222
Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical Dictionary for Advanced Learners of Urdu Language By Asma Ashraf Department of English Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, Pakistan

Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical Dictionary ...prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1916/1/2231S.pdf · Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical Dictionary

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    13

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical Dictionary for Advanced Learners of Urdu Language

By

Asma Ashraf

Department of English

Bahauddin Zakariya University

Multan, Pakistan

Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical Dictionary

For Advanced Learners of Urdu Language

BY

Asma Ashraf

Ph.D (Linguistics)

Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal

A thesis submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in English (Ph.D Linguistics)

Department of English

Bahauddin Zakariya University

Multan, Pakistan

DEDICATION

To my dear Brother Mubasher Raza (Late),

To whom I owe more than I can express in words.

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the thesis “Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical

Dictionary for Advanced Learners of Urdu Language" is the work of my independent

investigation except where I have indicated my indebtedness to other sources. I also

declare that this thesis has not been submitted for any other degree elsewhere.

Date: ______________ _________________________ (Asma Ashraf) Candidate

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is all by the grace of Almighty Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the

Merciful, that I am able to complete my research work.

I feel extremely appreciative to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal,

Department of English, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, who helped me and

motivated me throughout my research work and created a great intellectual environment

to do research work. He always motivated me in difficult times and listened all the

problems with patience and tolerance and shaped my thoughts according to my research

topic. He always encouraged intellectual curiosity in me and provided inspirations and

new insights to think and to work hard.

I would also like to appreciate Prof. Dr Saiqa Imtiaz, Chariperson Department of

English, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan for all the cooperation and help she

extended during my studies.

I am extremely thankful to Mr Ramesh Krishnamurthy, lecturer of English

Studies, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, who guided me at every step during my

research when I was in the UK. He made me explore new and innovative dimensions in

my research work.

I am also obliged to the library staff of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan,

Punjab University, Lahore and Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.

I would also express my gratitude for my research fellows, friends and colleagues

who motivated me and helped me every possible way in completing this great task.

I am thankful to my sisters and brothers for their best wishes and constant moral

support. They encouraged me throughout the years of my study especially Usama and

Jahanzeb, my younger brothers who missed me a lot whenever I was away from home.

Last but not the least, I would also pay my deepest homage for my brother

Mubasher (Late) whose absence was felt the most when I was declared as pass in the

exam of PhD.

Asma Ashraf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page Dedication

Declaration

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Appendices

Abstract

Chapter 1: Introduction 17

1.1. Background to the study 18

1.2. Learners’ Dictionaries of English and Other Languages 20

1.3. Design Features of Monolingual Pedagogical Dictionaries 21

1.4. Statement of the Problem 22

1.5. Present Study 23

1.6. Key Objectives 24

1.7. Research Questions 24

1.8. Hypotheses 25

1.9. Suggested Format 25

1.9.1. Macro Structure 25

1.9.2. Micro Structure 26

1.10. Significance of the Study 26

1.11. Delimitations of the Study 27

1.12. Conclusion 27

Chapter 2: Sociolinguistics of Urdu 28

2.1. The Use of Urdu Language: An Historical Perspective 28

2.1.1. Stage 1 (1526 to 1707) 30

2.1.2. Stage 2 (1707 to 1815) 30

2.1.3. Stage 3 (1815 to 1905) 31

2.2. Role of Fort William College in Promoting Urdu 32

2.3. Educational Policies with Special Reference to Urdu 33

2.3.1. A Movement for the Promotion of Urdu in Pakistan 34

2.3.2. The National Commission for Education 1959 35

2.3.3. Language Policies in Bhutto’s regime 37

2.3.4. The National Language Policy 1978 38

2.3.5. The Existing Language Policy 39

2.4. Teaching of Urdu in Pakistan 41

2.5. Teaching of Urdu in Foreign Countries 42

2.5.1. India 42

2.5.2. China 43

2.5.3. Iran 43

2.5.4. Saudi Arabia 44

2.5.5. Qatar 44

2.5.6. Independent and Occupied Kashmir 45

2.5.7. United Kingdom 45

2.5.8. Mauritius 46

2.5.9. America 46

2.5.10. Canada 46

2.5.11. Japan 46

2.5.12. South Africa 47

2.6. Standardization of Urdu and National Language Authority 47

2.7. Conclusion 50

Chapter 3: Role of Dictionaries in Language Learning 51

3.1. The Role of Dictionary in Vocabulary Learning 51

3.2. The Role of Dictionary in Decoding Activities 59

3.3. The Role of the Dictionary in Encoding Activities 62

3.4. Pedagogical Significance of Monolingual Dictionary 63

3.5. Conclusion 65

Chapter 4: Literature Review 66

4.1. Literature Review of Questionnaire- Based Research 66

4.1.1. Barnhart (1962) 67

4.1.2. Quirk (1975) 68

4.1.3. Tomaszczyk (1979) 69

4.1.4. Baxter (1980) 70

4.1.5. Bejoint (1981) 71

4.1.6. Nesi (1984) 72

4.1.7. Griffen (1985) 73

4.1.8. Kipfer (1985) 74

4.1.9. Iqbal (1987) 75

4.1.10. Battenburg (1989) 76

4.1.11. El-Badry (1990) 77

4.1.12. Diab (1990) 78

4.1.13. Li (1998) 78

4.1.14. Boonmoh (2009) 79

4.2. Literature Review of Design Features-based Literature 79

4.2.1. Hausmann (1990) 79

4.2.2. Cowie (1996) 80

4.3. Literature Review of Corpus-based Literature 80

4.3.1. The Brown Corpus 82

4.3.2. The LOB Corpus 82

4.3.3. The London Lund Corpus 82

4.3.4. The Bank of English 83

4.3.5. The British National Corpus (BNC) 83

4.4. Urdu Corpus Literature 84

4.4.1. The EMILLE Project (2004) 84

4.4.2. Becker & Riaz (2002) 85

4.4.3. Anwer, Wang & Wang (2006) 85

4.4.4. Hussain & Ijaz (2008) 86

4.4.5. Hussain (2008) 86

4.4.6. Afzal & Hussain 87

4.5. A Review of Currently Used Monolingual Urdu Dictionaries 88

4.5.1. Feroz ul Lughat 89

4.5.2. Ilmi Urdu Lughat 90

6.6. Conclusion 91

Chapter 5: Research Methodology 92

5.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study 92

5.1.1. A Review of Questionnaire- Based Research 93

5.1.2. A Review of Design Features-Based Research 102

5.1.3. A Review of Corpus-Based Research 103

5.2. Types of Research 105

5.2.1. Selection of Topic 106

5.2.2. Reviewing the Literature 106

5.3. Deciding on the Research Method 109

5.3.1. Deciding the Research Techniques 110

5.3.2. Questionnaire Construction 111

5.3.3. Method to Construct the Questionnaire 112

5.3.4. Construction of Question 113

5.3.5. Opinion Question (Subjective measurement) 113

5.3.6. Likert Scale 114

5.3.7. A Cover Letter 114

5.4. Technique to collect data 115

5.5. Data Analysis Approach 115

5.6. Participants 116

5.7. Conclusion 116

Chapter 6: Survey of the Learners and Teachers of Urdu as Users of

Urdu Monolingual Dictionaries 117

6.1. An analysis of Attitudes and Strategies of Advanced Urdu Learners

As Monolingual Urdu Dictionary Users 117

6.1.1. Description of Results (strategies) 118

6.1.2. Description of Results (Attitudes) 127

6.1.3. Discussions on Results 133

6.1.4. Concluding Remarks on Learners’ Survey 134

6.2. A Study of the Attitudes of Teachers towards Monolingual

Urdu Dictionaries 135

6.2.1. Description of Results 136

6.2.2. Discussions on Results 150

6.2.3. Concluding Remarks on Teachers’ Survey 151

6.3. Conclusion 152

Chapter 7: Design Features of Pedagogical Monolingual Learner’s

Dictionary for Advanced Learners of Urdu 153

7.1. The Process of Corpus Development 154

7.1.1. The Main Corpus 155

7.1.1.1. Selection of the Representative of Language 155

7.1.1.2. Identifying and Acquiring the Texts 158

7.1.1.3. Seeking Copyright Permissions 158

7.1.1.4. Texts in Speech Form 159

7.1.1.5. Procedure of Capturing Selected Texts on Computer 159

7.1.1.6. Correcting the Corpus 160

7.2. Reserve Corpus 160

7.3. Design Features of a Pedagogical Monolingual Urdu

Learners’ Dictionary 161

7.3.1. Macro Structure 162

7.3.2. Micro Structure 163

7.3.2.1. Spelling 163

7.3.2.2. Etymology 164

7.3.2.3. Pronunciation 165

7.3.2.4. Grammatical Information 168

7.3.2.4.1. Space for Grammar 171

7.3.2.5. Meaning 171

7.3.2.5.1. Polysemy, Homonyms and Metaphors 172

7.3.2.6. Definitions 173

7.3.2.7. Examples 174

7.3.2.8. Pictorial Illustrations 176

7.3.2.9. Stylistic Information (formal or informal) 177

7.4. Conclusion 177

Chapter 8: Conclusion and Recommendations 178

8.1. Major Findings 178

8.1.1. Survey-based Findings 179

8.1.2. Corpus Collection Possibilities 180

8.1.3. Design Feature of a Monolingual Urdu Learners’ dictionary 180

8.2. Contribution of this Study 181

8.3. Limitations of the Study 183

8.3.1. Limitations in the Methodology 183

8.3.2. Limitations in the Scope 184

8.4. Future Recommendations 185

Bibliography 187

Appendices

LIST OF TABLES

No. Description Page 1 Using Dictionary at Secondary Level 118 2 Using Dictionary at Intermediate Level 119 3 Using Dictionary to Look up Meaning 119 4 Using Dictionary to Look up Pronunciation 119 5 Using Dictionary to Look up Usage 120 6 Using Dictionary to Look up Etymology 120 7 Using Dictionary to Look up Grammatical Information 120 8 Asking Teachers about Meaning 121 9 Asking Teachers about Pronunciation 121 10 Asking Teachers about Symbols 122 11 Asking Teachers about Grammatical Categories 122 12 Using Dictionary in the Classroom 122 13 Using Dictionary Available in Library 123 14 Writing Meaning on the Text 123 15 Using more than one Dictionary 123 16 Guessing the Meaning from the Context 124 17 Writing Meaning in a Note Book 124 18 Browsing the Pages of Dictionary 124 19 Referring to the Introductory Pages 125 20 Referring to the Glossaries 125 21 Referring to the General Information 125 22 Finding Required Information in Glossaries 126 23 Finding Comprehensive Definition of the Words 126 24 Following the Abbreviated Information 126 25 Significance of a Dictionary 127 26 Information in a Dictionary 127 27 Using Dictionary is Boring 128 28 Dependence on one Dictionary 128 29 Information Provided by the Glossaries 128 30 Possession of at least one Dictionary 129 31 Use of a Dictionary on Teachers Recommendation 129 32 Effectiveness of Monolingual Dictionaries 130 33 Inclusion of Dictionary Skills Exercises in Course of Urdu 130 34 Use of Pocket Dictionaries 130 35 Role of Dictionary in Language Learning 136 36 Role of Dictionary in 2nd Language Learning 136 37 Importance of Monolingual Urdu Dictionary 137 38 Using Dictionary in Looking up Meaning 137 39 Using Dictionary in Looking up Pronunciation 137 40 Using Dictionary in Looking up Grammatical Categories 138 41 Using Dictionary in Looking up Usage 138

42 Dependence on one Dictionary 138 43 Teaching Dictionary Use 139 44 Ownership of Dictionary 139 45 Learners’ Encouragement to Use Dictionaries 139 46 Role of a Dictionary in Reading 140 47 Role of a Dictionary in Writing 140 48 Role of a Dictionary in Speaking 140 49 Use of a Dictionary while Teaching 141 50 Use of a Dictionary in Lesson Preparation 141 51 Encouragement of Learners to Buy Dictionaries 141 52 Teaching Dictionary Use 142 53 Information Provided in Glossaries 142 54 Dependence on Glossaries 142 55 Avoiding the use of Pocket Dictionaries 143 56 Using Learners’ Dictionaries 143 57 Using a Dictionary in the Classroom 143 58 Browsing the pages of a Dictionary 144 59 Pronunciation Guide in Currently Used Dictionaries 144 60 Grammatical Information in Currently Used Dictionaries 144 61 Usage of the Words in Currently Used Dictionaries 145 62 Revision of Monolingual Urdu Dictionaries 145 63 Inclusion of Definition in Dictionary 145 64 Comprehensive Pronunciation Guide 146 65 Explanation of Abbreviated Words 146 66 Inclusion of Illustration 146 67 Inclusion of Notes on Usage 147 68 Designing Dictionaries on Lexicographic Principles 147 69 Role of a Dictionary in Learning Spoken Urdu 147 70 Significance of Urdu Monolingual Dictionary for Foreign

Learner

148

LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

No. Title Page

Figure 1 Language- wise Books Publication 41

Figure 2 Dictionaries Published by National Language Authority 49

Figure 3 Knowing a Word 53

Figure 4 The Stages of Vocabulary Knowledge Acquisition 54

Figure 5 Reviewing the Literature 107

Figure 6 Construction of a Questionnaire 112

Figure 7 Graphical Representation of the Results (Learners’ Strategies) 131

Figure 8 Graphical Representation of the Results (Learners’ Attitude) 132

Figure 9 Graphical Representation of the Results (Teachers’ Attitude) 149

Figure 10 Atkins et al’s Taxonomy for Selection the Material for Corpus 156

Figure 10 From IPA to SAMPA 165

LIST OF APPENDICES

No. Description Page

A Questionnaire for Advanced Urdu Learners i

B Questionnaire for Advanced Urdu Teachers v

C Results of the survey of advanced learners of Urdu (Strategies) viii

D Results of the survey of advanced learners of Urdu (Attitudes) x

E Results of the survey of Teachers of Urdu xi

F List of Colleges Selected for Data Collection xiv

ABSTRACT

Design Features of Monolingual Urdu Pedagogical Dictionary

For Advanced Learners of Urdu Language

The lexicographic tradition in Monolingual Urdu Dictionaries is very old but the

implications of modern postulates of lexicography are not evident in compiling Urdu

monolingual dictionaries. The present study deals with a description of design features of

a pedagogical monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu

on the tradition set by the COBUILD dictionary. Basically the study looks at three

perspectives: the opinions of the user (learners and teachers of Urdu) of monolingual

Urdu dictionaries, assessing the possibilities of collecting a database or corpus of Urdu as

a basis of a monolingual advanced learners’ dictionary of Urdu and design features of a

pedagogical Urdu monolingual advanced learners’ dictionary.

The study is descriptive. The data regarding the opinions of the learners and

teachers of Urdu was collected through a questionnaire. The theoretical framework was

based on the questionnaire based studies conducted by Diab (1998) and Iqbal (1987). The

responses collected from the teachers and learners of Urdu were statistically analyzed by

securing the mean score against each statement. The second perspective of the study was

to see how far it is possible to collect a corpus of Urdu as a basis of a monolingual

learners’ dictionary of Urdu.

A number of studies (The EMILLE Project 2004, Becker & Riaz 2002, Anwer,

Wang & Wang 2006, Hussain & Ijaz 2008, Hussain 2008, Chohan & Bukhari 2009) have

been reported in the area of Urdu corpus. CRULP (Center of Research in Urdu Language

Processing) collected a corpus of 19 million words which is used to design an Urdu-

English dictionary. These studies maintain that there is a great potential as far as the

collection of a corpus is concerned. The third and the central concern of the study is to

design the features of a pedagogical monolingual learners’ dictionary for advanced

learners of Urdu language and for this purpose the design features of the COBUILD

dictionary were taken as model. This choice is made on the grounds that this dictionary is

meant both for teachers and students; it bears some unique features in its design and has

got the appraisal of many critics (see Boguraev 1990, Aarts & Meijs 1990,

Krishnamurthy 2002, 2001). Moreover the results drawn from the above mentioned

surveys of both the learners and teachers of Urdu also provided insights to determine the

essential features of a pedagogical monolingual learners’ dictionary for the advanced

learners of Urdu. The results concluded that there is a great need to design a monolingual

learners’ dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu and the compiling a corpus based

monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for advanced learners will bring innovative

changes in learning and teaching of Urdu and lexicographic tradition of Urdu. Finally, the

design features of a pedagogical monolingual Urdu dictionary for the advanced learners

of Urdu were established. These features were based on these aspects: the possibility of

the application of the method adopted in the COBUILD and the possibility of collection

the corpus of Urdu and the availability of the technical and technological needs while

collecting the corpus of Urdu. The study concluded that greater possibilities are there to

collect a corpus of Urdu and the selected model of COBUILD dictionary can also b

applied on a corpus based monolingual Urdu dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu.

17

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Dr Johnson said that dictionaries are as valuable as watches: to have the worst is

better than to have none. They are the sum total of the whole vocabulary of a language.

Their significance, contribution and effectiveness in learning or teaching a language can

never be denied. This fact calls for a need to search creative and innovative dimensions in

the field of dictionary designing. These dimensions include learners as well as teachers in

collecting the information on dictionary use as a basis of dictionary research. The

inclusion of dictionary users in dictionary research and exclusion of intuitive knowledge

of dictionary compiler leads towards the modern postulates of dictionary research or

lexicography.

Lexicography can be defined as “the professional activity and academic field

concerned with dictionaries and other reference works” (Hartmann & James.1998: 85).

There are two basic divisions according to the above mentioned definition: lexicographic

practice (dictionary making) and lexicographic theory (dictionary research).

Lexicographic practice is concerned with the professional activity of compiling reference

works and lexicographic theory is the scholarly studies in the disciplines like Linguistics

especially Lexicology. It has been maintained for many years that lexicography only

covers the practice of dictionary making, as Landau (1984) called it the ‘art and craft’. In

recent years, however, the scholarly field of lexicography or dictionary research has been

increasingly recognized. Wiegand (1984) divided the field into four areas: history of

lexicography, general theory of lexicography, research on dictionary use and criticism of

18

dictionaries. Pedagogical lexicography is currently a dominating area of inquiry of

dictionary research. Pedagogical lexicography consists on scholarly studies in designing,

compiling, evaluating and using learner’s dictionaries. Research into dictionary use and

dictionary requirements can further be investigated in a number of different ways.

Hartmann (1987), in his paper for EURALEX-Leeds seminar, identified four categories of

investigation:

resrearch into the information categories presented in dictionaries

(dictionary typology),

research into specific dictionary user groups (user typology),

research into the contexts of dictionary use (needs typology), and

research into dictionary look-up strategies (skills typology).

The present research concentrates on designing a dictionary by looking at the

attitudes and strategies of the learners at one hand and the attitudes of Urdu teachers

towards using monolingual dictionaries on the other. This study is concerned with the

lexicographic theory or designing the features of pedagogical Urdu monolingual

dictionary by making an attempt to look at the possibilities of collecting a corpus of Urdu

as the basis of a learners’ dictionary.

1.1. Background to the study

The history of the Urdu language begins with the Mughal period (1526-1858). The

Mughal Empire that preceded the rule of the East India Company in India was a

multilingual empire. People of different ethnic, linguistic and cultural background with

diversity of dialects constituted the Mughal Empire. It literally means “a camp language”

19

for it was spoken by the imperial troops of first Mughal king Babar that was from the

Central Asia as they mixed with the speakers of local dialects of the northern India. When

the Mughal army constituted, it included soldiers from all over the South Asian regions

and the surrounding territories like Iran, Afghanistan, Arab, Russia and Turkey. The

soldiers had problem in intra-army communication because of language variation. These

soldiers gradually developed a new language for containing words from all the languages

of all the soldiers. Hence an amalgamation of all the spoken languages resulted in the

formulation of a new language. Early Urdu was quite different from today’s and was not

a very fine form. Like all other languages, Urdu has to go through the stages of evolution.

After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, Urdu took birth as a new language. New words

were created which belong only to Urdu; thence Urdu began to become famous because

of its flexibility. When the British came to India, they needed to communicate in Urdu

that is why they set up an Urdu center at the Fort William College in Calcutta to teach

British employees the Urdu language. The college helped promote the Urdu language.

John Gilchrist, head of the Department of Urdu in Fort William College, was the person

who wrote the first grammar of the Urdu language. He had full command of the Urdu

language and he decided to compile an Urdu dictionary. It was an English - Urdu

dictionary.

After the partition many steps were taken to promote Urdu as the national

language of Pakistan. Apart from having Urdu as a compulsory and optional subject in

the curriculum, many institutions were established for the promotion of Urdu and Urdu

dictionaries. These institutions include Urdu Tarraqi Board, Urdu Dictionary Board,

Muqtadra Quomi Zaban, Feroz Sons, etc. These institutions compiled a number of

20

monolingual Urdu dictionaries. These dictionaries claim to meet the needs of learners but

they are not compiled on the principles of pedagogical lexicography that are proposed by

the linguistics and lexicography after the advent of Linguistics in 20th century. Currently,

the user perspective approach in dictionary theory as well as in practice of dictionary

research is very much in vogue. In Pakistan, however, this approach is still not very much

popular. The dictionaries are compiled on the basis of the intuitive knowledge of the

compilers and the innovation idea of collecting and using a corpus (details of corpus in

chapter 6) as the basis of dictionary is still not practiced in Pakistan.

1.2. Learners’ Dictionaries of English Language

In the past thirty years, learners’ dictionaries have become increasingly a subject

of interest for language teachers, applied linguists and lexicographers. After the

publication of Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English (OALD) existed

for more than thirty years without a competitor, The Longman Dictionary of

Contemporary English (LDOCE) was brought onto the market in 1978. This new

dictionary received much acclaim for its innovative and user- friendly features such as a

controlled defining vocabulary, a clear access structure and a mnemonic grammatical

coding system. The arrival of the LDOCE set off the development of a competitive

market for learners’ dictionaries, so that lexicographically, English became “the best-

described language in the world” (Herbst 1996: 321). In 1987, the COBUILD appeared.

COBUILD was regarded as revolutionary in breaking with some lexicographic traditions

and conventions. It was the first dictionary that defined words in a full sentence format

presented a larger number of examples for words and avoided cluttering the entries with

21

codes, symbols and abbreviations by banning technical information into an extra column.

The COBUILD dictionary is considered to be the latest and the most user- friendly

dictionary. That is why, the present research attempts to design the features of a

monolingual dictionary on the set of parameters adopted by the COBUILD.

1.3. Design Features of Monolingual Pedagogical Dictionaries

Pedagogical dictionaries are the dictionaries that meet the language needs of non

native speakers. The top most rated pedagogical dictionaries in English are the following:

Cambridge International Dictionary of English

Collins COBUILD

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

The pedagogical dictionaries are considered unique for some distinctive features of

their design that are listed below:

The pedagogical dictionaries use a specific and controlled vocabulary to be used

while defining the words.

The definitions were designed by using a corpus based contextualized texts.

The examples are taken from the natural or authentic language.

The nonverbal illustrations are used for supporting the definitions (Kwary, from

www.kwery.net ).

22

1.4. Statement of the Problem

Urdu, the national language of Pakistan is the most important language of literacy,

literature, office and court business, media and religious institutions of the country. In

Pakistan it is taught from primary to intermediate level as a compulsory subject and as an

optional subject at degree level. Textbooks are written in the Urdu language from

Primary to Secondary level. At Intermediate and degree level most of the students of

Humanities and Social Sciences choose Urdu as a medium of education. Urdu is not an

indigenous language in Pakistan and suffers from a lot of pressures of different ethnic and

linguistic groups. It is taught as a compulsory subject from primary to intermediate level

and as an optional subject at degree level. In Pakistan, only 8 % of the total population

speaks Urdu as its first language and rest of the population learns it as its second

language. Another problem in this regard is that the teachers of the Urdu language are not

trained themselves what dictionary they should recommend to the learners. Mostly, the

learners are not at all advised to purchase a dictionary even at the beginning level when

they learn it as a second language. Moreover Urdu is taught as a foreign language in

many countries of the world. A dictionary plays a very vital role in teaching or learning a

second/foreign language. That is why it is required to design a Learners’ Dictionary for

Advanced Learners studying Urdu not only in Pakistan but also in foreign countries.

Although many monolingual dictionaries are available on the market and some of them

even claim to be the learners’ dictionaries in their orientation, they are unable to meet all

the didactic needs of the learners and they are not compiled on the recognized principles

of modern pedagogical lexicography. There is a great need to take initiative to put

23

forward the idea of collecting a corpus of Urdu language as the basis of learners’

dictionaries.

1.5. Present study

The present study looks at designing a monolingual Urdu Dictionary for Advanced

Learners of Urdu and finding out the possibilities of collecting a corpus of Urdu as the

basis of a dictionary following the traditions set by English, French and German

lexicographers. The study deals with the status of Urdu as a national language in Pakistan

and as a foreign language in other countries of the world. It deals with the teaching and

promotion of the Urdu language in Pakistan and in foreign countries as well. Although

many monolingual Urdu dictionaries are available on the market but they are not

designed according to the principles of pedagogical lexicography. This study As far as

the theoretical implications of the research are concerned, it will provide the

lexicographic principles for designing a monolingual Urdu learner’s dictionary while the

pedagogical implications are concerned with the evaluation of the effectiveness of

different dictionaries and finally the recommendation of suitable dictionaries to learners.

This particular dictionary will focus on the corpus based on the evaluation of the

currently used monolingual Urdu dictionaries and collected from the Urdu textbooks

taught in the institutions as well as from daily life conversation. The proposed design

features of the proposed dictionary are adopted on the lines of COBUILD dictionary. In

this dictionary, pronunciation will be given in I.P.A (international phonetic alphabets)

and it will be very helpful for the foreign learners in learning the Urdu language. A key to

the sounds and the symbols used in the proposed model will also be designed for the ease

24

of the learners. Hopefully, it will be useful for those Pakistanis who live in foreign

countries and want to learn the Urdu language.

1.6. Key Objectives

The key objectives of the research are as under:

To conduct a survey to collect opinions of teachers and the advanced learners of

Urdu regarding monolingual Urdu dictionaries they use

To find out the possibilities of collecting corpus of Urdu as a basis of a learners’

dictionary and

To design essential features of a monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for the

advanced learners of Urdu.

1.7. Research Questions

After studying the related literature the researcher is able to put following research

questions.

Do the teachers and advanced learners of Urdu feel the need of a proper

monolingual Urdu dictionary?

To what extent it is possible to design a pedagogical Urdu monolingual dictionary

for advanced learners of Urdu?

To what extent it is possible to design a corpus based Urdu monolingual

dictionary in Pakistan?

25

1.8. Hypotheses

The teachers and advanced learners of Urdu feel the need of a proper Urdu

monolingual dictionary.

A pedagogical Urdu monolingual dictionary is essential for the advance learners

of Urdu.

It is vital to design a corpus based Urdu monolingual dictionary in the Pakistani

context.

1.9. Suggested format

While designing the features of this dictionary the two main structures of a

dictionary have bee kept under consideration:

Macro Structure

Micro Structure

1.9.1. Macro structure

Macro structure refers to the overall list of items that allows the compiler and the

user to locate information in a reference work. In the proposed dictionary the most

common format i.e. the alphabetical word list will be adopted supplemented by outside

matter in the front, middle or back of the work. It includes the introductory section or the

front matter of the dictionary having a guide for the use of the dictionary. These

introductory pages include the explanation of the abbreviated words used in the

dictionary, description of grammar in general, key to the pronunciation of the words and

the explanation of other symbols or key words used in the dictionary.

26

1.9.2. Micro structure

Microstructure refers to the internal design of a reference work. In this proposed

dictionary, the research will focus on the following set of information to be provided:

(a) Spelling

(b) Pronunciation

(c) Grammatical information

(d) Definitions

(e) Examples

(f) Stylistic information (formal or informal)

1.10. Significance of the study

In Pakistan, Urdu is taught as a compulsory subject. So, it is the need of the

learners that they should have a learner’s dictionary in which there is no unnecessary

coinage. Although many monolingual dictionaries have been compiled, no such project

has been conducted until now. Perhaps this study would be the very first one in the field

of Urdu pedagogical monolingual lexicography. This dictionary will help the non-

native speakers as well as the native speakers in learning Urdu. The present research

will initiate the theory of modern principles of lexicography to be applied on Urdu

lexicography.

27

1.11. Delimitations of the study

It has already been discussed that in designing this dictionary the pronunciation

will be given in IPA (International Phonetic Alphabets). However it will be only on

segmental level. This study does not deal with supra segmental features of the Urdu

language which includes the stress and intonation pattern of the language. This research

pertains only to designing a learner’s dictionary for advanced learners of the Urdu

language. Although there is a need to do research on other aspects as Urdu learners’

dictionary for beginners, this study will focus on the learners of advanced level.

1.12. Conclusion

This chapter outlines the background, significance and rationale of the study. The

present research aims at establishing and designing the design features of a pedagogical

monolingual Urdu learner’s dictionary. The next chapter deals with the sociolinguistics

of Urdu with a special focus on language policies and the standardization of Urdu as the

national language of Pakistan.

28

CHAPTER 2

SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF URDU

This chapter outlines a detailed introduction of the history of Urdu starting from

the evolution of Urdu as a language to its standard form. The chapter discusses the use of

Urdu in different stages of history, language policies regarding Urdu before and after

partition of the subcontinent and the influence of different language groups in Pakistan.

The chapter also deals with the description of teaching Urdu in Pakistan and in foreign

countries. A comprehensive overview of the process of standardization of Urdu and the

role of National Language Authority (NLA) is also included to determine the current

status of Urdu as a national language of Pakistan.

2.1. The Use of the Urdu Language: An Historical Introduction

There are many assumptions pertaining to the origin of Urdu, differing in both

time and geographic location. Urdu is an Indo-European language originated in India,

most likely in Delhi, from where it spread to the rest of the subcontinent. Other major

metropolitan areas with a strong tradition of the language include Hyderabad, Lukhnow

and Lahore. Another view is that the Urdu language was originated during the Mughal

period (1526-1858). It was borne out of the socio-administrative needs of Muslim rulers.

It literally means “a camp language”, “troops”, or “army” for it was spoken by the troops

of Mughal Empire when the soldiers from Central mixed with the speakers of local

dialects of northern India. When the Mughal army constituted by king Babar, it included

29

the soldiers from all over the regions of South Asia and the surrounding states like Iran,

Afghanistan, Arab, Russia and Turkey. Hence an amalgamation of all the spoken

languages resulted in the formulation of Urdu. Initially it was emerged as a synthesis of

Khari Boli (Hindi), Braj Bhasha Rajhistani and Punjabi with some Arabic and Persian

vocabulary.

During the first two centuries of its development, i.e. during the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries, ‘Urdu, cutting across the regional barriers’ (Beg 1996:40) not only

became popular far and wide but also spread and developed linguistically. Thus, Urdu

became a lingua franca or link language for communicating between the troops from

foreign lands and the native people. Pandit regarded the Khadi Boli style of Urdu as ‘the

Northern lingua franca’. He writes:

“The lingua franca, with the continuous deployment of armies to South India,

eventually got established in the Muslim kingdoms of the South: there it was

known under the name Dakni, (Daccan = South) (1977:57).

Like all other languages, Urdu had to go through the stages of evolution and

development. New words were created that belonged only to the Urdu language. Urdu

began to become famous because of its flexible nature to absorb the words from other

languages. Increasingly, words and grammatical structure of Persian, the official

language of the Mughal administrators, were incorporated until Urdu attained its stylized,

literary form in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Urdu has always been written

using the Persian script.

30

Looking back to the history of the evolution of Urdu language from its birth

during the Mughal period 1526 to 1905, we can divide the period into three stages.

2.1.1. Stage 1 (1526 to 1707)

The kingdom of Mughals started with the throne of Babar in 1526 but moved

towards the south when Aurangzeb was died in 1707.

Nayyer (2003) stated that the word ‘Urdu’ is a Turkish word that stands for a

“military language” or “horde”. Urdu had not taken its complete form in this era. It was

actually the mixture of the dialects spoken by the Muslims who had been ruling over the

South Asia from 14th century. The form of the language as a result of mixing various

dialects was known as Dakhni or the speech of the South may be traced back to the 15th

century (Kashmiri 2003). Its use was confined only to Daccan and South India and was

used in literature by the Muslims of these regions, who were less influenced by the local

Hindi spirit of the dialects and languages of North India than the Muslims living in North

India. This difference becomes quite clear from the fact that the Perso-Arabian script was

used in the Daccan from almost the beginning. Gradually, the literature increasingly came

under foreign influence in the sense that it became more and more Muslim and Persian in

its attitude and attributes Urdu, however, continued to adopt and use a great collection

from Indian vocabulary till the end of the 17th century (Nayyer 2003).

2.1.2. Stage 2 (1707 to 1815)

This era commenced when Aurangzeb died in 1707 and ended with the third

Maratha war in 1818 and Urdu was brought forth as a language during this period. Delhi

and Lukhnow were the two central places which received much influence of the

31

development of Urdu (Nayyer 2003). There was a significant contribution of both Arabic

and Persian languages seen in the development and expansion of Urdu. A strong need for

the rehabilitation of the ethical and socio economic condition was felt when the situation

in the Muslim society became worse due to the weaknesses in the royal authorities. The

Muslim scholars decided upon brining the Muslim community together by reforming the

society on religious grounds. Arabic was considered to be the channel to meet the needs

of religious rethinking among the Muslims (Beg 1996). The Muslim society was agreed

upon a thought to adopt a language that would show their linguistic identity and Urdu

served this purpose quite successfully in the 18th century.

Chutterji explained that:

“By 1750, Delhi Urdu entered upon its new and triumphant career, and Delhi

Urdu helped to establish the Hindustani Speech all over India’’ (1960:210).

When the British came to India, they realized the need to communicate in Urdu,

which is why they set up an Urdu center at the Fort William College in Calcutta to teach

British employees the language. The college helped promote Urdu too.

2.1.3. Stage 3 (1815 to 1905)

During 1815 to 1905, Urdu was flourished as a language of communication. A

major development during this era was that Urdu was introduced as a language of

literature. Nayyer (2003) explained that the language, which was born in the camps of

military troops from the Hindi Khari/Khadi Boli during the later Mughal period,

developed into a language of expression for religious and philosophic ideology. An Urdu

translation of the Holy Quran was made in 1791. I was during this period that Urdu

32

became popular as a spoken language and replaced Persian as the language of the

educated people. During this period, Lukhnow and Rampur were the centers of Urdu. The

Aligarh Movement by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan promoted to modernize Urdu literature at

the beginning of the fourth quarter of the 19th century. It was just because of the

movement by Aligarh that a large number of prose writers, historians and essayists

contributed their share to the Urdu literature.

Kashmiri (2003) added that with the passage of time, Urdu became to be regarded

as the language of the Muslims. Muslim leadership demanded before the Hunter

Commission (between 1883 to 1890) in Bengal that special and urgent step should be

taken for the primary education of Hindus and Muslims. They stressed that Urdu should

be made the medium of instruction in education. During these years, Urdu press was

launched and the books and reading material started to be published. As Indian Muslim

started identifying themselves with this language and Urdu was regarded as the language

of the Muslims, it became a bone of contention between the Muslims and the Hindus.

2.2. Role of Fort William College in Promoting Urdu

Fort William College was established in 1800. The primary purpose of the

establishment of the college was to teach the machinery of the government the language

of the people of India in order to expand and strengthen its empire. Wellesley, the

Governor General and one of the most eminent founder and promoter of the college

raised the notion that the officials of the British government needed to communicate with

the local people and this communication is not possible without learning Hindustani

languages (Sadaid 1991: 224).

33

Kashmiri (2003) stated that before the establishment of Fort William College,

Wellesley and Gilchrist had already started teaching the Hindustani languages to the

British officials in an institution called the Oriental Seminary founded by Gilchrist.

Considering the importance of the knowledge of the local languages, on 3rd January 1799,

Governor General Wellesley had declared the competence of the local languages an

important condition for the eligibility of the government officers. He ordered the junior

civil servants that they should join the lessons of Hindustani languages being conducted

in the Oriental Seminary of Gilchrist. But afterwards a gulf was created between the

Directors of the Company and Wellesley on the matter of the college. On 27th of March

1802 the Court of Directors of the Company informed Wellesley that the college could

not be permitted to continue its practice on economical grounds.

All these circumstances led to the termination of the college on 24th of June 1802.

Wellesley resigned in August 1805 and this college was converted into a school for

British servants in Bengal. Fort William College went through different stages afterwards

and, at last, was closed on 24th of January 1852 with an order from Lord Dalhousie. Meer

Amman’s Bagh-o-Bahar was the most representative literary work of Fort William

College, Calcutta that was written in Urdu language.

2.3. Educational Policies with Special Reference to Urdu

When Pakistan was emerged on the face of the world, its main demand was to

satisfy the two conflicting requirements of ‘nationism’ and ‘nationalism’ (Bell 1976: 168-

69). The urge of nationalism was satisfied by declaring Urdu as the national language and

a sign to unite the masses of Pakistan. Mansoor (1993) explains that an appropriate status

34

for Bengali, that was the language of the East Pakistan, was demanded that proved a

sense of resentment on declaring Urdu as the only national language. After the Dacca

language riots, Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and Khawja Nazimuddin suggested that there

could be only one lingua franca or a link language in order to link the people of different

provinces of the country and that language should be Urdu and cannot be any other

regional language (Haque 1982: 6).

Haque (1982) further explains that the question of deciding upon a national

language was left unresolved after Jinnah was died. English filled in the need for

‘nationism’, which was the requirement of the new government officials to start the

machinery of the state at operational level. English, therefore, was decided to be the

official language. The main reason behind the decision to choose English as an official

language was that it could serve as a link language with East Pakistan.

2.3.1. A Movement for the Promotion of Urdu in Pakistan

The policy that was made by adopting English as an official language, the

language of British rulers, and an attempt to maintain the balance of status between

English and Urdu was soon criticized and pressurized by those who were the protagonists

of promoting Urdu. They demand a policy in which English would totally be replaced by

Urdu in official use. Mansoor (1993) stated that efforts to abandon English to replace it

with Urdu have been a consistent and continuous policy of the government for the last 40

years and the tools used by almost all the governments to achieve this purpose of national

unity were to gain authentic control of the syllabus, curriculum and the use of Urdu as a

medium of instruction in the classroom. All these efforts were made to strengthen Urdu

35

so that government could make it sure that a uniform policy has been implemented

throughout the state. She further added that the emergence and construction of a new

system of education, however, was the only one reason and rationale to convince the

people on the subject of national unity.

Rahman (1997) explained that Urdu, which is not an indigenous language to

Pakistan, came to occupy the position of the national language of Pakistan and the most

commonly used medium of instruction in government schools. Rahman quoted that

according to the Census of 1951:

“Urdu is the normal medium of instruction in primary and middle schools in West

Pakistan except where instruction is given in Sindhi, Pushto or English and even

there Urdu is taught as the second language. In West Pakistan therefore as a

general rule most people who can write at all, write Urdu.” (1997: 146)

2.3.2. The National Commission for Education 1959

The basic objective of the recommendation presented in Sharif Commission was

that after about 15 years Urdu would developed to the point where it could become the

medium of instruction at the university level. Recommendations in this regard included:

1. National language should be developed and the terminology of scientific knowledge

should be standardized.

2. Special trainings should be arranged to train the teachers in the national language.

3. Special governing bodies i.e. boards should be set up to assist the education sector in

preparing the text books and translation for the learners.

36

4. The study of English should also be continued as a second language since sources of

advanced knowledge found in English was only required for advanced study and

research (Sharif 1959: 281-89).

Those who favoured Urdu argued that English should be replaced by Urdu as a

medium of instruction as majority of learners faced difficulties in attaining required

proficiency level while learning a foreign language which caused the wastage of time.

They are of the view that learning a foreign language is an extra burden on learners and

they could not comprehend the language properly and as a result the whole process of

learning a foreign language ruins the standards of education (Qureshi, 1975, 175-190).

The decision to adopt Urdu as a national language was also justified with the reason of

remove class discrimination and to create a sense of nationhood and it was also

recommended that the affinitive strength of Urdu be positively utilized by making it

function as a representative language of West Pakistan. This could be made possible by

absorbing the words from other languages (Zaman 1981, 134: Sharif 1959, 283).

In Sind, a great resistance was observed against this shift to adopt Urdu as a

medium of instruction where Sindhi was used for classroom instruction till class X (grade

10). The recommendations and suggestions, however, were appreciated and practiced in

Punjab, Baluchistan, Bahawalpur and Karachi where Urdu had already been used as the

medium of instruction for so many years. Since the masses of Sind were quite conscious

of their literary heritage, they had a deep desire to use their own language for study

purposes. The implementation of Urdu caused an opposing attitude against the Muhajirs,

and their mother tongue, Urdu. The attention of young Sindhis was attracted toward the

37

slogan of ‘Long Live Sind’ (Jiay Sind) and resulted in creating tensions and conflicts in

the institutions of higher education and universities. The demand for Sindhi was taken as

an assault on the national language by those who favoured Urdu. The university

syndicate decided that Sindhi should be used as the language of education at secondary

level at Sind University after the break-up of ONE UNIT in July 1970 (Zaman 1981,

132).

2.3.3. Language Policies in Bhutto’s Regime

Mansoor (1993) stated that in Bhutto’s era, educational system was promised to

design an educational policy by the eminent educationists for brining a revolution. All the

schools and colleges of the private sector were nationalized and education was made

universal and free to class X. However, in Butto’s era, the language policy was not rigid

as the problem of language was a sensitive one and many riots had already been reported

in Karachi in July 1972. Education was regarded as an issue of provincial subject and the

decision of the choice of the language of instruction was left to the approval of provincial

assemblies. In 1973, the provincial governments of N.W.F.P and Baluchistan decided to

adopt Urdu as the official language. This decision was a bid by the opposition to

embarrass the central government at that time (Haque 1983). Karachi University and

Punjab University decided to adopt Urdu as the medium of teaching and Peshawar

University decided to use English as the medium of instruction (Mansoor 1993).

Hayes (1987) stated that the inability and procrastination in adopting Urdu for

classroom instruction and as a national language caused many misunderstanding among

those who were the protagonists of Urdu. He further added that a main reason for these

38

apprehensions was that many English medium schools were setting up in the state and

were gaining popularity. The conflicts and tensions arose at that time about the problem

of the medium of instruction at all levels were blamed on unsuccessful implementation of

language policy by the provinces.

2.3.4. The National Language Policy in 1978

All the steps taken to promote Urdu as the national language of Pakistan and a

language of instruction were proved insufficient for those who extremely favoured Urdu.

The constitutional provision to consolidate the status of Urdu as the national language of

Pakistan was also considered ineffective (Mansoor 1993). She explained that the National

Education Policy in the era of Zia-ul-Haq, Chief Martial Law Administrator and

president, focused specifically at Islamization of the curriculum. This policy aimed at

revising the curriculum so that a high degree of priority should be assigned to Islamiat

and Arabic. In this policy, it was decided that Islamiat and Arabic should be the

compulsory subjects for all students. It was planned that 30 language centers of Arabic

would be set up with the help of Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU). The private

institutions, which were nationalized in the previous policy, were once again allowed to

re-open. Strict observations were made for the implementation of Urdu as the medium of

instruction in all educational institutions. Throughout the country, English medium

schools were required to adopt Urdu or an approved provincial language as the medium

of instruction and the schools where the medium of instruction was only English were

closed. Haque (1983) asserts that in 1979, the first class 1 was commenced with Urdu as

39

the only language of classroom instruction to matriculate in 1989 and it was a

fundamental change which would affect the whole fiber of educational system.

In 1982, study group was established on the teaching of languages to meet the

requirements of the present educational policy and justifications were presented to

convert all the schools from English medium to Urdu medium and the compulsion of

teaching Arabic was also justified. It also gave suggestions and recommendation on how

10,000 Arabic teachers would successfully be trained by 1984 for a better

implementation of the policy (Haque 1982: 32-3). The group had to face a bitter criticism

on the contradiction of the objectives of the policy as far as English is concerned and

another point which was badly criticized was that this policy had assigned no status to

regional languages as the group was not a representative character of the whole state

(Faruki 1982: 969).

In 1986, the policy to abandon English as medium of instruction was proved to be

an absolute failure and the recommendations were presented to use English as a medium

of instruction for science and mathematics and it was decided that by 1988, this would be

applied to all subjects (Akhter 1989: 374).

2.3.5. The Existing Language Policy

Rahman (1999) narrated that the new language policy of Pakistan was a

continuation of the pre-partition policies when Pakistan came into being out of Hindu-

majority Indian subcontinent. Urdu was adopted as the national language whereas

English, the elitist language, was welcomed to flourish as the 'official' language-the

language of the domains of power (governance, administration, judiciary, military,

40

commerce, media and education) at the higher levels. Both policies favoured the ruling

elite: Urdu, by favouring the West-Pakistani elite which used Urdu; English, by favouring

the Westernized upper classes which got easier access to jobs within the country and

abroad because of English.

The language policies that have been made in Pakistan in the past 50 years

satisfied the need of nationalism. A great emphasis has always been given to integrate the

needs of modern changes and the national issues. There has been lesser interest to

develop the regional languages. A continued conflict can be seen between Urdu and

English on the issue of the choice of medium of instruction. The changeover of replacing

English by Urdu was seen as a great failure because of improper planning and ineffective

cooperation. The new language policy of the state also favours the elite class as Tariq

(1999) sated that Urdu is favoured by the elite of Western Pakistan and English is greatly

welcomed by the westernized upper class and both the classes take advantage of their

languages in gaining control on offices and government.

The above given discussion reveals that there has always been an urge to make

Urdu the national language and the language to link the people of the four provinces of

Pakistan. The existing language policy also aims at promoting the language inspite of the

prevailing conflicts ad confusions regarding the status and significance of English which

is considered the language of the ruling elites.

41

2.4. Teaching of Urdu in Pakistan

Urdu is the most important language of literacy in the country. Urdu has a highly

developed Arabic script and bears close resemblance to regional languages. It also has a

vast literature. In Pakistan Urdu is taught from primary to intermediate level as a

compulsory subject and as an optional subject at degree level. Textbooks are written in

Urdu language from Primary to Secondary level. At Intermediate and degree level

students of Humanities and Social Sciences can opt Urdu as a medium of education. .

Urdu has a vast literature. Every year the average of the books published in Urdu

language is higher than that of those published in regional languages or English. See the

chart below:

Figure No. 1

1061

551

43

1048

398

76

563

235

30

720

318

34

698

304

340

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Language-wise Books Publication

Urdu English Other Languages

From: Mustafa & Shah (2004)

42

Only a small number of learners after doing intermediate are able to write correct

Urdu. Inspite of this widespread exposure of the Urdu language only 8%of the total

population of our country acquires Urdu as their first language. According to the CIA

World Fact Book (2004) the percentage of the major languages as native language or first

language in Pakistan is as following: Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Siraiki10%, Pushto 8%,

Balochi 3%, Urdu 8%, Hindko 2%, Barohi 1%, Others 19%. However, as time goes by,

more and more people of Punjabi and other backgrounds are speaking Urdu as their first

language. It is evident that the percentage of native Urdu speakers is increasing in urban

centers.

2.5. Teaching of Urdu in Foreign Countries

Urdu is taught almost in twenty one countries where the government of Pakistan

has established a Chair of the Urdu language. According to Javed (1996), following are

the major countries in which Urdu is taught at different levels:

2.5.1. India

India, the land where Urdu originated, developed and passed the stages of its

evolution. Every thing was happened without any proper planning as it is evident that in

the age of Aurangzeb the official language was Persian but people spoke a common

language that was Urdu. In India, Urdu is spoken as a mother tongue by many in the

northern and central states. While, in India, Muslims might ostensibly be seen as tending

to identify more with Urdu, Hindus and Sikhs naturally speak Urdu regardless of religion,

especially when they have grown up in such traditional Urdu-strongholds such as

43

Lucknow and Hyderabad. Some would agree that the form of "Hindi” spoken in

Bollywood films is in fact closer to Urdu than Hindi, especially in the songs.

As far as teaching of Urdu in India is concerned, it is taught as a subject on all

levels in government institutes. Facilities of teaching Urdu are available from primary

level to Ph.D. (Islahi 1996).

2.5.2. China

In China, the teaching of Urdu was started in September 1954, in Beijing

University with the establishment of department of Urdu in Oriental Department. In the

department of Urdu of this university students learn Urdu language. A four year’s course

is offered at degree level and the people who successfully complete this course are called

‘Urdu Graduates’. A precious treasure of book on Urdu language and literature is there in

the library of the university. This huge collection of books and the cultural exchange of

the students show the popularity of the language among Chinse. Six students from China

come to Pakistan to learn Urdu and they offered the admission in the department of Urdu

in Institute of Modern Languages (Mirza, 1996).

2.5.3. Iran

Persian, the national language of Iran has contributed a big deal in the vocabulary

and grammar of Urdu. The government of Pakistan established the department of Urdu in

‘Danishgah-e-Tehran’ that is known as ‘Kursi Zuban-e-Urdu o Pakistan Shanasi’. In Iran,

Urdu is taught at degree level. In Tehran the center of teaching Urdu is Pakistan College.

In this college the medium of instruction is Urdu and English and its curriculum is

44

according to the Federal Education Board of Islamabad. This institution is only for the

nationals of Pakistan. Although the national and official language of Iran is Persian, but a

large majority of people who live along with the borders of Balochistan and Afghanistan

can communicate in Urdu very well (Noshahi, 1996).

2.5.4. Saudi Arabia

The national and official language of Saudi Arabia is Arabic but a considerable

portion of the population consists of Urdu speakers as many Pakistanis, Indians and

Bengalis have been settled the in Saudi Arabia. There are also a large number of people

from Egypt, Kuwait and Jordan who can understand Urdu. In Saudi Arabia many schools

and colleges are established in Jeddah, Riyadh, Taif and Al-Khubre in which Urdu is

taught at various levels. In these institutions the most prominent is Pakistan Embessy

School and College in Jaddah. In this institution student receive education from Primary

to Intermediate level (Shahid, 1996).

2.5.5. Qatar

In Qatar, Urdu was flourished with the partition of Indo-Pak Subcontinent when

people started leaving the Subcontinent and settling in foreign countries. Noshahi (1990)

stated that the sign boards written in Urdu are found everywhere on the roads, markets

and even in the hospital of Doha. Urdu is considered the third most widely spoken

language in Qatar. The teaching of Urdu is started with the establishment of the first non

government school named as Pak Shama School in 1965. Students receive education

from Primary to Intermadiate level in both English and Urdu medium. In English medium

45

Urdu is taught as a subject here and now a days it is known as Pakistan Education centre

(Rashid, 1996)

2.5.6. Independent and Occupied Kashmir

In Azad Kashmir Urdu is regarded as an official language of the state. Urdu is the

medium of instruction in education up to secondary level and it is also taught as a

separate subject as well. Urdu is taught from primary to PhD level in both Independent

and Occupied Kashmir. Almost 28 colleges offer Urdu as optional subject in Occupied

Kashmir and any of the two languages have to be selected to be studied among Urdu,

English and Hindi (Wani 1996).

2.5.7. United Kingdom

In United Kingdom teaching of Urdu was started in1818 with the establishment of

Oriental Institute in London. In 1917, School of Oriental and African Studies was

established and in 1930 the department of Urdu was established and research on the Urdu

language was started. In 1963 the Readership of Urdu was established under the

supervision of Professor Ralph Russell. He designed a course for the learners of the Urdu

language that is taught in the schools of U.K even up to present. In the curriculum of

U.K, Urdu is included as a subject along with other languages. According to a survey

conducted in Birmingham and Bradeford, the most widely spoken Asian language is

Punjabi and Gujrati and Urdu are the second most widely used language (Ziyyai 1996).

46

2.5.8. Mauritius

In Mauritius, Urdu is taught from secondary to degree level. In Mauritius a large

number of students are interested in learning of Urdu but administration body of the

schools and colleges does not encourage the teaching of Urdu. However, about 64,000

people speak Urdu and parents teach it to their children at homes (Began 1996).

2.5.9. America

The department of Urdu of Voice of America and Urdu service of B.B.C have

contributed much to introduce the Urdu language in America. Many Urdu newspapers

and magzines are published in America including weekly ‘Millat’, weekly ‘Asian Times’

and ‘Jung’ etc. In Chicago University, department of South Asian Languages and

Civilizations offers Urdu as a subject at degree level. A programme is broadcasted on

radio in the Urdu language (Tabassam, 1996).

2.5.10. Canada

In Canada the teaching of the Urdu language is included in the syllabus of Mc

Gill University upto degree level. Students from Pakistan and India learn Urdu with a

great inerest. Moreover in the East Asia Studies Centre of British Colambia University,

Urdu is taught as a subject (Faizi, 1996).

2.5.11. Japan

Tokyo School of Foreign Languages is contributing much in promoting and

teaching Urdu in Japan. A four year’s course at graduate level and one year’s course at

47

masters level is offered by the institute that is transformed into a university in 1949.

Osaka is the second big city of Japan where teaching of Urdu started with the

establishment of Osaka School of Foreign Language. It was given the degree of a

university afterwards and named as Osaka University of Foreign studies. In the

department of Hind-o-Pakistan, teaching of Urdu and Hindi is provided as two different

subjects. Urdu is taught at advanced level in this university. Currently Urdu is being

taught in four institutions at degree level. They are following: Daito Bunka University

Saitama, Traing Centre of Nihonmatsu of JIACA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies

and Osaka University of Foreign studies (kashmiri, 1996).

2.5.12. South Africa

In South Africa Urdu enjoys the status of one of the home languages. In the

schools established by the Muslims Urdu is taught as a subject and the medium of

instruction in education in these schools is Urdu (Began, 1996).

Apart from these countries, Urdu is widely spoken and taught at different levels in

Turkey, Afghanistan, Kwait, France, Norway and U.A.E.

2.6. Standardization of Urdu and National Language Authority

Urdu is a symbol of integrity and unity of the four provinces. Wright (2004) says

that in the struggle of achieving a separate state “the question of national language” is

central for gaining distinction from others. Muslims of India distinguished their language

Urdu from Hindi that became the sign of the Pakistan Movement. After Pakistan came

into being, it was given a prestigious place of the national language of Pakistan.

48

National Language Authority (Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban) or Urdu Language

Authority was established in 1979 for the promotion and standardization of the national

language of Pakistan. The major aim of the organization was to promote Urdu as a

national language of Pakistan but with the passage of time the objectives expanded to the

linguistic and orthographic research in Urdu for example lexicography (Zia, 1999).

Rehman (2004) explains that the first software of Urdu called Nuri Nastaliq was

exhibited in Urdu Science College in August 1980. Jang Group of newspapers started

publishing their newspapers in it. It was also very warmly welcomed by Dr Ishtiaq

Hussian Qureshi, Chairman of the Muqtadra, in 1980 (Jameel, 2002).

After that, many other soft wares like Shahkar, Surkhab, Nastaliq, Nizami and Mahir

were introduced by PDMS (Pakistan Data Management Services). One of them, Nizami,

was installed and used by the National Language Authority in 1995 (Rehman 2004). He

further adds that there was another organization CRULP (Centre for Research in Urdu

Language Processing) established at FAST University. The issue of the standardization of

Urdu code plate was resolved in a seminar held at the university. It was decided that, with

the advent of Modern age, Urdu layout should be developed and improved for teleprinters

and information processing. (Afzal, 1997)

As a result of these efforts started in 1998 Urdu Zabta Takhti (UZT) was

developed that was used in the projects like computerization of National Identity Cards.

Later in 2000, UZT 1.01 was standardized for all kinds of electronic computing,

communications, and storage (Afzal & Hussain, 2002). This organization played a vital

role in the field of Urdu language processing ang the use of the language in computer.

Computer assisted translation has also been made possible (Ahmad, 2002).

49

Center of Excellence for Urdu Informatics (CEUI) is the Urdu IT section of

National Language Authority. Dr Attash Durrani is the project Director of the section.

This section is conducting advanced research and development activities in all matters

relating to Urdu standardization for computers and localization. National Language

Authority has also published several general and technical dictionaries. The Qaumi

English – Urdu dictionary was designed on the lines of Webster’s Dictionary. Urdu –

Urdu dictionaries published by NLA are following:

Fig. 2

Waris Serhindiوارث سرہندی Jama e Amsaalجامع االمثال

Shah Hussain Haqeeqatشاه حسین حقیقت Khazeena tul Amsaalخزینتہ االمثال

M Abdullah Khanمحمدعبدهللا خان خویشگی *aFarhang e Aamrفرہنگ عامره

Dr Akber Hussain Qureshiڈاکٹر اکبر حسیین قریشی Farhang e Fasana Azadفرہنگ فسانہ آزاد

Mohammad Rafiq khawerمحمد رفیق خاور Urdu Thesaurusاردو تھیسارس (طبع سوم)

Dr Akber Hussain Qureshiسین قریشی ڈاکٹر اکبر حFarhang e Talism Hoshrubaفرہنگ طلسم ہوشربا

Shan ul Haq Haqqiشان الحق حقی Farhang e Talaffuzفرہنگ تلفظ (طبع دوم)

Arabic andاردو میں مستعمل عربی فارسی ضرب االمثال

Persian proverbs in Urdu

Maqbool Elahiمقبول الہی

Dr Akber Hussain Qureshiڈاکٹر اکبر حسین قریشی Farhang e Bostan Khyalخیالفرہنگ بوستان

(Dictionaries Published by National Language Authority)

From: National Language Authority http://www.nla.gov.pk/beta/imgs/booklist.doc

Having an overview of the above discussion it is obvious that much effort has

been put to standardize Urdu language but little attention is given to the compiling Urdu

50

monolingual dictionaries on modern principles to promote as a major language of literacy

in Pakistan. Although many bilingual dictionaries were complied and published by the

National Language Authority, the quest to modernize the monolingual Urdu dictionaries

is yet unsatisfied.

2.7. Conclusion

The discussion on the status of Urdu clearly indicates that it is one of the most widely

spoken and understood language of the world and there is a strong need for the

standardization of this language as being the national language of Pakistan. Although

National Language Authority of Pakistan has made efforts for its promotion and

standardization, more attention is required in the field of compiling monolingual Urdu

learners’ dictionaries on modern lexicographic principles. The next chapter deals with the

role of dictionaries in language learning.

51

CHAPTER 3

ROLE OF DICTIONARIES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Dictionaries are very rich mines of information on languages (Bogaards

1999:113). The research in the field of language learning has revealed that a dictionary

plays a vital role in learning and teaching a language in that it provides the sufficient

information needed for learning a language. The role of the dictionary can best be

explained in terms of vocabulary learning, decoding (reading comprehension) and

encoding (writing) and these activities are the central criterion of assessing whether the

learning process is successfully completed or not. This chapter reveals the significance of

the use of a dictionary in the above mentioned activities to access the extent to which a

dictionary do to enhance the knowledge of the learners about native or non native

languages. This chapter highlights the role of a dictionary in learning vocabulary,

decoding and encoding activities. The chapter further discusses the previous researches

that have been conducted in the respective field of lexicography.

3.1. The Role of Dictionary in vocabulary learning

Vocabulary can be defined as ‘the sum total of the words used by a speaker or for

dictionary making’ (Hartmann and James 1998: 154). All the languages are ever

changing and have potential to absorb new words and discard the obsolete ones. The

significance of learning vocabulary while learning a language is well established. It is

obvious by the fact that, in certain context, a sentence, a paragraph or even the whole text

52

might be made incomprehensible by the occurrence of a single vocabulary item which is

unfamiliar to the learners. Many studies have shown that the general language ability is

mainly associated with the ability to learn the vocabulary. Examples which are added to

the definition of the words enhance the process of learning vocabulary. Defining a word

with compact and comprehensible examples makes the word more imaginable and

according to Paivio (1971) more imaginable vocabulary items are also more memorable

and examples that are provided in a dictionary to elaborate the definitions might make

them more readily accessible. Moreover, while using a dictionary, examples might be

referred to the personal observations and experiences of the learner and this association

results in additional cognitive processing involved in learning process (Nesi 2000: 18).

According to Craik and Tulving (1975), this additional processing assists the word to be

memorized for a long time.

Abbot, Black and Smith (1985) add in this connection that information associated

with the existing knowledge is often less memorable and that difficult texts or vocabulary

items demand more effort to be comprehended and thus, are better memorized. Learning

a new lexical item, however, is an intricate and integrated process. Nation (1990)

classified the stages to explain the process of knowing a word. She concludes that words

in spoken form are learnt quite different from those presented in written form. Same is

the case with the placement or the position of the words in certain text followed by the

functional use of the words and the meaning attached to them.

53

She explains the stages of vocabulary learning in the following way:

Figure No. 3

Knowing a word (source: Nation (1990: 31)

(R = receptive knowledge, P = productive knowledge)

54

On the contrary Tono (2001) presented the stages of vocabulary learning in terms

of ‘knowledge acquisition’. The stages are given as under:

Figure No. 4

Primacy P/R Knowledge category

1

R

Meaning / concept Form / recognizing the word through spelling and sound

P

Meaning / concept Form / spelling and pronouncing the word correctly

2

R

Position / grammatical patterns (part of speech) Position / collocations

3

P

Position / grammatical patterns Position / collocations

4

R/P Function / frequency and appropriateness

R/P Meaning / association

The stages of vocabulary knowledge acquisition (source: Tono (2001:18)

Tono (2001) divides the language in reception and production of the words. Stage

1 (as discussed in figure no 2) that is quite similar to that of stage 1(as discussed in figure

no 1) given in the classification of Nation (1990: 31) when she talks about the form of the

word and divides it in spoken and written form. At first stage the knowledge of a word is

a concept that is recognized through sounds and is produced correctly. The second stage

is the identification of grammatical category of a word and the collocations and to use the

word in its correct grammatical form and with correct collocations. The third stage deals

with the frequency of the use of that word and the way it is used most appropriately. The

final stage is to associate more words with the learnt words.

55

Following are some of the researches conducted to access the usefulness of a

dictionary on vocabulary learning. Although all the studies that have been reported in this

chapter take English monolingual and bilingual dictionaries but they contribute to the

present research as they provide a theoretical and methodological framework for the need

of designing a monolingual advanced learners’ dictionary of Urdu.

Summers (1988) studied the effects of the use of the dictionary on vocabulary

learning. Summers along with her colleagues conducted a study in which they examined

the effectiveness of different entry organizations in presenting information both for

comprehension (encoding) and production (decoding). They developed a reading passage

in which eight unfamiliar words were selected by the subjects. They prepared three index

cards for these eight entries. The sample entries were written for each of the eight words,

one consisting entirely of examples, the second including entirely abstract definitions and

the third type consisting totally of the normal abstract definitions and examples. The

learners were asked to answer multiple choice comprehension questions by using these

index cards. The result showed that there was no difference in comprehension scores

among the three types of entry. All the three types help improving comprehension

substantially. The results of the production (decoding activity) were less terminated but

overall it was proved that the definitions and examples seemed to be the most successful

combination in this regard.

Laufer (1993) examined what type of dictionary information improves the process

of vocabulary learning. The hypothesis behind her study is that guessing unfamiliar

words from the context is better than using a dictionary. She explains that the use of a

dictionary must also be linked with a sound mental processing that contributes to learn

56

vocabulary effectively. The result reported that new words were best learnt when they

were both defined and illustrated through examples. This study revealed that the

definitions are more influential and helpful in learning vocabulary. The results also

showed that the comprehension of the subject was remarkably improved when definition

were added than when examples were added. This was a significant study in exploring

which component of the dictionary contributes much in learning a language.

As she states:

“it is in everyone’s interest to provide the lexicographer with any available

information on how learners actually use dictionaries, information which will be

used in designing a more effective learner’s dictionary (ibid: 133).”

Laufer and Melamed (1994) investigated the difference in the effectiveness of

three types of dictionaries: monolingual, bilingual and bilingualised on the

comprehension and the production of 15 low frequency words in English language. 123

subjects were given the test in which they were given a list of 15 entries with their

dictionary entries. Their comprehension was checked through a multiple choice test. All

the dictionaries were checked with 5 entries to each dictionary. After the research was

over they concluded that in encoding activities or in comprehension the bilingualised

dictionary was more effective than the other two. There was no difference between the

monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. On the other hand, in production, it was found

that there was no difference between the bilingualised and bilingual dictionaries while

both of the dictionaries contributed much in learning a language.

Luppescu and Day (1993) conducted a research to find out a comparison between

the amount of learning of the vocabulary item when the learners used a dictionary while

57

reading and when they read without using a dictionary. The participants in this study

were 293 Japanese students. The subjects were divided into experimental and control

groups. The experimental group was free to use the dictionary while reading. On the

other hand, control group was not allowed to use dictionary while reading. The test was a

multiple choice test. The results derived from the scores of the subjects showed that,

overall, using dictionary had a significant effect on the performance of the subjects in

learning vocabulary. A close look at the individual items showed that using dictionaries

while reading had a misleading effect when the learner was unable to find out the suitable

or appropriate meaning among the possible listed meaning.

Knight (1994) investigated the effects of the dictionary on learning vocabulary in

reading process. A controlled experiment was designed in which the groups of two

different verbal ability groups (high and low) were assigned to conditions with a

dictionary and without a dictionary. They were provided with two types of texts. They

were asked to work on reading tasks and all the looked-up entries and reading times were

recorded in the individual log files. The results showed that “high verbal ability students

learn more words than those who do not” (ibid: 292). Knight stated that the common

practice to encourage all students for guessing meaning of the words form context must

be re examined, and concluded that the use of dictionary does nothing to the process of

comprehension (ibid: 295).

Boggards begins with summarizing current opinion for and against the use of

monolingual dictionaries by the language learners. He set out to investigate the

usefulness of a bilingual dictionary and two types of monolingual dictionary for the

language learners, in terms of vocabulary retention and task performing. The subjects in

58

this study were Dutch-speaking first year university students of French. 44 took part in

the first stage of the experiment and 55 in the second stage. The subjects were divided

into four groups using:

1) a bilingual dictionary (not named)

2) Dictionnaire du Francais Langue Etrangere Larousse (a learner’s dictionary)

3) Petit Robert (a dictionary for native speakers of French)

4) No dictionary

They were asked to underline those words in the Dutch text which they had

looked up. The second stage of the experiment took place fifteen days later, without any

advance warning. The subjects were asked to translate into French the 17 difficult words

from the translation passage. Baggard found that the users of bilingual dictionaries chose

to look up the most words, and produced the most translations. The least successfully

translations were made by the fourth group with no dictionary at all. In the vocabulary

translation test, 15 days later, the success of the learner’s dictionary and a bilingual

dictionary was reversed. Users of Dictionnaire du Francais Langue Etrangere Larousse

made the most correct translations – 51.6% and the bilingual dictionary users came

second – 48.5% followed by the users of Petit Robert – 44.7%.

As Boggards suggests, these results indicates that the use of any kind of

dictionary leads to better results in translation and vocabulary learning. The findings of

his research show that a monolingual dictionary is more effective in vocabulary learning

while a bilingual dictionary is more effective for translation.

59

Evaluating the study conducted by the Boggards, Nesi points out that:

“Boggards does not discuss the difference between the style of the two

monolingual dictionaries in any detail, but one explanation for the disparity in

results between group 2 and 3could be because the French learners’ dictionary is

written in a livelier and more thought provoking style (2000: 22)

3.2. The Role of Dictionary in Decoding Activities

The study of dictionary is primarily associated with reading comprehension as it

is the only learning activity in which the use of a dictionary is the most possible. It is

because during the process of speaking and listening and the use of a dictionary while

writing is not very much common. Although dictionary is a significant tool for self

learning in L2, the opinions are divided among language teachers (Tono: 2001).

Tono (2001) further explained that many language teachers maintain that the use

of dictionary intervene the natural process of reading. The reason behind this thought is

that the frequent dictionary look-up will often interfere with short term memory and thus

disturb the comprehension process. He further added that guessing unknown words from

context aids vocabulary learning, since it requires deeper processing of new words, and

the more effort is invested in the word, the better it will be remembered. This approach to

learning is known as the mental effort hypothesis.

Bensoussan, Sim and Weiss (1984) investigated the effect of dictionary use in

language tests. The major areas investigated by them are: to what extent the set of

monolingual or bilingual dictionaries affect the performance of the learners during

examination and to what extent the use of dictionaries affects the mount of time taken to

60

complete the tests. The paper showed the results of three studies. The first study was

conducted at Ben Gurion University (subjects n=91), the second at the University of

Haifa (n=670) and the third at Haifa as well (n=740). In the first study, the subjects were

randomly assigned to the following three groups: the bilingual dictionary group, the

monolingual dictionary group and the no-dictionary group. For the second and third

study, the subjects brought their own dictionaries. The results show that in all three

studies, dictionary use did not affect test scores and the same results were obtained of the

type of dictionary whether the learners used a monolingual dictionary, a bilingual

dictionary or no dictionary at all.

Luppescu and Day (1993) studied the effectiveness and impact to the use of a

dictionary while reading. The hypotheses under consideration in this study were:

1. the measure of the vocabulary learnt with the help of a bilingual dictionary and

the one that is learnt without a dictionary are not significantly different and

2. reading a text require more time on the part of a dictionary user than the one who

do not use a dictionary while reading a text.

The results obtained in the test score disapprove the first hypothesis and approve the

second hypothesis as the dictionary users took more time to read the text. Luppescu and

day maintained that the confusion is the main reason of taking more time while reading.

They added that:

“perhaps the use of a dictionary in some cases may be misleading or confusing,

that is, if a student is not able to find the appropriate meaning in the dictionary

from among all the possible meaning listed” (1993: 273)

61

Hulstijn (1993) concluded after the research related to the affect of dictionary use

while reading comprehension that subjects who had larger vocabularies looked-up fewer

words than the subjects who had smaller vocabularies. The study also maintained that

high inferring ability need not result in less dictionary use than low inferring ability.

Tono (1989) conducted a research into the long term effect of dictionary use in

decoding activities. The subjects he selected were specially trained in dictionary skills.

The results of the test which was conducted in this regard were compared according to

the learners’ levels of proficiency in dictionary skills. As he rightly narrates:

“this does not indicate automatically that a positive relationship exists between

dictionary reference skills and reading comprehension itself”

(1989: 193)

The results drawn by the test indicate that dictionary skills are marked by the

correlation with the score of the test in reading comprehension. It proves that better

reading comprehension is directly conditioned to higher proficiency level in skills of

dictionary use.

Summers (1988), which was quoted in the last section, should be mentioned here

once again. He, in his research project, also examined the relation of using dictionaries

with reading comprehension along with learning vocabulary. He concluded from the

results of the tests given to the subjects that comprehension was improved in all the cases

by using the dictionary entries.

62

3.3. The Role of the Dictionary in Encoding Activities

It is commonly held that dictionaries can best be used in decoding activities and

less research has been conducted on dictionary use in encoding activities. However there

is awareness that dictionaries should play a fundamental role in productive activities of

the language (writing) as they do in decoding activities. Although dictionaries are

considered useful only for reading and comprehension of texts, the growing

communication through internet has realized the language teachers and learners the

significance of dictionary use in fulfilling the communicative needs of the learners while

expressing their ideas in writing in e-mails or talking on some on-line chat.

Ard (1982) employed direct observation techniques on learners’ dictionary use

during composition writing. His study was covered only by two subjects: a female who

habitually used bilingual dictionary and a male who never used a bilingual dictionary.

Ard concluded that the use of a bilingual dictionary along with the knowledge of L1

contributed to lexical errors.

Hatherall (1984) conducted a study on the use of dictionary while writing and

concluded the study with the findings that dictionaries were consulted for content words,

learners tended to translate word for word and advanced learner translated more than

elementary learners.

Yokoyama (1994) investigated dictionary use in L2 writing with bilingual

dictionaries. The results show that examples are the most useful information for L2

writing and extra columns and the notes of usage and syntactic codes were not ignored by

the learners largely. Harvey and Yuill (1997) conducted a research pertaining to the

significance of dictionary in productive skills and concluded that the primary role of

63

dictionaries while writing is checking spelling and meaning. He further added that

examples and definitions were used very often by the students while engaged in writing

skill.

3.4. Pedagogical Significance of Monolingual Dictionary

Wingate (2002) explained that in the 1970s, the prevailing view was that words

should only be decoded by contextual clues. However, with the increased interest in the

teaching and learning the vocabulary that arose in 1980s, there was a greater awareness

of the fact that inferring word meanings from context is often impossible for learners and

that the dictionary had to be given a more prominent role in language learning. The

debate then turned to the best suitable dictionary type for learners, and many language

educators give preference to the monolingual dictionary over bilingual.

Piotrowski explains,

“Monolingual dictionaries seem to be indispensable within the framework of all

‘direct’ methodologies, which equate foreign language acquisition with thinking

in the foreign language.”(1989: 72).

There is, as Piotrowski points out, no psycholinguistic evidence which offers

argument for or against monolingual or bilingual dictionaries (ibid).

The use of monolingual dictionaries is supposed to enhance and accelerate the

learning process. The definitions in monolingual dictionaries help learners in developing

their ability to paraphrase and define an important skill especially when learners’

vocabulary is rather limited. It is also important to mention that prolonged use of and

64

dependency on bilingual dictionaries tend to slacken the development of proficiency in

second language.

According to Bejoint and Moulin (1987), monolingual dictionaries have the merit

of introducing the user directly to the lexical system of the target language, while the

bilingual dictionary is suitable for quick consultation. It is widely accepted that

monolingual dictionaries offer more and comprehensive information about the

grammatical categories, explanation of idiomatic expressions, collocations and semantic

or stylistic restriction of words and last but not the least the correct pronunciation of the

language.

Snell Hornby describes the advantage of monolingual dictionaries for advanced learners

as follows:

“…experience in advanced language teaching and in translation teaching shows

that the learner can understand a foreign language text better if unknown words

are explained in terms of their own language system and against their own

sociocultural background without being rendered as foreign language equivalents

which are often inadequate and contrived (1983: 164).

Wingate (2002) maintained that there is one psycholinguistic theory which

supports the preference for the monolingual dictionary. The depth of ‘processing theory’

(Craik and Tulving 1975) assumes that information which has been obtained through

deeper cognitive processing will retain better. In relation to vocabulary learning this

means that the more attention and mental effort is involved in understanding the meaning

of a word, the better it will be learnt. In relation to dictionary consultation, it is obviously

65

the monolingual dictionary that demands more mental effort to understand the meaning

of a word than a bilingual dictionary which describes the translation of the words only.

The above given linguistic and lexicographic evidences maintain that a dictionary

is a very important tool in learning and teaching a language, whether native or non native.

A monolingual dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu, in this context, is necessary

to be designed to meet the needs of the learners needs.

3.5. Conclusion

The above given discussion maintains that the significance of using dictionary to

improve the vocabulary learning and encoding and decoding of the words can never be

denied. Monolingual dictionaries are of much importance in that they involve a great deal

of mental effort and as a result prove to be more effective to learn, encode or decode a

language. The next chapter will explain the review of the related studies conducted in the

field of lexicography, corpus based approach of lexicography and the research that has

been conducted so far in Urdu corpus.

66

CHAPTER 4

LITERATURE REVIEW

The present study looks at three perspectives: studying the strategies and attitudes

of the learners and teachers of Urdu towards Urdu monolingual learner’s dictionaries,

finding out the possibilities of collecting a corpus of Urdu as the basis of a dictionary and

designing essential features of a monolingual Urdu learner’s dictionary. The first part of

this chapter deals with the theoretical framework of researches done in pedagogical

lexicography. It overviews the surveys, based on a questionnaire, conducted to measure

the different aspects of dictionary use. The second part looks at the researches related to

designing features of monolingual dictionaries. The third one lists the major corpus

studies in general and with special reference to the Urdu language. The last but not the

least is a review of two most widely used monolingual Urdu dictionaries; Feroz- ul-

Lughat and Ilmi Urdu Lughat.

4.1. Literature Review of Questionnaire- Based Research

Questionnaire-based research is the most convenient method of research in the

use of dictionaries and dictionary requirements. Questionnaire based research is favoured

in that it provides a wide range of information to be collected from the respondents where

other methods of research become unable to get desired information. In the following

section, I shall discuss some major questionnaire based studies that have been reported in

67

the literature of dictionary requirement, and attitude of both learners and teachers towards

the use of dictionary.

4.1.1. Barnhart (1962)

Barnhart’s (1962) study is considered to be a pioneer research work in user-

oriented lexicographic research. He lay stress that the purpose of a dictionary is to answer

the questions that the user of the dictionary wants to ask and that ‘dictionaries on

commercial market will be successful in proportion to the extent to which they answer

these questions the buyer’. Barnhart conducted this survey in 1955. He distributed 108

questionnaires among college professors of English writing in 99 colleges in selected

from the 27 States of USA. The objective of the research was to study the significance of

the information categories provided by most often consulted dictionaries for American

colleges. The teachers were asked to rate six types of information according to their

usefulness. The se information categories include meaning, spelling, pronunciation,

synonyms, notes on usage and information regarding the origin of the words. The

findings of the study indicted that the top most consulted information were meaning,

spelling and pronunciation. Then the synonyms and notes on usage were considered as

important entries in the dictionary and information regarding the origin of the words was

reported as the last in priority. The results also showed that one of the main hindrances to

identify the spelling of derivatives was that the learners could not recognize the root of

the word. While presenting critical comments on user oriented studies, Hartmann

describes that the sample of population for this survey was not of sufficient size (1987:

13).

68

Another point of criticism was that the results drawn by Barnhart depended only

on the indirect elicitation of the users. The findings of the survey were not based on

observing them directly. Apart from all criticism the valuable contribution of Barnhart

can not be denied. Although the study was conducted more than 40 years ago but the

most significant element of his research was that it introduced a new direction and an

innovative perspective in lexicography (Diab 1990: 22).

Nesi (2000) remarked that the study is also significant because the results drawn

from his research have been replicated in many other studies. the critical comments on

the study enabled the researcher to select a larger group of learners as subjects and the

information should be collected directly from the learners about their use of dictionaries.

Since an active participation of teachers of Urdu should also be valuable in the present

study, their opinion should be taken by conducted a separate survey aiming at measuring

their attitudes..

4.1.2. Quirk (1975)

The second contribution in the field of this tradition was that of Randloph Quirk

(1975). According to Hartmann (1987) Quirk’s survey was the first scholarly study in

Britain for the assessment of the attitudes of dictionary users. His research was concerned

with the users directly. He studies the use of dictionaries by 220 undergraduate British

students at the University College, London. The data was collected with the help of a

questionnaire. 30 questions were included in the questionnaire focusing on different

aspects of using dictionaries. These aspects included the ownership of a dictionary,

purpose and frequency of the use dictionary and issues related to facing difficulties in the

69

process of looking dictionary. The responses of the subjects showed that 71% of the

subjects used their dictionaries at least once a month and that they primarily looked up

the meaning of the words and also looked at the synonyms and the antonyms of the

words. His results pertaining to the different types of information for the user are similar

to that of Barnhart that showed the meaning and spelling as the most frequently looked

up types of information.

Quirk, on the basis of his findings, concluded that dictionary makers and

dictionary users have different priorities:

“Some of the dictionary features which seem of particular centrality to

lexicographer are decidedly peripheral to the ordinary user” (1975: 80).

Quirk’s survey was more comprehensive as compared to that of Barnhart.

Although the context of the research is limited, the methodological grounds of the study

were very sound and this would be of a great help while determining the course of

research in the present study.

4.1.3. Tomaszczyk (1979)

Tomaszczyk (1979) was the first to work on the needs of non native users of

dictionary. The main purpose of his study was to collect information regarding producing

better dictionaries as he was motivated by the observation that there was a great

dissatisfaction with dictionaries among foreign learners of English:

“The study … was undertaken in the hope that an examination of the ways in

which language learners use dictionaries, and of their attitudes and expectations

towards them would provide some information about the extent to which various

70

group of users depend on dictionaries, help pinpoint those of the current

lexicographical solutions that are, as well as those that are not, felt to meet their

needs, and give lexicographers some clue they might want to use in their attempts

to make better dictionaries” (1979: 103).

Tomaszczyk’s study was more detailed and covered a variety of subjects than the

first three researches. Tomaszczyk’s questionnaire contained fifty seven items concerning

personal and language learning history, current language use, use of dictionaries and the

evaluation of the information contained in them (1979: 104).

The results drawn in his study revealed that bilingual dictionaries were

exclusively used for translation and L2-L1 dictionaries were more appreciated by the

subjects than L1- L2 dictionaries. The findings reported monolingual L2 dictionaries to

be of secondary importance to the users.

4.1.4. Baxter (1980)

Baxter (1980) collected data from 342 subjects to evaluate the significance of

monolingual dictionaries in comparison with bilingual dictionaries. The subjects in this

study were Japanese students. The data were collected through questionnaire from three

national universities in Japan. The questions were not retrospective but, in the majority of

cases, required to provide factual information about dictionary ownership. In

Tomaszczyk’s study, the use of a monolingual dictionary was reported as being less

frequent than the use of a bilingual dictionary. Many students criticized monolingual

dictionary on various grounds. Baxter, in his study, provided no indication of the types of

the monolingual dictionaries his subjects were using. Baxter, however, concluded that his

71

subjects preferred to use bilingual dictionaries because they were easier to use than

monolingual English dictionaries.

4.1.5. Bejoint (1981)

Bejoint (1981) contributed a very informative and the most influenced study in

the field of user- oriented lexicography. His study is considered to be most frequently

cited and well known survey in pedagogical lexicography. Bejoint claims that his survey

was influenced by that of Tomaszczyk’s remarks (1979: 103) that the need of the popular

commercial dictionary user had been neglected and explored ‘the virtually unknown

territory of the users’ reference skills and habits’ (Bejoint 1981: 208).

Bejoint administered the questionnaire containing 21 questions to 122 French

students of English at the University of Lyon. The questions covered the aspects of

dictionary use like dictionary ownership, dictionary typology, reason for choosing a

particular dictionary, preferences; frequency of use, information looked up, context of

dictionary use, attitudes towards dictionaries and problems in dictionary use.

The result revealed that 96% students possessed a monolingual dictionary for

example OALD, DOCE, COD, ect. 85% of the subjects reported that they had chosen

their dictionary because it had been recommended by their teachers. 87% of the

respondents placed meaning among the three most looked up piece of information in a

dictionary but only 25% reported spelling and pronunciation. The least mentioned

information category was etymology. The results also reported variations in the use of

dictionary according to the study level and age of the students. Students seemed to prefer

and satisfied with the dictionary they habitually use or worked with. The dictionary that

72

covered the most vocabulary items obtained more value. Bejoint also recorded that

dictionaries were used mostly for decoding purposes. Nesi stated that there was one issue

with the questions asked from the subjects. She regarded some questions required rather

too much from the students’ power of critical analysis, retrospection and recall and they

were expected to provide from their memory the detailed accounts of their look-up habits.

In fact many of them were unable to remember much about pervious dictionary

consultation while they were expected to pass critical judgment on the dictionaries they

used (2000: 08). It is quite difficult to compare the findings of Bejoint’s study with the

findings of the survey conducted by Baxter and Tomaszczyk regarding bilingual

dictionaries as this study was limited to the examination of monolingual dictionaries

alone. However, Bejoint’s contribution is of much interest for the present research as it

brought into focus many important issues of interest of both language teachers and

lexicographers.

4.1.6. Nesi (1984)

The main purpose of this study was to see the extent to which three learner’s

monolingual English dictionaries – the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (OALD),

the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDOCE), and Chambers Universal

learners’ Dictionary (CULD) became a cause of errors committed by learners in speech

and writing. A lexical error analysis approach was adopted by Nesi while conducting this

research. The errors were collected through various sources.

Pedagogical lexicographers and the publishers of learners’ dictionaries would

wonder to know the findings as shown by the research conducted by Nesi. The study

73

reported that the above mentioned three learners’ dictionaries failed to provide the

sufficient information to the users that they required as these dictionaries have been set

out to fulfill a relatively wide range of needs. The pedagogical significance of this

research is quite obvious but it would be wrong to say that dictionaries alone are

responsible for errors. Nesi remarked that dictionaries should provide all the information

if ‘they claim to cater for the reader, for the writer, the listener and the speaker form any

cultural background and speaking any native language’ (Nesi 1984: 50).

4.1.7. Griffen (1985)

Griffen’s survey was in fact a pilot study among ESL students at Southern Illinois

University. The basic purpose of this study was to develop a ‘dictionary skill unit’. The

questionnaire containing 10 items was given to 128 respondents who were the

representatives of 13 different language backgrounds. They were grouped into four

proficiency levels, from the level of beginners to the advanced level. The questions

included were about the use of dictionary, such as types of dictionaries they own,

frequency of use, reading fore matter and other points of a general nature. The results of

the research showed that the subjects were not fully aware of the use of dictionary. The

study reported that many students did not use dictionary in the class room but preferably

at home. It was also reported that the students at advanced level felt themselves

embarrassed while looking up a bilingual dictionary in the class even if they might have

felt a need to use it. It was also observed from the results that a large majority of the

respondents did not take much pain in consulting the front or the back matter of the

74

dictionary Griffin’s project was very positively welcomed by the learners as they showed

a great interest in the issue of lessons of dictionary skills. Griffin explained:

“A few students started with the attitude that this lesson was unnecessary because

they already know how to use a dictionary, but some students, while working on

the exercises, acknowledged this limited knowledge of the complications of

dictionary use.” (1985: 58)

I hope that Griffin’s study would be of a great help in the present study as it

would add some different aspects regarding to the learners’ attitudes and the relationship

between learners and the dictionaries they use.

4.1.8. Kipfer (1985)

Kipfer examined the impact of teaching and learning dictionary skills on the

attitudes and needs of the students at intermediate level. The questionnaire was

administered on 292 American High-school students during 1983-84. The main objective

of the questionnaire was to collect basic information on different aspects of using

dictionaries. After the administration of the questionnaire, she conducted three tests with

a particular focus on writing, reference and lexical skills of the students. Kipfer found

that the subjects were taught or learned the dictionary skills and the subjects used

dictionaries incorrectly. She reported that the subjects were unwilling to consult

dictionaries as they were afraid of being looking illiterate in this respect. The major

looked up information was meaning, spelling and sometimes pronunciation. Kipfer

adopted an ‘outsider’ approach in collecting data from the subjects. She gave the subject

75

three days to fill in the questionnaire at home as the school did not oblige her in

conducting a test on this much broader level (Kipfer 1985: 11). Her ‘outsider’ approach

was criticized for the validity of the results and the answers were considered doubtful as

far as reliability is concerned. In the present research, this approach is being avoided and

it is made sure that the data have been collected in researcher’s own presence. This would

help in collecting more reliable answers form the subjects involved in the present study.

4.1.9. Iqbal (1987)

Iqbal conducted a study of various aspects of learners’ dictionaries with a special

reference to the needs of the learners in Pakistani context. The main objective of this

study is to determine the language needs and reference skills of the learners at advanced

level in Pakistan. The questionnaire was consisted on 54 questions which were designed

to collect information about reference skills, needs, dictionary use and evaluation of

semantic and phonetic information in dictionaries. The subjects were 700 second year

undergraduates who were selected randomly from four provinces of Pakistan. Iqbal did

not include BSc students because that their course in ‘English Language was much more

limited and oriented more towards sciences’ (1987: 36). The results of the study were

directly concerned with the format and content of four learners’ dictionaries of English:

the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDCE), the Oxford Advanced

Learner’ Dictionary (OALD), Chamber’s Universal Learner’s Dictionary (CULD), and

Collins English Dictionary (CED). The study aimed at to asses the effectiveness of these

dictionaries in meeting and measuring up the needs of advanced learners of English in

Pakistan. The study reported that the majority of the respondents were not very much

76

familiar with monolingual English dictionaries and OALD is reported to be the most

widely used and known dictionary as compared to the rest of three dictionaries. A large

majority of respondents were strongly agreed that there was no proper guide available at

the institution to use dictionaries and that they were not taught how to use these

dictionaries at school level even. The subjects were not given training in reference skills.

The high frequency was reported in looking up the information about meaning of the

words followed by spelling and pronunciation. Iqbal proposed that design features should

be designed for Pakistani Advanced Learners for a monolingual dictionary keeping in

mind the language needs of the learners. Although the questionnaire designed and

administered for the data collection, but the comprehensive analysis of all the items

makes the study a valuable addition in pedagogical lexicography. The research

methodology adopted by Iqbal would be of much worth for the present study because of

the relevance of context and field of research.

4.1.10. Battenburg (1989)

Another questionnaire based study that is reported was that of Battenburg’s. He

conducted his survey in 1984 and collected information from 60 non native speakers at

Ohio University. The respondents were divided according to three proficiency levels:

elementary, intermediate and advanced. The respondents represented seven different

language backgrounds but majority of them belonged to the Chinese or Arabic language.

Battenburg reported that difference in .language background did not affect on the

dictionary- using behaviour. The study revealed that majority of the subject possessed

bilingual dictionaries and the native speaker dictionaries were owned by a smaller

77

number of subjects. Battenburg also reported that there was a corelation between the use

and ownership of a dictionary. . Bilingual dictionaries were owned by all the elementary

level respondents and all the advanced learners use monolingual dictionaries. All the

respondents expressed preference to look up the definitions and less interest had been

shown by the subjects towards looking up etymological information. Battenburg’s

questionnaire was shorter than that of Bejoint and he did not include questions regarding

unsuccessful look-up while using a dictionary. Unlike Bejoint, Battenburg’s decision to

divide the respondents into three groups according to their proficiency level was a good

idea but the findings suggested that these groups did not represent a true language

learning continuum. Battenburg reported very similar results of Tomaszczyk and Bejoint

when he asked the respondents to suggest the ways to improve the existing dictionaries.

.

4.1.11. El-Badry (1990)

El-Badry’s research was concerned with the use of general bilingual English-

Arabic dictionaries. The main objective behind the project was designing a new

dictionary. The tool of research was a questionnaire consisted on 30 items. The

questionnaire was sent to 950 users at research centers and universities. 493 copies were

received. El-Badry found that bilingual English-Arabic dictionaries were more frequently

used than monolingual dictionaries. The results showed that most of the subjects (95%)

indicated that they need to use a dictionary. The OALD was used by 24% of the subjects.

As far as the use of the dictionary is concerned, meaning was reported to be the most

often looked-up category followed by spelling and synonyms, usage and pronunciation.

78

The work of El-Badry if of particular relevance as her project aimed at designing features

of a general purpose dictionary followed by a questionnaire based study of different

aspects of the use of dictionary and the users.

4.1.12. Diab (1990)

Diab examined the use of dictionary by nurses in Jordan. The data was collected

through a questionnaire from 405 students. The questionnaire was designed to collect the

information about the need strategies and attitudes of the subjects towards dictionary use.

Diab found that over 80% were using one or two English-Arabic bilingual dictionaries

for decoding nursing texts written in English. The questionnaire designed by Diab is of

much worth as it covered almost all the areas of the various aspects of the dictionary use

in and outside of the classroom. The questionnaire used in the research conducted by

Diab has proved very helpful for designing the data collection tool in the present study.

4.1.13. Li (1998)

Li reported the results of a questionnaire on the use of dictionaries. The subjects

under study were 691 Chinese students and 110 university teachers. The results showed

that all of them owned bilingual dictionaries. The subjects preferred to use English-

Chinese dictionaries for comprehension but less than half of the sample owned Chinese-

English dictionaries. Li also reported a translation test followed by the questionnaire and

supported Tono’s (1984) results that the use of dictionary was very helpful in accurate

translation. The survey conducted by Li is of much interest for the present study as it

focused the language teachers’ training in dictionary skills. This idea is of involving the

79

issue to train teachers in dictionary skill is a great inspiration for the present study as

well.

4.1.14. Boonmoh (2009)

Boonmoh investigates the attitudes of language teachers towards the use of PEDs

(Pocket size electronic dictionary). The data is collected by a questionnaire aimed at

gathering the opinions of the teacher regarding the use of pocket size electronic

dictionary. The findings of the study suggest that the attitudes of language teachers affect

the learners’ choice and use of dictionary in and outside of classroom. As far as

lexicographic research in Urdu is concerned, no study is reported to be based on the

measurement of the attitudes of teachers towards the monolingual Urdu dictionaries. The

methodology involves in this study proved to be very helpful for the improvement of this

research and suggesting the new fields of research i.e. the research on the use of pocket

size Urdu monolingual dictionary.

4.2. Literature Review of Design features-based literature

4.2.1. Hausmann (1990)

Hausmann discussed the essential features required for a French monolingual

learner’s dictionary to be used for classroom learning. The elements are collocation,

figurative usage, visual aids, synonyms and antonyms, and emphasis on context. This

study is of much interest for me as it has provided me with the rationale of designing the

essential features for native speakers as far as learning and teaching is concerned. The

trend of designing features for a monolingual dictionary for learners’ is quite obvious as

80

far as the native speakers are concerned. The study conducted by Hausmann strengthens

the idea to design features of a pedagogical monolingual learners’ dictionary for the

advanced learners of Urdu language.

4.2.2. Cowie (1996)

Cowie designed the significant features of the monolingual Italian dictionary

(1992). He presented many refined and well defined examples by the lexicographers in

the entries, collocations that are limited to two or three phrases and the use of

terminological tables and detailed illustrations.

In his research papers (1987, 1989), he has discussed many dimensions of

dictionary design and use. In 1989, Cowie conducted a study in which he looked at the

design of dictionary entries. He mentioned how meaning of a word can successfully be

illustrated with the help of examples. He discussed the role of syntax in dictionary, the

significance of cohesion across example sentences and the contribution of syntax and

cohesion to the achievements of learners. This research, like the one conducted by

Hausmann, is also another evidence of designing monolingual dictionary for native

speakers (Dolezal & McCreary 1999: 24, 25).

4.3. Literature Review of Corpus-based Literature

The review of literature in corpus is two fold. The first part reviews the corpus

studies in general and the second part consists on the research conducted so far in Urdu

corpus.

81

Corpus refers to a collection of linguistic data, either compiled as written texts or

as a transcription of recorded speech. The main purpose of a corpus is to verify a

hypothesis about language - for example, to determine how the usage of a particular

sound, word, or syntactic construction varies. Corpus linguistics deals with the principles

and practice of using corpora in language study. A computer corpus is a large body of

machine-readable texts. (Crystal, David. 1992. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language

and Languages. Oxford: 85)

Language corpora are becoming available cheaply, sometimes free. The likely

impact on language teaching will be profound--indeed the whole shape of linguistics may

alter at speed (Sinclair, 1997: 38).

The purpose of a corpus, static or dynamic is to record naturally occurring samples of

language or texts. This notion implies that a corpus does not necessarily to be electronic.

Corpora were non-electronic for centuries and especially in biblical studies and these pre-

electronic corpora were used for:

“biblical and literary studies from the 18th century, based on manually produced

concordances of content words;

lexicographic investigations to provide literary examples for dictionaries such as

the Dictionary of the English Language and the Oxford English Dictionary;

dialect studies in the 19th century to describe lexical variation;

foreign language education innovations such as the work of Thorndike in the

1920s;

grammatical inquiries, such as the one by Fries in the U.S., and more recently

Quirk's Survey of English Usage (SEU) Corpus.” (Horváth, 2000)

82

4.3.1. The Brown Corpus

The first electronic or machine-readable corpus has been designed by Francis and

Kucera in 1961 and published in 1964. Its focus was on collecting texts from informative

texts (non fiction) and imaginative texts fiction). The Brown Corpus is designed to

represent the wide range of written American English. Additional information as origin

of each sample text and line numbering is also given.

4.3.2. The LOB Corpus

The second stance in this regard is the Lancaster—Oslo/Bergen Corpus by

Johansson, Leech and Goodluck. This corpus is a representative of British English as

opposed to the Brown Corpus. This is a combined project of university of Lancaster and

Oslo, and the Bergen based centre for Norwegian Humanities Computing participating.

The corpus and its manual are available through ICAME, the International Computer

Archive of Modern English (Johansson, Leech, & Goodluck, 1978).

4.3.3. The London Lund Corpus

The LLC is developed in Sweden. It is based on previously stored corpus, the

SEU Corpus. This is the first copra in which spoken evidences were used. Although it is

not considered as satisfactory as far as it representativeness is concerned, it has set a trend

to include spoken data in corpora. (Horváth, 2000).

83

4.3.4. The Bank of English

With seven million words of the Main COBUILD Corpus, the Bank of English is

the largest collection of written and spoken English text stored on computer. Its initial

feature and aim was to "help learners with real English" by enabling applied linguists to

do research into the contemporary language primarily for language education (Collins

COBUILD English Language Dictionary, the original 1987 edition and the 1995

revision). The revolutionary contribution the corpus project has made to the development

of learner dictionaries has been the most influential result. A joint effort of Collins

Publishers and the English Department of Birmingham University, it has provided new

approaches (see, for example, Sinclair, 1987b) to lexicography. (Horváth, 2000). The

Bank of English has continued to innovate in all the related work: in the way corpus

evidence is incorporated in learner dictionaries, in study guides and recently in a special

series of concordance samplers, in the application of a lexical approach to grammar, and

in the theoretical and technical field of marking up the corpus. (Sinclair, 1991)

The corpus is still progressing and more words have been added to make it more

up to date and close to real English.

4.3.5. The British National Corpus (BNC)

The BNC focuses such academic, commercial and public entities as the British

Library, Chambers Harrap, Lancester University's Unit for Computer Research in the

English Language, Longman, Oxford University Computer Services and Oxford

University Press (Horváth, 2000).The majority of its content, 90 percent, is written, with

10 percent made up of spoken samples, running to a total of 100 million words in over 6

84

million sentences. Any of its constituent texts is limited to 40,000 words (Burnard, 1996).

Aston (1996, 1998) evaluates the benefit of BNC for advanced FL students in Italy in

how they conduct linguistic inquiries. Aston reports that by accessing and studying this

large corpus, students were highly motivated, primarily because of their critical attitude

to published reference works that they can contrast with the results of their own

conclusions.

4.4. Urdu Corpus Literature

The research in Urdu corpus is in its infancy and little attention is given to

collecting the corpus of Urdu as the basis of a dictionary. But these studies provide a

rationale, resources and tools to collect the corpus of Urdu to compile a monolingual

Urdu learners’ dictionary. The following are some of the studies conducted so far in the

field of Urdu corpus.

4.4.1. The EMILLE Project (2004) The EMILLE project (2004) was established to create a 67 million word corpus

for South Asian Languages. The project dealt with a number of issues related to the

collection and creating the corpus of South Asian Languages. This project had three

major goals: to create corpora of South Asian Language, to develop the GATE LE

architecture and to develop LE tools. The project consisted of three components:

monolingual, parallel and annotated corpora. There were monolingual corpora of seven

languages. These languages were Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Hindi, Sinhala, Urdu and

Gujrtai. (http://www.emille.lancs.ac.uk/)

85

The EMILLE monolingual corpora contained approximately 58,880,000 words

(including 2,627,000 words of transcribed spoken data for Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi,

Punjabi and Urdu). The parallel corpus consisted of 200,000 words of text in English and

its accompanying translations in Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and Urdu.

Grammatical tagset for the Urdu language was also developed.

4.4.2. Becker & Riaz (2002)

In 2002, Becker & Riaz conducted a research aims at in sorting the Urdu language

in the Unicode character set, in its native script (Arabic) and in marking up according to

the Corpus Encoding Standard (CES) XML Document Type Definition (DTD). All the

tags and metadata were given in English. The corpus was based entirely on the data taken

from BBC’s Urdu website. The corpus presented marks up on paragraph level so that it

may be used as input for natural language processing (NLP) tasks.

In 2003, Becker et al discussed some of the issues collecting corpus for south

Asian Languages. The issues were related to collecting monolingual written corpora,

parallel corpora and spoken corpora with a particular reference to EMILLE project. The

author suggested that there is a need to work more on South Asian languages to develop

the existing corpora as well as to create the new ones.

4.4.3. Anwer, Wang & Wang (2006)

Another study reported by Anwer et al in 2006 aimed to presents some aspects of

Urdu language processing in corpus based studies. This study is a vital contribution in the

natural language processing in Urdu. The study presented a review of the researches

86

conducted in Urdu language processing and suggests that there is a need to enhance and

establish the programmes for analyzing Urdu language on the lines European languages

are analyzed. The suggestions proposed by this research would be of much help in

improving the process of natural processing as far as the collection of a database of Urdu

is concerned.

4.4.4. Hussain & Ijaz (2008)

Hussain & Ijaz highlighted some of the issues and questions regarding the

orthographical aspect of the Urdu language while developing a corpus (corpus

acquisition, pre-processing, tokenization, cleaning e.g. typos, name recognition etc). At

the end some of the developments in the Urdu lexicon were suggested by the authors. The

study claims that Unicode standard supports the Urdu language completely as it provides

even the multiple orthographical style of the same word. The study proposed the software

of SAMPA. SAMPA represented the conversion of IPA for Urdu into some modified

form to be used as phonetic representatives of Urdu.

4.4.5. Hussain (2008)

Hussain aimed to highlight the summary of the resources, both lexical and corpus,

being developed for Urdu by the CRULP. The author presented an overview of the

EMILLE project. Hussain presented an overview of the corpus collected in one of the

project of CRULP. He explained that a raw corpus of 19 million words of Urdu text was

collected mostly from Jang News. It was reduced to 18 million words after cleaning.

There were 6 categories namely Sports/games, News, Finance, Culture/Entertainment,

87

Consumer Information and Personal Communication for the distribution of words.

Another available source used by the CRULP is the tagset developed by Hardie (2003).

The second resource explained by the author was Urdu online dictionary available

from the website of CRULP. This dictionary contained 120,000 entries. He further

discussed the development made for Urdu language processing. This online dictionary is

a very good effort of the Ministry of Information Technology Pakistan. The first page

displays the alphabets of Urdu and we can get access to all of the words starting with that

letter by clicking on it. A virtual key board is available for typing Urdu for searching a

particular word. The information about words is available in the short and detailed form.

This dictionary contains information about etymology, and word class of the words.

However, some flaws are there in this dictionary for example an authentic guide to

pronunciation of the words is missing and the examples are taken from the very old

sources. The present study aims at designing the features of a pedagogical monolingual

learners’ dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu in a way that they meet the

requirements of the potential learners and can be proved helpful in teaching Urdu as well.

4.4.6. Afzal & Hussain (2001)

Afzal & Hussain present an overview the brief history of the studies conducted in

the development of the Urdu software. The list of the standard alphabets approved by the

National Language Authority is presented and the various codes of the soft wares are

introduced in this study. The study concluded that the presently developed software

namely Urdu Zabta Takhti would provide and serve the best fro keyboarding the Urdu

88

language. Recommendations are made for the improvement of the model of Unicode

developed by Zia ( Zia 2000).

4.5. A Review of Currently Used Monolingual Urdu

Dictionaries

The history of monolingual Urdu dictionaries is quite old. The first Urdu

dictionary Behr ul Fazail fi Munafe al Afzal was compiled by Muhammad Bin Qawam

Karkhi and it was an Urdu-Persian dictionary. Moreover, Tuhfat ul Hind by Mirza

Muhammad Bin Fakahruddin and Gharayb ul Lughat by Molvi Abdul Wasay Taunsvi

were also Urdu-Persian dictionaries. Many Urdu monolingual dictionaries were compiled

after the tradition of bilingual dictionaries compiled by Sarajuddin Ali Khan Aarzoo

(Nawadir ul Lughat), John T. Platz (Urdu, Hindi and English dictionary) and Ameer

Meenai (Ameer ul Lughat). The first edition of Feroz ul Lughat, compiled by Maulvi

Ferozuddin, was published in 1897 and it is one of the most old and most widely used

monolingual Urdu dictionaries. There are, however, many other dictionaries like Farhang

e Asifia by Munshi Syed Ahmad Dehlvi, Noor ul Lughat by Maulvi Noor ul Hassan

Nerkakori and Jamei ul Lughat by Abdul Majeed BA. Feroz ul Lughat is still very much

popular among the learners and teachers of Urdu. The following lines present the review

of two dictionaries: Feroz ul Lughat as it is the oldest monolingual Urdu dictionary and

Ilmi Urdu Lughat as it claims to be designed on the needs of the target users of Urdu (see

preface Feroz ul Lughat).

89

4.5.1. Feroz ul Lughat (2006 edition)

In this edition of the dictionary, an attempt is made to include more and more old

and new words of Urdu. Compound words, proverbs, phrasal verbs, scientific and literary

terms are also included in this edition. This dictionary claims to meet the needs of the

learners ranging from the beginners to the advanced level. The words that are obsolete

and are specifically used in Dakhni Urdu are also listed in this dictionary. Words are

listed in terms of primary and secondary words. The primary or head word is listed close

to the margin and the secondary words are listed with a space from the margin. Diacritic

marks are put to avoid ambiguity and the pronunciation is given by dividing words in

parts or chunks. The gender of each noun is described and the words have been

categorized in terms of four basic parts of speech ( مصدر)اسم، ضمیر، صفت، . Words from

other languages that have become the part of the vocabulary are also listed in the

dictionary. It is stated in the preface that this dictionary is revised after every twenty or

twenty five years. (Feroz ul Lughat 2006 (Preface).

Although the dictionary attempts to meet the needs of maximum range of learners

but target learners are not specified. Words are not defined. In many cases only the

synonyms or the equivalents of the words are found to be listed in the dictionary.

Examples are not given along with the words. The pronunciation that is given with each

words is difficult to follow and confusing. The number of the words listed in the

dictionary is not specified. The front matter of the dictionary contains a list of symbols

and abbreviated words with their relative explanations. The last six pages are given to the

90

conclusion in which certain words are listed but in the preface, the reason of listing these

words in the end is not specified.

4.5.2. Ilmi Urdu Lughat (2006 Edition)

Ilmi Urdu Lughat is one of the most popular and widely used dictionaries among

the learners of Urdu. This dictionary was compiled by Waris Sirhindi. This edition of the

dictionary is not very much different from that of the previous editions. The number of

dictionary entries is not specified. The grammatical information is very much similar to

that of Feroz ul Lughat. In this dictionary words are divided basically in four parts of

speech including ( اسم، ضمیر، صفت، مصدر ). Definitions and examples are not given

with the words. Synonyms and equivalents of the words are given in the dictionary.

Pronunciation guide is not given in the front matter and words are described in brackets

by breaking them into parts in front of words. The target learners or users are not

specified. The stylistic features are ignored and no notes on the usage of certain words are

found.

Although both the dictionaries aim at to satisfy the needs of the learners at all the

levels but they are not regarded as pedagogical dictionaries on the following grounds:

it is not compiled on any corpus

the words are not defined

the example are not given

illustrations are not given importance.

To conclude the above given discussion it could safely be said that the lexicographic

tradition in Urdu requires to be revolutionized so that dictionaries should be compiled by

91

keeping the target learners in the mind while designing the framework of a pedagogical

monolingual Urdu dictionary. This is what the present study aims to do.

4.6. Conclusion

The discussion on the literature review provides the space to this research in that

it provides the methodological grounds the questionnaire based researches. It also

supports the idea of designing a dictionary on the lines of COBUILD dictionary and

finally the sources of collecting a corpus of Urdu as the basis of a pedagogical

monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary. The next chapter will study the methodology and

a comprehensive research design of the present study.

92

CHAPTER 5

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

According to Creswell (1998) research methodology is “the systematic study of

methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline”. In other words it is a

specific procedure or set of procedures that are used to conduct the research.

Methodology refers to the ways information is gathered or the way research is done.

Methodology can also be explained in terms of the approaches, methods, techniques and

procedures which assist in collecting and analyzing the gathered information. In other

words methodology is a series of some particular steps or procedures which are

responsible to monitor the activities of collecting information, analysis and design

(Creswell 2003). The present research was conducted to design the essential features of a

monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu following the

model of COBUILD dictionary and finding out the possibilities of collecting corpus of

Urdu as the basis of a learners’ dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu.

5.1. Theoretical Framework of the Study

Before designing the methodology for the present study, it is important to review

the methodologies used by other researchers in the field of pedagogical lexicography.

93

The methodologies used in the previous studies provide a theoretical and methodological

space for the present study.

5.1.1. A Review of Questionnaire- Based Research

Questionnaire-based research is the considered as the most convenient method of

research in many fields of social sciences and linguistics. This is also true in the case of

research into user oriented lexicography. In what follows, I shall discuss some major

empirical studies that have been reported in the literature of dictionary requirement, and

attitude towards the use of dictionary.

Barnhart (1962) contribution is considered to be the first research work in

user-perspective tradition of lexicographical research. He laid stress that the main

purpose of the dictionary is to ‘answer the questions that the user of dictionary asks’ and

that ‘dictionaries on commercial market will be successful in proportion to the extent to

which they answer these questions the buyer’. He conducted the survey in 1955 and 108

questionnaires were delivered to college professors of English writing in 99 colleges in

27 States. The purpose of the study is to obtain the significance of the information

categories presented in the Dictionaries used in colleges in America. The teachers were

asked to rate six types of information e.g. meaning, spelling, pronunciation, synonyms,

usage notes and etymologies. The findings of the surveys indicted that the meaning was

the most frequented reported category followed by spelling and pronunciation. After

them the synonyms and usage came and etymological information was the last in the

given priorities. While presenting a critical review on user oriented researches, Hartmann

94

describes that the study conducted by Barnhart dealt only with a small sample and the

results were not reported numerically. (1987: 13).

Diab commented on the study and said that:

“His results were based on the indirect responses made by the teachers. These

results were not the outcome of the direct observations of the target user. Apart

from all criticism the valuable contribution of Barnhart can not be denied.

Although the study was conducted about three decades ago but the most

remarkable feature of his study was that it brought a new approach and a

significant perspective in lexicography” (1990: 22).

The study is also of a great worth as the results drawn from his research have been

replicated in many other researches. I learned from the study and critical evaluation of

Barnhart’s study that the group of subjects in the present research should be a larger one

covering the maximum variety of the learners and that data should be collected directly

from the learners themselves. The statistical data should also be presented in this study.

The second contribution in the field of this tradition was that of Randloph Quirk

(1975). According to Hartmann (1987) Quirk’s survey was the first scholarly study in

Britain for the assessment of the attitudes of dictionary users. His research was concerned

with the users directly. He studies the use of dictionaries by 220 undergraduate British

students at the University College, London. The data was collected with the help of a

questionnaire. 30 questions were included in the questionnaire focusing on different

aspects of using dictionaries. These aspects included the ownership of a dictionary,

purpose and frequency of the use dictionary and issues related to facing difficulties in the

process of looking dictionary. The responses of the subjects showed that 71% of the

95

subjects used their dictionaries at least once a month and that they primarily looked up

the meaning of the words and also looked at the synonyms and the antonyms of the

words. His results pertaining to the different types of information for the user are similar

to that of Barnhart that showed the meaning and spelling as the most frequently looked

up types of information.

Quirk, on the basis of his findings, concluded that dictionaries compilers and the

users of dictionaries have different priorities:

“Some of the dictionary features which seem of particular centrality to

lexicographer are decidedly peripheral to the ordinary user” (1975: 80).

Nesi identified two issues in this study: the first was the question of the accuracy

of the responses elicited by the subjects and the second issue was concerned with the type

of questions asked in the questionnaire. She commented that:

“Quirk’s questionnaire asked users to comment on what already existed in their

dictionaries and despite the invitation to suggest improvements, there was little

encouragement to think laterally and suggest departure from the traditional

dictionary use.” (2000: 5)

Quirk’s survey was more comprehensive as compared to that of Barnhart. Although

the context of the research is limited, the methodological grounds of the study were very

sound and this would be of a great help while determining the course of research in the

present study. The results drawn by Quirk were replicated in the research conducted by

Jackson (1988). The questionnaire he used was relatively easy to follow than that of

Quirk’s for it was precise and comprehensive.

96

Tomaszczyk (1979) was the first to work on the needs of non native users of

dictionary. The main purpose of his study was to collect information regarding producing

better dictionaries as he was motivated by the observation that there was a great

dissatisfaction with dictionaries among foreign learners of English:

“The study … was undertaken in the hope that an examination of the ways in

which language learners use dictionaries, and of their attitudes and expectations

towards them would provide some information about the extent to which various

group of users depend on dictionaries, help pinpoint those of the current

lexicographical solutions that are, as well as those that are not, felt to meet their

needs, and give lexicographers some clue they might want to use in their attempts

to make better dictionaries” (1979: 103).

Tomaszczyk’s study was more detailed and covered a variety of subjects than the

first three researches. Tomaszczyk’s questionnaire contained fifty seven items concerning

personal and language learning history, current language use, use of dictionaries and the

evaluation of the information contained in them (1979: 104).

The results drawn in his study revealed that bilingual dictionaries were mainly

used for translation and L2-L1 dictionaries were more often used by the subjects than L1-

L2 dictionaries. The findings reported monolingual L2 dictionaries to be of secondary

importance to the users. In this study, some questionnaires were mailed to obtain data.

Diab asserted that mailed questionnaires might be unreliable and the data obtained

through this method might not be valid (1990: 26).

97

Nesi, while criticizing Tomaszczyk’s study for its contradicted responses on the

part of the subjects, said:

“ Although flaws in the research design render some of his finding’s suspect, a

number of important findings do emerge from the survey. Unlike the respondents

in the surveys conducted by Quirk, Tomaszczyk’s subjects attached far greater

importance to grammatical information, and registered less satisfaction with the

dictionary they use” (2000: 07).

Baxter (1980) collected data from 342 subjects to evaluate the significance of

monolingual dictionaries in comparison with bilingual dictionaries. The subjects in this

study were Japanese students. The data were collected through questionnaire from three

national universities in Japan. The questions were not retrospective but, in the majority of

cases, required to provide factual information about dictionary ownership. In

Tomaszczyk’s study, the use of a monolingual dictionary was reported as being less

frequent than the use of a bilingual dictionary. Many students criticized monolingual

dictionary on various grounds. Baxter, in his study, provided no indication of the types of

the monolingual dictionaries his subjects were using. Baxter, however, concluded that his

subjects preferred to use bilingual dictionaries because they were easier to use than

monolingual English dictionaries.

Bejoint (1981) contributed a very informative and the most influenced study in

the field of user- oriented lexicography. His study is considered to be most frequently

cited and well known survey in pedagogical lexicography. Bejoint claims that his survey

was influenced by that of Tomaszczyk’s remarks (1979: 103) that the need of the popular

98

commercial dictionary user had been neglected and explored ‘the virtually unknown

territory of the users’ reference skills and habits’ (Bejoint 1981: 208).

Bejoint administered the questionnaire containing 21 questions to 122 French

students of English at the University of Lyon. The questions covered the aspects of

dictionary use like dictionary ownership, dictionary typology, reason for choosing a

particular dictionary, preferences; frequency of use, information looked up, context of

dictionary use, attitudes towards dictionaries and problems in dictionary use.

The result revealed that 96% students possessed a monolingual dictionary for

example OALD, DOCE, COD, ect. 85% of the subjects reported that they had chosen

their dictionary because it had been recommended by their teachers. 87% of the

respondents placed meaning among the three most looked up piece of information in a

dictionary but only 25% reported spelling and pronunciation. The least mentioned

information category was etymology. The results also reported variations in the use of

dictionary according to the study level and age of the students. Students seemed to prefer

and satisfied with the dictionary they habitually use or worked with. The dictionary that

covered the most vocabulary items obtained more value. Bejoint also recorded that

dictionaries were used mostly for decoding purposes. Nesi stated that there was one issue

with the questions asked from the subjects. She regarded some questions required rather

too much from the students’ power of critical analysis, retrospection and recall and they

were expected to provide from their memory the detailed accounts of their look-up habits.

In fact many of them were unable to remember much about pervious dictionary

consultation while they were expected to pass critical judgment on the dictionaries they

used (2000: 08). It is quite difficult to compare the findings of Bejoint’s study with the

99

findings of the survey conducted by Baxter and Tomaszczyk regarding bilingual

dictionaries as this study was limited to the examination of monolingual dictionaries

alone. However, Bejoint’s contribution is of much interest for the present research as it

brought into focus many important issues of interest of both language teachers and

lexicographers.

Another questionnaire based study that is reported was that of Battenburg’s. He

conducted his survey in 1984 and collected information from 60 non native speakers at

Ohio University. The respondents were divided according to three proficiency levels:

elementary, intermediate and advanced. The respondents represented seven different

language backgrounds but majority of them belonged to the Chinese or Arabic language.

Battenburg reported that difference in .language background did not affect on the

dictionary- using behaviour. The study revealed that majority of the subject possessed

bilingual dictionaries and the native speaker dictionaries were owned by a smaller

number of subjects. Battenburg also reported that there was a corelation between the use

and ownership of a dictionary. . Bilingual dictionaries were owned by all the elementary

level respondents and all the advanced learners use monolingual dictionaries. All the

respondents expressed preference to look up the definitions and less interest had been

shown by the subjects towards looking up etymological information. Battenburg’s

questionnaire was shorter than that of Bejoint and he did not include questions regarding

unsuccessful look-up while using a dictionary. Unlike Bejoint, Battenburg’s decision to

divide the respondents into three groups according to their proficiency level was a good

idea but the findings suggested that these groups did not represent a true language

100

learning continuum. Battenburg reported very similar results of Tomaszczyk and Bejoint

when he asked the respondents to suggest the ways to improve the existing dictionaries.

Griffin (1985) conducted a pilot study among ESL students at Southern Illinois

University. The basic purpose of this study was to develop a ‘dictionary skill unit’. The

questionnaire containing 10 items was given to 128 subjects representing 13 different

language backgrounds. They were divided into four proficiency levels, from beginners to

advanced level. The questions were about dictionary use, such as types of dictionaries

they own, frequency of use, reading forematter and other points of a general nature. The

results of the research showed that the subjects were not fully aware of the use of

dictionary. The study reported that many students did not use dictionary in the class room

but preferably at home. It was also reported that the students of higher level tended to feel

embarrassed about using a bilingual dictionary in the class even though they might have

need for using it. Moreover the majority of the students did not bother to consult the front

or the back matter of the dictionary. The results of the experiment showed that the

subjects showed interest and expressed a positive attitude towards the project. Griffin

(1985) explained:

“A few students started with the attitude that this lesson was unnecessary because

they already know how to use a dictionary, but some students, while working on

the exercises, acknowledged this limited knowledge of the complications of

dictionary use.” (1985: 58)

I hope that in conducting this research Griffin’s study would be of a great help to

me. The study added to our knowledge regarding to the learners’ attitudes and the

interaction between learners and their dictionaries. Griffin study focused at getting four

101

type of information and demonstrated some worthwhile methodology concerning the

teaching of the use of dictionary.

Kipfer (1985) examined the influence and dictionary skills on the attitudes and

language needs of intermediate students. A questionnaire was administered on 292

American High-school students in 1983-84. The main objective of the questionnaire was

to collect the basic data on different aspects of dictionary use.. Kipfer found that the

subjects had not been taught or learned dictionary skills and the subjects used dictionaries

incorrectly or sparingly. He reported that the subjects showed unwillingness to refer to

dictionaries for fear of appearing ignorant. The major looked up information was

meaning, spelling and sometimes pronunciation. Kipfer used an ‘outsider’ approach in

collecting data from the subjects. She gave the subject three days to fill in the

questionnaire at home ‘because the school maintained no obligation to conduct a large

scale testing for an outsider’ (Kipfer 1985: 11). Her ‘outsider’ approach was criticized for

the validity of answers. In my research, I tried to avoid this approach and made it sure

that the data have been collected in researcher’s own presence. This helped me to collect

more reliable answers form the subjects involved in my study. The notion of teaching

dictionary skills to the advanced Urdu learners would be also helpful in this research

while preparing the research tool.

Li (1998) reported the results of a questionnaire on the use of dictionaries. The

subjects under study were 691 Chinese students and 110 university teachers. The results

showed that all of them owned bilingual dictionaries. The subjects preferred to use

English-Chinese dictionaries for comprehension but less than half of the sample owned

Chinese-English dictionaries. Li also reported a translation test followed by the

102

questionnaire and supported Tono’s (1984) results that the use of dictionary was very

helpful in accurate translation.

The above given discussion proves that many studies have been reported to use

questionnaire as a basic tool of collecting data. The groups of the subjects in the above

mentioned studies were large enough to be interviewed and some there are many type of

information that can be sought only by the help of a questionnaire. Nesi (2000)

recommended that questionnaires should be modified and revised in the light of expertise

to avoid ambiguity and to get maximum reliable data.

5.1.2 A Review of Design Features-Based Research

Hausmann (1990) discussed the features needed for a French monolingual

learner’s dictionary to be used for classroom learning. The elements are collocation,

figurative usage, visual aids, synonyms and antonyms, and emphasis on context. This

study is of much interest for me as it has provided me with the rationale of designing the

essential features for native speakers as far as learning and teaching is concerned.

Cowie (1996) notes several significant features of the monolingual Italian

dictionary (1992) including numerous and well defined examples by the lexicographers

in the entries, numerous collocation that are limited to two or three phrases and the use of

terminological tables and detailed illustrations.

In various research papers, he has explored many dimensions of dictionary design

and use. In 1989, Cowie conducted a study in which he looked at the design of dictionary

entries. He mentioned how one might successfully illustrate the meaning of a lexical item

through the use of examples. He discussed the role of syntax in dictionary, the

103

importance of cohesion across example sentences and the contribution of syntax and

cohesion to the learner’s achievements. This research, like the one conducted by

Hausmann, is also another evidence of designing monolingual dictionary for native

speakers (Dolezal & McCreary 1999: 24, 25).

5.1.3. A Review of Corpus-Based Research

The first electronic or machine-readable corpus has been designed by Francis and

Kucera in 1961 and published in 1964. Its focus was on collecting texts from informative

texts (non fiction) and imaginative texts fiction). The Brown Corpus is designed to

represent the wide range of written American English. Additional information as origin

of each sample text and line numbering is also given.

The second stance in this regard is the Lancaster—Oslo/Bergen Corpus by

Johansson, Leech and Goodluck. This corpus is a representative of British English as

opposed to the Brown Corpus. This is a combined project of university of Lancaster and

Oslo, and the Bergen based centre for Norwegian Humanities Computing participating.

The corpus and its manual are available through ICAME, the International Computer

Archive of Modern English (Johansson, Leech, & Goodluck, 1978).

The LLC is developed in Sweden. It is based on previously stored corpus, the

SEU Corpus. This is the first copra in which spoken evidences were used. Although it is

not considered as satisfactory as far as it representativeness is concerned, it has set a trend

to include spoken data in corpora. (Horváth, 2000).

With seven million words of the Main COBUILD Corpus, the Bank of English is

the largest collection of written and spoken English text stored on computer. Its initial

104

feature and aim was to "help learners with real English" by enabling applied linguists to

do research into the contemporary language primarily for language education (Collins

COBUILD English Language Dictionary, the original 1987 edition and the 1995

revision). The revolutionary contribution the corpus project has made to the development

of learner dictionaries has been the most influential result. A joint venture of Collins

Publishers and the English Department of Birmingham University, it has provided new

approaches (see, for example, Sinclair, 1987b) to lexicography. (Horváth,2000). The

Bank of English has continued to innovate in all the related work: in the way corpus

evidence is incorporated in learner dictionaries, in study guides and recently in a special

series of concordance samplers, in the application of a lexical approach to grammar, and

in the theoretical and technical field of marking up the corpus. (Sinclair, 1991)

The corpus is still progressing and more words have been added to make it more

up to date and close to real English.

The British National Corpus BNC focuses such academic, commercial and public

entities as the British Library, Chambers Harrap, Lancester University's Unit for

Computer Research in the English Language, Longman, Oxford University Computer

Services and Oxford University Press (Horváth, 2000).The majority of its content, 90

percent, is written, with 10 percent made up of spoken samples, running to a total of 100

million words in over 6 million sentences. Any of its constituent texts is limited to 40,000

words (Burnard, 1996). Aston (1996, 1998) evaluates the benefit of BNC for advanced

FL students in Italy in how they conduct linguistic inquiries. Aston reports that by

accessing and studying this large corpus, students were highly motivated, primarily

105

because of their critical attitude to published reference works that they can contrast with

the results of their own conclusions.

The present study has used COBUILD’ considerations and recommendations for

designing the features of a monolingual learners’ dictionary for advanced learners of

Urdu as the purpose of this dictionary is not only to provide information to native speaker

but also to the international users. The defining style is comprehensive and grammatical

information is given by adding a third column in the dictionary.

After analyzing the theories and different methodologies used in previous studies

the present study is designed. The comprehensive methodology used in the present study

is discusses in the following section.

5.2. Types of Research

There are two main types of research which are secondary research and primary

research. According to Blumberg et al (2005), in secondary research we tend to use the

information that has already been gathered by the other people through primary research.

In other words secondary research is the information that has already been done and

reported by someone else for some other purpose. Secondary research deals with the

study of secondary sources of data. The sources of secondary data can be obtained from

the company itself and this is called as internal secondary data. On the contrary, external

secondary data is data that has been published by some other organization. (Blumberg et

al 2005).

The primary research is carried out for collecting data for a particular purpose.

Primary research aims at collecting genuine and original data about the market and the

product. Primary research data does not exist before. In the collection of primary data,

106

there is a field research, which includes personal one to one interviews or telephonic

interviews. Moreover the advantages of primary research are that it is latest, more

specifically designed according to the aims and objectives of the research, collects data

that has not been used before and the information are always confidential. Primary

research can either be qualitative or quantitative (Blumberg et al 2005).

The research design of this research is as under:

5.2.1. Selection of Topic

A topic according to current important issues regarding the modern principles of

lexicography and their application in Urdu was selected to design the features of a

monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for the advanced learners.

5.2.2. Reviewing the Literature

The preliminary data for this research was collected through a literature review and the

use of a questionnaire based survey of advanced learners of Urdu in Pakistan. The

literature review was done through books, conference proceedings, the Internet, and

leading English and Linguistics journals. In this step, opinion of advanced learners about

monolingual dictionaries was identified through a detailed review of published linguistics

papers, recent magazines, newspapers and via Internet.

107

Figure No. 5

Rationale for conducting the literature review Primary 1.Academic Research journals.

. 2. Refereed conferences. 3. Dissertation/theses.

4. Reports, Occasional papers. 5. Official publications

Knowledge source Secondary 1. Text Books 2. Newspapers, Magazines Tertiary 1. Dictionaries 2. Encyclopaedias 3. Handbooks 4. Internet/Websites Note taking Organising Literature review Critical appraisal

(Reviewing the Literature)

A review of the past literature has contributed a great deal in the choice of an

appropriate research approach for this study. The research design for the present study

has been selected from the recent user-oriented approach of lexicographic research.

An overview of the previous studies shows that most of them have used

questionnaire. In many cases the questionnaire were mailed or emailed. They were not

administered by the researchers themselves. In this research the researcher administered

the questionnaire personally to collect the data.

108

Diab (1990) explains six possible means of data collection in dictionary research.

They are described as under:

The critical review

The case Study

The questionnaire

The interview

The protocol

The experimental test

After analyzing the various techniques especially used in earlier studies, time

duration and feasibility and availability of the respondents for my research, I decided to

collect data through questionnaire partly because this technique has been used frequently

in pedagogical lexicographic research and partly because the data collected through a

questionnaire is easy to collect, interpret and analyze. The questionnaire is capable of

‘eliciting a large quantity of data about a large number of people in less time and with

less expenses’ (Diab 1990: 60-61). However, to avoid the delimitation of using

questionnaire as the source of data collection, it was discussed with the experts and

teachers time and again so that it would become the most appropriate in its design before

implementation process.

As far as pedagogical lexicography is concerned, there is a good deal of studies

based on the use of English monolingual or bilingual dictionaries in both native and non

native contexts. Little research has been conducted on the Urdu learners as Urdu

monolingual dictionary users in Pakistan. Considering the situation, I decided that my

109

research would explore this aspect of lexicographic research in Pakistan where Urdu is

regarded as the national language. This study is limited to the southern Punjab, Pakistan.

5.3. Deciding on the Research Method

After detail literature review, direction of research was easily determined. Yin

(1994) expressed that a research design is an action plan for getting from ‘here’ to ‘there’,

where here may be defined as the initial set of questions to be answered, and ‘there’ is

some set of conclusion (answers) about these questions. Between ‘here’ and ‘there’ may

be found a number of major steps, including the collection and analysis of relevant data.

There were two options.

1. Qualitative Research.

2. Quantitative Research.

According to Babbie (1997) Qualitative research is the non numerical study to

interpret the observations, to discover the implied meanings and relationship pattern. In

other words qualitative research involves the processes of collecting, analyzing, and

interpreting data through observation. Moreover it refers to the meanings, concepts,

definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and descriptions of things. Whereas

quantitative research, it deals with the count and measures of the things. (Creswell J W

1994).

Qualitative research tends to be more subjective than quantitative research and

various methods are adopted to collect information in which the most common is the in-

depth interviews and focus groups of the individuals (Bryman and Bell 2003). The

research is exploratory and often open-ended. A small numbers of people are interviewed

110

in-depth and/or a relatively small number of focus groups are conducted. Participants

respond to the questions and the interviewer or group moderator explores and

contemplates on their responses to conclude the perceptions, opinions and the attitudes

towards the under discussion topic and finally determines the degree of agreement or

disagreement as is shown by the group or individuals (Bryman and Bell 2003). The

validity of the findings obtained from this sort of research depends largely on the skills,

experience and sensitivities of the interviewer or group moderator (Creswell J W 1994).

The qualitative research is inductive as the researcher constructs abstractions, concepts,

hypotheses, and theories from details (Lincoln 2000).

The present research uses a combination of both qualitative and quantitative

methods for a concise and comprehensive analysis of the data.

5.3.1. Deciding the Research Techniques

After literature review and decision of research approach, it was finally decided

to construct a questionnaire. The questionnaire was close ended to get focused

information from the learners and the teachers of Urdu at advanced level the data was

collected by the researcher to get the following advantages:

1. Authentic Research.

2. Speedy work.

3. Consultation

111

5.3.2. Questionnaire Construction

After deciding research approach, I clarified my dimensions for progress working

and started questionnaire construction. Following are the factors which helped me in

construction of questionnaire:

1. Literature review.

2. All the sample questionnaires which were attached with journals.

3. Diab (1990) provided comprehensive questionnaires designed to collect data for

pedagogical lexicography.

The questionnaires were designed for both the learners and the teachers of Urdu.

The questionnaire for the learners covered the strategies and the attitudes of the learners

while using a monolingual Urdu dictionary while the questionnaire for teachers covered

the attitudes of the teachers towards monolingual Urdu dictionaries and their use in and

outside of the class room.

112

5.3.3. Method to Construct the Questionnaire

Figure No. 6

Identify the first thought questions How to construct a Questionnaire Formulae the final questionnaire Check questionnaire wordings Open ended Type of Question Format Closed ended Factual Questions Checklist Grid Rating scale Opinion Question (Subjective measurement) Likert scale*** Ranking Semantic differential scale Criteria for construction a Questionnaire A Pilot study The Covering Letter

(Construction of a Questionnaire) Selection of questions can be made to determine the appropriateness of either

closed-ended or open ended question depends on a number of factors. Lazarsfeld (1944)

suggested the following considerations to determine appropriateness of which type of

question to ask:

1. The objectives of the questionnaire.

2. The respondents’ level of information about the topic in questions.

3. The extent to which the topic has been thought through by the respondents.

113

4. The ease of the respondents.

5.3.4. Construction of Question

Simple process for construction of question is

Research Objectives

+

Literature review

Lead to

Issues, topic and ideas

Lead to

Questions

5.3.5. Opinion Question (Subjective measurement)

There are several formats for opinion type of questions. 1. Checklist

2. Grid

3. Rating Scale

4. Likert scale

5. Numerical rating Scale.

6. Ranking.

114

7. Semantic Differential Scales

5.3.6. Likert scale Finally, I decided to use the Likert scale because:

1. Mostly previous researchers used this technique.

2. Easy to use and understand.

3. Our available formula was adjustable with this scale.

4. This type of scaling is similar to the rating scale, except the questions consist of

attitudinal statements on the survey object.

5. Warwick also recommended it concise.

5.3.7. A cover letter

Nachmias and Nachmias (1996) wrote that a cover letter must succeed in

overcoming any resistance or prejudice the respondent may have against the survey. It

should identify the sponsoring organization or the person conducting the study, explain

the purpose of the study, tell why it is important that the respondent answer the

questionnaire, and assure the respondent that the information provided will be held in

strict confidence.’

According to Bell (1996) a review of the tool of research is helpful in identifying

the flaws of the questionnaire so that subjects in your main study will experience no

difficulties in completing it and so that you can carry out a preliminary analysis to see

whether the wording and format of question will present any difficulties when the main

data are analyzed.

115

The questionnaire was further improved on getting the suggestions of the

following expertise in Linguistics.

1. Prof. Dr Zafar Iqbal Department of English, BZU Multan 2. Dr Shamim Haider Tirmizi Department of Education, BZU Multan 3. Ramesh Krishnamurthy Aston University, Birmingham, UK

5.4. Technique to collect data

Questionnaires were distributed and collected personally by the researcher. In

view of the feasibility of availability and proportion of the respondents, questionnaires

were distributed to the learners and teachers of Urdu at advanced level. A questionnaire

was designed as a tool of research. Personal sources were used for questionnaire

collection as well.

5.5. Data Analysis Approach

The collected data were analyzed by using the statistical technique of deriving

arithmetic mean against each statement.

The following formula was used to get the arithmetic mean:

M = N

fx

Where

M = Arithmetic mean ∑fx = Sum of the mid points/scores obtained

By the students on a given answer weighed by their frequencies/answers

N = Total number of the learners.

116

5.6. Participants

The subjects involved in this study were advanced learners and teachers of Urdu.

The sample was the 10% of the total population which make 400 students and 87 teachers

of Urdu which were selected randomly according to the availability of respondents and

the access of the researcher. The aim of the study was to cover this sample as dictionary

users for data collection.

5.7. Conclusion

The above given methodology paved the path of the present study to collect data

and the analysis of the findings of the data. This research follows an interactive model of

research where one method of research strengthens the base of another one. The next

chapter discusses the detailed descriptions and results of the surveys conducted for

securing a rationale for the present study.

117

CHAPTER 6

SURVEY OF THE LEARNERS AND TEACHERS AS USERS

OF URDU MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARIES

This chapter deals with the strategies and opinions of the learners and the teachers

as dictionary users. The chapter describes two surveys that are following:

1. An analysis of attitudes and strategies of advanced Urdu learners as monolingual

Urdu dictionary users.

2. A Study of the Attitudes of Teachers towards Monolingual Urdu Dictionaries.

The chapter will state the statistical analysis of both the surveys and a brief

description and discussion on the results of the survey of the advanced learners of Urdu

and then discuss the survey of the teachers of Urdu.

6.1. An Analysis of Attitudes and Strategies of Advanced Urdu

Learners as Monolingual Urdu Dictionary Users

The survey was conducted to measure the frequencies of the strategies of the

advanced learners of Urdu while using monolingual Urdu dictionaries and their attitude

towards the use of monolingual Urdu dictionary. In view of the feasibility of availability

and proportion of the respondents, 242 learners from the Government colleges and 158

learners from Private colleges were selected. The total sample selected for the study was

400. The division of the number of learners from Government was 97 male and 145

118

females while from private sector males were 72 and females were 86. Although the data

was collected on five point rating scale but for the ease of tabulation and analysis the

information collected by the learners and the teachers has been condensed (See Diab

1990) in the following way:

Strategies

Always + Often = High

Average= Average

Rarely + Never = Low

Attitudes

Strongly Agree + Agree = Agree

Undecided = Undecided

Disagree = Strongly Disagree = Disagree

6.1.1. Description of Results (Strategies)

The following results were drawn from the data collected from the learners of the

Urdu language.

Table.1. Using Dictionary at Secondary Level

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You used monolingual dictionary at secondary level.

75 79 246 2.24

The statement shows the frequency of the use of monolingual Urdu dictionary at

secondary level. The mean score determines that a low frequency is shown by the

respondents when they are asked about the use of a monolingual Urdu dictionary at

secondary level.

119

Table 2. Using Dictionary at Intermediate Level

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You used monolingual dictionary at intermediate level.

166 81 153 3.0

The statement was developed to recognize the use of a monolingual Urdu

dictionary at higher secondary or intermediate level. The mean score shows that the use

of a monolingual Urdu dictionary is more frequent as compared to the secondary level

and this reflects some tendency towards the need of an advanced learners’ dictionary.

Table 3. Using Dictionary to Look up Meaning

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use dictionaries to look up meaning.

256 69 75 3.88

The statement was developed to assess the frequency of the use of a monolingual

Urdu Dictionary for looking up meaning or definition of the words. The higher frequency

and the mean score reveal that the learners used dictionary to look up the meaning and

definition of the words.

Table 4. Using Dictionary to Look up Pronunciation

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use dictionaries to look up pronunciation.

217 89 94 3.51

The use of a dictionary for looking up the pronunciation of the words is reported

as highly frequent followed by the definitions and meanings. The mean score suggests

120

that the monolingual Urdu dictionary is used by majority of the learners to learn the

pronunciation of the words.

Table 5. Using Dictionary to Look up Usage

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use dictionaries to look up usage/ verbal illustration.

270 65 65 3.93

Words can be understood when they are illustrated with verbal evidences. They

are made clearer with the usage notes in a dictionary. The frequency of looking up usage

has a greater resonance. The mean score maintains that learners consult dictionaries for

the usage of words more than looking up meanings of words.

Table 6. Using Dictionary to Look up Etymology

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use dictionaries to look up origin of words.

31 11 358 1.40

The use of a dictionary for looking up the origin of the words shows a very low

frequency. The mean score suggests that etymology is not very much looked up by the

majority of the learners.

Table 7. Using Dictionary to Look up Grammatical Information

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use dictionaries to look up grammatical information.

308 53 39 4.17

Comprehensive grammatical information leads to the better understanding of

words in a language. A high frequency in this regard is shown by the learners. The mean

121

score shows that the grammatical information is the most frequent looked up component

while consulting a dictionary.

Table 8. Asking Teachers about Meaning

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You ask the teachers of Urdu about the meaning of words.

316

68

16

4.3

The learning process has always been dependent on teachers and a tendency to

asking meaning of words from teacher was a major source of learning. High frequency of

response to this statement favours that the teachers should also be trained in dictionary

skills.

Table 9. Asking Teachers about Pronunciation

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You ask the teachers of Urdu about pronunciation.

240

72

88

3.6

Speaking correctly is an art it can be developed with a true concept and practice

under strong guidance of a Monolingual dictionary. The respondents show a high

frequency in asking the pronunciation of words to teachers. This shows that they could

not find sufficient information.

122

Table 10. Asking Teachers about Symbols

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You ask the teachers of Urdu about symbols used in a dictionary.

309

74

17

4.2

While learning the English there are shorter terms used to indicate certain

messages. The frequency of asking teachers about symbols used in dictionary by the

teacher is higher as it is shown by the mean score.

Table 11. Asking Teachers about Grammatical Categories

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You ask the teachers of Urdu about grammatical categories of the words.

287

82

32

4.1

Learning process is incomplete without an active part of the teachers and a

tendency to asking teachers about grammatical categories of words from teacher was a

major source of learning. The mean score indicates that the strategy of asking teachers

about grammatical categories is highly favoured by the respondents / learners.

Table 12. Using Dictionary in the Classroom

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use a dictionary in the class room

179 89 132 3.1

This statement aims at to assess the significance of using dictionaries in the

classroom and how often the respondents use dictionaries in the class room. The mean

score is above three that shows that majority of the students use dictionaries in the

classroom.

123

Table 13. Using Dictionary Available in Library

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use the dictionaries available in the library of your institution.

232 81 87 3.56

The notion of using dictionaries available in the library carries a greater mean

score that shows that the respondents / learners use the dictionaries available in the

libraries of their institution.

Table 14. Writing Meaning on the Text

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You write the meaning of looked- up words on the text you read.

225 84 91 3.5

The strategy of writing meanings on the text books is another highly frequent

reported strategy. The mean score is above 3 which indicates that majority of the

respondents write the meanings of the words on the text books while reading any piece of

writing.

Table 15. Using more than one Dictionary

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You use more than one dictionary to look-up the same word.

65 73 262 2.17

The statement was developed to see the tendency of the respondents / learners

towards consulting more than one dictionary. A low frequency is reported in this regard

and the lesser response shows the negative response to the usage of more than one

dictionary.

124

Table 16. Guessing the Meaning from the Context

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You try to guess the meaning of unfamiliar words while reading?

198 92 110 3.4

Guessing the unfamiliar words from their context is also an important strategy. A

high mean score shows that respondents / learners often try to guess the meaning of the

words from their context and they do not use a dictionary for this purpose.

Table 17. Writing Meaning in a Note Book

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You write the meaning of looked- up words in a special note book.

173 109 118 3.2

After consulting the detail dictionary preview for searching meaning of words,

there is tendency of writing it in special note book. The response from learners is higher

towards this activity. The mean score obtained against the statement shows that it is

highly exercised during the dictionary usage.

Table 18. Browsing the Pages of Dictionary

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You browse through the dictionary pages without having a particular purpose.

120

113

99

3.04

Usually the idea of browsing through the dictionary pages without having a

particular purpose is not popular. But among the advanced learners of Urdu, it is highly

appreciated as high response of mean score is evident for it.

125

Table 19. Referring to the Introductory Pages

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You refer to the introduction of the dictionary pages.

188 113 99 3.3

The respondents/ learners report that they refer to the introductory pages quite

often for getting additional information about certain features in a monolingual

dictionary. High mean score indicates that introduction of a dictionary is always very

valuable.

Table 20. Referring to the Glossaries

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You refer to the glossaries usually found at the beginning or the end of the textbook.

279 54 67 3.9

In most of the reading materials or the text book, glossaries are given either in the

beginning or the end. A high mean score against the enquiry of this strategy indicates that

they refer to these glossaries to get meaning of the words.

Table 21. Referring to the General Information

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You refer to the general information in dictionary appendices (e.g. table of measurements etc.).

210

75

115

3.4

There is a great deal of information found in the appendices of the dictionaries.

The respondents/ learners show a high frequency in that they refer to the appendices of

the dictionaries.

126

Table 22. Finding Required Information in Glossaries

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You find the required information completely about the word from the glossaries found at the end of the book

118

192

90

3.12

The notion of finding comprehensive information in a dictionary is also

important. A high frequency is found in the responses against average followed by a high

frequency. The mean score in this regard maintain to some extent the satisfaction of the

respondents/ learners in this strategy. The inclination of mean score is average as well.

Table 23. Finding Comprehensive Definition of the Words

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

The dictionary you use provide the comprehensive definition of the looked-up words.

130

101

169

2.88

Finding comprehensive information in a dictionary has always been under

consideration. The respondents/ learners show that they do not find definitions in the

Urdu monolingual dictionaries they use. The mean score maintains a low frequency of

getting compact definition in the dictionary.

Table 24. Following the Abbreviated Information

Statement

Strategies High Average Low Mean score

You follow all the abbreviated Information given in the dictionary.

106 108 186 2.67

Abbreviations are used in almost all the dictionaries. A low frequency in

understanding the abbreviation of the words given in the Urdu monolingual dictionaries

127

is reported by the respondents/ learners. Mean score is average and its favour to statement

is medium.

6.1.2. Description of Results (Attitudes)

The following results have been drawn from the responses of the advanced

learners:

Table 25. Significance of a Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

It is important for the learners of Urdu language to use dictionaries during their studies.

383 13 Zero 4.59

The use and significance of dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu is highly

agreed upon by the respondents/ learners. Mean score value indicates that a large

majority of the learners agree that the use of a dictionary is vital in learning Urdu.

Table 26. Information in a Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

All dictionaries contain the same information.

232 85 83 3.6

The respondents/ learners showed a strong agreement that all the monolingual

Urdu dictionaries they use contain the same information. Mean score also verifies this

statement.

128

Table 27. Using Dictionary is Boring

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

The use of dictionaries is boring.

18 56 326 1.8

The statement aims at to access if the respondents/ learners enjoy using

dictionaries or think it a boring activity. A strong disagreement reported by the

respondents/ learners shows that they do not consider the use of a dictionary a boring

task.

Table 28. Dependence on one Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

To depend on one dictionary is enough.

74 62 264 2.2

The respondents/ learners have shown a strong disagreement about the notion of

depending on one dictionary. They think that depending on one dictionary to look up a

word is not enough which is quite evident from the mean score.

Table 29. Information Provided by the Glossaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Glossaries that are given at the beginning or the end of the text books are enough to learn Urdu language.

41

43

316

1.87

The respondents/ learners do not report that glossaries that are found at the end or

the beginning of a book do not provide sufficient to learn Urdu language. A very low

129

mean score is recorded in this regard that clearly indicates that glossaries do not meet all

the lexical and linguistic needs of the learners.

Table 30. Possession of at least one Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Every Urdu language’ learner should have at least one dictionary.

330 60 10 4.2

The importance of dictionary is no doubt recognized among learners as

understanding of language without one is very difficult especially for the advanced

learners. The respondents/ learners strongly agree that every learner of Urdu should have

at least one dictionary.

Table 31. Use of a Dictionary on Teachers Recommendation

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should use a dictionary that is recommended by teachers.

212 86 102 3.4

Teachers’ recommendation has always been a great help for the learners. The

opinion about using a dictionary on the recommendation of teachers is highly favoured

by the respondents/ learners. Mean score is strongly in favour of teachers’

recommendation while choosing a dictionary.

130

Table 32. Effectiveness of Monolingual Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Monolingual dictionaries help learners to learn Urdu language effectively.

231 96 73 3.6

Dictionaries play a vital role in learning or teaching a language. The effectiveness

of a monolingual dictionary to learn Urdu is highly favoured by the respondents/ learners.

The mean score clearly indicates that they considerably regard a monolingual dictionary

as a useful source to learn language.

Table 33. Inclusion of Dictionary Skills Exercises in Course of Urdu

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

It would be better if present course of Urdu include exercises on Urdu-Urdu dictionaries and how to use them.

279

78

43

3.86

The respondents/ learners have shown a strong agreement that the skills to use a

dictionary must be included in the course. The mean score maintains that the inclusion of

the dictionary exercises and dictionary skill would helpful for learning a language.

Table 34. Use of Pocket Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Urdu language learners should avoid using pocket dictionaries.

311 41 48 4

The respondents/ learners strongly agree with the notion that the pocket size

dictionaries should be avoided. The obtained mean clearly indicates that pocket size

dictionaries are precise and do not contain all the information about the word.

131

Figure. 7

Graphical Representation of the results (Learners’ Strategies)

132

Figure. 8

Graphical Representation of the results (Learners’ Attitude)

133

6.1.3. Discussions on Results

The results drawn from the responses obtained from the learners quite clearly

indicated that they are much aware of the notion of dictionary and its use. A larger

number of students reported to use dictionaries at Intermediate level than at Secondary

level. Learners showed a tendency of using dictionaries for looking up meaning,

pronunciation, grammatical information and the usage of the words and the same

information were reported to be asked by the teachers by them. A high frequency was

calculated when the learners were asked about the use of dictionaries available in the

institution, referring to the appendices of the dictionaries, and writing the meaning of

words on the text they read. A low frequency, however, was reported about getting

enough information about the words from the glossaries of the text books as they did not

provide all the information about words. Again a low frequency is reported about using

more than one dictionary for looking up the same words. The learners expressed that they

did not get satisfactory and comprehensive definitions of the looked up words from the

dictionaries they use. A low frequency was reported by the learners in following all the

abbreviated information given in the dictionaries which clearly indicated that the

currently used dictionaries need to be modified and revised on the lines of modern

postulates of lexicography.

In the second section of the questionnaire respondents indicated mean score

higher than 3.00 in the responses of the statement pertaining to the significance of the use

of dictionaries while learning a language. The responses of the learners were very much

in favour of possessing at least one dictionary by every learner. The learners were

strongly approved the notion of including exercises about the use of dictionaries in their

134

course of Urdu language. Majority of the learners indicated agreement to the statement

that dictionaries should be recommended by the teachers. So teachers should not

recommend the dictionaries on their intuitive knowledge rather it must be based on the

knowledge of the empirical studies done in the field of pedagogical lexicography.

Majority of the sample reported that they did not think it enough to depend on one

dictionary or the glossaries of the text books. The respondents expressed a stronger

opinion about the effectiveness of using monolingual dictionaries for learning a language.

The learners are of the view that the use of pocket dictionaries should be avoided.

6.1.4. Concluding Remarks on Learners’ Survey

A dictionary or a reference work is a very essential and effective tool in learning a

language. In this research I have focused on the strategies and attitudes towards using

dictionaries as it is the best way to explain their basic concepts about dictionaries and

their use. The learners’ use of dictionaries and their strategies of looking up words are

very helpful in revising and evaluating the monolingual Urdu dictionaries. Urdu

monolingual dictionaries are greatly needed to be designed on the user-perspective

approach of lexicography. While buying dictionaries, learners rely overwhelmingly on

the advice of their teachers (Cowie: 1999). So, teachers should have the knowledge about

the effectiveness and suitability of a particular dictionary at different levels and for

different activities. Learners enjoy using dictionaries and they would be more motivated

if they can get an adequate guidance on the part of the teacher. This is however only one

area that can make it possible to go for further researches on the way to design a perfect

Urdu Monolingual learners’ dictionary.

135

6.2. A Study of the Attitudes of Teachers towards Monolingual

Urdu Dictionaries

Lexicographic research in the context of dictionary use is very much in vogue

these days. A number of studies have been conducted on the user-oriented approach of

lexicography and, for most of the time; the major focus has been the learners. Chi (2003:

106) states that these ‘second stakeholders of lexicographic triangle’, who are the most

important link between dictionary compilers and users should be the subjects of

lexicographic research. The contribution of language teachers in the ‘art and craft’ of

dictionary is as much vital as that of learners or lexicographers (Landau 1984). Boonmoh

(2009) investigates the attitudes of language teachers towards the use of PEDs (Pocket

size electronic dictionary). The findings of the study suggest that the attitudes of language

teachers affect the learners’ choice and use of dictionary in and outside of classroom. As

far as lexicographic research in Urdu is concerned, no study is reported to be based on the

measurement of the attitudes of teachers towards the monolingual Urdu dictionaries. The

recommendations by Chi (2003) and the study conducted by Boonmoh (2009) at the

University of Warwick are the source of inspiration for this research.

In view of the feasibility of availability and proportion of the respondents, the

questionnaires were distributed to 126 teachers of Urdu teaching at college level. 34

teachers were from private colleges and 92 were from the government colleges. Selection

of teachers were made on the basis of there field of expertise (Urdu), experience and

teaching level (teachers of advanced level). Total 87 questionnaires were received out of

the distributed 126 questionnaires. The turn out of questionnaire was 69%.

136

6.2.1. Description of Results

The following results were drawn from the data collected from the teachers of the

Urdu language.

Table 35. Role of Dictionary in Language Learning

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Dictionaries play a significant role in learning a language.

87 Zero Zero 4.58

The learning process is also dependent on the sources of knowledge. The best

source of learning is dictionaries. Significance of dictionary in language learning is

highly favoured by the respondents/ teachers. Mean score show higher response towards

dictionaries’ prominent role in language learning.

Table 36. Role of Dictionary in 2nd Language Learning

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Dictionaries are very important in learning a second language (like Urdu in Pakistan).

82

05

Zero

4.57

The teachers/ respondents show a strong agreement towards the importance of

dictionaries in learning a second language. Mean score shows that they strongly favour

the notion.

137

Table 37. Importance of Monolingual Urdu Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

It is important for the learners to use an Urdu – Urdu dictionary.

65 13 06 4.11

Monolingual dictionaries help learners in better understanding the words. The

respondents/ teachers maintain that the use of Urdu to Urdu dictionaries is very important

for the learners and mean score verifies this view point.

Table 38. Using Dictionary in Looking up Meaning

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up meaning of words.

70 09 08 4.05

Dictionaries provide a lot of information about the words. One of them is

meaning. The respondents/ teachers show a strong agreement about the notion that a

dictionary is a useful tool for looking up the meaning of the words. The mean score

shows that a large majority of teaches are in favour of this statement.

Table 39. Using Dictionary in Looking up Pronunciation

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up pronunciation of the words.

61

21

05

3.20

Accurate guide to pronunciation is another feature of a dictionary. The

respondents/ teachers strongly agree that an Urdu-Urdu dictionary is useful for looking

up the pronunciation of the words.

138

Table 40. Using Dictionary in Looking up Grammatical Categories

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up grammatical information.

66

17

04

3.98

Providing sufficient grammatical information about a word is another significant

feature of a dictionary. The response in this regard show that the respondents/ teachers

consider the dictionary as a useful source to provide the grammatical information as is

shown by the high mean score.

Table 41. Using Dictionary in Looking up Usage

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up the usage of words.

73

14

Zero

4.26

The use of word is a crucial issue while learning or teacher a language. Words

tend to change their meaning in certain context or by adding words with to them. The

respondents/ teachers strongly agree that a dictionary proves to be very helpful for

looking up the meaning of words. No response of disagreement is recorded against this

statement.

Table 42. Dependence on one Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should depend on one dictionary.

10 17 60 2.08

Dependence on one dictionary is strongly discouraged by the respondents/

teachers. The mean score shows that they consider the use of a single dictionary as

insufficient.

139

Table 43. Teaching Dictionary Use

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should be taught how to use dictionaries.

70 12 05 4.0

The respondents/ teachers are strongly agreed with the notion of teaching the

dictionary skills to the students in the class room. The mean score clearly favours the

above given notion.

Table 44. Ownership of Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should have at least one Urdu – Urdu dictionary.

78 07 02 4.36

It is quite understood that one cannot learn any language without any proper

guidance. Dictionaries are the best support for learners and the respondents/ teachers

strongly agree that at least one Urdu-Urdu dictionary should be with advanced Urdu

learners. Mean score show higher score for compulsory favour.

Table 45. Learners’ Encouragement to Use Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should be encouraged to use dictionaries while learning Urdu language.

71

13

03

4.08

A teacher can not be with a learner all the time. That is why the respondents/

teachers strongly agree that learners should be encouraged to use a dictionary. The mean

score also favours the statement that attempts to measure the ownership of a dictionary by

the learners.

140

Table 46. Role of a Dictionary in Reading

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in reading comprehension.

64 19 03 3.95

A dictionary plays a vital role in reading comprehension or the decoding

activities. The respondents/ teachers are highly in favour of the statement. The mean

score shows that a dictionary is a very useful tool in reading comprehension.

Table 47. Role of a Dictionary in Writing

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in improving writing skill.

57 23 07 3.90

Writing skill is related to grammatical competence and vocabulary which can be

improved by using dictionaries frequently. The respondents/ teachers are strongly agreed

with the notion. Mean value shows that majority of the teachers think that a dictionary is

very helpful in improving writing skills.

Table 48. Role of a Dictionary in Speaking

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in improving speaking skill.

64 18 04 4.04

Speaking skill is dependent on replacement of best to better word. A dictionary, if

contains a practical guide to the sound system of language, can play a significant role in

improving speaking skill. The responses of the respondents/ teacher and mean score

strongly favour the notion.

141

Table 49. Use of a Dictionary while Teaching

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Teachers of Urdu should use Urdu – Urdu dictionaries while teaching Urdu.

70 17 Zero 4.09

A strong agreement is reported by the respondents/ teachers that teacher of Urdu

use monolingual Urdu dictionaries while teaching Urdu. Mean score verifies the above

given statement.

Table 50. Use of a Dictionary in Lesson Preparation

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Teachers of Urdu should use a dictionary while preparing their lessons.

53

29

05

3.90

Learners depend on teacher in the classroom during lessons. Teachers should

consult Urdu dictionaries while preparing their lesson to cope the demands of the learners

in the class. Mean score shows stronger agreement to the statement.

Table 51. Encouragement of Learners to Buy Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Teachers of Urdu should encourage the learners to buy certain dictionaries.

62 23 02 3.97

The teacher should not only use dictionaries themselves but also encourage the

learners to buy dictionaries. The mean score shows that this statement is favoured by

majority of the respondents/ teachers.

142

Table 52. Teaching Dictionary Use

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Teachers of Urdu should explain how to use dictionaries.

67 19 01 4.25

Teacher should explain to learner how to use certain dictionaries to develop their

dictionary skills. Teachers should guide learners in order to develop their interest in using

dictionaries. Mean score maintains that a large majority of the respondents/ teachers

agree with the statement.

Table 53. Information Provided in Glossaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Glossaries given at the end of the text books are sufficient to provide all information about the words.

15

13

59

2.28

Glossaries are given at the ends of the books but they do not provide sufficient

information like dictionaries. The mean score shows that majority of the teacher do not

agree that the glossaries are sufficient to learn a language.

Table 54. Dependence on Glossaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should depend on the glossaries given at the end of the text books.

15

20

52

2.40

As this has already been maintained that glossaries do not provide sufficient

information about the words, the notion of depending on the glossaries is also rejected by

143

the respondents/ teachers. The mean score proves that majority of the teacher disagree

with the statement.

Table 55. Avoiding the use of Pocket Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should avoid using Pocket dictionaries.

43 14 30 3.16

Pocket size dictionaries contain limited information about the words. The

respondents/ teachers agree with the notion that learners should avoid using pocket

dictionaries.

Table 56. Using Learners’ Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should use Learners’ Dictionaries.

55 18 14 3.75

Learners’ dictionaries are specially designed for the language learners and contain

requirement. Mean score clearly indicates that majority of the respondents/ teachers agree

that the learners should use learners’ dictionaries.

Table 57. Using a Dictionary in the Classroom

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should use dictionary in the class room.

49 19 19 3.51

In classroom activities, the use of a dictionary strengthens the learning process.

The statement is highly favoured by the respondents/ teachers. Mean score show that the

use of dictionaries in the classroom is recommended.

144

Table 58. Browsing the pages of a Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Learners should browse the pages of the dictionaries without having a particular purpose.

46

25

16

3.50

Browsing the pages of a dictionary leads to the accidental learning of vocabulary.

The respondents/ teachers favour the notion. The mean score depicts that majority of the

teachers are in favour of browsing the pages of the dictionary without having a particular

purpose.

Table 59. Pronunciation Guide in Currently Used Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

The currently used dictionaries provide the effective guide to the pronunciation of the words.

21

06

60

2.37

The statement is given to evaluate the attitude of the teacher towards current

monolingual Urdu dictionaries. The respondents/ teachers quite disagree that the

currently used Urdu provides the effective guide to the pronunciation of the words.

Table 60. Grammatical Information in Currently Used Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

The currently used dictionaries provide sufficient grammatical information of words.

19

18

50

2.37

The second aspect to be evaluated is the grammatical information provided in

currently used dictionaries. The respondents/ teachers disagree that they provide

sufficient information about the grammatical categories of the words. The mean score

verifies the disagreement of the teachers.

145

Table 61. Usage of the Words in Currently Used Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

The currently used dictionaries provide the effective guide to the usage of words.

18

14

55

2.42

This statement aims at to evaluate to determine if the currently used Urdu

dictionaries provide the information on the usage of words. The respondents/ teachers

disagree with the notion that they provide the information on the usage of words and this

is evident by the mean score as well.

Table 62. Revision of Monolingual Urdu Dictionaries

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should frequently be revised.

66 15 06 4

Updating the dictionaries according to the current usage of the words is necessary.

The respondents/ teachers strongly agree that the Urdu to Urdu dictionaries are required

to be revised frequently. Frequently its addition should be done and should be revised.

Table 63. Inclusion of Definition in Dictionary

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Definition of the words should be given in the dictionary along with the equivalents.

73

11

03

4.27

Almost all the current monolingual Urdu dictionaries focus on giving equivalents

or meanings rather than the definitions. The respondents/ teachers strongly agree that

words should be defined along with the meaning in a dictionary for the better

146

understanding. The mean score indicates that the majority of the teachers are in favour of

the statement.

Table 64. Comprehensive Pronunciation Guide

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Pronunciation guide should be more comprehensible in a dictionary.

70 11 06 4.09

For the improvement of speaking skill, Pronunciation guide should be very clear

and practical. The respondents/ teacher strongly agree that the pronunciation guide needs

to more comprehensible in an Urdu monolingual dictionary.

Table 65. Explanation of Abbreviated Words

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

All the abbreviated words should be given in full in the front pages of the dictionary.

51

18

18

4

Abbreviations are usually used to shorten the words. The respondents/ teachers

strongly agree that the abbreviated words should be explained in the front matter of the

dictionary. Mean score clearly indicates that majority of the teachers favour the notion.

Table 66.Inclusion of Illustration

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Illustration (verbal & pictorial) must be provided in a dictionary for better understanding of the words.

55

19

13

3.83

Illustrations, both verbal and pictorial, enhance the understanding of new words.

The respondents/ teachers agree that dictionaries should have verbal or pictorial

illustrations. Mean score shows that illustrations should be included in a dictionary.

147

Table 67. Inclusion of Notes on Usage

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Notes on the usage of the words in certain context should be given in the dictionary.

63

21

03

4.20

Notes on the usage of the words in certain context can help in learning the wider

range of the use of the words. Mean score and a strong agreement shown by the

respondents/ teachers favour the inclusion of notes on usage in the dictionary.

Table 68. Designing Dictionaries on Lexicographic Principles

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Dictionaries should be designed on modern principals of lexicography.

63 21 03 4.01

Research work in lexicography is day by day improving. Linguistics factors are

increasing and development is highly appreciated. The respondents/ teachers strongly

agree that dictionaries should be designed according to these principles. Mean score

suggest that a considerable majority of teachers are in favour of the statement.

Table 69. Role of a Dictionary in Learning Spoken Urdu

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should be helpful for learning spoken Urdu.

47 21 09 3.39

The dictionary should improve the decoding as well as encoding skills. Dictionary

should also include features from the spoken language. The respondents/ teachers agree

that a monolingual Urdu dictionary should help the learners in speaking Urdu.

148

Table 70. Significance of Urdu Monolingual Dictionary for Foreign Learner

Statement

Attitudes Agree Undecided Disagree Mean score

Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should be designed in a way that it may be helpful for a foreign learner in learning the Urdu language.

66

19

02

4.13

The idea of designing a monolingual dictionary in a way that it should be helpful

for the international learners is strongly favoured by the respondents/ learners.

149

Figure 9

Graphical Representation of the Results (Teachers’ Attitude)

150

6.2.2. Discussions on Results

The results show that Urdu language teachers are aware of the fact that a

dictionary plays a significant role in learning a second language and it is also important

for a learner to use monolingual Urdu dictionary in learning a language like Urdu. Usage

of words is reported to be the most useful item to be looked up in a dictionary for a

learner followed by meaning, grammatical information and the pronunciation of words.

The respondents were reported a strong disagreement when they are asked about the

dependence of learner on one dictionary while a strong agreement is there when the they

are asked about teaching dictionary skills to learners and the issue of the ownership of at

least one dictionary. The teachers of Urdu also approve that learners should be

encouraged to use dictionaries while learning Urdu. A strong attitude is seen when the

effectiveness of dictionary use is reported to improve reading comprehension, writing

skill and speaking skill.

The teachers show a high frequency in the agreement of using monolingual Urdu

dictionaries in teaching Urdu language. They also report that using a dictionary while

preparing the lesson will help in better teaching and learning. A large number of teachers

favour that learners should be encouraged and guided by their teachers for buying certain

dictionaries as glossaries which are given at the end of the text book do not provide

sufficient information about words. The teachers disapprove the dependence of learners

on the information given in those word- meaning lists given in the last pages of text

books.

151

The notions of using learners’ dictionaries, using dictionaries in the classroom and

browsing the pages of a dictionary without a specific purpose are highly favoured by the

teachers.

Dissatisfaction is expressed by the teachers when they were asked to give opinion

about currently used monolingual Urdu dictionaries. They disagree that currently used

dictionaries provide sufficient information on grammatical categories, effective guide to

pronunciation and usage of the words. Majority of the teachers agree that the currently

used Urdu-Urdu dictionaries need to be revised.

The teachers think highly of including definition of words in the monolingual

Urdu dictionaries along with their equivalents, pronunciation should be more

comprehensible, the abbreviated words should be explained in the front matter, verbal

and non verbal illustrations and notes on usage should be included in a monolingual Urdu

dictionary.

Majority of the teacher approve that a monolingual Urdu dictionary should be

designed on the modern principles of lexicography and it should be compiled in a way

that it should also be of great help in learning spoken language not only for learners in

Pakistan but also for the foreign learners who want to learn Urdu.

6.3.3. Concluding Remarks on Teachers Survey

Teachers are binding connection between learners and dictionary compilers or

lexicographers. Their valuable suggestions and opinions in using, designing and

evaluating dictionaries can be of great worth because in some cases learners depend on

their teachers to choose and use a dictionary. They have a wide experience of classroom

152

activities and they can best coordinate by sharing their experiences in improving the

standards of dictionaries. This perspective of inculcating teachers’ ideas in compiling

dictionaries can make it possible to go for further researches on the way to design a

perfect Urdu Monolingual learners’ dictionary and all are on firm agreement that an Urdu

Monolingual learners’ dictionary for advance learners is needed.

6.4. Conclusion

The discussion on the results drawn in both the surveys are very strong evidence

that both the advanced learners and the teachers do not find sufficient information in

currently used monolingual Urdu dictionaries and want them to be modified according to

the lexicographic principles. These findings would also help in designing the feature of

pedagogical monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for advanced learners. Chapter 7

deals with the development of a corpus of Urdu and design features of pedagogical Urdu

monolingual learners’ dictionary for advanced learners.

153

CHAPTER 7

DESIGN FEATURES OF URDU MONOLINGUAL

PEDAGOGICAL LEARNER’S DICTIONARY FOR

ADVANCED LEARNERS OF URDU

As we have discussed in chapter 1, pedagogical monolingual dictionaries share some

basic features in common. These features include the following:

The pedagogical dictionaries use a corpus as a basis of the dictionary.

The pedagogical dictionaries use a specific and controlled vocabulary to be used

while defining the words.

The definitions were designed by using a corpus based contextualized texts.

The examples are taken from the natural or authentic language.

The nonverbal illustrations are used for supporting the definitions (Kwary, from:

www.kwery.net ).

Considering the above given features of a pedagogical monolingual dictionary, this

chapter aims at a brief description of the process of corpus development and designing

the features of a monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary following the tradition set by

English monolingual learners’ dictionaries. Almost all the English monolingual

dictionaries have used a corpus for their design. In this chapter an attempt is made to

discuss the process of the development of a corpus and to design the features of Urdu

monolingual learners’ dictionaries by keeping in view the available sources for collecting

154

a corpus for Urdu. A detailed overview of corpus and Urdu corpus studies has already

been given in chapter 3. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part deals with

how a corpus is built and how far the previous researches and studies would help us if an

attempt is made to collect a corpus of Urdu as a basis of a dictionary. In the second part,

an attempt is made to establish the design features of a monolingual learners’ dictionary

for advanced learners of Urdu. A detailed review of the corpus has already been given in

the literature review. In the following section the process of the development of a corpus

is discussed with special reference to the possibilities of collecting corpus of Urdu.

7.1. The Process of Corpus Development

Atkins et al specified the following stages of the development of a corpus:

Designing the plan of collecting a corpus in order to determine the type of the

corpus that is being collected, inclusion of the samples of the texts, the varieties of

language that are included in the sample and specification of time period,

selection of written and spoken language and the mode to encode data in

electronic form.

Seeking copyright permissions for using the textual data to be captured by the

electronic machines and spoken texts to be transcribed and used for the purpose

through some legal consultant so that the problem of copyright should be resolved

at earlier stages.

Capturing the data by scanning the written material and where necessary by

keyboarding it manually.

155

Designing the tools (e.g. soft wares) to fulfill the special requirements of a

specific language along with using those that are already available for tagging,

labeling etc.

Developing a corpus and getting feedback from the users either they have found it

easy and useful or not. (1991: 2-6)

The development of corpus can further be divided into two main fields:

The Main Corpus

The Reserve Corpus

7.1.1. The Main Corpus

The design of the main corpus involves the process of selection, acquisition and

digitizing of data for corpus (Renouf 1984).

7.1.1.1. Selection of the Representative of Language

The first attempt towards the development of a corpus is to collect a sample of the

language representing the whole. Yang (1985) takes a library as a microcosm of written

sample. Another possible answer to the problem of selecting sample is to use

bibliographical sources as adopted in LOB corpus (Hofland and Johannsson 1982).

Atkins et al classified the taxonomy of the text types for a lexicographic corpus that is

given as under:

156

Figure No. 10

Spoken: Dialogue

Private Face to face conversation Structured Unstructured Distanced conversation Classroom interaction Public Broadcast discussion/debate Legal proceedings Monologue Commentary Unscripted speeches Demonstrations Written: To be spoken Lectures Broadcasts (news/ documentary) Drama scripts Published Periodicals Magazines Newspapers Journals Newspaper supplements Books Fiction Non fiction General Official reports (Auto) biography Reference (discursive) Educational textbooks Miscellaneous Brochures Leaflets Manuals Adverts Unpublished Letters Personal Business Memos Reports Minutes of meetings

157

Essays Others Notes

(Atkins et al’s Taxonomy fro Selection the Material for Corpus)

COBUILD (1987) aimed at identifying the significant aspects of English language

with special reference to the international users. The sample of the representative

language they defined was as follows:

language both written and spoken form

general language rather than technical

a recent usage of language from 1960s

naturally occurring speech

prose, including fiction and excluding poetry

language used by the adults, 16 years or over

standard English, excluding dialects predominantly British English, with some

American and other variants (Sinclair 1987: 02).

The above given taxonomy and strategies defined by the COBUILD can be employed

in selecting a representative corpus of the whole for the collecting a corpus of Urdu

language. Urdu has a rich treasure of written materials and the sample given by Sinclair

can be collected easily. The sample of spoken language can also be obtained and

transcribed as IPA symbols are available for Urdu language. Besides IPA, phonetic

alphabets have also been converted to SAMPA for the ease of machine translation

(CRULP 2007: 5). There is, however, some consideration in maintaining the balance of

the components of the corpus. These issues can be resolved dividing the percentage of the

authorship of both male and female, language varieties and written and spoken form.

158

7.1.1.2. Identifying and Acquiring the Texts

The first question in the creation of a corpus in this regard is to define and

determine what is text? This inquiry can be investigated by consulting the experts who

are directly or indirectly involved in teaching or learning. The literary societies,

institutions and publishing authorities e.g. National Language Authority or Oxford

University Press Pakistan can be consulted to know the titles current best sellers of both

fiction and non fiction written material. Text book boards, Pakistan are a reliable source

for collecting written material of text books written in Urdu to be used as the basis of a

corpus. A huge collection of translated works may also be found to serve this purpose.

For maintaining the balance of the above given view, COBUILD adopted another

approach. British Council Libraries all over the world were asked to make a list of the

literary works that have been famous and read by the readers for a long time. The

publishers were also asked to give the titles of the best sellers (Renouf 1987: 4). Urdu

language is spoken India and Pakistan and all over the world where the speakers of the

language are resided. The catalogues of the titles of popular works can be collected from

the organizations, institutions and publishing bodies in Pakistan and outside of Pakistan

where Urdu is spoken and understood.

7.1.1.3. Seeking Copyright Permissions

After collecting the written material, it is important to seek permissions from the

right holders for using the data for a specific purpose. The permission can be secured by

writing a letter which includes the present and future strategies of the whole plan of

159

creating a corpus. The letter should explain in what ways the obtained set of text would

be exploited in the whole process and what is the specific purpose of using a particular

text and for what reasons this texts is obtained. After securing the permission from the

copyright holder the texts can be purchased, borrowed or photocopied (Renouf 1987).

7.1.1.4. Texts in Speech Form

Spoken texts are more difficult to obtain than the written texts. Arrangement of

special sessions to collect spoken data for this purpose may lead to a conscious and

artificial language and, no doubt, a long term process. It is better to exploit the pre-

existing spoken materials for this purpose as they represent the authentic language.

Requests can be made to the authorities who can provide the appropriate data, recorded

or transcribed. A lot of data can also be collected from the universities that have been

recorded or transcribed for different researches. In the case of Urdu, this spoken data can

be obtained from the radio Pakistan. This department can provide the recordings of the

programmes broadcast in Urdu. Another important source of collecting spoken material

in transcribed from is the television channels which transcribe their data regularly.

Reports, documentaries, interviews and talk shows are a rich source of lexis in this

regard.

7.1.1.5. Procedure of Capturing Selected Texts on Computer

The obtained text is captured in a machine in two different ways:

manually or by keyboarding

by scanning the whole text (Renuof 1987: 5)

160

Spoken data is needed to be transcribed and keyboarded manually. In the case of Urdu,

Urdu inpage is available for key boarding the text manually. As far as the programme for

machine reading and for mark up is concerned, Riaz and Becker (2002) have successfully

used Corpus Encoding Standard (CES) XML Document Type Definition (DTD) for

marking up the texts from Urdu. The programme can further be improved or some

amendment can be made according to the requirements of the nature of the work.

The next step in processing the text on computer is to define a system to code

concordances. In COBUILD, a series of letters can be seen along with the concordances

which indicate the origin of the texts. There are some codes which tell that the specific

piece of language has been taken from which book of which author of which cultural

back ground (Renouf 1987).

7.1.1.6. Correcting the Corpus

While digitizing the texts, many uncorrected items, if necessary, are removed or

ignored. Some times it is felt that these uncorrected lexical units are quite appropriate for

the corpus. However in concordances, these erroneous elements are sorted out and

grouped separately (Renouf 1987).

7.2. Reserve Corpus

After completing the main corpus, there is a reserve corpus which is stored for the

sake of future researches and references purposes. In COBUILD project, reserve corpus

was used for collating the concordances of main corpus with that of reserve corpus

(Renouf 1987).

161

The above discussion reveal that almost all the expertise and sources are available

for collecting a corpus of Urdu as a basis of a learners’ dictionary. The first software of

Urdu called Nuri Nastaliq was exhibited in Urdu Science College in August 1980. Jang

Group of newspapers started publishing their newspapers in it. It was also very warmly

welcomed by Dr Ishtiaq Hussian Qureshi, Chairman of the Muqtadra, in 1980 (Jameel

2002). After that, many other soft wares like Shahkar, Surkhab, Nastaliq, Nizami and Mahir

were introduced by PDMS (Pakistan Data Management Services). One of them, Nizami,

was installed and used by the National Language Authority in 1995 (Rehman 2004).

In 2000, UZT (Urdu Zabta Takhti) 1.01 was standardised for all kinds of electronic

computing, communications, and storage (Afzal & Hussain 2002). This organization

played a vital role in the field of Urdu language processing and the use of the language in

computer. Computer assisted translation has also been made possible (Ahmad 2002).

CRULP is contributing a big deal of research work in natural language processing and

corpus development of Urdu. Much advancement has been made and a limited corpus of

19 million words of Urdu text has already been collected from Jang News (Riaz &

Becker 2002). The evidences reveal that there is a need to take a step ahead that is the

collection of Urdu corpus as a basis of a monolingual Urdu dictionary for the advanced

learners of Urdu.

The next part of this chapter will focus on the design features of a pedagogical

monolingual learners’ dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu.

7.3. Design Features of a Pedagogical Monolingual Urdu

Learners’ Dictionary

162

Wingate stated that:

Language learning is a long continuum from the very beginning stage up to the

level of almost native like competence……… considering the variety of learners’

dictionaries, surprisingly little has been said about their suitability for learners”

(2002:01).

The above mentioned words clearly indicate that there is a need to specify the

type of users or the learners while designing a dictionary. The fact is that the design

features of a dictionary depend upon the level of the user. In the present study,

COBUILD dictionary is taken as a model for designing the features of a monolingual

Urdu learners’ dictionary partly because this particular dictionary is designed for the

advanced learners and partly because it also addresses to the international users. There

are also other characteristics that make this dictionary quite different from the other

monolingual English dictionaries for advanced learners for example the codes,

abbreviations, brackets, and symbols are avoided as they make a dictionary difficult to

use (COBUILD dictionary 1993).

While designing the features of a monolingual learners’ dictionary for the advanced

learners of Urdu, the two main structures of the dictionary has been kept into mind:

macro and micro structure.

7.3.1. Macro Structure

James and Hartmann (1998) define macro structure as the overall list of lexical

items that helps the compiler and the learner to search and look up information in a

dictionary. In the proposed dictionary the most common format i.e. the alphabetical word

163

list will be adopted supplemented by outside matter in the front, middle or back of the

work. It includes the introductory section of the dictionary having a guide for the use of

the dictionary. The front matter includes a comprehensive guide to alphabets and

pronunciation, the guide to look up the dictionary and an introduction of the dictionary.

Some EFL dictionaries include syntactic and grammatical information and the

explanation of keys and symbols used in the dictionary. The middle matter may include

the notes of usage and description of everyday vocabulary etc.

7.3.2. Micro Structure

Microstructure refers to the internal design of a reference work. As the main

concern of the study is to follow the model proposed by the COBUILD, micro structure

will focus the methodology of the COBUILD while designing the features of a

monolingual learners’ dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu. The following are the

key components of the micro structure of a dictionary.

7.3.2.1. Spelling

The orthography of Urdu is quite different from that of English. Urdu has 57

alphabets and 15 diacritic marks. Many words written in the same orthographical style

are pronounced in different ways because of these diacritic marks. although many words

having same orthography are differently pronounce but their pronunciatrion can easily be

acquired from the transcription. Some of them are following:

,(the whole) کل (Yesterday) کل .1

164

(a large vessel) خم (Arch) خم .2

(who) کن (to be done) کن (A piece) کن .3

(In a form) مشکل (Difficulty) مشکل .4 But there are some stances where the absence of these diacritic marks can lead

towards the incorrect pronunciation or writing of the word. That is why it is

recommended that these diacritic marks should be placed appropriately so that the words

should be pronounced correctly (Humayun 2006).

For example:

اعلی .1

اخالقا .2

مذاقا .3

معلی .4

رافو .5

7.3.2.2. Etymology

Etymology provides information about the origin of words. Etymology is not very

much in vogue in lexicographic research. Ilson (1983) challenged the assumption that

etymological information has no pedagogical relevance as far as monolingual English

dictionary is concerned. Since Urdu is known as horde language and the amalgamation of

many languages as Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Hindi and even English. It would

165

be of great deal of help if the origins of the words are described with them. Etymological

information, in the case of Urdu monolingual learners’ dictionary, can serve the learners

better as it disambiguates, relates, illuminates and motivates them (Ilson 1983).

The following are some of the words from Urdu along with their etymological

information.

Persian (training) تربیت .1

Arabic (philosophy) فلسفہ .2

English (a planet) پلوٹو .3 Hindi (to confuse) الجھانا .4

Turkish (to blame) اشلک .5

Sanskrit (the world) جگت .6

7.4.2.3. Pronunciation

The pronunciation guide should be easy to follow. It was proposed in chapter 1

that the pronunciation should be given in a systematic format. IPA (International

Phonetic Symbols) are available fro Urdu while SAMPA (Speech Assessment Methods

Phonetic Alphabet) is another programme designed at FAST University, Lahore, for

Urdu language processing. In this programme the IPA symbols have been converted to

use in Urdu language processing (Ijaz & Hussain 2007).

166

The following table shows Urdu letters and diacritics, their corresponding IPA

and then corresponding SAMPA.

Figure No. 11

URDU Orthography IPA SAMPA Consonants

p р پ b b ب рh р_h پھ bh b_h بھ m m م mh m_h مھ

t t_d ط,ٺ th t_d_h ٺھ d d_d دہد dh d_d_h n n ن nh n_h نھ

Ŋ N نگ ʈ ť ٹ ɖ ď ڈʈh ٹھ ť-h ɖ ڈھ h ď_h k k ک g g گ kh k_h کھ gh g_h گھ q q ق ? ʔ ع f f ف v v و

ص,سٽ, s s z z ز,ظ,ض,ذ

S ∫ ش ʒ Z ژ γ 7 غ x X خ h h حھ t∫ t_h چ t∫h t-S-h چھ ʤ d-z ج ʤh d-Z-h جھ r r ر

167

هر rh r-h r ŕ ڑ rh ŕ-h ڑه j j ى l l ل lh l-h لھ vh v-h وھ jh j-h یھ

Vowels

i I ى e E ے } æ ے u U ۇ o O و O ּכ و ɑ A آ,ا` I I

ε E

U ט ,´‚ ٔ◌ @ ~I i ِ◌یں ~e e یں

~} æ َ◌یں ~Ũ u ۇں ~õ o ۄں ~ɑ A اں

~Õ O َ◌ۄں Special symbols IPA SAMPA Syllable boundary . - Stress marker ’ " Word Boundary # #

(From IPA to SAMPA Sourece: Ijaz & Hussain (2007: 5-7)

168

The symbols from both IPA and SAMPA can be used as a guide for

pronunciation. The present study has proposed to use IPA as these symbols are precise

and are easier to be followed by the learners both native and non native. The following

words have been transcribed by using IPA for Urdu.

Words Meaning Phonetic Transcription

/ɑ g/ (Fire) آگ .1

/qɑbɪl / (Eligible) قابل .2

/l әmb ɑ / (Tall) لمبا .3

/rәn ʤɪʃ/ (Unhappiness) رنجش .4 /ʊrdʊ/ (A language) اردو .5

/gʰәr/ (Home) گھر .6

/xәn ʤә/ (Knife) خنجر .7 7.4.2.4. Grammatical Information

“The two interpenetrating ways of looking at language forms are grammar and

lexis….. Every morpheme in a text must be described both grammatically and

lexically…. Each successive form in a text is a lexical item or part of one and

there are no gaps where only grammar is to be found.” (Sinclair 1966: 411-423).

Grammatical information can either be given with specific codes like OALD or

LDOCE does or by adopting a unique presentation of grammatical information that is

found in the COBUILD where a third column is introduced for explaining the possible

169

grammatical use of the word. This strategy is helpful in using the word correctly. Sinclair

(1987) is of the view that abbreviated information of grammatical categories may leads to

confusion. He says that:

“The grammatical codes are difficult to remember….. And the information given

by the codes often diverse. The user is obliged to refer elsewhere, and is often told

only the obvious when he gets there. The grammatical coverage is unsatisfactory;

if detailed it has only partial coverage, and if broad ranging it has little detail”

(1987:106).

In learners’ dictionaries, information about grammatical categories is more

detailed and comprehensive as they communicate not only with the native but also the

non native learners of the language. They include detailed notes on the usage of syntactic

patterns of the language. Inflectional forms of the words are also listed in a

comprehensive way.

The grammatical information includes tenses, nouns (singular, plural &

masculine, feminine), verbal nouns, adjective, adverbs, preposition, interjections,

imperatives, inflectional forms and demonstratives.

For example:

مصدر ) is a verbal noun (to teach) سکھانا .1 )

and it (rights) حقوق its plural form is ,( اسم ) is a noun or (right) حق .2

is used as masculine (مذکر ).

) is an adjective (partial) جزوی .3 .( اسم صفت

and is used for masculine ( حرف اضافت ) is a preposition (of) کا .4

170

.(مذکر)

.(مؤنث ) and is used for feminine (حرف اضافت) is a preposition or (of) کی .5

ۓہا .6 (alas) is an interjection ( تاسف کلمہ ) and is used to express grief or sorrow.

.used to indicate the activity done in the past (فعل) is a verb (learnt) سیکھا .7

There are many other grammatical categories. Consider the following examples:

تڑپا دینا .1 مصدرمرکب( )

2. (متعلق فعل ) پے در پے، سر شام

3. رسما، (تابع فعل) مذاقا

4. مگر، لیکن (حرف استدراک )

(صفت فاعلی) مترنم .5

مترتب صفت مفعولی) .6 )

7. کلمہ تحسین) واه (

(اسم ضمیر،اسم اشاره) وه 8

Urdu has also a rich and huge collection of phrasal verbs )(محاورے and

proverbs (ضرب االمثال). These phrasal verbs and proverbs play a significant role in

learning Urdu language. These محاورے are recommended to be included in the sub

entries of the head words. As regards proverbs (ضرب االمثال), they should be listed in

the back matter of the dictionary as they do not looked up frequently by the learners

171

either for study purposes or for the sake of learning a language. The following phrasal

verbs are given in Feroz ul Lughat under the entry of چادر:

چادراتارنا .1

چادراڑھانا .2

چادرپڑنا .3

چادرچڑھانا .4

چادردیکھ کے پاؤں پھیالنا .5

چادرڈالنا .6

چادر سے باہرپاؤں پھیالنا .7

چادرہالنا .8

7.4.2.4.1. Space for Grammar

Although a detailed description of grammar require more space in the dictionary,

its effectiveness can not be denied. In the COBULD dictionary, a third column has been

introduced to provide the information of grammatical categories and it is a novel addition

in the field of lexicography. This detailed description helps the learners to use a language

aptly. In the case of the proposed model of a monolingual Urdu learner’ dictionary, it is

strongly recommended that a new column for the description of the grammar should be

introduced so that the learners could make the most of the dictionary as far as grammar is

concerned. The grammatical categories should not be abbreviated to avoid ambiguity for

the learners.

7.4.2.5. Meaning

172

“The meaning of a word, expression or gesture is the thing or idea that it refers to

or represents and which can be explained using other words.” (Definition of

‘meaning’ from Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary: 1987)

The above given definition does not only provide a criteria of the meaning but it

also takes the context into account while explaining the words (Moon 1987). Sinclair says

that most of the words that we use in language daily have several meanings and the

occurrence of the word could stand one of the meanings (1986:60). Different meanings of

the same word are the outcome of the different contexts in which it is used.

See the following examples from Urdu:

(To blossom) پھول کھلنا .1

(To become happy) دل کھلنا

(Liver: A body part) جگر .2

(A close friend, informal) جگر

Moon says that the context can best be identified through concordances and the

words or characters that are present on each side of the words are sufficient to make the

contextual meanings of the words clear (1987: 87).

7.4.2.5.1. Polysemy, Homonyms and Metaphors

Moon asserted that lexicographers tend to be more considerate with the

theoretical grounds than linguists as linguists think that polysemy is linked with

homonymy and metaphor alike. She further adds that according to a linguist if the

173

meanings of the item are not related, it would be homonymy. On the other hand if they

are related, it may be the extension or the metaphor for the other (1987: 87)

She further writes:

“One of the decisions that need to be made when designing a dictionary is how to

handle homonymy…. The COBUILD database was structured on a synchronic,

semantic basis. It therefore seemed undesirable to treat as homonyms noun and

verb forms.”(1987:88).

In the light of above given suggestion, it is recommended for the proposed

dictionary that the concept of homonymy should not be considered. There should only be

a single root for the words serves as head word. Only the alphabet or some abbreviated

words or acronyms should be entered as single entry in the dictionary as head words and

all the possible variants should be listed as the sub entries of the root or head word.

Synonyms and antonyms may be included as they are required for the translation of the

words.

7.4.2.6. Definitions

Pedagogical dictionaries pay more importance to define a word than the general

purpose dictionaries. Definitions are the core of the dictionaries and carry the information

about the meaning of the words. Different dictionaries adopt different methods to define

and explain a word. Some dictionaries define the words in a phrase as OALD does. Some

introduce semantic classes given in the parenthesis as LDOCE and CED do.

Hanks further points out that:

174

“The COBULID solution to this problem was to invent strategies that look

remarkably similar to ordinary prose…. Every COBUILD entry consists of one or

more paragraphs. The paragraph is the basic explanatory unit……. Each

explanation consists of two parts. The first part represents a departure from the

lexicographic tradition in that it actually places the word being explained in a

typical structure. One of the simplest strategies that is that used for many count

nouns, for example

A brick is …………….” (1987: 117)

Hanks further adds that the proceeding part of the definition follow the tradition

for the identification of the word. He completes the above given definition of the ‘brick’

“……….. A rectangular block used for building walls, houses, etc.”

(1987: 118).

This defining style is novel and very helpful not only for the native but also for

non native learners of the language. These are some of the words taken from Feroz ul

Lughat and an attempt is made to define these words keeping in view the method adopted

in COBUILD.

۔1 پری

ر ان (ا) پری اس خوبصورت خیالی عورت کو کہتے ہیں جس کے پر ہوتے ہیں او

- کی مدد سے وه اڑتی ہے

(ب) پری اس عورت کو کہتے ہیں جو بہت خوبصورت ہوتی ہے

175

۔ پل2

ری کے پل اس تعمیر کو کہتے ہیں جو دریا، ندی، نالے، سڑک یا ریل کی پٹ

-اوپر سے گزرنے کے لۓ بنی ہوتی ہے

۔ صالح3

صالح اس شخص کو کہتے ہیں جو نیک اور پرہیزگار ہوتا ہے۔

7.4.2.7. Examples

Sincliar (1991) emphasizes on the use of authentic evidences from the authentic

language. Fox (1987) says that examples help the students to know how a word can be

used and in what context. He further adds that:

“The use of examples in the dictionary means that students can scan longer

entries and identify the particular sense they are seeking by finding the examples

that are similar to the one they need or have in front of them.”

He further suggests that the examples or evidences should be based on real life

language like COBUILD dictionary does. He says that it is the deployment of examples

176

that leads COBUILD dictionary to be viewed as both decoding and encoding dictionary.

(1987: 138). Sinclair (1984) discusses the concept of natural language and concluded that

well formed are quite different from that of grammatical sentences. He suggested that the

examples in a dictionary should focus only the sentences which are taken from the real

and natural language. Fox (1987) also maintained that the example should not only

contain the looked up word in it but it should also provide some additional information

about the word.

He stated the example given in the COBUILD for the entry ‘television’ and

explained:

“……. a well chosen example such as ‘I turn on the television to watch the news’

can show that in English we ‘turn on’ radio and television……. Also we watch

television rather than ‘see’ or ‘look’ at it.” (1987: 137)

These are some of the examples taken from Feroz ul Lughat and modified

according to the criteria proposed by COBUILD:

۔ پری1

ایک خوبصورت پری پرستان میں رہتی تھی

وه لڑکی پری کے جیسی ہے

سست ۔2

سست لوگ ہر کام میں دیر کرتے ہیں

ذہین۔ 3

177

ذہین شخص کے پاس ہر مسلے کا حل موجود ہوتا ہے .

7.4.2.8. Pictorial Illustrations

Pictorial illustration can help understanding words. Everyday vocabulary is best

taught through the pictorial illustrations but at the same time they may cause confusion if

they are not presented properly. If pictures of certain objects are to be added, they should

be very vivid and related to a particular word alone. Although COBUILD does not

include any pictorial illustration on various grounds but in the proposed design of a

monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary it is recommended as many words that are not

learnt only by giving the idea, can be learnt through the help of pictorial illustration.

Everyday used vocabulary can be presented through pictorial illustrations.

7.4.2.9. Stylistic Information (formal or informal)

Stylistic information should also be given in the dictionary.

Formal (You) آپ .1

Informal (You) تم،تو .2

آپکا .3 (Yours) Formal

Informal (Yours) تمہارا .4

178

Many imperatives are used informally in Urdu language for example:

سن (Listen), دیکھ (look), بیٹھ (sit) etc.

7.6. Conclusion

‘Words, as is well known, are the greater foes of reality’ (Conard :1911(1957):

11. The above mentioned clearly shows that enough evidences of research are available

to determine that the possibilities of collecting a corpus as a basis for Urdu dictionary.

The computer expertise is there at CRULP where the research on natural language

processing is conducted and much advancement have been seen so far which has been

discussed in this chapter and the review of related literature.

The discussion on the description of spellings, meaning, grammar, definitions,

and exemplification of the words shows that the model adopted by the COBULID can be

applicable for designing the features of a monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary for

advanced learners of Urdu. In the next chapter the conclusion of the present research will

be discussed and recommendation will be given by looking over the limitations of the

context and methodology of the research.

179

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In this chapter the summary of the findings, the idea of innovating the existing

monolingual Urdu dictionaries and the contribution of the research in the field of Urdu

lexicography and research potential in monolingual Urdu lexicography is described. The

chapter also discusses the application and significance of the opinions of teachers and

learners of Urdu for the present study followed by the limitation and future

recommendation of research in the future.

8.1. Major Findings

The present study aims at to design the features of a monolingual Urdu learners’

dictionary designed on pedagogical principles of lexicography. Pedagogical lexicography

considers the learners and the teachers of a language as the centre of any lexicographic

research. The major objectives of the present study were to conduct a survey to collect

opinions of teachers and the advanced learners of Urdu regarding monolingual Urdu

dictionaries they use, to find out the possibilities of collecting corpus of Urdu as a basis

of a learners’ dictionary and to design essential features of a monolingual Urdu learners’

dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu following the model proposed by

COBUILD. The findings of the research can be divided according to the objectives and

the research questions of the study. The findings are given as under:

1. Findings of the surveys of both the learners and teachers.

180

2. Findings that determine the possibilities of collecting a corpus of Urdu as a basis

of a monolingual learners’ dictionary.

3. Findings that determine to what extent it is possible to adopt the model of

COBUILD for designing the features of monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary.

8.1.1. Survey-based Findings

Two surveys were included in the study. One that took learners of Urdu as

respondents and the other that deals with the opinion of Urdu language teachers. In the

first instance, the strategies that are usually adopted by the learners while using

monolingual Urdu dictionaries and their attitudes regarding the dictionaries were

measured. The findings of the survey suggested that Urdu learners frequently use

monolingual Urdu dictionaries and there were certain features that were more frequently

looked up. These included meaning, definitions, grammatical information and usage of

the words. These findings helped in determining which features should be emphasized in

a dictionary and in proposed dictionary these features have been described in detail. The

attitude of both the Urdu teachers and the learners of Urdu toward the use of a dictionary

were reported quite favourable and there were much information recorded to be missing

or need to be improved in the currently used monolingual Urdu dictionaries such as

pronunciation guide and the definitions of the words. The respondents reported the

absence of a dictionary based on the principles of lexicography and strongly

recommended that the currently used monolingual Urdu dictionaries were required to be

revised and modified. Both the teachers and the learners strongly agree that the dictionary

skill should be taught in the class room and that the teachers should also be trained in

181

dictionary skills. All the needs and opinions of the learners have been taken into account

while designing the features of a monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary. The model

adopted for designing the features of the proposed dictionary was that of COBUILD

which served the purpose successfully.

8.1.2. Corpus Collection Possibilities

The second objective and research question was to maintain the extent to which

the collection of a corpus for Urdu is possible. A review of the past studies showed that

there was enough research that had been conducted in the field of corpus. Many studies

dealt with the language processing of Urdu and there is also a sufficient research on the

collection of Urdu corpus, tagging of the data and annotation of the data collected for

Urdu corpus. It is concluded that a great deal of possibilities are there to collect the

corpus of Urdu as both expertise and the sources for the required database are available in

Pakistan.

8.1.3. Design Feature of a Monolingual Urdu Learner’s Dictionary

After getting the opinions of the learners and teachers of Urdu and having an

overview of the possibilities of collecting a corpus of Urdu as a basis of a dictionary, the

design features of the proposed monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary were evolved. The

findings in this section reveal that a great deal of research has been done in the field of

corpus studies and the language processing of Urdu. Phonetic Alphabets of both IPA and

SAMPA (Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic Alphabet) are available for the phonetic

transcription of the words. COBUILD dictionary was taken as a model and the

182

components of the proposed dictionary were seen to be defined on the lines adopted by

the COBUILD. Many other features that were necessary to be discussed and included in

the design of the proposed dictionary were also included for a comprehensive model of a

monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary. The question of designing a monolingual

dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu was answered to a great extent.

8.2. Contribution of this Study

The aim of this study was to design the features of a monolingual Urdu learners’

dictionary by examining the process and possibilities of collecting a corpus for Urdu. The

rationale of the study was strengthened by the involvement of the learners and teachers of

Urdu and their opinion was also considered before working on the theoretical grounds of

the research. The contribution of the present research is explained in term of the research

question of the study. An analysis of the research questions of the study are given as

under:

1. Do the teachers and advanced learners of Urdu feel the need of a proper

monolingual Urdu dictionary?

For getting the answer of this question, a survey was conducted of both the learners

and teachers of Urdu. The learners of Urdu were asked to response several questions to

collect the data about the strategies and attitudes of the learners. Their responses helped a

lot in determining the design features of pedagogical monolingual Urdu dictionary.

Strategies, reported by the learners, reveal several features that are most often looked up

by the learners. The findings of the survey contributed to start a new age of Urdu

183

lexicography which is not based on the intuitive knowledge of a person, an organization

or a publishing authority. The dictionary that is proposed in the research followed the

opinion of the learners. Another survey was conducted to record the opinion of the

teachers to assess if their attitude is positive towards the dictionary use and designing a

new pedagogical monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary. This survey contributed to feel

the need to conduct research in the field of Urdu pedagogical lexicography as they are the

‘second stakeholder’ in the triangle of the dictionary research (Chi 1998). Thus the

findings of the surveys contributed to the research in that they have provided a strong

foundation to the need to design a pedagogical monolingual Urdu learners’ dictionary.

2. To what extent it is important to design a pedagogical Urdu monolingual

dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu?

The discussion we had in describing the contribution regarding to the first research

question clearly indicates that the user oriented lexicography or the pedagogical

lexicography has a greater scope in Pakistan. The opinions of the learners and the

teachers contributed a lot to the development of new dictionaries. The response of both

the teachers and the learners was somehow casual in the beginning of the data collection.

But as the objectives of the study were explained to them, they took it quite seriously to

contribute in the research on dictionary use. The research represents almost the first user-

oriented approach in the field of Urdu.

184

3. To what extent it is possible to design a corpus based Urdu monolingual

dictionary in Pakistan?

The answer of this question led the methodology of the study to a diversified

direction. The concept of corpus was introduced as the basis of a pedagogical

monolingual learners’ dictionary for the advanced learners of Urdu. As the tradition of

corpus based learners’ dictionary has already been set by the English learners’

dictionaries, it was decided to measure the possibilities of collecting the corpus of Urdu

as a basis of a dictionary. The corpus needs years to collected, annotated and used for

designing a dictionary. That is why is important to see if there are sufficient expertise to

collect a corpus for Urdu. The study contributed in answering the question in that it

record a lot of studies conducted in the field of Urdu corpus studies. Finally, a new model

of a pedagogical monolingual Urdu dictionary was designed by following the COBUILD

dictionary.

8.3. Limitations of the Study

Every research work has some limitation in its scope and the methodology. These

limitations provide the space of more research in a specific field. The limitation of the

present study has been divided into two parts: limitations of methodology and limitations

of the scope of the research.

8.3.1. Limitations in the Methodology

The research tool used to collect data in this research was a questionnaire. Although the

previous research has shown a great deal of research conducted through the

185

questionnaire, multiple techniques of data collection can provide more data about the

dictionary users. Theses techniques include interview, protocols, open ended

questionnaire. The following methodology was adopted because research attitude has not

developed yet in Pakistan. Various methodologies that are mentioned above require more

time on the part of the respondents. Questionnaire was the only tool that could save the

time of both the learners and the teachers of Urdu. The data for the surveys of the learners

and the teachers was collected by random sampling by looking at the feasibility and

availability of the respondents.

Another limitation of the stud is that it deals only with providing the theory of

lexicography as the lexicographic practice or the compiling dictionary on the modern

postulates of lexicography need a lot of time. Lexicographic practice is a team work in

which the lexicographer, experts of computing the texts and the publishing authorities

work in collaboration.

8.3.2. Limitations in the Scope

The limitations in the scope of the research is that it focuses on the advanced

learners and teachers of Urdu as the study addressed to design features of a pedagogical

monolingual learners’ dictionary for advanced learners of Urdu. Another limitation is the

model adopted for the dictionary. After reviewing the recent corpus based dictionaries

and the possibilities of collecting corpus of Urdu, the COBUILD dictionary was adopted

as model with a specific focus on definitions, examples, meaning and information on

grammatical information. The study aimed at design features alone and did not draw any

model for a Urdu monolingual learners’ dictionary.

186

8.4. Future Recommendations

The concept of pedagogical lexicography is wide ranging and covers a lot of topics. The

present study attempts to present a theory to organize the tradition of Urdu dictionary

making / compiling on the lexicographic principles. This study can be regarded as only a

humble effort to initiate the lexicographic research in Urdu. The researchers of Urdu have

paid a little attention on this part of the researchable area that is much influenced in

learning and teaching a language. A significant objective of the present study is to direct

the attention of the researchers in following the study up in various other contexts so that

the bridge of the needs of the advanced learners and the information provided in currently

monolingual Urdu dictionaries can be gapped (cf. Diab 1990). The context of the

research is limited to the southern Punjab. More researches can be conducted in the other

areas of Pakistan to replicate the findings of the study and attempting to make a detailed

profile of the research in this field.

The present research focuses only on the advanced learners’ dictionary for Urdu

learners. However extension of research can be made by conducting research on

designing features of a learners’ dictionary of Urdu for beginners and for intermediate

learners. The effectiveness of the currently used monolingual Urdu dictionaries can also

be evaluated through experimental method. Other methods of research can also be

implied for collecting data from the learners.

Finally the study deals only with the design features of a general purpose

dictionary of Urdu. Research in the field of specialized dictionaries and even bilingual

dictionaries (from Urdu to English or from English to Urdu) is still dissatisfied and it is

strongly recommended that the lexicographer, experts on computing and publishers

187

should work in collaboration to paved the way of the present theory of Urdu monolingual

learners’ dictionary to practical concerns.

188

Bibliography Abdullah, S. (1976). Pakistan Mein Urdu Ka Masla. Maktaba Khayaban-e-Adab. Lahore. Abbot, V., Black J. and E. Smith (1985): The Representation of Scripts in Memory. –

Journal of Memory and Language. 24, 179-199. Abedi, R. (1978). Higher Education: Higher Education Review. Vanguard.Lahore. Afzal, M. (1997). Urdu Software Industry: Prospects, Problems and Need for

Standards.Paper presented on 4th National Computer Conference. Islamabad. Afzal, M. and Hussain, S. (2002). Urdu computing standards: development of Urdu Zabta Takhti. (UZT) 1.01. Proceedings of the Multi Topic IEEE Conference (INMIC 2001) Technology for the 21st Century. Ahmed, T. (2002). Urdu Machini Mutarajam ke Mojid Tafsir Ahmed. Interview by Aleem Ahmad. In Muqtadra 2002: 42-46. Ahmad, K. et al. (1994). A Description of a Text in a Corpus: virtual and real corpora. In

EURALEX 1994 Proceedings. 390-402. Amsterdam. Ahmed, T. (2002). ‘Urdu Machini Mutarajam ke Mojid Tafsir Ahmed’. Interview by Aleem Ahmad. In Muqtadra 2002: 42-46. Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the Mind. Blackwell. Cambridge. Oxford. Akhter, R. (1990).Pakistan Year Book (ed). 1990. Alvi, H. (1987). Pakistan and Islam: Ethnicity and ideology. In Rahman, T. (2003). Language Policy, Multilingualism and Language Vitality in Pakistan. From: http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/tariq_rahman.pdf Anwer, W., Wang, X. & Wang, X. (2006). A survey of automatic Urdu language processing. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Dalian, 13-16 August 2006. Appleby, R. (2000). Reviews. ELT Journal; 54 (1): 89 - 91.

189

Ard, J. (1982) The use of bilingual dictionaries by EFL students while writing. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 58: 1-27. Aston, G. (1996). The British National Corpus as a language learner resource. Paper presented at TALC 96 [Online]. From http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc/using/papers/aston96a.html Aston, G. (1998). A very large corpus, in or out of the classroom. Paper presented at the 32nd International IATEFL Conference, Manchester. Atkin, S. et al. (1991). A Reading Report on Corpus Design Criteria. Presented at workshop on European Texual Corpora and published in Literary and Linguistic Computing 1992. Atkins, B. (1985). Monolingual and Bilingual Learners’ Dictionaries: a comparison. In R. Ilson (ed.), 15-24. Austin, J. (1962). How to do Things with Words. Clarendon. Oxford. Ayto, J. (1983). Semantic Analysis and Dictionary Definitions. In R. Hartmann (ed.), 89-98. Babbie, E. (1986). The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth. USA. Balet, S. (1984). Getting the Students to Talk about Themselves. Modern English Teacher, 12 (2), 12-13. Baker, P and Hardie, A and McEnery, AM and Jayaram, BD (2003) Corpus Data for South Asian Language Processing. In: EACL 2003 Workshop on Computational Linguistics for South Asian Languages -- Expanding Synergies with Europe, 12-17 April 2003, Budapest. Barnhart, C. (1962). Problems in Editing Commercial Monolingual Dictionaries, In

190

Householder & Saporta (eds.) 161-181. Barnhart, C. (1980). What Makes a Dictionary Authoritative? In L. Zgusta (ed.) Theory and Methods in Lexicography: Western and non Western Perspectives. Hornbeam Press. South Carolina. Battenburg, J. (1989). A Study of English Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries and their Users. PhD thesis. Purdue University. Battenburg, J. (1991). English Monolingual Dictionaries: A User Oriented Study. Lexicographica Series Maior. Tubingen. Niemeyer. Baxter, J. (1980). The Dictionary and Vocabulary Behaviour: a single word or a handful? TESOL Quarterly, 14, 3: 325-336. Beatie. N. (1973). Teaching Dictionary Use. Modern Languages, 54 (4), 161-167. Becker, D & Riaz, K. (2002). A Study in Urdu Corpus Construction. Paper presented on Workshop on Asian Language Resources and International Standardization. Taiwan. Beg, M. K. A. (1996). Sociolinguistic Perspective of Hindi and Urdu in India. Bahri Publications. New Delhi. Began, G.H. (1996). Mauritius Main Urdu (Urdu in Mauritius) In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Bejoint, H & Mouline, A. (1987). The Place of the Dictionary in EFL Programme.- In: U. Wingate: The Effectiveness of Different Learner Dictionaries. Tubingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica series maior). Bejoint, H. (1981). The foreign Student's Use of Monolingual English Dictionaries: a study of language needs and reference skills. Applied Linguistics 2 (3), 207- 222.

191

Bell, J. (1987). ‘Doing Your Own Research Project’. Open University Press. England & USA. Bell, T. R. (1976). Sociolinguistics: Goals and Approaches and Problems.: B.T.Batsford. Ltd. Great Britain Bensoussan, M., Sim, D. and Weiss, R. (1984). The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in a Foreign Language. 2: 262-76. Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pearson. Boston. Biber, D. (1996). Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses of association patterns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1 (2), 171- 197. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge approaches to linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Boogards, P. (1996). Dictionaries for Learners of English. International Journal of Lexicography. 9(4), 277-320.

Boonmoh, A. (2009). The use of pocket electronic dictionaries by Thai learners of English. PhD thesis, University of Warwick.

Boonmoh, A. & Nesi, H. (2008). A survey of dictionary use by Thai university staff and students, with special reference to pocket electronic dictionaries. Horizontes de Ling??stica Aplicada 6 (2) 79-90.

Burnard, L. (1996). Introducing SARA, an SGML-aware retrieval application for the British National Corpus. Paper presented at TALC 96.

192

Butler, C. (1985). Statistics in Linguistics. Blackwell. Oxford. Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford University Press. London. Byren, D. (1979). Teaching Writing Skill. Longman. London. Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. Allen and Unwin. London. Carter, R. & M. McCarthy (eds.) (1988). Vocabulary and Language Teaching. Longman. London. Census (1951) Census of Pakistan. Karachi as cited in Rehman, T. 1997. The medium of instruction controversy in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 18 (2). Retrieved on 6 November, 2008. Chatterji, S.K. (1960). Indo-Aryan and Hindi. 2nd edition. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopandhyay.

Chi. M. L. A. (2003). An Empirical Study of the Efficacy of Integrating the Teaching of Dictionary Use into a Tertiary English Curriculum in Hong Kong. Language Centre, University of Hong Kong. ISBN 962-7607-21-5

CIA. (2004). CIA The world fact book. From the World Wide Web: www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook Clear, J. (1987). Computing. In Sinclair (1987b). 41-61. Cohn, L. & L. MAnion. (1985). Research Methods in Education. Croom Helm. London.

193

Cowie, A.P. (1987b). The Dictionary and the Language Learner. Lexicographica Series maior. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Cowie, A.P. (1996). Problems of syntax and the design of a pedagogic dictionary Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 10, 2: 255-264. Craik, F. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104 (5) 268- Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA. . 294. Crystal, D. (1971). Linguistics. Penguin. Harmonsworth. Crystal, D. (1981). Dictionaries in Applied Linguistics. Academic Press. London. Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Diab, T. (1990). ‘Pedagogical Lexicography’: a case study of Arab nurses as dictionary users. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Dolezal, F. T, Mc Creary, D. R. (1999). ‘Pedagogical Lexicography Today’: a critical bibliography on learner’s dictionaries with special emphasis on language learners and dictionary users. Tubingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica series maior). Drysdale, P. (1987). The Role of Examples in a Learners’ Dictionary. In A. Cowie (ed.) 2 (3), 236- 249. El- Badry, N. (1990). The Development of the Bilingual English- Arabic Dictionary from the Middle of the 19th Century to the Present. In Haertmann (ed.) (1986b), 57-64. FAizi, S. (1996). Canada Main Urdu (Urdu in Canada) - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad.

194

Fishman, J. (1971). Advances in the Sociology of Language I. Mouton Publishers. The Hague. Fox, G. (1987). The Case for Examples. In Sinclair (1987b). 137-149. Griffin, P. (1985). Dictionaries in the ESL classroom. (unpublished MA Thesis; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University). Grosgen, F. (1982). ‘Life With Two Languages’: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Havard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusset & London. Hanks, P. (1987). Definitions and Examples. In Sinclair (1987b). 116- 136. Haque, A.R. (1982). Report Study Groups on the Teaching of Languages, University Grants Commission. Ferozsons. Rawalpindi. Haque, A.R. (1983). The Position and Status of English. In World Language English, 2 (1). Pergamon Press. Great Britian. Hartmann, R.R.K. and James, G. (1998). ‘Dictionary of Lexicography’. Routledge. London. Hartmann, R. (1986b). The History of Lexicography. Vol. 40. John Benjamins. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Harvey, K & Yuill, D. (1997): A study of the use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary by learners of English engaged in writing. – Applied Linguistics 18 (3), 253– 278. Hasan, R. (1983). ‘Urdu English, Urdish’. Higher Education Review. Vanguard. Lahore. Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

195

Hatherall, Glynn. (1984). "Studying dictionary use: Some findings and proposals". In: Hartmann, (1984) ed.: 183-189. Hausmann, F. J. & Gorbahn, A. 1989. COBUILD and LDOCE II A comparative review.

International Journal of Lexicography, 2 (1): 44 - 56. Hayas, C.D. (1987). ‘The Crises of Education in Pakistan’. Vanguard. Lahore. Hofland, K. & S. Johansson. (1982). Word frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities/London: Longman. Hofland, K. & S. Johansson. (1986). The tagged LOB Corpus: KWIC concordance. Microfiche. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. Horváth, J. (2000). Advanced Writing in English as a Foreign Languge. A PhD Dissertation. FROM: http://www.geocities.com/writing_site/thesis/index.html (retrieved on 13th January 2009). Hulstijn, J.H. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 139-147. Humayun, M (2006). Urdu Morphology, Orthography and Lexicon Extraction. MSc thesis. Chalmers Goteborg University. Sweden. Hussain, S. (2008) Resources for Urdu Language Processing. Paper presented on the 6th Workshop on Asian Language Resources. Hyderabad, India. http://www.nla.gov.pk/beta/imgs/booklist.doc Hussain, S. (2008). Resources for Urdu Language Processing. Paper presented on the 6th Workshop on Asian Language Resources. Hyderabad, India.

196

Hussain, S. & Ijaz, M. (2008). Corpus based Urdu lexicon development. Paper presented on the 6th Workshop on Asian Language Resources. Hyderabad, India. Ilson, R. (1987). Illustrations in Dictionaries. In A. Cowie (ed.) 193-212. Ilson, R. (1983). Etymological information: can it help our students? ELT Journal; 37 (1):

76 - 82. Iqbal, Z. (1987). ‘Aspects of the Learner’s Dictionary with Special Reference to Advanced Pakistani Learners of English’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Aston, Birmingham. Islahi, S. (1996). Bharat Main Urdu (Urdu in India) - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Jackson, H. (2002). ‘Lexicography: An Introduction’. Routledge. London. Jackson, H. (1988). Words and Their Meaning. Longman. London. Jameel, Ahmad Mirza. (2002). ‘Nuri Nastaleeq ki Kahani Ahmad Mirza Jameel ki zubani’, Interview by Khan, Raziuddin and Siddiqui, Wajih Ahmed. In Muqtadra 2002: Originally published in Science Digest [Karachi] 1983. Javed, I.H. (1996). Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., & Goodluck, H. (1978). Manual information to accompany the Lancaster--Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers [Online]. FROM http://www.hd.uib.no/lob-www.html Johns, T. (1991b). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning. ELR Journal, 4, 1-16.

197

Kashmiri, T. (2003). Urdu Adab Ki Tareekh, Ibtada Se 1857 Tak. [The History of Urdu Literature], Sang-e-Meel Publications. Lahore. Kashmiri, T. (1996). Japan Main Urdu (Urdu in Japan) – In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Kelkar, A.R. (1968). Studies in Hindi-Urdu1: Introduction and Word Phonology. Daccan College. Poona. Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. Studies in language and linguistics. London: Longman. Khan, A.A. (1989) ‘Myth and Reality’, The Muslim. Islamabad. Kirkness, A. (2004). Three Advanced Learner’s Dictionaries. ELT Journal 58 (3) 294 -

300Oxford University Press:. Oxford

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and

vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal,

78, 285-299.

Kipfer, B. (1985). Dictionaries and the Intermediate Students: Communicative Needs and the Development of User Reference Skills. In Cowie (ed.) (1987 b), 44-54. Koul, O.N. & Schmidt, R.L. (1983). Kashmiri, a Sociolinguistic Survey. Indian Institute of Language Studies. Patiala. Krashan, A. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory, and Applications. Pergamon. Oxford. Krishnamurthy, R. & Orasan, C. (2000) An Open Architecture for the Construction and Administration of Corpora (pp 793-801, Vol II, Proceedings,

198

LREC 2000, Athens, Greece, 31 May - 2 June, 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, eds. Maria Gavrilidou, George Carayannis, Stella Markantonatou, Stelios Piperidis, Gregory Stainhauer; ELRA, Paris, France). Krishnamurthy, R. & Orasan, C. (2002). A corpus-based investigation of junk emails, pp 1773-1780 in Proceedings of LREC 2002, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, 29th-31st May; (eds.) Manuel Gonzalez Rodriguez and Carmen Paz Suarez Araujo; ELRA, Paris. Krishnamurthy, R., & Kosem, I. (2007). Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jeap.09.003. Krishnamurthy, R.(1987). The Process of Compiling. In Sinclair (1987b). 62-85.

Krishnamurthy, R. (2008). Corpus-driven Lexicography, International Journal of Lexicography 21/3, 231-242.

Krishnamurthy, R. (2001). Language Corpora: How can Teachers and Students use these valuable new resources?, pp 59-65 in Selected Papers from the 10th International Symposium on English Teaching, ETA/ROC, Taipei, Nov 2001, ISBN 986-7971-05-1

Krishnamurthy, R. (2002).Classroom cornucopia: The new COBUILD dictionary and the Bank of English corpus, (paper originally presented at Thai TESOL 2001), in Corpus Studies in Language Education (special volume from The English Teacher), ISBN 974-615-076-6, IELE Press

Laufer, B. (1990). Ease and Difficulty in Vocabulary Learning: some teaching implications. Foreign Language Annals. 23/2: 147-55. Laufer, B. (1993). The effect of dictionary definitions and examples on the use and

comprehension of new L2 words. Cahiers de Lexicologie 63(2), 131-142. Laufer, B. and L. Melamed. (1994). Monolingual, bilingual and 'bilingualised'

199

dictionaries: which are more effective, for what and for whom? EURALEX 1994, eds. W. Martin et al. Amsterdam. 565-576. Laufer, B. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics 12: 255-271. Laufer, B., P. Meara, and P. Nation (2005). Ten best ideas for teaching vocabulary. The Language Teacher (Japan) 29/5. Laufer, B. (2003).Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Canadian Modern Language Review 59, 4: 565-585 Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman. London. Landu, I. Sidney. (1984). ‘Dictionaries: the art and craft of lexicography’. Simultaneously published in U.S.A and Canada. Likert (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology,

22(140). Pershing (2000). The Design and Development of Survey Instruments. Retrieved onNovember 2003 from http://www.uscg.mil/hq/rtc/ptc/downloads/survey%20jobaid.pdf.

Luppescu, S. and Day, R. (1993). Reading dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Language Learning 43 2, pp. 263–287. Lyons, John (1981). Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Lyons, John (1982). Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana. London. Mansoor, S. (1989). ‘Analyzing Learning Needs’, Pakistan Women’s Institute, 15/3. Kinnaird College. Lahore.

200

Mansoor, S. (1993). ‘Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan’. Vanguard. Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad. Mansoor, S. (1993). Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: a sociolinguistic study. Vanguard. Lahore. Mirza, A. (1996). Cheen main Urdu (Urdu in China) - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Mirza, M. (1986). Aaj ka Sindh (Today’s Sindh). Preogressive Publishers. Lahore. Moon, R. (1987). An Analysis of meaning. In Sinclair (1987b). 86-103. Moon, R. (2008). Sinclair, Phraseology, and Lexicography. International Journal of

Lexicography 21(3):243-254; doi:10.1093/ijl/ecn027. Mukattash, L. (1980a). Yes/No Questions and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. ELT Journal. 34 (2), 133- 145. Nation, I. S. P. (1990): Teaching and Learning vocabulary. Newbury House. New York. Naushahi, A. (1996). Iran Main Urdu (Urdu in Iran). - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Nesi, H (1984). Dealing with Lexical Errors. MSc dissertation. University of Aston, Birmingham. Nesi, H. (2000). ‘The Use and Abuse of EFL Dictionaries’. Tubingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica series maior). Nesi, H (2002). Review: Research on Dictionary Use. International Journal of Lexicography, 15 (3) 251-252.

201

Nesi, H (2008). Learners’ monolingual and bilingual dictionaries on CD-Rom and the Internet. in: Cowie, A. P. (ed) The Oxford History of English Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press Nunan, D. (1986). ‘Research Methods In Education’. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom. Online Urdu Dictionary. From: http://www.crulp.org/oud/default.aspx Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. New York. Pandit, P.B. (1977). Language in a plural society: The Case of India. Dev Raj Chanana Memorial Committee. New Delhi. Quirk, R. (1975). The Social Impact of Dictionaries in the UK. In McDavid, R. Qureshi, I.H. (1975). Education in Pakistan. M.A. Arif Ltd. Karachi. Qureshi, I.H. (1995). ‘Education in Pakistan’. M.A. Arif: Karachi.

Rai, A. 1984. A House Divided: the Origin and Development of Hindi/Hindavi. Oxford

University Press. Delhi

Rahman, T (1997). The Medium of Instruction Controversy in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol. 18, No. 2. Rahman, T. (1999). ‘Language, Power and Ideology in Pakistan’. Oxford University Press. Karachi. Rahman, T. (2003). Language Policy, Multilingualism and Language Vitality in Pakistan. From: http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_papers/tariq_rahman.pdf Retrieved on December 3, 2008.

202

Rahman, T. (2004).Language Policy and Localization in Pakistan: Proposal for a Paradigmatic Shift. Retrieved on 5 November, 2008. SCALLA 2004 Conference. Kathmandu, Nepal. 5-7 January. Rahman, T. (2002). Language, Ideology and Power: Language-Learning Among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India Karachi: Oxford University Press. Revised edition published by Orient Longman, Delhi, 16 Jan 2008. Rashid, M.M. (1996). Qatar Main Urdu (Urdu in Qatar). - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Renouf, A. (1987). Corpus Development. In Sinclair (1987b). 1- 40 Richards, J. (1976). The Role of Vocabulary Teching. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1), 77-89 Sadaid, A. (1991). Urdu Adab Ki Mukhtasir Tareekh (A Brief History of Urdu Literature). Maqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Sadiq, M. (1984). A History of Urdu literature. Oxford University Press. Delhi. Schimmel, A. (1975). Classical Urdu literature from the beginning to Iqbål. Harrassowitz. Wiesbaden. Schmied, J. (1996). Second-language corpora. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English (pp. 182- 196). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shahid, H.M. (1996). Saudi Arab Main Urdu (Urdu in Saudi Arab) - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad.

203

Sharif, S.M. (1959). Report of the Commission on National Education. Pakistan. Sinclair, J. M. (1987). Grammar in the dictionary. In: Sinclair, (1987 b): 104-115. Sinclair, J. M. (1997). Corpus evidence in language description. In A. Wichmann, S.Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 27-39). Applied linguistics and language study. Longman. London. Sinclair, J. (1989). Corpus creation. In Language, learning and community, eds. Candlin and T McNamara, 25-33: NCELTR Macquarie University. Sinclair, J. M. (1987). Looking up. An account of the COBUILD Project in lexical computing. London: Collins ELT. Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, Concordances, Collocation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. M. (2004). Trust the Text - Language, Corpus and Discourse. Routledge.

London. Summers, D. (1988). The role of dictionaries in language learning – in Tono, Y. (2001) Research on Dictionary Use in the Context of Foreign Language Learning. Tubingen: Niemeyer. (15-36). Tabassam, T.M. (1996). America Main Urdu (Urdu in America) - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad. Tomaszczyk, J. (1979). Dictionaries: users and uses, Glottodidactica 12: 103- 119. Tono, Y. (1984). On the Dictionary User's Reference Skills. Unpublished B.Ed.

204

dissertation, Gakugei University. Tokyo. Tono, Y. (2001). ‘Research on Dictionary Use in the Context Of Foreign Language Learning’. Tubingen: Niemeyer (1996). Tono, Y. (1989). Can a dictionary help one read better? On the relationship between EFL learner’s dictionary reference skills and reading comprehension. – In G. James: Lexicographers and their works. Exeter University Press. Verma, M. K. (1996). Sociolinguistic Perspective of Hindi and Urdu in India. Bahri Publications. New Delhi. Wells, J. C. (1998). Computer-coding the IPA: A Proposed Extension of SAMPA. From http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/ipasam-x.pdf Whitcut, J. (1988). Lexicography in Simple Language. International Journal of Lexicography. 1 (1), 49-55. Widdowson, H. (1979). Exploration in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Wingate, U. (2002). The Effectiveness of Different Learner Dictionaries. Tubingen: Niemeyer (Lexicographica series maior). Wingate, U. (2004). Dictionary use- the need to teach strategies. Language Learning Journal, 29, pp. 5 – 11. Woods, A. et al. (1986). Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Wright, S. (2004). Language Policy and Language Planning - From Nationalism to Globalization. Macmillan. London. Wynne, M. (ed). (2004). Developing Linguistic Corpora: a Guide to Good Practice. AHDS Literature, Languages and Linguistics, University of Oxford,

205

UK. Yang, H. (1985a). The JDEST Computer Corpus of texts in English for science and technology. ICAME News, 9, 24–25. Yang, H. (1985b). The use of computers in English teaching and research in China. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: teaching and learning the language and literature. 86–100. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Zaman, M. (2002). Report on a Language Survey Trip to the Bishigram Valley. From: http://www.geocities.com/kcs_kalam/ushoji.html Zia, K. (1999). Towards Unicode Standard for Urdu”, in the Proceedings of 4th

Symposium on Multilingual Information Processing (MLIT-4), Yangon, Myanmar, CICC, Japan.

Zia, K. (1999). Standard Code Table for Urdu. 4th Symposium on Multilingual Information Processing, (MLIT-4), Yangon, Myanmar. CICC, Japan. Retrieved on 12 November, 2008. From: http://www.nla.gov.pk/beta/imgs/booklist.doc Ziayyai, A. (1996). Bertanya Main Urdu (Urdu In the Great Britian). - In Javed, I.H. Barooni Mumalik Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in Foreign Countries]. Muqtadara Qaumi Zaban. Islamabad.

i

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Questionnaire for Advanced Urdu Learners

Department of English Language and Linguistics

Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan.

Dear Students,

This questionnaire is a part of a PhD thesis I am currently carrying out at BZU Multan. The

research is concerned with Pedagogical Lexicography in relation to the problems and needs of

the learners of Urdu language.

The information you will give by answering the questions and this questionnaire is especially

important as it will contribute to the development and evaluation of currently used monolingual

Urdu dictionaries.

While appreciating your participation in the research, I would like to assure you that the

information provided in this questionnaire will be treated strictly confidential and will be used

only for research purposes.

Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Asma Ashraf

BZU Multan.

ii

SECTION 1

Note. Please encircle the number that indicates your answer. The numbers mean

1. Always, 2. Often, 3. Sometime, 4. Rarely, 5. Never

1. Before joining advanced level, you have used Urdu monolingual dictionaries (regardless

of their type and size)

At secondary level 1 2 3 4 5 At intermediate level 1 2 3 4 5

2. You use dictionaries to look up:

- meaning. 1 2 3 4 5 - Pronunciation. 1 2 3 4 5

- Usage/ Verbal illustration. 1 2 3 4 5

- Origin of the words. 1 2 3 4 5 -Grammatical information 1 2 3 4 5

3. You ask the teachers of Urdu about

- Meaning of words 1 2 3 4 5 - Pronunciation 1 2 3 4 5 - Symbols used in dictionaries 1 2 3 4 5 - Grammatical Categories of the words 1 2 3 4 5

4. You use a dictionary in the

class room. 1 2 3 4 5

iii

5. You use the dictionaries available in the library of your institution. 1 2 3 4 5

6. You write the meaning of looked- 1 2 3 4 5 up words on the text you read.

7. You use more than one dictionary

to look-up the same word. 1 2 3 4 5

8. You try to guess the meaning of

unfamiliar words while reading? 1 2 3 4 5

9. You write the meaning of looked- up words in a special note book. 1 2 3 4 5

10. You browse through the dictionary

pages without having a particular purpose. 1 2 3 4 5

11. You refer to the introduction of the

dictionary pages. 1 2 3 4 5

12. You refer to the glossaries usually found at the beginning or the end of the text book. 1 2 3 4 5

13. You refer to the general information in

dictionary appendices (e.g. table of measurements etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

14. You find the required information completely about the word from the glossaries found at the end of the book 1 2 3 4 5

15. The dictionary you use provide the

comprehensive definition of the looked-up words. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Do you follow all the abbreviated

iv

information given in the dictionary? 1 2 3 4 5 SECTION 2 Note. Please encircle the number that indicates your opinion next to each of following numbers below. The numbers mean:

1. Strongly agree 2.Agree 3. Undecided 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree

17. What do you think of the following statements?

- It is important for the learners of Urdu language to use dictionaries during their studies. 1 2 3 4 5

- All dictionaries contain the same information 1 2 3 4 5 - The use of dictionaries is boring. 1 2 3 4 5 - To depend on one dictionary is enough. 1 2 3 4 5

- Glossaries that are given at the beginning or the end of the text books are enough to learn Urdu language. 1 2 3 4 5

- Every Urdu language’ learner should have

at least one dictionary. 1 2 3 4 5

- Learners should use a dictionary that is recommended by teachers. 1 2 3 4 5

- Monolingual dictionaries help learners to learn

Urdu language effectively. 1 2 3 4 5 - It would be better if present course of Urdu include exercises on Urdu-Urdu dictionaries and how to use them. 1 2 3 4 5

- Urdu language learners should avoid using pocket dictionaries. 1 2 3 4 5

v

Appendix B: Questionnaire for Advanced Urdu Teachers

Department of English Language and Linguistics

Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan.

Dear Teachers,

This questionnaire is a part of a PhD thesis I am currently carrying out at BZU Multan. The

research is concerned with Pedagogical Lexicography in relation to the attitudes of the Urdu

teachers towards the significance of dictionaries in language learning.

The information you will give by answering the questions and this questionnaire is especially

important as it will contribute to the development and evaluation of currently used monolingual

Urdu dictionaries.

While appreciating your participation in the research, I would like to assure you that the

information provided in this questionnaire will be treated strictly confidential and will be used

only for research purposes only.

Your contribution is highly appreciated.

Asma Ashraf

BZU Multan

vi

Questionnaire:

Note. Please tick in the box that indicates your opinion (SA, A, U, D, SD) next to each of

following statements below. The abbreviations mean:

S = Strongly agree

A= Agree

U= Undecided

D= Disagree

S= Strongly disagree

No Statements SA A U D SD

1 Dictionaries play a significant role in learning a language.

2 Dictionaries are very important in learning a second language (like Urdu in Pakistan).

3 It is important for the learners to use an Urdu – Urdu dictionary.

4 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up meaning of words.

5 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up pronunciation of the words.

6 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up grammatical information.

7 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up the usage of words.

8 Learners should depend on one dictionary.

9 Learners should be taught how to use dictionaries.

10 Learners should have at least one Urdu – Urdu dictionary.

11 Learners should be encouraged to use dictionaries while learning Urdu language.

12 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in reading comprehension.

13 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in improving writing skill.

vii

14 An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in improving speaking skill.

15 Teachers of Urdu should use Urdu – Urdu dictionaries while teaching Urdu.

16 Teachers of Urdu should use a dictionary while preparing their lessons.

17 Teachers of Urdu should encourage the learners to buy certain dictionaries.

18 Teachers of Urdu should explain how to use dictionaries.

19 Glossaries given at the end of the text books are sufficient to provide all information about the words.

20 Learners should depend on the glossaries given at the end of the text books.

21 Learners should avoid using pocket dictionaries.

22 Learners should use Learners’ Dictionaries.

23 Learners should use dictionary in the class room.

24 Learners should browse the pages of the dictionaries without having a particular purpose.

25 The currently used dictionaries provide the effective guide to the pronunciation of the words

26 The currently used dictionaries provide sufficient grammatical information of words.

27 The currently used dictionaries provide the effective guide to the usage of words.

28 Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should frequently be revised.

29 Definition of the words should be given in the dictionary along with the equivalents.

30 Pronunciation guide should be more comprehensible in Urdu-Urdu dictionaries.

31 All the abbreviated words should be given in full in the front pages of the dictionary.

32 Illustration (verbal & pictorial) must be provided in a dictionary for better understanding of the words.

33 Notes on the usage of the words in certain

viii

context should be given in the dictionary. 34 Dictionaries should be designed on the

modern principals of lexicography

35 Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should be helpful for learning spoken Urdu.

36 Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should be designed in a way that it may be helpful for a foreign learner in learning the Urdu language.

ix

Appendix C: Results of the survey of advanced learners of Urdu (Strategies)

Strategies Frequency Mean ScoreHigh Average Low

Using Urdu Monolingual Dictionary at Secondary level

n 75

79

246

2.24

Using Urdu Monolingual Dictionary at Intermediate level

n 166 81

153

3.0

Looking up dictionary for Meaning/definition

n 256

69

75

3.88

Looking up dictionary for Pronunciation

n 217 89

94

3.51

Looking up dictionary for Usage/verbal Illustration

n 270

65

65

3.93

Looking up dictionary for Origin of Words

n 31

11

358

1.40

Looking up dictionary for Grammatical information

n 308

53

39

4.17

Asking teachers about Meaning of the words

n 316

68

16

4.3

Asking teachers about Pronunciation

n 240

72

88

3.6

Asking teachers about Symbols Used in Dictionary

n 309

74

17

4.2

Asking teachers about Grammatical Categories of words

n 287

82

32

4.1

Using a dictionary in class room

n 179

89

132

3.1

Using a dictionary available in the library

n 232

81

87

3.56

Writing the meaning of words on the text

n 225

84

91

3.5

Using more than one dictionary

n 65

73

262

2.17

Guessing the unfamiliar words

n 198

92

110

3.4

Writing meanings in a note book

n 173

109

118

3.2

Browsing through the dictionary pages

n 120

154

126

3.04

Referring to the introductory pages of the dictionary

n 188

113

99

3.3

Referring to the text glossaries

n 279

54

67

3.9

x

Referring to the general information in dictionary

n 210

75

115

3.4

Finding comprehensive information in a dictionary

n 118

192

90

3.12

Finding comprehensive definition of words

n 130

101

169

2.88

Understanding the abbreviated information

n 106

108

186

2.67

xi

Appendix D: Results of the survey of advanced learners of Urdu (Attitudes)

Statements

Attitude Mean Score Agree Undecided Disagree

It is important for the learners of Urdu language to use dictionaries during their studies

n 383

13

Zero

4.59

All dictionaries contain the same information

n 232

85

83

3.6

The use of dictionaries is boring.

n 18

56

326

1.8

To depend on one dictionary is enough.

n 74

62

264

2.2

Glossaries that are given at the beginning or the end of the text books are enough to learn Urdu language.

n 41

43

316

1.87

Every Urdu language’ learner should have at least one dictionary

n 330

60

10

4.2

Learners should use a dictionary that is recommended by teachers

n 212

86

102

3.4

Monolingual dictionaries help learners to learn Urdu language effectively

n 231

96

73

3.6

It would be better if present course of Urdu include exercises on Urdu-Urdu dictionaries and how to use them

n 279

78

43

3.86

Urdu language learners should avoid using pocket dictionaries

n 311

41

48

4

xii

Appendix E: Results of the survey of Teachers of Urdu:

Statements

Attitudes

Mean Score

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Dictionaries play a significant role in learning a language.

n 87

zero

zero 4.58

Dictionaries are very important in learning a second language (like Urdu in Pakistan).

n 82

05

zero

4.57

It is important for the learners to use an Urdu – Urdu dictionary.

n 65

13

06

4.11

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up meaning of words.

n 70 9

8

4.05

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up pronunciation of the words.

n 61 21 5 3.20

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up grammatical information.

n 66

17 4 3.98

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary is very useful for looking up the usage of words.

n 73 14 Zero 4.26

Learners should depend on one dictionary.

n 10 17 60 2.08

Learners should be taught how to use dictionaries.

n 70 12 5 4.0

Learners should have at least one Urdu – Urdu dictionary.

n 78 7 2 4.36

Learners should be encouraged to use dictionaries while learning Urdu language.

n 71

13 3 4.08

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in reading comprehension.

n 64 19 3 3.95

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in improving writing skill.

n 57 23 7 3.90

xiii

An Urdu – Urdu dictionary plays a vital role in improving speaking skill.

n 64 18 4 4.04

Teachers of Urdu should use Urdu – Urdu dictionaries while teaching Urdu.

n 70 17 Zero 4.09

Teachers of Urdu should use a dictionary while preparing their lessons.

n 53 29 5 3.90

Teachers of Urdu should encourage the learners to buy certain dictionaries.

n 62 23` 2 3.97

Teachers of Urdu should explain how to use dictionaries.

n 67 19 1 4.25

Glossaries given at the end of the text books are sufficient to provide all information about the words.

n 15 13 59 2.28

Learners should depend on the glossaries given at the end of the text books.

n 15 20 52 2.40

Learners should avoid using Pocket dictionaries.

n 43 14 30 3.16

Learners should use Learners’ Dictionaries.

n 55 18 14 3.75

Learners should use dictionary in the class room.

n 49 19 19 3.51

Learners should browse the pages of the dictionaries without having a particular purpose

n 46

25

16 3.50

The currently used dictionaries provide the effective guide to the pronunciation of the words.

n 21

6

60 2.37

The currently used dictionaries provide sufficient grammatical information of words

n 19

18

50 2.37

The currently used dictionaries provide the effective guide to the usage of words

n 18

14

55 2.42

Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should n 66 15 6 4

xiv

frequently be revised Definition of the words should be given in the dictionary along with the equivalents.

n 73

11

3 4.27

Pronunciation guide should be more comprehensible in a dictionary.

n 70 11

6 4.09

All the abbreviated words should be given in full in the front pages of the dictionary.

n 51

18

18 4

Illustration (verbal & pictorial) must be provided in a dictionary for better understanding of the words.

n 55

19

13 3.83

Notes on the usage of the words in certain context should be given in the dictionary.

n 70

14

3 4.20

Dictionaries should be designed on modern principals of lexicography

n 63 21

3 4.01

Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should be helpful for learning spoken Urdu

n 47

31 9 3.39

Urdu-Urdu dictionaries should be designed in a way that it may be helpful for a foreign learner in learning the Urdu language.

n 66

19

2 4.13

xv

Appendix F. List of Colleges Selected for Data Collection Serial No. Name of Colleges

1 Government Degree College for women Multan 2 Government Degree College for women, Mumtazabad, Multan 3 Government Degree College for women, Shah Rukn e Alam, Multan 4 Government Emerson College, Multan 5 Government Degree College for women, Vehari 6 Government Degree College Vehari 7 Punjab College for women, Multan 8 Leadership Colleges, Multan 9 Government Degree College, Burewala 10 Government Degree College for women, Burewala 11 Government Degree College, Mailsi 12 Government Degree College for women, Mailsi 13 Government College Boys Gulberg, Lahore 14 Government Degree College, Lodhran 15 Government Degree College Civil Lines, Multan 16 Government Degree College for women, Shujabad 17 Educators Group of Colleges, Multan 18 Government Degree College, Makhdoom Rashid 19 Government Degree College, Muzaffar Garh 20 Government Degree College for women, Muzaffar Gharh