Speaker
Description
In current public discourse and debates, new expressions (or new meanings) are constantly emerging. One of the results during this process is the creation of new synonymous relations between two new words or between neologisms and already established lexemes. Sometimes, such as during the COVID pandemic, there were also veritable “synonym pushes” (Harm, 2022) in German (e.g., Covid(-19) / Corona / Sars-CoV-2, Booster(impfung) / Auffrischungsimpfung or Lockdown / Shutdown) (cf. Storjohann & Pawels, 2023). In the course of lexicalization and competition between neologistic (near-)synonyms as well as between new terms and well-established lexemes, various scenarios can occur: These include processes leading to the decline in use or lexical loss in which, for example, a lexeme disappears again or only plays an extremely marginal role. Another scenario would be “peaceful coexistence” where lexical rivalry does not seem to play a major role and the (near-)synonymous terms remain equal members of the vocabulary. Linguistic rivalry can also lead to semantic shifts, e.g., semantic differentiation, sense broadening or narrowing etc. In this context, Aronoff and Lindsay also speak of (semantic) niches (cf. Lindsay & Aronoff, 2013; Aronoff, 2016); a niche for a word is “a clearly defined subdomain within its potential domain” (Lindsay & Aronoff, 2013, p. 135). However, according to Dalmas et al. (2015), (near-)synonyms can also be distinguished by parameters other than semantic aspects of the lexemes in question. For example, they talk about the relevance of the thematic domain and discourse practice, which play a decisive role in the choice of one or the other lexeme. These parameters should therefore also be considered in an analysis of newly emerging meaning equivalents. Another factor that has potential effects on lexical competition between neologistic (near-)synonyms is linguistic/lexical doubt if attested regularly (cf. Klein, 2003, 2009 and 2018). According to Klein (2003, p. 7, emphasis in original), a case of linguistic doubt can be defined as follows: “Ein sprachlicher Zweifelsfall (Zf) ist eine sprachliche Einheit (Wort/ Wortform/Satz), bei der kompetente Sprecher (a.) im Blick auf (mindestens) zwei Varianten (a, b…) in Zweifel geraten (b.) können, welche der beiden Formen (standardsprachlich) (c.) korrekt ist […]” (“A case of linguistic doubt is a linguistic unit (word/word form/sentence) where competent speakers (a.) may be in doubt (b.) with regard to (at least) two variants (a, b...) as to which of the two forms is correct (in terms of standard language) (c.).” (own translation)
Indications of cases of linguistic doubt can be found, for example, in online forums or in meta-linguistic reflections in DeReKo such as the following:
(1) Statt ‚boostern‘ sollte es ‚boosten‘ heißen, findet Leser Sch. In der Tat sagt man ja auch ‚fighten‘ und nicht ‚fightern‘, obwohl es im Englischen den dem booster vergleichbaren fighter gäbe.“ (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 31.12.2021, p. 14, Sprachlabor) This citation shows that words like boostern, a variant of boosten, which do not correspond to any known pattern, can also cause linguistic uncertainty. After theoretical remarks about neologisms, synonyms and linguistic doubt, in this paper, I will show a few examples of a corpus-linguistic analysis of German (near-)synonyms (some of which cause doubt) using DeReKo and its analysing tool COSMAS II. These pairs/groups include mainly neologisms but also some words which are already established in German. The focus lies on a microdiachronic analysis (of the changes) of co-occurrences, frequency and diffusion, covering an observation period from 2010 up to and including 2023. The (near-)synonyms are taken from the IDS neologism dictionary (Neologismenwörterbuch, 2006ff.). The corpus analysis is supplemented with illustrative frequency graphs generated by OWIDplusLIVE, a tool, which provides insights into the statistical development of terms, therefore well suited for the direct comparison of two or more lexemes. If required, the tool allows an analysis updated daily (reference time: previous day) on the basis of various RSS news feeds from German online press since the beginning of 2020 (cf. Michaelis, 2023, p. 186ff.). Building on the linguistictheoretical analysis of neologistic (near-)synonyms, I will turn to the question of how to incorporate the findings into an online dictionary of neologistic (near-) synonyms that is currently under creation and which is able to answer questions as raised on online forums. Among other things, the focus will be on what would help dictionary users who are currently faced with a case of new lexical doubt in order to satisfy their consultation needs and to be able to decide on the more appropriate variant in a particular communicative situation.
