Applied Linguistics 2012: 33/2: 115–140
ß Oxford University Press 2011
doi:10.1093/applin/amr038 Advance Access published on 8 November 2011
ALICE Y. W. CHAN
Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, China
E-mail: [email protected]
This article reports on the results of a study which investigated advanced
Cantonese English as a Second Language (ESL) learners’ use of a monolingual
dictionary for determining the meanings of familiar English words used in less
familiar contexts. Thirty-two university English majors in Hong Kong participated in a dictionary consultation task, which included nine English sentences
each containing a target lexical item the meaning of which depended on the
grammatical contexts they were in. Different self-reporting protocols were used
to tap into the participants’ thinking processes and/or to gather their evaluation
of the effectiveness of the dictionaries. The results of the study show that learners demonstrate some degree of success in the use of a monolingual dictionary
for determining word meanings, yet the facilitative effects of a dictionary are
quite limited, and problems such as learners’ preoccupation with typical word
collocations and their ignorance of dictionary information may hinder decision
making. Such dictionary behavior may affect second language acquisition
and requires attention. It is suggested that ESL teachers alert learners to the
importance of grammatical associations in language comprehension.
INTRODUCTION
There have been an increasing number of dictionaries available for English as a
Second Language or Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) learners at different levels
for different learning purposes, yet learners are often found to be deficient
in dictionary skills and cannot make full use of such valuable resources
(Chan 2005). They often lack an understanding of how dictionary information
relates to the words they are looking up (Nesi and Meara 1994), and they do
not take time to consult dictionaries when needed (Christianson 1997).
Many dictionary research studies have been conducted outside Hong Kong
to understand ESL/EFL learners’ dictionary look-up behavior, skills, and problems. Examples include Atkins and Varantola (1997), Fischer (1994), Knight
(1994), Luppescu and Day (1993), McCreary and Dolezal (1999), and Nesi and
Haill (2002). The dictionary consultation tasks in these studies were mostly on
the completion of reading comprehension or translation tasks and the lexical
items were primarily difficult words unknown to the participants. Research
studies investigating the use of a dictionary for language production or other
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
The Use of a Monolingual Dictionary for
Meaning Determination by Advanced
Cantonese ESL Learners in Hong Kong
116 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
purposes are also found, such as Bogaards and Van der Kloot (2001), Harvey
and Yuill (1997), and Nesi and Meara (1994).
In Hong Kong, dictionary research studies have been scarce and are often
limited to learners’ general dictionary habits (Taylor and Chan 1994; Li 2005)
or the compilation of translation dictionaries (Chan 2001; Bauer 2003; Li
2003). Others are often general commentaries (Pemberton and Tsang 1993;
Flowerdew and Tong 1994). Taylor and Chan (1994), for example, explored
the role of dictionaries in the teaching and learning of English using only
questionnaires and interviews, Li (2005) discussed the prosperity of online
dictionaries, Bauer (2003) surveyed several Chinese–English, English–
Chinese, Cantonese–English, and English–Cantonese dictionaries available in
Hong Kong and related the results to a personal project of compiling an
English–Cantonese dictionary arranged by semantic areas, and Chan (2001)
described the structure and content of a translator’s Chinese–English dictionary. These studies, which lack an experimental design, cannot reveal Hong
Kong learners’ dictionary skills and problems, as many students do not
admit to any dictionary-using problems in general surveys, and even if they
do, there is often a mismatch between their claims and consultation results
(Nesi and Haill 2002).
Empirical dictionary research in Hong Kong has largely been on pedagogical
lexicography. Chi and Yeung (1998), for example, studied the use of dictionaries to assist the teaching and learning of English, and Chi (2003, 2007)
explored the efficacy of integrating the teaching of dictionary use into a conventional English enhancement course at tertiary level in Hong Kong using
tailor-made teaching materials. While the results of these studies are illuminating, learners’ dictionary processing strategies, associated problems, and the
efficacy of dictionary entries in commercial dictionaries have not been systematically examined. Chan (2005) is a notable exception. She incorporated a
think-aloud self-reporting approach into dictionary consultation to explore
the use of monolingual dictionaries for error correction by university English
majors.
In many dictionary research studies, the blame for dictionary consultation
problems is usually directed at the user (Al-Ajmi 2002). Mother tongue influence has also been argued to play a role (Huang 1985), such as confusion
arising from careless consultations of usage between words which are synonymous in the learner’s mother tongue but which have different syntactic
patterns in the target language. Although it is true that learner’s deficient
dictionary skills and mother tongue influence may be the major causes of
some dictionary consultation problems, the usefulness and comprehensiveness
of dictionary information may also be at issue. It has been argued that many
dictionaries fail to provide the range and subtlety of information needed for
effective use (Rundell 1999). There is often no guidance as to whether a given
pattern should be excluded, and cross-references are not adequately provided
to guide decision processes. The coverage, presentation, and arrangement of
lexical information in dictionaries are yet to be improved.
A. Y. W. CHAN 117
OBJECTIVES
The research explored how advanced ESL learners in Hong Kong used a monolingual dictionary for determining the meanings of familiar English words used
in less familiar contexts. It aimed at uncovering learners’ thinking processes in
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Faced with learning problems resulting from both the dictionary user and
the dictionary, researchers should conduct empirical studies which target both.
Rather than exploring the adequacy, structure, and presentation of dictionary
information by scrutinizing specific entries from a third person’s perspective
(such as Rundell 1999; Coffey 2006), it is more effective to conduct empirical
research which corroborates learners’ consultation outcomes by their own
reflections of their consultation processes and evaluation of the effectiveness
of dictionary information. The present study was conducted with this conviction. It adopted different self-reporting protocols to explore learners’ use
of a monolingual dictionary for meaning determination.
It is well-known that many English words are polysemous with more than
one sense related by extension (Yule 2010). Although knowing the different
meanings of a word constitutes an essential aspect of word knowledge
(Ooi and Kim-Seoh 1996), words with multiple meanings often pose a challenge to second language learners, as the dominant senses are often mistakenly
perceived as salient even in contexts which are biased toward the subordinate
senses (Durkin and Manning 1989). L2 learners find it hard to know all the
meanings of a polysemous word, and they often do not have the sensitivity to
realize the categorization or subtle distinctions of its many senses. They may
have the assumptions that the familiar meaning is the only meaning of a
polysemous word, so they are often unwilling to abandon the familiar meaning even though that particular meaning may not make sense in a certain
context (Huang 2003). Research investigating how L2 learners guess word
meanings from reading texts has also found that words with multiple meanings induce the largest number of errors in comprehension (Bensoussan
and Laufer 1984), so they are sometimes regarded as one type of deceptively
transparent words: They look as if they can provide clues to their meaning,
but actually they mislead learners from finding out the correct meaning
(Laufer 1997).
In an empirical study about ESL learners’ use of a dictionary for decoding,
it is worthwhile including polysemous words and examining how learners
extract relevant dictionary information for meaning determination. The present research investigated advanced learners’ use of a monolingual dictionary
to determine the meanings of familiar words used in less familiar contexts.
Advanced learners were targeted because they are among the students who
often use a dictionary for self-learning purposes (Chan 2005). Familiar words
were chosen because, to advanced learners, determining the different meanings of a familiar word used in different contexts is of great importance in their
mastery of a second language.
118 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
dictionary consultation by identifying the strategies employed and the problems encountered.
Thirty-two English majors at a local university participated in the study,
including 8 males and 24 females. Their ages ranged from 20 to 24 years.
One participant was a year 1 student, 11 were year 2 students, and 20 were
year 3 students. Twenty had learnt English for 15–19 years and 12 had learnt
English for 20 years or above. In view of their English learning backgrounds,
all the participants could be regarded as advanced ESL learners.
PROCEDURES
The participants did a meaning determination task lasting about 30 min to an
hour with and without the use of a dictionary. They were divided into three
groups, with each group using a different dictionary and doing a different
self-reporting protocol, including an instant retrospective questionnaire, an
introspective questionnaire, and think-aloud recordings. The dictionary used
by the introspective questionnaire group was Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary 3rd Edition (CALD3), that by the think-aloud group was Collins
COBUILD Learner’s Dictionary Concise Edition (COBUILD Concise), and that by
the retrospective questionnaire group was Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
English 5th Edition (LDOCE5). Dictionary packets consisting of the introductory
guides and entries of the target lexical items in the respective dictionaries
were provided to the participants.1 After the completion of the task by all
the participants, a post-task focus group interview with five participants was
also conducted to elicit in-depth responses. Although different dictionaries
were used and different protocols were followed by different participants, no
attempt was made to compare the effectiveness of the three dictionaries or the
performance of the different groups, as the main focus of the study was on
learners’ strategies and problems in extracting dictionary information.
It may be argued that the participants’ using different dictionaries and doing
different self-reporting protocols may be problematic, as the strategies employed and the problems encountered may reflect idiosyncratic behavior
rather than uniform cognitive processes. This was not the case. The use of
three dictionaries instead of one ensured that a variety of definitions, examples, grammatical information, and/or explanations were presented to the
learners and that the analysis of the findings would not be biased toward the
wording used exclusively in the entries from an individual dictionary.
Different learners use different dictionaries in their daily learning contexts,
so restricting the consultation task to the use of one single dictionary would
significantly diminish the authenticity of the task. On the other hand,
using different dictionaries by different groups of learners could approximate
learners’ typical learning contexts.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
PARTICIPANTS
A. Y. W. CHAN 119
MEANING DETERMINATION TASK
The meaning determination task consisted of two parts. The first part investigated the participants’ prior knowledge of the meanings of the target words in
the given contexts, and the second part examined how they used a monolingual dictionary to help them determine the meanings of the target lexical
items. In the first part, a group of words containing the target lexical item in
each of nine sentences was italicized. The participants had to determine the
most appropriate meaning of the italicized expression in each sentence by
circling the correct answer from a list of five choices. In the second part, the
same sentences with the same expressions italicized and the same meaning
options were given. For each sentence, the target lexical item for dictionary
consultation was also underlined. The participants had to consult the given
dictionary packets to check the underlined lexical items and to determine the
meanings of the italicized expressions again. They were required to finish all
the questions in the first part before starting the second, and they were not
allowed to change the answer to any of the questions in the first part after
doing the second. The two multiple choice settings thus compared performance without a dictionary with performance with a dictionary.
A certain amount of guessing from context could have been involved when
the participants did the first part of the task without a dictionary. This was
unavoidable, as the participants were given only sentence contexts as clues to
meaning determination. However, given that the main objective of the study
was to investigate learners’ use of a dictionary to determine word meanings,
no attempt was made to examine the cognitive processes the participants
underwent when they did the first part of the task.
TARGET LEXICAL ITEMS
The lexical items selected for the meaning determination task were all simple
words familiar to advanced ESL learners. They all had (subtly) different meanings when used in different grammatical contexts, but the meanings targeted
were less familiar to Hong Kong ESL learners.2 To ensure that a variety of
words were used, words from the three major grammatical categories of
verbs, nouns, and adjectives were all selected, and for verbs, both transitive
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
By the same token, the use of different self-reporting protocols could help
reveal more strategies and problems which could not have been obtained
otherwise. Requiring the participants to answer a range of pre-set questions
in written form, the instant retrospective and the introspective questionnaires
ensured that the participants were guided to provide the right kind of information generally (for the former) and specifically (for the latter), whereas the
think-aloud verbal protocols ensured that a much larger pool of data could be
collected within the time constraints. The three self-reporting protocols were
in fact supplementary to one another.
120 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
That little hotel boasts several hot springs.
Do you approve of my idea?
They delivered their son from drug addiction.
They cheated her out of her share of the profits.
Other target lexical items included nouns and adjectives followed by uncommon complements, such as occasion + infinitive with to and alive + prepositional
phrase with to [see sentences (v) and (vi)].
For example
(v) I have no occasion to visit him recently.
(vi) The minister is alive to the responsibility of his position (see Supplementary
Appendix3).
All the sentences used in the task had been piloted with three native speakers of English. They all agreed that the given sentences and options were in
idiomatic English and that the target option for each sentence best described
the meaning of the italicized expression,4 while the other options were real
distractors and did not describe the meaning of the italicized expression as
accurately or appropriately as the target option. The sentences were then
piloted with nine non-native English majors from another local university.
These included seven females and two males whose English proficiency and
language backgrounds were comparable with those of the participants. All the
sentences were found to be difficult for 70% of the pilot group without the
use of a dictionary. The dictionary consultation part of the task was, therefore,
deemed warranted.
SELF-REPORTING PROTOCOLS
Different reporting protocols have been used in Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) research. It has been argued that the use of introspective protocols will
minimize the effects of such factors as distortion of information or forgetting,
yet the processing load involved may negatively affect learners’ performance
on a task. Retrospective protocols, however, are criticized as being based on
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
and intransitive verbs, as well as phrasal verbs, were included. The uniformity
of the grammatical patterns associated with the target meanings was not a
concern in the selection process, as the main objective of the study was to
investigate learners’ ability to determine the meaning of a target word in
a certain grammatical context rather than to investigate the meanings of different words in the same grammatical context.
Examples of target words included verbs used in a less common transitivity
pattern, such as boast used transitively and approve used intransitively [see
sentences (i) and (ii)]. Also included were verbs used with a less common
adverbial, such as deliver . . . from . . ., as well as unfamiliar phrasal verbs, such
as cheat . . . out of [see sentences (iii) and (iv)].
For example
A. Y. W. CHAN 121
Introspective questionnaires
The introspective questionnaire group (n = 10) completed an introspective
questionnaire after finishing each question in Part II of the task. The questionnaire aimed at eliciting the participants’ instant and detailed feedback on
the way a certain dictionary entry helped them make a decision. There were
open-ended questions requiring the participants to write out the examples or
definitions used to make a final decision, to demonstrate how the definitions or
examples showed that their decisions were correct, to account for the reason(s)
why they were doubtful about their decisions, to report on the difficulties,
if any, they encountered, and so on. All the questions were given in written
English and all the participants responded in written English.
Introspective think-aloud recordings
The think-aloud group (n = 11) recorded the whole of their decision-making
processes during dictionary consultation using whatever language they were
comfortable with in a soundproof room. Since delayed retrospective reports
‘may only have a tenuous relationship to the original attended information’
(Kasper 2000: 336) and may not relate clearly to any specific observable
behavior (Simon and Ericsson 1993), the think-aloud protocol elicited ‘a
real-time process of cognitive activities’ (Tono 2001: 68) and provided a
less-controlled setting where introspection was simultaneous with information
processing. The whole process of searching for the appropriate examples and/
or definitions, deciding on the appropriate examples and/or definitions, and
making decisions on the correct meanings of the italicized expressions, was
recorded. With the exception of one participant who spoke entirely in English,
all the others spoke in a mixed-code of English and Cantonese to make
the recordings, which were recorded using the audio recorder ‘Audacity’ and
converted into wave sound files. A research assistant transcribed all the sound
files for analysis and the researcher translated the Cantonese utterances into
English.
Instant retrospective questionnaires
The instant retrospective questionnaire group (n = 11) completed a retrospective questionnaire immediately after finishing the whole task. Instead of
eliciting detailed written or verbal feedback on their dictionary consultation
processes, the questionnaire aimed at investigating the participants’ general
evaluation of the usefulness of the dictionary or its different parts. It consisted
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
participants’ memory and narration of what they think they have done after
completing a task (Kaivanpanah and Alavi 2008). In view of these possible
disadvantages, different reporting protocols were used in the study to tap into
the participants’ thinking processes during dictionary consultation and to
gather their evaluation of the effectiveness of dictionary information.
122 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
Post-task focus group interview
A Post-task focus group interview lasting about an hour was conducted within
a month of the completion of the meaning determination task by all the participants. Five students participated in the interview, including two males and
three females. One of the participants used COBUILB Concise in the think-aloud
group, one used CALD3 in the introspective group, and three used LDOCE5 in
the retrospective group. The interviewees were selected on a voluntary basis,
but care was taken to ensure that at least one interviewee from each group was
involved, so that there would be comments on all three dictionaries and
self-reporting protocols. Copies of the dictionary packets and of the task
sheets completed by the participants were brought by the interviewer to the
interviews to refresh the participants’ memory of their dictionary consultation
and decision-making processes and to enable them to quote precise examples
and/or definitions from the packets. Clear instructions were given before the
commencement of the interview by the interviewer, who then was responsible
for asking prompting questions centring around the difficulties that the participants encountered, the strategies they used to overcome the difficulties, the
part(s) of the dictionary entries they found most useful, and the way the information helped them make a decision. All the participants spoke mainly in
Cantonese except when using some English terms, such as noun, verb, and
when quoting dictionary examples, dictionary definitions, task questions
and/or task options. The interviews were recorded using both a video
camera and a mini-disk recorder. The interviewer transcribed the recordings
and the researcher translated the Cantonese utterances into English.
RESULTS
Accuracy of judgment
Part I
The participants’ determination of the words’ meanings without dictionary
consultation was rather poor. Of the nine words included, only cheat received
an accuracy rate of >50% (53.1%). The next highest was deliver, which
received an accuracy rate of 40.6%. Over half (five) of the words received
an accuracy rate of 20% or below. The target word with the lowest accuracy
rate was compromise. Only one student (3.1%) did it correctly.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
of only forced-choice questions requiring the participants to comment on the
usefulness of the different parts of the dictionary entries, to evaluate the overall usefulness of the dictionary, and to specify the frequency with which they
encountered different problems. The numerical data collected from this group
could supplement the qualitative data obtained from the other self-reporting
protocols and the interview, so that a complete picture of the participants’
behavior could be obtained.
A. Y. W. CHAN 123
Part II
After dictionary consultation, some improvements were shown for most of the
words. Six words received an overall accuracy rate of over 50%. The words
which received the highest accuracy rates were occur and alive (87.5 and
81.3%, respectively), which showed big leaps from their originals of 34.4%
for both. The word which received the lowest accuracy rate was boast, with
an accuracy rate of only 18.8% and no change to the original score before
dictionary consultation. The word cheat even showed deterioration from 53.1
to 43.8%. A paired, two-tailed t-test using Excel 2010 showed that the difference between the participants’ overall determination of the target word meanings without the use of a dictionary and that with the use of a dictionary was
statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level (t = 4.28; P = 0.0027).
Regarding the performance of the participants with a dictionary, 7 students
(21.9%) could accurately determine the meanings of seven or more sentences
(77.8% or more) correctly, 19 students (59.4%) could accurately determine
the meanings of five to six sentences (55.6 to 66.7%), and only 1 student
(3.1%) could accurately determine the meanings of two sentences or less
(22.2% or less). The similar overall amount of improvement between the
without- and with-dictionary tasks suggested that the different dictionaries
used did not bias the results (Tables 1 and 2).
Perception of usefulness of dictionary information by the
retrospective group
Definitions and examples were regarded by most participants in the retrospective group as extremely or very useful parts of a dictionary entry (both 90.9%).
These were the items that most participants consulted most (63.6% consulted
definitions and 90.9% consulted examples) and also the parts from which they
found answers to most of the questions (54.5% from definitions and 45.5%
from examples). Very few participants (27.3 and 9.1%, respectively) consulted
the special features (such as bolding) and codes/abbreviations in a dictionary
entry and very few (both 18.2%) regarded them as extremely or very useful
to the consultation task. No participants used such information to find the
answers to most of the questions at all. Overall, the majority of them
(63.6%) regarded the dictionary packets as extremely or very useful and the
rest regarded the packets as useful (Table 3).
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Regarding the performance of the participants without a dictionary, a total
of six students (18.8%) from the three groups could accurately determine the
meanings of four or more sentences (44.4% or more) correctly, 15 students
(46.9%) could accurately determine the meanings of two or three sentences
(22.2–33.3%), and 11 students (34.4%) could accurately determine the meanings of one sentence or less (11.1% or less) (Tables 1 and 2).
124 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
Table 1: A comparison between the participants’ performance in determining
the meanings of the sentences with and without the use of a dictionary
Deliver
Cheat
Approve
Occur
Alive
Occasion
Storm
Compromise
Boast
Percentage of subjects who could correctly determine the meanings
of the words as used in the sentences
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
introspective
Think-aloud
retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Introspective
Think-aloud
Retrospective
Total
Without a dictionary
(Part 1), % (n/N)
With a dictionary
(Part II), % (n/N)
50
45.5
27.3
40.6
60
27.3
72.7
53.1
10
18.2
18.2
15.6
40
27.3
36.4
34.4
20
36.4
45.5
34.4
20
36.4
27.3
28.1
10
9.1
9.1
9.4
10
0
0
3.1
10
18.2
27.3
18.8
90
100
45.5
78.1
100
0
36.4
43.8
60
100
54.5
71.9
100
72.7
90.9
87.5
70
100
72.7
81.3
60
72.7
36.4
56.3
80
9.1
90.9
59.4
20
90.9
9.1
40.6
0
45.5
9.1
18.8
(5/10)
(5/11)
(3/11)
(13/32)
(6/10)
(3/11)
(8/11)
(17/32)
(1/10)
(2/11)
(2/11)
(5/32)
(4/10)
(3/11)
(4/11)
(11/32)
(2/10)
(4/11)
(5/11)
(11/32)
(2/10)
(4/11)
(3/11)
(9/32)
(1/10)
(1/11)
(1/11)
(3/32)
(1/10)
(0/11)
(0/11)
(1/32)
(1/10)
(2/11)
(3/11)
(6/32)
(9/10)
(11/11)
(5/11)
(25/32)
(10/10)
(0/11)
(4/11)
(14/32)
(6/10)
(11/11)
(6/11)
(23/32)
(10/10)
(8/11)
(10/11)
(28/32)
(7/10)
(11/11)
(8/11)
(26/32)
(6/10)
(8/11)
(4/11)
(18/32)
(8/10)
(1/11)
(10/11)
(19/32)
(2/10)
(10/11)
(1/11)
(13/32)
(0/10)
(5/11)
(1/11)
(6/32)
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Keywords
A. Y. W. CHAN 125
Table 2: A comparison between the performance of each individual
participant on the determination of word meanings with and without the
use of a dictionary
Accuracy of meaning
determination without a
dictionary (Part I), % (n/N)
Accuracy of meaning
determination with a
dictionary (Part II), % (n/N)
Student 1
33.3 (3/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 2
44.4 (4/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Student 3
44.4 (4/9)
66.7 (6/9)
Student 4
44.4 (4/9)
66.7 (6/9)
Student 5
11.1 (1/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 6
33.3 (3/9)
66.7 (6/9)
Student 7
Student 8
11.1 (1/9)
11.1 (1/9)
66.7 (6/9)
66.7 (6/9)
Student 9
22.2 (2/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Introspective group
Student 10
Subtotal for introspective
0 (0/9)
44.4 (4/9)
25.6 (23/90)
64.4 (58/90)
Student 11
33.3 (3/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Student 12
33.3 (3/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Student 13
Student 14
11.1 (1/9)
22.2 (2/9)
66.7 (6/9)
66.7 (6/9)
Think-aloud group
Student 15
0 (0/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Student 16
22.2 (2/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 17
11.1 (1/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Student 18
44.4 (4/9)
44.4 (4/9)
Student 19
33.3 (3/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 20
22.2 (2/9)
55.6 (5/9)
11.1 (1/9)
22.2 (22/99)
66.7 (6/9)
65.7 (65/99)
Student 21
Subtotal for think-aloud
Retrospective group
Student 22
11.1 (1/9)
22.2 (2/9)
Student 23
33.3 (3/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 24
66.7 (6/9)
66.7 (6/9)
Student 25
33.3 (3/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 26
44.4 (4/9)
77.8 (7/9)
Student 27
Student 28
22.2 (2/9)
33.3 (3/9)
33.3 (3/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 29
11.1 (1/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 30
33.3 (3/9)
55.6 (5/9)
Student 31
22.2 (2/9)
44.4 (4/9)
Student 32
11.1 (1/9)
33.3 (3/9)
Sub-total for retrospective
29.3 (29/99)
50.5 (50/99)
Total
25.7 (74/288)
60.1 (173/288)
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Students
90.9 (10/11)
Examples
NA
0 (0/11)
NA
0 (0/11)
0 (0/11)
0 (0/11)
27.3 (3/11)
0 (0/11)
45.5 (5/11)
54.5 (6/11)
Information from which
the answers to most of the
questions were found, % (n/N)
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Extremely/very useful
Useful
Not very useful/not useful
Degree of usefulness
of information, % (n/N)
at all
at all
at all
at all
at all
at all
at all
at all
90.9
9.1
0
90.9
9.1
0
18.2
54.5
27.3
45.5
45.5
9.1
27.3
9.1
63.6
18.2
18.2
63.6
0
0
0
63.6
36.4
0
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
NA = Not Applicable.
Whole packet
Others
27.3 (3/11)
0 (0/11)
Extra column
Special features
45.5 (5/11)
Explanations
9.1 (1/11)
63.6 (7/11)
Definitions
Codes/abbreviations
Information
consulted
most, % (n/N)
Dictionary
information
Table 3: Perception of the usefulness of the different parts of a dictionary by the retrospective group
(10/11)
(1/11)
(0/11)
(10/11)
(1/11)
(0/11)
(2/11)
(6/11)
(3/11)
(5/11)
(5/11)
(1/11)
(3/11)
(1/11)
(7/11)
(2/11)
(2/11)
(7/11)
(0/11)
(0/11)
(0/11)
(7/11)
(4/11)
(0/11)
126 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
A. Y. W. CHAN 127
Strategies used and problems encountered during dictionary
consultation
Eliminating an incorrect word class. Some participants started off by
determining the word class of a target word as used in a sentence (e.g. deliver
in Question 1) before checking any definition.
The first sentence. They delivered their son from drug addiction. Deliver.
A verb. (Student 15)5
Upon identifying the word class of a word, the participants instantly eliminated definitions showing the use of the target word in a different word class.
For example, when determining the meaning of the verb cheat in Question 2
and that of the noun occasion in Question 6, they were not distracted by definitions which showed the former used as a noun and the latter used as a verb.
A cheat is someone who does not obey a set of rules . . . Cheat is used as a
verb in the question. (Student 13)
First cheated. In the context of Question 2 it is a verb . . . Question 6, I
have no occasion to visit him recently. In this context occasion is a noun,
so we have to read the whole phrase have no occasion. (Student 15)
Comparing the structure of a target sentence with the structure of
a definition. Very few participants could instantly isolate the relevant definition of a lexical item with the same grammatical pattern. Most participants had
to search the definitions of a lexical item one by one, eliminating one definition
after another and going back to a previous definition when necessary. When
reading the definitions one after another, many participants attempted to compare the grammatical patterns of the target words as used in the sentences (e.g.
deliver in Question 1) with the patterns in the respective definitions.
The third one is deliver the goods. Wrong . . . Then let me read the
fifth one, if someone delivers you from something, they rescue or save
you from it. Oh, deliver you from something. Rescue or save. Right.
(Student 11)
Deliver. If you deliver something somewhere, you take it there . . . Deliver
the goods, deliver their son . . . If someone delivers you from something.
Oh, this one. They rescue or save you from it. Save. Yes. (Student 12)
Through the dictionary consultation processes, some participants who
started off with little awareness of word colligation eventually realized the
importance of grammatical associations on meaning.
I now know that the preposition that follows is related to the
meaning . . . Now I eventually found it (the dictionary entry)
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Strategies employed
128 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
useful. Now I eventually know how to read (a dictionary entry).
(Student 17)
If a thought or an idea occurs to you, you suddenly think of it or realize it.
Idea. This is something to do with idea . . . You suddenly think of it or
realize it. You suddenly think of it or realize it. This means come into
his mind. (Student 13)
Utilizing special features. Dictionary consultation was sometimes facilitated by the use of special features such as bolding and capitalization. When
checking the meaning of occur in Question 4, Student 11 was attracted by the
highlighting feature and found the appropriate definition easily:
Question 4. It didn’t occur to him that his wife had an affair . . . Occur.
Let me see. Actually I can usually see it: those words which are
highlighted, bolded. Then I see the third definition. (Student 11)
Student 9 also said at the interview that her consultation was facilitated by
the bold feature:
My dictionary has highlighted the word from, so upon seeing it
I thought (the meaning of) save should be in this definition.
(Student 9)
Problems encountered
More problems than strategies were revealed in the study. For the retrospective group, many participants very frequently or rather frequently thought that
there were too many definitions and examples in the entries (36.4%) and the
arrangement of the entries was too long and confusing (36.4%). The inability
to judge which definitions or examples were relevant to the context of the
given sentences was also a difficulty very or rather frequently encountered
(18.2%), though not as frequently as the former two (Table 4). Other problems
could also be identified from the participants’ written or verbal commentaries
in the other self-reporting protocols.
Focusing on an irrelevant grammatical pattern. Some participants were
distracted by an irrelevant grammatical pattern, such as the use of a preposition with no direct relation to the lexical meaning of a word.
In determining the meaning of the transitive use of the word compromise in
Question 8, Student 17 focused her attention on the optional adverbial by
accepting his invitation, apparently because in previous questions the use of a
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Paraphrasing key words given in a dictionary definition. Some participants made a decision by identifying key words given in the dictionary definitions and comparing the meaning of the identified key words with that given
in the options [e.g. come into his mind (Option A) for the word occur in Question 4].
A. Y. W. CHAN 129
Table 4: Difficulties encountered by the retrospective group
Difficulties encountered
Very/rather
frequently,
% (n/N)
Sometimes,
% (n/N)
Rarely/never,
% (n/N)
0 (0/11)
0 (0/11)
36.4 (4/11)
9.1 (1/11)
81.8 (9/11)
27.3 (3/11)
90.9 (10/11)
18.2 (2/11)
36.4 (4/11)
36.4 (4/11)
45.5 (5/11)
18.2 (2/11)
9.1 (1/11)
27.3 (3/11)
63.6 (7/11)
9.1 (1/11)
27.3 (3/11)
63.6 (7/11)
9.1 (1/11)
9.1 (1/11)
81.8 (9/11)
9.1 (1/11)
27.3 (3/11)
63.6 (7/11)
18.2 (2/11)
72.7 (8/11)
9.1 (1/11)
9.1 (1/11)
18.2 (2/11)
72.7 (8/11)
0 (0/11)
0 (0/11)
0 (0/11)
verb with a certain preposition was vital to the meaning. Though a correct
decision was finally made, the decision was made based on the presence of a
peripheral constituent, and she had been puzzled by the ‘absence’ of highlighting features on such an element.
She has already compromised herself by accepting his invitation.
Compromise herself by, compromise by . . . Found it. Why doesn’t it
highlight the preposition? It makes the sentence so difficult.
(Student 17).
Ignoring the difference between the grammatical pattern of a word
as used in a question and in a definition. It was quite common for the
participants to ignore the difference between the grammatical pattern of
a word as used in a question and the pattern of the word as used in a dictionary definition. Verb transitivity was one pattern often overlooked.
For the word storm, which was used transitively in Question 7, many
students chose the dictionary definition storm into a place (intransitive use;
meaning entered a place noisily) despite the different transitivity patterns
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
The word was missing
The usage information was not clear
There were too many definitions and
examples
The arrangement of the entry was too
long and confusing
The definitions or examples were not
useful
The definitions or examples were
difficult to understand
I could not find the information about
parts of speech
The codes or abbreviations were difficult to understand
I could not judge which definitions
or examples were relevant
There were no special features to
attract my attention
Others
Frequency
130 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
between the dictionary definition and the given sentence. The common association of a storm with noise seems to have overridden the importance of verb
transitivity.
The complementation pattern of a noun (e.g. noun + to-infinitive) was also
often ignored, resulting in wrong decision making. Student 16, when determining the meaning of occasion in Question 6, chose ‘an occasion for doing
something is an opportunity for doing it’ despite her reading a definition with
the same complementation pattern occasion to do something.
I have no occasion to visit him recently. Occasion, noun. If you have occasion to do something, it is necessary for you to do it. It is necessary for you
to do it. It shouldn’t be this meaning. An occasion for doing something
is an opportunity for doing it. It should be this one. (Student 16)
Preoccupied by typical word collocations. Participants’ preoccupation
with the typical collocations of a certain word sometimes misled them into
selecting an incorrect meaning. Probably because a building was thought to be
a place, and the collocation between storm and into a place was very significant,
many participants focused on the definitions which showed this collocation
when determining the meaning of the word storm in Question 7 (storm the
building).
If you storm into or out of a place, you enter or leave it quickly or noisily.
This means enter the building nosily. (Student 18)
The fact that storm is usually collocated with noise may have misled the
participants into choosing the meaning of entering a place noisily for storming
into a place. At the interview, Student 15 voiced her preoccupation with such
a collocation:
For Question 7 . . . By intuition, I would think that it is perhaps like a
group of people bombarding the building, that is, flooding into the
building very noisily. (Student 15)
The ostensibly unacceptable collocation of a word with another word also
led to false judgment. Despite her reading a definition which matched the
transitivity pattern of the word as used in the given sentence: ‘If a place that
is being defended is stormed, a group of people attack it’ Student 11 disregarded
this definition, thinking that a building could not be attacked. She said, ‘People
attack it, but people won’t attack a building’.
At the interview, Students 23 and 25 gave the reason for their wrong decisions on determining the meaning of compromise, which was largely the result
of their preconception with the collocation and connotation that they thought
the word had.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Storm the building. Yes, I got it. If you storm into or out of a place, you
enter or leave it quickly and noisily. Yes. (Student 12)
A. Y. W. CHAN 131
I think compromise is not related to reputation, so there is no correlation. (Student 23)
To many learners, the typical collocation and even connotation of a word
seemed to be more important concerns than grammatical associations.
Attempting to match key words given in a definition with those
given in the options. Some participants could correctly identify an appropriate dictionary definition but could not determine the correct meaning
of a word because of their attempts to match key words given in the
definition with those given in the options. When a match could not be
found or when a wrong match was identified, an inappropriate decision
was made.
Student 7’s puzzle was startling. When checking the meaning of the word
occasion in Question 6, she couldn’t make a correct decision just because the
phrase in the relevant dictionary entry (have occasion to do something) was positive whereas the phrase in the given sentence was negative (no occasion to do
something).
Because the idiom have occasion to do sth confuses me. I don’t know
whether it’s the opposite meaning of no occasion to do sth. (Student 7)
When checking the meaning of the word cheat in Question 2, Student 17
attempted to match the word dishonesty from the dictionary entry with the
word deceive from Option A and made a wrong decision.
If someone cheats you out of something, they get it from you by behaving
dishonestly . . . That mean dishonestly. Dishonestly should be . . . I think
it should be A, because the link between cheat and dishonest is very
strong. (Student 17)
Another illuminating example came from Student 3, whose attempt to
match key words from the dictionary entry (agreement) with those from the
options (reach an agreement with herself; Option C) when determining the
meaning of the verb compromise in Question 8 led to her selection of the inappropriate meaning. She wrote, ‘agreement = Option C’.
Preoccupied by the meaning of a target word in familiar grammatical
patterns. Some learners were preoccupied by the meanings of a target word
used in familiar grammatical patterns and paid exclusive attention to definitions and examples related to those meanings. For example, when determining the meaning of approve in Question 3, Student 8 focused on the definition
of the transitive use of the verb to accept, allow or officially agree to something and
chose the first option officially accept my idea without paying attention to other
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Yes, I also think that compromise is just like people sitting together
and arriving at a collective decision, so I suppose it is something
good, but the question seems very negative. (Student 25)
132 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
definitions or examples, simply because ‘I know what the word approve means
before I look up the dictionary’. (Student 8)
Occasion is a time when something happens, or in a case . . . an occasion, an
occasion for, to, have occasion to do something. Ah! Why does it only say
phrase? Why doesn’t it say what it should be when to is added?
(Student 17)
Others were daunted by the numerous definitions and examples in the
dictionaries entries as well as the long and confusing arrangement of the
entries. Student 25 complained about the confusing arrangement of LDOCE5
entries, that for some entries, different definitions were clearly separated from
others by having a new definition in a new line, yet for other entries, more
than one definition was put together in the same paragraph.
If you see the entries of storm and compromise, they are in one paragraph. Suddenly, (Definition) 2 appears in the middle, so it is not
in a new line, but if you see, for example, the first one deliver,
the second page cheat, there are new lines (for new definitions).
That’s why when I read it I immediately knew there were five definitions, but at the back (for compromise) I really thought that . . . the
things in the middle were just examples. Then I thought after reading that definition in the first place, then everything in that paragraph was for that definition. (Student 25)
DISCUSSION
A monolingual dictionary is, to a certain extent, useful for helping advanced
Hong Kong ESL learners determine the meanings of familiar words used in less
familiar grammatical contexts. Many advanced ESL learners can make use of
appropriate definitions and examples in a dictionary to guide their determination of word meanings. Basic grammatical information, such as word class
information, is also attended to, and in line with previous studies such as Watts
(2004), advanced ESL learners are often successful in identifying the grammatical class of a target word without necessarily knowing its meaning.
Inflectional morphemes such as -ed for past tense verbs may of course be
useful cues which can help learners identify the correct word class of a
word, but absence of such morphological cues, as with the noun occasion,
which has no inflectional morphemes, does not seem to impinge on learners’
ability to discriminate between different word classes. The grammatical associations between the target word and the immediate syntactic environment,
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Daunted by arrangement of dictionary entries and presentation of
information. Some participants were daunted by the unclear presentation
of information. Student 17 spent much effort on the long definitions and examples without being able to identify the correct information until after some
frustrating experience:
A. Y. W. CHAN 133
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
such as the use of no with occasion, may also provide useful hints to learners for
word class identification.
Learners’ awareness of the importance of grammatical information on word
meaning seems, however, to be limited to word class distinctions. They often
overlook the subtle differences between the meanings of a word used in different grammatical contexts, especially when the word in question is a familiar
word which they have had exposure to. The facilitative effects of a monolingual dictionary are also rather limited in this regard. Learners’ knowledge of a
word’s ‘popular’ or familiar meaning and/or its usual grammatical contexts or
lexical collocations may bring about insensitivity to alternative grammatical
associations and hinder their selection and interpretation of dictionary information. As is evidenced from the results of the present study, inattention to, or
to a greater extent, disregard of details in a dictionary entry occurs in dictionary consultation even when learners are deliberately searching an entry to
determine word meaning, more or less akin to readers’ inattention to details
in contexts when using lexical inferencing to infer word meaning (Frantzen
2003). To some learners, dictionary consultation for determining meanings of
familiar words seems just a means of getting confirmation rather than getting
information.
It has been argued in the literature that there is often a gap ‘between
the sophistication of the typical dictionary structure and the inadequacy of
the reference skills possessed by the average dictionary user’ (Lew and Galas
2008: 1273). Such a gap may be the source of the participants’ inattention or
disregard. ESL learners in Hong Kong are seldom taught dictionary skills, presumably because these skills are among the least important teaching items on
the priority list of most secondary and tertiary teachers, alongside more important skills such as reading, writing, speaking and listening (Chan 2005).
Without guidance on the structure of a dictionary and the proper ways to
access relevant information, ESL learners are often daunted by the long dictionary entries and the seemingly endless definitions and examples, many of
which differ from others very subtly. Their insensitivity to the sophistication of
dictionary structure may preclude them from being able to ‘see’ the differently
numbered sub-entries for the different meanings of, say, boast used transitively
and intransitively. Their inadequate reference skills may prevent them from
understanding and/or making use of symbols such as T or I as signposts
to efficient information access. Learners’ inappropriate attempts to match
key words in a meaning paraphrase with those in a dictionary definition or
example are good manifestations of their inadequate reference skills: Feeling
insecure about the selection of a proper paraphrase, they may be inclined to
resort to the matching of key words as a means of confirming or even guiding
information selection.
Another reason for learners’ indifference to the importance of grammatical
associations on word meaning may stem from their preconceptions about
the use of grammatical information. Although checking word meaning and
checking grammatical information have been found to be the two most
134 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
The results of the present study furnish the SLA field with the cognitive
processes involved in ESL learners’ meaning determination and dictionary
consultation. Because words with multiple meanings constitute a large part
of L2 vocabulary, ESL teachers should find ways to help accelerate learners’
access to the correct meanings of a polysemous word used in different contexts.
Learners should be made aware that meaning is seen as residing not just in
typical combinations of lexical choices but also in typical combinations of
grammatical choices (Hunston 2001). Therefore, to strengthen learners’
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
important motivations for dictionary consultation (Dziemianko 2002), many
ESL learners, advanced learners included, may view grammatical information
as only vital to encoding (language production) but immaterial to decoding
(language comprehension or meaning discrimination), so it is only when they
are engaged in encoding tasks that they will focus on grammatical associations
for correct word usage. When checking word meaning, they will be ‘blind’ to
the grammatical contexts in which a target word appears. Word meaning consultation thus seems to be isolated from grammatical information seeking as far
as dictionary use is concerned.
Learners’ dictionary habits and their deficient reference skills may have significant effects on second language learning. As discussed in Schmitt (1998),
learners’ acquisition of second language words may be hierarchical, in that the
initial exposure to a target word that learners have had may only result in the
acquisition of some of its senses, and collocational and stylistic knowledge lags
behind. In consonance with Schmitt’s argument, Pu (2003) also argues that
the problems and inadequacies of Chinese English learners in the depth of
word knowledge are related to their insufficient mastery of the typical colligations and collocations in the use of common words. From the results of the
study, there is reason to believe that many learners have had knowledge of
only some of the senses of the target words or some collocational knowledge of
the target words. It is only with more exposure that they will gradually acquire
other senses of a word incrementally. Dictionary consultation provides
advanced learners with good exposure to different kinds of word knowledge,
yet inattention to or disregard of dictionary information will diminish the
effectiveness of such exposure and affect second language acquisition. Such
effects are not just limited to the acquisition of word meaning, but also to
the acquisition of word use with semantic appropriateness and grammatical
accuracy (Paribakht and Wesche 1993), because it is precisely the ability to
distinguish the subtle differences between the meanings of a word used in
different contexts that will enable a learner to use the word with semantic
appropriateness and grammatical accuracy in language production. In fact,
many of the senses of these highly frequent but polysemous lexical items
are very useful in expressing ideas that are common in daily communication
(Huang 2003).
A. Y. W. CHAN 135
LEXICOGRAPHICAL IMPLICATIONS
The findings of the study also inform the lexicographical fields of ESL learners’
needs and of the efficacy of dictionary entries in commercial dictionaries.
The comprehensiveness and accessibility of dictionary information should be
the most important concerns of lexicographers, and it is necessary to find a
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
knowledge of previously taught words, the teaching of lexical collocations
(Webb and Kagimoto 2009) should of course be introduced, but this should
be complemented by the teaching of colligations, such as phrasal verbs, noun
complementation, or adjective complementation. Verb transitivity is an area
which deserves special attention. Discussions on verb transitivity confusion by
Hong Kong ESL learners have often been focused on the different transitivity
patterns between English and Chinese verbs (Chan 2004, 2010), that the
Chinese counterparts of some English intransitive verbs (e.g. reply, participate)
are used transitively in corresponding Chinese expressions or vice versa, and
that the different transitivity patterns are the main source of problems in ESL
learners’ written output. A new dimension to verb transitivity confusion is
revealed in the study. Verb transitivity is not simply a syntactic issue but is
also a semantic issue, and its importance is not limited to language production
but also to language comprehension. The same verb can be used transitively
and intransitively with different meanings, so a verb’s semantic interpretation
may depend on its syntactic environments. By the same token, the same noun
or adjective can be used with different complements with different meanings,
so the semantic interpretations of such words are also dependent on their
syntactic environments. Learners need to have a good grasp of such behavior
if they are to master the different kinds of word knowledge. They should also
be alerted to the importance of grammatical associations on language comprehension alongside language production.
As far as the use of dictionaries is concerned, teachers of advanced ESL
learners are advised to incorporate suitable dictionary use training into their
teaching programmes. The misconception that dictionary skills are better
taught in elementary schools should be dispelled. Dictionary skills training is
effective in educating users to use dictionaries more efficiently (Lew and Galas
2008), and efficient use of dictionaries is vital to advanced learners, as they are
the ones who rely most on self-access materials for self-learning. The microstructure of a dictionary is the foremost topic of training. The location of target
dictionary information, the ways in which different senses of a multi-senses
word are presented, the skills with which a certain piece of dictionary information (e.g. transitivity information) can be used for the interpretation of
dictionary examples, and the like, should all be highlighted. It is only through
a good understanding of dictionary structure that learners can have efficient
access to the information required. Other reference skills such as the interpretation and use of symbols, abbreviations, and special features are also among
key elements of training.
136 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
LIMITATIONS
An inherent limitation in the design of the study may have affected the findings: task-induced difficulties. It was reported at the interview that some options for the questions were difficult to understand, such as the option no
reason for visiting for the word occasion. In doing the task, the participants
may have avoided an option the meaning of which they were not sure
about or been forced to choose other options they felt more comfortable
with. Expressions often misused by Chinese ESL learners, such as too proud
of having (one of the options given for the word boast) may also have posed
some problems. The too + adjective structure in English has been described in the
literature as a common error for Chinese ESL learners, who often mistake
the expression as showing a very strong degree of whatever meaning conveyed
by the adjective rather than the usual interpretation of an unwanted, excessive
degree (Li and Chan 2000). It is doubtful if the participants choosing or
rejecting the option too proud of having for the word boast had an accurate
interpretation of the option in mind.
CONCLUSION
In this article, I have reported on the results of a meaning determination task
requiring the participants to determine the meanings of familiar words used
in less familiar contexts with the use of a monolingual dictionary. Although a
monolingual dictionary is seen as useful for facilitating meaning determination, grammatical associations are often disregarded when meanings are
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
way to maintain a balance between the two. Entries that are comprehensive
enough may be too long to be useful or accessible, so even advanced learners
may be daunted by the long dictionary entries and the abundant information.
Entries that are easy to read may not be comprehensive enough. Not many
dictionary users are equipped with the motivation and/or dictionary skills to
extract relevant information from a dictionary entry, so more eye-catching
special features or highlighting techniques could be used to attract users’
attention. More user-friendly and succinct introductory guides alerting learners to the microstructures and features of learner dictionaries should also be
provided.
In language comprehension or meaning determination, dictionary users’
attention is seldom focused on explicit grammatical information or the
grammatical associations of a word, yet the grammatical associations of a polysemous word may help differentiate the different senses, so relevant explicit
grammatical information should also be given emphasis in the provision of
definitions. It is not clear from the study whether grammatical associations
should be given entry status like what is suggested in Siepmann (2006), but
lexicographers should be sensitive to learners’ needs and dictionary designs
should be guided by user-oriented dictionary research.
A. Y. W. CHAN 137
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary material is available at Applied Linguistics online.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The funding support of the university is acknowledged. I would also like to thank all the respondents of the survey for their participation, my research assistant for her administrative help,
and the consultants in the City University Statistical Consulting Unit for their expert advice on
statistical analyses.
FUNDING
The City University of Hong Kong (CityU Strategic Research Grant
No.: 7008005).
NOTES
1 Care was taken to ensure that the
entries in the dictionary packets appeared in the same format and arrangement as the entries in the real
dictionaries.
2 No survey was specifically carried out
to investigate or prove which meaning
of a target word was more or less familiar to ESL learners in Hong Kong. The
(familiar vs. less familiar) decisions
were purely made based on the experience of the researcher, who has been
teaching English and/or linguistics at
different local tertiary institutions for
20 years.
3 A minority of the distractors given for
the questions may sound unnatural
and may, to a certain extent, resemble
corresponding
Chinese
translations (e.g. Question 1: sent their
son
away
from
drug
addiction:
). They were
included based on the researcher’s
intuition of the possible meanings
Cantonese ESL learners may get
from reading the sentence contexts
and the respective dictionary information. As the task had been piloted
with three native speakers of
English, the reliability of the study
was not affected by such minor
inadequacies.
4 The target option for each question
was based on the definitions given in
different popular dictionaries used in
Hong Kong, such as Oxford Advanced
Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary 6th
Edition (OALECD6), and others.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
called for. It is suggested that ESL teachers alert learners to the importance of
grammatical associations for language comprehension. Further research can
compare learners’ use of dictionary information for language production with
that for language comprehension. Bilingualized dictionaries, which include
examples, definitions and even usage information in both the source and
target languages, may also be the object of study. It is illuminating to compare
ESL learners’ use of monolingual dictionaries with their use of bilingualized
dictionaries for second language comprehension as well as second language
production.
138 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
are only the author’s closest translations of the participants’ responses
in idiomatic English, as the majority
of the participants chose to speak
in Cantonese or a mixed-code of
Cantonese and English in making the
think-aloud recordings and in doing
the interview.
REFERENCES
Al-Ajmi, H. 2002. ‘Which microstructural features of bilingual dictionaries affect users’
look-up performance?,’ International Journal of
Lexicography 15/2: 119–31.
Atkins, B. T. S. and K. Varantola. 1997.
‘Monitoring dictionary use,’ International
Journal of Lexicography 10/1: 1–45.
Bauer, R. S. 2003. ‘An English-Cantonese dictionary arranged by semantic areas,’ Journal
of Translation Studies 8: 137–52.
Bensoussan, M. and B. Laufer. 1984. ‘Lexical
guessing in context in EFL reading comprehension,’ Journal of Research in Reading 7: 15–32.
Bogaards, P. and W. A. Van der Kloot. 2001.
‘The use of grammatical information in learners’ dictionaries,’ International Journal of
Lexicography 14/2: 97–121.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 3rd edn.
2008. Cambridge University Press.
Chan, A. Y. W. 2004. ‘Syntactic transfer: evidence from the interlanguage of Hong Kong
Chinese ESL learners,’ The Modern Language
Journal 88/1: 56–74.
Chan, A. Y. W. 2005. ‘Tactics employed and
problems encountered by university English
majors in Hong Kong in using a dictionary,’
Applied Language Learning 15/1&2: 1–28.
Chan, A. Y. W. 2010. ‘Toward a taxonomy of
written errors: investigation into the written
errors of Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners,’
TESOL Quarterly 44/2: 295–319.
Chan, S. W. 2001. ‘Compiling a Chinese-English
dictionary for translators,’ Journal of Translation
Studies 5: 19–37.
Chi, A. M. L. 2003. Research Report Volume 4: An
Empirical Study of the Efficacy of Integrating the
Teaching of Dictionary Use into a Tertiary English
Curriculum in Hong Kong. Language Centre,
Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology.
Chi, A. M. L. 2007. ‘Teaching dictionary use: a
case study at the Language Centre of the Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology.’
Paper presented at the 5th Biennial
Conference of ASIALEX, Chennai, India, 6–8
December.
Chi, A. M. L. and 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. Linguistic Society of the Philippines,
pp. 36–52.
Christianson, K. 1997. ‘Dictionary use by EFL
writers: what really happens?,’ Journal of
Second Language Writing 6/1: 23–43.
Coffey, S. 2006. ‘High-frequency grammatical
lexis in advanced-level English learners’ dictionaries: from language description to pedagogical usefulness,’ International Journal of
Lexicography 19/2: 157–73.
Collins COBUILD Learner’s Dictionary, concise edition. 2003. HarperCollins.
Durkin, K. and J. Manning. 1989. ‘Polysemy
and the subjective lexicon: semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses,’
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18/6:
577–612.
Dziemianko, A. 2002. ‘Coding systems in
monolingual English learners’ dictionaries:
form and utility,’ Studia Anglica Posnaniensia
37: 201–30.
Fischer, U. 1994. ‘Learning words from context and dictionaries: an experimental
comparison,’ Applied Psycholinguistics 15/4:
551–74.
Flowerdew L. and A. K. K. Tong (eds). 1994.
Entering
Text.
Language
Centre.
The
Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
5 The introspective quotes included in
this article are all reported verbatim
from the written reports provided by
the participants in the group, as they
were required to complete the questionnaires in written English. On the
other hand, most of the think-aloud reports and the interview transcriptions
A. Y. W. CHAN 139
Li, L. 2005. ‘The growing prosperity of on-line
dictionaries,’ English Today 21/3: 16–21.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th
edn. 2009. Pearson/Longman.
Luppescu, S. and R. R. Day. 1993. ‘Reading, dictionaries and vocabulary learning,’ Language
Learning 43/2: 263–87.
McCreary, D. R. and F. T. Dolezal. 1999. ‘A
study of dictionary use by ESL students in an
American University,’ International Journal of
Lexicography 12/2: 107–45.
Nesi, H. and R. Haill. 2002. ‘A study of dictionary use by international students at a British
university,’ International Journal of Lexicography
15/4: 277–305.
Nesi, H. and P. Meara. 1994. ‘Patterns of
misinterpretation in the productive use of
EFL dictionary definitions,’ System 22/1: 1–15.
Ooi, D. and J. L. Kim-Seoh. 1996. ‘Vocabulary
teaching: looking behind the words,’ ELT
Journal 50/1: 52–8.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary,
6th edn. 2004. Oxford University Press.
Paribakht, T. S. and M. B. Wesche. 1993. ‘The
relationship between reading comprehension
and second language development in a comprehension based ESL program,’ TESL Canada
Journal 11: 9–29.
Pemberton R. and E. S. C. Tsang (eds). 1993.
Studies in Lexis. The Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology.
Pu, J. Z. 2003. ‘Colligation, collocation, and
chunk in ESL vocabulary teaching and learning,’ Foreign Language Teaching and Research 35/
6: 438–45.
Rundell, M. 1999. ‘Dictionary use in production,’ International Journal of Lexicography 12/1:
35–53.
Schmitt, N. 1998. ‘Tracking the incremental
acquisition of second language vocabulary: a
longitudinal study,’ Language Learning 48/2:
281–317.
Siepmann, D. 2006. ‘Collocation, colligation and
encoding dictionaries’, Part II. Lexicographical
aspects,’ International Journal of Lexicography 19/
1: 1–39.
Simon, H. A. and K. A. Ericsson. 1993. Protocol
Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, 93rd edn.
Bradford Book.
Taylor, A. and A. Chan. 1994. ‘Pocket
electronic
dictionaries
and
their
use’
in W. Martin, W. Meijs, M. Moerland,
E. ten Pas, P. Van Sterkenburg, and
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
Frantzen, D. 2003. ‘Factors affecting how second
language Spanish students drive meaning form
context,’ The Modern Language Journal 87/2:
168–99.
Harvey, K. and D. Yuill. 1997. ‘A study of the
use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary by
learners of English engaged in writing,’ Applied
Linguistics 18/3: 253–78.
Huang, G. F. 1985. ‘The productive use of EFL
dictionaries,’ RELC Journal 16/2: 54–71.
Huang, L. S. 2003. ‘Resolving word sense ambiguity of polysemous words in a second language,’
Unpublished
MEd
dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin.
Hunston, S. 2001. ‘Colligation, lexis, pattern and
text’ in M. Scott and G. Thompson (eds):
Patterns of Text In Honour of Michael Hoey.
Benjamins, pp. 13–34.
Kaivanpanah, S. and S. M. Alavi. 2008. ‘The
role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning
inferencing,’ System 36/2: 172–95.
Kasper, G 2000. ‘Data collection in pragmatics
research’ in H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.): Culturally
Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across
Cultures. Continuum, pp. 316–69.
Knight, S. 1994. ‘Dictionary use while reading:
the effects on comprehension and vocabulary
acquisition for students of different verbal abilities,’ Modern Language Journal 78: 285–99.
Laufer, B. 1997. ‘The lexical plight in second
language reading: words you don’t know,
words you think you know and words you
can’t guess’ in J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds):
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A
Rationale for Pedagogy. Cambridge University
Press, pp. 20–34.
Lew, R. and K. Galas. 2008. ‘Can dictionary
skills be taught? The effectiveness of lexicographic training for primary-school-level
Polish learners of English’ in E. Bernal and
J. DeCesaris (eds): Proceedings of the XIII
EURALEX International Congress. Universitat
Pompeu Fabra, pp. 1273–85.
Li, D. 2003. ‘Compilation of English-Chinese dictionaries: the user’s perspective,’ Journal of
Translation Studies 8: 91–115.
Li, D. C. S. and A. Y. W. Chan. 2000. ‘Formfocused negative feedback: toward a pedagogically sound model of remedial instruction’ in D.
C. S. Li, A. Lin, and W. K. Tsang (eds): Language
and Education in Postcolonial Hong Kong. Linguistic
Society of Hong Kong, pp. 333–51.
140 USE OF A MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY FOR MEANING DETERMINATION
acquisition through reading,’ Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Illinois.
Webb, S. and E. Kagimoto. 2009. ‘The effects of
vocabulary learning on collocation and meaning,’ TESOL Quarterly 43/1: 55–77.
Yule, G. 2010. The Study of Language, 4th edn.
Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at GUANGDONG UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN STUDIES LIBRARY on March 10, 2014
P. Vossen (eds): Euralex ’94 Proceedings.
Euralex, pp. 598–605.
Tono, Y. 2001. Research on Dictionary Use in the
Context of Foreign Language Learning: Focus on
Reading Comprehension. Niemeyer.
Watts, M. 2004. ‘The role of grammatical word
class in second language incidental vocabulary