400 Sprache, Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (35)
- Article (17)
- Book (7)
- Working Paper (1)
Keywords
- Neologismus (60) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (36)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (17)
- Postprint (6)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (42)
- Peer-Review (10)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (17)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (6)
- Niemeyer (5)
- IDS-Verlag (4)
- Narr (4)
- Lang (3)
- Winter (3)
- Equinox (2)
- Narr Francke Attempto (2)
- Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft (1)
Das Verhältnis von Norm und Schreibgebrauch bestimmt die Orthografieforschung und den orthografischen Diskurs nicht erst seit der Rechtschreibreform 1996. Wurde der Normbegriff lange Zeit als relativ statische Größe verortet, so erhielt er durch im 21. Jahrhundert verstärkt zu beobachtende Schreibwandelprozesse signifikante Impulse für Modifikationen, die eine offenere Entwicklung einleiteten. Besonders deutlich ist dies an Fremdwörtern und insbesondere an Fremdwort-Neologismen abzulesen. So belegt die empirische Beobachtung von Anglizismen, wie soziokulturelle Entwicklungen Sprach und Schreibveränderungen bewirken. Mit Bezug auf das Amtliche Regelwerk wird gezeigt, wie ein neu herausgebildeter Usus zur Modifizierung einzelner Regeln und Schreibungen führen kann und damit auch zu einem flexibleren, dynamischeren Normbegriff.
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.
Contrastive analysis of climate-related neologisms registered in GermanN and French Wikipedia
(2023)
Neologisms represent new social norms, tendencies, controversies and attitudes. They denote new or changed concepts which are constantly being negotiated between different members of the discourse community (Wodak 2022 and Catalano/Waugh (eds.) 2020). Neologisms help to identify new communicative patterns and narratives which illustrate different strings of discourse in everyday life. In recent years, many neologisms relating to the subject of the environment and climate have been emerging around the world mainly due to dominant discussions on climate change and the movement “Fridays for Future”. In German, for example, neologisms such as Klimakleber, klimaresilient and globaler Streik and in French neologisms such as éco-anxiété, justice climatique and écocitoyen could be observed. These neologisms occur in many domains of life, for example in politics, media and also in advertising, which means that “l’importance croissante des enjeux environnementaux dans les discours politiques, médiatiques et publicitaires” (Balnat/Gérard 2022, p. 22) can be identified. However, it is not only the occurrence of environment- or climate-related topics that is increasing, but also the rising polarisation of the public debate. The polarisation within public discourse is based on the fact that there are opposing positions which are represented by new or recently relevant terms such as activistes du climat (or Klimaaktivisten) and climatosceptiques (or Klimaskeptiker) (Balnat/Gérard 2022, p. 22). Due to different identifications with one or the other side, one can also speak of an “affrontement idéologique” (Balnat/Gérard 2022, p. 23). 1 The explosive nature and the high complexity of the debate on climate and the environmental issues mean that many words are naturally unfamiliar to people. This is especially true with regard to neologisms. In addition, it is often not only the new word itself but also the signified concept that is initially unknown. When people then look up words, they often do so on the Internet. Wikipedia as a “free encyclopedia” (Wikipedia 2023) is particularly well suited as an object of study with regard to neologisms, since factual knowledge is given special attention there. Furthermore, this reference guide is perceived as a regular source of agreed and common knowledge on all sorts of subjects. Hence, the descriptions found here represent social agreement on controversial terms and discussions to some degree. In this paper, German and French neologisms from the subject area of climate and environment will be examined primarily in Wikipedia, but also in the neighbouring resource Wiktionary,2 which is “a collaborative project to produce a free-content multilingual dictionary” (Wiktionary 2023). Since Wikipedia and Wiktionary are available in French and in German, 21010. International Contrastive Linguistics Conference (ICLC) both are equally suitable for the contrastive analysis. Thus, Wikipedia articles which are accessible in both languages (e.g. Klimanotstand and État d›urgence climatique) or Wikipedia articles about similar events and phenomena (e.g. Letzte Generation and Dernière Rénovation) will be compared. For example, we will have a closer look at other new terms specifying different thematic aspects of the discourse of climate and environment. We will mainly refer to those lexical items which can be found in the respective articles in both languages. Special emphasis will be on overlaps and differences, thematic foci, speaker’s positions and evaluative terms.
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.
Vor 30 Jahren gab es in Westdeutschland nur ganz wenige Lexikologen und Lexikografen, die sich mit Neologismen befassten. Infolgedessen hatte man damals kein richtiges Neologismenwörterbuch: Heute sieht es ganz anders aus. Allein am Institut für Deutsche Sprache sind zwei Neologismenwörterbücher in Printausgabe entstanden, nämlich „Neuer Wortschatz. Neologismen der 90er Jahre im Deutschen" und „Neuer Wortschatz. Neologismen im Deutschen 2001-2010". Hinzu kommt OWID, auf dem ihre Online-Version und jüngste Neologismen den Benutzern zur Verfügung stehen. Parallel dazu gibt es zahlreiche Aufsätze bzw. Beiträge über Neologie (Neologismenlexikologie) und Neographie (Neologismenlexikographie). In dieser Arbeit werden die Termine des Wortschatz- und Sprachwandels, hinsichtlich der Neologismen und Archaismen in der deutschen Sprache näher untersucht. Dabei erfolgt zu den letzteren beiden Phänomenen eine genauere Betrachtung.
Die sprachlichen Auffälligkeiten, die in Gedichten zu beobachten sind, haben immer wieder Anlass zu verschiedenen Versionen der Abweichungstheorie gegeben, derzufolge die in Gedichten verwendete Sprache von nicht-lyrischer Sprache abweicht. Expressionistische Lyrik ist insbesondere für ihre argumentstrukturellen Innovationen bekannt. Auf der Basis eines Korpus expressionistischer Gedichte wird eine Übersicht über diese Auffälligkeiten gegeben, die die Grundlage für weitere Studien darstellen soll, in denen zu zeigen sein wird, inwieweit unter bestimmten grammatiktheoretischen Annahmen die Abweichungstheorie zurückgewiesen werden kann.
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.