User-friendliness of verb syntax in pedagogical dictionaries of English

Dziemianko, Anna

doi:10.1515/9783110941098

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall results presented in the previous section are in accordance with the general findings of Frankenberg-Garcia (2012, and, as in Bogaards and van der Kloot (2002), Chan (2011) and Dziemianko (2006 and, they lend further support to the idea that examples indeed seem to help language production. More specifically, in the present study it was possible to show that simply telling people that their translations are prone to errors does not in itself result in improvement, whereas supplying them with examples in order to assist them revise their initial translations appears to be beneficial.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In a similar study on the use of dictionaries for language production purposes, Dziemianko (2006) carried out an impressive large-scale study with 606 high-school and university students in Poland to investigate the user-friendliness of different types of systems used in dictionaries for describing the syntactic behaviour of verbs. She found that grammar codes were used only by the university students (who happened to be attending courses in Linguistics and English Grammar), but they preferred explicitlyworded information on grammar over just abbreviated codes.…”

Section: Ldocementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dictionaries and Encoding Examples to Support Language Production

Frankenberg‐Garcia¹

2015

International Journal of Lexicography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Ldocementioning

confidence: 99%

Dictionaries and Encoding Examples to Support Language Production

Frankenberg‐Garcia¹

2015

International Journal of Lexicography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are still 40% who disagree that corpus is better than the online dictionary since the dictionaries present definitions and even the rules of collocations directly. There are indeed some studies such as Dziemianko (2006) and Chan (2012) claiming that examples in dictionaries can provide information about collocation and colligation, but Frankenberg (2014, p.139) expressed that the best way for language comprehension is "a definition plus examples that specifically contain contextual clues to facilitate understanding rather than examples whose main function is to illustrate collocation and colligation" and the exemplification in dictionaries is not usually repeated, which is not helpful for language production. Thus learners who show negative attitudes to corpus use should be encouraged to develop the habit of using corpora to profit more from this kind of discovery learning since corpus use can also develop learners' cognitive skills and ability to tackle problems on their own.…”

Section: Journal Of Language Teaching and Research 1339mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Corpora for Error Correction in EFL Learners’ Writing

Luo

Liu

2015

JLTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This study reports on a small-scale study exploring the effects of using corpora in the process of revising essays in English as a foreign language (EFL). 30 undergraduate students from two College English Classes in China participate in the experiment. The BFSU CQP web is used for assisting experimental group to correct the lexico-grammatical errors in writing. The findings reveal that corpora as reference resources are more helpful than the online dictionary in helping learners make accurate corrections and reduce errors in free production. The following questionnaires indicate that participants generally show positive attitudes toward corpus use in writing. However, there are also some challenges to overcome while using corpora such as too much time spent in analyzing data, too many examples in the concordance lines and so on. These findings suggest the need for more well-planned corpus-based activities to help learners benefit as much as possible from corpora-assisted learning.

show abstract

“…Yet, it takes time and effort to control the latter, which makes approximate replications difficult to accomplish successfully. Finally, the fact that not many researchers openly wish their investigations could be replicated in the future (McCreary and Dolezal 1999, Al-Ajmi 2002, Dziemianko 2006, Lew and Dziemianko 2006, Koyama and Takeushi 2007, Tono 2011 suggests that, in fact, the awareness of the benefits which can be derived from replication might need to be raised. It is tacitly assumed that replication "carries more risk than potential reward for both the replicator and the originator of the research" (Park 2004: 194).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Dziemianko

2012

Lex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her observations (Dziemianko 2011) with regard to LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), the e-version of OALDCE7 proved to be no better for language reception, production and learning than the dictionary in book form. 1 An attempt is made to pinpoint the micro-and macrostructural design features which make e-COBUILD6 a better learning tool than e-OALDCE7 and e-LDOCE5. Recommendations concerning further research into the significance of the medium (paper vs. electronic) in the process of dictionary use conclude the study. The secondary aim which the paper attempts to achieve is to present the status of replication as a scientific research method and justify its use in lexicography. Keywords: PAPER DICTIONARIES, ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES, DICTIONARY USE, ENCODING, DECODING, RETENTION, RESEARCH METHODS, REPLICATION, MENUS, HIGHLIGHTING, NOISE, ACCESS, ENTRY LENGTHOpsomming: Waarom een en twee nie gelyk is aan drie nie -woordeboekvorm herbeskou. Die primêre doel van die artikel is om die bruikbaarheid van papier-en elektroniese weergawes van OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) te vergelyk vir taalenkodering en -dekodering en die aanleer van taal. Daar word verduidelik waarom, in teenstelling met Dziemianko (2010) se bevindinge betreffende COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), maar in ooreenstemming met haar waarnemings (Dziemianko 2011) met betrekking tot LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), die e-weergawe van OALDCE7 geblyk het nie beter te wees vir taalresepsie en -produksie en die aanleer van taal as die woordeboek in boekvorm nie. 1 'n Poging word aangewend om die mikro-en makrostrukturele ontwerpkenmerke aan te stip wat e-COBUILD6 'n beter onderrighulpmiddel maak as e-OALDCE7 en e-LDOCE5. Aanbevelings betreffende verdere navorsing oor die belangrikheid van die medium (papier vs. elektronies) in die proses van woordeboekgebruik sluit die studie af. Die sekondêre doel wat die artikel probeer bereik, is om die status van replisering as 'n wetenskaplike navorsingsmetode aan te bied en die gebruik daarvan in die leksikografie te regverdig. WOORDEBOEKE, WOORDE-BOEKGEBRUIK, ENKODERING, DEKODERING, RETENSIE, NAVORSINGSMETODES, REPLI-SERING, KIESLYSTE, BELIGTING, GERAAS, TOEGANG, LENGTE VAN INSKRYWING 196 Anna Dziemianko Sleutelwoorde: PAPIERWOORDEBOEKE, ELEKTRONIESE Introduction The usefulness of paper and electronic dictionariesElectronic counterparts of printed monolingual English learners' dictionaries, available on CD-ROMs, online, or -increasingly often -on portable electronic devices, are taken for granted these days. Some of them appear to be quite close to their predecessors in book form (Rogers 1996, Nesi 1999. However, it is strongly stressed that e-dictionaries should not be just electronic remakes of existing printed dictionaries, but should rather be compiled from scrat...

show abstract

User-friendliness of verb syntax in pedagogical dictionaries of English

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Dictionaries and Encoding Examples to Support Language Production

Dictionaries and Encoding Examples to Support Language Production

Using Corpora for Error Correction in EFL Learners’ Writing

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About