Bridging the Gap between Dictionaries and Learners― From Bilingual to Monolingual Dictionaries ―Hiroshi OHTAKE1・Brian MORREN2
1. Introduction
Dictionaries play an important role in learning a foreign language. This seems to be
an accepted wisdom in the realm of English learning and teaching. Furthermore, it isvocabulary that tends to be a major concern of learners in that they consider inadequate
vocabulary knowledge to be the main impediment to success in language learning (Carter,
1987; Laufer, 1986; Nation, 1990). To expand their vocabulary, it is recommended thatthey learn the meanings and behavior of as many words as possible through extensive
reading (Cho & Krashen, 1994; Coady, 1997; Hafiz & Tudor, 1990). To this end, mostlearners try to take advantage of dictionaries as a source of reference for learning
unfamiliar words and to consolidate their knowledge of those they have alreadyencountered. In the same way, it is dictionaries that learners count on most when they are
required to write in English after they have attained some basic knowledge of grammar.
Those who are intent on achieving greater proficiency often consult a dictionary. Even
when Japanese learners of English finish their formal school education and continue
studying English on their own, the dictionary still has an essential role as a prime sourceof information on word meanings. Certainly, learners are far more likely to rely on adictionary when reading or writing English than refer to a grammar book (Krashen,1989).
The number of dictionaries marketed in Japan is ever expanding and their variety isunprecedented. These days, it is quite common to find a conventional type of dictionary
printed in a book-like format and the same dictionary in a computer readable format on
CD-ROM. An increasing number of Japanese university students have an electronic
dictionary resembling a hand-held computer. It may not be long before students with anelectronic type of dictionary outnumber those with a conventional type of dictionary inuniversity classrooms. In Japan, the past few years have seen a dramatic increase in the
production of portable electronic dictionaries whose sales point is that they containmultiple types of dictionaries including bilingual (English-Japanese/Japanese-English),monolingual, and a Thesaurus. Currently, companies marketing electronic dictionaries
1
2

Department of Foreign Languages, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine
Center for Languages, Arts, and Sciences, Fukui Prefectural University

1

are becoming more aware of the importance of featuring monolingual (English-English)
learner dictionaries among their products and it has become a challenge for learners ofEnglish to choose the most appropriate electronic dictionary from among the wide
variety available. The growing sales of electronic dictionaries in Japan would seem toreflect a genuine need for more portable and accessible dictionaries, and a greaterappreciation on the part of learners of the value of dictionaries in learning English.
In spite of this, the issue of learners’ dictionary skills has long been neglected andhas not been accorded a prominent position in English teaching in Japan. It is not
unusual for the syllabuses in university English courses to ignore dictionary skills
training in their course designs. In fact, it is well known that the vast majority ofJapanese university students have a strong affinity for bilingual dictionaries on accountof their greater accessibility and convenience (Baxter, 1980; Schmitt, 1997). It is felt,
however, that the exclusive use of a bilingual dictionary will have a detrimental effect onlearners in that they may come to view reading as a process of word-for-word translation.
In particular, a reliance on one-word synonyms in place of more detailed definitions will
not suffice where one-to-one equivalence in meaning or usage does not exist (Stein,
1989; Winter, 1992). Furthermore, even apparent equivalents tend to be only partial atbest and will not be ready-made for learners to use in any given context. Overall,therefore, while the information in a monolingual dictionary is extensive but difficult toaccess, the use of a bilingual dictionary is convenient but the information is based ontranslation equivalents that may at times be misleading for learners. This kind of
dilemma has led to the recent publication of a fully bilingual version of the Oxford
Wordpower Dictionary which has the unique feature of retaining the original English
definitions and explanations along with conventional Japanese translations.
Nevertheless, learners also seem to appreciate the potential usefulness ofmonolingual dictionaries even though they may still be used for receptive rather than
productive purposes (Schmitt, 1997; Tono, 2001). However, despite their need for clear
and explicit information on word meaning and usage, learners may have difficulties ininterpreting dictionary entries or may overlook certain important information as a resultof not understanding the meaning of definitions written in the target language(Amritavalli, 1999; Carter & McCarthy, 1988). This is largely because their reference
skills are undeveloped and they may therefore lack the linguistic resources to take fulladvantage of all the information offered (Béjoint, 1981, 1994). In this sense, monolingual
dictionaries may be considered too burdensome in that they are “not cost-effective formany learners in terms of rewards (correct choice of word) versus effort” (Thompson,
1987, p. 284). That is to say, the wider definitional information contained in a2

monolingual dictionary is not so simple to extract, which may thereby discouragelearners from fully accessing all the information available. It is therefore necessary forteachers of English to become aware of this deficiency and instruct learners in how toeffectively use not only bilingual but also monolingual dictionaries, especiallymonolingual learner dictionaries. It is certainly undesirable that so many university
students, who are learning English for academic purposes, depend solely on a bilingual
dictionary for their studies.
With this background in mind, we decided to investigate how Japanese university
students use dictionaries and in what ways they fail to obtain useful and sometimes
crucial information. In this paper, we report the results of an analysis in the form of casestudies and, in the light of Japanese learners’ rudimentary dictionary skills, try toillustrate the vital importance of training students to make more effective use ofdictionaries.
2. Overview of Research on Dictionaries and Learners
2.1 Monolingual Dictionaries
In the field of second language learning, attempts have been made to move awayfrom the traditional type of native-speaker dictionary that has focused mainly on
receptive use. Now, new types of learner dictionaries have been developed (e.g., Oxford
Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Collins
COBUILD, Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners of American English)that are designed to incorporate a variety of information on productive use as well. In
this way, they are more in accord with learners’ communicative needs in presenting
relevant information that was not so easily available before. Furthermore, production
dictionaries (e.g., Longman Language Activator, Oxford Wordpower Dictionary) havealso appeared which have been designed specifically to satisfy the communicativerequirements of learners at intermediate to advanced level.
There are, however, a number of problems inherent in production. For example,
there are cases where the precise word used to express a given meaning may not beknown by learners and they have to resort to a substitute or paraphrase to fill thesemantic gap. Alternatively, where a word is known for a particular meaning, there may
be a lack of knowledge concerning its syntactic patterns or its collocational and stylistic
constraints. Moreover, when they come to produce sentences in a target language,
learners suddenly become aware of how little they know about the words they thought3they had acquired. In particular, they have little information on how each word isnormally and typically used in different contexts since they rarely pay attention to lexical
relations when learning vocabulary. This is largely because the relations between words
have long been neglected in the field of language learning and not treated as a legitimateteaching or learning unit in the same way as grammatical relations. It is therefore
necessary for the new genre of dictionaries to provide information that will help learners
formulate more precise expressions in speaking or writing that accurately convey theirintended meanings.
With regard to the lexical information contained in dictionaries, it is important toensure that this type of information is well organized so that it may be easily accessed bylearners. Furthermore, apart from the quality of the information provided, it should bepresented in a variety of ways to match the needs of different types of learners so that
their search for the precise meaning and use of a word or expression may proceedsmoothly. In this way, learners may come to understand the meaning of a given word andsuccessfully apply what they have learned in their productive discourse. At the same time,
however, while there is now a greater awareness of the potential value of learnerdictionaries in providing a variety of relevant information on productive usage, it is still
not clear how this information actually contributes to improving learners’ communicative
abilities. It is therefore necessary to examine the productive role of the dictionary inmeeting learners’ communicative needs. In particular, it is important to uncover thereasons why learners consult a dictionary, how effectively they actually use it, and how
well it is able to help resolve their communicative problems. Certainly, finding out more
about what happens during the process of dictionary look-up may lead to more effective
dictionary designs (Scholfield, 1997).
2.2 Quality of Dictionary Definitions
As for monolingual learner dictionaries, attempts have been made to introduce
greater clarity into second language definitions of English words by means of a limitedor controlled vocabulary. Such modifications to the metalanguage of dictionary
definitions have managed to reduce some of the complexity involved in theircomprehension, thereby allowing easier access and making the use of a monolingual
dictionary a less formidable task than before. It is necessary, however, for such a
restricted vocabulary to have sufficient depth and flexibility so as to provide accurate
definitions. If it is inadequate to the task, this may result in a certain amount ofcircularity and imprecision in the definitional wording (Jain, 1981). Care should4therefore be taken to ensure that accuracy is not unduly compromised for the sake ofsimplicity of expression. Certain decisions will also have to be made regarding the needsof learners at different levels of proficiency. Moreover, the accompanying usage
examples found in such dictionaries are considered to complement and extend thedefinitions. In particular, the use of such examples is felt to be “an integral part oflearning a word” (Fox, 1987, p. 137) that serves not only to consolidate the meaning of aword but to illustrate typical patterns of behavior and its relations with other words.
In this respect, monolingual learner dictionaries have traditionally favored the use of
invented examples rather than samples derived from a corpus of authentic native-speaker
English. This was motivated by the belief that the information in an invented example
could be made to reveal more information on meaning and usage than would be possible
with a single sample taken from a native-speaker corpus. However, the selection ofrepresentative examples depended to a large extent on the use of intuition for deciding
appropriate usage in various contexts. More recently, therefore, the use of invented
examples has been discarded in favor of using sample sentences taken from a corpus ofauthentic native-speaker language (e.g., Collins COBUILD). Here, the frequency ofoccurrence is an important factor in the selection of appropriate examples of the various
words, collocations, and typical patterns of use. The need for intuition may thereby beoffset to a certain extent. However, the language in direct citations is often difficult forlearners, and the content of such examples is often hard to understand when encounteredoutside of the context from which they were originally drawn. In view of this, analternative course has been to introduce a restricted vocabulary to help make the entries
easier for learners to comprehend (e.g., Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
In this approach, while the examples are again based on a corpus of naturally occurring
texts, these have been modified to eliminate any nonessential words (such as references
to people, places, and events) that might not be readily understood in isolation and out ofcontext. It therefore seeks to strike a balance between the conflicting positions mentioned
above.
2.3 Comparing Dictionaries
A number of learner dictionaries have been compared with a view to evaluating
their respective merits concerning intelligibility and ease of use. In an early study,
MacFarquhar and Richards (1983) compared two learner dictionaries (Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDCE), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary(OALD)) with a native speaker dictionary (Webster’s New World Dictionary (WNWD)),5

in order to assess learners’ perceptions of definition difficulty. In the case of the LDCE, it
incorporated a restricted defining vocabulary of 1,500~2,000 words whereas the OALD
focused more on providing clear and unambiguous definitions that avoided difficult
words. Conversely, the WNWD emphasized accuracy more than simplicity and was notconfined to any set number of defining words. When presented with samples ofdefinitions from the three dictionaries, learners expressed a preference for thosecontained in the LDCE which were considered more helpful and easier to understand. It
would appear, therefore, that it was the controlled vocabulary condition that theselearners perceived to be most beneficial. Supporting evidence is provided by Tickoo(1989) who also found the use of the restricted defining vocabulary and phrasal
definitions of the LDCE to be most effective and practical for learners.
A further study conducted by Machi and Horowitz (1990) sought to extend thesefindings by comparing three learner dictionaries (OALD, LDCE, Collins COBUILD). In
this case, the results showed that learners found the defining style of the LDCE, featuringphrasal definitions supported by examples of usage, to be the most clear and simple. The
sentence definitions of the COBUILD were also well received in that they consisted ofnatural samples of language and also provided information about meaning and usage. In
the same vein, Cumming, Cropp, and Sussex (1994) compared the short phrasal
definitional format of the LDCE with the full sentence format of the COBUILD to see
which was considered to be more effective and useful by second language learners. Theirfindings showed no significant difference between the effectiveness of phrasal andsentence definitions, leading to the conclusion that the learners’ performance in thisstudy was not a function of the particular format to which they were exposed. There wereclear preferences, however, for having usage examples and definitions in sentence form.
2.4 Research into Receptive Dictionary Use
With regard to monolingual learner dictionaries, the use of a limited or controlled
second language vocabulary has been generally well received by learners in that thedefinitional information presented in this way is made more accessible. Learners also
appear to favor having usage examples and definitions in sentence form in order to bringout the meaning more clearly. However, the use of second language definitions may also
have a detrimental effect on learners’ comprehension on account of the extra timerequired for processing and understanding the foreign language.
In this connection, Bensoussan, Sim, and Weiss (1984) found that dictionary use
had no significant effect on learner performance in terms of their comprehension test6

scores. In particular, it seems that consulting a dictionary may sometimes be misleadingin that learners may misinterpret dictionary entries and fail to select the meaning that ismost appropriate in the context. This may be due to difficulties in selecting theappropriate meaning of a particular word from among all the possible meanings listed. In
spite of attempts to ease the burden on learners by introducing a controlled vocabulary, it
appears that learners still have considerable problems in understanding the information
contained in definitions. In many instances, such definitions are not able to adequately
represent the complex inter-relationships and behavior of words in text, thereby leading
to misconceptions about the meanings of words.
In a replication of the above study, Nesi and Meara (1991) also found no significant
difference in the scores of learners who used a dictionary and those who did not. At thesame time, however, a clear correspondence was found between dictionary use and the
speed with which the test was completed. Accordingly, the length of time required tofinish the test was significantly longer for those with access to a dictionary than for those
without. It would appear, therefore, that dictionary look-up tends to result in slower
processing of text in that learners who refer to a dictionary require more time to complete
a task than those who do not use one. This is especially true when learners have tochoose the appropriate meaning of a word from among a large number of dictionary
entries. Furthermore, while consulting a dictionary may be helpful in pinpointing themeaning of a particular word, the time taken to look up a word may interrupt the reading
flow and have an adverse effect on learners’ comprehension of text.
It has also been found that dictionary look-up frequency is linked to vocabularyknowledge in that learners with a larger vocabulary tend to look up fewer words thanthose whose vocabulary is more limited. In this regard, however, the perceived relevanceof a word is also an important factor in whether it is looked up by learners. For example,
Hulstijn (1993) found that the words which learners considered relevant in theunderstanding of a text tended to be looked up with greater frequency than those whichwere regarded as having a more peripheral role. Moreover, learners were less inclined tolook up the meaning of words which could be easily inferred from the context, preferringinstead to focus on words whose meaning could not be so clearly determined fromcontextual cues. They therefore demonstrated a certain strategic sense in their reading.
However, making assumptions about meaning based on a word’s apparent familiarity
may lead learners astray in certain cases in that the meaning they ascribe to a particularword may not apply in all circumstances and may change in accordance with its lexical
environment. There are also many instances where no genuine semantic correspondence
exists between words of apparently equivalent meaning in the native and target7

languages.
While certain findings have revealed no difference in performance between learners
with or without access to a dictionary, others show that learners with dictionaries
perform better than those without, although the use of a dictionary can sometimes be
misleading. Such apparently conflicting results, however, may be largely due to a lack of
dictionary skills on the part of learners rather than to defects in the dictionary itself. In
this respect, it has been found that learners are apt to ignore or misinterpret thedefinitional information contained in the dictionary entries. This would seem to apply tolearners from all levels of ability in that they are not able to make optimum use of thefull range of information provided.
In this regard, Knight (1994) investigated the effects of dictionary use on the reading
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition of learners at different proficiency levels. The
results revealed that learners who used a dictionary performed better than those who did
not. Furthermore, while no significant differences in reading comprehension scores wererecorded for higher proficiency learners with regard to whether they had access to adictionary or not, the same did not apply to lower proficiency learners who were shown
to be far more reliant on the dictionary as a means of compensating for their more
limited vocabulary knowledge. It also appears that higher proficiency learners tend to use
the dictionary to verify their guesses while lower proficiency learners are inclined to use
it more as a practical aid to comprehension. It is important, therefore, to be aware of theparticular needs of learners from differing proficiency levels and to take these into
account when presenting strategies for improving language skills.
2.5 Research into Productive Dictionary Use
Harvey and Yuill (1997) investigated the productive role of a dictionary(COBUILD) in the performance of certain writing tasks. In particular, they focused on
discovering what prompted learners to resort to a dictionary in writing and the usefulnessof the dictionary as a source of information for solving productive problems. Results
showed that the prime reasons for dictionary look-up were for checking spellings andconfirming meanings. In some cases, however, a particular word could not be locatedowing to misspelling on the part of learners, thereby causing them to give up their search.
It would therefore be worthwhile for dictionary makers to consider using pronunciation
as a route to correct spellings. At the very least, common misspellings could be marked
as such and accompanied by cross-references to the correct spelling.
With regard to synonyms, it was found that learners felt unsure about their use

8owing to a lack of accompanying context exemplifying matters of register, connotation,
nuance or collocation. In many instances, learners displayed a tendency to use suchsynonyms in an inappropriate way whereby the sentences produced were ill-formed or
inaccurate. Accordingly, the authors suggest that it is important to provide guidance on
the semantic, stylistic, and collocational attributes of synonyms and focus on theirdifferences rather than treating them as undifferentiated equivalents. Moreover, regarding
syntactic information, most learners seemed to elicit information mainly from theexamples and encoded definitions. The column of coded grammatical information waslargely ignored. It seems that learners either have an aversion to traditional codes andsymbols or may find them rather intimidating and impenetrable. As a result, learners
appear to rely far more on analogy to extract grammatical information than on explicit
coding. Finally, with regard to collocations, learners did not tend to look these up to any
great degree, which suggests that such information is acquired unconsciously rather thandirectly sought in reference books. While most of the collocational searches were carriedout successfully, some were not so successful owing to lack of information which would
perhaps indicate that dictionaries should place more emphasis on this linguistic area. It istherefore suggested that a clearer and more explicit treatment of collocation is warranted.
On the whole, rather than the complexity of the information in definitions andexamples, it was found that learners experienced difficulties in processing entries thatwere overly lengthy or that required them to look at different parts of the dictionary. Inview of this, there is a possibility that the overuse of cross-referencing and multiple
sections could lead to user-fatigue and discourage learners from exploiting the available
information to the full.
Nesi and Meara (1994) examined the performance of learners in composing
sentences containing unfamiliar words whose meanings had been derived fromdictionary definitions. Rather than focusing on the effectiveness of dictionary definitions,
therefore, their prime concern was to identify the behavioral patterns of students withregard to definitions so as to better understand what led students to make errors ofinterpretation. Results showed a high proportion of errors in that 56.5% of the sentences
containing the target words were judged to be unacceptable. Upon further analysis,
student performance was found to be characterized by the following behavioral patterns:(a) failing to apply grammatical information appearing in the dictionary entry, (b) failingto apply collocational information, (c) confusing words on the basis of phonological or
orthographical similarity, and (d) rejecting definitional information that deviated fromtheir preconceived notions of word meaning. In addition, there were numerous instances(25%) of a type of “kidrule strategy” (Miller & Gildea, 1987) whereby they focused on

9only a small segment of the dictionary entry and overlooked the rest. In such a case,learners would look for a familiar word or phrase appearing in the dictionary definition
and then substitute this with the target word in their writing. This arbitrary selection of aword or phrase in the dictionary entry to represent the meaning of the target word
resulted in a number of semantic errors. Such a strategy therefore seems to account for a
substantial number of errors of interpretation among learners.
Nesi (2000) evaluated both the accessibility of dictionary definitions and learners’
skills in extracting useful information. To this end, she examined the performance oflearners on a writing task incorporating certain target words that they had previously
consulted in a monolingual dictionary. In this way, it was possible to gain some insight
into how learners had interpreted the definitions and see how much word knowledge they
had acquired in the process. The findings revealed a high proportion of semantic errors(63%) involving the inappropriate use of the target word. In this regard, errors were
found to occur more frequently in cases where the target word had a restricted range oflexical collocations. This resulted from learners neglecting to apply the relevant
grammatical and collocational information presented in the dictionary entry. In othercases, however, learners were unable to derive the necessary information on collocational
patterning since this was lacking in the dictionary entry. There were also instances wherelearners once again resorted to the “kidrule strategy” (Miller & Gildea, 1987) where thetarget word was simply substituted for a segment of the dictionary definition that wasfamiliar to them. This resulted in sentences that were either nonsensical, or reflected only
a partial understanding of the word in question.
Other errors could be attributed to the misreading of dictionary entries wherelearners were misled by phonological or orthographic similarity with other words. In
other instances, learners were led astray by their preconceived notions of a word’s
meaning, which would then supersede all the conflicting information provided in the
dictionary entry. In such cases, it may be difficult for learners to assimilate new
information that might either support or contradict their prior assumptions. In view ofthis, Nesi (2000) states that “Productive dictionary use can be likened to a juggling act,
where the learner has to activate both old and new data for a given word, but may beunable to call into play all the available information, all at once” (p. 105). It is important,
therefore, to ensure that learners possess the necessary skills to access all the relevant
information that will help them to more fully understand the meaning of a particularword. In this way, they will derive greater benefits from their dictionary consultation.

10

3. Case Studies
MethodTo elucidate how Japanese learners of English use dictionaries, several passages
were selected and given to intermediate level first-year university students as readingmaterials. The number of participants amounted to 117, with the majority specializing inmedicine and the remainder in economics or biology. They were required to translate aparticular part of each passage into Japanese. With one exception, the parts chosen for
the translation task included words that were expected to be unfamiliar to the students
and would therefore prompt them to consult their dictionaries. All the participants wereallowed to use their own English-Japanese dictionaries.
The responses were collected and analyzed from the perspective of how they had
misunderstood particular word meanings. In this way, it was possible to focus on theindividual words for which the students failed to retrieve appropriate meanings fromtheir dictionaries. We first examined the definitions and explanations of those words inthree English-Japanese dictionaries (EJDs) (Taishukan’s Genius English-Japanese
Dictionary, Kenkyusha’s New College English-Japanese Dictionary, Kenkyusha’s
English-Japanese Dictionary for the General Reader) which represented the main
dictionaries used by the students during the task. By closely examining the information
provided in the three bilingual dictionaries, we tried to determine what inappropriate
definitions or explanations the students had adopted in their translations and the reasonsfor their choice. To make our analysis as clear and objective as possible, we alsointerviewed the students in cases of ambiguous responses in order to obtain further
information and to clarify how they had actually understood the target sentences.
The following studies focus on typical errors found in the students’ responses andour analyses are given in each case. The definitions and explanations from another fourmonolingual learner dictionaries (MLDs) (Collins COBUILD English Language
Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Macmillan English
Dictionary for Advanced Learners of English, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)
were also examined. In addition, a further three monolingual dictionaries (MDs)originally meant for native-speakers of English (Concise Oxford Dictionary, The
American Heritage Dictionary, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary) werechosen for purposes of cross-comparison so that we could evaluate how these different
types of monolingual dictionaries, with which most Japanese learners of English are
unfamiliar, could possibly have helped them.

113.1 Case Study of ‘a number of’
TASK 1: The President decided to visit Japan for a number of reasons.
The students were required to translate the whole sentence into Japanese. Thissentence did not seem to pose a problem for them since it consisted of familiar words.
Few students had to consult a dictionary to fulfill the task. It is not surprising that most
students felt no urge to get help from a dictionary when they assumed there were no
unfamiliar words in the target sentence. However, this is exactly where the teacher ofEnglish may intervene and encourage them to re-examine what they assume they havealready learned about word meaning in the dictionary.
Most of the students interpreted ‘a number of’ as equivalent to ‘many’ and theJapanese translations included the words ‘taksan/ooku no riyu de’ (for many reasons).
Judging from the errors, it appears that they have learned that ‘a number of’ means‘many’ and have neglected to gain a clearer definition of this particular English
expression. Examining the English-Japanese dictionaries, we found they provided a
definition and/or explanation that could be understood as either ‘many’ or ‘some/several.’
As for the approximate numbers that native speakers associate with this expression, theEnglish-Japanese dictionaries try to be neutral and remain ambiguous. However, all of
the bilingual dictionaries use the Japanese expression ‘ooku no’ (many) in theaccompanying translations of the sample sentences, which may result in causing
Japanese learners to assume ‘a number of’ equals ‘many.’ One of the dictionaries evennotes that it is more common for this particular expression to be used to mean ‘many’rather than ‘some.’ Even though most English-Japanese dictionaries try to avoid giving
this false impression, most Japanese learners seem to be satisfied with just a portion of
the definition or explanation given in the dictionaries. This case provides an example of
how underdeveloped Japanese learners’ dictionary skills are.
While all the English-Japanese dictionaries cited here use the Japanese expression‘ooku no’ (many) in the definition or explanation, the definitions given in themonolingual learner dictionaries have no word or explanation suggesting that ‘a numberof’ implies ‘many.’ Instead, they use the words ‘some’ or ‘several’ to convey the meaningof the given expression. One of them explicitly notes that ‘a number of’ does not mean
‘many.’ For learners to acquire the true meaning of this expression, the MLDs appear toserve their learning purposes much better and may help them avoid the type ofmisunderstanding caused by bilingual dictionaries.
After the translation task was completed, the students were informed that most of

12their interpretations concerning ‘a number of’ were a little skewed and they were theninvited to compare the definitions given in their English-Japanese dictionaries with thosein the MLDs. The students who believed that ‘a number of’ meant ‘many’ explained why
they made a mistake in this task. They assumed this particular phrase was a kind of fixed
expression, as is the case with ‘a lot of,’ and they remembered learning that these two
expressions could be interchangeable in meaning. Some English-Japanese dictionaries
seem to suggest that ‘a number of’ is a phrasal expression that could be interpreted as afixed expression and students therefore treated it as such despite the fact that it is not so
inflexible or unchanging. Those who assume that ‘a (great) number of’ can be replacedby ‘a lot of’ should be aware that they may encounter problems when writing academic
papers because these two expressions are stylistically incompatible. This is another typeof information that learner dictionaries (EJDs/MLDs) are particular about but whichlearners tend to overlook.
Such a case shows once again how teachers can instruct learners in the effective useof dictionaries. Learners should be taught not to neglect stylistic information when
consulting a dictionary and learn that ‘a lot of’ is classified as ‘informal’ or ‘colloquial’
while ‘a number of’ is not. Most learners might be indifferent to this kind of information
because they think dictionaries mainly serve the purpose of getting a Japanese equivalent
for an English word. However, advanced second language learners, who have not had
sufficient exposure to the target language in multiple contexts, are often found to makeinterlingual errors in their speaking or writing in which stylistic, syntactic, collocational,
and semantic inaccuracies are intertwined (Martin, 1984). This case shows that
dictionaries can, to some extent, help learners avoid stylistic dissonance by providing
relevant information concerning a word’s register that could assist them in discriminating‘a (large) number of’ from ‘a lot of.’
Another aspect of learning difficulty in the case of ‘a number of’ may be attributed
to the general Japanese insensitivity to the indefinite article used in this expression. Thisis because Japanese learners tend to have great difficulty in learning how to properly use
the English article system even at an advanced level (Goto-Butler, 2002; Yoon, 1993).
The first two words, ‘a number,’ should be understood as referring to an indefinite
number as opposed to fixed numbers such as five, twelve, or a hundred. That is why thedefinitions given in the English-Japanese dictionaries are a little vague and make itpossible for it to be interpreted as either ‘some,’ ‘several,’ or ‘many.’ To reach a better
understanding of an ambiguous word or expression like this, learners should be awarethat finding a Japanese translation for it is not sufficient in some cases and be encouraged
to closely read the sample sentences provided in the dictionaries.

13

These days, electronic dictionaries enable learners to retrieve all the sentences that
include a particular word or words in one or more dictionaries. Therefore, by scanning
the numerous sample sentences, learners have more opportunities to re-examine thesubtle meanings of a target word or expression. This kind of convenient and crucial
function is also often neglected because of learners’ rudimentary dictionary skills. It is
desirable, therefore, that learners can take advantage of the information provided in theform of a concordance to deepen their knowledge of the actual uses of a word (Ohtake &Morren, 2001). For example, the COBUILD dictionary on CD-ROM is designed to allow
learners to retrieve all the sentences pertaining to a particular word from the corpus
within and can help learners understand how the word is actually used in many authentic
sentences. In the case of ‘a number of,’ learners can see how various kinds of adjectives
may be inserted between the indefinite article ‘a’ and the following noun ‘number.’ In sodoing, learners may come to realize that the expression ‘a number of’ is not as fixed an
expression as ‘a lot of,’ ‘after a fashion,’ ‘all at once,’ and so forth.
Judging from the Japanese students’ learning environment, in which they learn
English not as a second language but as a foreign language, they lack sufficient exposure
to English words appearing in various contexts. They should therefore be encouraged tofurther enhance their dictionary skills by taking advantage of the information about word
usage that can be obtained through examining a multitude of sentences retrieved in a
type of concordance system. It is unfortunate that most Japanese learners of English,
including those who are using English for academic purposes, tend to equate ‘a numberof’ with ‘many’ or ‘a lot of’ since it can be very detrimental in some cases. The
expression could therefore be used as an introductory example for the purpose of training
learners in the skillful use of dictionaries.
3.2 Case Study of ‘compensate for’TASK 2: It is my freshman year. Morrie is older than most of the teachers, and I am younger
than most of the students, having left high school a year early. To compensate for my youth on
campus, I wear old gray sweat shirts and box in a local gym and walk around with an unlit
cigarette in my mouth, even though I do not smoke. (Tuesdays with Morrie, p. 30)
The students were required to translate the underlined part into Japanese. Most of
the errors centered on ‘to compensate for my youth.’ In the case of ‘to compensate for,’most of the students used the Japanese word ‘oginau’ (make up for/supplement) directlyfrom the English-Japanese dictionaries and left their translation a little vague. In thesubsequent interviews with the students who used that particular Japanese word, it turned

14

out that almost all of them interpreted ‘to compensate for my youth’ as meaning to regain
something enjoyable or important from the time of one’s youth. They did not bother toreconfirm the definitions given in their dictionaries because they believed that they
already knew the word ‘youth,’ which then resulted in their erroneous interpretation.
Distorted as their translations are, they sound quite natural as Japanese expressions,which may have deterred them from looking further into the definitions in theirEnglish-Japanese dictionaries, including another interpretation for ‘youth.’ Even though
they were expected to know that something negative connected with damage, loss, orinjury should come as an object noun for the verbal phrase ‘compensate for,’ they falsely
accepted the positive meaning of ‘youth,’ the time when a person is young and withwhich young students would most likely associate something enjoyable and pleasant.
Before commencing the task, the students were advised to make their translations asclear as possible by using their own familiar, colloquial Japanese words in the event thatthe definitional wording in the English-Japanese dictionaries was found to be insufficient
to express the intended meaning. This was meant as a way of avoiding any ambiguity intheir responses. However, few students were successful in clearly conveying theirinterpretations of the underlined part of this passage by using different Japanese words
from those found in the dictionary such as ‘wakaku mirarenai youni’ (to avoid being
looked down upon as a young person). Most students appear to firmly believe that theyshould use the words found in the dictionaries when translating into Japanese.
Certainly, guessing word meanings from the context is very important and so ischoosing an appropriate definition in the dictionaries according to the context (Haynes,
1993; Laufer, 1990; Nation & Coady, 1988). The case cited here shows that learners canmake errors in interpretation even when they succeed in choosing a contextually suitabledefinition in their English-Japanese dictionaries. Once they get the Japanese equivalent
for an English word, they start to think in Japanese and are likely to be influenced by the
connotations of the Japanese word. Excessive dependence on bilingual dictionaries willlead learners to form the habit of assuming that there should be an equivalent expression
in their native tongue for each and every English word or expression (Yorkey, 1970). As
for ‘compensate for,’ both the bilingual and monolingual dictionaries try to give aclear-cut definition, but the bilingual dictionaries treat the explanation concerning thenature of the object as additional information, which learners are often likely to neglect.
If they encounter the definition given in monolingual dictionaries, they might try to readthe complete explanation and understand it as a whole (e.g., OALD: … to balance or
reduce the bad effects of damage, loss, etc.).

15

3.3 Case Study of ‘terrific’ and ‘father’TASK 3: A woman I considered to be a very close friend for six years asked me to father herbaby to fill a void in her life. She promised she would ask nothing from me in return. I wasflattered. My ego was stoked by the idea she wanted my ‘special seed’ because I’m such a greatguy. So I did it.
She became pregnant, had the baby and moved away. I felt guilty and ashamed because I
knew I had done the wrong thing. In the meantime, I met a terrific woman. We married and had acouple of kids. Five years into my marriage, this woman shows up with legal papers and apaternity test, requesting back child support since birth, health insurance, future child support, acollege savings plan, and reimbursement for other past expenses related to the child. (Dear Abby
26/9/2002)

The students were required to translate the underlined part of the passage into
Japanese. The only problematic word in the sentence which may have prompted students
to consult their dictionaries was ‘terrific.’ While most of the students were successful ingiving satisfactory responses according to the context and interpreted ‘a terrific woman’
as meaning ‘a wonderful woman,’ some of them failed to get the intended meaning andmisunderstood it as meaning ‘awful’ or ‘terrible.’ Given the context, which refers tomarriage with a woman, it may not be so difficult for students to associate something
positive with this particular word. However, the post-task interviews with those who
made an error and chose a rather negative meaning for ‘terrific’ revealed that they wereat a loss in deciding which one of the two apparently opposite meanings given in theirbilingual dictionaries they should choose. Some of them said the negative meaning‘terrible’ looked more impressive than the positive one and attracted them more.
The English-Japanese dictionaries list the negative meaning of the word ‘terrific’ aswell as its positive meaning. The two defined words for ‘terrific’ (wonderful and terrible)
have an entirely opposite meaning to each other and are completely incompatible. To
some extent, therefore, it is not surprising that some of the students were mystified bythose definitions and misread the given part. All the monolingual learner dictionaries
examined here list only the positive meaning for ‘terrific,’ and none of them refer to its
negative meaning. This illustrates how MLDs may sometimes be lacking in a detailed
explanation of the target word. However, from a practical viewpoint, understanding theword ‘terrific’ as having a mainly positive meaning should help learners determine its
appropriate use. As the entry order for the definitions of the word ‘terrific’ in the MLDs
shows, its most frequent usage is to mean ‘wonderful’ and ‘excellent.’
In general, the presentation policy adopted by bilingual dictionaries varies from one
to another and they are therefore not mutually consistent in their ordering of definitions.
The entry order for the word ‘terrific’ and the most frequently used meanings (wonderful16

or excellent) are not always listed at the top of the definitions. On the other hand, theMLDs provide the positive meaning first, and in so doing they try to meet therequirements of learners who wish to know the most common usage of the word. As for
the MDs cited here, the order of definitions was also found to vary according to theparticular dictionary.
In this regard, it has been found that learners with poor dictionary skills tend to
adopt the first listed definition among many (Yorkey, 1969). One of the advantages of
MLDs lies in their policy that the most common usage should be listed first, followed byother less common usages in descending order of frequency. Given the general tendencyof poor dictionary skills, such a policy adopted by the MLDs is likely to benefit Japaneselearners. As mentioned above, no MLDs introduced the negative meaning of the word
‘terrific,’ which may serve learners well at the initial stage of learning this particularword. Among the monolingual dictionaries cited, only the COD provides important
information regarding the meaning of ‘terrific’ when used as a negative expression bynoting that such a use is archaic. Successful dictionary users should therefore realize thatthe word ‘terrific’ means ‘wonderful’ and take care not to use this particular word whenconveying a negative feeling or impression because that use has now all but disappeared.
Most English-Japanese dictionaries fall short in giving the requisite information about
how to properly use this particular word, which may have resulted in some of thestudents choosing the negative meaning in their responses. The erroneous translations
produced in this task may have been avoided if they had consulted either MLDs or MDs
in addition to their bilingual dictionaries.
While the task given to the students was to translate the underlined part into
Japanese, we were intrigued by how they interpreted another word in the passage,‘father,’ as used in the expression ‘to father her baby.’ We conducted an additional oral
survey after the students submitted their answer sheets. Most of the students replied thatthey did not feel compelled to look up this seemingly familiar word in their dictionaries,
partly because they did not take the expression seriously and/or the expression did notseem to bear a direct relation to the original task. They said they had understood it as analready learned word, namely as a noun meaning a male parent. When a close reading of
the given expression made them recognize that ‘father’ should in this case begrammatically classified not as a noun but as a verb, they realized that even seemingly
familiar words occasionally require some further scrutiny with the aid of a dictionary(Laufer, 1990). This is where teachers may intervene, because students are often inclined
to assume that some apparently familiar words are already learned and they therefore do
not have to check their meanings by consulting a dictionary.

17

Even though dictionaries are recognized as a useful resource in learning word
meanings, they may be considered by learners as just another type of dull andunattractive reference book unless they are used to their full potential. Moreover, it isentirely up to individual learners to decide when it is necessary to consult theirdictionaries, and their decisions to access them are quite arbitrary. As the case introduced
here shows, they appear most compelled to rely on dictionaries when they are examining
unfamiliar words included in the target sentence(s) of a translation task. In view of this, it
may be difficult for teachers to find an effective way to encourage learners to use
dictionaries when learners themselves assume they already know a particular word.
However, one way to tackle this problem is to take advantage of the hypertext typepresentation of teaching materials. This can highlight some seemingly familiar words(which may be ignored by learners because of their apparent familiarity) in different
colors on the computer display in order to make students realize the importance ofreconsolidation. Teachers should certainly explore ways of raising learners’ awareness ofthe benefits of dictionary use.
3.4 Case Study of ‘detail’
TASK 4: French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen knocked political rival Socialist Prime
Minister Lionel Jospin out of the first round of the presidential election by less than 200,000
votes. Final count results released on Tuesday by the Interior Ministry showed that Le Pen won a
total of 4,805,307 votes compared to 4,610,749 for Jospin — a difference of 194,658 votes. Le
Pen, who has been accused by his rivals as being a racist and anti-Semitic — he campaigned on
an anti-immigrant ticket and once called the Holocaust a detail of history — took 16.86 percentof the vote compared to Jospin’s 16.18. (CNN News 23/4/2002)

The students were required to translate the underlined part of the passage into
Japanese. Most errors centered on ‘a detail of history,’ and the definition of ‘detail’ wasmisunderstood as something that is described finely and minutely point by point, whichtends to have a positive connotation in Japanese. Relatively few students succeeded ininterpreting the word ‘detail’ as a rather unimportant thing which could be ignored. Many
students seemed to remember this word as it appears in the phrasal expression ‘in detail,’which could mean something small but worth close attention. They seem to haveacquired only this positive feature of the word ‘detail’ and adopted a particular Japaneseword with a positive connotation in translation. The translated Japanese expression read‘rekishi no shousai’ (a detailed explanation of a historical event), which was somewhat
vague and could be interpreted in a number of ways. The follow-up interviews revealed
that the Japanese expression was used to mean that the Holocaust was a very significant

18

event in history. The first definitions for ‘detail’ provided in the English-Japanesedictionaries are given in Japanese words which are usually associated with somethingimportant. Conversely, the MLDs explain its meaning as ‘an unimportant thing’ or ‘a lessimportant thing’ and do not allow learners to attach an exclusively positive meaning to
the word.
Even though the English-Japanese dictionaries list the Japanese definition as
meaning something unimportant and peripheral, those who failed to find the correct
response for the task might have either overlooked it or neglected to consult a dictionary.
This may have been because they assumed that they were completely familiar with theword ‘detail’ and the definition in their mind was sufficient to produce a translation in
Japanese. Reading the first definitions and sample sentences in the English-Japanesedictionaries may have led the students to consolidate their preconceived notions about
word meaning in an incorrect manner. The English-Japanese dictionaries appear toelaborately refer to the positive aspect of ‘detail,’ which prevents Japanese students fromconstructing a more neutral or sometimes negative image for this particular word.
English-Japanese dictionaries generally favor using Japanese ‘Kanji’ (Chinesecharacters) in giving definitions for English words. The more abstract the meaning an
English word has, the more conspicuous this tendency appears. Most Japanese students
have a habit of learning a Japanese equivalent for a target English word in the form of
the combination of Chinese letters appearing in their English-Japanese dictionaries.
However, in their everyday encounters with familiar English words and expressions, anexcessive dependence on words expressed in Chinese characters may sometimes
interfere with their ability to think about a word’s possible range of meanings. This may
then prevent them from engaging in image expansion. In other words, when learning
English, Japanese learners may find themselves confined within the limits of the images
derived from Japanese words expressed in Chinese characters. This is because, in manycases, English-Japanese dictionaries prefer to use concise expressions consisting ofChinese characters that may be more appropriate for formal academic purposes.
Conversely, if they are encouraged to read the definitions in the MLDs, they will first try
to transpose them into their own colloquial Japanese words and only then try to search
for a more precise Japanese expression consisting of Chinese characters. The
explanations provided in the MLDs usually do not require learners to read between thelines and are generally sufficient for verbatim translation. The decoding process fordefinitions in the MLDs may therefore serve as good practice for learners in imagining
the meaning of a target English word first in their daily casual Japanese expressions andthen in Chinese characters.

19

3.5 Case Study of ‘ blip’
TASK 5: The quieter news is that while immortality is beyond us, that 125-year life-span is stillout there beckoning. Eliminating the dietary and lifestyle habits that are setting you up for theheart attack that is going to kill you at 50 can, in a blink, extend your life by decades. Doing thesame thing on a global level — and throwing in progress on disease treatment too — can cause
the life expectancy of the entire species to inch further and further out. There are about 50,000
centenarians in the U.S. — a blip in a country of close to 300 million people. (Time vol.159-3)

The students were required to translate the underlined sentence into Japanese. As
expected, they seemed to find the word ‘blip’ hard to understand and therefore consulted
their dictionaries. However, the majority of the students failed to come up with a correct
response for this translation task in spite of using their dictionaries. Most of the students
chose the seemingly easiest definition from among all the others, ‘ichijitekina mondai’ (atemporary problem). We speculated that they had browsed through the definitions, foundmost of them classified as some kind of technical word, and then dismissed them as
irrelevant. In a sense, they felt they had no choice but to select the only comprehensible
definition provided in their dictionaries. Few students appeared to consider how tointerpret the word properly in the context. The expression ‘a blip’ is used figuratively
here, so that even if they had been inclined to consult the MLDs it might still have beendifficult for them to reach a successful resolution.
The word ‘blip’ refers to a small flashing point of light on a radar screen as definedin the English-English dictionaries. If students can grasp the picture-image as it is, they
may be able to avoid any problem of interpretation and successfully arrive at the rightanswer. They were expected to imagine from this word that the number of centenarians
living in the U.S. amounts to only about 50,000, which is a small figure compared to thetotal population of approximately 300 million people, and therefore like a tiny flashing
dot on a rather wide radar screen in this context.
Learners’ over-reliance on definitions in the dictionaries (in this case EnglishJapanese ones) may result in a futile effort to find an exact equivalent for a target English
word and ultimately cause them to neglect to search for an appropriate definition orinterpretation apart from the definitions given in the dictionaries. When learners
encounter an overwhelming number of definitions or explanations in dictionaries, theytend to choose the easiest and most understandable one, resorting to a type of “kidrule
strategy” (Miller & Gildea, 1987). This seems to be the case both with MLDs, which
require learners to decode the definitions given in the target language, and with bilingual
dictionaries, which do not seem to pose a serious problem in that definitional information
is provided in their native tongue.

20

As illustrated in this case study, when learners encounter definitions such astechnical terms, which are difficult even in their mother language, they are often
mystified and sometimes choose the wrong definitions. While it may sound contradictory
to say that learners can benefit from reading the definitions in MLDs despite having
difficulties even with bilingual dictionaries, the definitions given within a restricted
English vocabulary are likely to prove more helpful and make it easier for learners tounderstand (e.g., MED: a small flashing light on a computer screen or similar piece ofequipment). MLDs can be seen as having an advantage in that they explain technicalterms in plain language. Much more remains to be clarified, but the case of ‘blip’ isanother indication of the benefits and advantages of using monolingual learnerdictionaries.
3.6 Case Study of ‘hell’
TASK 6: … Monsanto disagrees — and not without reason. Say what they will about Terminator,even some detractors admit that the company designs a hell of a seed. The maker of one of theworld’s most popular herbicides, Monsanto has created crops that are resistant to the toxin. Withit, farmers can spray away weeds without spraying away their harvest. The company has also
developed plants with a built-in toxin that is harmless to humans but lethal to insects. If farmers
in the developing world use these muscled-up crops — even with Terminator genes — theirharvests might increase enough to cover the cost of buying seeds each spring. (Time vol. 153-4)

The students were required to translate the underlined part of the passage into
Japanese. Most of the translation errors were related to the interpretation of the word
‘hell.’ Those who misunderstood the word as having to do with something bad or terribleinterpreted ‘a hell of a seed’ as a devil-like seed or a terrible seed. In the preceding
paragraphs of this passage, ‘Terminator’ was introduced as a target of criticism and given
a totally negative image, and thus the assumption that ‘a hell of a seed’ should have anegative meaning probably affected the students’ interpretation of this particular phrase.
Few students succeeded in inferring something different from their preconceived notions
derived from the word ‘hell.’ Given the beginning part of the sentence, ‘even somedetractors admit,’ the students should have realized that ‘a hell of a seed’ might convey
rather a positive meaning to conform to the context. Some students seemed not to haveconsulted their dictionaries while others appeared to have checked their dictionaries but
failed to find an appropriate definition.
It may be difficult for learners to recognize that ‘a hell of a’ is a type of phrasal
expression and should be treated as such. Learners should therefore be encouraged totake advantage of dictionaries whenever they find some discrepancy in the interpretation21

of a word or expression based on contextual conformity. Furthermore, most learners ofEnglish have experienced missing the point of a certain utterance because they failed torecognize a particular phrasal expression. When learners encounter such phrasal
expressions as ‘You can say that again,’ or ‘Type this on the double,’ they may besatisfied with the literal translation because they can manage some kind of meaningfulinterpretation of these expressions. As for the latter example, learners may interpret it asmeaning ‘Type this in double space format’ and not realize their mistake owing to a lackof appropriate feedback. Since identifying a phrasal expression in any given text can betroublesome and may sometimes go unnoticed, teachers may intervene to make students
aware of their importance.
The task cited here requires learners to first notice that the ordinary definitions forthe word ‘hell’ are not relevant and then refer to a dictionary. They subsequently browse
through the definitions and explanations and identify ‘a hell of a’ as a kind of phrase.
Even when Japanese learners manage to recognize it as a phrase, there still seems to be
scope for choosing a wrong interpretation for it, since the English-Japanese dictionaries
give a definition that is firmly slanted toward its negative meaning. Thus, learners may
assume that ‘a hell of a’ means something very bad or terrible. The MLDs are careful toavoid this misinterpretation and list both the positive and negative definitions, whichshould help learners form a better word-image in their mind regarding this particular
expression. As for the MDs, they do not treat this expression as a set phrase and learners
may therefore miss the opportunity to learn this usage.
3.7 Case Study of ‘theatre’TASK 7: The 250-member parliament accepted in a vote on Tuesday a recommendation from its
foreign relations committee to reject the resolution. But it also urged the “political leadership” to“adopt what it considers appropriate to defend the Iraqi people and Iraq’s independence anddignity and authorizes President Saddam Hussein to adopt what he sees as appropriate,expressing our full support for his wise leadership.” The U.S. White House shrugged off therejection of inspections and disarmament, with a senior official telling CNN: “We view this as
pure theatre ... There’s one voice that matters in this regime and that is Saddam Hussein’s.” (CNN
News 12/11/2002)

The students were required to translate the underlined part of the passage into
Japanese. Although the sentence chosen for the task looked simple, we were intent on
discovering whether the students would be able to find a suitable translation for ‘puretheatre.’ While few students considered the word ‘theatre’ as a place where plays are
performed, the majority took the word ‘theatre’ to mean ‘geki’ (drama) and others

22misinterpreted ‘theatre’ as a place where fighting takes place, because contextually they
assumed that the word ‘theatre’ could be connected with war.
The bilingual dictionaries almost exclusively use the Japanese word ‘geki’ (drama)for ‘theatre’ which serves to distract Japanese learners from associating this particularEnglish word with another Japanese word ‘shibai’ (drama) that can be used in a variety
of ways to convey different shades of meaning. These two Japanese words can be usedinterchangeably, but few students noticed that, unlike ‘geki’ (drama), ‘shibai’ (drama)
could also be used in certain kinds of phrasal expressions such as ‘shibai wo utsu’ (put onan act) and ‘saru-shibai’ (a foolishly transparent plot), both of which refer to a simulated
action or performance. If the bilingual dictionaries had also listed the Japanese word
‘shibai’ (drama) along with ‘geki’ (drama), this might have led to more expanded mental
imaging on the part of the learners in deriving the meaning. They may thereby have beenable to make the necessary leap of imagination and reach the correct conclusion. In thiscase, however, neither the bilingual nor the monolingual dictionaries seemed to matchlearners’ requirements in the sense that the definitions provided do not necessarily lead toan association with something spurious or deceitful. Furthermore, as for the definitions
provided for ‘theatrical’ (the adjectival form of ‘theatre’), both the bilingual andmonolingual dictionaries define it as having something to do with an exaggerated or
feigned action that is intended to attract attention or create a particular effect. This
example illustrates that, in certain cases, learners may also benefit from referring to thedefinitions given for the derivational forms of a particular word.
Regarding the adjective ‘pure,’ immediately preceding ‘theatre,’ most students
considered it as equivalent to ‘genuine,’ which does not completely diminish theinterpretation or translation although it sounds a little awkward when put literally into
Japanese as ‘junsuina shibai’ (genuine drama). The students failed to obtain a more
appropriate definition for this adjective (e.g., mere/only) either because they did notconsult a dictionary or because they were not sufficiently attentive and overlooked themost suitable definition for this combination of words. As illustrated in the precedingcase studies, the Japanese words introduced in the bilingual dictionaries are not meant toserve all possible contexts or purposes. Only those students who were able to imagine theequivalent Japanese expression for ‘geki’ (drama), namely ‘shibai’ (drama), could haveassociated the word ‘theatre’ with something false and deceitful and reached the rightinterpretation.

23

4. Pedagogical Implications
In the above case studies, an attempt was made to clarify how Japanese learners
misused or abused their English-Japanese dictionaries through an analysis of the errors
found in their translation tasks. The aim was not to point out how these dictionaries
failed learners, but to show how undeveloped the average Japanese learner’s dictionary
skills are. In fact, the English-Japanese dictionaries cited are well organized and havelong been effective in assisting Japanese students in their English learning. With regard
to improving their dictionary skills, however, instruction in dictionary use has animportant role to play in their learning of English (Cowie, 1999). While
English-Japanese dictionaries are meant to help learners gain useful information about
not only word meanings but about their usages as well, there still remain some problems
because of their bilingual nature. On the other hand, monolingual learner dictionaries
have been made more attractive for learners through the use of a restricted defining
vocabulary, in the hope that this will save users the burden of interpreting otherwise
difficult definitions of words written in the target language. However, such efforts at
reducing difficulty have sometimes resulted in oversimplification or a lack of detailed
explanation. This is because the use of a restricted vocabulary serves to reduce the scopeof a dictionary’s internal lexicon resulting in a small number of words being used toexpress various senses in sometimes awkward and roundabout ways.
Nevertheless, as shown in the above case studies, MLDs have great potential in
making up for the shortcomings of bilingual dictionaries. The special characteristic ofMLDs, whereby unfamiliar words are explained in clear and simple English, is expected
to help users improve their English skills, since every time they consult these types ofdictionaries they encounter useful information in their reading of the definitions or
explanations written in the target language. As most Japanese learners of English have
few opportunities to use English in their everyday life, MLDs provide a chance for themto start thinking in English without resorting to Japanese translations. Furthermore, given
the high-difficulty levels of authentic materials widely adopted as teaching/readingmaterials in Japanese university English classes, the English definitions and explanations
provided within a restricted English vocabulary should not pose a serious comprehension
problem for learners. In view of this, teachers in charge of those classes should closely
examine the limited vocabulary list and help learners to acquire the basic words on thelist as early as possible so as to enhance their dictionary skills. Attempts to directly
acquire vocabulary from word lists have been reported to be a successful learning
strategy in some cases (Nation, 1990; Tinkham, 1989). It may therefore be useful to24

provide direct instruction that focuses on as many high-frequency words as possible. In
this way, learners will develop greater word-recognition skills and become far more
fluent in their processing of words. In particular, it is considered essential for learners to
rapidly acquire a basic vocabulary of the most frequent 2,000~3,000 words in Englishthat will provide around 80% coverage of written text (Laufer, 1992; Nation, 1993).
Teachers of English can therefore encourage learners by introducing such an approach asa prerequisite to becoming a skillful user of monolingual learner dictionaries (Coady,1997).
While the persistent adherence of Japanese learners to bilingual dictionaries has
much to do with their convenience and familiarity, it may be more closely related toJapanese teachers’ neglect in providing any formal instruction or training in dictionary
skills. Since most Japanese university students rely exclusively on bilingual dictionaries,
it is necessary for teachers to find ways of remedying the situation by drawing theirstudents away from such an excessive dependence on bilingual dictionaries andintroducing them to MLDs. To gain a better understanding of English words including
their nuances, learners who are aiming to go on from the threshold level to theintermediate and advanced levels should recognize MLDs as a primary resource. Thesedays, learners are no longer required to choose either one particular type of dictionary or
another due to the advent of electronic type dictionaries that usually contain twobilingual dictionaries (English-Japanese/Japanese-English) plus a monolingual learnerdictionary. This has resulted in the trend of more and more university students using
them in place of the more conventional types of dictionary.
However, learners’ dictionary skills are generally quite rudimentary and far removed
from the aspirations of the dictionary makers. Most learners are satisfied with finding anequivalent word in Japanese for the particular English word in question. Moreover, few
seem inclined to read the introductory part of the dictionary that contains important anduseful information on how to make the most of dictionaries, including the conventions
they employ in giving definitions and explanations. When we conducted a survey on how
electronic type dictionaries are used by students, most of them answered that they
invariably used them to look for Japanese translations in the English-Japanesedictionaries. Few said they checked for meaning in monolingual learner dictionaries eventhough they were fully aware that the monolingual dictionaries were available and just aclick of a button away. They said they were quite satisfied with the bilingual dictionaries
because they felt comfortable with them and did not have to struggle to decode theinformation given in English. The fact remains, however, that those students may never
have had the opportunity to experience the effectiveness of MLDs on account of their25

perceived difficulty. In other words, they falsely assume that MLDs are beyond theirEnglish level and are out of their reach.
Certainly, students’ attachment to bilingual dictionaries is deep-rooted and it istherefore not practical for teachers to prohibit their use (Grabe & Stoller, 2002). Instead,teachers should endeavor to make their students appreciate the usefulness of monolingual
learner dictionaries by urging them to take advantage of this type of dictionary wheneverthey cannot get a clear picture of an English word by reading Japanese translations or
explanations in their English-Japanese dictionaries. The problem is that most teachers ofEnglish have never been trained to be assiduous users of dictionaries and they do nottend to focus on this area of language development in the classroom. They also seem toassume that their students have already received instruction on dictionary use by otherteachers. Unfortunately, as shown in previous studies and surveys, this is not often thecase and students’ overall dictionary skills are therefore rather poor. However, most
university students now have an electronic type of dictionary and their success in English
learning is largely dependent on their dictionary skills. In this regard, to fully access theuseful information in both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, students should
acquire some advanced skills as well as basic ones.
It is clear that teachers are responsible for turning language learners into successful
dictionary users by providing them with dictionary training (Luppescu & Day, 1993;
Summers, 1988). Successful dictionary skills would include (a) rather simple uses ofelectronic dictionaries such as using the jump button to get a sort of second opinion for adefinition, (b) slightly more advanced uses such as retrieving all the sample sentences inwhich a given word is used, and (c) advanced uses such as getting a concordance-likeresult as provided in the COBUILD dictionary. At first glance, these electronic
dictionaries may give the impression that their portability and the multiple types ofdictionaries included are great advantages in comparison with conventional dictionaries.
However, exploiting their full potential is not as easy as it looks and special attention,care, and training are required for learners to attain effective dictionary skills in theirformal English courses. Above all, it is desirable for teachers of English to beenthusiastic and critical users of dictionaries themselves. In this respect, Marckwardt(1973) urges all teachers of English to be “an inveterate, an ingenious, a critical andsophisticated dictionary browser” (p. 379). In this way, teachers may become more
conscious of their own strategic approach to dictionary use and be more sensitive to thedictionary look-up problems of their students. Moreover, by developing a greaterawareness of their own particular strategies of dictionary use, teachers may become moreskilled at modeling these effectively. Certainly, by passing on what they have learned

26

from their own direct experience of using dictionaries, teachers may enjoy greater
success in motivating their students and helping them to also become skillful dictionary
users.

References
Albon, M. 1997. Tuesdays with Morrie. Doubleday.
Amritavalli, R. 1999. Dictionaries are unpredictable. ELT Journal, 53(4), pp. 262-269.
Baxter, J. 1980. The dictionary and vocabulary behavior: A single word or a handful?
TESOL Quarterly, 14(3), pp. 325-336.
Béjoint, H. 1981. The foreign student’s use of monolingual English Dictionaries. Applied
Linguistics, 2, pp. 207-222.
Béjoint, H. 1994. Modern lexicography: An introduction. Oxford University Press.
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. 1984. Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7(1), pp. 15-32.
Bensoussan, M., Sim, D., & Weiss, R. 1984. The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test
performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 2(2), pp. 262-276.
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives. Allen and Unwin: London.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. 1988. Developments in the teaching of vocabulary. In R.
Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching, (pp. 39-59).
Longman: London.
Cho, K., & Krashen, S. 1994. Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids
series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37(8), pp. 662-667.
Coady, J. 1997. Vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T.
Huckin (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, (pp. 225-237). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cowie, A. P. 1999. English Dictionaries for Foreign Learners. Oxford University Press.
Cumming, G., Cropp, S., & Sussex, R. 1994. On-line lexical resources for language
learners: Assessment of some approaches to word definition. System, 22(3), pp.
369-377.
Fox, G. 1987. The case for examples. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), Looking Up, (pp. 137-149).
London: Collins.
Goto-Butler, Y. 2002. Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles:
An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring
the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), pp.
451-480.
Grabe. W, & F. L. Stoller. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. Longman.

27

Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. 1990. Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning.
System, 18, pp. 31-42.
Harvey, K., & Yuill, D. 1997. A study of the use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary
by learners of English engaged in writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(3), pp. 253-278.
Haynes, M. 1993. Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In T.
Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary,(pp. 46-64). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Hulstijn, J. 1993. When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar
words? The influence of task and learner variables. The Modern Language Journal,
77(2). pp. 139-147.
Jain, M. 1981. On meaning in the foreign learner’s dictionary. Applied Linguistics, 2(3),pp. 274-286.
Knight, S. 1994. Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension andvocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern
Language Journal, 78(3), pp. 285-299.
Krashen, S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence
for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), pp. 440-463.
Laufer, B. 1986. Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research.
IRAL, 24(1), pp. 69-75.
Laufer, B. 1990. Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching implications.
Foreign Language Annals, 23(2), pp. 147-155.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. Arnaud& H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, (pp. 126-132). Macmillan.
Luppescu, S., & Day, R. 1993. Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language
Learning, 43(2), pp. 263-287.
MacFarquhar, P., & Richards, J. 1983. On dictionaries and definitions. RELC Journal,
14(1), pp. 111-124.
Machi, E., & Horowitz, D. 1990. Learner preferences for different defining styles in EFL
dictionaries. JACET Bulletin, 21, pp. 97-116.
Marckwardt, A. H. 1973. The dictionary as an English teaching resource. TESOL
Quarterly, 7(4), pp. 369-379.
Martin. J. R. 1984. Advanced vocabulary teaching: The problem of synonyms, The
Modern Language Journal, 68(2), pp. 130-7.
Miller, G., & Gildea, P. 1987. How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), pp.
94-99.
Nation, P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Newbury House.
Nation, P. 1993. Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.),
The Bilingual Lexicon, (pp. 115-134). John Benjamins.
Nation, P., & Coady, J. 1988. Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy(Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching, (pp. 97-110). Longman.
Nesi, H. 2000. The use and abuse of EFL dictionaries. Niemeyer: Tübingen.
28

Nesi, H., & Meara, P. 1991. How using dictionaries affects performance inmultiple-choice EFL tests. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(1), pp. 631-643.
Nesi, H., & Meara, P. 1994. Patterns of misinterpretation in the productive use of EFL
dictionary definitions. System, 22(1), pp. 1-15.
Ohtake, H., & Morren, B. 2001. A corpus study of lexical semantics in medical English.
Studia Humana et Naturalia, 35, pp. 15-45.
Schmitt, N. 1997. Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy, (pp. 199-227). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Scholfield, P. 1997. Vocabulary reference works in foreign language learning. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy,(pp. 279-302). Cambridge University Press.
Stein, G. 1989. EFL dictionaries, the teacher and the student. JALT Journal, 11(1), pp.
36-45.
Summers, D. 1988. The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching, (pp. 111-125). Longman:
London.
Thompson, G. 1987. Using bilingual dictionaries. ELT Journal, 41(4), pp. 282-286.
Tickoo, M. 1989. Which dictionaries and why? Exploring some options. In M. Tickoo(Ed.), Learners’ Dictionaries: State of the Art, (pp. 184-203). Singapore: SEAMO
Regional Language Centre.
Tinkham, T. 1989. Rote learning, attitudes, and abilities: A comparison of Japanese andAmerican students. TESOL Quarterly, 23, pp. 695-698.
Tono, Y. 2001. Research on dictionary use in the context of foreign language learning.
Niemeyer: Tübingen.
Winter, C. 1992. Bilingual dictionaries: Between language and speech. In P. Arnaud & H.
Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, (pp. 41-51). MacMillan.
Yoon, K. 1993. Challenging prototype descriptions: Perception of noun countability andindefinite vs. zero article use. IRAL, 31, pp. 269-289.
Yorkey, R. 1969. Which desk dictionary is best for foreign students of English? TESOL
Quarterly, 3(3), pp. 257-270.
Yorkey, R. 1970. A study skills course for foreign college students. TESOL Quarterly,
4(2), pp. 143-153.
Dictionaries(English-Japanese Dictionaries)
Kenkyusha’s English-Japanese Dictionary for the General Reader (2nd Edition)
Kenkyusha’s New College English-Japanese Dictionary (6th Edition)
Taishukan’s Genius English-Japanese Dictionary (3rd Edition)
29

(Monolingual Learner Dictionaries)
COBUILD: Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (1st Edition)
LDCE: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (3rd Edition)
MED: Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners of American English(1st Edition)
OALD: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (6th Edition)(Monolingual Dictionaries)
The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd Edition)
Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th Edition)
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (3rd Edition)

Abbreviations
MLD: monolingual learner dictionary
MD: monolingual dictionary30