|
 |
When can one adopt a native dictionary? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Learning Techniques, Methods & Strategies | ( Topic Closed) |  |
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5365 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes  Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 41 of 124 17 November 2011 at 8:01pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I disagree. As I have attempted to show, the issue isn't really size of dictionaries. I won't repeat my arguments that one is not obliged to accept. The issue, in my opinion, is a) do you want the perspective that a monolingual dictionary brings and b) are you at a level where you can use a monolingual dictionary? If you answer no to these questions, then a monolingual dictionary is not for you. As for grammars, again size has nothing to do with it. It's all about perspective. I have two excellent Spanish grammars, Gramática Básica del Español, norma y uso, and the fabulous two-volume Gramática Comunicativa del Español. I'm particularly fond of the second book because of the approach by the author. I won't get into the details here, but he focuses especially on how the spoken language really works. Again, it's not for everyone. Edited by s_allard on 17 November 2011 at 9:26pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Cavesa Triglot Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 4944 days ago 3277 posts - 6779 votes Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, German, Italian | Message 42 of 124 17 November 2011 at 8:57pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Firstly, I don't have a dictionary of my native language but I have a handbook of ortograph and grammar (Pravidla českého pravopisu) which I consult when I really want to avoid mistakes in writing. Not everything will be checked and corrected by Word. I am still more clever than the software in this, at least when I am equiped with such a tool and not lazy to open it. And I had put it under my pillow the night before final exam of Czech when leaving high-school. It worked, I had no mistakes in my work :-)
To the question by OP. You can get by without a monolingual dictionary for your whole life. Teachers who make their students buy a huge bilingual right in the beginnings and a monolingual not long later make me laugh. It is not necessary to use one. Of course, with the exceptions like Chung mentioned. I think the absence of grammar notes may be quite common when your English-Something dictionary is writen by a Something speaker for other Something speakers. With small languages, that may be quite common since nearly noone expects an English speaker to be interested in for exemple Czech. In my opinion, time for a native dictionary comes when you want one. When you are attracted to the Petit Robert (for exemple) and find it interesting and pleasant to flip the pages, find what you want, read exemples, follow the link to a synonyme, antonyme or a word with the same root etc. It may be an interesting complement to your studies, it may be fun. But it is not necessary. The amount of entries someone mentioned is not that important in my opinion. My favourite monodilingual dictionary has only 30 000 entries while the largest bilingual one I've seen in a bookshop has around 90 000. And as I looked a bit through it, many of those are really unimportant or international words. I'm sure there must be an academic dictionary with all the words of the language but I don't think anyone, but a few people at universities, needs that regularly. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
 Iversen Super Polyglot Moderator Denmark berejst.dk Joined 6638 days ago 9078 posts - 16473 votes Speaks: Danish*, French, English, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedish, Esperanto, Romanian, Catalan Studies: Afrikaans, Greek, Norwegian, Russian, Serbian, Icelandic, Latin, Irish, Lowland Scots, Indonesian, Polish, Croatian Personal Language Map | Message 43 of 124 18 November 2011 at 12:49pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
The largest bilingual I have seen is also the largest one I own: Carl Bratli's Spanish - Danish dictionary with more than 300.000 headwords. And I simply never use it. It is so heavy that you hardly can use it while sitting in an armchair or at your computer. Maybe professional translators need the extra words in such a monster, but nobody else. Instead of arcane words from dusty old literature the words and expressions you might need in a pinch are the ephemeral ones that sometimes become popular in the mass media, but they will become antiquated so fast that they don't belong in printed dictionaries.
My preferred dictionaries generally have 30-70.000 words, some morphology and a reasonable amount of idioms - but certainly not complete quotes from famous authors as in some scholarly monolingual dictionaries. I would like to see this size of book with added information about etymology and even more idioms - and these things in both directions, please - and as I see it there is no reason except antiquated traditions to hinder dictionary compilers from including these things. As for the idea about working with monolingual dictionaries as a way to (or surrogate for!) staying within the framework of the native mind I don't get it. I have no problems thinking in for instance Italian or French or German while looking words up in a dictionary based on for instance English or Danish. Each lookup is a short stab into a different universe, but not long enough to even cause a ripple in my stream of consciousness. I won't switch to thinking in English just because I have found an English word for something in a printed dictionary or online, only if I continue reading about related things for a prolonged period in the other language. Edited by Iversen on 18 November 2011 at 12:55pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5365 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 44 of 124 18 November 2011 at 2:08pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
As I have said repeatedly, the interesting feature of monolingual reference works is that they provide information on and in the target language. I've never claimed that this leads to thinking in the target language--that's a whole other question. However, it certainly does lead to the ability to formulate definitions in the other language. For that I am adamant in believing in what some observers have called the immersion effect of learning through the medium of the language. Illustrated dictionaries are particularly useful.
Once you start looking at monolingual dictionaries, you see that there is actually a world of choices. In French, the great publishing house, Larousse, produces over 40 different dictionaries. There are illustrated dictionaries, dictionaries of slang, idioms, proper nouns, synonyms, antonyms, among many others. Two favourites of mine are the dictionary of analogies, great for writing, and the fascinating dictionary of difficulties of the French language. There's even a dictionary of erudite French for those who want to dazzle their listeners. A similar choice exists in English. I'm not sure about other languages. Alas, monolingual dictionaries are not for everybody. You cannot fall back on your native language. And I suspect that most learners never really get to the point where they are comfortable in a monolingual environment in their target language. I have to add that I was astonished to learn that a number of people here claim--some rather proudly-- that they never use a monolingual dictionary even in their native language. As someone who regularly consults paper and online French and English dictionaries at least every other day, I'm amazed that so many people never come across new or unknown words or expressions or never have questions about usage. Just this morning I read for the first time the expression "to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic" describing someone rather stupid. The other day I went to an exhibition on the history of women's fashion and saw in the descriptions of the dresses all kinds of words that I had never seen before. I don't understand how anyone who does any kind of writing other than text messages and emails can do without some basic reference works. Of course, some of these things are online or built into word processing software. We no longer use dictionaries for spelling or hyphenation, but I find them still very useful. I must be part of a dying breed. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| trance0 Pentaglot Groupie Slovenia Joined 5685 days ago 52 posts - 78 votes Speaks: Slovenian*, English, German, Croatian, Serbian | Message 45 of 124 20 November 2011 at 3:53am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I must say I agree with s_allard here. I regularly use all kinds of dictionaries and I
must say I prefer the monolingual ones. Part of the reason is probably the lack of quality bilingual dictionaries for my native Slovene. But I also believe that using monolingual dictionaries enhances one`s abilities to define expressions and words in the target language which also forces a learner to think in the target language. I usually only use online dictionaries (Duden, Farlex, DWDS, dict.cc,...) or electronic versions of paper dictionaries because I find flipping through pages a rather tedious and time-consuming task. I also like German-English and vice versa dictionaries, because I have to think in my target languages all the time, thus avoiding my native language most of the time. Somehow I feel more immersed in my target languages with this method than I would be if I were only using bilingual dictionaries. I also often consult SSKJ(the main monolingual dictionary for Slovene) when I write e-mails or posts on the internet. I really don`t understand people who never use a dictionary of their mother tongue. Edited by trance0 on 20 November 2011 at 4:05am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6532 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 46 of 124 20 November 2011 at 5:34am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I'm back here:)
IDK, I think if you find it fun there's nothing wrong with it, even if you get into this endless cycle of definitions of words from the defitions of words from the... :) But don't many monolingual dictionaries try to use as few words as possible? something like 500 or 1000. In my opinion it's as simple as this: browse the specific dictionary you want, read a few definitions and see whether you understand them. If you do, you know the language well enough to use this particular dictionary if you prefer to. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6517 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 47 of 124 20 November 2011 at 1:40pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Well, as I said in my first post in this thread, if your understanding of the language is close to a native, you might as well use a monolingual dictionary. I don't really use one for English, but I google unknown words, which pretty much amounts to the same thing. In Swedish I very rarely do so, but that's because I rarely read much in Swedish, except for simple day-to-day things that are unlikely to contain unknown words. Also, Swedish has much fewer words than English or French, so one will more rarely come across unknowns. Basically, when you look up an unknown word, what you want is an understanding of the word, not a description of it. And if your native language (or whatever language you'd use with a bilingual dictionary—I use English) is stronger than the language you're learning, you'll simply get a better understanding by reading in that language. That seems obvious to me. The little extra practice you get from reading the definition in the target language is pretty minimal, and not worth getting a worse understanding of the word. And all talk of "not translating" and "immersing oneself" doesn't mean anything to me. It's buzzwords repeated by lots of language teachers, but I've never seen a shred of evidence that there's any merit to this line of thinking. I do a lot of word flashcards and I constantly get this phenomenon: I look at the L2 word and I feel the concept it means but can't come up with the right word in English. Or I come up with a word and then look at the back of the card to find a synonym of it. I look up unknown words in a bilingual dictionary and then I create bilingual flashcards and I never have the problem of associating words in the L2 with specific words in my L1. For my brain to try to remember a specific word rather than the concept the word stands for would be expending a lot of extra effort, and the brain is lazy. Sure, this is anecdotal evidence (I don't have a problem, so nobody else will), but until I see some non-anecdotal evidence for the "no translation" paradigm, I'm fighting anecdotes with anecdotes.
It's not that people don't come across unknown words, it that they can't be bothered to look them up. Usually, one would have a vague idea of what it means and anyway you kind of understand it in context, and you just keep reading. And if some language nerds on this forum don't own dictionaries, you can easily imagine that most regular shmoes don't own one. Except maybe French people. :) 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| s_allard Triglot Senior Member Canada Joined 5365 days ago 2704 posts - 5425 votes Speaks: French*, English, Spanish Studies: Polish | Message 48 of 124 20 November 2011 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Let me try to make sense of this statement "Basically, when you look up an unknown word, what you want is an understanding of the word, not a description of it." I'm not sure what "description" here means. What is a description of a word? How can you describe a word? Does a monolingual dictionary provide a description and not an understanding? Or is the author using the word "description" for "definition"? Actually, here is a situation where I would look up the definition of the word "description" in a dictionary. So, let's drop the incomprehensible part "not a description of it" and concentrate on the first part "Basically, when you look up an unknown word, what you want is an understanding of the word". I agree with this, but I would add that most users, and especially foreign language learners, are interested in how the word is used. This is very important because the meaning or understanding of a word is closely linked to the contexts in which it is used. What I have stated time and time again is that the big difference between a bilingual dictionary and a monolingual dictionary is that one gives you the equivalent word in your native language and the other one gives you a definition or the meaning in the target language. For example, if you look up the French SIDA in a French-English dictionary, you will see AIDS. Of course, the assumption is that you know what AIDS is. If you look up SIDA in a monolingual French dictionary here is what you get in Le Petit Robert: SIDA [sida] n.m. --1982 acronyme de Syndrome d'Immunodéfience Acquise--Maladie virale transmise par voie sexuelle et sanguine, caractérisée par une chute brutale des défenses immunitaires de l'organisme. [«Le sida n'est pas vraiment une maladie...c'est un état de faiblesse et d'abandon qui ouvre la cage de la bête qu'on a en soi...à qui je laisse faire sur mon corps vivant ce qu'elle s'apprêtait à faire sur mon cadavre»D. Guibert]... What do I like in the definition? I get things like the date of appearance, the full expansion of the acronym and an explanation in French of what the words mean. My vocabulary expands with all the words of the definition that I can use when I want to talk about SIDA with French speakers. And then I have a complete rather literary example. I should point out that the actual dictionary entry contains more information than this. This is the difference between an equivalent (AIDS) and the definition above. You choose the one you find most useful. If AIDS is all you need to know, the bilingual dictionary is perfect. I'm only suggesting that the monolingual dictionary gives a different kind of information. People here have pooh-poohed the idea of the value of the idea of the monolingual dictionary for "thinking" in the target language. I don't like the term "thinking". I prefer "formulating" by which I mean the ability to restate the idea in different words. That's exactly what the definition above gives you. You now have access to a whole repertoire of words ("maladie virale", "chute brutale". "défenses immunitaires", etc.) that you can use to expand your expand your vocabulary and general proficiency. Will you get that with a bilingual dictionary? No. Is everybody interested in expanding their vocabulary? No. Now, let's look at the idea of avoiding translation. Is interference between L1 and L2 a problem. For Ari, no. He states: "And all talk of "not translating" and "immersing oneself" doesn't mean anything to me. It's buzzwords repeated by lots of language teachers, but I've never seen a shred of evidence that there's any merit to this line of thinking." In reality, there's a lot of writing and research on this very issue. Let's just think about it for a moment. When we are learning to pronounce a new language, what is our biggest problem? It's simply that we are trying to pronounce L2 through the phonology of L1. Why do English speakers have a problem differentiating la rue and la roue in French? It's because English does not distinguish between these two sounds. Why do we make certain kinds of grammar mistakes? In most cases, not all, it's because of interference between L1 and L2. Why do French speakers have a problem with English plural nouns? It's because French does not mark plural nouns the same way. When it comes to word usage, it's no different. "To look" in English has a whole range of usages, one of which is the French "regarder" which has it's own range of usages. Do those two ranges overlap? Of course not. What is a common and predictable mistake of English-speakers in French? They use "regarder" incorrectly in certain contexts because they are translating directly from English. This is an acute problem with idioms that are so difficult to translate. This is an insidious kind of mistake because on the surface the grammar may be impeccable. There is no way to tell that you are wrong unless you are corrected by a native speaker. Again I believe that using monolingual dictionaries and other monolingual reference works are helpful in avoiding this problem because of what I called the immersion effect. Some people don't believe in this. I like watching movies and television, reading books and newspapers and listening to songs for this very reason. Native usage will tend to rub off through exposure. But then again, this is not for everybody. On the question of people not using monolingual dictionaries in their native language, I have to admit that a lot of people don't really need one. A lot of people don't read at all and many hardly write. A lot of people are not exposed to new words or innovations and can get by with just a vague understanding of unknown words. Many people have no need to check spelling, punctuation or usage. In fact, a lot of people have limited knowledge of the formal code of their own language because they have no need in their daily lives. On the other hand, some people use dictionaries, including specialized dictionaries, because the nature of their work requires that they pay special attention to proper usage. This applies, obviously, to people like journalists, teachers, lawyers and writers who use words for a living. Again, dictionaries are not for everybody. 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
