International Journal of Lexicography Advance Access originally published online on April 10, 2006
International Journal of Lexicography 2006 19(2):135-155; doi:10.1093/ijl/eck006
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Examining the Effectiveness of ‘Bilingual Dictionary Plus’ – A Dictionary for Production in a Foreign Language
University of Haifa, Israel
(batialau{at}research.haifa.ac.il)
The study investigated the usefulness of a Hebrew-English-English (L1-L2-L2) mini-dictionary, for production in a foreign language. The dictionary entries included L1 (Hebrew) words, their L2 (English) translation options, usage specifications, semantically related English words, and additional L2 meanings for each translation option. Seventy five students translated thirty six sentences from Hebrew into English using four dictionaries, one dictionary for nine sentences: a Hebrew-English-English electronic dictionary, a Hebrew-English-English paper dictionary, an English-English-Hebrew bilingualized dictionary, and a Hebrew-English bilingual dictionary. Each sentence contained one target word, defined as ‘simple’ or ‘complex’. Learners also rated them in terms of usefulness. All electronic dictionary activity was recorded in log files. The four dictionaries were compared on the number of correct translations and on dictionary ratings. Log files were analyzed for lookup preferences. Results demonstrated the superiority of L1-L2-L2 dictionaries in terms of the effectiveness for a production task and learners’ preferences.
1 Giving the additional meanings of L2 equivalents was motivated by the view of a dictionary as a learning tool, in addition to its being an aid in comprehension or production. However, as the effectiveness of this feature has not been tested yet, we may, in the future, find that the inclusion of additional meanings may not be very helpful.
2 Initially we considered listing the Hebrew target words in the worksheets, without embedding them in sentences, and asking the participants to use the dictionary provided along with each worksheet in order to produce their own sentences with the English equivalents of these Hebrew words. While such a strategy would have allowed a greater degree of free production which is, in fact, the ultimate productive mode, it nevertheless does not meet the requirements of an empirical study which calls for more controlled conditions.
3 The results in tables 1–3 present the scores of the entire sample. When we divided the sample into the 4 proficiency groups, the result patterns, i.e. the significance of differences were identical. Hence we present only the results of the entire sample.
4 Each participant could have chosen a different lookup pattern (out of the 8 patterns) for different words. Thus, each participant appears as a ‘data item’ in more than one column of the diagram. (This explains why the numbers of all the columns add up to more than 100%). For our purposes, however, it is the separate columns that matter. Each column shows what percentage of participants (out of 100% participants) chose a specific lookup option.
5 ‘Thesaurus’ here refers to expressions containing the English translation, words that are semantically related to the English translation, and/or some of its additional meanings.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H.-J. Kaalep and J. Mikk Creating Specialised Dictionaries For Foreign Language Learners: A Case Study Int J Lexicography, June 5, 2008; (2008) ecn017v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|