Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
- Part of a Book (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Keywords
- Wörterbuch (13) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (13) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (9)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (4)
Publisher
- Oxford University Press (3)
- Equinox (2)
- Winter (2)
- Benjamins (1)
- Friedrich H. (1)
- Karolinum (1)
- Springer (1)
- V&R unipress (1)
- Wilhelm Fink (1)
In this article, we provide an insight into the development and application of a corpus-lexicographic tool for finding neologisms that are not yet listed in German dictionaries. As a starting point, we used the words listed in a glossary of German neologisms surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. These words are lemma candidates for a new dictionary on COVID-19 discourse in German. They also provided the database used to develop and test the NeoRate tool. We report on the lexicographic work in our dictionary project, the design and functionalities of NeoRate, and describe the first test results with the tool, in particular with regard to previously unregistered words. Finally, we discuss further development of the tool and its possible applications.
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.
Im Mittelpunkt des Beitrags steht die Frage nach Ursprung und Genese der im geltenden amtlichen Regelwerk niedergelegten Regel, die eine Zusammenschreibung von Adjektiv-Verb-Verbindungen bei Vorliegen einer nicht literalen Bedeutung vorsieht. Ausgangspunkt bilden dabei Sprachtheoretiker und Akteure wie Johann Christoph Adelung, Wilhelm Wilmanns und Konrad Duden, die die Diskussion beherrscht und (dadurch) maßgeblich die erste gesamtdeutsche Rechtschreibregelung im Jahre 1902 mitgestaltet haben. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Umsetzung der Rechtschreibregelung in den orthographischen Wörterbüchern. Erst in dieser zeigt sich, inwiefern der gefundene Kompromiss trägt und inwieweit sich die Beteiligten daran gebunden fühlen, in Sonderheit Duden, der mit seinen Wörterbüchern alsbald eine marktführende Position einnahm und über dessen Duden-Rechtschreibung die Regel einer bedeutungsunterscheidenden Zusammenschreibung bei Adjektiv-Verb-Verbindungen letztlich für alle verbindlich wurde.
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.
Wir stellen eine empirische Studie vor, die der Frage nachgeht, ob und in welchem Ausmaß Wörterbücher und andere lexikographische Ressourcen die Ergebnisse von Textüberarbeitungen verbessern. Studierende wurden in unserer Studie gebeten, zwei Texte zu optimieren und waren dabei zufällig in drei unterschiedliche Versuchsbedingungen eingeteilt: 1. ein Ausgangstext ohne Hinweise auf potenzielle Fehler im Text, 2. ein Ausgangstext, bei dem problematische Stellen im Text hervorgehoben waren und 3. ein Ausgangstext mit hervorgehobenen Problemstellen zusammen mit lexikographischen Ressourcen, die zur Lösung der spezifischen Probleme verwendet werden konnten. Wir fanden heraus, dass die Teilnehmer*innen der dritten Gruppe die meisten Probleme korrigierten und die wenigsten semantischen Verzerrungen während der Überarbeitung einführten. Außerdem waren sie am effizientesten (gemessen in verbesserten Textabschnitten pro Zeit). Wir berichten in dieser Fallstudie ausführlich vom Versuchsaufbau, der methodischen Durchführung der Studie und eventuellen Limitationen unserer Ergebnisse.
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.
This introduction summarizes general issues combining lexicography and neology in the context of the Globalex Workshop on Lexicography and Neology series. We present each of the six papers composing this Special Issue, featuring two Slavic languages (Czech and Slovak) and two Romance ones (Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish in its European and Latin American varieties) and their diverse lexicographic research and representation, in specialized dictionaries of neologisms or general language ones, in monolingual, bilingual and multilingual lexical resources, and in print and digital dictionaries.
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.
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.
Consistency of reference structures is an important issue in lexicography and dictionary research, especially with respect to information on sense-related items. In this paper, the systematic challenges of this area (e.g. ‘non-reversed reference’, bidirectional linking being realised as unidirectional structures) will be outlined, and the problems which can be caused by these challenges for both lexicographers and dictionary users will be discussed. The paper also discusses how text-technological Solutions may help to provide Support for the consistency of sense-related pairings during the process of compiling a dictionary.
The lexicography of German
(2020)
This chapter discusses the main dictionaries of the German language as it is spoken and written in Germany, and also German as it is spoken and written in Austria, Switzerland, the eastern fringes of Belgium, and South Tyrol. It also briefly describes Pennsylvania German. Corpora and other language resources used in German dictionary-making are also presented. Finally, there is a discussion of some current issues in German lexicography, as well as future prospects.