour after they had received treatment. They were found to have consulted the LDELC for culture referents more in the post-test than they had in the pretest. Data also indicated that the success rate of Ex1 students obtaining the correct answers from the LDELC, when compared to the other two, was much higher.
There is a need to provide NN English-speaking students with teaching and activities
to, first, sensitise them over words that may contain cultural referents; and second,
provide them with resources from which they can seek help. It is true that information
regarding cultural loading of words can be acquired by students through extensive exposure to the target language, and to people who speak the language. However, this is
a very costly way of learning a language both in terms of time and money; and in
some countries, learners do not have the opportunity to be in contact with native
speakers of the target language at all. Alternatives such as dictionaries with information on culturally specific words should be made known and available to learners.
Teaching on how to use such kind of dictionary to assist English learning would be
best presented as an integral part of an English curriculum which allows time, and
provides the context, to diffuse the knowledge. The post-test results of Ex1 corroborates this as a viable proposition.
As regards using dictionaries to help NN English-speaking users to obtain knowledge
of words with cultural referents, the data reveal that students were not able to distinguish dictionary types by their coverage and predominance of information categories.
Answers to the pre-test reveal that those who tried to use dictionaries in general approached the three MLDs provided. This could have been either because they were
more familiar with these dictionaries, or they thought the dictionaries could provide
the culture-specific information they sought. From the point of view of NN Englishspeaking users, this supposition is correct, since the main objective of MLDs is to
help them to acquire the target language. Furthermore, a poor coverage of culturespecific words in MLDs may convey a wrong message to users that encyclopedic and
cultural information has taken only a secondary role in foreign language acquisition
when compared with the linguistic knowledge of words. In other words, encyclopedic
and cultural information is a supplementary knowledge which one may consider
learning when one has already mastered the syntactic and semantic usage of words.
79
There seems to be a point which calls for MLD lexicographers to review their policy
over the inclusion of culture-specific information in their dictionaries. Crowther
(1999:214) asserts, “it is in any case impossible to separate linguistic information and
encyclopedic and cultural information into watertight compartments”. Further, inclusion of such information would help sensitise students to the possible cultural loading
that words may carry, and the knowledge obtained would enrich students’ understanding of a particular reading or listening text they are currently involved in.
Culture-specific information should be provided to dictionary users who have a
largely different cultural background from the British and American, or who have little chance of exposure to these cultures. This is essential to users in their formal process of learning the target language, or while they are reading, or listening to, the target
language. In the conclusion of a review that focused on the two dictionaries Longman
Dictionary of English Language and Culture and the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Encyclopedic Edition, Kokawa and Yamada (1998:355)
affirm:
We would like to consider an EFL dictionary complete only when it teaches learners
linguistic (including pragmatic) knowledge as well as cultural or encyclopedic aspects
of the language, which relate to the ‘content’ of communication.
This view is shared by at least one EFL dictionary publisher so far. The OALD 6
(2000) has notes on word etymology termed, “origin notes”. According to the editor,
Wehmeier (vi), “[they] provide fascinating insights into the etymology of some colourful words and expressions”. Users are provided with etymological information on
words such as tenterhooks, butcher’s and stoic. For example, the ‘origin note’ of the
word stoic is as follows:
From the Stoics, a group of ancient Greek philosophers, who believed that wise people
should not allow themselves to be affected by painful or pleasant experiences.
Modern pedagogical lexicography is founded on learner-oriented research studies and
I consider the inclusion of etymological information in this newest OALD edition an
indicator of lexicographers’ recognition of such a need among NN English-speaking
learners. Another significant point stemming from the findings on culture-specific
words is that the result of Ex2 students in the post-test resembled those of the Control
group. Such findings suggest that the teaching that the former group received on other
aspects of dictionary use had no positive effect on their performance in this question.
The training they received did not lift their awareness of the possibility that some
words may be culture-specific. It also failed to arouse students’ interest in, or alert
them to the possibility of, using dictionaries other than those they were taught to use
in class, to reference the words used in the test. The same attitude or behaviour was
found among Ex2 students in the questions of collocation and style labelling. What
the data suggest is, first, that it is perilous to assume that users’ knowledge of, and
skills and experience in, using a MLD would be transferred automatically to their using of other types of dictionaries, in this case, the LDELC; and second, that awareness
of linguistic aspects such as collocations, style and cultural referent, as well as the use
of reference books (MLDs and LDELC in this case), do not require explicit training.
80
ALPHABETICAL ORDERING
Test design
From my own observation and teaching experience, I surmised problems that users
have with alphabetical ordering may be due to their ignorance or misunderstanding of
the policy of the dictionaries with regard to one-word entries including derivatives,
abbreviations, and compounds in a combination of two or more words, written either
as two words or as hyphenated words. Hence, the word sequence chosen for the current study covered all types. In both the pre-test and post-test, students were asked to
relocate twelve jumbled words according to alphabetical order. It was thus anticipated
that information on potential problematic areas of word alignment could be revealed.
Students were allowed to use dictionaries to complete the exercise. In the pre-test, the
sequence starts with ghetto and ends with giant, and in the post-test, it begins with
four-stroke and ends with FR. Students could either write down the number, or the
full spellings of the words in the boxes provided.
Marking system
There were no right or wrong answers. Instead, two statistical methods were applied
to determine a unified score for each erroneous string, based on the number of displacements identified. Specifically, we wanted to reveal the true ability of each student in arranging the words in order. The two statistical methods applied should be
able to provide a clear picture of each individual’s ability in aligning the words in order. For example, those who had displaced one word in the sequence would be distinguished from those who had made more than one displacement. The score assigned to
the string would reflect the differences. Spearman’s rho method was applied to calculate the scores for this erroneous string. The first step was to identify erroneous sequences from students’ answers. These strings would then be compared separately to
the correct sequence to note how many items (words) students had misplaced in each
particular string. I would square the number of places that each separate word had
been put out of the given sequence. If more than one item was found out of place, the
resulting numbers would be added, and the sum would be used as the base for calculating the score. For example:
Table 28: Calculations of scores for erroneous strings.
Sequence
X
Σ
Correct
3
5
9
12
8
10
7
11
1
2
6
4
0
0
Erroneous
3
5
9
12
8
10
7
2 11
1
6
4
2
4
string (a)
Erroneous
3
5
9
10
7
12
8
11
1
2
6
4
8
16
string (b)
Σ = total number of displacements identified on each erroneous string in the pre-test
X = sum of the displacements (we took the square of the number of places that the word(s)
had been displaced out first before adding up the number)
The word represented by the number (2) was two places misplaced to the left in erroneous string (a). So, the total displacement (Σ) of this sequence was 2, with X equal to
4 (2 ). If the string contained more than one misplaced item as in the case of string
(b), we would first take the square of the number of displacement for each word, then
81
add them to a final sum. For example, the word represented by the number (10) was 2
places misplaced to the left; number (7), 2 places to the left; number (12), 2 places to
the right; and number (8) 2 places misplaced to the right. The total number of misplacements (Σ) thus totalled 8, and X equalled 16 (2 +2 +2 +2 ).
However, from the results of the pilot tests, it was discovered that this method of calculation was inadequate to reflect truly each individual student’s performance, since it
presupposed all the words on the string shared the same level of difficulty, which was
not the case, as judged from the answers received. A new method, the Weighted Rank
Correlation Method (Pei 2001) was applied to supplement Spearman’s rho in adjusting the score. This method focused on individual items in the string. First, we
summed the number of instances where students had displaced each individual word
given in the sequence. A weight would then be assigned to that particular word, in
direct proportion to the square of instances where the item was found being displaced.
An item with higher weighting suggested a greater number of students had difficulty
in putting that particular word in its respective position on the string. For example, the
word ghetto which was represented by the number (3) had been assigned the lowest
weight (0.11) among all the words on the string, whereas the abbreviation GHQ obtained the highest (4.58). This means that only a few students had problems in aligning ghetto in its right position in the string, but relatively more had a problem with
GHQ.
Pre-test results and analysis
Students’ overall performance in this question was low, with the number of students
in all three groups obtaining the complete right sequence averaging 39.7%. Statistically, the results show no significant difference in the performance of students from
all three groups (p = 0.3344). We could conclude that students were homogeneous in
their ability in aligning words following alphabetical order. Among the twelve words,
the one which obtained the lowest weight according to statistical calculation adopted
was ghetto (0.11), the first word in the sequence. This was followed by the word giant, the third word in the sequence, with an assigned weight of 0.12. The two words
which had relatively more students getting their positions right (10th and 11th in the
sequence) were the two abbreviations GHQ (4.58) and GI (2.81). Although we did not
find any significant difference among the three groups, the data obtained revealed that
there was a wide variation in the number of displacements of words (see Table 29)
among students’ erroneous strings, which merits further consideration.
Table 29: Erroneous sequences obtained from Q.6.
Correct sequence
Erroneous sequences
3-5-9-12-8-10-7-11-1-2-6-4
(a) 3-5-9-10-7-12-8-11-1-2-6-4
(b) 6-4-3-2-5-9-12-8-10-7-11-1
(c) 3-5-12-8-10-7-9-11-1-6-4-2
(d) 2-6-3-5-9-10-7-12-8-11-1-4
Some erroneous sequences resulted from a wrong displacement of words in pairs. For
example, the pairs (10-7) and (12-8) in (a) and (6-4) in (b). Some displacements however appeared in isolation or at random, such as (7-9) in (c). Some variations or pat-
82
terns had a relatively high frequency of occurrence (see Table 30) and from the faulty
strings of sequences, several conclusions can be drawn.
First, students have a basic understanding of alphabetical ordering in the English
spelling system. They had little difficulty in arranging words in this order, if the
words were simple single words or words of the same nature, such as both being hyphenated words. This is supported by the high frequency of occurrences of the sequences shown in the table given below (refer to Table 30).
Table 30: Frequency of occurrences of correct sequences found among erroneous strings
produced by students from all three subject groups in the pre-test.
Correct
sequences
3-5
12-8
10-7
11-1
2-6
Words
illustrated
ghetto
ghost
ghost story
ghost town
ghost-write
ghost-writer
ghoul
ghoulish
GHQ
GI
Nature of
word
Frequencies
of occurrence
Percentage
n = 102
single
83
81.4%
compound
89
87.3%
hyphenated
98
96.1%
single
96
94.1%
abbreviation
59
57.8%
Note: All the incomplete answers and strings with extra words added to it have been discarded.
These sequences were formed by grouping words along the string into pairs according
to the nature of the words. For example, both ghetto and ghost are single words
whereas ghost story and ghost town are compounds. They might have been wrongly
placed along the string but they were correctly put together. At this point and from the
data obtained, it may be postulated that students understood letter-by-letter alphabetical ordering, but their understanding was superficial. The data revealed that they were
only able to arrange words of the same nature fairly accurately. Also, more students
had problem with arranging abbreviations (2-6): only just over half the number obtained this sequence correct.
Second, the problematic strings of sequences also revealed patterns of errors that
might suggest an area of weakness among students. The string 9-12-8-9-10-7, which
consisted of a single word, two hyphenated and two compound words, revealed several patterns of mistakes.
Table 31: Error patterns found in all three subject groups regarding the string, ghostly (9),
ghost story (12), ghost town (8), ghost-write (10), ghost-writer (7).
Error strings produced by students
(a) 9-10-7-12-8
(b) 10-7-9-12-8
(c) 12-8-10-7-9
Frequencies of occurrence
18
8
10
When we dissected the string 9-12-8-10-7 into pairs – (9-12), (12-8), (8-10) and (107), we found that students did not have a problem in getting the pairs (10-7) and (128) correct, though their placings on the string were wrong. This supports the finding
83
shown in Table 32, that students had a high success rate in getting the words of the
same nature correct but their difficulties lay in arranging words of a different nature.
This finding was also reflected in the weight assigned to each of the words in the
string. There was a great disparity in the weights allocated to the single word ghoulish
(9th position in the sequence) and the abbreviation GHQ (10th position), and between
the abbreviation GI (11th position) and the single word giant (12th position). GHQ
had the highest weight (4.58) among all the twelve words in the string whereas that
assigned to ghoulish was only 0.16. The difference in weight between these two
headwords was the highest among all the words in the sequence. The second greatest
discrepancy was found between GI (2.81) and giant (0.12), the (6-4) sequence. In
both cases, students showed weaknesses in transiting from a single-word headword to
an abbreviation, or vice versa. Furthermore, when we examined the three erroneous
strings presented in Table 31 closely, we could identify three patterns of arrangement:
Pattern (a):
ghostly
ghost-write
ghost-writer
ghost story
ghost town
In this pattern, compound words written as two words were
treated in a different way from those hyphenated. The former
were not aligned following the alphabetical order whereas
the latter were taken as being no different from single words,
and were aligned with the single word, following the convention. Hence we have ghost-write, and ghost-writer put after ghostly, but succeeded by the two compounds.
Pattern (b):
ghost-write
ghost-writer
ghostly
ghost story
ghost town
In this pattern, the hyphenated words were treated separately
from the rest of the words on the list. The two words were
given positions preceding the alphabetical arrangement.
However, when we singled out the two words, we could still
find them following the letter-based alphabetical ordering
convention. The single word ghostly was correctly followed
by the two-word compounds alphabetically.
Pattern (c):
ghost story
ghost town
ghost-write
ghost-writer
ghostly
This pattern could be interpreted in two ways: first, the word
ghostly was misplaced; second, there was the assumption that
the word ghost should be treated as a base word. And the assumption went further in that two-word compounds should
come before the hyphenated. The placement of the single
word ghostly indicated the beginning of the alphabetical ordering convention. The two sets of compound words were
aligned in accordance with the alphabetical convention.
The patterns of arrangement illustrate the same point as raised previously – students
had varying concepts of arranging words other than simple single words, following
alphabetical order.
84
Treatment
The teaching of alphabetical ordering aimed at sensitising students to the issue, and at
directing students to the information in the introductory pages of dictionaries. In class,
students would be provided opportunities to practise finding words following the alphabetical ordering conventions adopted by the selected MLDs in the study. The topic
‘alphabetical ordering of words in EFL dictionaries’ was raised in the context of a
game. Experimental students were given 16 jumbled words taken from the LDOCE
and were asked to arrange the words according to letter-by-letter alphabetical order.
The sequence of words started with rivet² and ended with roadshow. The choices of
the dictionary, the page and the word sequence were random.
Each student was given a MLD, one of the three selected for use in the test. They
were asked to check their answers from the dictionary they were using and then, in
groups of three, compare their answers. In doing so, students would discover the three
learners’ dictionaries, though all following the convention of alphabetical ordering in
listing words, vary in their selection and arrangement of headwords. They would also
find the arrangement of words in the OALD is different from those in the other two
dictionaries, for it employs the convention of encompassing derivatives and compound words within the root words and uses symbols to indicate these. Students were
then directed to the introductory pages or guides to each dictionary, which explain the
conventions each particular dictionary has adopted in arranging entries. For example,
the following is given in COBUILD (1995:xiv):
Order of entries: in alphabetical order, taking no notice of capital letters, hyphens,
apostrophes, accents, or spaces between words.
The same methodology was adopted in teaching both the Experimental groups. The
differences were mainly on the time spent on introducing and consolidating the teaching content. The same activity of putting jumbled words into the right order was used
to introduce the topic for motivation in both groups. However, due to time constraints, students from Ex1 were taught about the alphabetical ordering conventions
used by various learners’ dictionaries with the help of transparencies; whereas Ex2
students were allowed time to browse through the three MLDs to learn about the
conventions. Time was allowed for a Q & A phase to answer students’ queries about
the conventions or arrangements of entries. With Ex1, approximately twenty minutes
were spent on the topic, including time spent on the game and the teacher giving explanations; whereas in the case of Ex2, the whole lesson period of approximately fifty
minutes was used. Throughout the English course, Ex2 students were reminded of
what they had learned from this lesson when they looked up words from dictionaries
in classroom activities.
Post-test results, analysis and implications
The data obtained indicate that marked improvement was found with Ex2 students
when their performances in the pre-test and post-test were compared (p = 0.002).
Such results were not found with Ex1 (p = 0.22) and the Control group (p = 0.99).
When the results of the three groups were compared, a statistical significant difference was found (p = 0.226). The two words that were assigned highest weights were
the two abbreviations FPO (5.1) and FR (2.13) which were in the 11th and 12th posi85
tions in the sequence. The data revealed that Ex2 students performed better than Control group students, who had not received any training in alphabetical ordering convention. Ex2 students also out-performed Ex1 students, although the latter had received teaching on the topic. Since data in the pre-test had proved that students from
all three groups shared similar ability in handling this question, the evidence suggests
that the revised teaching approach and materials adopted in teaching the topic to Ex2
students were effective and compared favourably to those employed to teach Ex1 students.
In the following, I will examine the erroneous strings closely, in an attempt to discover where students encountered difficulties. The discussion will be based mainly on
the error types specified in the initial analysis of the test (refer to Table 30, p. 83). All
the incomplete answers and those with extra words added were discarded. The total
number of strings resulting in each group was:
Table 32: Percentages of correct sequence found in erroneous strings.
Control n=29, Ex1 n=32 , Ex2 n=36
a. Sequence 1-4-11-3
Percentages of the correct sequence found
in the erroneous strings
Words illustrated
1
4
11
3
four-stroke
fourth of July
four-wheel drive
fowl pest
Control
Ex1
Ex2
10.3%
12.5%
13.9%
In the pre-test, we identified students from all three groups showing weaknesses in
aligning a string of words which included hyphenated, compound and single words. In
the post-test, it was also found that the rate of correct sequencing was still low among
students from all three groups. There were high percentages of students in all three
groups putting the compound four-stroke (1) in the first position of this sequence, followed by four-wheel drive (11). Of the three groups, the Control group had the highest percentage of students (82.8%) making such mistakes, followed by 81.3% from
the Ex1 with and 77.8% from the Ex2. I surmise that students who made such error
had aligned the words following word-based alphabetical ordering. In this case, the
word four- functioned as the base for word positioning: thus the second part of the
hyphenated word stroke, was placed before wheel, following the sequence of letters in
the Latin alphabet. Further support for the surmise that students were still using words
but not letters, to align the items given was that the sequence 1-11-4-3 had a relatively
high occurrence – 50% in the Control group and 40.6% in Ex1. Of the three groups,
Ex2 students had the least difficulty with this string. Although the percentage of students giving the erroneous sequence 1-11 in this group was still high, a relatively low
percentage (27.8%) of students produced the faulty sequence 4-3, and only 25% gave
the sequence 1-11-4-3 as answers.
86
Table 33: Percentages of correct sequence found in erroneous strings.
b. 3-9 and 9-7
Words illustrated
3 fowl pest
9 fox
9 fox
7 foxglove
Percentages of the correct sequence found
in the erroneous strings
Control
Ex1
Ex2
82.7%
87.5%
75%
41.4%
46.9%
62.5%
Students in all three groups seemed to have few difficulties moving from a compound
to a single-word entry, as in sequence 3-9. Ex1 performed slightly better, with 87.5%
of the students getting the sequence correct. Although fox and foxglove are singleword entries with which students had no difficulty, according to the results found in
both the pre-test and post-test, difficulties arose with the problematic pair that students gave as answers instead, 9-12 (fox and fox terrier), with an error rate of 48.3%
in the Control group, and 43.8% in Ex1. Ex2 performed the best among the three with
only 36.1% of students making this error. With a relatively greater number of students
giving this erroneous string, I think it would be worthwhile to track how students arrived at such an answer.
In the test, students were allowed to use all the selected dictionaries to answer the
questions, except for Q.1A and Q.1B, on pronunciation symbols. My first approach to
the erroneous string was to examine what information the students would have found
in the dictionaries provided had they looked up the words in the sequences there. The
following shows how the entries fowl pest, fox, foxglove (3-9-7) and fox terrier (12)
are positioned in four selected dictionaries:
Table 34: Contents of selected entries in four dictionaries.
Dictionaries
LDELC
COBUILD
LDOCE
OALD
Contents of fox, foxglove and fox terrier
All three entries are recorded:
fox¹ – fox² – FOX – Fox, Charles James – Fox, George – Fox, Michael –
Fox, Samantha – Fox and the Grapes – foxglove – foxhole – foxhound –
foxhunting – foxhunter – fox terrier
fox terrier is not recorded, whereas the other two are arranged in the sequence fox – foxglove
All three entries are recorded:
fox¹– fox² – foxglove – foxhole – foxhound – fox terrier
Both the entries fox and foxglove are presented as headwords, but fox
terrier is treated as a sub-entry of fox.
The LDELC has provided a lot more information or headwords than students would
have needed to align the given words. Students thus would have to eliminate entries
which were irrelevant to the question. Following the order of the entries presented, I
believe that the chance of students making the 9-12 error was slight. With the
LDOCE, as the sequence of the words was clearly presented, the chance of students
making such a mistake was even slighter.
COBUILD has not included the compound fox terrier as an entry and students would
have to decide on their own where the headword should be positioned. Given that the
dictionary had already shown the entry fox was to be followed by foxglove, the plac-
87
ing fox terrier in the middle of the two words by mistake would more likely to be a
randomised or non-systematic, rather than a major cause of, error.
OALD has a different approach from the other three dictionaries in presenting compounds, and thus the four words in question were placed quite differently in this dictionary, according to whose convention “Compounds spelt with hyphens or as separate words are listed alphabetically in the headword entry, after the symbol ”
(OALD 5 1995:ix). The compound fox terrier is included but not given as a separate
entry in this dictionary; instead it is placed under the entry fox which the dictionary
treats as the base word from which the compound is derived. Together with this compound, we find fox-hunting under the same headword. Both are presented following
alphabetical ordering, with fox terrier positioned after fox-hunting. The word foxglove
is the next headword after fox.
The positioning of these words might have caused a problem to subject students who
consulted only this dictionary during the test. If students were not familiar with the
arrangement of compounds of the OALD, or the symbols used to indicate the nature
of words, or the significance of the typesetting used in the dictionary, visually they
could have been misled into believing that fox-terrier should be positioned before foxglove. Since data obtained in the questionnaire employed in the first stage of the current study revealed that both the bilingualised and monolingual versions of the Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary were most popular among dictionaries of the same
types, there is reason to believe that many students would have used the OALD 5 in
the test. In fact during the test, I observed that the dictionary was the most commonly
consulted dictionary among the four. I postulate that ignorance or negligence of the
alphabetical convention adopted by the OALD could have contributed to 38% of students from the Control group giving sequence fox 9-12-7 as their answers, and 43.8 %
of Ex1 students and 33.3% Ex2 making the same mistake.
Among the three, Ex2 students made this error the least. In fact, 62.5% of students
from this group obtained the correct 9-7 sequence, around 15% more than Ex1 students (46.9%), whereas students of Ex1 out-performed the Control group by 5.5%.
The teaching of alphabetical conventions to both the experimental groups would have
contributed to the difference in performance when compared to the Control. Ex2 students out-performed Ex1 in this sequence and I would take this as a pointer to evaluating the effectiveness of the different treatment provided to both groups. In order to
lift the performance of Ex1, more time and focused teaching, as Ex2 received, would
be required to disseminate the OALD alphabetical ordering conventions.
Table 35: Percentages of correct sequence found in the erroneous strings.
c.
6-12-8
Words illustrated
Percentages of the correct sequence found
in the erroneous strings
Control
Ex1
Ex2
6
12
8
20.7%
foxhound
fox terrier
foxtrot
31.3%
30.6%
The two experimental groups performed better than the Control group in getting this
sequence correct. What mistakes were found mainly concerned the entry fox terrier
88
(12) which could have been misplaced as a result of the choice of dictionary in the
test, as discussed above. As a result, over 20% of students from the Control group and
the Ex1, gave the sequence 6-8-2-5 instead of 6-12-8-2-5 On the other hand, only
16.7% of students in Ex2 made this mistake.
Table 36: Percentages of correct sequence found in the erroneous strings.
d. 8-2-5
Words illustrated
Percentages of the correct sequence found
in the erroneous strings
Control
Ex1
Ex2
8 foxtrot
2 FPO
5 FR
44.8%
56.3%
50%
Sequence 8-2-5 is made up of a single-word entry followed by two abbreviations.
This resembled the sequence 1-2-6, representing the single-word entry ghoulish and
two abbreviations: GHQ and GI, as in the pre-test. Based on the results of the statistical displacement calculation, there was a significant difference between the weights
assigned to them, which ranged from 0.19 (foxtrot) to 5.1 (FPO), followed by 2.13
(FR). Furthermore, the two experimental groups were found to have less difficulty in
getting this sequence correct than the Control group, with 56% of Ex1, and 50% of
Ex2 students obtaining the right sequence whereas only 44.8% of Control group students got it correct.
When the results of all three groups in the pre-test and post-test are compared, the two
experimental groups can be seen to have made a great improvement. Those providing
the correct sequence (1-2-6) in the pre-test accounted for 27% in Ex1 and 32.4% in
Ex2 whereas in the post-test, this rose to 60% and 72.1% respectively. The Control
group students’ scores were similar in their pre-test and their post-test, with 40% of
the total number giving correct answers.
To sum up, the results of this study demonstrate that students were able to master letter-by-letter alphabetical ordering with words of the same type, for example, two hyphenated words or two single words. However, they were still very confused about
the arrangement of entries other than single words. This was especially obvious during the transitions when several types of entries crossed. Statistically, significant differences were found among three groups after the teaching of alphabetical ordering
conventions used in different dictionaries was carried out explicitly in the classroom
to the two experimental groups. This result could be attributed to the fact that Ex2
students were taught using a different approach from the first group, and were allowed
more classroom time to explore the convention. I conclude that the teaching did, to a
certain extent, have a positive effect on the two experimental groups in the area of alphabetical ordering convention. Ex2 students, who received a modified treatment,
out-performed Ex1.
A closer examination of the data reveals that Ex1 performed the best in the post-test
in handling sequences formed by a compound and a single word. Ex2 made the fewest
mistakes in forming sequences involving compounds and hyphenated words. This
group of students also was least affected by the clustering convention adopted by the
OALD. Both experimental groups compared favourably with the Control group in ar-
89
ranging a single word with a compound, and a single word with abbreviations. In the
latter sequence, both experimental groups outperformed the Control group. The performance of the Control group remained almost the same in both the tests.
Although alphabetical ordering may appear to be a very simple topic to university
students, our data show that mastering the system is not necessarily easy. The efficacy
of giving a phrase such as “words are listed in this dictionary in alphabetical order”
(LDOCE:xiv) in the Introductory Pages is not obvious. The explanation given by
COBUILD (xiv), stating that features such as spaces, apostrophes and hyphens would
not be counted in the alignment of words following alphabetical order, is somewhat
more adequate because more information is provided. However, imagining that reading through the explanation given in the dictionary can help students clarify the macrostructure of the reference book is optimistic. The results obtained by Ex1 suggest
that mere reading through the explanation does not help students to acquire the
knowledge. A combination of twenty minutes of explicit teaching, with each student
using a dictionary, playing a game to set the focus and generate interest, and using
visual aids for illustration, has proved to be inadequate in helping Ex1 students to absorb the information. The improvement shown in the performance of Ex2 suggests
that a spiral approach in teaching the concept, and giving students opportunities to
have hands-on experience to practise and apply the knowledge taught, are important
elements for learning to take place. From the test results, it is also evident that students’ understanding of the macrostructure of dictionaries is still at a very rudimentary stage. The majority could cope with simple arrangements when the words belong
to the same type, but experienced problems when several combinations of word entries were involved. This lack of skill and/or knowledge affected the time and success
rate of their looking up words in dictionaries. In turn, the look-up process became unnecessarily long and frustrating for these users. These may be some of the reasons
why they do not use dictionaries frequently.
Each of the EFL dictionaries has its own conventions of word ordering, though they
all claim that their arrangements follow the order of the Latin alphabet. The differences in the individual conventions adopted create obstacles for users, since they cannot apply the skills they have acquired through using one dictionary to using others.
Furthermore, the differences are not explained clearly in either the prefaces or introductory pages of the dictionaries. Most users may not even be aware of the existence
of these pages (cf. Béjoint 1981). Besides needing to be informed of, and to understand, the word-arrangement conventions used in various dictionaries, users also need
to be provided with training and practice in retrieving words arrayed in alphabetical
order, so as to familiarise themselves with the macrostructure of the dictionaries.
Various researchers (e.g. Béjoint 1981; Underhill 1985; Whitcut 1986) have expressed caution over the complexity of looking up words in a dictionary, with particular concerns shown over users’ ability to follow the Latin alphabet, especially when
their own native tongue uses a different graphemic or letter-ordering system, and differences in the arrangements of compounds and idioms, derivatives and abbreviations.
Existing activities and exercises available are mainly found in dictionary workbooks. I
find such exercises tend to be irrelevant or too basic for Hong Kong Chinese students.
Most of them focus on familiarising users with the basic ordering of single words at
the letter level.
90
Data collected from the current study has shown that basic alphabetisation is not the
core of the problem. The analysis has revealed that most students were able to master
the alignment of words of the same nature, such as single words with single words. In
this respect, the focus of exercises that dictionary workbooks often present would be
too simple, if not irrelevant, for the subject students. On top of this, dictionary workbooks have also inherited the shortcoming of being written to train users to use a particular dictionary. Thus, the exercises included in them fail to offer exposure to the
variety of conventions found in learners’ dictionaries.
It is apparent that there is a need to teach students the knowledge and skills required
for following the conventions of alphabetical ordering. However, teaching should precede the elementary stage of aligning single word entries to words of different natures. It should be carried out in the classroom, and cover a variety of dictionaries that
may be useful to students. Teachers should be allowed to have the flexibility, in terms
of time and materials, to integrate the training into the current English syllabus they
are teaching. I think that what has been restricting this kind of training is that dictionary use teaching lacks empirical evidence to prove its significance in assisting learners
to become better dictionary users. Hence, empirical data on how the topic could be
taught and how this could affect learners’ use of dictionaries are urgently needed. This
study has shed light on the kind of methodology that researchers can apply to diagnose problematic areas that students have in alphabetical ordering. Time, practice and
hands-on experience on using dictionaries are deemed to be crucial factors if effective
learning is to take place.
PRONUNCIATION SYMBOLS AND STRESS MARKS
Test design
The question on pronunciation symbols contains two parts, both aiming to discover
whether or not students could use the IPA table provided in the three selected MLDs.
Both series of questions were tried out in the pilot tests. The reason for having two
different series of questions was to set different levels of difficulty. The matching exercise (Q.1A) would be less demanding, since students were given alternatives to
choose from, and only one distractor was used for each sub-question. The purpose
was to test whether students could recognise the sound symbols with the help of the
IPA chart provided by the three MLDs used. The words chosen for the sub-question
should be those with a pronunciation which the students are familiar with. Hence, the
testing point would be on the recognition of the symbols with reference to the IPA
table provided. I first made photocopies of the IPA symbol charts taken from the three
MLDs. The number of copies made from each dictionary was one-third of the total
subject population. Then I pasted them onto the page of the test where the subquestions on pronunciation were located. The test papers were distributed to students
in a random order to ensure that there was no bias toward any one dictionary. With an
average class of eighteen students, six would be completing the questions with the
help of the one of the three IPA charts taken from the three selected dictionaries.
With stress marks, students were asked to identify and circle the stress(es) of four
words. At this point of the test, students would have submitted their answers on the
91
section pronunciation symbols (Q.1A & Q.1B). They were instructed to use the selected MLDs to work on this question.
Pre-test results and analysis
The results of the responses of three subject groups in the pre-test of pronunciation
symbols resembled those obtained in the pilot tests. The data indicated that students
had tremendous problems with the symbols, since the average number of right answers the three groups obtained in all four sub-questions was approximately 35%,
with a mean score of 33. Students were particularly weak in identifying the two sound
symbols < > and < > (SQ. 3 and SQ.4) in Q.1A: the average percentage of correct
answers obtained from all three groups in these two sub-questions was 26.3% and
26.4% respectively. Statistically, no significant difference was found in the performance of the three groups in all the sub-questions in Q.1A (p = 0.2652).
Table 37: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.1A in the pre-test.
Average number of correct answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
31%
29
Ex1
38%
36.3
Ex2
36.4%
34.9
The performance of students in Q.1B was worse than that in Q.1A. The sub-questions
required students to identify, with the help of the chart, the vowels or consonants that
the highlighted letter(s) represented, and write the symbol(s) in the space provided.
The average number of correct answers in all four sub-questions in all three groups
was 22%, with a mean score of 17. Only the word promise (SQ.7) was correctly given
by over 30% of students; the diphthong /
/ (SQ.5) posed students the greatest difficulty, with an average of only 7.9% of them from all three groups obtaining the correct symbol (see Table 38). As with Q.1A, no statistically significant difference was
found when students from all three groups were compared in Q.1B (p = 0.9622).
Table 38: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.1B in the pre-test.
Average number of correct answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
22.5%
17.3
Ex1
21.5%
16.8
Ex2
22.2%
16.7
Overall, findings in the pre-test indicated students performed relatively better in the
recognition exercise (Q.1A) than in the one requiring them to offer their own answers
(Q.1B).
With regard to stress marks, students in all three groups had relatively fewer problems
with the words exuberant and coercion (SQ.2 and SQ.3), which contained onesyllable stress, than with the other two words in question (SQ.1 and SQ.4), which contained both primary and secondary stresses. The average percentage of correct answers given by students in all three groups in SQ.2 and SQ.3 was 51.8% and 47.8%,
while SQ.1 and SQ.4 only totalled 16.7% and 13.8% respectively. The mean score of
the whole subject population in all four sub-questions was 22.2 (see Table 39 for
individual group performance).
92
Table 39: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.2 in the pre-test.
Control
29%
19.4
Average number of correct answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Ex1
29.3%
18.5
Ex2
39.3%
28.6
As with the results obtained in Q.1A and Q.1B, no statistically significant difference
was found in the results among the three groups in Q.2 (p = 0.0119).
Treatment
The major teaching objective was to instruct students in how to make use of the information on pronunciation and word stress provided by MLDs. In turn, they could be
more accurate when pronouncing the words whose meanings they already knew, and
make intelligent guesses at those which were new to them. The teaching of pronunciation and stress marks was remedial in nature, ‘attacking’ problematic areas students
have in these areas. This was incorporated into a fifteen-minute oral presentation on a
research topic that students were required to present for assessment at the end of the
English course. The time was spent on teaching and correcting students’ pronunciation of words that would be used in their oral presentation. In this way, students
would comprehend the relevance of the teaching while also using the pronunciation
chart.
At the beginning of the English course, students were asked to choose one of thirty
research questions to work on. Since each student was required to select a different
topic, the selection activity became a competition – an oral defence. In turns, students
each gave a two-minute presentation justifying to the whole class why he or she
should be allowed to work on the selected topic. Pronunciation and stress errors that
students made were noted during the defence and corrections were thus incorporated
into the teaching. Special attention was paid to the accurate pronunciation of words,
so that meanings would not be impeded. With regard to word stress, the focus of the
teaching was on ensuring clarity of utterance and to highlight the important words in
sentences, in context.
The treatment of the current study began during the lesson that followed students’ oral
defences, with the use of a poem that revealed the discrepancies that exist between
English pronunciation and orthography. Then a discussion on the importance of accurate pronunciation and clear utterances for successful communication was initiated.
The pronunciation charts included in various learners’ dictionaries were then shown
to the students, to introduce how the pronunciation notation could help the students to
rectify the problems identified. For example, the pronunciations of the word explore
and its derivatives were used to highlight the vowel alternations.
explore
exploration
exploratory
explorer
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
The same approach was adopted with the introduction of stress marks. Problematic
words such as analysis and analyse, and consequently, which students often use but
93
frequently mispronounce, were used to illustrate syllable stress. Class copies of dictionaries were provided, and students were encouraged to look up words, so that they
could give each other support and exchange opinions. All three MLDs were used interchangeably in class for illustration. The slight differences existing among them in
notational representation and stress syllables were highlighted in class. For example,
the symbol /
/ is used in COBUILD to illustrate the diphthong in coat, whereas
/
/ is used by the other two dictionaries for the same sound. Further, within the
conventions adopted by COBUILD, the vowel of the stressed syllable(s) of the word
is underlined, whereas in the other two dictionaries, a vertical stroke, either superscript or subscript for primary or secondary stress respectively, is used before the
stressed syllable(s).
The teaching of pronunciation and stress marks required about twenty minutes in each
of the two lessons that followed the lesson in which students gave their oral defences
on their research topics. A ten-minute revision on both the sound symbols and stress
marks was given in each of the two other lessons in the latter half of the course. In
general, Ex2 students were given more class time and opportunities compared to Ex1,
to practise the knowledge and skills taught.
Post-test results, analysis and implications
In Q.1A, statistically no significant differences were found among the three groups
when their post-test results were compared. Likewise, no statistically significant difference was found when the pre-test and post-test results of the three groups were
compared. SQ.1 was the sub-question to which the highest average rate of students
from all three of the subject groups provided the correct answer, with an average of
66%. The sub-question that the fewest students answered correctly was SQ.2, with the
average number of correct answers obtained among the three groups totalling 25.1%.
Table 40: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.1A in the post-test.
Average number of correct answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
Control
34.6%
33
Ex1
41.9%
42.1
Ex2
44.3%
42.4
In Q.1B, statistically significant differences were found when results of Control group
students were compared to those of the Ex2 students (p = 0.0031), and when the performances of all three groups were compared (p = 0.0016). Moreover, when the performances of students from all three groups in the pre-test were compared to those in
the post-test, statistically significant differences were found in Ex2 students’ performance in Q.1B (p = 0.0028). The vowel that most students from all three groups responded to correctly in Q.1B was /
/ (SQ.1), with an average of 53.7%. The subquestion which these students on average had the most difficulty with was SQ.3,
which tested them on the vowel / /. An average of only 18.9% of students from all
three groups answered this correctly (see Table 41).
Table 41: Students’ performance in all four sub-questions of Q.1B in the post-test.
Average number of correct answers in all four sub-questions
Mean score of all four sub-questions
94
Control
18.3%
17.2
Ex1
25.8%
19.5
Ex2
35.4%
29.9
According to the pre-test data, students from all three groups performed less satisfactorily in Q.1B than in Q.1A. In the post-test, reverse results regarding these sets of
questions were found with Ex2 students since statistically significant improvement
was found in their post-test performance in Q.1B (see Table 41). Moreover, Ex2 students obtained the highest percentage of correct answers on average in all four subquestions of Q.1A (44.3%) and Q.1B (35.4%), and Q.2 (37.5%). Since results from
the validation test have proved that the difficulty level of the pre- and post-test questions was equal, the increase could be attributed to the training on sound symbols and
stress marks which Ex2 students had received. However, such explicit teaching was
not a complete success since there were no statistically significant changes among
students of all three groups in Q.1A and Q.2, and when their own results in the preand post-test were compared in both the questions. Also, the percentage of correct answers that Ex2 students obtained in Q.1B was not remarkably high. In the following, I
will examine results obtained from both the tests with the aim of discovering possible
reasons that may explain why the treatment was not effective.
The responses in the post-test revealed certain patterns which might be used to infer
the problematic areas which students faced. Based on data obtained in Q.1A and
Q.1B, two aspects have been identified as possible causes:
1.
2.
confusing symbols with the English letters
dictionary-induced errors.
The distractors chosen for sub-questions of Q.1A in both the tests were selected based
on two criteria: firstly, because the distractor (sound symbol) resembles graphemically the letter which gives the sound to the word being tested – for example, the consonant / / was chosen to be the distractor of the symbol < > since both the tested
words angle (Pre-test SQ.3) and rank (Post-test SQ.4) contained the letter n – and
secondly because the three MLDs use similar letters, or combinations of letters, to
illustrate both the pronunciation of the distractor and the tested symbol. For example,
COBUILD uses the words note and coat to illustrate the diphthong /
/. LDOCE
also uses the word note (for both /
/ and /
/) whereas OALD uses go (/
/).
In all three dictionaries, the letter o, or o with another letter (oa), is used to illustrate
the sound. Hence, the sound symbols <
> or <
> were selected for the tested
word rough with the aim of finding out whether or not students would be confused by
the spelling of the illustrative words and choose the distractor as the answer. Yet, all
the distractors were standard IPA symbols (see Table 42).
Table 42: Distractors for all the words tested in both the tests.
Pre-test 1A
Tested phonemes
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
Words chosen
lawyer
rough
superstitious
angle
Distractors
< >
<
>
< >
< >
Post-test 1A
Tested phonemes
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
Words chosen
worth
added
insurance
rank
Distractors
< >
< >
< >
< >
95
Errors possibly resulting from students confusing symbols with letters
Responses in the pre- and post-test reflected that students had problems differentiating
spellings from sound symbols. Pre-test results suggested distractors which resemble
letters (first type) were very effective, particularly the in angle and in superstitious. In sub-questions SQ.3 and SQ.4, over half (60%) the students chose the distractors as answers, a much higher percentage than mistakes found with the other two
words (lawyer, 47%; rough, 34%) where distractors were chosen based on illustrative
words used by the dictionaries (second type).
The resemblance of the sound symbols to letters was highlighted in the treatment provided for both the experimental groups. Yet, results from the post-test suggested that
the teaching had not been successful in rectifying the problem totally. In the post-test,
we still found a high percentage of such mistakes in the answers of both experimental
groups. An average of 50% of students from each group chose as answers the distractors that resembled the highlighted letters found in the three tested words in SQ.2,
SQ.3 and SQ.4. I will use SQ.2 (added) to illustrate this point. 52.4% of Ex1 and
67.9% of Ex2 students chose the distractor < > as the answer, but only an average
9.6% of students from both the groups chose the others. This is a simple word which
students would have learned and would be familiar with, and it is in COBUILD’s
highest word list band (five diamonds). Moreover, the pronunciation of the word is
undemanding and should have posed no problem to the students. Such an outcome
could therefore be construed as due to the resemblance of the symbols to the letters.
Although these students had received training on the IPA symbols, this resemblance
might have lowered their awareness. For example, due to the similarity of the letter e
to the distractor < >, some students may have anticipated that < > was the correct
answer. Furthermore, due to the simplicity of the word, I surmise that relatively fewer
students would have referenced the IPA chart. Similar cases also occurred in the subquestions of Q.1B when students were required to provide a symbol for the highlighted part of the given words. For example, some students wrote symbols following
the spelling of the words, such as <ou> for proud and <ge> for cottage.
Furthermore, the pre-test results reveal that a large proportion of students from all
three groups failed to obtain the correct answers for the symbols < > and < >.
Hence, I decided to include these two symbols again in the post-test, with the aim of
testing the effectiveness of explicit teaching. Although no statistically significant difference was found among the three groups of students in Q.1A in the post-test, more
students from the two experimental groups were able to differentiate a sound symbol
from a distractor. Ex2 students who had been provided with a relatively longer period
of teaching or learning time, and had been given exercises and revision on pronunciation symbols, performed better than Ex1students. Details of the results are as follows:
Table 43: A comparison of results of the three groups in sub-questions 3 and 4 of Q.1A.
Post-test
SQ.3 insurance
SQ.4 rank
No. of correct answers
Control
Ex1
Ex2
32.6%
36.9%
51.4%
26.1%
32.3%
35.7%
96
Errors possibly induced by the three dictionaries selected
The convention, and sometimes the illustrative words, that the three selected MLDs
adopt to present the sound symbols varies. For example, the words OALD uses to illustrate the sounds
and
/ are ten and jam respectively, in this format:
ten
/
/
jam
/
This convention assumes that users understand that the symbol < > corresponds to
the letter e in the word ten; and <
> to j in jam. The assumption further presupposes that users recognise the consonant in the latter word is one with a combination
of two phonemes / / and / /, and not just / /. Knowing that the IPA symbols are
not included in most classroom teaching of English as a second or foreign language,
and that NN English-speaking users in general are ignorant of how the notations function, these assumptions are without adequate foundation. Another example is the
diphthong /
/ (or /
/ in COBUILD). In Q.1B of the pre-test this symbol has
caused considerable problems to students, with only 7.9% on average obtaining the
correct answer. Also, while providing teaching of the sound symbols to the two experimental groups, I discovered that students had many difficulties in perceiving diphthongs, as well as consonants which appeared to be a combination of two phonemes,
such as /
/ and / /.
The OALD’s choice of the illustrative word ten, which is spelled with letters that resemble the transcription <
>, could create confusion among users who do not
have training in the IPA. The resemblance could encourage a false correlation between sound symbols and letters. Moreover, using only one illustrative word for a
sound symbol may foster in the learners an erroneous assumption that a symbol can
only be represented by one particular letter, or combination of letters.
LDOCE’s set of illustrative words is different from the OALD’s. However, unlike in
the OALD, LDOCE’s convention does not include a phonetic transcription. Instead,
the dictionary highlights the letter(s) in the illustrative word that correspond(s) to the
given sound. For this reason, it is less likely that LDOCE’s convention would mislead
users into associating spellings with phonetic transcription. Also, since the corresponding part of the illustrative word with the sound symbol is highlighted in bold,
LDOCE appears to be able to provide clearer illustration of the notation than can
OALD. Yet, the illustrative word still failed to avoid giving users the impression that
the letters e and j are equivalent to the phonemes / / and /
/.
COBUILD’s policy of giving more than one word to illustrate a sound symbol seems
to offer users a better perspective of the desired sound symbols than in the other two
dictionaries. The presentation of the two sound symbols in the COBUILD is as follows:
met, lend, pen
joy, bridge
By offering users more illustrative words for the sound symbols shown, the dictionary
shows how the sound can be represented by a single letter or different letter combinations.
97
In my analysis of the test responses, I discovered that some of the errors could have
been induced by the choice of illustrative words used in the three MLDs. For example, some errors appearing in Q.1B in both the pre-test and post-test were confined to
users using a particular dictionary. In the pre-test, students who gave < r> instead of
< > as their answers for the word promise (SQ.3), and <
> for <
> in sew
(SQ.1), were found to be using COBUILD; students who gave <⌧> instead of < >
for Christmas, were all LDOCE users. I surmise this kind of confusion could have
been caused as a result of users misreading the illustrative words on the pronunciation
charts (see Table 44).
Table 44: The number of occurrences of students’ errors in Q.1B of both pre-test and posttest which the current study proposed are related to illustrative words used by the
three MLDs.
Pre-test
sew
Christmas
promise
cottage
Post-test
SQ.1 proud
SQ.2 chorus
SQ.3 dead
SQ.1
SQ.2
SQ.3
SQ.4
SQ.4
Symbols confused
⌧
Symbols confused
⌧
habitual
OALD
–
–
–
–
OALD
–
–
–
–
–
–
LDOCE
–
–
–
5
LDOCE
–
2
–
–
5
–
COBUILD
5
3
5
–
COBUILD
8
4
1
3
–
2
The data suggest that the choice of illustrative words that all three dictionaries use to
demonstrate the sounds of the phonemes could have been the cause of the errors
found among students’ answers. With a very vague idea of IPA and the principle of
differentiation from letters, the students failed to use the chart as intended. Some students seemed to focus on the letters of the given words in general instead of the highlighted part when they searched for the corresponding symbol from the chart. When
they browsed through the chart and identified an illustrative word that had the same
letters or spelling, they decided that the symbol used for that word would be the answer to the question. In the case of the word habitual, five students gave the diphthong /
/ as the answer, all of whom were found to be using the LDOCE in the
test. In the dictionary, the word actual is used as the illustrative word for the diphthong. My speculation is since both the words habitual and actual shared the same
spelling in their last syllable, which is tual, students immediately formed association
of the two words. As the word actual was used in LDOCE to illustrate the diphthong
/
/, some students chose this sound symbol, instead of / / for answer of SQ.4.
Since no such mistake was found among students using the other two dictionaries,
there is a strong reason to believe that the students concerned referenced the IPA chart
using the spelling of words with the starting point of his or her search the syllable tual
of both words. A similar case was found with COBUILD dictionary users in the test
/ as answers were using
of the word proud. All eight students who gave /
COBUILD in the post-test. All the examples discussed illustrate two points: first,
when in search of the pronunciation of words, students were still very much controlled by the preconception of approaching the words from their spelling as manifested by the use of the Latin alphabet. The whole set of pronunciation symbols ap-
98
peared to be too abstract to be acquired within the lesson time designated in this
study. The results of both Ex1 and Ex2 students in the post-test suggested that the
time and effort spent on teaching the topic was insufficient to rectify the problem. The
second point is, using the IPA symbols to obtain the sound of a word is a very complex process and the pronunciation charts given in all three learners’ dictionaries have
over-simplified the process.
The data obtained suggested that sound symbols which resembled the Latin alphabet
posed more problems to students in the tests than abstract ones. Although statistically
no significant difference was found, the data showed that there was an upward trend
in the performance of students after treatment was given (Control vs Ex1) and when
more time and opportunities to practise were built into the course (Ex1 vs Ex2). As
statistically significant difference was found with Ex2 students in Q.1B, where Ex2
students out-performed their own results in the pre-test, and the other two groups in
the post-test. Based on these results, I conclude that the treatment provided to Ex2
lifted, to a certain extent, students’ knowledge and competence in using the IPA
charts provided in the MLDs to answer questions given in the post-test.
In addition, since Ex2 students’ changes in ability were only manifested in Q.1B but
not in Q.1A, I construe that this was because the distractors employed in Q.1A were
effective. Students from all three groups, including Ex2 who managed to perform well
in the production exercise, were still very confused by the difference between letters
and IPA symbols which resemble letters. The current study has revealed this to be a
potentially problematic area that NN English-speaking users would have in acquiring
an understanding of the IPA symbols. This problem has been screened from our attention by our false trust in the simplicity of the illustrative words used in sound representation.
I propose that there exist different levels of difficulty among the IPA symbols presented in the MLDs. Some symbols such as / / and / / may be more difficult than
others like / :/ for students to acquire than others.
With regard to stress marks, a careful examination of the mistakes made reveals patterns of errors, which could be classified into the following categories.
Table 45: Codification of errors suggested to Q.2 in both the pre-test and post-test.
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
Descriptions
Syllable boundary not clear
Stress mark(s) placed on wrong syllable(s)
One or miss stress missing
A combination of codes 3 & 2
A combination of codes 3 & 1
Unattempted
Codes 3, 4 & 5 applied to the words with more than one stress, such as representative,
marijuana and competition. Code 1 would be assigned to students’ answers that were
incomplete, for example, if they just circled the letters r and s of the word representative (Pre-test SQ.1), instead of all the letters that made up the stressed syllables of the
word. Another example was the word coercion in post-test (SQ.3): the stressed syllable of the word should include the letters er, but some students just circled either one
99
of the two letters. The mistakes suggest that students were not clear about what constituted a syllable, or had little understanding of the conventions that various
dictionaries adopt in presenting information on word stress. This was found to be the
major problematic area in both the pre-test and post-test.
Unattempted answers (Code 6) were examined in this question because such occurrences were relatively high when compared to the rest of the questions in both pre-test
and post-test. When students were instructed to complete the tests, they were assured
that the tests were just exercises, and that if they did not know how to answer some of
the questions, they could leave them blank. As previously discussed, from the pilot
tests results and interviews, this proved to be an important assurance. Given this as the
background and the fact that only a very small percentage of unattempted questions
were found among other questions in both tests, it is highly likely that the lack of responses was an indicator that students lacked the knowledge to answer the questions.
Table 46: Results (in percentage) of the three groups in Q.2.
Pre-test
Control
Ex1
Ex2
Post-test
Control
Ex1
Ex2
1
14%
7.4%
10%
2
28%
16.2%
15.4%
3
10.5%
9.9%
13.9%
4
9.5%
10.9%
8.2%
5
6%
6.7%
10.4%
6
4%
14.8%
3.2%
35.3%
45%
39.3%
24.5%
16.2%
12.5%
10.9%
6.9%
5.7%
2.7%
3.5%
2.5%
1.1%
0.4%
1.1%
2.2%
0%
1.8%
The data reflect the fact that the two experimental groups still experienced considerable difficulty with word stress even after receiving teaching on how to interpret information presented in MLDs. No significant improvement was found when all three
groups were compared or when the performances of each of the groups in the pre-test
and post-test were compared. Based on the classifications adopted in this study, however, we could identify two changes from the two experimental groups in the posttest, but not from students of the Control group. These concern the number of nonattempts found in this question (Code 6) and the mistakes which I have classified as
Code 1.
As previously mentioned, the rate of non-attempts of Q.2 is relatively high among all
the questions asked in the two tests, and I interpret this as a sign which indicates students’ lack of knowledge of the topic. Although in all three groups, the number of unattempted questions drops when we compare the pre-test results with the post-test, it
was students from Ex1 who experienced a considerable change. The percentage
dropped from 14.8% in the pre-test to 0% in the post-test, whereas with the other two
groups, the drop averaged 1.6%. The full participation of Ex1 students in the post-test
could be an indicator reflecting the confidence and knowledge that this group of students gained in this area. After being introduced to how word stress is used in English
and how information is presented in MLDs, all Ex1 students made an attempt to answer the question. Although this group of students still failed to perform satisfactorily
in the post-test, which suggests their acquisition of the knowledge was incomplete,
their change of attitude was a positive sign supporting the explicit teaching of the
symbols.
100
In fact, signs which suggest learning has taken place within the two experimental
groups can be traced on close examination of the Code 1 mistakes identified in the
post-test. In this test, all three groups committed more mistakes related to syllable
boundaries than in their pre-test. However, Ex1 and Ex2 students both experienced a
greater jump when their two test results were compared with the Control group. Ex1
students made 7.4% of such mistakes in the pre-test and 45% in the post-test whereas
the increase of Ex2 students’ mistakes was from 10% to 39.3%. The Control group
students were relatively consistent in producing errors (14% to 35.5%). Hence, while
more students from the two experimental groups were found to be able to provide correct answers in the post-test of Q.2 than those from the Control group, more of the
experimental group students were also found to have problems with syllable boundaries. As a result, they failed to mark the stressed syllables as required. This is particularly true with SQ.3 (coquette) and SQ.4 (succinct) in the post-test. For example:
Table 47: Mistakes identified as related to syllable boundaries: coquette, succinct.
Words tested
coquette
succinct
Mistakes identified as related to syllable boundaries
coquette, coquette, coquette, coquette, coquette, coquette, coquette, coquette
succinct, succinct, succinct, succinct, succinct, succinct, succinct, succinct, succinct
The high percentage of errors appearing within the experimental and Control groups
in this section should be taken as a reminder to teachers and EFL lexicographers alike
that the concept of word stress is not always easy to comprehend for NN Englishspeaking users. Among the three selected MLDs used in the current study, both the
OALD and COBUILD provide relatively elaborate notes explaining the conventions
they adopt in presenting information, but the LDCOE provides only cursory phrasal
descriptions. While COBUILD’s elaboration mainly instructs users how to interpret
the conventions adopted, the OALD’s (on the inside back cover) includes more information on the characteristics of stressed syllables. For example, it explains how a
stressed syllable should be pronounced:
A stressed syllable is relatively loud, long in duration, said clearly and distinctly, and
made noticeable by the pitch of the voice.
The explanation goes beyond word stress(es) in one word to a two-word phrase:
When two words are put together in a phrase, the main stress in the first word may shift
to the place of secondary stress to avoid a clash between two stressed syllables next to
each other.
These notes on word stress certainly would be of great assistance to users and I believe the information is essential, and should be included, in all English dictionaries
for learners of English. However, such information is not appreciated if users have no,
or little, knowledge of English syllabification; or are as unclear about syllable
boundaries as the subject students were found to be in the current study. In these
cases, instead of requesting pedagogical lexicographers to include more comprehensive introductory notes on the topic, I would consider the dissemination of such
knowledge to be the responsibility of English language teachers.
101
Furthermore, the errors suggested that students’ understanding of the notations was
limited. Recognising a syllable boundary requires an understanding of what the phonemes are representing; for example, in the word coercion /
/, the
stress mark is found before the phoneme /
/, and the vowel is represented by the
letters er in spelling. Hence, knowledge of using the stress marks as indicated in the
dictionaries is tied in with one’s knowledge of IPA. From the previous section, we
determined that students had limited knowledge of the sound symbols, and thus it is
of no surprise that they did not perform well in this area either.
Data obtained from the current study suggest there is a need for a closer examination
of how the existing systems of representing pronunciation adopted by various learners’ dictionaries could be overtaxing users. There is a need for pedagogical lexicographers to evaluate the effectiveness of the IPA chart for both the sound symbols and
stress marks used in their dictionaries. Results of students’ tests in this study show
that the conventions adopted by the selected three MLDs to present information on
pronunciation of sounds and word stress are not self-explanatory, or transparent
enough, for students to understand and apply in the assigned tasks. In fact, it is difficult to understand why EFL lexicographers have so much confidence in both the
sound symbols and information on word stress being helpful to users. I surmise that
this is based on a false assumption or misconception that the topics would be taught in
schools.
To bridge the gap between users and lexicographers, I believe the responsibilities lie
with English teachers, English syllabus designers, principals and education authorities. The knowledge of the sound symbols and word stresses, for example, should be
incorporated into English syllabuses for students, especially those targeted at NN
English-speaking students. The best place to start teaching this knowledge will be in
schools, while students are completing their mainstream education. This conclusion
does not imply secondary students need to be trained to become experts in the sound
system. The needs of different students for the sound symbols and word stress vary
accordingly, and the majority of students would only require “enough information to
serve their current needs” (Battenburg 1991:33). Also, it is not necessary to provide
explicit pronunciation teaching in every ELT lesson. Attention to pronunciation
would be remedial in nature, and given when required. However, when the pronunciation symbols and word stress are taught, it is important that the teaching be integrated
into the language as a whole and not studied as a phenomenon divorced from the
process of communication.
102
Chapter Six: Evaluation questionnaire and
conclusion of the study
EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
As part of the evaluation of the current study, a questionnaire was designed to seek
feedback from students of the two experimental groups on the teaching materials and
methodology adopted to teach dictionary use. The questionnaire was completed in
class during a lesson before the post-test was scheduled. Students were instructed how
to answer the questionnaire and class time was given to them to complete the task.
Altogether, 131 students completed the questionnaire, 63 students from Ex1 and 68
from Ex2. Since only Ex1 students received training on the three topics collocation,
style labelling and LDELC, results on these topics refer only to answers provided by
this group.
The aim of the first question was to discover how much knowledge of the selected
topics students had had before they had received in class training in dictionary use
knowledge and skills. On a scale ranging from nothing at all (1) to very much (5),
63.4% of students from both the experimental groups gave options (1) and (2) as answers for the topic pronunciation symbols. For the topics stress marks and alphabetical ordering, 33.7% of them gave the same two answers for the former, and 31.3% for
the latter. The results indicate that approximately two-thirds of the experimental group
students had received little or no training on the sound symbols. This may explain
why the pre-test results of students from all three subject groups in Q.1A and Q.1B
were so low.
Moreover, such results explain why the pronunciation symbols were revealed to be
under-used by subject students in Stage One of the current study. The questionnaire
used in Stage One was completed by 235 Year One students, with the aim of eliciting
a general view of dictionary use among Hong Kong students. 79.7% of them said that
they had never, or only occasionally, used the pronunciation symbols provided in the
MLDs. In Chapter Four, I argued that the infrequent use of the symbols mainly resulted from the fact that these students lack knowledge of, and skills in, using the
sound symbols. With approximately two-thirds of Ex1 and Ex2 students declaring that
they had not received much training in using the sound symbols, I believe my assertion is adequately substantiated.
With regard to stress marks and alphabetical ordering, over half of the experimental
students considered themselves fairly conversant with these conventions, but the results in both the pre-test and post-test of the study did not support this. The results of
the current studies indicate students’ ignorance regarding syllable boundaries and the
complexity of the alphabetical ordering conventions adopted by various MLDs. I
therefore believe students’ lack of awareness of the difficulty of the topics is a major
obstacle which prevents them from obtaining the information they seek, or delays
them in their search, in dictionaries.
On a scale ranging from nothing at all (1) to very much (5), only 25.4% of Ex1 students gave options (4) and (5) as answers for the topic collocation, while for style labelling and LDELC, even fewer students chose these options (17.4% and 8% respec103
tively). The majority of students claimed they were not familiar with these topics.
This suggests that the topics were rarely discussed in English classes students had attended, or hardly included in the English syllabuses followed in school.
In order for NN English-speaking users to be able to refer effectively to MLDs, they
need to possess certain levels of lexicographical knowledge and skill, and a linguistic
knowledge of English. The data obtained from Question One of this questionnaire indicate clearly these users cannot be assumed to possess the required skills or to have
been trained in the reference skills necessary for solving language-related problems
on their own. To assist such an uninformed and unskilled clientèle, I believe pedagogic lexicographers need to re-evaluate the level of difficulty of their work. In addition, if English teachers wish their students to obtain help from dictionaries while they
are working independently, they should teach their students the knowledge and skills
needed. I believe students need and appreciate such teaching. The results of the second question asked in this questionnaire support this view.
Question Two asked students whether or not they considered the material on dictionary use was valuable in helping them to use reference dictionaries in their learning of
English. Students were given a scale of options from (1) meaning nothing at all to (5)
very much. An average of 82.8% of the students of both Ex1 and Ex2 chose options
(3), (4) and (5) as answers for the topics pronunciation symbols, stress marks and alphabetical ordering. A similar percentage of Ex1 students chose the same three options for the topics style labelling (81%) and LDELC (79.4%), whereas an overwhelmingly high percentage (93.7%) of Ex1 students chose the same three options for
the topic collocation.
From Question One it is interesting to find that a low percentage of students had been
taught the topic collocation, but a high percentage considered the topic to be of considerable use to their studies. This finding clearly demonstrates a disparity between
students’ ‘perceived needs’ and the English language teaching they receive. The finding is also significant for pedagogical lexicographers. From the planning stages for
publishing MLDs, collocational information has been considered to be of high value
to NN English-speaking users. In fact, it has been regarded as an essential part of the
core knowledge that MLDs should impart to users. In this questionnaire, the high percentage of students who appreciated the knowledge and skills taught regarding collocational information provided in MLDs, substantiates lexicographers’ insights. However, the revelation of a low percentage of students familiar with the topic, and the
average performance of students from all three groups in the pre-test, all suggest that
to date lexicographers have been unable to achieve their goal of disseminating the
knowledge.
Answers obtained from Question Three support my proposition in the current study
that students welcome the teaching of dictionary use. The question asked students
whether or not they would use the knowledge and skills taught to assist their learning
of English in future. With a scale of (1) representing definitely not to (5) definitely
yes, an average of 82.5% of students from both the groups chose options (3), (4) and
(5) as answers for the topics pronunciation, stress marks and alphabetical ordering.
Furthermore, 73% of Ex1 students chose the same options for the topic LDELC,
80.9% for style labelling and 93.6% for collocation.
104
Questions Four to Seven focused on eliciting feedback from students on the teaching
materials and methodology. With the given options (1) meaning not clear at all to (5)
meaning very clear, 98.4% of students from both the experimental groups chose options (3), (4) and (5). When asked whether they found the teaching materials interesting, 85.2% of students gave the same three options [with (5) meaning very interesting
on a five-point scale], and 97.7% of students considered the teaching methodology
appropriate or very appropriate (Question Six). When students were asked to comment on the effectiveness of the teaching given, the same percentage of students
(97.7%) considered it was effective or very effective (Question Seven). Students’ responses in these questions confirm that my teaching approach and materials for teaching dictionary use were appropriate. This affirmation is further supported by the answers obtained from Question Eight and Question Nine when 94.4% of students answered that they would recommend that other students be taught what they had
learned in class about dictionary use. Moreover, 94.2% of them expressed interest in
learning more about what dictionaries could offer to help them in their learning of
English.
CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY
In the foregoing, I have addressed several issues related to NN English speakers’ use
of English monolingual learners’ dictionaries. Research studies of a similar nature
started to evolve in the 1960s, and up to the present most such studies have been
based in Europe, with target subjects being speakers of European languages. In Asia,
this kind of study is rare. The available documentation is based mainly on Japanese
learners of English in Japan. My intention has been to supplement findings in the field
through the data I obtained on the use of MLDs as perceived and practised by tertiarylevel Hong Kong Chinese learners of English.
The first stage of the current study revealed subject students’ attitudes towards, and
habits and frequency of, using this type of dictionary. Findings indicated that MLDs
were chiefly used by subject students in assisting their learning of English during semester studies. According to the data, students had faith in MLDs in general, and believed that the dictionaries were beneficial to their learning. Nevertheless, the data
indicated that these students did not use MLDs frequently. Results from the second
stage of the current study demonstrated that the subject students lacked the knowledge
of, and/or skills in, referencing MLDs for the information they sought. They performed poorly in the pre-test which required them to use selected dictionaries to solve
linguistic problems comparable to problems they might encounter in real life while
learning English. To rectify the problems identified, I undertook to teach dictionary
use explicitly in class, through integrating the materials into students’ English classes.
In the second stage of the current study, I explored the possibilities of, and uncovered
the difficulties in, teaching dictionary use within the constraints of an established
English syllabus, traditional both in terms of teaching materials and methodology.
Findings from the post-test prove that explicit teaching of the selected dictionary use
items was effective and students’ feedback collected revealed that they highly appreciated the knowledge and skills imparted to them.
105
The two remaining questions are: whether teachers would be willing to teach the topic
assuming it could be accommodated within existing English syllabuses; and whether
teachers have the knowledge and skills to teach this. Pedagogical lexicographers and
publishers have already started rendering assistance to English teachers on how to use
the latest MLDs. However, the kind of help available is generally restricted to the introduction of their own dictionary workbooks. My greatest reservation is that these
workbooks are too specific. Since they serve a commercial purpose, each workbook is
tied to a particular dictionary and the major focus of the material provided is on promoting features found in the dictionary, rather than on meeting the particular needs of
its users. Users require training that enables them to refer to a variety of dictionaries;
hence the training provided should be basic, and should cover a broad spectrum of
dictionaries of relevance to students. In the current study, I postulate that the natural
and ideal middlemen to act as a link between lexicographers and end users are English
teachers.
Most of the existing research studies on dictionary use have focused on students
rather than on their teachers. Studies in the field of dictionary use training, with English teachers as subjects, are minimal. When one searches through undergraduate and
postgraduate course descriptions in the disciplines of Applied Linguistics and TESOL/EFL, the chances of one finding the topic ‘Lexicography’ included in these
courses are slight. Although English dictionaries are widely used by learners and
teachers of English alike in either their learning or teaching process, in most language
institutions or universities, lexicography is not treated as an academic subject requiring formal teaching or training. The general assumption is that students will learn how
to use dictionaries in the course of using them, and that the skills can be acquired with
experience. The advent of computers in pedagogical lexicography has heralded the
publication of more new and specialised dictionaries catering for different needs.
With such choices available, it may be inappropriate for teachers to rely merely on
their own experience to decide a choice of dictionaries for students. English teachers
require formal training in dictionary use teaching, and the best mentors would be lexicographers.
English teachers have always been a vital link between dictionary compilers and users. With current studies revealing how poorly subject students perform in reference
knowledge and skills, I believe the situation calls for more research work to investigate whether or not poor teaching is the reason for this. Obtaining more knowledge
about this second stakeholder of the ‘lexicographical triangle’ is vital to the field of
dictionary use study.
106
References
(A)
Dictionaries
A Table Alphabeticall, conteyming and teaching the True Writing, and Vnderstanding
of hard vsuall, English wordes, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greeke, Latine, or
French, &c. With the interpretation thereof by plaine English words, 1604. R.
Cawdrey. London: Printed by I. R. for Edmund Weaver.
ABC Dictionary Chinese–English, 1997. J. DeFrancis. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1st edition), 1952. A. S.
Hornby, E. V. Gatenby and H. Wakefield. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English (1st edition), 1986. M. Benson, E. Benson,
and R. Ilson. Amsterdam & Philadelphia PA: John Bejamins.
Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1st edition), 1987. J. Sinclair et al.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. London & Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (2nd edition), 1995. J. Sinclair et al.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. London & Glasgow: HarperCollins.
Dictionary of lexicography, 1998. R. R. K. Hartmann and G. James. London & New
York: Routledge.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1st edition), 1978. P. Procter. London: Longman.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2nd edition), 1987. D. Summers and
M. Rundell. Harlow: Longman.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd edition), 1995. D. Summers. Harlow: Longman.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (English–Chinese) (1st edition), 1997.
Hong Kong: Longman Asia Limited.
Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (1st edition), 1992. D. Summers. Harlow: Longman.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (3rd edition), 1974. A. S.
Hornby, A. P. Cowie and W. Lewis. London: Oxford University Press.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (4th edition), 1989. A. P.
Cowie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (5th edition), 1995. J.
Crowther. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (6th edition), 2000. S.
Wehmeier. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Encyclopedic Edition, 1992. J. Crowther. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s English–Chinese Dictionary of Current English (4th
edition), 1994. P. T. Lee. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Selected English Collocations, 1982. H. Dzierzanowska and C. Kozlowska. Warsaw:
Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
107
(B)
Books and articles
Al Ajmi, H. 1992. The use of monolingual English and bilingual Arabic–English dictionaries in Kuwait: An experimental investigation into the dictionaries used and
reference skills deployed by university students of arts and science. PhD, University of Leeds.
Anderson, R. C., R. J. Spiro & M. C. Anderson. 1978. Schemata as scaffolding for the
representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal 15, 3, 433–40.
Atkins, B. T. S. (Ed.). 1998. Using dictionaries: Studies of dictionary use by language learners and translators. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series
Maior 88).
Atkins, B. T. S. & F. Knowles. 1990. Interim report on the EURALEX/AILA research
project into dictionary use. In Magay & Zigany (1990), pp. 381–92.
Atkins, B. T. S. & K. Varantola 1997. Monitoring dictionary use. International Journal of Lexicography 10, 1, 1–45.
______ 1998. Monitoring dictionary use. In Atkins (1998), pp. 83–122.
Bachman, L. F. & A. Palmer. 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Barnhart, C. L. 1962. Problems in editing commercial monolingual dictionaries. In F.
Householder & S. Saporta (Eds), Problems in lexicography (pp. 161–81). Bloomington IN: Indiana University; The Hague: Mouton.
Battenburg, J. D. 1991. English monolingual learners’ dictionaries: A user-oriented
study. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series Maior 39).
Baxter, J. 1980. The dictionary and vocabulary behavior: a single word or a handful?
TESOL Quarterly 14, 3, 325–35.
Béjoint, H. 1981. The foreign student’s use of monolingual English dictionaries: A
study of language needs and reference skills. Applied Linguistics 2, 3, 207–22.
______ 1988. Psycholinguistic evidence and the use of dictionaries by L2 learners. In
Snell-Hornby (1988), pp. 139–48.
______ 1989. The teaching of dictionary use: Present state and future tasks. In
Hausmann et al. (1989), Vol. I, pp. 208–15.
______ 1994. Tradition and innovation in modern English dictionaries. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Béjoint, H. & A. Moulin. 1987. The place of the dictionary in an EFL programme. In
Cowie (1987), pp. 97–114.
Benson, M. 1989. The structure of the collocational dictionary. International Journal
of Lexicography 2, 1, 1–14.
Bensoussan, M., D. Sim & R. Weiss. 1984. The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test
performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in a Foreign Language 2, 2, 262–76.
Berkov, V. V. 1977. Slovo v dvujazyčnom slovare. Tallin: Akademija Nauk ESSR,
Valgus. Cited in translation in Piotrowski (1987: 44).
Bogaards, P. 1995. Dictionnaires et compréhension écrite [Dictionaries and reading
comprehension]. Cahiers de lexicologie 67, 2, 37–53.
______ 1996. Dictionaries for learners of English. International Journal of Lexicography 9, 4, 277–320.
______ 1998a. Scanning long entries in learner’s dictionaries. In Fontenelle et al.
(1998), Vol. II, pp. 555–63.
108
______ 1998b. What type of words do language learners look up? In Atkins (1988),
pp. 151–57.
Bool, H. & Carter, R. 1989. Vocabulary, culture and the dictionary. In Tickoo
(1989a), pp. 172–83.
Bridging English across primary and secondary education. 1995. Hong Kong: English Unit, Curriculum Development Institute, Government of Hong Kong.
Britto, F. 1995. Review of Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture.
Harlow: Longman 1992. JALT Journal 17, 1, 113–28.
Bronstein, A. J. 1986. The history of pronunciation in English language dictionaries.
In Hartmann (1986), pp. 23–33.
Brown, A. 1992. Twenty questions. In A. Brown (Ed.), Approaches to pronunciation
teaching. Review of ELT 2, 2, 1–17. Modern English Publications, in association
with The British Council.
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin.
Carter, R. & M. J. McCarthy (Eds). 1998. Vocabulary and language teaching. New
York: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M., D. M. Brinton & J. M. Goodwin. 1996. Teaching pronunciation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chi, M. L. A. 1998. Teaching dictionary skills in the classroom. In Fontenelle et al.
(1998), Vol. II, pp. 565–77.
______ 2000. Hong Kong English teachers’ attitudes and practice towards dictionary
use. Unpublished questionnaire. Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Chi, M. L. A., P. Y. Wong & C. P. Wong. 1994. Collocational problems amongst
ESL learners: A corpus-based study. In L. Flowerdew & A. K. K. Tong (Eds), Entering text, (pp. 157–65). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology.
Chi, M. L. A. & S. Yeung. 1998. A case study of the use of dictionaries to assist the
teaching and learning of English in Hong Kong. In E. S. Castillo (Ed.), Applied
linguistics: Focus on second language learning/teaching, Selected papers (pp.
36–52). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Coady, J. 1997. L2 vocabulary acquisition, a synthesis of the research. In Coady &
Huckin (1997), pp. 273–90.
Coady, J. & T. Huckin (Eds). 1997. Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cop, M. 1990. The function of collocations in dictionaries. In Magay & Zigany
(1990), pp. 35–46.
Cowie, A. P. 1978. The place of illustrative material and collocations in the design of
a learner’s dictionary. In P. Strevens (Ed.), In honour of A. S. Hornby (pp. 127–
39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
______ 1981a. Introduction: Lexicography and its pedagogic applications. Applied
Linguistics 2, 3, 203–6.
______ 1981b. The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics 2, 3, 223–35.
______ 1983. English dictionaries for the foreign learner. In R. R. K. Hartmann (Ed.),
Lexicography: Principles and practice (pp. 135–44). London & New York: Academic Press.
______ 1984. EFL dictionaries: Past achievements and present needs. In Hartmann
(1984), pp. 155–64.
109
______ (Ed.). 1987. The dictionary and the language learner: Papers from the EURALEX Seminar at the University of Leeds, 1–3 April 1985. Tübingen: Niemeyer
(Lexicographica Series Maior 17).
______ 1989. Learners’ dictionaries: Recent advances and developments. In Tickoo
(1989a), pp. 42–51.
______ 1995. The learner’s dictionary in a changing cultural perspective. In Kachru
& Kahane (1995), pp. 283–95.
______ 1999. English dictionaries for foreign learners: A history. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Crowther, J. 1999. Encyclopedic learners’ dictionaries. In T. Herbst & K. Popp (Eds),
The perfect learners’ dictionary(?) (pp. 213–9). Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series Maior 95).
Crystal, D. 1986. The ideal dictionary, lexicographer, and user. In Ilson (1986), pp.
72–81.
Daglish, G. M. 1995. Learners’ dictionaries: Keeping the learner in mind? In Kachru
& Kahane (1995), pp. 329–38.
Diab, T. 1990. Pedagogical lexicography: A case study of Arab nurses as dictionary
users. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series Maior 31).
Dolezal, F. T. & D. R. McCreary. 1999. Pedagogical lexicography today: A critical
bibliography on learners’ dictionaries with special emphasis on language learners and dictionary users. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series Maior 96).
Drysdale, P. D. 1987. The role of examples in a learner’s dictionary. In Cowie (1987),
pp. 213–23.
Education Commission Report No. 6. 1995. Hong Kong: Government of Hong Kong.
English syllabus for primary schools. 1996. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development
Council, Education Department, Government of Hong Kong.
Fisher, U. 1994. Learning words from context and dictionaries: An experiment comparison. Applied Psycholinguistics 15, 4, 551–74.
Fontenelle, T., P. Hiligsmann, A. Michiels, A. Moulin & S. Theissen (Eds), EURALEX ’98 Proceedings: Papers submitted to the eighth EURALEX International
Congress on Lexicography in Liège, Belgium, Vol. II. Liège: English and Dutch
Departments, University of Liège.
Fraser, H. 1997. Dictionary pronunciation guides for English. International Journal of
Lexicography 10, 3, 181–208.
Frawley, W. 1988. New forms of specialized dictionaries. International Journal of
Lexicography 1, 3, 189–213.
Gairns, R. & S. Redman. 1986. Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gimson, A. C. 1981. Pronunciation in EFL dictionaries. In A. P. Cowie (Ed.), Lexicography and its pedagogical applications (pp. 250–62). Thematic Issue of Applied Linguistics, Vol. II, No. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenbaum, S., C. F. Meyer & J. Taylor. 1984. The image of the dictionary for
American college students. Dictionaries 6, 31–52.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (Ed.). 1979. Dictionaries and their users. Papers from the BAAL
seminar on lexicography. Exeter: University of Exeter (Exeter Linguistic Studies
4); Louvain: Catholic University Press. (ITL Review of Applied Linguistics 45–46)
_____ 1982. Das zweisprächige Wörterbuch im Fremdsprachenerwerb [The bilingual
dictionary in second language acquisition]. In H. Wiegand (Ed.), Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie (Vol. II, pp. 73–86). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
110
______1983. The bilingual learner’s dictionary and its uses. Multilingua 2, 4, 195–
201.
(Ed.). 1984. LEXeter ’83 Proceedings: Papers from the International Conference of Lexicography at Exeter, 9–12 September 1983. Tübingen: Niemeyer
(Lexicographica Series Maior 17).
(Ed.). 1986. The history of lexicography. Amsterdam & Philadelphia PA:
John Benjamins.
______ 1987a. Dictionaries of English: The user’s perspective. In R. W. Bailey (Ed.),
Dictionaries of English: Prospects for the record of our language (pp. 121–35).
Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.
______ 1987b. Four perspectives on dictionary use: A critical review of research
methods. In Cowie (1987), pp. 11–28.
______ 1989a. The dictionary as an aid to foreign language teaching. In Hausmann et
al. (1989), Vol. I, pp. 181–9.
______ 1989b. Sociology of the dictionary user: Hypothesis and empirical studies. In
Hausmann et al. (1989), Vol. I, pp. 102–11.
______ 1989c. What we (don’t) know about the English language learner as a dictionary user: A critical select bibliography. In Tickoo (1989a), pp. 213–21.
______ 1995. Pedagogical lexicography: Some desiderata. In R. Dirven & J. Vanparys (Eds), Current approaches to the lexicon: A selection of papers presented at
the 18th LAUD symposium, Duisburg, March 1993 (pp. 405–11). Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
______ 1999. Lexical reference books: What are the issues? International Journal of
Lexicography 12, 1, 5–11.
Hatherhall, G. 1984. Studying dictionary use: Some findings and proposals. In Hartmann (1984), pp. 183–9.
Hausmann, F. J. 1979. Un dictionnaire des collocations est-il possible? [Is a dictionary of collocations possible?] Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature 17, 187–
95.
______ 1986. The training and professional development of lexicographers in Germany. In Ilson (1986), pp.101–10.
Hausmann, F. J., O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand & L. Zgusta (Eds). 1986/1991.
Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires: An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Herbst, T. 1991. Dictionaries for foreign language teaching: English. In Hausmann et
al. (1991), Vol. II, pp. 1379–58.
______ 1996. On the way to the perfect learners’ dictionary: A first comparison of
OALD5, LDOCE3, COBUILD 2, and CIDE. International Journal of Lexicography 9, 4, 321–57.
Herbst, T. & G. Stein. 1987. Dictionary-using skills: A plea for a new orientation in
language teaching. In Cowie (1987), pp. 115–27 & International Journal of Lexicography 10, 1, 1–45.
Howarth, P. A. 1996. Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications
for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series Maior 75).
Hulstijn, J. & B. T. S. Atkins. 1998. Empirical research on dictionary use in foreignlanguage learning: Survey and discussion. In Atkins (1998), pp. 7–19.
Ilson, R. (Ed.). 1985. Dictionaries, lexicography and language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
111
(Ed.). 1986. Lexicography. An emerging international profession. Manchester: Manchester University Press, in association with the Fulbright Commission,
London.
Jackson, H. 1988. Words and their meaning. Singapore: Longman Singapore.
James, G. (Ed.). 1989. Lexicographers and their works. Exeter: University of Exeter.
2003. Bilingualisation as a genre. In R. R. K. Hartmann (Ed.), Lexicography:
Critical concepts (pp. 450–8), London & New York: Routledge.
James, G., with R. Davison, A. H. Y. Cheung & S. Deerwester. 1994. English in computer science: A computer-based lexical analysis. Hong Kong: Longman Asia.
Kachru, B. B. & H. Kahane (Eds). 1995. Cultures, ideologies, and the dictionary:
Studies in honor of Ladislav Zgusta. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica Series
Maior 64).
Kipfer, B. A. 1987. Dictionaries and the intermediate student: Communicative needs
and the development of user reference skills. In Cowie (1987), pp. 44–54.
Kirkpatrick, B. 1985. A lexicography dilemma: Monolingual dictionaries for the native speaker and for the learner. In Ilson (1985), pp. 7–11.
Kokawa, T. & S. Yamada. 1998. Reviews: Longman Dictionary of English Language
and Culture 1992 and Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English,
encyclopedic edition 1992. International Journal of Lexicography 11, 4, 343–57.
Kramsch, C. 1998. Language and culture. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Lam, J. K. M. 2001. A study of semi-technical vocabulary in computer science texts,
with special reference to ESP teaching and lexicography. Research reports, Vol.
III. Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Landau, S. I. 1984. Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography. New York: Scribner; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B. 1997. The lexical plight in second language reading. In Coady & Huckin
(1997), pp. 21–34.
Lee, W. O. 1997. Social class, language and achievement. In G. A. Postiglione & W.
O. Lee (Eds), Schooling in Hong Kong: Organization, teaching and social context
(pp.155–74). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Leech, G. N. 1981. Semantics. London: Penguin.
Lewis, M. 1997. Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In Coady &
Huckin (1997), pp. 255–70.
Li, L. 1998. Dictionaries and their users in Chinese universities, with special reference
to ESP learners. In T. McArthur & I. Kernerman (Eds), Lexicography in Asia: Selected papers from the Dictionaries in Asia conference, Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, 1997 and other papers (pp. 61–79). Tel Aviv: Password.
Littlewood, W. T. 1984. Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Magay, T. & J. Zigany (Eds). 1990. BudaLex ’88 Proceedings. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Marckwardt, A. H. 1973. The dictionary as an English teaching resource. TESOL
Quarterly 7, 4, 369–79.
Marello, C. 1987. Examples in contemporary Italian bilingual dictionaries. In Cowie
(1987), pp. 224–37.
Martin, W., W. Meijs, M. Moreland, E. ten Pas, P. van Sterkenburg & P. Vossen
(Eds). 1994. EURALEX ’94 Proceedings. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
McArthur, T. 1986. Thematic lexicography. In Hartmann (1986), pp. 157–66.
112
McCreary, D. R. & F. Dolezal. 1998. Language learners and dictionary users: Bibliographic findings and commentary. In Fontenelle et al. (1998), Vol. II, pp. 611–18.
Mitchell, E. 1983. Search-Do reading: (3) Difficulties in using a dictionary. Working
paper 21: Formative assessment of reading strategies in secondary schools. Aberdeen: Aberdeen College of Education.
Nesi, H. 1992. Go away and look it up! Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 103/104,
195–210.
______ 1994. The effect of language background and culture on productive dictionary use. In Martin et al. (1994), pp. 577–85.
______ 1996. The role of illustrative examples in productive dictionary use. Dictionaries 17, 198–206.
Nesi, H. & P. Meara. 1991. How using dictionaries affects performance in multiplechoice EFL tests. Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 1, 631–43.
______ 1994. Patterns of misinterpretation in the productive use of EFL dictionary
definitions. System 22, 1, 1–15.
Nisbet, B. 1994. The representation of pronunciation in English native-speaker dictionaries. MA, Macquarie University.
Nuccorini, S. 1992. Monitoring dictionary use. In H. Tommola, K. Varantola, T.
Salmi-Tolonen & J. Schopp (Eds), EURALEX ’92 Proceedings I–II (Part I).
Studia Translatologica, Ser. A, (Vol. II, pp. 89–102). Tampere: University of
Tampere.
______ 1994. On dictionary misuse. In Martin et al. (1994), pp. 586–97.
Osselton, N. E. 1989. Alphabetisation in monolingual English dictionaries to Johnson. In James (1989), pp. 165–73.
Palmer, H. E. 1933. Report on collocations. IRET Bulletin 95, 1–2.
Parish, C. 1977. A practical philosophy of pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly 11, 3,
311–7.
Pei, L. K. 2001. Statistics in linguistic measurement. MPhil, Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology.
Piotrowski, T. 1987. Indication of English pronunciation in bilingual dictionaries.
Applied Linguistics 8, 1, 39–47.
Quirk, R. 1974. The image of the dictionary. The linguist and the English language
(pp. 148–63). London: Edward Arnold.
Rey, A. 1987. Le dictionnaire culturel [The cultural dictionary]. Lexicographica, 3, 3–
50.
Rundell, M. 1988. Changing the rules: Why the monolingual learner’s dictionary
should move away from the native-speaker tradition. In Snell-Hornby (1988), pp.
127–37.
______ 1998. Recent trends in English pedagogical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 11, 4, 315–42.
______ 1999. Dictionary use in production. International Journal of Lexicography
12, 1, 35–53.
Scholfield, P. 1999. Dictionary use in reception. International Journal of Lexicography 12, 1, 13–34.
Shohamy, E. 1998. Alternative assessment in language testing: Applying a multiplism
approach. In E. S. L. Li & G. James (Eds), Testing and evaluation in second language education (pp. 99–114). Hong Kong: Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Snell-Hornby, M. (Ed.). 1988. ZüriLex ’86 Proceedings: Papers read at the EURALEX International Congress. Tübingen: Francke.
113
Speak out! 1996/97. Newsletter of IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group.
Number 19.
Stark, M. P. 1990. Dictionary workbook: A critical evaluation of dictionary workbooks for the foreign language learner. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Steffensen, M. S. & C. Joag-Dev. 1984. Cultural knowledge and reading. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 49–64). Harlow: Longman.
Stein, G. 1986. Final recommendations. In Ilson (1986), pp. 147–51.
______ 1989. Dictionaries, the teacher and the student. JALT Journal 11, 1, 36–45.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
______ 1992. Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Strevens, P. 1987. The effectiveness of learners’ dictionaries. In R. Burchfield (Ed.),
Studies in lexicography (pp. 76–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Summers, D. 1988. The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter & M.
McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 111–25). Harlow:
Longman.
Svensén, B. 1993. Practical lexicography: Principles and methods of dictionarymaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Syllabuses for secondary schools English language, Secondary 1–5. 1999. Hong
Kong: Curriculum Development Council, Education Department, Government of
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Syllabuses for secondary schools English language, Secondary 6–7. 1999. Hong
Kong: Curriculum Development Council, Education Department, Government of
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Takebayashi, S. 1998. LPD and EPD15: A comparative review. International Journal
of Lexicography 11, 2, 125–36.
Taylor, A. 1996. Hong Kong teachers’ views on the use of dictionaries and their implications. Paper presented at 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA
’96), Jyväskylä.
Tickoo, M. L. 1989a. Learners’ dictionaries: State of the art. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre (Anthology Series 23).
1989b. Which dictionary and why? Exploring some options. In Tickoo
(1989a), pp. 184–203.
Tomaszczyk, J. 1979. Dictionaries: users and uses. Glottodidactica 12, 103–19.
______ 1987. FL learners’ communication failure: Implications for pedagogical lexicography. In Cowie (1987), pp. 136–45.
Tono, Y. 1984. On the dictionary user’s reference skills. BEd, Tokyo Gakugei University.
______ 1989. Can a dictionary help one read better? In James (1989), pp. 192–200.
Underhill, A. 1985. Working with the monolingual learners’ dictionary. In Ilson
(1985), pp. 103–14.
Valdes, J. M. (Ed.). 1986a. Culture bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1986b. Language, thought, and culture. In Valdes (1986a), pp. 1–4.
Valette, R. M. 1986. The culture test. In Valdes (1986a), pp. 179–97.
Wesche, M. B. 1992. Performance testing for work-related second language assessment. In E. Shohamy & A. R. Watson (Eds), Language assessment for feedback:
Testing and other strategies (pp. 103–22), Dubuque IA: Kendall/ Hunt.
Whitcut, J. 1986. The training of users. In Ilson (1986), pp. 111–22.
114
______ 1995. Taking it for granted: Some cultural preconceptions in English dictionaries. In Kachru & Kahane (1995), pp. 253–7.
Zgusta, L. 1989. Idle thoughts of an idle fellow; or, vaticinations on the learners’ dictionary. In Tickoo (1989), pp. 1–9.
115
116
Appendix I
PRE-TEST QUESTIONS
(1)
With the help of the table below, complete the questions.
{An IPA chart from one of the three selected MLDs
was pasted here for reference}
1A. Match the highlighted part of the words with the appropriate sound symbols.
Join the pairs with a line.
Words
1.
2.
3.
4.
lawyer
rough
angle
superstitious
Sound symbols
/t/
/ /
/
/
/ /
/
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
1B. Write the sound symbols for the highlighted parts of the words in the space provided.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(2)
sew
Christmas
promise
cottage
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Identify and circle the stress (or stresses, if there is more than one) of these
words.
1.
representative
2.
exuberant
3.
coercion
4.
marijuana
117
(3)
Match these verbs with the appropriate nouns and write the numbers in the
brackets. The verbs can only be used ONCE.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(4)
give
do
make
show
meet
take
reach
put
(
(
(
(
) a challenge
) an appearance
) a laugh
) a consensus
Decide which word in each pair is more suitable or likely to be used in the sentence. Please circle your answer. Then, give a reason for your choice. If you
don’t know how to answer in English, you may do so in Chinese.
Example:
When Peter saw his boss this morning, he said to him,
“I’m sorry to hear that your father has died/passed away.”
I chose this answer because Peter was talking to his boss and it was more
polite to say this.
1.
Nowadays, it is the dream of many young men and women to be
skinny/slim.
I chose this answer because _______________________________
2.
Read the following advertisement from the Times (a London newspaper):
Apartment/Flat to let in Central London. Reasonable rent.
Please contact Thomas Shiver on 0171-423 3398.
I chose this answer because _______________________________
3.
In the School’s newsletter to the Parents’ Association, the Principal wrote,
I want to assure parents that although I have not been able to
figure out/understand how students learned about the
examination questions, the case is under investigation.
I chose this answer because _______________________________
118
(5)
Answer the following questions. If you don’t know how to answer in English,
you may do so in Chinese.
1.
Peter wants to be like Elvis when he grows up. Although Elvis has been
dead for so many years, people from all over the world still remember
him.
What do you think Peter wants to do when he grows up?
______________________________________________________
2.
It is indeed one of the greatest honours for an actor to play the role of
Romeo in the theatre in Stratford-on-Avon.
Why is it considered to be one of the greatest honours for someone to
play such a role at the theatre in Stratford-on-Avon?
_____________________________________________________
_
3.
Mr Lee is as selfish as Scrooge. Nobody likes to work for him.
Who was Scrooge?
__________________________________________________________
4.
Mary said, “I must get hold of a ticket to fly to my parents’ house in LA
for dinner tomorrow. It’s Thanksgiving!”
Why is it important for Mary to be home on Thanksgiving?
_____________________________________________________
(6)
_
Arrange the following words according to alphabetical order (A–Z) and put
your answers in the box provided
Put the number in the box in alphabetical order
1) ghoulish
2) GHQ
3) ghetto
4) giant
5) ghost
6) GI
7) ghost-writer
8) ghost town
9) ghostly
10) ghost-write
11) ghoul
12) ghost story
Start
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
End
119
120
Appendix II
POST-TEST QUESTIONS
(1)
With the help of the table below, complete the questions.
{An IPA chart from one of the three selected MLDs
was pasted here for reference}
1A. Match the highlighted part of the words with the appropriate sound symbols.
Join the pairs with a line.
Words
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sound symbols
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/
worth
added
insurance
rank
1B. Write the sound symbols for the highlighted parts of the words in the space provided.
1
2.
3.
4.
(2)
proud
chorus
dead
habitual
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Identify and circle the stress (or stresses, if there is more than one) of these
words.
1.
repository
2.
competition
3.
coquette
4.
succinct
121
(3)
Match these verbs with the appropriate nouns and write the numbers in the
brackets. The verbs can only be used ONCE.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(4)
throw
do
make
get
have
hold
reach
put
(
(
(
(
) possession of
) a convention
) a horror of
) somebody an injustice
Decide which word in each pair is more suitable or likely to be used in the sentence. Please circle your answer. Then, give a reason for your choice. If you
don’t know how to answer in English, you may do so in Chinese.
Example:
When Peter saw his boss this morning, he said to him,
“I’m sorry to hear that your father has died/passed away.”
I chose this answer because Peter was talking to his boss and it was
more polite to say this.
1.
More publicity/propaganda is needed if the government wants teenagers
to know more about AIDS.
I chose this answer because _______________________________
2.
When Mr Lee went through the regulations of the boarding school that
his son is attending in the United States, he found the following:
School uniform for boys in winter is blue shirt, gray
trousers/pants and black shoes.
I chose this answer because _____________________________
3.
__
Mr Chan received a note from his son’s school.
Please be informed that your son, Paul Chan, has mucked up/has done
poorly in his examination. He will therefore repeat Form 2 in the next
academic year.
I chose this answer because _________________________
122
______
(5)
Answer the following questions. If you don’t know how to answer in English,
you may do so in Chinese.
1.
“John, don’t be ridiculous! Nobody can live like Robinson Crusoe.
Even he needed Friday to talk to.”
What kind of life does John want to live?
_________________________________________________
2.
__
Everybody thought Tom was arrogant because he graduated from a
public school in Britain, but they were wrong.
Why do you think people made the connection between Tom going to
public school in Britain and his being arrogant?
__
___________________________________________________
3.
Stella’s father told her that when he was young, he had dreamt of being
somebody like the Lone Ranger when he grew up.
What would a person do if he is like the Lone Ranger?
___________________________________________________
4.
I think our new boss Ms Lane is a Cockney. She speaks with a very
strong accent.
Where do you think Ms Lane comes from?
_____________________________________________________
(6)
___
_
Arrange the following words according to alphabetical order (A–Z) and put your
answers in the box provided
Put the number in the box in alphabetical order
1) four-stroke
2) FPO
3) fowl pest
4) Fourth of July
5) Fr
6) foxhound
7) foxglove
8) foxtrot
9) fox
10) foxhole
11) four-wheel drive
12) fox terrier
Start
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
End
123