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.
Dictionary usage research views dictionaries primarily as tools for solving linguistic problems. A large proportion of dictionary use now takes place online and can thus be easily monitored using tracking technologies. Using the data gathered through tracking usage data, we hope to optimize user experiences of dictionaries and other linguistic resources. Usage statistics are also used for external evaluation of linguistic resources. In this paper, we pursue the following three questions from a quantitative perspective: (1) What new insights can we gain from collecting and analysing usage data? (2) What limitations of the data and/or the collection process do we need to be aware of? (3) How can these insights and limitations inform the development and evaluation of linguistic resources?
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.
Dictionaries have been part and parcel of literate societies for many centuries. They assist in communication, particularly across different languages, to aid in understanding, creating, and translating texts. Communication problems arise whenever a native speaker of one language comes into contact with a speaker of another language. At the same time, English has established itself as a lingua franca of international communication. This marked tendency gives lexicography of English a particular significance, as English dictionaries are used intensively and extensively by huge numbers of people worldwide.
This study aims to establish what lexical factors make it more likely for dictionary users to consult specific articles in a dictionary using the English Wiktionary log files, which include records of user visits over the course of 6 years. Recent findings suggest that lexical frequency is a significant factor predicting look-up behavior, with the more frequent words being more likely to be consulted. Three further lexical factors are brought into focus: (1) age of acquisition; (2) lexical prevalence; and (3) degree of polysemy operationalized as the number of dictionary senses. Age of acquisition and lexical prevalence data were obtained from recent published studies and linked to the list of visited Wiktionary lemmas, whereas polysemy status was derived from Wiktionary entries themselves. Regression modeling confirms the significance of corpus frequency in explaining user interest in looking up words in the dictionary. However, the remaining three factors also make a contribution whose nature is discussed and interpreted. Knowing what makes dictionary users look up words is both theoretically interesting and practically useful to lexicographers, telling them which lexical items should be prioritized in lexicographic work.