The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language Learning: Facts and Opinions

Po r t a Li n g u a r u m 20, junio 201 pp. 89-101 The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language Learning: Facts and Opinions Gem a Al c a r a z Má r m o l Universidad Católica de Murcia Áng e l a Al m e l a Sá n c h e z-la f u e n t e Universidad de Murcia Received: 12 December 2011 / Accepted: 15 April 201 ISSN: 1697-767 ABSTRACT: Despite eminently communicative approaches to FL, learners still feel need to have almost immediate access to meaning or form of foreign words. With this premise in mind, we have conducted present study on bilingual dictionary, being our goal twofold. Firstly, we compare task where dictionary is required with or three tasks where it is not used. Then, results of dictionary task are compared to participants opinion about dictionary. Results suggest that use of dictionary is not as efficient as expected. Yet, a positive attitude towards this tool prevails among best performers. Keywords: Attitude, bilingual dictionary, Primary education, Secondary education, vocabulary learning. Diccionarios bilingües y aprendizaje de lengua extranjera: hechos y opiniones RESUMEN: A pesar del enfoque eminentemente comunicativo que impera en el aprendizaje de lenguas, los estudiantes siguen teniendo esa necesidad de acceder de manera casi inmediata a la forma o significado de las palabras en una segunda lengua. Bajo esta premisa se ha llevado a cabo este estudio sobre el uso del diccionario bilingüe, en el que se persigue un doble objetivo. Primero se compara el efecto sobre el aprendizaje léxico de una tarea con diccionario con otras de distinta índole. Tras ello, los resultados de la primera se comparan con las opiniones de los estudiantes acerca de esta herramienta. Los resultados sugieren que el uso del diccionario no es tan eficaz como se esperaba. No obstante, los participantes que mejor puntúan muestran una actitud positiva hacia esta herramienta. Palabras clave: Actitud, adquisición léxica, diccionario bilingüe, educación primaria, educación secundaria. 1. In t r o d u c t i o n The dictionary has traditionally been a widely used tool by Foreign Language students, both in ir self process of vocabulary acquisition and trying to understand a text. The reason is that vocabulary which is main content of a dictionary can be considered «

Po r t a Li n g u a r u m Nº 20, junio 201 building block of languages» (Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham 2001: 5). That is why students carry dictionaries, and not grammar books, when y travel abroad (McLaughlin 1978). However, more recent approaches such as Communicative method seem to have left this tool aside. The dictionary seems to have been replaced by or techniques. This tendency started around late 70s and 80s, when prevalent view among educators was that L2 learners should consult a dictionary sparingly and only as a last resort (Carrell, Devine, & Eskey 1988). Consequently, this lexical tool was replaced by inferring from context, a strategy which was thought to be more efficient and effective for dealing with unfamiliar vocabulary. Students are encouraged and presumably trained to infer meaning of foreign words with help of context. In fact, Hosenfeld (198) prompts teachers to train learners in use of guessing techniques, so that y can avoid dictionary. Rubin (1975: 5) states that «good language learner is a willing and accurate guesser». Yet, Gardner (199) warns that not all students learn same way. If this is so, some very good students might prefer use of dictionary rar than guessing from context. What is more, Hosenfeld (198) and Rubin (1975) do not contemplate what is called beginner s paradox. It is estimated that vocabulary learning from context is only possible and reliable when student understands between 95% and 98% of text (Laufer 2005). This means that learner must know at least from 000 to 500 words in order to be able to infer meaning in auntic non-specialized texts (Nation 1990). The beginner s paradox can be represented by a vicious circle. As beginners knowledge of foreign language is very limited, it is difficult for m to learn new vocabulary from context. If y do not know enough vocabulary, y cannot infer meanings from context. Despite current repercussion of guessing in FL learning, still some authors keep on defending role of dictionary in L2 reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Regarding former, some studies (Luppescu & Day 199; Knight 199; Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus 1996; Fraser 1997) show how dictionary use contribute positively to attention to form-meaning connections, rehearsal and association with or types of knowledge. All se are cognitive processes required for vocabulary acquisition. In study by Luppescu and Day (199) students had to read a story which included 17 unknown words and had help of a bilingual dictionary. After reading, y took a vocabulary test where y got high scores. This suggests that dictionary use can have a positive effect on vocabulary acquisition. Knight (199) also examined how use of a bilingual dictionary may have an effect on vocabulary learning and L2 reading comprehension. Results revealed that use of dictionary favoured se two aspects. The negative point in use of dictionary was reading rate. The dictionary users took more time to read whole text. In same line, Hulstijn, Hollander and Greidanus (1996) found out that when a student looked up a word in dictionary, ir retention rate was higher than or reading conditions such as marginal glosses. Fraser (1997) goes one step furr. She resorted to think-aloud protocol to know how successful use of a bilingual dictionary was. The author stated that a strategic combination guessing and dictionary use was most effective way to deal with L2 reading comprehension. Results also revealed that consulting a dictionary was associated with substantial vocabulary learning. Songhao (1997) also remarks 90

Ge m a Al c a r a z y Án g e l a Al m e l a The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language... positive effects of dictionary use and how learners seem to have need to confirm ir guess and clarify ir confusions with dictionary. A study by Cote and Tejedor (1998) reveals that students may not be making an adequate use of dictionary. The authors mention «widespread ignorance» about this tool on students part. In fact, survey that was done for this study pointed to lack of correspondence between students beliefs and reality. In or words, most students thought y were good at using a dictionary while y were not. It was observed that y did not pay attention to dictionary entry on whole, but just looked for L1 equivalent. The authors comment on initial negative attitude towards dictionary when students were asked to use it. Everything changed when students were given some guidance. After instruction y admitted to have enjoyed experience, and were eager to use dictionary more often. With se premises in mind, we have conducted present study where both objective side of dictionary use its efficiency in vocabulary learning and subjective side students opinions about it are dealt with. On basis of what has been exposed above, this paper will present an overview of results pertaining to two issues: dictionary use and vocabulary learning and attitudes towards dictionary use in FL classroom. 2. Aim The aim of present study is twofold. On one hand, we compare results of a task where use of dictionary is required with or three tasks where dictionary is not used. On or hand, results of dictionary task are compared with participants opinion about dictionary and its use.. Me t h o d o l o g y.1. Participants The study was developed with participants of two educational levels: Primary and Secondary education. The reason for this is that it allowed a broader view on situation, since it deals with two main educational stages. Both groups comprised 28 learners each, which amounts to a total of 56. The Primary Education group belonged to a public school in Region of Murcia and were taking ir fifth year. At moment of study, y had received about 68 hours of instruction, thus ir level could be considered to be Elementary. The group of Secondary Education students attended ir fourth year. They were also from Region of Murcia. Given number of hours y have been exposed to, y can be considered Low-Intermediate. The two groups spoke Spanish as ir native language and could not speak any or foreign language except for English. 91

.1.Participants The study was developed with participants of two educational levels: Primary and Secondary education. The reason for this is that it allowed a broader view on situation, since it deals with two main educational stages. Both groups comprised 28 learners each, which amounts to a total of 56. The Primary Education group belonged to a public school in Region of Murcia and were taking ir fifth year. At moment of study, Po r ty a Li nhad g u areceived r u m about 68 hours of instruction, thus ir level could be considered Nº 20, junio to be 201 Elementary. The group of Secondary Education students attended ir fourth year. They were also from.2. Materials Region of and Murcia. tasksgiven number of hours y have been exposed to, y can be considered Low-Intermediate. The two groups spoke Spanish as ir native language and.2.1. could Words not speak any or foreign language except for English..2.Materials and tasks Each group worked with 18 words, though y were different in each case due to age, English level and cognitive status. The words for Primary Education group.2.1.words were selected from a graded reader called «A pretty face» by John Escott (2008). This book Each group worked with 18 words, though y were different in each case due to age, is written English specifically level and for Elementary cognitive status. students The of words English for as Primary a Foreign Education Language. group Six were nouns, six adjectives selected from and a six graded verbs reader were called randomly A pretty chosen face for by John study Escott (see (2008). Table This 1). book is written specifically for Elementary students of English as a Foreign Language. Six nouns, six adjectives and six Table verbs were 1. Target randomly words chosen in Primary for study Education. (see Table 1). Nouns Verbs Adjectives Actress Believe Amazed Costume Follow Difficult Desk Hate Free Interview Hide Funny Lie Pay Kind Movie Refuse Pretty Table 1. Target words in Primary Education In case of Secondary Education students, we randomly selected 18 words from a list of not highly frequent terms (k) for learners at a low-intermediate level. Similar to In case or of group, Secondary y belonged Education to students, three we main randomly grammatical selected 18 categories words from (see a list Table 2). of not highly frequent terms (k) for learners at a low-intermediate level. Similar to or group, y belonged Table to three 2. Target main words grammatical in Secondary categories Education. (see Table 2). Nouns Verbs Adjectives Bargain Blow Dark Boss Chase Dirty Chess Check Empty Clerk Fit Guilty Flu Fix Healthy Lear Flush Lonely Table 2. Target words in Secondary Education.2.2. Vocabulary tasks.2.2.vocabulary tasks The tasks The entailed tasks different entailed levels different of involvement levels of involvement load. They were load. designed They were within designed within framework of Hulstijn and Laufer s Involvement Load Hyposis (2001), which suggests framework of Hulstijn and Laufer s Involvement Load Hyposis (2001), which suggests that that use of dictionary in language tasks might influence way in which new vocabulary is acquired. use of The origin dictionary of this in proposition language is tasks to be might found influence in Depth way of in which Processing new vocabulary Model (Craik is acquired. & Lockhart The 1972). origin These of this authors proposition stated that is retention to be found in long in term Depth of memory Processing depends Model on how (Craik deep & information Lockhart 1972). is processed These during learning. authors stated Put that anor retention way, in long term memory information depends that is on processed how deep at a information deep level stays is processed in memory during longer learning. than that Put which anor way, goes through a shallower processing. This initial approach to memory was expanded by Craik and Tulving some years later (1975). 92 Whereas Craik and Lockhart presented three levels of processing (orthographic, acoustic and semantic), Craik and Tulving added notion of elaboration to this model. That is to say, new information which is connected to information that already exists in memory gives place to more robust memory traces. However, re was a main criticism to this model, which points to lack of encoding specificity. In or words, Depth of Processing Model did not operationalize degree of cognitive effort or elaboration. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) tried to operationalize concept of elaboration and felt need to transfer this concept to field of L2 vocabulary. They proposed construct of involvement, and this was beginning of ir hyposis; it implied that higher

Ge m a Al c a r a z y Án g e l a Al m e l a The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language... information that is processed at a deep level stays in memory longer than that which goes through a shallower processing. This initial approach to memory was expanded by Craik and Tulving some years later (1975). Whereas Craik and Lockhart presented three levels of processing (orthographic, acoustic and semantic), Craik and Tulving added notion of elaboration to this model. That is to say, new information which is connected to information that already exists in memory gives place to more robust memory traces. However, re was a main criticism to this model, which points to lack of encoding specificity. In or words, Depth of Processing Model did not operationalize degree of cognitive effort or elaboration. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) tried to operationalize concept of elaboration and felt need to transfer this concept to field of L2 vocabulary. They proposed construct of «involvement», and this was beginning of ir hyposis; it implied that higher involvement load, larger and better amount of L2 vocabulary acquired. Specifically, this construct is built upon cognitive and motivational aspects. The three components of «involvement» are need, search and assessment. The first one is embedded in motivational dimension, whereas or two are related to cognitive dimension of construct. Both need and evaluation are organized into three levels: 0 or none, 1 or moderate and 2 or strong. Level 1 of need is given when learner is required to learn word by an external agent, for instance, teacher. In level 1 of evaluation, word is compared with or words in a specific context. The strong level of need and evaluation refers to learner s own initiative to learn word in first case, and free use of word by learner, respectively. Search only accounts for two levels: 0 or none and 1 or presence (Table ). Table. Degrees of involvement. Components Need Search Evaluation Degrees of Involvement Index 0 (none) Index 1 (moderate) Index 2 (strong) Index 0 (absence) Index 1 (existence) Index 0 (none) Index 1 (moderate) Index 2 (strong) Definition The learner does not feel need to learn word The learner is required to learn word The learner decides learn word The learner does not look for meaning or form of word with a lexical instrument The meaning and form of word are found by learner The word is not compared with any or word The word is compared with or words in provided The word is compared with or words self-provided context ( learner s mental lexicon) Table. Degrees of involvement According to parameters shown in Table, we have designed four tasks with different degree of involvement: According to parameters shown in Table, we have designed four tasks with different degree of involvement: Task 1: Reading comprehension with marginal glosses Students are asked to read a series of short paragraphs in English and answer a true/false questionnaire about paragraphs. In each of se paragraphs re is one of target words selected for study. These words appear in bold so as to highlight ir presence. At end of paragraphs students can find meaning of target word between brackets. The content of se paragraphs is constituted by vocabulary that is understandable for students, so that y can concentrate on target word. According to Hulstijn and Laufer, task 1 contains a degree of involvement 1, as it includes moderate need (1) and no search or assessment. 9

Po r t a Li n g u a r u m Nº 20, junio 201 Task 1: Reading comprehension with marginal glosses Students are asked to read a series of short paragraphs in English and answer a true/ false questionnaire about paragraphs. In each of se paragraphs re is one of target words selected for study. These words appear in bold so as to highlight ir presence. At end of paragraphs students can find meaning of target word between brackets. The content of se paragraphs is constituted by vocabulary that is understandable for students, so that y can concentrate on target word. According to Hulstijn and Laufer, task 1 contains a degree of involvement 1, as it includes moderate need (1) and no search or assessment. Task 2: Reading comprehension and fill-in gaps This second activity contains same paragraphs of task 1. However, students find a gap instead of target words in paragraphs. The task consists of filling in gaps with target words, which are alphabetically listed at end of task, toger with ir Spanish translation. In addition to target words, seven distractors were included. The degree of involvement in task 2 includes moderate need (1) and moderate assessment (1) and no search. Task : Writing with marginal glosses Task consists of writing sentences with each of target words. These words are listed in alphabetical order, toger with ir Spanish translation. Students are asked to write a sentence which shows that y have understood meaning of target word. This task presents a degree of involvement, as it includes moderate need (1), strong assessment (2), but still no search. Task : Writing and dictionary use Similar to task, in task students are asked to write meaningful sentences. However, this time students do not find words translated into Spanish. It is students who have to search meaning of targets words into a dictionary. All students are provided with same dictionary. It was most basic version of Collins Pocket Plus English-Spanish dictionary. We decided to use a very basic dictionary so as to avoid students possible confusion if y found several meanings for same word. It is important to remark that students had already had experience with dictionary searching. Therefore, fact that y had to use a dictionary did not imply an additional degree of difficulty. According to ILH, this task contains a degree of involvement, as it includes moderate need (1), strong assessment (2) and, for first time in this study, search (1). It is worth noting that each activity was distributed to a different group of students in each level. Thus, each task was performed by two groups, one of groups consisting of seven Primary education students and or one of seven Secondary education students. 9

Ge m a Al c a r a z y Án g e l a Al m e l a The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language....2.. Vocabulary tests Three weeks before study was carried out, all students did a pre-test in order to know wher y already knew target words. The object of test was to translate target words into Spanish. After eight groups of students had done ir corresponding task, all students in each level did same productive and receptive vocabulary tests. First, productive tests were distributed. Students were asked to translate Spanish target words into English. In second place, receptive tests were done by students, who had to translate English target words into Spanish. The order of distribution is not arbitrary: productive tests are considered to require more cognitive effort than receptive tests. Therefore, receptive tests were distributed in second place so as to avoid that students could glean hints from se tests onto productive ones..2.. Data analysis In order to compare degree of acquisition (dependent variable) in eight groups of learners, parametric test of analysis of variance or ANOVA has been run. In this case, independent variable is degree of involvement in tasks. The ANOVA was completed with a post-hoc analysis (HDS Tukey) for identification of possible significant inter-group differences. According to research norm in Linguistics, differences are considered significant when p <0.05. On or hand, results of dictionary task have been compared with participants opinion about dictionary use by means of a Pearson correlation coefficient, so as to detect any correlation between both variables.. Re s u l t s As can be seen in Table, critical level associated to F is much higher than.05 both in receptive (.597) and productive test (.1). Consequently, we can assume that all compared means present no significant differences between m. Put anor way, four tasks applied in study do not make a difference in students degree of vocabulary acquisition, running counter to Involvement Load Hyposis. Table. Overall ANOVA receptive and productive tests. R P Sum of squares df Quadratic mean F Sig. Inter-groups 56.71 18.905.6.597 Intra-groups 1551.000 52 29.827 Total 1607.71 55 Inter-groups 91.857 0.619.95.1 Intra-groups 170.571 52 2.761 Total 1795.29 55 Table. Overall ANOVA receptive and productive tests However, considerable significance found among four groups of Primary Education is worth noticing (see Table 5): ANOVA 95 R Sum of squares df Quadratic mean F Sig. Inter-groups 1.857 8.286 27.592.000

R P Sum of squares df Quadratic mean F Sig. Inter-groups 56.71 18.905.6.597 Intra-groups 1551.000 52 29.827 Total 1607.71 55 Inter-groups 91.857 0.619.95.1 Po r t a Li n g u Intra-groups a r u m 170.571 52 2.761 Nº 20, junio 201 Total 1795.29 55 However, considerable significance found among four groups of Primary Education is worth Table noticing. Overall (see ANOVA Table receptive 5): and productive tests However, Table 5. ANOVA considerable receptive significance and productive found among tests for four Primary groups Education of Primary students. Education is worth noticing (see Table 5): ANOVA ANOVA R P Sum of squares df Quadratic mean F Sig. Inter-groups 1.857 8.286 27.592.000 Intra-groups 2.000 2 1.750 Total 186.857 27 Inter-groups 152.71 50.905.208.000 Intra-groups 5.71 2 1.88 Total 188.29 27 The results Table from 5. ANOVA post-hoc receptive and analysis productive reflect tests significant for Primary Education differences students among scores of most groups indeed (Table 6). As regards receptive test, it can be observed how all groups The results differ from except post-hoc for analysis second reflect one and significant fourth differences one, which among means scores in practice of most groups indeed (Table 6). As regards receptive test, it can be observed how all that both groups of participants have a similar level of receptive lexical knowledge. On groups differ except for second one and fourth one, which means in practice that or both hand, groups groups of participants 1 and substantially have a similar differ, level of both receptive between lexical m knowledge. and with On remaining or groups. hand, The groups former 1 produces and substantially expected differ, performance, both between but m latter and achieves with remaining best score, despite groups. fact The that former it is produces not group expected with performance, higher degree but of latter involvement. achieves best score, When despite comes fact to that productive it is not test, group groups with 1 and higher 2 score degree similarly; of involvement. thus post-hoc test When does not it comes detect to significant productive differences test, groups among 1 and 2 m. score The similarly; third thus group scores post-hoc markedly test better does than not detect fourth significant one, which differences parallels among m. results The from third group receptive scores markedly test. better than fourth one, which parallels results from receptive test. Table 6. Tukey HSD for Primary Education students. 96 Dependent variable (J) mode R P (I) mode 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 Means difference (I-J) 7 Typical error Sig. Confidence interval 95% Limit inferior Limit superior -.29*.707.000-5.8-1.8-6.29*.707.000-8.8 -.8 -.286*.707.001-5.2-1..29*.707.000 1.8 5.8 -.000*.707.002 -.95-1.05.1.707.997-1.81 2.09 6.29*.707.000.8 8.8.000*.707.002 1.05.95.1*.707.001 1.19 5.09.286*.707.001 1. 5.2.1.707.997-2.09 1.81.1*.707.001-5.09-1.19-1.000.652. -2.80.80-6.000*.652.000-7.80 -.20 -.571*.652.000-5.7-1.77 1.000.652. -.80 2.80-5.000*.652.000-6.80 -.20-2.571*.652.00 -.7 -.77

Dependent variable (J) mode R 1 2 Ge m a Al c a r a z y Án g e l a Al m e l a -.286* The Bilingual.707 Dictionary.001 and -5.2 Foreign Language... -1. 2 1.29*.707.000 1.8 5.8 Table 6. Tukey HSD for Primary -.000* Education.707 students.002 (Cont.). -.95-1.05.1.707.997-1.81 2.09 1 6.29*.707.000 Confidence.8 interval 8.8 Means 95% 2.000*.707.002 1.05.95 Dependent variable (I) mode difference Typical Limit Limit (J) mode (I-J).1* error.707 Sig..001 inferior 1.19 superior 5.09 R 1 21 -.29*.286*.707.000.001-5.8 1. -1.8 5.2 2-6.29*.1.707.000.997-8.8-2.09 -.8 1.81 -.286*.1*.707.001-5.2-5.09-1. -1.19 P 21 12.29* -1.000.707.652.000. -2.80 1.8 5.8.80 -.000* -6.000*.707.652.002.000 -.95-7.80-1.05 -.20 -.571*.1.707.652.997.000-1.81-5.7-1.77 2.09 2 1 6.29* 1.000.707.652.000..8 -.80 8.8 2.80 2-5.000*.000*.707.652.002.000-6.80 1.05 -.20.95-2.571*.1*.707.652.001.00 -.7 1.19 5.09 -.77 1.286* 6.000*.707.652.001.000 1..20 5.2 7.80 2 5.000*.1.707.652.997.000-2.09.20 1.81 6.80.1* 2.29*.707.652.001.005-5.09.6-1.19.2 P 1 21.571* -1.000.652..000-2.80 1.77 5.7.80 2-6.000* 2.571*.652.000.00-7.80.77 -.20.7 -.571* -2.29*.652.000.005-5.7 -.2-1.77 -.6 *Means difference 2 is significant 1 at.05 level. *Means difference is significant at.05 level. 1.000-5.000*.652.652..000 -.80-6.80 2.80 -.20 As in case of overall results, -2.571* bilateral significance.652.00 associated -.7 to F is -.77 much! higher than.05 Table both 6. Tukey in HSD receptive 1 for Primary (.7) Education and 6.000* students productive.652.000 tests (.815).20 of Secondary 7.80 Education students (Table 7). 2 Thus, it can be 5.000* stated that.652 re.000 are no significant.20 differences 6.80 between! m. 2.29*.652.005.6.2 As in case of overall 1 results, bilateral.571* significance.652 associated.000 to F 1.77 is much higher 5.7 Table than.05 7. both ANOVA in receptive and (.7) productive and tests productive for Secondary tests (.815) Education of Secondary students. 2 Education students (Table 7). Thus, it can be 2.571* stated that.652 re are.00 no significant.77 differences.7 ANOVA between m. -2.29*.652.005 -.2 -.6 Sum of *Means difference is significant squares at.05 level. df 8 Quadratic mean F Sig. R Inter-groups 0.000 10.000.0.7! Intra-groups 557.71 2 2.28 Table 6. Tukey HSD for Primary Education students Total 587.71 27! (I) mode Means difference (I-J) Typical error Confidence interval 95% P Inter-groups 2.29 8.1.1.815 As in Intra-groups case of overall 621.29 results, bilateral 2 significance 25.89 associated to F is much higher than.05 Total both in receptive 65.857 (.7) and 27 productive tests (.815) of Secondary Education students (Table 7). Thus, it can be stated that re are no significant differences between m. Table 7. ANOVA receptive and productive tests for Secondary Education students 8 As regards comparison between results of dictionary task and participants opinion about dictionary use, overall Pearson correlation coefficient is indeed significant (see Table 8). This means in practice that, in general terms, success in task by virtue of dictionary use may lead user to think highly of this tool. Sig. Limit inferior Limit superior -.29*.707.000-5.8-1.8-6.29*.707.000-8.8 -.8 97 punct_dictio punct_dictio opinion Pearson correlation 1.552(*)

squares df mean F Sig. R Inter-groups 0.000 10.000.0.7 Intra-groups 557.71 2 2.28 Total 587.71 27 P Inter-groups 2.29 8.1.1.815 Intra-groups 621.29 2 25.89 Total Po r t a Li n g u a r u m 65.857 27 Nº 20, junio 201 As regards Table 7. ANOVA comparison receptive between and productive results tests of for Secondary dictionary Education task and students participants opinion about dictionary use, overall Pearson correlation coefficient is indeed significant (see As Table regards 8). This comparison means in practice between that, results in general of terms, dictionary success task and in participants task by virtue opinion about dictionary use, overall Pearson correlation coefficient is indeed of dictionary use may lead user to think highly of this tool. significant (see Table 8). This means in practice that, in general terms, success in task by virtue of dictionary use may lead user to think highly of this tool. Table 8. Overall Pearson correlation coefficients. punct_dictio opinion punct_dictio opinion Pearson correlation 1.552(*) Sig. (bilateral).01 N 1 1 Pearson correlation.552(*) 1 Sig. (bilateral).01 N 1 1 * Correlation * Correlations is significant is at significant 0,05 level at (bilateral) 0,05 level (bilateral). Table 8. Overall Pearson correlation coefficients 5. Di s c u s s i o n 5.DISCUSSION As can be seen above, results point to a different behavior as regards task performance As can be seen above, results point to a different behavior as regards task performance on on part of two student levels. Whereas Primary Education students show significant part of two student levels. Whereas Primary Education students show significant differences differences in in four four tasks, tasks, no no significant differences were were found found in Secondary in Secondary Education Education students. students. We observed We observed that that dictionary dictionary did did not not seem seem to have to have positive positive effect effect on on acquisition acquisition that we expected, that we expected, and as and it was it was predicted by by ILH. One possible reason reason for for that that is is lack of lack training of training dictionary in dictionary use. In use. case of In Primary case of Primary Education Education students, students, dictionary dictionary seemed seemed to be conceived to be conceived more as more an obstacle as an than obstacle as a than helping tool. While carrying out dictionary task, students spent too much time in as a helping tool. While carrying out dictionary task, students spent too much time in looking up words. They also felt frustrated and anxious because not always would y be able to find m. Some of participants in 9 this task even asked to change ir group. In same line scores for Secondary Education students were not very optimistic eir. Although re were not important differences from or three tasks, students dealing with dictionary task did not perform better in vocabulary tests. We observed that or groups felt more comfortable with or tasks. In addition, many members of group working with dictionary were unable to find correct option in case y found a polysemous word. This fact reflects that problems were beyond dictionary use, and that or linguistic weaknesses could be in root of dictionary misuse. However, and curiously enough, and despite drawbacks, when we asked students about use of dictionary, both Primary and Secondary Education groups in general showed a positive attitude towards this tool. What is more, even though results were not expected ones, it was found that those who showed a positive attitude towards dictionary performed better in that task than those who did not. 98

Ge m a Al c a r a z y Án g e l a Al m e l a The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language... Students think that dictionary can be a helpful tool, as long as you know how to use it. However, it becomes a double-edge sword if we cannot make an adequate use. In fact, misuse or no use of bilingual dictionary can lead to a negative attitude towards this tool, which at same time can have a negative effect on acquisition as we can infer from results of our study. Given this situation, we can pose two questions: why this reticence on part of students to using this tool and how can we change this situation. As regards first question, part of origin of this unwillingness might be found in concept that some people have of Communicative approach for language teaching. That is to say, given some aspects of Communicative method it can be understood as avoiding translation to L1. Consequently, use of bilingual dictionary within this methodological framework is barely considered. This runs somehow counter to real situations that normally occur in classroom. One of most common questions posed by students during a L2 lesson concerns meaning of some L2 word. If our students have an elementary L2 level, it is very difficult to solve problem of L2 meaning through L2 itself. This is what is called «beginners paradox». That is to say, as beginners knowledge of foreign language is very limited, it is difficult for m to learn to solve problems of meaning through use of L2. The L2 level of elementary students is too low for m to sort out ir understanding problems with just L2. As for second question, an introduction of a training program is suggested. This program should make students aware of linguistic phenomena such as polysemy and homonymy. It should also call students attention on morphology and or types of information that is found in dictionary entries, and finally it should present context as an ally rar than an enemy. That is to say, context can offer information about word, which can be used when looked up in dictionary. In this line, it is also important role of teacher in transmitting a positive attitude towards bilingual dictionary, both implicitly and explicitly. She should highlight value of this tool, leaving aside too radical postures. Finally, use of bilingual dictionary can also contribute to students autonomy. In or words, dictionary reinforces learners ability to monitor ir own learning process. They are able to solve some of ir L2 problems on ir own without resorting to teacher. This fact is highly positive as it motivates students, encouraging m to take bridles of ir own L2 learning process. 6. Fi n a l r e m a r k s The present study deals with students use of bilingual dictionary at two levels: Primary and Secondary education. Contrary to what it is suggested by ILH, those working with a dictionary task got worse results in vocabulary tests than those who carried out or type of task. Yet, positive attitude towards bilingual dictionary on part of some students had an effect on vocabulary acquisition. 99

Po r t a Li n g u a r u m Nº 20, junio 201 Therefore, main action to be taken is to introduce and reinforce use of bilingual dictionary at all levels. It is important for students to become familiarized with this tool. Orwise, ir lack of familiarity might lead to a negative attitude towards it, which might negatively affect acquisition. 7. Re f e r e n c e s Carrell, P., Devine J. and Eskey, D. (eds.) (1988). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cote, M. and Tejedor, C. (1998). «La enseñanza de vocabulario y el uso del diccionario», in Encuentro. Revista de Investigación e Innovación en la clase de idiomas, 10: 26-5. Craik, F. and Lockhart, R. (1972). «Levels of processing: A framework for memory research», in Journal of verbal learning and verbal behaviour, 11: 671-8. Craik, F.I.M. and Tulving, E. (1975). «Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory», in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 10, 268-29. Escott, J. (2008). A pretty face. London: Dominoes Publishers. Fraser, C. (1997). «The role of consulting a dictionary in reading and vocabulary learning», in Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 2: 7-89. Gardner, H. (199). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books. Hosenfeld, C. (198). «Case studies of ninth grade readers», in J.C. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart (eds.), Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman, 21-. Hulstijn, J. and Laufer, B. (2001). «Some empirical evidence for involvement Load Hyposis in vocabulary acquisition», in Language Learning, 51, : 59-58. Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M. and Greidanus, T. (1996). «Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words», in The Modern Language Journal, 80, : 27-9. Knight, S. (199). «Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities», in The Modern Language Journal, 78, : 285-99. Laufer, B and Hulstijn, J. (2001). «Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: construct of task-induced involvement», in Applied Linguistics, 22: 1-26. Laufer, B. (2005). «Lexical Frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to Real World. A response to Meara», in Applied Linguistics, 26, : 582-88. Luppescu, S. and Day, R. (199). «Reading dictionaries and vocabulary learning» in Language Learning, : 2687. McLaughlin, B. (1978). «The monitor model: Some methodological considerations», in Language Learning, 28: 09-2. Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. 100

Ge m a Al c a r a z y Án g e l a Al m e l a The Bilingual Dictionary and Foreign Language... Rubin, J. (1975). «What good language learner can teach us», in TESOL Quarterly, 9: 1-51. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. and Clapham, C. (2001). «Developing and exploring behaviour of two new versions of Vocabulary Levels Test», in Language Testing, 18, 1: 55-88. Songhao, L. (1997). «Dictionary use as a way of learning vocabulary in SLA: A preliminary study», in Directions: Journal of Educational Studies, 6, 1: 82-99. 101