IeB Tabulae
>
Periodica
>
I
>
International Journal of Lexicography
>
IJL - Latest Issue (OUP)
Translators, and language professionals in general, have long claimed that dictionaries are deficient, especially regarding access and updating of content. Some authors have also noted that these deficiencies are compounded by the fact that language professionals do not receive (proper) training in dictionary use, and therefore do not fully benefit from them. Electronic dictionaries include new search capabilities, not found in traditional dictionaries, that could meet users’ needs. However, the diversity of search options in electronic dictionaries makes their classification difficult, and consequently hinders training in their use. Systematization of search techniques in electronic dictionaries would favor the teaching and learning process, and could also facilitate the task of lexicographers and terminographers in the creation of new and more standardized electronic dictionaries. In this paper we classify search techniques in electronic dictionaries by focusing on three elements that are common to every search and that, taken together, encompass all the search possibilities we have observed in electronic dictionaries.
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
The aim of the paper is twofold. First, it aspires to compare the usefulness of a monolingual English learners’ dictionary in electronic and paper form in receptive and productive tasks. Second, it sets out to assess the role of dictionary form in the retention of meaning and collocations. The investigation concerns the paper and electronic versions of a recent monolingual English learners’ dictionary, COBUILD6 (2008). The study reports on an experiment, in which 64 upper-intermediate and advanced students took part. The test consisted of two tasks: receptive and productive. To complete them, each subject was assigned to work with one version of the dictionary. It turns out that COBUILD online was more useful in both tasks. The results of an unexpected retention test prove it to be a better learning tool as well, since it significantly enhanced the retention of both meaning and collocations.
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
Pocket electronic dictionaries (PEDs) are gaining in popularity with an increasing number of EFL learners in Chinese colleges and universities and making an impact on the Chinese dictionary scene which is too great to ignore. This study compares patterns of use and perceptions of PEDs and paper dictionaries (PDs). It also examines the effects of dictionary use on vocabulary acquisition under PED and PD conditions. Some different patterns of use between PEDs and PDs are identified, which seem to result from design features of different types of dictionaries. PEDs and PDs are perceived as with different advantages and disadvantages. It is also found that there are no significant differences between PED and PD use in comprehension, production and retention of vocabulary although the speed of the former is significantly faster than the latter.
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
view article | [International Journal of Lexicography - current issue]
