Interviews with undergraduate students from the University of Ljubljana, who are majoring in English and can be considered language specialists, investigated habits of dictionary use, look-up abilities, and perceptions of the utility and quality of definitions and illustrative examples. This contrasts with a parallel study (Farina et al. 2019) with undergraduates majoring in business and economics. Like the parallel study, this study was based on fourteen questions and nine contexts containing a clearly-marked common word used in an infrequent sense; participants had to locate the sense in a dictionary that, at the time of the studies, was the online Merriam–Webster Learner’s Dictionary, rebranded today as The Britannica Dictionary. Participants were asked to think aloud as they looked up words. Among other results, the study revealed that its participants, while they were linguistically-educated and experienced, did not fully grasp the complexity of presenting dictionary information online.
对卢布尔雅那大学英语专业的本科生进行了采访，他们可以被认为是语言专家，调查了他们使用字典的习惯、查找能力以及对定义和说明性例子的效用和质量的看法。这与一项平行研究(Farina et al. 2019)形成对比，该研究针对的是商业和经济专业的本科生。与平行研究一样，这项研究基于14个问题和9个上下文，其中包含一个不常使用的清晰标记的常用词;参与者必须在词典中找到这个意思，当时的词典是在线韦氏学习词典，今天更名为《大英百科词典》。参与者被要求在查找单词时大声思考。在其他结果中，该研究揭示了参与者，虽然他们受过语言教育和经验丰富，但并没有完全掌握在线呈现词典信息的复杂性。
{"title":"The Lexicographer’s Dream Audience: Dictionary Use among English Majors at a Slovenian University","authors":"Marjeta Vrbinc, Alenka Vrbinc, Donna M. Farina","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Interviews with undergraduate students from the University of Ljubljana, who are majoring in English and can be considered language specialists, investigated habits of dictionary use, look-up abilities, and perceptions of the utility and quality of definitions and illustrative examples. This contrasts with a parallel study (Farina et al. 2019) with undergraduates majoring in business and economics. Like the parallel study, this study was based on fourteen questions and nine contexts containing a clearly-marked common word used in an infrequent sense; participants had to locate the sense in a dictionary that, at the time of the studies, was the online Merriam–Webster Learner’s Dictionary, rebranded today as The Britannica Dictionary. Participants were asked to think aloud as they looked up words. Among other results, the study revealed that its participants, while they were linguistically-educated and experienced, did not fully grasp the complexity of presenting dictionary information online.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44696485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The comparative study of dictionaries is an important part of theoretical lexicography, and a valuable source of inspiration for dictionary compiling. Regarding the former, it helps to discover the similarities and differences in the compilation philosophies and design features between the two dictionaries. Regarding the latter, it helps to provide mutual references for the compilation of both dictionaries. However, according to Yu and Du’s (2016) review, the comparative studies on monolingual general-purpose dictionaries (MGPDs) published in the International Journal of Lexicography from 1988 to 2014 are almost all between English MGPDs. There are few comparative studies between English and other MGPDs in other languages and no comparative studies between English and Chinese MGPDs. On the other hand, comparative studies between English and Chinese MGPDs are also rare in China, and moreover, they are unsatisfactory in terms of breadth and depth (p. 4). The book A Comparative Study on the Microstructures of Chinese and English Monolingual General-purpose Dictionaries (2021) by Professor Pingfang Yu and Professor Jinchun Tan is born out of this context. Professor Yu works at the Faculty of Chinese Language and Culture in Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, she is an expert on comparative lexicography. In recent years, she has published many monographs on comparative studies of various dictionaries as the first author (Yu and Du 2010; Yu 2016; Yu et al. 2014, 2020). Professor Tan works at the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and he serves as the vice president of the Chinese Association for Lexicography. He has participated in the revision of Modern Chinese Dictionary (MCD)1 editions 4 to 7, and he is one of the chief editors in charge of the revision of the 6th and 7th editions of MCD. The book under review is the result of the work of the two authors in the field of comparative lexicography as well as dictionary compilation and revision.
词典比较研究是词典学理论的重要组成部分，是词典编纂的宝贵灵感来源。就前者而言，有助于发现两部词典在编纂理念和设计特点上的异同。对于后者，它有助于为两种词典的编纂提供相互参考。然而，根据Yu and Du(2016)的综述，1988年至2014年发表在《国际词典学杂志》上的单语通用词典的比较研究几乎都是英语通用词典之间的比较研究。英语与其他语言中其他语言的mgdp的比较研究很少，而英语与汉语mgdp的比较研究则很少。另一方面，英汉通用词典的比较研究在国内也很少见，而且在广度和深度上都不尽理想(p. 4)。余平芳教授和谭金春教授的《英汉单语通用词典微观结构的比较研究》(2021)就是在这种背景下诞生的。余教授就职于广东外语外贸大学中国语言文化学院，是比较词典编纂方面的专家。近年来，她以第一作者身份出版了多部关于各种词典比较研究的专著(Yu and Du 2010;于2016年;Yu et al. 2014, 2020)。谭教授就职于中国社会科学院研究生院，现任中国词典编纂协会副会长。曾参与《现代汉语词典》第1版第4至第7版的修订工作，是《现代汉语词典》第6、7版的主编之一。这本书的审查是两个作者在比较词典编纂和修订领域的工作的结果。
{"title":"A Comparative Study on the Microstructures of Chinese and English Monolingual General-purpose Dictionaries","authors":"Jun Zhang, Wenfei Hu","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecad002","url":null,"abstract":"The comparative study of dictionaries is an important part of theoretical lexicography, and a valuable source of inspiration for dictionary compiling. Regarding the former, it helps to discover the similarities and differences in the compilation philosophies and design features between the two dictionaries. Regarding the latter, it helps to provide mutual references for the compilation of both dictionaries. However, according to Yu and Du’s (2016) review, the comparative studies on monolingual general-purpose dictionaries (MGPDs) published in the International Journal of Lexicography from 1988 to 2014 are almost all between English MGPDs. There are few comparative studies between English and other MGPDs in other languages and no comparative studies between English and Chinese MGPDs. On the other hand, comparative studies between English and Chinese MGPDs are also rare in China, and moreover, they are unsatisfactory in terms of breadth and depth (p. 4). The book A Comparative Study on the Microstructures of Chinese and English Monolingual General-purpose Dictionaries (2021) by Professor Pingfang Yu and Professor Jinchun Tan is born out of this context. Professor Yu works at the Faculty of Chinese Language and Culture in Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, she is an expert on comparative lexicography. In recent years, she has published many monographs on comparative studies of various dictionaries as the first author (Yu and Du 2010; Yu 2016; Yu et al. 2014, 2020). Professor Tan works at the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and he serves as the vice president of the Chinese Association for Lexicography. He has participated in the revision of Modern Chinese Dictionary (MCD)1 editions 4 to 7, and he is one of the chief editors in charge of the revision of the 6th and 7th editions of MCD. The book under review is the result of the work of the two authors in the field of comparative lexicography as well as dictionary compilation and revision.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136194564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This research utilised eye tracking to examine the vocabulary coping strategies and dictionary skills of Japanese English learners in task-based reading. Participants had access to an online dictionary with four definitions per word, including three inapplicable definitions. The interplay and outcomes of reading strategies and dictionary skills were investigated. The research found that performance was not statistically different compared to previous research where participants had access to a dictionary with only the applicable definition. Given the more difficult dictionary, participants more often made regressions to investigate the context in the text, but they did not reduce their dictionary use. Most participants lacked strategic competence while reading, but they demonstrated competence in dictionary skills. In rare instances of failed dictionary use, readers usually had not inspected the context cues in the text. For task-relevant words, participants who re-read context cues and then used the dictionary performed better. Implications for educators and materials developers are discussed.
{"title":"The Outcomes and Interplay of Vocabulary Coping Strategies and Dictionary Skills in Task-Based Reading: An Eye Tracking Study","authors":"Caleb Prichard, Andrew Atkins","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecad003","url":null,"abstract":"This research utilised eye tracking to examine the vocabulary coping strategies and dictionary skills of Japanese English learners in task-based reading. Participants had access to an online dictionary with four definitions per word, including three inapplicable definitions. The interplay and outcomes of reading strategies and dictionary skills were investigated. The research found that performance was not statistically different compared to previous research where participants had access to a dictionary with only the applicable definition. Given the more difficult dictionary, participants more often made regressions to investigate the context in the text, but they did not reduce their dictionary use. Most participants lacked strategic competence while reading, but they demonstrated competence in dictionary skills. In rare instances of failed dictionary use, readers usually had not inspected the context cues in the text. For task-relevant words, participants who re-read context cues and then used the dictionary performed better. Implications for educators and materials developers are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45005030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the changing forms of headwords in the partial differentiation of encyclopedias away from dictionaries from the late seventeenth century to the late nineteenth century. In the past, this differentiation has mostly been studied as a process of reducing lexical content in encyclopedias and reducing encyclopedic content in dictionaries, but it also manifested itself in the grammatical forms of allowable headwords. Specifically, proto-encyclopedias of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries tended to accept verbs and adjectives as headwords, whereas many general encyclopedias from the mid-nineteenth century onward virtually eliminated any headwords except nouns. Here I point to three causes for this development in encyclopedias’ headwords: an influx of historical material as general encyclopedias acquired their modern scope, a de-emphasis on terminology and technolects in favor of coverage of concepts, and a rising concern for standardization and making it easier for readers to find what they wanted.
{"title":"Verbs and Adjectives to Nouns: The Evolution of Headwords in Encyclopedias from the Late Seventeenth to the Late Nineteenth Century","authors":"J. Loveland","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the changing forms of headwords in the partial differentiation of encyclopedias away from dictionaries from the late seventeenth century to the late nineteenth century. In the past, this differentiation has mostly been studied as a process of reducing lexical content in encyclopedias and reducing encyclopedic content in dictionaries, but it also manifested itself in the grammatical forms of allowable headwords. Specifically, proto-encyclopedias of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries tended to accept verbs and adjectives as headwords, whereas many general encyclopedias from the mid-nineteenth century onward virtually eliminated any headwords except nouns. Here I point to three causes for this development in encyclopedias’ headwords: an influx of historical material as general encyclopedias acquired their modern scope, a de-emphasis on terminology and technolects in favor of coverage of concepts, and a rising concern for standardization and making it easier for readers to find what they wanted.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46647175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Charles Richardson’s New Dictionary of the English Language is a work of great importance for the history of lexicography, but the dates of its first serial publication from 1818 onwards among the 59 instalments of the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana appear never to have been ascertained. They are worked out here, together with the alphabetical ranges of many instalments, from announcements in contemporary periodicals such as the Athenaeum, the Morning Chronicle, and The Times, and are followed by extracts from the first reviews of the dictionary in the same periodicals.
{"title":"Periodical Evidence for the Original Publication of Richardson’s New Dictionary of the English Language","authors":"J. Considine","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Charles Richardson’s New Dictionary of the English Language is a work of great importance for the history of lexicography, but the dates of its first serial publication from 1818 onwards among the 59 instalments of the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana appear never to have been ascertained. They are worked out here, together with the alphabetical ranges of many instalments, from announcements in contemporary periodicals such as the Athenaeum, the Morning Chronicle, and The Times, and are followed by extracts from the first reviews of the dictionary in the same periodicals.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45783527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
British English lexicography, which can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period, has a history of at least 400 years (Cowie 2009). Since the 1970s, many books have conducted an in-depth investigation into English lexicography from various perspectives. Some books intend to provide a comprehensive account (e.g. Zgusta 1971; Landau 1989; Svesnén 1993; Atkins and Rundell 2008; Fontenelle 2008; Svesnén 2009); some aim at a historical description (e.g. Collison 1982; Cowie 2002, 2009; Béjoint 2010; Miyoshi 2017); and some endeavour to reveal the current limitations of present-day English dictionaries and propose some solutions to these limitations (e.g. Dixon 2018). There are also some books focusing on the history of world lexicography (e.g. Considine 2019), or the lexicography of one single language (e.g. Yong and Peng (2008) on Chinese lexicography). However, most existing studies of British English lexicography are confined to individual lexicographic works of a particular period of time and pay little attention to the impacts of changes in society, culture, science, and technology on the evolution of lexicography. They lack historical continuity, subject coverage, and interdisciplinary perspectives, failing to fully reveal the evolutional characteristics and patterns of British English lexicography over different periods of time (p. 4).
{"title":"Heming Yong and Jing Peng. 2022. A Sociolinguistic History of British English Lexicography","authors":"Yongfang Feng","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac014","url":null,"abstract":"British English lexicography, which can be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period, has a history of at least 400 years (Cowie 2009). Since the 1970s, many books have conducted an in-depth investigation into English lexicography from various perspectives. Some books intend to provide a comprehensive account (e.g. Zgusta 1971; Landau 1989; Svesnén 1993; Atkins and Rundell 2008; Fontenelle 2008; Svesnén 2009); some aim at a historical description (e.g. Collison 1982; Cowie 2002, 2009; Béjoint 2010; Miyoshi 2017); and some endeavour to reveal the current limitations of present-day English dictionaries and propose some solutions to these limitations (e.g. Dixon 2018). There are also some books focusing on the history of world lexicography (e.g. Considine 2019), or the lexicography of one single language (e.g. Yong and Peng (2008) on Chinese lexicography). However, most existing studies of British English lexicography are confined to individual lexicographic works of a particular period of time and pay little attention to the impacts of changes in society, culture, science, and technology on the evolution of lexicography. They lack historical continuity, subject coverage, and interdisciplinary perspectives, failing to fully reveal the evolutional characteristics and patterns of British English lexicography over different periods of time (p. 4).","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135704452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is no doubt that example sentences enhance a dictionary’s value by providing dictionary users with the typical context of words. But how many examples do dictionary users need in a dictionary, or how many examples in a dictionary lead to confusion? The aim of the paper is twofold. First, an attempt will be made to investigate the usefulness of encoding examples in language production. Second, the aim will be to see whether a multitude of encoding examples exhibiting various types of syntax and collocation patterns confuse or benefit students of English during a translation task. 213 Polish learners of English participated in the study. To achieve the aims of the present study, mixed-effects logistic models were fitted and analyzed for the purpose of statistical analysis. The findings of the current study suggest that the presence of encoding examples in dictionaries is beneficial to learners of English in language production. Also, it can be inferred from the data that exposure to eight examples exhibiting two target syntax/collocation patterns of use is equally helpful to dictionary users as the availability of three examples exhibiting a single target syntax/collocation pattern.
{"title":"More Examples May Benefit Dictionary Users","authors":"Bartosz Ptasznik","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There is no doubt that example sentences enhance a dictionary’s value by providing dictionary users with the typical context of words. But how many examples do dictionary users need in a dictionary, or how many examples in a dictionary lead to confusion? The aim of the paper is twofold. First, an attempt will be made to investigate the usefulness of encoding examples in language production. Second, the aim will be to see whether a multitude of encoding examples exhibiting various types of syntax and collocation patterns confuse or benefit students of English during a translation task. 213 Polish learners of English participated in the study. To achieve the aims of the present study, mixed-effects logistic models were fitted and analyzed for the purpose of statistical analysis. The findings of the current study suggest that the presence of encoding examples in dictionaries is beneficial to learners of English in language production. Also, it can be inferred from the data that exposure to eight examples exhibiting two target syntax/collocation patterns of use is equally helpful to dictionary users as the availability of three examples exhibiting a single target syntax/collocation pattern.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48364942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED3) incorporates a new approach to the pronunciation sections of combining form and affix entries. Headword-level pronunciations are replaced by statements pertaining to typical stress patterns and vowel reduction, while thousands of lemmas contained within these entries receive British and American pronunciations for the first time. Accounting for the four different structures of current OED combining form and affix entries, the integration of pronunciation information is tailored to supply the user with an appropriate and useful level of information in each case.
{"title":"Pronunciations of Combining Forms and Affixes in the Oxford English Dictionary","authors":"M. Moreland, C. Sangster","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecac017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecac017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED3) incorporates a new approach to the pronunciation sections of combining form and affix entries. Headword-level pronunciations are replaced by statements pertaining to typical stress patterns and vowel reduction, while thousands of lemmas contained within these entries receive British and American pronunciations for the first time. Accounting for the four different structures of current OED combining form and affix entries, the integration of pronunciation information is tailored to supply the user with an appropriate and useful level of information in each case.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44593138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the advent of technology, electronic dictionaries have become an important variety of available tools for learning languages. Our research team developed an online learner’s dictionary, named eRjecnik, with basic entries for learning Hindi and Sanskrit, next to those for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. This e-tool was developed with reference to two key elements: (1) an analysis of existing e-dictionaries and their structure, and (2) an analysis of the dictionary usage habits among students enrolled in a language class of one of the above-mentioned languages, as well as among learners who had finished their studies. The goal of this study was to analyze data and develop an e-dictionary that can help students study their respective languages. As a result, a free learner’s e-dictionary that can incorporate student input has been designed, allowing cross-language searches as well as comparative searches between several languages. The article presents an overview of a student survey that was conducted as a preliminary step to the building of eRjecnik.
{"title":"Creation of multilingual learners’ e-dictionary for learners of Asian languages","authors":"Marijana Janjic, Kristina Kocijan","doi":"10.1558/lexi.24389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.24389","url":null,"abstract":"With the advent of technology, electronic dictionaries have become an important variety of available tools for learning languages. Our research team developed an online learner’s dictionary, named eRjecnik, with basic entries for learning Hindi and Sanskrit, next to those for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. This e-tool was developed with reference to two key elements: (1) an analysis of existing e-dictionaries and their structure, and (2) an analysis of the dictionary usage habits among students enrolled in a language class of one of the above-mentioned languages, as well as among learners who had finished their studies. The goal of this study was to analyze data and develop an e-dictionary that can help students study their respective languages. As a result, a free learner’s e-dictionary that can incorporate student input has been designed, allowing cross-language searches as well as comparative searches between several languages. The article presents an overview of a student survey that was conducted as a preliminary step to the building of eRjecnik.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72675320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Online dictionaries offer many new options to lexicographers, including an innovative way of dealing with dictionary structures. Looking at articles in different dictionaries but especially at those in one online dictionary, this study focuses on the presentation and structuring of article comments. Both comments on semantics and comments on form as well as subcomments on semantics are discussed. In multi-layered articles, the different restricted articles accommodate different layers of subcomments. These subcomments are integrated into the higher level subcomment and together they constitute a new search position, namely, a search tunnel. Such a tunnel contains downwardly expanded as well as upwardly attached restricted articles. The allocation of all data relevant to one specific sense of a polysemous word to one search position enhances articleinternal cohesion and deviates from a traditional strict division between the comment on form and the comment on semantics. It is shown how lexicographers can employ article comments in a functional and innovative way.
{"title":"Extended article comments in online dictionaries","authors":"R. Gouws","doi":"10.1558/lexi.24289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.24289","url":null,"abstract":"Online dictionaries offer many new options to lexicographers, including an innovative way of dealing with dictionary structures. Looking at articles in different dictionaries but especially at those in one online dictionary, this study focuses on the presentation and structuring of article comments. Both comments on semantics and comments on form as well as subcomments on semantics are discussed. In multi-layered articles, the different restricted articles accommodate different layers of subcomments. These subcomments are integrated into the higher level subcomment and together they constitute a new search position, namely, a search tunnel. Such a tunnel contains downwardly expanded as well as upwardly attached restricted articles. The allocation of all data relevant to one specific sense of a polysemous word to one search position enhances articleinternal cohesion and deviates from a traditional strict division between the comment on form and the comment on semantics. It is shown how lexicographers can employ article comments in a functional and innovative way.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86163883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：