Lexikografie
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (45)
- Article (19)
- Book (3)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (68)
Keywords
- Neologismus (68) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (52)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (10)
- Postprint (6)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (44)
- Peer-Review (17)
- Peer-review (1)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (15)
- Lang (7)
- IDS-Verlag (6)
- Niemeyer (5)
- Narr (4)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (3)
- Equinox (2)
- Langenscheidt (2)
- Winter (2)
- Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft (1)
In this article, we provide an insight into the development and application of a corpus-lexicographic tool for finding neologisms that are not yet listed in German dictionaries. As a starting point, we used the words listed in a glossary of German neologisms surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. These words are lemma candidates for a new dictionary on COVID-19 discourse in German. They also provided the database used to develop and test the NeoRate tool. We report on the lexicographic work in our dictionary project, the design and functionalities of NeoRate, and describe the first test results with the tool, in particular with regard to previously unregistered words. Finally, we discuss further development of the tool and its possible applications.
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).
Sprachliche Zweifelsfälle kommen auf allen linguistischen Ebenen vor. Ihre Einordnung erfolgt zumeist nach Systemebene, nach Entstehungsursache oder nach lexematischer Struktur. Sprachlicher Zweifel kann auch nach intra- und interlingualen Aspekten unterschieden werden. Stehen zwei oder mehrere lexikalische Varianten zur Verfügung, kann es zu Unsicherheiten bezüglich des angemessenen Gebrauchs kommen. Nicht nur Muttersprachler*innen sind mit Schwierigkeiten konfrontiert, Zweifelsfälle stellen auch ein Problem bei der Fremdsprachenproduktion dar.
Dieser Band beschränkt sich auf lexikalisch-semantische, flexivische und wortbildungsbedingte Zweifelsfälle und führt interessierte Leser*innen in Fachliteratur und Nachschlagewerke ein. Er streift Fragen der Sprachdidaktik, der Fehler- und Variationslinguistik, denn die Auseinandersetzung mit typischen Zweifelsfällen zeigt auch das Spannungsfeld zwischen allgemeinem Usus und kodifizierter Norm, zwischen Gegenwart und Wandel, zwischen Dynamik, sprachlichem Reichtum und erlernter Bildungstradition.
Unter Neologismen finden sich bedeutungsgleiche Ausdrücke (im weitesten Sinne Synonyme), die unter bestimmten Bedingungen sprachliche Unsicherheiten hervorrufen. Das liegt u. a. an ihrer semantisch-konzeptuellen Ähnlichkeit, an nicht abgeschlossenen Lexikalisierungsprozessen, aber es treten auch Zweifel auf, weil es Unterschiede zwischen der Allgemein- und der Fachsprache gibt. Für einige Neologismen ist es auch charakteristisch, dass mehrere morphologische Varianten gleichzeitig in den Wortschatz eintreten, sodass nicht immer klar ist, wann welche präferiert werden. Dass all diese Ausdrücke lexikalischem Wettbewerb und situationsgebundenen Gebrauchsbedingungen ausgesetzt sind und dass sie zu Zweifel führen können, wird in Onlineforen sichtbar. Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie solche Paare/Gruppen korpusgestützt semantisch analysiert und wie sie in deskriptiven Wörterbüchern angemessen beschrieben werden können, um sowohl Gemeinsamkeiten als auch Unterschiede für Nachschlagende sichtbar zu machen. Dazu werden konkrete Beispiele und ein gegenüberstellendes Wörterbuchdarstellungsformat für neologistische Synonyme vorgeschlagen.
Neologisms, i.e., new words or meanings, are finding their way into everyday language use all the time. In the process, already existing elements of a language are recombined or linguistic material from other languages is borrowed. But are borrowed neologisms accepted similarly well by the speech community as neologisms that were formed from “native” material? We investigate this question based on neologisms in German. Building on the corresponding results of a corpus study, we test the hypothesis of whether “native” neologisms are more readily accepted than those borrowed from English. To do so, we use a psycholinguistic experimental paradigm that allows us to estimate the degree of uncertainty of the participants based on the mouse trajectories of their responses. Unexpectedly, our results suggest that the neologisms borrowed from English are accepted more frequently, more quickly, and more easily than the “native” ones. These effects, however, are restricted to people born after 1980, the so-called millenials. We propose potential explanations for this mismatch between corpus results and experimental data and argue, among other things, for a reinterpretation of previous corpus studies.
Die lexikografische Behandlung von Neologismen aus der Perspektive hispanophoner DaF-Lernender
(2019)
Anhand von einigen medialen Kommunikationsverben wie mailen oder twittern wird das lexikografische Informationsangebot zu Neologismen auf seine Adäquatheit für die fremdsprachige Produktion untersucht. Die Untersuchung erfolgt aus der Perspektive eines spanischsprachigen DaF-Lernenden. Zur Analyse werden sowohl Neologismenwörterbücher und -datenbanken für das Deutsche als auch gängige, bilinguale Online-Wörterbücher für das Sprachenpaar Spanisch–Deutsch gezogen. Die Ergebnisse der lexikografischen Untersuchung werden exemplarisch mit korpusbasierten Daten aus einer Doktorarbeit verglichen. Die Befunde zeigen den Bedarf und die Notwendigkeit auf, die lexikografische Behandlung von (verbalen) Neologismen im spanisch–deutschen Kontext zu optimieren. Dabei soll — insbesondere — die fremdsprachige Textproduktion berücksichtigt werden.
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.