DICONALE : A Novel German-Spanish Onomasiological Lexicographical Model Involving Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Information

This contribution, based on the DICONALE ON LINE (FFI2012-32658) and COMBIDIGILEX (FFI2015-64476-P) research projects, aims to create an onomasiological bilingual dictionary with online access for German and Spanish verbal lexemes. The objective of this work is to present the most relevant contributions of the dictionary based on two lexemes from the COGNITION conceptual field, the LERNEN/APRENDER subfield. The DICONALE dictionary aims to fill the gap left by the current German–Spanish bilingual lexicography. The novelty is not only the electronic format, but also the inclusion of paradigmatic and syntagmatic information into one dictionary, and the contrastive aspects, subjects that until now have not been found in any onomasiological dictionaries in this area. In addition to the description of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships, it also presents certain characteristics related to the contrastive analysis of the two lexemes. On the one hand, it aims to offer a panoramic view of the most relevant features of the dictionary while, on the other hand, attempting to demonstrate the relevance of said criteria in the contrasting German-Spanish lexicography.


Introduction
The research projects (DICONALE ON LINE (FFI2012-32658) and COMBIDIGILEX (FFI2015-64476-P)) upon which this article has been based have the objective of creating a bilingual, onomasiological dictionary with online access for the verbal lexemes of German and Spanish [1].The research projects have been developed by eight members.Each member works within a semantic field.The studied fields, as of the present time, are (1) SINNESEMPFINDUNG/ WAHRNEHMUNGSVERBEN; (perception verbs); (2) MEDIALE ELEKTRONISCHE KOMMUNIKATION (media communication); (3) BESITZWECHSEL (RAUBEN/STEHLEN) (property change); (4) MITMENSCHLICHE WILLENSBEZIEHUNG AUTORITÄTSBEKUNDUNG/ AUTORITÄTSEMPFANG (authority relations); (5) KONSUMATION NAHRUNGSAUFNAHME, NAHRUNGSZUFÜHRUNG (food); (6) KOGNITION subfield DAS LERNEN (cognition, subfield das Lernen); (7) WIDERSPRUCH (contradiction).The methodology to get the final microstructure was as follows: (1) We studied the current status of the matter concerning conceptual dictionaries in Spanish and German; (2) Each member selected a conceptual field randomly; (3) Each member used the same descriptive model for the analysis.We had to agree on the descriptive model and on the corpora that we used, because we work from the examples of the corpora.This means that we selected one hundred examples (randomly) from each subfield, and then we analyzed the meaning, the paradigmatic and syntagmatic characteristics, the contrastive aspects, the frequency of use, etc.Each member worked on ten entries in each semantic field.The dictionary is intended for users with an advanced knowledge of the foreign language, for bilingual production purposes.The dictionary users are, therefore, Spaniards studying German, as well as Germans studying Spanish.The modality of a German-Spanish dictionary for Germans and a Spanish-German dictionary for Spaniards is not specifically included in the user type.Germans or Spaniards with production needs in their native language would consult other types of paradigmatic or syntagmatic onomasiological dictionaries.This dictionary is basically a pedagogical dictionary for production in a bilingual context for German as a foreign language (DaF) and for Spanish as a foreign language (ELE).Therefore, it is based on production in the foreign language-not on reception of the foreign language.It intends to be challenging, unlike the traditional semasiological-alphabetical concept, and to respond to new challenges in bilingual lexicography in a German-Spanish context, presenting a bilateral bilingual model that is modular and integrative.This work presents two aspects: some considerations regarding the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships of the dictionary and some characteristics regarding the contrastive structure, both of which can be considered the novelties of the DICONALE dictionary For this, two lexemes from the COGNITION conceptual field, the LERNEN/APRENDER subfield, were used.The examples are supported by corpora in both German and Spanish.For the German language, the DEREKO corpus was used via "COSMAS II" [2], and for Spanish, the corpus "CREA" [3] was used.

Theoretical Foundations
The onomasiological perspective implies conceptual units such as tertium comparationis for both languages, which may serve as a basis for contrastive analysis.Thus, the conceptual-onomasiological perspective is justified by the results of more recent studies in the field of cognitive linguistics (Blank,Koch [4] (Prologue)) as well as by the needs of the German as a foreign language class and the translation practice.The creation of a non-semasiological dictionary offers a new perspective, which is hardly followed by the bilingual lexicography community, and presents great novelty in German-Spanish bilingual lexicography.The dictionary aims to offer lexicological information in order to facilitate context, interlingual use, and interlingual nature of semantically related words.Onomasiological access is completed with a semasiological search, in which, in addition to descriptions of meanings, the syntagmatic characteristics of the lexemes are presented.Unlike semasiological dictionaries, directed towards language reception, onomasiological dictionaries tend to be directed towards production.The dictionary of DICONALE is based on concepts, and the user should search for the desired units based on these concepts.Since this dictionary is directed to production, the special syntagmatic characteristics may be looked for from a semasiological perspective.There are three phases: 1. Search; 2. Selection; and 3. Application or usage.The theoretical foundations of the onomasiological perspective may lie in the lexicographical works, for the German language [5][6][7][8] and for the Spanish language [9][10][11].Classic onomasiological dictionaries of the German language [12][13][14], as well as the ideological dictionary of Casares [15] in Spanish, suffer from a lack of transparency in terms of structuring criteria, and they lack information regarding certain meaning aspects.It does not, therefore, involve criticizing the classic onomasiological dictionaries.The considerable value of such works is considered in all.Even the project team has relied on them for conducting their initial research studies.The idea is to justify the existence of a bilingual onomasiological dictionary, which may offer the user both paradigmatic and syntagmatic information, which, until now, had not existed in the bilingual German-Spanish lexicography.These disadvantages have hindered and decreased the value of user consultations with these works [16].Furthermore, in both languages, paradigmatic dictionaries exist that offer information on external semantic relationships.These dictionaries lack considerable information to ensure the appropriate use of the lexical units, such as the differences in use between two partial synonyms.Pedagogical dictionaries are not the most suitable for use as text-producing instruments [16][17][18][19][20][21].Frequently, these dictionaries lack information on construction alternation or typical combinations [22] (p.114).
Generally speaking, an attempt is being made to fill the voids left by these onomasiological dictionaries through partial studies of the lexicon based on the premises of structuralist semantics [23][24][25], which have been the subject of proposals to link semasiological and onomasiological perspectives.During the 1980s and 1990s, diverse studies were conducted on specific semantic fields and were found to be linked to paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships [26,27].
Over recent decades, special syntagmatic dictionaries have been created due to a greater interest in lexicological aspects.Of special note are the Spanish dictionaries of Cuervo (1953Cuervo ( /1998) ) [28] and Seco/De Andrés/Ramos (1999) [29], and the German ones of Helbig/Schenkel (1969) [30], Engel/Schumacher (1978) [31], Valbu (2004) [32], among others [33].These proposed models indicate both syntactic aspects as well as information on semantic valence.The application of the valence theory in foreign languages and lexicography has had considerable repercussions, particularly in the area of the teaching of German as a foreign language (DaF).In addition, some onomasiological dictionaries offer systematic descriptions of the lexicon and detailed information on the syntagmatic relations, especially in regards to valence [34][35][36].In the dictionary by Harras et al., the onomasiological perspective and the semasiological process are combined to offer the necessary information regarding content and form.Recently, lexicographical studies have been conducted in the Spanish language, linking syntagmatic and paradigmatic information (ADESSE) [37] DiCE [38] and Diccionario Coruña [39].
The creation of a bilingual onomasiological dictionary for German and Spanish is a novelty in Spanish-German bilingual lexicography [40,41].Numerous lexicological studies have been carried out for specific lexical-semantics fields [42][43][44][45][46][47][48], but the novelty lies in the creation of a dictionary in which paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are of great relevance, so much so that they may be used as a dictionary of collocations.This would assist the user, not only in finding an appropriate lexeme for their expression needs, but also in providing them with syntagmatic information, which is useful for linguistic production.Access to this modular and multilateral perspective has been facilitated by the online digital format.The construction of the digital version of the dictionary is being carried out at the time of writing this paper.
This work presents two of the special characteristics of the German-Spanish DICONALE dictionary: paradigmatic and syntagmatic information and the most relevant contrastive aspects of the COGNITION field.In order to provide an example of the COGNITION field, the pauken1/empollar1 lexemes were used from the LERNEN/APRENDER subfield.They will be subjected to the relevant analyses [49].Based on this example, the (new and) most relevant characteristics of the dictionary will be presented.

Defining the LERNEN/APRENDER Subfield
Each conceptual field of DICONALE consists of distinct subfields which may be defined through reference systems directed towards diverse scenarios.The lexical elements of each subfield can be differentiated from one another based on their distinctive semantic features [50,51].An example of this is presented with the subfield: LERNEN/APRENDER (cf.: Table 1).The German and Spanish verbal lexemes belonging to this are as follows [12,13,15,52]: The subfield: LERNEN/APRENDER (1st.degree) and possibilities of lexicalization in German and Spanish.
Each subfield element shall be specified through a conceptual reference system that is common to the German and Spanish expressions (Table 1).The conceptual reference framework of the LERNEN/APRENDER subfield is ERWERB (ADQUISICIÓN) (ACQUISITION), MENTAL (MENTAL) (MENTAL) KENNTNISSE (CONOCIMIENTOS) (KNOWLEDGE).This reference framework serves as tertium comparationis for the comparison between the two languages.In this study, the two lexemes are analyzed via examples belonging to this subfield: pauken1/empollar1 (cf.Figures 1 and 2).These variants form a semantic subclass within the LERNEN subfield, that is, a second degree subfield.The whole structure of the dictionary is explained in the Appendix, Table 1, and Figures 1 and  2. These levels, both to a conceptual subclassification of other degrees and to the formulation of the different lexico-semantic subparadigms, will form the conceptual macrostructure of the dictionary (see in the final appendix the descriptive model of DICONALE with the different levels and modules [1]).The combination potential of the lexemes in each of these lexical-semantic subfields shall be determined via its content and argument structure.In Tables 2 and 3    The whole structure of the dictionary is explained in the Appendix, Table 1, and Figures 1 and  2. These levels, both to a conceptual subclassification of other degrees and to the formulation of the different lexico-semantic subparadigms, will form the conceptual macrostructure of the dictionary (see in the final appendix the descriptive model of DICONALE with the different levels and modules [1]).The combination potential of the lexemes in each of these lexical-semantic subfields shall be determined via its content and argument structure.In Tables 2 and 3  The whole structure of the dictionary is explained in the Appendix 6, Table 1, and Figures 1 and 2. These levels, both to a conceptual subclassification of other degrees and to the formulation of the different lexico-semantic subparadigms, will form the conceptual macrostructure of the dictionary (see in the final Appendix 6 the descriptive model of DICONALE with the different levels and modules [1]).The combination potential of the lexemes in each of these lexical-semantic subfields shall be determined via its content and argument structure.In Tables 2 and 3 [˘apropiación] [˘appropriation]: the general acquisition of knowledge.This feature distinguishes the variants lernen1/aprender1 from the variants gehen1/andar1 from the semantic field BEWEGUNGSVERB.

Information Regarding the Paradigmatic Relationships within the Framework of the DICONALE Model
Paradigmatic information is that information related to synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and generic names [54] (p.510).Paradigmatic relations may appear, either within the definition or outside of it, within the lexicographic article [55,56].The representation of paradigmatic relations within the DICONALE model permits both forms.According to Hausmann [57] (p.2794), "zweisprachige Wörterbücher sind immer auch Synonymwörterbücher und werden oft ausdrücklich in dieser Funktion benutzt" (bilingual dictionaries are also always dictionaries of synonyms and they will be used expressly for this function).According to Hausmann [57] (p.2794), there are two types of paradigmatic information: automatic paradigmatic information, when the paradigmatic information is used within the definition, and intentional paradigmatic information, when the paradigmatic information appears outside of the definition.In the DICONALE model, however, the intentional paradigmatic information is of greater interest.According to Hausmann [57] (p.2794), for a long time, this information has been neglected in lexicographic works.This is the case with not only paradigmatic information existing in the definition, but also with other indications of lexical elements presenting special semantic relations with the headword and that are usually mentioned in a lexicographic entry through a system of referrals or, in digital dictionaries, through a system of links.The inconvenience of this system lies in the fact that it takes up a great deal of space in the dictionary.This issue may be easily resolved in the digital versions [58].Therefore, the first question to be raised is: what is the sense in offering the user an offer of similar or linked elements (from a lexical point of view)?The paradigmatic information is quite important precisely in order to strengthen the processes of vocabulary expansion and text production.
The paradigmatic information in DICONALE exists not only at the level of each subfield, but also at higher levels, as seen in Table 1.Each field consists of different subfields that arise from the opposition of distinctive semantic features.Paradigmatic information may also be distributed at the level of each sense.In Table 4, the paradigmatic information of each sense is distributed with the help of diverse dictionaries such as that of Dornseiff (1965), Wehrle Eggers (1961), Casares (2007) [12,13,15] and other digital ones such as OWID and DWDS in German and María Moliner (2002) and Corripio (1990) for Spanish.The following structure results from information from ELEXICO [52,[59][60][61][62]: The user requires certain information regarding the use of lexemes in order to use them correctly in the appropriate context, such as the diastratic variations corresponding to colloquial language.According to Table 4, other issues are proposed to which a response is offered in our description model, such as the quantitative limitation: in the first phase of creation, simple basic lexemes are analyzed.Affixed verb forms and complex lexemes have been set aside for subsequent phases of model creation.Along with information related to synonyms, elements such as hyperonyms, co-hyponyms, and antonyms are also included.All of this information shall be offered via a system of links, facilitated by online access.In a third phase, the model shall not be restricted to verbal lexemes, but shall also include grammatical categories.As for the contrastive analysis, this is conducted separately for each language, especially in regards to paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations.

Syntagmatic Information in the Framework of the DICONALE Model
Syntagmatic information appears in the descriptive model through the argument structures and through each of the syntactic functions and their possibilities for morphosyntactic realization.In the semantic area, lexemes are described based on their distinctive semantic features so as to offer information about the combination characteristics of each element.The semantic features used are: In CREA, oral or written language has not been considered a limitation, given the limited number of examples recorded for the lexeme empollar1.The theoretical foundations of the project are based on the valences theories of Engel [63] (Engel 2009) and Zifonun (Zifonun et al. 1997) [64].Over recent decades, diverse studies have been edited that refer to the need to create contrastive German-Spanish studies, in connection with the different syntagmatic aspects [65][66][67] (Sánchez 2010, Sánchez 2012 see [44,47]).An interesting aspect includes the act of contrasting the semantic valence in their similarities and differences.Syntactic information comes from different dictionaries: Engel/Schuhmacher (1978), Helbig/Schenkel (1969), and Schuhmacher/Kubczak/Schmidt/de Ruiter (2004) [30][31][32].
Based on the framework of the DICONALE descriptive model, the syntagmatic information related to the lexemes pauken1/empollar1 is presented below.It should be noted that the following tables do not correspond to the definitive layout that shall appear in the dictionary.Therefore, in this case, we proceed from a semasiological perspective.The function of the elements for each language is simplified and unified: S: Subject (A1); DO: DIRECT OBJECT (A2); opt: optional (in this case, it appears between parentheses): From a contrastive point of view and having analyzed Table 5, the following conclusions may be reached: (i) In terms of the denotative meaning, there are no differences between the definitions pauken1/empollar1.The two lexemes present the same sememe represented by the same semantic features; (ii) There is a specification pertaining to the diastratic marking that corresponds to a usage limitation in colloquial language.In the dictionary created by María Moliner (MM ( 2 2002) [61], this specification does not appear, although it is present, for example, in the DRAE, even with a pejorative use [68]; (iii) The major differences in usage are seen in examples in which we see the combination possibilities of the lexemes.In this manner, it is seen that the underlying arguments coincide with the presented semantic features, both in German and in Spanish.However, in German, there is greater use of the passive voice (of the 100 examples recorded, 61 appear in the passive), while in Spanish, the active voice predominates.Another difference is that in German, the direct object is found in two examples through subordinate sentences (w-Clauses or w-Sätze), while in the Spanish corpus, no examples are found for this type of example.On the other hand, in the Spanish corpus, forms corresponding to the infinitive are highlighted (58 examples), something that is not found in the German corpus.This reveals the difference in usage of these lexemes in the two languages.

Conclusions
This contribution presents the main features of the DICONALE dictionary through the presentation of examples: paradigmatic and syntagmatic information and some contrastive aspects.Due to space limitations, it was necessary to forego the description of certain dictionary characteristics, such as the frequency of appearance, use of lexemes, and the description of the usage situation in regard to online access.The complete structure of the dictionary can be found in the Appendix 6.
Since this dictionary is directed to advanced students, paradigmatic information is of great relevance.The possibility of making this type of information available through an electronic dictionary may assist users in resolving doubts about vocabulary or to strengthen their vocabulary with more possibilities than using a traditional bilingual dictionary.The greatest problems regarding the descriptive model, which has been worked on over the last six years, are of a more formal (as opposed to content-based) nature and suppose an agreement with the lexicographic team.These mention the number of lexemes, the categorization of the paradigmatic relations, the grammatical category of the lexemes and the contrastive representation of the paradigmatic relations.User access to information may be simplified thanks to a system of links offered by the online system.
The analyzed lexemes pauken1/empollar1 do not reveal many syntagmatic differences, except for the difference with the subordinate clause in German, which does not appear in Spanish.The representation of semantic valence may assist the user in correctly using the lexemes in context.Through the structural and semantics models, the user may be familiarized with the syntactical structure of a lexeme, that is, how the elements function within the sentence.The fact that these functions are described in a contrastive manner in the two languages and that authentic examples are derived from diverse corpora offers the user the possibility of correctly using the lexemes from a syntactical point of view.
The DICONALE dictionary aims to fill the gap left by the current German-Spanish bilingual lexicography.This is not only justified by the electronic format (which is under construction at this time), but is also due to the challenges arising when attempting to integrate different types of information into one dictionary, something that until now has been found only in very specialized lexicographic works.Users are always the objective of these different types of information.A clear definition of this user type, as well as a clear definition of the corresponding usage situations related to the modular model of description (which includes paradigmatic and syntagmatic structures) allows us to consider DICONALE as the first pedagogical bilateral, bilingual dictionary, directed to production and with a conceptual onomasiological access.

Appendix
ANEIGNUNG (APROPIACIÓN) (APPROPIATION), UNI-HOCHSCHULE (UNIVERSITY) and INTENSITÄT (INTENSIDAD) (INTENSITY) are on the same level because they are conceptual units.The lexemes pauken1/empollar1 are referred to the conceptual unit INTENSITÄT/INTENSIDAD.Educ.Sci.2016, 6, 17 framework serves as tertium comparationis for the comparison between the two languages.In this study, the two lexemes are analyzed via examples belonging to this subfield: pauken1/empollar1 (cf.Figures 1 and 2).These variants form a semantic subclass within the LERNEN subfield, that is, a second degree subfield.ANEIGNUNG (APROPIACIÓN) (APPROPIATION), UNI-HOCHSCHULE (UNIVERSITY) and INTENSITÄT (INTENSIDAD) (INTENSITY) are on the same level because they are conceptual units.The lexemes pauken1/empollar1 are referred to the conceptual unit INTENSITÄT/INTENSIDAD.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The subfields (2nd degree) and the semantic variants in German.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The subfields (2nd degree) and the semantic variants in Spanish.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The subfields (2nd degree) and the semantic variants in German.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The subfields (2nd degree) and the semantic variants in German.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The subfields (2nd degree) and the semantic variants in Spanish.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The subfields (2nd degree) and the semantic variants in Spanish.

Table 4 .
Paradigmatic information within the COGNITION field.

. Descriptive model of DICONALE: different levels and modules.
Map of the expression: word class, type of conjugation, suprasegmental features, morphological make-up (separable-no separable).§Map of the content: the signified: semantic features, verbal character, Aktionsart, aspect.
§ Word formation: general for all meanings: relevant forms: (selection) § Links M 2 Relevant meanings/variants for the semantic field (LAfr) : § Explanation of the signified with an indication of paradigmatic relations and distinctive features.§ Internal description of the signified: semantic features.§ Paradigmatic relations: within and outside the paradigm § Structural schema § Register, illustrative examples, frequency of each meaning with respect to the overall appearance of the lemma: M 3