A classroom-based study on the effectiveness of lexicographic resources
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.22164Keywords:
Decoding and encoding tasks, FrameNet, cognitive lexicography, guide words, macrostructure, microstructure, monolingual learner’s dictionary, sense delineationAbstract
Machine-readable databases such as FrameNet (based on frame semantics) and WordNet (based on lexical semantic relations) appeared in the 1990s and became part of the lexicographic scene. The current study argues that FrameNet and WordNet can contribute to addressing the lexicographic challenge of sense delineation and elicit better performance from learners of English as a second language. The study examined the decoding and encoding performance of university students (n = 48) after exposure to modified lexicographic entries from FrameNet, WordNet, and the online Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. The classroom experiment assessed the accuracy of sense selection, user perplexity, and the accuracy of synonym production, and measured the response time for each question. An online survey followed the test, in order to collect further information about students’ dictionary use and evaluation of guide words and definitions. Results revealed significant intergroup differences in the response time, perplexity level, and encoding performance. Learners who consulted the modified FrameNet-based entries were the fastest and most successful among the three groups. Future studies can benefit from simplifying the name of frames in FrameNet and modifying the microstructure of the database for pedagogical purposes.
References
Abdelzaher, E. M. (2017). Compiling a cognition-based thematic monolingual dictionary. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 4(2), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00007.abd
Abdelzaher, E. M. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and digital lexicography. In W. Xu and J. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 568–584). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-38
Abdelzaher, E., and Tóth, Á. (2020). Defining crime: A multifaceted approach based on lexicographic relevance and distributional semantics. Argumentum, 16, 44–63. https://doi.org/10.34103/ARGUMENTUM/2020/4
Abdelzaher, E., Elghamry, K., and Elattar, A. (2017). A corpus-based Arabic valency dictionary: The case of fighting verbs. Egyptian Journal of Language Engineering, 4(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejle.2017.59407
Atkins, B. T. S., and Rundell, M. (2008). The Oxford guide to practical lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkins, S., Rundell, M., and Sato, H. (2003). The contribution of FrameNet to practical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 333–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.333
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., and Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project (pp. 86–90). Montreal: ACL. https://doi.org/10.3115/980845.980860
Bergenholtz, H., and Agerbo, H. (2018). A typology of lexicographical tools based on information needs and user types. Lexicography, 5(2), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-018-0050-1
Bryl, V., Tonelli, S., Giuliano, C., and Serafini, L. (2012). A novel FrameNet-based resource for the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 360–365). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2245276.2245346
De Schryver, G. M., Chishman, R., and da Silva, B. (2019). An overview of digital lexicography and directions for its future: An interview with Gilles-Maurice de Schryver. Calidoscópio, 17(3), 659–683. https://doi.org/10.4013/ld.2019.173.13
De Schryver, G. M., and Nabirye, M. (2018). Corpus-driven Bantu lexicography. Part 2: Lemmatisation and rulers for Lusoga. Lexikos, 28(1), 79–111. https://doi.org/10.5788/28-1-1458
Dziemianko, A. (2016). An insight into the visual presentation of signposts in English learners’ dictionaries online. International Journal of Lexicography, 29(4), 490–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecv040
Dziemianko, A. (2017). Dictionary entries and bathtubs: Does it make sense? International Journal of Lexicography, 30(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecw010
Dziemianko, A. (2019). Homogeneous or heterogeneous? Insights into signposts in learners’ dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography, 32(4), 432–457. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecz011
Fellbaum, C. (2014). Large-scale lexicography in the digital age. International Journal of Lexicography, 27(4), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecu018
Fillmore, C. (2003). Double-decker definitions: The role of frames in meaning explanations. Sign Language Studies, 3(3), 263–295. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0008
Fillmore, C., and Atkins, S. (1992). Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Lawrence Associates.
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., and Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. In Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001
Gouws, R. H. (2018). Dictionaries and access. In P. A. Feurtes-Olivera (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of lexicography (pp. 43–58). London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315104942-4
Halas, A. (2016). The application of the prototype theory in lexicographic practice: A proposal of a model for lexicographic treatment of polysemy. Lexikos, 26(1), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.5788/26-1-1355
Hanks, P. (2013). Lexicography from earliest times to the present. In A. Keith, The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics (pp. 503–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585847.013.0023
Hanks, P. (2014). Lexicography. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199276349.013.0003
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Kong, A., and Kimi, A. (2011). FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.3.1.04has
Jódar-Sánchez, J. A. (2019). FrameNet as a resource to teach Spanish as a foreign language. In M. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Teaching language and teaching literature in virtual environments (pp. 121–149). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1358-5_7
Kilgarriff, A. (1998). The hard parts of lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 11(1), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/11.1.51
Kilgarriff, A. (2007a). Word sense disambiguation. In E. Agirre and P. Edmonds (Eds.), Word sense disambiguation: Algorithms and applications (vol. 33). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4809-8_2
Kilgarriff, A. (2007b). Googleology is bad science. Computational Linguistics, 3(1), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2007.33.1.147
Kilgarriff, A., Husák, M., McAdam, K., Rundell, M., and Rychlý, P. (2007). GDEX: Automatically finding good dictionary examples in a corpus. 2. A learner’s dictionary project (pp. 425–432). Euralex.
Lew, R., and Pajkowska, J. (2007). The effect of signposts on access speed and lookup task success in long and short entries. Revista Horizontes de Linguística Aplicada, 6(2), 235–252.
Miller, G. A., and Fellbaum, C. (2007). WordNet then and now. Language Resources and Evaluation, 41, 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-007-9044-6
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., and Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/3.4.235
Nelson, K. (2020). Informing lexicographic choices through corpus and perceptual data. International Journal of Lexicography, 33(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecz030
Nesi, H., and Tan, K. H. (2011). The effect of menus and signposting on the speed and accuracy of sense selection. International Journal of Lexicography, 24(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecq040
Ostermann, C. (2015). 4. Cognitive linguistics and lexicography. In Cognitive lexicography. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424164-007
Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., and Michelizzi, J. (2004). WordNet::Similarity – measuring the relatedness of concepts (pp. 38–41). In Demonstration Papers at HLT-NAACL. Boston: ACL. https://doi.org/10.3115/1614025.1614037
Prévot, L., Huang, C. R., Calzolari, N., Gangemi, A., Lenci, A., and Oltramari, A. (2010). Ontology and the lexicon: A multi-disciplinary perspective. In H. Chu-Ren (Ed.), Ontology and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676536
Ptasznik, B., and Lew, R. (2014). Do menus provide added value to signposts in print monolingual dictionary entries? An application of linear mixed-effects modelling in dictionary user research. International Journal of Lexicography, 27(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecu010
Ptasznik, B., and Lew, R. (2019). New-line and run-on guiding devices in print monolingual dictionaries for learners of English. Lexikos, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.5788/29-1-1517
Rundell, M. (2008). Recent trends in English pedagogical lexicography. In T. Fontenelle (Ed.), Practical lexicography: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smirnova, A. (2021). In awe of God, nature and technology: A lexical approach to the differentiation of emotional responses. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 27(4), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-2704-16
Speranza, M., and Magnini, B. (2010). Merging global and specialized linguistic ontologies. In H. Chu-Ren (Ed.), Ontology and the lexicon (pp. 224–238). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676536.014
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643
