Volume 14, Issue 2 (2023)
LRR 2023, 14(2): 327-361 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zand-Moghadam A, Malmir A. An Investigation of the Quality of Bilingual English-Persian and Persian-English Dictionaries: The Attitudes of the Iranian Translators, Instructors, and Students. LRR 2023; 14 (2) :327-361
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-54479-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-54479-en.html
1- Associate Professor of English Language Education, Department of English Language and Literature, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor of English Language, Department of English Language, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran , malmir@hum.ikiu.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor of English Language, Department of English Language, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran , malmir@hum.ikiu.ac.ir
Abstract: (2062 Views)
Due the importance of the lexicography and the scarcity of empirical research on the attitudes of the bilingual dictionary users, the current mixed-methods research attempted to investigate Iranian EFL learners, teachers, and translators’ attitudes toward the equality of the online and off-line bilingual English-Persian dictionaries. In doing so, first, a five-point Linkert scale questionnaire including 30 multiple-choice and five open-ended items that was developed and validated by the researches, was filled out by 34 translators, 86 university professors who taught translation courses at BA, MA, and Ph.D. levels, and 254 English translation studies students. Then, 10% of the participants were orally interviewed. Finally, focus group discussions (FGDs) were carried out with translation students. Participants mentioned negative attitudes toward the use of the current bilingual Persian-English dictionaries and they mentioned problems such as inadequate equivalents, inappropriate translations, obsolete use of Persian words, absence of all meanings and so forth. They mentioned that printed dictionaries were better than off-line and online ones. Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant differences among the attitudes of the three groups of the participants. The findings of this study can help Iranian lexicographers develop better printed, offline, and online bilingual English-Persian dictionaries.
1. Introduction
The important position of English language as the most commonly used international language that is the first language of the United Nations and the mostly learned language of the world, has prompted its inclusion in the Iranian educational system from high school to university. Moreover, the translation from English language into Persian and vice versa has been very important at least from two centuries ago because of the extensive relationships between Iran and the English word (Safavi, 2015). Many attempts have been made to develop bilingual English-Persian dictionaries specifically over the past 100 years and some successful dictionaries have been compiled in Iran for this purpose (Lotfipour Saedi, 2013). Currently, many printed hardcover bilingual dictionaries and a dozen more off-line and online e-dictionaries are used by Iranian language learners, instructors, and translators. Despite all the attempts in lexicography in the Iranian context for developing better bilingual English-Persian dictionaries and despite many theoretical strengths claimed for such dictionaries, very few empirical studies have been done to date to investigate the effectiveness and comprehensive of the hardcover and e-dictionaries from the perspective of the real users. Accordingly, the present study sought to investigate Iranian EFL learners, teachers, and translators’ attitudes toward the quality of the available online and off-line bilingual English-Persian dictionaries using a mixed-methods research design. Specifically, the current study was launched to answer the two following research questions.
Research Questions:
Lexicography has always been a very crucial practice for the communication among world languages specifically after the 18th century when trade, travel, and socio-political relationships among nations exponentially increased (Atkins, 1991). Lexicographers claimed that a good quality dictionary should possess some specific characteristics the first of which is the number of the words a bilingual dictionary includes (Hartmann et al., 2012; Nelson, 2020). The quantity or the number of the words a dictionary covers is still the most important element in its success. The inclusion of various meanings of the target words with regard to their different parts of speech and derivative forms also are remarkably important. However, deciding about the sequence of the meanings of the words was a difficult task for the early lexicographers although the new technologies and corpora can help the current lexicographers in better ways compared with their earlier counterparts. Researchers also claimed that the equivalents for various parts of speech are also important yardsticks for the quality of a dictionary (Bergenholtz & Agerbo, 2015). Moreover, according to lexicographers, a comprehensive and successful dictionary should also provide the most important collocations, multiword expressions, and idioms of the target language with very effective L1 equivalents (e.g. Cowie, 2009; Fuertes-Olivera, 2016; Ghanei Fard, 2005).
Providing the dictionary users with correct L1 equivalents is the biggest challenge in developing any bilingual dictionary. Hartmann (2001) said that, the appropriateness of the L1 equivalents seems to be the most important foundation for an effective dictionary. Of course, providing appropriate equivalents for all single words, multiword expressions, idiomatic expressions, and proverbs is a daunting task which requires extensive and assiduous work, cost, and time. Rundell (2012) mentioned that he appropriate equivalents can be singled out as the best the Rosetta Stone for judging the quality of bilingual dictionary. Dictionaries should also provide correct orthography and pronunciation for all the entries. Accordingly, dictionaries cannot represent all the dialects and accents of the same language and therefore they should limit their pronunciation to more standard dialects and accents. Lexicographers have also stated that bilingual dictionaries can and should provide very short examples for some of the most important words and wherever it is possible they should also include pictures, maps, charts, and visual and schematic representations to help the users get the appropriate meanings (Durkin, 2016).
Bilingual dictionaries should also provide users with the required information about the degree of formality and informality, the slang or colloquial usage, the ordinary or literary use, the archaic or current use of the words, and some information about the grammatical behaviour of the words. Using reader-friendly phonetic symbols to show the correct pronunciation is also of utmost importance from the point of lexicographers all over the world (e.g. Cowie, 2009; Hartmann et al., 2012; Jackson, 2013).
The above-mentioned criteria, as the most important criteria for comprehensive and effective bilingual dictionary, stand true for both printed and e-dictionaries. Of course, e-dictionaries enjoy some unique features like greater space for lexicographers to develop more comprehensive dictionaries without concerns for the entries that can be put in the same page and the print matters. Moreover, e-dictionaries can be upgraded more easily and quickly in comparison with the printed dictionaries (Nelson, 2020).
Concerning the quality of the bilingual Persian to English dictionaries, most of the aforementioned criteria have been pointed out by Persian lexicographers (e.g. Doroudian, 2013; Rezaei, 2009; Vosoughi, 2004).
Persian lexicography has also witnessed many positive changes in the turn-of-the-century in comparison with earlier versions of the dictionaries that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Nonetheless, most of the claims about the quantitative nature of such dictionaries including both hardcover and e-dictionaries has been made by the dictionary developers and the lexicographers who helped the development of those dictionaries. Unfortunately, comparatively little empirical research has been done to investigate the quality of such dictionaries from the viewpoint of the true users of these dictionaries including language learners, instructors and university professors, and translators. Therefore, the present study aimed at filling this research gap in bilingual dictionary lexicography by examining the attitudes of the three aforementioned users of such dictionaries.
3. Methodology
The current mixed-methods study was conducted in some consecutive stages. First, a five-point Linkert scale questionnaire comprising 30 multiple-choice and five open-ended items was developed by the researches based on the existing literature about the quality of effective bilingual dictionaries and the attitudes of the lexicographers. The developed questionnaire was later validated in a pilot study and a reliability index of 0.84 was obtained and the needed modifications were made. Second, the developed questionnaire was distributed to the dictionary users in Iran (N=374) and 34 translators, 86 university professors, and 254 English translation studies students completed the questionnaire and sent it to the researcher through online social channels or in person. These participants were selected from the students and university professors at the State and Azad universities located in the capital cities of 20 Iranian provinces. The translators were also selected from among the successful Iranian translators who were the managers of formal translation institutes. After analysing the quantitative data gathered through the questionnaire, 10% of the participants were orally interviewed. During the final stage, some focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 26 of the translation students to further delve into their attitudes about a quality of bilingual English-Persian dictionaries.
4. Results
Based on the study results, all three groups of participants mentioned that the current online and off-line bilingual English-Persian dictionaries had some serious problems with regard to the content, coverage, equivalents, up-to-datedness, and availability. Moreover, participants mentioned that most of these dictionaries suffered from inadequate equivalents, inappropriate translations, obsolete use of Persian words, absence of all meanings, lack of correct sequence of various meanings, absence of some recent idiomatic and multiword expressions and so forth. Generally, they pointed out that printed dictionaries had higher qualities than e-dictionaries including both off-line and online ones. Furthermore, data analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the three groups of the participants had rather similar attitudes toward the shortcomings of the current bilingual English-Persian dictionaries. The attitudes were not significantly different from each other (χ2 (2) = 1.452, n=374, p= 0.314 > .05). The findings of the present study can provide some insights for Iranian lexicographers to develop more effective and comprehensive bilingual dictionaries and specifically they can develop a new generation of e-dictionaries which are more comprehensive and useful for the users
1. Introduction
The important position of English language as the most commonly used international language that is the first language of the United Nations and the mostly learned language of the world, has prompted its inclusion in the Iranian educational system from high school to university. Moreover, the translation from English language into Persian and vice versa has been very important at least from two centuries ago because of the extensive relationships between Iran and the English word (Safavi, 2015). Many attempts have been made to develop bilingual English-Persian dictionaries specifically over the past 100 years and some successful dictionaries have been compiled in Iran for this purpose (Lotfipour Saedi, 2013). Currently, many printed hardcover bilingual dictionaries and a dozen more off-line and online e-dictionaries are used by Iranian language learners, instructors, and translators. Despite all the attempts in lexicography in the Iranian context for developing better bilingual English-Persian dictionaries and despite many theoretical strengths claimed for such dictionaries, very few empirical studies have been done to date to investigate the effectiveness and comprehensive of the hardcover and e-dictionaries from the perspective of the real users. Accordingly, the present study sought to investigate Iranian EFL learners, teachers, and translators’ attitudes toward the quality of the available online and off-line bilingual English-Persian dictionaries using a mixed-methods research design. Specifically, the current study was launched to answer the two following research questions.
Research Questions:
- What are the attitudes of Iranian language learners, professors, and translators toward the quality of bilingual English Persian dictionaries? What are the most important features of a good dictionary? And what are the most useful hardcover, off-line, and online bilingual English-Persian dictionaries?
- Are there any significant differences between the attitudes of Iranian language learners, professors, and translators toward the quality of bilingual offline and online English-Persian dictionaries?
Lexicography has always been a very crucial practice for the communication among world languages specifically after the 18th century when trade, travel, and socio-political relationships among nations exponentially increased (Atkins, 1991). Lexicographers claimed that a good quality dictionary should possess some specific characteristics the first of which is the number of the words a bilingual dictionary includes (Hartmann et al., 2012; Nelson, 2020). The quantity or the number of the words a dictionary covers is still the most important element in its success. The inclusion of various meanings of the target words with regard to their different parts of speech and derivative forms also are remarkably important. However, deciding about the sequence of the meanings of the words was a difficult task for the early lexicographers although the new technologies and corpora can help the current lexicographers in better ways compared with their earlier counterparts. Researchers also claimed that the equivalents for various parts of speech are also important yardsticks for the quality of a dictionary (Bergenholtz & Agerbo, 2015). Moreover, according to lexicographers, a comprehensive and successful dictionary should also provide the most important collocations, multiword expressions, and idioms of the target language with very effective L1 equivalents (e.g. Cowie, 2009; Fuertes-Olivera, 2016; Ghanei Fard, 2005).
Providing the dictionary users with correct L1 equivalents is the biggest challenge in developing any bilingual dictionary. Hartmann (2001) said that, the appropriateness of the L1 equivalents seems to be the most important foundation for an effective dictionary. Of course, providing appropriate equivalents for all single words, multiword expressions, idiomatic expressions, and proverbs is a daunting task which requires extensive and assiduous work, cost, and time. Rundell (2012) mentioned that he appropriate equivalents can be singled out as the best the Rosetta Stone for judging the quality of bilingual dictionary. Dictionaries should also provide correct orthography and pronunciation for all the entries. Accordingly, dictionaries cannot represent all the dialects and accents of the same language and therefore they should limit their pronunciation to more standard dialects and accents. Lexicographers have also stated that bilingual dictionaries can and should provide very short examples for some of the most important words and wherever it is possible they should also include pictures, maps, charts, and visual and schematic representations to help the users get the appropriate meanings (Durkin, 2016).
Bilingual dictionaries should also provide users with the required information about the degree of formality and informality, the slang or colloquial usage, the ordinary or literary use, the archaic or current use of the words, and some information about the grammatical behaviour of the words. Using reader-friendly phonetic symbols to show the correct pronunciation is also of utmost importance from the point of lexicographers all over the world (e.g. Cowie, 2009; Hartmann et al., 2012; Jackson, 2013).
The above-mentioned criteria, as the most important criteria for comprehensive and effective bilingual dictionary, stand true for both printed and e-dictionaries. Of course, e-dictionaries enjoy some unique features like greater space for lexicographers to develop more comprehensive dictionaries without concerns for the entries that can be put in the same page and the print matters. Moreover, e-dictionaries can be upgraded more easily and quickly in comparison with the printed dictionaries (Nelson, 2020).
Concerning the quality of the bilingual Persian to English dictionaries, most of the aforementioned criteria have been pointed out by Persian lexicographers (e.g. Doroudian, 2013; Rezaei, 2009; Vosoughi, 2004).
Persian lexicography has also witnessed many positive changes in the turn-of-the-century in comparison with earlier versions of the dictionaries that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Nonetheless, most of the claims about the quantitative nature of such dictionaries including both hardcover and e-dictionaries has been made by the dictionary developers and the lexicographers who helped the development of those dictionaries. Unfortunately, comparatively little empirical research has been done to investigate the quality of such dictionaries from the viewpoint of the true users of these dictionaries including language learners, instructors and university professors, and translators. Therefore, the present study aimed at filling this research gap in bilingual dictionary lexicography by examining the attitudes of the three aforementioned users of such dictionaries.
3. Methodology
The current mixed-methods study was conducted in some consecutive stages. First, a five-point Linkert scale questionnaire comprising 30 multiple-choice and five open-ended items was developed by the researches based on the existing literature about the quality of effective bilingual dictionaries and the attitudes of the lexicographers. The developed questionnaire was later validated in a pilot study and a reliability index of 0.84 was obtained and the needed modifications were made. Second, the developed questionnaire was distributed to the dictionary users in Iran (N=374) and 34 translators, 86 university professors, and 254 English translation studies students completed the questionnaire and sent it to the researcher through online social channels or in person. These participants were selected from the students and university professors at the State and Azad universities located in the capital cities of 20 Iranian provinces. The translators were also selected from among the successful Iranian translators who were the managers of formal translation institutes. After analysing the quantitative data gathered through the questionnaire, 10% of the participants were orally interviewed. During the final stage, some focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 26 of the translation students to further delve into their attitudes about a quality of bilingual English-Persian dictionaries.
4. Results
Based on the study results, all three groups of participants mentioned that the current online and off-line bilingual English-Persian dictionaries had some serious problems with regard to the content, coverage, equivalents, up-to-datedness, and availability. Moreover, participants mentioned that most of these dictionaries suffered from inadequate equivalents, inappropriate translations, obsolete use of Persian words, absence of all meanings, lack of correct sequence of various meanings, absence of some recent idiomatic and multiword expressions and so forth. Generally, they pointed out that printed dictionaries had higher qualities than e-dictionaries including both off-line and online ones. Furthermore, data analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the three groups of the participants had rather similar attitudes toward the shortcomings of the current bilingual English-Persian dictionaries. The attitudes were not significantly different from each other (χ2 (2) = 1.452, n=374, p= 0.314 > .05). The findings of the present study can provide some insights for Iranian lexicographers to develop more effective and comprehensive bilingual dictionaries and specifically they can develop a new generation of e-dictionaries which are more comprehensive and useful for the users
Keywords: bilingual English-Persian dictionaries, lexicography, attitudes toward bilingual dictionaries, offline and online dictionaries
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |