Lexikographie, Wörterbücher
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (314) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (314)
Keywords
- Deutsch (195)
- Wörterbuch (108)
- Lexikographie (41)
- Lexikografie (37)
- Computerunterstützte Lexikographie (36)
- Online-Wörterbuch (31)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (30)
- Neologismus (26)
- Internet (22)
- Einsprachiges Wörterbuch (21)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (170)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (41)
- Postprint (7)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (192)
- Verlags-Lektorat (14)
- Peer-Review (6)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (1)
- Verlagslektorat (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (62)
- Schwann (41)
- Niemeyer (38)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (36)
- Narr (33)
- Lang (18)
- Olms (7)
- De Gruyter (4)
- IDS-Verlag (4)
- Stauffenburg (4)
Seit 1996 ist das Amtliche Regelwerk zur deutschen Rechtschreibung (einschließlich Amtlichem Wörterverzeichnis) gültig. Es regelt die Orthografie für Behörden und Schulen in Deutschland sowie in den sechs weiteren Mitgliedsländern des Rats für deutsche Rechtschreibung. Für die Wörterbuchverlage bzw. alle Wörterbuchprojekte gilt es, dieses hoch abstrakte Regelwerk einerseits auf alle Einträge in den A–Z-Teilen der Wörterbücher anzuwenden und andererseits ggf. das Regelwerk selbst zu „übersetzen“ und es damit einer breiten Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen.
Die Anforderungen an gegenwartssprachliche Wörterbücher beinhalten, bei der Aufbereitung der lexikalischen Informationen in Stichwortartikeln die lemmabezogenen Korrektschreibungen adäquat zu berücksichtigen. Die dazugehörigen Arbeitsgänge in der Redaktion des Digitalen Wörterbuchs der deutschen Sprache (DWDS) reichen von der Ansetzung der Nennformen in allen ggf. zulässigen orthographischen Varianten über die Anlage von Verweisen auf die einschlägige Bezugsnorm bis zur Dokumentation ausgewählter Korpusbelege mit gebrauchsfrequenten Abweichungs- und Falschschreibungen. Als besondere Herausforderungen für die lexikographische Praxis erweisen sich regelmäßig Lücken und Interpretationsspielräume in der amtlichen Regelung sowie die bei Belegrecherchen in den DWDS-Textquellen zutage tretenden Diskrepanzen zwischen orthographischer Norm und Schreibusus.
Any bilingual dictionary is contrastive by nature, as it documents linguistic information between language pairs. However, the design and compilation of most bilingual dictionaries is often no more than mere lists of lexical or semantic equivalents. In internet forums, one can observe a huge interest in acquiring relevant knowledge about specific lexical items or pairs that are prone to comparison in a more comprehensive manner as they may pose lexical semantic challenges. In particular, these often concern easily confused pairs (e.g. false friends or paronyms) and new terms increasingly travelling between languages in news and social media (Šetka-Čilić/Ilić Plauc 2021). With regard to English and German, the fundamental comparative principles upon which contrastive guides should be build are either absent, or specialised contrastive dictionaries simply do not exist, e.g. comprehensive descriptive resources for false friends, paronyms, protologisms or neologisms (see Gouws/Prinsloo/de Schryver 2004). As a result, users turn to electronic resources such as Google translate, blogs and language forums for help. For example, it is English words such as muscular which have two German translations options.
These are two confusables muskulär and muskulös both of which exhibit a different semantic profile. German sensitiv/sensibel and their English formal counterparts sensitive/sensible are false friends. However, these terms are highly polysemous in both languages and have semantic features in common. Their full meaning spectrum is hardly captured in bilingual dictionaries to allow for a full comparison. Translating protologisms such as German Doppelwumms as well as more established new words is one of the most challenging problems. Currently, German neologisms such as Klimakleber are translated as climate glue (instead of climate activist glueing him-/herself onto objects) by online tools, simply causing mistakes and contextual distortion. Most challenges users face today are well-known (e.g. Rets 2016). New terms are often unregistered in dictionaries and it is often impossible to make appropriate choices between two or more (commonly misused) words between two languages (e.g. Benzehra 2007). These are all relevant problems to translators and language learners alike (e.g González Ribao 2019).
This paper calls for the implication of insights from contrastive lexicology into modern bilingual lexicography. To turn dictionaries into valuable resources and in order to create productive strategies in a learning environment, the practice of writing dictionaries requires a critical re-assessment. Furthermore, the full potential of electronic contrastive resources needs to be recognised and put into practice. After all, monolingual German lexicography has started to reflect on how users’ needs can be accounted for in specific comparative linguistic situations. Some of these ideas can be comfortably extended to bilingual reference guides. On the one hand, this paper will deliver a critical account of some English-German/German-English dictionaries and touch on the shortcomings of contemporary bilingual lexicography. On the other hand, with the help of fictitious resources I will demonstrate contrastive structures as focal points of consultations which answer some of the more frequent language questions more reliably. Among others, I will explain how we need to build user-friendly dictionaries to allow for translating false friends or easily confusable words from the source language into its target language efficiently. With regard to neologisms, I will show how discursive descriptions and definitions that are more elaborate can support language learners to learn about necessary extra-linguistic knowledge. Overall, this could improve the role of specialised dictionaries in the teaching or translating process (cf. Miliç/Sadri/Glušac 2019).
Der folgende Beitrag befasst sich mit Phänomenen, die sich eher am Rande der festen Wortverbindungen befinden, aber eben dort, wo die (Pseudo-)Freiheit trügerisch ist und für manche Sprecher/Schreiber zum Handicap werden kann. Fremdsprachenlerner, die sich der Grenzen ihrer Freiheit bewusst sind und dann Wörterbücher heranziehen, stoßen nämlich bei der Suche nach Definitionen oder nach dem „passenden Wort" meistens auf Ungenauigkeiten oder Gleichsetzungen, die ihnen den Eindruck einer oft unübersichtlichen, arbiträren oder gar chaotischen Lage vermitteln und ihnen jedenfalls selten aus dem Labyrinth der Synonymie heraushelfen. Ich möchte hier an einigen adjektivischen Beispielen zeigen, wie dieses Labyrinth aussieht und für den Wörterbuchnutzer bald zum Teufelskreis wird, um dann auf einige Parameter der Adjektiv-Nomen-Verbindungen einzugehen. Meine Ausgangshypothese ist, dass im Zeitalter der großen Korpora Wörterbücher sich auch bei der Beschreibung der einzelnen Lexeme unbedingt auf den heutigen konkreten Gebrauch stützen sollen, d.h. dass sowohl die Präferenzen der Wortverbindungen bei der Bedeutungsbeschreibung als auch ihre Usualität bei den angeführten Beispielen zu berücksichtigen sind. Durch die Untersuchung einiger Problemfälle werden abschließend mögliche Auswege aufgezeigt.
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, about 2000 new lexical units have entered the German lexicon. These concern a multitude of coinings and word formations (Kuschelkontakt, rumaerosolen, pandemüde) as well as lexical borrowings mainly from English (Lockdown, Hotspot, Superspreader). In a special way, these neologisms function as keywords and lexical indicators sketching the development of the multifaceted corona discourse in Germany. They can be detected systematically by corpus-linguistic investigations of reports and debates in contemporary public communication. Keyword analyses not only exhibit new vocabulary, they also reveal discursive foci, patterns of argumentation and topicalisations within the diverse narratives of the discourse. With the help of quickly established and dominant neologisms, this paper will outline typical contexts and thematic references, but it will also identify speakers' attitudes and evaluations.
Inspired by GWLN 3, we take a look at the new words, meanings, and expressions that have been created during or promoted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic provides a rare opportunity to follow the rise, spread, and integration of words and expressions in a language that may serve as an illustration of how linguistic innovation in general works. Relevant words were selected from various lists, notably monthly and annual lists of prominent words attested in the corpus of The Danish Dictionary. Analysis of these lists gives an insight into the number of words that stand out month by month and what kinds of words are involved, both in terms of morphological type and of semantic category, with special attention given to neologisms. Finally, we discuss the criteria for selecting which words to include in the dictionary. With this study, Danish is added to the list of languages covered in the GWLN series on
COVID-19 neologisms.
This study examines a list of 3,413 neologisms containing one or more borrowed item, which was compiled using the databases built by the Korean Neologism Investigation Project. Etymological aspects and morphological aspects are taken into consideration to show that, besides the overwhelming prevalence of English-based neologisms, particular loans from particular languages play a significant role in the prolific formation of Korean neologisms. Aspects of the lexicographic inclusion of loan-based neologisms demonstrate the need for Korean neologism and lexicography research to broaden its scopes in terms of methodology and attitudes, while also providing a glimpse of changes.
Wissenschaftlich basierte allgemeine Wörterbücher des Deutschen werden heute meist korpusbasiert erarbeitet, d. h. die in ihnen beschriebene Sprache wird vor der lexikografischen Beschreibung empirisch erforscht. Diese Korpora sind allerdings, wie die großen linguistischen Textsammlungen zum Deutschen allgemein, durch Zeitungstexte dominiert. Daher beruhen die in Wörterbüchern beschriebenen Kollokationen und typischen Verwendungskontexte zumindest teilweise auf dieser Textsorte. Wir untersuchen in unserem Beitrag anhand einer Fallstudie zu Mann und Frau, wie stark sich die Beschreibung solcher Kollokationssets ändern würde, wenn als Korpusgrundlage nicht Zeitungen, sondern Publikumszeitschriften oder belletristische Texte herangezogen würden und wie unterschiedlich demnach Geschlechterstereotype dargestellt würden. Damit diskutieren wir auch die Frage, ob Zeitungstexte in diesem Fall ein adäquates und vielseitiges Abbild des Gebrauchsstandards zeigen. Auf einer allgemeineren Ebene wird dadurch ein grundlegendes Problem korpuslinguistischer Forschungsarbeiten tangiert, nämlich die Frage, inwieweit durch Korpora überhaupt ein ‚objektives‘ Bild der sprachlichen Wirklichkeit gezeichnet werden kann.
Between January 2020 and summer 2021, many new words and phrases contributed to the expansion of the German vocabulary in order to enable communication under the new conditions during the corona pandemic. This rapid expansion of vocabulary has most notably affected lexicography as a discipline of applied linguistics. General language dictionaries or terminological dictionaries have quickly reflected on how the German lexicon evolved during the corona pandemic: new entries were added, others were revised. This paper, however, focuses on the ways in which a German (specialized) neologism dictionary project, the "Neologismenwörterbuch" at the "Leibniz Institute for the German Language, Mannheim" published (online, see https://www.owid.de/docs/neo/start.jsp) has chosen to capture and document lexicographic information in a timely manner. Neologisms are (following the definition applied here) lexical units or senses/meanings which emerge in a language community over a specific period of time of language development, which diffuse, are generally accepted as language norms, and which the majority of speakers perceive as new for some time. Thus, the "Neologismenwörterbuch" used to record neologisms only retrospectively, that is after their lexicalization. As a consequence, users of the dictionary were often not able to obtain details on words that were particularly conspicuous at a particular time in a specific discourse, thus raising questions concerning their meaning, correct spelling, etc. This, however, did not imply that the lexicographers of the project had not already collected these words with some preliminary information in a list of candidates for inclusion in an internal database. Therefore, the project started to publish online an index of monitored words including lexical units that had emerged since 2011, for which only time will tell whether they will diffuse and manifest as language norms. This list format was used since April 2020 to also issue a compilation of corona-related neologisms as part of the "Neologismenwörterbuch". In October 2021, this inventory included more than 1.800 Corona-related neologisms, and still, more than 700 candidates in an internal database awaited lexicographic description and inclusion into the online index (see https://www.owid.de/docs/neo/listen/corona.jsp). In this paper many examples are presented to illustrate how new words, new senses and new uses in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic are reflected in the dictionary.