Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (8)
- Article (4)
- Conference Proceeding (4)
Language
- English (16) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (9)
- Paronym (9)
- Wörterbuch (5)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
- Online-Wörterbuch (4)
- Lexikografie (3)
- Lexikographie (3)
- paronyms (3)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (2)
- Faux amis (2)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (9)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
- Peer-Revied (1)
In this paper, we will present a first attempt to classify commonly confused words in German by consulting their communicative functions in corpora. Although the use of so-called paronyms causes frequent uncertainties due to similarities in spelling, sound and semantics, up until now the phenomenon has attracted little attention either from the perspective of corpus linguistics or from cognitive linguistics. Existing investigations rely on structuralist models, which do not account for empirical evidence. Still, they have developed an elaborate model based on formal criteria, primarily on word formation (cf. Lăzărescu 1999). Looking from a corpus perspective, such classifications are incompatible with language in use and cognitive elements of misuse.
This article sketches first lexicological insights into a classification model as derived from semantic analyses of written communication. Firstly, a brief description of the project will be provided. Secondly, corpus-assisted paronym detection will be focused. Thirdly, in the main section the paper concerns the description of the datasets for paronym classification and the classification procedures. As a work in progress, new insights will continually be extended once spoken and CMC data are added to the investigations.
This paper discusses changes of lexicographic traditions with respect to approaches to meaning descriptions towards more cognitive perspectives. I will uncover how cognitive aspects can be incorporated into meaning descriptions based on corpus-driven analysis. The new German Online dictionary “Paronyme − Dynamisch im Kontrast” (Storjohann 2014; 2016) is concerned with easily confused words such as effektiv/effizient, sensibel/sensitiv. It is currently in the process of being developed and it aims at adopting a more conceptual and encyclopaedic approach to meaning by incorporating cognitive features. As a corpus-guided reference work it strives to adequately reflect ideas such as conceptual structure, categorisation and knowledge. Contrastive entries emphasise aspects of usage, comparing conceptual categories and indicate the (metonymic) mapping of knowledge. Adaptable access to lexicographic details and variable search options offer different foci and perspectives on linguistic information, and authentic examples reflect prototypical structures. Some of the cognitive features are demonstrated with the help of examples. Firstly, I will outline how patterns of usage imply conceptual categories as central ideas instead of sufficiently logical criteria of semantic distinction. In this way, linguistic findings correlate better with how users conceptualise language. Secondly, it is pointed out how collocates are treated as family members and fillers in contexts. Thirdly, I will demonstrate how contextual structure and functions are included summarising referential information. Details are drawn from corpus data, they are usage-based linguistic patterns illustrating conversational interaction and semantic negotiations in contemporary public discourse. Finally, I will outline consultation routines which activate different facets of structural knowledge, e.g. through changes of the ordering of information or through the visualisation of semantic networks.
This paper discusses how cognitive aspects can be incorporated into lexicographic meaning descriptions based on corpus-driven analysis. The new German Online dictionary “Paronyme − Dynamisch im Kontrast” is concerned with easily confused words such as effektiv/effizient, sensibel/sensitiv. It is currently in the process of being developed and it aims at adopting a more conceptual and encyclopedic approach to meaning. Contrastive entries emphasize usage, comparing conceptual categories and indicating the mapping of knowledge. Adaptable access to lexicographic details offers different perspectives on information, and authentic examples reflect prototypical structures.
Some of the cognitive features are demonstrated with the help of examples. Firstly, I will outline how patterns of usage imply conceptual categories as central ideas instead of sufficiently logical criteria of semantic distinction. In this way, linguistic findings correlate better with how users conceptualize language. Secondly, it is pointed out how collocates are family members and fillers in contexts. Thirdly, I will demonstrate how contextual structure and function are included by summarizing referential information. Details are drawn from corpus data; they are usage-based patterns illustrating conversational interaction and semantic negotiation in contemporary public discourse. Finally, I will show flexible consultation routines where the focus on structural knowledge changes.
This paper discusses changes in lexicographic traditions with respect to contrastive dictionary entries and dynamic, on-demand e-lexicographic descriptions. The new German online dictionary Paronyme - Dyna- misch im Kontrast is concerned with easily confused words (paronyms), such as effektivtefficient and sensibel/ sensitiv. New approaches to the empirical analysis and lexicographic presentation of words such as these are required, and this dictionary is committed to overcoming the discrepancy between traditional practice and insights from language use. As a corpus-guided reference work, it strives to adequately reflect not only authentic use in situations of actual communication, but also cognitive ideas such as conceptual structure, categorization and knowledge. Looking up easily confused lexical items requires contrastive entries where users can instantly compare meaning, contexts and reference. Adaptable access to lexicographic details and variable search options offer different foci and perspectives on linguistic information, and authentic examples reflect prototypical structures. These are essential in order to meet all the different interests of users. This paper will illustrate the contrastive structure of the new e-dictionary and demonstrate which information can be compared. It also focusses on various dynamic modes of dictionary consultation, which enable users to shift perspectives on paronyms accordingly.
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.
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.
Corpus-assisted analyses of public discourse often focus on the level of the lexicon. This article argues in favour of corpus-assisted analyses of discourse, but also in favour of conceptualising salient lexical items in public discourse in a more determined way. It draws partly on non-Anglophone academic traditions in order to promote a conceptualisation of discourse keywords, thereby highlighting how their meaning is determined by their use in discourse contexts. It also argues in favour of emphasising the cognitive and epistemic dimensions of discourse-determined semantic structures. These points will be exemplified by means of a corpus-assisted, as well as a frame-based analysis of the discourse keyword financial crisis in British newspaper articles from 2009. Collocations of financial crisis are assigned to a generic matrix frame for ‘event’ which contains slots that specify possible statements about events. By looking at which slots are more, respectively less filled with collocates of financial crisis, we will trace semantic presence as well as absence, and thereby highlight the pragmatic dimensions of lexical semantics in public discourse. The article also advocates the suitability of discourse keyword analyses for systematic contrastive analyses of public/political discourse and for lexicographical projects that could serve to extend the insights drawn from corpus-guided approaches to discourse analysis.
Sense relations
(2016)
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).
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 German e-dictionary documenting confusables Paronyme – Dynamisch im Kontrast contains lexemes which are similar in sound, spelling and/or meaning, e.g. autoritär/autoritativ, innovativ/innovatorisch. These can cause uncertainty as to their appropriate use. The monolingual guide could be easily expanded to become a multilingual platform for commonly confused items by incorporating language modules. The value of this visionary resource is manifold. Firstly, e-dictionaries of confusables have not yet been compiled for most European languages; consequently, the German resource could serve as a model of practice. Secondly, it would be able to explain the usage of false friends. Thirdly, cognates and loan word equivalents would be offered for simultaneous consultation. Fourthly, users could find out whether, for example, a German pair is semantically equivalent to a pair in another language. Finally, it would inform users about cases where a pair of semantically similar words in one language has only one lexical counterpart in another language. This paper is an appeal for visionary projects and collaborative enterprises. I will outline the dictionary’s layout and contents as shown by its contrastive entries. I will demonstrate potential additions, which would make it possible to build up a large platform for easily misused words in different languages.
In this paper, general problems with easily confused words among a language community are addressed. Serving as an example, the difficulties of semantic differentiation between the use of German sensibel and sensitiv are discussed. One the one hand, the question is raised as to how a speech community faces challenges of semantic shifts and how monolingual dictionaries document lexical items with similar semantic aspects. On the other hand, I will demonstrate the discrepancies of information on meaning as retrieved and interpreted from large corpus data. It will be shown how the semantics of words change and hence cause confusion among speakers. As a result, empirical evidence opens up several questions concerning the prescriptive vs. descriptive treatment of paronymic items such as sensibel/sensitiv and it demands different approaches to the lexicographic description of such words in future reference works.
The internationally renowned conference of the European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX) has taken place every two years for the past 39 years. Last year’s conference, held July 12th–16th, 2022, marked EURALEX’s 20th edition, and more than 200 international participants gathered at Mannheim Palace to discuss current developments, learn about new projects, and present their own work — either in lexicography or in one of the many applied or neighboring disciplines such as corpus and computational linguistics.