Review of research into the use of electronic dictionaries

Abstract

Abstract:The following chapter provides a review o f research literature on the use o f electronic dictionaries. Because the central terms electronic dictionary and re search into dictionaiy use are sometimes used in different ways in the research, it is necessary first o f all to examine these more closely, in Order to clarify their use in this research review. The main chapter presents several individual studies in chronological order. The chapter is completed by a summary.Keywords: dictionary typology, user studies, questionnaire, experiment, test, usability study, eye-tracking, log file A ntje Töpel: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, R 5, 6-13, D-68161 Mannheim, +4940)621-1581434, toepel@ids-mannheim.de 1 Clarification of terminology Electronic dictionaryThe term electronic dictionary (ED) is defined by Nesi as follows:" The term electronic dictionary (or ED) can Ire used to refer to any reference material stored in electronic form that gives Information about the spelling, meaning, or use of words. Thus a spell-checker in a word-processing program, a device that scans and translates printed words, a glossary for on-line teaching materials, or an electronic Version of a respected hard-copy dic tionary are all El )s of a sort, characterised by the same System of storage and retrieval." (Nesi 2000 a: 819; her italics) Electronic dictionaries are therefore distinguished from printed dictionaries firstly by the way in which the data are stored, and secondly by the way in which these data are accessed (cf. also Engelberg/Lemnitzer 2009: 271). In addition, Müller-Spitzer restricts the term electronic dictionary to human users, as this conveys the precondition for transferring in a meaningful way the basic properties o f a printed dictionary to an electronic dictionary (cf. Müller-Spitzer 2007: 31 Hausmann (cf. Hausmann 1989). From that, they use the medium-independent criteria o f number o f languages and degree o f specialization, according to which they differentiate between monolingual, bilingual and multilingual dictionaries, as w ell as between general and specialist dictionaries (which are then further subdivided). In addition to this, they add some medium-specific typological features (publication form, discreteness, hypertextualization, multimediality and access modes) in order to do justice to the medial peculiarities o f electronic dictionaries.Nesi distinguishes between four main categories o f electronic dictionary -the internet dictionary, the glossary for on-line courseware, the learners' dictionary on CD-ROM und the pocket electronic dictionary (PED) (cf. Nesi 2000 a: 842 f.). However, she herseif acknowledges the blurred boundaries between the individual types. Further attempts from the 1990s to typologize electronic dictionaries are pre- format, pop-up mode interface, parallel format und pocket e-dictionaries. One criticism o f this typologization is that two different criteria, namely how the content is presented and the device on which the dictionary is accessed, are mixed up together: dictionarie...

Erwartungen an eine korpusbasierte lexikografische Ressource zur ‚Lexik des gesprochenen Deutsch in der Interaktion‘: Ergebnisse aus zwei empirischen Studien

“…Klosa et al 2011;Müller-Spitzer et al 2015; Müller-Spitzer 2014 a; Müller-Spitzer (Hg.) 2014 b; Töpel 2014;Wolfer et al 2014). Andererseits stellt sie uns vor neue Herausforderungen und Chancen, da es in Zusammenhang mit dem Forschungsprojekt LeGeDe möglich ist, schon vor der Erstellung der konkreten Ressource Erwartungen abzufragen und dadurch rechtzeitig und direkt auf bestimmte Aspekte des lexikografischen Prozesses Einfluss zu nehmen (vgl.…”

Revisiting Lemma Lists in Swahili Dictionaries

“…Lew 2011b, Lew and De Schryver 2014, Töpel 2014. However, analysis of log files -which alongside questionnaires, protocols or observation, is one of the approaches to the study of dictionary use (Lew 2011a) -is not exploited as often as one could expect.…”

“…However, analysis of log files -which alongside questionnaires, protocols or observation, is one of the approaches to the study of dictionary use (Lew 2011a) -is not exploited as often as one could expect. Töpel (2014) reports on the unsatisfactory situation noting that the dictionary users and their actions are still unknown and that more research is still needed. According to Bergenholtz and Johnsen (2005), analyses of log files may be used as a tool for improving Internet dictionaries.…”

Correct Hypotheses and Careful Reading Are Essential: Results of an Observational Study on Learners Using Online Language Resources

“…Research into dictionary use has made substantial progress in the past two decades (cf., e.g., Töpel 2014, Welker 2013, Lew 2011Lew 2015a), especially with regard to online dictionaries (cf., e.g., Müller-Spitzer 2014, Lew 2015b). However, almost all studies in the field deal with the aspects that users value when using dictionaries (e.g.…”