Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (3) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (3) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (2)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- Oxford University Press (1)
- Springer Vieweg (1)
- Wiley (1)
Ziel dieses Projekts ist es, Sprachdaten so nah wie möglich am Jetzt zu erheben und analysierbar zu machen. Wir möchten, dass möglichst viele Menschen, nicht nur Sprachwissenschaftlerinnen und Sprachwissenschaftler, in die Lage versetzt werden, Sprachdaten zu explorieren und zu nutzen. Hierzu erheben wir ein Korpus, d. h. eine aufbereitete Sammlung von Sprachdaten von RSS-Feeds deutschsprachiger Onlinequellen. Wir zeichnen die Entwicklung der Analysewerkzeuge von einem Prototyp hin zur aktuellen Form der Anwendung nach, die eine komplette Reimplementierung darstellt. Dabei gehen wir auf die Architektur, einige Analysebeispiele sowie Erweiterungsmöglichkeiten ein. Fragen der Skalierbarkeit und Performanz stehen dabei im Mittelpunkt. Unsere Darstellungen lassen sich daher auf andere Data-Science-Projekte verallgemeinern.
In a recent article, Meylan and Griffiths (Meylan & Griffiths, 2021, henceforth, M&G) focus their attention on the significant methodological challenges that can arise when using large-scale linguistic corpora. To this end, M&G revisit a well-known result of Piantadosi, Tily, and Gibson (2011, henceforth, PT&G) who argue that average information content is a better predictor of word length than word frequency. We applaud M&G who conducted a very important study that should be read by any researcher interested in working with large-scale corpora. The fact that M&G mostly failed to find clear evidence in favor of PT&G's main finding motivated us to test PT&G's idea on a subset of the largest archive of German language texts designed for linguistic research, the German Reference Corpus consisting of ∼43 billion words. We only find very little support for the primary data point reported by PT&G.
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.