To ensure smooth communication and collaboration, here are some troubleshooting tips to address common issues:
Check Internet Connection: Verify that you have a stable and reliable internet connection. Use a wired connection when possible, as it tends to be more stable than Wi-Fi. If using Wi-Fi, make sure you have a strong signal.
Update the Browser or App: Ensure that you are using the latest version of the web browser. Developers frequently release updates to address bugs and improve performance.
Clear Browser Cache: Sometimes, cached data can cause conflicts or issues. Clear the browser cache and cookies before joining the meeting.
Test Audio and Video: Before the meeting, check your microphone and camera to ensure they are working correctly. If you are a speaker, you can click on "Start Practice Session" button test to ensure audio and video devices are functioning.
Close Other Applications: Running multiple applications in the background can consume system resources and lead to performance issues. Close unnecessary apps to free up resources for the Dryfta meeting platform.
Restart Your Device: If you encounter persistent issues, try restarting your computer or mobile device. This can help resolve various software-related problems.
Use Supported Browsers: Ensure you are using a browser supported by the meeting platform. Recommended browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Brave.
Allow Necessary Permissions: Make sure the Dryfta meeting platform has the required permissions to access your microphone, camera, and other necessary features.
Disable VPN or Firewall: Sometimes, VPNs or firewalls can interfere with the connection to the meeting platform. Temporarily disable them and see if the issue persists.
Switch Devices: If possible, try joining the meeting from a different device to see if the problem is specific to one device.
Reduce Bandwidth Usage: In cases of slow or unstable internet connections, ask participants to disable video or share video selectively to reduce bandwidth consumption.
Update Drivers and Software: Ensure your operating system, audio drivers, and video drivers are up to date. Outdated drivers can cause compatibility issues with the Dryfta meeting platform.
Contact Support: If none of the above steps resolve the issue, reach out to the platform's support team. They can provide personalized assistance and troubleshoot specific problems.
By following these troubleshooting tips, you can tackle many common problems encountered on Dryfta meeting platform and have a more productive and seamless meeting experience.
20230718T131520230718T1615Europe/Amsterdam[SYMP76] Word of the Year initiatives: language as mirror of dynamics in cultureHybrid Session (onsite/online)AILA 2023 - 20th Anniversary Congress Lyon Editioncellule.congres@ens-lyon.fr
Oral Presentation[SYMP76] Word of the Year initiatives: language as mirror of dynamics in culture03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 16:00:00 UTC
Word of the year initiatives can increase society-at-large's awareness of Applied Linguistics. By reflecting the public discourse of the past twelve months, words of the year can literally show what moved people most and how a society ticks (Łaziński 2019). Conferences and panel contributions on the topic, e.g., at the 6th International Keywords Conference in Warsaw 2020 and at the AILA 2021 World Congress in Groningen, demonstrate the growing interest of scholars in the area where Applied Linguistics is tangible for society-at-large (Kriele et al. 2018). At a first glance, this seems to be good news for re-popularizing Applied Linguistics in an environment of growing scepticism towards humanities and social sciences. However, analyzing word of the year selection processes around the globe reveals three main risks. First, processes merely based on public propositions, e.g. with opinion polls, are highly engaged with society-at-large but lack grounding in empirical data and transparent evaluation methods. Second, processes that exclusively draw on corpus data and research methods risk excluding the topical view of society-at-large, let alone the contribution of language professionals. Third, the inherent need for funding and promoting word of the year initiatives bears the risk of getting absorbed by exhaustive engagements with social media and community management. In my presentation, I focus on the words of the year in Switzerland in the four national languages German, French, Italian, and Rumantsch (1). Based on the largest corpus of Swiss public discourse data, Swiss AL (2), I explain the selection process as a combination of corpus analysis, public opinion poll, and a jury consisting of language professionals (3). I then discuss the advantages and difficulties of transgressing and combining disciplinary boundaries with popular AL-informed initiatives (4) and conclude by showing which measures could, from both theoretical and practical perspectives, raise the value added by twinning word of the year initiatives and AL while minimizing the inherent risks.
Łaziński, M. (2019). Post-truth, postfaktisch und postprawda – als Sieger und Versager der Wort-des-Jahres-Umfragen 2016. Semantische, pragmatische und grammatische Kontexte des neuen Begriffs. In M. Biskup & A. Just (Eds.), Tendenzen in der deutschen Wortbildung – diachron und synchron (Vol. 2). Warsaw: University of Warsaw.
Kriele, C., Liste Lamas, E., Perrin, D., & Whitehouse, M. (2018). Diskursanalyse im Schaufenster. Methodologie der Ermittlung und Vermittlung von Wörtern des Jahres. Paper presented at the GAL Kongress 2018, Essen (Germany).
Presenters Marlies Whitehouse Researcher, Zurich University Of Applied Sciences
The Word of the Year Initiative in Switzerland: Data, Methods, and Tools
Oral Presentation[SYMP76] Word of the Year initiatives: language as mirror of dynamics in culture03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 16:00:00 UTC
The methods and procedures applied for the selection of a Word of the Year (WY) in the various countries vary greatly. They range from the selection by an expert panel or the general public to linguistically grounded, corpus-based methods. The WY initiative in Switzerland represents the latter group and will be introduced in this talk with a focus on data, methods, and tools. Since 2017, the selection of the WY in Switzerland is operated by the ZHAW School of Applied Linguistics. A short list of candidates in all four national languages is compiled by applying three procedures (Perrin et al. 2021: 174) which all emphasize that corpora are a necessary instrument to identify salient patterns in public language use: (1) corpus-linguistic analysis of journalistic media, (2) collection of candidates suggested by the general public, and (3) collection of candidates suggested by a multilingual consortium of language professionals. Crucially, candidates brought up in (2) and (3) are examined corpus linguistically. The corpus-based selection and examination of candidates is based on Swiss-AL (Applied Linguistics), a multilingual collection of corpora for the analysis of societally relevant language use in Switzerland (Krasselt et al., 2020). It is the most extensive collection of its kind (currently approx. 4.5 billion words) and includes a linguistic processing pipeline and a browser-based analysis workbench to access the corpora (Krasselt et al., 2021). For the selection of WY candidates, Swiss-AL media subcorpora for German, French, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romance are used. They contain Swiss journalistic media of national and regional scope from the last five years and are provided for academic use by the Swiss Media Database and, to a smaller extent, are collected in a web-crawling procedure. All corpora are processed linguistically with the Swiss-AL pipeline (cf. Krasselt et al. 2020) and published on the Swiss-AL workbench which is used within committee meetings to empirically validate candidates suggested by the public and by the language professionals. From the perspective of science communication, the workbench is a crucial element to make the selection process transparent to the public. More specifically, candidates for the WY are identified/examined with the following corpus linguistic methods: (1) Keyword analysis: comparison of vocabulary used in the current year with vocabulary used in the previous year(s) (2) Frequency analysis: distribution of candidates througout the year (3) Identification of words not used in the year(s) before. In this talk, the Swiss-AL media subcorpora and the associated workbench will be introduced as an empirical database for the WY in Switzerland alongside the methods applied to create a short list of WY candidates. References Krasselt, J., Dreesen, P., Fluor, M., Mahlow, C., Rothenhäusler, K., & Runte, M. (2020). Swiss- AL: A Multilingual Swiss Web Corpus for Applied Linguistics. Proceedings of the 12th LREC, 4138-4144. Perrin, D., Whitehouse, M., Liste Lamas, E., & Kriele, Ch. (2021). Diskursforschung im Schaufenster. Ein transdisziplinärer Ansatz zur Ermittlung und Vermittlung von Wörtern des Jahres. In: Dreesen, P. & Stücheli-Herlach, P. (ed.): Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung 8/2-3, p. 164-189.
L'image de la société hongroise dans les années 2011-2020 basée sur l'analyse des mots-clés
Oral Presentation[SYMP76] Word of the Year initiatives: language as mirror of dynamics in culture03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 16:00:00 UTC
In Hungary a word, an un-word, a poetic word and a youth word of the year have been announced every year since 2010. All these words are chosen by linguists affiliated with the Magyar Nyelv Szolgáltató Iroda which corresponds to the Plain English Campaign, only the choice of the youth word is made by the public which votes on the internet. In my lecture I intend to analyze the words, un-words, poetic and youth words of the years 2011-2020 and, basing on this analysis, to present the image of the Hungarian society in the second decade of the 21st century.
En Hongrie le plébiscite du mot de l'année est organisé depuis 2010. Comme dans d'autres pays, les Hongrois indiquent les mots qui ont été particulièrement importants dans le discours public au cours de l'année donnée, en choisissant des paroles parmi quatre catégories : mot de l'année, mot antilope de l'année, mot poétique de l'année et mot de la jeunesse de l'année. En Hongrie, cependant, contrairement à d'autres pays, les lexèmes les plus importants sont choisis par les linguistes centrés autour de Magyar Nyelv Szolgáltató Iroda (bureau des services de langue hongroise) – l'équivalent de Plain English Compaign - seul le mot de la jeunesse de l'année est sélectionné au moyen du vote en ligne. Étant donné qu'aucun projet n'a encore été lancé en Hongrie pour surveiller la fréquence des mots dans le discours public (comme p. ex. Słowa na czasie en Pologne), le choix des lexèmes fait par les linguistes est assez subjectif. Il reflète cependant les thèmes ou les problèmes qui ont frappé la société au cours de l'année écoulée. Par conséquent, en analysant les mots-clés de la dernière décennie, on peut observer comment la société hongroise a vécu, évolué et changé au cours des dix dernières années. Par exemple, le mot le plus important de l'année :2011 – alkotmány (constitution) – est lié a l'adoption d'une nouvelle Constitution ;2013 – rezsicsökkentés (réduction des comptes) – n'est pas joli, mais il montre la qualité de la communication entre le gouvernement et le peuple ;2015 – kerítés (clôture) – il s'agissait de la clôture que le gouvernement d'Orban a construit à la frontière avec la Serbie pour empêcher les migrants d'entrer en Hongrie ;2018 – gasztroforradalom (« révolution culinaire ») – est lié au fait que la culture alimentaire et la gastronomie deviennent de véritables arts et les programmes culinaires sont diffusés au meilleur moment de l'antenne ;2020 – koronavírus. Dans mon récit, je vais analyser les mots les plus importants des années 2011-2020 afin de montrer les changements qui ont eu lieu dans la vie politique, économique et culturelle de la société hongroise de la deuxième décennie du XXI siècle. Il sera également important de répondre à la question de l'impact sur le développement économique et social de la Hongrie de l'épidémie de coronavirus. Sources :http://e-nyelv.hu http://origo.hu http://index.hu Veszelszki A., Karanténszótár. Virális tartalom, Inter-IKU, Budapest, 2020.Balázs G., Koronavírus: nyelvi gyorsteszt, E-nyelv Magazin, 2020/1 (https://e-nyelvmagazin.hu/2020/05/18/koronavirus-nyelvi-gyorsteszt/)
Concepts et mots-clés français et leur (non)équivalence polonaise
Oral Presentation[SYMP76] Word of the Year initiatives: language as mirror of dynamics in culture03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 16:00:00 UTC
La langue est un vecteur de culture, les mots étant des artéfacts culturels de la société selon les linguistes polonais, entre autres, J. Puzynina, J. Bartmiński ou A. Wierzbicka. Cette pensée a une longue tradition datant, au moins, de l'époque de J. Locke selon qui les habitants d'un pays créent certaines idées complexes, qui expriment souvent ce qui est important pour la société en question, et leur donnent des noms différents de ceux créés par d'autres nations. Cette hypothèse de relativité linguistique a pourtant du sens quand elle est complétée par l'hypothèse d'universalité linguistique selon A. Wierzbicka. Ce qui est commun pour des cultures avoisinantes ou même pour toute l'humanité s'entrelace avec ce qui est particulier pour une communauté. Cela a pour conséquence l'élaboration des concepts spécifiques pour chaque langue et culture et la formation des mots comme féminicide et glottophobie. Ces deux néologismes désignent des phénomènes sociaux qui se manifestent dans de nombreux pays, par exemple en France et en Pologne, mais dont la perception sociale varie d'un pays à l'autre. Le féminicide en tant que problème social existe aussi en Pologne, cependant le néologisme kobietobójstwo n'est pas un terme officiel. Quant au mot glottophobie, il serait difficile de proposer sa traduction polonaise, bien qu'une attitude méprisante ou ironique envers des comportements linguistiques ne respectant pas la norme se manifeste aussi en Pologne, pays se caractérisant aussi par une diversité dialectale et régionale. Il est pourtant difficile d'y remédier puisque ce phénomène n'est pas lexicalisé et le concept lui-même a du mal à s'instaurer dans la culture polonaise.Dans le cadre de cette recherche, nous nous proposons d'examiner quelques mots-clés qui se réfèrent à la transgression des droits de l'homme comme fémininicide ou glottophobie aussi bien que leurs champs sémantiques, leurs dérivés et leurs collocations. L'étude est fondée sur des données lexicographiques, sur des corpus de texte et sur des données d'Internet. La perspective de notre recherche se voulant contrastive, nous nous interrogeons sur l'envergure des mêmes phénomènes en Pologne et sur des moyens linguistiques qui les explicitent. L'outil linguistique auquel nous allons recourir afin de dégager le sens de certaines lexies et d'illustrer des différences et des ressemblances sémantiques est l'appareil analytique basé sur la notion de prédicat sémantique. Ainsi, la représentation sémantique du suffixe phobie, valable pour des lexèmes récemment plus fréquents comme glottophobie, islamophobie, homophobie, diffère de celle caractéristique pour les termes d'origine médicale, à savoir il s'agit du changement prédicatif suivant : discriminer <- mépriser <- avoir peur. En découpant le continuum sémantique de certains mots-clés à l'aide de l'analyse prédicative, nous pourrons distinguer ce qui est relatif de ce qui est universel dans les deux langues et observer une évolution linguistique qui accompagne les changements sociaux.Éléments bibliographiquesWierzbicka A. 2013. Słowa klucze. Różne języki – różne kultury. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Warszawa.Mel'čuk I., Polguère A. 2008. Prédicats et quasi-prédicats sémantiques dans une perspective lexicographique. Lidil.
Polish words and European words of the year as keywords of the social discourse
Oral Presentation[SYMP76] Word of the Year initiatives: language as mirror of dynamics in culture03:00 PM - 06:00 PM (Europe/Amsterdam) 2023/07/18 13:00:00 UTC - 2024/07/18 16:00:00 UTC
The paper describes the results of the project "Keywords" led at the University of Warsaw against the background of similar projects in other countries. The Polish project consists of several subprojects: 1) everyday monitoring of word frequency in Polish newspapers on a purely statistical basis, 2) monthly selection of words from the words of the highest keyness and comments on them written by the project team, 3) Polish words of the year by a jury of linguists, and 4) annual online poll for the Polish word of the year and selection of WOTY by the panel of experts (see more in Polish: Słowa…, 2019).
If we take Polish words of the last couple of years, they divide into several lexical fields. Some referred to local disputes as: PREZYDENCJA (leadership in the EU) 2011,PARABANK (a shadow banking system) 2012,KILOMETRÓWKA ('mileage' in kilometres; some Polish MEP claimed unjustified mileage reimbursement), SEPARATYSTA (separatists in Eastern Ukraine) 2014,TRYBUNAŁ (constitutional court captured by the government) and 500+ (government's program providing families with 500 zloty benefit for children) 2016,2016, PUSZCZA (wild forest, word reflecting the wasteful exploitation of the natural environment) and REZYDENT (protest od resident doctors) in 2017,KONSYTUCJA ("constitution" - written on banners during anti-government demonstrations) 2018.Some words bring up a general border-crossing discourse as: GENDER 2013,UCHODŹCA' refugee' 2015,KLIMAT (climate) and LGBT+ 2019,KORONAWIRUS (coronavirus) 2020, or SZCZEPIENIE (vaccination) 2021.
These words and their cognates won polls in many countries. Besides various pandemic-related words (e.g. VAX, ANTIVAX, COVID, PANDEMIC), among universal words of the year in European polls were SELFIE in 2013 and 2014 and POST TRUTH in 2016.
After the project presentation a question will be asked which words or expressions are the most important for the speaking community at a given time. An approach to such words or expressions can be keywords. They can be defined and analyzed statistically (e.g. Guiraud 1954), lexically or pragmatically, based on the speech act's context (Wierzbicka 1997).
Polls and statistical computation can only serve as an approximate answer to this question. For example, statistic calculations report recurring events and feasts, such as school final exams or holidays. On the other hand, public opinion focuses on the most recent actions, often missing what happened earlier or has a long-lasting impact.
Online polls usually favour words for concrete objects and events or politicians' lapses and catchphrases. Expert juries bring out a more profound symbolism of long-lasting abstract keywords. However, pandemics and COVID-related words marked experts' choices and web polls recently. The war in Ukraine will probably be another topic that reflects in polls in the nearest future.
Classification of WOTY according to meaning and reference, assessment, sentiment, degree of adaptation, and word formation structure can select a prototype social keyword. Word of the year poll approach creates a new methodology or complements the existing methodology of describing the discourse.
References: Guiraud Pierre, Les caractéres statistiques du vocabulaire, Paris 1954. Słowa dnia, słowa miesiąca, słowa roku, eds. M. Kwiecień, M. Łaziński, Warszawa 2019, http://www.slowanaczasie.uw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Slowa-roku-E-BOOK.pdf, Wierzbicka A., Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words, Oxford 1997.
Marlies Whitehouse