A Pedagogic Approach to Filipino Lexicography-Sengson Et Al

A Pedagogic Approach to Filipino Lexicography

A Pedagogic Approach Approach to Filipino Filipi no Lexicography

Peter Paul Sengson Alexandra David Camille Dumandan Casey Giron Marc Mauro Orenza Michael Wilson Rosero Angelique Sadie Krystal Joy Sembrano Paul Julian Santiago Danielle Anne Tadena

University of the Philippines, Diliman

2008


2008

I. Introduction

In order to learn a foreign language like English, references such as grammar books, textbooks, and and bilingual dictionaries are significant. significant. Among these, bilingual bilingual dictionaries are what foreign language learners immediately refer to for quick consultation. The purpose for which a dictionary is intended for is a powerful determining factor for its pedagogical pedagogical usefulness (Hartmann, 1983).

There are two main purposes why people use or consult a bilingual dictionary: (1) for comprehension, and (2) for translation tr anslation (Landau, 1989). It is for the latter purpose that a bilingual dictionary is more often used – to help the user translate texts from one language into another.

In the Philippines, where English is one of the official languages and is used widely in communication, dictionaries are essential in learning the language. Bilingual dictionaries that are being sold to the public vary in number of word entries, accuracy in definition and styles. Yet all of these dictionaries seem to be similar in the way they define a given entry (Santiago, pers. comm.). These dictionaries, though presented in various forms, seem to have a common way of defining: a word entry from a target language is defined using the nearest equivalent word or phrase from the source

2


2008

language. This type of definition will be called, henceforth, the “traditional” way of defining. Filipinos learning the English language is then left with no choice but to buy these dictionaries.

Traditional dictionary gives the nearest equivalent of the entry from a target language (L2) to a source language (L1). English-Filipino dictionaries, like Gabby’s Practical English-Filipino Dictionary which resembles the Merriam-Webster type of dictionary, dictionary, list all the possible senses of the entry word. However, However, the context of word usage is not established thus leaving a vague idea on the word. From all t he listed senses or word equivalent given as definition, most are polysemous in meaning and is ambiguous e.g. the synonymous words like thief and burglar . On the other hand, the use of nearest equivalent in definition follows the principle of substitutability as well as brevity; but still remains confusing. For cases of ostensive definition in which pictures are illustrated and are at times used for concrete referents, the definition in text becomes problematic with respect to other senses of the word. Some of these illustrations do not coincide with the given definitions or sample sentences. Moreover, it does not provide clear ideas on, say, abstract nouns such as “love” which is defined as “ pagmamahal o pag-aaruga” and beauty as “ kagandahan”. Most of the dictionaries being sold in the

market follow this type of definition.

3


2008

In comparison to this “traditional” type of dictionaries, the Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners Dictionary promotes a new way in which a word should be defined. However, to date there is still no published and on sale English-Filipino dictionary that works in the same way as how the monolingual COBUILD defines an entry. For example, instead of listing its usage only as a noun, the dictionary also points out the correct conjugation of irregular nouns to its plural form thus helping the reader to distinguish it between regular nouns. These classifications are very helpful for the nonnative speakers who are more likely to be unsure about how to use a word. Furthermore, COBUILD gives sentence definitions which do not only provide the approximate meanings of the entry word but also contextualize the definition by giving practical descriptions and situations. Although this type of definition does not follow to substitutability and brevity principle in some cases, what it does is that it defines the word in an explanatory way that the learner would understand the entry without sacrificing its precision. Also it exhibits simplicity as it uses simple terms in defining as as it contextualizes the entry to how it is functions in different situations. This type of simplicity is best seen in abstract terms that do not have concrete referent.

4


2008

Given a sample word entry, we can clearly see the difference between the “traditional” definition and the COBUILD-type definition. In Gabby’s Practical English-Filipino Dictionary (1999), the noun “burglar” is defined as:

burglar (ber’ glar) n. – magnanakaw, kawatan, manloloob; mandarambong; akyat-bahay; BURGLARIOUS (ber’ gle’ ri yus) adj. – hinggil sa panloloob o pagnanakaw ; BURGLARIZE (ber’ gle rayz) v. - nakawan; pagnakawan; looban; pasukin ang bahay o gusali (upang pagnakawan); BURGLAR PROOF (ber’ gler pruf) adj. - hindi kayang pasukin ng magnanakaw; BURGLARY BURGLARY (ber’ gle ri) v. – pagnanakaw; panloloob, pagpasok sa bahay upang ito ay panlooban; BURGLE (ber’ gel) v. - magnakaw

In a dictionary patterned to Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary 1987 edition, the word “burglar” should appear like this:

burglar1 /bɜ:glə/, burglars. Ang burglar ay isang magnanakaw na pwersahang pumapasok sa isang bahay o ibang gusali 2. EG Pinasok ng burglar ang kanyang bahay at tinangay ang lahat ng kanyang pagmamay-ari. A burglar broke into his house and took away all his valuable possessions

In this paper we looked at the relative effectiveness of the two types of 3

4

dictionary as an instrument in gaining vocabulary vocabulary competence from L1 to L2 . We then tried to see what attributes of a dictionary can be accounted for, to say that it is pedagogic. We argue that a pedagogic English-Filipino dictionary must have (1)

Other derivations of the word “burglar” such as “burglary”, “burglarize”, etc. is defined as separate entry. 2 This definition in Filipino is a direct translation from the English definition available in the Collins-COBUILD dictionary. 3 This is the target language and in this paper this is the English language. 4 This is the source s ource language and in this paper this is the Filipino language. 1

5


2008

definitions which (a) do not only provide the nearest equivalents but contextualizes the definitions by way of giving of practical descriptions and situations, and (b) employs the most frequently-used words in Filipino; and (2) sample sentences in Filipino that demonstrates actual usage of the word.

This paper is subdivided into six parts. Section I is this introduction. Section II discusses related works on lexicography. The methodology used in collecting the data will be talked about in Section III. Section IV will be allotted for the presentation presentation of the data collected. In Section V, we will give a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data collected; and Section VI shall conclude this study.

II. Dictionary and Lexicography

The term “dictionary” is a powerful word; the word suggests authority, scholarship and precision (Landau, 1981. p.6). Any successful record of the language such as a dictionary is itself a contribution to authority. People tend to believe that dictionaries tell them what is or is not allowed in a language (Sinclair, 1987). What makes a good dictionary according to Haas (1962) is one in which you can find the word you are looking for preferably in the very first place you look. Its main purpose is to provide help to someone to better understand the language.

6


2008

There are a number of ways by which a dictionary can be classified. Malkiel (as cited in Landau, 1989) provided three categories: perspective, presentation and range. Perspective is based on how the compiler views the work (diachronic or synchronic) and what approach is taken (how it is organized). Presentation signifies how the material of a given perspective is presented while range refers to the size and scope of the dictionary, including the number of languages covered (monolingual, bilingual or multilingual) and the extent of concentration on lexical data.

Lexicography, as Hartmann and James (1998) defined it, is the professional activity and academic field concerned with dictionaries and other reference works. It has two basic divisions: lexicographic practice or dictionary-making and lexicographic theory or dictionary research. Lexicographic practice or dictionary-making processes abide by the following principles: 1) priority of essence in which the most essential elements should come first before the incidental elements, 2) Simplicity which suggests that simple words are not defined using difficult words that is why complex words or concepts are learned from a dictionary, 3) substitutability wherein a definition should be substitutable for the word in context and 4) brevity which basically calls for the need to save space without sacrificing the precision of meaning (Landau, 1989). It requires thorough research of the language and the consideration of several factors by the

7


2008

lexicographer when choosing and defining the entry words to be included in the dictionary.

Bilingual Dictionaries

The basic purpose of a bilingual dictionary is to coordinate the lexical units of one language with those lexical units of another language which are equivalent in their lexical meaning (Zgusta, 1971). Unfortunately the way most of the reference materials published thus far have been prepared, makes them useful only for purposes of analysis, recognition or comprehension and there is nothing, or very little, in them that makes them useful for synthesis or production: they are all diagnostic ‘rather than generating’ (Hartmann, 1983). Some dictionaries that can be said to be truly “generating are Hornby’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the more recent Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. However, However, these dictionaries still have some limitations such as non-specificity with regard to the learner’s cultural background. For instance, a Filipino high school student might not know that an “igloo” is a dome-shaped house that Eskimos make out blocks of hard snow. In such cases wherein the lexical item has no equivalent term in L1, a good bilingual dictionary should define the term using words and sample sentences in L1 to avoid altering its definition.

8


2008

Corpus-based Dictionary

The COBUILD ELD was a breakthrough in English lexicography pioneering the use of corpus in making a dictionary. It presented a new kind of definition, a definition that is contextualized by giving practical descriptions and situations as stated above. This type of dictionary pays particular attention to the functions of words and phrases; phrases ; functions such as in conversation or writing (e.g. you’d better, no kidding) or in drawing the attention of the hearer or reader to what you are about to say (e.g. as for myself). It is a principle of this dictionary that it should be easily understood by the learner for whom it is designed (Sinclair, (Sinclair, 1987).

The use of a corpus in lexicography has produced positive outcome and has made significant contributions to the craft of dictionary-making. Advantageous though as it may seem, the main limitations of the use of a corpus is that no matter how large it is and how carefully it has been assembled, it cannot possibly represent truly the myriad ways in which language is used spontaneously in speech and deliberately in writing (Landau, 1989). But then we can be assured that as the corpus gets larger and larger, there will be a greater chance that the definitions and usage of the words being defined

9


2008

will be more accurate. However, it may take a lot of research and time to create a dictionary that can represent all the possible usage of all the words.

III. Methodology

Procedure

The participants in this research were 3

rd

year high school students from five

different schools. There were a total of 159 respondents. Before doing the actual experiment to test the effectiveness of the two-types of dictionaries, a pre-experiment was conducted to ascertain that the use of a dictionary will help yield higher results for the respondents. One school (Echo) was administered a vocabulary test for three (3): groups A, B and C. Group A was given pedagogic-type definitions, while students in group B were provided with the word entries defined in the traditional way and no dictionary aid was given to Group C, which served as a control group. After proving that the use of dictionaries affected the scores of the students significantly, significantly, the actual experiment was administered. The four (4) participant schools in which the actual experiment was conducted as tested for the relative effectiveness of the two types of dictionary, two (2) 50-point

10


2008

vocabulary tests were prepared: Phase I and Phase II. The students of these schools were divided randomly into two groups, A and B. The testing materials distributed to Group A or B, were accompanied by definition of words from one of the two types of dictionary to aid the students in answering each phase. In phase I, students in group A were given pedagogic-type definitions, while students in group B were provided with the word entries defined in the traditional way. In phase II, the opposite was done, Group A was given definitions in the traditional way, and the pedagogic-type definitions this time was given to Group B. IV. Presentation of Data

The scores of each student were then recorded according to Group, Phase and School. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical methods which enabled us to compare the mean scores per group. Refer to Table I & II for the graph of mean scores. The data from the first four schools were further analyzed using the Student’s T-Test to affirm the significance of the difference in mean score of each group. Refer to Table IV, V, VI & VII. The data from the last school (Echo) was analyzed using Single Classification ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to account for the source of variation and

was further analyzed using the F-test for significance. Refer to Table VIII for the analysis of variance.

11


2008

Table 1 Phase II Mean Scores

12


2008

50 45 40 35 30 Pedagogic

25

Traditional

20

Control

15 10 5 0 Echo

Table 2 Mean Scores of Echo

PHASE 1 df =

PHASE 2

16

df =

16

=

0.05

α

=

0.05

t=

5.66

t=

3.87

α

T value significant at > 2.120 Table 3 t-test data (Alpha)

PHASE 1 df =

13

PHASE 2 df =

13

=

0.05

α

=

0.05

t=

7.24

t=

2.18

α

T value significant at > 2.160 Table 4 t-test data (Bravo)

13


PHASE 1 df =

PHASE 2

16

df =

16

=

0.05

α

=

0.05

t=

5.66

t=

0.97

α

2008

T value significant at > 2.120 Table 5 t-test data (Charlie)

PHASE 1 df =

17

=

0.5

α

t=

PHASE 2 df =

17

=

0.5

α

-1.51

t=

1.46

T value significant at > 2.110 Table 6 t-test data (Delta)

Source Of Variation

df

Sum-of-squares

Mean-Square

Between groups

2

609.474

304.7037

Within groups

24

489.556

20.3982

Total

26

1099.03

325.1019

f= 14.9378 value significant at > 3.40 Table 7 Analysis of Variance data (Echo) data (Echo)

14


2008

V. Analysis of Data

The data showed that the Groups who used pedagogic-type definitions yielded higher mean scores than the Groups who used the traditional definitions. In Phase I, mean scores of Beta exhibited a high difference of 3.8371. However, Delta showed the opposite trend, the group who used traditional-type of definition yielded a mean score 0.6 higher than the other group. In Phase II, a better trend can be observed since all the Groups who received the pedagogic-type definitions yielded higher mean scores than those who used the traditional-type definition. Since almost the same trend was observed for the two phases, we assume that the students were not a big factor that could have affected the results. The T-Test data showed that in Phase I, the difference of the means was significant for Alpha, Bravo and Charlie at alpha ( α) =0.05. Delta exhibited a negative T-Value. In Phase II, Bravo and Charlie also exhibited a significant mean difference and there were no negative T-Value results, which imply that the use of a pedagogic dictionary aids a student extensively, better than the traditional t ype. Meanwhile, the Analysis of Variance data for Echo showed a higher betweengroup mean square than within-group . This enabled us to conclude that the source of

variation was in between the groups. Wherein, we assume that the only factor different among the groups was the type of definitions given to aid them in answering. The mean

15


2008

score of the control group (C) was way lower than the mean scores of Groups A and B. It can be concluded that the use of dictionary of whichever type, greatly affected the score of the students positively. The data also showed a very high F Value at 14.9378, where the significance value was 3.40, which leads us to conclude that the mean differences for this data were also significant. The statistical data therefore affirmed that the usage of pedagogical-type of definition was more effective than the t he traditional-type. VI. Conclusion

The process of dictionary-making requires a great deal of meticulousness. It is an act that should be carried out with utmost consideration of principles that make up a good dictionary. As this paper has shown, these principles include priority of essence, simplicity, substitutability and brevity.

However, although these principles are established, there are dictionaries that stray from certain principles in satisfying their purpose. pur pose. This paper has differentiated the “traditional” type of dictionary which abides with all of the above mentioned principles from the COBUILD type of dictionary, which do not follow some of these principles, such as substitutability and brevity yet it proved its effectiveness than the “traditional” type of dictionary as seen in the results of this study therefore, supporting our argument

16


2008

that pedagogic English-Filipino dictionary must have (1) definitions which (a) do not only provide the nearest equivalents but contextualizes the definitions by way of giving of practical descriptions and situations, and (b) employs the most frequently-used words in Filipino; and (2) sample sentences in Filipino that demonstrates actual usage of the word. This calls for a publication of a pedadogic English-Filipino dictionary patterned on the COBUILD type of dictionary with consideration with culture-based lexical entries.

17


2008

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank our Professor Mark Felix Albert Santiago, for believing in us and for inspiring us to work on this topic. We We would also like to thank the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), the University of the Philippines’ Main Library, and Mr. Jay-ar Igno from the University of the Philippines’ Department of Linguistics. We also like to thank Makati Science High School, Don Alejandro Roces Science and Technology High School, Saint Mary’s College of Baliuag, Corinthian School-Bocaue Campus, San Jose del Monte High School and Baguio City National High School for allowing us to conduct research in their schools. We also extend our sincerest gratitude also to Tadena family, Dumandan family, Sadie family, and Giron family for their warm accommodation and hospitality throughout our research work. Above all, we thank the Almighty Father for giving us strength.

18


2008

References

Castillo, Felys. 2004. The New Handy English-Filipino Dictionary. Sta. Cruz Manila: Booklore Pub.Corp. De Guzman, Maria Odulio. 1968. The New Filipino-English English-Filipino Dictionary. Dictionary. Sta. Cruz Manila: Booklore Pub. Corp. Encleare Foundation. 2007. The English Filipino Dictionary Revised Edition. Hongkong: Encleare Foundation Inc. Gaboy, Luciano L. 1999. Gabby’s Practical English-Filipino Dictionary. Bulacan: Racquel Commercial Press. Hartmann, R.R.K. &James, Gregory. 1984. Lexicography: Principles & Practice. London: Academic Academic Press. Inc. _______________________________. 1998. Dictionary of Lexicography. London: Routledge. Landau, Sidney. 1989. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. 2

nd

ed.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marcos, Nelia V. 2002. English-Filipino Filipino-English Dictionary. Tarlac City: Books on Wheels Enterprises. McKean, Erin, ed. 2005. The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2

nd

ed. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. Mish, Frederick C., ed. 2003. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11

th

ed.

Massachusets: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Sinclair, John, ed. 1987. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, 1

st

ed. Great

Britain: William Collins Sons and Co. Ltd.

19


2008

Tomaszczyk, omaszczyk, J. 1983. On Bilingual Dictionaries, Lexicography: Principles and Practice. London: Academic Press Wierbicka, Anna. 1985. Lexicography & Conceptual Analysis. USA: Karoma Publishers Inc. Zgusta, Landislav. 1971. Manual of Lexicography. Prague: Academia, Publishing House Czechoslovak Academy Academy of Sciences.

20

A Pedagogic Approach to Filipino Lexicography-Sengson Et Al

Recommend Documents