Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:52:14.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dictionary form in decoding, encoding and retention: Further insights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Anna Dziemianko
Anna Dziemianko*
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland (email: danna@wa.amu.edu.pl)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to investigate the role of dictionary form (paper versus electronic) in language reception, production and retention. The body of existing research does not give a clear answer as to which dictionary medium benefits users more. Divergent findings from many studies into the topic might stem from differences in research methodology (including the various tasks, participants and dictionaries used by different authors). Even a series of studies conducted by one researcher (Dziemianko, 2010, 2011, 2012b) leads to contradictory conclusions, possibly because of the use of paper and electronic versions of existing dictionaries, and the resulting problem with isolating dictionary form as a factor. To be able to argue with confidence that the results obtained follow from different dictionary formats, rather than presentation issues, research methodology should be improved. To successfully generalize about the significance of the medium for decoding, encoding and learning, the current study replicates previous research, but the presentation of lexicographic data on paper and on screen is now balanced, and the paper/electronic opposition is operationalized more appropriately. A real online dictionary and its paper-based counterpart composed of printouts of screen displays were used in the experiment in which the meaning of English nouns and phrases was explained, and collocations were completed with missing prepositions. A delayed post-test checked the retention of the meanings and collocations. The results indicate that dictionary medium does not play a statistically significant role in reception and production, but it considerably affects retention.

Keywords

electronic dictionarypaper dictionarydecodingencodingretention
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 335 - 356
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Dictionaries Google Scholar
[COBUILD6] Sinclair, J. (ed.) (2008) Collins COBUILD advanced English dictionary (6th edn.). Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning; Glasgow: Harper Collins. http://www.mycobuild.com Google Scholar
[LDOCE5] Mayor, M. (ed.) (2009) Longman dictionary of contemporary English (5th edn.). Harlow: Longman. http://www.ldoceonline.com Google Scholar
[MEDAL2] Rundell, M. (ed.) (2007) Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (2nd edn.). Oxford: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
[MEDO] Macmillan English dictionary online. http://www.macmillandictionary.com Google Scholar
[NKFD] Fisiak, J. (ed.) (2003) The new Kościuszko foundation dictionary. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
[OALDCE7] Wehmeier, S. (ed.) (2005) Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (7th edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[PWN Oxford] Linde-Usiekniewicz, J., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., Fisiak, J., Piotrowski, T., Beręsewicz, P. and Anioł, B. (eds.) (2005) Wielki słownik angielsko-polski PWN-Oxford. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
bab.la http://pl.bab.la/ Google Scholar
Diki.pl https://www.diki.pl/ Google Scholar
Ling.pl https://ling.pl/ Google Scholar
PONS http://pl.pons.com/ Google Scholar

Other references

Abbuhl, R. (2012) Why, when, and how to replicate research. In: Mackey, A. and Gass, S. M. (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell, 296–312.Google Scholar
Almind, R. (2005) Designing internet dictionaries. Hermes, 34: 37–54.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bogaards, P. (1990) Où cherche-t-on dans le dictionnaire? International Journal of Lexicography, 3(2): 79–102.Google Scholar
Bogaards, P. (1991) Word frequency in the search strategies of French dictionary users. Lexicographica, 7: 202–212.Google Scholar
Bogaards, P. (1992) French dictionary users and word frequency. In: Tommola, K. H., Varantola, K., Salami-Tononen, T. and Schopp J. (eds.), EURALEX ’92 proceedings. Papers submitted to the 5th EURALEX International Congress. Tampere: Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere, 51–59.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2012) Dictionary use and vocabulary learning in the context of reading. International Journal of Lexicography, 25(2): 216–247.Google Scholar
Corréard, M.-H. (2002) Are space-saving strategies relevant in electronic dictionaries? In: Braasch, A. and Povlsen, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX International Congress, EURALEX 2002, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 12–17, 2002, Vol. 2. Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, Copenhagen University, 463–470.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Dziemianko, A. (2011) Does dictionary form really matter? In: Akasu, K. and Uchida, S. (eds.), ASIALEX2011 proceedings. Lexicography: theoretical and practical perspectives. Kyoto: Asian Association for Lexicography, 92–101.Google Scholar
Dziemianko, A. (2012a) On the use(fulness) of paper and electronic dictionaries. In: Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.), Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 319–341.Google Scholar
Dziemianko, A. (2012b) Why one and two do not make three: Dictionary form revisited. Lexikos, 22: 195–216.Google Scholar
Dziemianko, A. (2015) Colours in online dictionaries: A case of functional labels. International Journal of Lexicography, 28(1): 27–61.Google Scholar
Gast, D. L. (2009) Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gouws, R. (2003) Types of articles, their structure and different types of lemmata. In: Van Sterkenburg, P. (ed.), A practical guide to lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 34–43.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. (1987) Definitions and explanations. In: Sinclair, J. M. (ed.), Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Harper Collins, 116–136.Google Scholar
Hausmann, F. J. (2004) Was sind eigentlich Kollokationen? In: Steyer, K. (ed.), Wortverbindungen: Mehr oder weniger fest. Berlin: De Gruyter, 309–334.Google Scholar
Hausmann, F. J. (2007) Die Kollokation im Rahmen der Phraseologie: Systematische und historische Darstellung. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55(3): 217–234.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. and Goldstein, Z. (2004) Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength and computer adaptiveness. Language learning , 54: 399–436.Google Scholar
Lew, R. (2012a) How can we make electronic dictionaries more effective? In: Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.), Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 343–362.Google Scholar
Lew, R. (2012b) The role of syntactic class, frequency, and word order in looking up English multi-word expressions. Lexikos, 22: 243–260.Google Scholar
Lew, R. and Szarowska, A. (2017) Evaluating online bilingual dictionaries: The case of popular free English-Polish dictionaries. ReCALL, 29(2): 138–159.Google Scholar
Lindsay, R. M. and Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1993) The design of replicated studies. The American Statistician, 47(3): 217–228.Google Scholar
Müller-Spitzer, C., Koplenig, A. and Töpel, A. (2011) What makes a good online dictionary? Empirical insights from an interdisciplinary research project. In: Kosem, I. and Kosem, K. (eds.), Electronic lexicography in the 21st century: New applications for new users. Proceedings of eLEX2011. Trojina: Institute for Applied Slovene Studies, 203–208.Google Scholar
Müller-Spitzer, C., Koplenig, A. and Töpel, A. (2012) Online dictionary use: Key findings from an empirical research project. In: Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.), Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 425–457.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nesi, H. (2015) The demands of users and the publishing world: Printed or online, free or paid for? In: Durkin, P. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 579–589.Google Scholar
Rundell, M. (2013) Macmillan dictionary: Our move from print to online – your questions answered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGK4QTDsA_Q&list=PLbEWGLATRxw9oBTqANj69Pz2RIHFoo3bR&index=3.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2010) Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2): 123–138.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. and Pass, F. (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3): 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamborello, F. and Byrne, M. (2007) Adaptive but non-optimal visual search behavior with highlighted displays. Cognitive Systems Research, 8: 182–191.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. (1987) Which word do you look up first? A study of dictionary reference skills. Tokyo Gakugei University, Tokyo, unpublished M.Ed. dissertation.Google Scholar
Wiegand, H. E. (1996) Textual condensation in printed dictionaries: A theoretical draft. Lexikos, 6: 133–158.Google Scholar