Skip to main content

Why one and two do not make three: Dictionary form revisited

Citations of this article
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.


The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her observations (Dziemianko 2011) with regard to LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), the e-version of OALDCE7 proved to be no better for language reception, production and learning than the dictionary in book form.1 An attempt is made to pinpoint the micro- and macrostructural design features which make e-COBUILD6 a better learning tool than e-OALDCE7 and e-LDOCE5. Recommendations concerning further research into the significance of the medium (paper vs. electronic) in the process of dictionary use conclude the study. The secondary aim which the paper attempts to achieve is to present the status of replication as a scientific research method and justify its use in lexicography.




Dziemianko, A. (2012). Why one and two do not make three: Dictionary form revisited. Lexikos, 22, 195–216.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free