No abstract

This research focuses on the function of neologisms and casts serious doubts on the applicability of the traditional dichotomy 'denominative neologisms' and 'stylistic neologisms'. Although this classification is widely mentioned in the literature on neology, both from a theoretical and applied perspective it shows some limitations that call into question that they really work as opposing categories (Llopart-Saumell, 2016). The starting point of this study is a linguistic survey based on the perception of the speakers: participants were asked to classify a set of neologisms in Catalan (in context) in denominative, stylistic or with both values (denominative and stylistic). Then, we study the degree of coincidence of the results obtained and, finally, we contrast them with sociolinguistic (frequency and stability of use), discursive (context and discursive position) and linguistic data (morpho-semantic) of each of the neologisms. The results point out that those neologisms considered stylistic have a higher degree of coincidence than those considered denominative, because they share some features, especially linguistic and discursive, that seem to make them easier to be identified as such. In this sense, those neologisms classified as denominative show a lower degree of coincidence and the number of units classified with both values increases. Regarding the different aspects contrasted with the results, we can observe that the different criteria do no not work autonomously, but they complement each other.

La línea de investigación sobre innovación léxica y género iniciada por Cañete-González en 2016 arrojó diferencias cuantitativas y cualitativas entre mujeres y hombres en relación con el uso de neologismos: los hombres usan más unidades neológicas, y en sus innovaciones léxicas se observa una función más expresiva. En este trabajo se profundiza precisamente en el estudio de la función comunicativa de los neologismos de ambos géneros con el fin de observar si cuantitativamente mujeres y hombres usan neologismos con finalidades distintas. Para ello, se aplicaron los seis criterios de análisis establecidos por Llopart-Saumell (2016) basados en diferentes aspectos lingüísticos y extralingüísticos del neologismo a un corpus de 118 unidades neológicas extraídas de textos periodísticos escritos por mujeres y hombres. Los resultados mostraron un uso similar de neologismos denominativos por parte de ambos géneros y un mayor uso de neologismos estilísticos por parte de los hombres.