Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (36) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (36)
Keywords
- Deutsch (18)
- Wörterbuch (10)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (7)
- Paronym (7)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (5)
- Lexikografie (5)
- Online-Wörterbuch (5)
- Paronymie (5)
- eLexiko (5)
- Lexikographie (4)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (17)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (6)
- Postprint (4)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (19)
- Peer-Review (5)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (8)
- Benjamins (4)
- De Gruyter (3)
- IDS-Verlag (3)
- Narr (2)
- Routledge (2)
- Cambridge Scholars Publishing (1)
- Hempen (1)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
- Karolinum (1)
Any bilingual dictionary is contrastive by nature, as it documents linguistic information between language pairs. However, the design and compilation of most bilingual dictionaries is often no more than mere lists of lexical or semantic equivalents. In internet forums, one can observe a huge interest in acquiring relevant knowledge about specific lexical items or pairs that are prone to comparison in a more comprehensive manner as they may pose lexical semantic challenges. In particular, these often concern easily confused pairs (e.g. false friends or paronyms) and new terms increasingly travelling between languages in news and social media (Šetka-Čilić/Ilić Plauc 2021). With regard to English and German, the fundamental comparative principles upon which contrastive guides should be build are either absent, or specialised contrastive dictionaries simply do not exist, e.g. comprehensive descriptive resources for false friends, paronyms, protologisms or neologisms (see Gouws/Prinsloo/de Schryver 2004). As a result, users turn to electronic resources such as Google translate, blogs and language forums for help. For example, it is English words such as muscular which have two German translations options.
These are two confusables muskulär and muskulös both of which exhibit a different semantic profile. German sensitiv/sensibel and their English formal counterparts sensitive/sensible are false friends. However, these terms are highly polysemous in both languages and have semantic features in common. Their full meaning spectrum is hardly captured in bilingual dictionaries to allow for a full comparison. Translating protologisms such as German Doppelwumms as well as more established new words is one of the most challenging problems. Currently, German neologisms such as Klimakleber are translated as climate glue (instead of climate activist glueing him-/herself onto objects) by online tools, simply causing mistakes and contextual distortion. Most challenges users face today are well-known (e.g. Rets 2016). New terms are often unregistered in dictionaries and it is often impossible to make appropriate choices between two or more (commonly misused) words between two languages (e.g. Benzehra 2007). These are all relevant problems to translators and language learners alike (e.g González Ribao 2019).
This paper calls for the implication of insights from contrastive lexicology into modern bilingual lexicography. To turn dictionaries into valuable resources and in order to create productive strategies in a learning environment, the practice of writing dictionaries requires a critical re-assessment. Furthermore, the full potential of electronic contrastive resources needs to be recognised and put into practice. After all, monolingual German lexicography has started to reflect on how users’ needs can be accounted for in specific comparative linguistic situations. Some of these ideas can be comfortably extended to bilingual reference guides. On the one hand, this paper will deliver a critical account of some English-German/German-English dictionaries and touch on the shortcomings of contemporary bilingual lexicography. On the other hand, with the help of fictitious resources I will demonstrate contrastive structures as focal points of consultations which answer some of the more frequent language questions more reliably. Among others, I will explain how we need to build user-friendly dictionaries to allow for translating false friends or easily confusable words from the source language into its target language efficiently. With regard to neologisms, I will show how discursive descriptions and definitions that are more elaborate can support language learners to learn about necessary extra-linguistic knowledge. Overall, this could improve the role of specialised dictionaries in the teaching or translating process (cf. Miliç/Sadri/Glušac 2019).
This article sketches the development of paronym dictionaries in German. These dictionaries document and describe commonly confused words which cause uncertainties because they are similar in sound, spelling and/or meaning (e.g. effektiv/effizient, sportlich/sportiv). First, an overview of existing reference guides is provided, covering different traditions. Numerous lemma lists have been collected for pedagogical purposes and there has always been an interest in the lexicological treatment of paronyms. However, only a handful of dictionaries covering commonly confused pairs and a small number of genuine paronym dictionaries have ever been compiled. I will focus on lexicographic endeavours, including Wustmann (1891), Müller (1973) and Pollmann and Wolk (2001). Secondly, I will shed light on the differences in descriptions in these dictionaries. This includes how prescriptive approaches have been replaced over time by empirical descriptive accounts and how dictionaries have moved away from restricted, static hardback editions towards dynamic e-dictionaries. Finally, an e-dictionary, “Paronyme — Dynamisch im Kontrast”, is presented with contrastive and flexible two-level consultation views. Its three key elements are its corpus-based foundation, the implementation of meta-lexicographic requirements and a consideration of users’ interests. This dictionary has implemented a user-friendly and dynamic interface and it records conventionalized patterns and preferences in authentic communication.
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.
The public as linguistic authority: Why users turn to internet forums to differentiate between words
(2022)
This paper addresses the question of why we face unsatisfactory German dictionary entries when looking up and comparing two similar lexical terms that are loan words, new words, (near) synonyms, or confusables. It explains how users are aware of existing reference works but still search or post on language forums, often after consulting a dictionary and experiencing a range of dictionary based problems. Firstly, these dictionary based difficulties will be scrutinised in more detail with respect to content, function, presentation, and the language of definitions. Entries documenting loan words and commonly confused pairs from different lexical reference resources serve as examples to show the short comings. Secondly, I will explain why learning about your target group involves studying discussion forums. Forums are a valuable source for detailed user studies, enabling the examination of different communicative needs, concrete linguistic questions, speakers’ intuitions, and people’s reactions to posts and comments. Thirdly, with the help of two examples I will describe how the study of chats and forums had a major impact on the development of a recently compiled German dictionary of confusables. Finally, that same problem solving approach is applied to the idea of a future dictionary of neologisms and their synonyms.
The public as linguistic authority: Why users turn to internet forums to differentiate between words
(2022)
This paper addresses the question of why we face unsatisfactory German dictionary entries when looking up and comparing two similar lexical terms that are loan words, new words, (near)-synonyms, or confusables. It explains how users are aware of existing reference works but still search or post on language forums, often after consulting a dictionary and experiencing a range of dictionary-based problems. Firstly, these dictionary-based difficulties will be scrutinised in more detail with respect to content, function, presentation, and the language of definitions. Entries documenting loan words and commonly confused pairs from different lexical reference resources serve as examples to show the shortcomings. Secondly, I will explain why learning about your target group involves studying discussion forums. Forums are a valuable source for detailed user studies, enabling the examination of different communicative needs, concrete linguistic questions, speakers’ intuitions, and people’s reactions to posts and comments. Thirdly, with the help of two examples I will describe how the study of chats and forums had a major impact on the development of a recently compiled German dictionary of confusables. Finally, that same problem-solving approach is applied to the idea of a future dictionary of neologisms and their synonyms.
The project “Paronymwörterbuch” investigates and documents easily confused words (so-called paronyms) in German with respect to their use in public discourse as documented in a large corpus. These are, for example, antik/antiquiert/antiquarisch (antique/antiquated/antiquarian) or sportlich/sportiv (sporty/athletic). The results of this work are explanatory, contrastive entries in a new dynamic e-dictionary called “Paronyme − Dynamisch im Kontrast”. The objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, essential new usage modalities of the new dictionary will be illustrated. As it is designed for contrastive consultation processes, the comparative structure of the entries will be elucidated and we will show how this dictionary has moved away from static to dynamic presentation by incorporating flexible consultation options. Secondly, as entries contain linguistic details which are consistently paired up with conceptual-encyclopaedic information, it is shown how this reference guide combines corpus-based methods with cognitive semantics. In this way, linguistic findings correlate better with how users conceptualise language by adequately reflecting ideas such as conceptual structure, categorisation and knowledge. Consequently, appropriate contrastive corpus tools and methods are employed. This paper also emphasises the need of semiotic approaches to the analysis of linguistic data in order to provide ostensive and cognitive-oriented lexical explanations. Such approaches are also necessary to guarantee an efficient pairwise investigation of paronyms. Advantages and disadvantages of explorative self-organising feature maps will be explained in more detail.
Am Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) wurde im Programmbereich „Lexikografie und Sprachdokumentation“ ein neuartiges Wörterbuch entwickelt, das leicht verwechselbare Ausdrücke in ihrem aktuellen öffentlichen Sprachgebrauch deskriptiv beschreibt. Im Jahr 2018 erschien das elektronische Nachschlagewerk „Paronyme – Dynamisch im Kontrast“, das sich durch folgende drei Aspekte auszeichnet:
1) Erstens liegen mehrstufige kontrastive Beschreibungsebenen und flexible Darstellungsformen vor;
2) zweitens sind die Bedeutungserläuterungen kognitiv-konzeptuell angelegt, um einer langen Forderung nach einer stärker kognitiv ausgerichteten Lexikografie Rechnung zu tragen;
3) drittens werden Datengrundlagen und Analysemethoden genutzt, mit denen umfassend Paronyme ermittelt und diese anschließend erstmals empirisch ausgewertet werden konnten.
Preface
(2010)
Conventional descriptions of synonymous items often concentrate on common semantic traits and the degree of semantic overlap they exhibit. Their aim is to offer classifications of synonymy rather than elucidating ways of establishing contextual meaning equivalence and the cognitive prerequisites for this. Generally, they lack explanations as to how synonymy is construed in actual language use. This paper investigates principles and cognitive devices of synonymy construction as they appear in corpus data, and focuses on questions of how meaning equivalence might be conceptualised by speakers.