Czasopismo
Tytuł artykułu
Autorzy
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
Abstrakty
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore and analyze neologisms in English, German, French, Spanish and Polish that arise in the context of technological advancements, especially in the field of emerging sexual technologies; and to check their codification in dictionaries. Moroever, the research aims to verify whether students know the terms "digisexuality", "technosexuality" and "robosexuality"and understand the differences between them.
Design/methodology/approach: This article comprises two main sections: the first section conducts a linguistic analysis of three neologisms related to sex robotics in multiple languages to explore their structure, spelling variations, and codification. The second section presents the results of a survey conducted among 134 students aged 20-24, aiming to assess their awareness and opinions on emerging sexual technologies and their ability to distinguish between similar terms.
Findings: The article examines three blend neologisms, digisexuality, technosexuality, and robosexuality, in five languages, formed by combining prefixes with "sexuality". While these terms lack codification in dictionaries, their adjective forms are defined in English due to frequent usage. The survey of 134 students aged 20-24 revealed their unfamiliarity with these concepts and difficulty in distinguishing them, along with gender-related disparities in comfort levels when discussing sex robots.
Practical implications: These findings emphasize the need for educational initiatives and awareness campaigns to familiarize individuals, particularly young adults, with these evolving concepts.
Social implications: The evolving nature of these neologisms and their potential impact on human experiences and relationships highlight the need for continued research in the fields of communication, technology, and human sexuality.
Originality/value: The terms "digisexuality", "technosexuality" and "robosexuality" were not analysed and compared in five languages including their codification. Moreover, the study depicts the students' awareness and understanding of those concepts and differences between them.(original abstract)
Design/methodology/approach: This article comprises two main sections: the first section conducts a linguistic analysis of three neologisms related to sex robotics in multiple languages to explore their structure, spelling variations, and codification. The second section presents the results of a survey conducted among 134 students aged 20-24, aiming to assess their awareness and opinions on emerging sexual technologies and their ability to distinguish between similar terms.
Findings: The article examines three blend neologisms, digisexuality, technosexuality, and robosexuality, in five languages, formed by combining prefixes with "sexuality". While these terms lack codification in dictionaries, their adjective forms are defined in English due to frequent usage. The survey of 134 students aged 20-24 revealed their unfamiliarity with these concepts and difficulty in distinguishing them, along with gender-related disparities in comfort levels when discussing sex robots.
Practical implications: These findings emphasize the need for educational initiatives and awareness campaigns to familiarize individuals, particularly young adults, with these evolving concepts.
Social implications: The evolving nature of these neologisms and their potential impact on human experiences and relationships highlight the need for continued research in the fields of communication, technology, and human sexuality.
Originality/value: The terms "digisexuality", "technosexuality" and "robosexuality" were not analysed and compared in five languages including their codification. Moreover, the study depicts the students' awareness and understanding of those concepts and differences between them.(original abstract)
Rocznik
Strony
553--572
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
autor
- Silesian University of Technology, Poland
autor
- Silesian University of Technology
autor
- Technical University of Munich
Bibliografia
- 1. Algeo, J. (2014). Fifty Years Among the New Words: A Dictionary of Neologisms 1941- 1991. Cambridge University Press.
- 2. Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press.
- 3. Bowker, L., Pearson, J. (2002). Working With Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. Cambridge.
- 4. Brownell, S.E., Price, J.V. Steinman, L. (2013). Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, vol. 12, no. 1.
- 5. Cabré, M.T. (1999). Terminology: Theory, Methods and Application. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
- 6. Coeckelbergh, M. (2017). Language and technology: maps, bridges, and pathways. AI & Society, vol. 32, pp. 175-189.
- 7. Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the internet. Cambridge University Press.
- 8. Daulton, F.E. (2011). Lexical borrowing and the global web of words. The Ryukoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 25-31.
- 9. Estevez Almenzar, M., Fernández Llorca, D., Gómez, E., Martínez Plumed, F. (2022). Glossary of human-centred artificial intelligence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.2760/860665, JRC129614.
- 10. Fang, Y.-Q. (2021). A Glimpse at the Study of English Neologism. Business Prospects, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 78-84.
- 11. Hoffmann, L. (1985). Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache: Eine Einführung. Tübingen.
- 12. Holmes, J., Wilson, N. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 43-52.
- 13. ISO 8373:2021(en), Robotics - Vocabulary,: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171690912
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.