Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (36)
- Article (34)
- Conference Proceeding (12)
- Book (4)
- Other (3)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (50)
- Wörterbuch (29)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (27)
- Paronym (24)
- Online-Wörterbuch (17)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (14)
- Lexikographie (12)
- Lexikografie (11)
- Paronymie (10)
- Semantik (9)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (40)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (15)
- Postprint (5)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (35)
- Peer-Review (20)
- Peer-Revied (1)
- Peer-review (1)
- Peer-reviewed (1)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (12)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (5)
- Benjamins (4)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (4)
- De Gruyter (3)
- Erich Schmidt (3)
- Hempen (3)
- IDS-Verlag (3)
- Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o. (3)
- Winter (3)
Die Ordnung des öffentlichen Diskurses der Wirtschaftskrise und die (Un-)Ordnung des Ausgeblendeten
(2011)
Lexicographic meaning descriptions of German lexical items which are formally and semantically similar and therefore easily confused (so-called paronyms) often do not reflect their current usage of lexical items. They can even contradict one’s personal intuition or disagree with lexical usage as observed in public discourse. The reasons are manifold. Language data used for compiling dictionaries is either outdated, or lexicographic practice is rather conventional and does not take advantage of corpus-assisted approaches to semantic analysis. Despite of various modern electronic or online reference works speakers face uncertainties when dealing with easily confusable words. These are for example sensibel/sensitiv (sensitive) or kindisch/kindlich (childish/childlike). Existing dictionaries often do not provide satisfactory answers as to how to use these sets correctly. Numerous questions addressed in online forums show where uncertainties with paronyms are and why users demand further assistance concerning proper contextual usage (cf. Storjohann 2015). There are different reasons why users misuse certain items or mix up words which are similar in form and meaning. As data from written and more spontaneous language resources suggest, some confusions arise due to ongoing semantic change in the current use of some paronyms. This paper identifies shortcomings of contemporary German Dictionaries and discusses innovative ways of empirical lexicographic work that might pave the way for a new data-driven, descriptive reference work of confusable German terms. Currently, such a guide is being developed at the Institute for German Language in Mannheim implementing corpora and diverse corpus-analytical methods. Its objective is to compile a dictionary with contrastive entries which is a useful reference tool in situation of language doubt. At the same time, it aims at sensitizing users of context dependency and language change.
German lexical items with similar or related morphological roots and similar meaning potential are easily confused by native speakers and language learners. These include so-called paronyms such as effektiv/effizient , sensitive/sensibel, formell/formal/förmlich . Although these are generally not regarded as synonyms, empirical studies suggest that in some cases items of a paronym set have undergone meaning change and developed synonymous notions. In other cases, they remain similar in meaning, but show subtle differences in definition and restrictions of usage. Whereas the treatment of synonyms has received attention from corpus-linguists (cf. Partington 1998; Taylor 2003), the subject of paronyms has not been revisited with empirical, data-driven methods neither in terms of semantic theory nor in terms of practical lexicography. As a consequence, we also need to search for suitable corpus methods for detailed semantic investigation. Lexicographically, some German paronyms have been documented in printed dictionaries (e.g. Müller 1973; Pollmann & Wolk 2010). However, there is no corpus-assisted reference guide describing paronyms empirically and enabling readers to find the correct contemporary usage. Therefore, solutions to some lexicographic challenges are required.
Der Beitrag fasst die Schritte einer Projektvorstellung und aktuelle Reflexionen über ein am Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim neues, korpusgestütztes Paronymwörterbuch zusammen. Zunächst wird der Begriff der Paronymie in einer Arbeitsdefinition eingegrenzt und es wird gezeigt, welche Lücke mit dem neuen Werk in der Wörterbuchlandschaft geschlossen wird. Im Anschluss werden ausgewählte methodische Aspekte sowie Fragen der Wortartikelinhalte und -präsentation skizziert.
Unter Neologismen finden sich bedeutungsgleiche Ausdrücke (im weitesten Sinne Synonyme), die unter bestimmten Bedingungen sprachliche Unsicherheiten hervorrufen. Das liegt u. a. an ihrer semantisch-konzeptuellen Ähnlichkeit, an nicht abgeschlossenen Lexikalisierungsprozessen, aber es treten auch Zweifel auf, weil es Unterschiede zwischen der Allgemein- und der Fachsprache gibt. Für einige Neologismen ist es auch charakteristisch, dass mehrere morphologische Varianten gleichzeitig in den Wortschatz eintreten, sodass nicht immer klar ist, wann welche präferiert werden. Dass all diese Ausdrücke lexikalischem Wettbewerb und situationsgebundenen Gebrauchsbedingungen ausgesetzt sind und dass sie zu Zweifel führen können, wird in Onlineforen sichtbar. Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie solche Paare/Gruppen korpusgestützt semantisch analysiert und wie sie in deskriptiven Wörterbüchern angemessen beschrieben werden können, um sowohl Gemeinsamkeiten als auch Unterschiede für Nachschlagende sichtbar zu machen. Dazu werden konkrete Beispiele und ein gegenüberstellendes Wörterbuchdarstellungsformat für neologistische Synonyme vorgeschlagen.
In this paper, we address issues of inconsistencies of dictionary information and how different corpus methods and computer tools can assist in providing systematic cross-referencing. The question is raised how hyperlinking in an electronic reference work can be approached systematically in order to warrant consistent symmetrical links between synonyms or antonyms. Firstly, it is argued that working with a comprehensive corpus does not account for consistent cross-referencing. It is shown that a top-down corpus-driven linguistic analysis also does not guarantee the lexicographic documentation of binary lexico-semantic relations covered by corpus data, as proposed by Paradis/Willners (2006a, b). Secondly, with the help of dictionary examples taken from elexiko (an online dictionary of contemporary German) we demonstrate how a combination of both corpus-driven and corpus-based procedures enables lexicographers to systematically exploit corpus material in more depth than by using only one of these methods. It is also discussed where and why lexicographers are still prone to inconsistencies in the editing processes, irrespective of their underlying corpus methodologies. Finally, we introduce a cross-reference management tool that has been developed for elexiko and we explain its technological prerequisites and implications. This software supports lexicographers in detecting existing and missing references from and to a specific headword. It also offers options to automatically and comfortably correct discrepancies. Overall, we suggest a method that includes linguistic competence, complementary corpus approaches and additional software in order to ensure that links or references between synonymic and antonymic pairings are given in both directions.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, about 2000 new lexical units have entered the German lexicon. These concern a multitude of coinings and word formations (Kuschelkontakt, rumaerosolen, pandemüde) as well as lexical borrowings mainly from English (Lockdown, Hotspot, Superspreader). In a special way, these neologisms function as keywords and lexical indicators sketching the development of the multifaceted corona discourse in Germany. They can be detected systematically by corpus-linguistic investigations of reports and debates in contemporary public communication. Keyword analyses not only exhibit new vocabulary, they also reveal discursive foci, patterns of argumentation and topicalisations within the diverse narratives of the discourse. With the help of quickly established and dominant neologisms, this paper will outline typical contexts and thematic references, but it will also identify speakers' attitudes and evaluations.