Learning words and the use of the dictionary.

Learning words is the key task in language learning, but the dictionary is over-rated as a language learning tool. Here I talk about why I feel this way.

Comments

[Vikram]

Thanks for the helpful advice! I think I'm going to give LingQ a shot.

[Valina Eckley]

Steve,
I love the barrette!

From my experience, I think that most Japanese English learners are BORN with an electronic dictionary attached to their hands. The first thing these people do when they sit down is open up their dictionary. I hate this a lot! I just steal them....

I am often having MY authority in the language questioned by the dictionary... I correct somebody's writing and they come back to me and moan to me "but the dictionary said..."

Also, sometimes I know what word they are struggling with... and I KNOW what they are typing. So I tell them WHILE they are typing... They know i speak Japanese, yet somehow they prefer to spend time and energy referring to the dictionary as a resource instead of me

It is funny how people value they authority of the dictionary over that of people with a command of their native language...

[lyzazel]

Sure, words have many issues and sometimes you can expand the use of the word if you can't find a better one. But I think it makes sense to look at the dictionary and try to find a word defined by the dictionary which can express your idea and if the word that you want to use doesn't have that meaning which you want to use it in, but another word has, use the other word.

[ed]

Hey Val

I know precisely what you are talking about. I suggest that you ban the dictionaries from your class, especially if it is a speaking class. Perhaps invite them to reflect as a group on any words they have trouble with in a final stage of the class.

I always include such a short retrospective phase in all my classes, focussing on words, ideas, whatever I wanted to emphasise in the class. I think it really makes the students see that your classes do have a point and you are not just randomly making them do things.

But I also propose that you try not think in terms of authority as you are teaching. If they have access to the dictionaries, and they want to look at them (even if you have made it clear that you HAVE banned them) they have every right to it. I often like more than one opinion on most aspects of life I need help with.

[arithmetic_is_also_Language]

Valina,
Many people can appreciate your frustration about students relying too much on a dictionary in, and out of class. Students really need to acquire a language, and learn later to use a dictionary. In fact, my belief is that a student needs to accomplish some acquisition and reading proficiency before one can begin to make sensible use of a dictionary. In the case of your students, they are switching back to their native language in order to use their dictionary? Maybe at higher language levels this is not so bad. Do their dictionaries use English, or do they revert to their native language?

[Valina Eckley]

I have students of all levels. The higher level students will just use an English -> Japanese dictionary. In that case, they get their hint and it is useful for them (especially with some of the concepts which come up in the high level classes). It is when they use the Japanese->English dictionary is when they tend to get themselves in trouble. I have found that more often than not they get a word, but they tend to really misuse it.

The same thing always happened to me when I used an English-> Japanese dictionary when learning Japanese.

Now that I am learning French, I rarely, if ever, use an English->French dictionary... But I do use the French->English dictionaries at LINGQ. Doing the reading and listening and seeing the words in use is MUCH better for me than to try to make something using an English->French dictionary to figure out what to say.

When I am speaking Japanese or French, I NEVER use a dictionary. And I would NEVER question the authority of a native speaker over a dictionary definition. The native speaker knows more...

also stopping using the English-> whatnot dictionaries has HELPED my language learning, rather than hinder it, and It would help my students too... so that is why I don't like to use them in classes...

Most of my students have gotten more confident too... Some of them where very shy when I met them 5 years ago, but now can now easily give 90 min presentations to their classmates on topics of their choice without ever using a dictionary.

[David]

The person who corrected you on your use of the word "hypocrisy" was right. You are confusing terms. Misusing a word is not an example of usage. If you don´t quite know the meaning of hypocrisy, you shouldn´t be using it so liberally against other people in order to undermine their arguments. A little help from the dictionary would actually allow you to be more accurate when having a go at others.

[Steve Kaufmann]

I consider someone a hypocrite who claims to be appalled by the "cruelty" of the Canadian seal hunt, when he or she eats the meat of animals raised and slaughtered in circumstances that are much more cruel.

Is this the correct use of the word?

[Chris Sarda]

@ steve
Steve said: Is this the correct use of the word?

Sounds spot on to me. I don't have my dictionary handy though.

[David]

It is not, since hypocrisy is faking or pretending to have values that are contrary to the ones you really hold.
You are oversimplifying the issue by assuming the general statement that IF someone is appalled by the death of an animal THEN they should be appalled by the death of any animal.
People who protest against seal hunting do so on the basis that the death of those animals is hardly justified when the primary product obtained from them (pelt) is not a necessity. Killing an animal for its meat is not appalling; killing it for sport or luxury items is. It´s not the act of killing they are opposing, but the purpose of it, and that is a coherent value.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Not all food products are necessary, (veal?) nor is the way they are raised and slaughtered necessary. I also do not make a distinction between whether some or all of the food is eaten, or just the fur used. I respect the fact that you feel differently. However, most of those opposing the seal hunt are, in my view, hypocrites for the reasons I have already given. For a good article on this read the economist.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13649231

Note:

Every year, 300,000 seals meet their end not by mauling from a polar bear, but instantaneously from gunshot or a blow from a club. Four years ago the WWF, an environmental organisation, commissioned an independent vet’s report which concluded that seal clubbing is not cruel if it is properly done by competent and trained professionals. The report judged that the Canadian hunt was professional and highly regulated. And the vets said that popular horror of the seal hunt seemed to be based largely on emotion and on images that are difficult even for experienced observers to interpret.

By the grim standards of Europe’s farrowing sheds, millions of seals enjoy a blissful life fishing and breeding on the Canadian ice. At least Canadian seals have the luxury of being stunned before they die. Compassion in World Farming, a lobby group, says that half the sheep killed in France are conscious when their throats are slit. Such treatment is possible through a loophole that allows for religious slaughter—a loophole that the same champions of animal welfare in the European Parliament voted to avoid closing on May 7th.

A few seals are killed to protect fish, others as a source of blubber or food. Most are indeed killed for their fur. That may not be to everyone’s taste, but it is hardly unEuropean. Europe’s fur farms produce over 30m mink and fox pelts a year. Every four or five days Europe kills more animals for their fur than the entire annual Canadian hunt does in a year. Seal hunting sounds unfair; but Europeans are reluctant to ban the hunting of similarly defenceless game birds, deer or wild boar.

[charles]

Well when you consider there are 730 million people, in Europe, to 33 million Canadians it's not really surprising there is more hunting (whether for food or clothing).

[Fredrik_w]

Steve, please remember to add a mp3 file for all videos since Youtube is blocked in China.

[David]

I'm afraid pointing the finger at Europe won't do. There are stringent laws in the EU dedicated to this issue.
The European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes dictates treatment, transport, slaughtering, and other practices to all member states, and includes all animals bred for the production of food, wool skin or fur or for other farming purposes. The EU is continuously fighting for the protection of animals, and this ban is part of that war.
Where is the hypocrisy in that?

[Steve Kaufmann]

David the philologist ( I am still hoping to find out one day what your work consists of), please read what one European publication said about European hypocrisy.

"half the sheep killed in France are conscious when their throats are slit. Such treatment is possible through a loophole that allows for religious slaughter—a loophole that the same champions of animal welfare in the European Parliament voted to avoid closing on May 7th."

"Europe’s fur farms produce over 30m mink and fox pelts a year. Every four or five days Europe kills more animals for their fur than the entire annual Canadian hunt does in a year. Seal hunting sounds unfair; but Europeans are reluctant to ban the hunting of similarly defenceless game birds, deer or wild boar."

[ed]

David

Can you source examples where "The European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes" is actually being systematically enforced on European soil, for example, amongst producers of foie gras that requires force feeding, mink farmers where the pelt is the only economically viable product etc etc. I looked for a bit on Google but I can't find any.

As for your definition of hypocrisy, you seem to think the intention of the hypocrite is important rather than the actual actions. I am of the opinion that actions speak louder than words of intention.

[David]

In that case the actions of the European Union are consistent with their policy (hence the ban). The fact that the laws are difficult to enforce, and are likely to find local opposition from those who benefit from the exploitation of animals does not detract from the EU´s commitment. The EU is proactive in trying to protect animal rights, and your examples are reflections of the very same conflict they are trying to solve. It is exactly because of situations like those that the law was passed.
Steve, my job is of no importance in this debate, and I would really appreciate it if you stopped asking. I work for a company as a linguist, and that is all you need to know. Your past attitude towards me does not make me feel inclined to share any more information with you.

[Steve Kaufmann]

David,

I am just curious to know what someone does as a linguist working for a company. For some reason you are unwilling to tell.

As for your paragraph defending the EU, you must not have read the Economist article.

[John B.]

Dictionaries are great for playing scrabble! And that is probably the only actual situation where they can be used to settle an argument. In real life, in my opinion, meanings are fluid and contextual and even the great OED, one of mankind's greatest lexicological (is that a word?) achievements, is unable to keep up. Unfortunately for me, I find dictionaries entertaining, even though I admit I often forget most of the details that I read. Still, I think some of it sticks, especially the part that relates to what I really wanted to know. I have an electronic OED and the history of the examples are fascinating to me but extremely boring to my wife. After more than 30 years of marriage I know better now than to try to share my interest in word etymology and definitions with her, or anyone else for that matter. For some strange reason I have always enjoyed reading dictionaries and encyclopedias and I also love collecting and lists and other weird pastimes!

I use the old version of the iFinger pop up dictionaries for foreign language words I want to know and it works great. Fast and easy! Regarding looking up words in an actual dictionary, I totally agree that it inhibits the enjoyment of reading, but I also like to id the words I would like to know and look them up later, or just read all tose examples for just for fun! I could probably benefit from a more focussed approach since I am a very slow reader in other languages, and I usually have at least 5 or 6 different books on the go. But, I have to admit I have a short attention span and I find knowing a little about a lot more stimulating than a lot about a little. Good topic Steve! Maybe thinking abouut this will help me with my obsessive compulsive (wife's opinion, heh-heh) behavior!

In this case I agree with you Steve the hypocrisy is the correct term for what you were expressing, meaning professing outwardly a level of virtue that conflicts with those actually held as exhibited by actions in conflict with those professed virtues. I also think that there is not much difference between fur and a 16 oz rib-eye! NIce to have, but most people don't really need them to live.

[Roberto]

You are completly right about the use of the diccionay because the words and its meanings belong to the speakers.Before being written the words are spoken.

Semantic changes.