When I was typing the above post, I was thinking of "learners" mainly in high schools in Japan. To me, they fall into 3 or so groups: 1) High school students, very few of whom are motivated to enquire; 2) Teachers who would e.g. be good translators, but who seem to have no love of teaching and who peddle stuff that is not only communicatively leagues below their level, but which they actually know and concede is wrong and misleading (too simplistic or too complex)...presumably they have personal, private reasons for having studied/studying (?) English, but are teaching just because it is a job that naturally and all too easily followed on from their degrees; and 3) Teachers who do ask and enquire, but who "bend the knee" too much sometimes and ask "neurotic", often pointless questions, and who often do not reach even the level of "easy" expertise assumed by their "cooler" colleagues above. (Incidentally, both types of teacher use huge lashings of L1, but only the type 3) teacher insists on prefacing this with embarrassing and soon-to-be redundant instructions in the L2/"Classroom English". In either instance, little thought is given to genuine quality input/"performance" - which might more illuminatingly be called "a natural demonstration of true competence"!

).
In all 3 groups, none of them has taught motivated
foreign students who might ask challenging questions and demand fuller, "cutting-edge" treatments of a language (that is, their only experience educationally in their own language has been of an even duller and even more "received" "wisdom", if such a thing were possible, than that of their foreign language, therefore dull and traditional is how they go about their own teaching). Received "wisdom", and at heart still quite traditional methods and views of language also inform even ostensibly more "communicative" western approaches.
What I am trying to say is that foreign language teachers will become better at their jobs if they have had to consider the needs of foreign learners of their
native language; and that, by the same token (and as I said in my above post), anyone learning a foreign language would do well to do so with reference to the language they know best too (that is, their native language) - that will be the surest indication of what needs to be learnt in order to become "good" at a second language. As it is, we have e.g. Japanese teachers of English teaching very sketchy English and not filling in the huge gaps in the syllabus (because they are thinking only of English as exam subject, not as a living language like their Japanese); learners of whatever language also not asking themselves what they could learn (in addition to what is being taught/offered), again in relation to their "complete" L1 knowledge; and many of us TEFL teachers not exactly keeping up with the research. Basically, to learn ultimately involves taking responsibility to teach yourself, and there is no better touchstone than one's native language, even (especially?) when the language to be learnt is a second one (of which the knowledge is necessarily partial at first).
Regarding dictionaries, students predominantly go for (often babyish and/or dated) bilingual ones (but I did once see a girl with the Oxford/Z-Kai
Wordpower), often in electronic form, whilst teachers usually have at least one monolingual learner's dictionary in addition to their bilingual ones (most popular seems to be OALDCE).
Most of the native English teachers that I have known own absolutely no dictionaries of their own at all, because they seem to resent the need to study the language of whatever country they are backpacking through, and presume they know enough about English to be confident they are covering all the bases beyond the "playing field"

of the textbook (with their randomly collected, "interesting" newspaper clippings, off-the-cuff and often only temporarily satisfying (not totally
satisfactory!)answers to those questions they never anticipated etc).
Chinese-only dictionaries such as the Xinhua pocket can give you a sense of accomplishment at how many characters you can recognize in the definitions, and how much meaning you can generally extract, but the nature of the script (and our foreigner's limited starting basis in the spoken language, compared to natives) makes it really difficult to learn or retain the
sounds of the characters in the definitions (thankfully the main entries themselves are ordered according to Pinyin).* Still, I guess learners of English face a similar problem beyond the IPA given at the headword when they use English-English dictionaries!

It would be great if at least the harder words in definitions could be read aloud by native teachers and recorded onto accompanying CD-ROMs. But HEY, the important thing is the entry item/headword/phrase itself, not the definition, the definition (presuming that it isn't trying to pack in even more info on collocations) could just as well be in Venutian translation!
* There can end up a situation in which foreign learners of Chinese can often embarrass a native speaker by being able to write characters that the native speaker can't recall, but it is only the native speaker who knows the pronunciation of almost every character you might encounter.
A link originally supplied by Woodcutter (on the "Does Chinese take more brainpower?" thread). Note especially the very first post (by dmoser):
http://www.chinese-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=1692
When it comes to English, it seems we natives can pronounce and pretty much spell most of what we usually say.
