Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Keywords
- Wörterbuch (14) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (6)
- Postprint (3)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (8)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (5)
Publisher
We start by trying to answer a question that has already been asked by de Schryver et al. (2006): Do dictionary users (frequently) look up words that are frequent in a corpus. Contrary to their results, our results that are based on the analysis of log files from two different online dictionaries indicate that users indeed look up frequent words frequently. When combining frequency information from the Mannheim German Reference Corpus and information about the number of visits in the Digital Dictionary of the German Language as well as the German language edition of Wiktionary, a clear connection between corpus and look-up frequencies can be observed. In a follow-up study, we show that another important factor for the look-up frequency of a word is its temporal social relevance. To make this effect visible, we propose a de-trending method where we control both frequency effects and overall look-up trends.
We present studies using the 2013 log files from the German version of Wiktionary. We investigate several lexicographically relevant variables and their effect on look-up frequency: Corpus frequency of the headword seems to have a strong effect on the number of visits to a Wiktionary entry. We then consider the question of whether polysemic words are looked up more often than monosemic ones. Here, we also have to take into account that polysemic words are more frequent in most languages. Finally, we present a technique to investigate the time-course of look-up behaviour for specific entries. We exemplify the method by investigating influences of (temporary) social relevance of specific headwords.
Wiktionary is increasingly gaining influence in a wide variety of linguistic fields such as NLP and lexicography, and has great potential to become a serious competitor for publisher-based and academic dictionaries. However, little is known about the "crowd" that is responsible for the content of Wiktionary. In this article, we want to shed some light on selected questions concerning large-scale cooperative work in online dictionaries. To this end, we use quantitative analyses of the complete edit history files of the English and German Wiktionary language editions. Concerning the distribution of revisions over users, we show that — compared to the overall user base — only very few authors are responsible for the vast majority of revisions in the two Wiktionary editions. In the next step, we compare this distribution to the distribution of revisions over all the articles. The articles are subsequently analysed in terms of rigour and diversity, typical revision patterns through time, and novelty (the time since the last revision). We close with an examination of the relationship between corpus frequencies of headwords in articles, the number of article visits, and the number of revisions made to articles.
Eine europaweite Umfrage zu Wörterbuchbenutzung und -kultur. Ergebnisse der deutschen Teilnehmenden
(2018)
Gebrauchsgegenstand, Streitschlichter, Spielzeug, Nationalsymbol, Arbeitshilfe oder doch nur etwas, für das sich hauptsächlich Akademikerinnen und Akademiker interessieren? Welche Rolle spielen einsprachige Wörterbücher heute? Um unter anderen diesen Fragen nachzugehen, koordinierten wir gemeinsam mit Iztok Kosem (Universität Ljubljana) und Robert Lew (Adam-Mickiewicz Universität Poznań) die bis dato größte europaweite Umfrage zur Wörterbuchbenutzung und -kultur. Gemeinsam mit 26 ‚lokalen‘ Partnerinnen und Partnern aus ganz Europa führten wir im Rahmen des European Network of e-Lexicography (ENeL) diese Umfrage durch. Die Ergebnisse der Studie versprechen neue Einsichten in den gesellschaftlichen Status von Wörterbüchern in vielen europäischen Ländern. Durch die möglichst parallele Erhebung der Daten in den teilnehmenden Ländern werden außerdem interessante Vergleiche der lokalen ‚Wörterbuchkulturen‘ möglich sein. Im Fokus der Befragung standen allgemeine einsprachige Wörterbücher in der oder den jeweiligen Landessprache(n).
In the past two decades, more and more dictionary usage studies have been published, but most of them deal with the question what users appreciate about dictionaries, which dictionaries they use and which information they need in specific situations. These studies presuppose that users indeed consult lexicographic resources. However, language teachers and lecturers of linguistics often have the impression that students use too few high-quality dictionaries in their every-day work. Against this background, we started an international cooperation project to collect empirical data evaluating that impression. Our aim was to evaluate what students (here from the Romance language area) actually do when they correct language problems. We used a new methodological setting to do this (screen recording with a thinking-aloud task). The empirical data we gained offers a broad insight into what language users really do when solving language-related tasks today.
Are borrowed neologisms accepted more slowly into the German language than German words resulting from the application of wrd formation rules? This study addresses this question by focusing on two possible indicators for the acceptance of neologisms: a) frequency development of 239 German neologisms from the 1990s (loanwords as well as new words resulting from the application of word formation rules) in the German reference corpus DEREKO and b) frequency development in the use of pragmatic markers (‘flags’, namely quotation marks and phrases such as sogenannt ‘so-called’) with these words. In the second part of the article, a psycholinguistic approach to evaluating the (psychological) status of different neologisms and non-words in an experimentally controlled study and plans to carry out interviews in a field test to collect speakers’ opinions on the acceptance of the analysed neologisms are outlined. Finally, implications for the lexicographic treatment of both types of neologisms are discussed.
Aus diesem Grunde haben wir uns empirisch der Frage genähert, wie oder ob bestimmte Gruppen heute überhaupt noch Wörterbücher nutzen und ob sie sie bewusst von anderen sprachbezogenen Daten im Web unterscheiden. Es sollten empirische Daten gesammelt werden, um zu erfahren, wie DaF-Lernende tatsächlich arbeiten (und nicht was sie dazu retrospektiv sagen), vor allem um eine bessere empirische Basis für den Unterricht zur Verfügung zu haben. Zentrale Fragen dabei waren:
• Wie nutzen DaF-Lernende heutzutage lexikografische Ressourcen?
• Welche Suchstrategien wenden sie an?
• Differenzieren sie zwischen den unterschiedlichen Ressourcen?
• Welche Strategien erweisen sich als besonders erfolgreich?
Are borrowed neologisms accepted more slowly into the German language than German words resulting from the application of word formation rules? This study addresses this question by focusing on two possible indicators for the acceptance of neologisms: a) frequency development of 239 German neologisms from the 1990s (loanwords as well as new words resulting from the application of word formation rules) in the German reference corpus DeReKo and b) frequency development in the use of pragmatic markers (‘flags’, namely quotation marks and phrases such as sogenannt ‘so-called’) with these words. In the second part of the article, a psycholinguistic approach to evaluating the (psychological) status of different neologisms and non-words in an experimentally controlled study and plans to carry out interviews in a field test to collect speakers’ opinions on the acceptance of the analysed neologisms are outlined. Finally, implications for the lexicographic treatment of both types of neologisms are discussed.