| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:14 am Post subject: Know an online dict or app that retrieves multiple entries? |
 |
|
Do you know of a learner dictionary app, or online dictionary that can retrieve multiple entries simultaneously (from a list of words)?
Looking up words one by one, copying each entry, pasting each one in a document, then editing each for the sense meaning(s) deemed pertinent for multiple vocab items is time consuming but essential if one is to avoid wasting valuable class time on this.
Before I go through the hassle of trying to program a system macro, I thought I'd ask others. If none exists, perhaps those here who could benefit from such a software feature might like to join me in petitioning online/digital dictionary providers to do the programming for me.
I've noted that Cambridge's dictionary app sells for $29.99 US. That's $29.99 more than Nuance's Dictionary.com app that comes complete with learner dictionary, etymology and thesaurus. Incidentally, both Cambridge's and Webster's (probably Oxford's and Collins' too) dictionaries embed Nuance's voice recognition software in their apps.
Given the technophobia of some here, I'm wondering how long this thread will remain here until it gets moved to the tech thread.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| Not exactly...but I use . |
Seems you didn't understand my request.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why don't you just use the html links to entries in online learner dictionaries and display them through an OHP or whiteboard (assuming your school has such tech)? Or give the students the links to look up on their own devices (but that could be a bad idea LOL). Or do you have to give out individual printed handouts? If it's the latter then I doubt there are any apps that are advanced enough to do the actual multiple-search collating for you (though there might be some concordancing software that could do something like that perhaps?).
Personally I don't find e.g. the simple copy n paste functions on most of the CD ROMs that nowadays come with ALDs too clunky or completely useless, but I suppose it could get tiring if I were doing what sounds like dozens of entries each day or lesson! It might help if you zeroed in on what was essential in each entry (often more the examples than the definitionese etc) and presented only that, as it could then be in plain text rather than too-exactingly formatted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| Why don't you just use the html links to entries in online learner dictionaries and display them through an OHP or whiteboard (assuming your school has such tech)? |
Because I often preteach vocab and even if my classrooms were all equipped with internet-accessible IWBs/OHPs (which many are not), I generally don't have the time nor inclination to open a dozen browser tabs before class. There are times when ink on paper is still preferable to projected imagery. It's why I left Pearson-Longman and possibly why they didn't publish Scott Thornton's Teaching Unplugged.
That's it, thanks!
I note the definitions come from WordNet 3.0 but for some strange reason, the sense meanings are listed in reverse order with the lower frequency ones listed at the top. The first sense meaning listed for 'end' was "a position on the line of scrimmage". For lengthy entries, not all sense meanings are included meaning the higher frequency ones may be omitted. And regardless of the word, noun senses are always listed first as they are with WordNet.
Despite these shortcomings, it'll definitely save me time. I like the flashcard.doc download feature which allows for modification and the synonym feature is also handy, but again, it lists synonyms in reverse order. I think I'll make a small donation and pledge to do so again if they resolve the sorting issue. I'll also refer to the site in a suggestion to Dictionary.com, and other online dictionary websites
But, thanks again, buravirgil!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The definitions at Easydefine are comparatively hard (more native than learner-like), and there are no examples. Different strokes, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| The definitions at Easydefine are comparatively hard (more native than learner-like), and there are no examples. Different strokes, I guess. |
You're right about some def's being comparatively hard, but WordNet is not a learner's dictionary but perhaps the only online opensource dictionary available. What's a learner's dictionary restricted to in terms of vocabulary, do you know?
There are example sentences on the source site (one of 8 fields for each definition sense entry), it's just that EasyDefine hasn't been programmed to retrieve them--shouldn't be much of a problem though.
Last edited by LongShiKong on Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Advanced (flagship) learner dictionaries tend to contain in the region of 80-100,000 relatively high-frequency/useful 'references' (definitions if not entries/headwords), defined using controlled 'defining vocabularies' (usually ranging between 2-3000 words). Plus they give lots of collocations and examples - all-important context, in other words. I have no idea how much WordNet contains but I never really liked the look of it even for its apparent linguistic research purposes (I mean, how much "psychological validity" does it have compared to something like Longman's Language Activator, say?).
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:54 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| (I mean, how much "psychological validity" does it have compared to something like Longman's Language Activator, say?). |
The study of their (learner's dictionaries) validity at all runs counter to the money made by their production.
This 20 year old paper (pdf) asks that question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| (I mean, how much "psychological validity" does it have compared to something like Longman's Language Activator, say?). |
The study of their (learner's dictionaries) validity at all runs counter to the money made by their production.
This 20 year old paper (pdf) asks that question. |
I really fail to see what if any point you are making. Who if anyone is actually being paid to validate (endorse?) learner dictionaries? And if profit were the most important thing, then why have the publishers been providing free online versions of their ALDs for at least a good decade now? (You just linked to the free online OALD).
But if you want to maintain that WordNet or whatever derived stuff is superior for LSK or whoever's purposes then that is of course your prerogative, though your (well, his) bottom line appears to be merely "saving a bit of time" in the short term. I think learners need more than rather dry definitions, and the extra prep time be damned.
BTW the definitions from that ODE appear to be exactly the same as the Easydefine ones, and again there are no examples that I could see from a quick look. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 967
Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| buravirgil wrote: |
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| (I mean, how much "psychological validity" does it have compared to something like Longman's Language Activator, say?). |
The study of their (learner's dictionaries) validity at all runs counter to the money made by their production.
This 20 year old paper (pdf) asks that question. |
I really fail to see what if any point you are making. Who if anyone is actually being paid to validate (endorse?) learner dictionaries? And if profit were the most important thing, then why have the publishers been providing free online versions of their ALDs for at least a good decade now? . . . though your (well, his) bottom line appears to be merely "saving a bit of time" in the short term. I think learners need more than rather dry definitions, and the extra prep time be damned. |
Firstly, the OP's concern is what it is, and a resource was found. Asserting its value is slight is another kettle of fish.
Learner dictionaries were first an issue to me in Los Angeles, in 2002-07, where I spent a lot of time in ELL classes and what words were found in the state-mandated curriculum were often absent from a reference. What strained belief was that the decision to afford every student a learner's dictionary was made, but having even a single standard dictionary in each classroom was not. Standard abridged dictionaries, too, were often sold in bulk, revised often, and missing entries relevant to canons and material. It was big business sold on the premise of improving literacy, ironically enough, with many kinks and at its root were sales people and consultants and an administration moving a lot of money.
The internet changes a lot of things; There has been no bigger sea change since the printing press. What content providers adopt in terms of business models is changing and uncharted. The budgeting of physical media versus the adoption of electronic platform is not a simple issue. It is both complicated and complex. So I don't agree citing what an entity puts on-line is evidence it's not motivated to sell its content in traditional forms.
Now...to the core of what I might contend and why I linked what I did...terming a standard dictionary's entry as dry is convenient to the position a learner's dictionary is a superior resource to the precision of a standard. I'm intrigued by the distinctions of resource and reference. The convention of narrowing a lexicon is a scaffolding and, in terms of a reference, I believe its use can be problematic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're looking up veritable hapax legomenon then yes, you'll need a bigger dictionary. What these ALDs are very good at though is detailing all the many many combinations (and not just the more idiomatic, but rather the more everyday but "overlooked") that the more common words enter into. All too often learners equate bigger, more ornate vocabularies with knowing more, when they can't yet string the basic words together to express a truly adequate enough range of functions especially. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 1082
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I presume the ELL who programmed the applet not only had licensing considerations on their mind (when choosing WordNet over other online learner dictionary data), but comprehensiveness and ease of data extraction and identification which WordNet easily lends itself too.
It's interesting to note that not even 'Gold' membership to Oxford's ALD offers the functionality of this free applet. How soon until dictionary publishing will go the way of print journalism? For example, even Wiktionary offers more sense meanings than Oxford. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
