Tracking the acceptance of neologisms in German: Psycholinguistic factors and their correspondence with corpus-linguistic findings

The study focuses on lexicology and the integration of lexical borrowings (loanwords) into a recipient language, specifically German. It examines the acceptance of neologisms—newly borrowed or formed words—within a speech community. The primary research question is whether neologisms borrowed from English are accepted more slowly into German than those formed using native German word-formation rules (compounds). Previous research has explored various linguistic and sociological factors influencing loanword integration, including frequency of usage, the use of linguistic markers ('flags'), and cultural context. Psycholinguistic aspects, such as 'neological intuition'—the ability to perceive lexical novelty—are also relevant. The authors hypothesize a slower acceptance rate for borrowed English neologisms compared to native German neologisms, expecting higher uncertainty and longer response times for the English borrowings in an experimental setting. This research builds upon a previous corpus study where the authors found that although both borrowed and native neologisms were marked linguistically, borrowed ones showed higher marking frequency, suggesting slower integration.

Existing literature offers varying perspectives on loanword acceptance. Prescriptivist viewpoints often prioritize native word formation, while descriptivist views see borrowings as enriching the lexicon. Studies across various languages (Serbian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Uzbek) reveal both resistance and acceptance of loanwords, influenced by factors such as perceived necessity, prestige, and cultural context. Prior research suggests that younger speakers tend to use English loanwords more often than older speakers. The authors' prior corpus study (Klosa-Kückelhaus and Wolfer, 2020) examined the frequency development and linguistic marking of German neologisms from the 1990s, but didn't find clear patterns indicating acceptance based on origin. However, they observed that borrowed neologisms were initially marked more frequently than native ones, suggesting a longer integration period. This study expands on these findings using a psycholinguistic approach.

The study employed a mouse-tracking paradigm to investigate the acceptance of German neologisms. Participants (66 native German speakers aged 15-85) judged whether presented words were "being used." The mouse-tracking software (MouseTracker) recorded mouse trajectories during responses, providing measures of response time and uncertainty. The stimuli consisted of 24 neologisms (nouns only) from the 1990s and 2010s, divided into two groups based on origin (English-borrowed vs. German-formed compounds). Pseudo-neologisms were also included to allow for rejection responses. The experimental design was a 2x3 factorial design, crossing 'origin' (English vs. German) and 'time/status' (1990s, 2010s, Pseudo). Data processing included exclusion of trials with initiation times >1 second and log-transformed reaction times outside the mean ± three standard deviations. Dependent variables included acceptance rate (binary), log-transformed reaction time, number of x-axis flips (complexity), maximum absolute deviation (MAD), and average deviation (AD) from the optimal trajectory. Mixed-effects regression models (lme4 R package) were used, incorporating random intercepts for participants and items, and random slopes for trial position. Word length and log-transformed corpus frequency (DeReKo corpus) were included as covariates.

The analysis revealed several key findings. Regarding acceptance rates, the three-way interaction between time, origin, and age group was significant. English neologisms showed higher acceptance rates overall, particularly among younger participants (born after 1980), contradicting the initial hypothesis. Older participants showed a slight preference for older (1990s) English neologisms. Reaction times, considering only accepted words, showed faster responses for English neologisms in younger participants. Mouse trajectory measures (flips, MAD, AD) indicated higher uncertainty for German neologisms among younger participants. Specifically: * **Acceptance Rates:** German neologisms had lower acceptance probabilities, especially for younger participants. The effect was slightly less pronounced for older neologisms. * **Reaction Times:** Younger participants responded faster to accepted English neologisms. No clear time effect was observed. * **Mouse Trajectory Measures:** Younger participants showed more uncertainty (higher flips, MAD, and AD) when accepting German neologisms compared to English ones. This age effect was not observed for older participants. These findings directly contradict the initial hypotheses based on the corpus study.

The results contradict the hypotheses based on the corpus study, which suggested slower integration of English-borrowed neologisms. Several explanations are explored. Anecdotal evidence from participant debriefing suggests that younger speakers were more lenient in accepting English neologisms, possibly due to familiarity or a "benefit of the doubt." Another potential explanation involves the distribution of stimulus words across different subcorpora within the DeReKo corpus, which was not considered initially. While the study controlled for overall frequency, the dynamic frequency progressions of neologisms across the years was not fully captured. Frequency progression analysis reveals differences between English and German neologisms. Finally, the study questions the assumptions from the previous corpus study: that flagging extent directly reflects community acceptance and that lower integration leads to higher uncertainty in behavioral experiments. The observed differences might result from different cognitive processes triggered by native versus borrowed neologisms.

The study reveals a significant age effect in the acceptance of English-borrowed versus native German neologisms. Millennials demonstrate greater confidence in accepting English-borrowed words. Future research should explore the role of subjective frequencies, language experience, English proficiency, and contextual factors in neologism integration. The study highlights the need to consider multiple methodologies (corpus analysis and psycholinguistic experiments) to understand language change. Examining neologism acceptance within sentence contexts is another important avenue for future investigation.

The study's limitations include reliance on self-reported data during debriefing, the use of isolated words as stimuli (lacking contextual information), and the absence of English proficiency measures for the participants. The relatively small sample size and slight age imbalance might also affect generalizability. The specific neologisms chosen might not represent the full range of newly coined words in German.