MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2512158046 · doi:10.29302/jolie.2014.7.5

English pedagogic lexicography: A few milestones

2014· article· en· W2512158046 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anca Cehan

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLexicography and Language Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLexicographyLinguisticsPronunciationLexiconComputer scienceAmerican EnglishSubject (documents)HistoryLibrary sciencePhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

1 IntroductionA vast and significant branch of English lexicography is concerned nowadays with the writing of pedagogic dictionaries for the study of English as either a native (L1) or a second/ foreign language (L2). This is a consequence of the current spread of English and its international importance as a language of global communication, which have made its study into an unparalleled worldwide activity that requires the assistance of lexicography. The leading center of English lexicography is Great Britain, which has a tradition of pedagogic lexicography marked by rapid and constant adjustment, technological advance, innovative and creative development as a response to the users' needs, suggestions and demands on an increasingly competitive market (Cowie 1999). The United States, Australia and Canada, as different English language centers, have produced their own pedagogic dictionaries.The leading publishers in the English-speaking world offer a whole range of general pedagogic dictionaries for all levels of proficiency alongside many specialized works, such as dictionaries of pronunciation, collocations, idioms and phrasal verbs and encyclopedic learner's dictionaries, such as the remarkable Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary (1993) and the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (1993, 2000, 2005). In addition, there are learner's thesauruses, some arranged thematically with an alphabetic index (e.g., McArthur's Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English, 1981), others arranged alphabetically, such as Trappes-Lomax's Oxford Learner's Wordfinder Dictionary (1997), and the Longman Language Activator (1993). Finally, they issue a great number of technical learner's dictionaries for specific subject areas from business to engineering, medicine and law.2 The Early History of English LexicographyEnglish lexicography started in 1540 with a polyglot seven-language dictionary which included English alongside French, Italian, Dutch, High German, Spanish, and Latin. Claudius Holyband, a Huguenot refugee to London wrote A Dictionarie French and English, published in 1593, and the Swiss Guy Miege published three dictionaries of French and English between 1677 and 1684. Interestingly, the authors of these bilingual dictionaries were teachers.Robert Cawdrey's A Table Alphabetical (1604) is usually considered to be the first monolingual English dictionary and Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755) is remembered as the first modern dictionary of English. The latter reflected the need for a prescriptive and normative authority able to establish a standard of correctness. In writing it, Samuel Johnson raised many important issues, some of which are still debated by contemporary lexicographers, notably those related to the criteria used for the selection of words to be included in a dictionary, and the distinction between general language and specialized terminology. Moreover, Johnson was a precursor of corpus lexicography as he was the first scholar to base a dictionary on authentic examples of usage, collected from the works of English authors.3 The Vocabulary Control MovementThe most noticeable impact of lexicography on TEFL is related to the advent of the pedagogic or learner's dictionaries. This may be explained by the very profile of the founders of the Vocabulary Control Movement, a group of EFL teachers of the 1920s and 1930s, all involved in lexicography, and whose key figures were Harold Palmer, Michael West and A. S. Hornby. Their main contribution to lexicography was the identification of a minimum core vocabulary necessary for maximizing the learning efforts of the learners of English as an L2. Modern lexicography owes a lot to their concern with word frequency and their belief that it is an advantage to learn the highest frequency words first. They influenced not only the selection of the words to be included in the monolingual learner's dictionaries (MLDs), but also the way in which words are defined. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,856
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,269

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Linguistic and Intercultural EducationMême sujetLexicography and Language StudiesTravaux en français237 207