Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7) (remove)
Keywords
- Wörterbuch (7) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (4)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
Publisher
- Oxford University Press (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Narr Francke Attempto (1)
- Universitätsverlag Göttingen (1)
- Wilhelm Fink (1)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.