Researching users and uses of
dictionaries
Nesi, H.
Author post-print (accepted) deposited in CURVE October 2015
Original citation & hyperlink:
Nesi, H. (2013) 'Researching users and uses of dictionaries' in H. Jackson (Ed). The
Bloomsbury Companion To Lexicography (pp: 62-74). London: Bloomsbury.
http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-bloomsbury-companion-to-lexicography9781441145970/
Publisher statement:
This copy is not the final print version and is not to be cited.
Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright
owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study,
without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively
from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The
content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium
without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
This document is the author’s post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during
the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version
may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from
it.
CURVE is the Institutional Repository for Coventry University
http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open
Continuum Companion to Lexicography
Editor: Howard Jackson, Birmingham City University, UK
Publisher: Continuum (www.continuumbooks.com)
Hilary Nesi
3.3. Researching users and uses of dictionaries
Dictionary use was not a popular research topic until fairly recently. Welker (2010)
summarises 320 empirical dictionary use studies, but only six of these were conducted before
1980. In the 1980s there was an upsurge of interest, however, and an increasing number of
studies have taken place in each decade since then, in an ever-wider range of dictionary-using
contexts. Much of the latest research focuses on electronic dictionaries produced locally or
regionally for specific user groups, as evidenced for example in the proceedings of the two
eLex conferences (Granger & Paquot 2010, Kosem & Kosem 2011) and recent AFRILEX,
ASIALEX and EURALEX conferences.
The aim of all studies of dictionary use is to discover ways to increase the success of
dictionary consultation. This involves the identification of users’ needs and skills deficits, and
the making of appropriate matches between types of dictionary, types of dictionary user, and
types of dictionary use. The following research questions are pertinent:
•
Who are the users of dictionaries?
•
What kinds of activity prompt dictionary use?
•
What kinds of dictionary do users prefer to use?
•
What kinds of information do dictionary users look for?
•
What consultation strategies do dictionary users employ, and how successful are these
strategies?
This chapter looks at some of the various ways in which these questions have been addressed.
Welker (2010) identifies six main methods of investigating dictionary use:
1. Questionnaire surveys
2. Interviews
3. Observation
4. Protocols
5. Tests and experiments
6. Log files
All these methods are intended to shed light on the way dictionary users consult dictionaries
for their own purposes, under non-experimental conditions. Gathering such information is
not easy, however, because the data-gathering instruments often rely heavily on users’ ability
to explain their consultation behaviour, and because they also tend to steer users towards
uncharacteristic patterns of use.
The questionnaire survey is the most common approach, and can be an effective means of
gathering data from large numbers of respondents regarding their long-term dictionary-using
habits and attitudes (Lew 2002). Questionnaires have come in for criticism, however, for
example by Hatherall (1984), Wiegand (1998), Nesi (2000a) and Tarp (2009), because they
sometimes place unreasonable demands on users’ powers of recall, and because users and
questionnaire designers may not share the same concepts and terminology.
Interviews and observations are used less frequently in dictionary research, and generally
with only a few participants because of the cost in terms of time and expertise. Neubach and
Cohen (1988) interviewed only six dictionary users, for example, and East (2008) observed
groups of six and five users. Interviews and observations can, however, be more successful
than questionnaire surveys as a means of probing dictionary-using behaviour. Interview
participants can ask each other for clarification if unexpected aspects of dictionary use come
to light, and observations can reveal behaviour without the need for users to describe it at all.
The data are therefore less likely to be coloured by misunderstandings and misconceptions,
although they do not always reveal natural look-up behaviour because the interviewer or
observer may unintentionally influence the outcome, especially if participants believe that
researchers approve of certain strategies, and disapprove of others.
Recently, new laboratory-based methods have enabled researchers to observe in detail the
way users interact with dictionary information on the computer screen. Heid and Zimmerman
(2012), for example, adopted usability testing methods from the field of information science
to record keystroke patterns for search routes through different types of dictionary interface.
Tono (2011), Kaneta (2011) and Simonsen (2011) employed eye-tracking techniques
previously used in the fields of cognitive science, psycholinguistics and human-computer
interaction to discover what areas of the dictionary entry users view, in what order, and for
how long. Inevitably research of this kind is conducted in an artificial setting with relatively
small numbers of participants, but the techniques reveal aspects of dictionary use that
probably cannot be discovered by a human interviewer or observer.
Completely natural look-up behaviour is difficult to record because it is a private activity
that occurs spontaneously rather than to order. A researcher might spend a very long time
observing a potential user as they read or write for their own purposes, before catching the
moment when dictionary consultation occurs. Tests or tasks which prompt dictionary use are
useful as a means of generating a lot of structured data in a short amount of time, particularly
for comparative purposes, for example to identify the conditions under which users look up
the most words, take the least time, achieve the highest comprehension scores or retain the
most vocabulary. It is not always possible to extrapolate information about natural dictionary
consultation from these findings, however – for example the dictionaries available at the site
of the experiment may not be the same as the ones users normally consult, and the task may
not bear much resemblance to the users’ normal reading, writing or translating activities.
Protocols, or self-reports, can shed light on users’ understanding and decision making, either
during spontaneous dictionary use, or whilst completing a task set by the researcher. Oral
protocols are recordings of participants’ thoughts, spoken aloud throughout the consultation
process. User behaviour is thus open to examination without the distortion of faulty recall or
re-interpretation, but usually relates to only a small number of participants because of the
special skills needed to think aloud, and the amount of time required to gather and analyse
spoken data. Nesi and Boonmoh (2009), for example, chose 17 participants from a cohort of
580 students to train in think-aloud techniques. They collected data from just eight of these,
the ones who proved most capable of verbalising their dictionary use.
Written protocols can be either freely-written or structured using a format prepared by the
researcher, perhaps with multiple choice options. Typically they record a reason for each
dictionary search, the information searched for, the dictionary used, and an evaluation of the
success of the consultation. The method is suitable for use with multiple participants: Müllich
(1990) collected 108 written protocols from language learners, for example, and Harvey and
Yuill (1997) collected 211. Retrospective protocols are problematic because users quickly
forget the details of the consultation, but the process of completing a protocol while using a
dictionary is quite disruptive. Atkins and Varantola (1997) asked participants to work in
pairs to reduce disruption, one member using a dictionary, and the other recording the
process. With all forms of protocol it is likely that some behaviours will go unrecorded or
misrecorded, however, because consultation processes cannot always easily be described.
Log files observe users’ interactions with their computers in an unobtrusive way. They can be
used to record experimental data (e.g. Lew & Doroszewska 2009), but are also a good way of
capturing information about the searches users make online, when they are engaged in their
normal activities, perhaps over an extended period of time. Like other forms of observation,
however, log files alone cannot provide much insight into the context or purpose of
dictionary consultation, unless the dictionary is linked to an online text or task. Moreover
although a log file may be able to indicate whether consultation led to the information the
user was searching for, when analysed in isolation it cannot record whether the user
considered the consultation successful.
Dictionary users, uses, and contexts of use can all vary enormously, making it unsafe to
generalise from the findings of individual studies. In some other fields of research large-scale
controlled trials can test how effectively a given treatment works, but the effectiveness of a
dictionary cannot usually be investigated by this means because it is difficult to enlist the aid
of a representative sample of all potential users (Welker 2010: 13). Studies therefore tend to
focus on the behaviour of smaller and more specific groups, representing dictionary users of
one particular type, in one particular context. To facilitate the comparison of findings from
different studies researchers sometimes try to adopt similar methods; Welker (2010:13) cites
a number of studies utilising similar questionnaire formats, for example, and Dziemianko (in
press) traces a sequence of dictionary use replication studies. Researchers also seem
increasingly likely to adopt a mixed method approach. This helps to compensate for the
inevitable limitations of each individual method, and increases the reliability of the findings.
Multiple studies of different groups, using similar or complementary methods, may gradually
enable us to build up a complete picture of “how dictionaries are used…. who the users are,
where, when and why they use dictionaries, and with which result” (Tarp 2009: 279).
Who are the users of dictionaries?
Varantola (2002:33) divides dictionary users into three broad categories: language learners,
non-professional users, and professional users, these last being those who ‘normally use a
dictionary to perform a task that they get paid for’. Other user variables that are likely to
affect behaviour are:
•
age
•
mother tongue
•
second or foreign language
•
language proficiency level
•
educational level
•
level of skill in dictionary use
•
role (as a teacher, learner, translator, traveller, player of word games etc.)
•
location (geographically, and within the home, place of work or educational
institution).
The geographical location of online dictionary users is ascertainable from log files. Otherwise
questionnaires are typically considered the best way to obtain factual information relating to
these variables. Questionnaire items to establish user profiles were used in studies by Atkins
and Varantola (1998), for example, and Hartmann (1999), and are often included in larger
surveys of user wants and needs involving multiple data collection methods. Thus Law and
Li (2011) triangulated findings from a questionnaire survey with findings from interviews,
and Ptaszynski and Sobkowiak (2011) combined a questionnaire survey with protocols
produced during translation and writing tasks, and post-task interviews.
Research participants are usually selected on the grounds that they are available, willing to
take part, and reasonably representative of the types of user the researchers are most
concerned with. This means that they are often university students, as researchers are usually
based in universities. It also means that people in locations where little research takes place
tend to be under-represented in studies of dictionary use. Lew (2011) points out that there is a
deficit of information about many contexts of use, for example by tourists, or families doing
crossword puzzles at home..
What kinds of activity prompt dictionary use?
Most dictionary consultations are undertaken when the user is engaged in another activity, in
order to ‘solve a context-dependent problem’ (Varantola 2002). Dictionary use is typically
classified as ‘receptive’ (i.e. to help with text decoding tasks) or ‘productive’ (i.e. to help
with text encoding tasks), although dictionaries can also be treated as resources for learning
new vocabulary or finding out about a language. Table One summarises the broad range of
activities generally associated with dictionary use.
Written medium
Receptive
Productive
Reading
Writing
Translating from L2 to L1
Translating from L1 to L2
Spoken medium
Listening
Speaking
Interpreting from L2 to L1
Interpreting from L1 to L2
Gathering language information
Table One: Activities associated with dictionary use.
Traditionally the large monolingual dictionaries have focussed on the receptive needs of
native speakers, while learners’ dictionaries, bilingualised dictionaries and L1-L2 bilingual
dictionaries also support language production by providing translations and/or more
grammar, phraseology, usage and pronunciation information. Most, but not all, surveys have
found that dictionaries are more often used receptively, whilst reading (Marello 1987,
Hartmann 1999, Stark 1999) or translating from L2 to L1 (Tomaszczyk 1979). Battenburg
(1991) found that lower level students used their dictionaries more whilst reading, and
advanced level students used their dictionaries more whilst writing. Tomaszczyk’s survey
respondents reported using dictionaries for speaking and listening activities, but he
concluded that they might have been referring to the preparation of oral reports. Dictionary
use prior to the advent of mobile e-dictionaries was generally associated with activities in the
written medium.
‘Reading’, ‘writing’, ‘speaking’ and ‘listening’ are very broad activity types. Some
questionnaires make finer distinctions; Ripfel (1990) lists reading newspapers or magazines,
listening to the radio or watching television, explaining word meanings to children, doing
homework, and writing letters, for example, and Hartmann (1999) includes playing word
games, writing assignments, and reading for study and pleasure. Presumably users’ needs
change according to the type of receptive or productive activity they are engaged in:
translators need to understand every word in the text, while learners reading for pleasure may
only read for gist, ignoring many of the words they do not know. Activity type can also affect
users’ choice of dictionary format. Nesi (2010) records a complex picture of e-dictionary
preferences, with students using computer-based dictionaries when reading and writing at the
computer, and portable electronic dictionaries when reading and writing with paper-based
materials. Her participants also preferred mobile e-dictionaries for speaking and listening
activities, because of their accessibility and audio pronunciation features.
The secondary ‘knowledge-oriented’ use of dictionaries (Bergenholtz & Tarp 2003) has most
often been studied in connection with vocabulary learning and retention. This is usually
measured by testing participants after they have completed a task under various conditions,
for example with or without a bilingual and/or monolingual dictionary, in print and/or in
electronic form (e.g. Luppescu and Day 1993, Wingate 2002, Dziemianko 2010). Some
items in questionnaire surveys explore the secondary use of dictionaries in more natural
surroundings (e.g. Marello 1987, Chi 1998, Hass 2005). Ronald (2002) examined vocabulary
acquisition as a result of using a dictionary while reading. Nesi (2010) investigated the way
users created and annotated their own wordlists, using the latest e-dictionary resources. It
seems that the e-dictionary format encourages browsing for general interest, especially when
words within one entry are hyperlinked to other entries (Nesi 2000b).
What kinds of dictionary do users prefer to use?
The typology of reference works is complex, but the basic choices facing users are between
monolingual and bilingual, hard-copy and electronic. Studies suggest that although users can
distinguish these broad categories, many fail to make finer distinctions in terms of types of
reference work, the different user groups they are intended for, and the relative merit of
comparable titles. Participants in surveys and interviews are often unable to give precise
information about the publishers and titles of their dictionaries (Nesi & Haill 2002, Law & Li
2011), and generally the investigation of dictionary preferences is hampered by users’
ignorance of the details concerning the dictionaries they own and use, and of the different
types of dictionaries that exist. In many educational contexts dictionary skills are not
systematically taught (Atkins and Varantola 1997, Bae 2011). When they are taught they
rarely include the skills of selection and criticism.
One simple but seemingly underused way of establishing users’ preferences is to ask them to
evaluate various kinds of dictionary material. MacFarquhar and Richards (1983) used this
method to compare users’ impressions of different defining styles, and Kanazashi (2011)
reports studies comparing users’ responses to formatting and entry features. User evaluations
do not prove that one lexicographical approach is superior to another, but they are a useful
supplement to the comments of dictionary reviewers, who often do not belong to the user
group the publisher is targeting.
Publishers can obtain information about the popularity of their dictionaries through log files
and sales figures, but such commercially sensitive information is rarely made available to
external researchers, and most published log-file studies of natural dictionary use, such as
those of Bergenholtz and Johnsen (2007) and Hult (2007), relate to the use of individual
experimental reference works. User preferences are more often investigated by means of
questionnaire surveys: results generally indicate that language learners prefer bilingual or
bilingualised dictionaries (see, for example, Tomaszczyk 1979, Baxter 1980, Atkins and
Varantola 1997, Lew 2004), although monolinguals tend to be used progressively more at
more advanced levels of study. Monolingual dictionaries are also often regarded as superior
in quality, especially by teachers (Boonmoh & Nesi 2008). Chan (2011) found that users
mistakenly believed bilingualised dictionaries to contain less usage information. Some
surveys have investigated dictionary purchasing choices: the decision sometimes rests with
teachers (Béjoint 1981, Hartmann 1999, Boonmoh & Nesi 2008) and may not reflect users’
real preferences.
The market for print dictionaries is declining rapidly, as increasing numbers of users access
information via the internet, usually for free. E-dictionary packages and portals often contain
a wide range of dictionaries of varying quality, some of which contain unattested headwords
and idioms, presumably included to increase the extent of coverage and impress
unsophisticated users (Nesi 2012). However despite the growing number of studies of edictionary ownership and user preferences, little research has been undertaken to evaluate the
content of popular e-dictionary sites, and little information is available to help users choose
and use e-dictionaries appropriately.
What kinds of information do dictionary users look for, and what consultation
strategies do they employ?
Unsurprisingly, surveys of native speaker users (e.g. Quirk 1975, Jackson 1988, Hartmann
1999, Chatzidimou 2007) and language learners (e.g. Tomaszczyk 1979, Béjoint 1981,
Battenburg 1991, Bishop 1998) indicate greatest interest in information that can be applied
immediately to a receptive or productive task, such as meaning and spelling, rather than
knowledge-oriented information such as the etymology of the look-up word.
Because dictionary use generally occurs whilst users are busy doing something else, they
generally want to find information quickly, with as little disruption as possible to the task
they are undertaking. Several studies have investigated users’ misinterpretations of dictionary
information, through failing to read the entire entry (Miller & Gildea 1985, Nesi & Meara
1994), failing to understand grammatical information (Chan 2012), or consulting the wrong
entry or subentry (Nesi & Haill 2002). The first definition in polysemous entries is the one
that immediately catches the user’s eye, and it also usually represents the most familiar
meaning, so alternative definitions lower down the entry are often ignored (Tono 1984,
Bogaards 1998). Some studies have explored the role of ‘signposts’ within long entries as a
means of helping users find the right, contextually appropriate, definition (Tono 1992, 1997,
Bogaards 1998, Lew and Pajkowska 2007, Lew 2010, Nesi & Tan 2011).
One of the reasons why e-dictionaries are becoming so popular is that they provide faster
access than print dictionaries. Initially researchers worried that the speed of consultation
might affect the quality of the experience (Taylor and Chan 1994, Zhang 2004, Stirling
2003), but experiments with comparable print and e-dictionaries have either recorded no
significant difference in task performance (Nesi 2000b, Koyama and Takeuchi 2003, 2007) or
significantly better performance by e-dictionary users (Shizuka 2003, Dziemianko 2010).
Many popular online bilingual dictionaries translate in a fairly primitive way, however,
without information or labels to indicate register differences or restrictions on use (Nesi
2012). Thus they might encourage a tendency, noted by Hatherall (1984), to look for oneword equivalents of search terms, translating word-for word rather than considering the
context.
Researching e-dictionary use is particularly problematic because the content of e-dictionary
packages and portals is changeable and poorly described. Commercial products can also be
prohibitively expensive; unlike print publishers, e-dictionary developers are not in the habit
of offering review copies or discounts on class sets. Shizuka (2003), Koyama and Takeuchi
(2007) and Diehr (undated) acquired pocket electronic dictionaries from Casio for use in
experiments in Japan and Germany, but other researchers such as Chen (2010) complain that
they lacked the resources they needed to fully investigate e-dictionary use.
Conclusion
Research into dictionary use is ultimately intended to help users consult dictionaries more
successfully. Progress in this respect has been patchy, however. In some cases research has
informed teacher training, and the teaching of dictionary skills (see, for example, Bae 2011),
but it does not seem to have greatly affected the choices made by commercial dictionary
publishers. ‘Few modifications to the learners’ dictionary design are supported by published
results of experimental research on how learners really use dictionaries’, as Lew and
Dziemianko (2006:277) point out.
The decline of the print dictionary has led to a reduction in the size of lexicographical teams
in mainstream publishing houses, greater reliance on automatic dictionary compilation
procedures, and the rise of online dictionary sites created and managed by computer experts
rather than lexicographers. This might suggest that there will be fewer opportunities for user
research to influence design in years to come. Fortunately, however, the technology is also
enabling many university-based research groups to experiment with new presentation
techniques and dictionary content. The proceedings of the two recent eLex conferences
(Granger & Paquot 2010, Kosem & Kosem 2011) are full of descriptions of small and
specialised e-dictionaries designed to meet the needs of particular groups of users.
Development teams for dictionaries of this sort are familiar with the research methods
described in this chapter, and have the means to conduct their own user research, building on
prior research findings. Their dictionaries will not be ‘block-busters’ like the famous print
dictionaries of the past, but they do offer the hope of further, fruitful, user-research-informed
design.
References
Atkins, B. T. & K. Varantola (1998). Language learners using dictionaries: The final report
on the EURLEX/AILA research project on dictionary use. In B. T. Atkins (ed.) Using
dictionaries: Studies of dictionary use by language learners and translators. Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer, pp 21–81.
Atkins, B. T. & K. Varantola (1997) Monitoring dictionary use. International Journal of
Lexicography 10 (1) 1-45
Bae, S. (2011) Teacher-Training in Dictionary Use: Voices from Korean Teachers of English.
In Akasu, A. And Uchida, S. (eds.) Lexicography: Theoretical and practical
perspectives. Papers submitted to the seventh ASIALEX Biennial International
Conference, Kyoto, August 22-24 2011. Kyoto, Japan: The Asian Association for
Lexicography. pp 46-55
Battenburg, J. D. (1991) English Monolingual Learners' Dictionaries: A User-Oriented Study.
Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Baxter, J. (1980). The dictionary and vocabulary behavior: A single word or a handful?
TESOL Quarterly 14, 325–336.
Béjoint, H. (1981). The foreign student’s use of monolingual English dictionaries: A study of
language needs and reference skills. Applied Linguistics 2.3, 207–222.
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, 262–276.
Bergenholtz, H. & Johnsen, M, (2007) Log files can and should be prepared for a
functionalistic approach. Lexikos 17 1-20
Bergenholtz, H. & Tarp, S. (2003) Two opposing theories: On H.E. Wiegand’s recent
discovery of lexicographic functions. Hermes 31. 171-196
Bishop, G. (1998) Research into the use being made of bilingual dictionaries by language
learners. Language Learning Journal 18 3-8
Bogaards, P. (1998) Scanning Long Entries in Learner's Dictionaries. In: Fontenelle, T. (ed.),
EURALEX '98 Actes/Proceedings. Liege: Université Départements d'Anglais et de
Néerlandais, 555-563.
Boonmoh, A. & Nesi, H. (2008) A survey of dictionary use by Thai university staff and
students, with special reference to pocket electronic dictionaries. Horizontes de
Lingüística Aplicada 6 (2) 79-90
Chan, A. (2012) Cantonese ESL learners’ use of grammatical information in a monolingual
dictionary for determining the correct use of a target word. International Journal of
Lexicography 25 (1): 68-94.
Chan, A. (2011). Bilingualised or monolingual dictionaries? Preferences and practices of
advanced ESL learners in Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum 24(1). 121.
Chatzidimou, K. (2007) Dictionary use in Greek educaton: an attempt to track the field
through three empirical studies. Horizontes de Lingüística Aplicada 6 (2) 91-104
Chen, Y. (2010) Dictionary use and EFL learning. a contrastive study of pocket electronic
dictionaries and paper dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography 23 (3):
275–306
Chi, M. L. A. (1998) Teaching dictionary skills in the classroom. In: T. Fontenelle et al.(eds):
Euralex 98 proceedings, Liège: University of Liège pp. 565-77
Diehr, B. (undated). MOBIDIC hilft beim Englisch lernen. Available online
at http://www.presse.uniwuppertal.de/archiv_ab2008/archiv_medieninformationen/2010/1105_mobidic.html
Dziemianko A. (in press). Why one and two do not make three: Dictionary form revisited.
Lexicos
Dziemianko A. (2010). Paper or electronic? The role of dictionary form in language
reception, production and the retention of meaning and collocations. International
Journal of Lexicography, 23 (3) 257-273.
East, M. (2008) Dictionary use in foreign language writing exams: Impact and
implications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Granger, S. and M. Paquot (eds.) (2010). eLexicography in the 21st Century: New
Challenges, New Applications, Proceedings of eLex 2009, Louvain-la-Neuve, 22-14
October 2009. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Hartmann, R. K. K. (1999) Case study: The Exeter University survey of dictionary use. In
Hartmann, R.R. K. (ed) Thematic Network Project in the Area of Languages. Subproject 9: Dictionaries. Dictionaries in Language Learning. Freie Universität Berlin.
pp. 36-52
Hatherall, G. (1984): Studying dictionary use: some findings and proposals. - In: R.
Hartmann (ed.): LEX'eter '83 Proceedings: Papers from the International Conference on
Lexicography at Exeter, 9-12 September 1983. Lexicographica Series Maior I, 183 189. Tübingen: Niemeyer Verlag.
Harvey, K. & D. Yuill (1997). A study of the use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary by
learners of English engaged in writing. Applied Linguistics 18.3, 253–278.
Hass, U. (2005) Nutzungsbedingungen in der Hypertextlexikografie. Über eine empirische
Untersuchung. In: Steffens, D. (ed) Wortschatzeinheiten: Aspekte ihrer (Be)schreibung.
Dieter Herberg zum 65. Geburtstag. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, pp. 2942.
Heid, U. & J. T. Zimmerman (2012) Usability testing as a tool for e-dictionary design:
collocations as a case in point. In: Vatvedt Fjeld, R. & J.M. Torjusen (eds.)
Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress. Oslo: University of Oslo,
pp. 661-671
Hult, A-K (2007) A study in dictionary use on the Internet. Nordiska studier i lexikografi.
Rapport från 9. Konference om leksikografi i Norden, Akureyri 22.–26. maj 2007
Jackson, H. (1988) Words and Their Meaning. London: Longman.
Kanazashi, T. (2011) Three areas of dictionary research where user studies are of particular
importance. In Akasu, A. And Uchida, S. (eds.) Lexicography: Theoretical and
practical perspectives. Papers submitted to the seventh ASIALEX Biennial
International Conference, Kyoto, August 22-24 2011. Kyoto, Japan: The Asian
Association for Lexicography. pp 209-218
Kaneta, T. (2011) Folded or unfolded: eye-tracking analysis of L2 learners’ reference
behaviour with different types of dictionary interfaces. In Akasu, A. And Uchida, S.
(eds.) Lexicography: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Papers submitted to the
seventh ASIALEX Biennial International Conference, Kyoto, August 22-24 2011.
Kyoto, Japan: The Asian Association for Lexicography. pp 219-224
Kosem, I. & Kosem, K. (eds) (2011). Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century New
Applications for New Users. Proceedings of eLex 2011, Bled, 10-12 November 2011.
Trojina: Institute for Applied Slovene Studies. Koyama, T. & O. Takeuchi (2007) Does
Look-up Frequency Help Reading Comprehension of EFL Learners? Two Empirical
Studies of Electronic Dictionaries. Calico Journal 25 (1) 110-125
Koyama, T. & O. Takeuchi (2003) Printed dictionaries versus electronic dictionaries: A pilot
study on how Japanese EFL learners differ in using dictionaries. Language Education
and Technology 40, 61–79.
Law, W. & Li, K. (2011) Mobile phone dictionary: Friend or foe? A user attitude survey of
Hong Kong translation students. In Akasu, A. And Uchida, S. (eds.) Lexicography:
Theoretical and practical perspectives. Papers submitted to the seventh ASIALEX
Biennial International Conference, Kyoto, August 22-24 2011. Kyoto, Japan: The Asian
Association for Lexicography. pp 303-312
Lew, R. (2011) User studies: Opportunities and limitations. In Akasu, A. And Uchida, S.
(eds.) Lexicography: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Papers submitted to the
seventh ASIALEX Biennial International Conference, Kyoto, August 22-24 2011.
Kyoto, Japan: The Asian Association for Lexicography. pp. 7-16.
Lew, R.(2010) Users Take Shortcuts: Navigating Dictionary Entries. In: Dykstra, A. and T.
Schoonheim (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th EURALEX International Congress.
Leeuwarden/Ljouwert, The Netherlands: Fryske Akademy, 1121-1132.
Lew, R. (2004) Which dictionary for whom? Receptive use of bilingual, monolingual. and
semi-bilingual dictionaries. by Polish learners of English. Poznań: Motivex. Available
at www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~rlew/pub/Lew_publ.htm
Lew, R. (2002). Questionnaires in dictionary use research: A re-examination. In A. Braasch
& C. Povlsen (eds.), Proceedings of the tenth EURALEX international congress
(Vol.1). Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, Copenhagen University, 267–271
Lew, R. and Doroszewska, J. (2009) ‘Electronic Dictionary Entries with Animated Pictures:
Lookup Preferences and Word Retention.’ International Journal of Lexicography 22
(3), 239-257
Lew, R. & Dziemianko, A. (2006) Non-standard dictionary definitions: What they cannot tell
native speakers of Polish. Cadernos de Traduçao 18. 275-294
Lew, R. & J. Pajkowska (2007). The effect of signposts on access speed and lookup task
success in long and short entries. Horizontes de Lingüística Aplicada 6 (2): 235-252
Luppescu, S. and R. Day (1993) Reading, Dictionaries and Vocabulary Learning. Language
Learning 43 (2) 263 - 287.
Marello, C. (1987) Examples in contemporary Italian bilingual dictionaries. - In: A. P. Cowie
(ed.) The Dictionary and the Language Learner: Papers from the EURALEX Seminar
at the University of Leeds, 1-3 April 1985. Lexicographica Series Maior 17. Tübingen:
Niemeyer Verlag. Pp , 224 - 237
MacFarquhar, P. and J. Richards, (1983): On dictionaries and definitions. RELC Journal 14
(1) 111 - 124.
Miller, G. and P. Gildea (1985): How to misread a dictionary. AILA Bulletin 1985 13 - 26.
Müllich, H. (1990) “Die definition ist blöd!” Herübersetzen mit dem einsprachigen
Wörterbuch. Das französische und englische Lernerwörterbuch in der Hand der
deutschen Schüler - Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Nesi, H. (2012) Alternative e-dictionaries: uncovering dark practices. In Granger, S. (ed)
Electronic Lexicography. Oxford University Press 357-372
Nesi, H. (2010) The virtual vocabulary notebook: the electronic dictionary as vocabulary
learning tool. in: Blue, G. (ed) Developing Academic Literacy. London: Peter Lang pp.
213-226
Nesi, H. (2000a) The Use and Abuse of Learners’ Dictionaries. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Nesi, H. (2000b) On screen or in print? Students’ use of a learner’s dictionary on cd-rom and in book
form. in: Howarth, P. and Herington, R. EAP Learning Technologies Leeds University Press
pp.106-114
Nesi, H. & A. Boonmoh (2009) A close look at the use of pocket electronic dictionaries for
receptive and productive purposes. In T Fizpatrick & A, Barfield (eds.) Lexical
Processing in Second Language Learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters 67-81
Nesi, H. & R. Haill (2002). A study of dictionary use by international students at a British
university. International Journal of Lexicography 15.4, 277–306.
Nesi, H. & P. Meara (1994). Patterns of misrepresentation in the productive use of EFL
dictionary definitions. System 22.1, 1–15.
Nesi, H. & Tan, K. H. (2011) The effect of menus and signposting on the speed and accuracy
of sense selection. International Journal of Lexicography 24 (1) 79-96
Neubach, A. and A. Cohen (1988): Processing Strategies and Problems Encountered in the
Use of Dictionaries. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America
10, 1 - 19.
Ptaszynski, M. O. & Sobkowiak, M. (2011) Is it all just text production? Examining
dictionary use in L1-L2 translation and in free composition in L2. In Akasu, A. And
Uchida, S. (eds.) Lexicography: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Papers
submitted to the seventh ASIALEX Biennial International Conference, Kyoto, August
22-24 2011. Kyoto, Japan: The Asian Association for Lexicography. pp. 426-435
Quirk, R. (1975) The social impact of dictionaries in the UK. In R. McDavid and A. Ducket
(eds.) Lexicography in English, 76 - 88. New York: Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences 211.
Ronald, J. (2002). L2 lexical growth through extensive reading and dictionary use: A case
study. In Braasch, A. and Povlsen, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX
International Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 12-17 2002, Vol.2.
Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, Copenhagen University. 765-771.
Ripfel, M. (1990) Wörterbuchbenutzung bei Muttersprachlem. Untersuchungsbericht über
eine Befragung erwachsener muttersprachlicher Sprecher zur Wörterbuchbenutzung.
Lexicographica 6: 237-251
Scholfield, P. (1982). ‘Using the English Dictionary for Comprehension.’ TESOL Quarterly
16, 185-194.
Shizuka, T. (2003). Efficiency of information retrieval from the electronic and the printed
versions of a bilingual dictionary. Language Education & Technology, 40, 15-33.
Simonsen, H. K. (2011). User consultation behaviour in internet dictionaries: An eyetracking
study. Hermes 46. 75-101.
Stark, M. (1999) Encyclopedic Learners’ Dictionaries: A study of their design featuresfrom
the user perspective. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Stirling, J. (2005) The portable electronic dictionary - faithful friend or faceless foe? Modern
English Teacher 14 (3) 64-72
Tarp, S. (2009) Reflections on lexicographical user research. Lexicos 19: 275-296
Taylor, A. & A. Chan (1994) Pocket electronic dictionaries and their use. in: Martin, W.,
Meijs, W., Moerland, M., ten Pas, E., van Sterkenburg, P. & Vossen, P. (eds)
Proceedings of the 6th Euralex International Congress. Amsterdam: Euralex. 598-65
Tomaszczyk, J. (1979): Dictionaries: users and uses. Glottodidactica 12, 103 - 119.
Tono, Y. (2011) Application of eye-tracking in EFL learners’ dictionary look-up process
research. International Journal of Lexicography, 24 (1) 1-30
Tono, Y. (1997) Guide Word or Signpost? An Experimental Study on the Effect of Meaning
Access Indexes in EFL Learners' Dictionaries.' English Studies 28: 55-77.
Tono, Y. (1992) The Effect of Menus on EFL Learners' Look-up Processes. Lexikos 2: 230253.
Tono, Y. (1984) On the Dictionary User's Reference Skills. B.Ed. Dissertation, Tokyo
Gakugei Univeristy, Tokyo.
Varantola, K. 2002. Use and Usability of Dictionaries: Common Sense and Context
Sensibility? in Marie-Hélène Correard (ed.) Lexicography and Natural Language
Processing A Festchrift in Honour of B.T.S. Atkins. Euralex 2002. 30-44.
Welker, H. A. (2010) Dictionary Use: A general survey of empirical studies. Brasilia:
Author’s edition. Available
at http://www.let.unb.br/hawelker/dictionary_use_research.pdf
Wiegand, H. E. (1998) Wörterbuchforschung. Untersuchungen zur Wörterbuchbenutzung,
zur Theorie, Geschichte, Kritik und Automatisierung von Wörterbuchern. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Wingate, U. (2002) The Effectiveness of Different LearnerDictionaries. An Investigation into
the Use of Dictionaries for Reading Comprehension by Intermediate Learners
ofGerman. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer
Zhang, P. (2004) Is the Electronic Dictionary Your Faithful Friend? CELEA Journal, 27.2:
23–28.