1 / 47

Measuring Degree of Integration of Loanwords: Russian Romance Borrowings

This methodological investigation examines the degree of integration of loanwords from Russian in Romance languages. It explores phonological, morphological, semantic, and categorical integration, as well as the synthesis of borrowed lexemes. The study provides an analysis grid and presents research results on Russian loanwords in Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, and Portuguese.

keysb
Télécharger la présentation

Measuring Degree of Integration of Loanwords: Russian Romance Borrowings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to go about measuring the degree of integration of a loanword?A methodological investigation based on Romance borrowings from Russian May 30 2011 eva.buchi@atilf.fr

  2. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  3. Monography on Russian loanwords in Romance languages (Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, Portughese) (Buchi 2010) Documentary basis CNRS Éditions 718 pages

  4. Rapid overview 445 entries Romanian: 330 Italian: 186 French: 225 Catalan: 76 Spanish: 115 Portuguese: 110

  5. Analysis grid (1/2) Spanish: 25% < French

  6. Analysis grid (2/2) ‘Suffix graft’ /+ Russian/ lost

  7. Example: entry samovar (1/2)

  8. Example: entry samovar (2/2) Borrowings from Russian in English and in German

  9. Major research results • Datings: • 365 antidatings • 22 backdatings • Tens of first dating attempts • Etymologies: • 69 previously unpublished etymologies • Extensive etymological refereeing • Tens of first etymologizing attempts • Integration: • Systematic study of adaptation processes • Listing of secondary coinages (“derussianisms”) • Synthesis: • Entry by entry • Final synthesis of all 445 entries

  10. Some related work Buchi 2002: Borrowings from Russian before 1917 in Romanian vs. in Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese Buchi 2003: Borrowings from Russian after 1917 (“sovietisms”) in Romanian vs. in Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese Buchi 2006a: Morphologic analysis of borrowings from Slavic in Romanian Buchi 2006b: Borrowings from Slavic languages in Romance languages Buchi 2006c: Etymological case study (French cazavec‘camisole’)

  11. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  12. Etymological classes Broader research context (1) Inherited lexicon = normally transmitted lexical units (from the common ancestor of the language family) (2) Borrowings (loanwords) = lexicals units which were taken from another language (3) Internal creations = new lexical units constructed from existing materials in the same language

  13. Lexicographic marking (and modeling!) Example: Oxford English Dictionary (1) Inherited lexicon “:–”(‘normal development of’) (2) Borrowings (loanwords) “a.”(‘adopted from’)or“ad.”(‘adapted from’) I am vigorously against this distinction! (3) Internal creations Need for studies on degrees of adaptation! “f.”(‘formed on’)

  14. Topicality, timelessness? Vātsyāyana’s Kama Sutra from the third century 64 auxiliary arts: 1. Singing 2. Music 3. Dancing 4. Painting […] 54. Etymology 55. Lexicography

  15. Improving the definition of borrowing • Haugen 1950: 212: • “[...] the attempted reproduction in one language of patterns previously found in another” • Trask 2000 s.v. borrowing: • “[...] the transfer of a word from one language into a second language, as a result of some kind of contact [...] between speakers of the two.” • Neveu 2004 s.v. emprunt : • “[...] the process according to which a language acquires a lexical unit from the lexicon of another language. The time frame of this process is subject to great variation and is determined […] by the more or less rapid codifying of a discourse act in the language. Borrowing has a very broad meaning in lexicology. It covers foreignisms (the first stage of the borrowing process, which corresponds to the usage of a word from another language in order to express a reality foreign to the culture of the borrowing language […])”

  16. Borrowing as a special case of lexicalization “Diachronic change, conceived as a small-step spread across the speech community” (Beeching & Waltereit 2009: 198) (1) One or several isolated token(s)of a lexical unit appearing within a particular diasystemic variety (characteristic of a region, a socioeconomic cercle, etc.) (2) Stabilizing of this lexical unit within this variety of the diasystem (3) Adoption of this lexical unit by the speech community as a whole Accompanied concomitantly by progressive fading of the marks of linguistic alterity?

  17. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  18. Wordform, lexeme, vocable Framework of explanatory and combinatorial lexicology(Polguère 2008) (1) Wordform‘linguistic sign characterized by functional autonomy and internal cohesion’ (2) Lexeme‘conception of a linguistic sign whose meaning can be expressed by a set of wordforms distinguished only by inflection’ (3) Vocable‘grouping of lexemes determined by a common signifier and a clear semantic link between themselves’

  19. Explanatory and combinatorial lexicology and etymology тройка (trojka)1NOMINATIVESINGULAR ‘number three’ тройка (TROJKA) тройки (trojki)1NOMINATIVEPLURAL ‘number three’ Word-forms тройка (TROJKA)1 ‘number three’ тройки (trojki)1GENITIVESINGULAR ‘number three’ тройке (trojke)1DATIVESINGULAR ‘number three’ тройка (TROJKA)2 ‘carriage drawn by three horses’ etc. тройка (TROJKA)3 ‘triumvirate’ Lexemes Vocable

  20. Implication for etymology We cannot satisfy ourselves with establishing etymologies for vocables: each lexeme of a given vocable has to be etymologized Etymological unit = lexeme, not vocable! Borrowings: Most of the time only one lexeme of a vocable is borrowed, the rest of them representing internal creations No semantic narrowing in the borrowing process!

  21. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  22. Phonological transfer • ‘In the case of simple (non-compound) lexical elements, the most common type of interference is the outright transfer of the phonemic sequence from one language to another.’ • (Weinreich 1953: 47) • Oversimplification: • ‘In reality, the situation is of course more complicated, as both words are embedded in different phonological […] structures in their respective languages’ • (Buchi 2006b: 74) • Example: • Spanish /e/ ≠ French /e/ (where /e/ vs. /ɛ/)

  23. Unknown phonemes in the borrowing language • “Fundamentally, the problem is whether the borrowed S‑morpheme is integrated into the phonic pattern of P, or whether it is rendered in terms of original S-sounds” (Weinreich 1953 : 26) • Russian полынья (polyn’ja) > Italian polinia /ɨ/ → /i/ • “Yet, we know very well that till quite recent times, there were no oral contacts on a great scale between Spanish speaking people on the one hand and French or English speaking people on the other. In more than one semantic field, in particular in the more abstract ones, language contact occurred mostly through written channel. Nowadays, television, movies and trips changed that, but let’s not forget that in the past ‘borrowings’ were trans-mitted without the speakers knowing how more or less well imitated foreign words were pronounced in the donor language.” • (Thibault 2009: 135-136)

  24. Better example: unusual ending Russian кацавейка (kacavejka) n.f. ‘short jacket lined with fur’ > French (1)casavéika n. (1844), kasaweïka f. (1849), casaweika n. (1850) ; casaweïka m. (1849) Borrowedby Walloon and Francoprovençal (2)kazaveck n. (1849), kazaweck (1850), casaweck f. (1850), kazawek (1852) ; casaweck m. (1956), kasaweck (1983) Cf. Buchi 2006c Cf. bec ‘beak’, sec ‘dry’, évêque ‘bishop’ Borrowedby Walloon, Berrichon, Angevin, Franc-comptois, Francoprovençal, Occitan and Gascon > Berry casaveste m. (with influence of French veste n.f. ‘jacket’)

  25. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  26. Russian яровизация (jarovizacija) n.f. Suffix adaptation > Rom. iarovizaţie n.f., It. iarovizzazione (< Engl.), Fr. jarovisation, port. iarovização (< Engl.) • Systematic, cf. for instance • Russian радиофикация (radiofikacija) n.f. • > Rom. radioficaţie n.f. • Nota bene: suffix = linguistic sign • → signifier and signified ! • Close to loan translation (only suffix)

  27. Suffix reanalysis • Russian бутафория (butaforija) n.f. ‘means of imitation, set of props (theatre)’ • > Rom. butaforie Russian фактология (faktologija) n.f. ‘accumulation of facts’ > Rom. factologie Captured by the Romanian collective suffix -íe → change of stress (Buchi 2003: 312, 313)

  28. Rom. bolşevism Rom. menşevism Rom. maximalism It. bolscevismo It. menscevismo It. massimalismo Fr. bolchevisme Fr. menchevisme Fr. maximalisme Cat. bolxevisme Cat. menxevisme Cat. maximalisme Sp. bolchevismo Sp. menchevismo Sp. maximalismo Port. bolchevismo Port. menchevismo Port. maximalismo Phonological mirage French is too narrow a frame!

  29. Russ. бояре (bojare) n.m.pl., plural of боярin (bojarin) Graphic morphological adaptation > Fr. Bayares n.m.pl. (after 1450), Boyar sg. (1575), Boyare (1606), boiares pl. (1637), boïarsg. (since 1692) > Fr. boyart (1571–1600), boyard (since 1727), boïard (1759–1912), bojard (1803) Captured by the French suffix -ard(< *HARD-) But: боярLEXICAL MORPHEMEеINFLECTIONALMORPHEME Derivatives: boyarde n.f., boyardise n.f.

  30. Semantic narrowing? Vocables Lexemes Russ. тройка (TROJKA) Fr. TROÏKA тройка (TROJKA)1 ‘number three’ тройка (TROJKA)2 ‘carriage drawn by three horses’ TROÏKA1 ‘Russian carriage drawn by three horses’ тройка (TROJKA)3 ‘triumvirate’ TROÏKA2 ‘Russian triumvirate’ Vocables are not borrowed, lexemes are!

  31. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  32. Semantic narrowing of a specific kind Instan-taneous! Facilita-tes lexical inte-gration (seman-tic field)

  33. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  34. Three stages of semantic integration (1) French troïka n.f. ‘three individuals running a Russian institution’ (since 1921 [Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev]) (2)French troïka n.f. ‘three individuals running any institution’ (since 1928) (3) French troïka n.f. ‘set of three (Russian) things’ (2000)

  35. Symbolic example: muzhik ‘Russian peasant’ /+poor/ /+rude/ Other vocables

  36. Russ. чека (čeka) n.f. ‘political police [1917–1922]’ Local entities Historical term > Rom. It. Fr. Cat. Sp. Port. ‘Soviet political police’ Not lexicalized > Cat. txeca, Sp. checa ‘during the Spanish civil war [1936–1939], detention and torture center’ Neutral lexeme

  37. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  38. Romanian ↔ French and Italian Russ. закуска (za- kuska) n.f. ‘snack; appetizer’ (since 17th c. [закуски pl.]) Rom. zacuscă n.f. ‘breakfast’ (since 1793); ‘snack’ (since before 1826); ‘appetizer’ (since 1834/1849); ‘type of canned food’ (since 1969) Fr. zakouski n.f.pl. ‘Russian appetizers’ (since 1843 [zacusca sg.]) It. zacusca n.f. ‘Russian appetizer’ (since 1836) Loss of semantic feature /+Russian/

  39. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  40. Fate of Russian neuter • Russ. ведро(vedro) n.n. > It. Fr. vedron.m. • Russ. народничество(narodničestvo) n.n. • > It. narodnicestvo, Fr. narodnitchestvon.m. • Russ. самбо(sambo) n.n. > Rom. sambon.n. • ↔ It. Fr. Sp. Port. sambon.m. • Neutres in /-o/ (Lombard & Gâdei 1981: N II 44-45) • Russ. слово(slovo) n.n. > Fr. Sp. slovon.m. • Russ. земство(zemstvo) n.n. > Rom. zemstvăn.f. • Fr. It. (< Fr.) Cat. Sp. Port. zemstvon.m. <o> [-Ʌ]: oral vs. written channel!

  41. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  42. Stage 1: Bolchevik n.m.sg. (1917) Bolcheviki n.m.pl. (1918) Fr. bolchevik Russian inflection Stage 2: bolchevikis n.m.pl. (1918) Russian and French inflection Stage 3: bolcheviks n.m.pl. (1918) French inflection

  43. Russ. гусли (gusli) n.pl. (nom./acc.) ‘kind of multi-string plucked instrument’ Gen.гусель (gusel') (today гуслей [guslej]) Fate of pluralia tantum > Fr. gusli n.f.sg. (1772–1839), gousli (since 1780) gouslim. (1803–1901), gusli (since 1872) > Fr. gussel n.sg. (1839 ; 1872) Integration in morphologic patterns of French: gouslisg. vs. gouslis pl.

  44. 1. Introduction 1.1. Research context 1.2. Objectives 1.3. Terminology 2. Signifier 2.1. Phonological integration 2.2. Morphological integration 3. Signified 3.1. Addition of the semantic feature /+Russian/ 3.2. Coinage of new lexemes 3.3. Loss of borrowed lexeme 4. Word class 4.1. Categorical integration 4.2. Inflectional integration 5. Synthesis : how to go about measuring integration? Outline

  45. Hypothesis The degree of integration of a loanword depends on the thoroughness of the adaptations concerning its signifier, its signified and its syntactic properties it underwent But not every loanword has the same need for integration: (1) Phonetic features of the etymon more or less compatible with the phonetic properties of the borrowing language (2) Semanteme of the etymon more or less “exotic” (3) Morphosyntactic features of the etymon more or less compatible with morphosyntax of the borrowing language → My approach is only partially appropriate! → Distinction active/passive integration?

  46. Methodological demand Durkin 2009: 163: “Ideally, etymologies of borrowed items will account for such factors, explaining not only the initial adoption of a word, but its subsequent spread within the lexical system.” And precise accounting for adaptation phenomena!

  47. Let’s finish with a pun You wouldn’t suffer from a bad case of perestroika? Hey, being as you are of the glasnost kind... Calvet 1988: 42 Hvála lépa!

More Related