Słowniki w dobie digitalizacji na przykładzie Słownika wyrazów bliskoznacznych współczesnego języka słoweńskiego (Slovar sopomenk sodobne slovenščine)

Abstract

Dictionaries in the Age of Digitisation: An Example of the Thesaurus of Modern Slovene (Slovar sopomenk sodobne slovenščine)The digital revolution enables publishing dictionaries in a digital version, which significantly facilitates access to them by their users, who are no longer mere recipients of the content: their potential is viewed as useful in (co-)editing dictionaries. These changes also enable the introduction of new solutions to improve editorial work. One case in point is the Thesaurus of Modern Slovene (Slovar sopomenk sodobne slovenščine) – the first responsive dictionary, generated mostly automatically based on available language data, which responds both to language changes as well as to the habits and needs of its users. Their opinions and proposals have become integral part of its concept through crowdsourcing. Słowniki w dobie digitalizacji na przykładzie Słownika wyrazów bliskoznacznych współczesnego języka słoweńskiego (Slovar sopomenk sodobne slovenščine)Rewolucja cyfrowa umożliwia udostępnianie słowników w wersji cyfrowej, co znacząco ułatwia dostęp do nich użytkownikom, którzy nie są już tylko odbiorcami treści, ale dostrzega się także ich potencjał przy (współ)redagowaniu słowników. Dzięki niej możliwe jest także wprowadzanie nowych rozwiązań usprawniających prace redakcyjne. Jednym z przykładów jest słoweński Słownik wyrazów bliskoznacznych współczesnego języka słoweńskiego (Slovar sopomenk sodobne slovenščine) – pierwszy słownik reagujący, wygenerowany w większości automatycznie na podstawie dostępnych danych językowych, który reaguje zarówno na zachodzące w języku zmiany, jak i zwyczaje i potrzeby jego użytkowników, których opinie i propozycje stały się jego integralną częścią dzięki zastosowaniu crowdsourcingu.

“But why??” Evaluation of user-suggested synonyms in the Thesaurus of Modern Slovene

“…This proves that the usersuggested synonyms are in principle relevant and constructive. While this result is more or less an estimate, since averages were used and since it focuses only on pairs with at least high IAA, it follows the generalisation made in the feasibility study (Gapsa 2022), where 71% of the Students' answers were either YES or CONDITIONAL YES, and supports to some extent the results of the preliminary study by Arhar Holdt and Čibej (2020, p. 6), where after analysing a balanced subsample of 1,662 user-suggested synonyms (a maximum of 10 suggestions per user), about 70% of user suggestions were both constructive and unmarked, about 20% were constructive and marked, and just over 6% were unconstructive or malicious. The 31 pairs without NO answers (see Section 4.2) have in common that the user-suggested synonyms are mostly colloquial or spoken expressions (e.g.…”

“…The improved methodology is presented here, as some aspects of the evaluation have already been tested in a feasibility study (see Gapsa, 2022). The dataset for the evaluation is based on the dataset for PhD dissertation, which includes a total of 546 nouns.4 For this evaluation, the dissertation dataset was additionally supplemented with data on user-suggested synonyms in the Thesaurus 1.0.5 The nal evaluation set comprised 972 synonym pairs, arranged alphabetically by headword.…”

“…The questionnaire was made available through the online survey tool 1ka. 13 In the rst part of the questionnaire, evaluators were asked questions about themselves, such as age, employment status, education (linguistic or non-linguistic), their work or interaction with language, and which of the main areas (education, professional use, or leisure activities) are most important to them in relation to language. This part of the questionnaire consisted mainly of closed questions.…”

“…However, it should be noted that the Students were simultaneously testing the guidelines, which were improved after their feedback. The imperfect guidelines led to more questions and requests for clari cation on certain aspects (see Gapsa, 2022), and were the reason for poorer understanding of the guidelines and the task itself, resulting in a slightly lower IAA.…”

“…The evaluation may also serve to reframe the question of possible changes in the understanding of synonymy in the context of the creation and development of digital language resources, especially responsive dictionaries, but this question is beyond the scope of this paper. The research methodology was tested in a feasibility study (see Gapsa, 2022) and further improved as presented in this paper. Although the conceptual, theoretical, and nancial background of the evaluation remained the same or required minimal adjustments, both the scale and scope of the evaluation and the analysis process were signi cantly adjusted, corrected, and changed.…”