X hits on this document





7 / 13


No. of students

Total no. of senses for all 3 items

Average of all 3 items per student

A1 B1 A2 B2 A3 B3 A B

11 18 10 11 10 11 31 40

178 268 173 188 187 208 538 664

16.18 14.88 17.3 17.09 18.7 18.9 17.393 16.956

Dinha T. Gorgis & Aladdin Al-Kharabsheh: Translation of Arabic Collocations into English

Table 2: Total no. of senses given to three lexical items and their average per one single student in each (sub)group



No. of students

Average of one item per student

A1 B1 A2 B2 A3 B3 A B

11 18 10 11 10 11 31 40

5.393 4.96 5.766 5.69 6.233 6.303 5.784 5.533

The differences in the total number as shown in table 2 might be intriguing at a first glance. In fact, it is the average that concerns us more. When this average is divided by three (see table 3), we can easily correlate one single item, on average, per one student in each (sub)group. However, the average figures, as they stand now in table 2, may tell the reader something, namely, that dictionary-free students in B1, i.e. top students, are considerably better than those using a dictionary in A1, again top students, because they selected less sense relations. This is not necessarily true as we shall see later. What might also seem amazing is that the other corresponding sub-groups are almost the same, i.e. it is all the same, whether students use a dictionary or not. table 3 below, which is a mini picture of table 2, shows some surface generalization in terms of a lexical average per an individual in a (sub)group. The reason why we reduce the average as shown in table 2 to an average per just one lexical item as given in table 3 is that we intend to compare the reduced figures with the ultimate average, viz. an average of the most acceptable English collocational/translational equivalents regardless of how many corresponding senses (sub)groups had selected.

Table 3: Average of senses given by one student to one lexical item

Although the figures shown in tables 1, 2 and 3 clearly show slight differences between (sub)groups, they may be statistically significant. Even though, they would tell us just one thing: that the performance of dictionary-free subjects is slightly better because they have selected fewer senses for the three lexical items than those who used a dictionary. The implication of this result is two-fold: (1) that the students in group A are more distracted in their search for the required senses than group B because of the multiplicity of senses made available in the dictionary; and (2) that the students' linguistic repertoire in group B is so

ISSN 1615-3014

Document info
Document views42
Page views42
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 10:49:58 UTC 2017