Read the text and answer the questions. Definitions From Simpson, James, Ed. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Routledge: NY, 2011. Lexicographers are often judged by their ability to write definitions for dictionaries. Definitions are an essential component of monolingual dictionaries, since users tend to turn to dictionaries mainly to look up words in order to find out about their meanings. In most cases, dictionaries adopt the classical Aristotelian model of definitions based upon the distinction between genus (a superordinate word which locates the item being defined in the right semantic category) and differentiae (additional information which indicates what makes this item unique and how it differs from its cohyponyms, i.e. the other members of the same category). The difficulty is to choose a genus term that is neither too general nor too specific. In many cases, dictionaries tend to define by synonym and antonym. So, if, to quote Atkins and Rundell (2008: 414), the noun convertible is defined as ‘car with a folding or detachable roof’, car is the genus term and the differentia is the expression with a folding or detachable roof, which distinguishes a convertible from its cohyponyms saloon, estate car or people carrier. Another strategy, introduced by the Cobuild lexicographers (Sinclair 1987), is to write longer definitions in which the definiendum (the word that is defined) is incorporated into the definition, which then takes the form of a full sentence. Consider the definition for the verb capsize in COBUILD1: capsize When you capsize a boat or when it capsizes, it turns upside down in the water. Criticizing the over-use of parentheses to indicate likely objects and subjects, Hanks (1987) argues that the traditional conventions used in most modern dictionaries make definitions difficult reading for ordinary readers. Cobuild’s full-sentence definitions (FSDs) were considered a real revolution at the time, with a first part placing the word being explained in a typical structure (A brick is … ; Calligraphy is … – Hanks 1987: 117), and the second part identifying the meaning. In his discussion of the pros and cons of the traditional definitions, which are supposed to be substitutable in any context for the definiendum, Hanks stresses the importance of collocational and syntactic information and argues that full-sentence definitions make it possible to suggest much more easily whether collocates are obligatory, common but variable, or simply open. Selection preferences are easier to integrate into such definitions, Hanks claims, giving the example of an ‘ergative’ (causative-inchoative) verb like fuse, as in the following COBUILD1 definition: it, it used. 2 When a light or some other piece of electrical apparatus fuses or when you fuse stops working because of a fault, especially because too much electricity is being The revolution created by the introduction of full-sentence definitions attracted a lot of attention and certainly influenced other learners’ dictionaries. However, Cobuild’s relatively dogmatic approach also attracted some criticism. Rundell (2006) explains why such defining conventions have not been adopted universally. He acknowledges that the FSD model works better than alternative models in a number of cases (for instance if a verb is nearly always used in the passive form, like lay up, a full sentence definition is clearly better – ‘If someone is laid up with an illness, the illness makes it necessary for them to stay in bed’). The disadvantages of the FSD model cannot be ignored, however: the coverage of an FSD-based dictionary is reduced because these definitions are on average much longer than traditional definitions. The complexity of these longer definitions is also the source of a number of problems and can be challenging for learners. Pronoun references in if-definitions can be unclear, for instance, and the redundancy found in some long-winded structures is not always informative (‘You use X to describe something that … ’). Rundell recommends using hybrid approaches and recognizes that FSDs work in some cases, but that, in many other cases, simplicity and economy are more adequate. Questions 1. Remembering (rather “decoding” in this case): The author of the article is a strong supporter of the FSD model. True or False 2. Understanding: Define in your own words genus and differentiae and give examples. 3. Analysing: Based on the example with the verb fuse explain in your own words what is an ergative verb. 4. Evaluating: Outline in your own words the different approaches to dictionary definitions discussed in the text and give your own critical opinion about their effectiveness. How do you understand Rundell’s recommendation to use hybrid approaches? 5. Creating: Apply the approaches to dictionary definitions discussed in the text to compose definitions for the verb transform. Which do you think is the best one? Explain why? Methodology Anderson, Lorin W. & Krathwohl, David R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing. Level 1 Remembering: Recalling information, Recognizing, listing, describing, retrieving, naming, finding Level 2 Understanding: Explaining ideas or concepts, Interpreting, summarising, paraphrasing, classifying, explaining Level 3 Applying: Using information in another familiar situation, Implementing, carrying out, using, executing Level 4 Analysing: Breaking information into parts to explore understandings and relationships, Comparing, organizing, deconstructing, interrogating, finding Level 5 Evaluating: Justifying a decision or course of action, Checking, hypothesising, critiquing, experimenting, judging Level 6 Creating: Generating new ideas, products, or ways of viewing things, Designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing Assessment Questions for Remembering • What happened after...? • How many...? • What is...? • Who was it that...? • Can you name ...? • Find the meaning of... • Describe what happened after... • Who spoke to...? • Which is true or false...? Questions for Understanding • Can you write in your own words? • How would you explain...? • Can you write a brief outline...? • What do you think could have happened next...? • Who do you think...? • What was the main idea...? • Can you clarify...? • Can you illustrate...? • Does everyone act in the way that ........ does? • Do you know of another instance where...? • Can you group by characteristics such as...? • Which factors would you change if...? • What questions would you ask of...? • From the information given, can you develop a set of instructions about...? Question for Analysing • Which events could not have happened? • If. ..happened, what might the ending have been? • How is...similar to...? • What do you see as other possible outcomes? • Why did...changes occur? • Can you explain what must have happened when...? • What are some or the problems of...? • Can you distinguish between...? • What were some of the motives behind..? • What was the turning point? • What was the problem with...? Questions for Evaluating • Is there a better solution to...? • Judge the value of... What do you think about...? • Can you defend your position about...? • Do you think...is a good or bad thing? • How would you have handled...? • What changes to.. would you recommend? • Do you believe...? How would you feel if. ..? • How effective are. ..? • What are the consequences..? • What influence will....have on our lives? • What are the pros and cons of....? • Why is ....of value? • What are the alternatives? • Who will gain & who will loose? Questions for Creating • Can you design a...to...? • Can you see a possible solution to...? • If you had access to all resources, how would you deal with...? • Why don't you devise your own way to...? • What would happen if ...? • How many ways can you...? • Can you create new and unusual uses for...? • Can you develop a proposal which would...?
