International Journal of Linguistics

ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

Dictionary Use by Saudi EFL University Preparatory

Program Students
Faisal Al-Homoud
Department of English and literature, College of Languages and Translation
Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: May 2, 2017 Accepted: May 6, 2017 Published: August 20, 2017
doi:10.5296/ijl.v9i4.11103 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v9i4.11103

Abstract
It is undoubtedly true that dictionaries are an indispensable tool for language learners, as they
are sources of information as well as aids to learning (Nation, 2001). More specifically,
learners' dictionaries are considered reservoirs of treasures and jewels of information about
words and their etymology, formation, behavior, and usage (Nakamura, 2000). The current
study was set to explore dictionary use among Saudi EFL university students at preparatory
programs. The study included 100 female and male students from seven different Saudi
universities. A 42-item questionnaire was administered to tap the participants' behavior
towards dictionary use in terms of a) the type of dictionary they own, b) language skills they
tend to use the dictionary with, c) reasons that make them use a dictionary, and d) the types of
information they look up. The results showed that the participants tended to use electronic
dictionaries as well dictionaries available on the Internet more than paper-based or handheld
electronic dictionaries. Moreover, the need to discover the meaning of a new word or to
confirm the meaning of a previously met word was the most important reason for the current
study's participants to look up a word. When the types of information sought was involved,
checking the pronunciation and the spelling of a word obtained the highest scores. Finally, it
was suggested that further research concerning the new emerging skills of dictionary
look-ups due to the advancements of technology needs to be conducted.
Keywords: dictionary, monolingual, bilingual, language skills, types of information

15 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
It seems that learners' dictionaries are an indispensable tool for many English language
learners. It is very common that you see language learners carrying around or checking up
their dictionaries, but not their grammar books. Dictionaries help language learners in their
comprehension and production of language (Nation, 2001), and support learners with
invaluable information on linguistic as well as cultural aspects of words when learners are not
available (Cubillo, 2002).
However, it seems that L2 learners do not use dictionaries as effectively as intended by their
compilers and publishers (Arishi, 2004; Béjoint, 1989; Hamouda, 2013; Hartmann, 2009).
Furthermore, some language teachers seem to have negative attitudes towards the use of
dictionaries by their students as they believe that they hinder the learning process (Poulet,
1999), or make L2 learners lazy (Scholfield, 1997). Therefore, Hamouda (2013) claims that
complaints about dictionary consultations are common in EFL contexts.
In addition, the advancement of technology has brought its positive effects on dictionary
compilation and consultation. Furthermore, it has made some dictionary use skills fade (e.g.
knowing the English alphabet), and has introduced new skills (e.g. searching a word by voice
recording). Al-Jarf (1999), for example, found that her participants preferred electronic
dictionaries over book dictionaries for their non-linguistic features, e.g. fastness, easiness,
light weight. Such new emerging skills and features need to be explored and investigated
further to provide more insightful results.
1.2 Significance of the Study
The importance of the current study stems from the rapid changes that have occurred to
dictionary compilation and presentation due to the continuous and rapid changes in
technology. These changes have brought with them different dictionary skills and types of
information to be sought. Furthermore, in the Saudi EFL context, research on dictionary use
has been scarce (Alhaisoni, 2016; Hamouda, 2013). The first seminal paper that discussed
dictionary use among Saudi students was Al-Jarf (1999). Moreover, even these few studies
(e.g. Al-Jarf, 1999; Al-Fuhaid, 2004; Alhaisoni, 2016; Alhaysony, 2011; Hamouda, 2013)
that have been conducted in the Saudi context lack diversity in terms of university contexts
and/or types of information looked up by EFL learners. Therefore, the current study is unique
in exploring common practices among Saudi students at different universities. This feature
may give a larger picture of common dictionary use practices among Saudi EFL learners.
Thus, the present investigation aims at answering the following research questions:
1. What type of dictionaries do Saudi EFL University Preparatory Program Students
seem to use the most?
2. With what language skill(s) do Saudi EFL University Preparatory Program Students
use dictionaries the most?

16 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

3. For what reasons do Saudi EFL University Preparatory Program Students consult a
dictionary?
4. What type of information do Saudi EFL University Preparatory Program Students
look for when consulting a dictionary?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Types of Dictionaries
Dictionaries have been categorized into different types based on a range of criteria. For
example, the target audience plays a major role in determining the direction of compiling
words, classifying entries, types of information added, examples given, etc. therefore, there
have been two major types of audience for dictionary compilers. A dictionary is made either
for native speakers of a certain language or for the learners of that language. A dictionary
targeted to native speakers usually has different features that are not necessarily available in a
learners' dictionary. For example, a standard dictionary written for native speakers does not
usually have information on grammar, usages, or pragmatics like learners' dictionaries tend to
have. Moreover, a learners' dictionary may draw users' attention to common errors, common
collocations, and word frequencies. Furthermore, learners' dictionaries typically include
pictures, drawings, language notes, illustrations, and lists and glossaries of irregular verbs,
plural nouns, and nationalities. Since the current study is considered within an EFL context,
the following distinctions are all attendant to learners' dictionaries.
Another important distinction for classifying dictionaries is the number of languages used in
the learners' dictionary. If only the L2 is given, it is described as a monolingual dictionary.
Monolingual dictionaries usually require higher levels of proficiency in the L2 (Nation, 2001).
If more than one language is included, it is called bilingual. A third type that has been
emerging rapidly is the bilingualized type of dictionaries. A brief description of the three
types is presented below.
Monolingual dictionaries only contain the L2. In other words, all information available in this
type of dictionaries is written in the target language. This means that the headword, its
definition, examples, grammar notes, and illustrations are introduced in one language.
Researchers (e.g. Béjoint & Moulin, 1987; Thompson, 1987; Laufer & Hadar, 1997) believe
that monolingual dictionaries expose learners to more useful pieces of information like
words' syntactic behavior, etymology, register, and idiomatic usage. However, it seems that
learners are dissatisfy with monolingual dictionaries. So many studies (e.g. Nesi & Meara,
1994; Laufer & Kimmel; Kharma, 1985; Nation, 2001; Thompson, 1987) have revealed
learners' preference towards bilingual dictionaries simply because monolingual dictionaries
require a good command of the target language in order to enable proper use and utilization
of information looked at. Thompson (1987) believes that monolingual dictionaries are not
rewarding for many learners as they are not cost-effective when it comes to the effort exerted
in word look-ups. It seems that learners tend to prefer bilingual dictionaries to monolingual
ones (Baxter, 1980; Laufer & Kimmel, 1997).

17 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

A bilingual dictionary, on the other hand, is the one that has two languages (i.e. L1 and L2),
where the headword and its examples are in the L2, while the meaning is provided in the L1
(Nation, 2001). Research shows that L2 learners tend to favor bilingual dictionaries over
monolingual dictionaries (e.g. Baxter, 1980; Al-Jarf, 1999; Alhaisoni, 2008; 2016). Bilingual
dictionaries seem to be favored by L2 learners because of attendant features and advantages.
First and foremost, bilingual dictionaries provide an L1 translation. This feature has made L2
learners feel secure to prefer bilingual dictionaries to monolingual dictionaries (Scholfield,
1997). This preference of bilingual dictionaries seems to be attendant in many EFL contexts
with different L1s (Alhaisoni, 2016).
The third common type of dictionaries is a bilingualized dictionary. Bilingualized dictionaries
have combined the merits of wealthy information of monolingual dictionaries with the
accessibility of bilingual ones (Nation & Webb, 2011). In short, they combine the "best of the
both worlds" (Scholfield, 1997). This type of dictionaries usually involves typical
information available in monolingual dictionaries plus an L1 translation of the entry word.
Research has shown that L2 learners in different parts of the world prefer this type of
dictionaries (e.g. Chun, 2004 (China), Thumb, 2004 (Hong Kong), Hamouda, 2013 (Saudi
Arabia)).
2.2 Kinds of Information Available in a Dictionary
Scholfield (1999, 1982) differentiates between using a dictionary for reception and using it
for production. Each one involves different types of skills and strategies (ibid.). Scholfield
(1982: 85) argues that for reception, "the critical information in the entries is the meaning; all
other information is incidental to this one thing that the learner is seeking whereas for
production the focus is on all the kinds of information in addition to the meaning which must
be supplied to enable the learner to use a word correctly". Furthermore, Nation (2001) adds a
third distinction that involves learning. Hence. The types of information to be looked at
should be determined before owning a dictionary. For example, if the language learner is
interested in using a dictionary for helping him/her in their writing tasks (i.e. production),
then a dictionary that has information about word derivations, usage, common errors, etc.
should be obtained. If a dictionary is intended for learning/receptive purposes, then a
dictionary that focuses on word parts, examples, parts of speech, etc. should be owned.
However, this may be impractical for many language learners as well as dictionary publishers
as this will necessarily entail having two versions of each dictionary, i.e. one for receptive
uses and another for productive uses. Nonetheless, proper and well-built online as well as
mobile applications solve this problem by combining both kinds of information for receptive
and productive uses.
Nation (2001) relates information looked up in a dictionary to what is involved in knowing a
word. That is, he divides this into three general aspects: form, meaning, and use. These
aspects cover both receptive and productive information. For example, spoken and written
forms, word parts, meaning, examples, associations, collocations, and register should be
available for language learners to make use of them in their receptive, productive, and
learning uses of dictionaries.

18 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

Research has shown that L2 learners tend to consult their dictionaries mainly for meaning,
spelling, definitions, examples, or L1 translations (e.g. Bejoint, 1981; Hartmann, 1984;
Al-Jarf, 1999; Alqahtani, 2005; Alhaisoni, 2008, 2016). However, research of different L1s
seem to agree that meaning is the first and foremost type of information sought by language
learners. Alhaisoni (2008) surveyed 15 studies, starting by Tomaszczyk (1979) and ending by
Almuzainy (2005), and listed six types of lexical information those studies had investigated.
Alhaisoni (2008) found that all surveyed studies had reported that their participants ranked
meaning first to be looked at when a dictionary was consulted. Strangely enough, only five
studies found their participants to consult their dictionaries to check a word spelling as
second. The rest of the studies reported different elements of lexical information (e.g. L1
equivalents, pronunciation, grammar, parts of speech).
2.3 Reasons for and Language Skills Acquainted with Using Dictionaries
Research has shown that language learners have different reasons for consulting their
dictionaries. However, the results of this research seems to be scattered (Alhaisoni, 2008).
Furthermore, there seems to be a confusion between the types of information looked up and
reasons behind consulting a dictionary. Although it is true that there is a clear overlap
between the two, still there are some discrepancies. For example, when a learner cannot guess
the meaning of an unknown word, and resort to a dictionary, then this is a reason for using
the dictionary, but not a type of information one may look up in a dictionary.
Alhaisoni (2008) listed six reasons that his participants reported to have for consulting a
dictionary through think-aloud protocols that he conducted with his participants. These
reasons are as follows (ranked with the highest means first): No knowledge of word, retrieved
knowledge of word’s meaning but uncertain, guessing and referring to dictionary to confirm,
retrieved partial knowledge of word but not including the meaning, retrieved other meaning
of word/homonym but recognized as the wrong one for the current context, retrieved other
meaning thought to be correct but not sure (Alhaisoni, 2008: 254).
Nation (2001) stated that Harvey and Yuill (1997) had reported their participants who used
monolingual dictionaries while writing to have eight reasons for searching for a word as
follows (ranked with the highest means first): To check on spelling, to confirm the meaning,
to see if the word exists, to find a synonym to use instead of the known word, to find out
about the grammar of the word, to check on the constraints or register of the word, to find
collocations, and to find a correctly inflected form.
The difference between Harvey and Yuill's (1997) and Alhaisoni's (2012) lists is clear.
Harvey and Yuill's (1997) participants reported reasons that are suitable for production in a
writing task, while Alhaisoni's (2012) related to receptive use of words in a reading task.
Furthermore, the participants in Harvey and Yuill (1997) were restricted to the use of a
monolingual dictionary, while Alhaisoni's were given access to different types of dictionaries,
i.e. monolinguals, bilinguals, or bilingualized. Therefore, the results are not comparable. As
discussed earlier, Scholfield (1999, 1982) argues that receptive use of dictionaries requires
different types of skills to productive use of dictionaries.

19 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

As for language skills that learners seem to consult dictionaries with, different studies have
reported little discrepancies. For instance, the majority have shown that dictionary
consultations are highly related to reading more than any other skills (Tomaszczyk, 1979;
Bejoint, 1981; Li, 1998; Almuzainy, 2005; Alhaisoni, 2008). Fewer studies have reported their
participants to use dictionaries with other receptive tasks (e.g. translation) (e.g. Hartmann, 1983;
Al-Ajmi, 1992), or with productive tasks like writing (Al-Jarf, 1999). In all previous studies that
have reported reading to be the first language skill to be acquainted with dictionary consultations,
writing comes right after it. The results are not surprising; dictionary use has been normally
reported to be used with receptive skills (e.g. reading, L2-L1 translation) more than with
productive skills (e.g. writing, L1-L2 translation).
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
The participants of the current study were 100 Saudi EFL university students. All participants
belonged a preparatory program at seven different universities. There were 69 males and 31
females. Their ages ranged between 18 and 22. The participants were supposed to complete
their preparatory program and then proceed to different fields of study. They were also
supposed to study different skills courses like communication, presentation, and English
courses. Normally, Saudi students at this level are usually classified as beginners as their
vocabulary size has been reported to be less than 1000 words (Al-Bogami, 1995; Al-Homoud,
2003; Alsaif, 2011; Al-Masrai & Milton, 2012).
3.2 Instrument
The aim of the study was to explore certain aspects involved in the participants' use of
dictionary. Therefore, a 42-item questionnaire was employed. The questionnaire items were
divided into four major sections: Type of dictionaries used, skills acquainted with dictionary
use, reasons for using a dictionary, and kinds of information being looked up. The
questionnaire was given before being administered to two professors of applied linguistics to
validate the test. Three items were deleted from the original script. The internal reliability
analysis of the questionnaire items was performed through Cronbach alpha. The internal
reliability of the questionnaire was 9.57.
There were 42 closed-ended items as a whole. The questionnaire was built on a 4-point Likert
scale. The rationale behind using an even point scale was, according to Dornyei (2003), that
some participants may use the middle point to avoid making real choices by sitting on the
fence. Hence, the participants were requested to report their actual use of dictionaries by
choosing either never, rarely, sometimes, or always, with corresponding points of 1, 2, 3, and
4, respectively. The items of the questionnaire were divided into four main sections. The first
section dealt with type of dictionaries the participants are usually acquainted with.
3.3 Procedures
The questionnaire was made electronically for its ease of access, distribution, and marking. It
was created on Google Drive. After checking the reliability and validity of the questionnaire,

20 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

a number of Saudi universities preparatory programs were reached for formal permission of
circulating the electronic questionnaire to their students. The link to the questionnaire was
sent to students at those universities, and those responded to it were 100 male and female
students.
4. Results and Discussion
The first research question, What type of dictionary do Saudi EFL University Preparatory
Program Students seem to use the most?, was split into two sections based on the type of
language provided and on the type of presentation. The first involves whether a dictionary is
monolingual, bilingual, or bilingualized as discussed earlier. The second deals with how the
content of a dictionary is presented, be it through paper-based books, mobile applications,
electronic handheld devices, or online websites.
Table 1 shows that the participants of the current study do not have any clear tendency
towards any particular type of dictionaries. The mean scores indicate that the frequency of
using any of these dictionary types is less than moderate. However, it seems that the
participants tend to use English-Arabic and bilingualized (i.e. English-English-Arabic)
dictionaries more often than the other two types may be due to the fact that the participants at
this level are bombarded with large amounts of English input. Thus, their need to translate
from English to Arabic is more than their need to translate the other way round. An
explanation of the infrequent use of these types of dictionaries (monolingual, bilingual, and
bilingualized) can be justified by the results in table 2.
Table 1. Frequency of dictionary use in terms of language provided
Statement Mean SD
Monolingual 2.23 1.07
Arabic-English bilingual 2.21 1.13
English-Arabic bilingual 2.40 1.14
Bilingualized 2.27 1.14
The results in table 2 display an interesting, but not strange, issue. The participants have a
clear tendency towards using mobile applications (M= 3.62) and online websites (M= 3.43)
for dictionary use. The paper-based type of dictionaries (M= 1.78) seem to fade with the
advancement of mobile technology. Furthermore, the electronic handheld type of dictionaries
(1.80) seem to fade as well from actual use. A justification for this might be that if one set (i.e.
a personal smartphone, e.g. IPhone or Samsung) can provide many services, including
translation services via applications and websites, then why to carry two sets!
Table 2. Frequency of dictionary use in terms of medium of presentation
Statement Mean SD
Mobile applications 3.62 0.84
Online 3.43 0.96
Electronic (handheld) 1.80 1.08
Paper-based 1.78 1.00

21 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

Table 3. Frequency of language skills acquainted with dictionary use

Language Skill Mean SD
English-Arabic translation 3.27 0.95
Arabic-English translation 2.93 0.99
Writing 2.64 0.97
Reading 2.62 1.01
Speaking 2.05 1.01
Listening 2.00 0.93
As for the second research question, With what language skill(s) do Saudi EFL University
Preparatory Program Students use dictionaries the most?, table (3) indicates some interesting
results. First, the participants tend not to consult their dictionaries while listening and
speaking (means= 2 and 2.05, respectively). As for reading and writing, they seem more
inclined towards using a dictionary. Furthermore, they seem to have more dictionary
consultations when translating a text (could be written or spoken) from English into Arabic or
vice versa (3.27 and 2.93, respectively).
Scholfield (1999) asserts that it is not imaginable how a language learner would use a
dictionary while being involved in a conversation. This may explain the participants' low
mean scores of using dictionaries with listening and speaking. It is quite odd, however, that
the participants did not report using dictionaries while reading or writing. A possible
justification for this is twofold. First, the results in table 1 showed that the participants rarely
used their dictionaries. Therefore, it is not strange that did not report high frequency of
dictionary use of language skills. Second, due to the lack of proper exposure to English
outside the classroom, the low frequency of practicing English through reading and
conversations may have affected their use of dictionaries with language skills, where these
skills are highly related to the classroom setting in Saudi Arabia. Some studies have reported
that Saudi EFL students hardly read in English (e.g. Al-Homoud, 2003; Al-Qahtani, 2016).
The results of the third question, For what reasons do Saudi EFL University Preparatory
Program Students consult a dictionary?, indicate, as shown in table 4 that the participants
consult their dictionaries the most for issues related to word meaning like discovering the
meaning of a new word (mean= 3.03) or confirming the meaning of a known word
(mean=3.05). When it comes to other issues like grammatical behavior or synonyms of a
certain word, the participants tended not to consult their dictionaries so frequently.
Table 4. Reasons for dictionary consultations
Reasons for consultation Mean Standard deviation
meaning 3.05 0.96
new word 3.03 1.04
Spelling 2.99 1.06
pronunciation 2.94 1.05
guessing 2.93 1.02
existence 2.53 1.19
isolated words 2.50 1.10
Synonym 2.49 1.02
grammar 2.29 1.10

22 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

Table 5. Types of information looked up

Type of information looked up Mean Standard
deviation
When I look up a word, I learn how it is spelled 3.12 1.05
When I look up a word, I learn how it is pronounced 3.03 1.04
When I look up a word, I learn only the meaning in that context 2.77 1.01
When I expect that I will not use the word in the future, I learn 2.69 1.08
the only meaning of a given context
When I look up a word, I learn the other meanings regardless of 2.65 1.03
the original context
When I look up a word, I study the pictures relevant to it 2.64 1.16
When I look up a word, I learn its singular/plural forms 2.62 1.16
When I look up a word, I study the example sentence(s) 2.61 1.07
When I look up a word, I learn its parts of speech 2.54 1.08
When I look up a word, I learn its verb tenses 2.42 0.99
If there are different pronunciations for the word, I learn them all 2.40 1.04
I use voice searching on mobile/online dictionaries 2.36 1.10
Before using the dictionary, I read the terms, abbreviations, 2.27 1.09
phonetic symbols, etc. that appear in the beginning of a
dictionary
When I look up a word, I learn its derivatives 2.25 1.09
When I look up a word, I learn whether it is countable or not 2.21 1.12
When I look up a word, I study the small boxes that provide 2.16 1.00
information about the word's usage, grammar, common errors,
etc.
I read the appendices 1.99 1.07
When I look up a word, I learn whether it is transitive or not 1.91 1.10
I use the dictionary to study the differences between American 1.90 1.02
and British English
Table 5 shows the results for the fourth research question, What type of information do Saudi
EFL University Preparatory Program Students look for when consulting a dictionary?, that
the participants use dictionaries so frequently to check the spellings of words (3.12) and their
pronunciations (3.03). However, the participants do not use their dictionaries to look for extra
information about word usages, like the differences between American and British English
(1.9), or whether a verb is transitive or intransitive (1.9). Generally speaking, the results show
moderate to low means of the participants consulting the dictionary for extra information
beyond the word meaning, e.g. the singular/plural form, word derivatives, pictures, and parts
of speech.
5. Discussion
The results of the current study has shown high means of the participants using online and/or
mobile application dictionaries, while paper-based dictionaries seem to fade in terms of use.
This goes in line with previous research where electronic dictionaries have been reported to
replace the traditional paper-based ones in the Saudi EFL context (e.g. Al-Jarf, 1999;
Alhaisoni, 2016; Hamouda, 2013). No doubt that electronic dictionaries are accessible, free
(or cheaper than their paper-based counterparts), easy to carry, and quick in response.
Furthermore, electronic dictionaries do not require solid knowledge of the alphabetical order

23 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

of the letters as most of them provide 'do you mean…' options for their users, if a word is
misspelled.
Furthermore, and a result of the ownership of electronic dictionaries, it seems that the
participants may not be able to have a clear idea about the different types of dictionaries in
terms of the language they contain, i.e. monolingual, bilingual, and bilingualized, as the
electronic dictionaries provide basic information that a beginning learner needs, namely, L1
equivalents. Previous research, as discussed earlier has shown that EFL learners tend to
prefer bilingualized dictionaries to monolingual and bilingual dictionaries (e.g. Chun, 2004;
Thumb, 2004; Hamouda, 2013). Once more, new versions of famous and robust learners'
dictionaries, e.g. Cambridge, Longman, Oxford, provide L1 translations for different L1s,
Arabic, Japanese, German, respectively.
Moreover, the participants showed similar tendency towards using their dictionaries in
translation tasks like the participants of some previous studies (e.g. Al-Jarf, 1999; Hamouda,
2013). Furthermore, reading skill tends to relate moderately or highly to dictionary
consultation by the participants of the current study, which goes in line with results reported
by some EFL learners (e.g. Almuzainy, 2005; Alhaisoni, 2008). Nonetheless, the results of this
study do not conform to Al-Jarf's (1999) regarding consulting dictionaries while writing. As
shown earlier, the participants of the current study reported that they tend to consult their
dictionaries more repeatedly when writing than when reading. However, results of studies,
including this one, assert that dictionary consultation is attached to written texts (i.e. reading,
writing, and translation) more than with spoken texts (i.e. listening and speaking), and to
receptive written skills (i.e. reading and L2-L1 translation) more than to productive written
skills (i.e. writing and L1-L2 translation).
In addition, it is a general tendency that EFL learners consult dictionaries for the three basic
aspects of word knowledge, i.e. meaning, sound, and form, as discussed by Nation (2001) and
Schmitt (2000). Other elements do not seem to draw learners' attention, may be due to the
low proficiency levels of most of EFL learners surveyed in previous studies discussed earlier
(e.g. Chun, 2004; Almuzainy, 2005; Alhaysoni, 2008; 2016).
Accordingly, the type of information looked up is highly associated with the reasons that
usually make learners resort to their dictionaries for consultations, with meaning, sound, and
spelling aspects being at the top of the list. This is not unexpected, as dictionaries have been
originally generated for fixing different aspects of the lexicon, e.g. meaning, spelling, and use
(Schmitt, 2010).
6. Conclusion
Dictionary use, especially electronic, needs to be explored more deeply as new learners' skills
and dictionaries features have emerged due to the advancements in technology and electronic
dictionaries. Toady's learners, especially beginners, seem to abandon paper-based dictionaries,
and resort to electronic ones. This shift definitely requires different skills, strategies, and uses
that have not been available in the past. Therefore, learners and teachers alike need to be

24 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

instructed about these new advancements to properly utilize electronic dictionaries as

purposefully designed by their publishers.
References
Al-Bogami, A. (1995). Teaching English vocabulary to EFL Male Students at Intermediate
and Secondary Public Schools in Riyadh. Unpublished master’s thesis, King Saud University,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Al-Fuhaid, M. (2004). Vocabulary learning strategies: an empirical study of their use and
evaluation by Saudi EFL learners majoring in English. Unpublished PhD. thesis, University
of Durham.
Alhaisoni, E. (2008). The use of dictionaries by Saudi EFL students across educational level
and university major. Unpublished PhD. thesis, University of Essex.
Alhaisoni, E. (2016). EFL Teachers' and Students' Perceptions of Dictionary Use and
Preferences. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(6), 31-52.
Alhaysony, M (2011). Dictionary Look-Up Behavior of Saudi Female EFL Students.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(2), 250-267.
Al-Homoud, F. (2003). The relationship between the vocabulary size of Saudi EFL university
students and their ability to fill in cloze reading passages. Unpublished MA thesis. University
of Essex: UK.
Al-Jarf, R. (1999). Use of electronic dictionaries in ESL classroom. TESOL Arabia’99.
Al-Masrai, A & Milton, J. (2012). The Vocabulary Knowledge of University Students in
Saudi Arabia. TESOL Arabia Perspectives, 19(3), 13-19.
Almuzainy, S. (2005) Dictionary use strategies by Saudi L2 learners. Unpublished MA
dissertation. University of Essex.
Al-Qahtani, A. (2016). Why Do Saudi EFL Readers Exhibit Poor Reading Abilities? English
Language and Literature Studies, 16(1), 1-15.
Alqahtani, M. (2005). The use of vocabulary learning strategies by EFL learners at three
different educational levels. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Essex
Alsaif, A. (2011). Investigating vocabulary input and explaining vocabulary uptake among
EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. PhD thesis, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Arishi, S. (2004). The use of dictionary by Saudi learners of English. Semantic. African and
Applied linguistics, 13, 99-108
Baxter, J. (1980). The dictionary and vocabulary behaviour: a single word or a handful?
TESOL Quarterly, 14, 325-336.
Béjoint, H. (1989). The teaching of dictionary use: Present state and future tasks. In
Hausmann, F. J., Reichmann, O., Wiegand, H. E., & Zgusta, L. (Eds.),

25 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

Wörterbücher/Dictionaries/Dictionnaires: An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography

(Vol. 1, pp. 208-215). Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Bejoint, H., & Moulin, A. (1987). The place of the dictionary in an EFL program. The
dictionary and the language learner, 381-392.
Chun, V. (2004). EFL learners’ use of print and online dictionaries in L1 and L2 writing
process. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 7(1).
Cubillo, M. (2002). Dictionary Use and Dictionary Needs of ESP students: An experimental
Approach. International Journal of Lexicography, 15(2), 206-228.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration,
and processing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Hamouda, A. (2013). A Study of Dictionary Use by Saudi EFL Students at Qassim
University. Study in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 227-257.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (2009). Interlingual lexicography, with special reference to research
priorities. In Ooi, V. B. Y., Pakir, A., Talib, I. S. & Tan, P. K. W. (eds.), Perspectives in
lexicography: Asia and beyond (pp. 203-211).
Kharma, N. N. (1985). Wanted: a brand-new type of learners’ dictionary. Multilingua, 4,
85-90.
Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and
''bilingualized'' dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. The Modern
Language Journal, 81(2), 189-196.
Laufer, B., & Kimmel, M. (1997). Bilingualized dictionaries: how learners really use them.
System, 25(3), 361-369.
Nakamura, T. (2000). The use of vocabulary learning strategies: the case of Japanese EFL
learners in two different learning environments. PhD thesis, University of Essex.
Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2011) Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle
Cengage Learning.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary In Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nesi, H., & Meara, P. (1994). Patterns of misrepresentation in the productive use of EFL
dictionary definitions. System, 22(1).
Poulet, G. (1999). Instruction in dictionary use and foreign language teacher training: the
English scene. In Hartmann, R. (Ed.), European Language Council. Thematic Network
Project in the area of Languages. Sub-project 9: Dictionaries. 78-82. Retrieved from
http://www.fu-berlin.de/elc/tnp1/SP9dossier.doc, accessed on 10th April, 2017

26 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2017, Vol. 9, No. 4

Scholfield, P. (1997). Vocabulary reference works in foreign language learning. In Schmitt,

N. & McCarthy, M. (Ed.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 279-302).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scholfield, P. (1999). Dictionary use in reception. International Journal of Lexicography,
12(1), 13-34.
Scholfield, P. J. (1982). The role of bilingual dictionaries in ESL/EFL: a positive view. RELC
Guidelines, 4(1), 84-98.
Thompson, I. (1987). Memory in Language learning. In Wenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 43-56) New York: Prentice-Hall International.
Thumb, Yin-fun Jenny (2004). Dictionary Look-Up Strategies and The Bilingualised
Learner’s Dictionary: A Think-Aloud Study. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Tomaszczyk, J. (1979). Dictionaries: users and uses. Glottodidactica, 12, 103-119.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

27 www.macrothink.org/ijl