Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (6)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Keywords
- Lexikographie (12) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (6)
- Peer-Review (3)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
Dieser Beitrag zeigt, inwieweit im Projekt „Paronymwörterbuch“ korpuslinguistische und kognitiv-semantische Elemente bei der Entwicklung einer neuen Online-Ressource berücksichtigt wurden. Damit sollen lexikologische und lexikografische Aspekte miteinander erfolgreich verbunden und die Kluft zwischen linguistischer Theorie und redaktioneller Praxis etwas geschlossen werden. Konzeptuell ausgerichtete Angaben, die linguistische und enzyklopädische Informationen eng miteinander verknüpfen, werden in Korpusdaten ermittelt, interpretiert und z. T. abstrahiert. Sprachliches und außersprachliches Wissen lassen sich gemeinsam abspeichern. Dadurch ist es möglich, kontextuell abhängige sprachliche Informationen mit konzeptuellen Realisierungen und mit diskursiv-thematischen Besonderheiten zusammen nachzuschlagen. Darüber hinaus werden in diesem Beitrag anhand eines Beispiels wichtige dynamische Funktionalitäten des neuen Nachschlagewerkes „Paronyme – Dynamisch im Kontrast“ vorgestellt. So wird gezeigt, wie Artikelanordnungen variieren und verschiedene Perspektiven auf linguistische Phänomene eingenommen werden können. Um Informationen bedarfsgerecht und interessenspezifisch abrufen zu können, wurde eine multifunktionale Ressource geschaffen, die sehr flexibel auf verschiedene Nachschlagesituationen reagieren kann und den Bedürfnissen der Nutzer/innen gerechter wird.
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.
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.
Lexicographic meaning descriptions of German lexical items which are formally and semantically similar and therefore easily confused (so-called paronyms) often do not reflect their current usage of lexical items. They can even contradict one’s personal intuition or disagree with lexical usage as observed in public discourse. The reasons are manifold. Language data used for compiling dictionaries is either outdated, or lexicographic practice is rather conventional and does not take advantage of corpus-assisted approaches to semantic analysis. Despite of various modern electronic or online reference works speakers face uncertainties when dealing with easily confusable words. These are for example sensibel/sensitiv (sensitive) or kindisch/kindlich (childish/childlike). Existing dictionaries often do not provide satisfactory answers as to how to use these sets correctly. Numerous questions addressed in online forums show where uncertainties with paronyms are and why users demand further assistance concerning proper contextual usage (cf. Storjohann 2015). There are different reasons why users misuse certain items or mix up words which are similar in form and meaning. As data from written and more spontaneous language resources suggest, some confusions arise due to ongoing semantic change in the current use of some paronyms. This paper identifies shortcomings of contemporary German Dictionaries and discusses innovative ways of empirical lexicographic work that might pave the way for a new data-driven, descriptive reference work of confusable German terms. Currently, such a guide is being developed at the Institute for German Language in Mannheim implementing corpora and diverse corpus-analytical methods. Its objective is to compile a dictionary with contrastive entries which is a useful reference tool in situation of language doubt. At the same time, it aims at sensitizing users of context dependency and language change.
Der Beitrag fasst die Schritte einer Projektvorstellung und aktuelle Reflexionen über ein am Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim neues, korpusgestütztes Paronymwörterbuch zusammen. Zunächst wird der Begriff der Paronymie in einer Arbeitsdefinition eingegrenzt und es wird gezeigt, welche Lücke mit dem neuen Werk in der Wörterbuchlandschaft geschlossen wird. Im Anschluss werden ausgewählte methodische Aspekte sowie Fragen der Wortartikelinhalte und -präsentation skizziert.
Paradigmatische Relationen
(2005)
Incompatibility (or co-hyponymy) is the most general type of semantic relation between lexical items, the meaning of which entails exclusion. Such items fall under a superordinate term or concept and denote sets which have no members in common (e.g. animal: dog-cat-mouse-lion-sheep; example from Cruse 2004). Traditionally, these have been of interest to lexical semanticists for the description of the structure of the lexicon. However, incompatibility is not just a relation that signifies a difference of meaning. This paper is a critical corpus-assisted re-evaluation of the phenomenon of incompatibility which argues that the relation in question sometimes also functions as a discourse marker. Incompatibles indicate recurrent intertextual patterns. This holds particularly true for socially or politically controversial lexical items such as Flexibilität (flexibility), Mobilität (mobility) or Globalisierung (globalisation). Corpus investigations of such words have revealed that among other semantically related terms, incompatibles have a crucial discourse focussing function. For the German lexical item Globalisierung, I will show how its lexical usage can be studied through a corpus-driven analysis of corresponding incompatibles. Incompatible terms are not contingent co-words but often occur in close contextual proximity and participate in regular syntagmatic structures (e.g. Globalisierung und Rationalisierung; Globalisierung und Modernisierung; Neoliberalismus, Globalisierung und Kapitalismus). Hence, these are easily extracted by conducting a computational collocation analysis. Such significant collocates provide a good insight into the discursive and thematic contexts of the search word. Following Teubert (2004), I will demonstrate how the meaning of such lexical items is constituted in discourse and how the examination of these particular collocates reveals their sense-constructing function and their pragmatic-discursive force. I will provide a brief discussion of the methodology used for such analyses, and I will explain why the complex semantic-pragmatic and thematic-communicative patterns implied in sets of incompatibles should be given a stronger emphasis in lexicography.
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.