Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Www.atilf.fr How to go about measuring the degree of integration of a loanword? A methodological investigation based on Romance borrowings from Russian.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Www.atilf.fr How to go about measuring the degree of integration of a loanword? A methodological investigation based on Romance borrowings from Russian."— 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

2 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

3 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Documentary basis Monography on Russian loanwords in Romance languages (Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, Portughese) (Buchi 2010) CNRS Éditions 718 pages

4 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Rapid overview 445 entries Romanian: 330 Italian: 186 French: 225 Catalan: 76 Spanish: 115 Portuguese: 110

5 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Analysis grid (1/2) Spanish: 25% < French

6 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Analysis grid (2/2) ‘Suffix graft’ /+ Russian/ lost

7 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Example: entry samovar (1/2)

8 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Example: entry samovar (2/2) Borrowings from Russian in English and in German

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Systematic study of adaptation processes Listing of secondary coinages (“derussianisms”) Etymologies: 69 previously unpublished etymologies Extensive etymological refereeing Tens of first etymologizing attempts Synthesis: Entry by entry Final synthesis of all 445 entries

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

11 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

12 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Etymological classes (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 Broader research context

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

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

15 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Improving the definition of borrowing Haugen 1950: 212: “[...] the attempted reproduction in one language of patterns previously found in another” 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 […])” 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.”

16 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

18 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française тройка ( TROJKA ) 3 ‘triumvirate’ тройка ( TROJKA ) 1 ‘number three’ тройка (trojka) 1 NOMINATIVE SINGULAR ‘number three’ тройки (trojki) 1 NOMINATIVE PLURAL ‘number three’ тройке (trojke) 1 DATIVE SINGULAR ‘number three’ тройки (trojki) 1 GENITIVE SINGULAR ‘number three’ etc. Word- forms Lexemes тройка ( TROJKA ) 2 ‘carriage drawn by three horses’ Vocable тройка ( TROJKA ) Explanatory and combinatorial lexicology and etymology

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

21 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

22 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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) Example: Spanish /e/ ≠ French /e/ (where /e/ vs. / ɛ /) 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)

23 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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 “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: ) / ɨ / → /i/

24 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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) (2) kazaveck n. (1849), kazaweck (1850), casaweck f. (1850), kazawek (1852) ; casaweck m. (1956), kasaweck (1983) Borrowed by Walloon and Francoprovençal Borrowed by Walloon, Berrichon, Angevin, Franc- comptois, Francoprovençal, Occitan and Gascon Cf. bec ‘beak’, sec ‘dry’, évêque ‘bishop’ > Berry casaveste m. (with influence of French veste n.f. ‘jacket’) Cf. Buchi 2006c

25 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

26 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Suffix adaptation Russian яровизация (jarovizacija) n.f. > 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Suffix reanalysis Russian фактология (faktologija) n.f. ‘accumulation of facts’ > Rom. factologie Captured by the Romanian collective suffix -íe → change of stress (Buchi 2003: 312, 313) Russian бутафория (butaforija) n.f. ‘means of imitation, set of props (theatre)’ > Rom. butaforie

28 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Phonological mirage 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 French is too narrow a frame!

29 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Graphic morphological adaptation Russ. бояре (bojare) n.m.pl., plural of боярin (bojarin) > Fr. Bayares n.m.pl. (after 1450), Boyar sg. (1575), Boyare (1606), boiares pl. (1637), boïar sg. (since 1692) > Fr. boyart (1571–1600), boyard (since 1727), boïard (1759–1912), bojard (1803) Captured by the French suffix -ard (< * HARD -) Derivatives: boyarde n.f., boyardise n.f. But: бояр LEXICAL MORPHEME е INFLECTIONAL MORPHEME

30 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Semantic narrowing? Lexemes Vocables тройка ( TROJKA ) 2 ‘carriage drawn by three horses’ тройка ( TROJKA ) 3 ‘triumvirate’ тройка ( TROJKA ) 1 ‘number three’ Russ. тройка ( TROJKA ) Vocables are not borrowed, lexemes are! TROÏKA 1 ‘Russian carriage drawn by three horses’ TROÏKA 2 ‘Russian triumvirate’ Fr. TROÏKA

31 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

32 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Semantic narrowing of a specific kind EtymaBorrowings Russ. бабушка (babuška) n.f. ‘grandmother’ > It. Fr. Cat. Sp. Port. ‘Russian grandmother’ Russ. космо- навт (kosmo- navt) n.m. ‘astronaut’ > Rom. It. Fr. Cat. Sp. Port. ‘Russian astronaut’ Russ. самиздат (samizdat) n.m. ‘clandestine self-edition’ > Rom. It. Fr. Cat. Sp. Port. ‘Russian clandestine self-edition’ Russ. тарантас (tarantas) n.m. ‘rustic carriage’ > Rom. It. (< Fr.) Fr. Sp. (< Fr.) Port. (< Fr.) ‘Russian rustic carriage’ Facilita- tes lexical inte- gration (seman-tic field) Instan- taneous!

33 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

34 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Symbolic example: muzhik ‘Russian peasant’ /+poor/ /+rude/ Other vocables

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

37 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

38 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Romanian ↔ French and Italian Russ. закуска (za- kuska) n.f. ‘snack; appetizer’ (since 17 th 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

40 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Fate of Russian neuter Russ. народничество (narodničestvo) n.n. > It. narodnicestvo, Fr. narodnitchestvo n.m. Russ. слово (slovo) n.n. > Fr. Sp. slovo n.m. Russ. ведро (vedro) n.n. > It. Fr. vedro n.m. Russ. земство (zemstvo) n.n. > Rom. zemstvă n.f. Fr. It. (< Fr.) Cat. Sp. Port. zemstvo n.m.  Neutres in /-o/ (Lombard & Gâdei 1981: N II 44-45) [-]: oral vs. written channel! Russ. самбо (sambo) n.n. > Rom. sambo n.n. ↔ It. Fr. Sp. Port. sambo n.m.

41 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

42 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Fr. bolchevik Stage 1: Bolchevik n.m.sg. (1917) Bolcheviki n.m.pl. (1918) Stage 2: bolchevikis n.m.pl. (1918) Stage 3: bolcheviks n.m.pl. (1918) Russian inflection Russian and French inflection French inflection

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

44 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Outline 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?

45 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française 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 Analyse et Traitement Informatique de la Langue Française Let’s finish with a pun Calvet 1988: 42 You wouldn’t suffer from a bad case of perestroika? Hey, being as you are of the glasnost kind... Hvála lépa!


Download ppt "Www.atilf.fr How to go about measuring the degree of integration of a loanword? A methodological investigation based on Romance borrowings from Russian."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google