Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (47) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (47)
Keywords
- Deutsch (17)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (9)
- Wortschatz (7)
- Wörterbuch (7)
- COVID-19 (5)
- Geschlechtergerechte Sprache (5)
- Lexikostatistik (5)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikografie (4)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
- Online-Medien (4)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (27)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (10)
- Postprint (6)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (24)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (12)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
Im vorliegenden Beitrag gehen wir von der Prämisse aus, dass die Angemessenheit sprachlicher Formen nicht pauschal, sondern anhand des jeweiligen Kontexts zu beurteilen ist. Anhand einer Online-Fragebogenstudie mit durch weil eingeleiteten Nebensätzen untersuchen wir die Hypothese, dass Varianten, die nicht dem Schriftstandard entsprechen, in Kommunikationsformen, die sich weniger an standard- und schriftsprachlichen Normen orientieren, als (mindestens) ebenso angemessen oder zumindest unterschiedlich wahrgenommen werden wie eine schriftstandardsprachliche Variante. Wir untersuchen dies anhand von drei Aufgaben: Rezeption, Produktion und Assoziation zu bestimmten Medien und Textsorten. Wir können zeigen, dass die schriftnormgerechte Variante durchweg als am akzeptabelsten eingeschätzt wird. In allen drei Aufgaben finden sich aber auch eindeutige und übereinstimmende Effekte, die nahelegen, dass die verschiedenen Varianten in Abhängigkeit der Textsorte doch unterschiedlich eingeschätzt, produziert und assoziiert werden.
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.
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?
We present ESDexplorer (https://owid.shinyapps.io/ESDexplorer), a browser application which allows the user to explore the data from a large European survey on dictionary use and culture. We built ESDexplorer with several target groups in mind: our cooperation partners, other researchers, and a more general public interested in the results. Also, we present in detail the architecture and technological realisation of the application and discuss some legal aspects of data protection that motivated some architectural choices.
cOWIDplus Analyse ist eine kontinuierlich aktualisierte Ressource zu der Frage, ob und wie stark sich der Wortschatz ausgewählter deutscher Online-Pressemeldungen während der Corona-Pandemie systematisch einschränkt und ob bzw. wann sich das Vokabular nach der Krise wieder ausweitet. In diesem Artikel erläutern die Autor*innen die hinter der Ressource stehende Forschungsfrage, die zugrunde gelegten Daten, die Methode sowie die bisherigen Ergebnisse.
The coronavirus pandemic may be the largest crisis the world has had to face since World War II. It does not come as a surprise that it is also having an impact on language as our primary communication tool. In this short paper, we present three inter-connected resources that are designed to capture and illustrate these effects on a subset of the German language: An RSS corpus of German-language newsfeeds (with freely available untruncated frequency lists), a continuously updated HTML page tracking the diversity of the vocabulary in the RSS corpus and a Shiny web application that enables other researchers and the broader public to explore the corpus in terms of basic frequencies.
We introduce DeReKoGram, a novel frequency dataset containing lemma and part-of-speech (POS) information for 1-, 2-, and 3-grams from the German Reference Corpus. The dataset contains information based on a corpus of 43.2 billion tokens and is divided into 16 parts based on 16 corpus folds. We describe how the dataset was created and structured. By evaluating the distribution over the 16 folds, we show that it is possible to work with a subset of the folds in many use cases (e.g., to save computational resources). In a case study, we investigate the growth of vocabulary (as well as the number of hapax legomena) as an increasing number of folds are included in the analysis. We cross-combine this with the various cleaning stages of the dataset. We also give some guidance in the form of Python, R, and Stata markdown scripts on how to work with the resource.
We present an empirical study addressing the question whether, and to which extent, lexicographic writing aids improve text revision results. German university students were asked to optimise two German texts using (1) no aids at all, (2) highlighted problems, or (3) highlighted problems accompanied by lexicographic resources that could be used to solve the specific problems. We found that participants from the third group corrected the largest number of problems and introduced the fewest semantic distortions during revision. Also, they reached the highest overall score and were most efficient (as measured in points per time). The second group with highlighted problems lies between the two other groups in almost every measure we analysed. We discuss these findings in the scope of intelligent writing environments, the effectiveness of writing aids in practical usage situations and teaching dictionary skills.
We present an empirical study addressing the question whether, and to which extent, lexicographic writing aids improve text revision results. German university students were asked to optimise two German texts using (1) no aids at all, (2) highlighted problems, or (3) highlighted problems accompanied by lexicographic resources that could be used to solve the specific problems. We found that participants from the third group corrected the largest number of problems and introduced the fewest semantic distortions during revision. Also, they reached the highest overall score and were most efficient (as measured in points per time). The second group with highlighted problems lies between the two other groups in almost every measure we analysed. We discuss these findings in the scope of intelligent writing environments, the effectiveness of writing aids in practical usage situations and teaching dictionary skills.