Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (53) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (53)
Keywords
- Neologismus (53) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (53) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (41)
- Peer-Review (11)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (14)
- IDS-Verlag (10)
- Lang (9)
- Niemeyer (5)
- Duden (3)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (3)
- Narr (2)
- Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (1)
- Heinz Akademischer Verlag (1)
- Hirzel (1)
Contrastive analysis of climate-related neologisms registered in GermanN and French Wikipedia
(2023)
Neologisms represent new social norms, tendencies, controversies and attitudes. They denote new or changed concepts which are constantly being negotiated between different members of the discourse community (Wodak 2022 and Catalano/Waugh (eds.) 2020). Neologisms help to identify new communicative patterns and narratives which illustrate different strings of discourse in everyday life. In recent years, many neologisms relating to the subject of the environment and climate have been emerging around the world mainly due to dominant discussions on climate change and the movement “Fridays for Future”. In German, for example, neologisms such as Klimakleber, klimaresilient and globaler Streik and in French neologisms such as éco-anxiété, justice climatique and écocitoyen could be observed. These neologisms occur in many domains of life, for example in politics, media and also in advertising, which means that “l’importance croissante des enjeux environnementaux dans les discours politiques, médiatiques et publicitaires” (Balnat/Gérard 2022, p. 22) can be identified. However, it is not only the occurrence of environment- or climate-related topics that is increasing, but also the rising polarisation of the public debate. The polarisation within public discourse is based on the fact that there are opposing positions which are represented by new or recently relevant terms such as activistes du climat (or Klimaaktivisten) and climatosceptiques (or Klimaskeptiker) (Balnat/Gérard 2022, p. 22). Due to different identifications with one or the other side, one can also speak of an “affrontement idéologique” (Balnat/Gérard 2022, p. 23). 1 The explosive nature and the high complexity of the debate on climate and the environmental issues mean that many words are naturally unfamiliar to people. This is especially true with regard to neologisms. In addition, it is often not only the new word itself but also the signified concept that is initially unknown. When people then look up words, they often do so on the Internet. Wikipedia as a “free encyclopedia” (Wikipedia 2023) is particularly well suited as an object of study with regard to neologisms, since factual knowledge is given special attention there. Furthermore, this reference guide is perceived as a regular source of agreed and common knowledge on all sorts of subjects. Hence, the descriptions found here represent social agreement on controversial terms and discussions to some degree. In this paper, German and French neologisms from the subject area of climate and environment will be examined primarily in Wikipedia, but also in the neighbouring resource Wiktionary,2 which is “a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary” (Wiktionary 2023). Since Wikipedia and Wiktionary are available in French and in German, 21010. International Contrastive Linguistics Conference (ICLC) both are equally suitable for the contrastive analysis. Thus, Wikipedia articles which are accessible in both languages (e.g. Klimanotstand and État d›urgence climatique) or Wikipedia articles about similar events and phenomena (e.g. Letzte Generation and Dernière Rénovation) will be compared. For example, we will have a closer look at other new terms specifying different thematic aspects of the discourse of climate and environment. We will mainly refer to those lexical items which can be found in the respective articles in both languages. Special emphasis will be on overlaps and differences, thematic foci, speaker’s positions and evaluative terms.
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).
In the present contribution, I investigate if and how the English and French editions of the Wiktionary collaborative dictionary can be used as a corpus for real time neology watch. This option is envisaged as a stopgap, when no satisfactory corpus is available. Wiktionary can also prove useful in addition to standard corpus analysis, to minimize the risk of overlooking new coinages and new senses. Since the collaborative dictionary’s quest for exhaustiveness makes the manual inspection of the new additions unreasonable (more than 31,000 English lemmas and 11,000 French lemmas entered the nomenclature in 2020), identifying the possibly relevant headwords is an issue. The solution proposed here is to use Wiktionary revision history to detect the (new or existing) entries that received the greatest number of modifications. The underlying hypothesis is that the most heavily edited pages can help identify the vocabulary related to “hot topics”, assuming that, in 2020, the pandemic-related vocabulary ranks high. I used two measures introduced by Lih (2004), whose aim was to estimate the quality of Wikipedia articles: the so-called rigour (number of edits per page) and diversity (number of unique contributors per page). In the present study, I propose to adapt the rigour and diversity metrics to Wiktionary in order to identify the pages that generated a particular stir, rather than to estimate the quality of the articles. I do not subscribe to the idea that – in Wiktionary – more revisions necessarily produce quality articles (more revisions often produce complete articles). I therefore adopt Lih’s notion of diversity to refer to the number of distinct contributors, but leave out the name rigour when it comes to the number of revisions. Wolfer and Müller-Spitzer (2016) used the two metrics to describe the dynamics of the German and English editions of Wiktionary. One of their findings was that the number of edits per page is correlated with corpus word frequencies. The variation in number of page edits should therefore reflect to some extent the variation of corpus word frequencies. Renouf (2013) established a relationship between the fluctuation of word frequencies in a diachronic corpus and various neological processes. In particular, she illustrated how specific events generate sudden frequency spikes for words previously unseen in the corpus. For instance, Eyjafjallajökull, the – existing – name of an Icelandic glacier, appeared in the corpus when the underlying volcano erupted in 2010 and disrupted air traffic in Europe. In order to check if the same phenomenon occurs when using Wiktionary edits instead of corpus frequencies, I manually annotated the most frequently revised entries (according to various ranking scores) with the binary tag: “related to Covid-19” (yes/no). The annotations were then used to test the ability of various configurations to detect relevant headwords from the English and French Wiktionary, namely Covid-19 neologisms and related existing words that deserve updates.
To leverage the Deaf community’s increasing online presence, the web-based platform NZSL Share was launched in March 2020 to crowdsource new and previously undocumented signs, and to encourage community validation of these signs. The platform allows users to upload sign videos, comment on videos and agree or disagree with (often new) signs being proposed. It is managed by the research team that maintains the ODNZSL, which includes the authors. NZSL Share is being used by individuals as well as Deaf community groups to record and share signs of a specialist nature (e.g., school curriculum signs). NZSL Share now has close to 50 actively contributing members. Its launch coincided with the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak in New Zealand and so some of the first signs contributed were COVID-19-related, which are the focus of this paper.
This paper arises within the current communication urgency experienced throughout the pandemic. From its onset, several new lexical units have permeated the overall media discourse, as well as social media and other channels. These units convey information to the public regarding the ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ namely COVID-19. In addition to its worldwide impact healthwise, the pandemic generates noteworthy influence in the linguistic landscape, and as a result, a significant number of neologisms have emerged. Within the scope of our ongoing research, we identify the neologisms in European Portuguese that are related to the term COVID-19 via form or meaning. However, not all the new lexical units identified in our corpus containing COVID-19 in its formation can unequivocally be regarded as neoterms (terminological neologisms). Accordingly, this article aims not only to reflect on the distinction between neologism and neoterm but also to explore the determinologisation process that several of these new lexical units experience.
This paper looks at whether, after two decades of corpus building for the Bantu languages, the time is ripe to begin using monitor corpora. As a proof-of-concept, the usefulness of a Lusoga monitor corpus for lexicographic purposes, in casu for the detection of neologisms, both in terms of new words and new meanings, is investigated and found useful.
This article has a double objective. First, it seeks to offer an initial approach, with critical notes, to the group of pandemic-related neologisms incorporated into the DLE in the year 2020. To that end, the trends in the academic dictionary’s incorporation of neologisms will be reviewed, focusing in particular on specialized language neologisms. Second, the article presents the design of a research study that allows for the examination of any new words beginning with CORONA- added to the DLE and the DHLE. An assessment will be made of the particularities of the DLE and the DHLE regarding the incorporation of the new words, as well as the degree of correspondence or complementarity between the two works in this sense. This will show the complementary roles that the DLE and the DHLE are currently acquiring. In this sense, the new additions open up a debate on the treatment of neologisms in academic lexicography, in a particularly unique scenario.
This paper focuses on standardological and lexicographical aspects of Coronavirus-related neologisms in Croatian. The presented results are based on corpus analysis. The initial corpus for this analysis consists of terms collected for the Glossary of Coronavirus. This corpus has been supplemented by terms we collected on the Internet and from the media. The General Croatian corpora: Croatian Web Corpus – hrWaC (cf. Ljubešić/Klubička 2016) and Croatian Language Repository (cf. Brozović Rončević/Ćavar 2008: 173–186) were also used, but since they do not include neologisms that entered the language after 2013, they could be used only to check terms in the language before that time. From October 2021, a specialized Corona corpus compiled by Štrkalj Despot and Ostroški Anić (2021) became publicly available on request. The data from these corpora are analyzed by Sketch Engine (cf. Kilgarriff et al. 2004: 105–116), a corpus query system loaded with the corpora, enabling the display of lexeme context through concordances and (differential) word sketches and the extraction of keywords (terms) and N-grams. The most common collocations are sorted into syntactic categories. For English equivalents, in addition to the sources found on the Internet, enTenTen2020 corpus was consulted. In the second part of the paper, we analyze and compare the presentation of Coronavirus terminology in the descriptive Glossary of Coronavirus and the normative Croatian Web Dictionary – Mrežnik.
Within the scope of the project "Study and dissemination of COVID-19 terminology", the study reported here aims to detect, analyse and discuss the characteristics of COVID-19 terminology, in particular the role of the adjective novo [new] in this terminology, the high recurrence of terms in the plural and the resemantization of some of the terminological units used. The present paper also discusses how these characteristics influenced the choices that have guided the creation of the proposed dictionary. This paper presents, therefore, the results of the analyses of these aspects, starting with a discussion of the relation between terminology and neology and arriving at the characteristic aspects of the macrostructural and microstructural choices about which some considerations were made.
While adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic, people around the world started to talk about the “new normal” way of life, and they conveyed feelings and thoughts on the topic through social networks and traditional communication channels resorting to a set of specific linguistic strategies, such as metaphors and neologisms. The vocabulary in different domains and in everyday speech was expanded to accommodate a complex social, cultural, and professional phenomenon of changes. Therefore, this new life gave birth to a new language – the “coronaspeak”. According to Thorne (2020), the “coronaspeak” has three stages: first, it emerged in the way medical aspects were communicated in everyday language; secondly, it occurred when speakers verbalized the experiences they had undergone and “invented their own terms”; finally, this “new” way of speaking emerged in the government and authorities’ jargon, to ensure that the new rules and policies were understood, and that population adopted socially responsible behaviours.
In this paper, we will focus on the second stage, because we intend to take stock of how speakers communicate and verbalize this new way of living, particularly on social networks, for example. Alongside, we are interested in the context in which the neologism – be it a new word, a new meaning, or a new use – emerged, is used, and understood, through the observation of the occurrence of the new word(s) either on social networks or through dissemination texts (press) to confront it with the ones that Portuguese digital dictionaries have attested so far. Different criteria regarding the insertion of new units, the inclusion date, and the lexicographic description of the entries in the dictionaries will be debated.