AN ACTIVE DICTIONARY: USER NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS

Ye. І. Plakhotniuk

doi:10.26661/2414-1135-2020-80-2-21

Ye. І. Plakhotniuk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2020-80-2-21

Keywords: cognitive lexicography, EFL lexicography, combinatory thesaurus, dictionary user profile, lexicographic function, L2-production

Abstract

This article focuses on user profiling in an active dictionary, i.e. outlining user needs and compiler’s strategies of catering for them. Among the traditional alphabetical dictionaries designed for sporadic consultation in case of coming across an unfamiliar word, there is a growing demand for active dictionaries. The current research is conducted as a part of the PhD project on compiling an Active learner’s construction-combinatory thesaurus (ALCCT) facilitating adult learners in L2 encoding activities. The aim of the present study is to identify the relevant user search questions and formulate the corresponding groups of user needs. The research procedure includes two online-lounged surveys with the participation of 53 and 115 respondents respectively, concerned with: i) most typical difficulties in L2 production and ii) most relevant search questions in a dictionary of L2 encoding tasks. The participants received two questionnaires designed in a simplified manner with no linguistic terminology. The first questionnaire focused on the respondents’ self-assessment of their L2-production skills on the 5-point scale. The second questionnaire offered several blocks of questions, each being introduced with an example of the combinatory thesaurus “SCHOOL”. The relevance of each of the questions was assessed by the subjects based on a gradual scale: from “Yes! Absolutely necessary!” to “No! It is not relevant!” The results of studying the ALCCT intended user expectations made it possible to design a user profile, i.e. identify user age, education, background knowledge and language expertise as well as formulate the three types of user needs: primary – occurring before the usage and concerned with the quantitative and qualitative constraints of the thesaurus registry, secondary – taking part in the process of the usage and tertiary – following from the systematic usage and fostering the development of L2 encoding skills. Concluding discussion calls for revision of the criteria of activeness of the dictionary as a more cognitively oriented learning tool and outlines the future research on the compiler’s strategies of catering for the identified user needs.

References

1. Agerbo H., Bergenholtz H. Types of Lexicographical Information Needs and their Relevance for Information Science. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice. KISTI, 2017. № 5 (3). P. 23–38.
2. Alain R., Delesalle S. Problèmes et conflits lexicographiques. Langue française, Dictionnaire, sémantique et culture, sous la direction / eds. S. Delesalle et A. Rey. Larousse, 1979. № 43. P. 4–26.
3. Apresjan V. Active dictionary of the Russian language: theory and practice. Meaning-Text Theory. 2011. P. 13–24.
4. Bergenholtz H., Tarp S. Two Opposing Theories: On H. E. Wiegand’s Recent Discovery of Lexicographic Functions. Journal of Linguistics. Hermes, 2003. № 31. P. 171–196.
5. Beyer H., Augart J. From User Questions to a Basic Microstructure: Developing a Generative Communication Theory for a Namibian German Dictionary. Journal for Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences. UNAM, 2017. № 6. P. 1–31.
6. Castellano-Risco I., Alejo-González R., Piquer-Píriz A. The development of receptive vocabulary in CLIL vs EFL: Is the learning context the main variable? System. Pergamon, 2020. Vol. 91. P. 102–263.
7. Cubillo M.C.C. Dictionary Use and Dictionary Needs of Esp Students: An Experimental Approach. International Journal of Lexicography. Oxford, 2002. №15 (3). P. 206–228.
8. The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography / ed. P.A. Fuertes-Olivera. London : Routledge, 2018. 837 p.
9. Fuertes-Olivera P.A., Bergenholtz H. E-Lexicography: The Internet, Digital Initiatives and Lexicography. Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress, Studies / eds. J.M. Torjusen. University of Oslo, 2011. P. 47–92.
10. Dictionary of Lexicography / ed. R.R.K. Hartmann, G. James. London : Routledge, 2002. 193 p.
11. Kamiński M. Reducing Cognitive Barriers to Successful Dictionary Use: Advancements in Pedagogical Lexicography. Language in Cognition and Affect. Berlin : Springer, 2013. P. 171–188.
12. Kwary D. The variables for drawing up the profile of dictionary users. Lexicography. Journal of Asialex. Springer, 2018. Vol. 4 (2). P. 105–118.
13. Plakhotniuk Ye. Active dictionary: the criteria of “activeness” and general principles of compilation. Ad orbem per linguas : International scientific conference. Kyiv : KNLU, 2019. P. 258–260.
14. Rundell M. Dictionary use in production. International Journal of Lexicography. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1989. № 12. P. 35–53.
15. Schank R.C., Abelson R.P. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Oxford : Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. 248 p.
16. Tarp S. Lexicography in the Borderland between Knowledge and Non-Knowledge. General Lexicographical Theory with Particular Focus on Learner’s Lexicography. Lexicographica. Niemeyer, 2008. № 134. 308 p.
17. Tarp S. Reflections on Lexicographical User Research. Lexikos. 2011. № 19. P. 275–296.
18. Vieira G. Lexical Access in L2 Speech Production: a Controlled Serial Search Task. Ilha do Desterro. Brasil, 2017. № 70. P. 245–264.
19. Zhabotynska S. Principles of building conceptual models for thesaurus dictionaries. Cognition, communication, discourse. Series: Philology. Kharkiv, 2010. № 1. P. 75–92.
20. Жаботинська, С. Семантика лінгвальних мереж у навчальному комбінаторному тезаурусі. Studia Philologica. Київ, 2020. № 2. С. 17–27.