Globally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English Vocabulary ...

Globally Speaking

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS SERIESSeries Editor: Professor John Edwards,St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

Other Books in the SeriesMotivation in Language Planning and Language Policy

Dennis AgerMultilingualism in Spain

M. Teresa Turell (ed.)A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism

Philip Herdina and Ulrike JessnerBeyond Boundaries: Language and Identity in Contemporary Europe

Paul Gubbins and Mike Holt (eds)Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles

Jean-Marc Dewaele, Alex Housen and Li Wei (eds)Ideology and Image: Britain and Language

Dennis AgerWhere East Looks West: Success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast

Dennis KurzonEnglish in Africa: After the Cold War

Alamin M. MazruiPoliteness in Europe

Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart (eds)Language in Jewish Society: Towards a New Understanding

John MyhillMaintaining a Minority Language

John Gibbons and Elizabeth RamirezUrban Multilingualism in Europe

Guus Extra and Kutlay Yagmur (eds)Cultural and Linguistic Policy Abroad: The Italian Experience

Mariella Totaro-GenevoisLanguage Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Challenges

Herman M. BatiboDirections in Applied Linguistics

Paul Bruthiaux, Dwight Atkinson, William G. Eggington, William Grabe andVaidehi Ramanathan (eds)

Language Diversity in the Pacific: Endangerment and SurvivalDenis Cunningham, D.E. Ingram and Kenneth Sumbuk (eds)

Multilingualism in European Bilingual Contexts: Language Use and AttitudesDavid Lasagabaster and Ángel Huguet (eds)

Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in TokyoPeter Backhaus

The Defence of French: A Language in Crisis?Robin Adamson

Minority Language Media: Concepts, Critiques and Case StudiesMike Cormack and Niamh Hourigan

The Sociolinguistics of Development in AfricaPaulin G. Djité

For more details of these or any other of our publications, please contact:Multilingual Matters, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall,Victoria Road, Clevedon, BS21 7HH, Englandhttp://www.multilingual-matters.com

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS 140Series Editor: John Edwards

Globally SpeakingMotives for Adopting EnglishVocabulary in Other Languages

Edited by

Judith Rosenhouse and Rotem Kowner

MULTILINGUAL MATTERSClevedon • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataGlobally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English Vocabulary in Other LanguagesEdited by Judith Rosenhouse and Rotem Kowner.Multilingual Matters: 140Includes bibliographical references and index.1. English language–Influence on foreign languages. 2. Language andlanguages–Foreign elements. 3. English language–Globalization. I. Rosenhouse, J.II. Kowner, Rotem.PE1073.G563 2008420.9–dc22 2007040066

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN-13: 978-1-84769-051-7 (hbk)

Multilingual MattersUK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon BS21 7HH.USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA.Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada.

Copyright © 2008 Judith Rosenhouse, Rotem Kowner and the authors of individualchapters.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by anymeans without permission in writing from the publisher.

The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers thatare natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown insustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further supportour policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custodycertification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where fullcertification has been granted to the printer concerned.

Typeset by Datapage International Ltd.Printed and bound in Great Britain by the Cromwell Press Ltd.

ContentsList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiContributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Hegemony of English and Determinants of Borrowing

from Its Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Rotem Kowner and Judith Rosenhouse

2 Icelandic: Phonosemantic Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Yair Sapir and Ghil‘ad Zuckermann

3 French: Tradition versus Innovation as Reflected inEnglish Borrowings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Miriam Ben-Rafael

4 Dutch: Is It Threatened by English?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Herman J. De Vries Jr.

5 Hungarian: Trends and Determinants of English Borrowingin a Market Economy Newcomer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Zsuzsanna Gombos-Sziklaine and Zoltan Sturcz withJudith Rosenhouse and Rotem Kowner

6 Russian: From Socialist Realism to Reality Show . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Maria Yelenevskaya

7 Hebrew: Borrowing Ideology and Pragmatic Aspects ina Modern(ised) Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Judith Rosenhouse and Haya Fisherman

8 Colloquial Arabic (in Israel): The Case of English LoanWords in a Minority Language with Diglossia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145Judith Rosenhouse

9 Amharic: Political and Social Effects onEnglish Loan Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164Anbessa Teferra

10 Farsi: The Modernisation Process and the Adventof English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187Soli Shahvar

11 Indian Languages: Hidden English in Texts and Society . . . . . . 208Dennis Kurzon

v

12 Chinese in Taiwan: Cooking a Linguistic Chop Suey andEmbracing English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227Sufen Sophia Lai

13 Japanese: The Dialectic Relationships Between ‘Westerness’and ‘Japaneseness’ as Reflected in English Loan Words. . . . . . . 250Rotem Kowner and Michal Daliot-Bul

14 Conclusion: Features of Borrowing from English in12 Languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276Judith Rosenhouse and Rotem Kowner

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

vi Globally Speaking

List of Figures

2.1 Phonosemantic matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282.2 Phonosemantic matching of AIDS in Icelandic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.3 Artichoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.4 Phonosemantic matching of AIDS in Icelandic, Modern

Standard Mandarin and Hebrew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.5 Phonosemantic matching of TECHNICAL in Icelandic,

Arabic and Israeli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383.1 Francophone borrowings � a sample out of

360 occurrences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587.1 Hebrew adjectives with various frequencies of occurrence

(five times and higher) (back-translated into English) . . . . . . . 1307.2 List of borrowings from the entertainment and

communication domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1317.3 List of borrowings from other high-frequency domains . . . . . 1327.4 Summary of our sample with examples from English. . . . . . . 1347.5 Total number of types of English loan words in Hebrew

in the sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1377.6 Classification of nouns, adjectives, verbs and other

word types borrowed from English in the sample . . . . . . . . . 1377.7 Patterns of adjectives and their distribution in Study 1 . . . . . . 1388.1 Classes of words borrowed from English into

colloquial Arabic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1528.2 Examples of borrowed words from English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15314.1 The 12 case studies and their propensity for

borrowing English vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27914.2 Propensity for borrowing English vocabulary �

ranking order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28514.3 Main factors for borrowing English vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . 29014.4 Motives, determinants and outcomes of English

loan-word integration in borrowing languages . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

vii

Contributors

Miriam Ben-Rafael is an applied linguist and teacher of French as aforeign language. Her doctoral thesis focused on the language of French-speaking immigrants in Israel in contact with Hebrew, and in a series ofpublications she has coined and publicised the term of ‘Franbreu’. Inrecent years, she has also turned to the investigation of the contemporaryinfluence of English in French. She is now involved in a comprehensivestudy of the impact of globalisation on the language of French-speakingyouth.

Michal Daliot-Bul is a lecturer in Japanese studies at the University ofHaifa, Israel and a translator. Her research interests include the deepcultural meanings and functions of play, urban culture, cross-culturalflows and the production of intra- and intercultural imaginaries. Inaddition to a number of published and forthcoming articles, she iscurrently revising for publication her doctoral thesis entitled ‘Licensed toPlay � Play and Playfulness in the Japanese Culture’.

Herman J. De Vries Jr. is Associate Professor of Germanic Languages atCalvin College, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, where he teaches the Dutch andGerman languages and literature. Since 1999 he has held the college’sQueen Juliana Chair of the Language and Culture of the Netherlands.His current research examines the question of language within thediscussion on national identity in the Netherlands.

Haya Fisherman is a lecturer in Hebrew Language at the University ofHaifa and the Gordon College of Education, Haifa, Israel, and specialisesin the study of Contemporary Hebrew and sociolinguistics. She hasstudied the status of Hebrew in the Romanian Jewish community, officiallanguages in Israel, language maintenance in Israel, attitudes to the useof foreign words in Hebrew, and Yiddish in Israel. She also contributes toHebrew teaching methodology in high schools in various frameworks ofthe Ministry of Education.

ix

Zsuzsanna Gombos-Sziklaine is Associate Professor at the BudapestUniversity of Technology and Economics. She specialises in cross-cultural communication and has been involved in the development ofcultural studies programmes for international students. Her major fieldsof research and training are Language for Specific (Engineering andBusiness) Purposes, methodology of LSP training and fundamentals ofLSP programmes for different target groups.

Rotem Kowner is Professor of Japanese history and culture at theUniversity of Haifa, Israel and specialising in Japan’s modernisation,attitudes to the Other, and Japanese language. His recent works includeHistorical Dictionary of the Russo-Japanese War, and the edited volume TheImpact of the Russo-Japanese War. He is currently working on a book on therole of racial and bodily images in shaping Meiji Japan, and on acomprehensive method for teaching the Japanese writing system toforeigners.

Dennis Kurzon is Professor of English linguistics at the University ofHaifa, Israel, and specialises in pragmatics, legal language, adpositionsand the sociology of language in India. His recent works include WhereEast Looks West: Success in English in Goa and on the Konkan Coast (2003),Discourse of Silence (1998) and the edited volume Prepositions in theirSyntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context (2002). In the field of Indianlinguistics, he is currently working on a book on writing systems andreligion in Bengal.

Sufen Sophia Lai is Associate Professor of English at Grand Valley StateUniversity, MI, USA, specialising in comparative literary studies. Herresearch areas include the history of the afterlife, gender discourse,woman warriors and cross-dressing themes in traditional China. Herrecent works include a literary biography of Guo Pu (276�324) collectedin Classical Chinese Writers: Pre-Tang Era. Currently she is working on abook on the historical realities and representations of the ‘Kingdoms ofWomen’ in China.

Judith Rosenhouse, Professor of Arabic linguistics at the Department ofHumanities and Arts, the Technion I.I.T, has since her retirement joinedSwantech � Sound Waves Analysis and Technologies Ltd. She haspublished numerous books and papers in many areas of Arabic andHebrew linguistics, phonetics, bilingualism and sociolinguistics, amongthem: The Bedouin Arabic Dialects (1984), Colloquial Arabic for Medical

x Globally Speaking

Personnel (1989), Trilingual Hebrew-Literary Arabic-Colloquial Arabic Dic-tionary (2001) and Trilingual Literary Arabic-Hebrew-Colloquial ArabicDictionary (2004).

Yair Sapir is affiliated with the Centre of Multiethnic Research atUppsala University, Sweden. His doctoral thesis is on Modern Icelandicword formation and he has taught Grammar and Phonetics, Icelandic,Danish and Hebrew to beginners and intermediate students at UppsalaUniversity. Currently he researches Elfdalian, a local minority languagespoken in the north of the Dalarna region in Sweden.

Soli Shahvar is lecturer of Iranian history and Director of the Ezri Centerfor Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Haifa, Israel. He isspecializing in a number of fields related to the modern history of theMiddle East, in general, and Iran, in particular, such as: the advent ofmodern technology into the Middle East; religious minorities in Iran;Iran-Ottoman and Iran-Israel relations; Iranian merchants of the laterQajar period; and the propaganda strategies and tactics of the IslamicRepublic of Iran. He has recently completed writing a book on the Baha’ischools in Iran, titled ‘The Forgotten Schools’: The Baha’is and ModernEducation in Iran, 1899�1934 (London & New York: I B Tauris, due June2008).

Zoltan Sturcz is Associate Professor and Vice Dean at the BudapestUniversity of Technology and Economics. His major fields includeHungarian Linguistics, research and teaching Hungarian as a ForeignLanguage, Communication for Engineering and Business Purposes,needs analysis for communication, history of teaching foreign languagesand the history of language training methodology. He has been theproject leader and co-author of the course book Hungarian as a ForeignLanguage (Threshold Level), developed according to Common EuropeanFramework requirements.

Anbessa Teferra is a Lecturer of Ethiopian languages viz. Amharic andSidaama at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Israel.He specialises in Amharic grammar and lexicography, Sidaama gram-mar, Hebrew�Amharic lexicography, etc. Among his publication is aHebrew�Amharic Multimedia Dictionary of 17,000 words. He also jointlyauthored a forthcoming book entitled Essentials of Amharic and iscurrently working on a detailed grammar book of Sidaama.

Contributors xi

Maria Yelenevskaya is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the Department ofHumanities and Arts of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.Most of her publications deal with problems of multilingualism,multiculturalism and media discourse. She also pursues research onimmigrant communities and has published over 15 articles and a bookThe Russian Street in the Jewish State: Investigation into the Folklore ofImmigrants of the 1990s to Israel (with L. Fialkova). Her current researchinvolves issues in political and legal discourse.

Ghil‘ad Zuckermann is Associate Professor and ARC Discovery Fellowat The University of Queensland, Australia. He has taught and heldresearch posts in Israel, Singapore, Italy, Japan, the UK and the USA. Hisnumerous publications include the books Language Contact and LexicalEnrichment in Israeli Hebrew and Hebrew as Myth. He is currently workingon two further books: Language Genesis and Multiple Causation andLanguage Academies.

xii Globally Speaking

Introduction

ROTEM KOWNER and JUDITH ROSENHOUSE

English is the lingua franca of the modern world, the ‘vehicular’language used for science, international business and for communicationat virtually any large international meeting. Speakers of English can befound in almost any corner of the globe, which is no wonder when youare the main or the official language in over 75 states and territories.Indeed, since WWII, English has occupied a new position never held byany other language before: it has become a global lingua franca. This isattested by the extent of its geographical spread, the number of itsspeakers and overall significance. Yet, English is not only spoken by anunprecedented number of people, both absolutely and relatively, but italso serves as a fertile field for lexical borrowing. That is, other languagesare increasingly turning to English as a source for new vocabulary andincorporating English loan words in their lexicon.

This volume explores the determinants of and motives for contem-porary lexical borrowing from English, using a comparative approachand a broad cross-cultural perspective. By analysing 12 differentlanguages, we isolated a number of factors that describe pattern ofborrowing from English at present. From an analysis of the borrowingprocesses in these languages, all following similar lines, we are able tooffer an account of historical trends in lexical borrowing, and to drawbroader conclusions about the spread of English.

The book opens with a historical review of the emergence of English asa global lingua franca and a presentation of our hypotheses regarding themotives for lexical borrowing from English in world languages. Thisintroductory chapter is followed by 12 chapters; each serves as a casestudy of a different language. The contributors of these case studies,many of them renowned linguists in their respective domains, wereapproached to write not only because of their original contribution to thetopic but also because of the special standing of their respective languagewithin linguistic studies. Thus, two languages are described here for the

1

first time in the context of English loan words and their effects on thereceiving language: Teferra describes the state of affairs of the Amhariclanguage in Ethiopia and Shahavar writes about the Persian language incontemporary Iran. These two countries have witnessed turbulentpolitical and cultural changes and development in the 20th centurywhich have left their marks on their official languages, as analysed inthese chapters. Other chapters depict similarly intriguing historicalbackground and diverse types of contacts with English as well as withBritish and Americans. These chapters include Ben-Rafael’s study on theFrench language in France; de Vries Jr.’s study on the Dutch language;Kowner and Daliot-Bul’s analysis of linguistic borrowing in Japan, anation which underwent a period of American occupation in the 20thcentury after a major trauma during WWII; and Lai’s chapter on Taiwan�Chinese, whose recent history fluctuates between Chinese and English.

Additional chapters examine the political circumstances which haveaffected the state of two languages representing East and Central Europein our book: the Russian language brought forth by Yelenevskaya, andthe Hungarian language, the latter reflecting a joint effort by Gombosand Sturcz with both editors of this volume. The case of Hebrew (byRosenhouse and Fisherman) and Arabic (by Rosenhouse) in Israelpresents the case of two official languages within a single State. Twochapters discuss specific details in the process of borrowing English loanwords: Sapir and Zuckermann analyse relevant semantic processes inEnglish loan-word borrowing in Icelandic, while Kurzon brings to lightprocesses of ‘hidden English’ in various regions of India. This selection oflanguages also offers a picture of processes occurring in many languagefamilies: Latin, Germanic, Iranian and Slavic within the Indo-Europeanlanguage group; Northern, Central and South-Western languages withinthe Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language group; a Finno-Ugric language(Hungarian), an Altaic language (Japanese) and a Sino-Tibetan language(Taiwan Chinese).

All in all, not only the general framework of the book is novel, butseveral of the chapters in this volume deal with adoption processes inlanguages that have never been examined hitherto. Some of the chaptersalso put forth new or unheeded facts. Among these we find, e.g. the roleof phonosemantic matching in lexical innovation and the intricatestructures it involves, or the fact that political regimes (or their changes)or linguistic authorities (and purists) cannot change the course of lexicaldevelopment. In fact, even political VIPs (e.g. in France, Japan, or theNetherlands) cannot help using English loan words.

2 Globally Speaking

Critically, this book suggests that the English lexical ‘invasion’depicted in each chapter is a natural and inevitable process, driven bypsycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and sociohistorical factors. Moreover, itdemonstrates that borrowed loan words constitute part of the normalway languages develop and survive. Although speakers’ attitudesconcerning loan words (either pro or con such words) may be emotional,we conclude that when borrowed lexical items are used in communica-tion, the main driving force behind them is apparently the need forefficient and expressive communication. This conclusion may be general-ised beyond the English borrowings in the languages studied here toother languages, to other forms of linguistic communication, such asmetaphors, and to universal linguistic structures such as the transfer oflexical items between dialects of a certain language or different languageregisters.

This project began in early 1997 as a collaborative research of the twous, comparing the adoption and usages of English loan words inJapanese and Hebrew (Kowner & Rosenhouse, 1997, 2001). The issuesraised during this limited undertaking prompted us to probe into thebroader questions of the general pattern of and motives for adoption ofEnglish loan words throughout the globe. Throughout this decade, wehave been fortunate to collaborate with many bright and enthusiasticscholars, who shared with us their thoughts and knowledge in manyconference panels, workshops and informal meetings we organised onthis topic. During those years we came to owe a debt of gratitude tomany people. Foremost among them are the contributors to this book,who supported us patiently and enlightened us with their insights ontheir respective language and culture. Similarly, we are grateful to theResearch Authority at the University of Haifa, for its generous financialsupport provided during 2002�03 for a ‘University interdisciplinaryproject’ on ‘Models of semantic patterns for adoption of loan words: Acomparative interdisciplinary and cross-cultural research’. This grant hasbeen very useful for conducting frequent workshops and for thecompletion of this book. We also extend our thanks to Swantech �Sound Waves Analysis and Technologies Ltd. � for kindly allowing usthe time to complete this project. Finally, we are indebted to our spouses,Fabienne and Giora. As always, they endured our academic pursuitwithout complaint while providing a constant source of moral support.

Introduction 3

Chapter 1

The Hegemony of English andDeterminants of Borrowing fromIts Vocabulary

ROTEM KOWNER and JUDITH ROSENHOUSE

Since the second half of the 20th century English has become a globallingua franca. Whereas Mandarin remains the world’s most widelyspoken first language, English has emerged as the world’s first choice asa second language; more importantly, it is by now the principal meansfor international communication. The effect of English does not end withits wide usage. With its rise, English has come to serve many languagesas a source for intensive lexical borrowing, reflecting the importance andstatus it holds as a leading language. This ongoing process, however, hasnot been uniform. Certain societies have offered resistance to the spreadof English and a reluctance to borrow its vocabulary. Others haveembraced English, making English loan words an important part of theirvocabulary, using it in codeswitching, and even adopting it as their mainlanguage.

The Italian phrase lingua franca (literally Frankish language), whichnow denotes English as a leading language, referred originally to thehybrid language created and used in the Mediterranean area. From earlytimes, seamen and merchants in certain Mediterranean ports used amixture of languages, predominantly Italian, but with many lexicalelements from Greek, Spanish, Arabic, Turkish and French, for commu-nicating with each other (Cifoletti, 1989; Schuchardt, 1980). Although theterm means literally ‘European language’, it arguably narrowed down toRomance-based pidgin (e.g. Minervini, 1996). Evidently, there wasnothing distinctive about the Mediterranean lingua franca, and otherhybrid languages, often linguistically defined as pidgins and creoles,emerged in many other places where people speaking different languagesintermingled for a prolonged length of time (Gilbert, 2002; Jahr and Broch,1996; Muhlhausler, 1986; Sebba, 1997).

4

These forms of mixed and simplified language were not the onlymeans of intergroup communication. In many places where speakers ofdifferent languages met they chose to speak one language. Usually it wasthe language of the majority, although in some cases numericaladvantage did not play a crucial role, but the importance of the cultureor nation to which the speakers belonged did. Over the years, the termlingua franca gained an additional meaning: now, it also denotesa leading language, not a hybrid but a proper language, which servesas a medium of communication between speakers of different languagesin a given region or setting. In the Middle East it was Accadian, thenAramaic, then Arabic and finally the Ottoman Turkish; in some parts ofEurasia and North Africa Greek was the lingua franca for more than amillennium after the death of Alexander the Great. In East Asia classicalChinese played a similar role for thousands of years, mainly in a writtenform, until the late 19th century, whereas throughout much of theAmerican continent, from California to Patagonia, Spanish has been usedsince the age of exploration. After the Napoleonic wars French served asthe lingua franca of imperial diplomacy, as well as the principal choice ofcommunication among the European aristocracy. More recently, for ashort period (about four decades starting from 1945) Russian enjoyedsimilar importance in the Soviet bloc, stretching from East Germany toMongolia. While virtually not a spoken tongue, Latin served as a keylanguage of religion, government and scholarship throughout Europe ofthe medieval era, and as late as 1687 Isaac Newton wrote his first majorwork, Principia, in this language � but not his second!

English as a Lingua Franca

The rise of English during the last two centuries to its present positionhas been nothing less than spectacular. In 1780 the second Americanpresident, John Adams, predicted that English is destined ‘to be the nextand succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world thanLatin was in the past or French in the present time’ (quoted fromMcCrum et al., 1986: 239). Adams reasoned that the increasing popula-tion in America, its inhabitants’ universal connection with their mothercountries, and the global influence of England would inevitably makeEnglish a leading language. The realisation of this prophecy was not asself-evident as it seems in retrospect today, even for the mere fact that in1780 English had fewer than 15 million speakers, spread sparsely overEngland, Scotland, Ireland, the USA, Canada and the Caribbean. Half acentury later the German linguist Jacob Grimm stated that English ‘may

Determinants of Borrowing from English and its Hegemony 5

with all right be called a world language; and, like the English people,appears destined hereafter to prevail with a sway more extensive eventhan its present over all the portions of the globe’ (quoted in Trench, 1881:44). Neither Adams nor Grimm lived to see their prophecies come true,but a few decades later some early but promising precursors of Englishlinguistic hegemony were more than visible.

During the late 19th century English began to replace French as thelingua franca of Western Europe, and while Russian aristocratsregarded the latter as their language of choice well into the BolshevikRevolution, their ruler, Tsar Nicholas II, displayed a clear preference forthe former. Earlier, during the 18th and the 19th centuries, English hadalready established its position as the lingua franca of North Americaand the Indian subcontinent. Whereas in North America most of thepopulation used English as their first language, in the Indiansubcontinent only a small fraction did so. In the latter case Englishwas the language of the British rulers but was gradually adopted by themultilingual locals for intergroup communication. British imperialhegemony and huge colonial possessions during the late 19th centurywere undoubtedly a major determinant in facilitating the spread ofEnglish at that time, but not the only one. After WWI, and particularlyafter WWII, American economic hegemony and growing political andcultural importance proved the main spur for the spread of English,and the USA became the cultural and linguist harbinger of the Englishlanguage.

In the postwar era the combined impact of these two nations hasbrought English to a new and unprecedented position, not only for itsgeographical spread and the number of its speakers, but for its overallsignificance. It has assumed the role of the world’s lingua franca. TodayEnglish is the preferred language of communication at virtually anyinternational meeting hosting representatives of more than a number ofnations, and at many regional meetings as well. English speakers can befound in almost any corner of the globe and English is now the dominantor at least one of the official languages in over 75 states and territories(Conrad & Fishman, 1977; Crystal, 2003b) in which at least 1.6 billionpeople live (Sullivan, 1991). More than 70% of scientific publications andthe vast majority of the leading scientific publishers are at present inEnglish (Ammon, 1996).

Similarly, about 80% of Internet sites are in English, and most of theprogramming languages used are based on English. Furthermore,although the number of English speakers as a first language isapproaching 400 million, and a similar number of speakers use it as a

6 Globally Speaking

second language (mainly in the Indian subcontinent), it is possible that insum nearly two billion of the approximately six billion people whoinhabit the globe are able to communicate in English in varying levels ofcompetence (Crystal, 2003b; Dalby, 2004). In this sense, English can beviewed, as McArthur (2002) suggested, as the sole representative of ‘auniversalizing complex’ � a new and extreme category on a continuitywhere the world’s languages are arranged. While English has manyvariants, it has emerged recently also in a new and generalised formknown as International Standard English, which offers a standard andsecured pattern of communication to all English speakers (McArthur,2002). This pattern can be found on many of the services offered on theInternet (e.g. Google, America Online), in global media services (e.g.CNN, BBC), at airports and other locations where English is used in amultilingual context.

Research on the Global Spread of English: From WorldEnglishes to English Loan Words

In the last three decades much research has been conducted on theposition of English as the world’s lingua franca and the processesassociated with it. Many linguists have focused on description andanalysis of the large number of varieties of Englishes used, inpredominantly English-speaking countries, in places where English isstill used as part of the British or American legacy, and in any otherculture (e.g. Crystal, 2003b; Kachru, 1982, 1986, 1992; Viereck et al., 1984;Watts & Trudgill, 2002). The growing interest and academic importanceof this topic is evident in the activity of two academic journals, bothestablished in the early 1980s: English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties ofEnglish and World Englishes. The former focuses on the dialectology andsociolinguistics of the English-speaking communities (native and sec-ond-language speakers), while the latter is committed to the study ofvarieties of English in their distinctive cultural, sociolinguistic andeducational contexts, with emphasis on cross-cultural perspectives andidentities.

A related field of research is the study of English as a foreign secondlanguage, often simply known as English Language Teaching (ELT) orTeaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). The main focus in thisfield is on teaching English to non-native speakers, and although thisgoal is purely educational, it enhances the diffusion of English as a globallingua franca. There are thousands of publications on this topic,including the academic journal Teaching English as a Second or Foreign


Language (TESL-EJ) � a quarterly disseminated electronically fromBerkeley, California, since 1994. The concept of ‘English as a secondlanguage’ represents for many its positive facet: a language bringingpeople together and mediating between cultures in conflict. This hasbeen one of the major goals of teaching this language for many years atschools all over the world (cf. Block & Cameron, 2001). For others,however, the same type of English, an all-out global mode of commu-nication, is not always seen as a blessing but as a threat. Some see it as theepitome of Anglo-American imperialism, the bridgehead of a linguisticinvasion aimed at world domination, or at least a constant reminder of itsongoing postcolonial legacy (e.g. Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson,1992).

Others regard globalising English as undemocratic since it creates astructure of linguistic hierarchy, which enhances the cultural dominanceof English-speaking countries, particularly the USA and Britain (e.g.Tsuda, 1986, 2000). In the current critical milieu, it is no wonder that thespread of English is also associated with language death, a phenomenonthat takes place in several forms. Contact with English-speaking peoplehas led in some cases to marginalisation of local languages, as hasoccurred among speakers of various Austronesian languages in thePacific Ocean, and in other cases to the virtual eradication of the localpopulation, thereby bringing about the death of their language as well, ashas happened in North America and Australia (e.g. Crystal, 2000; Nettle& Romaine, 2000).

Another aspect of the spread of English is research on codeswitchingand codemixing, which form the actual context in which borrowings areused. Codeswitching is the use of various linguistic units, usually but notonly from two participating grammatical systems within a speech event,and its usage is motivated by social and psychological factors (Ritchie &Bhatia, 2004). Codemixing is similar in form and motives to codeswitch-ing, but whereas the former is intrasentential and is constrained bygrammatical principles, the latter is intersentential and may be subject todiscourse principles (Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004). In the present framework,we do not need to contrast codeswitching with codemixing. Indeed somescholars (e.g. Gumperz, 1982) consider them one entity, a ‘situationalshifting’. In any case, codeswitching and � mixing phenomena alikeprovide the theoretical linguistic basis for the use of borrowed words inthe absorbing language.

The alter ego of English in this context is the plethora of all theremaining languages of the world, and indeed much research is devotedto the attitudes of other languages to English. Although there are perhaps

8 Globally Speaking

more than 6000 of them, only a few hundred have more than one millionspeakers, and far fewer than a hundred languages receive academicattention regarding their current plight (cf. Flaitz, 1988 on the attitude toFrench). This attention focuses on one level on codeswitching, and onanother level on language planning and policy regarding the incorpora-tion of English lexicon. While the usage of English lexicon in variouslanguages has been the focus of much research, some has been done onthe rejection of English lexicon, know as purism.

The study of codeswitching and codemixing has emerged mainly dueto research on its occurrence in English mixed/switched with anotherlanguage (e.g. Blom & Gumperz, 1972) and is thus related to our presenttheme. Over time, various theories of codeswitching and mixingstructures and functions have developed (MacSwan, 2004). Studies ofbilingual/trilingual/multilingual language acquisition have shown thatcodeswitching and codemixing exist in young children’s speech from avery early age (McLaughlin, 1984; Zentella, 1997) and are assumed to bedue to the structuring of the language systems in the brain and theefficiency with which each language structure can be applied whennecessary. This structuring operates in young and adult bilingualspeakers. Based on these facts, the borrowing process and loan worduse are natural, which explains their frequency in bilingual communica-tion. As codeswitching and codemixing reflect the psycholinguistic effectof the interaction between languages on bilingual speakers’ behaviour,they complement the sociolinguistic effect of societal language policy onspeakers’ linguistic behaviour.

The spread of English is closely related to policies and attitudes ofspeakers of those languages, as well as some institutions designated todeal with language planning, that is, with the deliberate, systematicchange of language form or use (cf. Bauman, 2004; Kaplan & Baldauf,1997; Spolsky 2004; Wright, 2004). Such policies are an important aspectof the reception of English, either by encouraging its acceptance or byrejecting it through legal and cultural means. This issue has alsobenefited from the activity of the academic journal Language Problemsand Language Planning (LPLP). This journal focuses on language policyand relationships within and among language communities, particularlyin international contexts, and in the adaptation, manipulation andstandardisation of languages for international use. Purism, a derivativeand often the consequence of language policy, appears at present to havea strong association with English, at least indirectly. This is because someperceive it as a destructive check to the further spread of English, whileothers see it as a necessary evil (e.g. Pergnier, 1989). There have been a


number of studies on policies of purism (e.g. Jernudd & Shapiro, 1989;Thomas, 1991), especially in France and Germany (e.g. de Saint-Robert,2000; Langer & Davies, 2005; Plumer, 2000), but also in some othernations (e.g. Wexler, 1974).

Several studies have examined the dissemination of English use ingeneral and English loan words in particular, resulting in some cases indictionaries or other compilations, for example, in French and Japanese(e.g. Gorlach, 2003; Hofler, 1982; Kamiya, 1994; Lorenzo, 1996; Miura,1979; Picone, 1996). In a more inquisitive though less systematic manner,Fishman, Cooper and Conrad conducted the first substantial worldwidesurvey on the spread of English, and in 1977 published their findings(Fishman et al., 1977a). Their book comprised miscellaneous case studies,some descriptive, others more quantitative; overall, they illuminated thegrowing position of English. A decade later Viereck and Bald (1986)edited another wide-ranging book on the contact of English with otherlanguages. Their impressive volume dealt with 29 societies on fourcontinents, but it neither examined them systematically nor attempted todraw any general conclusions from the vast evidence it adduced. LaterPhillipson (1992) examined the spread of English in a comparative study,but his focus on colonialism intentionally excluded the examination ofother, perhaps not less important, factors that may determine attitudes toEnglish.

More insightful for our case is the study on the spread of Englishconducted by Rubal-Lopez (1991; Fishman & Rubal-Lopez, 1992) for herdoctoral dissertation. Using quantifiable indicators and regressionanalysis of sundry variables in 121 non-English-mother-tongue countries,the study confirms the initial hypothesis that linguistic heterogeneity,colonialism and economic development are the most significant pre-dictors of the spread of English. Rubal-Lopez also identified the degreeof English-language institutionalisation, the lack of developmentalorientation and the percentage of students sent to acquire their educationin Anglo-American institutions as additional predictors. Nineteen yearsafter their first book, Fishman and Conrad, this time together with Rubal-Lopez (1996), edited another grand survey on the status of English in the1990s. Based on 20 case studies of different former British and Americancolonies, their volume confirmed its assumption that English was ‘still’spreading in the non-English-mother-tongue world, and that this spreadwas not orchestrated in an exploitative manner but due to Anglo-American engagement in the modern global economy. Fishman and hisassociates observed additional forces outside the English world, such as

10 Globally Speaking

tertiary education and local mass media, which contribute to thisongoing process.

In an extension of her original study, Rubal-Lopez (1996) examined theeffect of a long list of parameters (independent variables) on four features(dependent variables) reflecting the spread of English in a given country:(1) the percentage of tertiary students studying in English-mother-tonguecountries; (2) the percentage of English-language newspapers; (3) thepercentage of the value of printed matter exported from the USA; (4) thepercentage of English book titles published. While this study iscommendable for its scope, methodology and conclusions, it seemsthat the author did not distinguish sufficiently between determinantsand mediating variables correlated with the spread of English. The levelof tourism to Anglophone countries, to take one example, may increasethe tendency to use English simply for the need to communicate.However, usually it is also associated with a relatively strong economyand an openness characterising developed democratic values � variableswith similar if not more significant causal relations with the spread ofEnglish.

As for the spread of English loan words, the most extensive andsystematic study from a comparative perspective has been the singleresearch project led in the late 1990s by Gorlach, together with more than20 scholars. This team examined the lexical impact of English on 16 majorEuropean languages, representing the various regions and languagefamilies of continental Europe, and produced a dictionary of some 4000items (Gorlach, 2001) as well as an annotated bibliography of EuropeanAnglicisms (Gorlach, 2002a). Even more relevant for our study, Gorlachand his team authored a highly systematic summary of the influence ofEnglish on those languages (Gorlach, 2002b). Each chapter consists of ahistory of contact of the language under discussion with English,pronunciation and spelling of Anglicisms common in that language,their morphology, their usage and the way borrowing affects themeaning of loan words. This research project is unquestionably a modelfor any future study of Anglicisms and the effect of English on otherlanguages. Nonetheless, to date no comprehensive cross-cultural com-parative and systematic study has been conducted to examine themotives for and determinants of borrowing English loan words. Oneexception is Kowner and Rosenhouse (2001), who compared attitudes toEnglish loan words in Japan and Israel, thereby providing an explicit butpreliminary insight into a number of determinants of policies andattitudes to lexical borrowing across cultures.


Lexical Borrowing: Motives and Means of Dissemination

Lexical borrowing is a widespread activity, practised ever since thefirst encounter between people speaking different languages in pre-historic times. It occurs when speakers of a language begin to incorporateinto their own lexicon, or metaphorically ‘borrow’ (without the need forpermission) a foreign word (‘loan word’). The process of borrowingrequires at least some contact between the two languages, rudimentaryunderstanding of the meaning of word and a minimal tendency tobilingualism. These nominal requirements may lead to occasionalborrowing of a few words, but in many cases end with massiveborrowing, amounting to thousands of words. This is the case withEnglish, which adopted tens of thousands words from French followingthe Norman conquest of England in the Middle Ages, and with ModernJapanese, which has borrowed close to 30,000 loan words, mainly fromEnglish, since the onset of Japan’s modernisation in the latter half of the19th century (cf. Hock & Joseph, 1996; McMahon, 1994).

Lexical borrowing from English in modern Japanese reveals some ofthe general characteristics of the borrowing process. It covers, to mentiononly a few domains, 52% of flower names, 35% of vegetable names and24% of animal names (Morimoto, 1978). At the same time, only a fewadverbs or prepositions in Japanese are borrowed. A different andatypical situation is found in Hebrew, which in addition to manyborrowed nouns, but not many plants or animal names, has adoptednumerous adjectives and adverbs (Kowner & Rosenhouse, 2001). Indeed,languages tend to borrow mainly nouns, and to a lesser extend verbs andadjectives. They tend to resort to loan words in fields related totechnology, sciences, leisure activities and fashion, but shun basicvocabulary such as natural geographic phenomena, pronouns andbody parts.

Several motives for adopting loan words are common to almost alllanguages, and all are relevant to English, thereby contributing further toits current position. All motives, we presume, are associated with somereward, either to the borrowing language or (at least) to the person usingthe loan words. The following three motives are the most fundamental,but their effects vary in different languages and cultures due to theirinteraction with other social and political circumstances as well as thecharacter of their relations with English-speaking societies.

Need to coin new terminology and concepts. Every living language faces aneed for constant coining of new notions due to technological andcultural changes. Life involves the development of material and spiritual


products of the given culture, or of others imported from a foreignculture. In certain periods the need for new notions is especially strong,as in the case of sudden exposure to a more advanced culture or in thecase of accelerated technological change, as has in Western Europe sincethe 18th century and in other areas more recently. Borrowing words andterminology from another culture in which they are already establishedmay satisfy this need partly or fully. English in this sense has been theperfect choice. Not only is it the mother tongue of some of the mostadvanced societies and developed economies, but it also has a richvocabulary, perhaps the richest in the world, as a number of scholarshave emphasised recently in accounting for the success of English (e.g.Bryson, 1990; Claiborne, 1983).

Tendency to emulate a dominant group. Human groups, perhaps likeprimate groups in general, have the tendency to imitate others who seemworthy of emulation. Animals tend to imitate dominant individuals,whereas in mankind this tendency has been expanded to the culturalimitation of entire dominant groups. This association encompasseselements from the language of the dominant group.

Tendency to create a special jargon in closed groups. Various groups in anyculture seek ways to distinguish themselves from the rest of thepopulation. The sociologist Georg Simmel (1904) postulated that fashionsdevelop for this reason, and language has an important role in the creationof such differences. Borrowing from a prestigious language often serves asameans to highlight the uniqueness and progress of the borrowing group,which is often a closed elite group. This trend is typical amongprofessional groups, such as physicians, engineers and lawyers, but alsoamong youth groups, who use a prestigious foreign language as a markerof uniqueness. Apart from providing elevated status, borrowing suchterms often reflects the need to communicate topics that are unknown anduninteresting for those who are not members in the same professional orsocial group. English � the language used at almost any internationalprofessional meeting but also at the leading venues of current popularculture � offers a rich vocabulary for the creation of such jargon.

The dissemination of English loan words depends also on theavailability of means of communication. At present the following meansseem the most relevant.

Direct communication. The level of exposure to English due to colonisa-tion is evidently connected to lexical borrowing (Rubal-Lopez, 1996).Direct communication may also occur due to the military presence oftroops from an English-speaking country. More commonly is may be dueto tourism from an English-speaking country to a non-English-speaking


country or vice versa, with the wish of tourists from non-English-speaking countries to communicate with their English-speaking hosts.

Mass media. Since the early 20th century, English-speaking countries,the USA in particular, have led many trends in the global disseminationof information and popular culture. This was facilitated by radiobroadcasting in English (e.g. the BBC, Voice of America), especiallyduring WWII. The successful American film industry has presented theAmerican lifestyle, along with its language, practically to the wholeworld. Later on, as the TV system developed, the role played by themovies reached spectators even in their homes. The last two decadeswitnessed the emergence of computers for personal use and the spread ofthe Internet. Currently the electronic communication media, i.e. theInternet and the World Wide Web, have become the central means ofcultural influence of the English-speaking community and a motive forlearning its language. The media tend to disseminate the vocabulary ofthe modern discourse in general and the elite’s discourse in particular,which is inevitably the English vocabulary. In many countries English-speaking channels are available because of their relatively low price andtheir cultural attractiveness.

The education system. The education system serves as a central socialisa-tion agent of the community for the dissemination of traditional andmodern content and topics. In some cases the education system enhancesand encourages the acquisition and dissemination of foreign words thathave been absorbed by certain social classes, and in many other cases it isthe main means for learning English as a second language. However, incultures where an obvious purist tendency exists, the education systemmay serve to decrease the use of words borrowed from English.

Determinants of Adoption of English Loan Wordsin Contemporary World Languages

Numerous determinants exist for borrowing English vocabulary byother languages, the majority of which are by-products of the motivesand means presented above. The following section presents some of themajor determinants, which will be examined in detail in each of the casestudies in the subsequent chapters.

Modernisation and economic development. The borrowing processinvolves contacts between members of various societies, includingtravelling abroad and direct exposure to English and its native speakers.In addition, societies entering modernisation are under greater pressurefor lexical terminology. Economic development, and especially exporting


to Anglophone countries, were found to increase pressure for use ofEnglish in schools (Fishman et al., 1977b).

Prestige. Linguistic adoption partly stems from a tendency to imitate adominant group speaking a language considered to enjoy greater prestigethan the speaker’s native language. Lexical borrowing from such a groupcarries with it some of the concomitant prestige. Its acquisition dependson the cultural and historical background of the contacts between theborrowing language and English, the cultural and economic gaps betweenthem, and the existence of a competing cultural-linguistic community thatmay decrease the effect of borrowing from English. The need for greaterprestige associated with lexical borrowing is often associated withintragroup motivation, but occasionally it may be relevant for intergrouprelations, notably in an ethnically heterogeneous society.

Ethnic and linguistic diversity. In places where ethnic and linguisticheterogeneity exist (e.g. India, African countries, former Yugoslavia,Israel), English can serve as a partially or fully linking language betweenthe different language communities (cf. Fishman et al., 1977b). Thepenetration of English as a second (or third) language strengthens the useof English vocabulary in the local language. Changes in the status of onelocal language within a political or social framework may strengthen orweaken the use of English for communication between speakers ofdifferent language communities.

Nationalism. Nationalistic beliefs and policies tend to strengthenlanguage purism and weaken the tendency to adopt loan words. Frenchpolicies at present are only a mild example of this tendency; in the 1930sit was imperial Japan that attempted to drive out English words from itsnational language.

Cultural threat. Perceptions of cultural threat may also yield pressurestoward linguistic purism simultaneously aimed at weakening thepenetration of the English language. Developments in Israel and France,for example, may serve as examples of such defensive sentiments.

National character. Communal psychological features, such as obedi-ence and conformity by the language community, may enhance processesof lexical borrowing, as witnessed in Japan, for example. In other periodsthis feature may lead the same community to processes of purism.

Existence of regulatory linguistic establishments. Language academies aremeant to help the national language by creating a language policy as partof the attempt to strengthen nationalism. Thus, language academies tendto enhance purism and to weaken linguistic adoption of loan words bycoining original substitutes. The Academy of Language in Addis Ababais a good example of this role. The closure of this institution in 1991 for


political reasons helped to weaken the status of Amharic and strengthenprocesses of English word adoption in Ethiopia (Teferra, 2002). At thesame time, regulatory linguistic institutions may also help by postfactum confirmation of long established words in the language borrowedfrom English and their dissemination in official publications. But notethat the official attitude of language academies to foreign wordborrowing often contradicts the actual behaviour of the languagespeakers, who unwittingly absorb the foreign words.

Hypotheses

To create a framework for a comparative study, we use the foregoinganalysis to derive several predictions regarding the attitudes to Englishloan words discovered in our case studies. Our predictions relate to threeaspects of the borrowing process:

A. Predictions related to the fundamental motives for borrowing:

1. The greater the need to coin new terminology, the greater thetendency to borrow English loan words.

2. The greater the tendency in a given society to emulate other groups,the greater the tendency to borrow English loan words.

3. The more specialised and closed a group (society) is, the greater is itstendency to borrow English loan words.

B. Predictions related to means of dissemination:

4. The more contacts a society has with Anglo-American culture andthe English language, past (e.g. through colonial rule) and/or present(e.g. tourism, Anglo-American military or economic presence), thegreater the tendency to borrow English loan words.

5. The more exposed a society is at present to English via the massmedia (TV programs, films, satellite channels, English-languagenewspapers), the greater the tendency to borrow English loan words.

6. The more advanced the educational system, higher education inparticular, the greater the tendency to borrow English loan words.This is also valid for tertiary education: the greater the number andratio of students studying in Anglo-American institutions of highereducation, the greater their tendency to borrow English loan wordseven when they are back in their home countries.

C. Predictions related to features of borrowing:

7. The more recent the stage of modernisation in a given society, thegreater its need for an updated and fresh vocabulary.


8. The higher the prestige of English in a given society, the higher thechances of its linguistic adoption. More specifically, the closer thecontacts between the borrowing language and the English language,the more extensive the borrowing from English. The wider thecultural and economic gaps between the two languages, and thelesser the influence of a competing cultural-linguistic community,the stronger the effect of this determinant.

9. The greater the ethnic heterogeneity and linguistic diversity in agiven society, the greater the tendency to resort to English and toadopt English loan words.

10. The weaker nationalistic beliefs and policies, the greater thepropensity to borrow loan words.

11. The lesser the perception of cultural threat in a given culture,particularly vis-a-vis the English language and the Anglo-Americanculture, the greater the tendency to resort to lexical borrowing fromEnglish.

12. The greater the conformity and obedience in a given society, thegreater the capacity to adopt lexical loan words, if this is the culturaltrend at the time.

13. The lesser the control of regulatory linguistic institutions, thegreater the tendency to resort to lexical borrowing from English.

14. If borrowing from English is national policy, the greater the controlof the regulatory institutions the greater the tendency to resort tolexical borrowing from English.

The Present Book

This volume was conceived to account for determinants of andmotives for contemporary lexical borrowing from English, using acomparative approach and a broad cross-cultural perspective. Bysystematically analysing a large number of case studies of differentlanguages used in a large variety of countries, we sought to isolate for thefirst time a number of enhancing or inhibiting factors that may explainthe current pattern of borrowing from English, and to understand theway they interplay. This is facilitated by a careful choice of languages andcultures, which represent a wide variety of language families, politicalsystems, economic developmental stages and historic relations with theEnglish language and the Anglo-American world.

This process uses lexical items from one (dominant, superstratum)language within the grammatical system of another (subdued) language.


The twelve case studies in the present volume describe processes incertain languages as case studies which are structured in a similarfashion, in order to facilitate a thematic comparison. These chapters arelimited to single lexical items, namely words, and the processes involvedin them, largely leaving out other domains such as syntax. Although theimpact of English is clearly not limited only to one section of vocabularyor language structure, this focus was imposed on the authors of thechapters to allow interlingual comparisons and concentrate on thedeterminants of lexical borrowing and the linguistic and cultural impactof this process.

While the languages discussed in the 12 chapters below are only a tinyportion of the world languages, they were carefully selected to representsix different language families and subgroups: Indo-European (French,Dutch, Persian, Icelandic and some Indian languages), Semitic (Hebrew,Arabic and Amharic), Finno-Ugric (Hungarian), Sino-Tibetan (Chinese inTaiwan) and Altaic (Japanese). Among these, Indian languages, and to alesser extent Hebrew and Arabic, are languages spoken in countrieswhich were under British rule in the past, whereas Japan was underAmerican occupation for almost seven years. We assumed that if basiclinguistic features and processes are revealed and converge to yieldsimilar results when languages so different are compared, they willprobably indicate major common (universal) sources of these processes.In the concluding chapter we examine our basic assumptions andattempt to show that this path is not only interesting but also fruitful.


Chapter 2

Icelandic: PhonosemanticMatching

YAIR SAPIR and GHIL‘AD ZUCKERMANN

In this chapter we account for phonosemantic matching (PSM; seeZuckermann, 1999, 2000, 2003a, 2003b, 2005a; ‘echoing word-formation’in Sapir, 2008) in Icelandic. We will provide an overview of the Icelandiclanguage, its structure, language planning and word-formation, andintroduce the mechanism of PSM in general. We then illustrate twoaspects of Icelandic PSM: word-formation, as PSM is one of manyIcelandic word-formation types, and typology, by demonstrating PSM inother languages. PSM is divided into two main categories: PSM througha preexistent form and PSM through a new form. Finally, we present theconclusions and theoretical implications of this chapter.

Sapir (2008) suggests the following taxonomy of the sources used toform new words in the language. It will help us in tracing the position ofPSM in the system:

1. Zero source. Lexemes reproduced from this source are denoted bythe established term ex nihilo (Latin ‘from nothing’), implying thatthey are not based on any preexistent lexical material.

2. Sound source. Lexemes reproduced from this source are denoted bythe new term ex sono (Latin ‘from sound’) and are reproductions ofsounds or sound symbolism.

3. The foreign vocabulary. Lexemes reproduced from this source aredenoted by the new term ex externo (Latin ‘from the outside’).

4. The native vocabulary. Lexemes reproduced from this source aredenoted by the new term ex interno (Latin ‘from the inside’).

Sapir (2008) defines reproduction as a process ‘by which one or severalbases retain their features and status in the system but are ‘‘copied’’ or‘‘reduplicated’’ to form a new word’. Hence, words are not ‘borrowed’,‘taken’ or ‘imported’ from one language to the other, but are ratherreproduced ex externo (i.e. from the foreign vocabulary). Likewise,

19

native words can be reproduced with a new sense to form a new word, orelse by compounding, derivation etc., and can thus be defined asreproduced ex interno (i.e., from the native vocabulary). Using theseterms not only renders a more realistic image of word-formation, butavoids conflicts when defining words that were ‘borrowed’ into the lexisbut are at the same time considered ‘native’. Such words are defined asnative words reproduced ex externo, i.e. from a lexis other than thenative one.

Whereas the first two sources are considered to be productive in alanguage’s initial stages, the two latter are considered to be productivethroughout any stage of its evolution. Moreover, these sources, especiallythe foreign and native vocabulary, may be intercombined or bifurcatedwith each other in different ways. Calquing is based on a bifurcatedsource, as an ex externo pattern is rendered by an ex interno form. Forinstance, English distance teaching was calqued into Icelandic fjarkennslawith identical meaning (fjar- ‘distant’�kennsla ‘teaching’). Back to PSM,this is also a type of word-formation based on a bifurcated source, as exexterno senses and phonemes are intercombined with similar ex internosenses and phonemes, in this way camouflaging the ex externodimension.

The Icelandic Language

Icelandic: From sagas to high-tech

Icelandic is spoken by approximately 300,000 people, 280,000 of whomlive in Iceland, where Icelandic is the official language. From being apoor, chiefly agricultural society until approximately a hundred yearsago, Icelanders have gradually established themselves among theworld’s leading nations in the areas of economy, welfare, average lifeexpectancy, as well as in the number of computers, Internet connectionsand cellular phones per capita (see also Sapir, 2003: 33�34). The Icelandiclanguage, which around the end of the 18th century was best spoken inthe rural areas of the island and was inferior to Danish, the officialeseand likewise the language of culture and sciences, is today a full-fledgedand stable language, functioning as the only official language of theRepublic of Iceland. The language is rather consolidated, due to the factthat it lacks genuine dialects.

Genetically, Icelandic is a Scandinavian or North Germanic language.It emerged from the Old West Scandinavian dialects that were brought toIceland with the chiefly Norwegian settlers between 870 and 930 AD. Tobegin with, the language varieties spoken in Iceland and South Western


Norway did not differ remarkably from each other. However, a couple ofcenturies later, they began to evolve in separate directions. Today,Icelandic and the two Norwegian languages (bokmal and nynorsk) areno longer mutually intelligible. Moreover, Contemporary Norwegian,together with Danish and Norwegian, is often classified as a ContinentalScandinavian language, whereas Icelandic and Faroese are consideredInsular Scandinavian languages.

The canon of Icelandic Saga and Edda literature from the 12th and13th centuries includes tales from the Scandinavian mythology, storiesabout the colonisation of Iceland and likewise about the Norwegiankings. These resources constitute the cornerstone in the further devel-opment of both Icelandic literature and language and turned out to be amost useful resource for Icelandic, as it re-established itself as a full-fledged language.

Icelandic is considered the most conservative Scandinavian language.No other old Scandinavian language or dialect has preserved itsmorphological structure, highly complex inflectional system of OldScandinavian and the original Scandinavian vocabulary as Icelandichas. With some training, Icelanders can today read and understand theold Sagas and Eddas. The situation could be compared to that ofClassical and Israeli Hebrew (or ‘Israeli’ � Zuckermann, 1999, 2005b),which has also constituted an important lexical source during the revivaland standardisation of the language in modern times (cf. Sapir, 2003:33�36).

The influence of the Saga and Edda language and style is still notabletoday in Icelandic lexical elements reproduced in the 19th and 20thcenturies, either in a shifted or an expanded meaning. One classicalexample is the word for ‘telephone’, sımi. This word appears both in theform sımi (masculine) and sıma (neutrum) in Old Icelandic, probably inthe meaning ‘thread, rope’. As an archaism, it was revived, or ‘recycled’,by language planners, providing it with the new sense ‘telephone’ (a so-called neo-archaism (Sapir, 2008)). Sımi, allegedly reintroduced by PalmiPalsson in 1896, has, in turn, been productive in the formation of manyderivations and compounds ever since.

The structure of the language

Icelandic nouns and adjectives are either weak or strong. There arethree genders (masculine, feminine and neutral), two numbers (singularand plural) and four grammatical cases (nominative, accusative, dativeand genitive). The choice of case is dictated by syntactic factors.

Icelandic: Phonosemantic Matching 21

Grammatical cases are marked by zero, suffixes and/or umlaut. Icelandicdoes not mark indefiniteness. Thus, hestur, meaning ‘horse’ or ‘a horse’, isthe nominative form and hest is the accusative. The definite article of anoun is marked by an enclitic suffix, as in hesturinn horse-DEF ‘thehorse’.

Adjectives agree in number, gender, case and definiteness with thenouns they modify. Strong adjectives are indefinite, e.g. stor hestur ‘(a) bighorse’, whereas weak adjectives express definitiveness, e.g. stori hesturinn‘big-DEF horse-DEF’ or hinn stori hestur ‘the big-DEF horse’. Adjectivesare likewise declined in grades. Adverbs often have an identical form tothe neutral adjective form, e.g. hraður (basic form) ‘quick, speedy’, hratt(neutral form and adverb) ‘quickly, speedily’ and may, like adjectives, bedeclined in grades.

Icelandic verbs follow to a large extent the Germanic verbal system,divided into weak and strong verbs, of which the strong verbs are, inturn, divided into seven ablaut groups and characterised by the lack of adental suffix in the imperfect and perfect tense. The weak verbs arecharacterised by a dental suffix in the imperfect and perfect. Verbs areconjugated in the indicative, conjunctive and imperative moods, activeand passive voice, present, imperfect and perfect tense. Icelandic is ahead-first language with the usual constituent order AVO/SV.

Within phonetics and phonology, Icelandic has been innovative. Itthus differs greatly from e.g. Norwegian and Swedish. To name just a fewfeatures, it has the peculiarity of possessing both long and shortdiphthongs. Icelandic possesses both voiced and voiceless nasals andliquids. Stops are not divided into voiced and voiceless, but rather intofortes and lenes. However, voiced and voiceless dental fricatives arepreserved and marked asBð� /ð/ andBþ�/u/, respectively. In com-mon with most other Scandinavian languages and dialects Icelandic hasthe loss of /w/, nasal vowels, as well as the loss of the old system ofsyllable quantity, features still preserved in Elfdalian (or Alvdalska,spoken in Northern Dalecarlia, Sweden). On the prosodic level, Icelandichas lost the distinction between two tonal accents, but has preserved thestress on the first syllable also in prefixes and words ex externo.

As Knutsson (1993) points out, Icelandic consists mainly of mono-syllabic morphemes, as does Old English. Moreover, Icelandic tends toretain vowel-quantity in unstressed words. Hence, the Icelandic mor-phemic structure has remained largely explicit and most Icelandiccompounds retain the identity of their components.


Icelandic re-established

Due to centuries of Danish rule, Icelandic has not only become highlyinfluenced by the Danish language, but according to reports from themid-18th to mid-19th centuries, the language in the harbours and in thecapital Reykjavik was a mixed Dano-Icelandic variety (Ottosson, 1990:29�52). Growing interest in the Old Icelandic manuscripts overseas andan increasing national awakening gave rise to calls for the preservation ofthe language and to its ‘cleansing’ from its ex externo elements. Thesecalls were embodied in the declaration made by Hið ıslenska lær-domslistafelag (The Icelandic Society for Learned Arts), a group of Icelandicstudents in Copenhagen that formulated an official and puristicallyoriented language policy in 1780. Even at the beginning of the 19thcentury, the Danish linguist and Icelandophile Rasmus Rask predictedthat Icelandic would vanish within a hundred years in Reykjavik andwithin two hundred years in the rest of the country, should nothing bedone to save the language. In its statutes the above group writes asfollows (in English translation):

5. Likewise, the Society shall treasure and preserve the Norse tongue asa beautiful, noble language, which has been spoken in the Nordiccountries for a long time, and seek to cleanse the same from foreignwords and expressions which have now begun to corrupt it.Therefore, in the Society’s publications, foreign words shall not beused about sports, tools or anything else, insofar as one may findother old or Mediaeval Norse terms.

6. Therefore, instead of such foreign words one may coin new words,compounded of other Norse [words], which explain well the natureof the object that they are to denote; in doing this, one shouldexamine well the rules pertaining to and employed in this languageas to the structure of good, old words; such words should be given aclear explanation and translation in order that they become easilycomprehensible for the public.

7. However, such words that have been used in writings in thethirteenth or in the fourteenth century may be retained, even ifthey do not have their provenance in the Norse tongue, but beoriginally from foreign nations, when no other more customary orbetter and beautiful [words] exist otherwise. (Halldorsson, 1971: 223)

The declared puristic orientation that accompanied language planningin that period left its traces on the Icelandic language and vocabulary.Other noteworthy motives for conservative language planning are


18th- and 19th-century Enlightenment, a swift transformation frompoverty and agricultural lifestyle into prosperity and industrialisationin the 20th century and, finally, globalisation and high technology sincethe middle of the 20th century. An extended conceptual and materialworld has consequently demanded an extended Icelandic lexis. More-over, reproduction ex interno helped strengthen national consciousnessand pride, or at least what was conceived as elements ex interno, often atthe cost of old formations ex externo, based on Danish. However,Icelandic language purism was not as radical as might be assumed. Asmentioned in paragraph 7 in the Society’s statutes, Medieval words thathad no good substitute remained in the language. Lexemes such asprestur ‘priest’, kirkja ‘church’ and other were so enrooted and domes-ticated, that uprooting them would be conceived by the speechcommunity as an extreme measure and could become counterproductiveand alienate people from the mother tongue. Although based ex externo,such old words have been and still are regarded as fully native.

The combination of a declared language policy and the need for newpublications in Icelandic within scholarly and ideological domains havegiven rise to a large-scale formation ex interno (Icelandic nyyrðasmıð), orat least apparently ex interno, neology that has slowly but surely becomean important national sport in Iceland. Even though the work ofpreserving and ‘cleansing’ the language has been applied to grammarand even pronunciation, its focus has nonetheless been undoubtedly thelexis. Danish, and for the past decades also English, are often still present‘behind’ word-formation, i.e. as sources for calques and PSM, withinphraseology, in the colloquial language and in some professional jargons.

Through Iceland’s political sovereignty in 1918, full independence in1944 and the establishment of the Icelandic Language Council, Islenskmalnefnd, in 1964, the status of the Icelandic language has been reinforcedand language planning has ever since been carried out through legisla-tion. The Council works with language planning and language preserva-tion, activities run on a daily basis by its secretariat, The IcelandicLanguage Institute, Islensk malstoð, founded in 1985. The LanguageInstitute offers instructions and consultation for the language users andworks with neology and terminology. In the terminological work around30 different committees are engaged within different specialised domains.

However, the language authorities have not been working alone. Massmedia, specialists within different domains and laymen have all playedan important role in applying the puristic language policy, not only byactively coining ex interno, but also through contemplations and publicdebates. Due to the obvious success of the Icelandic puristic language


policy, the language can be regarded today as one of the most, if not themost, puristically oriented living languages.

Language contact and linguistic purism

Due to centuries of Danish rule in Iceland, Danish has been the majorimmediate source language (SL) for reproductions ex externo inIcelandic. Conscious and puristically oriented language planning hasnot merely constituted an obstacle to the further expansion of Danishlanguage use on the cost of Icelandic, but even led to minimising thepreexistent Danish interference in Icelandic. Albeit a diminished influ-ence on Modern Icelandic, Danish can still be considered the majorimmediate SL for reproductions ex externo in Icelandic throughout time.However, diminished Danish interference should not be seen solely asthe result of Icelandic puristic activity, but also a consequence of thepolitical changes in Iceland.

Even though large-scale trade with Britain began already at the end ofthe 19th century (Karlsson, 2000: 244), considerable English languageinfluence began only in the middle of the 20th century. British occupationin 1940 and full independence in 1944 exposed the Icelandic society toEnglish and American culture, gradually placing English as the first SLfor Icelandic and thus the primary source for reproduction ex externo onthe cost of Danish (Sapir, 2008).

But contacts with Britain and the English language are by no meansnew. Direct English influence on Icelandic, although minor, can be datedas far back as the 11th and 12th centuries, conveyed primarily bymissionaries and Icelanders who studied in Britain, on the one hand, andthrough general religious spreading, on the other, often mediated byNorway. Additionally, cultural terms spreading between differentEuropean languages reached Iceland, usually conveyed by Norwegianor Icelandic merchants. Although trade contacts between Iceland andEngland were intensive in the first half of the 15th century, Old andMiddle English influence on Icelandic was minor. Due to the Danishtrade monopoly imposed on Iceland in 1602, trade with Britain was keptmarginal until the 20th century. English and international words thatentered the Icelandic language between the 17th and the 19th centurieswere usually mediated by Danish. Notable English language influenceon Icelandic began in the 1940s and has been growing ever since(Oskarsson, 2003: 70�71, 86; Sapir, 2008). In 1999, English replacedDanish as the first foreign language in Icelandic elementary schools.Through television, movies, computers and the Internet, English is


ubiquitous in Icelandic everyday life. Most Icelanders subsequently leaveschool with a good active knowledge of English. Danish is slowly losingground and many Icelanders today merely have a passive knowledge ofthat language, acquired as an obligatory subject at school.

Whereas such traditionally oriented languages as Finnish and Hebrewhave become more receptive to influence ex externo, Icelandic languageplanning is still considered to have preserved its traditional puristicspirit. Thomas (1991: 159) characterises linguistic purism in Finnish andHebrew as ‘evolutionary purism’, and in Icelandic as ‘consistent, stablepurism’ (Sapir, 2003: 41). To name a few examples, Icelandic has exinterno or apparent ex interno reproductions for such common inter-nationalisms as ‘computer’ tolva, ‘president’ forseti, ‘psychology’ salfræði,‘telephone’ sımi and ‘television’ sjonvarp. In spite of its successfullypersistent linguistic purism, Icelandic is confronting immense challengesposed by English. For instance, in the relatively new domain ofcomputers, Icelandic speakers turn out to use more Englishisms thanSwedish speakers do, although in general Swedish has rather liberal andoutgoing language planning. This can be explained by the relativelyscarce resources at the disposal of the authorities of an organisedlanguage community amounting to merely 280,000 persons, renderingit difficult to come up with Icelandic translations to frequently updatedtexts for operating systems, Internet and word-processing programs(Palsson, 2003: 245; Sapir, 2003: 42). Even though the traditional puristiclanguage planning was subject to open criticism and public debate in the1970s and 1980s, it seems to enjoy a relatively broad consensus amongIcelanders today (Kristinsson, 2001; Sandøy, 1985: 16�17).

Word-formation

In most languages, word-formation often involves reproduction exinterno, ex externo or a combination of both sources. Nowadays,American English is the source for ex externo reproduction in many ofthe world’s languages. However, when reproduction on a purely exexterno source is rejected as a principle by the speech community, as isthe case of Icelandic, what alternative types of word-formation are, then,employed? In some languages, camouflaging the foreign dimension maybe one solution. This type of word-formation involves ex interno cum exexterno elements. One such ‘mixed’ word-formation type that is at stakefor the present chapter is ‘phonosemantic matching’ (PSM).

Sapir’s (2008) survey of current Icelandic word-formation in news-paper material shows that out of 625 lexemes that entered the lexis after


1780, approximately 51% were reproduced ex interno, containing newforms and senses, whereas 15% were a result of a semantic shift, andmerely 6% of the data were reproduced purely ex externo. Observing thebifurcated formation types, consisting of mixed ex interno cum exexterno reproductions, we find:

1. CALQUE to its different types, accounting for as much as 26% of thedata. In calques, the form is reproduced ex interno, but the structureis reproduced ex externo, e.g. hugmyndBhugur ‘mind’�mynd ‘pic-ture’, calqued on older Danish tankebilledeBtanke�billede withidentical meaning.

2. FORMAL HYBRIDITY, accounting for one occurrence, i.e. 0.2% of thedata. Here, formal ex externo and ex interno elements are reproducedsimultaneously, e.g. dulkoða ‘to encrypt’Bex interno dul- ‘secret’�exexterno koði ‘code’.

3. PSM, accounting for one occurrence, i.e. 0.2%, in the data. Here, exexterno and ex interno are combined both in form and content, i.e. onthe phonological and semantic level, e.g. tækni ‘technology, techni-que’ are semantically and phonologically ex interno, reproducedfrom Icelandic tæki ‘tool’ and simultaneously ex externo, from Danishteknik ‘technology, technique’.

PSM and Previous Research

If you ever go to a supermarket in Iceland, ask for the low-fatmargarine Lett og laggott ‘light and to-the-point’. Just for your generalknowledge, the name of this brand is a pun on the idiom stutt og laggott

‘short and to-the-point’. But besides the pun and the alliteration in Lett og

laggott, there is another point here: the brand, imported from Sweden, iscalled there Latt och lagom ‘light and just enough’. By coming up with theIcelandic word laggott, which is phonetically similar to Swedish lagom,and by slightly changing the semantics of the whole phrase, the nameLett og laggott emerged, recognisable without difficulty to those whoknow the Swedish brand, with a semantic content that is very close to theSwedish one and that, moreover, makes sense to the Icelandic speaker.This is also how PSM works.1

PSM is widespread in two categories of language:

1. Puristically oriented languages, in which language planners attemptto replace undesirable elements ex externo, e.g. Finnish, Icelandic,Israeli Hebrew and Revolutionised Turkish; and


2. Languages that use phono-logographic script, e.g. Chinese, as well asJapanese and Korean (the latter two when using Kanji or Hanja

respectively), all of which are influenced by cultural superstratumlanguages, mainly English.

Thus, Icelandic eyðni ‘AIDS’ is a PSM of English AIDS, using Icelandiceyða ‘to destroy’ and the nominal suffix -ni. This is but one example ofwhat is, in fact, an important form of bifurcated reproduction, which canbe observed in Icelandic, as in other languages. This phenomenon, whichwe call PSM, can be defined as a bifurcated reproduction ex externo and ex

interno simultaneously, in which the element/s ex externo is matched with a

phonetically and semantically similar preexistent autochthonous element/s exinterno. Thus, PSM may alternatively be defined as the entry of a neologism

that preserves both the meaning and the approximate sound of the reproduced

expression in the source language (SL) with the help of preexistent targetlanguage (TL) elements. Here, as well as throughout this chapter, neologismis used in its broader meaning, i.e. either an entirely new lexeme or apreexistent word whose meaning has been altered, resulting in a newsense. Figure 2.1 is a general illustration of this process. Figure 2.2summarises the process with regard to Icelandic eyðni ‘AIDS’.

Although this source of lexical enrichment exists in a variety oflanguages, it has not been systematically studied by linguists but ratherdismissed with an honourable mention (see e.g. Heyd, 1954: 90; Sivan,1963: 37�38, Toury, 1990 for Hebrew; Hansell, 1989; Lı, 1990; Luo, 1950 onChinese; and Yao, 1992 on Taiwan Mandarin; and see Zuckermann,2003a). Also scholars of Icelandic word-formation seem to have left PSM

Sl x ‘a’

TL(+PSM) y’ ‘a’’

y is phonetically similar to xb is similar to ay’ is based on ya’ is based on a

TL y ‘b’

Figure 2.1 Phonosemantic matching


unnoticed. Jonsson presents the following taxonomy of contemporaryIcelandic word-formation:

1. innlend lan ‘native borrowings’, accounting for formations ex internowith new senses;

2. nymyndanir ‘new creations’, accounting for derivatives, compoundsand new stems ex interno;

3. erlend lan ‘foreign borrowings’, accounting for formations ex externo(Jonsson, 2002b: 183�200).

Islensk orðsifjabok, the Icelandic etymological dictionary, only mentionsthe association between the ex interno and ex externo origin of PSMs(Magnusson, 1989: 286), but is not more specific than that.

Groenke (1983) refers in passing to PSM. However, his taxonomy isvague and when addressing true PSM, he ignores its semantic dimen-sion. In his taxonomy of present-day Icelandic neologisation, Groenkesums up five methods of word-formation: derivation, compounding,meaning expansion, reintroduction of archaisms with a new meaningand finally Lehnclipping ‘loan-clipping’. The latter, relevant to our chapter,is defined as follows:

English

Icelandic

Icelandic

+-ni

nominal suffix

eyða ‘to destroy’

AIDS

eyðni‘AIDS’

Figure 2.2 Phonosemantic matching of AIDS in Icelandic


A fifth method has been applied quite often in recent times, that is,the formation of artificial words from segments of foreign patternsthat can be conveniently compared to the graphic-phonic structureof Icelandic. In the case of borrowed segments, the segments cannotbe analysed morphemically like in the source languages. There-fore, we prefer the term ‘clipping’. (English translation of Groenke,1983)

Groenke (1983: 148�150) cites two examples. The first one is berkill‘tuberculosis’, in which the initial syllable tu- was clipped and the finalsyllable adapted to the Icelandic suffix -ill. This reportedly resulted in anew Icelandic formation, analysable as berk-ill, in which the formative berkhas no meaning whatsoever� the suffix -ill, otherwise denoting instru-ment or agent. Groenke’s second example is ratsja ‘radar’, ultimatelybased on the internationalism radar, in turn an acronym of radio detectingand ranging. Reproduced in Icelandic, -ra was, according to Groenke,clipped, and the Icelandic element -sja added, resulting in the form rat-sja,thus analysable as consisting of rata ‘to find one’s way’, and -sja, denoting‘something, which sees’. Ratsja, coined shortly after WWII, is not onlygraphically�phonetically dual, as Groenke suggests, alluding to radar andrata�sja simultaneously, but also semantically dual. Thus, it is asatisfying manifestation of PSM.

The traditional classifications of borrowing ignore PSM altogether, andcategorise borrowing into either substitution or importation. However,we consider PSM as a distinct phenomenon, which operates throughsimultaneous substitution and importation devices. Recognising PSMcarries important implications not only for lexicology and comparativehistorical linguistics, but also for sociolinguistics and cultural studies.

For example, although Haugen (1950b) is considered by some to havepresented the most complex typology of lexical borrowing (cf. Appel &Muysken, 1987: 164), his treatment hardly mentions PSM. He only brieflydiscusses ‘semantic loan’ (Haugen, 1950b: 214), which is related to onlyone specific category of PSM, namely ‘phono-semantic matching througha preexistent form’ and seems to have had in mind only one of manycases belonging to this category. Moreover, PSM does not fall withinHaugen’s main types of reproduction ex externo or ‘borrowing’ �substitution and importation.

PSM in Icelandic

As noted, the original Icelandic morphemes are usually monosyllabicand polysyllabic words are analysable due to the conservative character


of the language. Thus, when reproducing polysyllabic words ex externo,Icelandic may resemble tonal languages in the sense that some of thesewords may not only be perceived as phonetically native, but may also bepartially or totally reanalysed semantically. Jonsson (2002a) calls thesepolysyllabic words syndarsamsetningar ‘pseudo-compounds’, as thespeakers are assumed to divide it in two and treat it as a compoundstem, in that both syllables bear accents. As examples, Jonsson citesIcelandic abbadıs ‘abbess’, which could be conceived as some kind ofdıs ‘Goddess; fairy’, and krokodıll ‘crocodile’ which could be conceived assome kind of dıll ‘speckle, spor’ (Jonsson, 2002a: 230). The first elementcan be identified as related to krokur ‘hook’. Knutsson (1993: 113) citessuch examples as Icelandic aboti ‘abbot’, which can be reanalysed as anative formation reproduced of a ‘on’�bot ‘remedy’� i (inflectionalsuffix), and kafteinn ‘captain’, which can be reanalysed as a nativeformation reproduced of kaf ‘submersion’� teinn ‘rod’. Even though thesemantic connection to the actual meanings of these ex externo forma-tions is far-fetched, the next step is PSM, as in teknik�Icelandic tækni‘technology, technique’ and bagel�beygla ‘bagel’, where logical semanticassociation is involved. With no special semantic content we findIcelandic harmonikka ‘accordion’, kakkalakki ‘cockroach’ and rabbarbari‘rhubarb’.

In 1780 Hið ıslenska lærdomslistafelag (The Icelandic Society for LearnedArts) presented its declaration of principles of the Icelandic language,formulating an official and puristic language policy. Demonstrations ofPSMs in Icelandic predate such puristic language planning.

For instance, the Icelandic PSM guðspjall ‘gospel’ was formed uponIcelanders’ acceptance of Christianity in the year 1000. It is attested inwritten Icelandic in the 13th century Sturlunga Saga. Its formationinvolved a reproduction (1) ex externo of Old English god-spel lit. ‘goodtidings, good news’ on the one hand, and ex interno on Icelandic guð‘God’�spjall ‘speech’, lit. ‘God’s discourse’, on the other (Magnusson,1989: 286). This can be summed up by the formula: ex externo(phonology�semantics)�ex interno (phonology�semantics)�ex externocum ex interno�PSM.2

PSM seems to have become much more productive in Icelandicappellatives after the turn of the 19th century. For example, Icelandicpafagaukur ‘parrot’, from Danish papegøje was combined with ex internoIcelandic pafi (in genitive) ‘pope’�gaukur ‘cuckoo’, lit. ‘the pope’s cuckoo’was first attested in the 1890s.

Three steps are essential in the study of PSM: the collection of PSMs;the analytic classification of PSMs; and the analysis itself. One of the


classifications that can help answer vital questions concerning the natureand function of PSM is lexicopoietic and is dealt with below as PSMthrough a preexistent form and PSM through a new form. It should be notedthat during our field and library research we found a handful of PSMs inIcelandic. Our examples in these sections refer only to those related toEnglish.

PSM through a preexistent form

Consider Icelandic dalur ‘dollar’, reproduced ex interno from Icelandicdalur ‘daler’, an old Danish monetary unit, which was once in use inIceland, and ex externo from English dollar. Note that the suffix -ur is notradical, but inflectional (Sapir, 2008).

Similarly, Icelandic dapur ‘depressed, dejected, low in spirits’ wasreproduced ex interno from Icelandic dapur ‘sad, downcast, woeful,weak, joyless’. Through the influence of Danish deprimeret and Englishdepressed, the etymologically unrelated dapur has acquired the sense‘depressed’, and its derivatives dapurleiki and depurð the meanings‘depression’. Dapur and its derivatives share the first three consonantsd, p, r with English or international depressed.

Icelandic ımynd in the meaning ‘image, model, character being lookedup to’ was reproduced ex interno from Icelandic ımynd ‘picture, image,symbol’. In the late 1960s this word seems to have acquired theadditional sense ‘character being looked up to’ through ex externoEnglish image (Sapir, 2008).

Icelandic setur ‘centre’ was reproduced ex interno from Icelandic setur‘seat; residence’ and ex externo from English centre. Through Englishinfluence, this noun seems to be used more and more frequently with themeaning ‘centre’, e.g. rannsoknarsetur ‘research centre’, namskeiðasetur‘course centre’ and læknasetrið ‘medical centre’.

Icelandic toga ‘to trawl’ (method of fishing) was reproduced ex internofrom Icelandic toga ‘to pull, draw’ and ex externo from English trawl, thussharing the phonemes /t/ or /T/ and /o/ and additionally a consonantwith the English word. Likewise, the derivative togari ‘to trawl’�agentivesuffix was reproduced ex interno cum ex externo from English ‘trawler’.Both neologisms were coined by the director general of public healthGuðmundir Bjornson, thus substituting ex externo trolla and trollari,respectively (Halldorsson, 1971: 233). They are first attested in thebeginning of the 20th century. The English verb itself, to trawl, ultimatelymeans ‘to draw, drag’.


Incestuous PSM by semantic shifting

PSM by semantic shifting is common in cases of cognates, i.e. the TLoriginal word and the inducing SL word are semantically close. Considerthe following:

. (American) Portuguese humoroso ‘capricious’ changed its referent to‘humorous, funny’ owing to the English surface-cognate humorous(Haugen, 1950b: 214), cf. Portuguese humoristico ‘humorous’.

. French realiser ‘actualise, make real’ is increasingly used to mean‘realise, conceive, apprehend’ � induced by English realise (Deroy,1956: 59), which derives from Italian realizzare or from the originalFrench realiser.

. Israeli Hebrew pulmus/pulmos/pulmus ‘polemic’ is a PSM � based onMishnaic Hebrew [pul’mus] (also [pul’mus]) ‘war’ (cf. Mishnah:SoTah 9:14) � of the internationalism polemic, cf. Israeli polemika,German Polemik, Yiddish polemik, Russian gjktvbrf polemika, Polishpolemika and French polemique. Both Mishnaic Hebrew pulmus andthe internationalism polemic can be traced to Greek polemos ‘battle,fight, war’ (cf. Kutscher, 1965: 31). However, the Mishnaic meaning‘war’ is obsolete today (Zuckermann, 2003a: 95).

Incestuous PSMs in Icelandic have an ex interno element that isetymologically cognate with the ex externo element from an Indo-European or a common Germanic phrase.

Consider Icelandic beygla, which has acquired the additional sense‘bagel’. It was thus reproduced ex interno from Icelandic beygla ‘dent’(related to begyja ‘to bend, curve’ and baugur ‘ring’) and ex externo, it wasreproduced immediately from English bagel, but ultimately from Yiddish

beygl. Thus, it can be reanalysed both phonemically and semanti-cally as a derivation of baugur ‘ring’ and as a reproduction of Englishbagel. Both ultimately go back to a common Germanic stem baugian.

Icelandic heila ‘to heal, restore to health’ and etymologically cognatewith English heal has expanded its meaning to comprise ‘to heal, restoreto a spiritual wholeness’ by reproducing ex interno Icelandic heila and exexterno, the cognate English heal. Both go back to a common Germanicroot.

Icelandic staða ‘status’, a cognate of English status, was reproduced exinterno from Icelandic ‘stand, posture; position, post’ and ex externo onthe internationalism status, by which it has expanded its meaning toembrace ‘status, position relative to others’ as in ‘social status’. They bothgo back to the Indo-European root *st(h)a, *st(h)e ‘to stand’.


Icelandic stoð ‘station’, a cognate of English station, was reproduced exinterno from Icelandic stoð. They both go back to the Indo-European root*st(h)a, *st(h)e ‘to stand’. Originally, stoð meant ‘place, position, place oflanding’, but through meaning rapprochement it acquired in the 19thcentury the additional meaning ‘station’ and also ‘centre’ (currently oftenin the complex formation miðstoð lit. ‘middle-place’). The meaning‘station’ does not merely embrace concrete locations, such as trainstations, but, as in English, also such establishments as radio andtelevision stations.

PSM introducing a new form

The proposed Icelandic bifra ‘to vibrate’ and bifrari ‘vibrator’ based exinterno on Icelandic bifa ‘to tremble, shake’ and ex externo on Englishvibrate and vibrator, respectively. These words have apparently nevercome into use in Icelandic. Ex interno titra and titrari are used to denote‘vibrtae’ and ‘vibrator’, respectively.

Icelandic brokkal ‘broccoli’, was reproduced ex interno from Icelandicbrok ‘cotton grass’�kal ‘plant from the genus Brassica’, cf. blomkal‘cauliflower’, hvıtkal ‘cabbage’, rauðkal ‘red fairy’ and spergilkal also‘broccoli’. Ex externo, the ultimate source of the word is Italian broccoli,which is the plural diminutive form of brocco ‘sprout, shoot’ and theimmediate one is English broccoli. Brokkal is the least common of severalcompeting synonyms in Icelandic. The most common one, reproduced exinterno, is spergilkal, from spergill ‘aspargus’�kal ‘plant from the genusBrassica’. Note that ex interno Finnish parsakaali ‘broccoli’ also has theliteral meaning ‘asparagus’ (parsa)�‘plant from the genus Brassica’.Broccoli has two other synonyms, that are adaptations ex externo intoIcelandic, i.e. brokkolı and brokkolı (Sapir, 2008).

PSM of vegetable and fruit names is very common in many languages.Consider artichoke. This lexical item has been subject to PSMs in variouslanguages, for example: North Italian articiocco, arciciocco (�Englisharchychock)BarcicioffoBOld Italian *alcarcioffo (Modern Italian carciofo,carcioffo) � by association with the native Italian words arci- arch-‘chief’, cioffo ‘horse-collar’ and ciocco ‘stump’. Consider also Frenchartichaut/chou/chaud/chault/chaut � by assimilation to chou ‘cabbage’, chaud‘warm’, hault, haut ‘high’.

The Italian and French forms were Latinised in the 16th century asarticoccus/coctus/cactus. English arti/horti/harty�choke/chock/choak is ex-plained by the fact that ‘it chokes the garden’, ‘it chokes the heart’ or‘its heart causes one to choke’. Note, however, that English choke ‘the


mass of immature florets in the centre of an artichoke’ might haveemerged from reanalysing the existent artichoke as having in its heart a‘choke’, cf. Zuckermann (2003a: 213).

Compare this with the Arabic compound PSM /’ard3i sawki/‘artichoke’ (Figure 2.3), Vernacular Arabic /’ard3i so:ki/ in e.g. theGalilee. This form is used (inter alia) in Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Ithybridises (i) the internationalism artichoke and (ii) Arabic /’ard3i/‘earthly, terrestrial, of ground’ (‘artichokes grow in earth’)�˘/sawki/‘thorny, prickly’ (cf. /sawk, so:k/ ‘thorns’) (‘artichokes are thorny’).International artichoke ‘Cynara Scolymus’ goes back to Old Spanishalcarchofa (cf. Contemporary Spanish alcachofa, Portuguese alcachofra),from Spanish Arabic [/alxarsu:fa], from Arabic /al-xarsu:f/. Conse-quently, Arabic /’ard3i sawki/ closes a circle which began in Arabic withthe etymologically unrelated /kharshu:f/.3

Returning to Icelandic, eyðni [eJðnI] ‘AIDS’, coined by Pall Ber-gþorsson in 1985 (Jonsson, 1987), is a reproduction ex interno of Icelandiceyða ‘to eliminate, devastate’�nominal suffix -ni and ex externo onEnglish AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), commonlyrendered by Icelanders as [eJts]. Eyðni is one of half a dozen Icelandicwords suggested in the 1980s to denote AIDS, the acronym of AcquiredImmune Deficiency Syndrome. Three neologisms in particular competedwith each other: alnæmi (from al- ‘all, overall’�næmi ‘sensitivity’),onæmistæring (from onæmi ‘immunity’�tæring ‘phthisis; corrosion’) andeyðni. As eyðni began to gain ground, four doctors made a case against it,arguing that a lexeme alluding to destruction may have too negativeconnotations for the patients (Jonsson, 1987). Today, the formation exexterno AIDS and the formation ex interno alnæmi are most commonlyused to denote AIDS in Icelandic. Interestingly, the same Englishism wasphonosemantically matched in Modern Standard Chinese as aızıbıng, lit.

> Spanish Arabic> Italian alcarcioffo > North Italian arcicioffo > arciciocco > articiocco >>

> International/English > Arabic (e.g. in Syria, Lebanon and Israel)artichoke

> Old Spanish alcarchofa >

Figure 2.3 Artichoke


‘love�cause/develop/neutralise/spread�disease’, i.e. ‘a disease causedby (making) love’. Figure 2.4 summarises these processes.

Icelandic korrettur ‘absolutely, totally correct’ was reproduced exinterno from the Icelandic etymologically opaque element kor-, appearingmerely in korvilla ‘grave error, total mistake’�rettur ‘right, correct’(Heimir Palsson pc) and ex externo from International correct. The firstrecord of korrettur is found in Paradısarheimt ‘Paradise Reclaimed’ from1960, written by the Nobel Prize Winner for literature Halldor Laxness.Within the collected data of our Icelandic PSMs, this is the only lexemethat is not totally assimilated semantically with the ex externo lexeme, asthe intensifier kor- ‘totally, absolutely’ from korvilla is reproduced.

AIDSeyðni

(Acquired ImmuneDeficiency Syndrome)

IcelandicIcelandic

eyð ‘to destroy’

nominal suffix

+-ni

‘AIDS’

As eyðni began to gain ground in the1980s, four doctors made a case against

it, arguing that its connotation is toonegative for the patients.

cf. the competing terms alnæmi(‘overall+sensitivity’), ónæmistæring

(‘immunity+corrosion’) and AIDS

Modern Standard Chinese

Israeli Israeli

en yotér dfiká stam

‘There are no more“one-night stands’”‘AIDS’

JOCULARREANALYSISeyds

aìzī

‘love’

bìng ‘disease’

i.e. ‘a disease caused by(making) love’

‘cause/develop’

aìzībìng‘AIDS’

Figure 2.4 Phonosemantic matching of AIDS in Icelandic, Modern StandardMandarin and Hebrew


Icelandic ratsja ‘radar’ was reproduced ex interno from Old Icelandicrata ‘to find’ (� Modern Icelandic ‘to find one’s way’)�-sja ‘-scope’ andex externo from English radar. The element -sja, reproduced from theverb sja ‘see’ has become equivalent to the internationalism -scopein several neologisms, as in hringsja ‘periscope’ (with hring- meaning‘around, circum-, peri-’), rafsja ‘electroscope’ (with raf- meaning‘electrical, electro-‘) and smasja ‘microscope’ (with sma- meaning ‘little,small, micro-‘). The meaning of -sja ‘an instrument, which helps in seeingthings’, probably goes back to a sole Old Icelandic word, i.e. skuggsja, lit.‘instrument, by whose means shadows are seen’, i.e. ‘mirror’. Interest-ingly, the very internationalism radar was domesticated in ModernStandard Chinese as leida (Ramsey, 1989: 60; Wu, 1993: 1540), lit.‘thunder�reach’. Many Englishisms which are matched in Icelandicare also matched � independently � in other languages.

Icelandic staðall ‘standard’ was reproduced ex interno from Icelandicstaða ‘stand, posture; position, post’� instrumental suffix -all and exexterno from the internationalism standard. It was coined by Olafur M.Olafsson (Halldorsson, 1971: 229) and is first recorded in 1955, togetherwith the derivatives staðlaður (adjective) ‘standard, standardised’ andstoðlun ‘standardisation’.4

Similarly, Icelandic tækni ‘technology, technique’ derives ex internofrom Icelandic tæki ‘tool’ and is reproduced ex externo from Danish (orinternational) teknik ‘technology, technique’. This neologism was coinedin 1912 by Dr. Bjorn Bjarnarson from Viðfjorður in the East of Iceland. Itwas little used before the 1940s, but has ever since become highlycommon, as a lexeme and as an element in new formations, such asraftækni lit. ‘electrical technics’, i.e. ‘electronics’, tæknilegur ‘technical’ andtæknir ‘technician’ (Halldorsson, 1987: 96; 1995a; Sapir, 2008). The latterformation follows an ancient strong masculine pattern of ir- stem,formations denoting agent.5 Figure 2.5 summarises these processes,adding a relevant Israeli one.

Icelandic uppi ‘yuppie’ was reproduced ex interno from Icelandic upp‘up’ and ex externo from English yuppie. This slang word can bereanalysed as upp ‘up’� the inflectional suffix -i. As uppi ‘yuppie’ is ahomonym, not a polyseme of uppi ‘up, upstairs’, it is regarded here as anew form.

Icelandic veira ‘virus’ was reproduced ex interno from Icelandic feyra‘mouldiness, mustiness; rottenness, decay’ and ex externo on theinternationalism virus. It was coined by the Director General of publichealth Vilmundur Jonsson in 1955, who was conscious of both thephonemic and the semantic aspects of his creation. Besides the common


International

e.g. Danish teknik

techniquetechnologytechnical

Icelandic

[ taqni]/[ tiqani] √tqn

√tkn

√kwn

Icelandic

‘technology, technique’

Coined in 1912 by Dr BjörnBjarnarson from Viðfjörður in the

East of Iceland

cf. the secondary derivativesraftœkni, lit. ‘electrical technics’,

i.e. ‘electronics’; tœknilegur‘technical’ and tœknir ‘technician’

tæknitæki

-ni+‘tool’

nominal suffix

[ tajkni]

Arabic

Israeli (Biblical) Hebrew

‘regulate, measure, estimate,be adjusted to the standard’,

a secondary root of‘be firm, be set up, prepare’

Proposed as the ultimate etymology forthe internationalism technical by

Professor Nahum Slouschz in 1930 (cf.Zuckermann 2003: 154)

tekhnión

The suggested spelling for Technion (‘Israel’sMIT’) by Israel’s poet laureate Chaim Nachman

Bialik (1873–1934) – as opposed to the mereloanword

pharyngealized [t], is the default transcriptionfor a foreign being used for foreign th – cf.

matemátika ‘mathematics’)

( ultimately took over as the name)

tekhnión (the , originally

Arabic

‘to master, improve,bring to perfection’

‘improved (m, sg)’;cf.‘perfection, thorough

proficiency’;professionally done, strong, finished up,

improved’ (often said about craft/art

[ mutqan] ‘perfect,

‘technical, technological’

Vernacular Arabic [ tiqani]/[ tiqni]

cf. the Arabic morphemicadaptation of the internationalismtechnique:

than [taq ni:k][tak ni:k] – rather

works); [tiqn] ‘skilful, clever’

Figure 2.5 Phonosemantic matching of TECHNICAL in Icelandic, Arabicand Israeli


phonemes /v/ and /r/, Vilmundur Jonsson was apparently aware of thepossibility of alluding to the English diphthong [aj] in English virus bythe diphthong ei [ej] in veira. Moreover, Icelandic has an internalphonological development of i�ei. Having coined the word, Jonssonlearned that long i in Latin happens to correspond frequently to Icelandicei. As if this wouldn’t be enough, the word veira itself, and somederivations, appears in Bjorn Halldorsson’s Icelandic dictionary fromthe end of the 18th century, with reference to feyra (see above). Thederivation veirulaus (lit. veira�‘-less’) is defined as ‘honest, straightfor-ward’, which, according to Jonsson, enhances veira in its new meaning.However, veira in its old meaning is not attested in other written sources(Jonsson, 1985). The PSM veira and the formation ex externo vırus coexistin Icelandic today. Whereas vırus was first attested in 1945, veira was firstattested in 1955. Veira is also used to denote ‘virus’ in the computerdomain.

Partial PSM

The type of formation discussed in this chapter varies in its level ofphonetic matching. Partial PSM is such a formation, whose phoneticmatching is limited to no more than one morpheme of the ex externoelement. In extreme cases, their very definition as PSMs can bequestioned.

Consider Icelandic fjarfesta lit. ‘to money�fasten’, i.e. ‘to invest’ andthe derivative fjarfesting lit. ‘money�fastening’, i.e. ‘investment’ thatwere introduced in Iceland in the 1940s, reportedly by Gylfi Þ. Gıslason.They were reproduced ex interno from Icelandic fe ‘money (genitive)’�festa ‘fasten’ and ex externo partially from English invest (Knutsson, 1993:110). They are considered partial PSMs, as the first morph wassubstituted into Icelandic fjar ‘money’ and the second one wasreproduced phonetically and semantically as -fest-. Note also the possibleinfluence of Danish investering, in which -ing functions as a noun suffix.The element -fest- occurs as the second element in other verbalformations, such as krossfesta lit. ‘to cross-fasten’, i.e. ‘to crucify’, whereit has a concrete meaning. In logfesta lit. ‘to law-fasten’, i.e. ‘to legalise’and staðfesta lit. ‘to place-fasten’, i.e. ‘to confirm’ the element -fest- has anabstract meaning, just as in fjarfesta and fjarfesting (Knutsson, 1993: 110;Sapir, 2008).

Icelandic pallborðsumræður, or shortly pallborð, ‘panel discussion’was reproduced ex interno from Icelandic pallborð (in genitive) ‘placeof honour’�umræða (in pluralis tantum) ‘discussion’ and ex externo


from English panel discussions. Phonemically, only the first syllable inIcelandic is equivalent to the two first syllables in English, sharing thephonemes /p/, /a/ and /l/. As Halldorsson (1995b) writes, he coined itaround 1976, as he was looking for a suitable native word for the Englishterm.

Conclusions and Theoretical Implications

As this chapter makes clear, PSM seems to be so camouflaged thatcoiners conscious of the ex externo aspect of the word, let alone naıvenative speakers, may identify it as native while for language purists itmay be considered a ‘recognised’ neologism in the language.

Whereas so-called popular etymology is often mocked and lookeddown upon due to lacking connection between the SL semantics and theTL semantics or to a sheer misunderstanding of the SL meaning, PSM isby many considered an elegant and likewise sophisticated method ofword-formation, succeeding in combining sound and meaning of both SLand TL and in awakening associations at the minds of the TL speakers.However, as we can see from the PSMs analysed throughout this chapter,the distinction between creation savante and creation populaire is not socategorical as many creations savantes are in fact ‘populaires’ and manycreations populaires are indeed ‘savantes’ (cf. Zuckermann, 2003a).

What at least at first glance seems like ‘good’ ex interno reproductionis in many cases a bifurcated reproduction ex interno cum ex externo,where the ex externo element is sometimes camouflaged. This descrip-tion is true of the standard written language. In other registers or genres,as within scientific and professional language in different domains orwithin the colloquial language, the ex externo share is probably evenhigher in Icelandic. This is probably true also in other languages.

PSM, a source of lexical enrichment distinct from guestwords,foreignisms, loan words and calquing, has had a vast impact acrossmany languages. PSM, which usually goes unnoticed by speakers(especially those of generations following the original coinage), hasintroduced a substantial number of new senses and lexemes in Chinese,Finnish, Icelandic, Japanese, Israeli Hebrew, Turkish, pidgins, creoles andother languages. In the case of Icelandic, PSM reinforces the view thatIcelandic lexis has been covertly influenced by other Germanic languagessuch as English and Danish. The (polychronically analysed) examplespresented in this chapter prove that PSM is an important method ofIcelandic word-formation, resulting in a handful of Icelandic lexemes orsuggestions for neologisms. Many of these suggested and lexicalised


neologisms have been produced through conscious word-formation. Thisis remarkable, taking into account the fact that the majority of SL wordsdo not have a parallel TL element which may coincide on phonetic andon semantic levels. Such a constraint does not usually apply to calquing,morphophonemic adaptation and mere neologisation.

Discussing Turkish examples of PSM, Deny (1935: 246) claims thatsuch neologisms are ‘without precedent in the annals of linguistics’. Thischapter corrects that statement. As our data show, PSM is above all ameans of disguising an ex externo lexical item by attaching ex internoelements that are both phonetically and semantically connected with theex externo lexical item. This implies that even though the neologismconsists of meanings and phonemes, which are at the same time exinterno and ex externo, the sense ex externo is primary to the sense exinterno. After all, the sense ex externo is the one introduced in the TL.With korrettur ‘totally correct’ as an exception, all our data show that thesense ex externo is the final meaning of the new PSM. The ex internosense is just used, if one can say so, ‘to justify it’. As for the phonemes,our data witness a broad range of phonetic affinity, from partial PSMsthat are phonetically distant from the SL, such as fjarfesta ‘to invest’,through phonetically somewhat related ratsja ‘radar’, to the phoneticallyvery similar uppi ‘yuppie’.

Looking further at the semantic aspect of PSM, it has the advantage forlanguage planners that apparently, differently from many other forma-tions ex externo, a wide spectrum of senses ex externo follows with thePSM. English lexemes such as chat and mail have been recentlyreproduced in numerous languages, but are usually semantically limitedto such a degree that second language speakers of English mightsometimes forget, or not even know, that the SL English chat can alsomean ‘small talk’ or ‘to have a small talk’ and that just saying mail inEnglish does not necessarily imply that it is electronic.

However, in PSMs a broader semantic range ex externo is reproduced,similarly to calques. For instance, Icelandic stoð does not only mean‘station’ as a physical location, but also the establishment of a radio ortelevision station. Icelandic tækni does not only mean ‘technique’ and‘technology’ in the mechanical sense, but also when it comes to using anytechnique, as in sports. Likewise, Icelandic veira does not only mean‘virus’ in the medical sense, but also a computer virus (just like inEnglish).6

The abortive coinage bifra-bifrari introduces new forms. However, it isimpossible to conclude from only two examples that it would be less


likely for a coinage introducing a new form to be accepted by the speechcommunity than for a coinage on a preexistent form.

PSM reflects cultural and social interactions and often manifests theattempt of a culture to preserve its identity when confronted with anoverpowering alien environment, without segregating itself from poten-tial influences. The result can be contempt (cf. Zuckermann, 2005a) or‘cultural flirting’ (being strongly influenced by the environment, as is thecase of Icelandic, which is currently greatly influenced by English). PSMstrengthens the idea that language is a major tool for cultures to maintainor form their identity. This chapter demonstrates the existence ofconcealed ex externo influences on Icelandic, mainly from English andDanish.

Notes1. Similarly, Swedish Pippi Langstrump (cf. English Pippi Longstocking, the

surname being a calque of the Swedish), the name of the protagonist ofAstrid Lingren’s children’s stories, was phonetically matched in Israeli as bılbilo khlum, lit. ‘Bilby Nothing’, as was done in many other languages (cf.Zuckermann, 2003a: 28).

2. Note that Old English god-spel is itself a calque of Greek oyaggolion euangelion(�Latin euangelium) ‘gospel’, lit. ‘glad tidings, good news; reward of goodtidings, given to the messenger’, from eu ‘good’� angelos ‘messenger, envoy’.Juxtapose Icelandic guðspjall with awon gilyon/ ‘evil revelation-book’,

ffipawon

gilyon ‘sin revelation-book’, and /obBBon gilyon/ ‘stone revelation-book’ �PSMs, found in early, uncensored copies of the Hebrew Babylonian Talmud,Sabbath Tractate, 116a.Note the structural compromise in the expressions above. For example, thequasihyperbaton construct-state awon gilyon/ literally means ‘evil of book’rather than ‘book of evil’. Switching places between the nomen rectum and thenomen regens � resulting in *gilyon awon ‘book of evil’ � would have beenmuch better semantically but not nearly as good phonetically. A similar‘poetic licence’ occurs in Maskilic Hebrew pe’eyr amud (pronounced in PolishAshkenazic Hebrew peayr amid), lit. ‘glory of pillar’, an adaptation ofEuropean pyramid. *amud pe’eyr, lit. ‘pillar of glory’, would have been muchbetter semantically.

3. Note that Jerusalem artichoke, the species of sunflower (Helianthus tuberosus)which tastes rather like an artichoke, is a lay phonetic matching of ItalianGirasole Articiocco ‘sunflower artichoke’. It is said to have been distributedunder this Italian name from the Farnese garden at Rome soon after itsintroduction to Europe in 1617.

4. Interestingly, the early Germanic form of Latin standardum, probably fromexterndere ‘to stretch out’� -ard, was the Middle High German PSM stanthart,lit. ‘stand hard’.

5. The internationalism technical was phonosemantically matched in Arabic too,as /taqniy, tiqaniy/ ‘technical, technological’ and /taqniyya, tiqaniyya/‘technology, technique’. These terms derive ex interno from Arabic /

ffiffitqn

p


‘to master, improve, bring to perfection’ as in /’atqana/ ‘he did somethingperfectly’ (Blau, 1981: 171�172). In fact, the Arabic morphemic adaptationof International technique is Arabic /takni:k/ rather than /taqni:k/, and cf./takno:lo:gi/ ‘technological’ (cf. Zuckermann, 2003a: 70�72).

6. In such cases the semantic process involves metaphorisation (J.R. � theeditor’s note).


Chapter 3

French: Tradition versus Innovationas Reflected in English Borrowings

MIRIAM BEN-RAFAEL

The dynamics of language contact and its effect on languages is wellknown and globalisation today is probably responsible for mostlanguage contacts, as it speeds up the diffusion of English throughoutthe world, brings it into intense contact with numerous other languages,and enhances the influence of English on them (Crystal, 2003a; Gorlach,2001, 2002b; Maurais & Morris, 2004). For years this phenomenon hasbeen fuelling ongoing debates among linguists in France about itssignificance for the development of French. It is in this context thatthis chapter analyses the influence of English on the French language inFrance, focusing particularly on its affect on the lexicon.1

For centuries numerous foreign words have entered the French lexiconas the result of diverse economic, cultural and political influences. This isparticularly true regarding English, which has been exerting a stronginfluence on French since the 16th century, as expressed in the adoptionof a broad variety of anglicisms. In the 20th century, much more than inany earlier period, this influence gained tremendously in power in thecontext of globalisation and the forceful role of American English ininternational communication (Hagege, 1987; Hofler, 1982; Humbley,2002; Pergnier, 1989; Truchot, 1990; Walter, 1997). Anglicisation becamestriking in the 1960s and was then vehemently criticised by linguists as athreat to the very survival of French. Etiemble voiced this criticism in hisfamous book Parlez-vous franglais (1964), which has been reprinted manytimes over the years. Up to now, about 40 years after the first publication,and a few years after the author’s death (2002), the question of the long-term effect of Anglicisation of French has remained open.

In general terms, the influence of English on French is expressed in awide range of linguistic phenomena, including borrowings, calques,lexical and grammatical interferences, and neologisms. All these havebeen defined, though in different ways, as anglicisms or americanisms

44

(Hagege, 1987; Pergnier, 1989; Picone, 1996: 1�7). It is on English borrow-ings in French that we choose to focus in the following.2

Lexical borrowings have been the subject of numerous studies overthe past several decades (Clyne, 1986; Field, 2002; Grosjean, 1982;Jacobson, 1998, 2001; Mackey, 1976; Myers-Scotton, 2002; Poplack &Sankoff, 1984; Poplack et al., 1988). It has been shown that they primarilyinvolve nouns (Romaine, 1989) and, more specifically, concern culturalitems (Mackey, 1976; Romaine, 1989) � though it is almost impossible toforecast which lexical elements will be adopted.

A distinction is often drawn between collective and personal borrow-ings (Poplack et al., 1988), between loan-blends and loan-shifts, or betweenborrowings which do not assimilate to the phonology of the hostlanguage, and others which get partially or entirely assimilated. Somelexical borrowings are due to L1 attrition (Ben-Rafael, 2004a; Dorian, 1981,1989; Schmid, 2002; Schmid et al., 2004). They may also increase the arrayof linguistic choices at the speaker’s disposal, where they are not due to alack of appropriate terms in L1. It is in this perspective that Haugen (1953)contends that borrowings can be classified as those which fulfil a lexicalgap and those which are gratuitous and carry specific semantic features.Moreover, many researchers (Auer, 1984, 1995, 1996; Ludi, 1990; Myers-Scotton, 1993) view borrowings as a new discursive means which isavailable to the speaker and which can also convey self-identity.

Regarding English loan words in French, more specifically, Pergnier(1989) suggests they fulfil three essential functions: (1) designing a newreality which can hardly be named by French terms; (2) indicating avirtual reservoir for neologisms to invigorate the vocabulary with newdenotative and connotative values; and (3) adding a ‘quasi magic’ touchto the discourse. Pergnier believes that the phenomenon of franglaisdescribed and condemned by Etiemble (1964) extends far beyond thenotion of fashion. According to him, it is a natural process of Anglicisa-tion, accounted for by specific facts carrying systematic consequences.The most easily identifiable of anglicisms, Pergnier says, are borrowingswhich generate new signifiers under innovative phonetic forms inspoken language and graphic ones in the written language, introducingthereby new signifieds into the target language. More specifically, in thecase of English borrowings in French, there is not always a direct andcomplete overlapping between the signified and the signifier. Theborrowing’s signified is then merely a hybrid product, a meeting point,a junction of two semiological systems.

Moreover, borrowed words often undergo adaptation in terms oftheir morphosyntax as well as their semantics and phonetics. From the

English Borrowings in French 45

semantic point of view, the meanings of borrowed terms are frequentlysimplified, with their meanings becoming restricted to only one elementof their original content. By virtue of its transfer from one lexical systemto another, the borrowed word often loses meanings to become a ‘puretool of designation’ (Pergnier, 1989: 57). The borrowed term exits theEnglish system through the reduction of its meanings in order to enterthe borrowing language. The borrowing is then restructured as itundergoes a process of integration in its new linguistic system. Thisprocess is not a passive integration of a new term that has come toreplace older ones. It is the cause of new semantic differentiations, andredefinitions and reconfiguration of semantic areas made of existingwords in a way that permits adoption of the newcomer (Pergnier, 1989:62). In this sense, borrowings renew the lexicon and instil new life intocontemporary vocabulary with new nuances and connotations.

Anglicisation of French which takes on multiple forms, may fulfil avariety of functions. In the language of the young, for instance,borrowings are used more for their emblematic significance than fortheir semantic value; for scientists, they respond more to a commu-nicative necessity than to a question of taste. On the other hand, Franglaisis not a homogeneous phenomenon and it unevenly affects differentsocial strata and areas of linguistic activity. The linguistic behaviours ofFranglais users also vary according to factors such as age or profession.Accordingly, it is often difficult to distinguish which uses pertain topragmatics and which to language game or mystical purposes. Someborrowings would convey particular nuances which cannot be found inFrench equivalents (wagons versus chariots, or outlaws versus hors-la-loi).Hence, borrowings do not exclude the use of French terms and theirutilisation but add a touch of picturesque to describe specific situations.

Echoing the general propositions offered by studies in the area ofborrowings (see above), numerous classifications of English borrowingsin French have been proposed (Actes du colloque sur les anglicismes, 1994:208�210; Mareschal, 1994: 26�32). Distinctions have been drawn betweenEnglish terms introduced into French ‘as is’ or slightly transformed, andothers that are more substantially altered. As a rule, the latter arecondemned by ‘purists’ as orthographic, typographic, morphological,syntactic or semantic ‘English�American contaminations’ (Boly, 1979: 10,11). Hofler (1982) distinguishes between (1) lexical import which mayconsist of whole English terms, borrowings that combine English andFrench words, and false anglicisms; (2) ‘migratory’ words borrowed fromother languages via English; (3) lexical substitutions, i.e. semanticborrowings or calques. Picone (1996: 4�7) differentiates seven categories


of borrowings: (1) integral (scanner, week-end), (2) semantic (adopter unprofil bas, cf. to keep a low profile), (3) structural or calque � an Englishimitation by French, (4) pseudo-anglicisms or neologisms of Frenchmaking, but composed of English elements which mimic integralborrowings (new look), (5) hybrid-neologisms combining English andFrench, Latin or Greek, (6) graphic borrowings when anglicisedorthography replicates or overlaps the French writing system, and (7)phonological borrowings when English phonemes are introduced intoFrench.

Walter (2000: 54) distinguishes between (1) English words with littlechange in form and meaning, (2) new derivations, (3) -ing suffixed terms,(4) words with new meanings, (5) translations, (6) calques, (7) pseudoanglicisms and (8) particular cases. As for Humbley (2002: 120�123), hedifferentiates between (1) direct loans, (2) replacements of loans byvarious forms of translation and (3) pseudo-loans. The latter may beinnovations using English elements without any English model (tennis-man, racingman), truncated loans (camping, dancing, lifting instead of‘camping area’, ‘dance hall’, facelift) or semantic extensions whereanglicisms are used with a meaning not attested in English (footing inthe sense of ‘jogging’).

The diverse categories proposed here and many others do not,actually, exhaust all possibilities of borrowings in French, and classifica-tions remain often vague and confused (Mareschal, 1994: 32; Picone,1996: 7; Walter, 2000: 54). Furthermore, the reasons evoked to explain thescope and forms of the penetration of English into French as well as theattitudes and value judgements of linguists toward this phenomenon arehighly varied and even contradictory. Substantial change, actually, hastaken place over the years and we may delineate a general line ofdevelopment. It is to this issue that we now turn.

French Linguists’ Approaches to Anglicisation

We may divide, grosso modo, the development of this debate into twophases: from 1960s to the mid-1990s and since the late 1990s. Asmentioned, in the 1960s Anglicisation was harshly criticised. Etiemble(1964) even spoke of the destructive invasion of ‘franglais’ and theformation of a ‘sabir atlantic’, i.e. an Atlantic sabir,3 which threatened totake the place of French. Etiemble’s protest sparked a storm of reactions �mainly supportive at the time. Following Etiemble, linguists havedivided into two major camps � those who more or less maintain hisposition and those who somehow reject it. For the former, the principal


contention involves identity (Boly, 1979; Deniau, 1983; Doppagne, 1979;Lenoble-Pinson, 1991; Voirol, 1990). They contend that it is not bytolerating Franglais or a defective language that we will be able to keepto our francophone identity (Deniau, 1983), and that ‘words do notonly designate objects or feelings, they express a certain perception ofthe world and of others, as well as a perception of life’ (Lenoble-Pinson,1991: 7, 8).

The aspiration to remain faithful to French against Franglais isprimarily bound to the awareness that borrowings are primarily fearedas a source of linguistic impoverishment. Franglais is perceived asfranglomanie stemming from indifference, laziness, ignorance or snobbery(Doppagne, 1979: 55�58). Until the 1980s and 1990s, Anglicismscontinued to be widely seen as a force to be combated (Lederer, 1988).One spoke of ‘insidious Anglicisms’ and ‘Anglomania’ (Voirol, 1990).Even researchers who considered borrowings as French words as long asthey behaved according to the rules of French grammar still vigorouslyopposed what they called ‘awkward forms’ � shampooing, shampooiner,shampooineur (Rey-Debove & Gagnon, 1988). Others produced lists ofcurrent borrowings, in order to propagate the use of French substitutesincluding, e.g. pigiste for free-lance; info-varietes for talk-show; sauci-pain/hot-dog; tomatine/ketchup (Lenoble-Pinson, 1991); or mercatique for market-ing; pittonage/zapping; perdeur/loser (Voirol, 1990).

These innovators declared that ‘looking for equivalents [to English-American borrowings] does not mean Anglophobia or Americanopho-bia. It denotes less a resistance to Anglomania than an assertion of a willof francophones to express themselves in their own language’ (Lenoble-Pinson, 1991: 7, 8). But other researchers, even when they do not denythat the identity-culture issue remains bound to the preservation of a‘pure and uncontaminated’ language, understand that specific condi-tions and contexts must be taken into consideration when judging theappropriateness of borrowings, such as the challenges of bilingualismand the fact that English has become a quasi-universal language(Hagege, 1987). Today English fulfils major transglossic functions forFrancophones, just as it does for speakers of other languages incontemporary societies (Truchot, 1990). Trescases (1982) also believesthat people today are ready to look at Franglais in a new manner despitethe tensions that may set America and Europe in opposition.

In the meantime, both in public speech and in the media, the growthof Franglais has by no means been interrupted by the debates dividingthe linguists. In the late 1990s Franglais continues its course and in thewords of Lenoble-Pinson (1994) ‘se porte bien’ (feels well), even if from


time to time one still finds vituperative articles against its propagation inEtiemble’s tradition and attempts to fight the English influence bypractical policies (Le Cornec, 1982).4 ‘French public opinion’, Pergnier(1994) reports, ‘stands somewhat passively this state of affairs which failsto enlist the crowd’.

Radical changes are observed as the last century moves to its close. ForDa Costa (1999), for instance, borrowings are just transpositions of wordsfrom one language to another. Words, he says, do not recognise nationalboundaries. Words stemming from specific languages enrich others withnew nuances. Franglais is by no means threatening; it is an aspect of thelinguistic transnational reality of our contemporary world.

The major contribution to this shift of attitude to the penetrationof English into French was Walter’s (2001) book Honni soit qui mal ypense (Evil Be To Him Who Evil Thinks), in which she contended thatFrancophones must stop worrying obsessively about the ‘mechant loup’,that is, Anglicisms.

French is no longer the international language it used to be . . .which does not mean that French does not feel well. On the contrary,French is fully able to express the modern world with wordsit borrows from English and the words that it generates by itself . . .If French did not borrow English words, it would be worrying. Itwould be a sign of fossilisation. (Walter, 2001: 245)

Over the last two centuries, Walter elaborates, French has beenenriched by a large number of terms of English origin, while English,in the same manner, has never stopped borrowing from French since theMiddle Ages. However, English has been far more welcoming thanFrench to borrowings from its counterpart. This is also the conclusion ofseveral English scholars (Wright, 2000) who see the purist and elitistattitudes of the champions of French as the continuation of a long Frenchtradition (Dewaele, 2000) backed by republican values in which Francewishes to illustrate Frenchness itself (Ager, 2000). Humbley (2002) thinksthat French attitudes to anglicisms as well as the official policy of theirreplacement are somewhat unique in postwar Europe. Among the factorssuggested to explain this kind of policy, he underscores three essentialfacts: (1) language planning is part of French history; (2) French was theleading international language until the 19th century, and is still aninternational linguistic factor; and (3) giving French substitutes toEnglish terms and developing a terminology planning are consideredas important ‘means of catching up in the race against English’.


That said, a substantial gap still exists between, on the one hand, thenormative attitude of the French Academy and other bodies chargedwith the mission of preserving a ‘bon francais’ and, on the other,attitudes of speakers in general who show more openness to foreignlanguages, and to English in particular (Judge, 2000). Among the Frenchinstitutions engaged in the safeguarding of the language, the FrenchAcademy has the task of granting legitimacy of words and forms ofspeech; the Delegation Generale a la Langue Francaise and a commissionfor terminology related to various ministries are in charge of institutio-nalising specific terminology, responding to neological needs.5 Moreover,anti-anglicism groups of activists still exist. They may be organised inassociations, express themselves in publications, use mailing lists andissue press releases.6

As for the locutors themselves, Pergnier (1994) claims that it is difficultto ascertain what their opinions toward anglicisms are, given the fact thatsurveys are not numerous in this area. What is known is that reactionsvary from one group to another � some are more fundamentally hostileto anglicisms and others much more flexible and welcoming. The largestmajority, it seems to Pergnier, stands somewhere in the middle. Ananalysis of letters by readers sent to Le Monde between 1987 and 1997shows (Walker, 1998: 79), ‘a lack of linguistic security that is sometimesimplicit and sometimes more than explicit’. Walker’s (1998: 505�508)study in different francophone communities leads him to the conclusionthat French students are more indifferent to the multiplication of Englishborrowings than other groups of Francophones,7 and that the same istrue of their indifference toward the notifications of the French Academyand other regulating institutions. Similar conclusions were reached byFugger (1979; cited by Walker, 1998) in a research that tackled the sametopics.

The Research: Objectives and Methodology

It is in this context that we present our own research on the presentstate of the Anglicisation of French of France. As this process is vast andcomplex, we look here only at borrowings. Our first intention is to drawout a general picture of this penetration of English borrowings updatedto 2004. The second objective of this research is then to consider, on thebasis of this picture, how far, about 40 years after the publication ofEtiemble’s manifest, his pessimistic forecast � as well as that ofnumerous other researchers about the future of French � is confirmed


by reality. Is the penetration of English that serious a threat to the veryexistence of French?

Guided by these research interests, we collected data over three years(2001�2004) from (a) television programmes on the French channelsFrance 2, TV5 and Arte (news, shows, documentaries, films); (b) Frenchnewspapers on the Internet (Le Monde, Liberation, France-soir, Le Figaro)and in print (Le Monde, Match); (c) conversations, random collection ofutterances gathered from French speakers living in France; (d) 15informants were interviewed and asked to supply lists of English wordsused currently, according to them, by French people in their regulardiscourse; (e) lists of English borrowings recognised by current diction-aries (Hofler, 1982; Rey-Debove & Gagnon, 1988; Robert, 1995, 2001).Within the limited scope of this study, we do not take into account theinnumerable English terms related to advertising and the currentlinguistic landscape in France.

The Findings

Categories of findings

The borrowings in our collection represent various grammaticalcategories � nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs � and pertain to varioussemantic fields. They include both borrowings that do not haveequivalent terms in French and others that do. Some have undergonesemantic shifts, while others have formed the basis for neologisms; someare loan-blends, while others are pseudo-English terms. This classifica-tion is to be considered with caution since, as Mareschal (1994) andothers have emphasised, the boundaries between the various types ofborrowings are often fluid and changeable, and thus difficult to pindown.

Lack of equivalence

Among the borrowings without French equivalents some are adopteden bloc, phonetically and semantically: black out, box, brunch, clip, leader-ship, attachment; others only semantically: superman, wagon, management.8

These borrowings are explained essentially by the need to name newtechnological activities, such as in computer science; the want ofappropriate French terms to describe given cultural values; or thereference to new concepts appearing under new names (pressing, email,start up, web), which, however, may eventually be re-baptised in French(Courriel for email; jeune pousse for start up; or toile for web).


Borrowings and French equivalents

Borrowings may appear even when French equivalents exist. They arein fact numerous and often present semantic differences when comparedto their so-called French equivalents, as we see in the followingexamples:

(1) Test/epreuve; speed/vitesse; show/spectacle; match/competition sportive;boss/patron; smiling/sourire; krach/faillite bancaire; cool/calme; relax/detendu; job/boulot; interview/entretien; week end/fin de semaine; wc/toilettes; lifting/deridage; peeling/exfoliation; self-service/libre service; (fairedu) shopping/courses; walkman/baladeur; fast food/restauration rapide;(avoir le) feeling/impression; standing/haut niveau; staff/equipe; star/etoile,vedette.

At times, borrowings adopt meanings that distance them completelyfrom their French translations. This is also the case of cow-boy versusvacher, leader versus dirigeant or meeting versus reunion, for example. In the2002 French presidential campaign, the various French political leaders(not ‘dirigeants’) Chirac, Jospin and Le Pen, for instance, held politicalmeetings, but never ‘reunions’. The same happened during the Bush andKerry campaign in 2004 � they were always presented as leaders in theFrench press and television shows. Lucky Luke, the hero of the French/Belgian comics is a cow-boy (and not a ‘vacher’), because in French onlythe English word expresses the content of this cultural concept9 (Ben-Rafael, 2004b).

Semantic simplification

Borrowings are often simplified and reduced when introduced inFrench, keeping but one of their original ‘signifies’ of the English‘signifiant’; une star means only an actor or actress; un short refers onlyto short trousers; une lady is a woman who behaves in a distinguishedmanner; un drink is an alcoholic drink; un boy is a young servant(domestique), des girls are dancers in a music hall or a night club�desdanseuses de music hall; un/e black is a dark skinned person (une personne depeau noire).

Semantic amplification and recovery

Later on, once adopted in French, the meaning of the English term canexpand and acquire new meanings in addition to the one originallyimported from English. This amplification, however, is less frequent thanthe reduction process of the signifies. On the other hand, what isrelatively frequent is the recovery and addition of signifies that had notbeen considered or had been rejected at the first stage of adoption of the


English signifiant; cool, for instance, which was originally used in Frenchas jazz cool versus jazz hot, has taken over time various semantic variantsof the English term and has become synonymous with formidable, bien, jolietc., as these examples show:

(2) Ma grand-mere est cool (‘my grandmother is wonderful’)(3) Speaker 1: Apres on ira au cine (‘later we will go to the movie’)

Speaker 2: Cool (‘wow’)

And a writer talking about her readers says:

(4) J’avais des lecteurs qui pouvaient etre cool (�gentils) ( . . . .) enfin unpeu de douceur (Paris Match, 8/04) (‘I had readers who werecool . . . at last some gentleness’)

Similarly, black, which basically signifies a black person, has also startedtaking on the French meaning of ‘black market’;

(5) Il l’a eu au black (France 2, 9/04) (‘he got it on the black market’)

Semantic alteration and specialisation

The English signifier may also lose its original meaning and receive anew one; the signifier remains more or less bound to the semantic field itbelongs to in English, though it experiences a sort of bifurcation, causingthe new signified to differ from the original one, as in (6):

(6) cake: Fr: fruit cake versus Eng: any cakeFoot: Fr: football versus Eng: footSquare: Fr: small public garden versus Eng: square/quadrilateralplace (e.g. Trafalgar Square)Poster: Fr: decorative poster versus Eng: advertisement poster

Neologisms

Lexical productivity is also made possible by lexical derivations ofadopted English words by means of affixes; derived from borrowings,new terms are created � nouns, adjectives, as well as verbs, which seemto be the most productive forms:

(7) stock0verb: stocker; abstract noun�suffix: stockage, agent noun�suffix: stockiste; prefix�noun: surstockage

(8) stopper, scotcher, bluffer, (se)crasher, mixer, spidder, (se)dopper,chatter, looker, relooker, briefer, debrifer

A journalist reports in Le Monde after the catastrophe of the Twin Towers(11/2001):


(9) Les gens sont scotches a leur televisions (for: colles)/‘people areglued (like scotch tapes) to their TVs.’

(10) L’avion s’est crashe (for: s’est ecrase)/‘the plane crashed’

Francoise, speaking about her family, writes in her e-mail:

(11) Mon fils et sa julie squattent chez moi/’my son and his girlfriendsquat by me (at home)’

On French television (France 2) we found:

(12) Le jeu etait sponsorise par une banque/‘the game was sponsoredby a bank’

(13) Il faut pas mixer les idees/‘one mustn’t mix ideas’(14) G.: Allez speed un peu! � F.: Je suis stressee / G.: ‘Go with a little

more speed! � F.: I’m stressed’. (France 2, 2003, Program: Un gars,une Fille)

Pseudo-English terms

In a similar vein, there is a tendency to form English-looking termswhich do not exist in English and are, in fact, false Anglicisms:

(15) auto-stop for hitchhiking; tennisman for tennis player; footing forjogging; hair-coif for hairstyle; camping-car for motorhome; brushingfor sechage and brossage.

Abbreviations

Alongside the adoption of English terms, we must also considerEnglish abbreviations like VIP, USA, FBI and PC, and acronyms such asSONAR, RADAR and IBM, pronounced sometimes the English way andsometimes ‘a la francaise’ � IBM (ibeem), TV (teve), ICBEM (icebeem).The formation of abbreviations and acronyms, typical of English, hasbeen widely adopted by contemporary French, although the majority ofabbreviations and acronyms remain shortenings of French terms pro-nounced the French way: HLM (from ‘habitations a loyers moderes/‘public sector of housing’), PC (parti communiste/‘communist party’),TGV (train a grande vitesse/‘high-speed train’), SIDA (versus AIDS),SRAS (versus SARS), OTAN (versus NATO).

Segmental English insertions

Together with unitary lexical borrowings, we find English insertionswith more than one lexical element. These are idioms, full sentences andcommercials which are very common in the press (16), in oral andwritten discourse (17) and in the general surrounding landscape.10


(16) just do it; fashion victims; directeur du unit business chaussures;made IBM

(17) my pleasure; everything under control; up to you; no comment;help yourself

English expressions come up in French e-mails � isn’t?; thank you d’avance� or call attention to the written message:

(18) On pourra converser ou comme les gens ‘in’ disent ‘chatter’ surE-mail; y a plus qu’a correspondre et a ‘chatter’

‘we will be able to converse or, as ‘in’ people say, to ‘chat’ on E-mail; we just have to correspond with each other and ‘chat’’

Borrowings also often lend themselves to word games, as in thefollowing example when Margo intentionally uses the French verb ramer(to row) in her e-mail together with the English verb surf, in order toexpress her poor web surfing skills:

(19) Moi je rame peniblement sur le web, certains surfent, ce n’est pasmon cas‘Me, I row with difficulty on the web, some people surf (easily),that’s not the case with me’

Borrowings as discursive means

Besides lexical aspects, borrowings may fulfil specific discursivefunctions: the repetition or the recall of a French word by means of anEnglish equivalent, for example, emphasises or makes the sense of anoccurrence more explicit. In (20) an instructor explains to futurereceptionists/telephonists the importance of smiling at clients, evenwhen talking to invisible listeners:

(20) Il faut faire passer le sourire, le smiling . . . il faut que tu fasses unsmiling‘One must let the listener feel the smile, the smiling . . . you have tomake a smile’

Similarly, the shift from one language to the other enhances the discourse(21, 22), and allows indirect discourse to be resumed or reported (23):

(21) Je suis reste dans le purple, instead of: Je reste dans la gamme desviolets‘I dress in all sorts of purple’

(22) C’est quelqu’un qui est tres foot . . .moi je suis pas tres foot‘It’s somebody very fond of football . . .Me, I’m not fond of football’


(23) L’enterrement de la reine mere ’the queen mum‘ comme les anglaisl’appellent aura lieu mercredi‘The funeral of the queen mother, ‘the queen mum’, as the Englishcall her, will take place next Wednesday’

The transition from French to English may also facilitate the differentia-tion of concepts; PC, when pronounced the English way means apersonal computer, whereas PC pronounced the French way � pece �means the French Communist Party. Similarly, the distinction betweenround versus tour (24),11 or start-up and jeune pousse (25), evokes thepugnacious nature of the presidential campaign, as well as the differencein nuance between some German start-ups that are rather moreexperienced than some young French ones.

(24) Premier round avant le deuxieme tour des presidentielles‘First round before the second presidential round’

(25) Des start up allemands a l’aide des jeunes pousses francaises‘German start-ups help French start-ups’

Borrowings and semantic fields

According to the literature, borrowings firstly concern culturaldomains; yet as already mentioned, it is practically impossible to predictwhich terms will be borrowed, and at times it is difficult to connect themwith a specific domain. When we attempt to classify our data, we see thatsome semantic domains are particularly privileged in this respect, suchas sports, politics, economics, computer science, fashion and music. Thisis shown here with examples from the sports domain collected in 2002 atthe Salt Lake City Winter Olympics (26) and the French presidentialcampaign (27):

(26) il a touche au milieu du snowboard/‘he touched the middle of thesnowboard’; des equipes de hockey sur glace/‘ice-hockey teams’;le hockeyeur/‘the hockey player’; 10 km de sprint/‘a 10-kmsprint’; last lap, finish, shooting; le coaching peut faire gagnerune rencontre/‘coaching can help win a match’

(27) suspense dans une ambiance de meeting/‘suspense in a meetingatmosphere’; paraıtre sur les medias vaut mieux que vingt meet-ings/‘exposure in the media is worth more than twenty meetings’

Some borrowings, however, remain without any affiliation, while stillothers seem to share structures which ensure easy integration into French.As already noted by Hagege (1987), Pergnier (1989) and others, one finds


a tendency to adopt monosyllabic terms (cool, coach, hot, kit, tag) andbisyllabic ones (sponsor, roller, tuner, charter). When borrowings are longerwords, truncation may take place, self-service becoming self and living-room becoming living. -ing terms are frequently borrowed; prefixes (mini,self, super, extra, hyper, top) and suffixes (man, ex), which are basic in theformation of neologisms, are frequently used as units on their own (28):

(28) c’est un type super/‘he’s a super guy’; C’etait extra/‘it was great’;la mode mini et maxi/‘the mini- and maxi-fashion’

Moreover, English blendings such as brunch (br/eakfast� l/unch) arenumerous in French and inspire French neologisms � courriel, progiciel,coming as substitutes for e-mail and software and composed by theblending of courri/er el/ectronique, and pro/gramme lo/giciel.

The French borrowing process: An unflagged and creepingphenomenon

English borrowings penetrate French most naturally. Discourse, bothwritten and oral, remains fluid even though anglicisms are sometimesflagged. Flagging may be signalled by inverted commas in the writing:

(29) c’est ’so british‘ (‘it’s so British’); ‘it’s not my cup of tea’ (Le Monde,2002)

(30) ils etaient ’cast members‘ pour reprendre la terminologie imposee(Le Figaro, January 2004) ‘they were ‘cast members’, to use theimposed terminology’

The user may also apologise for their use: Hagege (1987) quotes, forexample, President Mitterand who, after having said the English word‘remake’, immediately added remake . . . si je peux me permettre de parlerfranglais ‘if I am allowed to speak Franglais’. In fact, generally speaking,one can say that a kind of ‘tacit Anglicist agreement’ penetrates thediscourse: borrowings drag in other ones or provoke word games; theuse of ‘start-up’ in an article in Le Monde/Internet about current economicconceptions and the problematique of the start-up system brings out, forinstance, the ironic use of ‘start down’:

(31) start up ou start down, que nous reserve l’avenir?‘Start up or start down, what does future have in stock for us?’

English citations, without any translation, appear rather frequently in thepress. After 11 September 2001, a French reporter writes in Le Monde(28.11.01):


(32) united we stand dit un slogan affiche partout a New-York‘United we stand says a slogan all over New York’

The knowledge, or at least the familiarity, of the French TV viewers withBritish/American codes is taken for granted. During the Salt Lake CityWinter Olympics (in 2002), for example, the American display of theresults on French TV was presented in mostly English, as in the USA.Also, last lap, finish, shooting, etc., were said. The same happened duringthe Athens Olympic Games in summer 2004. This of course does notprevent French TV from remaining faithful to conventional French codesin other circumstances. The football match between France and Wales inCardiff (2002) was presented with French conventions, including thetranslation of Wales by Galles throughout.

The proliferation of English terms is recognised and ‘coolly’ experi-enced by French interlocutors. Still, when our 15 francophone informantsfrom France were asked to provide a list of English words in use incontemporary French, at first some of them found it difficult to answer,even denying the use of any English term. One of them, the most ‘purist’,only agreed to speak after hearing others recalling English words, andtold of his son wanting to buy baggies (not pantalons), and spending mostof his time on the web (not on the toile). Hence, when the informantsbegan to think it over, borrowings of all kinds literally streamed out(Figure 3.1).

baskets

back up

baggy

basket

battle-dress

best seller

black

book

boots

boss

break

briefing

brunch

brushing

bug

business

car jacking

casting

charter

chatter

clash

clean

cocktail

come back

compact disk

computer

cool

cornflakes

crasher

dealer

derby

drink

duffle-coat

e-mail

fair play

fashion

fashion victim

feed back

flashback

football

forwarder

gang

gangster

grill

happy end

hip hop

home jacking

in

internet

interview

jackpot

joint

kidnapping

kipper

kit

leader

look

media

mail

mailer

meeting

miss

net

news

night club

no comment

on line

out

panel

penalty

pin up

play boy

pressing

rap

relooker

review

ring

rock

round

rush hour

scotch

scrabble

(se) shooter

self control

shift

shop

slash

speaker

spleen

spot

squash

squat

standing-

innovation

star

start up

starter

stress

struggle for life

super

surfer

tea room

timing

top

training

trip

tuning

volley ball

walkman

web

week-end

zapping

Figure 3.1 Francophone borrowings � a sample out of 360 occurrences


Some might have thought that the war in Iraq, particularly at thebeginning (Spring 2003), having somewhat strained French relations withthe USA and Great Britain, might have an impact on the use of English inFrench. However, despite occasional biting criticism or puns thatappeared in the press and a sort of war of words,12 the anglicist flowhas, in fact, continued at the same rate. To present the news about the waritself, it is American terminology that is used � holster, scotch, body-bags,MRE (meals ready to eat); in LeMonde on 2March 2003, for example, it said:

(33) Un sergent-major se preparant a entrer en Irak a epoussete sonholster de cuir noir‘A sergeant-major preparing to go into Iraq dusted down his blackleather holster’

(34) On s’inquiete pour savoir si les 40 body bags au lieu des 200demandes seraient suffisants‘One is worried whether the 40 body bags instead of the 200requested will be sufficient’

Reports of speech or quotations generally remain in English, untranslated:

(35) Finalement . . . Bush se leve et annonce: ‘ok, let’s go’‘Finally . . . Bush gets up and announces: ‘ok, let’s go’’

(36) Les gamins crient ‘water water’ a la vue de tout vehicule etranger‘The children shout ‘water, water’, any time they see a foreignvehicle’

And events are described using the usual English terms: jogging, slogans,look, supporter, raid, back home, stock and others:

(37) Les soldats americains font du jogging chaque matin‘The American soldiers go jogging every morning’

(38) Un journaliste britannique a demande d’etre ‘imbedded’, ‘inte-gre’13 a une troupe‘A British journalist asked to be ‘imbedded’, ‘integrated’ in a unit’

(39) En une journee des milliers de raids/‘In one day thousand of raids’

Demonstrators against the war in Iraq are also described in Englishterms:

(40) La jeunesse japonaise . . . allure cool se joint aux manifestants deStop the war! (they have written) ‘no war’ sur la chaussee . . . letemps des coctails Molotov est revolu.‘The Japanese youth . . . very cool joins the demonstrators of Stop


the war! (they have written) ‘no war’ on the pavement . . . Molotovcocktail time is over’

The same is true of daily life in Baghdad (Le Monde/Internet, 18.9.03):

(41) Trois filles ( . . .) designers dans une imprimerie de Bagdadracontent leur peur‘Three girls ( . . .) designers in a printing firm in Baghdad talk abouttheir fear’

A journalist reports14 what an Iraqi dealer in radio and television sets hasto say:

(42) Le business marche bien, les gens veulent entendre les nouvellesdu monde, vous comprenez‘Business is OK, people want to hear world news, you understand’

Thus the Iraqi conflict has not had an impact on anglicist habits inFrench. The case of the French rock singer Johnny Halliday, among manyother examples, is good evidence of how alive and well English is inFrench. On the occasion of his 60th birthday, in the summer of 2003, allthe articles in Le Monde, Le Figaro, Match or the Halliday website, weresaturated with borrowings:

(43) Happy birthday Mister Rockn’ Roll; le rocker est plein d’energie;ruee des fans; Johnny superstar shoote par 60 photographes;Johnny gere bien le stress; il jouera un crooner; il est en tete du hit-parade; country, folk, blues, rock, disco, toutes les musiques qu’ ilaime. (Match, 11 June 2003)‘Happy birthday Mister Rockn’ Roll; the rocker is full of energy; arush by the fans; Johnny a superstar is taken by 60 photographers;Johnny handles stress well; he will play a crooner; he’s at the top ofthe hit-parade; country, folk, blues, rock, disco, all the music helikes.’

(44) Il peut parodier les crooners, nasiller country/‘He can take offcrooners, and the twang of country’; ses yeux bleus husky/‘hishusky blue eyes’ (Le Figaro, 5 June 2003).

The many examples available during this period indicate that Franglaiscontinues apace, whether it is about the 2003 summer vacations (un petitbreak, mobile home, camping, barbecues, parking, beach party, candle-lights,tossing, fast-food) or children’s fashions for the new school year (baggy,bombers, matieres stonees, jersey gratte, denim blanchi, bottes zippees,

fashion, glamour, top).


Computer and Email, despite their new French equivalents, are stillvery much alive. Several days prior to the American presidentialelections the following was written in Le Monde/Internet:

(45) Toute l’actualite des elections americaines par E-mail/‘All thenews about the American elections by E-mail’

Finally, on TV, the newscaster, when discussing the problems ofsuccession after Arafat’s hospitalisation in France in October 2004,mentions the possibility alongside Abu Alaa and Abu Mazen of a third‘leader’, an ‘outsider’ living outside the Palestinian territories (TV5,29.9.04). Similarly, under the English title ‘France feelings’, an announcerpresents a chocolate-fashion exhibition (France 2, 30.9.04). It would be‘tedious’, as Hagege (1987) himself said, and practically impossible tomonitor and pick out all the possible English/French combinations. Theyare creeping up endlessly. As already mentioned, borrowings adapt verywell to written and spoken discourse that remains mostly fluid. Thissmooth lexical adaptation is supported by grammatical adjustment. Wecan even speak of a grammar of borrowings which is flexible and allowsfor variations.

The grammar of borrowings

Gender of nouns

While in English gender is often not morphologically marked, Frenchdistinguishes between masculine (m) and feminine (f) nouns, adjectivesand certain verb forms. What gender should a borrowing from Englishhave? It is difficult to formulate an absolute rule, but we can suggestthat borrowings tend to adopt the gender of the French nouns that are theequivalents of the borrowings. This would be the case, for examplein: une start up f, as in une entreprise or une jeune pousse; une star f asin une etoile. Other examples, however, do not meet this principle: unmeeting is m, whereas une reunion is f; une interview is f in the Frenchspoken in France, yet un entretien is m.

At times, the choice may appear arbitrary: le funk, le hip hop, le disco, lerock are masculine, while la soul or la pop are feminine. In point of fact, ittranspires that the same borrowings take on different genders dependingupon whether they were borrowed by French in France, Quebec inCanada or in other French-speaking areas: (une) interview and (un) job arefeminine and masculine respectively in France, yet in Quebec they are mand f � (un) interview, (une) job; local variants also turn up: la soul is f inLe Monde (12.9.03) and in Le Petit Larousse (as translation for ‘ame’), but in


Le Robert it is le soul. Other nouns are also either m or f � le or la black,depending upon whether the reference is to a man or a woman.

Borrowed adjectives

Whereas in French adjectives agree in gender and number with thenouns they modify, borrowed adjectives tend to remain unchanged, as inEnglish:

(46) des arrangements pop ‘pop arrangements’, une rythmique rock ‘rockrhythmics’, la revolution free ‘the free revolution’, une formation soul‘a soul formation’, la musique country ‘country music’, les yeux husky‘husky blue eyes’, la musique black ‘black music’.

The plural

As in French, a voiceless final ‘s’ tends to mark the plural form ofEnglish borrowed nouns, and one finds then: les supermarkets, les hippies,les stars, les reporters pronounced the French way, without pronouncingthe ‘s’: /les supermarket, hippie, star/ and /reporter/.

Nouns may be also invariable, and the plural form is only markedthanks to French plural articles such as les, des, ces, mes. Moreover, the‘man’ suffix may either take the plural form, ‘men’, like in English � lesjazzmen, les tennismen, les barmen, or the voiceless French affix ‘s’; unbarman, for example, will also then become des barmans, pronounced/barman/.

Neologisms

The creation of new words happens frequently in French, as indicatedabove: verbs get formed based upon borrowings, following generally theFrench first verbal model which usually ends -er: tester, (se) doper, mixer;nouns are formedby adding the French suffixes -tion, -eur (m), -euse (f), -age,-iste as in sponsorisation, sprinteur and sprinteuseor prefixes like sur and anti.One then finds families of words, such as the various derivations from theborrowings dope and doping0dopeur, dopage, anti-dopage; or the deriva-tions of stock0 the verb stocker, and the nouns stockage, stockiste orsurstockage. Adjectives are also formed by adding the suffixes -ant and-ard, thus: flash0 flashant; stress0stressant; snob0snobinard.

Conclusion

In 2004, 40 years after the ‘franglais crisis’ of the 1960s, it was alreadypossible to get both diachronic and synchronic perspectives on thephenomenon of Anglicisation, and to evaluate it with more objectivity.For some researchers, this phenomenon is only a fashion, a trend or


primarily the language of the young. They point out that someborrowings are more easily absorbed than others, many become datedand disappear with the disappearance of the concept they represent.Several researchers respond that certain borrowings fall out of use aftersome time, others remain for good and still others replace those that aregone, or serve simultaneously with them, reflecting new realities (hi-fi,night club replacing for instance pick-up or dancing). Moreover derivationperpetuates the life chances of borrowings. The word gag adopted in1922, becomes, for instance, gaguesque in 1977; gadget (1946) becomesgadgetisation (1968) and gadgetiser (1970); film (1889) becomes filmer (1908),filmage (1912), filmeur (1917), filmable (1927), filmique (1936), filmographique

(1937) and filmotheque (1967) (Robert, 2001).15

Yet, purists are still fighting against the Franglais phenomenon,lamenting that people use English terms such as hard, challenge or gay

for dur, defi or homosexuel, and also complaining that borrowings continueto invade the domains of music, sport, communication, press andadvertisements (Cholewka, 2000; Yaguello, 2000). They try to saveendangered words and time and time again come back with newarguments, hoping to safeguard French against the ‘English danger’(Laroche-Claire, 2004; Pivot, 2004). Institutions � the Academie Francaise,the Delegation Generale a la Langue Francaise and the Commissions

Ministerielles de Terminologie, as already mentioned � are in charge ofwhat they view as the ‘desirable’ development of French. Laws, such as‘la loi Toubon’16 and others were suggested in order to limit the Englishpenetration of French. Such decisions are in fact of little effect.17 Englishborrowings remain numerous and have undoubtedly become a part ofthe French language. Anglicisation is today more vivid than ever. Thelinguists’ and committed activists’ campaign of the 1960s against theinfluence of English has drastically declined even though a certainanxiety subsists, and there still are scholars who think like Voirol (1990: 7)in the 1990s:

One must not proclaim that French is in danger and brandish thecrusade flag. There is no pure language ( . . .). All languages owesomething to others. French has nourished English, English hasnourished French. Yet for half a century, the linguistic balancebetween the two languages is in deficit to the detriment of French. Toresist Anglomania does not mean giving in to Anglophobia. We willkeep week end, foot-ball, sex-appeal, and many others which areuseful, since we have not found any better. For the newcomers,


however, let us pay attention. Let’s adopt words ( . . . .) let’ s try toinvent and create new ones.

In the study presented here, we set ourselves two key questions asresearch targets: (1) to paint a general picture of the current phenomenonof borrowings, based on data gathered between 2001 and 2004; and (2)strictly limiting ourselves to the field of borrowings, to check whetherthis lexical penetration represented an existential threat for French.

Our general impression is that the penetration of English into theFrench lexicon is a productive and dynamic process, whether speaking ofEnglish terms adopted ‘as is’, or terms undergoing change or serving as asource for lexical neologisms. This process takes place when Frenchequivalents for the English adopted terms do not exist, but is also verycommon when equivalents are found. The borrowed terms, then, oftenset themselves apart from their so-called equivalents and present specificsemantic nuances. Dated borrowings have sometimes disappeared orbeen replaced by new ones, according to new social or technologicaldevelopments, yet this is an ongoing process, where dated as well as newadopted words or new combinations live and develop together. Somesemantic fields are more involved than others (sport, music, politics), yetit is practically impossible to predict which terms will be kept in French.Certain English forms (short words, -ing terms or specific structures)appear to be more easily integrated.

The reasons for borrowing remain above all functional � the need toexpress new things that do not yet have a word in common usage inFrench, and which in this world of globalisation are in any caseunderstood in English. Introducing English words allows speakers togo beyond the physical and linguistic areas of daily life. It also letsspeakers play with words, in order to reinforce a statement ordifferentiate concepts. It is, in fact, another means of expression forFrench L1 speakers, in written and oral discourse. Furthermore, it is alsoundeniable that in today’s globalised world, English enjoys a particularprestige, and it seems that many a concept originating from American/English discourse is willingly adopted as a marker of ‘updatedness’,especially among the young, but not only among them.

Hence the analysis of our data has shown, in accordance with Pergnier,Walter and others, that borrowings often represent new realities andsemantic shades; they are virtual reservoirs for new connotative anddenotative values, and contribute to the building of new symbols. Whatcan be learned from our analysis is that Anglicisation is almost unavoid-able in contact situations engendered by contemporary globalisation.


Yet, when referring to French, it does not come instead of or at thedetriment of French.

For Etiemble and many others after him, the influence of English onFrench was and remains an existential threat to French. Two key factswhich we encountered in our findings refute this approach. The first isthat data definitely show that borrowings do not prevent the speakersfrom sticking to French as their ‘matrix language’ (Myers-Scotton, 1993),in the written and oral discourse with respect to all areas and subjectsconsidered in our research. Hence, while the phenomenon of borrowingis very much alive, the practice of codeswitching, or moving from onelanguage to another, as it is the case of some languages in other contactsituations (Ben-Rafael, 2001a, 2004a; Heller, 1988; Myers-Scotton, 1993),has hardly appeared in material.

The second fact is that, in our data, despite the important lexicalpenetration of English, grammar remains essentially French. This relatesto the assessment by many scholars that grammar generally constitutesthe heart of the language and is relatively resistant to external linguisticinfluences (Hagege, 1987, 2000). Grammatical changes are slow (Leeman-Bouix, 1994; Walter, 1988), and it is only when grammar is affected in itshard core that we can speak of the beginning of a genuine language shift(Hagege, 2000). It has been shown, moreover, that secondary grammaticalchanges � like in Quebecois (Chantefort, 1976; Martineau, 1985), Acadianand Ontario French (King, 1989; Mougeon & Beniak, 1989, 1991) orFranbreu18 (Ben-Rafael, 2002, 2004a) � are not enough to cause thetransformation or attrition of a living language. As far as Englishborrowings are concerned, our data confirm that they are integrated inthe French of France according to French grammatical rules. The sameapplies to neologisms also drawn from English and mostly built a lafrancaise. We then may conclude that French is not in danger as long asFrench grammar is not endangered, and agree with Yaguello (2000) whenshe says:

Franglais . . . one should not make a big fuss about it because what isimportant for the resistance of a language, is its grammaticalstructure, and its own syntax and morphology; as long as Frenchconjugates English verbs ‘a la francaise’ like: se crasher, surfer,cocooner, sponsoriser . . . everything is ok.

Etiemble saw Franglais as a ‘sabir’ responding to his famous acronym‘ESTEL’ (En Sabir tout est licit/‘in Sabir everything is allowed/legal/licit’). French, he proclaimed, was disintegrating under the influence ofEnglish, and both its vocabulary and grammar were heading for


catastrophe and anarchism. As for us, we see rather the penetration ofEnglish in French as innovativeness and dynamism, indicating thatFrench speakers today live at the same time in a global world and in theirown culture.

Notes1. This chapter refers to the French spoken in France. While the French of other

Francophone countries shares numerous characteristics with the French ofFrance, there are also numerous differences attributable to the differences inlanguage contact situations.

2. The current tendency is to view codeswitching through a continuum ofalternations, starting from the single unit to the largest segments (Gardner-Chloros, 2000; Myers-Scotton, 1993; Romaine, 1989). Various names are usedinstead of ‘borrowings’, such as adoption, cloning, insertion, etc. Although Iagree with this attitude, and have often called borrowings, ‘unitariancodeswitchings’ or ‘insertion’ (Ben-Rafael, 2001b), I will use here the term‘borrowing’ for the sake of clarity.

3. Etiemble writes intentionally sarcastically ‘atlantic’ (with ‘c’), as in English,instead of ‘atlantique’, but he retains the French structure of noun�adjective/‘sabir�atlantic’ as against the English structure of ‘Atlantic sabir’. This isone of the numerous means he uses to express his opposition to thepenetration of English into French.

4. Le Cornec argues in favour of national linguistic reforms imitating thosealready implemented in some regions of France. During the 1980s, forinstance, the Orne region requested that road signals as well as texts onmonuments should appear only in French. An attempt was also made toreplace words such as ‘camping’, ‘parking’ with terms such as campiere,camperie, campement, etc. (Le Cornec, 1982: 309�310).

5. In 1989, for example, the Dictionary of Neologisms suggested a preference forcondense over digest, exclusivite over scoop, boutique franche over duty freeand voyagiste over tour-operator (Lenoble-Pinson, 1991). In 2000, theCommission of Terminology proposed lists of equivalents in the area offinance, to make it unnecessary to use foreign terms � aide de caisse forbagman, chef de file for leader and direction de la mercatique for marketingmanagement (CGTN1, 2000). In the field of computers, one proposed,among other terms, ecran controle for monitor, traitement de texte for textprocessing and mise a niveau for upgrading (CGTN2, 2000).

6. On websites one may find lists of borrowings to be substituted by Frenchterms; the lists appear under headings such as: ‘Il ne faut pas dire’ (one is notto say) versus ‘Il faut dire’ (one should say) or anglicismes (anglicisms) versusbon francais (good French); for example: job versus boulot, coach versusentraineur, air bag versus sac d’air, etc.

7. Walker’s research on Anglicisms in different Francophone communities wascarried out with a questionnaire sent out to Francophone students fromFrance (Albi, Paris, Reims, Rouen and Strasbourg), Africa (Benin, Cameroon,Madagascar, Senegal) and Vietnam.


8. This phonetic comment, valid for borrowings with equivalents, is also validwhere there are none. We therefore do not take this into consideration inwhat follows. Further, the problem of pronunciation is diminishing, and thevariation between the English/American accent and French pronunciationof borrowed terms is becoming ever less marked on account of globalisation(the media, travel, etc.).

9. In Hebrew, on the contrary, one finds the equivalent ‘boker’, which is quitecurrent in oral and written discourse, in children’s stories. Yet together withboker, the English term cowboy is also used.

10. As already mentioned, this will not be discussed here. Many such examplesare quoted in Picone (1996).

11. Round means turn, too, yet it also has the additional connotation ofcompetition, boxing, tournament.

12. Mr and Mrs Bush, living in France, Frenchify their name to M. and Mme.Buisson. In the USA, french fries have, for some Americans, become freedomfries. In the New York Times 26.3.03, it is written, ‘boycott everything French’.On chat groups, there were over 3000 messages calling for a boycott between15 and 26 March. The brands most often cited by French speakers in thisperiod are only French ones: Air France, Evian, Renault, Alcatel and Nissan(article by Laure Belot, in Le Monde, 29.3.03).

13. In the text, next to the little known borrowing ‘imbedded’, there is also aFrench translation in inverted commas. This is not a common addition, buthere it makes things easier for the reader.

14. What the merchant said was translated from Iraqi Arabic to French, exceptfor ‘business’, which remained in English.

15. French neologisms may be offered as alternatives, yet are not necessarilyaccepted, or are used together with borrowed words; one finds the Frenchnew term � un baladeur, but also the English borrowing � un walkman.

16. The Toubon law (4 August 1994) rules, among other dispositions, thatconsumer goods must not be sold without French instructions, and thatEnglish advertisements must not be shown in French cinemas; bilingualadvertisements must not display the French part of their message incharacters smaller than the English part, etc.

17. In her report of 1 July 2003 on linguistic practice in French companies,Catherine Tasca, for example, considers that ‘the findings give the impres-sion of the weakness of French in the corporate world’. She concludes thatthere should be more stringent monitoring of the implementation of theToubon law (www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/politique-langue/rapport-tasca.html).

18. The French of veteran French-speaking immigrants in Israel carryingnumerous influences from Hebrew.


Chapter 4

Dutch: Is It Threatened by English?

HERMAN J. DE VRIES JR.1

Most visitors to the Netherlands quickly observe how remarkably adeptthe Dutch are with the English language. In fact, linguistic versatility haslong been a source of Dutch national pride. Some Dutch people fear,however, that this versatility has driven their own language into a dangerzone. In 1997, two parliamentarians, one each from the Netherlands andBelgian governments, decried the influence of English in a report theysubmitted to the Dutch Language Union (Nederlandse Taalunie), agovernmental organisation subsidised by each country. The reportexpressed concern that English � particularly hi-tech English � waspolluting the Dutch language. That same year, two Dutch parliamentar-ians submitted a proposal to constitutionally anchor the use of the Dutchlanguage in the Netherlands. Although the proposal was ultimatelyunsuccessful, a robust discussion about the state of the Dutch languageensued in Dutch media for months following the report (Het Nederlands,1997; Kwetsbare taal, 1997). The sentiments of those concerned areperhaps best summarised in an article in a major Dutch paper, theheadline of which reads: ‘Sounding the Alarm: Dutch is Disappearing!’(ten Hooven, 1998, my translation). How serious is this supposed threatto the Dutch language? Which issues are at hand? These are the questionspursued in this chapter. But first some basic information is offered byway of introduction.

Dutch is the language spoken by some 21 million people, most of themresiding in the delta region of Northwest Europe where the waters of thegreat rivers Rhine and Maas empty into the North Sea (Vandeputte et al.,1989; de Vries et al., 1995). This area, often collectively called the LowLands, comprises the Netherlands and Belgium. Dutch is the primarylanguage in all of the Netherlands, the population of which isapproximately 16 million. Dutch is also spoken by some five millionBelgians, most residing in that country’s northern regions, which arecollectively called Flanders. In addition, Dutch is spoken by several

68

hundred thousand people on the islands of the Netherlands Antilles andnearby Suriname on the South American mainland (Shetter, 2002; vander Horst & Marschall, 2000). The issues related to the status and healthof the Dutch language vary in each of these specific linguistic regions.The historical role of Dutch in Belgium, for example, differs significantlyfrom that in the Netherlands. Having had to battle the government for arightful place alongside French, Flemish Belgians are said to have astronger emotional bond to the Dutch language than do their Dutchneighbours to the north (Wils, 2001). Though the language issues inFlanders are considerable and significant, they fall outside my expertiseand the scope of this chapter, and will therefore not be addressed here.

Dutch stems from the Indo-Germanic language family whose off-shoots grew into diverse Germanic languages, which include NorthGermanic (Scandinavian), East Germanic (Gothic � now extinct) andWest Germanic languages, where Dutch is situated alongside itslinguistic relatives German and English. Using this familiar image ofthe language tree, it can be said that Dutch finds itself on the samebranch as English and German; in fact, it is positioned between the two.Dutch evolved amongst two Germanic tribes, the Franks and the Saxons.Unlike German, Dutch never underwent the Second Sound Shift that ledto some of the consonants one finds in German. And unlike English, inwhich vowel combinations have flattened in pronunciation, Dutch hasretained numerous complex vowel diphthongs. In a linguistic sense,Dutch is a form of low German, a fact reflected in the name, Nederduits(literally, ‘Lower German’), which was the official lexical term used forthe language until the early 20th century.

The form of Dutch that is understood by 21 million speakers todayand taught in schools is technically referred to as Standard Dutch(references to ‘Dutch’ in this chapter indicate this standard form).Standard Dutch itself derives primarily from one particular dialect,Hollands, which was spoken in the urban conglomerate in the westernprovince of Holland (now two provinces, North and South Holland). Thedialect of Holland ascended to become the standard variety of Dutch forreasons that have to do with two potent forces in Holland during the 17thcentury, its Golden Age: economics and religion. Cities in the province ofHolland, such as the capital and port city, Amsterdam, as well as thebustling merchant city and cultural centre of Haarlem were the shapingforces of the economy and the arts. The Holland dialect naturally becamede facto the form of Dutch used for commerce. Religious developmentsalso helped propel the Holland dialect into universal use in the lowlands. The ascendancy of Calvinist Protestantism during the 16th century

Is Dutch Threatened by English 69

led to religious hegemony in the northern provinces of the LowCountries. Though the traditional view is occasionally challenged (vander Sijs, 2004), longstanding linguistic history maintains that theStatenbijbel (States Bible), a vernacular translation of the Bible commis-sioned by the States General in 1648, served as a chief linguistic unifier.Being for centuries the authoritative Christian scriptural text and stateBible, the Statenbijbel enjoyed a status akin to that of the King James Biblein the English-speaking world and exercised a powerful shaping force inlinguistic and idiomatic developments in the Netherlands (Donaldson,1983). Nowadays, many Dutch � particularly those living in easternprovinces � still refer to standard Dutch as Hollands. Whereas the Dutchnow officially call their language Nederlands, the colloquial label Hollandsserves as a constant reminder of the geographic and historic origins ofthe language’s standard form.

The English label for the language, Dutch, holds enough potential forsemantic confusion � particularly for speakers of English or German � towarrant a brief comment here. Dutch is an obvious cognate of Deutsch(German for the German language). The phonetic kinship of Dutch andDeutsch has historically caused problems for the Dutch in English-speaking regions. For example, amidst the anti-German sentiment inAmerica during the First World War, Dutch immigrants saw their nativetongue maligned by virtue of association. Not only did Dutch sound likeGerman to untrained American ears, but also the language’s traditionaldesignation as ‘Low German’ furthered the association. What is more,Duits (which considerably resembles Dutch) is the Dutch word denotingthe German language. Thus the very nomenclature of the language of theLow Lands has, over the centuries, shown itself to be remarkably flexibleand sometimes vulnerable.

Contacts with Other Languages

During the latter 16th and 17th centuries � Holland’s Golden Age �the maritime supremacy of the Dutch brought them to every corner ofthe globe. The resulting traffic in the harbour city of Amsterdam made italready then a richly cosmopolitan city. Thus, not coincidentally, the 16thcentury was a period which first saw scholarly attempts to limit theinfluence of other languages on Dutch. These developments coincidedwith movements in linguistic purism which themselves grew out ofemphases on the vernacular cultivated in the Renaissance. Such devel-opments overlapped further with the heyday of the chambers of rhetoric(rederijkers) � meetings in which Dutch poets would parade their latest


writing. As literary guilds, the rederijkers served as important instrumentsin the cultivation of the vernacular within intellectual circles.

The scholarly focus encouraged during the Renaissance also resultedin various attempts to standardise the spelling and grammar of Dutch.The Dictionarium of 1574 stands at the beginning of a long tradition oflexicography in the Netherlands. An important early work to standardisethe spelling was Pontus de Heuiter’s Nederduitse Orthographie (DutchOrthography) of 1581. But Dutch intellectuals were also keen to ridDutch of loan words from other languages. Latin words were naturallyprevalent in academic and clerical Dutch, as they were in all Europeanlanguages emerging from the middle ages. There also was an incorpo-rated body of Spanish vocabulary to deal with, too, as the low lands werea territory reigned by the King of Spain until Dutch liberation after theEighty-Year War (1568�1648).

Language purists of the 16th and 17th centuries were particularly keento rid Dutch of French loan words. The force of French courtly culturewas deeply felt in the Dutch cultural establishment; so, naturally, Frenchmade deep inroads into the Dutch vernacular. Ironically, the Dutchsometimes turned to German to find replacement for French loan words,as at that time the distinction between German and Dutch was not felt asacutely as today (Donaldson, 1983: 104). The Dutch language faced theforce of the French language, in fact, time and again. Whereas the 16thcentury dealt with the cumulative effect of French courtly culture on theDutch language, the 18th and 19th centuries would similarly deal withthe linguistic force of French due to the Napoleonic hegemony. This wasthe case particularly from 1806 to 1815 when the Netherlands andBelgium belonged to the Kingdom of France.

As the overview sketched above suggests, the Dutch have beeninternationally oriented and intercultural for centuries. Nowadays, in ourworld of ‘globalisation’, the international presence of the Netherlands issimilarly evident. In the realms of art and culture, Dutch orchestras andmuseums are known worldwide. In the realm of commerce, the Dutchalso keep a high international profile with transnational corporations likePhilips and Shell. The country’s bustling airport, Schiphol, as aninternational hub, allows the Dutch interaction with foreigners on adaily basis. It has long been maintained that centuries of sustainedexposure to other cultures, other peoples and other languages hasdecidedly shaped Dutch mentality and imagination. As a result, peoplein the Netherlands are notoriously open to foreign ideas and influence.They have, it is said, a natural receptivity to the spoken tongues of other


peoples � and they are remarkably adept at learning to speak thoselanguages as well.

Extent of English in Dutch Society and the European Union

As is widely known by professional linguists and uneducated worldcitizens alike, the English language has become a dominant force inmany areas around the globe (Nettle & Romaine, 2000). English hasmade formidable inroads into Dutch culture, particularly since the post-WWII era, and has been increasingly found in many spheres of linguisticand cultural life in the Netherlands. Let us observe some examples ofEnglish used in entertainment, business, politics and education in theDutch society � one need not go far to find them.

In Dutch entertainment the examples are myriad. Dutch televisionbroadcasts a sizeable number of foreign programmes and films, and as arule the media provide Dutch subtitles rather than dub the voices intoDutch (whereas in countries such as Germany and France dubbing is thenorm). Also, nearly every Dutch household has access to cable televisionin which basic offerings include the American Cable News Network(CNN) and even Music Television (MTV). Therefore, children who watchtelevision grow up hearing countless hours of English. The radio wavesare filled with English-language pop music, and many Dutch singersperform their songs in English too. Dutch contestants in the EuropeanSong Festival have sometimes sung in English. In Amsterdam one easilyconverses in English with virtually anyone working in the tourist,entertainment or culture industries. The preponderance of non-nativeDutch (‘allochtonen’) in Amsterdam � over 50% of the residents � furtherencourages English as the city’s lingua franca in many aspects of sociallife. English seems equally ubiquitous in the Dutch museum culture aswell (De Nijn, 1999; van Heugten, 1999).

Examples of such preference for English are abundant in the marketplace as well. One count shows that over 160 occupations are referred toby English job titles (Ridder, 1995). Research summarised by Renkemaet al. (2003) documents that 15% of advertisement to Dutch readers iswritten in English, and a third of television ads use English terms. Whereone once saw the word ‘korting’ displayed in retail store windows, onenow often sees the English equivalent, ‘sale.’ And even within Dutchcorporations themselves, English has made significant inroads. Philips,for example, ran an improvement campaign under the English slogan:‘Let’s make things better’. And, not surprisingly, computer-relatedspeech in the Netherlands is deluged with anglicisms. Here are but a


few examples: browsen, deleten, inloggen, upgraden, emailen (meaning ‘tobrowse’, ‘to delete’, etc.), hardware, software, downloaden, chatten, clikken;and even hybrid forms like searchopties (search options) and dubbelclikken(double clicking). P. Stroop’s (2003) analysis of 8000 e-mails received orsent by one salesman revealed that on average one English word is usedin every single e-mail composed � a frequency that Stroop contends nonewould consider exaggerated.

In higher education the trend is similar. Scores of professional schoolsand colleges of various universities offer courses taught in English (vanBree, 1999). Indeed, Dutch competence with the English language is nosuperficial matter. In fact, the linguistic self-confidence is so great that, inthe 1990s, the Minister of Education (J.M.M. Ritzen) suggested thatEnglish should become the operative language of Dutch higher educa-tion (Devoldere, 2002). It was possible for Minister Ritzen to advance thisposition as the Netherlands constitution nowhere anchors Dutchexclusively as the official language. By contrast, fellow Europeancountries such as Germany, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg,Ireland and France constitutionally protect their official languages (vander Burg, 1997). Even though Minister Ritzen’s suggestions nevermaterialised in governmental policy change, his comments did initiatesignificant debate on the subject. And while many view such a languageshift in the universities as very unlikely, the mere fact that such aproposal could be discussed speaks volumes for the country’s view of itsown language and for the people’s estimation of their own ability withthe English language (Ringeling, 1997).

Government agencies have also shown a trend to use English. Duringthe Bosnian crisis in the 1990s, when the Dutch armed forces foundthemselves under critical scrutiny in the debacle at Srebrenica, theMinister of Defence responded by establishing an internal departmentunder the English title: ‘Lessons Learned’ (Freriks, 1998). Similarly, afederal report analysing the potential of building a high-speed railwayappeared under the English title ‘High Speed Train’. One of the reasonsthat the earlier mentioned representatives submitted their proposal toanchor the Dutch language constitutionally was their apparent frustra-tion with the minister of Foreign Affairs, Van den Broek, who ‘spokeEnglish all the time and everywhere’ (Nederlands al voldoendebeschermd, 1997; Schoof, 1997). Likewise they were put off by theGreen-Left party, which was wont to post English signs and notes withinthe parliamentary working quarters.

In the arena of international politics, the English-language factorbecomes obviously more complex (Bolkestein, 2004). As of this writing in


the year 2004, the European Union counts 25 member states and 20officially recognised languages. Even the staunchest purists in theNetherlands would agree that pragmatics call for some degree of Englishas part of the Dutch EU parliamentary work. As such, the languagepolitics played out by the Dutch in the EU provide an opportune casestudy of the possibilities and perils involved with a Dutch-like readinessto use English in their political negotiations.

As one of the original four languages of the former EuropeanCommunity (1958), Dutch has always enjoyed the protection still grantedto member countries of the European Union. Currently, the ‘Treatyestablishing a Constitution for Europe’ states that ‘[e]very person maywrite to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of theConstitution and must have an answer in the same language’ (Treatyestablishing a Constitution for Europe, 2004: Article II-101.4). Simulta-neous interpreters are likewise available for hearings in the union’svarious legislative and judicial bodies. But the Dutch have been wontand willing to speak in English in the EU sessions � a reality thatsometimes irritates simultaneous interpreters who then have difficultieswith the ‘Dutchness’ of the parliamentarians’ English idiom (Donker,1988; Ester, 1999).

While all languages are officially equal, it seems that some are moreequal than others. The judges at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, forexample, communicate in French, the preferred language of ‘Eurocrats’.The European Commission uses French, German and English. Occasion-ally, the Dutch are starkly reminded that language itself is politics in theEU. In 1997, the Dutch displayed surprising but unequivocal defensive-ness when Environment Minister De Boer submitted a protest againstAustria, the chair of the Union, after a decision was made to use onlySpanish, English, French and German at an important meeting (Neder-landse taal inzet ruzie met EU, 1998). Because of incidents like this andothers (such as the French proposal in 1994 to restrict the EuropeanUnion’s languages), the Dutch have taken some notable stands to defendthe use of their language (van der Burg, 1997). For the foreseeable future,the Dutch language enjoys security in the European Union, and they willdo well to take advantage of the impartiality toward languages that stillprevails in the EU (van Bree, 1999). But given the recent growth to 25member states, it appears imminent that the debates over language use inthe EU will intensify (Thyssen, 2002).

In response to the prevalence of English � suggested in the aboveoverview � Dutch language purists have set up forts to defend againstthe advancement of English. The most prominent example hereof is the


Stichting Nederlands (translated literally: foundation for the Dutchlanguage). The goal of this foundation, formally launched in 1999, is topromote the use of the Dutch language. As part of its strategy, theorganisation has assembled a running list of some 1200 frequently usedEnglish words along with their Dutch equivalents. The Stichting Neder-lands grew out of a task force assembled by the society (and same namedjournal) Onze Taal (‘Our Language’), which is considered a premierelinguistic observer of trends in the Dutch language. During its initialyears in the early 20th century, Onze Taal played the watchdog role oflanguage purism that the Stichting Nederlands does today. However, backthen the intruder was not English but German. Over the course of the20th century, the journal Onze Taal has abandoned the role of stridentdefender of the Dutch language, and favours now a more passive role ofobserver of language trends (Sanders, 2002).

Evaluation of the ‘English Problem’

Given the complexities of the English problem for the Dutch language,it will prove helpful to make some crucial distinctions, as two ratherseparate phenomena are at work. One trend is that the Dutch, withstriking frequency, choose to communicate in English. The secondphenomenon is the apparent mark that the English language is makingon the Dutch language. In analysing these phenomena we will have togauge, in the first matter, both why the Dutch are speaking English andto what extent this is actually happening. In the second matter we shallneed to determine to what extent English is eroding Dutch, and whetherDutch can survive the onslaught. In other words, concerns are heardabout the situation of the Dutch language as it faces the external reality ofEnglish as a competing mode of communication. In addition, the Dutchlanguage must, internally, deal with the influence of English on its ownlinguistic system (de Vries, 2001; van Bree, 1999). Let us address thephenomena in that order.

The first theory suggested � that the Dutch language is beingdisplaced by English � begs the question of cause or effect. If the riseof English is an effect or the result of a process already underway, thenwe could expect to trace it to an intrinsic deficiency in Dutch itself. Theinadequacy of such a presumable cause is, however, suggested by thegeneral observation that Dutch or regional dialects are still, to anoverwhelming degree, the languages spoken in homes, schools,churches, clubs and over neighbours’ fences in the Netherlands andFlanders. Even though much Internet activity, for example, might take


place in English, such high-tech interaction encompasses by no means allof one’s verbal interaction in the course of a day. While anglicisms andthe like may pepper the speech of urban types at the work place, Dutch isthe nation’s language for most of life’s basic spheres and activities suchas for family, friends, news, intimacy, verbal and literary expression, andthe like. In other words, the Dutch still speak Dutch. The appropriatereminder here is that if indeed Dutch is disappearing, it is due to theforce of English in the linguistic environment. Thus, while Dutch itselfremains a vibrant language, it is here and there replaced by another � inthis case, English � which functions as an invasive species, to use abiological metaphor. To which degree Dutch is being supplanted is anincreasingly important question, for the issue at hand is the addition ofanother language into the culture. In the midst of such a presumabletransition to a new multilingualism, however, it is crucial to note thevibrant persistence of the Dutch language itself.

Some argue that we are, in fact, now witnessing the functionaldevelopment of a new professional bilingualism (Bakker, 1998). Anarticulation of this view is found in a recent book by van Oostendorp,Steenkolen Engels (2002, loosely translated as ‘Broken English’). VanOostendorp exemplifies an unreserved pragmatic approach to dealingwith English. His argument proceeds from what he considers theobvious observation that ‘broken English’ has become a lingua franca,and asserts that we will all do well to let this development have its way.What van Oostendorp means by ‘broken English’ is the same thing thatthe Dutch Language Union Report (Rapport Werkgroep Europa) intimateswith the term ‘deculturalised English’, which is to say an English notbound to a particular English-speaking culture (Devoldere, 2002; thereport, section 1.1.4.) The key to the success of ‘broken English’ as alingua franca, so continues the argument, is to accept the imperfections ofsuch English and allow vast variations of the language as part of thecommon tool for communication. The sooner everyone relaxes gramma-tical rules and lowers idiomatic expectations, the better.

A notable part of van Oostendorp’s thesis of Steenkolen Engels is histwo-fold insistence that Dutch is neither significantly corrupted byEnglish, nor dying out because of English. For van Oostendorp, thephenomenon of English in Dutch culture is one of a new bilingualism (or,for many, a trilingualism, given the continued presence of regionaldialects). In other words, English is for many Dutch citizens essentiallyan additional tool or yet another skill at their disposal for theirinternational way of life.


While there is something attractive and even admirable about vanOostendorp’s view, one wonders whether there is not some unwarrantedoverconfidence in the effectiveness of communication with such a free-for-all English that is abstract and untied to specific cultural andtraditional meanings. A good example of this problem is evident,ironically, in the book’s very title word, which van Oostendorp (2002:52) explains in an appended English-language precis, ‘Summary inStonecoal English’:

Due to a combination of historical accidents and serious bloodshed,approximately 25 percent of the world population speaks Englishnow. Within the Netherlands, this number is as high as roughly 90percent, according to some assessments. The English these peoplespeak is not uniform and in many ways does not resemble theEnglish that is spoken by native speakers in Britain or the UnitedStates. Within the Netherlands, it is sometimes referred to as‘steenkolen-Engels’ � ‘Stonecoal English’. This is a pejorative term,but I argue that it could be used in a positive way as well. If Englishis going to be such an important language in the world, everybodywill have a right to it, not just the native speakers.

The linguistic problem that remains unsolved throughout vanOostendorp’s summary is a semantic one. The English speaker willpuzzle over the word stonecoal as modifier of the noun English. (MyWebster’s New College Dictionary, in fact, does not even list stonecoal asan entry.) It is only after consultation with native speakers of Dutch thatone will arrive at the conclusion that one of the images that ‘steenkool’evokes in the Dutch mind is that of broken pieces of coal. For the nativeEnglish speaker, however, coal connotes things like energy source, airpollution and perhaps the idea of petrification. It does not connotesomething broken or substandard. My point here is not to castigate anon-native English speaker for getting the nuance of an English termwrong. But one must point out the regrettable irony that a crucialsemantic misunderstanding arises from the very title of a book devotedto the thesis that non-native English speakers should cheerfully embraceEnglish as a lingua franca in the interest of better interculturalcommunication. Perhaps more caution is in order before the Dutch fallheadlong into an embrace of a functional Dutch/English bilingualism.

The second question concerns the internal transitions within Dutchdue to English as an intrusive, polluting and ultimately savaging force.Linguists and language pedagogues have been addressing this issue inthe press and academic journals for some time. In contrast to the


response of the purists, an overall optimism prevails among linguistsregarding the health and future of Dutch (Stroop, 1997; van der Horst,1995, 1997; van der Sijs, 1998). Although some linguists express concern(van Marle, 2004), most have tended to claim, instead, that many of thelinguistic adaptations of English are not danger signals for Dutch, butrather indicators of the health and adaptability of the Dutch language(Verkuyl, 1998). For much of the analysis that follows here, I am indebtedto one linguist in particular, C.J.W. Zwart (1999; see also de Vries, 2001.)

Linguists and philologists have traditionally observed two primaryscenarios of language change. One way is where one group of speakersfinds itself in a subordinate social role to a stratum of speakers of adifferent language, who, though they wield the power, are far fewer innumber. In this strata-based manner of language change, the substratumis compelled to adopt the language of the superstratum. This phenom-enon explains, for example, the inception of Europe’s Romancelanguages, such as French. The phenomenon also accounts for theAfrikaans language. The substratum succeeds in taking on the super-stratum’s vocabulary, but is only partially successful in adopting theother language’s system, i.e. syntax and morphology, including inflexion.As a result, a new mixed language is formed. The speakers in thesuperstratum are dramatically fewer in number, so they soon adapt tothe newly formed hybrid language. Regarding such strata-based lan-guage change, the obvious is quickly noted: namely, that no suchdynamic of social strata is involved in the current question of Dutchand the English languages.

A second manner in which a language can fundamentally change isthrough appropriating loan words, also called borrowing. In the mostextreme examples, one language borrows so many words of the languagewith which it is in contact that the former is altered to the point where itbecomes a third language that is a lexical hybrid. Such is the case, forexample, with Mitchif, the language of the Canadian prairie lands, whichsome linguists describe as an example of ‘language intertwining’. Mitchifis a mixture of Cree and French that came about around 1800 when manyfur traders married Native American women of the area. In Mitchif theverbs, personal pronouns, interrogatives and demonstratives are largelyCree, whereas the nouns, adjectives, adverbs, articles and numerals arelargely French. Speakers of Mitchif can often speak neither Cree norFrench (Callaghan & Gamble, 1996).

Current linguistic research indicates that Dutch examples of borrow-ing are nowhere near such a level as in the Mitchif case. Compellingstudies suggest a low cause for concern regarding loan words from


English. In her book, Geleend en uitgeleend (Borrowed and Loaned) van derSijs (1998: 181ff.) summarises numerous studies of the use of loan wordsin the press. She and others estimate that around 20�30% of the wordsare loan words of foreign origin. But most of these words have beencommonplace for decades, even generations; they include such commonvocabulary as: politie (‘police’), zich (‘self’), raket (‘racket’), radio, club,sport, scene, citaat (‘citation’) and etcetera. One study estimates that onlyaround 10% of all loan words used in the press are borrowed fromEnglish. Some concerned language observers might contest suchattempts at reassurance from history, claiming that the percentage ofEnglish loan words is dramatically increasing at present. But of all thewords that, since 1985, have been newly added to the Dutch dictionary,Hedendaags Nederlands (‘Present-day Dutch’), only 11.3% of these are loanwords � and only a fraction of those words are from English. We oughtalso to bear in mind that many of these words � particularly those ofhigh-tech jargon � appear to undergo ‘dutchification’ nearly at the samerate with which they entered the language. Thus, words like diskette, harddrive, word processor and keyboard are with increasing frequency referredto, respectively, as: schijfje, harde schijf, tekstverwerker and toetsenbord. Salesof computer software show a similar trend. For example, 80% of Dutchconsumers choose the Dutch version (over the English version) of theWindows operating system.

As Zwart asserts � the system always wins. That is to say, grammarand linguistic basics, such as pronunciation, intonation, syntax andmorphology (including plural formation) seem convincingly imperviousto significant alteration due to English influence. In fact, where Dutchdoes seem to show some syntactic evolution, the impulse appears to bemore from non-English linguistic cultures such as the Suriname � apronounced segment of youth culture in Amsterdam (Reinders, 1998;van der Horst, 1995; van Kempen, 2000). With respect to pronunciation:English words like goal, quiz and off side are pronounced in Dutch as koolor chool, kwis and afsijt. The accent of a word like ‘stewardess has becomestewar’dess in Dutch. The plural of kwis (for ‘quiz’) is not formed withthe English ‘s’ (kwisses) but rather with the Dutch ‘n’ � kwissen; likewisethe plural of stewardess is stewardessen, not ‘stewardesses’. Even in genderformation, the Dutch system adapts words according to its own rules.Thus, ‘dashboard’ becomes in Dutch a neuter noun requiring the definitearticle ‘het’ (het dashbord). ‘Credit card’, however, is rendered with ‘de’which is the definite article used with masculine and feminine nouns (decreditcard). English, of course, knows no gender distinctions with thearticles and uses only the definite article ‘the’.


There are more examples. English loan words are inflected and givenendings according to the Dutch rules, such that the diminutive of kwis(quiz) is a kwisje, a female typist is a typiste (her male counterpart is atypist). Adjectives like ‘clever’ and ‘hip’ become clevere and hippe incertain situations (clevere en hippe studenten: ‘clever and hip students’).Comparative and superlative degrees of modifiers likewise follow theDutch grammatical system. Thus we have hippere and hippste and coolereand coolste studenten (and not the English superlatives: hippest andcoolest). In past tense formation we see the same phenomenon. Acomputer file, once ‘ctrl�s’ has been pushed, has been gesaved � orgeseefd (the Dutch are still sorting out the spelling, but either way, it isclearly the Dutch past participle formation system at work � not theEnglish one).

With a few minor exceptions (de Vries, 2001), there has been littlesignificant, systematic alteration of the Dutch language due to incursionfrom English. The number of loan words from English remains relativelysmall, and the Dutch linguistic system is stable and robust enoughquickly to press foreign words into its own mould. The Dutch allow thesewords to enrich their language, as it were. And many of these words,particularly those from the high-tech sector, are just that: words used inone distinct linguistic setting. There is thus a built-in self-containment forthese vocabulary groupings.

This is not to say that the Dutch language is not changing. It has in factevolved considerably, even in recent decades (Kuitenbrouwer, 2002;J. Stroop, 2003; Verkuyl, 1998). The 20th century, for example, saw twoofficial spelling reforms. Dutch of today is as different from the Dutch ofthe 17th century as is American English from the speech of Shakespeare.But it is erroneous to assume, first of all, that such changes are unusual,and secondly, that these changes are due primarily to the presentdominance of English. As van der Horst (1995: 74) says, ‘The fact thatDutch changes so vigorously may yet be seen as proof that it is so alive.For let us not forget that our language changed much in earlier eras. Wecan see that clearly from our perspective now. If there were no suchchanges in our era, then there would be reason for concern’ (mytranslation).

Conclusion

While Dutch is not a major world language, it does rank at around60th on the world language list � a significantly high ranking, if thegenerally assumed total of all the world’s languages at 6000 is to be


trusted. Also, more and more students are studying Dutch in over 250academic programmes in Dutch worldwide. The Dutch Language Union(Nederlandse Taalunie) makes notable efforts to promote Dutch languagestudy outside of the Low Countries, granting generous financial supportfor this pursuit. So Dutch and Flemish taxpayers indeed do supportpromoting their own mother tongue � even if a favourite posture of theDutch is to feign surprise that one would want to learn their language(Burger, 1998). Like speakers of any language and representatives of anyculture, the Dutch too are flattered when a foreigner has taken the timeand effort to learn their language. Regardless of how well the Dutchcommunicate in English, every foreign language pedagogue and everytraveller knows that, in the Low Countries, a person who speaks someDutch is better off than one who does not.

Concern about the influence of English on the Dutch language willlikely continue to be expressed in the Netherlands. Anglicisms do ariseand pepper the Dutch language, but assimilation of loan words is anormal process and a sign of the vitality of a language � a fact buttressingthe confidence of linguists, such as van der Horst (1997), that Dutchpersists today as a solid and vibrant language. Like living organisms,languages are anything but static; they are ever changing, ever mutating.In fact, Dutch appears to have an extraordinary capacity to assimilatevocabulary, a characteristic that helps to explain the exceptionalmagnitude of the Dictionary of the Dutch Language (Woordenboek derNederlandsche taal), which is now the world’s largest. The completion, in1998, of this 40-volume dictionary (45,805 pages) made lexicographicpublication history. Like the Low Countries, which welcome the constantinflow of Europe’s rivers on the one hand, and live with the ever presentwaters of the sea on the other, so does the Netherlandic mother tongueaccept linguistic incursions from the outside and use them to its ownenrichment and advantage.

Note1. This paper has its origin in a lecture I delivered in 1999 upon my inauguration

into the Calvin College Queen Juliana Chair of the Language and Culture ofthe Netherlands (De Vries, 2000). While I have substantially revised theoriginal text and have added material in consideration of recent literature, thepiece maintains some of the tone of a spoken text delivered to a generalaudience.


Chapter 5

Hungarian: Trends andDeterminants of English Borrowingin a Market Economy Newcomer

ZSUZSANNA GOMBOS-SZIKLAINE and ZOLTAN STURCZwithJUDITH ROSENHOUSE and ROTEM KOWNER

English loan words are more omnipresent in present-day Hungarianthan ever before. Whatever TV channel you switch on, whatevernewspaper you read in Hungarian, you will inevitably come across anincreasingly large number of terms and phrases rooted, in a variety ofways, in British/American English. This phenomenon is so obvious thatnot only have linguists dealt with it in the last decade, but journalistshave also devoted many articles to examining its repercussions onHungarian society and culture. No wonder, then, that articles regardingthe role of English in Hungary and elsewhere, such as ‘English theuniversal language of the net’ or ‘Why English is the actual linguafranca’, are an everyday occurrence (Kontra, 1998).

This chapter deals with Hungarian (Magyar), for long the largest non-Indo-European language spoken in Europe, and therefore a traditionalsource of fascination for Western linguists. This said, a few words ofcaution about its current status seem necessary, to clarify the territoriallimits of our investigation. Hungarian is spoken today by about 13 millionnative speakers, of which close to 10 million live in the Republic ofHungary. About two million speakers live in territories that were part ofthe Kingdom of Hungary before 1918. The largest Hungarian-speakingminority, of about 1.4 million, is found in Romania, and smaller ethnic andlinguistic communities live in Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Austriaand Slovenia. While the linguistic developments in dominant Hungarypenetrate in various forms into the linguistic satellite communitiesbeyond its national border, there are certain linguistic differences betweenHungary and other Hungarian-speaking communities, especially in

82

regard to linguistic borrowing. For this reason, the present chapterfocuses on the borrowing of English lexicon in Hungary alone.

As vocabulary is the most flexible component of any language, weconcentrate here first on lexical items and indicate the most frequentcases of English lexical borrowings in the Hungarian language andexplain the need for them where possible. Next we explore somepeculiarities of borrowings in the Hungarian context, and specificallyfocus on the trends and features of the Anglo-American linguisticinfluence on everyday Hungarian speech, and point out the adoptionof such words in Hungarian. A secondary goal of this chapter is toinvestigate certain assumptions about universal trends concerning thissubject, and point out peculiarities of our language in the context ofuniversal trends.

Finally, consideration of the so-called ‘minor languages’ in theEuropean Union is one of the important goals of the Action PlanPromoting Language Learning and Cultural Diversity (Action Plan2004�2006, Commission of the European Communities for the Protectionof Language and Cultural Diversity). As such, our survey may contributesome data for this purpose as well, and is expected to suggest topics forprojects on less widely taught languages (Eurobarometer, 2001). The mainbody of the material used in this study was collected from numerouswritten newspapers, as well as other media channels, includingcommercial ads broadcast over the Internet, the TV and the radio, andmaterial collected from the speech of university students and otheryoung people.

History of Hungarian Contacts with Foreign Languagesand English

Until the 20th century Hungarians had very limited contact with theEnglish-speaking world. The Magyar tribes who spoke a Finno-Ugriclanguage migrated to the Pannonian plain in the late 9th century, andestablished their kingdom in the year 1000. At that time they began to useLatin script instead of what is known now as ‘Rovas’, the old Hungarianscript. Speaking a language genetically remote from the neighbouringGermanic-, Latin- and Slav-based languages, the Hungarians nonethelesskept their original language up to the present. By 1526, however, theOttomans gained a decisive victory over the Hungarian army and for thenext 150 years ruled the region. The Turkish presence left some deeptraces in the Hungarian language in the form of vocabulary of eitherTurkic, or even Arabic or Persian, origin. The Ottoman retreat in 1686

English Borrowing in Hungarian 83

marked the rise of the Habsburg kings of Austria and dominance ofGerman culture and language in Hungary for the next 250 years.Eventually, in 1867, Hungary became a theoretically equal half of theAustro-Hungarian Empire, but the German language retained itsdominance at least until 1918, as the main source for vocabulary in thefields of technology and economics. As a foreign language, German wasfor centuries the most popular language, and even now it remains highon students’ list of foreign languages.

Side by side with German, Latin remained the official language of theKingdom of Hungary until 1844, and since its early contact withChristianity, the Hungarian language had absorbed loan words of Latinorigin in the domains of religion, law, administration, politics andmedicine, such as kod ‘code’, passzus ‘pass’, konfirmacio ‘confirmation’and diagnozis ‘diagnosis’. This trend has not ceased and may be confusedwith modern English loan words, as seen in recent vocabulary such asstabilizacio ‘stabilisation’, spekulacio ‘speculation’, inflacio ‘inflation’ andprivatizacio ‘privatisation’. Borrowed foreign words, including thosecoming from Latin, were adapted to Hungarian by e.g. adding anepenthetic vowel to prevent word-initial consonant clusters (which doesnot conform to Hungarian phonology) as in Hungarian iskolaBLat. scola‘school’ (Menus, 2003).

The history of Hungarian borrowing of English lexicon is customarilydivided into six periods: 1610�1820, 1820�1849, 1850�1920, 1920�1945,1945�1980 and 1980�present (Farkas & Kniezsa, 2002; Magay, 1992).During the first era, only a few English loan words entered Hungarian,among them the word parlament ‘parliament’. Although there are nodefinite testimonies about the earliest contacts with English, since the17th century a number of English travellers documented the presence ofEnglish loan words in Hungarian. One such testimony is EdwardBrown’s ‘Travels in divers parts of Europe’, which was published inLondon in 1687 (Magay, 1992; Orszagh, 1977). And yet, the impact ofEnglish loan words during this period and even as late as during the 19thcentury was fairly restricted. So limited was the knowledge of English atthis period that prominent works of English literature reached Hungar-ian readers mostly with the aid of double translation, that is, via Germantranslations. In the first period about 90 loan words penetratedHungarian belonging to everyday life in semantic fields of clothing,eating, agriculture, building industry, shipping and sports, whereasduring the second period (The Age of Reform) about 150 words wereborrowed, mostly related to political, social and economic life, as well asto road and water transport and technology and the exact sciences. The


third period witnessed a steep rise, with about 400 English loan wordsrecorded. The fourth period saw some 180 borrowings in an era ofpolitical distancing from the English�American block (Balazs, 2001: 29).Two examples of loan words from English dated to the first half of the20th century are the 1930s verb csencsel (‘change’), meaning ‘trading,exchanging things’, and nejlon (‘nylon’, with Hungarian spelling), whichin the 1940s was already a frequently used word for a synthetic fibre.

The period starting in 1945 reveals considerable fluctuations inEnglish loan words borrowings, following the dramatic political andsocial changes which characterised these years. As Hungary fell underthe aegis of the Soviet Union in 1945, the influx of English borrowingdeclined markedly, together with its instruction at the state schools. Sincethe end of the 1980s, the restrictions on linguistic borrowing havediminished and the adoption of English loan words has been renewed inan increasingly intensive manner. With the fall of the Soviet Union andthe political changes of Hungary, a new sense of globalisation began tobecome a reality. Hungary held its first multiparty elections in 1990 andsoon initiated a free market economy. Globalisation and Westernisationwere facilitated by the new political environment, but also due to ITdevelopment, mobile communication, and the easy and mass accessi-bility to information via the web. The significant sociopolitical transfor-mations (collapse of the Iron Curtain, transition to a market economy,mobility in all fields) accelerated Hungary’s becoming an integral part ofNATO in 1999 and the European Union (EU) in 2004.

As everywhere in the world, the globalised culture penetratedHungary through several channels including the Internet, mobiletelephony, printed media and broadcasting of written texts and music.In the domains of technology and business alike, English, or moreprecisely American English, assumed in this period the leading role inspreading information on a universal scale. Because of the opening of thecountry and its integration in the broader capitalist market and highlydeveloped affluent society of Western Europe, there was greater need forvocabulary development in the 1980s, and as a result Hungarian hasbecome inundated by expressions mainly rooted in American English.Farkas and Kniezsa (2002: 278) note that most of the borrowed words inthis period were direct borrowings and many of them came throughspoken English as a consequence of the advent of the radio and television(in contrast with previous periods when loan words originated in writtentexts). Without good knowledge of English, Hungarians began to feelthat access to the globalised world had become practically impossible(Sziklaine Gombos, 1997). The transition to a market economy in


Hungary necessitated the development of an adequate vocabulary (asimplied by words such as profit ‘profit’ and recesszio ‘recession’), resultingin rapid steps taken to enrich the language in specific domains (cf. Gretsy& Kovalovszky, 1980 and 1985).

Attitude to English Loan Words

In recent decades English has acquired the status of a leading linguafranca in Hungary. This status is expressed in the predominance of fullAnglo-American forms (i.e. genuine borrowings) and the use ofterminology based on Anglo-American roots in numerous languages.This process has been accelerated by the expansion of the EuropeanUnion (EU), where English is undeniably the most common languageof international communication for speakers of so many differentmother tongues. This lingua franca type of English (or Englishes),which is neither British nor American, will soon, if it has not already,become the major second language for the EU population. In May 2004Hungary became an EU member-state. As a result, its language policyis now determined by the European Commission Action Plan. One ofthe objectives of this commission in regard to language competence isthat any EU citizen would speak two foreign languages besides theirmother tongue.

Although Hungary may face some difficulties in realising thisobjective, due to its linguistic background, recent attitudes to Englishmay assist in changing old habits. A significant change in foreignlanguage preference is not only that English has become the linguafranca of the modern world, but the area of application of the languagehas changed as well. As mentioned earlier, loan word adoption wasnecessitated almost exclusively by the demand for new vocabulary itemsfor writing. At present the field of borrowings has expanded substan-tially and embraces oral forms of speech, both professional andcolloquial (Balazs, 2002). A survey conducted in 2003 by the HungarianNational Marketing Research Institute regarding the extent to whichHungarians understand the importance of English for the future of theirchildren shows that for 80% of the parents English is the favourite foreignlanguage at school. This finding corresponds to figures obtained at aboutthe same period in other European countries. That is, in other candidatecountries for EU membership 87% of the parents regarded English astheir favourite foreign language at school, and in EU-member countries75% of the parents did so. The languages next in preference (afterEnglish) are German and French, apparently due to their perceived


usefulness. Similar data were provided at the same time by theHungarian Ministry of Education on foreign languages in public andtertiary education. In educational documents English skills are men-tioned as a basic competence (together with computer literacy ordriving). Without these skills it is very difficult to find employmentnowadays in Hungary.

Founded in 1949, The Research Institute for Linguistics of theHungarian Academy of Sciences also expresses interest in the currentdevelopments of the language, but does not seem to interfere with itsdevelopment in general and the adoption of English loan words inparticular. Research projects conducted in the Institute investigatevarious aspects and different variants of Hungarian in and outsideHungary including issues of language policy within the framework ofEuropean integration. The Institute operates a public counselling serviceon language and linguistics, which prepares expert reports on relevantaffairs on demand (Minya, 2005). A most recent phenomenon in this fieldis the establishment of a counselling service (MANYSZI) in 2006, with thesupport of a Ministry of National Heritage project (Balazs, 2001).MANYSZI offers consultations both for institutions and the public atlarge in matters of language use, and organises conferences, lectures,publications and studies of the current state of Hungarian (see http://www.e-nyelv.hu).

In addition to the awaking public activity, also individual scholarsseem to be concerned with the current state of Hungarian. A case in pointis a short article written by Prof. Adam Nadasdy (2001), who calls forincreased use of foreign words (including English) regardless of itsoutcomes. He lists many foreign words adopted in the past by theHungarian, which he describes as a multilayered language. At present,he contends, the Hungarian language does not have to prove its viabilityand any borrowing is welcomed. The publication of such an articleattests to the fact that there are voices also against profuse borrowing. Butmore than an opposition to borrowing, many Hungarians are simplyconcerned by the future of their language. A recent article which presentsvarious types of English loan words in Hungarian, concludes correctlythat ‘keeping abreast of these changes keeps linguists, lexicographers,language learners and language teachers extremely busy’ (Tennant &Tennant, 2004). From another angle, Kertesz (2003), who comparedphonological processes of borrowings from foreign languages in Hun-garian, Japanese and Russian, provides a glimpse into the variousacademic deliberations of English borrowings in Hungary.


Domains of Lexical Borrowing

Corresponding to universal tendencies, the Hungarian language iscontinuously subjected to the invasion of Anglo-American vocabulary.Planned vocabulary building based on Hungarian terms cannot follow �or does not even aspire to follow � the torrential inflow of newinformation on technological development, and new trends and phenom-ena in the fields of economy and business. Borrowings frequently achievethe status of loan words. They become integrated components of thelanguage, with or without undergoing minor changes, but their foreignorigin is mostly detectable. In the past, loan words lost the properties thatmarked their foreignness for their users and underwent the necessarychanges required by strictly prescribed academic norms of Hungarian,the target language. The foreign origin of words � German in our case �eroded down the centuries and has become barely discernible to thenative speakers of Hungarian (as also noted by Nadasdy, 2001).

Nowadays, however, because of the accelerated pace of development,and the urge to name the novelties around us, adaptation of loan wordsdoes not strictly follow those expected trends or conform to those rules.Borrowing foreign terminology serves to prevent ambiguity, and in thisway ensures the constant validity of the terms applied. Thus we find thatthe most significant domains or fields of vocabulary that importborrowings are those involved with rapid changes. These fields includetechnology (high-tech as well as its applications in everyday life),economy and related sciences and activities (management, marketing,finance), politics and its institutions, issues of immediate urgency forHungary in its newly acquired EU membership status (including theenvironment, sustainable development, workforce mobility), the arts,culture and academic life (entertainment, music, media and life-longlearning). In fact, all of these are aspects of the globalised nature ofeveryday life.

The Form and Limitation of Borrowing English Vocabulary

Hungarian is characterised by diverse ways of adoption of borrowedwords, varying from the absence of change, minimal change in form ormeaning, to complex changes (cf. Farkas & Kniezsa, 2002). There areseveral reasons for adoption of English loan words without change(which we call ‘real’ borrowings). First, plain mental laziness (theprinciple known as the ‘least effort’, cf. Zipf, 1949) is assumed whenno search for a proper equivalent for an English term is undertaken. Thisphenomenon tends to occur when there is increased pressure for


implementation of up-to-date technologies without delay. Terms forobjects and notions missing from the target language are learnt togetherwith the acquaintance with the denoted entity. This is especially typicalof the case of (proper) names of objects where a conscious decision istaken not to change them, as in the case of company names or brandnames like Nokia and Adidas.

The urge for vocabulary building may result in another manner ofborrowing causing the formation of mixed compounds, namely compo-nent(s) of Anglo-American origin mixed with Hungarian lexical items.See: cyber-kaloz ‘cyber-pirate’, hacker-tamadas ‘hacker attack’, nonstop-nonsleep osszejovetel ‘non-stop-nonsleep meeting’, online piacter ‘onlinemarket square’, spamforgalom ‘spam movement’, software ipar ‘softwareindustry’ and show-car-kiallıtas ‘show-car exhibition’. In the borrowedcomponent, forms with Hungarian spelling are frequently observed,such as in kiberbunozes ‘cyber punishment’, kibertamadas ‘cyber attack’,lızingceg ‘leasing company’ and szoftveripar ‘software industry’. Loanwords such as in the above examples preserve some typical features ofthe source language. In these cases the acquisition process of loanwords/loan expressions is similar to that of learning new words in one’smother tongue. As attested by the history of adoption of German or Latinloan words outlined earlier, the difficulty of acquiring foreign-soundingexpressions does not depend on any foreign language competence of thespeakers.

The linguistic characteristics of Hungarian make it an unwelcominghost for lexical borrowing from English. Compared with most of itsneighbours, the rules of phonetics, morphology and syntax of Hungar-ian, a Finno-Ugric language, are very different from those of English.Especially interesting is how the native speaker’s phonetic/morpholo-gical competence will affect the adoption, adaptation and assimilationprocesses. These may reveal the instances when the language is notpermissive or when it is even intolerant to certain linguistic forms. Asurvey of linguistic interference can provide us with useful data, whichmay be applicable in course development for language teachingprogrammes for non-native speakers of Hungarian (Balazs, 1999).

In addition to phonetic adaptation, the fast inflow of Anglo-Americanvocabulary has often led to uncertainty about the spelling of the words orphrases concerned. Hungarian has no diphthongs, and therefore suchvowels in foreign words will undergo some phonetic alterations. Thismay yield several different spellings for the same word using English andHungarian spellings, for example, file/fajl, franchise/frencsajz, feeling/fıling and surf/szorf. Similarly, because of the lack of the semi-vowel /w/


in the Hungarian phonological system, the sound concerned is inter-preted as /v/ for native speakers of Hungarian (as in the better knownGerman) as in (szoftver/software). Also the word ‘manager’ has twoversions (manager/menedzser) for the same reason.

A recognisable stage in the transition of words from the state ofborrowings to loan words has been assimilation of foreign words insound and spelling to features of Hungarian words (e.g. fajl, kola, lızing,luzer). This is so obvious in Hungarian writing because almost allHungarian phonemes have distinctive (single-letter) representations inwriting. As letters have distinctive sound values, a condition that servesas the basic principle of reading in Hungarian, speakers will pronouncealso borrowed words according to the sound values of the correspondingletters in the Hungarian alphabet. In addition to the original version andthe version with Hungarian spelling, a Hungarian equivalent word mayalso exist as in projector, projektor, vetıto. The Hungarian form might bemore understandable for the larger public and can be used in writtentexts for explanation of the foreign word, and can be considered atranslation of the two previous versions of foreign origin.

As an agglutinative language, Hungarian has a highly developedmorphology which operates several grammatical categories and accountsfor the length of its words in general. By series of prefixes, suffixes andinfixes embedded into the framework of one word, grammatical andsemantic meanings are expressed. This language feature is applied alsoin the English loan words found in our study, as the following exampleswill show. Verbs of foreign origin can be admitted to the Hungarianvocabulary under the condition that a supplementary verbal suffix isinserted before the person and tense verb endings (e.g. -el or -ked): tomanage � menedzsel, to babysit � bebiszittel, to lose � luzerkedik (slang,with semantic change, ‘behave like a loser’). After this process the verband its derivatives behave like any regular verb of Hungarian origin andcan acquire the various features of Hungarian verb morphology. See, forexample, Menedzselte/he was managing it (a form in the third personsingular past tense); Brainstormingoltunk, meetingeltunk/we were brain-storming/having a meeting (past tense first person plural); Brainstor-mingolas/brainstorming, meetingeles/meeting, shoppingolas/shopping,bloggolas/blogging (verbal nouns); shoppingolasi laz/shopping fever(in this example the adjective is derived from the verbal noun bysuffixing to it the adjective suffix -i.)

Nouns of foreign origin tend to obtain the features required by themorphosyntactic rules of Hungarian, such as those referring to caseendings. See the following examples: Veszek egy hamburgert. Te vegyel


hotdogot!/I am going to buy a hamburger. (You,) Buy a hotdog. (anaccusative suffix -t/-ot is attached to the noun in object function);Talalkozunk a meeting pointnal./We are going to see each other at themeeting point. Here the locational suffix is added to the borrowed(English) noun and the definite article precedes the English nouncompound. Online check-in van az EasyJetnel./There is online checkingat Easy-Jet. Here too the locational suffix is added to the related noun; itsform is modified because of the phonological vowel harmony rules.Note, on the other hand, that the subject in this sentence does not takeany suffix, as required by the Hungarian syntactic rules.

Borrowings and loan words with typical morphological features ofHungarian give the speech a so-called ‘Hunglish’ character. It soundseven more Hunglish or ‘pidgin Hungarian’ when borrowings or loanwords (with or without endings) occur within Hungarian structures, asin: Kickoff-meeting lesz ‘There will be a kick-off meeting/we are going tohave a kick-off meeting’, Brainstorming volt ‘There was a brainstormingmeeting’. The noun or noun phrase is represented by an expression ofAnglo-American origin while the category of the verb is expressed by theauxiliary ‘to be’ or ‘to have’ in Hungarian in its appropriate form. Thefrequent combination of notion words expressed by borrowings/loanwords with Hungarian verbs (as in the above examples) results in apidgin kind of language usage, also frequent in codeswitching processesin other languages.

Calques, that is, literal translations of single words or phrases, are afrequent form of borrowings widely used in terminology building as in‘access point’ � eleres(i) pont, or ‘green field investment’ � zoldmezo(s)beruhazas. Another case of calque is observed in the term for a (computer)mouse/eger. Both the English ‘mouse’ and its Hungarian equivalent (thename of the animal) are used in Hungarian today. Probably because ofthe shortness of the expression, the metaphorical and emotional contentand the humorous nature of naming this particular device, theHungarian version is widely used as well. Somewhat different is thecase of ‘tower’ toronyhaz. The Hungarian phrase explains the meaning ofthe expression with a somewhat expanded version (literally theHungarian word includes two elements: ‘tower’ and ‘house’, i.e. a towerused for residential purpose). Such forms are frequent in daily usage andproduce a variant for translations without any explanation.

Another influence of Anglo-American terminology building inHungarian is when translated versions of certain Anglo-Americansuffixes and prefixes become productive in Hungarian. Thus see:felhasznalobarat is ‘user friendly’, and it has been followed by gyerekbarat


‘child friendly’, gyermekbiztos ‘childproof’. In the same way frequentlyused expressions may be used as prefixes. EU has become a productiveprefix in EU-related terminology, similar to e-, which has acquired therank of a productive prefix, meaning ‘electronic’: EU-adminisztracio‘EU administration’, EU-nyugdıjrendszer ‘EU pension arrangement’,euroburokrata ‘Euro-bureaucrat’; e-doctor/e-doktor ‘e-doctor’, e-analfabeta‘e-analphabet’, e-learning ‘e-learning’, e-business ‘e-business’ ande-konyvtar ‘e-library’. Note the aforementioned uncertainty in spellingalso in these examples.

Borrowings and loan words can change semantic features at differentlevels. Having lost their foreign nature by assimilation into the targetlanguage, words can assume new meanings, and modified meaningsmight follow, depending on the context. See for example the case ofpolitika. This word in Hungarian used to have the dominant meaning of‘politics’ (as a social science), but nowadays the expression is more andmore frequently used to express the notion of an activity on the highestlevel of decision making. Today politika has also acquired the meaning of‘policy’ and is a very common (generic) component of compound termsof social and economical terminology. This generic term evidentlyrequires an attribute to make its meaning specific, for example,humanpolitka ‘humanitarian policy’ and vezetesi politika ‘managementpolicy’. The first meaning of politika was probably derived from the Latinorigin, while the second meaning reflects the modern vocabularyimported from the American context.

A final example of semantic changes due to cultural political featuresis represented by the word adminisztracio. In the past it used to have themeaning of some back-office job. The shift in meaning to refer togovernment or highest decision-making body is apparently influencedby American usage of this word in the political context, as in ‘USadministration’. See also stabilizacio ‘stabilisation’, spekulacio ‘speculation’etc. Hence, we may conclude that diversification in many cases is due tothe fact that a very great number of words of Latin origin, already longpresent in the Hungarian vocabulary, have re-entered the language asloan words via Anglo-American usage.

The Context of Borrowing

More than anything, English loan words represent for Hungarians alifestyle and atmosphere of the 21st century. They reflect a mood of thegeneration born in the 1970s and brought up at the time of the significantchanges in East and Central Europe. The older generations have to learn


a new vocabulary while getting acquainted with new phenomena of thesurrounding environment; but for today’s young adults the features ofthe globalised world are integrated components of their everyday lives.Language use at the workplace and at school acquires new features ofslang drawing on the English vocabulary. English vocabulary is alsorelated to higher education. The academic context of words such asPrezentacio ‘presentation’, folia ‘transparencies’, projector ‘overhead pro-jector’ and regisztracio ‘registration’ is indisputable. Studying subjects in aforeign language while speaking the mother tongue with peers can makecodeswitching quite frequent in language use in an academic environ-ment. Student mobility programmes also contribute to this trend oflanguage usage in student groups. Staff members of globalised compa-nies speak a kind of workplace slang as well, e.g. riportol (he reports).

The most common domain of borrowing is related to modern lifestyle,such as names of foods and drinks: hamburger, hotdog, pizza, tonik;entertainment, relaxation and related places and activities: pub, wellnesz/wellnesss, story/sztori, hobby/hobbi; sports and hobbies, equipment: rafting,fitness, aerobic/aerobik, surfing/szorf, szorfoles; fashion, make-up, clothing:jeans, T-shirt, tattoo, piercing, solarium/szolarium; trends in life: single/szingli; popular and common professions: stylist, project manager/projektmenedzser, babysitter/bebiszitter; travel, tourism, leisure activity: last minute(utazas/travel (deal)), shopping, jogging.

TV commercials contribute much to the creation of this image. Anglo-American expressions transmit the feeling of a modern up-to-datesociety and the use of this vocabulary adds a shade of ‘state of the art’to the content. It has also become more and more common not totranslate slogans and trigger expressions of advertisements and com-mercials. Visual input accompanied by some verbal stimuli in English forbuying, consuming and enjoying will create an effect by linking theEnglish language predominantly with the pleasant things of life, as theEnglish of commercials is used to transmit the sense of richness, eleganceand higher living standards, such as Nokia, connecting people; Philips,makes things better; and Keep it Digital.

Another major source of penetration of borrowings is through jobadvertisements, which often appear in the Hungarian press in English,or to a lesser extent in German. Sometimes the Hungarian equivalent isgiven in parallel. On the one hand, English terminology for the jobdescription in ads is intended to avoid ambiguity, as job titles are meantto refer to exactly the same positions and assignments at differentlocations of multinational companies all over the world. On the otherhand, the presence of a great number of advertisements for jobs in


English in the Hungarian press suggests that English is used for theadditional reason. That is, English is used as a means of attracting thereader’s attention by creating a feeling of something exclusive, ratherappealing, up-to-date and international. An advertisement in English canbe misleading, therefore, if the job has none of the above qualities.

Similar to the phenomenon of an English-based jargon, a specific slangof the young generation can also be observed, marking the generationgap even through everyday language use. The linguistic tool by whichyoungsters express their preference for McDonald’s is a diminutive form,meki. Meki is so much part of this slang that it can take all thegrammatical forms a Hungarian noun can have, such as a mekibe/toMcDonald’s and a mekiben/at McDonald’s. Abbreviation is a frequentdevice in Hungarian modern vocabulary structures, and not only inborrowed words. Versions produced in this way for words in atechnological context do not necessarily carry any additional emotionalsemantic connotations; e.g. mikro ‘microwave oven’. They rather corre-spond to the tendency of accelerating the communication process.

Not only do loan words assimilate to the requirements of Hungarian,but also the imprints of variegated terminological structures based ontheir vocabulary are becoming detectable in the Hungarian context ingeneral. The N1N2 structure, with no visible grammatical link to revealthe deep syntactic relationship between the two nouns (whether subject,object or other), is an accepted method in Hungarian terminologycreation (e.g. taxisofor ‘taxi driver’). However, the scope of this type ofstructure has been growing under the influence of English. The speed ofmodern life certainly enhances the use of compact linguistic forms. Asanalytical representation of semantic components of a phrase by meansof long chains of successive morphological devices would affect theefficacy of communication, the application of time- and space-savinglinguistic solutions is required by the demands of informatics. Thus, amobile type of communication is spontaneously developed for achievingmaximal efficiency with a minimal inventory of means in the shortesttime. Accordingly, new forms are coined, such as donteshozo (policy-maker, lit. decision making), kornyezetvedelem (environment protection)and testekszer (piercing, lit. body jewel). Similarly, the adjective�nounpattern is a frequent way of terminology building. In such phrases thenoun often has a general, comprehensive meaning of a system, structureor method, and its content is specified by the adjective. E.g. finanszırozasirendszer (system of financing), dontesi mechanizmus (decision-makingmechanism).


Mosaic Words: Abbreviations

The urge for new items in the terminology of different fields results innumerous ‘mosaic’ words as well. Some are of Hungarian origin, othersare borrowings. Some have undergone the typical process of borrowingsto become loan words, if not fully assimilated into the inventory ofHungarian mosaic words. The formation of mosaic words is initiallynecessitated by the communication needed for introducing new termsand finding different compact forms for naming new notions. Theapplication of mosaic words of foreign origin helps to meet the require-ments of unification, generalisation and standardisation. The extent ofmosaic word usage largely depends on the traditions of the general andterminological context of the language concerned. At the same time,mosaic word frequency is now a feature of globalisation, resulting fromthe effects of the media and the trends of the web.

The increase in the number of mosaic words is so intense that thelargest dictionaries of contemporary mosaic words of English/Germancontain more than a million lexical items and it seems very practical toclassify them by profession under terminological headings. The itemsincluded in such lists could be considered also as abbreviations orsymbols. In contemporary Hungarian the majority of these expressionsare of English origin, followed by many earlier items of German origin.The examples below show what the use of mosaic words in the modernHungarian context looks like. Such words demonstrate a mixture ofEnglish/Hungarian pronunciation. The pronunciation of the writtenletters is usually closer to Hungarian than to English. Thus: CIA (szıaje,szıaı), OECD (oecede, oeszede, oiszidi), WHO (vehao), PPP (pepepe, pıpıpı).This ambiguity is even more visible in morphological forms, i.e. whengrammatical endings are added to these mosaic words: GPS (dzsıpıesz,gepeesz, gepees) GPS-szel, GPS-sel (with GPS).

The simultaneous usage of full names and abbreviations of institutionnames in the international and Hungarian forms contributes to the lackof uniformity: ECB/EKB (European Central Bank/Europai KozpontiBank), GPRS (General Packet Radio Service/altalanos csomagkapcsoltszolgaltatas) (see Sturcz, 2005: 71). Translations of such abbreviationsundoubtedly have some positive facets. In the introduction of a new idea,translating the individual components of that term can help under-standing and can serve as its explanation. By understanding thecomponents, the learner gets closer to understanding the meaning ofthe whole term. However, translating mosaic words and acronyms cancause confusion, especially in understanding complex and professional


terms if the translations are not uniform, for several possible renderings(and meanings) might emerge.

Conclusions: The Scope and Limits of English Borrowingin Hungarian

Hungarian is one of the languages that have been least affected bylexical borrowing from English among the 12 case studies surveyed inthis volume. Borrowing from English in Hungarian is not only relativelynew and somewhat limited, but at present it is mostly regarded as posingneither linguistic nor social threat to the Hungarian language and society.

The limited impact of English is related historically to the scantinfluence of either Britain or the USA on Central Europe, Hungary inparticular. It was the foreign influence of German culture and language(mostly via the Austro-Hungarian Empire under the Habsburg dynasty)that affected Hungary and Hungarian in the two centuries until 1945,and then for the subsequent four decades it was the Soviet Union thathad a significant effect on Hungarian politics and culture. As such, thesignificant impact of English as a global and increasingly also regionallingua franca has begun here only some two decades ago.

Based on our data, we found that the limited span of time sinceEnglish began to affect Hungarian on a massive scale notwithstanding,English loan words are present in all the domains and usage ofcontemporary Hungarian. Their existence clearly reflects trends andrequirements of present-day market-oriented Hungarian society. At thesame time, it seems that the use of words of foreign origin has notbecome the privilege of any particular social group or professional circlebut is common among all members of the society, even though it is morepopular among the young generation. As in the past, Hungarian is opentoday to foreign influence, and tends to accommodate loan words byadapting them to its phonological and morphological features.

Throughout the 20th century, Hungary witnessed two waves ofpurism, the first one in the interwar era and the second starting in thelate 1940s, under Soviet influence. Present-day Hungary is in one of themost open phases, both culturally and linguistically, in its modernhistory. The Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academyof Sciences does not interfere with the trend of borrowing English loanwords or act against it, but observes this process closely. The instituteaims to study the development of the contemporary Hungarianlanguage, and despite some pros and cons on this issue, does not objectto borrowings in general or to English borrowings in particular. The


current integration of Hungary in the EU and further afield in the globaleconomy makes Hungarians much more inclined to regard English astheir major source of linguistic borrowing rather than German, theregional lingua franca they had been relying on and borrowing from forseveral centuries. As such, English serves as the main source of newvocabulary related to globalisation, mass communication and cutting-edge technology. The relatively new regard for English is associated alsowith its becoming the primary and the most popular foreign languagetaught today at the Hungarian education system, replacing Russian inthe Soviet era and German before 1945. This new role English hasacquired in Hungary reinforces the existing tendencies to borrow from it,and as this trend began only in the late 1980s, one may predict that theinfluence of English may grow stronger in the coming years.


Chapter 6

Russian: From Socialist Realismto Reality Show

MARIA YELENEVSKAYA

Fast decline of the Communist party authority, violent ethnic conflicts,perestroika and, finally, the disintegration of the USSR � all the socialupheavals that led to the crash of the ‘last empire’ have triggeredsweeping changes in the Russian language. Linguists agree that one ofthe most salient of these changes is the activation of foreign words andphrases, in particular those borrowed from English (see, e.g. Kolesov,1998; Kostomarov, 1994; Nesterskaia, 1997; Shaposhnikov, 1998). And thisprocess is not limited to new borrowings but includes rejuvenation oflexemes absorbed by Russian earlier (Krysin, 1996: 142).

Material for this chapter was drawn from the media and Internetpublications, and from literature in humanities and social sciences. Inaddition, since 1999 I have been recording Anglicisms1 in the speech ofvarious interlocutors in Russia. I made notes about the context in whichEnglish insertions occurred and extralinguistic data that were relevant tothe situations in which they occurred. Besides, my archive containsnewspaper clippings with ads and cartoons, as well as photographs ofthe street signs, billboards and posters taken in Moscow and St.Petersburg. As data collection was not systematic and the initial criterionfor selecting material for analysis was intuition of a native Russianspeaker, I filtered the sample after consulting linguistic literature onlanguage contact, bilingualism, foreign borrowings in Russian, as well asvarious dictionaries. The collected examples were divided into groups onthe basis of the following categories: motivation for borrowing, semanticdomains, semantic reanalysis and stages of integration into the languagesystem. My primary concern was to trace the interaction of linguistic,social and cultural factors accompanying the current wave of massiveborrowing from English to Russian. This seems to be of special interest inthe period when post-Soviet Russian society is reassessing its position onthe East�West axis.

98

Russian Language Contacts

The intensity of language contacts in Russia has a cyclic nature.Periods of extensive borrowing alternate with emphasised purism(Maximova, 2002: 197�198). Since the 18th century Russia has considereditself to be part of Europe, and in different periods of history was underthe linguistic influence of various West European societies. Anglo-Russian language contacts can be traced to the 16th century, when thetwo countries established trade relations. The English words borrowedthen were mercilessly mispronounced and would hardly be recognisedtoday (Timofeeva, 1995: 10). The next massive borrowing from Englishoccurred during the rule of Czar Peter I, at the end of the 17th to thebeginning of the 18th century. It was the period when the Russian fleetwas born, and the vocabulary of seafaring was taken from English andDutch. Most Anglicisms in seafaring were used alongside their Dutchcounterparts, thus forming parallel terminological systems (Maximova,2002: 193). At the beginning of the 19th century, educated classes ofRussian society became interested in English technologies, economictheories and practices, in the system of education, as well as in cultureand literature.2 Borrowing in that period did not pertain to anyspecialised sphere, but to social life as a whole (Ward, 1986: 315). Inthe early 20th century, borrowing from West European languages wenthand in hand with political events. After years of emigration, Russianrevolutionaries brought home many foreign words and activatedvocabulary of the French Revolution previously familiar only tointellectuals. Many of them reflected new social and political phenomenaand moved from the periphery to the centre of the lexical system. Theywere repeated in speeches, flyers and in the press, and contributed to thepoliticisation of the general vocabulary in the period from the FirstRussian revolution of 1905 to the first years of Soviet power. Anillustration of this can be found in the novel by Mikhail Sholokhov,Virgin Soil Upturned. One of the protagonists, Nagulnov, tried to learnEnglish in order to get ready for the dialogue with the world proletariat.He was astonished to discover that all the words he would need toagitate for the world revolution, e.g. revolutsia, elektrifikatsia, industriali-zatsia,3 existed in English and did not differ much from familiar ‘Russian’words. In the 1920s, foreign words from the domains of government andeconomy were among the first ones adults saw in the reading books inschools opened for the illiterate. In that period, numerous wordsborrowed from English came to denote new technologies, artefacts andactivities.

Russian: From Social Realism to Reality Show 99

In the Soviet era, except for the early 1920s, the period of Khrushchev’sThaw in the mid-1950s�mid-1960s, and the years of Perestroika, in thelate 1980s, the policy of language planning was rigid and opposedinfluence of other languages, which were considered to be vehicles ofalien ideologies (see Busse & Gorlach, 2002: 16; Dardano, 1986: 235�236;Farkas & Kniezsa, 2002: 280 on ideological roots of purism). Comrie et al.(1996: 25, 27) note that the closed society that characterised the Sovietperiod in general was reflected in the language in that the standard wascodified and promoted by schooling and by the heavily censoredliterature; as a result, the standard language was far behind develop-ments in spoken standard Russian. In the 1930s, the policy of languagepurism was often pushed to absurdity: many foreign words that were inuse were rejected and replaced by native equivalents, frequently at theexpense of language economy. This trend continued in the 1940s duringWWII and in the postwar years during Stalin’s campaign against‘rootless cosmopolitans’. The next outburst of struggle against foreignexpansion in the language occurred in the mid-1970s. In postwar yearsAnglicisation became a global trend and it became increasingly difficultto prevent penetration of English words. Yet, as a fully developedlanguage with well developed terminological systems and a vastrepertoire of functional styles, Russian could service every sphere ofcommunication (Kryuchkova, 2001: 405�406). This, and the closed natureof Soviet society, allowed the Russian language to be self-sufficient. Butwith the growing longing of the Soviet urban population for the Westernway of life and latent opposition to the official ideology, the desire tolearn English was growing. The use of English idioms was fashionable inunderground publishing, samizdat (self-publishing), and in songs circu-lating on tapes, magnitizdat (publishing on magnetic tapes). Above all,Anglicisms were used in private conversations of the Soviet intelligentsiaexpressing discontent with the regime, and known as ‘kitchen conversa-tions’. Foreign words were also widely used in the student slang and inthe jargon of big cities (Ermakova, 1996: 32).

Language Contacts since the Glasnost

The policy of Glasnost launched by Gorbachev and subsequentattempts of post-Soviet Russia to enter the community of developednations created favourable conditions for closer contacts with the West.Political changes influenced the language too, and made it much moreamenable to the influence of English.


Russians acquired a taste for travelling, both on business and forpleasure. Many people started looking for seasonal jobs abroad orentered a new lucrative business called ‘shuttling’: they would go toChina, Turkey, etc. to buy cheap consumer goods and then sell them athome. In well-to-do families it became fashionable to send children tostudy in private schools and colleges in the West. The new socialphenomena did not take long to convince the urban population thatproficiency in English could open new opportunities in work and leisure.This gave an unprecedented boost to learning English as a secondlanguage. Interspersing speech with English words again became amarker of prestige.

Foreign imports increased, thus introducing the Russian public toWestern consumer goods. New products entered the market underoriginal names, e.g. various gadgets and house technologies: fotokity,pleery, blendery for photo-kits, players and blenders; cosmetics � sprei,conditsionery, pilingi for sprays, conditioners, peeling-creams; articles ofclothing: legginsy, kardigany, slaksy, for leggings, cardigans and slacks.New foods conquered the market, and for a short time Russians becameenthusiasts of American-style fast food, devouring gamburgery, cheesebur-gery and khot-dogi (hamburgers, cheeseburgers and hot-dogs).

New developments in politics, and in particular the emergence of amultiparty system and election campaigns, flooded the country. Heretoo, Western style was imitated and required the introduction of newconcepts and new words: elektorat, impichment, inoguratsia, votirovat’,lobbirovat’, (electorate, impeachment, inauguration, to vote, to lobby), etc.Not all of these are native English words, yet in the 1990s they wereborrowed from English. Just as in the first decades of the 20th century,laymen became passionately involved in political activities, and neopo-litical terminology started moving from the periphery to the centre of thelexical system.

Economic reforms and privatisation of state property made Russiancitizens willing or reluctant participants in these processes and intro-duced an abundance of economic and business terms into the lexis:retsessia, defolt, depozit, tender, holdingi, bondy, vauchery (recession, default,deposit, tender, holdings, bonds, vouchers), and so on. Various economicand social processes, such as privatisation, expansion of service andentertainment industries, triggered new employment opportunities,hence the emergence and wide use of such words as distribiuter, market-olog, surveier, rielter, broker, diler, sikiuriti, (distributor, marketing expert,surveyor, real-estate agent, broker, dealer, security-guard). Some ofthe English names of occupations, such as farmer, manager, businessman


and producer, had entered the Russian language much earlier, but werepreviously used primarily with reference to life in the West. Like otherAnglicisms, they acquired pejorative connotations in the Soviet times,particularly when applied to the local life and people. During Perestroikathe process of de-ideologisation of the society began and was reflected inthe language. Many words lost their negative ideological connotations oreven reversed them.

The process of re-connotation of the vocabulary (see Ryazanova-Clarke & Wade, 1999: 91) involved not only the words directly related topolitics and ideology but also to economy, people’s occupations, clothes,foods, etc. A case in point is the shift observed in the nouns biznes andbiznesmen (business and businessman), which were used to describeillegal or dishonest commerce in the Soviet period. Today ‘business’ hasbecome one of the most prestigious occupations, although pejorativecomponents of meaning have not disappeared. They have been redir-ected and express envy and hatred for the new bourgeoisie, the so-called‘new Russians’. Another example illustrating the acquisition of valuesememes in foreign words is fermer (farmer). The native word krestiane(peasants) was almost completely ousted in the Soviet times by thestump compound kolkhozniki (members of a collective farm). Due to thedeterioration of the kolkhoz system in the last decades of Soviet power,this word came to be associated with inefficiency and dated agriculturalmethods. The borrowed noun fermer and its derivatives fermerstvo(farming) and feremerizatsia (farm development) became widespread inthe 1990s and imply the use of advanced agricultural techniques, privateownership and even cost-effectiveness.

The spread of information technologies (IT) contributed to the increasein the number of loan words from English. The computer terminology ispredominantly English, and a lot of buzz words associated with onlineactivities and the lifestyle of the young have entered everyday speechand youth slang: virtual’nyi mir (virtual world), chatit’sia (from ‘to chat’,to participate in an online discussion forum), khaknut’ (from ‘to hack’, tobreak into a computer system), etc. An interesting phenomenon has beenobserved by Ryazanova-Clarke and Wade (1999: 119). From the 1960s tothe 1980s, English was the primary source of innovation in the Russianyouth slang. In the 1990s, however, the saturation of the language withEnglish words made slang develop counter to the general stratum andmainly draw on native resources. While in the past English helped tocreate a subcultural code inaccessible to the general public in the 1990s, itcould no longer isolate one subculture from another. Yet, some of theAnglicisms have stayed in this register and produced a variety of


derivatives. For example, the noun ‘flat’ first integrated into the youthslang without modification, later developed into fletukha � apartment (thesuffix ukha adds pejorative connotations); fletiara � big apartment; fleter �the owner of an apartment; fletovskii � of, belonging to or connected tohome (Levikova, 2003).

Motivation for Borrowing

The main reasons for borrowing are the same irrespective of place andtime (see, e.g. Comrie et al., 1996; Krysin, 1996; Ryazanova-Clarke &Wade, 1999). All of them can be observed in contemporary Russian andcan be summarised as four distinct cases: the need to name newconcepts, activities, social phenomena and products; the need todifferentiate semantically close concepts; language economy; and socio-psychological factors.

According to Polivanov (1968), the rate of shifts in languages isclosely associated with social upheavals. This was the case with theRussian language in the first decade after the October revolution of1917 and in the first post-Soviet decade. Virtually all the Russianlinguists analysing recent foreign borrowings agree that most of themappeared to reflect new phenomena of Russian life. They also agree onthe domains that proved to be most active in absorbing foreign lexis,although classifications differ, as some of the words are attributed todifferent categories by different authors. One explanation is that mostof these words are first introduced into speech by journalists who usethem in different contexts and thus the domains of use frequentlyoverlap (Sabol’ch, 2003: 560). For example, iappi (yuppie) belongs to thedomains of economy and society, fitnes-tsentr (fitness centre) to sportsand entertainment, nou-hau (know-how) to technology and politics andfentezi (fantasy) to literature and entertainment. The current process ofnew word acquisition is dynamic, and some new words imported fromEnglish are intensely used in the media but have a short life-span(Maximova, 2002: 1999).

Besides integrating separate words, contemporary Russian has bor-rowed intensively from developed terminological systems, when entirefields of knowledge, culture or technology became accessible to thelanguage community. A case in point is Information Technologies (IT),whose English terminology quickly penetrated professional slang ofprogrammers and electrical engineers and then spread among rank-and-file computer users. Similar examples are massive borrowings in thefields of economics and commerce that were needed to reflect realities


that had not existed in the USSR. The vast majority of these terms,however, are mostly used by professionals and journalists specialising ineconomic surveys but remain poorly understood by the lay public. Bycontrast, the emergence of Western-type show business that replacedstate organised mass culture of the Soviet times is popularised by themass media and made its terminology widely accessible.

Today many newly borrowed English words coexist with nativewords or old loan words from English and other languages, for example,spektakl’-shou (show), obraz-imidz (image), pol’zovatel’-iuzer (user), ma-

kiazh-meikap (make-up), podtiazhka-lifting (cosmetic surgery), afisha-poster(poster) and so on (see other examples in Maximova, 2002: 199). It is stilldifficult to say which of the competitors will remain in use. The languagedoes not like semantic doublets, but they can survive either as stylisticvariants or in different functional niches. Drastic changes in socialconditions, such as the departure of a formerly dominant sociopoliticalelite, may result in the disappearance of the innovative form; under othercircumstances, if only one competitor survives, it is most likely to be thenew one (Krysin, 2000: 40; Thomason, 1997: 186�187). Differentiation ofsemantically close concepts is observed both in the centre and on theperiphery of the lexical system. As native and semantically close foreignwords do not only diverge in meaning but appear in different contexts,their combinatorial properties also differ. Here are some examples:

The generic drug and the feminine form podruga have been replaced bya boifrend (boyfriend) and g’olfrend (girlfriend) when a romantic relation-ship is implied. Another pair is ubiitsa � killer, in which the latter standsfor a professional killer. The borrowing and fast integration of this wordwere triggered by the exponential increase in organised crime. While thenative noun has no derivatives, the borrowed one has developed afeminine form killersha and compounds telekiller, antikiller (tele-killer,anti-killer), and noun phrases, such as informatsionnyi killer (informationkiller, referring to a journalist releasing information that can ruin careersand even lives).

Differentiation of semantically close concepts is a salient feature ofscientific terminology. In the following examples, the native word in eachpair is neutral while the borrowed one is used in specific contexts of thecorresponding discipline/s:

nabludenie � monitoring (natural sciences, medicine, social sciences)spad � retsessia (slump, recession, decrease � recession, economics)pol � gender (sex, gender � gender, social sciences)


Sometimes, a new borrowing appears side by side with the word ithas replaced (the underlined words mark the native equivalents of theforeign word):

S ekranov ushli kartiny v zhanre ekshn � firmennoe bludo Gollivuda.Mezhdu tem, na liubom festivale imenno fil’my deistvia’’ ( . . .) obespechi-vaiut interes pressy, burnuiu svetskuiu zhizn’ i proch.

Movies of the action type, the Hollywood specialty, have almostdisappeared from the screen. Yet it is the movies of action ( . . .) thatattract the press, trigger animated high life, etc. (Argumenty i Fakty(AiF), #7, 2002)

Vam nuzhno kupit’ maechku-topik

You have to buy a little T-shirt-top. (Sputnik Novosti, #34, 2002)

Sometimes the meanings of the native and borrowed words arejuxtaposed:

‘Politicheskikh sub’ektov deliat na tri kategorii � ‘narod’, ‘elektorat’ i‘grazhdane’.

Political discourse distinguishes three types of subjects: the ‘‘people’,‘electorate’, and ‘citizens’. (AiF, #35, 2003)

Among the English words introduced for the sake of languageeconomy, we can distinguish two subgroups. Words in the first groupdenote new concepts that could be rendered in Russian by descriptiveparaphrases (some also using foreign words):

klipmeiker (clipmaker) � tot, kto delaiet klipyallarmizm (alarmism) � tendentsia k rasprostraneniu trevozhnykhnastroeniyimidzhmeiker (imagemaker) � tot, kto sozdaet obraz [politika]

Words belonging to the second group replace native phrases that werein use but remained on the periphery of the lexical system:

vstrecha v verkhah0summit (summit)uchastnik oprosa/perepisi0respondent (respondent)vkladyvat’ den’gi0 investirovat’ (invest)

Because of the novelty of foreign words and instability of their use,language economy is not achieved in actual texts as authors either useboth the native and the borrowed word together (see examples above) orfeel they have to translate or explain unfamiliar words. This metatext


breaks the automatic flow of speech: the writer mobilises languagereflexivity and concentrates on the form of the utterance and on themeans of expression (see Krysin, 2004: 199). Some of these comments areneutral: to est’, ili, chto oznachaet (that is, or, which means); others revealthe author’s attitudes that range from being apologetic and self-ironicabout the use of an alien word: poprostu govoria, a po-Russki, kak teper’priniato govorit’ (simply speaking, as we say in Russian, as it is customaryto say today), to ridiculing it:

Master diplomatii i fandreizinga (po-prostomu dobyvania sredstv) T. v

liubykh kontaktakh besprepiatstven i azarten.

A master of diplomacy and fundraising (simply speaking obtainingfunds), T. sees no obstacles in finding contacts and does it withfervour. (Moskovskie Novosti (MN), 3 September 2004)

The frequency of such comments in the discourse makes metalan-guage activities of contemporary Russian speakers a distinctive feature ofthe period. Analyses of these commentaries show that they perpetuatethe dichotomy of we versus the other and give another proof of theheterogeneity if not polarity of values and social orientation ofcontemporary Russian speakers (Vepreva, 2003: 21).

The major sociopsychological factors that trigger introduction ofEnglish words are communicative significance of concepts they denoteand the prestige of English. Some examples of this phenomenon werementioned in the previous section. Additional ones include the nativeword podrostok, almost completely ousted by a tineidger (teenager),tseliteli, which turned into hilery (healers), izbirateli replaced by theelektorat (electorate), and so on. In many cases previously absorbed andnativised words from various West European languages, includingEnglish, are being replaced by new borrowings from English: zhargon �sleng (jargon�slang); sort � brend (brand); kegel’ban � bouling (bowling);bal’zam � konditsioner (conditioner), etc.

An important indicator of the prestige of English words is obvious intheir use in the names of businesses and in advertising. Here are someexamples that appear on the streets of St. Petersburg: Stomatologia: Smail

(Dental clinic: Smile); Insaid: Agentstvo nedvizhimosti (Inside: Real-estateagency); Iuridicheskaia firma: Edvaizer (Law firm: Adviser); Muzhskaiaodezhda: Mister I (Men’s clothes: Mister I). Note that these businessesoperate on the domestic market and offer services to local customers.


Lexicosemantic Processes Related to Borrowing

Foreign words are seldom integrated into a language without changesin meaning. The most important feature of contact is that it involves atleast two languages, and irrespective of the area of study, languages incontact must be analysed as languages in contrast (Ivir, 1991: 237). Thesemantic re-analysis that occurs in the process of borrowing andinnovations of old borrowings can be divided into four groups:narrowing of meaning, expansion of meaning, semantic redistributionand indirect borrowing, also known as calques or loan translation.

The narrowing of meaning in newly borrowed words is widespread inmy sample. Polysemantic words are first used in one meaning only whilethe other meanings are rendered by native words or older nativisedborrowings. Here are some examples indicating the number of meaningseach word has in English and quoting the one in which it is used inRussian:

organaizer (organiser, 6 meanings4) � a personal organiserbroker (broker, 6 meanings) � a stockbrokerbrend (brand, 10 meanings) � a brand-namefentezy (fantasy, 13 meanings) � the name of a genre in literature and

film

Note that in some cases (e.g. organaiser, broker, brend) a component ofthe original compound word is dropped in Russian. Moreover, theremaining component can become a part of a newly formed compoundin which it is combined either with a native or an old loan word:

. . . seichas zapadnye kompanii-brendy primenaiut te zhe samye kompo-nenty, kotorye dostupny i riadovomu moskovskomu sborschiku.

. . . Western companies-brands use the same components that areavailable to a rank-and-file Muscovite assembling computers.(Izvestia, 15.09.2000)

The meaning is also narrowed when newly borrowed words acquirespecific connotations nonexistent in the native equivalents or old loanwords. A magazin (shop), for example, sells any goods, a shop, on theother hand, presupposes only high quality goods. An obraz (image) isneutral and can be good or repulsive; by contrast, an imidz (image), isassociated with attractiveness and glamour. Even the names of occupa-tions, such as rieltor, diler, distribiuter (realtor, dealer, distributor) have anaura of prestige in Russian which they do not have in English. Moreover,they have a euphemistic function as compared to the words they have


replaced: kvartirnyi makler, torgovetz valutami, agent po prodazhe (seesimilar examples in Kolesov, 1998: 229�230; Shaposhnikov, 1998: 145).This phenomenon is often observed in commerce. In the followingexample the original meaning of the borrowed noun clashes with thenew one and with the adjective that modifies it. The result is the creationof an oxymoron, as in the name of a shabby store in St. Petersburg:

Elitnyi sekond hend: kachestvennaia odezhda iz Evropy

Elitist second hand: quality clothes from Europe

In the first sections of the chapter we have already given examples ofredistribution of meaning. New semantic components can replace olderones or supplement and expand the existing meaning of loan words, thusalthough it is a qualitative phenomenon, it is often combined with aquantitative change. Expansion of meaning does not happen immedi-ately after a new foreign word appears in the target language. Someborrowings first covering only one segment of the semantics of thesource word later acquire additional meanings. Meaning expansion maybe consistent with the semantics of the source word or deviate from theoriginal. In my sample the most obvious reasons for the latter are fashionand inadequate understanding of new words. For example, sponsor wasfirst used in the meaning of a ‘person or company financing a buildingproject, a movie or play production, or publication of a book’. Today itdenotes anyone ready to give money to another person or organisationfor whatever purpose, including a man supporting his mistress.

Meaning expansion can be connected to a shift of domain. Thus theword kasting (casting) first appeared in the vocabulary of show business,but later expanded its meaning to ‘choosing a candidate among applicantsfor any job’. Note that in the passage quoted below ‘casting’ and anotherrecent borrowing ‘piercing’ are used to create a humorous effect implyingthe similarity between contemporary Russian politics and show business:

Esli bez pirsinga v sovremennoi zhizni esche kak-to oboitis’ mozhno, to bezkastinga*uzhe nikak. Dlia tekh, kto esche ne znaet: kasting eto podborkandidatur (s pirsingom ili bez nego) na razlichnye rabochie mesta. Kprimeru, letom 1999 goda v Kremle sostoialsia kasting na mestoPrezidenta Rossii, kotoryi uspeshno proshel Putin.

It is difficult to do without piercing today and one can hardlysurvive without casting. If you don’t know yet, casting is selection ofappropriate candidates (with piercing or without it) for various jobs.For example, in the summer of 1999, the Kremlin held casting for the


position of the Russian president which was passed successfully byPutin. (MN, #30, 6�12 August 2002)

Another example of expansion is the word ‘remake’, which hasbecome so fashionable that it is applied not only to new movie and playproductions, but also to an altered version of any story, picture orrecurrence of events and trends.

Rassuzhdenia o ‘tretiei mirovoi voine’ okazyvaiutsia remeikom ofitsial’noiversii o mezhdunarodnom terrorizme

Deliberations about ‘World War III’ appear to be a remake of anofficial version about international terrorism. (MN, 10�16 September2004)

Indirect borrowings, or calques, which form new words or phraseo-logical units by means of literal translation, often emerge as the reactionof the speech community to a sharp increase in the number of directborrowings (Iartseva, 1998: 211). In my sample there are a fewmorphological calques from English, for example, pol’zovatel’ (user),stsenarii (scenario), piramida (financial pyramid) and prozrachnyi (trans-parent). In fact, most of these are difficult to distinguish from semanticextensions, a phenomenon frequently observed in calques. Thus the oldloan noun stsenarii was until recently used only in the meaning ‘script’,pyramida in four meanings equivalent to the meanings of its Englishequivalent, all of which had a common sememe specifying the geometricshape, but it was not associated with commerce. Similarly, the adjectiveprozrachnyi (transparent) was used in the meanings stemming from thephysical property of transmitting light through a substance. It had themetaphorical meaning of ‘obvious, not concealed’, but in this meaningwas used only in one phraseological unit: prozrachnyi namek (a clearhint). Today prozrachnyi is frequently used in the metaphorical meaningand appears in collocations with the nouns ‘upravlenie’ (transparentmanagement), granitsa (transparent boarder) and metody (transparentmethods), etc.

Most of the other calques in my sample are phraseological units:sotovyi telefon (cellular phone), torgovaia marka (trade mark), myl’naia opera(soap opera), etnicheskaia chistka (ethnic cleansing), vysokii sezon (highseason), dvoinoi standart (double standard), zhivaia muzyka (live music),etc. Some of the calques coexist with the loan words, and form semanticdoublets, for example, khai tek (high tech) � vysokie tekhnologii, had disk(hard disk)�zhestkii disk. The phrase vsemirnaia pautina ‘worldwide web’appears seldom, but as a component ‘web’ is used in compound nouns in


combination with a native word or an old loan word, for instance, veb-stranitsa (web page) or veb resursy (web resources). The phrase otmyvaniedeneg (money laundering) has produced another innovation, usedinformally, otmyval’schik (launderer). Similarly, in the programmers’professional slang materinskaia plata (motherboard) has been reduced tomamka, diminutive and slightly pejorative for ‘mother’. Calques are oftenused to produce stylistic effects.

Po dannym epidemiologov, krys v Moskve obitaet ne menee 10 mln. osobei,a kolichestvo myshei v ‘vysokii sezon’, to est’, letom i oseniu priblizhaet-sia k 50 millionam.

According to the data provided by epidemiologists, at least 10 millionrats reside inMoscow, and the number ofmice in ‘high season’, that is,in summer and fall, approaches 50 million. (AiF, #24, 1999)

The article criticising inefficiency of sanitary services mockingly usesthe phrase ‘high season’ familiar from commercials of tourist businesses.In the context of the passage the calque implies that Moscow has turnedinto a resort for pests.

Stages of Integration

Foreign words integrated into a borrowing language can be dividedinto three categories: occasional insertions, barbarisms or exoticisms, andloan words (Kolesov, 1998: 227�231; Krysin, 2004: 59�64; Ryazanova-Clarke & Wade, 1999: 151). Occasional insertions tend to form numeroussubcategories in the analysed sample. Like exoticisms, they remainmorphologically indivisible in the target language (Krysin, 2004: 59).They cannot be found in dictionaries or lexicographical publications, andtheir appearance in the text is triggered by the theme of the utterance,individual mannerisms or the author’s desire for the utterance to attractthe reader’s/listener’s attention. Another distinctive feature of occa-sional insertions is that they often appear in the script of the sourcelanguage. The majority of these in my sample are names of companiesand products, both imported and domestic. In the latter case, themotivation for choosing an English name is two-fold: high prestige ofEnglish and desire to conquer foreign markets using transparent names.

Pervyi ezhegodnyi open-air festival’ elektronnoi muzyki CASTLEDANCE (ICE EDITION)

The first annual open-air festival of electronic music CASTLEDANCE (ICE EDITION) (Vechernii Peterburg, 7 July 2005)


Novinka: Be cool, uveren i svoboden. Novyi antiperspirant Cool Spray otGilette

Anewproduct: Be cool, self-confident, and free. A new antiperspirantCool Spray produced by Gilette. (an ad in St. Petersburg subway)

Both of the cited examples include more than one insertion usingEnglish words in the Latin script. In the advertising of a music festivalthe modifier ‘open-air’ is used instead of its Russian equivalent podotkrytym nebom in addition to the name of the festival. In the secondexample, the authors of a commercial use a new foreign word,antiperspirant, instead of the previously integrated deodorant. The nameof the product and its manufacturer, as well as the appeal to ‘be cool’, aregiven in the Latin script and are highlighted by the use of a different font.Even if only a negligible part of the readers appreciates the pun createdby the interaction of two different meanings of ‘cool’, the authors of thetext seek to attract the public by the prestige of English words. The Latinscript is also used to highlight English phraseological units inserted inthe text as in the following examples:

V Pkheniane, v svoiu ochered’ v etoi situatsii mogut deistvovat’ poprintsipu ‘to use or to lose’.

Pyongyang, in its turn, may act according to the principle ‘to use orto lose’. (Nezavisimaia Gazeta, 1 March 2005)

S 11 utra i do 11 vechera prodolzhalsia prazdnik zhivoi muzyki non-stopThe festival of live music lasted non-stop from 11 in the morning to 11at night. (Metro, Sankt-Peterburg, 8 July 2005)

Unlike occasional insertions, which often function as individualmannerisms, exoticisms are repeatedly used in various texts but remainunstable in pronunciation, spelling and number. Likewise, words in theintermediate stage between exoticisms and loan words share the samefeatures of instability. Thus the word ‘remake’ appears as remeik andrimeik; ‘distributor’ as distribiuter and distributor; ‘racketeer’ as reketir,reketior and reketmen; ‘off-shore’ [companies] as offshornyi and ofshornyi;‘shopping’ as shopping and shoping (Shaposhnikov, 1998: 38; Timofeeva,1995: 81�99). In addition, there is no uniformity in the spelling ofcompound nouns, which are alternately spelt as hyphenated words or asone word: bisineswumen (businesswoman) but biznes-ledi (business-lady),teleshou and tele-shou (tele-show), fitnes-tsentr and fitnestsentr (fitnesscentre), boifrend and boi-frend (boyfriend), sekond-hend and sekondhend(secondhand) and so on.


In newly adopted nouns there is no instability in gender. Theagreement of new words, inanimate nouns, is usually based on theanalogy of the last syllable of the word to the ending typical ofmasculine, feminine or neuter form of native equivalents. On someoccasions a new word inherits the gender of the Russian word itreplaces: . . . avtor rassmatrivaiet svoiu rabotu kak nekoe keis-stadi . . . (theauthor considers her investigation to be some kind of a case study). Inthis example ‘case study’ is neuter like the Russian noun issledovaniewhich would be used to translate it. The agreement of animate nouns isguided by the context, but in most cases they function as masculineforms which are chosen for generic use in contemporary Russian. Thus,auditor (auditor), baiker (biker), prodiuser (producer), spichraiter (speech-writer), imidgmeiker (image-maker), rieltor (realtor) and sponsor are allmasculine. In many newly adopted words we can observe instability ofsingular�plural forms. Thus the nouns sikiurity (security), pablisiti(publicity), nou-hau (knowhow) and kopirait (copyright) appear assingular and as plural forms:

Oni ispolosovali parniu plecho i nogu, i neschastnogo sikiuriti prishlos’gospitolizirovat’ ( . . .) Prichem feis-kontrol’ sikiuriti osuschestvlaiutiskluchitel’no po vneshnim priznakam

They shredded the guy’s shoulder and leg, and the poor security wasto be hospitalised. ( . . .) Notably, security carry out face control onlyjudging the [customers’] appearances. (Moskovskii Komsomolets (MK),27 June 2001: 1)

Another sign of the instability is that English words borrowed inthe plural form sometimes appear without a Russian inflexion markingthe plural and sometimes with it. As a result, in some words the categoryof plurality is marked twice: leginsy (leggings), fiutchersy (futures), sekond-taimerzy (second-timers) and so on. Finally, English nouns that are not yetfully integrated and nativised appear only in the nominative case and donot agree with other nouns and adjectives in the case and/or number.

The process of integration of newly borrowed Russian words ismultistage. First a new word is phonetically adapted. As Thomason(2001: 72) remarks, phonological adaptation is typical even in casualcontact situations. In fact, in most cases these adaptations follow thesame pattern as pronunciation mistakes of Russian speakers. Ulti-mately, new words enter the system of conjugation and declension andcome to be perceived as native. It has been observed that theabundance of affixes and inflexions simplifies the task of nativising


foreign words (see, e.g. Kostomarov, 1994: 116). And although adapta-tion of foreign words is a gradual process, the majority of the nounsborrowed in the last two decades are derivable (Krysin, 2004: 53),primarily along these patterns:

noun0nounreket0reketir (racket0racketeer)skeitbord0skeitbordist (skateboard0skateboard-rider)promoushn0promouter (promotion0promoter)noun0adjectivereiting0reitingovyi (rating0having high rating, popular)glamur0glamurnyi (glamour0glamorous)promoushn0promouterskii (promotion0promoting)noun0verblobbi0 lobbirovat’ (lobby0 to lobby)sponsor0 (pro)sponsirovat’ (sponsor0 to sponsor)parking0 (za)parkovat’, (pri) parkovat’sia (parking lot0 to park)

(Prefixes marking perfective forms are given in parentheses.)It has been observed that in various languages nouns are on top of the

list of borrowed words. The reason for this is lexical�semantic, ratherthan grammatical and structural: the items for which new designationsare needed are primarily indicated by nouns (Weinreich, 1967: 37).Russian is no exception. At the next stage of integration nouns of othercategories are formed (e.g. device0process; occupation0person en-gaged in it; an object, tool0a person using it, etc.). Among derivatives,adjectives are numerous but adverbs are few. Finally, nouns belonging tovarious categories derive verbs differing in aspect and supplied withprefixes to distinguish imperfective and perfective forms (see examplesabove). In some cases reflexive forms of the verb are created with thehelp of the corresponding suffix: parkovat’sia (to park), chatit’sia (to chat).In the last decade a new pattern can be observed among borrowings fromEnglish:

adjective0nounekskluzivnyi0ekskliuziv (exclusive, elitist0products, goods and ser-vices accessible to the few, extraordinary events)intensivnyi0 intensiv (intensive0 intensive work, intensive courses)criminal’nyi0kriminal (criminal0criminal behaviour, the rule ofcriminal groups, members of criminal groups)extremal’nyi0ekstrim (extraordinary, dangerous (about situations,conditions)0 risky enterprise, adventure)


In these and similar cases the Russian adjectival suffix is dropped andthe newly coined nouns become almost identical to the correspondingadjectives in English. The adjectives that serve as the source ofinnovation are loan words previously integrated into the language. Thephenomenon observed here can be viewed as back derivation, an indirecteffect of language contact triggered by an earlier direct importation.Although these later changes are motivated by internal pressures withinthe language, they would be less likely to occur if the initial contact-induced change had not happened (Thomason, 2001: 62). While results ofdirect importation remained on the periphery and were seldom used inspeech, the newly derived nouns are currently fashionable and appear inthe speech of journalists and lay persons alike:

Vy by esche predlozhili zapisyvat’ svoi ekstrimy v dnevnik i chitat’ na songriaduschii

This would be like suggesting I should keep a diary of everythingextraordinary happening to me and read it before falling asleep.(AiF, #34, 2003)

The process of derivation, as well as the emergence of expressive andmetaphoric components of meaning, and the use of foreign words inunusual contexts testifies to their integration into the recipient language(see, e.g. Krysin, 2004: 200). Some of the English borrowings of the lastdecade are used with diminutive and endearing suffixes that connotesmall size, pleasant appearance and cuteness: displeichiki (displays),beidgiki (badges), smailiki (smileys), miski (plural for Miss). In the lastexample the diminutive form creates a humorous effect because it formsa homophone with the native noun miska/i (bowl/s).

Endearing and diminutive suffixes can be added to acronyms:pisiushka (for PC), esemeska (for SMS), sidiushka (for CD). In my samplepejorative suffixes are rare and mostly come from youth and program-mers’ slang: pisiuk (for PC), mamka (for mother board) and sidiushnik (forCD player). The Russian language has a high percentage of words withvalue sememes (Novikova, 1995: 79), and the addition of these to thewords that are value-neutral in the source language is another sign oftheir integrating into the target language.

Among the best examples of fully integrated borrowings of the lastdecade is the abbreviation ‘PR’, for ‘public relations’. First it was used inthe Latin script, in inverted commas and was supplied with translationor explanation of the meaning (see, Leichik, 2002). Later it turned into anacronym piar with inflections of a masculine noun. The process of


derivation produced additional nouns: piarschik, piarovets (a personengaged in PR). Compound nouns were formed: piar-aktsia (promotionevent), samopiar (self-advertising). The adjective piarovskii modifies suchnouns as ‘activity’, ‘efforts’, and the verb is used in the imperfective formpiarit’ (advertise) and in the perfective form with the appropriateprefixes: otpiarit’, propiarit’. Phonological and morphological adaptationhas been followed by semantic expansion. In Russian piar can be used asa value-free noun but it has also acquired value sememes that are oftenemphasised. While in English the goal of public relations is to promotegoodwill between various parties, such as a company and customers, thegovernment and an individual, etc., Russian piar sometimes implies theopposite � defaming others. In this case the modifier chernyi (black),which has strong negative connotations in the Russian culture, is used:

Chernyi i belyi piar

Black and White PR (headline, Mir Novostei, No. 35, 2003)

Kak nam otPIARit’ Rodinu?

How can we Improve the Image of our Motherland? (headline, AiF,#27, 2002)

Militsiu propiarili. Po-Chernomu

The militia got a blaze of publicity. It was negative, it was black.(headline, AiF, No. 27, 2003)

Finally, speaking about integration of new borrowings from English itis necessary to mention word play in which members of the Russianspeech community replace the alien word with the native word on thebasis of their phonetic or graphic similarity. This is a long tradition ofurban speech habits. For example, stipendia (stipend) has been long calledstepka (the diminutive of the male name Stepan). The spread of computerculture turned the program ICQ into As’ka (diminutive of the femalename Asia), and an Internet home page is called homiak (hamster). E-mailis commonly referred to as Iemelia (diminutive of the male name Iemelianseldom used today but familiar to everyone as the name of theprotagonist of a popular fairy-tale) or mylo (soap); DVD is transformedinto dovedi (to lead (to), to take (to) to accompany (to)), while sharewareturns into sharovary (baggy trousers) and share into shar’ (to grope about)(these and more examples in Kapanadze, 2001; Leichik, 2002; Shumov,2003; Trofimova, 2002). The abbreviation CD is used as a newspaperrubric SiDelka (nurse), devoted to new recordings by popular musicians,


and so on. In fact, the richest reservoir of such innovations can be foundin the hackers’ slang from which it penetrates the speech of other groups.

Another popular technique ofwordplaywith loanwords is substitutinganativemorphemeor its part for a foreign one. In the first post-Soviet yearsduring privatisation that was perceived by the lay public as stealingnational riches by the powerful and greedy, the old loan noun privatizatziaand its newly formed derivative privatizatory (people in charge ofprivatisation) were transformed into prikhvatizatsia and prikhvatizatoryderived from prikhvatit’ (to seize up, to take illegally); the old loan worddemokraty that also moved from the periphery of the lexical system to thecentre was transformed into der’mokraty, in which the Greek morphemedemowas replaced by der’mo (shit) and into demokrady in which the secondmorpheme borrowed from Greek kraty was replaced by the native krady(thieves in compound nouns) (see these examples in Shaposhnikov, 1998:99). Similar puns are used in informal and media discourse. Their comiceffect is achieved by paronymy of the borrowed and native words, andtheir stylistic effect is particularly strongwhen the native words are taboos(see Leichik, 2002: 42�43). In the press such puns often have a strongposition in the text and appear in headlines:

DLT kak zerkalo prikhvatizatsii

DLT [a department store in St. Petersburg] as the mirror of grab-and-go privatisation. (Literaturnaia Gazeta, 24�30 May 2005)

Puns in which English morphemes are integrated into Russian wordsare widely used in advertising. Two quoted below could be found onposters in many public places of St. Petersburg in summer 2005:

Dzins delaiet KHOT. V KHOTiaschie $000. IsKHOTiaschie $003

Jeans is acting HOT. Incoming calls are $000. Outgoing calls are $003.

Kvas � ne kola, pei Nikolu.

Kvas � is not Cola, drink Nikola.

Advertisers of the mobile telephone company ‘Jeans’ use the soundsimilarity of the native root khod (going) and the English ‘hot’ in thewords iskhodiaschie (outgoing) and vkhodiaschie (incoming). In thesecond example above, producers of the national soft drink kvas, whosebrand name is the Slavic name Nikola, appeal to the consumer by boldlyopposing their own product to the international giant’s popular drink,and the aesthetic pleasure derived from the rhymed pun is part of theirpersuasive strategy. The communicative value of advertising, which


will not be fully effective unless adequately understood by potentialcustomers, depends on the familiarity of the public with the Englishwords incorporated into puns.

Attitudes Towards Intensive Borrowings in the Society

Russian linguists observe that throughout history, the overall attitudeof Russian society to massive borrowings from other languages has beennegative. In the period of social change there may be a connectionbetween people’s attitudes to new social phenomena and innovations inthe language. The young, who are often the driving force of political andsocial reforms, are more willing to accept penetration of new conceptsand words than people of advanced age. Today, urban dwellers andpeople from the centre have more contacts with American culture thanthose who live in villages and on the periphery, so they are more tolerantof the expansion of Americanisms. Krysin (2004) observes that the higherthe level of education, the faster the language adaptation; moreover,people in humanities dealing with culture professionally are moretolerant of foreign borrowings than others (Krysin, 2004: 201).

Today journalists are the pioneers of new vocabulary in Russia. In theSoviet times mass media were considered to be a vehicle of speecheducation. In the late 1980s Krysin (1989: 88) asserted: ‘the language ofthe mass media greatly influences the speech of the people; whilecontributing to the spread of normative and literary usage it filtersdialectal elements, common parlance and other socially limited speechvariations’. Today the standard speech of the Soviet period is beingreappraised. Overloaded with ideological cliches, verbal red-tape andmannerisms of the country’s leaders, it was often stifling and repelling tomembers of the speech community. Since perestroika the influence ofmass media on the public has increased. Their language has changeddramatically: it has become more personalised, more dialogical, morestylistically dynamic and more open to changes in naming. Journaliststend to combine stylistically contrasting elements and use metaphors andmetonymies more generously than in the past (Panov, 1988: 23). A newphenomenon in Russian journalism is codemixing, many examples ofwhich have been given in this chapter. The weakening of censorship andautocensorship also lifted the ban on the free use of common parlanceand slang (Zemskaia, 1997). All these factors proved favourable for theexpansion of Anglicisms in the media. In contemporary Russia, thisphenomenon is perceived by some as a political and ideological defeat ofthe country, its surrender to Western culture and lifestyle. Excessive use


of foreign words in public speech was repeatedly on the agenda of theRussian Parliament, State Duma. After lengthy discussions, during thethird hearing it approved the bill ‘On the Russian Language as the StateLanguage of the Russian Federation’. One of its clauses was devoted to‘language culture and the culture of verbal communication’ (comparethis with the French legislative efforts in Humbley, 2002: 111). Thedocument put limitations on the use of common parlance, scornful andswearwords and expressions on the occasions when Russian is used as astate language. It also restricted the use of foreign words if appropriateRussian equivalents existed (http://www.vesti.ru/news.html?id�25367&tid�12288, 15 February 2003). This bill was criticised and shelved.Ironically, as if to prove the unrealistic nature of proposed regulations,parliamentary, scholarly and Internet discussions of the bill abounded inloan words and recent borrowings.

Global expansion of the English language and the interaction ofRussian and American cultures are a frequent theme of newspaper andTV discussions. Thus the central TV channel RTR-Planeta repeatedlyshowed an issue of the prime-time weekend programme CulturalRevolution that was entitled, ‘Do we have to know English?’ The twopanellists were the controversial politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, andProf. Yuri Viazemsky, an expert in world literatures. Zhirinovsky’s thesiswas: the world has to learn Russian; we don’t have to humiliateourselves by suffering from a foreign language. Moreover, he claimedthat if post-Soviet politicians had not used the loan words ‘revolution’,‘communism’ and ‘default’, but the native bunt (revolt), obzhinnoeobschezhitie (communal life) and obval (landslide), no political disasterswould have happened in the country. His opponent Viazemsky main-tained that among the talents of the Russians (he referred to Russianspeakers at large) was the ability to learn and internalise new materialquickly. The only way to make it known to the world is to explain it toeveryone in English (which is not English, but American, or rather worldlanguage). Despite the notoriety and obvious absurdity of Zhirinovsky’sclaims, he was supported by a substantial part of the audience in thestudio.

It has already been mentioned that insertion of new borrowings isoften accompanied by the metatext in which speakers reflect about themeanings of new words and compare them to the native words andconcepts. Grassroots control hampers the integration of foreign wordsand concepts that remain vague and alien to the speakers. The mosteffective way of doing it is mockery, and see (above) how derisionfunctions with words used in political discourse.


Among the linguists positions differ concerning the spread ofborrowings from English, but many are concerned about the ‘excess ofalien words and concepts’ jeopardising the ecology of the language.Notably, in one of the most authoritative Russian dictionaries the wordvarvarism (barbarism) is defined as a ‘word from a foreign language or anexpression built according to a pattern of a foreign language that violatesthe purity of speech’ [italics by the author] (Ozhegov, 1983: 63). Criticalremarks against the expansion of Anglicisms/Americanisms in contem-porary Russian that appear in linguistic literature (see, e.g. Kolesov, 1998;Kostomarov, 1994; Novikova, 1995; Savelieva, 2000) can be summarisedas follows:

. The number of exoticisms that have not been digested by thelanguage community is constantly increasing. They reflect thecurrent language fashion to make speech too bookish and elaborateand cause information emptiness. Unclear to a vast majority of thespeakers, exoticisms are frequently misused. Despite the publica-tion of new dictionaries of foreign words, many borrowings remainunmapped. Experiments conducted in various towns testify to thegrowing number of agnonyms and a drastic drop in speech cultureeven among professionals and students (see Cherniak, 2000;Sirotinina et al., 1998).

. Many foreign borrowings are no more than doublets of the nativeRussian words. As a result, there is redundancy in naming objectsand phenomena, which violates onomaseological development ofthe language (from object to semantics).

. Exoticisms oust native words and concepts and endanger theRussian ethnocultural landscape. Borrowing of English words haspaved the way to the expansion of American culture shaped by analien mentality. Intergenerational ties secured by the continuity ofwords and images are disintegrating, and the national languagemay lose its folk basis.

Anxiety about the current state of the Russian language and appeals todeal with the language on the state level (see Kolesov, 1998: 228) arecountered by other linguists who believe that rapid changes occurring inthe language are natural in periods of social change (Tsivian, 2002: 471)and are signs of health and robustness of Russian. Skliarevskaia (1996:463), for example, argues that it would be reasonable to speak aboutqualitative changes in the language if the language system transformedsuch features as the nature and means of semantic development, word-building, the principles of stylistic stratification, and ability to borrow


and adapt alien elements. The intensity of the processes witnessed in theRussian language today testifies to the opposite: the language system hasnot lost its potency but shows vitality and coherence.

Notes1. To classify words as Anglicisms I used Gorlach’s (2003: 1) definition: ‘An

Anglicism is a word or idiom that is recognisably English in its form (spelling,pronunciation, morphology, or at least one of the three), but is accepted as anitem in the vocabulary of the receptor language’. In Russian linguisticliterature today, the term Americanisms is more frequently used, as languageborrowings are seen as a part of American cultural expansion.

2. Infatuation with everything English among the enlightened part of thearistocracy, however, could hardly compete with the influence of the Frenchlanguage and culture in that period.

3. To render Russian words and proper names, the US Library of Congresstransliteration system has been used.

4. Here and below I am listing the number of meanings cited in Webster’sUniversal College Dictionary, 1997.


Chapter 7

Hebrew: Borrowing Ideologyand Pragmatic Aspects in aModern(ised) Language

JUDITH ROSENHOUSE and HAYA FISHERMAN

Wherever languages come into contact, their speakers borrow variousitems from one another (Weinreich, 1953/1967). Bilingual speakers, atany level, use words from different languages within the context of thedominant language. Borrowing words from a language different fromone’s mother tongue is a universal phenomenon of human communica-tion and is related to codeswitching on the one hand and relexification onthe other. Different semantic areas within the general vocabulary of alanguage reveal this effect at variegated levels (for references see, e.g.Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004).

Interlanguage contact (in many languages) is a social and culturalprocess often addressed by sociolinguists such as Fishman et al. (1977b),Haugen (1972), Higa (1979) and Maurais (1985). Three types of countrieshave been described regarding the contact between national languagesand the common communication language

1. Countries characterised by competing local cultures and languagesthat adopt the common communication language as a compromise.An example is India, where the struggle between Hindu, Urdu andBengali led to the embracing of English as the language of thegovernment and the social elite.

2. Countries with ethnic subdivisions and problems regarding politicalunity, and lacking a national governmental tradition, where acommon communication language is adopted as a symbol ofnational unity (‘nationism’, according to Fishman).

3. Countries with a tradition of national language, in which a commoncommunication language is adopted for certain functions to

121

integrate political, economic and social modernisation (‘national-ism’: see, e.g. Fishman, 1971; Fishman et al., 1977b).

The purpose of the present chapter is to study some features of theEnglish borrowings in Modern Hebrew at the beginning of the 21stcentury and the effect of English on Hebrew through borrowedvocabulary. This investigation may give some idea of the scope of loanwords and their relative distribution in various types of written journal-ese style which reflects the everyday intermediate Hebrew. We beginwith a brief survey of the history and background of lexical borrowingprocesses in Hebrew and focus on borrowings from English. The study ofborrowed words in recently published sample texts from newspaperarticles in Hebrew is described, analysed and compared with previousstudies.

Linguistic literature distinguishes foreign words from borrowedwords in the language,1 but we do not discuss this issue in this chapter.Clearly, borrowed words in Hebrew do not come only from English. Theetymological origin of many borrowings, in Hebrew and in many otherlanguages, is often Greek or Latin. Sometimes it is therefore difficult todefine the exact origin of foreign words in Hebrew. Borrowings ofteninvolve translation (calques) and transfer of either or both semantic andsyntactic elements from the source language. Borrowed items may havediverse forms: single words, phrases, collocations, idioms and whole‘formulas.’ The process has been noted already in the general literatureas well as the literature on Modern Hebrew (Alloni-Fainberg, 1977; Nir,1989; Shlesinger, 2000). Our present work is limited to single words, butwe also comment on words used in loan translations.

Historical and Linguistic Background

Although Hebrew is often described as having been revived after along period of death, it is known to have been used as a holy languagefor liturgical purposes, as well as for secular literature, including poetry,during about two millenia of Diaspora. For Jews it remained a second orforeign language (see Horvath & Wexler, 1997), while local languageswere used for daily communication with local (not necessarily Jewish)speakers. This diglossic situation is somewhat similar to the condition ofLatin in the Middle Ages. However, Hebrew has regained the status of amother tongue, while Latin, like other extinct languages, died with thedeath of the last native speaker.

Since about the 18th century movements for the revival of Hebrewbegan advocating the learning of Hebrew out of ideological motivation.


They wrote belles lettres in modern (Western) genres and journalisticpublications for adults and for children.2 At the end of the 19th centurythis activity reached ‘Palestine’, then part of the Ottoman Empire. By thebeginning of the 20th century not only adults could write and speakHebrew, but also children,3 who learnt it from siblings, friends, teachersand parents (Bar-Adon, 1988; Glinert, 1991). This process led to thedevelopment of Contemporary or Modern Hebrew as a full-fledgedspoken and written mother tongue.

There was dire need to adapt the language to daily use, as thevocabulary of Biblical or Medieval Hebrew alone did not suffice for dailycommunication. The Hebrew Language Committee, established inJerusalem in 1908, undertook the task of coining, innovating anddisseminating new terminology for the necessary objects and notions.Also after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 this committee,renamed in 1953 the Hebrew Language Academy, still continues thisactivity and many of the present-day words of Modern Hebrew havebeen coined by linguists, educators, writers, poets, journalists andmembers of the Hebrew language Academy.4 But word borrowing isusually a spontaneous process, not directed by any language policy, andthus even the Hebrew Language Academy sometimes affirms borrowedwords that have already integrated in Hebrew (Language Academy,1992).

The lexical innovations coined by the Hebrew Language Academy aredisseminated in various ways, including mass media (radio, TV andjournals), written publications and dictionaries. For example, for about45 years the Office of Technological and Scientific Terminology of theAcademy5 published more than 80 dictionaries of technical or scientificterms, of which about 50�60% have been absorbed into daily use over theyears.6 Simultaneously, many other terms were absorbed in Hebrew fromforeign languages, and were used even by Academy members whosupported the innovation of Hebrew words.7 At the beginning of the20th century, the borrowed terminology in Hebrew originated inimportant culture-languages in Europe � mainly Russian, Polish, French,Spanish, German and Yiddish (Fisherman, 1986; Garbell, 1930; Glinert,1991), as their speakers in Palestine knew them from their countries oforigin.

The British Empire had interests in the Eastern Mediterranean in the19th century and even earlier (Lewis, 1960). But British English reachedthe area only with the beginning of British Mandatory rule in 1920, afterthe British conquest of Palestine at the end of World War II. The BritishMandate lasted until 1948, when the newly established state of Israel

Borrowing Ideology and Pragmatic Aspects in Hebrew 123

took over. During those three decades English was the main officiallanguage of the country, with Hebrew and Arabic as additional officiallanguages. In that period many borrowed words (such as ginger,puncture, jeep, winker, ax (in a car) and file) entered Colloquial Hebrewrather than normative newly coined Hebrew words, but only a few havesurvived to the present. When the British left the country the Englishlanguage ceased to be an official language (Fisherman, 1972). Thus, later,penetration of English into Hebrew comes from a different source.

After World War II American English rapidly spread all over theworld as a result of the US role in the war and its economic and politicalpower. With its mass media communication (radio and movies) and itsmaterial and cultural products, American English relatively quicklyreplaced the role of British English in Israel. This influence has beengrowing since the 1960s, especially following the Six Day War in 1967(see Bendavid, 1974: chapter 4), so that most of the loan words in Hebrewin the last three or four decades have come from this language.8 Thistrend is attributed to the prestige of American English compared withother immigrant languages, and is similar to the situation elsewhere(cf. Auer, 1999; Kovacs, 2001).

Schwarzwald (2001) assumes that the rate of borrowed words thathave integrated in Hebrew is more than 10%, for the borrowing processin Hebrew has been going on throughout its history. A 20th-centuryexample is that the Dictionary of Foreign Words in Hebrew (Pines, 1955) has12,000 entries, whereas the Expanded Dictionary (Pines & Pines, 1976�77)has some 24,000 entries. This number has greatly risen in the last 30years: Rosenthal’s (2005) slang dictionary already contains about 10,000items drawn from English. The status of borrowed words has alsostrengthened and numerous dictionaries insert such words among theirentries (including the new edition of the prestigious Even-Shoshanmonolingual Hebrew dictionary).

Public Awareness of Loan Words in Hebrew and Attitudesto Them

Public awareness of borrowing depends on the speakers’ cultural andlinguistic backgrounds. Native speakers do not usually consider thisissue and use their language without questioning it, as an inherent partof their life. In many language communities, those who care for the stateof a native language, its development and future are mainly languageprofessionals such as linguists, language teachers, educators and writersof all genres of literature. This holds for Modern Hebrew too. The first


large-scale Hebrew slang dictionary (by Ben-Amotz & Ben-Yehuda, 1972,1982) reflects awareness of the mixed state of the language and the happyacceptance of its unsupervised development.9 The academic literature,along with public debates in journals and daily newspapers, is exceed-ingly rich in discussions of the Hebrew language, particularly its future(for summaries of this literature see, e.g. Fisherman, 1986, 2001; Muchnik,1994a, 1994b, 2003).

Expressions such as ‘Modern Hellenisation’, ‘Engrew’ and ‘Hebrish’(cf. ‘franglais’) reflecting attitudes to borrowings are not uncommon inthis literature. A recent example of such discussions is Goldberg’s (2002)article about ‘high-tech language’, the mixed Hebrew�English languagespoken by hi-tech employees, especially in the areas of electronics andcomputers. This article was one of the articles about the Hebrewlanguage that appeared in the Ha’aretz Independence Day supplement.Like so many writers who discuss the present situation of Hebrew,Goldberg (2002) mentions several reasons for the use of English in thispopulation. These reasons include the English language skills of thispopulation, who are actively connected with colleagues abroad, mainlyin the USA; a ‘snobbish’ and ‘elite’ feeling of these workers; and the needfor English terminology due to its absence from Hebrew. Thus,psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects combine with ‘objective’linguistic features of Modern Hebrew (Nir, 1989, 1993).

Fisherman (1990) studied the attitudes of three groups of Hebrewspeakers � school students, nurses and university students � to foreignwords in Hebrew and loan word use. Differences and discrepanciesbetween theory and practice were found in these groups, related to age,home background, language background and employment. Theseparticipants showed relatively little objection to the use of foreign words,although the actual rate of use of such words was lower than theirexpressed support rate.

The public attitude to Hebrew as a national value in Israel has beenchanging since about the 1980s. Before the establishment of Israel, andfor roughly the first three decades after its establishment, the ideologyand general attitude to Hebrew revolved around the slogan ‘Hebrew[person]�speak Hebrew [language]’. By now this motto is nearlyforgotten, and private and official establishments are more open to thepreservation and use of newcomers’ mother tongues � mainly the tongueof newcomers from the former Soviet Union. Many shop signs and mediaadvertisements are written also, or only, in foreign alphabets (even withspelling mistakes).10 On billboards, ads for cultural entities such astheatres, journals, orchestras and nightclubs are often written in Russian,


alongside Hebrew. In addition, the writing and titles on foodstuffpackaging are often in Hebrew and Russian instead of Hebrew andEnglish (cf. Shur, 1999; Spolski & Shohamy, 1999).

Some researchers fear that the effect of English will change the natureof the national language. Others think that Israel, formerly a multilingualcountry due to the numerous immigrants’ languages, has recentlybecome bilingual, with English being the most dominant foreignlanguage. The fact that at least half the Israeli population is bilingualdefinitely affects the development of Hebrew. Rosenthal, for example,argues that what worries the debaters is not

the question . . .whether this is good or bad . . . but whether Hebrewcan die out. The Hebrew language is still a unifying force for theparts of Israeli society. If this society decomposes and dies out fromthe inside, a scenario which looks very remote right now, theorthodox Jews will resort to talking Yiddish, the Russians will talkRussian and the secular Israelis will move to English. On the otherhand . . . Hebrew exists and is alive, but not always must you inventa word in a language instead of something nice that the Gentileshave given us. (Goldberg, 2002)

Another newspaper article (Tsemah, 2004) discusses various syntacticand semantic changes in Modern Hebrew mainly due to loan translations(calques) from English. Thus, public awareness of the state of Hebrew isexpressed mainly in the educated classes in discussions dealing withideological (normative) aspects, the future of this language, its ongoingdevelopment and specific linguistic topics (e.g. Kantor, 1994; Ravid, 1994).

Features of Borrowed Vocabulary in Hebrew

The morphological classification of vocabulary traditionally refers tonouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs (e.g. Schwarzwald, 2001). As inother languages, loan words in Hebrew, including words borrowed fromEnglish, involve more nouns than any other part of speech (Fisherman,1986, 1994; Ravid, 1994). Borrowed words may have morphological and/or phonological foreign features (Nir, 1989, 1993), which affect theirabsorption in the new environment (Fisherman, 1986; Ravid, 1994). Suchfeatures, for example, are phonemes that do not exist in the ‘original’Hebrew system, such as c, g, w in ‘chief, jeep, winner’, diphthongs suchas [ou] in [sou] ‘so’, or phoneme clusters making heavy syllablestructures, especially in the end of a word, such as in [bank] ‘bank’,and [humanist] ‘humanitarian’. It should be noted that word-final


clusters with the sonorants /l,m,n,r/ are often resolved in speech by anadded vowel, e.g. ‘Lincoln’�[Linkolen], and film�[filim].

Fisherman (1986) notes concerning her sample that the innovatedHebrew parallel was often written next to the borrowed foreign word.Muchnik (1994a) suggests several explanations for this phenomenon,such as subconscious linguistic redundancy; sensing foreignness in theborrowed word (especially adjectives); the personal wish to explain aforeign word by a Hebrew one (if the foreign word comes first), or apatronising assumption that the reader might not know the meaning ofthe foreign word.

In this context it has often been noted (for other languages) thatsemantic differences may evolve between the borrowed word and itsparallel in the receiving language, whether an innovation or a transla-tion. For example, in the pair /sotsiali/ (Bsocial) versus /’evrati/(�social, in Hebrew), the first means ‘social work’ and the latter‘belonging to a society or community’ (Blanc, 1989: 90); see also /moral/(Bmorale) versus /morali/ (adjective referring to morals, ethics). Thus,certain loan words become part and parcel of the vocabulary of ModernHebrew and cannot be replaced by Hebrew innovations.

Word borrowing is usually a spontaneous process, not directed by anylanguage policy and the Language Academy sometimes indeed affirmsborrowed words that have already integrated in Hebrew. The integrationof borrowed words apparently involves three processes (not necessarilyin any chronological order): first, straightforward borrowing (withoutchanges); second, modification of the phonological form to adapt it to thephonological system of the receiving language; and third, morphologicalmodification by adding or modifying morphemes (e.g. feminine or pluralof a noun or a verb derived from the consonantal stem of the word; moreabout this in Fisherman, 1986).

Examples are /zapping/�/mezapzep/ (singular masculine presenttense verb form, with geminated ‘root consonants’), /sponserit/, ‘afemale sponsor’ (a feminine singular suffix at the end of the Englishword) and /kasetot/ ‘cassettes’ (with the feminine plural suffix at theend of the borrowing). Shlesinger’s (2000) study of Hebrew journalesealso referred to foreign borrowings in it. He found that different genresborrow at different rates: the less formal or academic the style (e.g. gossipsections), the more borrowings are used in the text.

Identifying a loan word as originating from British or AmericanEnglish is possible not only due to linguistic but also to extralinguisticfactors, such as the type of object or notion it refers to (e.g. scientific,technological, fashion) or the date this object or notion was first


produced. Here this kind of semantic classification is not dealt with,however.

Case Studies

The following sections present our study of the effect of English onHebrew as revealed in recent journalese writing, the intermediateregister of written Hebrew. Journalese vocabulary and style, like anytext, vary by topic and register (politics, science, sports, economy orliterary supplements) and by ‘genre’ (e.g. short news, articles andadvertisements) (Rosenfeld, 2003; Shlesinger, 2000). We therefore exam-ined a number of articles in genres that appeared to us likely to reflectdifferent areas of English influence. The research questions for thestudies described below concern the rate and kind of English elements inHebrew, in what fields they are found, and the manner and nature oftheir blending with Hebrew journalese.

Material

The material of this research is mainly based on the three largest dailynewspapers in Israel, Ma‘ariv, Ha’aretz and Yedi‘ot Aharonot. From Ma‘arivwe scanned 35 issues over a three-month period (March�May 2003).11

From Ha’aretz we scanned news briefs (22 March 2003), two supplemen-tary brochures ‘Shammenet’ (‘cream’) and ‘Captain Internet’, thesupplement for Internet news (26 March 2002). We also scanned thefestive issue for Passover (March 2002). From Yedi‘ot Aharonot wescanned the news briefs and the ‘Good Times’ supplement issued onthe same day (21.3.02). Finally, we scanned the local news section in theHaifa local weekly Kol-bo (March 2002). This material is comprised ofadvertisements, news and general political articles. On the whole, thisarray presents a variety of journalese text styles which reflect the medialcommunication level of Modern Hebrew.

Method

All the entries of the Ma‘ariv corpus were studied for morphologicalclassification of the Hebraised adjective forms, frequency of occurrenceof each adjective, and the semantic domains of all the borrowed nouns. Inaddition, we made a linguistic analysis of loan translations found in theMa‘ariv corpus. We then compared the findings with those of previousstudies (Fisherman, 1986, 1994).

In the material from Ha’aretz, Yedi‘ot Aharonot and Kol-bo only the non-‘Standard European’ words were analysed. We counted only words that


had specific semantic meanings originating in British or AmericanEnglish (even if they were also ‘Standard European’ words). We alsodivided the borrowed words into British and American groups.Although it is sometimes difficult to define the source language of theborrowed words, this sample gives an idea of the scope of Englishborrowings in Modern Hebrew at the beginning of the 21st century andtheir relative distribution in journalese.

Findings

Entries, distribution and occurrence rates

Ma‘ariv provided 612 entry patterns of foreign words of which 404(65%) were nouns and 208 (35%) were adjectives. Out of the 404 nouns,192 (48%) were identified as originating in English. The adjectives wereadapted to Hebrew by means of the nisba ending, namely ‘i’ suffixed tothe foreign base.12

As in Fisherman (1986), approximately the same relation betweennouns and adjectives was found in this sample: nouns in 1986 constituted61% of the borrowed words (1986), now 65%; adjectives were then 39%,now 35%. (For example, in the new corpus, 12 of the 20 items occurringten times or more were adjectives. Among the 71 words that occurred 6�9times, 42 were adjectives.) However, nouns borrowed from Englishshowed a marked numerical difference: in the 1986 study, 28% of themwere from English, whereas the figure in the present corpus is almostdouble, 48%.

The corpus from Ha’aretz, Yedi‘ot Aharonot and Kol-Bo amounted toabout 200 types (450 tokens) of borrowed words from English, that is, ahigher relative rate of borrowings than in the largerMa‘ariv corpus. As inthe Ma‘ariv corpus, in this sample most of the borrowings were nouns,but the ratios were very different. Nouns here amounted to 86.7% of theoccurrences, whereas only �13% were adjectives and other speech parts.This finding seems to reflect the different journalistic genres.

Another cross-section refers to the distribution of specific nounsversus adjectives (in tokens). Of the 208 adjectives in the Ma‘ariv corpus,37 (18%) appear at a high frequency (5 times and more). On the otherhand, among the 183 words with a small occurrence rate (1�5 times), 119are nouns and 62 are adjectives (see Figure 7.1). From another angle, 60%of the high-frequency words (6 times and above) are adjectives, whereasonly 40% of the nouns have a frequency of six times or more. It appears,then, that adjectives of foreign origin are used more often than borrowednouns, whereas the absolute number of the borrowed nouns is larger.


It should be noted that Modern Hebrew adjectives have become anindependent category and a strong source for lexical enrichment of theHebrew vocabulary through derivation (cf. Ravid & Shlezinger, 1987).This trend is in contrast with Biblical Hebrew, where the verb and nounclasses are dominant, rather than adjectives.

‘Foreign’ adjectives are claimed to create a stronger sense of foreign-ness than nouns. According to Mirkin (1975), writers who use theseforeign words demonstrate over-erudition. Nir (1993) maintains that theprofuse usage of foreign adjectives is often due to a lexical deficiency,accompanied by a desire to be stylish, as well as some snobbishness. Inaddition, borrowed nouns become obsolete with time and are replacedby new ones, whereas adjectives show a stronger tendency to surviveover time. The picture given by the borrowings in Ha’aretz, Yedi‘otAharonot and Kolbo is completely different, as noted. Loan words in thesenewspapers are mainly nouns and include only a tiny number of

5–7 8–10 11–15 20+

1. Objective 1. Optimistic 1. Aggressive 1. Relevant

2. Alternative 2. Automatic 2. Dominant

3. Anonymous 3. Attractive 3.Dramatic

4. Authentic 4. Intimate 4. Massive

5. Intellectual 5. intensive

6. Ethnic 6. Strategic

7. Drastic 7. Effective

8. humanitarian 8. Global

9. Virtual 9. Digital

10. Tragic 10. Legitimate

11. Logistic 11. Standard

12. Minimal 12. Specific

13. Maximal 13. Collective

14. Pessimistic 14. Critical

15. Correct

16. Conventional

17. Rational

18. Theoretic

Figure 7.1 Hebrew adjectives with various frequencies of occurrence (fivetimes and higher) (back-translated into English)


adjectives. This difference can be probably explained by the differentgenres of texts examined in these newspapers. American and Englishproduct names and toponames are especially numerous in this part ofthe sample. Advertisements in particular abound in foreign propernames, which are usually not translated into Hebrew.

As expected, the number of loan words referring to American cultureitems that have penetrated Hebrew is large in articles that discuss topicsrelated to the USA, for example, catering, volume, super (Bsupermarket),‘sea food market’, suite (�/swita/ in Hebrew, a luxurious living accom-modation), concept (/kon’sept/ inHebrew), baby-sitting (/beibisiting/ inHebrew), jazz (music style), rock (dance type), etc.

In theMa‘ariv sample, approximately 60% of the words borrowed fromEnglish are from the entertainment, communication and socioeconomicfields (43%of the 60%entries pertaining to folklore and society are from thefield of entertainment and communication). Twenty percent of the wordsborrowed from English are from the technological domain; 10% are fromthe political and security domains; and 10% are from the fashion domain.Figures 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 present some of the items from this newspaper.

A picture of the findings in the samples from Ha’aretz, Yedi‘ot Aharonotand Kolbo can be obtained in three other figures. Figure 7.5 is a detailedsummary of the data and Figure 7.6 presents the total number of types ofEnglish borrowings in Hebrew in this sample. Finally, Figure 7.7 givesthe classification of 205 types (of 450 tokens) of borrowed nouns,adjectives, verbs and other word types in the various newspapers (exceptMa‘ariv).

1. Audition 11. D.J 21. Talk-Show 31. Cinemateque 41. Cocktail

2. Eighties 12. Date 22. Tenor 32. Small Talk 42. Club

3. Item 13. Disk 23. Trans 33. Special 43. Close-Up

4. Effect 14. Discotheque 24. Media 34. Spin 44. Come-Back

5. Action 15. Disk 25. Medium 35. Pub 45. Country-Club

6. Blind-Date 16. Drink 26. Sound 36. Play-Boy 46. Rating

7. Gimmick 17. Happy-End 27. Statist 37. Prime 47. Record

8. Jingle 18. Happening 28. Stand-Up 38. Chat 48. Show

9. General

Rehearsal

19. Winner 29. Stand-Upist

(Stand-Up Comedian)

39. Comics

10. Double 20. Ton 30. Striptease 40. Confidence

Figure 7.2 List of borrowings from the entertainment and communicationdomains


Banking and

Money

Way of life and

Social Life

Security and

Politics

Technology Fashion

1. Overdraft 1. Out 1. Act 1. Egzos (< exhaust) 1. Old-fashion

2. Upgrade 2. Outsider 2. Bunker 2. Internet 2. Elegant

3. Bonus 3. Aids 3. Deadline 3. E-Mail 3. Jeans

4. Boss 4. In 4. Terror 4. Astronaut 4. Vest

5. Business 5. Integrity 5. Trigger 5. Blender 5. Touch

6. Bar 6. After (After-

duty break)

6. Lobby 6. Breaks 6. Tissue

7. Broker 7. Baby-sitter 7. Lynch 7. Jack 7. T-Shirt

8. Barman 8. Jungle 8. Sticker 8. Video 8. Look

9. Job 9. Jogging 9. Session 9. Visher

(Windshield Wiper)

9. Lipstick

10. Deal 10. Junk-Food 10. Patriot 10. Wax 10. Mini

11. Dealer 11. Duplex 11. Panel 11. Toaster 11. Maxi

12. Hacker 12. Homosexual 12. Partner 12. Tuner 12. Model

13. Hi-Tech 13. Homeless 13. Primaries 13. Timing 13. Style

14. Tip 14. Hamburger 14. Cabinet 14. Tape 14. Stylish

15. Trade-In 15. Well-Done 15. Concept 15. Tipex (<typex) 15. Switcher

16. Terminal 16. Trip 16. Conflict 16. Telephone 16. Sale

17. Minus (=

overdraft)

17. Trend 17. Consensus 17. Tester 17. Kitsch (from

German!)

18. Supermarket 18. Lobby 18. Kit bag 18. Transistor 18. Poster

19. Start-Up 19. Loser 19. Campaign 19. Modem

20. City 20. Light 20. Campaigner 20. Micro-wave

21. Selector 21. Steak 21. Ritual 21. Mesting

(<messtin)

22. Center 22. Stereotype 22. Switch

23. Plus 23. Single 23. Masking tape

24. Check 24. Slums 24. Stopper

Figure 7.3 List of borrowings from other high-frequency domains


Phonology and morphology

1. Phonology. Loan words in Hebrew from British or American Englishdiffer phonetically. Older borrowings reflect the British Mandateperiod, e.g. [derbi] ‘derby, a football match’, [dzi:p] ‘jeep’, [pantser]‘puncture; now also any mishap’. These older borrowings (not onlyfrom English) have added new phonemes to Modern Hebrew [dz,ts] which are not felt to be phonologically foreign any more. Recentborrowings from American English often retain their originalphonetic form using phonemes that may still sound foreign to thephonological system. An example is ‘style’, pronounced with adiphthong [stail] (rather than as German /stiil/ or French /stil/)that does not belong to the original phonological system of Hebrew,‘international’ produced as [interneisenal] (not /internacional/ asthe Hebrew name of the socialist anthem), or the affricate [g] ratherthan [g] in ‘giga’, etc. It should also be noted that acronyms (IBM,MIT, etc.) are usually pronounced by Hebrew speakers as in Englishby their letter names � which is only ‘natural’ � unless they aretranslated into Hebrew, as in [’um], itself an acronym, for ‘UNO’.

25. Charter 25. Sandwich 25. Starter

26. Client 26. Sport 26. Sponsor

27. Credit 27. Fast-Food 27. Seedcome

(<sitcome)

28. Shopping 28. Park 28. Pedal

29. Cadre 29. Play-Station

30. Cool 30. Fax

31. Complex 31. Factor

32. Copywriter 32. Front

33. Catering 33. Parameter

34. Client 34. Code

35. Campus 35. Compact Disk

36. Captain 36. Copy

37. Sector 37. Clutch

38. Radio

Figure 7.3 List of borrowings from other high-frequency domains(Continued)


Figure 7.4 Summary of our sample with examples from English


Figure 7.4 Summary of our sample with examples from English (Continued)


Figure 7.4 Summary of our sample with examples from English (Continued)


2. Morphology. Many borrowed words are integrated into theHebrew morphological system and accordingly take morphologicalderivational affixes. From the Ma‘ariv corpus we compared theadjectives with the nisba ending in the present research with those ofthe 1980s to find changes in the use of borrowed adjectives. Thereare several subpatterns of nisba endings, depending on the ending ofthe foreign adjective, as Figure 7.7 shows. The differences betweenthe two studies are not large, per subpattern, but on the whole thepresent study shows more adjectives than the earlier one.

The comparison also reveals that this process has become almost theexclusive derivation means for the borrowed adjectives in ModernHebrew, in that the majority of the adjectives in our corpus are createdthrough concatenation with the nisba ending. In certain cases the foreign(or English) adjective endings are clipped in the process (-ous, -ian, -c�i,see: humanitarian�[humanitari], anonymous�[anonimi], drama-tic�[dramati]) whereas others remain entire (e.g. legal�[legali], ag-gressive�[agressivi]).

Borrowed noun adaptation to Hebrew morphology is expressed in:

a. retaining the word without any morphological marker (e.g. [tele-fon]B‘telephone,’ [kepten]B‘captain’),

b. suffixing a feminine suffix to the foreign � seemingly masculine �form, as in [liga] ‘league’ and [kaseta] ‘cassette’, with the femininesuffix [-a], or [sponserit] ‘female sponsor’, with the Hebrew femininesuffix [-it].

Source Number of types

Total number 204

Ha’aretz: “Shammenet” 75

Ha’aretz: “Captain Internet” 64

Yedi'ot Aharonot: news, ads,

“Zmanim Tovim”

61

Yedi'ot Aharonot: sports news

briefs

2

Figure 7.5 Total number of types of English loan words in Hebrew in thesampleNote: Some of the words in this list are written in English letters


c. A non-English suffix such as the Polish/Russian suffix [-ia], which isvery productive in Modern Hebrew, occurs in certain abstract nouns(e.g. ‘television’�[televizia], ‘cognition’�[kognicia]), which seem tohave been borrowed through British or American English mediation.

d. English plural forms may, however, get a feminine singular suffix[-a] when borrowed into Hebrew and omit the original plural markerin nouns such as [logistika] ‘logistics’ and [genetika] ‘genetics’.

e. The plural suffix is added to singular loan words according toHebrew morphological rules; for example, [format] ‘format’, amasculine singular noun�[formatim] ‘formats’ with the masculineplural suffix [-im], whereas [kaseta] ‘cassette’, a feminine singularnoun, becomes [kasetot] with the feminine plural suffix [-ot].

A borrowed word ending with a vowel creates a morphologicalproblem, because of the adjacency of that vowel to the vowel of theplural suffix. Thus the older borrowings [radio] ‘radio’ or [oto] ‘auto, car’do not usually take the plural suffix in Modern Hebrew, and otherlinguistic devices are sought to pluralise them, e.g. adding the plural

Source Nouns Adjectives Verbs Others

Ha’aretz,

“Shammenet”

58 5 1 2

Ha’aretz,

Captain

Internet

58 5 1 -

Yedi’ot

Aharonot,

news, ads,

“Zmanim

Tovim”

58 (including

11 hotel names

and other

business place

names)

1 - 2 (including a

sentence and a

phrase)

Yedi’ot

Aharonot,

sports news

briefs

2 - - -

Figure 7.6 Classification of nouns, adjectives, verbs and other word typesborrowed from English in the sampleNote: Some of the words in this list are written in English letters


form of the Hebrew word [maxsir] ‘tool, device’ to ‘radio’, or reverting toa new Hebrew word such as [mexonit] for ‘car’, which can get the pluralsuffix.

A conspicuous ‘literary’ concoction is [beya’adness], which in itself isan unconventional abstract noun expressing ‘being together’ or ‘to-getherness’. Here the English suffix ‘ness’ is affixed to the Hebrew word[beya’ad] ‘together’ (itself including the prefix [be-] ‘with’ and [ya’ad]‘together’).

Verbs are derived from the consonantal base (or ‘root’) of the foreignword (which is usually triconsonantal in Hebrew, but sometimes evenquadriliteral), for example, [le-farverd] ‘to forward’ (an e-mail message)or [le-dabeg] ‘to debug’ (for more examples see Ravid, 1994).

Orthography and spelling: Transmission methods

Loan words can be found in Hebrew texts in Hebrew script, in theoriginal English script, in loan translations (calques) and sometimes informs that mix Hebrew and English into one syntactic structure such ascompounds, or repeats of the same word in Hebrew and English.

Hebrew script. In our sample, most of the English borrowings inHebrew texts are written in Hebrew script. This is especially conspicuousin titles, proper names and place names, etc., for example, ‘BritishAirways’, ‘Super Center’, ‘Sports Illustrated’, ‘Sheraton City Tower’, etc.,but also elsewhere, for example, ‘tape double cassette’ or ‘cocktails’. TheHebrew spelling of borrowed words may involve simple typos or errorsdemonstrating the writer’s poor English. Examples are the spelling/tayc/ for ‘tights’ � a word that originally ends with /t/�/s/, the pluralmorpheme, or /tsarter/ (without affrication) for ‘charter’.13

English script. The use of the English alphabet sometimes exceedssingle words, and applies to two-word phrases, idioms and longercomplete English sentences. In our material we found, for example, theformula or cliche sentence ‘I should have known better’ in a short story

Figure 7.7 Patterns of adjectives and their distribution in Study 1


written in Hebrew, and ‘Citibank never sleeps’ as part of an ad otherwisewritten in Hebrew. These seem to be examples of ‘written codeswitch-ing’, which exceeds ‘simple’ borrowing of words (Poplack, 1980).

Our examples suggest that many of the words written in the Englishalphabet are ones that would be difficult to read if written in Hebrew dueto their non-transparent forms for Hebrew readers (whose Hebrew textnormally provides the consonants but not the vowels). Such wordsdefinitely include acronyms of foreign institutes and companies (MIT,IBM, ‘turbo CD’), but also words with syllable structures and phonemes �both consonants and vowels � that do not exist in Hebrew. For examplethe word ‘hours’ in ‘Happy Hours’, includes phonetically the triphthong/au/, which is not found in the Hebrew phonological system. There arealso compounds or annexations, such as [mitqan GPS] ‘GPS device’,which combine Hebrew and English scripts.

The use of English (or Roman) script in Hebrew texts was alreadyfrequent in academic texts throughout the 20th century. Many examplesfrom academic texts (not studied as part of our sample) refer to scientificterms or authors’ names (see, e.g. articles in Klausner, 1957, andnumerous papers and dissertations in any Israeli university over theyears). A relatively large proportion of the items in the noun group(about 15%) in the studied newspapers (excluding Ma‘ariv) are written inEnglish script, including two- and three-word phrases and even wholesentences. This proportion of penetration of the English alphabet intonon-academic Hebrew newspaper texts has not yet been reported, as faras we know. The high rate of this usage may be related to the lexicalmaterial involved and the writer’s goal (e.g. ads for tourists’ needs,attracting the reader’s eye, adding a snobbish flare, etc.). Fisherman(1986, Chapter 2) discussed the transcription of borrowed words but didnot mention English transcription. We may thus assume that using theEnglish alphabet in ‘normal’ journalese writing is fairly new, and hasaccelerated in the last two decades (since Fisherman, 1986).14

Semantics

(1) Domain distribution. The article topics in the Ma‘ariv corpus aremainly social and economic, hence the considerable proportion in it ofborrowings in these domains. Today entertainment and communicationfill an important role in Western society, perhaps more than other fields,and accordingly display the largest number of borrowed words fromEnglish, as seen in Figures 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4. Also the samples from theother newspapers show a bias to these domains. Particularly strong arethe domains of electronic communication and devices (mobile phones,


TV sets, video and DVD), tourism, imported and exported products,including perfumes, hotel names, airlines, tourist accessories, etc. Thesalience of these English words reflects the need of the Hebrew-speakingsociety for such words.

(2) Borrowings versus Hebrew words. Some of the borrowed words haveno Hebrew parallel, while others do. In our texts, when the borrowingshad parallel Hebrew words, the borrowing or the Hebrew form could befound apparently with no functional distinction, or with the covertintention of stylistic enrichment and diversification. For example, in anarticle on cycling, both English ‘pedalling’ and Hebrew /medavsot/(pedalling, pl. f.) occurred. Likewise, English ‘cassettes’ appeared in thesame articles in the adapted form /kasetot/ and the more recent Hebrewterm /kalatot/. Muchnik (1994a) studied specifically the use of anEnglish (or any foreign) word next to Hebrew words as their synonymswithin the text, with the foreign word preceding or following theHebrew. She concludes that this simultaneous use of loan words andHebrew words reflects the linguistic inner conflicts of Modern Hebrewspeakers, who have not yet decided which form they should use in theirvocabulary, and when.

(3) Borrowed word translation (calque). Calque, or loan translation,occurs as covert borrowing of English elements by Hebrew. The processon the whole involves semantic transfer from one language to the other.It may be with single words, on which we focus here, as well as phrasesand longer utterances. In Hebrew, a calque can originate in diverseEuropean languages, including Yiddish, so it is sometimes difficult totrace its exact origin. At present the language influencing Hebrewjournalese is undoubtedly English rather than any other Europeanlanguage. Two types of calques can be observed in the studied texts:

1. Calques related to the metaphoric� idiomatic use of certain words(here back-translated from Hebrew), for example,a. The public certainly praises the vigorous preparations of the

Home Front Command and the security system, but does not

take them seriously (H. Shalev, 28 March 2003).b. Assad is collaborating with Iraq. In other words, Assad is

playing with fire (B. Caspit, 2 April 2003).c. To a great extent, Sadam is now playing the role which for some

time was played by Yaser Arafat (A. Rapaport, 8 April 2003).d. The 11th of September falls this year on Thursday (R. Russo, 11

April 2003).


e. Topaz takes to heart every article and criticism (G. Ochovsky, 18April 2003).

f. It seems as if everybody suddenly has caught (got) cold feet(G. Ochovsky, 18 April 2003).

2. Parenthetical or ‘hedging’ expressions used in various communica-tive functions. These include the expression of opinions and thewriter’s voice, persuading the reader by rhetorical means, andattracting readers and involving them in the written text. Moreover,such expressions often characterise the colloquial register. Thesevernacular elements reflect the changes under way in the intermedi-ate register of the Hebrew journalistic language. These are someexamples:a. It ain’t pleasant saying, but no one has a clue as to the current

level of risk we are in (G. Ochovsky, 26 March 2003).b. The Eastern Jews draw on the Ashkenazi culture, and that’s also

O.K. (N. Bar‘am, 28 March 2003).c. Peres is obviously not trying to rehabilitate the Labor party for

someone else, forget it (S. Yerushalmi, 9 May 2003).d. After all, it is obvious that there is no way to cover the debt

(B. Caspit, 23 May 2003).

Discussion and Conclusion

The present flooding of Modern Hebrew with English words iswithout doubt part of the influx of cultural innovations and consumerproducts from the English-speaking USA since 1967. The Hebrewlanguage and its speakers receive and accept the new products andnotions as they are, usually with their foreign names. The HebrewLanguage Academy keeps translating such words and coins new onesinstead of foreign ones, but its activity progresses slowly compared to thepace of the torrent of English borrowings. The rate of absorption ofEnglish elements in speech and writing reflects bipolar sociolinguisticand psycholinguistic factors, such as the prestige of English and snobbishattitude of people who know this language, or conversely speakers’ wishto retain the purity of the Hebrew language and their refusal to use loanwords. Loan word acceptance reflects the ability of the language todevelop and survive in light of new notions and products.

Journalists do not hesitate to use English terminology in a Hebrewtext. This is a feature of journalistic writing, which as described in theliterature reflects the ‘intermediate’ register of Hebrew. Shlesinger (2000)defines journalese as the media mediator between foreign languages and


Hebrew for Hebrew speakers in Israel. He classifies foreign influence onHebrew journalese by genre (e.g. political essays, advertisements, sports,personal gossip) and notes differences between the genres relating toforeign influence. He does not treat English borrowings separately,however, as we do here. Among the foreign (and English) borrowings hementions also those used as jargon and as slang, which have not beendiscussed here (but see Rosenhouse, 2006). The loan words we foundreflect effects of cultural attitudes, register characteristics, text topic,professional jargon and snobbish or patronising attitudes. Their usedeviates from earlier conscientious considerations of the need to developand retain Hebrew. According to Shlesinger (2000) this usage is an aspectof modern permissiveness.

This borrowing situation is basically common to any language andlanguage society when it comes into contact with another languagethrough its speakers. However, the influence of American English onHebrew works more through products and media transmitting culturalconcepts than through direct personal contacts. Speakers often use theloan words because they do not know how to express these notions intheir native Hebrew.

One of the goals of this study was to check the special factors orphenomena of English borrowings in Hebrew at present. Two importantfeatures seem to emerge: the fact that the English alphabet has penetratedso much in borrowings in non-academic texts (see also Shlesinger, 2000),and the fact that most of the borrowed vocabulary is comprised of nouns.Borrowed adjectives form the second largest group of words indistribution in Fisherman’s (1994) study as well as in this one, but theyconstitute a much smaller group than borrowed nouns. However, oncethey have penetrated Hebrew, borrowed English adjectives seem to bemore stable than nouns, not changing with fashion. Their morphologicaladaptation to Hebrew with the concatenated nisba suffix is very easy,which enhances their integration in Hebrew, simultaneously making thenisba suffix very productive.

Our study, which analyses certain written texts, investigates part ofthe linguistic situation of English borrowings in Hebrew. A study ofspontaneously spoken discourse would reveal additional and differentfeatures of borrowing from English, including different frequency ratesand distributions (see Rosenhouse, 2006). This aspect of the subject hashardly been addressed in the literature, and deserves an independentstudy in the future. English loan words in Hebrew � the linguistic aspectof globalisation � are apparently here to stay. It is important, however, tomaintain the foundations of the national language, namely Hebrew in


Israel, for the people’s sense of unification and uniqueness. Hebrewseems to be adopting its own version of the English loan words (like somany other languages) and will survive, for all we know, though in aform increasingly differentiated from previous forms.

Notes1. A word is defined as foreign when it is perceived as such by speakers who

do not regularly use the word’s original language; borrowing is a lexicalelement integrated in the receiving language (see Von Polenz, 1979).

2. Pelli (2001) considers this activity the beginning of the phase of Hebrew as aliving language. Ornan (1984) and others describe the development asbeginning in 1882.

3. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, as told, made his wife talk only Hebrew to theirchildren. Morag (2003) reviews such beginnings. Glinert (1991) studies thisquestion from a grammatical point of view, based on early schoolbooks.

4. Some famous innovators are Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Haim Nahman Bialik,Nathan Alterman, Avraham Shlonski, Yonathan Ratosh and S. Yizhar.

5. This office was at the Technion � I.I.T. in Haifa until it was closed in 2003.6. This was calculated by Prof. S. Irmay, who directed this office for about 40

years (personal communication).7. E.g. Glikson’s (1923) paper ‘About the use of foreign words’ dated 1923, in

Muchnik (2003), and Porat (1993). Opposition to borrowing was notunanimous among members of the Academy, however. See Prof. Klausner’ssupport of borrowing in his 1915 paper, reprinted in Klausner (1957).

8. Such borrowings are not � but might have been � from Russian, Amharic orany other (previous) immigrant language, such as German, French or Polish(Fisherman, 1994).

9. See Blanc’s introductory words in Ben-Amotz and Ben-Yehuda (1972).10. This trend is not limited to this recent period. See Avinery (1966), Shur (1999)

and Spolsky and Cooper (1989).11. The dates of these issues are as follows: March � 5.3, 6.3, 11.3, 12.3, 14.3, 16.3,

20.3, 21.3, 23.3, 24.3, 25.3, 26.3, 27.3, 28.3; April � 2.4, 3.4, 4.4, 8.4, 9.4, 10.4,11.4, 15.4, 18.4, 21.4, 24.4, 25.4; May � 2.5, 5.5, 6.5, 9.5, 11.5, 15.5, 16.5, 23.5.

12. The Arabic term nisba has been borrowed by Hebrew grammar for an affixused very frequently in Arabic as a adjectival suffix. This concatenation issimilar to processes in European languages.

13. Such errors are also found in ads put up on billboards by shopkeepers,market stall holders, etc.

14. Sometimes (although we have not found this in this sample) even singleEnglish letters are combined within words written in Hebrew. This mainlyoccurs in (humoristic) advertisements in newspapers, TV, billboards, etc.;see examples in Machauf (1997).


Chapter 8

Colloquial Arabic (in Israel): TheCase of English Loan Words in aMinority Language with Diglossia

JUDITH ROSENHOUSE

In the 20th century English became the lingua franca of the whole world.The reasons for this process are numerous, and in part complex. Incertain areas the impact of English is due to direct contact or friction witha non-English-speaking population (e.g. Aitchison, 1991: Chapter 8;Janson, 2002: Chapter 12). This is especially so in countries under theBritish Crown in the 19th and early 20th century.1 The influence ofEnglish on other languages (and their speakers) may be more indirect:the penetration of notions, products and terms from an English-speakingcountry or community to countries whose population do not speak thislanguage. Another way of linguistic influence is the penetration ofEnglish vocabulary into a third language through a mediating language,whose speakers have direct contact with English speakers. Suchphenomena occur in any interlingual contacts and are not unique toEnglish or Arabic.

The discussion of the effect of English on Arabic should be dividedinto two parts in accordance with the dual structure of this language,namely written or so-called ‘Literary’ or ‘Standard’ Modern Arabic, andcolloquial Arabic, which is used for normal oral communication. ModernLiterary Arabic is based on rich layers of Classical literature andinnovations added down the ages, especially since its renaissance atthe beginning of the 19th century. Colloquial Arabic is well knownamong world languages for its numerous dialects, which vary due tomany geographic and demographic factors. This dichotomy between theLiterary and Colloquial varieties, called diglossia (see the classic paperby Ferguson, 1959), exists in other languages, but the degree of differencebetween the two is probably unique to Arabic. A major linguisticproblem is the absence of a clear boundary between Literary and

145

Colloquial Arabic, and native Arabic speakers mix numerous features ofthese varieties in diverse combinations. In examining the influence ofEnglish on Arabic we must realise that it may differ between thevarieties, which develop independently as different linguistic states.2

The motivation for the present study is the wish to know how Englishaffects such a diglossic language as Arabic, and how the effect differsfrom the process in other languages. The aim is to analyse and sum upthe penetration of English into Arabic vocabulary to understand thespecial features of this process. The lexical wealth of Literary andColloquial Arabic is immense due to their long history across a vastgeographical territory with many speakers, among other factors. Toavoid confusing a particular issue with unrelated phenomena, whichmight blur the clarity of the findings, we focus on the case of the effects ofEnglish on Colloquial Arabic in Israel.

First we briefly summarise the situation of Arabic in Israel. Thecolloquial Arabic dialects spoken in Israel can be classified according togeographic and demographic criteria. Geographically, the dialects can bedivided into those of the north (the Galilee dialects), the centre (the greatand small ‘triangles’, and Samaria and Judea) and the south (the Negevand the Gaza Strip) of Israel.

The demographic classification involves four cross-sections:

1. Sedentary versus nomadic (Bedouin) dialects. The sedentary dialectsinclude urban and rural dialects throughout the country, but mainlyin the north and centre, with hardly any in the south (except the GazaStrip, which is actually separated from Israel). The Bedouin dialectsare concentrated mainly in the Negev desert area in the south and thefertile Galilee in the north. In the centre of the country there are fewBedouin tribes. Most Bedouins are settled by now, notwithstandingtheir traditions and heritage.

2. Communal dialects. These reflect the many religious communities,along with their sub-sects. In Israel these include Muslims, Chris-tians, Druze and Jews (the latter include individuals born in variousArabic-speaking countries in the Middle East and others who aredescendants of ‘Sephardic’ families living in the country for manygenerations).

3. Gender-based dialects. Such differences are found in many otherlanguages, and recently more attention has been paid to these aspectstoo in the study of colloquial Arabic (e.g. Rosenhouse, 1998).

4. Socioeconomic and educational levels. These factors are valid in thisarea as elsewhere: the higher the speakers’ socioeconomic state, the


higher their educational level, which leads to a greater rate ofmixture between Literary and Colloquial Arabic in their speech. Thismixture increases the number of subgroups on a scale from ‘pure’Literary Arabic to ‘pure’ Colloquial Arabic at the extremes.

The situation in Israel in this respect is characteristic of the linguisticstructure of Arabic in most Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle Eastand North Africa (see Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004). At the same time, thesituation is unique because of the dominance of Hebrew in the country,which makes Arabic into a minority language in spite of the millions ofits speakers in the surrounding countries (see Talmon, 2000).

The effect of English on Literary Arabic (in Israel and elsewhere) isideologically limited due to the activity of the Arabic languageacademies that exist in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Although the languageacademies translate, innovate and coin new terms in order to retainthe purity of the language, they cannot stop loan word penetration intoLiterary Arabic. Foreign terms are borrowed mainly through journalisticwriting and the mass media, in addition to proper names of products,establishments and industries in advertisements (cf. Rosenhouse, 2004).3

The Contact between English and Arabic in Israel

The English language first affected the Arab population in the countryduring the Mandate period (1920�1948). The British took the countryfrom the defeated Ottoman Empire towards the end of WWI (1917).British rule, which was formalised somewhat later (1920) by the Leagueof Nations, contributed much to the development of the civil infra-structure of the country. This activity included the development of roadsas well as the railroad system, building the Haifa, Jaffa and Tel Avivports, constructing electricity plants, water projects and new urbansettlements, whose inhabitants comprised immigrants from Europe(mainly Jews) and from neighbouring Arab countries (mainly Arabs).Also older towns expanded and private residences and public buildingsin them rose in number in this period. Urbanisation at this time waslargely the result of new workplaces that sprang up in the towns for Arabas well as Jewish workers in small workshops and the first factories. TheJewish community developed many educational and cultural institutes,such as schools and universities, theatres and orchestras. The Arab sectorof the population in the country increased and developed in this period,but the cultural scope of its activity was smaller than that of the Jewishsector.4 Still, the number of Arabic-speaking schools increased, morenewspapers, magazines and books were published, and civil security

English Loan Words in Colloquial Arabic 147

improved.5 This period, which went on until 1948, actually moulded thebasis for modernisation in the country.6 In the Mandate period Englishwas the official language of the country, with Hebrew and Arabic asadditional official languages. Direct contact between British servicemenand officials and the Arab (and Jewish) population was slight and notvery friendly. Thus, the linguistic influence of English on Arabic wasminimal (Suleiman, 1985: 79�81).

The British forces left the country in May 1948, along with theirlanguage, so to speak. In the early years of Israel’s independent existencea military government was imposed on the Arab population, restrictingtheir physical movement in the country and their cultural links with theoutside world. The Arab population was cut off from English culture andlanguage as well as from Arabic culture and language, which continuedto develop in the Arab countries around Israel; they were cut off partlyalso from Hebrew. The major penetration of native Arabic speakers intothe economic and cultural life of the state began mainly when themilitary government ended in 1966. This integration process grewstronger after 1967 (the Six Day War) and still more in the 1980s. In allthe years of Israel’s existence the number of Arabic-speaking students inthe obligatory education framework continued to grow (see Rosenhouse,2005) and more students studied English among other school subjects.

All this time another channel of contact with English for native Arabicspeakers was the many tourists for whom English was the lingua francain Israel (Abdeen, 2002; Amara, 1986, 1995, 1999). This direct contact wasmade easier because of the English learnt at school (see also Suleiman,1985: 79�81).

Since the end of the British Mandate the major source of links betweenEnglish and the Arab (and Jewish) population has been mainly throughthe strong economic, cultural and political relations with the USA mainlysince the 1960’s and its language. In fact, as Hebrew is the dominantlanguage in Israel, many English terms are borrowed into colloquialArabic through Modern Hebrew (or rather through ‘Colloquial He-brew’). It is difficult to assess the scope of the penetration of Englishterminology into Arabic, however, although various methods have beenreported (e.g. Abdeen, 2002; Amara, 1991; Owens, 2004).

Sources of Linguistic Influence on Colloquial Arabic

Like most world languages, Arabic has absorbed numerous foreignwords over the centuries. Even in its Classical period, which isdocumented in the vast Literary Arabic literature, many borrowed


lexical elements are attested. Such words derive from Aramaic, Hebrew,Greek, Persian, etc. Under the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the regionfor more than five centuries,7 many words from Turkish were adopted byArabic, and have survived mainly in the colloquial dialects (e.g. /’o:d a/‘room’, /t a:za/ ‘fresh’, /dugri/ ‘straight on, direct’ or /baxsi:s/‘bakhshish, tip’, /qisle/ ‘prison’ and even in legal and official termino-logy as /t a:bu/, ‘land ownership affirmation document’). In the 19th andthe first half of the 20th century the Middle East was mainly under Frenchand British influence or rule, and their languages influenced Arabic,especially in North Africa, Lebanon and Egypt. Before the 20th centuryseveral other European countries (Greece, Italy, Spain and Russia) hadsimilar interests in the Middle East. Altogether, the linguistic influence ofthese languages on Colloquial Arabic in Israel has been fairly smallcompared with other more recent sources of influence, and is limited tospecific objects of the periods before the mid-20th century, in fields suchas fishing, seamanship, clothing, housing, etc. (see Butros, 1963; Suleiman,1985; Bahumaid, 1992).

As mentioned, in the first half of the 20th century three academies forthe Arabic language were established in Arab countries (Syria, Egypt andIraq), and these have contributed to the vocabulary of Literary Arabic.Thus, numerous modern terms in many Colloquial Arabic dialects derivefrom Literary Arabic and not from English (see, e.g. Shraybom-Shivtiel,1993, 2005).

In many cases it is difficult to identify the direct origin of a borrowedforeign term as it may reflect ‘Standard European’ vocabulary stock(Blau, 1976, 1981). This term refers to words usually derived from Latinor Greek roots, and used in ‘Latin’ languages such as French, Italian andSpanish, or a ‘Germanic’ language such as English and German, allsharing similar base-forms (or stems). Some examples of this kind ofword are /bo:s t a/ ‘post’, /talagra:f/ ‘telegraph’ and /kilometer/‘kilometer’ (more examples in, e.g. Holes, 1995; Monteil, 1960; Stetke-vych, 1970). Still, modern names of objects, activities and notions, such as/elektro:niyya/ ‘electronic’, /internet/ ‘internet’, /i:kolo:gia/ ‘ecology’or /influenza al-t uyu:r/ ‘birds’ influenza’, could not reach the absorbinglanguage before the (modern) period in which they were first created.Accordingly, a study of such borrowings can usually more or lessestablish the date of penetration of such words into Arabic, along withtheir origin. For example, the linguistic area of computers, mobilephones, the Internet and TV satellites is a very productive source atpresent for English borrowings in Arabic (cf. Sakarna, 2004). These termshave naturally been flooding Colloquial Arabic in Israel since about the


end of the 20th century from American English, which has become thestrongest source of influence on Colloquial Arabic vocabulary afterHebrew, as on other language communities (see this volume).

Hebrew, the dominant language in Israel, is however currently themain source of linguistic influence on the vocabulary of ColloquialArabic in that country. Sociolinguistic studies have found that in additionto Literary Arabic, which most native speakers of Arabic consider themost important language, Hebrew is more important than English(Abdeen, 2002; Amara, 1986, 1991; Amara & Spolsky, 2001; Ben Rafael,2001; Shohamy & Donitsa-Schmidt, 1998). The importance of English fornative Arabic speakers depends on their ability to use this language.English is also described as having a relatively important instrumentalfunction for this population, distinct from integrative or ideologicalfunctions of languages found elsewhere. As education in Israel iscompulsory, and both Hebrew and English are studied in addition toArabic in the schools for native Arabic speakers, high-school graduateshave the potential to know these languages relatively well. However, theuse of English is rather limited in the daily life of this community, forthey can watch TV and chat on the Internet in Arabic rather than inEnglish, whereas for daily and local official needs they use Hebrew;English is usually limited to contacts with tourists from all nations, or forofficial correspondence with bodies abroad � and not all the populationhave such contacts. In sum, certain English words penetrate ColloquialArabic through Hebrew, through Literary Arabic, through schooleducation or through direct contact with English speakers. Englishwords of different semantic domains penetrate Literary Arabic (notsurprisingly) through the written media of science and technology booksand all realms of journalistic writing.

The Goals of This Study

The goals of this study derive from the background described above.We wish to study the English vocabulary as used today in Arabic inIsrael, investigate its origins and draw conclusions from our findings. Wewill not try to classify the words we find by the various dialect groupsdescribed above, but rather focus on vocabulary as a whole, and on theprocesses the words undergo while becoming absorbed into the newlanguage environment. No thorough semantic study of the vocabulary ofcolloquial or Literary Arabic in Israel has been done so far; nor has aseparate study been dedicated to English loan words in Colloquial orLiterary Arabic in Israel.8 Literary Arabic in Israel has been developing


next to Colloquial Arabic all this time, being more or less conscious of therole of the academies of the Arabic language.9 Our focus here is,however, English loan words in Colloquial Arabic in Israel.

Method

The work is based on several sources. We scanned English loan wordsfound in printed text collections of spontaneously recounted stories orconversations. Several collections appeared after 1948, in addition to afew published earlier. Our texts represent all the dialect groups in thecountry: sedentary (rural and urban) and Bedouin dialects, spoken byboth males and females (Blanc, 1953; Geva-Kleinberger, 2004; Havelova,2000; Miron & Kabha, 1993; Piamenta, 1964; Rosenhouse, 1984). Inaddition, we scanned some dictionaries of colloquial Arabic (Elihay,1977; Rosenhouse, 2002) and of Hebrew slang (Ben Amotz & Ben-Yehuda, 1972, 1982) for words borrowed from English. From thesesources we prepared a list of words now used, as far as we know, as loanwords in Arabic.

This list was used for a ‘pilot study’ with eight young adults, threemales and five females, native Arabic speakers from various places in thenorth of Israel. Their age range was 18�25 and most of them werestudents at the Technion � Israel Institute of Technology. Each item of thelist was read aloud in a quiet room, to each participant, who was askedwhether s/he recognised the words. If they answered in the affirmativewe wanted to know how they used them, with an example. Theiranswers were written down.

Finally, we collected words from randomly overheard conversationsamong Arab students at the Technion, as they use many professionalterms from Hebrew and English in their daily speech. Such lexical itemsvary among the different study areas (university faculties) and form aprofessional jargon and are thus restricted to speakers who belong tothese professional groups. For examples from our study see Figures 8.1and 8.2. See also Sakarna (2004) and the appendix in Suleiman (1985:101�126), with a similar list representing the speech of Jordanianstudents.

Findings

This section summarises the main phonological, morphological andsemantic features found in the single-word English borrowings inColloquial Arabic in our sample. As many English terms are loan-translated into Arabic (either spontaneously or by the language


academies, as mentioned), native Arabic speakers are often hardly awareof their foreign origin (e.g. mahdu:d al-d ama:n /‘Ltd.’/, al-wila:ya:t al-muttahida /‘the United States’/). Loan translation is not discussed here,however.

Figure 8.1 Classes of words borrowed from English into colloquial Arabic


Figure 8.2 Examples of borrowed words from English


Figure 8.2 Examples of borrowed words from English (Continued)


Phonology

Most of the words we found in our study reveal adaptation to thephonological system of Colloquial Arabic, the absorbing language.Phonemes (consonants and vowels) and syllable patterns that do notexist in this variety of Arabic are not retained in the ‘foreign’ words butare assimilated as much as possible to the forms of the absorbing system.For example: /brinna:t/ ‘Bren guns’ (/e/�/i/), /sa:rgin mi:gir/‘sergeant major’ (/e/�/i/, /ei/�/i:/), /ambalans/ ‘ambulance’ (/u/�/a/), /talafo:n/ ‘telephone’ (/e/�/a/), /bazbort, basbort/ ‘passport’(/p/�/b/, /s/�/z/), /kamb/ ‘camp’ (/p/�/b/), /sikrabo:r/ ‘sickreport’ (/p/�/b/; /e/�/a/; /t/ is deleted because of syllable structurerules).10 Some of the words (partly from Blanc, 1953, and Geva-Kleinberger, 2004) reflect obsolete terms that are hardly used nowadays.For example, weapon types have been replaced with more modern onesand for military ranks usually Hebrew or (Literary) Arabic terms areused instead of the English ones.

Other phonological adaptation processes include consonant gemina-tion, as in /bat t ariyye/ ‘battery’, addition or deletion of phonemes (andmorphemes) e.g. /na:rse/, beside /ne:rs/ ‘nurse’, /gingi/ ‘ginger, redheaded’ (with omission of the final /r/ and exchanging the vowel into avowel that exists in Arabic), /fri:za/ ‘refrigerator, frigidair’ thoughprobably derived from ‘freezer’ (where the last consonant is omitted),and addition of anaptyctic vowels where necessary according to thedialect rules (e.g. /ebreks/ ‘brakes’). Interestingly, in two-word terms(compound words) one of the words (the borrowed one) may bepronounced as in Hebrew, e.g. /mhandis ’elektroni/ ‘electronics en-gineer’ (literally: ‘electronic engineer’), where the Arabic word for‘engineer’ is followed by the borrowed adjective in its Hebrew form(itself borrowed).

Naim (1998) analyses the pharyngealisation and velarisation phenom-ena which occur in certain foreign loan words in Beirut Arabic as due toswitching certain features of the foreign language into features that existin the borrowing language. Her examples refer to words long used incolloquial Arabic dialects, such as ‘cigarette’, ‘lemonade’, ‘salad’, ‘port’and ‘powder’, which originate mainly from French and Italian and notfrom English. Still, her explanation should be taken into consideration. Inthe colloquial Arabic dialects in Israel these processes can also be found ina few words such as /b a:b a/ ‘Pope’, /bat t ariyye/ ‘battery’. Theseprocesses occur, however, in a relatively small number of foreign loanwords (from English or other languages) apparently because velarised


and pharyngealised consonants, including words with secondary (added)velarisation, have generally weakened even in the original velarised andpharyngealised consonants of the system in urban and rural dialects ofIsrael during the last century at least (see, e.g. Blanc, 1953).

Morphology

Morphological adaptations involve several optional stages:

1. Literal transfer without any changes: e.g. /bulibif, fayl, tiket, la:rg/‘bully beef, file, ticket, large (for size of clothing, etc.)’.

2. Adaptation to the morphology of the absorbing language: e.g. /ba:s/‘bus’ (by lengthening the vowel), /talafo:n/ ‘telephone’ (with a longlast syllable instead of the diphthong in English), /ki:la/ ‘kilogram’(lengthening the first vowel, omission of the ‘gram’ part, andexchanging the remaining vowel into a vowel that exists in Arabic;cf. Hebrew /kilo/).

3. Full integration demonstrated by derivation of new words from theborrowed word. This can be seen in verb forms as well as in nounsand adjectives. In Arabic a verb can be derived from a foreign noun(like any lexical item, in fact) by the root consonants being set in aproductive verb pattern. For example, the verb /ballaf/ ‘he bluffed’derives from ‘bluff’, both a noun and a verb in English. The verb/narvaz/ ‘to make nervous’ and its passive participle /mnarvez/‘nervous’ exemplify another Arabic verb pattern.11

The second obvious morphological adaptation feature is that ofgendermarking. InArabic, feminine formsaremostlyderived from themasculine ‘base-form’ by suffixing to it a feminine morpheme, such as/�a/ or /-e/ in /malik � malike/ ‘king � queen’ and thus see /ne:rse/‘nurse’ or /sektere:ri, sekrete:ra/ ‘female secretary’. Colloquial Arabichas apparently borrowed few adjectives, except for fixed terms such as‘large’, ‘maxi’ and ‘mini’ for sizes. That such adjectives are not declinedto gender, elative or superlative, seems to imply their foreignness.

A third case in this area is that of loan-word pluralisation. Onemethod of pluralisation in Arabic is by linear concatenation orsuffixation of a morpheme to the word (like the plural suffix -s inEnglish). This pattern, called the ‘sane plural’, has two variants, formasculine (/-i:n/) and feminine (/a:t/) nouns. In many other cases,however, the plural of an Arabic singular noun is formed by‘moulding’ the root (or stem) consonants in a different pattern, thatis, in a different vowel array with or without additional morphemicsyllable(s). This plural form is called ‘broken plural’.


The sane feminine plural suffix is the most frequent form of pluralfor foreign inanimate nouns. However, a word that is completelyabsorbed into the language often takes the ‘broken plural’ form.Examples are: /breksa:t/ ‘brakes (in a vehicle)’, /trakka:t/ ‘trucks’,/taksiyya:t/ ‘taxi cabs’, /nersa:t/ ‘nurses’, /kambyu:tara:t/ ‘compu-ters’, /slaida:t/ ‘slides’, vs. /kru:ti/ ‘cards’ (pl. of /kart/ ‘card’),/bnu:k/ ‘(money) banks’, pl. of /bank/, /saga:yir/ ‘cigarettes’, pl. of/siga:ra/, etc. Interestingly, this process has been found not onlyin other Arabic dialects (Owens, 2004; Sakarna, 2004), but also inBeaumont’s (1987) description of the speech of immigrant Moroccanwomen in Canada, and in studies referring to children’s acquisition ofthe plural in colloquial Arabic (see Ravid & Farah, 1999; Ravid &Hayek, 2003).

4. Another option of using the English loan word is to combine it in anArabic idiomatic expression, such as /d arab talafo:n/ ‘call someoneon the phone’, /d arab breik/ ‘stop, halt, brake (a car)’ with the verb/d arab/ which literally means ‘hit, beat’.

These examples suffice to show processes that are apparently generalin lexical transfers from English into any Colloquial Arabic dialect (seealso Owens, 2004; Sakarna, 2004; Suleiman, 1985 for more examples).Differences between Arabic dialects in English borrowings often dependon the effect of substrate languages, related or unrelated to Arabic, andthe frequency of use of English within that Arabic language community(cf. Owens 1998, 2004, for the analysis of English loan words in NigerianArabic).

Semantics

The semantic processes observed in the borrowed English words inArabic are similar to those in other languages and are not unique toArabic (see, e.g. Lyons, 1977; Rosenbaum, 2002; Sakarna, 2004; Stetke-vych, 1970; for examples and semantic discussions). Accordingly, we findloan words whose meanings are identical to those in the source language;loan words with meaning expansion or narrowing; and loan words withmeaning shifts or changes (usually due to misinterpretation of theoriginal words). The new meaning may sometimes prevail, even up tofull disuse of the original one. Here are some examples from our sample.

Direct transfer, without meaning changes, is found in ColloquialArabic in Israel in many nouns, that is, modern object names suchas /sofa/ ‘sofa’, /kombyu:ta/ ‘computer’ and computer accessories suchas /disket, draiv/ ‘diskette’, ‘drive’, etc.


Another group includes words like /ge:rse, gerza:i/ ‘jersey’, which inColloquial Arabic means a ‘warm woollen sweater’, obviously derivedfrom the English ‘jersey’, /bodi/ (English ‘body’), which in ColloquialArabic refers only to the body of a car, and /boks/, which in Arabicdenotes only the sport of boxing and the kind of punch used in it. Theseexamples show a narrowed meaning field. The additional meaning of‘jersey’ � a thick type of cloth originating on the island of Jersey, as wellas a type of dairy cow � is not known in Colloquial Arabic. Similarly, theother meanings of ‘body’ (of animals or humans) and ‘box’, such as ‘akind of case, chest’, have simply not been transmitted to the Arabicvocabulary.

For an example of meaning changes during the transfer, take the word/blaster/, ‘plaster’, which is short for ‘adhesive plaster’ or ‘band aid’. InEnglish this term derives from ‘plaster’, which has a different basicmeaning. Neither the basic meaning nor its adjective ‘adhesive’, whichcompletes the term, has been transferred into Arabic. ‘Plaster’ in Arabichas a different meaning from the basic meaning of English ‘plaster’.However, in this case this form and meaning (/plaster, blaster/ for ‘bandaid’) might have passed into Colloquial Arabic through (colloquial)Hebrew, where the same word is used in the same manner.

After listing the loan words, the next step in our study was to classifythem in semantic groups or categories. The groups represented in our listare set out in Figure 8.1.

We have not studied the occurrence rate of these words in the dailyspeech of native speakers as that depends on the semantic field and thecontext of the item, and our lists were formed from ‘frozen’ texts(transcribed in books). The words in our list show a large variety oftopics and domains, reflecting many diverse types of employment,education and circumstances.12 The statistical task is beyond our presentgoal; it is generally difficult to do (but see the method used in Owens,2004), and has not been undertaken at all for Colloquial Arabic in Israel.

The field study

Our pilot study involved a small group of young adults, mostlystudents, native Arabic speakers from various places in the north ofIsrael. The small number of participants prevents valid statisticalcalculation of the results, but it is interesting to observe theirresponses as preliminary tendencies for future deeper exploration.The participants’ answers on the items of the list revealed widevariability in their knowledge of or acquaintance with the items (i.e.


understanding and recognising the referents) and their active use ofthem. From their answers it was clear that British English words (the‘older’ items, from the Mandate period) were hardly known to all ofthese young speakers. When known, such words were less wellrecognised and less often used than the words from American English,which were more readily produced and explained.

An interesting finding was that even knowledge of modern itemsseemed to vary and depend on speakers’ personal background andextralinguistic cultural�educational experience, including their academicfields of study. This fact refers both to words of British English origin andto words of American English origin. For example, a young femaleMuslim student, with a religious family background, seemed ignorant ofmany items reflecting mainly the ‘Western’ ways of life. On the otherhand, another female student, a Christian, who was more involved in themodern Israeli environment and was also somewhat older than theabove-mentioned participant, freely offered many American English loanwords in addition to our basic list. In addition, male participants seemedto recognise and use more terms of the technical semantic fields than thefemales, whereas female participants were more eloquent in the hygiene,cosmetics and clothing areas.

Discussion and Conclusions

The contemporary vocabulary of Arabic dialects includes loan wordsfrom various languages, such as French in the North African countriesand Lebanon, English in Jordan or Dutch in the Netherlands, affectingArabic-speaking immigrants’ speech (see Abou, 1962; Boumans, 1998;Butros, 1963; Canut & Caubet, 2001; Mejdell, 2006; Ziamari, 2004). Thisstudy focuses on English loan words in Colloquial Arabic mainly in thearea of Israel.

English loan words infiltrated into (Colloquial) Arabic13 in thatcountry in the 20th century in two chronological stages and from twosources. First, during the British Mandate rule of Palestine, theyoriginated in British English; and second, after the establishment ofIsrael, and mainly since the mid-1960s, they have been streaming in fromthe American English of the USA. Some English loan words reachedArabic through Hebrew, the dominant language in Israel, which is alsoaffected by global English. That such loan words come from Hebrew canbe seen in their ‘Hebrew’ phonological form. Numerous loan words haveentered Colloquial Arabic, and probably a smaller proportion, partlyrepresenting different lexemes, is used in Literary Arabic. The main


semantic domains of these words are related to modern technology,devices and the sciences on one hand, and to consumption products,culture and entertainment on the other. Popular modern objects, alongwith their names, are typically related to electronic or computerelements, such as kitchen tools and communication devices. Theseobjects originate and are first produced or used mostly in the English-speaking USA. Figure 8.1, which presents examples of loan words fromvarious semantic areas, is very similar to lists that can be found in otherlanguages. This similarity arises because the contacts between Englishand other languages (including Arabic) are culture-dependent andinvolve notions and products which are often new to the absorbinglanguages.

The largest part of these loan words in Colloquial Arabic are nouns;far fewer are adjectives, verbs, particles, vocatives, (pragmatic elements),etc. In spite of the small number of the particles and vocatives, their useis very frequent because of their pragmatic roles in direct communica-tion. The distribution of borrowed word types in Arabic is similar to thatin other languages, as well as to children’s order of vocabularyacquisition in their mother tongues (Rosenhouse, 2000; Walter, 2006).

Not all the loan words used in the Mandate period are relevant today.Most of the words that have survived belong to some professional jargonor a specific topic, such as terms for cars and car parts, sports, and somekinds of food and clothing. This is a typical feature of ‘open class’vocabulary items, which thrive, flourish, become obsolete and die out inany language system.

Certain items, from ‘Standard European stock’, have reached Arabicdirectly from the ‘West’ (i.e. Europe) and their English origin can hardlybe determined. Standard European terms may originate in French,Italian, Spanish or German, and not in English, as these languageswere used in countries that had been in contact with the Middle Eastfrom an earlier date and for a longer period than Britain and the USA. Itis therefore sometimes difficult to determine the real source of a loanword in Arabic. This fact also decreases the stock of words borroweddirectly from English (cf. list in Sakarna, 2004, referring only to threesemantic domains). Some loan words have come through Hebrew, thedominant language in Israel. This latter process is apparently specific tothe case of Colloquial Arabic in Israel.

A comparison of our list with that of Hebrew loan words in ColloquialArabic in Israel (based on Koplewitz, 1989, 1992) shows partial semanticsimilarity with them. This similarity is rather abstract and is expressed inthe fact that most of the words denote material notions and names of


products or well known institutions, all of which reflect modern culture.English loan words in Colloquial Arabic often also exist in LiteraryArabic; such words belong mainly to the vocabulary of technological andscientific terminology. Sometimes, in Literary Arabic, the original Englishterm is added in parentheses beside the term in Literary Arabic (which isa newly coined lexeme or a calque).

On the whole, our English loan word list in Colloquial Arabic isapparently shorter than the list that can be presented for English loanwords in Hebrew (see Rosenhouse & Fisherman, this volume). This factis in line with our previous observation that English is less relevant fornative Arabic-speakers in Israel than Hebrew. It would be interesting tocompare our findings with the colloquial dialects of Jordan, Egypt,North-Eastern Nigeria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, described in Butros(1963), Holes (1987), Owens (2004), Rosenbaum (1994, 2002), Smeaton(1973) and Suleiman (1985). But this is a topic for a separate investigation.A part of the English loan words in Arabic have been completelyabsorbed in it and have undergone processes of Arabisation. Themorphological processes involved are expressed in suffixing Arabicmorphemes for gender or number to the singular form or by creatingnew verbs from the consonantal component of the English words. Suchprocesses have been described also for other Arabic dialects (e.g. Owens,2004; Sakarna, 2004) and exist also in Hebrew (e.g. Fisherman, 1986).

Our pilot field study of the knowledge and use of English loan wordsin Colloquial Arabic in a group of young native Arabic speakers revealedacquaintance with few words from the Mandate period (British English).Loan words from American English, or more recently coined terms, weredefinitely more familiar to them. Moreover, the selection of items thateach participant recognised from our list of English words differedgreatly from the selection of other speakers. Much of their vocabularyseemed to depend on and reflect the speaker’s personal background(including the academic material they studied). Obviously, as in otherexperiments, interspeaker variability has to be taken into consideration,if any frequency is to be calculated.14 The variables for such a studyshould include age, sex, education and linguistic origin (dialect or speechcommunity). Other studies often note that borrowed vocabulary, mostlyfrom English but also from another major language, is typical of thespeech of speakers (cf. Duerscheid & Spitzmueller, 2006; Rizq, 2004,Ziamari, 2004). Further investigations along these lines may well revealdeep-working language interactions and developments.

The Arabic diglossia components, namely Literary and ColloquialArabic interactions, are similarly affected by phenomena emanating from


the linguistic environment external to this language. However, formethodological reasons our study focused on the vocabulary ofColloquial Arabic. In Literary Arabic (written texts) loan words fromEnglish are used to reflect daily (colloquial) speech and modern notionsthat still have no Arabic equivalents; or they appear in scientific textswhere the original term is important. These situations are not ‘sponta-neous expressions’ like those found in Colloquial text collections.

Notes1. For a historical survey of the situation in the area of the Middle East,

including Israel, see e.g. Horani (1991) and Tibawi (1956).2. See, for example, Shraybom-Shivtiel (2002, 2005), who focuses on the

circumstances of lexical innovation in Literary Arabic, partly due toinfluences of Western culture, including English, and compared withprocesses in Modern Hebrew. See also relevant chapters in the earlier worksof Monteil (1960) and Stetkevych (1970). Rosenbaum’s works (1994, 2002) arealso related to our topic, but focus on the linguistic situation in Egypt.Special attention is paid to the language of youngsters in Egypt (andelsewhere) as absorbing Anglo-Saxon influences in, e.g. Esmail (2002) andRizq (2004). Other works on this topic in other Arabic dialects are, e.g. byOwens (2004) and Sakarna (2004).

3. Generally the subject of this paper may be also related to the study ofbilingualism and codeswitching. In these areas there is ample literature onArabic (see, e.g. Boumans, 1998; Canut & Caubet, 2001; Owens, 1998;Rosenhouse & Goral, 2004; Sallo, 1992; Suleiman, 1985). A discussion ofthese aspects is beyond the goals of the present paper.

4. Expenditure by the Mandatory authorities on education for the Arabic sectorwas double that allocated to the Jewish sector. Jewish institutions concen-trated on Jewish educational activity and paid for it, in addition to theMandatory budget. In contrast, there was hardly any central educationalactivity in the Arab sector and the ratio of children who went to school to thetotal number of children was 4:10. Even Arab children who went to schoolrarely continued to high school study, vocational school or the universitylevel (see Kimmerling & Migdal, 1999: 152�155; Segev, 1999: 290�292;Tibawi, 1956).

5. Security had to be maintained against highway robbers and various Bedouintribal feuds.

6. Politically, this was the period of crystallisation of Jewish society in thecountry, which was preparing itself for an independent state following LordBalfour’s Declaration in 1917 about a Jewish homeland in the country. At thesame time, political awareness in the Arab population was increasing, andwith it outbursts of violence mainly initiated by Arab gangs.

7. In fact the beginning of the Turkish Empire is considered to be in 1293, but itunderwent periods of growth, stagnation and dissolution until its finalcollapse as a result of WWI.

8. We may mention here Butros (1963), Sakarna (2004) and Suleiman (1985),whose works deal with Jordanian Arabic. Jordanian Arabic is related to


Colloquial Arabic in Israel, both being part of the Syro-Palestinian dialectarea, but they differ in several respects.

9. In 2002 an academy for the Arabic language was established in Nazareth,Israel, but it has not advanced much since then. In 2007 the academy and itsroles were officially authorized by State law.

10. See the discussion of phonemic substitution, including p�b, in Suleiman(1985: pp. 63 ff).

11. A similar picture is shown in Suleiman (1985) and Sakarna (2004) forJordanian Arabic.

12. The same process and similar examples are found in Sakarna (2004) forJordanian Arabic, Rizq (2004) for Egyptian Arabic and Owens (2004) forNigerian Arabic, as well as for Hebrew (Rosenhouse & Fisherman, thisvolume).

13. See Suleiman’s (1985: 57) discussion of the term ‘infiltration’.14. Brill (1940) compiled a word frequency count for Literary Arabic based on

newspaper vocabulary. This work hardly reflects the modern vocabulary,nor does it reflect Colloquial Arabic. See Owens (2004) for a statisticalmethod of reference to borrowings from foreign languages, includingEnglish, used in his study of Nigerian Arabic.


Chapter 9

Amharic: Political and SocialEffects on English Loan Words

ANBESSA TEFERRA

Our world has progressed tremendously in the last few decades in thedomain of computers, communication, science and technology, and soon. This rapid modernisation has resulted in a massive influx of newterminologies into languages of the world. The situation is no different inEthiopia. Since the 1950s Amharic has extensively borrowed fromEuropean languages, especially English, in various fields, but mostly inscience and technology.1

This chapter sets out to examine the ways in which Amharic has triedto incorporate lexical items, phrases and idiomatic expressions fromEnglish.2 The first of its four sections is an introduction with generalinformation about Amharic, such as its history, its position withinSemitic and a brief linguistic description. The very short second partconcerns the contact between Amharic and English. The third and majorsection addresses the areas of connection mainly between Amharic andEnglish. The various types of loan words are analysed, and loan-wordadaptations employed by Amharic to incorporate these lexical items arediscussed. The sociolinguistic factors that triggered the loan wordadaptations are likewise discussed. The final section summarises thefindings.

Ethiopia is a country with a diverse range of ethnic groups and amultitude of languages. Various linguists working on Ethiopian lan-guages have made different approximations of the number of languagesspoken in the country. Thus according to Bender et al. (1976: 15�16) thereare 71 languages while according to Meyer and Richter (2003: 23) morethan 70 languages and several dialects are spoken in its territory.3

Hudson (2004: 162), based on the 1994 Ethiopian population census, lists73 languages plus two extinct Ethio-Semitic languages, namely Ge‘ez andGafat. All the languages of Ethiopia belong to the Afro-Asiatic or theNilo-Saharan families of languages. The Afro-Asiatic family subsumes

164

Semitic, Cushitic and Omotic subfamilies, and most Ethiopian languagesbelong to it.

The Amharic Language

Amharic belongs to the Semitic family of languages in general and theEthio-Semitic subfamily in particular. The latter is divided into two,northern and southern, where the northern branch includes languagessuch as Ge‘ez (the now extinct liturgical language of the EthiopianOrthodox Church and Ethiopian Jews), Tigre and Tigrinya. The southerngroup comprises languages spoken in the centre and the south. These areAmharic, Argobba (a language closely related to Amharic), Harari (alsoknown as Adare and spoken mostly in the city of Harar), Gurage (fourlanguage groups with several dialect clusters) and Gafat (an extinctlanguage). Amharic has five major dialects, those of Gondar, Gojjam,Wello, Menz and Addis Ababa. Of these five, the Addis Ababa dialect hasemerged as the accepted standard since its introduction as the mediumof instruction and press during the reign of Emperor Menelik II. It is usedin the mass media, commerce, educational books, the bureaucracy, etc.

According to the 1994 population census, around 17 million peoplespeak Amharic as their mother tongue, that is, about 35% of Ethiopia’spopulation. In addition, Amharic is spoken as the second language bysome five million people, roughly 10% of the population. The total shareof Amharic speakers is thus around 45%. Among the Semitic languages,Amharic has the largest number of speakers after Arabic. Amharicspeakers predominantly live in central and North-western Ethiopia.Outside Ethiopia a large pocket of Amharic speakers is found in NorthAmerica, particularly the USA, Western Europe and Israel.

History of Amharic

Before the beginning of the 13th century Ge‘ez was a language of thegovernment. Thereafter Amharic became the l3ssana n3gus (‘king’slanguage’ lit. tongue-of king) and has served as the court language forseveral centuries.4 In the 20th century Amharic was promulgated as theofficial language of the Ethiopian Empire (Negarit Gazeta 1955: §125). Theconstitution of 1987 (Negarit Gazeta 1987: §116) and of 1994 (Negarit Gazeta1994: §5) declared Amharic the ‘working language’ of the Ethiopiangovernment. Ethiopia, unlike many African countries, has retained anindigenous language, namely Amharic, as a national and unifyinglanguage.

Political and Social Effects on English Loan Words in Amharic 165

The factors that contributed to the expansion of Amharic include itsuse (until 1992) as a language of instruction in primary education, in themass media, in bureaucracy, literacy campaigns, etc. However, after thefall of the Communist regime in 1991 and the ascendancy of EthiopianPeople’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) the widespread use ofAmharic was affected. Beginning in September 1992, 15 languages(besides Amharic) were successively selected as languages of primaryeducation in various ethnically based regions of Ethiopia. In addition,these languages began to be used for bureaucratic and judicial purposes.Still, Amharic remains the most important language of Ethiopia. It is thelingua franca for people from different linguistic backgrounds.

The Position of Amharic within the Semitic languages

In contrast to Ge‘ez, Amharic is not a typical Semitic language. Forinstance, its phonology evinces palatal and ejective consonants whilelacking laryngeals. Its word order is also the inverse of other Semiticlanguages: the direct object precedes the verb (it is an SOV language) andadjectives precede their head noun. Amharic is thought to have acquiredits non-Semitic features from neighbouring Cushitic languages such asAgaw, and to have lost some of its Semitic features because of the contactwith those languages.

The main linguistic features of Amharic

In the section below the salient linguistic features of Amharic arepresented.5 The features briefly summarised are part of Amharicphonology, morphology and syntax.

Phonology

Amharic has 31 consonants and 7 vowel phonemes. The consonants aregrouped into six classes according to their place of articulation. These are:

labials: p, b, p’, f, m, wdentals: t, d, t’, s, z, s’, n, l, ralveo-palatals: c, g, c’, s, z, n, yvelars: k, g, qlabio-velars: kw, gw, qw, hw

glottals: ’, h

The consonant p appears in loan words mostly from Europeanlanguages: e.g. pasta, ‘pasta’, polis ‘police’. The consonant p’ appears inGreek loan words through Ge‘ez, the classical and liturgical language ofEthiopia: tarapp’eza ‘table’, p’app’as ‘pope’ and p’aulos ‘Paul’. Each of the


seven vowels in Amharic is associated with each ‘order’ of the Ethiopiansyllabary; the vowels are a, u, i, a, e, 3 and o.

Words in Amharic are almost without stress, hence Bender (1976: 77)calls it a ‘flat stress’ language. Yet a slight stress usually falls on thepenultimate syllable, as illustrated below. (Throughout the chapterexamples in Ethiopic script are immediately followed by phonetictranscription for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the Ethiopicwriting system.)(1) dubba ‘pumpkin’ maskot ‘window’ c’3’kanne ‘cruelty’Gemination, i.e. lengthening of consonants, is phonemic and so can resultin differences in meaning. Consider the examples in (2).(2) gana ‘still’ versus ganna Christmas’

ala ‘he said’ versus alla ‘there exists’In the Ethiopic script gemination is not marked by special symbols

and can be inferred only from the context. However, linguists such asLeslau (1967) marked gemination by placing two dots over the doubledconsonant. Gemination in phonetic transcriptions is indicated by thedoubling of a consonant or by a colon set after the geminated consonant.In this chapter the former way is adopted.

Amharic exhibits various phonological processes. Two of them, elisionand palatalisation, are discussed below for illustrative purposes.

1. Elision: weak vowels are elided when two vowels come into contact,as in (3a�b).(3) (a) a-3� a: *ya-3ne ‘my/mine’ � yane (also ya-3ne)

(b) a-a�a: *ya-abbat ‘father’s’ � yabbat (also ya-abbat).In addition, as Amharic does not allow long vowels, one of theidentical vowels is elided as in (3c).(c) a-a�a: *radda-accaw ‘he helped them’ � raddaccaw

a-a�a: *samma-accaw ‘he listened to them’ � sammaccaw2. Palatalisation: dental/alveolar consonants are palatalised when

followed by /-i/ or /-e/ in the verbal inflections such as secondperson feminine singular imperative and first person converb(gerund) forms as shown below under (4) where the basic verbstems are /darras-/ ‘arrive’, /hed-/ ‘go’ and /marrat’-/ ‘choose’.(4) d3ras-i ‘arrive!’ dar3sse- ‘I arriving’

h3g-i ‘go!’ higge- ‘I going’m3rac’i ‘choose!’ mar3cc’e- ‘I choosing’


The Script

Amharic is written from left to right in Ethiopian script,6 which hasthe longest history among the sub-Saharan languages in Africa. Thepresent Ethiopian writing system was originally introduced approxi-mately 2500 years ago by the Semitic Sabean people of Southern Arabiawho crossed the Red Sea and eventually settled in the northern part ofEthiopia (present-day Eritrea). Sabean had 29 letters and the script wasAbjadic, that is, each character denoted a consonant and there were novowels at all. Hence the interpretation of a given text was heavilydependent upon the context. Vowel notations appeared in the inscrip-tions in the 4th century A.D. under the reign of King Ezana. Anothernoticeable change was the direction of the script: Ge‘ez (classicalEthiopic) inscriptions started to be written from left to right.

Ge‘ez took 24 letters of the Sabean script and then adopted the letter p’to represent Greek loan words. After the fall of the Axumite empire in the10th century, Ge‘ez lost its importance as a spoken language and died outafter 1000 A.D. Its entire script was later taken over by Amharic andTigrinya, its sister Ethio-Semitic languages. In addition, Amharicintroduced eight new characters (most of them palatals such as sa, ga,a, etc.) to represent sounds not found in Ge‘ez. The Ethiopian scriptevolved from Sabean via Ge‘ez with some incremental modifications.The Ethiopian script is termed syllabary because each character of theAmharic script usually represents a syllable.7

Morphology

According to the revised grammar model by Baye (1994), Amharic hasfive word classes: nominals, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and adpositions.Nominals, verbs and adjectives undergo inflection, derivation andcompounding, hence are open and productive, as opposed to the closedclass of adverbs and adpositions.Nominals subsume both nouns andpronouns. The Amharic pronoun system has special polite forms ofaddress. It makes a familiar-polite distinction in second and third personsingular forms. The polite forms are 3rswo/3sswo ‘you’ (polite) and3rsaccaw/3ssaccaw ‘he’ (polite)’.8 Nouns are inflected for number (singularand plural), determination (definite versus indefinite) and very rarely forgender (masculine versus feminine).

singular plural(5)(i) bet ‘house’ bet-occ ‘houses’

tamari ‘student’ tamari-wocc ‘students’


indefinite definite(ii) bet ‘house’ bet-u ‘the house’

tamari ‘student’ tamari-w ‘the student’

The plural marker /-occ/ follows consonant-final nouns, while/-wocc/ follows vowel-final nouns. In addition, Amharic has variousplural formation patterns borrowed from Ge‘ez. One of them is a‘broken’ plural, which is formed by pattern replacement or internalstem modification as in [d3ng3l] ‘virgin’, [danag3l] ‘virgins’ or [mal’ak]‘angel’ [mala’3kt] ‘angels’.

Adjectives are declined for number and determination. For instancerag3m ‘tall’ is singular, while ragagg3m ‘tall ones’ is plural. Adjectivesmark definiteness with the same type of morpheme as nouns.

Verbs are inflected for person, gender, number and tense. Amharic,like other Semitic languages has a roots and patterns system. The root is aconsonantal grid which carries the basic semantic content. For instancegdl ‘kill’, sbr ‘break’, asb ‘think’, etc. A pattern consists of a set of vowelswhich are inserted after the radicals and carries a certain grammaticalload. For instance the concatenation of a�a� i after radicals produces anagent noun as in s’ahafi ‘author/writer’ from the verb s’afa ‘he wrote’(whose root is s’.h.f ‘write’).

In synchronic Amharic the verb root in its phonetic, that is, surfaceform consists of one to five radicals, so a verb pattern can be classified asmonoradical, biradical, triradical, quadriradical or quinquiradical. Mostsynchronic verb roots are triradicals, while biradicals are also quitefrequent. The biradicals are a result of historical loss of laryngealconsonants. For instance, the Amharic word [balla] ‘eat’ comes fromthe Ge‘ez [bal’a] ‘eat’. Quadriradicals and quinquiradicals are quite newin the language. Quinquiradicals in particular are very few and aremostly restricted to verbs which indicate mobility. Here are representa-tive examples of Amharic verb types.

Verb Type Verb Rootmonoradicals s- [sa] ‘desire’biradicals s-m [samma] ‘hear’

q-m [qoma] ‘stand’triradicals A. s-b-r [sabbara] ‘break’

B. f-l-g- [fallaga] ‘want’C. m-r-k [marraka] ‘attract’

quadriradicals m-s-k-r [masakkara] ‘testify’quinquiradicals n-q-s-q-s [tanqasaqqasa] ‘move’


Amharic has a richer and more complex tense system than somecanonical Semitic languages such as Hebrew. There are six types oftenses: past, present/future, present perfect, past perfect, presentcontinuous and past continuous.

Amharic expresses various shades of meaning such as causative,reflexive, intensive, passive and reciprocal via derived stems. These areformed by internal stem change such as reduplication of the basic stem,by external stem change such as prefixation or a combination of both.There are three types of external derived stems: a- stem (simplecausative), as- stem (double causative) and t- stem (passive). Considerthe various derived forms based on the verb ‘eat:(6) aballa ‘feed’ asballa ‘cause to be eaten’ taballa ‘was eaten’The prepositions are quite similar to Hebrew: ba ‘by/with’, la ‘to’, ka‘from’, etc. However, unlike Hebrew, Amharic prepositions do not standalone and are usually combined with postpositions, e.g. [ka . . . gar]‘with’, [ba . . . lay] ‘on top’, [ka . . . tacc]? ‘under’, etc.

Lexicon

It is believed that 70% of the Amharic word stock is of commonSemitic origin. Some instances of universal Semitic words are listedunder (7):(7) ras ‘head’, ‘ayn ‘eye’, samma ‘he heard’, dam ‘blood’However, because of phonological changes such as loss of laryngeals andpalatalisation, even certain common Semitic words have undergoneextensive changes. In addition, even some of the most basic items areborrowings from Cushitic languages, such as w3ha ‘water’, w3ssa ‘dog’,sanga ‘gelded animal’, etc.

Syntax

The normal word order of a simple declarative sentence in Amharic issubject-object-verb (SOV). The modifiers precede the lexical head whichthey modify, so numerals, adjectives and relative structures precede theirnouns. Subordinate clauses precede the main clause.

Contact between Amharic and English

Before the description of the contact between Amharic and English, letus explore the language situation in Ethiopia prior to the first contactbetween Amharic and English. Ge‘ez, the imperial language of Axum,was spoken until the beginning of the 10th century. By the 13th century ithad steadily been replaced by Amharic and ceased to be spoken as amother tongue. Yet Ge‘ez, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘Latin of


Ethiopia’, continued to be Ethiopia’s literary language almost until themid-19th century. It is still the liturgical language of the EthiopianOrthodox Church and of Ethiopian Jews.

Ge‘ez had a vise-like grip on Ethiopian education, culture, history andso on till the beginning of the 16th century. This literary monopoly wasnot broken until the late 16th and early 17th century, when PortugueseJesuits employed Amharic for religious pamphleteering. After the Jesuitswere expelled, however, little was written in Amharic until the reign ofTewodros II in the mid-19th century. He was the first Ethiopian monarchto have the Ethiopian royal chronicles written in Amharic, though theyhad been previously written in Ge‘ez. By the beginning of the 20thcentury Emperor Menelik II had enlarged his empire and as a resultAmharic also spread from the centre to the periphery.

When greater communication with the outside world began in the19th century, Italian and French were the principal languages of widercommunication. This continued until 1936. That year Italy invadedEthiopia, which it occupied until 1941 when the Italians were defeatedand driven out by Ethiopian nationalists supported by British troops.Thereafter the Ethiopian government declared English the language ofinstruction in junior and senior secondary schools, probably as a gestureto Britain for its role in the liberation of Ethiopia.

Since then the use of English has spread and its influence is immense.Today English is the chief language of wider communication in Ethiopia.Although only a small minority in Ethiopia speaks English, the languagehas great prestige because of its use as the government’s principalforeign language for business and communication, and as the medium ofinstruction in government secondary schools, colleges and universities.In addition to the history of contact between Amharic and English onemay also seek out the factors involved in borrowing and lexicaladaptation. Six factors clearly stand out: necessity, differentiation, level ofeducational use of the borrower’s language, level of esteem for one’s ownlanguage, political changes and the role of a language academy.

The first and most important of these is ‘necessity’, the need for newterms. As mentioned earlier, due to rapid modernisation Amharic wasforced to borrow words in various fields. Abraham (1994: 8) identifiestwo distinct periods of Amharic loan adaptation: pre-revolutionary(before 1974) and post-revolutionary (after 1974). According to him,most loans in the pre-revolutionary period were ‘ . . . scientific andtechnological . . . but also a considerable number referring to Westernsocial, economic, political, and legal concepts and institutions’. The post-revolutionary period, on the other hand, saw ‘ . . . an upsurge of


ideological lexical innovation’. The ideological/political loan terms wereintroduced by members of various socialist parties, university studentsand the government itself (Kapeliuk, 1979).

But these were general tendencies rather than a clear-cut division. Forinstance, in the post-revolutionary period technological and scientificterms for various disciplines (chemistry, botany, physics, geography, etc.)were coined extensively, and this culminated by the publication of thefirst English�Amharic Science and Technology Dictionary (Academy ofEthiopian Languages, 1996). Another important step in this respectwas the publication of the Amharic�English Visual Dictionary (Corbeil,1991).

The other factor for borrowing is distinctiveness or differentiation. In thiscase a group of people, say youngsters or ‘elite groups’, borrow Englishwords or expressions to mark themselves as cosmopolitan or peoplefollowing the latest trend. Hence most of the loan words are used bypeople who have completed secondary or tertiary education. Those witha higher level of education even have a great urge to express their rankand status, so they use more loan words, including loan words of thesophisticated variety.

The third factor that might increase the level of borrowing is theeducational role of the borrowing language in the educational system. Ifthe official language is used in all stages of education, then the level ofborrowing from the other language is lower. In the Ethiopian educationsystem, Amharic is the language of instruction in primary schools inareas where it is spoken as a mother tongue. Secondary and tertiaryeducation, on the other hand, is conducted solely in English. This leaveslittle room for Amharic to grow and expand, so it is forced to adopt loanwords from English.

The fourth factor, which is also an offshoot of the preceding point, isthe level of esteem for one’s own language. As English is the medium ofinstruction at higher educational levels, and as it is an internationallanguage, many educated people hold Amharic in low esteem and theyborrow liberally from English. Fekade (2000: 120�126), for instance,laments the abandoning of native languages and cultures and also thelow appraisal of native authors, scientists, philosophers and the like.Additional evidence for this is the way well educated people freelyintersperse English lexical items in their speech (codeswitching), despitethe availability of Amharic equivalents.

Moreover, in some video cassette or DVD recordings of Amharictheatre drama, released in Ethiopia and the USA since 2000, subtitles (ifthey exist) are exclusively in English. I have not encountered a single


drama/play with Amharic subtitles. As most of the viewers are Amharicspeakers, the logic behind English subtitles can only be understood asarising from the prestige of English.9 Other sound evidence of lowesteem accorded by the elite to Amharic is the level of prestige thatstudents of Addis Ababa University (and of other universities andcolleges) attach to various departments. Students of Ethiopian Languagesand Literature were assigned low prestige by students of other depart-ments because their main occupation after graduation would be teachingAmharic. Although I have not come across any study on this subject, Ican testify to this from my own experience when I was a student in the1980s at Addis Ababa University.

The fifth factor affecting borrowing is the political climate after thegovernment change in 1991. The then Transitional Government ofEthiopia (TGE) declared that every ethnic group could speak and writeits own language. This in particular affected Amharic, which till then hadbeen the only language of instruction in all primary schools of Ethiopia.Now it is the language of instruction in primary schools mostly in theAmhara region, namely where most native Amharic speakers reside.According to Cohen (2002: 48�62) it also serves as the medium ofinstruction in some places in the Southern Nations, Nationalities andPeoples Region (SNNPR), where there is no other viable language orbecause of sociopolitical considerations. Nowadays the previouslyimportant position of Amharic is occupied by local languages such asOromo, Tigrinya, Somali, Sidaama, etc. This process has let Englishbecome more entrenched in its intercommunal role as it is the onlylanguage used in secondary schools and the higher education system.

An effort was made in the late 1980s to introduce Amharic slowly, firstinto secondary education and then into tertiary education. I recall a casewhere a group of freshmen at Addis Ababa University were taughtMarxist philosophy in Amharic and another group took it as usual inEnglish. Those who took the course in Amharic failed because they didnot understand a plethora of concepts translated via Ge‘ez, a languagealien to most of them. Nowadays trying to teach in Amharic instead ofEnglish even at the level of secondary schools would be more difficultbecause of possible fierce opposition by other major language speakerssuch as Oromo or Tigrinya.

The sixth and final factor is the ineffectiveness of the AmharicLanguage Academy, which was established in 1972 to develop andexpand Amharic. According to Girma (1999: 28), the success of theAcademy was very limited because it functioned only for two years. Thethen Provisional Military Administrative Council (PMAC) of Ethiopia


issued a decree in 1974 which substituted the Amharic LanguageAcademy by the Ethiopian Language Academy. This was necessitatedby the acknowledgement that Ethiopia is a multilingual country. Some ofthe achievements of the Academy regarding Amharic were (Girma, 1999:31�32) modification of the Ethiopic script and publication of the English�Amharic Science and Technology Dictionary (Academy of Ethiopian Lan-guages, 1996). The language academy was closed down during the 1991government change and was reestablished as the Ethiopian LanguagesResearch Center in 1997. Such constant changes, and the fact that the newcentre is concerned not only with Amharic but also with all otherlanguages of Ethiopia, presumably dilutes the centre’s ability to preservethe ‘purity’ of Amharic and stem the deluge of borrowings from English.

Borrowings from English and Other Languages intoAmharic

When languages borrow, the process does not usually affect all wordclasses to the same extent. Usually nouns are borrowed, followed byother word classes. This is a universal phenomenon and it holds true forAmharic. The predominantly noun borrowings into Amharic fromEnglish and other languages are followed by adjectives which areusually formed by modifying the loan word into the usual pattern ofAmharic adjectives. Loan verbs are few and several of them formed bymeans of the auxiliary verb /adarraga/ ‘do’. For instance, from the loannoun [faks] ‘fax’, Amharic speakers derived the verb [faks adarraga] ‘hefaxed’ and not *[fakassasa] (asterisk marks theoretical forms) as is thecase in Hebrew ( fikses ‘to fax’). The process of language adaptationdoes not always involve pure borrowing, but also indigenous wordcoinages. This is the process whereby speakers take the concept butproduce their own lexical items, as we shall see later.

Lexical borrowing from English is heavy in the domain of science andtechnology but borrowings also occur in other fields such as entertain-ment, communication, politics and more. As indicated above, most of theloan words are nouns. Verbs derived from such nouns are quite few andthe method involved in such verbal derivation is somewhat restricted.Adjectival derivation is very rare. Even the inflectional and derivationaladaptation of the loan words is a fairly recent phenomenon. This becameevident after 1991, when the new government relaxed censorship onauthors and the steady influx of Internet and information technologyswelled.


Borrowing from English continues to increase, while borrowing fromother languages is declining or nonexistent. A case in point is Italian.Many Italian lexical items made their way in during the Italianoccupation and even as late as the early 1970s. However, after the 1974Ethiopian Revolution almost all Italian and other Western companieswere nationalised, and many Westerners were expelled. Hence theinfluence of the Italian language declined considerably.

The language which gained from this decline was English. In additionto its use in the educational system, the explosion of InformationTechnology (IT) services such as e-mail, Internet, short message service(SMS), etc., enlarged the wide use of English. Moreover, the exposure of alarge segment of the population to various TV channels through thewidespread use of dish antennas is encouraging the penetration ofEnglish still more. Various types of borrowings are observed, includingentire lexical and phonological borrowing, lexical borrowing with minorphonological changes, semantic (i.e. conceptual) borrowing, partiallexical and phonological borrowing, and the like. The most prevalent isa complete lexical borrowing.

Entire phonological and lexical borrowing

This category contains lexical items from several languages, namelyEnglish, Italian, French and Arabic. As might be expected, Amharic hasborrowed heavily from English in the area of science and technology.However, we begin by referring to phonological borrowing.

New phonemes

The phonemes /p/ and /v/ are new to Amharic. Several words thatAmharic has borrowed from English contain them.

(8) (i) a. /polis/ ‘policeman’(ii) a. /vayolin/ ‘violin’

b. /p3lastik/ ‘plastic’b. /vayras/ ‘virus’c. /kompiyuter/ ‘computer’c. /televiz3n/ ‘television’d. /3sport/ ‘sport’d. /vitamin/ ‘vitamin’

In formal educated speech /p/ and /v/ are preserved while in thespeech of non-educated people /p/ is replaced either by /f/ or /b/


while /v/ is almost exclusively substituted by /b/. Some examplesappear under (9).

Educated form Non-educated form(9) a. /polis/ /folis/�/polis/ ‘policeman’

b. /polatika/ /bolatika/ ‘politics’c. /viza/ /biza/ ‘visa’

Borrowed words usually conform (or should conform) to the syllablestructure and phonological rules of the borrowing language. Forinstance, Amharic allows only velar� liquid clusters viz., /kl-/, /kr-/,/gr-/ and /gl-/. Thus the epenthetic /3/ in (8b) and the prosthetic /3/ in(8e) are inserted to correct ill formed clusters.

Entire lexical borrowing

This is a process whereby a lexical item is borrowed in its entiretywithout modification. Most of these lexical items are from science andtechnology. In the examples below and others the data are organised inthree columns. The first is the list of the lexical items, the second is thephonetic transcription of the Amharic word, and the third gives theglosses.A. Noun loan words

That the majority of loan words in Amharic are nouns can beexplained by the fact that most borrowings are items or technologicalconcepts, not processes, which require the borrowing of verbs. Theborrowings are in many varied domains: science and technology,telecommunication, transport, medicine and health, food and drink,clothing, entertainment, sport and numerous others. Below a sample ofloan words from various domains is listed.(i) Telecommunication and entertainment(10) faks ‘fax’ tep ‘tape recorder’

telefon10 ‘telephone’ vidyo ‘telescope’telegram ‘telegram’ televiz3n ‘television’mobayl ‘mobile’ projaktar ‘projector’analog ‘analog’ signal ‘signal’canal ‘channel dijital ‘digital’faybar optik ‘fibre optic’ kaset ‘cassette’sidi ‘CD’ dividi ‘DVD’odyo vizuwal ‘audio-visual’ yasatelayt dis ‘satellite dishradiyo ‘radio’


Two words in the above table, CD and DVD, appear in their acronymform. A few of the words have Amharic equivalents, which are usedrarely. A case in point is the word for a ‘satellite dish’ [yamaqabbaya sah3n]‘receiving dish’.(ii) Information technology(11) softwer ‘software’ grafiks ‘graphics’

monitar ‘monitor’ internet ‘internet’flas disk ‘flash disc’ cip ‘chip’animas3n ‘animation’ laptop ‘lap top’imeyl ‘e-mail’ websayt ‘web site’mah3dara t3w3sta ‘memory’ s’3huf aqanaj ‘word processor’

The above examples demonstrate that most information technology (IT)words are borrowings from English. However, two of these words haveAmharic equivalents: ‘memory’ is mah3dara t3w3sta (from mah3dar ‘file’�t3w3sta ‘memory’) and ‘word processor’ is s’3huf aqanaj (from s’3huf‘script’�aqanaj ‘coordinator’). The words e-mail and web site haveAmharic equivalents too, which have not gained currency. The renderingfor e-mail is i-t’omar (from t’omar ‘mail/letter’) and for web site it is d3ragass’ (from d3r ‘web’�gass’ ‘page’).

The other interesting development is advertisements for shops whichsell electronic goods and for institutes which offer ITcourses. Some of theadvertisements are solely in English while others are partly in Englishand partly in Amharic. They could be comprehensible if just the coursenames are in English. However, sometimes even the cost, address,syllabus and so on are listed in English, even though most of thepotential customers or students are Ethiopians.(iii) Science and technology(12) atom ‘atom’ kamera ‘camera’

radar ‘radar’ teleskop ‘telescope’volt ‘voltage’ kompiyuter ‘computer’

(iv) Transport(13) awtobus ‘bus’ helicopter ‘helicopter’

motar saykl ‘motor bicycle’ ayroplan ‘plane’

(v) Food items(14) gril ‘grill’ koktel ‘cocktail’

barbekiw ‘barbecue ’ ayskrem ‘ice-cream’cips ‘chips’ stek ‘steak’yadabbo duk’et ‘bread crumbs’ kukis ‘cookies’


Many terms for food items are from Italian. However, the number ofterms from English is also considerable, and steadily increasing. Forinstance, the first four words in (14) made their way into Amharicrelatively recently. The last word on the first column, yadabbo duk’et (fromyadabbo ‘of-bread’�duk’et ‘flour’) ‘bread crumbs’, is not a direct loan butis a loan translation.(vi) Medical termsAs in many other fields, Amharic has borrowed a considerable numberof medical terms. Søiland (1998: 3) writes, ‘Firstly, in Amharic thescientific vocabulary is poorly developed. Many terms in English do nothave a single corresponding word in Amharic. Therefore some Englishterms need several words in Amharic to explain the concept . . . Somewords are transcribed or directly translated from English.’ The examplesbelow demonstrate this fact.(15) farmasy ‘pharmacy’ bronkaytas ‘bronchitis’

laboratori ‘laboratory’ infeks3n ‘infection’vayras ‘virus’ ec ay vi ‘HIV’3strok ‘stroke’ gangrin ‘gangrene’oprasiyon operation antibayotik ‘antibiotic’

Many of the above words are used by literate people. On this too Søiland(1998) asserts, ‘. . . some words are not understood by people withouthigher education’. Some of the above words have Amharic equivalents,of which several are very current while others are not. For instance,farmasy ‘pharmacy’ has an Amharic equivalent madhanit bet (lit. ‘medi-cine house’) and oprasiyon has the equivalent k’addo t’3ggana (lit. ‘tearingrepairing’). These words are widely understood by the majority of thepopulation. On the other hand infeks3n ‘infection’ has a relatively newcoinage b3gnat ‘inflammation’, which is not understood by majority ofthe population. The mass media, the educational system, authors and soon can help greatly in the dissemination and integration of such newcoinages.

There are also instances where the English loan words related tohealth and medicine have Amharic equivalents (with literal meaning).

(16) l3bb madamac ’a heart hearing ‘stethoscope’s’ara 3ng3da akal anti-foreign body ‘anti-bodies’yas z3n3ga’e bass3ta of-forgetting disease ‘Alzheimer’madanzaza means for benumbing ‘anaesthesia’


(vii) Economic and business terms(17) promos3n ‘promotion’ intarprayz ‘enterprise’

odit ‘audit’ pablik saktar ‘public sector’marketing ‘marketing’ globalayzas3n ‘globalisation’invastment ‘investment’ fand ‘fund’

There are some newer economic and business terms which wereborrowed into Amharic after undergoing a partial loan translation.Examples are listed below; translation is provided only for the Amharicwords as the English ones are self-evident.

(18) yab3dd3r kard ‘credit card’ ya-b3dd3r ‘of-credit’polisi k’aras’a ‘policy formulation’ k’aras’a ‘formulation’invest madrag ‘to invest’ madrag ‘to do’aksiyon magzat ‘to buy shares’ magzat ‘to buy’

There are also a number of economic terms which have been entirelytranslated into Amharic. The case in point is nas’a gabaya ‘free market’(from nas’a ‘free’ and gabaya ‘market’). Words such as kredit kard ‘creditcard’ are borrowed whole without any type of translation.(viii) Political/ideological terms

Numerous lexical items connected with ideology and politics madetheir way into Amharic in the post-revolution (after 1974) period. Theirnumber was so large that a work entitled Taramaj Mazgaba Qalat

‘Progressive Dictionary’ (1976) was produced to accommodate them.Many of the words are related to Marxist�Leninist ideology, whileseveral others refer to general political concepts. The Marxist�Leninistterms were rendered into Amharic by making use of the existingAmharic derivational morphology and also using Ge‘ez forms as theroot verb.11

(19) his ‘criticism’ teramaj ‘progressive’abiyot ‘revolution’ adhari ‘reactionary’hidat ‘process’ madab ‘class’k3stat ‘phenomenon’ gwad ‘comrade’

Most of the above nominals were created directly from Ge‘ez. In someof the above and other examples, the existing Amharic word wasassigned an additional meaning related to politics and ideology. A case in


point is madab, whose original meaning was ‘bench made of earth forsitting or sleeping’. That is how even Leslau (1976: 37) defined it in hisConcise Amharic Dictionary published in the very early days of therevolution. However, during the communist regime the term wasexpanded and assigned an additional meaning, namely (social) ‘class’,as in ya-saratannaw madab ‘the proletariat’ (lit., ‘of-worker class’).

In other instances compound nouns of construct-state type wereformed from Ge‘ez (Gz.) to accommodate political and ideologicalconcepts as illustrated by the following examples.

(20) s’are abiyot ‘anti-revolutionary’ ‘enemy’(Gz.) ‘refuse’(Gz.)silta mirt ‘mode of production’ ‘means’ ‘product’n3qata hlina ‘consciousness’ ‘be awake’ ‘thought’r3’3yota ‘alam ‘ideology’ ‘see’ (Gz.) ‘world’

B. Slightly modified loan words (nouns)Here the loan word is slightly modified phonologically to give it an

Amharic-like pattern. In other instances the derived noun seems to haveundergone slight Amharic phonological modification but it is actuallyfrom other European languages. Most of the loan words from 3.1.2.2 upto 3.1.2.9 are drawn from the Science and Technology Dictionary (STD)(Academy of Ethiopian Languages, 1996).

(21) magnat’is ‘magnet’ galasi ‘galaxy’fizika ‘physics’ akostika ‘acoustics’turbina ‘turbine’ erodinamika ‘aerodynamics’siringa ‘syringe’ mekanika ‘mechanics’

C. Use of existing nominal pattern for new loan wordsSome words borrowed from English are incorporated into Amharic byundergoing the indigenous nominalisation process such as internal stemmodification plus suffixation.12 It is simply a new use of a nominalpattern that already exists in the language.

(22) w3gdat ‘ablation’ m3tt’os ‘absorption’w3rzat ‘perspiration’ telamdo ‘adaptation’guzot ‘transportation’ d3nnana ‘afforestation’mukrat ‘trial’ g3rjafa ‘ageing’


D. Blending (compounding)Another process of borrowing involves translating the loan word, but

also blending two of the terms involved in the loan translation.(23) t’3rc’a ‘addendum’ t’3rs ‘tooth’ � c’af ‘tip’

l3kkallaf ‘abnormal’ l3kk ‘measure’ � allaf ‘over’d3raf ‘pharynx ’d3h3r ‘post’ � af ‘mouth’3nquc’ ‘albumen’ 3nqulal ‘egg’ � nacc’ ‘white’malnat’3b ‘mid-point’ mahal ‘middle’ � nat’3b ‘point’

E. Infinitive formationSome of the Amharic lexemes occur in their nominal form only. One of

the most recent and boldest efforts to create new verbs from such wordsis denominalisation, as illustrated below. Such verbs denote modernnotions borrowed mainly from English, although the words themselvesare from Amharic (or Ge’ez) origin.Base forms Infinitives(24) h3zb ‘people’ mahazzab ‘to popularise’

sanad ‘document’ masannad ‘to document’dann ‘forest’ madnan ‘afforest’

F. Compound formsEnglish compounds are incorporated by being translated into their

compound equivalents in Amharic. These are Amharic compounds, asopposed to those under (20) which are Ge’ez compounds.Compound noun Components of the compound(25) ayyar gffit ‘air pressure’ ‘air’ ‘pushing’

ayyar b3kkala ‘air pollution’ ‘air’ ‘pollution’c’aw w3ha ‘salt water’ ‘salt’ ‘water’

G. Partial compound formsIn such compounds one part of the compound, usually the first and

sometimes the second, is in Amharic while the other part (the non-translatable part) is in English.Compound form Amharic part of the compound(26) b3za form ‘polymorph’ b3zu ‘many’

b3za estar ‘polyester’ b3zu ‘many’normal b3t’b3t’ ‘normal solution’ bat’abbat’a ‘mix’s’ara histamin ‘antihistamine’ s’ar ‘anti-’abro enzaym ‘co-enzyme’ abbara ‘unite’


H. Nouns derived from borrowed wordsIn some instances new nouns are derived from borrowed words and

this involves the usual Amharic nominalising affixes and internal stemmodifications. Such a process and its usage are very restricted because itis understood by few educated people. Not all these words relate toscience and technology. For instance, the last two words are taken fromFekade’s (1999) [Yas3na qal mamriya] [A Guide to Oral Literature].Base noun Derived noun(27) ayyar ‘air’ 3yyara ‘aeration’

polimar ‘polymer’ pulmara ‘polymerisation’format ‘format’ furmata ‘formatting’tewory ‘theory’ t3ww3r ‘theorisation’

I. Adjectivalisation of loan wordsAdjectives are derived either from loan nouns or pseudo-loan nouns.

The process involves the usual Amharic adjectival affixes and internalstem modifications.Base word Adjective(28) kwammaka ‘to joke’ kwamaki ‘comique’ (Fr.)

lastik ‘plastic’ talastaki ‘elastic’

J. Phrasal borrowingThe borrowing is not limited to lexical items but also includes phrasal

items and idiomatic expressions (collocations). The first three below areexamples of partial phrasal borrowing, as one of the words is fromEnglish; the last is an instance of loan translation (semantic borrowing).(29) lift ‘lift’ satt’a ‘gave’ ‘gave a lift’

sponsor ‘sponsor’ adarraga ‘made’ ‘sponsored’taksi ‘taxi’ yaza ‘grasp’ ‘took a taxi’wanbar ‘chair’ wassada ‘take’ ‘take chair’

K. Existence of an English item next to an original termSeveral EnglishwordshaveAmharic equivalents. Both forms are used sideby side, the English versions beingwidely used by highly educatedpeople.English term Gloss Amharic equivalent(30) instityut ‘institute’ taqwam

original ‘original’ watt’taks ‘tax’ qarat’inspeks3n ‘inspection’ qut’3tt’3rturist ‘tourist’ agar gwab3nniartifisal ‘artificial’ saw sarras


In example (30) two words are Amharic compounds. The word for‘tourist’ is composed of agar ‘country’�gwab3nni ‘visitor’, while theword for ‘artificial’ is composed of saw ‘man’ sarras ‘made you (f. sg.)’.

Distortion of the meaning of the borrowed word

I have come across one word whose intended meaning was distorted,although there may be more. The Amharic equivalent for ‘airborne’ isayyar wallad (lit. air�gave birth). The original translator apparently tookthe word borne, a past participle of the verb bear, ‘carry’, to be anotherform of the phrase ‘be born’. Consequently he or she used the Amharicword wallada ‘give birth’ instead of the expected tasakkama/azzala ‘carry’.To rectify this distortion the compilers of the Science and TechnologyDictionary of Amharic (Academy of Ethiopian Languages, 1996: 7)translate ‘airborne’ as 3zla ayyar, although they also include the earlierand widely used word ayyar wallad in parentheses.

Conclusions

I set out to examine the ways in which Amharic has tried toincorporate lexical items, phrases and idiomatic expressions mainlyfrom English. The chapter was divided into four sections. The firstsection provided general information about Amharic. This language is anEthiopian lingua franca with 17 million native speakers and five millionspeakers who use it as their second language. Although Amharic belongsto the Semitic family of languages, it is not a typical Semitic language likeGe‘ez. The latter is a classical language which was spoken till the end ofthe 10th century but nowadays has only liturgical use. Among thedifferences between Amharic and other Semitic languages is the fact thatAmharic lacks laryngeals, while on the other hand it has a series ofpalatal sounds. In addition, its word order is SOV, unlike other Semiticlanguages. These features show that Amharic was highly influenced byneighbouring Cushitic languages and hence its substratum can beviewed as Cushitic.

The main linguistic features of Amharic were also presented in thischapter. For instance, it was shown that gemination is significant/phonemic, while stress is hardly felt in the language. The mainphonological processes in the language are palatalisation, vowel deletion,weakening and various assimilatory rules. The morphological system issimilar to other Semitic languages. For instance, the verb stem patternand derived verbal stems are typical of Semitic languages, and 70% of thelexicon is of Semitic stock. Syntax is quite different in that the verb comeslast (with SOV word order) while modifiers precede the element which


they modify. For instance, modifiers such as adjectives and relativisednouns precede their head noun.

The second section dealt briefly with the contact between Amharicand English. In the 19th century and in particular the first decades of the20th century, Italian and French were the principal languages of widercommunication, and although English, too, was used in schools, itsimpact was insignificant until 1941. Italy was defeated that year and itsforces were driven out of Ethiopia. After the victory, the Ethiopianimperial government declared English to be the language of instructionin junior and senior secondary schools, and later in colleges anduniversities, probably in appreciation for the British role in the liberationof Ethiopia. Since then the use of English has become more widespreadand its influence is immense. Although only a small minority in Ethiopiaspeaks English, the language has great prestige because of its use as thegovernment’s principal foreign language for business and diplomaticpurposes, and as the medium of instruction in secondary schools,colleges and universities.

The third and main section of the chapter dealt with the connectionbetween Amharic and English. The various types of loan words wereanalysed and linguistic strategies employed by Amharic to incorporatethese lexical items were discussed. The Amharic vocabulary was foundto be highly affected by English. The number of English words is quitesubstantial and it touches almost every field: medicine, telecommunica-tions, Internet, technology and so on. People place such prestige onEnglish that they use English terms even when Amharic equivalents arereadily available. One of the main reasons is to signal to others that thespeaker is educated. Another reason is the genuine lack of an Amharicequivalent. In addition to the loan words, the sociolinguistic factorswhich triggered the borrowing in the first place were described in thissection.

Some predictions were made by Kowner and Rosenhouse (2001) onthe basis of their short survey of Hebrew and Japanese. These predictionswere found to be true for the English Amharic contacts. For instanceAmharic has a large frequency of English loan words. Although thisemanates primarily from the lack of lexical items, it also reflects thepositive image English enjoys among educated Amharic speakers. Theother fact is the lexical coinage process is relatively slower and the coinedwords are not forced into wide use. In addition, the new political climatehas adversely affected the status and development of Amharic. Asexpected from the predictions, these factors have led to widening thescope of semantic and phonological borrowing from English.


Notes1. I express my warmest thanks to Prof. Judith Rosenhouse, Prof. Olga Kapeliuk

and Prof. Grover Hudson for their valuable comments. All errors are ofcourse mine.

2. Amharic has also borrowed from other foreign languages such as Italian (It.),French (Fr.) and Arabic (Ar.). A larger research paper which deals withAmharic borrowings from all foreign languages will be my next goal.

3. There is still no agreement regarding the number of languages spoken inEthiopia. This is because sometimes dialects of the same language are listedas separate languages, and sometimes separate languages are treated asdialects. In addition, until recently, little known languages spoken on theperiphery were not analysed or included in the language list.

4. Amharic words written in Ethiopian script are immediately followed by anequivalent phonetic transcription. This should be of help to readers who arenot familiar with the Ethiopian script.

5. Among Ethiopian languages Amharic is the most researched. Some of themost important grammar works in this respect are: Praetorius (1879), Cohen(1936) and Dawkins (1960), Leslau (1967, 1995, 2000) Baye (1994) and,Appleyard (1995). Regarding dictionaries Kane (1990) is an extensive two-volume work while Leslau (1973) is an English-Amharic Context Dictionary.

6. The writing system is termed Ethiopian syllabary and not Amharic syllabarydeliberately. This is because the same script is used for writing not onlyAmharic but also Ge‘ez, Tigrinya, Harari and other Ethiopian languages.Thus the term Ethiopian is more inclusive.

7. The exception is the sixth-order letter, which usually carries a vowel inword-initial position as in m in the word m3n ‘what?’ but not in thefinal n, which does not contain a sixth-order vowel . Not all instances ofword-initial sixth-order letter necessitate the vowel. For instance there are ahandful of Amharic nouns that, when occurring in the sixth order in velar�rsequence word, initially do not contain the vowel , as in grar ‘acacia’,

krar ‘musical instrument’, etc.8. Both pronouns have alternative forms 3sswo ‘you’ (polite) and

3ssaccaw ‘he’ (polite). These forms appear to be derived from 3rswo and3rsaccaw respectively by a regressive assimilation of s to r.

9. This was also one of the consistent remarks I heard from my Amharicstudents in Israeli high schools and colleges when I screened video and DVDfilms on Ethiopia. They asked me why the narration on the videos and DVDswas not in Amharic or Hebrew. They also asked why it did not have subtitlesin at least one of the languages. I think that the videos and DVDs wereintended for international consumption, so they were prepared in thepredominant international language, i.e. English.

10. The word telephone has a sort of indigenous equivalent [s3lk] whichultimately is itself a loan word from Arabic [silk] ‘barbed wire’.

11. It is not the interest of this paper to delve into political terms and conceptsborrowed by Amharic and their adaptation. For a more detailed discussionone can refer to Kapeliuk’s (1979) article.


12. In the previous and subsequent sections most of these modified loan wordsare understood and used only by few members of the elite class andsometimes they are known only to those who compiled the dictionary. Thisdemonstrates that not all the loan words were absorbed by the populationand attained currency. The main reason for this is their infrequent use (if any)and the fact that they were not used in schools and mass media.


Chapter 10

Farsi: The Modernisation Processand the Advent of English

SOLI SHAHVAR

Farsi (or Persian) is part of the Indo-Iranian group of the vast Indo-European (or Indo-Aryan) family of languages. Two main subgroupsconstitute the Indo-Iranian group of languages: the Iranian and theIndian subgroup of languages. All the languages originally current onthe vast Iranian plateau, stretching from the Pamir region in the east tothe borders of present-day Iran in the west, form the Iranian subgroup oflanguages. These languages were spoken by the Aryan tribes, whoapproximately from the second millennium B.C. started their migrationonto this plateau.

The Iranian languages are divided into three groups: the Oldlanguages (which include Avestan, Old Persian and Median), the Middlelanguages (which include Parthian, Pahlavi, Soghdian, Kharazmian andKhotanese) and the Modern languages (which include Persian or Farsiand many different dialects). The Persian language carries an old culturaland literary tradition, and it once carried great significance forneighbouring peoples, the Turks in particular. Old Persian was thelanguage of the Achamenid Empire (6th�4th centuries B.C.), whileMiddle Persian was that of the Sassanians (3rd�7th centuries A.D.).Modern Persian, in its present form, developed after the Muslimconquest of Iran, during the 10th century (Thackston, 1993: xi; Lambton,1953: ix), and in certain lands it has even become the language of politicsand cultural accomplishments (Alam, 1998: 317�349; Cohn, 1985: 284�295).

Iran was divided into many linguistic regions, the main languagesbeing Pahlavi, Dari, Farsi, Khuzi and Suryani (Syriac) (Al-Nadim, 1991:19). In addition, a large number of dialects existed in Iran as well,differentiated from each other by region (province, town, etc.) (Khanlari,1972: 81�85). Farsi is the developed, but simpler and more regular,form of Dari. Its forms are both shorter and more economical, with

187

multisyllable and multiflexion words giving way to easily groupedwords of few syllables. These changes are in keeping with the generalprinciple that languages have a progressive trend (Jespersen, 1922: 326),and there is a constant tendency towards simplicity and absence offlexion (Partridge, 1949: 110).

Today, despite Farsi being the official language of Iran, there are stillmany ethnic groups (e.g. Armenians, Arabs, Assyrians, Azeris, Baluchis,Kurds, Lurs, etc.) for whom Farsi is not the mother tongue and who tendto use their mother tongue within their respective communities. InAfghanistan, where it is called Dari, Farsi enjoys official status along withPashto and is spoken by all educated people. In Tajikistan, where it iscalled Tajiki, Farsi became the official language too, after the downfall ofthe Soviet Union (Thackston, 1993: xi). Today Farsi is also spoken in thevarious communities of Iranian immigrants, mainly in Europe and theUSA, where most of them moved after the 1978�79 Revolution.

Persian script is a slightly modified form of Arabic script. It is writtenfrom right to left and has a total of 32 characters, four more than inClassical Arabic. Like Arabic, the letter forms differ according to theirposition in the word � initial, medial or final � and may be connected orunconnected with the adjacent letters which precede or follow them(Boyle, 1966: 1; Thackston, 1993: xx�xxxii). The effects of one language onanother have been studied by many scholars. Sapir (1949: 192), forexample, stated, ‘languages, like cultures, are rarely sufficient untothemselves’. Elaborating on this point he added,

The necessities of intercourse bring the speakers of one languageinto direct or indirect contact with those of neighboring or culturallydominant languages. The intercourse may be friendly or hostile. Itmay move on the humdrum plane of business and trade relations orit may consist of borrowing or interchange of spiritual goods � art,science, [and] religion. (Sapir, 1949: 192)

Another linguist, Einar Haugen (1950b: 210�231), pointed out that‘linguistic borrowing’ is one of the manifestations of this contact.Linguistic ‘loans . . . may be analyzed and described in terms of theextent to which they are imported in extenso and the extent to whichthey are modified by substitutions of native habits’(Haugen, 1950a: 288).He defined this ‘linguistic borrowing’ as ‘the attempted reproduction inone language of patterns previously found in another’ (Haugen, 1950b:212). As a language used for extensive and continuous cultural (andother) contacts with the surrounding world for centuries, the Persianlanguage borrowed many words and linguistic forms from other


languages, both in the pre-Islamic and in the Islamic periods, whether asan exact or modified version of the ‘imported’ word.

Since earliest times Iran has been a meeting place and an intermediarybetween East and West. Trade, wars, diplomacy, science and technology,the arts, religion and philosophy have brought Iranians into directcontact with other peoples and cultures. By the 7th century B.C., war andpeace had brought Iranians in contact with Elamites, Sumerians,Akkadians, Aramaeans, Greeks and others, while after the dawn of theIslamic era and down to the 19th century, Iranians encountered mainlyspeakers of Arabic and Turkish. This intercourse helped to shape thePersian culture and affected Farsi, causing vast lexical changes, mod-ifications, the death and birth of many Farsi words of all kinds.

Chief among these forces was Arabic, which caused changes in thevocabulary, meanings, phonetics, morphology and even grammar of thePersian language from the Arab conquest of Iran (Al-Masri, 1992: 1�49;Farshidvard, 1968; Perry, 1991). Arabic was the language of the Qur’an(the Islamic Holy Book), the Hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s traditionsand sayings) and the Shari’ah (Islamic religious law). It was also adoptedby some local Iranian dynasties in the post-Arab and pre-Mongol period(Eqbal, 1933�34, I, 4: 437; Bahar, n.d.: 164), and the language mostrepresenting knowledge and learning throughout the Muslim world(Sadiq, 1953: 39). Many Iranian poets composed poetry in Arabic in thisera (Sadiq, 1953: 411), knowing Arabic was regarded in Iran as thehallmark of an educated citizen. The Shi’isation of Iran by the Safavids(1501�1736) entailed the entry into the country of many Arab Shi’i ulema(scholars in Islamic studies and religion), their families, and many others.This Arab influx left a deep impression on the language and culture ofIran (Shafa, 2003: II, 762).

Although far less significant than Arabic in terms of influencing thePersian language, the Turkish linguistic legacy cannot be ignored(Gandjei, 1986: 67�75), on account of the Mongol conquest of Iran, butalso the close political, social and cultural relationship between Turanand Iran. The dynasties that followed the Samanids (819�1005) up to therise of the Pahlavis (1925�1979) were mostly of Turkish origin (Bosworth,1967). In addition, a large-scale Turkish migration into Iran in the 11th�13th centuries brought with it Turkish tribes, which settled in many partsof Iran. Also Turkish slaves, who initially belonged to the lowest socialstrata and were commonly owned by kings, ministers, nobles and poets,gradually gained importance and steadily rose up the social scale; somecame to wield political power and even founded their own kingdomsand empires (Lane-Pool, 1925: 285).

The Modernisation of Farsi 189

History books written in Iran during the Mongol, Il-Khanid andTimurid periods (13th�15th centuries) contain dozens of Mongol andTurkish words and terms, many of which are still part of ModernPersian. Turkish remained an important and influential language duringSafavid rule, but also during the Afsharid (1736�1747) and the Qajarperiods (1796�1925) (Shafa, 2003: II, 765�766). Thus, by the end of the18th century Persian had acquired a large number of loan words from anumber of Eastern languages, Arabic primarily. Since then a series ofevents has led to increasingly extensive cultural and linguistic relationsbetween Iran and the West.

Iran’s Encounter with English-speaking Countries

Western influence wrought momentous change in the Persian outlookand set new patterns of thought and expression. From the linguisticviewpoint these events were significant, for they resulted in a largenumber of borrowings from sources hitherto not represented in thePersian lexicon. Persian continued to borrow vocabulary from Arabicwell into the 19th century, but from the beginning of that century,Western languages gradually became the main source of borrowing.Arabic was no longer adequate to meet the new challenges posed by theWest in the intellectual, political, economic, social and cultural life of thecountry. The necessity for modernisation and Westernisation, felt initiallydue to military losses to Europe, resulted in growing contacts withWestern countries and the establishment of diplomatic relations withthem. Domestically, this need brought about the acquisition of improvedmilitary techniques, which required a new bureaucracy. As the prevalenttraditional educational system of maktabs and madrasehs (elementaryand secondary religious schools respectively) did not satisfy the growingneeds and demands, new schools, modelled after European schools,were opened. New generations of Iranians were taught in, and becamefamiliarised with, Western languages and cultures. This in turn necessi-tated the adoption of missing words from Western vocabularies, in fieldssuch as diplomacy, commerce, technology, education, culture andintellectual terminology.

France, Britain and Russia were the Western countries most involvedin and with Iran during the 19th century. French political involvement inIran was brief, but was followed by a massive cultural penetration of theIranian scene, which partly explains why French became the Westernlanguage most affecting Modern Persian (Deyhime, 1988�89: 39�58;2001: 181�184; Giese, 1956: 69�77; Tabataba’i, 1982). It was the language


of diplomacy and of haute couture, but was also used as a secondlanguage in European royal courts and aristocratic circles (Deyhime,2001: 182). Persian borrowed words also from other Western languagestoo, English included, but to a much lesser extent. Many factorscontributed to the process of adopting English loan words. These factorswere the result of British and American relations with Iran, their growinginterest in the region, and the Iranian need for modernisation.

Contacts with Britain

Strategic and commercial interests underlay British interests in Iran.Britain tried to enlist Iranian assistance against its enemies in Asia onvarious occasions: at the end of the 13th and in the 16th centuries thesewere the Ottomans, while at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the19th centuries they were the Afghans, Napoleonic France and TsaristRussia. Commercial ties began from the mid-16th century (1566), withIran granting permission to British merchants to trade throughout thecountry, but they grew closer after the British East India Company beganto trade in Iran (1616) and opened its factories there. In 1778 Bushehrbecame its headquarters, and the centre of British strategic, political andcommercial activity in the Persian Gulf, a position it held until 1971,when the British completed their withdrawal from the Gulf area (Wright,1977: 1�3, 200; 2001: 200).

The growing Anglo-Iranian commercial contacts, together with thefact that Persian was used as a lingua franca on the Indian subcontinent,brought the British into closer contact with Iran and the Persian language(Alam, 1998: 317�349; Arberry, 1942: 8�14; Cohn, 1985: 284�295). Still,until the end of the 18th century Iranian contacts with English-speakingcountries were slight. Strategic and commercial interests continued to bethe main catalyst that approximated Iran and Britain at the beginning ofthe 19th century. The growing commercial attraction of India, in itselfand as a bridge to the East, and the gradual intensification of powerrivalry in Europe, caused the British much concern about the defence oftheir Indian possessions, and this drew them closer to Iran. During thefirst two decades of the 19th century the British concluded a series ofdefensive treaties with Iran against India’s regional (Afghans) andEuropean rivals in the Middle East (France and Russia) (Ingram, 1992:1�186; Yapp, 1980: 23�96) and opened a permanent British diplomaticmission in Tehran (1809).

After 1815 Tsarist Russia became the main threat to Britain’s Indianpossessions. This turned Iran into a field of intense Anglo-Russian


rivalry, and ended with the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, whichdivided Iran into two spheres of influence � Russian and British � with aneutral zone in between (Kazemzadeh, 1986: II, 68�70). From the 1860sonward Britain became more interested in Iran, and this was expressedin intense commercial and political activities, such as concessions and theopening of many consulates throughout Iran (Sykes, 1915: 380).

During WWI, British, Russian and Ottoman forces invaded Iran inspite of Iran’s declared neutrality. Britain even set up a local force, ‘TheSouth Persian Rifles’, manned by a few thousand Iranians (especiallyfrom friendly tribes) and headed by British officers (Safiri, 1975). The1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia brought about Russian withdrawalfrom both WWI and Iran. Fearing a Bolshevik takeover of a demoralisedIran, Britain supported a coup for the creation of a centralised state, bothheaded by Reza Khan (later Reza Shah Pahlavi) (Atkin, 1986: VI, 329�333;Fatemi, 1986: II, 59�61; Zirinsky, 1994: 44�77). But the continued Britishpresence in the south of Iran, along with the 1932�33 friction over the oilconcession, bitter memories of British intervention in the past and theoccupation of Iran in 1941 (lasting until 1946) did not help to createfriendly relations between the two states. Neither did the nationalisationof the Iranian oil industry in 1951, which marked the low point in theAnglo-Iranian relations. The settlement of this dispute in 1954 opened anew and friendly period between the two states.

Contacts with the USA

Until the 1953 coup the Iranian attitude to the USAwas most positive,due to American assistance to Iran. A series of American missions (in1911, 1922 and during WWII) were dispatched to shore up theadministrative, financial, military and internal security of Iran. In late1942 thousands of American non-combat forces entered Iran, and weremainly engaged in logistic operations and supplying food to the localpopulation (Millspaugh, 1946: 40�42). During its WWII stay in Iran, theUS Army employed thousands of Iranians in various operations andprojects. American involvement in Iran grew much deeper during andafter the coup of 1953, with Iran actually becoming an American satellite(Bill, 1988).

The friendly period in Anglo-Iranian and US� Iranian relations wasdisrupted again in 1979 with the establishment of an Islamic Republic inIran. The nadir of the latter relationship was the capture of the Americanembassy in Tehran (4 November 1979), and that of the former was the1989 fatwa (religious edict) issued by Ayatollah Khomeini calling for the


death of Salman Rushdie, the British author of The Satanic Verses.Diplomatic relations with Britain were restored in September 1990.US�Iranian relations, on the other hand, have continued to be generallytense and unfriendly, with no resumption of diplomatic relations to date(2006).

Factors Contributing to the Penetration of English LoanWords into Persian

Although, as stated, Anglo-Iranian contacts began as early as the 13thcentury, English began to penetrate Farsi only in the 19th century(especially from the 1860s). A variety of factors contributed to thepenetration of English loan words into the vernacular, and spreading intothe technological, educational, cultural, economic, political and admin-istrative fields. What is common to most of these factors is the fact that allof them stem mainly from a single process � modernisation and/orWesternisation � considered by some Iranians as the key to bridging thegap with the West. Under the Qajars this process was quite limited, butunder the Pahlavis Iran managed to make big strides in certain fields,albeit insufficient to narrow the vast gap with the West, especially in thefield of political reform. The situation grew worse with the establishmentof an Islamic Republic in Iran in 1979 and the creation of a theocraticregime, ruled by conservative clerics, who wished to return to theclassical era of Islam. Modernising steps continue to be taken by the state,the criterion being whether they serve the regime. From early 19thcentury, then, a stream of foreign words, including English, penetratedthe Persian language, filling the blanks in its vocabulary.

Military reforms

At the beginning of the 19th century the British tried to convince Fath-Ali Shah (r. 1797�1834) to ally himself with Britain against France andRussia, promising him military aid. Disappointed with the French and atwar against Russia, the Iranian monarch consented. The PreliminaryTreaty between the two countries provided Iran with a large annualmilitary subsidy, as well as military instructors for the Iranian army. Aseries of British military missions ensued (1810, 1812, 1813, 1833 and1836), through which stray English words � such as military ranks (e.g.‘Lieutenant’, ‘General’, ‘Major General’, etc.) and Roman months � werethe first to penetrate Farsi (Modarresi et al., 2001). However, in 1838,when Britain broke off relations with Iran over the First Herat Crisis(1836�38), all the remaining British military instructors left Iran (Wright,


1977: 49�61). No other British military missions followed. After that,British military involvement in Iran was mainly during wars, with Iranas an enemy (the Anglo-Iranian War of 1856�57), as a satellite of theRussian foe (the two Irano-Afghan wars in the 1830s and the 1850s) or asa neutral force in the two World Wars. Until 1964 Britain remained one ofthe main suppliers of Iranian military needs. It continued to be aninfluential power in the Persian Gulf region until 1971.

From the 1850s Iran also sought military assistance from the USA, butthis was forthcoming only from the 1940s. Irano-American relationswarmed in the aftermath of the 1953 coup, and grew firmer still after1964, with massive American assistance to the Iranian military andsecurity forces. This closeness ended with the establishment of an IslamicRepublic in Iran and the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran.

Educational reforms and foreign education

Through daily instruction and training by British officers, Iraniansoldiers and officers learned professional English terms and words inrelated fields. Some of them became absorbed in the vernacular, mainlybecause no Persian equivalents for them existed. Education throughforeign, especially American, military advisors, aided by translators,continued during the first Pahlavi rule (1925�1941), but during thesecond Pahlavi rule (1941�1979) it reached new heights, especially fromthe mid-1960s (Qa’em-Maqami, 1947; Ringer, 2001: 15�51; Zoka’, 1971).Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic foreign military advisorshave come mainly from non-English-speaking countries.

Sending young Iranians to Western countries to learn moderntechnology, science and foreign languages was another channel for thepenetration of modern education into Iran. In 1811 two Iranian studentswere sent to England, and in 1815 five more, but afterwards (in 1845 and1859) students were mainly sent to France. However, as Naser al-DinShah (r. 1848�1896) grew increasingly fearful of the subversive impact ofmodern education, no more students were sent abroad until the end ofthe century. This trend was renewed in 1910, when the Iranianparliament (Majles) passed a law stipulating that 30 students wouldannually be sent to Europe on government scholarships, half of them tostudy education. In sum, from 1811 to the end of Qajar supremacy in Iran(1921) some 1000 Iranian students studied abroad, mostly in France, butalso in Russia, Germany, England, Switzerland and the Ottoman Empire(Istanbul and Beirut). After WWII the balance shifted to the USA. Thenumber of Iranian students studying abroad began to rise during the first


Pahlavi kingship (1500 students from 1922 to 1938), and more drasticallyduring the second (from 2000 in 1946�47 to 67,000 in 1978) (Mahboubi-Ardakani, 1975: I, 122�188; Matin-Asghari, 1986: VIII, 226�230; Menashri,1992; Ringer, 2001: 15�34, 44�51).

These students took back to Iran European manners, but also newwords and terms, most of which became immersed in Farsi.

Modern education found its way into Iran also through the establish-ment of modern schools, initiated by the Iranian government, localreligious minorities or foreign religious organisations. The first modernschool established by the Iranian government was Dar al-Fonoun (theHouse of Crafts), a polytechnic college founded in 1851 in Tehran(Ekhtiar, 1994; Gurney & Nabavi, 1993: 662�668; Ringer, 2001: 67�108).According to Rouhbakhshan (1987: 33�54), Dar al-Fonoun had animportant role in spreading the French language in Iran. Its foundation,together with that of Dar al-Tarjomeh (House of Translation) (Browne,1914: 154�166), continually stimulated the foreign verbal influx. Severalfactors facilitated the borrowing process: the translation of Europeanworks, the writing of new textbooks, the need for new terms and thepresence of European staff at the school. The publications of Dar al-Fonoun record this marked influx of the European loan words (Ahsan,1976: 68�69). In addition, military schools opened in Tabriz (1858),Esfahan (1882) and Tehran (1884) (Mahboubi-Ardakani, 1975: I, 366�367).

From the 1890s onward, when the winds of constitutionalism wereblowing in Iran, more attention was paid to the expansion of moderneducation as a prerequisite for social and political progress. This wastranslated into the opening of a number of modern elementary andsecondary schools in Tehran and other major cities. One of the first wasMadreseh-ye Roshdiyeh, which was founded in 1898 and became amodel for other modern schools, public and private. The foundation oftwo other colleges, for Political Science (Tehran, 1899) and for Agronomy(near Tehran, 1900), opened the way for the penetration of new non-military loan words.

More fundamental educational reforms were made after the Constitu-tional Revolution (1905�06). The constitutional government founded aMinistry of Education, passed laws aimed at expanding moderneducation throughout Iran, and opened new schools and colleges (forlaw and dentistry). These efforts helped to increase the number of pupilsand students in Iran to unprecedented levels, but the vast majority ofIran’s youngsters still did not receive modern, and some not eventraditional, education (Ashraf, 1986: VIII, 189�190; Ringer, 2001: 67�108,145�206).


The real change came with the rise of the Pahlavis to the Iranianthrone. Reza Shah started an intensive and nation-wide process ofmodernisation in order to create a centralised, modern and secularnation-state. Reform of the educational system was at the core of thesemodernising efforts. Enlarged educational budgets enabled the govern-ment to build many new schools nationwide, to found the country’s firstuniversity, Tehran University (1935), to promote women’s education andto initiate an adult education programme. This increased enrolment at alllevels substantially raised the literacy rate, from 10% (end of the Qajarperiod) to 20% (end of Reza Shah’s reign). This trend continued steadily,reaching 50% (end of Mohammad Reza Shah’s reign), and even 80% (20years after the establishment of the Islamic Republic), despite theconstant growth of the population. This expanding educational systemprepared the ground for the widespread penetration of foreign words(English included) into Iranian society.

The pioneers of founding modern schools in Iran were the Americanand European religious institutions. A first modern elementary schoolwas founded in 1835 by the American mission in Urmiyeh (later knownas Reza’iyeh) (Perkins, n.d., 1843; Presbyterian Church, 1936). By thebeginning of the 20th century there were scores of foreign schools inTehran and provincial towns, founded by Christian missionaries (mainlyAmerican, French and British), the Alliance Francaise, the AllianceIsraelite Universelle, local religious minorities (mainly Baha’is andArmenians) and secular educators. Until the establishment of a modernand secular national school system in the 1930s, these foreign and privateschools were the preferred choice of thousands of Iranians from themiddle and upper classes. But between 1932 and 1939 the governmenttook control of all foreign educational establishments in Iran (TheEncyclopaedia Iranica, 1986: VIII, 214; Ringer, 2001: 109�144). However,because foreign languages (mainly English and French) were thelanguages of instruction, and graduates of these establishments cameto hold high posts in the state, knowledge of foreign languages becameimportant for the Iranian elite and for upward social mobility. The use ofWestern loan words had thus become a fashion and a status symbol. Allkinds of political social, and literary expressions were freely used as amark of snobbery, even when native speech-material was available. Soonthe elite became distinguished by adopting Western ways of life, as wellas Western words. This practice started first at the royal court, was thentaken up by the aristocracy, and then by the rest of the educated classes.In time it also moved people from lower classes to send their children to


foreign schools or to those founded on a European model, resulting inforeign words taking root firmly in the vernacular.

More extensive educational reforms were carried out during the reignof Mohammad Reza Shah (Eilers, 1978: 303�331; Menashri, 1992: 163�299). Many were influenced by the American educational system, such asusing more analytical methods than memorisation, conducting seminarsand workshops for new teaching methods, using audio and visual aids inteaching, publishing new textbooks, and opening new departments andcourses (originally taught by Americans or American-trained Iranians).The study of new sciences, therefore, led to the adoption of many newforeign words, previously absent from Farsi, mainly by young Iranians.While the fields of study determined the number and variety of the‘borrowed’ words, it was mostly the number of students and theacademic institutions that helped to propagate them in wider circles.

Economic concessions

The weak Qajar monarchs could resist neither Britain nor Russiamilitarily. They managed to survive and prevent the partition of theircountry by these two powers mainly through adopting a balanced policyof granting similar concessions to both (from the 1860s). They maintainedfriendly relations with them (including state visits), and played one offagainst the other, while at the same time modernising their realm(Marashi, 2003: 89�112). The most important concessions given to Britainwere in the field of telegraphic communication (1862), navigation on theKaroun River (1888), banking (1889) and oil exploitation (1901) (Etteha-dieh, 1986: VI, 119�122; Ramazani, 1966: 63�72). As a result, a growingnumber of Britons, employed by the British government or by privatecompanies, poured into Iran. There they met Iranians from the lower andupper classes, usually on a daily basis. These foreign employees in Iranbrought with them their skills and equipment, but also new terminology,mostly absent from the vernacular. The concessions were also granted forlong periods. For example, the telegraph concession lasted 70 years(1862�1932), banking for 42 years (1889�1931) and oil, by far the mostimportant concession, for 50 years (1901�1951). The long years of foreignemployees’ presence in Iran, and their constant daily contact with thenatives, contributed to the modernisation of Iran, and also to the spreadand assimilation of foreign words in Farsi.

This British oil concession was important for its economic dimension,yet it also carried significant scientific, technical, social and evenlinguistic implications, especially for the area covered by the terms of


the concession, namely southern Iran. From 1901 onward, this regionbecame the most modernised area of Iran, and many Western facilitiesand amenities were introduced into it. These included electric power,natural gas, piped purified water, paved roads, schools (Groseclose, 1947:113; Sadiq, 1931: 18), apprentice training shops, English classes, atechnical institute at Abadan (Shadman, 1937: 171), telegraph, radioand telephone services, modern housing, hospitals, clubs, sport facilitiesand moving pictures. These comforts, together with the expanding oilindustry, attracted many people from the various Iranian provinces,making the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) the largest singleemployer in the entire Middle East, with hundreds of British andthousands of Iranian employees (Caroe, 1951: 124). In fact, it was amini modern state within Iran, where at the main centres of companyactivity everybody was somehow connected with it, depended on it orwas affected by it. English was obviously the language of the company’ssenior officials, who were exclusively British; but it began to penetrate alllevels of Iranian clerks too, as knowledge of the language was regardedas a prerequisite for promotion. For half a century (1901�1952) Englishwas the lingua franca of the educated population of southern Iran. Thiscircle widened further during WWII (when British, Soviet and Americanforces poured into Iran), following the 1953 coup, and after 1964, whenmasses of American personnel began to enter Iran, enjoying capitulatorystatus.

Financial reforms and other development programmes

Along with economic concessions, the Qajar, and later the Pahlavi,kings sought to reform the ailing economy of Iran. Americans were themost active in this sphere. In 1911 William Morgan Shuster headed thefirst delegation of American financial administrators, who only managedto accomplish some preliminary work during their six months’ stay inIran (McDaniel, 1974; Shuster, 1912). This delegation was followed bytwo more successful delegations, both headed by Arthur C. Millspaugh(1922�27 and 1943�45) (Millspaugh, 1946). During WWII other Americanadvisors were employed by the Iranian government to reform the Iraniansecurity forces, the ministries of health, food and many others. After thewar several American non-government organisations (NGOs) began tooperate in Iran, including the Near East Foundation, the Ford Founda-tion, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Iran Foundation. Cooperatingwith the relevant ministries of the Iranian government, these bodieshelped and sponsored projects in sanitation, health, education and so on.


The most extensive program was the so-called Point 4, a technicalassistance programme for various educational fields, such as model-school construction, organisation and operation; adoption of newteaching methods (such as audio-visual aids); technical, professionaland teachers’ training programmes; preparation and publication oftextbooks, pamphlets, bulletins, maps and educational films; and more(Warne, 1956). In addition to this American NGO activity in Iran, otherinternational institutions, such as the various sections of the UnitedNations, operated there. These bodies used mainly English (besidesFrench) as the language of communications with Iranians.

As a result of British activity in Iran, the country made progress. Forinstance, APOC’s development projects in the south of Iran, thoughaimed at benefiting the company itself, yielded general benefit for theIranians; so did British activities during the two World Wars, whenBritish forces carried out large-scale construction programmes andmaintenance operations at and between camps and ports. They im-proved and added railroads, highways and other communications lines.Also instrumental was the Middle East Supply Center during WWII(Murray, 1945: 233�247). To accomplish such projects, programmes andreforms, thousands of American and British individuals worked side byside throughout the country with tens of thousands of Iranian clerks,labourers, interpreters, translators, contractors, technicians, etc. In addi-tion, many governmental or private British and American commercialcompanies operating in Iran also employed local Iranians in variouspositions. These daily contacts familiarised Iranians with new techni-ques, systems and so on, as well as with new foreign cultures and theirvocabulary.

Cultural influences

Until WWII French was by far the predominant Western language inIran. English was also studied, but much less than French. Yet a series ofevents changed this situation. Following the grant of the oil concession in1901, southern Iran gradually became a British zone, although elsewherein Iran French was still foremost. The main shift occurred during WWII;France was defeated and occupied by the German army, while Britainand the USAwere the countries that managed to check and finally defeatNazi Germany. As a result, the interest in English increased to such adegree that the state decided to replace French by English in mostschools. Similar shifts took place also in the academic sphere, withgrowing use of English, rather than French, textbooks as well as


literature. Nevertheless, French loan words have found congenial homein Iran (Ahsan, 1976: 85�98).

In addition to the foreign schools, which taught English or whereEnglish was the language of instruction, this shift was also due to Britishcultural and educational activities in Iran, led by the British Council,which was active there from 1942. The Council focused on Englishlanguage teaching and by 1948 its activities spread out of Tehran to othercities, where thousands of Iranian students studied English. The Councilclosed in 1952 as a result of the Anglo-Iranian oil dispute, but resumed itsactivities in 1955. These expanded later on, to cover linguistic activity aswell as a variety of cultural activities: a lending library, lectures, plays,film screenings, parties, exhibitions and more. These efforts expandedcultural contacts between the British colony in Iran and numerouseducated Iranians. Furthermore, between 1942 and 1978 the Councilbrought nearly 10,000 Iranian students and visitors to Britain. In the1970s the Council became involved in a number of projects for thedevelopment of education and training in Iran. These included a majorprogramme for teaching English to the employees of the Oil ServicesCompany of Iran in the south; the development of a faculty of nauticalstudies for the University of (Iranian) Baluchistan, which was designedto train officers for the Iranian merchant fleet; and training in Britain, bythe British Ministry of Agriculture, of veterinary surgeons for theVeterinary Organization of Iran (Vetrog). The Council’s Iranian branchwas one of the most important branches worldwide. But with the 1978�79 Revolution the Council reduced its activity and finally closed down(The Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1990: 455�456).

American institutions were also involved in educational and culturalprogrammes in Iran. Through these programmes, students, teachers,professors and leaders in various fields visited the USA for graduatestudy, practical training, research or touring. Concurrently, Americanacademics and experts gave lectures in Iran, and American athletes,symphony orchestras, ballet companies, choirs and so on appeared andperformed. Daily broadcasts in Persian over the BBC and Voice ofAmerica contributed to introducing Britain and the USA to Iranians,while their broadcasts in English helped to consolidate the ties with theexpanding English-speaking part of Iranian society. Increasing interest inlearning about Western culture and life stimulated the reading ofWestern literature and press; this in turn stimulated first the formationand later the growing number of translations, printing and publicationsin Iran (Browne, 1914: 154�166). The translators and translations tried tomeet the growing demand for novels, poetry and gradually books in


other fields too. With French losing its predominance as the main foreignlanguage in Iran, translators and translations focused on English afterWWII (Ahsan, 1976: 79; Deyhime, 2001: 183).

The printing press, which was first introduced into Iran in 1816(Browne, 1952�55: IV, 155; Deyhime, 2001: 7), made possible thepublication of the translations, as well as original writings, which playedan important part in the modernisation of Iran. The safarnameh (travelbook) by Mirza Saleh Shirazi, one of the first students to be sent abroad,is the earliest work containing English words. During his stay in England(1815�19) Shirazi was constantly exposed to the vernacular, and thewords he mentions in his book were indispensable, as they expressednew objects, ideas and practices, which had no Persian equivalent. Anexemplary short list would include words such as ‘charity’, ‘coach’,‘hospital’, ‘member’, ‘mile’, ‘museum’, ‘parliament’, ‘press’, etc. (Shirazi,1968: 20, 191, 192, 195, 298, 380, 383). Travel books, written by the laterQajar Shahs (Qajar, 1990�91, 1998, 1982�83) during their European tours,had a special place in accelerating the entry of Western loan words.During these and other tours to Europe, Iranian travellers werefrequently obliged to use the foreign words and terms to describeobjects, experiences, practices and situations for which no Persianalternatives were available.

Foreign loan words appeared also in books in Farsi in other fields,such as politics, history, intellectual life, literature, society and the like(Ahsan, 1976: 66�100). One of the most important products of printingwas the newspaper, which played an important part in the movementtoward modernisation. The first Persian newspaper was published inIran in 1837�38 (Menashri, 1992: 70). In 1851 the first state-run news-paper, Rouznameh-ye Vaqaye’-eh Ettefaqiyeh (The Occurring Events’ Daily),was published. There were also other Persian papers, which wereprinted outside Iran and smuggled in. The latter enjoyed much greaterfreedom than those printed in Iran. Their writers were more familiarwith Western thought and culture, and apart from providing news theywere a source of inspiration to their readers in Iran.

Films and cinema became one of the main media through whichWestern culture became widespread in Iran, first with the upper andmiddle classes, and later also among the lower class. Throughout the1920s imported American films completely overshadowed the cinematicmarket, and this trend was also characteristic of the 1960s and the 1970s.Cinema, radio and later television facilitated the process of social changeand eased modernisation and Westernisation in the country, especiallyamong the educated and the young (Najafi, 1986: 74, 88; Villard, 1931:


37). Another source of influence was Freemasonry, which, from thebeginning of the 19th century, became another medium through whichEuropean powers, mainly Britain and France, sought to attract influentialIranians. They succeeded in drawing in members of the Iranianaristocracy, but also of the urban population (Algar, 1970: 276�296;1993: 33�44; Ra’in, 1978).

English Loan Words in Farsi: An Exemplary List

One result of these Anglo-Iranian and Irano-American contacts waslinguistic borrowings. These borrowings were due mostly to ‘thedesignative inadequacy of a vocabulary in naming new things’, as wellas new persons, places and concepts (Weinreich, 1953: 56�57). Theseborrowings could be roughly divided into ‘loan words’ (words or termscompletely imported, e.g. Persian gol for English ‘goal’), ‘loan-blends’(words or terms of which one part is completely imported while theother part is substituted by a Persian word, e.g. cake pokhtan for ‘to bake acake’) and ‘loan-shifts’ (words or terms which have been completelysubstituted in Persian, e.g. bisim for ‘wireless’) (Haugen, 1950a; 1950b:210�231; 1956: 761�769; 1958: 771�785). These borrowings mainlydesignate concepts that were new to Iranian culture. Although given asexamples of English loan words, no full philological description, tracinga word’s entire etymology, is given here. Most of the words cited in theexemplary list below have their origin in Latin or Greek, or may havefirst been used in another language (especially French) before beingborrowed by English. They may also have similar phonetics (especiallyFrench words in English, such as banque/bank, economie/economy,marechall/marshal or police/police).

English influenced Farsi linguistically only through the ‘export’ ofloan words and terms in a variety of fields. These, of course, are writtenin Persian script and pronounced slightly differently, with a Persianaccent. The two largest categories are science and technology andrecreation. The list below has been compiled from a miscellany ofsources, including books, such as Ahsan (1976: 99�100) and Jazayery(1958: 97�147), articles, newspapers, conversations with friends, as wellas personal knowledge of Farsi.

The first category, science and technology, includes English wordssuch as ‘automobile’ (pronounced ‘otomobil’), ‘battery’ (‘batri’), ‘bomb’,‘Braille’ (‘bereyl’), calibre, ‘charge’ (‘sharj’), ‘computer’ (‘kamputer’),‘clutch’ (‘kelach’), ‘exhaust’ (‘egzoz’), ‘generator’, ‘jeep’, ‘jet’, ‘mechan-ism’, ‘medal’ (‘madal’), ‘microwave’, ‘million’, ‘nylon’, ‘officer’ (‘afsar’),


‘ordnance’, ‘parking’, ‘patrol’, ‘plaster’, ‘post’ (for both ‘mail’ and ‘job’),‘projector’, ‘rocket’, ‘radio’ (‘radiyo’), ‘screw-driver’, ‘switch’, ‘tank’,‘tape’, ‘taxi’, ‘teleprinter’, ‘tire’ (‘tayer’), ‘tractor’, etc. Although some ofthese by now have Persian equivalents, many Farsi speakers, in andoutside Iran, still use their original foreign form. For example, althoughthere is a Persian word for ‘computer’ (rayaneh), the foreign word is stilllargely in use.

The other category, recreation, includes English words such as‘badminton’, ‘baseball’, ‘basketball’, ‘billiard’, ‘bingo’, ‘boy friend’,‘bridge’, ‘cast’, ‘cinema’, ‘Cinerama’, ‘cricket’, ‘dancing’, ‘festival’,‘film’, ‘football’, ‘foul’, ‘girl friend’, ‘goal’, ‘goal-keeper’ (changed to‘goaler’), ‘gym’, ‘hockey’, ‘ideal’ (‘ideal’), ‘jazz’, ‘joker’, ‘judo’, ‘penalty’,‘poker’, ‘polo’, ‘pop’, ‘rock and roll’, ‘rugby’, ‘rummy’, ‘sandwich’, ‘self-service’, ‘sexy’, ‘shampoo’, ‘shoot’, ‘show’, ‘skating-ring’, ‘squash’,‘stadium’, ‘studio’, ‘supermarket’, ‘surprise’, ‘team’, ‘tennis’, ‘volleyball’,‘water-polo’, etc. These foreign game names involve the specific termsused in each game.

As in many other languages, brand names often denote the productrather than the name of the foreign company producing it (throughhyponymy). The following are a few such instances: ‘Adams’ (originallya trade name, which came to be associated with chewing gum),‘Cinemascope’ (originally a trademark, which became to describe aprocess of motion-picture), ‘Nescafe’ (describing instant coffee) or‘Scotch Bright’ (describing a dish cleaning product), etc. As an Islamicstate, where the religion forbids alcoholic drinks, no Persian names existfor alcoholic beverages except ‘wine’ (‘sharab’, ‘mei’).1 Accordingly, thesebeverages retain their foreign original names, such as ‘brandy’, ‘cocktail’,‘gin’, ‘soda’, ‘whisky’, etc. This could also be due, however, to the above-mentioned hyponymic process.

Asmentioned earlier, amajor role in the dissemination of Englishwordsin Iran was played by the British concessionary companies, the oilcompany in particular, which operated mainly in the south of Iran for along period of time. These contacts transmitted words from a variety offields, such as administration (‘bonus’, ‘certificate’, ‘circular’, ‘clerk’,‘company’, ‘driver’, ‘file’, ‘first class’, ‘inspector’, ‘manager’, ‘office’,‘offset’, ‘secretary’, ‘shorthand’, ‘typist’, etc.), communications (‘tele-graph’, ‘telephone’, ‘post’, etc.), education (‘class’, ‘college’, ‘course’,‘seminar’, etc.), technical words (mainly of the petroleum industry) (‘air-condition’, ‘bench’, ‘benzine’, ‘boiler’, ‘burner’, ‘chalk’, ‘check’, ‘cylinder’,‘engine’, ‘engineer’, ‘filter’, ‘fuse’, ‘gallon’, ‘gear box’, ‘heater’, ‘leak’,‘motor’, ‘pipe-line’, ‘plug’, ‘petrol’, ‘refinery’, ‘tank’, ‘test’, ‘tractor’, ‘volt’,


‘wire’, etc.), medicine (‘clinic’, ‘doctor’, ‘hospital’, ‘nurse’, etc.), housingand the household (‘cooler’, ‘corridor’, ‘jacket’, ‘jersey’, ‘felt’, ‘furniture’,‘globe’, ‘pull-over’, ‘toaster’, etc.), recreation (‘Christmas’, ‘club’, ‘gardenparty’, ‘sport’, etc.), banking (‘bank’, ‘credit’, etc.), food (‘chips’, ‘cake’,‘sandwich’, ‘toffee’, etc.), and many others.

Attempts to Purify Farsi

Early attempts to coin Persian equivalents for foreign words and termswere made by private literary associations. Later, in 1924�25, an officialbody was established with representatives of the ministries of war,education, endowments and fine arts. Its main task was to proposePersian equivalents for foreign military terms, and during its existence itmanaged to coin some 300 new terms, most of which were in the fields ofaeronautics, military engineering, artillery, military organisation, weap-ons and ammunition (http://www.persianacademy.ir/fa/History.aspx,accessed 29.11.07). With the creation of a modern nation-state in Iran inthe 1920s and 1930s, the tendency to ‘cleanse’ Persian from foreign loanwords and to find ‘pure’ Persian words to replace them intensified. Thetask was assigned first to the Dar al-Mo’alemin-e ‘Aali (Teachers TrainingCollege) in 1933, which by 1940�41 produced 400 new words and termsin Persian, replacing foreign ones (http://www.persianacademy.ir/tarikhchech.htm). accessed 29.11.07

In 1935 Reza Shah Pahlavi founded the Farhangestan, the Academy forthe Persian Language, which coined 2000 newwords and terms in Farsi bythe end of his reign (1941) (Atabaki & Zurcher, 2004: 238�259; Perry, 1985:295�311). This academy closed officially in 1954�55, but 14 years later, in1969�70, it renewed its work, continuing until 1978, and for a short timealso after the 1978�79 Revolution (Perry, 1985: 303, 310).2 In 1981�82 theMo’asseseh-yeMotale’at va Tahqiqat-e Farhangi (The Institute forCulturalStudies and Research) was created through the amalgamation of 11research centres and institutes, among them the Farhangestan. But in1990�91 this was reconstituted, and it has been operating continuouslyever since.3 During the institute’s existence thousands of foreign wordsand terms were gradually substituted by Persian ones. The majordifference between the Pahlavi and the Islamic Republic periods in thisrespect is that while the Pahlavis’ efforts were mainly directed againstArabic loan words, the Islamic Republic has been trying to rid Farsi of itsWestern loanwords. This difference is in linewith the ideologies of the tworegimes: the ideology of the Pahlavis sought to revive the glorious past ofthe pre-Islamic Persian empires and culture. They saw the common origin


of Iranians and Europeans, and aspired to minimise the humiliation of theArab occupation of Iran by ‘cleansing’ Farsi of its Arabic loan words(among other means). One important example is the Persian Khoda (God)for the Arabic Allah. Other examples are the following: Andisheh (fekr/‘thought’), armaghan (hediyeh/‘gift’), baha (qeimat/‘price’), bakhshayesh(rahm/‘mercy’), bastan (qadim/‘ancient’), bonyad (for asas/‘foundation’),dadestan (qanoun/‘law’), didgah/cheshm-andaz (noqteh nazar/‘viewpoint’),farmanrava’i (hokoumat/‘government’, ‘rule’), kas, tan (shakhs/‘person’),kish [mazhab/‘school’ (of thought)], mihan (vatan/‘homeland’), neshast(jalaseh/‘session’), pazhuhesh (tahqiq/‘research’), peikar (jesm/‘body’), peyr-avi (taqlid/‘imitation’), sogand (qasam/‘oath’, ‘ruth’), varjavand (moqaddas/‘holy’) and vizheh-gar/vizheh-kar (motekhases/‘expert’, ‘specialist’) (http://www.iranianlanguages.com/sareh/index.htm).

This trend has been somewhat reversed since the establishment of anIslamic Republic in Iran. With their Islamic ideology, the ruling Ayatollahsplace greater emphasis on teaching Arabic and learning the Holy Koran atschool, and give much higher priority to ‘cleansing’ Farsi of Western loanwords. The following are only a few examples: bal-gard (helicopter),fanavari (technology), fanavari-ye ettela’at (information technology), khod-row (automobile), nama-bar or dour-nama (fax), payam-gir (answeringmachine), rah-kar/rah-bord (strategy), rayaneh (computer), razmayesh (man-oeuvre), siman (cement) and taar-nama (network). In imitation of newEnglish, the IranianAcademy of Persian Language and Literature (IAPLL)has coined new terms, such as rayaneh kardan (computerise), rayaneh-sazi(computerisation), savad-e rayaneh (computer literacy), etc.4

However, many English words are still in use in Farsi, whetherbecause there is still no Persian equivalent for them or because theEnglish words and terms are so deep-rooted that the average Iraniancontinues to use them instead of their Persian equivalent. Thus‘computer’, which has a Persian equivalent (rayaneh), is still often usedin the English form. The following is only an exemplary list of Englishwords, or words used also in English: ‘acid’, ‘aluminium’, ‘ampere’,‘antibiotic’, ‘antibody’, ‘Armadeil’ (‘armadillo’), ‘atom’, ‘bank’, ‘batri’(‘battery’), ‘bite’, ‘character’, ‘consortium’, ‘Cubism’, ‘disc’, ‘diskette’,‘dolfin’ (‘dolphin’), ‘ekspresiyunism’ (‘expressionism’), ‘energy’,‘esperm’ (‘sperm’), ‘elektroniki’ (‘electronic’), ‘file’, ‘filter’, ‘gangester’(‘gangster’), ‘internet’, ‘isotope’, ‘kontrol’ (‘control’), ‘microscope’,‘motor’, ‘oxygen’, ‘panda’, ‘parking’, ‘pedal’, ‘pengou’an’ (‘pinguin’),‘police’, ‘polover’ (‘pullover’), ‘protein’, ‘racoon’, ‘radar’, ‘rococo’, ‘short’(‘shorts’; ‘underpants’), ‘shuttle’, ‘system’, ‘taxi’, ‘terminal’, ‘telephone’,


‘telescope’, ‘terrorism’, ‘tire’, ‘tourist’, ‘traffic’, ‘uniform’, ‘video’, ‘villa’,‘virus’, ‘vitamin’, ‘zip’, ‘zhakat’ (‘jacket’) and many more (Turner, 2004).

Conclusions

One of the results of Iran’s multifaceted contact with the English-speaking world has been the import of English loan words into Farsi.Iran’s modernisation, which began as early as the beginning of the 19thcentury and continued more intensely well into the 20th century, exposeda linguistic problem: the lack of Persian words for the barrage of foreignwords and terms, which formed the vocabulary of the various fields ofmodernisation. These foreign words and terms were imported almostentirely during the Qajar and the first Pahlavi rule, when the state lackedthe necessary tools to provide Persian equivalents for them. Thislinguistic import was served by various channels, all of which could becategorised under ‘reform’ or ‘modernisation’. But in time these createdother channels of import, mainly in the cultural sphere.

From the 1930s onward there has been an on-and-off drive to ‘cleanse’Farsi of its foreign loan words. Which foreign loan words are to be‘cleansed’, however, very much depends on the ideology of the regime.While the Pahlavis laid greater stress on eliminating Arabic loan words,the Islamic Republic endeavoured more to replace Western ones. Despitethese efforts many foreign loan words are still largely in use in theiroriginal form. Furthermore, in the age of globalisation, computers,Internet, satellite dishes, mobile phones, Western music, etc., new foreign(but mainly English) words continue to find their way into Iran andFarsi. The import and relatively quick assimilation of the new wordsapparently have much to do with the inclinations of Iranian youth, whoconstitute the lion’s share of Iranian society;5 at any rate, these wordsmove in far faster than the speed at which the Iranian state is able to coinPersian equivalents for them. It is quite reasonable to assume that in theage of globalisation and hi-tech modernisation, and with the special andunique status of English as an international language, new English wordswill continue to enter Farsi (and other languages). This applies especiallyto the continuously modernising fields, where no Persian equivalent isavailable, and where no ideology (religious, secular or other) is capableof blocking their way into the vernacular.


Notes1. This exception is probably due to the pre-Islamic Iranian traditions. One of the

main Iranian cities, Shiraz, became famous also for its wines, and the ‘Shiraz’brand of wine is well known and produced all over the world.

2. At the beginning of August 1978, the president of the Farhangestan stated thatFarsi needed one million new words; see: Keyhan-e Hava’i, 11 Mordad 2537/2August 1978, as quoted by Perry (1985: 310).

3. On the Farhangestan see: Ahsan (1976: 111�130), Hinz (1937: 680�698); Lescot(1939: 75�96); Masse (1939: 17�74); Wilber (1975: 160 ff.); and http://www.persianacademy.ir/tarikhcheh.htm. accessed 29.11.07

4. For the complete list of Persian words and terms coined by the Farhangestanfor their foreign equivalents see: http://www.persianacademy.ir/fa/wordspdf.aspx (accessed 29.11.07).

5. Roughly some 50% are under 20 years old and about 70% are under 30 (in2004).


Chapter 11

Indian Languages: Hidden Englishin Texts and Society1

DENNIS KURZON

Introduction

India is a multilingual country, whose multilingualism has been to agreat extent institutionalised. In India, we find languages from fourdifferent language families. In much of Northern India, languages fromthe eastern branch of the Indo-European family of languages � the Indo-Iranian subfamily2 � are spoken. This subfamily includes two of the mostwidely spoken languages in the world (after Mandarin and English) �Hindi and Bengali (which is also spoken in Bangladesh), as well asMarathi, Punjabi and many others. The second language family consistsof the Dravidian languages, which are spoken in South India. The majorDravidian languages are Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu (whichin terms of the number of speakers comes close to Bengali). The other twolanguage families found in India consist basically of tribal languages,each of which is spoken by a far smaller population. Here, we mayenumerate the Munda languages of the Austro-Asiatic group oflanguages, spoken in Central and Eastern India, and the Tibeto-Burmanlanguages spoken in the north and east (Shapiro & Schiffman, 1983). Asfor raw numbers, according to the 2001 Census, there were over 420million speakers of Hindi (but see below), 83 million Bengali speakersand over 74 million Telugu speakers. This may be compared to about aquarter of a million Indians who claim English to be their first language.

Of the multitude of languages, and dialects of these languages, 22have been selected over the years since independence in 1947 as theofficial languages of India, for the most part because of regionalaffiliation. The status of languages in the independent Indian Union isset out in Part XVII (articles 343�351) of the 1951 Constitution. Below areextracts from the two sections, relating directly to the present discussion

208

� Section 343 from Chapter 1 on the official language, and Section 345from Chapter 2 on regional languages:

343. Official language of the Union. � (1) The official language ofthe Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script . . .(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), for a period of fifteenyears from the commencement of this Constitution, the Englishlanguage shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of theUnion for which it was being used immediately before suchcommencement.

. . .

345. Official language or languages of a State. – . . . the Legislatureof a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in usein the State or Hindi as the Language or languages to be used for allor any of the official purposes of that State:Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise providesby law, the English language shall continue to be used for thoseofficial purposes within the State for which it was being usedimmediately before the commencement of this Constitution.

Section 343 of the Constitution, then, deals with the official languageof the Union, which is categorically stated to be Hindi, written in theDevanagari script (based on the ancient script in which Sanskrit waswritten; see later in this section). Today, there are over 400 millionspeakers of this language. The second chapter of Part XVII deals withregional languages of the individual states of the Indian Union. Theborders of the constituent states � apart from the Hindi belt in the north �roughly coincide with areas within which one particular language seemsto be paramount. The list of official regional languages and others aregiven in Schedule VIII of the Constitution, which has been amended,over the last 50 or so years, by the addition of several more languages inthe wake of constitutional changes and of agitation. For example, by anamendment passed by the Indian parliament, the Lok Sabh, in 1967,Sindhi was added. This language is spoken by over two million peopleliving in various states in the north-west of the country, as well as by asizeable part of the population of Pakistan, but is not an official regionallanguage of any of the states of India. Konkani, the regional language ofGoa, was the 18th language to be added; this occurred in 1992. Moreover,only recently have tribal languages been added to Schedule VIII,languages that do not belong to either of the two major languagefamilies. The remaining chapters of Part XVII of the Constitution deal

Hidden English in Indian Texts and Society 209

with the language of the judiciary (to be in English; Chapter 3), andspecial directives (Chapter 4).

But Sindhi is not the only language listed in Schedule VIII that is not aregional language. There are two others. The first of these two languagesis the classical Indian language, Sanskrit, which is apparently spoken byabout 14,000, and the second language is Urdu, which is spoken by over50 million Indian Muslims all over the country (and it is the officiallanguage of Pakistan, even though just over 7% of the population speakit). Urdu is more or less the same language as Hindi, spoken by NorthIndian Hindus, and differences are found mainly in the script, and in thefield of vocabulary (see the fourth section). This religion/languagedivide between Urdu and Hindi is very similar to the one that existedin Yugoslavia before its break-up in the 1990s � the Yugoslav nationallanguage was called Serbo-Croat, but Orthodox Christians would writein Cyrillic and call the language Serbian, while Catholics would write thelanguage in Roman and call it Croatian.

There are a number of scripts used to write the Schedule VIIIlanguages (as they are known by). All the scripts are believed to havederived historically from an Aramaic form of writing, which led to theBrahmi script of India. This is true of both the scripts in which the Indo-Iranian languages of the north are written, and those of the Dravidianlanguages in the south. Although the form of script in these two familiesof languages may appear quite different, a closer look will show thatthere are many similarities, not necessarily in form, but more so inprinciples of combination. The Devanagari script is the one used to writethe classical language, Sanskrit, and today is the official Indian scriptaccording the Constitution. It is used to write Hindi, Nepali, Marathi,Konkani and several other Indian languages. Languages such as Bengaliand Punjabi have their own script but similarities with Devanagari areclearly noticeable. Similarities may be seen among the scripts used towrite Dravidian languages, too. The script used to write the Indo-Iranianlanguage Oriya (in the eastern state of Orissa, south of Bengal) is relatedto Devanagari, although on the surface it looks more like a Dravidianscript.

The Indian writing systems have been classified in a number of wayson the basis of their features. Each letter or grapheme represents aconsonant, apart from a number of graphemes which represent vowels ininitial position in a word. These vowel graphemes have variants (orallographs) � a type of diacritic � which are attached to the consonantgraphemes. A consonant grapheme without a vowel grapheme attachedhas a following inherent vowel; in Hindi this is /3/. However, if the


writer wants to indicate a consonant only, a sign is used to cancel theinherent vowel; this is the virama, which is placed below to the right ofthe grapheme (e.g. Hindi �/k/, and not /k3/). Each grapheme, then,represents a syllable of the form CVor initial V. Hence, the Indian writingsystems have been classified as syllabaries. However, many words inIndian languages end with a consonant, i.e. marked with a virama andtherefore without an attached vowel grapheme. This means, therefore,that there are syllables of the form CVC using more than one grapheme.An example of this is the Hindi name for ‘‘India’’ Bharat, written inHindi. The second syllable rat ends in a consonant without the inherentvowel. As the system, then, is not strictly a syllabary, it has been termed‘alphasyllabary’, as it both has features of a syllabary and allows fornormal alphabetic use (Bright, 2000). Another term that has recently beenintroduced is abugida (Daniels, 1996). This term is made up of the firstfour graphemes of the Ethiopic (Amharic) writing system, which is builton the same principle as the Indian writing systems (and may have thesame � Aramaic � origin).

Another feature of Indian writing systems is the order of graphemes inrecitation, and for lexicographers when compiling a dictionary. Allwriting systems begin with the vowels, then come � in rows of five �the velar consonants, followed by the palatal, then retroflex, dental andlabial consonants. The remaining consonants follow, including semi-vowels, the /l/ and /r/, and the various forms of /s/ and /f/. Indianlanguages whose writing systems do not follow this all-Indian patternare those that are written in an imported script, e.g. the Perso-Arabicalphabet (or abjad) used to write Sindhi and Urdu. And of course, thisshort list also includes languages that use the roman script.

One language that is left out of Schedule VIII of the Constitution, buthas been made conspicuous by its absence, is English. As we have seen,Part XVII of the Constitution deals with English in the judiciary, and inother administrative fields. In the first chapter of this part, which dealswith the status of Hindi, there is also a proviso concerning English.Because of the hegemony of the English language in many official,educational and legal fields in India, the promulgators of the Constitu-tion decided to give English an official status for 15 years � till 1965.When the end of this period was approaching, the Indian governmentsaw that they could not function without English � it had been growingrather than declining in importance. In 1967 an amendment was passedto the 1963 Official Languages Act retaining English as ‘associateadditional official language’ (Rai, 2000: 117). Moreover, three stateshave selected English as their official language or one of their official


languages. These states are in the north-east corner of India � Nagaland(English only), Meghalaya (with Khosi and Garo) and Mizoram (withMizo).3 English is the one language, too, that is written in the romanscript.

The English Language in India

Whenever the question of English in India comes up for discussion,two issues are constantly in the fore: (1) the dialect of English spoken inIndia (to be discussed in this section); and (2) the role of English in thecountry’s education, legal and administrative systems (in the thirdsection; see, too, Agnihotri, 1999; Agnihotri & Khanna, 1997; Baumgard-ner, 1996; Kachru, 1983; Parasher, 1983; Tickoo, 1996). By Indian Englishdialect I am referring not only to the variety of English spoken andwritten by educated Indians, but also to historical phenomena such asButler English � the varieties used by butlers and servants in the days ofthe British Raj, and other forms of pidgin English acquired byuneducated Indians. The pidginised form of Indian English had ofcourse no standard form, but it may be illustrated by examples such as ‘Itelling’, instead of standard ‘I will tell’, and ‘I done tell’, instead of ‘I havetold’ (Yule & Burnell, 1902 [1996]: 133).

In contrast, the educated variety of English used today is a form ofBritish English. In written texts, it tends to follow the rules of standardEnglish grammar and adopts the British spelling system. In spokenIndian English, on the other hand, apart from obvious differences inpronunciation, there may be some indications of American Englishespecially among the youth (a subject for further research). Moreover,grammatical features typical of Indian English may be enumerated;many of these features would be considered prescriptively incorrect instandard English. Here are some examples:

Tag questions:

(1) You’re going, isn’t it?

The same phenomenon has been found among South African speakersof English, probably through the influence of the Afrikaans is dit?. Butthis form in Indian English could be considered a simplification of the tagquestion, without taking the subject and verb into account.4

Progressive aspect with stative verbs:

(2) I am knowing the answer.


Different prepositions used with verbs:

(3) pay attention on (instead of to in Standard English).

Idioms such as

(4) What is your good name?

when being introduced to an Indian. This is a translation of the Hindi/Urdu ‘apka shub nam kya hai?’ (lit. ‘your good name, what is it?’).

English words that have a specific meaning in India, such as

(5) cantonment, originally military stations, but used today to refer toresidential areas that were originally such stations (Yule & Burnell,1902 [1996]: 158), e.g. the Cantonment in northern Varanasi.

(6) tiffin, luncheon (usually associated with Imperial India), derivedfrom to tiff�eat, drink (Yule & Burnell, 1902 [1996]: 919).

Lastly, Indian words are used in English, as would be expected, e.g.wallah ‘fellow’ as in rickshaw wallah (�rickshaw driver) or, in the past,competition wallah (�civil servant who entered the Imperial Civil Servicethrough competitive exams (Yule & Burnell, 1902 [1996]: 239)).

However, in this chapter, I shall examine a different aspect of Englishin India. Firstly, I shall be looking at texts that are written in one of theIndian scripts and therefore seem to be in the appropriate Indianlanguage, but turn out to be a transliteration of English � these areinstances of hidden English. Secondly, the pervasiveness of English isseen even in texts that are written in an Indian language. The appropriateIndian alphabet is not used; rather a transliteration in the Roman orEnglish alphabet is found. But firstly, in the following section, I shall givea survey of the history of English in India.

The History and Status of the English Language in India

English penetrated into the Indian subcontinent in the course of the16th century when Elisabeth I was on the throne. The arrival of theEnglish at that stage was part of the European movement of discoveryand the opening up of markets. The Portuguese had already made theirmark in various coastal regions of the subcontinent, e.g. Vasca da Gama’slanding near Calicut in modern-day Kerala in 1498, Albuquerque’sinvasion of Goa in 1510. The English ‘East India Company’ was set uptowards the end of Elisabeth’s reign in 1600, and became the mainrepresentative of English interests in India until 1858, in the wake of theIndian Mutiny, when the British government took over. This date also


marks the official demise of the Mughal Empire, which was establishedin 1556 by Akbar; it began to lose power in 1707 after the death ofAkbar’s great grandson, Aurangzeb, and was given a fatal blow in 1758when Robert Clive, working for the East India Company, defeated theMughal army at the battle of Plassey in Western Bengal. Some 20 yearsafter the Indian Mutiny, in 1877, India became part � and the jewel � ofthe British Empire under Queen Victoria.

For over a period of 250 years, the East India Company had not onlybeen a trading company. It had become a highly influential body amongthe various political entities in India, be it the Mughal Empire ruled fromDelhi or smaller princedoms around the country ruled by Hindumaharajahs or Moslem nazims. In 1665 Bombay, on the west coast, wasgiven by the Portuguese king, Afonso, to Charles II of England as awedding present on the occasion of the latter’s marriage to thePortuguese princess, Catherine of Braganza. Charles handed it over tothe East India Company three years later (Alden, 1996: 165). Later, in the18th century, the East India Company moved its main offices fromBombay to Calcutta in Bengal in the east. There, educational institutionswere set up partly to encourage local research into Indian culture,language and literature.

In the 1830s, when the English government was gradually taking overthe administration of India, Lord Macaulay, member of the SupremeCouncil, produced a memorandum (or ‘Minute’) to the general commit-tee on public instruction in which he argued for education among theIndians to be Western-, or more specifically English-, oriented. Thismeant education in English, and the pedagogical material to be used inschools and in colleges was to be similar to that found in institutions inEngland (including English literature). Education and research intoIndian languages and culture were shunted to one side � to the detrimentof both Indian scholars and Europeans who were studying Sanskrit andother Indian languages. Macaulay looked down upon the local culture �languages and literatures, as well as religion. In the Minute, he wrote thateveryone on the committee, whether they were Orientalists or pro-English

seem to be agreed on one point, that the dialects commonly spokenamong the natives of this part of India contain neither literary norscientific information, and are moreover so poor and rude that, untilthey are enriched from some other quarter, it will not be easy totranslate any valuable work into them. (Macaulay, 1972 [1835]: 240)


The following passage from the ‘Minute’ illustrates not only the typeof argument he put forward against the Orientalists’ approach, but alsoMacaulay’s condescending position:

I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of theOrientalists themselves. I have never found one among them whocould deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worththe whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsicsuperiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted bythose members of the [General] Committee [on Public Instruction]who support the Oriental plan of education. (Macaulay, 1972 [1835]:241)

All this is from an influential person who admits, without any shame,that he has ‘no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic’, but he has donewhat ‘I could to form a correct estimate of their value’ (Macaulay, 1972[1835]).

Macaulay’s aim was to educate a class of Indians who could assist theBritish in the capacity of clerks in running the colony, and who wouldhave a good enough knowledge of English to perform their appointedtasks. With Macaulay’s help, the pro-English lobby won the argument,and an educational system was set up to educate � in English ways �native Indians, who would eventually become the native Indian elite.What was important in the schools and colleges were not the Gitas, theVedas and other Hindu texts, but the works of Shakespeare, of Milton, ofWordsworth. Even cricket, the English national summer sport, wasintroduced into India, and is today played and supported withenthusiasm by large parts of the population. It is a common scene tosee crowds standing outside an electrical goods shop during crucialstages of a test match shown on television in the shop window.

Therefore, for native Indians, to be educated meant, among otherthings, to speak English, and more precisely English as it is spoken inEngland. We find in the 20th century, even before independence in 1947,Indians going to England to study at British universities. Well knownIndian leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru andMohammed Jinnah (the founder of modern Pakistan) all studied law inLondon, and Nehru was also a Cambridge graduate.

After independence, in the 1960s, the Indian Ministry of Education putforward a language teaching programme known as the ‘three-languageformula’ (Aggarwal, 1988; Kurzon, 2003a: 124; Shah, 1968). This policylay down that pupils should learn three languages in state schools:


1. the mother tongue or regional language;2. the official language of the Union or the associate official language so

long as it exists; and3. a modern Indian or foreign language not covered by (1) and (2) (cited

by Aggarwal, 1988: 290).

The aim of the educational policy was that all children learn (1) theirown language (mother or regional language), (2) Hindi as the officiallanguage of the Union and (3) English as a foreign language (and asassociate official language). In the Hindi belt, as Hindi is the regionallanguage, and comes under the rubric of mother tongue, the thirdlanguage to be taught in schools in the north, it was hoped, would be oneof the southern, Dravidian languages. In fact, apart from difficultiesconcerning regional language instruction and mother tongue instruction,especially if the mother tongue is not the regional language (a perennialproblem), there was no real desire in the north to learn one of theunrelated Dravidian languages. Many Hindi-medium schools opt forSanskrit alongside Hindi and English, a move that fulfils the letter butcertainly not the spirit of the three-language formula. In the south, on theother hand, there has been considerable resentment at the imposition ofHindi. Many schools either pay lip-service by having a minimalprogramme or simply ignore the need for a third language alongsidethe regional language (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil or Telugu) andEnglish. In all cases, English has been considered essential, and at timesto such an extent that parents did not want any instruction for theirchildren even in the regional language, and insisted on English as themedium of instruction throughout the school system. In 1999, in Chennai(Tamil Nadu), for example, parents demonstrated against the use of theirown language, Tamil, as medium of instruction in schools, and in favourof English (Kurzon, 2003a: 6�7).

It should not be thought that Indians on the whole speak English aswell as their own language. That Indians tend to be multilingual is wellknown (Kurzon, 2003a), but this multilingualism tends to be reflected ina person speaking his or her own mother tongue, speaking the locallanguage � if it is different from the mother tongue, speaking the regionallanguage � again if different from the mother tongue and local language,and speaking any other language spoken in the environment of theindividual. If the Indian is educated, at least up to secondary education,s/he can hold conversations in English, too. If s/he has gone throughtertiary education, then the level of English should be even higher.Altogether, the number of Indians who speak English in the local native


form is about 30 million (out of a population of over 1000 million; seeIntroduction). That is to say, English speakers � and especially readers ofEnglish � are a rare specimen. If we compare urban with rural areas,many more English speakers are found in urban areas. In the country-side, where the majority of Indians still live, the knowledge of Englishamong the general population is likely to be almost nonexistent.

English is then a language used for everyday communication amongupper- and middle-class Indians within the educational, administrative,legal and business fields. English-language newspapers are sold all overthe country, although the total sales do not reach the level of some of theHindi-language newspapers (Kachru, 1983). In the 2002 Indian Reader-ship Survey, the Times of India was the only English-language in the top10, and gained 10th place. Among magazines, India Today took third place(http://www.thehoot.org, 2002). Proceedings in the high courts tend tobe in English (unless there is one homogenous regional language, such asHindi). Again, apart from some universities in the Hindi belt andelsewhere, the medium of instruction is in English. English is also themedium of instruction at secondary level in government schools in manyparts of the country; again in the Hindi belt, Hindi would be moreextensively used. English tends to be the sole medium of instruction inprivate schools from kindergarten to higher secondary level.

Let us now turn to another indication of the status of English over theentire country. English is often the language written on plaques above theentrance to public institutions, on advertising hoardings, etc. Englishoccurs frequently, then, on public signs with, and sometimes without, anIndian language. This is the subject of the next section.

Transliteration

When we look at public signs � on government buildings, on roadsigns, on banks and other institutions, on advertising hoardings � wemay find a variety of languages. What I would like to look at are thosesigns that are ostensibly written in one of the Indian languages. It isnormally expected that the particular sign is not only written in the scriptof the particular language, but is written in that language, too. However,that is not always the case. I have taken a number of cases from aroundthe country to show the type of transliteration that is found. This is thennot a local phenomenon but one that is nationwide. It is seen inadvertising and on many public and private buildings (see, for example,Ladousa, 2002, on the use of Hindi and English in school advertising inVaranasi). The most frequent location of these transliterated signs is in


major urban areas, business centres, but of course not in villages (whereover half the Indian population live).

A language which has its own script written in a different script is ofcourse a universal phenomenon. It may often reflect a bilingual situation,but it may also reflect the high status of that language in the society. InIsrael, for example, the use of English written in Hebrew graphemes isfairly widespread in advertising. I noted an advertisement pointing to aclothes store with the following:

which reads ‘Be good’. The English upper case BB� has a vocalisationpoint below it indicating the /i/ vowel, and the following word inHebrew script spells /gud/. Moreover, not only is this an example ofEnglish in Hebrew graphemes, but it is also an example of an interlingualpun, for the Hebrew /bigud/ means ‘clothes’ in English.

I shall be looking at public signs in a number of locations around thecountry and in a number of different scripts. The examples that follow inthis section, and in the next, are only illustrations of a phenomenon foundthroughout urban India. I shall also give an example at the national level(for a semiotic approach, see Kurzon, 2003b). I start from Goa � this iswhere I saw the phenomenon for the first time � and then move north toBombay (now called Mumbai) on the west coast in Maharashtra. We thenmove east to Calcutta (in West Bengal), and finally south to Chennai (orMadras, in Tamil Nadu) on the east coast of India. The followingexamples of transliteration cover three scripts, so each script � Devana-gari, Bengali and Tamil � are discussed separately.

Devanagari

In the port town of Murmogao in Goa on the Arabian Sea coast, thereare a number of oil tanks. On some of them iswritten � in English � ‘IndianOil’. On the other tanks, two words are written in the Devanagari script,the script used formany of the north Indian languages, e.g. Hindi, Marathiand Konkani, the regional language of Goa. On these oil tanks is written:

(5)

However, this is not ‘Indian Oil’ in Konkani or in Hindi, but atransliteration of the English in Devanagari. A similar example comesfrom Bombay. The language of Maharashtra, of which Bombay is thelargest city, is the Indo-Iranian language, Marathi. It is, as mentionedabove, also written in the Devanagari script. Outside a hotel, I found thefollowing:


(6) 5

If we give a broad transcription we may read /hotel primiyer/, whichis of course the ‘Hotel Premier’, and the English ‘Hotel Premier’ is on thehotel sign to the left of the transliteration in the Devanagari script.

The same phenomenon is found at the national level. The sign of thedomestic airline company ‘Indian Airlines’ is written in two scripts � inDevanagari and in English. The Devanagari looks like this:

(7)

which spells out � letter by letter � B ıdyan eyrlains� that is, ‘IndianAirlines’. The first syllable, ‘in’, is written with the /i/ vowel and adiacritic that indicates nasalisation, hence /ı/.

Bengali

In Calcutta, the major city of West Bengal (East Bengal had been EastPakistan after independence in 1947, and then in 1971, after a war, itbecame Bangladesh), we see signs written in Bengali, which uses a scriptthat to a certain extent resembles Devanagari. The following was seenabove a bank in Park Street, close to the city centre. Three scripts appear,one in upper-case English:

(8a) THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED

one in Devanagari:

(8b)

and the third in Bengali:

(8c)

We again find hidden English in both the Devanagari and the Bengali,for what they are not is Hindi and Bengali, respectively, but simplyEnglish in transliteration. A letter-by-letter rendition of the apparentHindi and Bengali texts would be

(8d) di bank of rajasthan limithed

Another example of the same phenomenon in Calcutta (Bengal) is thefollowing placard placed outside a private nursery/kindergarten/primary school. The Bengali reads:

(9a)

which, however, is simply a transliteration of the English


(9b) CHILDREN’S HUT

which appears above the Bengali. The apostrophe in the first word beforethe final , of course, has been added to the Bengali text, as it does notexist in the script. As private education is primarily in English (see thesecond section), the appearance of Bengali on the placard may be seen asan instance of lip-service paid to the regional Bengali language. Thisinstitution does proclaim, on the other hand, that tuition is in the‘English, Bengali, Hindi medium’, but this piece of information appearsonly in English, as does the address of the school.

Tamil

Our last example is in Tamil Nadu, in its capital Chennai (formerlyMadras). Here, we are in a state where the Dravidian language Tamilis spoken. Near the centre of the city is a mosque; there is a colourfulsignpost some hundred metres from it, pointing the way. On the signpostare three scripts � Tamil, Urdu and English. The top one is in Tamil script,and reads:

(10a)

Below the Tamil is the following in Urdu, or to be more precise, words inthe Perso-Arabic script, which is used to write Urdu.

(10b)

As has been pointed out (see the first section), Urdu in fact is more orless the same language as Hindi, but while Hindi is spoken by NorthIndian Hindus, Urdu is spoken by many North Indian Muslims and bysmaller pockets of Muslims elsewhere. The two languages differ in script(the Devanagari of Hindi as against the Perso-Arabic of Urdu) and, but toa limited extent, in vocabulary. Hindi has adopted words from theclassical Indian language Sanskrit, while Urdu has adopted words fromPersian, Turkish and even Arabic. An Indian Muslim speaking Urduwould say, for example, asalam alaikum (‘Peace to you’) as a greetinginstead of Hindi namaste (‘Good morning’).

Let us transcribe the Tamil first of all. It comes out as:

(10c) kavarnar paRikaT paLLivacal6

and the Urdu comes out as:

(10d) masjid guwerener badigard


In both cases, apart from the word for ‘mosque’, which in Tamil ispaLLivacal, and in Urdu masjid (from Arabic), we have again a clearexample of English being transliterated into the scripts used in Indianlanguages, and not translated into the Indian languages themselves.Finally below the Urdu we find the English:

(10e) GOVERNER’S BODYGUARD MOSQUE

So, the apparent Urdu ‘guwerener badigard’, written in the Perso-Arabic script, and the apparent Tamil ‘kavarnar paTikad’ may now beread as straightforward English ‘governer [sic] bodyguard’, howeverwithout an indication of the possessive B’s� after the word thatrepresents governor.

Indian Languages in Roman Script

In the previous section we have taken a look at examples of Englishtransliterated into several Indian scripts. We may also find the opposite:the use of the English (or Roman) alphabet to write an Indian language.I shall look at two cases. The first one is the use of the Roman alphabet bya sector of the population to write an Indian language, and the secondcase relates to rhetorical uses of the Roman alphabet to write texts whichare normally written in one of the Indian scripts.

Konkani

The first case is the writing of the regional language of Goa, Konkani.The writing of this language is not to be considered a case of hiddenEnglish, that is, it is not the result of the presence of the British in India.After all, from 1510 until 1961, 14 years after India had won itsindependence, Goa had been a Portuguese colony. It was only whenIndian forces moved in one December night in 1961 that Goa became partof the Indian Union.

When the Portuguese ceased suppressing the use of Konkani as thelanguage of heathens, the local religious orders, especially Jesuits, beganto learn Konkani and then to write it in roman script in what todaywould be called a fairly broad phonemic transcription. The first printingpress to be introduced into Asia was in fact in Goa in 1556, and of courseit could print only in the roman script, and not in any of the Indianscripts. The literary revival of Konkani � at the end of the 19th century �was a movement among Hindus, and in Goa, Konkani writers began touse the Devanagari script to write the language, partly to distinguishthemselves from the Goan Christian population. Hence, the use of the


Roman alphabet to write Konkani is found today only among theChristians of Goa. There are several magazines published in Konkani inthe roman script, and prayer books and translations of the Bible used inGoan churches are also written in the roman script.7 For example, ‘goodnews’ is translated into Konkani

(11a)

in Devanagari (pronounced /b3ri kh3b3r/), and in Konkani in the romanscript:

(11b) bori khobor

However, as I have said, this is not the result of the penetration of theEnglish language but of another European language, Portuguese. Theinfluence of Portuguese spelling may be clearly seen, too, in the use ofthe letter Bx� to represent the phoneme /f/. So the Hindu deity‘Lakshmi’ is written in Goa Laxmi. It may be argued that the ability toread in roman script may have resulted in many Christian Goans beingable to read, write and speak English. While learning an alphabet is notthe same as learning a language, prior knowledge of the alphabet iscertainly a helpful initial stage in learning the language.

Hindi

The other case of an Indian language text written in English may beillustrated by advertisements on lampposts in downtown Calcutta. Theseadvertisements are for the national English-language newspaper TheTimes of India (see the third section). The readership of this newspaper isof course those sectors of the Indian population that read and converse inEnglish (as well as tourists and other outside visitors). On thisadvertisement for the English-language newspaper, we see the followinglines (from a popular song of the 1970s):

(12a) mere sapno ki raNokab aayegi tu

Although such a text cannot be read or understood by anyone whodoes not know Hindi, the poster is apparently for classified advertise-ments to be published in the matrimonial section of the Sunday edition ofthe English-language newspaper. In the original, i.e. in Devanagari script,it would have read

(12b)


and it means

(12c) my dream girl (queen)when will you come?

A similar example is the following, also found in a street in Calcutta.The advertising poster relates to a retirement plan. It reads:

(13) KUM KARO TAX, KAL KARO RELAXEASY LIFE RETIREMENT PLAN

Then it tells people to send a message by cellular phone to a givennumber. The first line is mostly in Hindi (and not Bengali), and means‘Pay less tax now, tomorrow you can relax’.

These examples reflect an almost ‘schizophrenic’ state of manyEnglish-speaking Indians. They not only speak English, and use it forfamily and business communication, but they also know the locallanguage in order to communicate with local people, including peoplewho work for them. In the north, in the Hindi belt, English-speakingIndians would also know Hindi. At least, they would have a spokenknowledge of Hindi, although they may not be able to read theDevanagari script fluently. Hence the advertisement is in Hindi, but inroman script, so that English-speaking Indians will understand thecontents.

Furthermore, I have been talking about the Hindi belt, but Calcutta isthe largest city in Bengal, where Bengali is spoken (with over 83 millionspeakers, the second largest regional language in India). The question tobe asked is why the advertisement is written in Hindi (in roman script)and not in English � the language of the newspaper. A further questionmay be why, if the advertisement is already in an Indian language, it isnot written in Bengali (even in roman script) instead of Hindi. The reasonis probably found in the national and international status of Calcutta, thesecond largest city in India after Bombay. The pervasiveness of English isnot unique to Calcutta, but is found everywhere, especially in the majorcommercial and industrial centres. In Calcutta, advertisement posters inEnglish are found on the way to and from the airport, as this is the waynon-local and foreign business people reach and leave Calcutta. Onewould find, on the other hand, more signs written in Bengali in areas notfrequented by foreigners. But in this case and in many other cases, wehave a phenomenon at the national level � the occurrence of Hindi inEnglish letters. This is indicative of the commercial contacts with peopleall over the country, and especially from the power centre of the country� Delhi and its environs, i.e. within the Hindi belt. The advertisement


reflects an appeal to business people from the Hindi belt states to thewest and north-west of Bengal.

Another example of this type of transliteration � Hindi in Englishletters � may even be found in the south, in the areas where any sign ofHindi domination is fought against, sometimes even with violence. Onthe hoarding above a cinema in Chennai (in Tamil Nadu), I have seen thetitle of the Hindi language film written in Hindi, not in Devanagariscript, but in English letters. Despite attempts, especially in theeducational field, to ensure that Indians know Hindi as ‘the officiallanguage’ of the country, success has come to a certain extent from thearea of public culture, so even non-Hindi speakers have absorbedelements of Hindi culture in the form of songs and films, and especiallythe songs and dance music in the typical Indian film (‘Bollywood’). Thereader of the sign above the cinema may read a Tamil message in theTamil script, and may read English. S/he knows Hindi only as a spokenlanguage; hence the need to give the Hindi title in a script the localperson would be able to read.

Conclusion

It is not difficult to find the reasons for the ubiquitous use of English inIndia, even when it is hidden in Indian scripts. The factors discussed inother chapters in this collection relate mainly to the post-Second WorldWar phenomenon of Americanisation, which means not only theestablishment of fast-food restaurants, the local manufacture of carbo-nated drinks, but also, and of special interest to us, the widespread use ofEnglish. This means the use of English as an international language ininterstate communication, at diplomatic meetings, at business meetings,at academic conferences and in more informal contacts between speakersof different languages. It also includes written English when it relates tointernational business contracts, and to many other walks of interna-tional life � commercial advertising, the entertainment industry, science,academic publications, instructions for use of electronic and electricalappliances, world news networks (e.g. CNN, Sky) and the whole worldof electronic communication. Despite attempts, even sometimes throughgovernment action, in various countries to replace English by indigenouswords (the unsuccessful attempt by the French culture minister in themid-1990s to rid radio and television broadcasts of Anglicisms comes tomind), English words creep into other languages from many fields andremain there.


What is true for the world at large is also true for India. Not only isEnglish extensively used in commerce and industry, especially in theinformation technology industry, but it is still � despite over 60 years ofindependence � the primary language of the judiciary, of highereducation, and in many parts of the country in secondary and primaryeducation, of countrywide government administration, of interstatecommunication (within the Indian Union) and of many other facets ofIndian life. However, as we have seen above (second and third sections),the widespread use of English in India cannot be attributed to post-Second World War Americanisation, as in many places in the world. Thestatus of English in India is due basically to the long history of contactbetween India and Britain. This contact was asymmetric, with theEnglish � and the English language � gradually taking over the country.The English language became the high language in a polyglossicsituation, demoting Persian and then Urdu from that position in thecourse of the 19th century. Despite attempts at upgrading Hindi to a highlanguage � and obviously in the Hindi belt this may be showing signs ofsuccess � the indigenous Indian languages were and are to a great extentstill the low languages. Attempts to make Hindi more ‘scientific’ havebeen carried out; the words that are adopted follow the same word-formation pattern as the one that has been used to distinguish Hindifrom its ‘sister’ language, Urdu. Hindi has adopted words from Sanskrit,while Urdu has absorbed Persian, Turkish and Arabic words. Oneexample of this phenomenon is the scientific Hindi word for grit. Thenormal word for ‘particles of stone and sand’ in Hindi is kankari; thelearned Hindi word konaya-balukama comes from Sanskrit, the Indianclassical language. The phrase literally means ‘a small piece ofsandstone’ (Kurzon, 2003a: 124). Scientific Hindi, as with formal Hindiin general, has become incomprehensible even to Hindi speakers. Thereis a high rate of failure among high-schools students in the matriculationexams in the Hindi language (Rai, 2000). This situation may be seen asone of the causes not only of the penetration of English vocabulary intoIndian languages within the scientific field, e.g. it is easier to write andremember the short English word grit than the scientific Hindi word, butalso of the use of English as the scientific language without theintermediate stage of an Indian language.

English is considered, then, by the Indians themselves (apart fromHindu fundamentalist groups) as the lingua franca, and it appears in thatrole not only in the vast quantity of English-language publications, butalso in a hidden form by way of transliteration in an Indian script.


Notes1. Much of the research for this paper was undertaken while I was Visiting

Professor in 2004 at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Iwould like to thank the university, and especially the Linguistics Department,for giving me the opportunity to work under their auspices.

2. A frequent term used is ‘Indo-Aryan’ languages, but ‘Aryan’ is often avoidedbecause of its negative connotations.

3. Mizo and Garo are Tibeto-Burman languages, and Khosi is an Austro-Asiaticlanguage.

4. The English tag question is syntactically the most complex I know of, so it isnot surprising that it is simplified in many non-standard forms of English. Inother European languages, we usually deal with one formulaic phrase only,e.g. French n’est-ce pas, Russian pravda, German nicht wahr.

5. This is not an accurate representation of the original. The Devanagari font onmy computer does not create construct characters. So, the second word lookslike , with a diagonal line slanting left under the grapheme The sameinaccuracy occurs in the Bengali Examples 8c and 9a.

6. Upper case letters indicate retroflex consonants. See also BN� in Example12a below. Moreover, there are no voiced plosives in standard Tamil; henceoriginal /g/ would be written as /k/. The grapheme Bc� (e.g. in the Tamilword paLLivacal) indicates /t f/ in the transliteration of Indian scripts.

7. Other scripts have been used to write Konkani, notably the Kannada script,which is still used among Konkani speakers living in and around theKarnataka city of Mangalore, and the Malayalam script in Cochin and itsenvirons.


Chapter 12

Chinese in Taiwan: Cooking aLinguistic Chop Suey andEmbracing English

SUFEN SOPHIA LAI

In the current state of accelerated globalisation and cross-culturalpollination, lexical assimilation of new terms, new products and newideas is an inevitable and necessary process for any modernising societyto undertake in order to participate in the expanding world community.The undeniable reality of English assuming the role of lingua franca ofthe world also accelerates the linguistic consumption of the dominatingAmerican pop culture and the ubiquitous electronic lingo. As Kowner’sproposal (2001) to the University of Haifa for this book project points out,‘lexical borrowing and assimilation is an essential and natural process inany modernisation process and has long-term implications on theidentity and position of cultures, both in the past and the present’.While etymology may provide us linguistic DNA and its mutations offoreign-born lexicon of a certain language, the study of lexical borrowingpatterns gives us insights into how languages and cultures interact andaffect each other.

This chapter investigates the infiltration of English into TaiwanMandarin, known as Guoyu (national language), and how it reflectsTaiwan’s attitudes towards globalisation, nationalism and linguisticmulticulturalism. After three decades of an official policy of promulgatingMandarin as the sole official language in Taiwan, on 12 February 2003, theTaiwan government quietly dropped the policy without public discussionor publicised announcement. Moreover, it is now entertaining thepossibility of making English the second official language. At the sametime, a bill of linguistic equality for all the recognised ethnic languagesspoken in Taiwan has been passed by the Legislative Yuan (Taiwan’sequivalent of Parliament), now pending for implementation. Undersuch a climate of enthusiasm for English and linguistic democracy,

227

Taiwan Mandarin, both spoken and written, is in an accelerated processof mutation.

There is no denying that the current lingua franca spoken and writtenin Taiwan, the Taiwan version of Mandarin, is significantly different fromthe Taiwan Mandarin spoken and written just a decade ago. One onlyneeds to open any newspaper, turn on TVor log on to the Internet to anyTaiwanese mainstream media to see the amalgamation of foreignexpressions (mainly English and some Japanese), electronic age lingoand local language varieties (mainly Minnan Hua, a language variety ofFujian province in China). Taiwan Mandarin has never been so fluid andin such a frenzy for assimilation, which I like to call ‘the cooking of alinguistic chop suey’.1 Apparently Taiwanese media no longer feel theneed of linguistic restraint and self-censorship. On the contrary, thereseems to be a playful enthusiasm to make the best use of a linguisticfreedom that Taiwanese media have not had the luxury to enjoy for manydecades until the political reform and transformation in Taiwan in thelate 1980s and early 1990s. More and more people in Taiwan are carefreewith codeswitching, lexical borrowing and subverting the integrity of the‘National Language’, or Guoyu. It is as if a new political democracy hasalso launched a linguistic liberation movement in which many Taiwanesedo not feel the necessary boundaries between languages. It is notuncommon that one sees a news headline with both English expressionssuch as WTO, DVD, SARS or Minnan expressions, or Japanese hiragana,‘no’. If some Taiwanese expressions find no symbol in Han orthography,they can be expressed either in the English alphabet, or in bopomofo2

phonetic symbols. It seems that Taiwanese writing has expanded itsscript to include all the above three mentioned systems: Han characters,Roman alphabets and bopomofo phonetics. Given this current linguisticvolatility in Taiwan, these are the questions that this chapter attempts toinvestigate and discuss:

1. How does the penetration of English affect the linguistic character-istics of Taiwan? In other words, what kind of role does English playin transforming Taiwan Mandarin into a new form of linguistic chopsuey?

2. What kind of role does English play in the recent debate about the‘National Language Equality Draft Law’?

3. What is the geopolitics behind the advocacy of making English thesecond official language besides the current Mandarin, and how isthis advocacy of embracing English as a global language beingexploited in the Taiwanese geopolitics?


With the above three questions in mind, this chapter is fourfold. First, thechapter will look at Taiwan’s ethnic and linguistic profiles and thehistorical development of Taiwan’s linguistic past. Second, the chaptersituates the lexical borrowing of Taiwan Mandarin in the historicalcontext of lexical borrowings in Chinese. By putting Taiwan’s lexicalborrowing in the historical context, we may be able to evaluate andspeculate on the patterns and trends of current and future lexicalborrowing, at the same time understanding the linguistic flexibility ofthe Chinese language. Third, the chapter outlines the borrowing patternsof Mandarin in the past and the new trends of borrowings in Taiwan. Itwill examine the current Taiwanese fashion of playing with Englishterms and scripts in the mass media. It will also investigate how thisphenomenon is accompanied by a linguistic democracy that gives rise toall sorts of linguistic innovations that playfully adopt a hodgepodge ofexpressions from English, Minnan (also called Taiwanese) and Japanesein all aspects of Taiwanese media. Four, this chapter analyses thesociopolitical factors, geopolitics and linguistic policies that lead to thecurrent enthusiasm for linguistic multiculturalism in Taiwan and whatimpact this linguistic democracy has on the status of Mandarin as Guoyu(national language) in Taiwan.

Taiwan’s Linguistic History and Ethnic Profiles

With a population of more than 22.7 million (July 2004 est.), Taiwan isa multilingual and multiethnic society with four main ethnic groups(Huang, 1993: 21; The CIA World Factbook Website, 2004): Aborigines(speakers of Austronesian languages) � 1.7%; Hakka � 12%; Mainlanders(Mainland Chinese who came to Taiwan after 1949) � 13%; andTaiwanese (Minnan speakers) � 73.3%. The historical development oflanguages in Taiwan may be divided into six periods, each of which willbe discussed below.

The aboriginal period

As Feifel (1994: 11) puts it, ‘Taiwan has had a very colorful history’,and so has its linguistic background. Before the European discovery ofthis beautiful island, and consequently named by the Portuguese as IlhaFormosa, the earliest inhabitants of Taiwan about whom historicalmaterials exist were several tribes of Austronesian-Formosan speakers(Hsieh, 1964). Today, about 12 of these languages have survived, mainlyspoken in the central mountains and along the east coastal villages(Hansell, 1989: 71; Hsieh, 1994: 405). These early Taiwanese aborigines

Chinese in Taiwan 229

never formed a centralised political government, and they wereorganised according to ethnically distinct communities and spoke awide range of mutually unintelligible language varieties (Feifel,1994; Hsieh, 1964). The main lexical contribution of the aboriginallanguages to Taiwan is in the area of place names (Abe, 1987; Hansell,1989).

Dutch colonial period

In 1624 the Dutch established its colonial outpost in Taiwan’s South-west Tainan region. At that time the Dutch also introduced the Romanscript to Taiwan. The subsequent Christian missionaries also introduceda Romanisation system for the aboriginal languages and translated theBible into the aboriginal languages using the Roman script. During thisperiod, a so-called Sinkang Romanisation system was introduced to theaborigines in Taiwan. As Chiung (2001: 15�18) points out, Sinkangwriting was the first Romanisation and the first writing system in thehistory of Taiwan. It was devised by Dutch missionaries and employedmainly for the writing of Siraya, an indigenous language in south-westplain of Taiwan. Sinkang Romanisation was not well documented untilthe discovery of so-called Sinkang Bunsu, or Sinkang manuscripts, in the19th century (Chiung, 2001).

Because of the political and economic disintegration during thetransition from Ming to Qing dynasty and the Dutch colonialists’demand for larger labour forces, large-scale Chinese immigration toTaiwan also began around this same period. As a result of this Chinesemigration into the south and west plains of Taiwan, the aborigine tribesof the western plain were either conquered by the Han settlers orintermarried with them. Consequently, aborigine languages and culturalidentities were slowly eroded by the Han languages and culture (Feifel,1994; Hansell, 1989; Su, 1980).

The Koxinga (1661�1683) and Qing Dynasty period(1684�1895)

In 1661, after less than four decades of commanding Taiwan’s south-west outpost, the Dutch were driven out from Taiwan by the Mingloyalist commander Zheng Chenggong (commonly known as Koxinga inthe West) after his failed resistance to the Qing regime. Consequently,Taiwan became a refuge for the Ming royalists and immigrants from theZhangzhou and Quanzhou regions of Fujian province, right across theTaiwan Straits. During the two decades of Koxinga’s reign, wenyen


(classical Chinese) and Han characters became the official writing systemin Taiwan, while settlers brought with them their own spoken languagevarieties, which were mainly Minnan and Hakka. In 1684, Qing Dynastydeclared Taiwan an administrative division of Fujian province afterdefeating Koxinga in 1683. Although initially the Qing governmentprohibited emigration from China, there was a steady flow of SouthChinese settlers (mainly from Fujian) immigrating to Taiwan; in the 18thcentury, speakers of Hakka from the eastern Guangdong region joinedthe migration movement. After 1760, when the imperial prohibition ofemigration to Taiwan was repealed, the migration of southern Chinesesettlers into Taiwan accelerated. In 1885 Taiwan was given the status of aprovince, with Chinese comprising the overwhelming majority of themore than 2.5 million residents on Taiwan (Feifel, 1994: 12). Taiwan waseventually transformed into a Han-culture society. Han characters andwenyen (classical Chinese) were the official writing systems, while themajority of the residents spoke the Minnan language varieties of Fujianprovince and a small group spoke the Hakka. The aborigine languagesand cultures were further eroded and marginalised. However, theSinkang Roman scripts were still used by those plain tribes for sometime (Chiung, 2001).

Japanese period (1895�1945)In 1895, after the Manchu government’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese

War, Taiwan was ceded to Japan as compensation. This began Taiwan’s‘Japanisation’ for the following five decades. With the assimilation ofTaiwanese envisioned as Imperial Japan’s primary goal and colonialpolicy, Japanese became the medium for Taiwan’s development ofinfrastructure and modernisation. Japanese colonials implemented amodern educational system, and made Japanese the language ofinstruction. To further cement Japanese imperialisation, or kominka,policy during the war with China (1937�1945), in April 1937, Gover-nor-General Kobayashi abolished the Chinese-language section of thecolony’s newspapers and classical Chinese was removed from theelementary school curriculum (Lamley, 1999: 238�244). Japanese wasproclaimed as the ‘kokugo’ (national language) of the island later thatyear, and the use of Chinese was discouraged. This language policyincreased the number of Japanese speakers among the Taiwanese from37% in 1937 to 51% in 1940 (Lamley, 1999: 240). Despite this imperialisa-tion measure, Japanese could not replace Minnan as the preferred spokenlanguage among Taiwanese for any other daily function besides the


required usage of Japanese in government, administration, educationand Japanese-controlled industry. However, it is safe to say that by theend of WWII, before Japan’s departure, Japanese had become the linguafranca among the literate and commercial sectors of the island’spopulation. The linguistic remnants of this colonial rule have remainedstrong and obvious among older Taiwanese and aborigines, whereJapanese popular songs and many Japanese expressions (such as termsfor parents, relatives and siblings) are still commonly used. Eventoday, many Japanese names for food items are part of the Taiwaneselexicon. Recently Japanese pop culture has made a comeback and rivalsthe popularity and influence of American pop culture among theTaiwanese youth. Some Japanese expressions and lexicon, such as ‘ka-wa-i’ (young, cute or pretty), ‘i-chi-ban’ (number one) and ‘sha-shin’collection (photo album; the two kanji characters are pronounced inTaiwan as ‘xie-zhen’), have also been absorbed and appropriated into theTaiwanese lexicon.

The Chinese KMT period (1945�1989)On 15 August 1945, the Taiwanese heard from the radio the Showa

emperor’s announcement of Japan’s unconditional surrender to the US-led alliance. Japan’s 50-year colonial rule came to an end, and on 25October that year, Taiwan was officially returned to the Republic ofChina ruled by the Nationalist KMT (kuo-ming-tang) government. TheNationalist KMT immediately began a process of decolonisation andreintegration. The transition from Japanese colonisation into the KMTNationalist regime was neither a smooth nor a welcome one for theTaiwanese in many respects. At the beginning of Taiwan’s retrocessionprocess, many of the Taiwanese elites and intellectuals were hopeful forTaiwanese self-government as a province of China, but instead a militaryand totalitarian government appointed by Chiang Kai-Shek and headedby Chen Yi was established in Taipei. The ‘February 28th, 1947, Incident’marked the beginning of the so-called ‘White Terror’ era in Taiwanduring which the core of the Taiwanese local political leadership andsocial and intellectual elites were rounded up and eliminated. In 1949,after the Nationalists were defeated in mainland China and retreated toset up a provisional government in Taiwan, the Taiwanese underwentanother stringent language policy and cultural assimilation that wasreminiscent of the Japanese rule.

In April 1946, the Nationalist government established a committee forthe promotion of Guoyu (national language), which was Mandarin,


standardised and formulated after the Beijing dialect. By 1949, Taiwanwould be the only territory left for the Nationalist government to executeits national language experiment. The Nationalist government success-fully achieved the promotion of Mandarin and Chinese identity inTaiwan in three areas: education, mass communication and oppression ofTaiwanese languages, which reduced them to the status of ‘vulgardialects’. Politically, the KMT Nationalist government put Taiwan undermartial law from 1949 through 1987, so the Taiwanese were not allowedto organise any opposition party, hold any national level election or havefreedom of the press. During public events or in government offices,usage of native Taiwanese languages was not allowed.

In education, usage of so-called ‘vulgar dialects’ (Minnan, Hakka andaborigine languages) was banned and penalised in school. OnlyMandarin was allowed in the classroom and on campus; any studentsviolating this rule would be penalised and shamed publicly. Studentsspeaking Mandarin with heavy Taiwanese accents were often ridiculed.In the mass media, all Taiwanese newspapers, except for English ones,were exclusively in Mandarin. In electronic media, since the 1950s,programmes in ‘dialects’ were gradually replaced with Mandarin, andreduced to one hour a day in the 1970s as legislated by the Broadcastingand Television Law instituted in 1975. On television programmes,characters with heavy Taiwanese accents were often villains, uneducatedworking class, stupid country folks or gangsters.

As Feifel (1994: 16) puts forward, in Taiwan ‘language became a meansof discrimination as well as a means of justification for the separation[between the native Taiwanese and the Mainlanders] and the Main-landers’ privileges’. Mandarin became the language associated witheconomic potential, social status and political clout. It was estimated thatby the mid-1980s, about 85% of Taiwan’s population could speakMandarin (Huang, 1987, 74%; Tse, 1982, 94%). Some would even assertthat nearly 100% of people on Taiwan under 35 years of age can speakMandarin (Hansell, 1989: 76). The success of the government’s propaga-tion of Mandarin further eroded the aborigine languages and led to theinvisibility of the Hakka identity and language. Minnan, on the otherhand, has remained the preferred language for families, private sectorsand even work places (Hansell, 1989: 77; Young et al., 1992).

Multiparty system (1989�present)In July 1987, Taiwan’s so-called Emergency Decree under martial law

was lifted, and in 1989 the KMT government eventually recognised the


legitimacy of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) thatwas formed in 1986. The changes in political climate soon triggeredchanges in sociolinguistic climate. More and more Taiwanese peoplebecame assertive in reclaiming their native languages and cultures. Since1990, bilingual education of both Mandarin and native languages hasbeen gradually introduced as a way of reversing the previous neglect andsuppression of Taiwanese ‘dialects’ and aborigine languages. In themeantime, the Ministry of Education formally abolished the penaltyagainst school children speaking ‘dialects’ or mother tongues at school.On 14 July 1993, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan (Taiwan’s equivalent of aParliament) voted to officially abolish Article 20 of the Broadcast andTelevision Law, which restricted the hours of non-Mandarin programmesin the electronic mass media. This further accelerated the revival ofnative cultures. Since 1996, ‘dialect’ instruction (officially called ‘mother-tongue’ education) was introduced as a formal part of public schoolcurriculum by the Ministry of Education; however, school participationin the dialect-teaching programme was voluntary.

In 2001, the Ministry of Education launched its 1st�9th GradeCurriculum Alignment Program as a scheme to maintain youngstudents’ native tongues and embrace cultural diversity in Taiwan. SinceSeptember 2001, all elementary and junior high students have beenrequired to elect a course in one of the 14 recognised native languages,while Mandarin has remained the mandatory language of instruction forthe rest of the curriculum (Fanchiang, 2003). Like any society under-taking language policy reform, Taiwan’s mother-language educationscheme has faced many obstacles from the start: shortage of qualifiedteachers, few resources for training teachers, inadequate teachingmaterials and lack of family support. Unanticipated by the Ministry ofEducation, dialect-speaking parents have not been supportive of this‘mother-tongue education’ scheme. Most parents are concerned aboutthe mother-language instruction taking away time from the regularcurriculum. Foreign languages such as English and Japanese seem tomake more sense to the parents for the enhancement of their children’ssocial and economic future. Professor Ang Uijin, from the ChineseLinguistics and Literature Department at Yuan-Ze University, explains inan interview with Taiwan Review (Fanchiang, 2003): ‘It is most commonfor indigenous people and Han peoples to prefer learning English, theinternational language, instead of learning mother tongues considered toadd no values to their global competitiveness.’


The influence of American English and American culture(1949�present)

Prior to 1949, the predominant foreign influence on Taiwan bothculturally and linguistically was apparently Japanese because of its 50years of colonisation. After the departure of the Japanese colonial powerfrom Taiwan in 1945, Japanese influence lingered on, although it wasslowly eroded by the KMT government’s retreat from China into Taiwan,which inaugurated the arrival of American influence on Taiwan. Toeradicate Japanese influence and impose loyalty to the NationalistChinese government in Taiwan, the KMT government immediatelybanned the Japanese language from public life and the mass media;Japanese movies and TV programmes were banned and Japanese songswere not allowed to be broadcast on radio or television.

Along with the KMT government’s arrival in Taiwan came theAmerican military and political support of Taiwan against communistChina. The American influence on Taiwan ensued. After the Korean War(1950�1953), on 2 December 1954, the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT)between the USA and the Republic of China (Taiwan) was signed inWashington, DC; the Treaty was entered into force on 3 March thefollowing year. The treaty’s Article 2 stipulated that Taiwan and the USAwould ‘maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity toresist armed attacked and communist subversive activities. . . . ’ (seeTaiwan Documents Project Website). Consequently, the USA becameTaiwan’s ‘protector’, supplying Taiwan with arms and aids, as well asplacing troops and setting up military bases in Taiwan. Accompanyingthe military and political support was economic aid that helped cement astrong economic tie between the two countries. As Hansell (1989: 78)observes, ‘those were the years of the ‘‘Pax Americana’’ when US military,economic, and cultural influence were ascendant all over the world’, andTaiwan was a quintessential acolyte of such ‘Pax Americana-ism’.

Since the 1950s, ‘the U.S. became the favored destination for Taiwanstudents studying abroad and Taiwan the destination for many USmilitary personnel’ (Hansell, 1989: 78). During the Vietnam War periodTaiwan was a popular destination for American soldiers’ vacations. Sincethe 1950s American products and popular culture became the staple ofTaiwanese aspiration for modernisation and development. Consequently,as a national education policy to prepare Taiwanese citizens’ interactionwith the international communities, English was instituted as theprimary foreign language taught beginning in seventh grade in publicschools. English is also a required subject for the college entrance exam.


With globalisation and Taiwan’s economic advancement, manyTaiwanese parents became more aware of the importance of English asa viable asset for their children. Since the late 1980s many private after-school English education institutions mushroomed in Taiwan. From theearly 1990s, English learning has become an essential criterion forparents’ selection of kindergartens. In response to the widespreaddemand for more English education, the Ministry of Education inTaiwan moved the beginning of English instruction in public school tofifth grade in 2001. However, many city and county governments wereahead of the central government’s response. In Taipei, for example, since1998, elementary schools have been encouraged by the City’s Bureau ofEducation to offer English classes beginning in the third grade. Startingin 2002, English classes have been offered to all students from the firstthrough sixth grades in Taipei city’s 150 public and private elementaryschools (Her, 2002: 7�8).

A report published by Taipei Times on 23 June 2003, showed that 81%of Taipei parents were happy with an early English education startingfrom first grade, and 53% would like to increase the number of classes(Wu, 2003). According to the press release of the Taiwan GovernmentInformation Office (21 May 2002, Taiwan Government Information OfficeWebsite): ‘The government of the Republic of China (ROC) hasformulated the ‘‘Challenge 2008’’ comprehensive six-year nationaldevelopment plan as the latest effort to foster the creativity and talentTaiwan needs to transform itself into a ‘‘green silicon island’’.’ In this‘Challenge 2008’ six-year plan, the emphasis on globalisation andmastery of foreign languages, especially English, was highlighted asmost essential for Taiwan’s development, as in Taiwan government’swords (Taiwan Government Information Office Website):

The first project of the 6-year national development plan is thecultivation of talent for the e-generation, since manpower is the basisof all development. To meet the future challenges of globalisationand internationalisation, the ROC should first enhance the abilitiesof its people. Concurrently, the government will establish anenvironment for internationalising learning.This project emphasises the ability to master foreign languages,especially English, and the use of Internet. Since English is thelanguage that links the world, the government should designate Englishas a quasi-official language and actively expand the use of English as a part

of daily life. (italics mine � S.S.L)


It is fair to say that Taiwan is in a state of English learning frenzy. Fromthe top levels of central government to the local administration, fromretirees to nursery school-age children, learning English has become anational obsession in Taiwan.

The Historical Context of Lexical Borrowing in Taiwan

Given the previous discussion of Taiwan’s linguistic history andsociopolitical background and climate, we may say that currently thefollowing factors have contributed to the lexical fluidity of TaiwanMandarin: first, the dominance of Minnan language variety; second,Japanese influence before 1945 and after the lift of ban of Japaneseprogrammes in 1993; and third, English embraced as the global language.These three factors have compounded the lexical borrowing patterns thatTaiwanMandarin has inherited from the Chinese language. The followingdiscussion will examine the lexical borrowing history inherited from theChinese language and the current trends of lexical borrowing in Taiwan.

Linguistic scholars have pointed out that the history of lexical changesin Chinese is very complex and still little understood. In the field ofChinese lexicography and etymology, extensive efforts were made at theturn of the 20th century to compile comprehensive dictionaries thatprovide the origins and development of words and phrases. The resultwas Ciyuan [The Origin of Words], published in 1915 in Beijing, now awidely used research tool for the study of classical and literary Chinese.Most of the comprehensive Chinese dictionaries today, such as the 12-volume Hanyu da cidian [Great Chinese Dictionary], usually include anetymological component. As Chan and Tai (1999) suggest in their studyon the periodisation of Chinese language, systematic studies of historicalchanges in the Chinese lexicon do exist; however, there are fewcomprehensive studies that examine important patterns of lexical changesextending through the history of the Chinese language. Lexical borrowingpatterns of foreign languages into Chinese have also been observed androughly charted out, yet very few studies focus on the cultural andsociolinguistic impact of those lexical borrowing patterns (Chen, 1999).New borrowing patterns are also emerging with the accelerating pace ofglobalisation and the easier multilingual input methods via the computer.

Most scholars more or less agree that written Chinese experiencedthree waves of massive lexical borrowing. These three waves coincidedwith the extensive interaction between China and foreign civilisationsmainly through commerce and religious activities, during which massive


translation of foreign writings into Chinese was undertaken in order toaccommodate foreign objects and concepts.

The first wave of major lexical borrowing took place between theEastern Han and late Tang dynasties (2nd�8th centuries CE), when activecommerce with Central Asia through the Silk Road and the translation ofBuddhist texts introduced hundreds of new words into Chinesevocabulary. In this first period of lexical borrowing during the Hanand Tang dynasties, not only were new words coined (e.g. shijei [theworld] and yishi [consciousness]), using already existing Han charactersas morphemes, but many new characters were also created by combiningor adding radicals to existing characters to convey new concepts, such asseng (short form of seng-ga, transliteration from Sanskrit sangha) for monkor community of monks, jia-sha (also transliteration from Sanskrit) formonk’s clothes and pu-sha for Bodhisattva. Some characters were createdpurely for use in transliteration, such as jia and ga, used onlyphonetically for transcribing foreign terms; those ‘phonetic characters’do not carry semantic quality.

After a few centuries of absorbing and appropriating new termsimported via the cultural and commercial contexts of the Silk Road,Chinese lexicon faced a second wave of foreign impact during the lateMing and Early Qing dynasties (16th�18th centuries) when Jesuitmissionaries brought Western learning to China. Once again the Chineselexicon expanded through their writings and translation of Westernsciences; many new terms of basic modern learning were coined duringthis period (e.g. jihe for geometry and diqiu for the earth).

The third, perhaps the largest wave of foreign word borrowing intoChinese, began after the humiliation of the Opium War when Chinarealised its need to catch up with modernisation. The lexical borrowingprocess was further accelerated in the 1920s baihuawen [vernacular literarywriting] movement, which advocated the usage of vernacular speech forliterary writing, instead of traditional classical speech. This movement notonly revolutionised Chinese literary writing but also energised themomentum of Chinese modernisation, which most intellectuals at thetime equatedwithWesternisation. In the process, numerous foreignwordswere imported into the Chinese vocabulary with new terms being coined.

Patterns of Lexical Assimilation in Modern Chinese

The following patterns are adopted and modified from the fivepatterns suggested by Chen (1999: 100�105). For an extensive discussionof each of these patterns, see also Masini’s (1993) monograph.


(1) Borrowing from Japanese translations of foreign words coined withChinese characters

During the Meiji Reformation in the 19th century, Japan importedWestern concepts and institutions extensively. Large numbers of newwords were coined by the Japanese using kanji (Chinese characters) totranslate new concepts. Many of these new kanji terms were lateradopted into Chinese with the kanji being pronounced in Chinese.

Examples: English Chinese Japanesehistory li-shi rekishiscience ke-xue kagakubank yin-hang ginkopost office yu-ju yubinkyogu

(2) Loan translation for compound words or phrasesIn this second pattern, the English terms are translated literally, with a

morpheme-for-morpheme match between the two languages.

Examples: honeymoon mi-yue (mi�honey, yue�moon)skyscraper mo-tian lou (mo� to rub, tian�sky,

lou�building)long-distance chan-tu (chan� long, tu� journey, distance)democracy ming-zhu (ming�people, zhu�master)

(3) Semantic translationProbably the most common form of borrowing, this pattern coins new

words by using Chinese characters to convey the foreign concept asmuch as possible.

Examples: airplane fei-ji (fei�to fly, ji�machinery)radio shou-yin-ji (shou�receive, yin�sound,

ji�machinery)fax chuan-zhen (chuan�to transmit, zhen�real)

(4) Pure phonetic transcriptionChinese characters are chosen for their sound value to transcribe as

close as possible the sound of the foreign words. The combination ofthese characters does not carry semantic meaning in Chinese. However,there is a tendency to select euphonic characters with positive or neutralconnotations for non-negative concepts.


Examples: disco di-si-kejazz jue-shimotor ma-dahippie xi-pisalad sha-la

(5) Juxtaposition of (2) and (3) � phonetic transcription�semanticclassifier

A Chinese morpheme used as a semantic classifier is added to thephonetic rendering of the foreign word.

Examples: jeep ji-pu-che (che�vehicle)ballet ba-lei-wu (wu�dance)

(6) Combination of (2) and (3) � ideophoneticThis pattern tries to preserve as much as possible the original sound of

the foreign word, while at the same time tries to use Chinese morphemesthat also capture the meaning of the foreign word.

Examples: vitamin wei-ta-min (wei�sustain, ta�his/her,ming� life)

lace lei-si (lei�flower-bud, si�silk)laser lei-she (lei� thunder, she�shoot)cola ke-le (ke�enable, le�happy)hacker hai-ke (hai� terrify, ke�guest)

(7) Combination of phonetic rendering and semantic renderingThis rendering pattern is particularly popular with new trends or new

concepts.

Examples: neo-Romanticism xin-lang-man-zhu-yixin�semantic rendering of neolang-man�phonetic rendering of romanzhu-yi�semantic rendering of ‘ism’

anti-trust fan-tuo-la-sifan�semantic rendering of ‘anti’tuo-la-si�phonetic rendering of ‘trust’

X-ray X-guan (guan�light, ray)geometry ji-he

ji�phonetic rendering of ‘geo’he�semantic rendering of ‘metric’


From the above patterns, Chen (1999) observes two principles in theChinese borrowing of foreign words. First, preference is given to loantranslation and semantic translation over transliteration. Second, amongvariations of translation (such as variations among Hong Kong, Taiwanand China), preference is usually given to terms prevalent in NorthernMandarin areas over other areas. According to Chen (1999: 105),

the explanation for the resistance to transliteration lies in thelogographic nature of Chinese script, and the traditional importanceattached to reading rather than speaking in the Chinese world. Inaddition to their sound value, most Chinese characters used in textshave their own semantic content. Chinese readers tend to pay moreattention to the meaning conveyed by the graphic forms of thecharacters than to their phonetic values; it is not uncommon forChinese readers to recognise the semantic content of characterswithout being able to pronounce them.

To a large extent, Chen’s two principles do typify the trends of lexicalborrowing in the past 150 years. However, new trends of lexicalborrowing preference are emerging with the fast pace of globalisationand the advancement of multilingual word-processing technology.Before multilingual word-processing was easily available on the compu-ter, which facilitates multilanguage publication, composing and publish-ing multilingual documents � using both English alphabets and Chinesecharacters � were complicated and cumbersome tasks. Mass commu-nication media such as newspapers and magazines in the past rarelymixed English words in their texts. Therefore, most foreign terms andconcepts were translated using the above-mentioned borrowing patterns.Since the last decade the mass media in Taiwan, perhaps also in HongKong and China, have broken many previous language taboos consid-ered as safeguard against the Chinese language being contaminated.With the floodgate being opened, it is now quite common to find Englishwords and expressions creeping into news articles or in a TV host’sreports. When entering any Taiwanese news media Internet sites, one islikely to be amazed by the amount of non-Han orthographic symbolsused.

The nature of the Chinese writing system being logographic makesChinese lexical borrowing from a phonetographic language, such asEnglish, a unique process. In contrast to Japanese, which uses Katakanato signal loan words, the above-mentioned Chinese borrowing patternscamouflage the loan words. Unlike many European languages, whoseborrowing of English words is sometimes regarded as an ‘intrusion’ that


threatens the integrity of the borrowing languages, the logographicnature of Chinese language does not face the same threat. No matter howthe English words are borrowed or adopted, the borrowed words inChinese remain logographic, i.e. physically and visually Chinese, thoughthey may sound somewhat exotic. The lexical borrowing process inChinese is thus both a lexical expansion and an appropriation process.However, new patterns of lexical borrowing are emerging with theadvancement of new word-processing and printing technology.

New Trends of Lexical Borrowing in Taiwan

Codeswitching has become a common phenomenon both in speechand in writing. As Professor Chen Su-Chiao (1996) of the NationalHualien Teachers College reports in her study of codeswitching as averbal strategy,

recently, English has been functioning as part of the communicativerepertoire among professionals, young adults, students, housewives,and under-educated workers in Taiwan. It is not surprising to hearhousewives using some English words or phrases when speaking tofamily and friends (China Times, April 22, 1992), nor is it surprisingfor elementary school children to write messages in both Englishand Chinese in their autograph books (United Daily News, June 22,1992).

English words and phrases are now often used in daily interactionsamong Taiwanese people both in Mandarin and non-Mandarin interac-tions. As Chen (1996) points out, English is used as the ‘embeddedlanguage’ by the Taiwanese in both formal and informal situations, inspeaking and writing, and this trend of inserting English expressions hasbeen further reinforced by the mass media.

Popular English words, such as ‘cool’, ‘party’, ‘lobby’, ‘spa’, ‘high’ (as‘excited’), ‘in’ or ‘out’ (meaning ‘trendy’ or not), etc., are now mostlyspoken and printed in English rather than translated, even thoughtranslations of these words have been in use for some time prior to theInternet era. Codeswitching occurs not just between Mandarin andEnglish. With the new multiparty sociopolitical climate generating newawareness of ethnicity and cultural identity, codeswitching amongMandarin, English and Taiwanese mother tongues has been adoptedboth consciously and unconsciously as a verbal strategy to subvert theMandarin-dominant culture. Today, it is not uncommon in Taiwan to seeTV talk show hosts or variety show hosts conducting interviews with


their guests using Mandarin with English and Minnan expressionsfrequently inserted.

Unlike previous common practice of translating acronyms using theirfull names, in the mid-1990s the mass media began to introduce and usemost acronyms without translation, except occasional translation inparenthesis for clarification. In such cases, the English alphabet andpronunciations are used as if they are regular elements of Taiwanesewriting and speech. Examples such as CD (Compact Disc), DVD (DigitalVersatile Disc), WTO (World Trade Organization), WHO (World HealthOrganization), DIY (Do It Yourself) outlets, the SARS (Severe AcuteRespiratory Syndrome) epidemic, MTV (Music TV), SUV (Sports UtilityVehicle), PC (personal computer), etc. are now part of many Taiwanesepeople’s common vocabulary. Like many native speakers of English,most Taiwanese do not know what many of these acronyms stand for.

Technical and professional words tend to be translated semantically.However, commercial products, especially foreign foods, such as cola,hamburger, salad, tend to be translated ideophonetically if possible, or atleast phonetically with Chinese characters that present positive meaningfor marketing purposes. Ideophonetic and phonetic translation preservethe exotic sound and the foreign ‘cool’ flair for better marketability.

With the influence of Internet and e-mail, it is becoming acceptableand popular both in speech and in print for Taiwanese speakers to useexpressions such as ‘e-shangye’ (e-commerce), e-ka (e-card), Y-shidai (Y-Generation), T-shan (T-shirt), e-zhengfu (e-government), e-Taiwan, etc.,with the alphabet part preserved in English, and the other partstranslated semantically.

‘e’ is also used by Minnan speakers as indicating possessive formsimilar to English ‘’s’ or Japanese possessive ‘no’; for example, ‘Taiwanren e bi-ai’ (Taiwan people’s sorrow), ‘zhengfu e wunen’ (government’sincompetence) are common expressions of discontent. Less politicallycharged than Minnan ‘e’, Japanese hiragana ‘no’ is often used inadvertisements, bulletin boards or commercial jingles. Not just Englishwords, but three other kinds of non-Mandarin lexicons and scripts arealso creeping into current Taiwanese speech and writing: Minnan,Mandarin phonetic symbols (bopomofo) and Japanese.

Given the above new trends of lexical borrowing and codeswitching, Iwould like to propose a new classification of the periods of Chinese(including Taiwan Mandarin) lexical borrowing history as having thefollowing three waves. The first wave (2nd�8th centuries): religion andcommerce via the Silk Road were two major factors that contributed toChina’s large-scale lexical borrowing. This first wave of lexical expansion


was then followed by centuries of assimilation and appropriation inwhich Chinese absorbed and claimed the imported lexicon as its own.The second wave (16th�first half of 20th centuries): the introduction ofWestern sciences generated another major wave of large-scale lexicalinnovation in China. A third wave (during the second half of the 20thand beginning of the 21st centuries): advancement of informationtechnology and globalisation triggered a new trend of lexical borrowingand codeswitching that includes adopting foreign orthographical sym-bols into the Han-character-based writing system. In the first two phases,not only did the Chinese lexicon expand, but new Han characters (newpictographs and ideograms) were also created to transliterate new termsand concepts phonetically; those newly created characters may or maynot carry any semantic value. In the contemporary third phase we see aclear ‘paradigm shift’ of lexical borrowing among speakers of MandarinChinese. In addition to creating new Han characters or giving theexisting ones new meanings, Mandarin Chinese speakers are adding‘foreign’ alphabets into the Chinese speaking and writing system.

Factors Contributing to Taiwan’s enthusiasm for lexicalassimilation

Vogues, prestige and economic reality

There are several obvious factors and some not-so-blatant politicalreasons for Taiwan’s enthusiasm for lexical borrowing and commoncodeswitching phenomena. The obvious factors � mixing English termsand lingoes in speech as fashionable and prestigious, or seeing Englishability as economic solvency and skill currency for professional advance-ment � are perhaps universal factors shared by many societies under thesimilar sway of globalisation and American popular culture. As men-tioned earlier, Taiwan is in an English learning frenzy. Consequently,codeswitching and mixing English phrases with local speech (eitherMandarin or Minnan) have become acceptable and fashionable. Particu-larly, it is young people’s way of showing their worldliness in usingEnglish. After Taiwan gained membership in the WTO, it became evenmore urgent for many companies to demand employees with Englishfluency.

Modernisation and high-tech infrastructure

Another common factor contributing to Taiwan’s embracing ofEnglish (like many other societies) is the high level of modernisationand its ensuing high-tech infrastructure. According to the 2001�2002


Global Information Technology Report released by the World EconomicForum and Harvard University in February 2002, Taiwan’s ability to useinformation and communication technologies (ICTs) effectively ranked15th around the globe, ahead of Japan (21st) and South Korea (20th). TheUSA ranked first in the report, followed by Iceland, Finland, Sweden,Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Singapore, Austria and the UK(Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC, 2002). According to the statistics of theCIA World Factbook 2002 (The CIA World Factbook Website), Taiwan’sInternet users’ rate per capita (514.46/1000 users) was ranked 16th in theworld, ahead of Japan (18th) and right behind Singapore (15th). The USA(590.78/1000 users) and the UK (573.79/1000 users) were ranked seventhand eighth respectively in this report. From these two statistics, it isobvious that Taiwan’s level of modernisation and high-tech infrastruc-ture are on a par with most of the developed countries. As pointed outearlier, Taiwan government aspires to make Taiwan a ‘Green SiliconIsland’ and therefore its ‘first project of the 6-year national developmentplan is the cultivation of talent for the e-generation’. If this vision isindeed fulfilled, Taiwan’s embrace of English will probably extendfurther.

Taiwan’s optimistic attitude towards globalisation

Another factor contributing to Taiwan’s embracing of English isTaiwan’s overwhelmingly positive attitude towards globalisation andits ramifications. After almost four decades of diplomatic ostracism andpolitical isolation imposed by the People’s Republic of China, and unlikemany countries facing the challenge of globalisation with ambivalentattitudes and doubtfulness, Taiwan warmly welcomes globalisation as away of gaining recognition on the world stage. Moreover, it seesglobalisation as a way of asserting Taiwan’s separate identity fromMainland China.

Political climate and nationalism

Since the lifting of Martial Law and the development of a multipartypolitical system in 1987, Taiwan has become a vibrant arena for politicaljousting and nationalistic debate between the prounification (with China)and proindependence camps. In Taiwan’s current political lingo, theprounification camp (pro-Chinese) is an alliance of KMTand People FirstParty, usually called the Pan-Blue Camp (associated with the blue colourof the KMT party flag and emblem). The proindependence camp is analliance of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity


Union, usually called the Pan-Green Camp (associated with the DPP flagfeaturing a green Taiwan island). As the former Chairman of DPP ShiMing-De observed and lamented in an editorial entitled ‘Mr. President,Please Loosen Up Your Fists’ published by Taiwan’s China Times, 7January 2003, every aspect of Taiwan’s public discourse is politicised andTaiwan’s leading politicians seem to be in a perpetual presidentialcampaign. Every move the politicians make is calculated according to theparty line and the Pan-Blue and Pan-Green divide. Because of such apolitical climate, every policy, project and reform the Taiwan governmentundertakes is exacerbated and driven by party-biased political ideology.Consequently, the subverting and appropriation of Taiwan Mandarinwith Minnan language variety and English has also become theproindependence (Pan-Green) camp’s political tool to play out theirnationalistic ideology in this political arena. The current mutation ofTaiwan Mandarin reflects the volatility of Taiwan’s political climate.

Multilingualism and linguistic democracy

It is irrefutable that Taiwan’s political transition from a single-partytotalitarian rule into a full-fledged and vibrant multiparty democracywith enfranchisement and civil liberty for all citizens is a remarkableachievement that leads the island into a new era of progressive reformsand democratisation. Unfortunately, like any revolution, Taiwan’sprogressive transition also comes with ambivalent ramifications, one ofwhich is the amplification of an ethnic� linguistic rift and the manner inwhich politicians exploit this rift. The exploitation and politicisation ofTaiwan’s ethnic and linguistic diversity is currently manifested inTaiwan’s controversy regarding ‘mother tongue’ education and ‘NationalLanguage Equality Draft Law’. ‘Mother tongue’ education was initiallyintended as a measure to reverse the damage done by the Mandarin-onlypolicy during the KMT era; however, it has now been exploited by theproindependence camp as a tool to promote Taiwanese identity andsubvert the Mandarin dominance.

In 2002, the proindependence camp went a step further to proposemaking the Minnan language variety (mother tongue of more than 70%of the Taiwan population) the second official language. According to anopinion poll conducted by Taiwan’s leading cable-TV news station, TVBS(published on 12 March 2002), overall about 48% supported the proposal,37% were against and 16% had no opinion. However, if the statistics areanalysed according to party line, up to 69% who supported the proposalwere supporters of the Pan-Green camp, while more than half of those


who opposed the proposal were supporters of the Pan-Blue camp. Thepoll also revealed that given the choice between Minnan languagevariety and English as the second official language, more than 60% of thevoters chose English, while only 31% chose Minnan language variety(TVBS Poll Center Website). It seems obvious that many Taiwanesepeople see English as a neutral and non-political language that maybetter serve as a second official language than the politically chargedMinnan language variety.

The following recent controversies reflect Taiwan’s craze for multi-lingualism and linguistic democracy.

1. On 30 March 2002, President Chen Shui-Bian initiated the idea ofmaking English the second official language. After responding to theLegislative Yuan’s inquiry regarding this proposal, Prime Minster Yucommissioned the Ministry of Education to establish a research andplanning committee to investigate its legality and feasibility. It isenvisioned to be implemented in 2009.

2. On 12 February 2003, the ‘Guoyu (Mandarin) Propagation Scheme’(declared by the Republic of China on 9 June 1945) was abolished.Since the Nationalist Government retreat to Taiwan in 1949, thisMandarin Propagation Scheme had been the central language policythat dominated Taiwan’s educational system, mass communicationand central administration. The unpublicised abolishment of thescheme reflects the political climate of Taiwan’s language policy.

3. In March 2003 the ‘National Language Equality Law’ was proposedand passed. Prime Minister Yu withheld implementation of this lawbecause of its complexity and lack of practicality. Currently 14national languages are recognised under the ‘National LanguageEquality Law’; however, only Mandarin is recognised and used asthe ‘official language’.

Conclusions: Pan-Green versus Pan-Blue in theGeopolitics of Taiwan

With the above social, technological and political factors, my specula-tion is that the English alphabet will be integrated into the Taiwanesewriting system as Chinese integrates (Hindu-) Arabic numerals and theWestern punctuation system into its writing system without thinkingabout them as being ‘foreign’. Unlike the Japanese, who use Katakana fortranscribing foreign words, the tendency in Taiwan now is to integrateEnglish expressions with all sorts of borrowing strategies, as mentionedearlier, while codeswitching is increasing in spoken and written forms. It


shows that the Taiwanese are comfortable with integrating the Englishalphabet as part of its orthographic system. If English becomes thesecond official language after Mandarin, it is quite foreseeable that in ageneration or two English as used in Taiwan will evolve into a distinctlyTaiwanese English variety with lexicon and grammatical features that areborrowed from both Mandarin and other Taiwanese language varieties.

Now let’s return to the three questions that I put forward at thebeginning of this chapter. The first question was ‘how does thepenetration of English affect the linguistic characteristics of Taiwan? Inother words, what kind of role does English play in transforming TaiwanMandarin into a new form of linguistic chop suey?’ From the abovediscussion, it is clear that English plays a leading role, and I would alsosuggest, a triggering role, in Taiwan’s current liberal and uninhibitedattitudes towards codeswitching, lexical borrowing and wordplay.Taiwan’s ‘love affair’ with English and globalisation inspires and triggersTaiwan’s movement and endorsement for linguistic democracy. Thisconsequently opens the floodgate for Taiwanese to integrate andappropriate boldly the language varieties that were classified byprevious governments as either inferior (such as Minnan and Hakka)or forbidden (such as Japanese). Using Mandarin as the main ingredient,the Taiwanese are happily cooking up a linguistic chop suey that is spicedup with borrowed English lexicons and alphabets, local languagevarieties, Japanese Kana and lexicons, and bopomofo phonetic symbols.It is a very colourful and hearty dish indeed, but whether it is appetisingor not, will depend on the individual’s palate.

So ‘What kind of role does English play in the recent debate about the‘‘National Language Equality Draft Law’’?’ After the ‘National LanguageEquality Law’ was passed in March 2003, the Taiwanese governmentrealised the impracticality of implementing this law with 14 ethniclanguage varieties recognised as national languages. The implementationprocedure has been withheld indefinitely, and Mandarin remains theonly official language. A year earlier, when the ‘National LanguageEquality Draft Law’ was initially proposed, the Pan-Green (proindepen-dence) Camp seemed to foresee this outcome. Therefore, immediatelyafter the draft law was proposed, the idea of making English the secondofficial language was initiated by President Chen Shui-Bian in 2002, asanother channel to subvert the privilege of Mandarin, which is regardedas the Pan-Blue (prounification) Camp’s language. It seems obvious thatEnglish is seen as an alternative for the Pan-Green Camp to underminethe status of Mandarin. English has become not only a buffer language,but also political ammunition for subversion.


‘What is the geopolitics behind the advocacy of making English thesecond official language besides the current Taiwan Mandarin? How isthe advocacy of embracing English as a global language being exploitedin Taiwanese geopolitics?’ The Pan-Green Camp’s advocacy of makingEnglish the second official language is apparently politically motivated.As making Minnan the second official language is currently not viable,the Pan-Green Camp is using globalisation as a front to promote Englishstatus in order to create a Taiwanese identity that is not associated withChina or dominated by Chinese culture. English is seen as a politicallyneutral language that is acceptable for all ethnic groups in Taiwan.Although criticised by a few scholars and having generated moderateopposition from the Pan-Blue Camp,3 the Pan-Green Camp’s advocacy ofEnglish is generally unchallenged. The Pan-Green Camp’s agendabehind embracing English as the global language for Taiwan is to erodethe dominance of Mandarin culture and its associated identity, andthereby gradually sever the cultural umbilical cord between Taiwan andChina and assert Taiwan’s national identity and independence fromChina.

Notes1. Like fortune cookies, chop suey was invented in the USA and was

popularised by the early Chinese immigrants in the Chinatowns during themid-19th century. Derived from Cantonese pronunciation of the Mandarinterm ‘za sui’, it literally means ‘miscellaneous chopped pieces’; connotatively,it may refer to the Americanisation of Chinese things.

2. Bopomofo refers to the first four symbols of the Mandarin phonetic systemapproved and promulgated by the Ministry of Education of the Republic ofChina in 1918. Similar to Pinyin used in Mainland China, bopomofo is themost common method for learning Mandarin pronunciation in Taiwan. Thesystem consists of 5 tone symbols and 37 phonetic non-Roman symbols whosecreation follows the similar principal of Japanese Kana by taking sections ofHan characters. Each basic pronunciation of Chinese is made up of, at most,three phonetic symbols and exactly one tone symbol.

3. After President Chen Shui-Bian initiated the issue, the following day(31 March 2002) Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (belonging to the Pan-BlueCamp) was quoted saying that ‘It is not only unnecessary but also impossibleto make English the second official language in Taiwan right now’. Ma’sargument was that Taiwan’s English education and government officials’English proficiency were still too inadequate to make English an officiallanguage (Lin, 2002).


Chapter 13

Japanese: The DialecticRelationships Between‘Westerness’ and ‘Japaneseness’as Reflected in English Loan Words

ROTEM KOWNER and MICHAL DALIOT-BUL

A somewhat anecdotal yet revealing editorial in the Japanese daily JapanTimes recently mentioned the linguistic sensitivity of Koizumi Jun’ichiro,then prime minister of Japan. Koizumi reportedly erupted in anger whilelistening to a presentation by his telecommunications minister, whichwas so full of English loan words that it became almost incomprehensible(Japan Times, editorial, 19 January 2003). A few months later the NationalInstitute for Japanese Language (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo), affiliatedwith the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry,established a Loanword Committee (Gairaigo Iinkai) designed toencourage the replacement of gaiaraigo [loan words] with native words(on this committee see http://www.kokken.go.jp/public/gairaigo/).Ironically perhaps, when Prime Minister Koizumi was asked how hehoped to implement such a reform he answered that he intended toutilise the masukomi [mass communication] � a very common term incontemporary Japanese, yet another English loan word (19 August 2002;NPR morning edition).

Such expressions of personal resentment towards English loan words,as well as some institutional attempts to purify the Japanese language,are intriguing. Hitherto, extensive use of loan words in the government-sponsored media and government publications in Japan suggested thateven if postwar official policy on loan words was not targeted atpromoting and actively encouraging their use, nothing was done toprevent it. English loan words, in fact, have become so prevalent incontemporary Japanese that an estimated one out of ten words usedtoday in Japan are English loan words (cf. Stanlaw, 1992).

250

Efforts at reform of the Japanese language sparked by an enragedprime minister provide an excellent opportunity to rethink the culturalposition and the function of loan words in Japan. As we shall show,historical as well as political conditions have greatly affected the origin aswell as the popularity of loan words. Nevertheless, we argue that theprevailing receptiveness in Japanese of loan words in general andEnglish ones more specifically is also the result of linguistic practicesshaped over many years of intercultural contacts. These practices domore than endow the speakers with technical tools to introduce and useloan words, as they mould, produce and then reproduce in a reciprocalfeeding cycle an enthusiastic openness to loan words, while gracefullydisarming the threat imposed by loan words to the unity and cohesion ofthe Japanese language.

Linguistic practices regarding loan words in Japanese situate words offoreign origin as wholly available stylistic points of reference, andnurture an uninhibited seedbed for domestic creativity that sometimesreminds the observer of pure play (Goldstein-Gidoni & Daliot-Bul, 2002).This total availability, however, has its own rules. A semiotic differentia-tion of wago [Japanese words], kango [Chinese words] and gairaigo[foreign (Western) words] is resolutely maintained, providing protectivecultural barriers between the ‘native’ and the ‘foreign’, even if the latterhas been fully domesticated. Yet rather than yielding an authentic,unbiased description of the etymology of different words, this differ-entiation is highly manipulative because the cultural boundaries betweenJapanese, Chinese and Western words are continuously shifting (Tobin,1992). Such manipulations exhibit a dialectical relationship between whatis considered ‘Japanese’ as opposed to ‘foreign’ in Japanese language.More than anything else they seem to reflect an ongoing culturalconstruction and, indeed, efforts to cultural preservation of an imaginedlocal identity and its boundaries against an imaginary ‘foreign’ (Befu,1995; Goldstein-Gidoni, 2001). This sort of ‘strategic hybridism’ aims todiscursively construct an image of an organic cultural identity, ‘Japan’,which absorbs foreign cultures without changing its cultural core(Iwabuchi, 2002: 53).

Linguistic Contacts: Historical Perspective

The first Japanese encounter with English speakers was in 1600, whenthe illustrious navigator William Adams arrived in Japan (Corr, 1995). Atthat time, Japan had been exposed to Iberian trade and culture for morethan half a century, so the effect of the few English mariners and

Dialectic Relationships Between ‘Westerness’ and ‘Japaneseness’ 251

merchants was rather limited, especially since England cut its commer-cial ties with Japan in 1623 (Loveday, 1986; Nish, 1994). Eventually, 17years later, Japan sealed its gates to any European trade, except for theDutch, who kept a trading station at the port of Nagasaki. During thisinitial contact with Europe the Japanese language borrowed a limitednumber of loan words from European languages, mainly theologicalconcepts and terms for new foodstuffs, clothing and technological itemsthat were introduced to Japan at the time. English lexical items, however,were very sparse in Japanese at the time, and the effect of Japanese onEnglish was similarly slight (Cannon, 1996; Ogino, 1988).

After the closing of Japan the Dutch legation in Nagasaki became theprimary source of information in the country about recent events andscientific developments in Europe. An important school of thoughtknown as rangaku [Dutch learning] evolved around the theoreticalknowledge and scientific books the Dutch had brought (Goodman,2000). Scholars of rangaku studied devotedly written Dutch, and becameexperts in European medicine, astronomy, botany and chemistry. Dutchloan words remained the most significant legacy of these contacts untilthe mid-19th century.

The American forced opening of Japan’s ports in 1854 facilitated thereappearance of Western visitors and merchants, this time predomi-nantly from English-speaking countries. English, or a form of it, soonbecame established as the lingua franca at the newly opened Japaneseports (cf. Fukuzawa, 1981). The re-encounter with the West demonstratedacutely the weakness of the shogunal regime and accelerated its demise.In 1868 Japan underwent one of the most dramatic events in its longhistory. In a revolution, known as the Meiji Restoration, a movement ofsamurai from the periphery managed to overthrow the military dictator-ship of the Tokugawa shogunate. The spectacular Westernisation andmodernisation project the government embarked on was highly moti-vated by the Japanese elite’s bitter feeling of inferiority to the Westernworld powers; a deep sense of discrimination combined with fear led to anew sort of nationalism (Coulmas, 1990; Ivy, 1995). In the eyes of thosewho strongly opposed the government policy, the growing culturalimport from the West represented a threat to the cultural identity ofJapan. Not long after, calls for balancing ‘Japanese spirit and Westerntechnology’ [wakon yosai] were heard. But this idea that foreigntechnology could be domesticated without affecting the integrity of theJapanese spiritual heritage was not altogether new. It was the same kindof narrative advanced by scholars a thousand of years earlier during theera of massive cultural importation from China.


The modernisation process that Japan embarked on prompted theneed for a new vocabulary as well. During the first decades afterthe Meiji Restoration thousands of Sino-Japanese words were addedto the Japanese lexicon. Many of these were coined as loan translations(calques) of new concepts introduced from the West. So impressive wasthis ‘Chinese’ revival, in fact, that those responsible for languagereform in China a few decades later resorted heavily to recently inventedSino-Japanese technical lexemes from Japan (e.g. Cousland, 1908).Meanwhile, the growing volume of intercultural contacts and interna-tional commerce enhanced still more the importance of English. MostJapanese leaders identified with the goals of modernization, and choseEnglish as a means to achieve their goal. Already in the 1870s it was verytrendy among students to ornament their conversation with Englishvocabulary. Examples are (Umegaki, 1975:76):

sore ja, peiji toenti kara peiji sachi made kimi ni yaroWell, we’ll have you prepare pages twenty to thirty.1

sore ni tsuite, jitsu ni ridikyurasu na hanashi ga aru no saAs a matter of fact, I know a really ridiculous [funny] story on that one.

Some people found the process of acquisition of numerous loanwords too slow and inadequate. In the mid-1870s, Mori Arinori, one ofthe leading educators and political figures of the Meiji era, who becamethe first Japanese education minister in 1886, asserted that the Japaneselanguage allowed only a weak and obscure mode of communication. Forthis reason, he suggested, it should be replaced by English as the nationallanguage (Miller, 1977; Twine, 1991). Even certain members of theMeirokusha, an influential study group founded by scholar and educatorFukuzawa Yukichi in 1873, wondered if it was not in the best interest ofJapan to give up its illogical and feudalistic language in favour of themore rational and modern English (Tobin, 1992). Their efforts wereultimately doomed, but they still represent an important indication ofthe mood of those times.

During the 1880s many schools incorporated English languageprogrammes [eigaku] in their curriculum, the process of adoption ofEnglish loan words was intensified and the concept of loan words(gairaigo) was coined (Howland, 2001). A report published by theMinistry of Education in 1874 stated that during that year 82 Englishschools operated in Japan. In those schools, attended by some 6000students, English was taught by 254 Japanese teachers and 56 foreignteachers. Although these developments targeted the higher social strata,


this new phenomenon attracted public awareness, as attested by apopular folk song from those days (Umegaki, 1975: 73):

bunmeikaika no nihon de, sumoru boi ya gyaru madeshikiri to, eigo wo benkyo suru.kodomo no benkyo minnateoyaji mo korekara e bi shi.

In the opening civilisation of Japan, small boys and even girlsAre earnestly learning English.Watching the learning children,From now on, fathers will start learning as well: A, B, C.

English, however, was not adopted exclusively by the intelligentsia. Infact, before the institutional reorganisation took place to meet thegrowing demand to study English, contacts in the seaports betweenlocal people, mostly merchants, and foreign seamen produced a localpidgin based on a mixture of English and Japanese (Bolton & Kachru,2006; Kinney, 1873; Leland, 1879). Those English words that wereincorporated into the everyday language of the docks, such as kamensai[come inside], kamisho [commission] or uerukamu [welcome], werelearned from hearing, and consequently involved many pronunciationmistakes. Some expressions originating in misunderstanding took root.One such amusing example is the naming of Western dogs kameya [comehere] (Umegaki, 1975).

At the beginning of the 20th century, mastering English became astatus symbol, and had practical consequences too, especially whenapplied to international trade or politics. An increasing number ofJapanese went abroad to study foreign languages and their knowledgewas instrumental in further accommodation of English loan words(Stanlaw, 1992). Many loan words used earlier as means of self-demarcation due to the special connotations they elicited became neutraland unmarked during the short Taisho era (1912�1926). In 1926 theMinistry of Education published new guidelines for the transcription ofloan words in Japanese that were devised to allow a better approxima-tion of their original pronunciation (Umegaki, 1975). In accordance withthe hedonistic spirit of the 1920s in urban Japan, many new loan wordsreferring to sports, technology and fashion were introduced. During thefirst part of the Showa era (1926�1941), loan words nicknamed modan go(modern words) were especially popular. These were actuallyEnglish-inspired vocabulary items conceived and created in Japan,


which were later to be known as wasei eigo [‘English made in Japan’](Storry, 1987).

The cultural dominance of the liberal left in the early 1920s, and therecent developments in mass communication, notably the radio and theprinted media, contributed dramatically to the introduction and im-mediate spread of these new modern expressions. Many of themcontained either garu [girl] or ero [erotic] in them. Such were expressionslike ero garu [erotic girl] and ero ki [erotic atmosphere], or erebeto garu[elevator girl, namely a female elevator operator], ofisu garu [office girl,namely a young woman employed in minor clerical tasks] and notablymodan garu [modern girl, referring to an urban, up-to-date, stylish, andliberal young woman], which was soon shortened to moga. The ‘modernwords’ phenomenon drew so much public attention that many diction-aries for modern words, as well as special supplements to popularmagazines on modern words, were published and snapped up by anexcited readership (Umegaki, 1975).

The early Showa era (1926�1941) held the all-time record of gairaigointroduction to Japanese until 1972, with a skyrocketing number of loanwords from English. Yet, the popularity of English was not unanimous.At the height of the modern words phenomenon an enraged oppositionwas calling for ‘eigoka haishiron’ [abolition of English language studies] asa move to block the influx of English words and Anglo-Saxon cultureinto Japan. Still, it was only the Pacific War (1941�1945) that succeeded insuppressing effectively the enthusiasm for Western ideas, fashions andwords. Before and during the war the government exerted much effort toban the use of English � the language of the enemy. English loan wordsthat were already part of colloquial Japanese were replaced by Sino-Japanese words (Stanlaw, 1992). The radio news broadcasts, for example,known since the late Taisho era as nyuzu [news], were thereafterannounced with the kango word hodo. Radio broadcasters, called untilthen anaunsa [announcer], were renamed hosoin. All signs in English wereremoved from train stations. English inscriptions, such as ‘WC’ and‘Post’, were removed from public toilets and mailboxes respectively.Ironically, while linguistic censorship went immediately into effectin radio broadcasting, the word ‘radio’ itself � the most importantmass-communication medium of those times � remained rajio (Umegaki,1975).

The purge of English vocabulary from Japanese did not survive long.Japan’s surrender in August 1945 transformed this tendency instantly.During the subsequent Occupation era (1945�1952) official as well asnon-official channels of intercultural communication were re-established.


In addition to many new technical words in English that were introducedinto Japan by the occupation forces, two pidgin versions of the so-called‘Bamboo English’ were invented. One served the communicationbetween the American soldiers and the shop owners and governmentemployees with whom they came into contact, while the other served thecommunication needs of GIs with local women who entertained them.These two pidgin forms withered after the end of the Occupation era andthe Korean War, leaving behind a few expressions such as mama san [awoman owner of a bar or the woman in charge of a bar’s hostesses](Stanlaw, 1992).

In postwar Japan English quickly regained its prewar status. In 1947the study of English became obligatory in schools (Obata-Reiman, 1996).Moreover, during the 1950s the Far-East American Military Radiobroadcasts, as well as American movies and later on American television,performed an important role in the introduction of material and popularAmerican culture to Japan, to the point that it became the rage ofJapanese popular culture (Tobin, 1992). A survey of the usage of words inEnglish, as well as the practice of codeswitching in Japanese popularsongs since 1931, indicates a steeply rising tendency from the Pacific Warto the present (Nishimura, 1997; Obata-Reiman, 1996). The outstandingeconomic achievements of Japan during the 1960s and the TokyoOlympics in 1964 in particular marked the complete recovery andinternational readmittance of Japan.

With the emergence of a full-scale consumer culture in the mid-1970s,globalisation, and the technological developments in the communicationindustries of the late 20th century, a popular culture saturated withWestern, mostly English, loan words has emerged in all areas of daily lifein Japan. At present the ratio of gairago has probably surpassed 10%, ofwhich about 90% of the words are from English. English loan words areeven more prevalent in the mass media, and their omnipresence inadvertisements is not matched, perhaps, in any language other thanEnglish itself (Haarmann, 1984, 1986, 1989). The above ratio is a greatincrease over the 1.4% of gairaigo in the Genkai dictionary published in1859, the 3.5% in the Reikai Kokugojiten dictionary published in 1956, andeven the 7.8% in the Shin Meikai Kokugojiten dictionary published in 1972(Carroll, 1991; Shibatani, 1990). In absolute terms the omnipresence ofgairaigo seems perhaps even more impressive. The 1972 Sanseidogairaigojiten [Sanseido Dictionary of Loan Words] contained approximately33,000 entries, the 2005 third edition of Sanseido konsaisu katakanago jiten[Concise Dictionary of Katakana Words] contains 45,000 entries and 7,500acronyms. Some scholars predicted, in fact, that gairaigo may gradually


replace all the Chinese vocabulary in the Japanese language (Ishino, 1977;Passin, 1982).

Attitudes to English Loan Words in Contemporary Japan

The use of gairaigo vocabulary, particularly words originating inEnglish, has a special connotation in contemporary Japan. It oftendenotes prestige, and has an additional connotation of modernity,open-mindedness, internationalism and the Western lifestyle. The massmedia use gairaigo to appeal to readers’ and viewers’ feelings ofattraction, arousal and self-esteem rather than to transfer information(Haarmann, 1989; Stanlaw, 1992). Further, the present use of English loanwords symbolises modernity rather than modernisation, and expressesone’s level of acquisition of Westerness (Loveday, 1986, 1997).

In spite of the torrent of gairaigo in present-day Japan, the number offluent speakers of English is relatively low, so the effect of gairaigo onacquisition of foreign languages and even the openness to foreignlanguages seems very limited (Inoguchi, 1999). One partial explanationis that the frequency of usage of gairaigo by laymen is lower that that ofnative words (Shibata, 1989), but it is probably similar to use of loanwords in many other languages. The ambivalent attitude to English as awhole might be better understood if we examined the discourse ofnational identity in contemporary Japan and the role language plays in it.Since the 1960s Japanese society has been in quest of a culturalredefinition of its identity, together with exhibiting a strong need forthe invention of tradition. This is reflected in the vast literature about‘Japaneseness’ known as nihonjinron, whose volume swelled significantlyfrom the 1970s onward (Minami, 1994; Befu, 2001). In this literary genre‘Japaneseness’ is defined and located as the inverse image of animaginary ‘Westerness’, attesting to the importance of a culturallyconstructed ‘West’ in the ongoing invention of a Japanese identity.

The Japanese language has become a major component for nihonjinronproponents and many of them use supposedly indigenous Japaneselinguistic terminology as prototypical concepts around which theydevelop their theses about ‘Japanese uniqueness’ (e.g. Kindaichi, 1957;Watanabe, 1974). A large number of writers contrasted Japanese withEnglish, using extreme dichotomies such as vague versus clear andintuitive versus logical (e.g. Araki, 1986; Tobioka, 1999). These compar-isons often set English as a superior language, but remote, cold andinappropriate for use by Japanese (cf. Dale, 1986). Tsunoda (1978) wentfarther, in suggesting that the Japanese process their language in a


unique manner due to a shift in brain lateralisation. In his pseudobio-logical theory, Tsunoda also attempted to account for the notoriousJapanese incompetence in mastering foreign languages, English inparticular.

For those operating within the nihonjinron tradition, any semanticelement in the native lexicon, as opposed to loan words from Chinese orWestern languages, could be brought to bear on arguments for theuniqueness of inherently Japanese characteristics (Dale, 1986). Thus,subjected to an extraordinarily avid public interest, the national languagebecomes a means of collective self-examination and of soul searching butalso of creating a strong distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’, Japaneseand Westerners in particular (Kowner, 2002, 2003; Miller, 1982).

Language Policy and Its Influence on English Loan Words

One of the principal factors that may explain the ubiquity of Englishloan words in modern Japanese is Japan’s language policy. Japan doesnot have any national institution specifically in charge of the organisationand planning of linguistic borrowing. In fact, during the early stages ofmodernisation the flow of English loan words was so widespread anduncontrolled that a genuine though temporary Japanese-based pidgindeveloped and undoubtedly affected the mainstream language (cf.Goodman, 1967; Loveday, 1986; Miller, 1967). Consequently, certainloan words penetrated the language with only a fraction of their semanticscope, while others acquired new meanings, and still others receivedmore than one phonological structure. Today the influx of loan wordsfrom English into Japanese remained without official control althoughdictionaries and almanacs provide some guidance by functioning interalia as containers of any recent genuine linguistic acquisitions.

The successive reforms of the Japanese language in the 20th centurywere the joint product of pressure groups that stimulated public interestand the resultant government committees that took over and finalisedthe suggested reforms. The need for new vocabulary items has led, asoften is the case elsewhere, to ideological debates between purists andreformers. During the Meiji era there were various levels of opposition toreform. The General Style [Futsubun] Movement, for example, opposedthe use of a colloquial style in Japanese, as well as the unification ofwritten and colloquial styles. Instead it pressed for modifications in theexisting style (Twine, 1991). As for the adoption of loan words, somecritics argue even today that massive borrowing instead of creating anindigenous lexicon is a symbol of cultural backwardness and threat to the


language (Burling, 1992). Others contend that enlarging a vocabularyusing words which few understand reinforces the indifference orambiguous attitude of the Japanese public to the meaning of words(Ueno, 1980). In contrast, supporters of loan word adoption argue thatthey enrich the language and make foreign languages more accessible (cf.Kawamoto, 1983).

Established toward the end of the 19th century, linguistic societies,such as the Society for Unification of Speech and Writing [Gembun no ItchiKai] and the Language Association [Gengo Gakkai], prodded consistentlyfor reforms in writing style, standardisation of the language, as well asthe establishment of a national language advisory body (Twine, 1978;Yamamoto, 1969). Eventually, in 1900 the government, through theEducation Ministry, established the National Language Inquiry Society[Kokugo Chosakai], which was replaced in 1902 by the larger NationalLanguage Inquiry Board [Kokugo Chosa Iinkai]. The following years werecharacterised by continuous linguistic reforms. In 1900 the shape of thekana (a general term for the two indigenous syllabaries, the katakana andthe hiragana) letters was standardised; in 1901 the Education Ministrydetermined the practice of a standard form of Japanese, namely thevariant used by the Tokyo upper-middle classes, and a year later theNational Language Inquiry Board published the first official normativegrammars (Maher, 1995).

The wave of linguistic reforms also affected the use of loan words. In1902 the Ministry of Education issued the first official guidelines for thetranscription of foreign names (locations as well as personal names) withkatakana syllabary, thereby acknowledging their growing importance.However, in the reforms instituted in the primary schools’ educationprogramme in 1910 and 1911 those guidelines were not followed. It wasonly in 1926 that a temporary National Language Inquiry Society [RinjiKokugo Chosakai] was established by the Education Ministry, and itproposed reforming the rules of loan-word transcription. Subsequently, apublic report on the transcription of foreign languages was issued andaccepted as a regulatory document. As attested by the written legacy ofthe popular culture of those days, several conventions that were added tothe script to allow better approximation of the original sounds of the loanwords were indeed implemented. At the same time, little attention waspaid to the spoken language, and the amazing adaptation of Japanese tocontemporary conceptual and technological development was achievedalmost without institutional intervention (Umegaki, 1975).

After many transformations, in 1934 the Education Ministry estab-lished the National Language Council [Kokugo Shingikai], which seven


years later issued a new report on the transcription of foreign words. Themain policy advocated by this report was to avoid using writingconventions that represented foreign phonemes nonexistent in Japanese.This was a substantive regression from the previous report published in1926, which may be interpreted as part of the institutional efforts duringthe Pacific War to purify the Japanese language. The regression was soconsiderable that the new report was not very different from the firstofficial guidelines for the writing of foreign names, issued in 1902(Umegaki, 1975).

The Japanese defeat in 1945 opened the way to another set of reforms.The National Language Council focused mainly on script reforms of kanji(Gottlieb, 1995; Seeley, 1991; Unger, 1996), but in 1954 it issued newguidelines on the proper written rendering of loan words in a specialpolicy report (Umegaki, 1975). Seeking a compromise between the desireto standardise the transcription of loan words while conscious that manyloan words had already been nativised to the point where changing theirspelling was impossible, the report was to dictate the official guidelinesfor loan-word transcription for the next 37 years. In 1991 an up-to-date,amended policy document on the writing of foreign loan words waspublished, which outlined the usage of katakana (Kokugo Shingikai,1991). This document manifests a desire to turn Japanese into a morecommunicative and international language, as can be observed in anconcentrated search for a pronunciation closer to the original words,including the introduction of new non-native phonemes (Carroll, 1997;Gottlieb, 1994). Having started back in the 1920s, this linguistic effort tosustain some of the original sounds of English loan words by construct-ing new phonemes with letter compounds based on existing letters (e.g.di, ti, fi) was implemented only for katakana. Nevertheless, it has alreadyaffected the sound system of modern Japanese as a whole, and may stillenhance further transformations (for a table of contemporary spelling,see Loveday, 1997: 115).

In 1948 the National Japanese Language Research Institute [KokuritsuKokugo Kenkyujo] was established as an affiliate of the Education Ministryto implement the policy adopted by the National Language Council(Gottlieb, 1995). Since then it has conducted research in the area oflinguistic structure, linguistic change and Japanese language teaching.Among the approximately one hundred volumes of scientific researchpublished by the institute until the end of the century, there was onesetting forth guidelines on teaching loan words (Kokuritsu KokugoKenkyujo, 1990). For many years the activities of the institute, did notfocus on lexical modernisation, and its contribution to planning or to


moderating the adoption of foreign words was minimal (Grootaers, 1983).Following the previously mentioned intervention of Prime MinisterKoizumi in 2002, however, a special committee composed recommendedguidelines for the replacement of ‘‘difficult to understand loanwords’’which are currently widely used by public channels of communication,with easier to understand Japanese words (gairaigo iikae teian: wakarinikuigairaigo wo wakariyasuku suru tame no goitukai no kuhu). In 2006 thecommittee published its recommendation for the replacement of about 60such loanwords (see: http://www.kokken.go.jp/public/gairaigo/).

Japan’s public broadcasting organisation, NHK [Nippon Hoso Kyokai],also has had a significant role in language planning in general, andcontrolling the usage of loan words in particular (Carroll, 1995). Throughits two research organs, the Committee on Broadcast Research Language[Hoso Yogo Iinkai] and the Research Group on Broadcast ResearchLanguage [Hoso Yogo Kenkyuhan], NHK has served since the PacificWar as the single most important institution in defining the standardlanguage and in disseminating it throughout Japan. Since the first radiobroadcast in 1925, NHK has been instrumental in controlling andpromulgating the use of loan words. It even published a book regarding,inter alia, the correct katakana spelling of loan words (NHK, 1987). Thiscontribution, however, has been overwhelmed in recent decades by thegrowth of commercial TV and radio stations. Not only are they morepopular than NHK, they tend to use and introduce more English-inspired words due to more liberal attitudes and various commercialneeds.

In the absence of substantial official guidance, the role of tracking,cataloguing and standardising the massive penetration of foreign wordsin Japan was undertaken partly by compilers of dictionaries. SinceJapan’s early history, dictionaries have been an integral and influentialpart of Japanese intellectual life, and in the last century a special genre ofprofessional dictionaries and lexicons [senmon jiten] has developed. Thistype of dictionary � a strong indication of a society that cherishesknowledge and information � consists currently of several thousands ofspecific volumes covering almost every field. They include dictionariesof recently coined words, dictionaries of slang and dictionaries of loanwords (e.g. Arakawa, 1977; Motwani, 1991; Saito, 1985). Most of them arepublished by non-state organisations and companies, such as theannually issued Gendai Yogo no Kiso Chishiki [Basic Knowledge ofContemporary Terminology], which deals with new terms, most of whichare loan words, classified according to subjects (e.g. Jiyukokumin, 2004).Others are the outcome of an enterprise of the Ministry of Education,


Science and Culture. Together with the Japan Society for the Promotionof Science and the similar Scientific Association, it has compiled, sincethe 1950s, scores of dictionaries of scientific terms [gakujutsu yogo shu] inall the major scientific disciplines (e.g. Ministry of Education, Science andCulture, 1986).

Evidently, language policies in Japan have focused mainly on thewritten language. In contrast to the spoken language, it is relatively easy,as Carroll (1997) argues, to codify, set standards for and monitor thewritten. Yet even here, most attention was paid to the kanji and least tokatakana. The official assignment of katakana to the writing of loan wordscan be interpreted as official legitimisation of loan words. The smallnumber of katakana reforms, as well as the attempt in most of them(except the one initiated during the Pacific War) to formulate a smoother,more flexible and more adequate transcription of loan words, suggeststhat the government has been adopting a liberal, supportive non-involvement policy in regard to loan words. This laissez-faire attitude toloan words (except for a short interlude during the Pacific War) may bean acknowledgement of the government’s inability to control thepenetration of foreign vocabulary, enhanced by the implicit view thatthe uninhibited acquisition of loan words is an important tool in theongoing process of modernisation. Nevertheless, this policy, or itsabsence, has been a crucial factor in the influx of gairaigo, English loanwords in particular, into Japanese (Kowner & Rosenhouse, 2001).

Linguistic Features and Practices of Loan Words inJapanese

Although linguistic features and practices may be altered by institu-tional language policies, they are in fact the result of complex, historical,multidimensional and often even coincidental influences. In the follow-ing, we offer an analysis of certain linguistic features and practices inJapanese that reflect as well as mould cultural receptivity to loan words.As we shall show, various linguistic practices express the dialecticalrelationship between the cultural constructs of ‘Japaneseness’ and‘foreign’ in Japan. Although many in Japan express their resentmenttowards the influx of gairaigo into Japanese, in an odd way the presenceof loan words enhances the unity and integrity of the ‘Japanese language’and consequently of an ‘original’ Japanese culture.

The domestication patterns of kango have affected the domesticationpatterns of gairaigo. As we pointed out above, loan words in Japanese arecategorised in two groups. The first includes words that derive from


Chinese and are called kango; the second includes all other loan wordsthat are termed gairaigo. Certain scholars have argued that this socio-linguistic differentiation between kango and other loan words is notjustifiable from a purely linguistic point of view, as the patterns ofdomestication of kango influenced the patterns of domestication of loanwords from other languages centuries later (e.g. Ishiwata, 1991).

In the 7th century kango were incorporated into Japanese in greatnumbers, along with massive cultural importation from China thatstarted a new era in Japanese history. The official support that it enjoyedfrom the Japanese court and aristocracy ceased in the 10th century.Nevertheless, with the help of merchants, pirates, artists and clerics thecultural domestication of many aspects of the Chinese culture still had aprominent effect at least until the 18th century (Pollack, 1986). Thecultural legacy of those centuries leaves no doubt as to the prevailingliberal attitudes to the incorporation of new and foreign repertoires andmodes of behaviour, which changed the Japanese culture dramatically. Amore critical inquiry into the ways Japanese represented their culture tothemselves at that time, however, results in a complex interpretation ofthe inner-cultural debate that took place on the influx of Chinese culture.During the early stages of the Japanese emulation of Chinese culture,things ‘Japanese’ [wa] had to be considered in relation to what wasconsidered ‘Chinese’ [kan]. In this manner, ‘Japanese’ and ‘Chinese’ didnot exist as objective identities but as antithetical cultural constructs of auniquely Japanese dialectic known as wakan [Sino-Japanese] (Pollack,1986). The importance some intellectuals gave to the maintenance of theboundaries of Japanese culture under such circumstances is wellexpressed in the 9th-century slogan ‘wakon kansai’ [Japanese spirit,Chinese technology]. This slogan is attributed to Sugawara no Michizane(845�903), who advocated the introduction of Chinese elements as longas they did not harm the integrity of Japanese cultural identity.

From a linguistic viewpoint, in addition to the influx of kango, theagglutinative and analytic elements prevalent in contemporary Japanese(but originally absent in the languages of the Altaic family, includingJapanese) were created during those years in order to smooth theintroduction of Chinese vocabulary items (Nishikawa, 1988; Umegaki,1975). Furthermore, as no script existed in Japan until then, the Chinesekanji character system was also imported en bloc. At first, the political andintellectual elite of the rising kingdom of Yamato (Japan) was content tospeak Japanese and write in Chinese, and all official documents andtheological writings were written in Chinese. It was only in the 8th


century that the Chinese script system was domesticated and adapted toJapanese.

Originally each Chinese character was an ideograph that symbolised asingle idea (logograph), but during its evolution much of the Chinesevocabulary came to comprise of words made of more than one character.When adapted to Japanese, some characters were read in Japaneseaccording to their original meaning, others were read as Chinese loanwords that had been changed phonetically in accordance with Japanesepronunciation, while yet others were used phonetically as a syllabaryscript regardless of their original meaning. Chinese characters were alsoused as building blocks for the creation of new words in Japanese. Thisnew form of linguistic adaptation facilitated the introduction of Sino-Japanese words, that is, Chinese ‘made in Japan’, into Japanese.

During the 9th century, under the influence of Sanskrit studies ofBuddhist monks and their knowledge of the alphabets of India, twooriginal purely phonetic syllabary scripts, the hiragana and the katakana,were developed in Japan. The method was to simplify certain Chinesecharacters used in the first syllabary script (Seeley, 1991). Duringcenturies of intensive linguistic importation from China, linguistic toolsfacilitating the smoother introduction of loan words were created.Furthermore, during those years linguistic practices that allowed greatcreativity with loan words and even legitimised disconnecting form andsound from content (or signifier from signified), while vigilantlymaintaining a wakan dialectical discourse, were established. In thefollowing centuries, and, as we shall see, to the present day, thesesociolinguistic resources have been reappropriated in new contexts.

Written form

The modern Japanese writing system consists of three independentscripts (Chinese kanji ideographs, hiragana, katakana) that are usedtogether, although each could theoretically represent the language’sentire phonological range (Habein, 1984; Seeley, 1991). In addition, Latinletters are frequently used, usually for acronyms, commercial names andnumbers (on the increasing use of English or Latin-based text in thepublic space of contemporary Tokyo, see Backhaus, 2007a, 2007b).Nonetheless, the backbone of Japanese writing is the Chinese kanjicharacter system. In modern standard Japanese, Chinese characters areused for conceptual words (mainly substantives, verbs and adjectives)and indigenous names. Alongside the Chinese script, there are twoindigenous phonetic scripts known as kana. The first, Hiragana, is used


for writing inflectional endings of conceptual words (written in theChinese kanji characters), particles, as well as words previously writtenwith rare Chinese characters, whereas the second, katakana, is usedchiefly to write loan words of non-Chinese origin, non-Japanese propernames, native onomatopoeic words and the names of some plants andanimals. The latter is also used to write cables, to indicate the phoneticreading of difficult Chinese characters (known as furigana) or for specialpoetic effects and emphasis (Rebuck, 2002). The complexity of thecontemporary Japanese script transforms the characters in use frommere arbitrarily agreed conventions to being part of the communicatedmessage. Thus, the possibility of exchanging one script for anotherbecomes a means for sophisticated written communication (see forexample, Ivy, 1988: 25).

Originally, katakana was used by men only, to punctuate and facilitatethe reading of documents in Chinese. Thereafter it was used incombination with Chinese characters in the writing of official documents(Shoshashido, 1994). It is not clear when katakana started to be used forwriting loan words, but Christian priests arriving in Japan from the 16thcentury may have been the first to study the rules of transcribing foreignlanguages with kana. They began by trying to translate religious conceptsinto Japanese, but because of the many misunderstandings they decidedto use the original words transcribed phonetically (Umegaki, 1975).Although inadequate, transcription rules formulated by Father JoaoRodrigues in his book Arte da Lingoa de Japam (Nagasaki, 1604�1608) wereadopted by the Japanese intelligentsia throughout the Edo era (1600�1868). This does not mean that using katakana to transcribe loan wordsinto Japanese was common practice. In fact, although some intellectuals,such as Arai Hakuseki (1657�1725), had already been doing so, mosttranslators used kanji, and only sometimes hiragana or katakana. Institu-tional efforts to standardise the transcription of loan words with katakanabegan only in the early 20th century, suggesting that by that time it hadalready become customary. Today, katakana is so identified with loanwords that they are sometimes referred to as katakanago [katakanawords].

One of the main reasons for the current prevalence of English loanwords in Japanese is arguably the existence of a separate script forwriting foreign words (Honna, 1995). The option of using katakana carriesimmense advantages for smoothing the process of domesticating foreignwords, even though it is not impossible to write loan words in Chinesecharacters. The word kohii [Dutch: koffie], for example, is still oftenwritten in Chinese characters: . Nevertheless, the phonetic use of


Chinese characters (known as ateji) is much less convenient than using asimple phonetic syllabary, such as the katakana. Writing loan words withkatakana seems convenient also because it is conspicuous in the flow of asentence written in Japanese, and immediately betrays the origin of loanwords, which eases, in turn, the process of recognising and decipheringthem. Compare, for example, the transcription of ‘club’ into[kurabu], and the French capital ‘Paris’ into , as was the customduring Meiji period, to the modern and , respectively.

But there is more to writing in katakana than this. Official encourage-ment to write non-Chinese loan words with katakana can justifiably beregarded as institutional approval of loan words. The government’sinitiative to assign a special syllabary to loan words, and to continuouslyimprove and elaborate on it, allowing better phonetic transcription, canbe regarded as part of a language policy that accepts and actuallyencourages the importing of loan words. This policy is more sophisti-cated than it seems, as while providing linguistic devices to assimilateloan words better into Japanese, it simultaneously keeps loan wordspermanently in the special status of foreign words.

Phonology

Although phonetic adaptation of loan words in Japanese followscertain rules, it is rather complex and also has many exceptions to therules. It is difficult to offer a fully adequate and comprehensive accounthere (for a more detailed description, see Ishiwata, 1991; Ohso, 1991;Umegaki, 1975). A general description of the more important rules maysuffice:

1. In principle, all phonetic domestication of loan words in Japanese isbased on the sound of the original words rather than on their script.Nevertheless, due to the phonological constraints of Japanese (i.e.limited number of phonemes and vowels (Miller, 1967), and almostall syllables being open phonetically), loan words sound quitedifferent from their original pronunciation (Lovins, 1975; Vance,1986).

2. Phonemes that do not exist in Japanese such as /l/ or /v/ as in ‘love’are replaced by existing phonemes, in this case /r/ and /b/: ‘rabu’.

3. Nonexisting vowels, and nonexisting combinations of consonant�vowel, are approximated according to their original sound. Thus,‘cheese’ is pronounced chızu; ‘pair’ is pronounced pea, ‘water’ ispronounced uota, and ‘silk’ is pronounced shiruku.


4. Closed syllables are changed into open ones by addition of vowels.The vowel /u/, the shortest in Japanese, is the one most frequentlyused, unless another habit has formed through several years ofusage. Therefore, while ‘Spain’ is pronounced supein and ‘bus’ ispronounced basu, ‘brake’ is pronounced bureki. However, after /t/and /d/ the vowel /o/ is usually added since /t/�/u/ in Japaneseis pronounced /tsu/, and /d/�/u/ is pronounced /dzu/. Hereagain, this rule is implemented only provided another habit has notbecome common practice. Thus, while ‘pocket’ is pronouncedpocketto, ‘shirt’ is pronounced shatsu.

5. When the consonant /r/ is not followed by a vowel, it is usuallyomitted and replaced by stretching the previous vowel, as in carpronounced ka, ‘heart’ pronounced hato, or ‘sport’ pronouncedsupotsu.

6. Stressing of consonants by doubling them has many exceptions to therules. Generally in loan words, consonants that come after shortvowels are doubled: ‘top’ becomes toppu, and ‘snack’ becomessunakku. Interestingly, this rule not only has several variations, forexample, according to the number of syllables in the word, it is alsonot consistent with Japanese phonetics. Unlike in loan words, inJapanese phonetics only voiceless consonants following short vowelsare stressed. For this reason, pronouncing loan words in whichvoiced consonants are doubled is difficult for Japanese speakers, sothey change them into voiceless consonants. ‘Bed’ becomes betto, and‘big’ becomes bikku.

All English loan words undergo a process of phonetic ‘Japanisation’.Phonetic domestication in Japanese is so systematic that even incodeswitching to English, words that are not categorised as loan words,but as English idioms or parts of whole English phrases, are usually alsopronounced after being phonetically Japanised. During an official visit toground zero in New York, Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro, forinstance, made a statement to the accompanying Japanese pressincorporating a number of Japanised phrases such as: uı masuto fuaitoterorizumu [we must fight terrorism] (Rebuck, 2002). Though being a fullindependent grammatical sentence in English, the prime minister stillpronounced it according to Japanese phonology. This tendency, which isever-present in Japanese popular culture, can be interpreted from apragmatic point of view as playing with the ‘foreign’ on familiarJapanese grounds. This suggests a dual approach, comprising almost


aggressive domestication while maintaining the communicative-mark-edness of the ‘foreign’ versus the ‘native’.

Morphology

In the process of domesticating loan words in Japanese, severalpatterns of morphological adaptation are noteworthy. We note two of themore common morphological transformation only:

1. English loan words are occasionally shortened by omission of theirfirst or last parts, as in ‘blanket’, which has become ketto, and‘dynamite’, which has become maito; or as in ‘demonstration’, whichhas become demo, and ‘department store’, which has become depato.Sometimes, imported nouns formulated originally from more thanone word are shortened by one or more syllables to become a newsingle integrated Japanese lexeme. Thus, ‘personal computer’ be-comes pasokon, ‘mother complex’ becomes mazakon and ‘sexualharassment’ becomes sekuhara. The license to treat syllables ascarriers of meaning, rather than the whole word or at least itsoriginal root, is attributable to the influence of Chinese (Ishiwata,1991). As we briefly described earlier in this chapter, after theiradaptation to Japanese, Chinese characters that represent phoneti-cally one syllable as well as a semantic meaning became the buildingblocks for newly coined words in Sino-Japanese. What allows theapplication of this linguistic tool to English words is that unlike inChinese, syllables in English do not have an independent meaning.Furthermore, arbitrary shortening of words does not comply with thepatterns of coinage of new words in English. Nevertheless, thoughshortening loan words creates many homonyms, for example,‘sentimental’ and ‘centimetre’ both become senchi, or ‘home’ and‘platform’ both become homu, uninhibited omission of syllables isvery common practice with English loan words in Japan.

2. The Japanese language is characterised by intricate politeness systemsthat depend on sociolinguistic factors. These systems distinguishbetween formal and informal styles, and numerous options ofhonorific language [keigo] (see Harada, 1976). Japanese speakersneed to choose from several alternatives, which express the samemessage, while usually referring to the listener in a ‘respectful’(‘honorific’) mode and to oneself in a ‘humble’ manner (cf. Hill et al.,1986, Ogino, 1986). To create a politer register, the honorific prefix ‘o’ isattached to some nominal loanwords. A bartender states to a customerthat he is about to serve o-biru [beer] or o-kohii [coffee]. The prefix ‘o’ is


also used to produce euphemisms, ‘cleaner language’, to denotesomewhat embarrassing things. The word ‘toilet’, for example, itself aeuphemism used to avoid the local terminology, is first shortened andthen prefixed with a formal ‘o’ resulting in the word o-toire (Miller,1967).

The morphological changes some loan words undergo reflect acarefree and liberal attitude to them. They are treated like buildingblocks, just as Chinese-like morphemes are used, in the innovativeongoing creation of the Japanese language. Here too, as with the phoneticadaptation of loan words, the dual approach of domesticating loanwords to the point of detaching them altogether from their originalcontext, while maintaining their culturally constructed foreignness as acommunicative attribute, is prominent.

Semantic features

As with many other host languages, the absorption of foreign wordsinto Japanese language leads to certain semantic phenomena that can besummarised as follows.

Semantic deficiency

Many of the English loan words fill semantic voids in Japanese,mainly in the modern technological domain. In certain domains the vastmajority of terms are loan words (mechanical terms, computer terms,automobile parts). English terms have even replaced certain indigenousnomenclatures, and by the mid-1970s 52% of flower names, 35% ofvegetable names and 24% of animal names are based on English words(Morimoto, 1978).

Semantic redundancy

The existence of many loan words leads to lexical redundancy. Theborrowed adjectives biggu (big) and kyuto (cute), for example, sometimesreplace the local adjectives okii and kawaii, respectively. The noun miruku[milk] is at times used instead of gyunyu. Often this redundancy can onlybe explained in terms of the functionality of loan words as stylisticdevices for self-presentation or as a response to external culturalinfluences. A closer look suggests that in many other examples thisredundancy is only apparent. The loan word and the local one denoteroughly the same notion, but with a certain semantic variation orqualification. While ikebana, for example, denotes a Japanese style flowerarrangement, furawa arenji (flower arrangement) denotes a Western-styleone. While daidokoro denotes a Japanese-style kitchen, kicchin [kitchen]


denotes the modern Western variation; and, while maguro is the name oftuna fish served Japanese style, tsuna [tuna] always refers to canned tunafish meat. Many ‘redundant’ loan words are used only in compounds:sukuru [school] is used in a number of compounds such as bijinesu sukuru[business school] and sukuru basu [school bus], but never independently.Likewise karucha [culture] and pepa [paper].

Semantic extension

With the introduction of new loan words, semantic shifts are verycommon. Often when an indigenous word did exist, its English counter-part evolved to express only a specific part of its original meaning bynarrowing its original semantic field. Thus kı [key] denotes car keys only,and rızonaburu [reasonable] is used only to describe reasonable prices.This semantic form enables speakers to achieve a particular flavour, andgreater linguistic precision. Another common form of semantic shift isthe extension of the original semantic fields of certain loan words. Theloan word kamera man [camera man], for example, rather than denoting aprofessional ‘cameraman’ only, signifies any person holding a camera;and while in English the word ‘feminist’ denotes a person aspiring toachieve opportunities for women equal to those of men, in Japanese theword feminisuto refers also to a person who treats women kindly.

Semantic distortion

Sometimes the original meanings of a loan word are replacedaltogether by new original local meanings. The word ‘companion’ inEnglish, for example, denotes a friendly escort. In Japanese the wordkompanion refers to a woman employed as a translator or a hostess at asocial or professional gathering, or to a sale-promotion stewardess; andwhile the English words ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ denote the physical condition ofan object, the loan word ueto [wet] describes a sentimental person, asopposed to a dorai [dry], a non-sentimental one. Many of these semanticshifts may have originally occurred due to some misunderstanding, buttoday public awareness of the discrepancies between the originalmeanings of those loan words and their Japanese meanings is growing.Contrary to what might have been expected, this awareness frequentlyresults in a certain amused admiration for the creativity and originality ofthe Japanese language and its speakers. Although after undergoingphonological, morphological and semantic changes a loan word is oftencompletely unintelligible to English speakers, it is still considered a loanword rather than a word in Japanese or even an ‘English made-in-Japan’word.


Indigenous coinage of English-inspired vocabulary [wasei eigo]

Nowhere is more creativity and originality expressed than in thelocally coined English-like words and expressions. ‘English-inspiredvocabulary items’ often have meanings in Japan that are inventive,playful and uniquely Japanese (cf. Tobin, 1992). Several such expressionsare so indispensable and deep-rooted in Japanese daily life that theirusage has become unmarked, while other expressions are amusingenough to retain their special marking despite their long history. A fewexamples of such words may suffice: ‘base-up’ pronounced besu appu [araise in basic salary]; ‘salaried man’ pronounced sararıman [male white-collar employee]; ‘nighter’ pronounced naita [a night-time baseballgame]; ‘skinship’ pronounced sukinshippu [physical contact usuallybetween mother and child]; ‘engine stop’ shortened and pronouncedensuto [stalling of a car engine]; ‘my car’ pronounced mai ka [one’s privatecar]; ‘high miss’ pronounced hai misu [an unmarried woman aged over30]; and ‘body-conscious’ pronounced bodikon [bodikon girls formed asubculture during the late 1980s until the beginning of the 1990s. Theywere characterised by their figure-hugging dresses]. The combination ofa loan word with a native Japanese word or with a Japanese word ofChinese origin is a popular pattern for producing loan translations ororiginal local expressions. Haiki gasu [exhaust gas] and ha burashi [toothbrush] are loan translations, while denki sutando [electricity�standcombined to mean an electric lamp stand] and karaoke [empty�orchestracombined, to mean the now universally popular entertainment in whichamateurs sing their favourite songs with recorded orchestral accompani-ment] are local original expressions.

Acronaming of English-inspired vocabulary items is also very fre-quent. Thus, OL, pronounced oeru, is the acronym for the Japaneseoriginal expression ‘office-lady’, referring to a female clerk. The acronymLDK, pronounced erudikei, stands for ‘living-dining-kitchen’, indicatingWestern-style apartments. Sometimes words in Japanese or Sino-Japaneseare also made into Latinate acronyms. The noun hentai, for example,which denotes sexual perversion, is often acronamed as H, pronouncedeichi. The three characteristics of the most unattractive jobs are kitanai[dirty], kiken [dangerous] and kitsui [tiring], usually referred to as 3K,pronounced sankei.

Many of the more inventive wasei eigo expressions are coined as slang.The original obatarian, for example, is a pejorative for a pushy middle-aged lady. It is actually an integration of the English nominalisationpattern: XXX�rian as in ‘vegetarian’; here it has the Japanese noun foran elderly woman, obasan. The same formation pattern produced the


amusing expression jibetarian, from jibeta (earth or ground)� ian, denot-ing a juvenile lazy bum squatting on the pavements. Another funexpression is anshinjiraburu. In this expression, the English adjectivepattern un�XXX�able as in ‘unreasonable’ has been applied with theJapanese verb shinjiru [to believe] to form the semi-loan translation of‘unbelievable’. The Japanese media are very quick to absorb and spreadmany of these newly coined expressions that evoke a youthful mood.Sometimes the media themselves are responsible for the invention ofnew terminology as a means of attracting a young audience or reader-ship. This is why, for example, the publishers of a popular magazinetargeting young men chose to call it Gainer as a local marked variation onthe English expression ‘winner’.

Similarly to the public enthusiasm for modan-go [modern words] inprewar Japan, nowadays too wasei eigo are often treated as a highlyenjoyable linguistic phenomenon. While the interesting case of wasei eigodemonstrates the uninhibited cultural� linguistic approach to foreignlexemes, it also exhibits conspicuously the ongoing cultural constructionand invention of Japanese identity through the categorisation andcultural treatment of loan words. The ambiguous identity of wasei eigo,which does not comply with either of these categories, is resolved bydefining these words as both foreign and Japanese at the same time. Thisthird culturally constructed categorisation complies well with yetanother cultural narrative created for legitimising the incorporation offoreign elements including loan words while preserving the integrity ofthe Japanese culture. The hidden agenda of this narrative, as Brannen(1992) puts it, is that the Japanese, despite their numerous encounterswith other cultures, remain a unique people as cultural artefacts broughtto Japan from foreign lands are introduced as seeds to be planted inJapanese soil. From these seeds the original and unique Japanese cultureevolves. While this narrative describes adequately and universally allintercultural encounters and exchanges, the interesting thing is that inJapan it is further developed as part of an ongoing cultural debate aboutJapanese identity that may, as Brannen shows, have quite unexpectedpublic exposures.

Grammatical adaptation

Grammatical licence in the adaptation of loan words in Japanese isalso common (cf. Tranter, 1997). The most common in regard to Englishis the dropping of English suffixes such as -s, -ed and -ing. ‘Sunglasses’ issangurasu, condensed milk is kondensu miruku, and frying pan is furai pan


(cf. Kawamoto, 1983). The Japanese language, however, provides itsspeakers with some grammatical possibilities that seem especiallyconvenient for the introduction of loan words. While Japanese displaysto a certain degree the characteristics of an inflecting language, it also hasagglutinative and analytic characteristics. In Japanese, in most cases, achange in gender, number or case is not effected grammatically in nouns,and this facilitates the introduction of nominal loan words. Moreover,suffixes like ‘da’, ‘na’ and ‘ni’, or independent morphemes like the verb‘suru’ [to do], are added to loan words, transforming them into nouns,adjectives, adverbs or verbs, and incorporating them into Japanese. Forexample, the English ‘best’, as an adverb, is transformed into a Japaneseadverb through the suffix ‘ni’, resulting in ‘besuto ni’; the English noun‘hiking’ is transformed into a Japanese verb through the Japanese verbsuru, resulting in haikingu suru. In the same way, the English nominalidiom ‘hit and run’ is transformed into the Japanese verb hitto endo ransuru.

Certainly, as we know from other languages, inflecting characteris-tics do not prevent or limit the possibility of importing new vocabularyitems from other languages. Japanese too offers a few examples of loanwords that were originally verbs or nouns and were assimilated intoJapanese as inflecting verbs or inflecting adjectives thanks to theirphonetic structure in the original or after being adapted to Japanese.The verb ‘to double’, for example, became transformed into the Japaneseinflecting verb daburu (past form dabutta), and the adverb ‘now’ becametransformed into the Japanese inflecting adjective naui (past form nautta).The transformation of the verb ‘to neglect’ into an inflecting Japaneseverb, however, was much more complex. First it was made into aJapanese verb with the addition of the verb suru to produce negurekuto�suru. Then it was shortened to negu�suru, and ended finally as theJapanese inflecting verb neguru (past form negutta).

Still, the scarcity of loan words that became transformed into Japaneseinflectional verbs or adjectives suggests that adding suffixes or indepen-dent morphemes in order to assimilate new loan words into Japanese ismuch more simple. The Japanese language features an apparatus for‘instant adaptation’ of loan words, and this has greatly facilitated theimport of loan words throughout the centuries. The ease and simplicityof this process have certainly influenced the uninhibited cultural attitudeto the borrowing of foreign words and to their ever-ingenious assimila-tion into the local language.


Conclusion

Modern Japanese is characterised by an extreme penetration ofEnglish loan words. This penetration is notable particularly because ofthe large linguistic distance between Japanese and English, as well as theongoing ethnocentric discourse which focuses on the singularity of theJapanese people and their language. Despite these obstacles, English loanwords have become exceptionally popular under certain favourablehistorical and political conditions.

The penetration of English loan words into Japanese was fostered by along tradition of emulating the values and technology of a chosenleading civilisation. Since the end of the 19th century, Britain, and laterthe USA, were regarded as the bearers of civilisation. Consequently,lexical borrowing from English was not only considered indispensablefor Japan’s modernisation but it was also accompanied by high prestige.At the same time, Japan has avoided almost any institutional control overthis borrowing, and the attraction to English loan words in the widelyavailable media eased the process of dissemination of new vocabulary.Finally, the use of a writing system designed in modern times specificallyfor Western loan words enforces their modification and thereby reducesthe cultural sense of identity loss.

This chapter suggests that Japanese cultural receptiveness to Englishloan words does not reflect a passive cultural environment subordinatedto the acknowledged superiority of the ‘West’. This receptiveness, in fact,is possible as it is constructed within an ongoing dynamic inner culturalreinvention of ‘Japaneseness’ and ‘Japanese identity’. Despite sporadicattempts to restrain the spread of loan words and to protect the purity ofthe Japanese language, such as that launched by Prime MinisterKoizumi, the prevailing practices in Japan in regard to loan wordsexhibit a more sophisticated cultural strategy which protects the‘Japaneseness’ of the Japanese language. It is a strategy in the broadersense of providing speakers with cultural� linguistic possibilities thatwere created over many centuries as result of multiple influences andcoincidences. Even from a purist point of view, loan words are used inJapanese as an antithetical representation of the essence of ‘Japanese-ness’, and only through comparison with them, through the constructionof their (foreign) image, can Japanese identity be defined and affirmed.

Paraphrasing Swidler’s (1986) notion of culture and adapting it tolanguage, we maintain that language is a ‘tool kit’ of linguistic features,linguistic practices, symbols, values and worldviews, which people mayuse in various configurations. They use it to solve problems that go


beyond straightforward communication, namely to metacommunicationand the creation of a personal and a collective identity. Languageprovides its speakers with linguistic components used to constructpersistent ways of ordering action, or ‘strategies of action’. In theinterpretation of sociolinguistic phenomena, the significance of specificlinguistic practices should be understood in relation to the strategies ofaction they sustain.

At the dawn of the 21st century, globalisation processes andtechnological progress certainly enhance and influence the speed andproportion of the phenomenon of gairaigo in Japanese. Yet in ratheringenious sociolinguistic ways, after being fully domesticated � often tothe point of being totally reinvented � these words become bearers of thewayo [Japanese�Western] dialectical relations in contemporary Japan thatare crucial to the contemporary construction of ‘Japaneseness’. Bydramatising the difference and opposition to the Other, the sense ofself is accentuated. The culturally constructed categorisation of ‘loanwords’ as opposed to ‘Japanese words’ or to words in ‘English made-in-Japan’, become proof of the unity and integrity of the ever-changingJapanese language.

Note1. All translations from Japanese sources are by the authors.


Chapter 14

Conclusion: Features of Borrowingfrom English in 12 Languages

JUDITH ROSENHOUSE and ROTEM KOWNER

This volume was conceived to study the determinants of and motives forcontemporary lexical borrowing from English, the world’s lingua franca,which since the second half of the 20th century has been playing anincreasingly vital role in global politics, economy and culture and enjoysexceptionally high prestige. The foregoing chapters analysed the pene-tration of English loan words, mainly from American English, in 12languages representing a wide variety of language families, politicalsystems, economic developmental stages and historical relations with theEnglish language and the Anglo-American world. In all of the countriesunder discussion (except for India to some extent), English remains aforeign language and does not enter the informal realm of full usage inprivate life, although it exerts an influence in the sphere of borrowedlexicon and is used to various degrees in codeswitching.

The process of borrowing words from English can be considered atleast from two viewpoints: a psycholinguistic angle, reflecting the needsof individuals, and a sociolinguistic angle, reflecting the needs ofcommunities. Personal attitudes to English vocabulary are among thepsycholinguistic factors that affect and modify the individual’s motiva-tion for or against borrowing from it, whereas communal attitudesrepresent sociolinguistic aspects of language development throughborrowing. Both are affected by linguistic and non-linguistic factors.Linguistic factors include all the structural elements of the examinedlanguages, that is, elements and linguistic rules which are similar to ordiffer from the English ones. Non-linguistic factors, such as those relatedto economics and politics, exert their influence in various manners,according to the specific political and social structures in each languagecommunity.

Each language has its own seasoning of the above ingredients,including a unique history and contacts with a particular set of foreign

276

languages. In Ch. 1 we divided these needs into three classes of elementsthat form the borrowing phenomenon: motives, determinants and media.In the languages portrayed in this volume, three motives for borrowingkeep recurring: the need to coin new terminology and concepts, thetendency to emulate a dominant group and the tendency to create aspecial jargon in closed groups. These motives can hardly be isolatedfrom the primary determinants necessary when borrowing is to occur:modernisation and economic development, prestige, ethnic and linguis-tic diversity, nationalism, cultural threat, national character, and theexistence of regulatory linguistic establishments. We regard thesemotives and determinants as representing the (above-mentioned) basicdichotomy of psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics, thus moulding thestructure and development of languages. These motives and determi-nants form our model for contemporary borrowing from English. Theactual spread of English loan words in the absorbing languages has beenfound to proceed by three major routes: direct communication, massmedia and the education system. All these routes can be also consideredwithin the psycholinguistic�sociolinguistic dichotomy, and thus comple-ment the model.

The Main Motives and Determinants of Lexical Borrowing

This study indicates that one of the primary determinants ofborrowing English loan words, as well as a major source of variabilityin our sample, is ethnic and linguistic diversity. Several of the 12countries examined, such as Russia, Hungary, France, the Netherlands,Japan and Iceland, were traditionally composed of relatively homoge-neous populations, at least linguistically; other countries are moreheterogeneous in these respects (e.g. India, Ethiopia, Iran, Taiwan andIsrael). This division has become more complex since the beginning ofthe 20th century, as even countries with basically homogeneous popula-tions have witnessed increasing influxes of immigrants from differentparts of the world. Thus, the prediction that greater heterogeneity willlead to greater use of English and its loan words is more or less relevantfor all the languages we studied.

However, the political and ideological background which exists invarious countries is apparently more effective than simply the popula-tion make-up of a country as to borrowing from English. In Iran, forexample, the strongly negative attitude to the USA entailed officialcessation of teaching and learning that country’s language and dis-allowed the use of its vocabulary in borrowings, for a certain period. This

Conclusion 277

fact goes hand in hand with the reverse prediction (see prediction C10 inChapter 1) that the weaker the nationalist beliefs and policies, and theweaker the cultural threat to the absorbing language (prediction C11 inChapter 1), the greater the propensity to borrow English loan words.Moreover, the stronger the national government, the less democratic theregime, and the more obedient the population (predictions C12, C13 andC14 in Chapter 1), as we see in Taiwan, Iran and Ethiopia, as well as inSoviet Russia, the easier it is for the official government to sway thepopulation towards or against English borrowings. We also found thatwhen a country is in conflict with some part of the Anglophone worldor becomes connected to another cultural power it tends to avoidlexical borrowing from English, despite its high prestige. As examples ofsuch processes we consider Japan in the 1930s, Hungary during the coldwar and Ethiopia during the military regime at the end of the 20thcentury.

The linguistic control exercised by language academies and otherinstitutions is often ambiguous. On the one hand academies competewith English borrowings by coining new lexical items in their languages,but on the other they accept and ratify the use of various Englishborrowings or deliberately adapt them to their languages. This activity,nonetheless, lags far behind the penetration of English borrowings intocommunication within the absorbing language community. Languageacademies and educational systems are the formal institutions concernedwith English borrowings either as part of their official task (theacademies) or as by-products of their official educational activities(schools). Some of these academies are more strict and influential (or‘successful’) than others, as indicated in Figure 14.1. In countries wherelanguage academies exist, the attitude to borrowing from English isusually rather negative. Not all the language communities have languageacademies, however. Such countries may have some other official orsemi-official institutes to deal with this issue (e.g. Iceland, Hungary,Japan and Taiwan in our sample).

Being the most organised agent for this task, educational institutions,from elementary schools to high schools and universities, are often themost important agent for the dissemination of the English languagethroughout the world, at least as a foreign language. All the countriesstudied in our volume teach English as a foreign or second language,although they diverge in the quantity and quality of this effort. Somelanguage communities started teaching English at school only relativelyrecently, e.g. Hungary, Russia and Ethiopia. Some have fluctuated alongthe years between various foreign languages due to the social and


political situation, e.g. Taiwan, Japan, Iran and Ethiopia. Yet in certaincountries, such as the Netherlands, India, and even Israel, English haslong been treated at least as a second language, whether officially or not.A common denominator among countries where English was not taughtin the 20th century, such as Russia, Hungary, Ethiopia and Iran, is theirmore complicated economic situation, usually involving lower grossnational product (GNP) as well as a lesser level of democratic rights.

As implied in Chapter 1, some of the determinants we and others (e.g.Fishman, 1996b; Rubal-Lopez, 1996) have proposed are perhaps confus-ing and their effect is complex. Not every parameter which relates toborrowing is necessarily also a determinant. The parameter of GNP percapita, for example, is linked to lexical borrowing in a complex way.Countries still at a low stage of modernisation, and consequently withlow GNP per capita, have a greater need for lexical borrowing tofacilitate modernisation. By contrast, countries with high GNP per capitausually enjoy a relatively higher stage of modernisation, and often have acapitalist economy and high degree of democratic rights. Nevertheless,these very traits correlate with various factors that enhance borrowingfrom English, such as open borders, frequent travel abroad, access tomass communication and high consumption of the products and popularculture of Anglophone countries. Although the former case concerns theneed to borrow and the latter actual inclination, GNP is clearly not adirect determinant of lexical borrowing (and is therefore not on our list)but might moderate it. Similarly, the prevalence of high education tendsto encourage lexical borrowing as it is often associated with broaderlexical needs and greater use of English-laden jargon. Nonetheless, incertain political circumstances high education may stimulate purism (e.g.Iran, prewar Japan), as such a tendency requires an educated, albeitreactionary, elite. Education in itself is not sufficient to enhanceborrowing from English, however. The combination of generally higheducation in a community with a high GNP tends to intensify linguisticborrowing because of the easy access to English, greater needs foradditional vocabulary and the mere fact that high GNP is related, at leastat present, to strong economic, cultural and political contacts with theAnglophone world. This picture can be seen in the case of Japan, TaiwanChinese, Dutch, French and Israeli Hebrew.

The role of schools in influencing speakers’ language habits shouldnot be underestimated. One facet of this role was demonstrated inPoplack and Sankoff’s (1984) study of Spanish-speaking Puerto Ricanstudents. Tested in naming familiar pictures of objects typical of theAmerican cultural milieu, these students displayed several phenomena

Conclusion 279

of Anglicisation in their speech. These phenomena were more stable andmuch stronger than the same features in the speech of their parents.These findings also imply that the integration of these students in theEnglish-speaking American environment (including both its languageand its culture) was faster and deeper than that of their parents (see alsoGonzalez, 2001). Such a state can, in due course, lead individuals (andlater on, even the whole community) to desert their first language (theclassical three-generation state of immigrants’ language). Critically, thispicture is relevant for our study of lexical borrowings from English toother languages, since in this age of literacy and increased schooling,generations of semi-bilingual and bilingual students learn this languageall over the world.

The means of dissemination of English borrowings have proved to beof the same nature in all the language communities studied here:following school education, the first and foremost are the mass media,which developed immensely in the 20th century. These media includethe written, the visual and the audio devices of newspapers, radio,cinema, TV, and most recently the computer, principally the Internet. Thegreat scope of contact with English language and culture through allthese means indeed creates for speakers the opportunity to learn and useEnglish, and to borrow from it. The processes and basic factors thatenhance lexical borrowing from English are common to the 12 languagesstudied above. In the following sections we elaborate on the findings ofthe chapters of this book. We examine, summarise and discuss the majorcommon phenomena of borrowing English loan words and the differ-ences between languages in borrowing from English in the setting of theabove main motives and determinants.

Major Common Phenomena of English Borrowings

The major common phenomena of English borrowings are not new interms of the literature on this subject. The lexical items borrowed fromEnglish by another language refer to objects, concepts and termsoriginating from mainly two English-speaking countries: the USA andGreat Britain. For this process to start, at a certain stage at least somecontact had to take place between one or more of the Anglophonecountries or their speakers and the other social, political or nationalentity (community, ethnic or linguistic group, country). The process ofborrowing from English does not differ in principle from the process oflexical transfer from any source language to any other recipient language(and see Thomason & Kaufman, 1988: Ch. 4). Usually, borrowing


involves phonetic and morphological modifications of the borrowedword as part of its adaptation to the receiving language system. Anexample of such a process is adding prosthetic, epenthetic or paragoguevowels to ‘open’ closed foreign syllables, as in ismanto for ‘cement’ inColloquial Arabic, linkolen for ‘[Abraham] Lincoln’ in Colloquial Hebrew,and Japanese raisu for English ‘rice’. Later on, or sometimes evensimultaneously, it may be fully integrated in the phonology of therecipient language. Such processes have been described extensively inearlier literature on borrowing (e.g. Suleiman, 1985) and contactlanguages (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988).

The absence of phonetic adaptation or ‘nativisation’ of a borrowedword to the phonetic system of the receiving language (e.g. in thepronunciation of the English /r/) may indicate that the recipientlanguage community is undergoing a stage of imitating the phonologicalsystem of the source language community’s culture with its language.This may be due to self-denial, snobbishness, cultural admiration of anyexternal expression of English culture, etc. (see in Chapter 1). Absence ofphonetic adaptation may lead in the long run to changes in thephonological (phonemic) system of the absorbing language, as seen, forexample, in the emergence of the new consonants /p/, /v/, /g/ in manycolloquial Arabic dialects, and the addition of new sounds and letters(e.g. /di/, /ti/, /fi/) in the katakana script in Japanese. Phonologicalword length (number of syllables in a word) is a common psycholin-guistic factor in borrowing, as short words tend to be borrowed morethan long words due to the ease of perceiving and producing them. Thisis probably one of the incentives to borrow English words, with theirshort and often mono- or bisyllabic (Germanic) words; e.g. Hebrewlehitra’ot for English ‘see you’ or ‘bye bye’, or French fin de semaine forEnglish ‘weekend’.

Lexical borrowing is not limited to the spoken modality of a languagebut is usually also integrated into the written mode of the absorbinglanguage. Sometimes this fact increases the discrepancies betweenspelling and pronunciation, which normally develop independently.The writing system of the recipient language may be inadequate for thestructure and phonology of the borrowed word; in such cases, thealphabet of the recipient language may be spontaneously (or ad hoc)adapted to the borrowed words. This has been found to be common toTaiwan Chinese, Japanese, Modern Hebrew and Arabic in our languagesample, as their alphabets differ from the English Latin-based alphabet.An additional feature is the absorption of the borrowed word with itsEnglish spelling and pronunciation, although the English spelling rules

Conclusion 281

differ from those of the recipient language. This leads to ambivalentletters and pronouncing manners. For example, the Hungarian letter ‘c’ isnormally pronounced in Hungarian as the affricate /ts/ (e.g. ‘citrom’/tsitrom/ ‘lemon, citrus’). But in words borrowed from English, thepronunciation of this letter ‘c’ is /k/ or /s/ in different environments,e.g. aktimel ‘Actimel’, the commercial name of a yoghurt type, and siti‘city’ leading to three different ways of pronunciation of this letter (formore examples in Hungarian, see Chapter 5 in this volume).

Another common feature of English loan words in the present study isthat not all of them refer to completely new ideas or objects in theabsorbing language, but may refer to familiar elements. In such cases theborrowings may be used as synonyms of original words at least for acertain period or for some of the contexts they are used in. This situationcreates semantic doublets, which often split into different semanticdomains. Doublets can be also formed in the recipient language whennew lexemes are coined in it (often by the official language institutions)to refer to newly introduced notions. Doublets may survive side by sidefor some time, but if they do not split semantically, generally one of themgets the upper hand and is used more frequently, while the otherbecomes redundant and may fall entirely out of use (see examples in thechapters on Russian, Hebrew and Icelandic above).

The English loan words reported in this book (as in other references)are mainly nouns, whereas borrowed verbs or adjectives are fewer. At astill lower rate of borrowing we find adverbials, particles and vocatives.Because of the type/token contrast this classification does not reflect thefrequency of use of each of these word classes, although nouns in generalare definitely the most frequently used word class. Many borrowedparticles and vocatives often replace those of the absorbing language dueto discourse (pragmatics) preferences, for instance, ‘OK’ or ‘hi’, so oftenused in many of the studied languages. In addition, borrowed phrases,idioms and whole sentences, not discussed in this volume, may containall the mentioned parts of speech (e.g. ‘just a minute,’ ‘see you’ or ‘goodafternoon’).

Lexically speaking, many of the modern electrical appliances andcommunication devices that became widespread before and soon afterWorld War II in North America and subsequently in Western Europe areamong the most popular borrowings in all the languages studied here.Words taken from the computer or business world are often used in theiroriginal form (e.g. Arabic disk is English ‘disk’), as stems for morpho-logically adapted words in the absorbing language (e.g. Hungarianbrainstormingoltunk means ‘we had a brainstorming session/activity’


where ‘brainstorming’ has become a verb by attaching to it the propersuffixes) or as loan translations (e.g. Icelandic stoð ‘station’ means boththe physical location and the establishment of a radio or televisionbroadcasting).

Although the English lexicon is huge and deals with hundreds ofthousands of concepts and lexical items, which enlarges the range ofborrowing domains, the borrowing process appears to be discriminatory.Most of the borrowed words can be classified at present into twodomains: the professional realm of economics, science and technology,and the realm of personal needs, including culture, entertainment andmaterial products. Consequently, these domains can also be generalisedinto macro- (i.e. social, communal, state) and micro- (i.e. personal,individual) categories, parallel to the sociolinguistic and psycholinguisticfields discussed above.

The use of English loan words in all the studied languages relates toacademic, industrial, communicational and entertainment areas. Asnoted, however, languages vary in the pace of lexeme borrowing ineach area, usually in parallel with their economic and cultural stages: themore developed they are economically and technologically, the moreEnglish borrowings their languages use. In fact this tendency may beattributed to modernisation and Westernisation more than to pureeconomics. The example of Iran is illuminating. Although Farsi hasabsorbed mainly technological, scientific and specific recreational terms(borrowed during the Shah’s rule in the first half of the 20th century),it has borrowed less ‘popular’ loan words since the recent rise ofthe Islamic Republic. This borrowing pattern can be explained by theclash that Farsi speakers face between their ideological stance and theEnglish language, its speakers and what they symbolise in the modernworld.

Differences in Borrowing from English in the StudiedLanguages

Our 12 case studies share many features in their borrowing frompresent-day English, but they display some conspicuous differences too.Figure 14.1 summarises and compares four features of borrowing fromEnglish as revealed in the sample of languages studied in this volume.These features are: Need, Tendency, Institutional Control and Attitude toBorrowing (defined in Chapter 1 in this volume). Let us recall thembriefly: ‘Need’ describes the need for new terms from English due to thesociopolitical, economic and cultural state of the language community.

Conclusion 283

It refers to the lexical gap between the existing vocabulary of a languageand the incoming English vocabulary. ‘Tendency’ is related to theindividual and/or communal inclination towards or aversion to anotherlanguage (here: English) due to the human tendency to emulateprestigious elements of a dominant group. ‘Institutional Control’ meansthe presence or absence of a general language policy practised by somekind of an official language institution, one role of which is to control

Language Need Tendency Institutional Control

Attitude to Borrowing Total Score

Icelandic 3 3 2 2 (Mainly indifferent,

positive, officially against)

10

Dutch 2 3 2 2 (Relatively positive, pro-; weak objection)

9

French 2 2 1 1 (Officially: against, non-formally: indifferent)

6

Hungarian 3 3 2 2 (Indifferent, enhancing

but officially also against)

10

Russian 3 3 2 2 (Officially: indifferent

non-formally: positive)

10

Amharic 3 2 1 2 (Officially: enhancing, non-formally: indifferent)

8

Hebrew 3 3 2 2 (Positive, but officially:

against)

10

Arabic 3 2 1 1.5 (Officially: against, but

non-formally: indifferent)

7.5

Persian 3 2 1 1.5 (Officially: against, but

non-formally: indifferent)

7.5

Indianlanguages

2 3 2 2 (Indifferent, enhancing,

not against)

9

Chinese (Min) 3 3 2 3 (Positive, enhancing, not

against)

11

Japanese 2 3 3 3 (Positive, enhancing; officially not against)

11

Need: describes the need for new terms from English (small-medium-great)

Tendency: describes the tendency for spontaneous borrowing from English (small-medium-great)

Institutional Control: effects of a state academy of language where it exists (small-medium-great)Attitude to Borrowing: describes official/non-official attitude to borrowing in speakers of the

language (without numerical evaluation)

Figure 14.1 The 12 case studies and their propensity for borrowing Englishvocabulary (the higher the score the greater the propensity)


borrowing. Finally, ‘Attitude to Borrowing’ refers to the recipientlanguage speakers’ official and non-official attitudes to borrowing lexicalitems as a result of sociopolitical, economic and cultural conditions (asalready described in Weinreich, 1953).

As there are no specific statistical indices or figures available for thesefeatures, we assessed their functions using three levels (little � medium �much). These criteria are thus relative (and cf. the borrowing scale inThomason & Kaufman, 1988). We assigned to each feature (includingboth official and non-official aspects) the same three-point scale, and thenumber in each slot of Figure 14.1 stands for the average of the two(official/non-official) aspects.

When comparing the 12 languages examined in this study (see Figures14.1 and 14.2), we see two extreme attitudes to lexical borrowing fromEnglish. On the one hand, French, with the lowest score of six points,seems to be the least receptive, and on the other hand, Japanese andChinese in Taiwan, with the highest score of eleven points, seem to be themost receptive to such borrowing. The French case seems fairlystraightforward. The French Academy has traditionally regulated a rigidlanguage policy and an independent, well developed modern vocabularyfor modern English terminology; in parallel, French speakers havetended to display conservative and nationalistic attitudes regarding theirlanguage. By contrast, Japanese and Chinese in Taiwan are affected bydifferent factors. Although the political circumstances, historical back-ground (especially in the 20th century) and the attitude to the West in thetwo language communities are different, both languages share funda-mental and deep propensity from modernisation and Westernisation.

Arabic and Farsi (Iranian) form another subgroup of limited receptionto English loan words with 7.5 points. Although these languages belongto different language groups, they share certain historical and socialsimilarities which play an important role in shaping their attitude to

Languages Number of Case Studies Taiwan Chinese, Japanese 2 11 Icelandic, Hungarian, Hebrew, Russian

4 10

Dutch and Indian languages

2 9

Amharic 1 8 Arabic, Persian 2 7.5 French 1 6

Score

Figure 14.2 Propensity for borrowing English vocabulary � ranking order

Conclusion 285

lexical borrowing, particularly from English. Close to them is Amharicwith eight points. The expansion of this language has also been cruciallyaffected by politics and social development that in turn affected lexicalborrowing. Based on the other chapters in this volume, Dutch and Indianlanguages form another subgroup, each with nine aggregate points,though each language reflects a different internal array of factors. Dutchspeakers have been in contact with the English language and its speakersfor longer periods than speakers of other languages, and they generallydisplay a positive attitude to it. The described case of India reveals aspecial language policy which considers English an official agent foreducational and government needs, which additionally goes hand inhand with the speakers’ daily communication needs. Thus, for Indianand Dutch speakers, perhaps unexpectedly, English is psychologicallyprobably not as foreign as elsewhere, as they seem to accept it as partof their daily multiglossia. Four other languages (Hebrew, Hungarian,Icelandic and Russian) reveal a much more intense need for andtendency to borrowing, with ten points each.

The attitude that each linguistic community manifests to borrowingin general is significant for its borrowing tendency from English inparticular. This attitude varies on a scale beginning with indifferencein the lay public and ending in support by the educated and academiccircles, including official institutions. Where the linguistic institutions arestrong, their policies tend to conflict with public indifference to the wholeissue of borrowing and loan words and the academics’ succumbing tothe borrowing process. French, on the one extreme of the continuum, hasa vigorous, influential and respected language academy, and its popula-tion evinces robust linguistic awareness and sensitivity, shaped in part bythe activities of that academy. These features notwithstanding, Chapter 3in this volume demonstrates that English borrowings penetrate Frenchfreely nowadays. The public attitude to English varies, and ideologicallyat least it tends more to the negative than to the positive. Still, Englishborrowings have penetrated French relatively freely, at least since the lastquarter of the 20th century (for a somewhat similar situation, see also thecases of Iceland, Iran and Israel).

The case of Hungarian is different. After a long period of Germancultural and linguistic impact during the Austro-Hungarian Empire,Hungarian was only little affected through much of the 20th century byRussian, due to the Russian control. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in1989, English has been rapidly and increasingly gaining a foothold in thislanguage, not only through school education but also in daily commu-nication (mainly on the Internet and in written ads on billboards,


newspapers, products, etc.). Hungarian and Russian are only partiallysimilar in respect of the effect of English on them: both were weaklyinfluenced by English before the 20th century, and old borrowings (fromthe 18th and 19th centuries) have long been absorbed and integrated intothem, while new borrowings are still on the way to such integration, withHungarian having probably started this process somewhat moreenergetically than Russian. Also Japanese and Taiwan Chinese hadalternating periods of official enhancement and inhibition of the spreadof English influence, according to fluctuating government policies.

In light of the analysis above, the differences are evident not so muchin the processes these words undergo as in the quantity and tempo of theborrowing process in each individual language, as well as the actualselection of the lexical items borrowed from English and their fate in theborrowing language. By quantity (or rate) we mean the total number(and relative share) of borrowed words in the recipient language; bytempo we refer to the time it takes for each loan word to be integrated inthese languages. The combination of quantity, tempo and selectioncreates the specific borrowed vocabulary of each of the languages wehave studied. The case studies presented in this volume suggest thatthere is a great variation in these aspects not only between languages, butalso within each language. That is, the borrowing process within alanguage is not uniform and may differ in quantity and tempothroughout time, as the circumstances and attitudes vis-a-vis borrowingfrom English may change, sometimes even dramatically.

These features of the borrowing process are partly dependent onextralinguistic factors, such as the availability of English words to theborrowing speakers, due to factors which include the duration of Englishlearning at school; the frequency in which the speakers read Englishbooks and journals, watch English-speaking movies or TV, or formcontacts on the Internet; the quantity of products of English-speakingorigins they encounter in their surroundings, etc. Thus, countries thathave only recently become acquainted with the English language and itsculture have been able to borrow fewer items from it than countrieswhere English has accompanied or competed with the national languagefor a longer time. Our case studies suggest that Russian, Hungarian andAmharic, for example, differ from Dutch or even from Israeli Hebrew inthis respect. Further, the languages of Japan and Taiwan China, wherespeakers of American English had close contacts with the local popula-tion for several years (with or without the support of the localgovernment), show a torrent of borrowings from English, although thetempo of the borrowing process fluctuates in different periods due to

Conclusion 287

governmental control of these relations with English. The vocabulary forcertain basic consumer items used daily, such as imported garments,foods and beverages, and home appliances, is usually borrowedaccording to the habits and needs of the recipient language community.Climate, eating customs and accommodation habits are extralinguisticfactors that distinguish different language communities and affect thelexical items borrowed in each language and language community, asunnecessary objects will tend not to be borrowed quickly, if at all.

The quantity and tempo of borrowing depend also on psycholinguisticand linguistic features, such as the semantics (relevance and importance)of the borrowed lexical items for the speakers of the absorbing languageand the relation between the phonological and morphological structuresof English and the recipient language. For important words, the lack ofcertain phonemes and differences in articulation of similar phonemes inthe absorbing language compared with English does not prevent speak-ers of the recipient language from using those words. But this oftenfollows morphophonological adaptation, which varies according to therules in each language. For example, the difficulty of pronouncingEnglish /l/ and /r/ by native Japanese and Chinese speakers, /p/ bynative Arabic speakers, /w/ by native Russian speakers, as well as /h/by Chinese and French, leads to the creation of easily pronouncedversions of the English words in the recipient language. Hence, themorphophonological or phonotactic rules of the English loan wordswhich differ from those of the recipient language lead to variousstrategies of morphophonological adaptation of words; examples arexipi for ‘hippy’, e-ka for ‘e-card’, sha-la for ‘salad’ or ma-da for ‘motor’ inTaiwan Chinese. (For an analysis of consonant cluster reduction inseveral English varieties see Schreier, 2005.)

Moreover, the actual modifications of the original English item in therecipient language vary according to the structure of that language andyield different forms in different languages. An illustration is the varietyof the following adaptations, translations and coined words for English‘helicopter’ which may be used as a loan word, too: Hebrew masoq (fromthe root n-s-q meaning ‘ascend, levitate’), Arabic mirwa’a (derived fromthe root r-w-’ ‘wind’) and Farsi bal-gard (derived from ‘wing�circulate’,operate in circles, which is an accurate loan translation of the Englishterm). The terms for English ‘battery’ are another example: in addition tothe English form in some adaptations (e.g. Hebrew baterıya, Hungarianbateria), Hebrew solela (lit. a mound, an embankment), Hungarianvıllanyelem (lit. electronic element), Literary Arabic ’a:sida (lit. filler)and Colloquial Arabic bat t a:riyye, Farsi batri, and Japanese denchi (lit.


electrical pond, but see also batteri cha-ja for ‘battery charger’ andbatteri koritsu for ‘battery efficiency’).

To sum up this section, our considerations are set out in Figures 14.3and 14.4, which present the main factors and processes of English loan-word integration as found in our study. They also show the stagesinvolved in this process. It starts with psycholinguistic and socio-linguistic factors on the one hand and non-linguistic (extralinguistic)and linguistic factors on the other. The various factors can lead to severaloutcomes, as shown at the end of Figure 14.4. Some illustrative examplesare mentioned in Figure 14.3. As noted, the actual outcomes depend onthe specific conditions in each receiving language and in this sense theyare unpredictable. We actually view the whole process as leading to fourpossible results, which may occur diachronically, and in varyingdistributions, in different languages: some languages may present onlya limited number of borrowing processes, while others may pass all thefour stages. The last stage (full integration) may be reached in someborrowed words of a certain language more quickly than in other words.These four stages engender many combinations of borrowings in thedifferent languages, as indeed we find in the real world. One contribu-tion of our volume is in organising these combinations in a coherentstructure of sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic factors, parameters anddevices within the scope of time and linguistic space.

Invasion or Enrichment: Attitudes to English Loan wordsand Language Growth

Each of the languages discussed in this volume has a unique historical,cultural and economic background. Nonetheless, they all share rapidexpansion in the 20th century. Most of them had to take long strides inorder to reach their current economic, technological and cultural state.Even Dutch, which is the closest to English genetically and has had manycontacts with the English language and people long before the 20thcentury, has undergone linguistic and sociolinguistic processes notunlike those in other languages.

The attitude to borrowing seems to differ in each language communitybut the underlying motives are similar. Speakers’ attitudes to the English‘borrowing invasion’ lie between two poles: wariness and ideology(‘How will this language affect and change the purity of my ownlanguage?’) and instrumental interest (‘How important is this languagefor me in work, business, fun and leisure?’). They are moved by thedesire to acquire it as a global tool of communication, and if not master it

Conclusion 289

Sociolinguistic factors

Examples Psycholinguistic factors

Non-linguistic factors

Politics

Economics

Culture

War, peace, conquests, etc. Trade, import/ export, value Social morals, High culture: arts, literature, literacy

Attitude to English, viz. mother tongue (as symbol of culture, model for imitation, conquering power, etc.)

Linguistic factors

Related language

Non-related language

Easy word integration Difficult word integration

(Few vs. many phonological differences, morphologicalcategories, etc.)

Attitude to English (speech sounds, difficulty of acquisi-tion, liking/dislike, etc.)

Motives & determinants

Status and prestige in community, tendency to emulate a dominant group, tendency to create a special jargon in closed groups, modernization and economic development, ethnic and linguistic diversity,nationalism, national character, cultural threat, existence of regulatory linguistic establishments

Need to coin new terminology and concepts, tendency to create a special jargon in closed groups, ethnic and linguistic diversity, the existence of regulatory linguistic establishments

Contactpoint:English Language X/Sociolinguisticfactors

Education

Media

Direct Communication

School, higher education, adult courses, etc. newspapers, radio, TV, cinema, Internet

Education

Media

Direct communication Result: stages of Linguistic borrowing

1. “As is”

2. Phonetic adaptation

3.Morphological adaptation

4. Complete immersion

In “easy” words In words with new phonemes

In nearly immersed wordsIn words whose foreign origin is not felt or known

Figure 14.3 Main factors for borrowing English vocabulary


fully at least to know some of it for their functional advantage, eitherpsychologically for snobbery or as a tool for communicating with nativeEnglish speakers and others.

From a sociolinguistic perspective, the use of English in anotherlanguage has been described as a quintessential example of neocolonial-ism (Fishman, 1996b); that is, the exploitation of a colony even after it is nolonger occupied. In the 20th century, among the linguistic communities

Psycholinguisticfactors

Sociolinguisticfactors

Non-linguisticfactors:

Politics Economics

Culture Etc.

Attitude to English,

vs. mother tongue

(a symbol of culture, model for imitation,conquer-

ing power, etc.)

Linguisticfactors:

Relatedlanguage

Non-related

language

Attitude to English(speechsounds,

difficulty of acquisi-

tion,liking/dislike,

etc.)

Motives & determinants

Contact point:

English Language X

Outcomes: Stages of Linguistic borrowing:

1. “As is”

2. Phonetic adaptation

3. Morphological adaptation

4. Complete immersion

Figure 14.4 Motives, determinants and outcomes of English loan-wordintegration in borrowing languages

Conclusion 291

we examined, this description is applicable only to India and to pre-IsraelPalestine, which were occupied or administered directly by the British forsignificant periods (the Indian subcontinent for about two centuries until1947 and Palestine from 1918 to 1948). In addition, it may be applicablealso to Japan which was occupied by American forces for nearly sevenyears after World War II. In a neocolonialist view, the ongoing ‘Englishinvasion’ carries certain advantages for English-speaking countries andEnglish speakers in such communities to this very day (cf. Tsuda, 1986).

Viewing this linguistic advantage as deliberate exploitation, as Fish-man (1996a) suggests, is undoubtedly judgmental and does not reflect thecommon public attitudes to English in our sample languages. In fact, inmany of our case studies the majority of the population are eitherunaware of this supposedly exploitative nature or, if asked, do not regardit as such. This unawareness or even positive regard to English does notmean, of course, that native English speakers do not benefit from aneocolonialist effect. The opposite is true � and therefore, it could beargued, this attitude to English only proves how pervasive andinternalised this effect is. (See, for example, the study conducted byFisherman, 1986, for Hebrew, quoted in Chapter 7 in this volume. See alsothe description of the attitudes of Russian speakers to English in Chapter6, and the descriptions of the attitude to English in France and theNetherlands in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively.) These positive attitudes toEnglish explain the success of English but also serve as a warning for itsfuture, which is the topic of several studies (Crystal, 2003a; Graddol,1997). The negative attitude to Russian, the lingua franca of East Europeduring the cold war era, is an example of the swift decline of the influenceof such a language as soon as the mother country disintegrates. This wasthe case with the Soviet Union after 1989, ironically only a short time afterlinguist William Gage (1986: 379) had predicted that ‘the world balancecould shift, leading to the eclipse of English by Russian’.

Lexification processes, and even relexification processes (Horvath &Wexler, 1997), which apply in non-Creole andCreole languages alike, seeman attractive explanation for the ease of English penetration into worldlanguages. Certain differences exist between this process in Creolelanguages and in the languages examined in this volume. One suchdifference is that most of the countries whose languages were studied herewere not physically ‘subdued’ by English or English speakers. The term‘subjugation’ could be used metaphorically, however, as the above-mentioned term ‘neocolonialism’ suggests, as the effect of English alsoinvolves cultural changes. Thus viewed, the penetration of (American)English elements into any language could be perceived also as a material


and conceptual invasion which affects (subdues) the (independent,original) spirit of the native speakers of that language. In the same vein,even snobbery � an oft mentioned motivation (in this volume andelsewhere) for the use of English � could be considered such a ‘mentalsubjugation’ process.

Considering the above hypotheses, should the languages and pro-cesses we examined be compared to those of Creole languages in the longrun? Superficially, this question is interesting to follow, for borrowedwords constitute a part of Creole language structure. Creole languageshave been defined in various manners (e.g. Bickerton, 1986; Chaudenson,1992; McWhorter, 1998; Thomason, 2001; Thomason & Kaufman, 1988),but in principle they involve several source languages and usually theirphonology and grammar are closely related to one source language atleast (cf. Holm, 2004). Still, borrowed words in themselves do not changethe nature of a language so extremely, although lexical borrowing oftencoincides with other contact phenomena, such as loan translation. Hencewe may hypothesise that in the very long run, say a few centuries,borrowed words from English, combined with grammatical (morpho-syntactic) features, which penetrate these languages through calque (loantranslation), might at least alter the recipient languages substantially.Creoles, however, differ from this vision as they develop usually veryquickly (see e.g. Thomason, 2001).

Horvath and Wexler (1997) suggest another feature of relexification inCreole languages with relevance to borrowing processes in non-Creolelanguages, that is the relative speed of the spread of the foreign wordswithin the recipient language. The English loan words in the languagesdiscussed in this volume usually also spread very quickly in theborrowing languages, especially due to the global encroachment of theInternet system and the other mass communication media; this phenom-enon has developed in particular within the period of the last quarter ofthe 20th century. In the borrowing process we may be observing a ‘slowmotion’ version of Creole relexification (see, e.g. the discussion on Arabicin Horvath & Wexler, 1997: 56; and on the time element in creolisation inHolm, 2004: 144�146). In time, the effects of the English language maygradually depart from such a process of lexical change and encompassincreasingly more parts of the grammar of the absorbing language.Ultimately it may change them into new varieties which will then bestructurally more similar to Creole languages. This would lead to achange of the nature of the recipient language. Holm’s (2004) definitionof ‘partially restructured languages’ could be adequate also for thissituation. This process has probably happened many times over in the

Conclusion 293

history of languages, as Holm (2004: 146) also notes, although at presentwe have no knowledge of it. The developing branch of contact linguisticsis apparently heading toward this kind of research.

We are uncertain about future outcomes of these processes. Unex-pected extralinguistic forces may intervene and change linguistic andsocial structures in the future, as the case of the Russian language withthe fall of the Soviet Union has recently demonstrated (cf. Crystal, 2003a).A borrowed element can reach the stage of being entirely integrated intothe absorbing language so that its origin is no longer noted (or evenknown). This state is assumed to have taken place after a relatively longtime, as we see in the absorption of Greek and Persian words in Arabic,Egyptian and Acadian words in Classical Hebrew, Chinese words inJapanese, French words in Middle English, German words in Hungarian,or English words in Russian. We can only speculate how long it may takefor English loan words to reach such a state in other languages in ourmodern ‘global village’. Depending on the ratio of borrowed words tonative words in a recipient language, it seems that at least in some casesit should not take more than a few decades to reach a similar stage.

Several scholars have sought to assess the duration of similarprocesses, for example, creolisation in Creole languages, using variousmethods. In such situations demographic factors (such as the ratio ofnative language speakers of both languages, as well as Pidgin languagespeakers) are crucial, but they are not the only ones. Time, namelyduration of contact and usage of foreign lexical items, and linguisticfactors are equally important (cf. Holm, 2004). Although lexical borrow-ing is a less complex process than creolisation, the same basic socio-linguistic factors should be relevant for the fate of borrowed words intheir new environments.

Coda

Overall, the English lexical ‘invasion’ is revealed to be a naturaland inevitable process, driven by psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic andsociohistorical factors. It may be even considered part of the processes ofuniversal linguistics. Morphophonological adaptation features of lexicalexpansion through borrowing and lexical use of borrowed words arefound in the speech of L2 learners at any age and in codeswitching, inaddition to Pidgin and Creole languages. The processes described aboverelate to sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic aspects of language use onboth the diachronic (developmental) and the synchronic (current) levels.


Our sample of 12 different languages at the beginning of the 21stcentury, with the borrowing phenomena they manifest, has helped ustake a step toward understanding linguistic and extralinguistic forcesthat affect the development of languages in general and even theirdiachronic development. The magnitude of lexical borrowing fromEnglish in each of these languages is the result of interaction betweena number of enhancing and inhibiting factors (see Figures 14.3 and 14.4).Viewed together, these factors may explain the current pattern ofborrowing from English, and demonstrate the prevalence of a numberof determinants that underlie this process probably in any language.

Not all the questions that merit serious discussion could be answeredin the present framework due to methodological constraints discussed inthis volume. Ideally, the topic of English borrowings in other languagescalls for an examination of the structure of the whole lexicon of eachstudied language in all world languages. In addition, it might be possibleto weigh the relative value of these determinants using statisticalmethods (as used by Bickerton, 1984, and Owens, 1998, 2004, in differentcontexts), and thereby analyse to what extent they affect the discussedlanguages. Nonetheless, the focus of our examination was on the cultural,historical and social background of the encounter of each language withEnglish in this linguistic process, and on the inventory of lexical elementsin each of these languages. Although speakers of certain languages tendto regard English loan words in their language as an invasion, with timethis usually ends in silent reconciliation, when the loan words arenativised and completely integrated in the recipient language.

In sum, contemporary lexical borrowing from English is revealed in thefast spread of its items in different languages and their speakingcommunities, mainly throughmaterial consumption items and the media,particularly among the younger generation. The motives, determinantsand processes described in Chapter 1 of this volume appear to be activeand thus pertinent to all the case studies presented above. Still, the resultsof these factors in several cases are not simple to derive, because of thecountless combinations of the determinants within each languagecommunity, as indeed ‘anything is possible in this domain’ (Thomason,2001: 68). As human language is inherent to humans, its fundamentaldevelopment is bound to be universal and common, at least when viewedfrom a generalising perspective. We therefore assume that studies of otherlanguages where English lexical borrowings are found will be able toreveal in them the determinants defined here and facilitate furtheranalysis and generalisation of these characteristics.

Conclusion 295

BibliographyAbdeen, W. (2002) Sociolinguistic aspects of variation and change in the language

of the village Silwan. PhD thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Abe, A. (1987) Taiwan diming yanjiu [Research on Taiwan place names]. Taipei: Sunny

Books.Abou, S. (1962) Le Bilinguisme Arabe-Francais au Liban. Paris: PUF.Abraham, D. (1994) Lexical innovation in contemporary Amharic. Semitic and

Cushitic Studies I, 1�27.Academy of Ethiopian Languages (1996) Science and Technology Dictionary

(English�Amharic). Addis Ababa: Artistic Printing Press.Ager, D. (2000) The political dimension of borrowing and French reactions. In S.

Wright (ed.) French � An Accommodating Language? (pp. 76�79). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Aggarwal, K.S. (1988) English and India’s three-language formula: An empiricalperspective. World Englishes 7, 289�298.

Agnihotri, R.K. (1999) India: English in India. The Yearbook of South AsianLanguages and Linguistics (pp. 184�197). New Delhi: Sage.

Agnihotri, R.K. and Khanna, A.L. (1997) Problematizing English in India. NewDelhi: Sage.

Ahsan, A.S. (1976)Modern Trends in the Persian Language. Islamabad: Iran PakistanInstitute of Persian Studies.

Aitchison, J. (1991) Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Alam, M. (1998) The pursuit of Persian: Language in Mughal politics. ModernAsian Studies 32, 317�349.

Alden, D. (1996) The Making of an Enterprise: The Society of Jesus in Portugal, ItsEmpire and Beyond 1540�1750. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Algar, H. (1970) An introduction to the history of freemasonry in Iran. MiddleEastern Studies 6, 273�295.

Algar, H. (1993) Participation by Iranian diplomats in the Masonic Lodges ofIstanbul. In T. Zarcone and F. Zarinebaf-Shahr (eds) Les Iraniens d’Istanbul (pp.33�44). Istanbul and Tehran: IFEA/IFRI.

Alloni-Fainberg, Y. (1977) Official Hebrew terms for car parts: A study ofknowledge, usage and attitudes. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 1, 63�95.

Al-Masri, H.M. (1992) Athar al-Mu’jam al-‘Arabi fi Lughat al-Shu’ub al-Islamiyah: Al-Urdiyah, al-Turkiyah, al-Farsiyah. Al-Qahirah: Maktabat Madbuli.

Al-Nadim, M.I. (1991) Al-Fihrist. Cairo: Al-’Arabi li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’.Amara, M.H. (1986) The integration of Hebrew and English lexical items into the

Arabic spoken in an Arab village in Israel. MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University.

296

Amara, M.H. (1991) Sociolinguistic aspects of variation and change: A study ofthe languages spoken in an Arab village in Israel. PhD thesis, Bar-IlanUniversity.

Amara, M.A. (1995) Hebrew and English lexical reflections of socio-politicalchanges in Palestinian Arabic. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment 15, 165�172.

Amara, M.H. (1999) Hebrew and English borrowings in Palestinian Arabic inIsrael: A sociolinguistic study in lexical integration and diffusion. In Y.Suleiman (ed.) Language and Society in the Middle East and North Africa: Studiesin Variation and Identity (pp. 81�103). London: Curzon Press.

Amara, M.H. and Spolsky, B.D. (2001) The construction of identity in a dividedPalestinian village: Sociolinguistic evidence. In E. Ben Rafael, H. Herzog andE. Evans (eds) Language and Communication in Israel (Studies of Israeli Society, 9,273�288). Piscataway, NJ: Transactions Publishers, Rutgers State University.

Ammon, U. (1996) The European Union: Status change of English during the lastfifty years. In J.A. Fishman, A.W. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds) Post-Imperial English: Status Change in Former British and American Colonies, 1940�1990 (pp. 241�267). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Appel, R. and Muysken, P. (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London:Edward Arnold.

Appleyard, D. (1995) Colloquial Amharic: A Complete Language Course. London:Routledge.

Arakawa, S. (1977) Kadokawa Gairaigo Jiten [Kadokawa Dictionary of Loanwords].Tokyo: Kadokawa.

Araki, H. (1986) Nihonjin no eigo kankaku [The Perception of English by Japanese].Tokyo: PHP Kenkyujo.

Arberry, A.J. (1942) British Contributions to Persian Studies. London: Longmans,Green & Co.

Ashraf, A. (1986) Education. VII. General survey of modern education. TheEncyclopaedia Iranica VIII, 189�196.

Atabaki, T. and Zurcher, E.J. (2004) Language reform in Turkey and Iran. In T.Atabaki and E.J. Zurcher (eds) Men of Order: Authoritarian Modernization UnderAtaturk and Reza Shah (pp. 238�259). London & New York: I.B. Tauris.

Atkin, M. (1986) Cossack Brigade. The Encyclopaedia Iranica VI, 329�333.Auer, P. (1984) Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.Auer, P. (1995) Code-Switching in Conversation, Language, Interaction and Identity.

London: Routledge.Auer, P. (1996) Bilingual conversation, dix ans apres. Aile 7, 9�34.Auer, P. (1999) From code switching via language mixing to fused lects: Towards

a dynamic typology of bilingual speech. The International Journal of Bilingualism3/4: 309�322.

Avinery, Y. (1966) Anglicization. Yad ha-Lashon � A Linguistic Vocabulary. Tel Aviv:Jezreel.

Backhaus, P. (2007a) Alphabet ante portas: How English text invades Japanesepublic space. Visible Language 41, 70�87.

Backhaus, P. (2007b) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multi-lingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Bahar, M.T.M.S. (n.d.) Sabk-Shenasi, 3 vols. Tehran.

Bibliography 297

Bahumaid, S.A. (1992) Terminological problems in Arabic. In R. de Beaugrande,A. Shunnaq and M.H. Heliel (eds) Language, Discourse and Translation in theWest and Middle East. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins PublishingCo.

Bakker, E. (1998) Tweetaligheid hoeft geen probleem te zijn. Volkskrant 15 October,6.

Balazs, G. (1999) A magyar nyelvmuveles allapota (Tudomanypolitikai attekintes,javaslatok) [State of Development of Contemporary Hungarian (Language Policy,Considerations, Proposals)]. Magyar Nyelvor 123 (1), 9�27.

Balazs, G. (2001) Magyar Nyelvhelyessegi Lexikon [Dictionary of Hungarian LanguageUsage] (p. 226). Budapest: Corvina.

Balazs, G. (2002) Nyelvunkben a vilag [How Language Reflects the World] (pp. 9�23).Budapest: Ister.

Bar-Adon, A. (1988) Language planning and processes of nativization in thenewly revived Hebrew. In S. Morag (ed.) Studies on Contemporary Hebrew (pp.188�213). Jerusalem: Academon.

Bauman, R. (2004) A World of Others’ Words: Cross-Cultural Perspectives onIntertextuality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Baumgardner, R.J. (ed.) (1996) South Asian English: Structure, Use and Users. Delhi:Oxford University Press.

Baye, Y. (1994) ya-amar

e

nna sawas

e

w. The Grammar of Amharic’ (in Amharic). AddisAbaba: Educational Materials Production and Distribution Agency.

Beaumont, J.C. (1987) L’emprunt en arabe marocain: facteurs sociolingusitiquesd’integration. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2), 53�88.

Befu, H. (1995) Swings of Japan’s identity. In S. Clausen, R. Starrs and A. Wedell-Wedellsborg (eds) Cultural Encounters: China, Japan, and the West. Aarhus(Denmark): Aarhus University Press.

Befu, H. (2001) Hegemony of Homogeneity: An Anthropological Analysis of Nihonjin-ron. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Ben-Amotz, D. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1972) World Dictionary of Spoken Hebrew. TelAviv: Levin-Epstein (in Hebrew).

Ben-Amotz, D. and Ben-Yehuda, N. (1982) Crazy Dictionary of Spoken Hebrew (Vol.2). Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan (in Hebrew).

Bendavid, A. (1974) A Linguistic Guide for the Radio and Television. Jerusalem:Broadcasting Authority.

Bender, M.L. (ed.) (1976) The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia (monograph No. 5,Occasional Papers Series, Committee on Ethiopian Studies). East Lansing:African Studies Center, Michigan State University.

Bender, M.L., Bowen, J.D., Cooper, R.L. and Ferguson, C.A. (eds) (1976) Languagein Ethiopia. London: Oxford University Press.

Ben Rafael, E. (2001) A sociological paradigm of bilingualism: English, French,Yiddish and Arabic in Israel. In E. Ben Rafael, H. Herzog and E. Evans (eds)Language and Communication in Israel (Studies of Israeli Society, 9, 175�205).Piscataway, NJ: Transactions Publishers, Rutgers State University.

Ben-Rafael, M. (2001a) Contact de langues: le francais parle des francophonesisraeliens. PhD thesis. Tel Aviv University.

Ben-Rafael, M. (2001b) Codeswitching in the immigrants’ language: The case offranbreu. In J. Jacobson (ed.) Codeswitching Worldwide II (pp. 251�307). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.


Ben-Rafael, M. (2002) The French preposition in contact with Hebrew. In S.Feigenbaum and D. Kurzon (eds) Prepositions in Their Syntactic, Semantic andPragmatic Context (pp. 209�239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ben-Rafael, M. (2004a) Language contact and attrition: The spoken French ofIsraeli Francophones. In M.S. Schmid, B. Kopke, M. Keijzer and L. Weilemar(eds) First Language Attrition, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on MethodologicalIssues (pp. 165�187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ben-Rafael, M. (2004b) English in French comics: The case of Lucky Luke. Apaper delivered at the 3rd IALS Conference, Bet-Berl, 13 June 2004.

Bhatia, T.K. and Ritchie, W.C. (eds) (2004) The Handbook of Bilingualism. New York:Blackwell.

Bickerton, D. (1984) The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and BrainSciences 7, 173�221.

Bickerton, D. (1986) The lexical learning hypothesis and the pidgin-creole cycle.Duisburg: LAUDT (Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg). Series A,Paper 166.

Bill, J.A. (1988) The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American�Iranian Relations.New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Blanc, H. (1953) Studies in North Palestinian Arabic � Linguistic Inquiries among theDruzes of Western Galilee and Mt. Carmel. Jerusalem: The Israel Oriental Society.

Blanc, H. (1989) Human Language. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.Blau, J. (1976) The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Literary Modern Standard

Arabic. Jerusalem: Magnes Press (in Hebrew).Blau, J. (1981) The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic:

Parallels and Differences in the Revival of Two Semitic Languages. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Block, D. and Cameron, D. (2001) Globalization and Language Teaching. New York:Routledge.

Blom, J.P. and Gumperz, J.J. (1972) Social meaning and structure: Code switchingin Norway. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics.New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.

Bolkestein, F. (2004) Dutch identity in Europe. The Low Countries 12, 86�97.Bolton, K. and Kachru, B.B. (eds) (2006) Asian Englishes: The History and

Development of World Englishes, 5 vols (Vol. 5: East Asian Variance of ‘PidginEnglish’, 1836�1960). London: Routledge.

Boly, J. (1979) Chasse au franglais � petit glossaire franglais-francais. Bruxelles: LouisMusin.

Bosworth, C.E. (1967) The Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

Boumans, L. (1998) The Syntax of Codeswitching: Analyzing Moroccan Arabic/DutchConversations. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Boyle, J.A. (1966) Grammar of Modern Persian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Brannen, M.Y. (1992) ‘Bwana Mickey’: Constructing Cultural Consumption at

Tokyo Disneyland. In J.J. Tobin (ed.) Re-Made in Japan. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Bright, W. (2000) A matter of typology: Alphasyllabaries and abigudas. Studies inLinguistic Sciences 30, 63�71.

Bibliography 299

Brill, M. (in collaboration with D. Neustadt and P. Shusser) (1940) The Basic WordList of the Arabic Daily Newspaper. Jerusalem: The University PublishingCompany.

Browne, E.G. (1914) The Press and Poetry of Modern Persia. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Browne, E.G. (1952�55) A Literary History of Persia (2nd edn, 4 vols). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bryson, B. (1990)Mother Tongue: The English Language. London: Hamish Hamilton.Burger, P. (1998) Hadewijch en Palmen in Kiev. NRC Handelsblad 26 November.Burling, R. (1992) Patterns of Language: Structure, Variation, Change. San Diego:

Academic Press.Busse, U. and Gorlach, M. (2002) German. In M. Gorlach (ed.) English in Europe

(pp. 13�36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Butros, A.J. (1963) English Loanwords in the Colloquial Arabic of Palestine

(1917�1948) and Jordan (1948�1962). Unpublished dissertation, ColumbiaUniversity.

Callaghan, C.A. and Gamble, G. (1996) Borrowing. In B.G. Trigger Handbook ofNorth American Indians (Vol. 17, pp. 111�116). Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitute.

Cannon, G.H. (1996) The Japanese Contributions to the English Language: AnHistorical Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassovitz Verlag.

Canut, C. and Caubet, D. (2001) Comment les Langues se Melangent: Codeswitchingen Francophonie. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Caroe, O. (1951) Wells of Power. London: Macmillan.Carroll, T. (1991) Local government in the 1970s and 1980s: Language reform in

Japan. Japan Forum 3, 301�312.Carroll, T. (1995) NHK and Japanese language policy. Language Problems and

Language Planning 19, 271�293.Carroll, T. (1997) From Script to Speech: Language Policy in Japan in the 1980s and

1990s. Oxford: The Nissan Institute Occasional Paper Series no. 27.Chan, M.K.M. and Tai, J.H.-Y. (1999) Some reflections on the periodization of the

Chinese language. In A. Peyraube and C. Sun (eds) Studies in Chinese HistoricalSyntax and Morphology: Linguistic Essays in Honor of Mei Tsu-Lin (pp. 223�239).Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.

Chantefort, P. (1976) Diglossie au Quebec, limites et tendances actuelles. Languefrancaise 31, 91�104.

Chaudenson, R. (1992) Des Iles, des Homes, des Langues. Paris: L’Harmattan.Chen, P. (1999) Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Chen, Su-Chiao (1996) Code-switching as a verbal strategy among Chinese in a

campus setting in Taiwan. World Englishes 15, 267�280.Cherniak, V.D. (2000) ‘Slova, kotorye my ne znaem’, kak primeta sovremennoi

iazykovoi lichnosti. In N.A. Kunina (ed.) Kul’turno-rechevaia situatsia vsovremennoi Rossii (pp. 319�333). Ekaterinburg: Ural’skii gosudarstvennyiuniversitet.

Chiung, W.-V.T. (2001) Romanization and language planning in Taiwan. TheLinguistic Association of Korea Journal 9, 15�43.


Cholewka, N. (2000) U comme us et pratiques de la langue; quelques aspects iciet maintenant. In B. Cerquiglini, J.-C. Corbeil, J.-M. Klinkenberg and B. Peeters(eds) Le francais dans tous ses etats (pp. 305�322). Paris: Flammarion.

Cifoletti, G. (1989) La Lingua Franca Mediterranea. Padova: Unipress.Claiborne, R. (1983) The Life and Times of the English Language: The History of Our

Marvellous Tongue. London: Bloomsbury.Clyne, M.C. (1986) Towards a systematisation of language contact dynamics. In

J.A. Fishman (ed.) The Fergusonian Impact (pp. 483�492). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Cohen, G.P.E. (2002) Some considerations regarding the use of local languages inthe primary education system of the SNNPR, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 13thAnnual Conference of the Institute of Language Studies (pp. 48�62). Institute ofLanguage Studies, Addis Ababa University.

Cohen, M. (1936) Traite de langue amahrique. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Travauxet Memoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie.

Cohn, B. (1985) The command of language and the language of command. In R.Guha (ed.) Subaltern Studies IV: Writings on South Asian History and Society (pp.276�329). Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Commission generale de terminologie et de neologie (CGTN1) (2000) Enrichisse-ment de la langue francaise-vocabulaire de l’economie et des finances. Paris.

Commission generale de terminologie et de neologie (CGTN2) (2001) Enrichisse-ment de la langue francaise-vocabulaire de l’internet et de l’informatique. Paris.

Comrie, B., Stone, G. and Polinsky, M. (1996) The Russian Language in the TwentiethCentury. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Conrad, A.W. and Fishman, J.A. (1977) English as a world language: Theevidence. In J.A. Fishman, R.L. Cooper and A.W. Conrad (eds) The Spread ofEnglish: The Sociology of English as an Additional Language (pp. 3�76). Rowley,MA: Newbury.

Corbeil, J.-C. (1991) Amharic�English Visual Dictionary. Addis Ababa: EducationalMaterials Production and Distribution Agency (EMPDA), Ministry of Educa-tion.

Corr, W. (1995) Adams the Pilot: The Life and Times of Captain William Adams, 1564�1650. Sandgate: Japan Library.

Coulmas, F. (1990) Language adaptation in Meiji Japan. In B. Weinstein (ed.)Language Policy and Political Development (pp. 69�86). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cousland, P.B. (1908) An English�Chinese Lexicon of Medical Terms Compiled for theTerminology Committee. Shanghai: Medical Missionary Association of China.

Crystal, D. (2000) Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crystal, D. (2003a) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Crystal, D. (2003b) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd edn).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Da Costa, S.C. (1999) Mots sans frontieres. Paris: Edition du Rocher.Dalby, A. (2004) Dictionary of Languages: The Definitive Reference to More than 400

Languages. New York: Columbia University Press.Dale, P. (1986) The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness. London: Croom Helm.Daniels, P. (1996) The study of writing systems. In P. Daniels and W. Bright (eds)

The World’s Writing Systems (pp. 3�17). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bibliography 301

Dardano, M. (1986) The Influence of English on Italian. In W. Viereck and W.-D.Bald (eds) English in Contact with Other Languages: Studies in Honour of BroderCarstensen on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (pp. 231�252). Budapest:Akademiai Kiado.

Dawkins, C.H. (1960) The Fundamentals of Amharic. Addis Ababa: Sudan InteriorMission.

Deniau, X. (1983) La francophonie. Paris: PUF, collection ‘Que sais-je?’.De Nijn, H. (1999) Engelstalige catalogi in Nederland en Vlaanderen? Neerlandia

103 (2), 9�10.Deny, J. (1935) La reforme actuelle de la langue turque. In En Terre d’Islam (pp.

223�247). Algiers: Juillet.Deroy, L. (1956) L’Emprunt linguistique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.de Saint-Robert, M.-J. (2000) La Politique de la Langue Francaise. Paris: Presses

universitaires de France.Devoldere, L. (2002) Plus est en vous? Rapport Taalunie over het Nederlands in

Europa. Ons Erfdeel 45, 138�140.de Vries, J. (2001) Vigour and flexibility: Recent developments in the Dutch

language. The Low Countries 9, 231�238.de Vries, J.W., Willemyns, R. and Burger, P. (1995) Het verhaal van een taal: Negen

eeuwen Nederlands. Amsterdam: Prometheus.De Vries, H.J., Jr. (2000) Is the Dutch language threatened by English? Dutch

International Society Magazine 32, 9�15.Dewaele, M. (2000) Le dereglement du systeme de pensee francais: l’angoisse

secrete des puristes? Reponse a Henriette Walter. In S. Wright (ed.) French � AnAccommodating Language? (pp. 63�66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Deyhime, G. (1988�89) Les emprunts du francais au persan. Loqman 1, 39�58.Deyhime, G. (2001) France xvi. Loan words in Persian. Encyclopaedia Iranica 10,

181�184. On WWW at http://www.iranica.com/articles/v10f2/v10f216m.html.

Donaldson, B.C. (1983) Dutch: A Linguistic History of Holland and Belgium. Leiden:Martinus Nijhoff.

Donker, B. (1988) Jungle van vertaalcombinaties. NRC Handelsblad 26 November,4.

Doppagne, A. (1979) Pour une ecologie de la langue francaise. Bruxelles: Commissionfrancaise de la culture de l’aglomeration de Bruxelles.

Dorian, N.C. (1981) Language Death. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Dorian, N.C. (ed.) (1989) Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contractionand Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duerscheid, C. and Spitzmueller, J. (eds) (2006) Perspektiven der Jugendsprach-forschung [Trends and Developments in Youth Language Research]. Frankfurt:Lang.

Eilers, W. (1978) Educational and cultural development in Iran during the PahlaviEra. In G. Lenczowski (ed.) Iran under the Pahlavis (pp. 303�331). Stanford, CA:Hoover Institution Press.

Ekhtiar, M.D. (1994) The Dar al-Funun: Educational reform and culturaldevelopment in Qajar Iran. PhD dissertation, New York University.

Elihay, J. (1977) Hebrew�Arabic Dictionary of Colloquial Arabic. Jerusalem: Yanetz.Eqbal, ‘Abbas (1312/1933�34) Zaban-e Farsi-ye Shakhtegi. Mehr I, 4: 437.


Ermakova, O.P. (1996) Semanticheskie protsessy v leksike. In E.A. Zemskaia (ed.)Russkii iazyk kontsa XX stoletia (1985�1995) (pp. 32�66). Moscow: Iazyki russkoikul’tury.

Esmail, S. (2002) El-fares allazi qatal gewadu. Al-Akhbar 25 September, Cairo.Ester, H. (1999) Gebruik Engelse taal pure armoe. Algemeen Dagblad 2 January, 6.Etiemble, R. (1964; 1991) Parlez-vous franglais? Paris: Gallimard.Ettehadieh (Nezam Mafi), M. (1986) Concessions. II. In the Qajar Period. The

Encyclopaedia Iranica VI, 120�122.Eurobarometer (2001) Europeans and Languages, Executive Summary. Eurobarom-

eter Report 54. European Commission.Fanchiang, C. (2003) Mother-tongue education off to rocky start. Taiwan Review

October.Farkas, J. and Kniezsa, V. (2002) Hungarian. In M. Gorlach (ed.) English in Europe

(pp. 277�290). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Farshidvard, K. (1347/1968) ‘Arabi dar Farsi. Esfahan: [s.n.].Fatemi, N.S. (1986) Anglo-Persian Agreement. The Encyclopaedia Iranica II, 59�61.Feifel, K.-E. (1994) Language Attitudes in Taiwan. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.,

Limited.Fekade, A. (1999) Yas

e

na qal mamriya [A Guide for Oral Literature]. Bonn: Institutefor International Cooperation of the German Adult Education Association(IIZ/DVV).

Fekade, A. (2000) Some quotations from the works of Haddis Alemayahu.Ethiopian Journal of Languages and Literature 10 (Special Issue), 120�126.

Ferguson, C.A. (1959) Diglossia. Word 15, 325�340.Field, F.W. (2002) Linguistic Borrowings in Bilingual Contexts. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Fisherman, H. (1972) The official languages of Israel. Language Behavior Papers

(110.1), National Languages and Languages of Wider Communication in DevelopingNations. Whiteley: Oxford University Press.

Fisherman, H. (1986) Foreign words in Contemporary Hebrew. PhD thesis,Hebrew University in Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

Fisherman, H. (1990) Attitudes toward foreign words in contemporary Hebrew.International Journal of the Sociology of Language 86, 5�40.

Fisherman, H. (1994) Change trends in the use of foreign words in ContemporaryHebrew. In M. Muchnik (ed.) Foreign Influences on Contemporary Hebrew (pp.67�71). Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel (in Hebrew).

Fisherman, H. (2001) The debate about foreign words in our language. Hebrew andIts Sisters 1, 107�127. Haifa: Haifa University

Fishman, J.A. (1971) National Languages and Languages of Wider Communication inDeveloping Nations. Whiteley: Oxford University Press.

Fishman, J.A. (1996b) Summary and interpretation: Post-imperial English, 1940�1990. In J.A. Fishman, A.W. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds) Post-ImperialEnglish: Status Change in Former British and American Colonies, 1940�1990 (pp.623�641). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fishman, J.A. (1996a) Introduction: Some empirical and theoretical issues. In J.A.Fishman, A.W. Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds) Post-Imperial English: StatusChange in Former British and American Colonies, 1940�1990 (pp. 3�12). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography 303

Fishman, J.A. and Rubal-Lopez, A. (1992) Cross-polity analysis of factorsaffecting English language spread: Predicting three criteria of spread from alarge pool of independent variables. World Englishes 11, 309�329.

Fishman, J.A., Cooper, R.L. and Conrad, A.W. (eds) (1977a) The Spread of English:The Sociology of English as an Additional Language. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse Publishers.

Fishman, J.A., Cooper, R.L. and Rosenbaum, Y. (1977b) English around the world.In J.A. Fishman, R.L. Cooper and A.W. Conrad (eds) The Spread of English: TheSociology of English as an Additional Language (pp. 77�108). Rowley, MA:Newbury House Publishers.

Flaitz, J. (1988) The Ideology of English: French Perceptions of English as a WorldLanguage. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Freriks, P. (1998) Lessons learned. Wat een taal! Taalergernissen van bekendetaalgebruikers (pp. 37�39). Amsterdam: Contact.

Fugger, B. (1979) Le francais et les arrets ministeriels. Etude sur l’impact de la loilinguistique dans l’est de la France. La banque des mots 18, 150�170.

Fukuzawa, Y. (1981) The Autobiography of Fukuzawa Yukichi (K. Eiichi, trans.)Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press.

Gage, W. (1986) The world balance of language. In J.A. Fishman, T. Tabouret-Keller, M. Clyne, B. Krishnamurti and M. Abdulaziz (eds) The FergusonianImpact, 2 vols (Vol. II, pp. 371�383). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gandjei, T. (1986) Turkish in Pre-Mongol Persian poetry. Bulletin of the School ofOriental and African Studies XLIX (1), 67�85.

Garbell, I. (1930) Fremdsprachliche Einfluesse in modernen Hebraeisch. Dissertation,Berlin, Darmstadt, Typ. C.F. Winter.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2000) The metaphor of borrowing: Implications for a theoryof evolution. A response to H. Walter. In S. Wright (ed.) French � AnAccommodating Language? (pp. 60�62). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Geva-Kleinberger, A. (2004) Die arabischen Stadtdialekte von Haifa in der erstenHaelfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Giese, W. (1956) Franzosische Lehnworter im modernen Persischen. Zeitschrift furFranzosische Sprache und Literatur 67, 69�77.

Gilbert, G. (ed.) (2002) Pidgin and Creole Linguistics in the Twenty-First Century.New York: P. Lang.

Girma, Z. (1999) The Amharic Language Academy. Zena Lissan 1, 17�52. AddisAbaba University: Journal of the Ethiopian Languages Research Center (inAmharic).

Glikson, M. (1923) About the use of foreign words. Sfatenu 2, 17�18 (in Hebrew).Glinert, L.E. (1991) On the origin of spoken Modern Hebrew: Studies in covert

syntax, or: from the mouth of youngsters’ by David Yelin. Leshonenu 55, 107�126.

Goldberg, A. (2002) High-tech language. Ha’aretz, Independence Day Supple-ment, April 2002.

Goldstein-Gidoni, O. and Daliot-Bul, M. (2002) ‘Shall We Dansu?’: Dancing withthe West in contemporary Japan. Japan Forum 14, 63�76.

Goldstein-Gidoni, O. (2001) The making and marking of the ‘Japanese and the‘Western’ in Japanese contemporary material culture. Journal of MaterialCulture 6, 67�90.


Gonzalez, N. (2001) I Am My Language. Discourses of Women and Children in theBorderlands. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Goodman, G.K. (2000) Japan and the Dutch 1600�1853. Richmond, Surrey, UK:Curzon.

Goodman, J.S. (1967) The development of dialect of English� Japanese pidgin.Anthropological Linguistics 9, 43�55.

Gorlach, M. (ed.). (2001) A Dictionary of European Anglicisms: A Usage Dictionary ofAnglicisms in Sixteen European Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gorlach, M. (ed.) (2002a) An Annotated Bibliography of European Anglicisms.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gorlach, M. (ed.) (2002b) English In Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gorlach, M. (2003) English Words Abroad. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.Gottlieb, N. (1994) Language and politics: The reversal of postwar script reform

policy in Japan. Journal of Asian Studies 53, 1175�1198.Gottlieb, N. (1995) Kanji Politics: Language, Policy and Japanese Script. London:

Kegan Paul International.Graddol, D. (1997) The Future of English. London: British Council.Gretsy, L. and Kovalovszky, M. (1980�1985) Nyelvmuvelo kezikonyv [Handbook of

Usage and Development of Contemporary Hungarian], 2 Vols. Budapest: Akade-miai Kiado.

Groenke, U. (1983) Diachrone Perdurabilitat, Sprachpflege und Sprachplanung:Der Fall Islandisch. I. Fodor and C. Hagege (eds) Language Reform: History andFuture (Vol. 2, pp. 137�155). Hamburg: Buske Verlag.

Grootaers, W.A. (1983) National Japanese Language Research Institute. InKodansha Encyclopedia (Vol. V, p. 343). Tokyo: Kodansha.

Groseclose, E. (1947) Introduction to Iran. New York: Oxford University Press.Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Gumperz, J.J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gurney, J. and Nabavi, N. (1993) Dar al-Fonun. The Encyclopaedia Iraniaca VI, 662�

668.Haarmann, H. (1984) The role of ethnocultural stereotypes and foreign languages

in Japanese commercials. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 50,101�121.

Haarmann, H. (1986) Verbal strategies in Japanese fashion magazines � A studyin impersonal bilingualism and ethnosymbolism. International Journal of theSociology of Language 58, 107�121.

Haarmann, H. (1989) Symbolic Values of Foreign Language Use: From the JapaneseCase to a General Sociolinguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Habein, Y.S. (1984) The History of the Japanese Written Language. Tokyo: Universityof Tokyo Press.

Hagege, C. (1987) Le francais et les siecles. Paris: Odile Jacob.Hagege, C. (2000) Halte a la mort des langues. Paris: Odile Jacob.Halldorsson, H. (1971) Nygervingar fra sıðari oldum. In B. Jonsson (ed.) Islenzk

malrækt. Erindi og ritgerðir (pp. 12�244). Reykjavık. Hlaðbuð.Halldorsson, H. (1987) Þorf a nyyrdum og sigurlıkur þeirra. In O. Halldorsson

(ed.) Moðurmalið (pp. 93�98). Reykjavik: Vısindafelag Islendinga.

Bibliography 305

Halldorsson, H. (1995a) Tækni. Sogur af nyyrðum. Dagblaðið Vısir, 10 June 1995,16. Reykjavik.

Halldorsson, H. (1995b) Pallborðsumræður. Sogur af nyyrðum. Dagblaðið Vısir4.3.95, 16. Reykjavik.

Hansell, M.D. (1989) Lexical borrowing in Taiwan. Doctoral Dissertation,University of California at Berkeley.

Harada, S. (1976) Honorifics. In M. Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and Semantic (vol. 5):Japanese Generative Grammar (pp. 499�561). New York: Academic Press.

Haugen, E. (1950a) Problems of bilingualism. Lingua 2, 271�290.Haugen, E. (1950b) The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26, 210�231.Haugen, E. (1953) The process of borrowing. Language in America 2, 383�411.Haugen, E. (1956) Language contact. In Proceedings of the Eighth International

Congress of Linguists (pp. 772�785), Oslo.Haugen, E. (1958) Review of H. Gneuss, Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im

Altenglischen (Berlin, 1955). Language 32, 761�769.Haugen, E. (1972) The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Havelova, A. (2000) Arabic dialects of Nazareth: A dialectological and socio-

linguistic description. PhD thesis, University of Haifa.Heller, M. (ed.) (1988) Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspec-

tives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Her, K. (2002) Linking the world. Taipei Review November.Het Nederlands (1997) Haagsche Courant. 10 April, A11.Heyd, U. (1954) Language Reform in Modern Turkey. Jerusalem: The Israel Oriental

Society.Higa, M. (1979) Sociolinguistic aspects of word borrowing. In W.F. Mackey and J.

Ornstein (eds.) Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact: Methods and Cases.The Hague: Mouton.

Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A. and Ogino, T. (1986) Universals oflinguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence for Japanese and AmericanEnglish. Journal of Pragmatics 10, 347�371.

Hinz, W. (1937) Formen des Persische Wortscheatzen. Zeitschrift der DeutschenMorgenlandischen Gesellschaft 91, 680�698.

Hock, H.H. and Joseph, B.D. (1996) Language History, Language Change andLanguage Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hofler, M. (1982) Dictionnaire des anglicismes. Paris: Larousse.Holes, C. (1987) Language Variation and Change in a Modernizing Arab State: The

Case of Bahrain. London and New York: Kegan Paul International.Holes, C. (1995) Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. London:

Longman.Holm, J.A. (2004) Languages in Contact: The Partial Restructuring of Vernaculars.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Honna, N. (1995) English in Japanese society: Language within language. Journal

of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16, 45�62.Horani, A. (1991) A History of the Arab Peoples. Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan, Dvir.Horvath, J. and Wexler, P. (eds) (1997) Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole

Languages with Special Attention to Haitian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Romani andRumanian. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz Verlag.


Howland, D.R. (2001) Translating the West: Language and Political Reason inNineteenth-Century Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Hsieh, C.-M. (1964) Taiwan � Ilha Formosa: A Geography in Perspective. London:Butterworths.

Hsieh, S.-C. (1994) From Shanbao to Yuanzhumin: Taiwan aborigines intransition. In M. Rubinstein (ed.) The Other Taiwan: 1945 to the Present (pp.404�419). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Huang, S. (1987) A Sociolinguistic Study of Taiwan. Taipei: The Crane PublishingCo., Limited.

Huang, S. (1993) Language, Society, and Ethnic Identity. Taipei: The Crane.Hudson, G. (2004) Languages of Ethiopia and languages of the 1994 Ethiopian

Census. Aethiopica: International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 7, 160�172.

Humbley, J. (2002) French. In M. Gorlach (ed.) English in Europe (pp. 108�127).Oxford: Oxford University.

Iartseva, V.N. (ed.) (1998) Iazykoznanie. Bol’shoi entsiklopedicheskii slovar’. Moscow:Nauchnoe izdatel’stvo ‘Bol’shaia Rossiiskaia entsiklopedia’.

Ingram, E. (1992) Britain’s Persian Connection, 1798�1828: Prelude to the Great Gamein Asia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Inoguchi, T. (1999) Japan’s failing grade in English. Japan Echo 26, 8�11.Ishino, H. (1977) Gairaigo no mondai [The problem of foreign loanwords]. In I.K.

Nihongo (ed.) Kokugokokuji Mondai. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Ishiwata, T. (1991) Gairaigo to kango, gairaigo no gogen (gairaigo and kango, the

etymology of gairaigo). Nihongo Kyoiku 74, 1�12.Ivir, V. (1991) Contrastive methods in contact linguistics. In V. Ivir and D.

Kalogjera (eds) Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics.Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ivy, M. (1988) Tradition and difference in the Japanese mass media. Public CultureBulletin 1, 21�29.

Ivy, M. (1995) Discourses of the Vanishing: Modernity Phantasm Japan. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Iwabuchi, K. (2002) Recentering Globalization: Popular Culture and JapaneseTransnationalism. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Jacobson, R. (ed.) (1998) Codeswitching Worldwide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Jacobson, R. (ed.) (2001) Codeswitching Worldwide II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Jahr, E.H. and Broch, I. (eds) (1996) Language Contact in the Arctic: Northern Pidgins

and Contact Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Janson, T. (2002) Speak. A Short History of Languages. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Jazayery, M.A. (1958) English loanwords in Persian: A study in language and

culture. PhD Dissertation, the University of Texas, Austin.Jernudd, B.H. and Shapiro, M.J. (eds) (1989) The Politics of Language Purism. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter.Jespersen, O. (1922) Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: G.

Allen & Unwin.Jiyukokumin (2004) Gendai Yogo no Kiso Chishiki [Basic Knowledge of Contemporary

Terminology]. Tokyo: Jiyukokuminsha.Jonsson, B. (1987) Islensk heiti fyrir AIDS. Malfregnir 1, 25�26.Jonsson, B. (1990). Mysla. Malfregnir 8, 31.

Bibliography 307

Jonsson, B. (2002a [1990]) Aðlogun tokuorða ı ıslensku. Malsgreinar. AfmælisritBaldurs Jonssonar með urvali greina eftir hann. Rit Islenskrar malnefndar 13 (pp.219�232). Reykjavik: Islensk malnefnd.

Jonsson, B. (2002b [1983]) Islensk orðmyndun. Malsgreinar. Afmælisrit BaldursJonssonar með urvali greina eftir hann. Rit Islenskrar malnefndar 13 (pp. 183�199). Reykjavik: Islensk malnefnd.

Jonsson, V. (1985 [1955]) Vorn fyrir veiru. In Þ. Vilmundarson (ed.) Með hug ogorði. Af bloðum Vilmundar Jonssonar landlæknis (pp. 325�339). Reykjavik: Iðunn.

Judge, A. (2000) Is French really open to outside influences? A response toHenriette Walter. In S. Wright (ed.) Codeswitching Worldwide II (pp. 86�91).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1982) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Oxford:Pergamon (1992, 2nd edn. Urbana: University of Illinois Press).

Kachru, B.B. (1983) The Indianization of English: The English Language in India.Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B.B. (1986) The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models ofNon-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Kamiya, T. (1994) Tuttle New Dictionary of Loanwords in Japanese: A User’s Guide toGairaigo. Rutland, VT: Tuttle.

Kane, T.L. (1990) Amharic�English Dictionary (Vols. I and II). Wiesbaden: OttoHarrassowitz.

Kantor, H. (1994) On ‘inny’ expressions in journalese. In M. Muchnik (ed.) ForeignInfluences on Contemporary Hebrew, Psiphas 2. A Collection of Essays (pp. 21�30).Tel Aviv: The Open University (in Hebrew).

Kapanadze, L.A. (2001) Struktura i tendentsii razvitia elektronnykh zhanrov. InS.M. Kuz’mina (ed.) Zhizn’ iazyka. Sbornik statei k 80-letiu Mikhaila ViktorovichaPanova (pp. 246�255). Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury.

Kapeliuk, O. (1979) Marxist�Leninist terminology in Amharic and Tigrinya.Northeast African Studies 1, 23�30.

Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, R.B. Jr. (1997) Language Planning from Practice to Theory.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Karlsson, G. (2000) Iceland’s 1100 Years. History of a Marginal Society. London: Hurst& Company.

Kawamoto, T. (1983) Loanwords. In Kodansha Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, pp. 61�62.Tokyo: Kodansha.

Kazemzadeh, F. (1986) Anglo-Russian Convention. The Encyclopaedia Iranica II,68�70.

Kertesz, Zs. (2003) Vowel harmony and the stratified lexicon of Hungarian. TheOdd Yearbook 7, 62�77. (Also on WWW at http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featgeom/kertesz-stratified-pdf).

Khanlari, P.N. (1351/1972) Dastour-e Zaben-e Farsi. Tehran: Bonyad-e Farhang-eIran.

Kimmerling, B. and Migdal, Y. (1999) Palestinians � A People in Creation. Tel Aviv:Keter (in Hebrew).

Kindaichi, H. (1957) Nippongo [The Japanese Language]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.King, R. (1989) On the social meaning of linguistic variability in language

death situations: Variation in New-Foundland French. In N.C. Dorian (ed.)Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death (pp. 139�148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Kinney, C. (1873) Japanning the English language. Galaxy 16, 188�195.Klausner, J. (1957) Oral language and the question of barbarisms. In Modern

Hebrew and Its Problems (pp. 100�107). Tel Aviv: Massada.Knutsson, P. (1993) Learned & popular etymology. Prescription vs. intertextual

paronomaisa. Islenskt mal 15, 99�120. Reykjavik.Kokugo Shingikai (1991) Kokugo shingikai gairaigo hyoki iinkai toshin [Report from

the Special committee for the Transcription of Loanwords in Japanese on behalf of theNational Language Council]. Tokyo: Kokugo Shingikai.

Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo (1990) Gairaigo no Keisei to sono Kyoiku [The Formationof Loanwords and the Teaching of Them]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo.

Kolesov, V.V. (1998) Russkaia Rech: vchera, segodnia, zavtra. Sankt-Peterburg: Iuna.Kontra, M. (1998) Angol nyelvi es kulturalis imperializmus es a magyar

tanarkepzes [Linguistic and cultural imperialism and teacher training inHungary.]. In G. Molnar (ed.) Nyelvpolitika [Language Politics]. Veszprem: B.VEK.

Koplewitz, E. (1989) The use and integration of Hebrew lexemes in Israeli spokenArabic. Multilingual Matters 71, 181�195.

Koplewitz, E. (1992) Arabic in Israel: The sociolinguistic situation of Israel’s Arabminority. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 98, 29�66.

Kostomarov, V.G. (1994) Jazykovoi vkus epokhi. Iz nabludenii nad rechevoi praktikoimass-media. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press.

Kovacs, M. (2001) Code Switching and Language Shift in Australian Finnish inComparison with Australian Hungarian. Abo: Abo Akademi University Press.

Kowner, R. (2002) Deconstructing the Japanese national discourse: Laymen’sbeliefs and ideology. In R.T. Donahue (ed.), Exploring Japaneseness: JapaneseEnactments of Culture and Consciousness (pp. 169�182). Westport, CT: Green-wood.

Kowner, R. (2003) Japanese miscommunication with foreigners: In search forvalid accounts and effective remedies. Japanstudien 15, 113�147.

Kowner, R. and Rosenhouse, J. (1997) Adoption and usages of foreign words: TheJapanese and Hebrew models. A paper presented at the 8th Conference of theEuropean Association of Japanese Studies, Budapest, 27�30 August 1997.

Kowner, R. and Rosenhouse, J. (2001) Cultural policy on loanword adoption inmodern Japanese and Hebrew: A comparative Study. International Journal ofCultural Policy 7, 521�548.

Kristinsson, A.P. (2001) Utredning om de nordiske sprakenes domener og detsiste tiars sprakpolitiske initiativ � Island � for Nordisk ministerradssprakpolitiske referansegruppe [Internet]. On WWW at http://www.ismal.hi.is/utredning.html. Accessed 16.11.01.

Krysin, L.P. (1989) Sotsiolingvisticheskie aspekty izuchenia sovremennogo russkogojazyka. Moscow: Nauka.

Krysin, L.P. (1996) Inoiazychnoe slovo v kontekste sovremennoi obchestvennoizhizni. In E.A. Zemskaia (ed.) Russkii iazyk kontsa XX stoletia (1985�1995) (pp.142�161). Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury.

Krysin, L.P. (2000) Sklonaietsia li slovo Internet? Russkaia Rech 6, 38�40.Krysin, L.P. (2004) Russkoe slovo, svoe i chuzhoe: Issledovania po sovremennomu

russkomu iazyku i sotsiolingvistike. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury.Kryuchkova, T. (2001) English as a language of science in Russia. In U. Ammon

(ed.) The Dominance of English As a Language of Science: Effects on Other

Bibliography 309

Languages and Language Communities (pp. 405�423). Berlin and New York:Walter De Gruyter.

Kuitenbrouwer, J. (2002) Totaal Hedenlands: Twintig jaar taaltrends. Amsterdam: L.J.Veen.

Kurzon, D. (2003a) Where East Looks West: Success in English in Goa and on theKonkan Coast. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kurzon, D. (2003b) Language choice as index: The case of India. Semiotica 147(1/4), 452�472.

Kutscher, E.Y. (1965) milım vetoldotehen [Words and their History]. Jerusalem:Kiryath Sepher (originally 1961).

Kwetsbare taal (1997) De Gelderlander. 11 April, 3.Ladousa, C. (2002) Advertising in the periphery: Languages and schools in a

North Indian city. Language in Society 31, 213�242.Lambton, A.K.S. (1953) Persian Grammar. Cambridge, New York & Melbourne:

Cambridge University Press.Lamley, H.J. (1999) Taiwan under Japanese Rule, 1895�1945: The vicissitudes of

colonialism. In M.A. Rubinstein (ed.) Taiwan: A New History (pp. 201�261).Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Lane-Pool, S. (1925) The Mohammadan Dynasties. Paris: Paul Geuthner.Langer, N. and Davies, W. (eds) (2005) Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Language Academy (1992) The foreign language problem of contemporary

Hebrew. Leshonenu La’am 43.Laroche-Claire, Y. (2004) Evitez le franglais, parlez francais! Paris: Albin Michel.Le Cornec, J. (1982) Quand le francais perd son latin. Nouvelle defense et illustration.

Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Lederer, M. (1988) Les fausses traductions sources de contamination du francais.

In M. Pergnier (ed.) Le francais en contact avec l’anglais (pp. 119�129). Paris:Didier Erudition.

Leeman-Bouix, D. (1994) Les fautes de francais existent-elles? Paris: Armand Collin.Leichik, V.M. (2002). Piar i drugie abbreviatury. Russkaia Rech 5, 40�44.Leland, C.G. (1879) A new dialect; or, Yokohama pidgin. New Quarterly Magazine

12, 114�124.Lenoble-Pinson, M. (1991) Anglicismes et substituts francais. Louvain-la-Neuve:

Duculot.Lenoble-Pinson, M. (1994) La situation en Belgique � Wallonismes et flandri-

cismes? Anglicismes. In Actes du Colloque sur les anglicismes et leur traitementlexicographique, Magog, 24�27 September 1991 (pp. 59�77). Quebec: Gouverne-ment du Quebec.

Lescot, R. (1939) La Reforme du Vocabulaire en Iran. Revue des Etudes Islamiques I,75�96.

Leslau, W. (1967) Amharic Textbook. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Leslau, W. (1973) English�Amharic Context Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasso-

witz.Leslau, W. (1976) Concise Amharic Dictionary. Amharic�English, English�Amharic.

Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz and University of California Press.Leslau, W. (1995) A Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Leslau, W. (2000) Introductory Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasso-

witz.


Levikova, S.I. (2003) Bol’shoi slovar’ molodiozhnogo zhargona [The Big Dictionary ofthe Youth Slang]. Moscow: Grand.

Lewis, B. (1960) The Arabs in History. New York: Harper and Row.Lı, L. (1990) xiandai hanyu wailai cı de tongyi wentı [The problem of unifying

current borrowings in Chinese]. In yuwen jianshe [Language Building] (pp. 42�45). Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe [Language Press].

Lin, M.-J. (2002) Controversy brewing over English. Taipei Times April 2.Lorenzo, E. (1996) Anglicismos Hispanicos. Madrid: Gredos.Loveday, L. (1986) Explorations in Japanese Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Loveday, L. (1997) Language Contact in Japan: A Sociolinguistic History. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.Lovins, J.B. (1975) Loanwords and the Phonological Structure of Japanese. Blooming-

ton: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Ludi, G. (1990) Les migrants comme minorite linguistique en Europe. Socio-

linguistica 4, 113�135.Luo, C. (1950) yuyan yu wenhua [Language and Culture]. Beijing: Guolı Beijing

Daxue [National University of Beijing].Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Macaulay, T.B. (1972 [1835]) Minute on Indian Education. In J. Clive and T. Pinney

(eds) Selected Writings (pp. 237�251). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Machauf, L. (1997) From ‘Tal ha’emek’ to ‘American Chips’: The language of the

global village as reflected in trade names and technical communication inIsrael. In J. Rosenhouse, Y. Gitay and D. Porush (eds) Future and Communica-tion: The Role of Scientific and Technical Communication and Translation inTechnology Development and Transfer (pp. 168�71). San Francisco, London,Bethesda: International Scholars Publications.

Mackey, W. (1979) Towards an ecology of language contact. In SociolinguisticStudies in Language Contact. The Hague.

Mackey, W.F. (1976) Bilinguisme et contact de langues. Paris: Klinsieck.MacSwan, J. (2004) Code switching and grammatical theory. In T.K. Bhatia and

W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 283�311). New York:Blackwell.

Magay, T. (1992) Scholarship on English loanwords in Hungarian. In C. Blank,with T. Kirschner, D. Gutch and J. Gilbert (eds) Language and Civilization: AConcerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsc (pp. 720�729).Frankfurt (M): Peter Lang Publishers.

Magnusson, A.B. (1989) Islensk orðsifjabok. Reykjavık: Orðabok Haskolans.Mahboubi-Ardakani, M.H. (1354/1975) Tarikh-e Mo’assessat-e Tamaddoni-ye Jadid

dar Iran, 3 vols. Tehran: Entesharat-e Daneshgah-e Tehran.Maher, J.C. (1995) The right stuff: Toward an environmental linguistics. In J.C.

Maher and G. Macdonald (eds) Diversity in Japanese Culture and Language.London: Kegan Paul International.

Marashi, A. (2003) Nationalizing Iran: Culture, power, and the state, 1870�1941.PhD Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.

Mareschal, G. (1994) Etude typologique et comparative de l’anglicisation et desanglicismes dans quatre aires de la francophonie. Actes du colloque sur lesanglicismes et leur traitement lexicographique. Quebec: Gouvernement duQuebec.

Bibliography 311

Martineau, F. (1985) L’elision de la variable ’que’ dans le parler d’Ottawa-Hull.Cahiers linguistiques d’ Ottawa 14, 53�70.

Masini, F. (1993) The formation of modern Chinese lexicon and its evolutiontowards a national language: The period from 1840 to 1898. Journal of ChineseLinguistics, Monograph Series Number 6.

Masse, H. (1939) La Lettre a l’Academie Iranienne de S.A. Mohammad Ali Foroughi.Paris: Paul Geuthner.

Matin-Asghari, A. (1986) Education. XXI. Education Abroad. Encyclopaedia IranicaVIII, 226�230.

Maurais, J. (1985) La crise des langues, Quebec: Conseil de la Langue Francaise.Maurais, J. and Morris, M.A. (eds) (2004) Languages in a Globalising World.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maximova, T. (2002) Russian. In M. Gorlach (ed.) English in Europe (pp. 195�212).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.McArthur, T. (2002) The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.McCrum, R., Cran, W. and MacNeil, R. (1986) The Story of English. London: Faber

& Faber.McDaniel, R.A. (1974) The Shuster Mission and the Persian Constitutional Revolution.

Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica.McLaughlin, B. (1984) Second Language Acquisition in Childhood. Vol. I: Preschool

Children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.McMahon, A. (1994) Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.McWhorter, J. (1998) Identifying the Creole prototype: Vindicating a typological

class. Language 74, 788�818.Mejdell, G. (2006) Code switching. In K. Versteegh (ed.) Encyclopedia of Arabic

Language and Linguistics (pp. 414�421). Leiden: Brill.Menashri, D. (1992) Education and the Making of Modern Iran. Ithaca and London:

Cornell University Press.Menus, B. (2003) A denglish terhodıtasa a nemet gazdasagi nyelvben es azok

nehany oktataspolitikai vonatkozasa [The Increased Role of Denglish in theLanguage of Economics and Related Considerations for GSP (German forSpecific Purposes) Training]. On WWW at http://www.poliod.hu/kf/nyelvi-kon/2003/MB.htm.

Meyer, E. and Richter, R. (2003) Language Use in Ethiopia from a Network Perspective.Schriften zur Afrikanistik (research in African Studies), Band 7. Farnkfurt amMain: Peter Lang.

Miller, R.A. (1967) The Japanese Language. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Miller, R.A. (1977) The Japanese Language in Contemporary Japan: Some Socio-

Linguistic Observations. Stanford: Stanford University Press (AEI PolicyStudies).

Miller, R.A. (1982) Japan’s Modern Myth: Language and Beyond. New York:Weatherhill.

Millspaugh, A.C. (1946) Americans in Persia. Washington, D.C.: The BrookingsInstitute.

Minami, H. (1994) Nihonjinron: Meiji kara konnichi made [Nihonjinron: From MeijiEra to the Present Day]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.


Minervini, L. (1996) La Lingua Franca Mediterranea: Plurilinguismo, mistlilin-guismo, pidginizzazione sulle coste del Mediterraneo tra tardo medioevo eprima eta moderna. Medioevo Romanzo 20, 231�301.

Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (1986) Gakujutsu Yogo Shu: ShinrigakuHen [Japanese Scientific Terms in Psychology]. Tokyo: Maruzen.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC (2002) Newsletter 1, April 15, 2002.Minya, K. (2005) Rendszervaltas-normavaltas. A magyar nyelvmuveles tortenete,

elvei es vitai 1989-tol napjainkig. In Segedkonyvek a nyelveszet tanulmanyozasahozXLV. Budapest: Tinta Konyvkiado. On WWW at http://www.e-nyelv.hu/enyelv.php?page�publication_elem.php�id�19.

Mirkin, R. (1975) On the foreign words in Hebrew and on a dictionary for theforeign words in Hebrew. Leshonenu La’am 26, 288�300.

Miron, Y. and Kabha, R. (1993) Legends of the Wadi. Giv’at Haviva: Center forPeace Studies (in Hebrew and Arabic).

Miura, A. (1979) English Loanwords in Japanese: A Selection. Rutland, VT: Tuttle.Modarresi, Y., Same’i, H. and Safavi Mobrahen, Z. (1380/2001) Farhang-e

Estelahat-e Dowreh-ye Qajar: Qoshoun va Nazmiyeh. Tehran: Daftar-e Pazhou-hesh-ha-ye Farhangi.

Monteil, V. (1960) L’Arabe Moderne. Paris: C. Klincksieck.Morag, S. (2003) Modern Hebrew in its crystallization: A language in the mirror

of a society. In M. Muchnik (ed.) Language, Culture and Society � A Reader (pp.131�154). Tel Aviv: The Open University (in Hebrew).

Morgunblaðið. Daily Icelandic newspaper on the online database Gagnasafnið. OnWWW at http://www.mbl.is/mm/gagnasafn/.

Morimoto, Y. (1978) Japanese English. In I. Koike (ed.) The Teaching of English inJapan (pp. 601�613). Tokyo: Eichosa.

Motwani, P. (1991) Dictionary of Loanwords Usage Katakana-English. Tokyo:Maruzen.

Mougeon, R. and Beniak, E. (1989) Language contraction and linguistic change:The case of Welland French. In N.C. Dorian (ed.) Investigating Obsolescence �Studies in Language contraction and death (pp. 287�313). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Mougeon, R. and Beniak, E. (1991) Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact andRestriction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Muchnik,M. (ed.) (1994a)The Influence of Foreign Languages on ContemporaryHebrew.Psiphas � A Collection of Papers 2. Tel Aviv: The Open University (in Hebrew).

Muchnik, M. (1994b) Why do we need translations? In Muchnik, M. (ed.) TheInfluence of Foreign Languages on Contemporary Hebrew. Psiphas � A Collection ofPapers (pp. 49�56). Tel Aviv: The Open University (in Hebrew).

Muchnik, M. (ed.) (2003) Language, Culture and Society � A Reader. Tel Aviv: TheOpen University (in Hebrew).

Muhlhausler, P. (1986) Pidgin & Creole Linguistics. Oxford: B. Blackwell.Murray, K.A.H. (1945) Feeding the Middle East in wartime. Royal Central Asian

Journal 33, 233�247.Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Social Motivation for Code-Switching. Oxford: Clarendon.Myers-Scotton, C. (2002) Contact Linguistics � Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical

Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nadasdy, A. (2001) ‘Hasznaljunk minnel tobb idegen szot!’ [Let’s use increasingly

more foreign words!] Magyar Narancs 2 (2 August), 40.

Bibliography 313

Naim, S. (1998) L’aventure des mots arabes venus d’ailleurs. La Linguistique 34,91�102.

Najafi, B. (1986) Film in Iran, 1900 to 1979: A Political and Cultural Analysis.Stockholm: Department of Theatre and Cinema Arts, Stockholm University.

Nederlands al voldoende beschermd [trans.: Dutch is already sufficientlyprotected] (1997) NRC Handelsblad. 10 April, 3.

Nederlandse taal inzet ruzie met EU [trans.: Dutch Language causes controversywith EU] (1998) Onze Taal 67 (9), 235.

Negarit Gazeta [Official Journal] (1994) The Constitution of the Federal Republic ofEthiopia. Addis Ababa. 8 December.

Nesterskaia, L.A. (1997) O nekotorykh tendentsiakh v razvitii slovarnogo sostavasovremennogo russkogo iazyka. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, ser. 9,Filologia 4, 40�48.

Nettle, D. and Romaine, S. (2000) Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’sLanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

NHK (Nippon Hoso Kyokai) (1987) NHK Hoso Kotoba Handobukku [The NHKHandbook of Broadcasting Language]. Tokyo: NHK Shuppan Kyokai.

Nir, R. (1989) Hebrew Semantics �Meaning and Communication. Tel Aviv: The OpenUniversity (in Hebrew).

Nir, R. (1993) Ways of Lexical Derivation and Coining in Contemporary Hebrew. TelAviv: The Open University (in Hebrew).

Nish, I. (ed.) (1994) Britain and Japan. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Nishikawa, M. (1988) Some principles on the productivity of Japanese word

formation. Kumamoto Daigaku Kyoikugakubu Kiyo Jinbunkagaku 37, 211�220.Nishimura, M. (1997) Japanese/English Code Switching: Syntax and Pragmatics.

New York: P. Lang.Novikova, N.V. (1995) Zvonkoe inoiazychie. In L.K. Graudina, O.L. Dmitrieva,

N.V. Novikova and E.N. Shiraev (eds) My sokhranim tebia, russkaia rech! (pp.74�84). Moskva: Nauka.

NPR (an on-line news provider). http://www.npr.org/about/.Obata-Reiman, E. (1996) Kashi ni miru eigo hyogen no zoka gensho [The

phenomenon of loanwords increase in popular songs]. Nihongogaku 15, 21�29.Ogino, T. (1986) Quantification of politeness based on the usage patterns of

honorific expressions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58, 37�58.Ogino, T. (1988) Nihongo ni okeru gairaigo no ryunyu jiki to gengo [The

introduction period and the etymology of loanwords in Japanese]. KeiryoKokugogaku 16, 165�174.

Ohso, M. (1991) Eitango no onkei no nihongoka [Japanization of the phonetics ofEnglish words]. Nihongo Kyoiku 74, 34�47.

Ornan, U. (1984) Hebrew in Palestine before and after 1882. Journal of SemiticStudies 29, 225�254.

Orszagh, L. (1977) Angol eredetu elemek a magyar szokeszletben. NyelvtudomanyiErtekezesek 93. Budapest: Adademiai Kiado.

Oskarsson, V. (2003) Middelnedertyske laneord i islandsk diplomsprog frem til ar 1500.In F. Hansen and J. Louis-Jensen (eds) Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 43.Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels Forlag. On WWW at http://english.arnamagnaeansk.ku.dk/.


Ottosson, K. (1990) Islensk malhreinsun. Sogulegt yfirlit [Icelandic languagepurism. Historical synopsis]. Rit Islenskrar malnefndar [Periodical of the IcelandicLanguage Council], Vol. 6. Reykjavik.

Owens, J. (1998) Neighborhood and Ancestry: Variation in the Spoken Arabic ofMaiduguri, Nigeria. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Owens, J. (2004) Close encounters of a different kind. Paper read at the ESF SCHExploratory Workshop: Arabic Urban Vernaculars: The Effect of Migration andSocial Changes on Language Ascription. Aix-en-Provence, France, 20�23October 2004.

Ozhegov, S.I. (1983) Slovar’ russkogo iazyka. Moscow: Russkii iazyk.Palsson, H. (2003) Moral och dubbelmoral � tankar om spraknormering. In H.

Omdal and R. Røsstad (eds) Krefter og motkrefter i spraknormeringa (Vol. 33, pp.239�246). Kirstiansand: Norwegian Academic Press.

Panov, M.V. (1988) Iz nabludenii nad stilem segodniashnei periodiki: Uchebmoeposobie. In M.V. Shul’ga (ed.) Iazyk sovremennoi publitsistiki (pp. 4�27).Moscow: Goskomizdat SSSR: Vsesoiuznyi institute povyshenia kvalifikatsiirabotnikov pechati.

Parasher, S.V. (1983) Indian English: Certain grammatical, lexical and stylisticfeatures. English World Wide 4, 27�42.

Partridge, E. (1949) The World of Words. London: H. Hamilton.Passin, H. (1982) Eigo-ka Suru Nihon Shakai [The English Transformation of the

Japanese Society]. Tokyo: Saimarushuppankai.Pelli, M. (2001) The Collectors’ Generation at the Dawn of the Enlightenment: The

Literary Contribution of the Pioneers of Ha-M’assef, the First Hebrew Journal, to theHebrew Enlightenment in Its Beginning. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hame’uchad (inHebrew).

Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.London: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (1998) English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.Pergnier, M. (1989) Les Anglicismes: Danger ou Enrichissement pour la Langue

Francaise? Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Pergnier, M. (1994) Les attitudes des francais a l’egard des anglicismes. Actes du

Colloque sur les Anglicismes et Leur Traitement Lexicographique (pp. 131�136).Quebec: Gouvernement du Quebec.

Perkins, J. (n.d.) Missionary Life in Persia. n.p.Perkins, J. (1843) Residence of Eight Years in Persia among the Nestorian Christians;

with Notices of the Mohammedans. Andover: Allen, Morrill & Wardwell.Perry, J.R. (1985) Language reform in Turkey and Iran. International Journal of

Middle East Studies 17, 295�311.Perry, J.R (1991) Form and Meaning in Persian Vocabulary: The Arabic Feminine

Ending. Costa Mesa, CA & New York: Mazda Publishers in association withBibliotheca Persica.

Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Piamenta, M. (1964) The Use of Tenses, Aspects ad Moods in the Arabic Dialect of

Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Bureau of Adviser on Arab Affairs, Prime Minister’sOffice.

Picone, M.D. (1996) Anglicisms, Neologisms and Dynamic French. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Pines, D. (1955) Dictionary of Foreign Words in Hebrew. Tel Aviv: Amihay.

Bibliography 315

Pines, D. and Pines, K. (1976, 1977) Dictionary of Foreign Words in Hebrew (2 vols).Tel Aviv: Amihay.

Pivot, B. (2004) 100 mots a sauver. Paris: Albin Michel.Plumer, N. (2000) Anglizismus-Purismus-sprachliche Identitat: eine Untersuchung zu

den Anglizismen in der deutschen und franzosischen Mediensprache. Frankfurt amMein: P. Lang.

Polivanov, E.D. (1968) O foneticheskikh priznakakh sotsial’no-gruppovykhdialektov i, v chastnosti, russkogo standartnogo iazyka. In E.D. Polivanov(ed.) Stat’i po obschemu iazykoznaniu. Moscow: Nauka.

Pollack, D. (1986) The Fracture of Meaning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Poplack, S. (1980) ‘Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en

Espanol’: Towards a typology of code switching. Linguistics 18, 581�618.Poplack, S. and Sankoff, D. (1984) Borrowing: the synchrony of integration.

Linguistics 22, 99�135.Poplack, S., Sankoff, D. and Miller, C. (1988) The social correlates and linguistic

consequences of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26, 47�104.Porat, A. (1993) On the foreign language affliction. Leshonenu La’am 44 (1), 38�41.Praetorius, F. (1879) Die Amharische Sprache. Halle: Verlag der Buchhnadlung des

Waisenhauses.Presbyterian Church, United States of America, Iran Mission (1936) A Century of

Mission Work in Iran (Persia): 1834�1934. Beirut: Board of Foreign Missions ofthe Presbyterian Church in the USA.

Qa’em-Maqami, J. (1947) Tarikh-e Tahavvolat-e Siyasi-ye Nezam-e Iran: Az Aqhaz-eQarn-e Yazdahom-e Hejri ta Sal-e 1301-e Hejri-ye Shamsi. Tehran: [s.n.]

Qajar, M.D.S. (1361/1982�83) Safarnameh-ye Mobarak-e Mozaffar al-Din Shah behFarang. Ed. ‘Ali Dehbashi, 2nd printing. Tehran: Ketab-e Farzin.

Qajar, N.D.S. (1369/1990�91) Rouznameh-ye Khaterat-e Naser al-Din Shah dar Safar-eSevvom-e Farangestan. Ed. Mohammad Esma’il Rezvani and Fatemeh Qaziha.Tehran: Entesharat-e Daftar-e Pazhuhesh va Tahqiqat-e Sazeman-e Asnad-eMelli, in cooperation with Mo’assesseh-ye Khadamat-e Farhangi-ye Rasa.

Qajar, N.D.S. (1998) Rouznameh-ye Khaterat-e Naser al-Din Shah dar Safar-e Avval-eFarangestan. Ed. Fatemeh Qaziha. Tehran: Sazeman-e Asnad-e Melli-ye IranPazhouheshkadeh-ye Asnad.

Rai, A. (2000) Hindi Nationalism. New Delhi: Orient Longmans.Ra’in, E. (1357/1978) Faramoushkhaneh va Farmasonary dar Iran, 3 vols. Tehran:

Mo’assesseh-ye Tahqiq-e Ra’in.Ramazani, R.K. (1966) The Foreign Policy of Iran: A Developing Nation in World

Affairs. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Ramsey, S.R. (1989) The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press (1st edn: 1987).Ravid, D. (1994) Integration of foreign words in the noun and verb systems. In: M.

Muchnik (ed.) The Influence of Foreign Languages on Contemporary Hebrew.Psiphas � A Collection of Papers (pp. 11�20). Tel Aviv: The Open University (inHebrew).

Ravid, D. and Farah, R. (1999) Noun plurals in Palestinian Arabic. First Language19, 187�206.

Ravid, D. and Hayek, L. (2003) Learning about different ways of expressingnumber in the development of Palestinian Arabic. First Language 23, 41�63.


Ravid, D. and Shlezinger, Y. (1987) On the classification and derivative moods ofadjectives with an i suffix in modern Hebrew. Hebrew Linguistics (in Hebrew),25.

Rebuck, M. (2002) The function of loanwords in Japanese. Journal of LanguageCulture and Communication (Nagoya University of Commerce and BusinessAdministration) 4, 53�64.

Reinders, J.E. (1998) Nieuwe tijden, nieuwe woorden. Reformatorisch Dagblad 23January.

Renkema, J., Vallen, E. and Hoeken, H. (2003) Tuinapparatuur of gardenequipment? Waarom Nederlanders Engels prefereren. In: J. Stroop (ed.)Waar gaat het Nederlands naartoe? Panorama van een taal (pp. 108�112).Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.

Rey-Debove, J. and Gagnon, G. (1988) Dictionnaire des anglicismes � les mots anglaiset americains en francais. Paris: Les usuels du Robert.

Ridder, S. (1995) English in Dutch. English Today 44 (4), 44�50.Ringeling, T. (1997) Hoog inzetten! Het Engels van Nederlanders. Onze Taal 66 (4),

71�72.Ringer, M.M. (2001) Education, Religion, and the Discourse of Cultural Reform in

Qajar Iran. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K. (2004) Social and psychological factors in language

mixing. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp.336�352). New York: Blackwell.

Ritmalsskra database. On WWW at http://www.lexis.hi.is.Rizq, S. (2004) Le langue de jeunes universitaires cairotes. A paper read at the

Workshop Arabic Urban Vernaculars: The Effect of Migration and SocialChanges (20�23 October 2004), Aix-en-Provence, France.

Robert (1995) Le Nouveau Petit Robert (NPR). Paris: Le Robert.Robert (2001) Le Grand Robert de langue francaise (GRLF). Paris: Le Robert.Romaine, S. (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.Rosenbaum, G.M. (1994) Dialog language in modern Egyptian drama (mainly

since 1952). PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Rosenbaum, G.M. (2002) Do you parler ‘Arabi?’ Mixing Colloquial Arabic and

European languages in Egyptian literature. Materiaux Arabes et Studarabiques(nouvelle serie) 10, 11�47.

Rosenfeld, S. (2003) Journalese � the language of journalists. In M. Muchnik (ed.)Language, Culture and Society � A Reader (pp. 49�70). Tel Aviv: The OpenUniversity (in Hebrew).

Rosenhouse, J. (1984) The Bedouin Arabic Dialects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Rosenhouse, J. (1998) Women’s speech and language variation in Arabic dialects.

Al-‘Arabiyya, Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic 31, 123�152.Rosenhouse, J. (2000) The acquisition of Arabic as mother tongue (mainly in

Israel). Oriente Moderno (special issue on the state of the art in Arabicdialectology) 19 (80) new series 1, 119�151.

Rosenhouse, J. (2002) Practical Dictionary, Hebrew�Colloquial Arabic�Literary Arabic.Rosh Ha-‘Ayin: Prolog.

Rosenhouse, J. (2004) The penetration of the English language to Hebrew andArabic from a comparative perspective. Hed Halashon (e-journal, in Hebrew).

Bibliography 317

Rosenhouse, J. (2005) Men and women under the authority of language. Panim 33(September) (e-journal and paper print journal). Tel Aviv: Teachers’ Associa-tion in Israel (in Hebrew).

Rosenhouse, J. (2006) The English Language and Hebrew slang today: Alinguistic analysis. A paper read at the conference on Hebrew Slang, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, February 2006.

Rosenhouse, J. and Goral, M. (2004) Bilingualism in the Middle East and NorthAfrica. In T. Bhatia and W. Ritchie (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 835�868).New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R. (2005) Dictionary of Israeli Slang. Jerusalem: Keter Books Ltd.Rouhbakhshan, A. (1987) Le role du Dar ol-Fonun dans l’expansion du francais

en Iran. Loqman III, 3, 33�54.Rubal-Lopez, A. (1991) English language spread: Predicting three criteria.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yeshiva University, New York.Rubal-Lopez, A. (1996) The ongoing spread of English: A comparative analysis of

former Anglo-American colonies with non-colonies. In J.A. Fishman, A.W.Conrad and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds) Post-Imperial English: Status Change in FormerBritish and American Colonies, 1940�1990 (pp. 37�82). Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Ryazanova-Clarke, L. and Wade, T. (1999) The Russian Language Today. Londonand New York: Routledge.

Sabol’ch, Ia. (2003) Anglo-amerikanskie neologizmy v sovremennom russkomiazyke. In Russkoe slovo v mirovoi kul’ture. Russkii iazyk i russkaia rech segodnia:staroe�novoe�zaimstvovannoe. Proceedings of the 10th Congress of the Interna-tional Association of the Teachers of the Russian Language and Literature (pp.559�566). St. Petersburg: Politekhnika.

Sadiq, ‘I. (1332/1953) Sir-e Farhang dar Iran va Maghreb-Zamin ya Majmali azTahavvol-e Amouzesh va Parvaresh az Aghaz ta Zaman-e Hazer. Tehran: Danesh-gah-e Tehran.

Sadiq, I. (1931) Modern Persia and Her Educational System (Studies of theInternational Institute of Teachers College, Columbia University, no. 14).New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Safiri, F. (1975) The South Persian Rifles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Edinburgh University.

Saito, E. (ed.) (1985) Gaikoku kara Kita Shingo Jiten [Dictionary of New Words fromAbroad]. Tokyo: Shueisha.

Sakarna, A.K. (2004) The Anglo-Arabic language of young urban Jordanians: Theinfluence of the internet, mobile phones and TV satellites. A paper read at theworkshop Arabic Urban Vernaculars: The Effect of Migration and SocialChanges, 20�23 October 2004, Aix-en-Provence, France.

Sallo, I.Kh. (1992) Code switching at the university: A socio-linguistic study. In R.de Beaugrande, A. Shunnaq and M.H. Helliei (eds) Language, Discourse andTranslation in the West and Middle East (pp. 115�140). Amsterdam andPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.

Sanders, E. (2002) Taaltumult. De mooiste observaties, hartenkreten en boze brieven uitOnze Taal. Amsterdam: Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep.

Sandøy, H. (1985) Ideologiar og argumentasjon i islandsk sprakdebatt. Sprakligsamling 3, 14-17.


Sapir, E. (1949) Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York:Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Sapir, Y. (2003) Linguistic purism in the shadow of satellites. In K. Arnason (ed.)Utnorður. West Nordic Standardisation and Variation. Papers from a Symposium inStockholm Ocotber 7th 2001 (pp. 33�46). Reykjavik: Institute of Linguistics.University of Iceland Press.

Sapir, Y. (2008) Modern Icelandic Word Formation (in press). Uppsala: Institutionenfor nordiska sprak. Uppsala universitet.

Savelieva, L.V. (2000) Russkoe slovo: Konets XX veka. St. Peterburg: Logos.Schmid, M.S. (2002) First Language Attrition, Use and Maintenance: The Case of

German Jews in Anglophone Countries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Schmid, M.S., Kopke, B., Keijzer, M. and Weilemar, L. (eds) (2004) First Language

Attrition � Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Schoof, R. (1997) Bevordering van het Nederlands moet ‘zorgplicht’ worden in deGrondwet: Nederlandse taal als cultureel grondrecht. NRC Handelsblad 9April, 3.

Schreier, D. (2005) Consonant Change in English Worldwide: Synchrony MeetsDiachrony. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schuchardt, H. (1980) Pidgin and Creole Languages: Selected Essays by HugoSchuchardt. Ed. Glenn Gilbert. London: Cambridge University Press.

Schwarzwald, R.O. (2001) Modern Hebrew. Munich: Lincom Europa.Sebba, M. (1997) Contact Languages: Pidgins and Creoles. New York: St. Martin’s

Press.Seeley, C. (1991) A History of Writing in Japan. Leiden: Brill.Segev, T. (1999) Anemone Days � Eretz Yisrael during the Mandate. Tel Aviv: Keter.Shadman, S.F. (1937) Education in Iran. Asiatic Review N.S. XXXIII, 165�173.Shafa, S.-D. (2003) Pas az Hezar-o-Chaharsad Sal. Paris: Nashr-e Farzad.Shah, A.B. (ed.) (1968) The Great Debate: Language Controversy and University

Education. Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House.Shapiro, M.C. and Schiffman, H.F. (1983) Language and Society in South Asia. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass.Shaposhnikov, V.N. (1998) Russkaia rech 1990-kh. Sovremennaia Rossia v iazykovom

otobrazhenii. Moscow: MALP.Shetter, W.Z. (2002) The Netherlands in Perspective. Utrecht: Nederlands Centrum

Buitenlanders.Shibata, T. (1989) katakana kotoba wa nihongo wo do kaeruka [How do katakana-

words change the Japanese language?] Hoso kenkyu to chosa 39 (7), 18�25.Shibatani, M. (1990) The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Shirazi, M.S. (1347/1968)Majmou’eh-ye Safarnameh-ye Mirza Saleh Shirazi (E. Ra’in,

ed.). Tehran: Nashr-e Tarikh-e Iran.Shlesinger, Y. (2000) Journalistic Hebrew. Stylistic Aspects of Israeli Newspaper

Sections. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.Shohamy, E. and Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998) Jews vs. Arabs: Language Attitudes and

Stereotypes. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, The Tami Steinmetz Center for PeaceResearch.

Shoshashido [Guide to Penmanship] (1994 [1990]) Tokyo: Kayahara Shobo.

Bibliography 319

Shraybom-Shivtiel, S. (1993) The Academy of the Arabic Language in Egypt:Actions and trends 1932�1982. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel-Aviv University (inHebrew).

Shraybom-Shivtiel, S. (2002) Arabic and Hebrew: A national language facingforeign words. Bulletin of the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo 25, 49�52.

Shraybom-Shivtiel, Shlomit (2005) Renewal of the Arabic Language in theMission of the National Idea in Egypt. Jerusalem: Magnes Press (in Hebrew).

Shumov, K.E. (2003) Professional’nyi mif programmistov. In S.Iy. Nekliudov (ed.)Sovremennyi gorodskoi Fol’klor (pp. 128�164). Moscow: RGGU.

Shur, Sh. (1999) Self-protecting languages: The case of Modern Hebrew. Is there aneed for the Law of the Hebrew Language in the jubilee year of the state?Helkat Lashon 28, 126�140.

Shuster, W.M. (1912) The Strangling of Persia. New York: Century Company.Simmel, G. (1904) Fashion. International Quarterly 10, 130�155. Reprinted in

American Journal of Sociology (1957) 62, 541�558.Simpson, J.A. and Weiner, E.S.C. (eds) (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd

edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press. On WWW at http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl.

Sirotinina, O.B., Gol’din V.E., Kulikova, G.S. and Iagubova, M.A. (1998) Russkiiiazyk i kul’tura obschenia dlia nefilologov: Uchebnoe posobie. Saratov.

Sivan, R. (Reuben Silman) (1963) Patterns and trends of linguistic innovations inmodern Hebrew � General Introduction and Part 1: The verb (in Hebrew).PhD Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Skliarevskaia, G.N. (1996) Russkii iazyk kontsa XX veka: Versia leksikografiches-kogo opisania. In Iu.N. Karaulov and M.V. Liapon (eds) Slovar’, Grammatika,Tekst (pp. 463�473). Moscow: Institut Russkogo Iazyka im. V.V. Vinogradova.

Smeaton, B.H. (1973) Lexical Expansion Due to Technical Change as Illustrated by theArabic of Al-Hasa, Saudi-Arabia. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Søiland, H. (1998) Medical Terms and Phrases in Amharic. Norwegian LutheranMission, Partner of Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus. AddisAbaba: Ethiopia.

Spolsky, D.B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Spolsky, D.B. and Cooper, R. (1989) The Languages of Jerusalem. Oxford: Clarendon.Spolsky, D.B. and Shohamy, E. (1999) The Languages of Israel, Policy, Ideology and

Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Stanlaw, J. (1992) ‘For beautiful human life’: The use of English in Japan. In J.J.

Tobin (ed.) Re-Made in Japan (pp. 58�76). New Haven: Yale University Press.Stetkevych, J. (1970) The Modern Arabic Literary Language. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Storry, R. (1987) A Short History of Modern Japan. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Stroop, J. (1997) Weg Standaardtaal. De nieuwe koers van het Nederlands. In

P.B.J. de Jong (ed.) Taalalmanak (pp. 121�126). The Hague, Sdu uitgevers.Stroop, J. (2003) Van Delta naar Tweestromenland: over het divergerende

Nederlands. In J. Stroop (ed.) Waar gaat het Nederlands naartoe? Panorama vaneen taal (pp. 14�24). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.

Stroop, P. (2003) Koetmorning! Praat hier nog iemand Nederlands? De koers vanhet Nederlands in het bedrijfsleven. In J. Stroop (ed.) Waar gaat het Nederlandsnaartoe? Panorama van een taal (pp. 113�117). Amsterdam, Bert Bakker.


Sturcz, Z. (2005) Anyanyelvi akadalyok a szaknyelvi kozvetıtesi funkciokban.[Difficulties in communication on professional subjects due to mother tongueinterference]. In M. Silye (ed.) Porta Lingua � 2005 (pp. 69�75). Debrecen.

Su, B. (1980) Four Hundred Years of Taiwanese History. California: Paradise CultureAssociates.

Suleiman, S.M.K. (1985) Jordanian Arabic between Diglossia and Bilingualism,Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Sullivan, M.J. (1991) Measuring Global Values: The Ranking of 162 Countries. NewYork: Greenwood Press.

Swidler, A. (1986) Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American SociologicalReview 51, 273�286.

Sykes, P. (1915) A History of Persia, 2 vols. London: Macmillan.Sziklaine Gombos, Z. (1997) Developing and delivering cultural and technologi-

cal awareness through LSP studies. In J. Rosenhouse, Y. Gitay and D. Porush(eds) Future and Communication: The Role of Scientific and Technical Communica-tion and Translation in Technology Development and Transfer (pp. 30�34). SanFrancisco: International Scholars Publications.

Tabataba’i, M. (1982) A linguistic survey of French borrowings in modernPersian: The adaptation, innovation, and identification of French loan words.PhD Dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

Taiwan Documents Project Website (1954) Article 2 of the US�Taiwan MutualDefense Treaty. On WWW at http://www.taiwandocuments.org/mu-tual01.htm. Accessed 28.11.07.

Taiwan Government Information OfficeWebsite (2002) Challenge 2008: The Six-yearNational Development Plan. 21 May. On WWW at http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/4-oa/20020521/2002052101.html. Accessed 30.11.07.

Talmon, R. (2000) Arabic as a minority language in Israel. In J. Owens (ed.) Arabicas a Minority Language (pp. 199�220). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Taramaj Mazgaba Qala (1976) Ya etyop’yaw eyan Yayuniversiti Mam ehran Yaw ey eyy etmahbar [Progressive Dictionary] Addis Ababa: Ethiopian University Lecturers’Association for Political Discussion.

Teferra, A. (2002) Loanword adaptation in Amharic. A paper presented at theAnnual Conference of the Israeli Association of the Study of Language andSociety (IALS), 5 May 2002, Tel-Aviv University.

ten Hooven, M. (1998) Alarm: Het Nederlands verdwijnt. Trouw 14 November, 31.Tennant, A. and Tennant A. (2004) Hungarian or Hunglish? Borrowing and false

friends between Hungarian and English. MED (Macmillan English Dictionary)Magazine. On WWW at http://www.macmillandictionary.com/MED-magazine/May2004/19-Feature-Hunglish-Print.htm. Accessed 20.4.07.

Thackston, W.M. (1993) An Introduction to Persian (3rd edn). Bethesda, MD:Iranbooks.

The CIA World Factbook Website. People of Taiwan. On WWW at http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html#People.Accessed 30.11.07.

The Encyclopaedia Iranica (1986) Education. XV. Foreign and Minority Schools inPersia. The Encyclopaedia Iranica VIII, 214.

The Encyclopaedia Iranica (1990) British Council. The Encyclopaedia Iranica IV,455�456.

Thomas, G. (1991) Linguistic Purism. London: Longman.

Bibliography 321

Thomason, S.G. (1997) On mechanisms of interference. In: S. Eliasson andE.H. Jahr (eds) Language and Its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen(pp. 181�207). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Thomason, S.G. (2001) Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

Thomason, S.G. and Kaufman, T. (1988) Language Contact, Creolization and GeneticLinguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press

Thyssen, M. (2002) Taalstrijd in Europa. Ons Erfdeel 44 (1), 3�9.Tibawi, A.L. (1956) Arab Education in Mandatory Palestine: A Study of Three Decades

of British Administration. London: Luzac.Tickoo, M.L. (1996) English in Asian bilingual education: From hatred to

harmony. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17, 225�240.Timofeeva G.G. (1995) Novye angliiskie zaimsvovania v russkom iazyke. St. Peters-

burg: Iuna.Tobin, J.J. (1992) Introduction: Domesticating the West. In J.J. Tobin (ed.) Re-Made

in Japan (pp. 1�41). New Haven: Yale University Press.Tobioka, K. (1999) Nihonjin no mono no kangaekata: sono ketten, jakuten, mazushisa

[The Way of Thinking of Japanese People: Their Flaws, Weaknesses, and Poverty].Tokyo: Jitsumu Kyoiku Shuppan.

Toury, G. (1990) From one signifier to another. Modified phonetic transposition inword-formation and translation. In R. Arntz and G. Thome (eds) Uberset-zungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

Tranter, N. (1997) Hybrid Anglo-Japanese loans in Korean. Linguistics 35, 133�166.Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004) Official Journal of the European

Union 47 (16 Dec.), Notice no. C 310. On WWW at www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm.

Trench, R.C. (1881) English Past and Present (11th edn). New York: Macmillan.Trescases, P. (1982) Le franglais vingt ans apres. Montreal: Guerin.Trofimova, G.N. (2002) Russkaia rech v Internete. Russkaia Rech 1, 125�127.Truchot, C. (1990) L’anglais dans le monde contemporain. Paris: Le Robert.Tse, J.K.-P. (1982) Language policy in the ROC. In: R.B. Kaplan (ed.) Annual Review

of Applied Linguistics II, 33�47.Tsemah, A. (2004) If you will, it will be no dream. Ha’aretz, Culture and Literature

(literary section), 19 November, 2.Tsivian, T.V. (2002) Sovremennaia russkaia iazykovaia situatsia v proektsii na

model’mira. In T.M. Nikolaeva (ed.) Slavianskaia iazykovaia i etnoiazykovaiasistemy v kontakte s neslavianskim okruzheniem (pp. 465�475). Moscow: Iazykislavianskoi kul’tury.

Tsuda, Y. (1986) Language, Inequality and Distortion in Intercultural Communication.A Critical Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tsuda, Y. (2000) Envisioning a democratic linguistic order. TESL Reporter 31, 32�38.Tsunoda, T. (1978) Nihonjin no no: no no hataraki to ozai no bunka [The Brain

Structure of the Japanese: Functions of the Brain and Eastern and Western Culture].Tokyo: Taishukan.

Turner, C. (2004) A Thematic Dictionary of Modern Persian. London & New York:RoutledgeCurzon.

TVBS Poll Center Website (2002) Poll Result of ‘‘Making Minnan Language Variety theSecond Official Language’’, 12 March. On WWW at http://www.tvbs.com.tw/code/tvbsnews/poll/2002-03/20020318/020318.asp. Accessed 30.11.07.


Twine, N. (1978) The Gembun’ichi Movement: Its origin, development, andconclusion. Monumenta Nipponica 33, 332�356.

Twine, N. (1991) Language and the Modern State: The Reform of Written Japanese.London: Routledge.

Ueno, K. (1980) Eigo goi no kenkyu [A Research of English Vocabulary]. Tokyo:Kenkyusha Shuppan.

Umegaki, M. (1975) Nihon gairaigo no kenkyu [A Research into Japanese Loanwords].Tokyo: Kodansha Bunko.

Unger, J.M. (1996) Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan: Reading betweenthe Lines. New York: University of Oxford Press.

van Bree, C. (1999) Het Nederlands in de gevarenzone? Neerlandia 103 (4), 16�17.Vance, T.J. (1986) An Introduction to Japanese Phonology. Albany: State University of

New York Press.Vandeputte, O., Vincent, P. and Hermans, T. (1989) Dutch: The Language of Twenty

Million Dutch and Flemish People. Rekkem, Belgium: Stichting Ons Erfdeel.van der Burg, D. (1997) Kamerleden beschermen het Nederlands tegen EU. De

Gooi- en Eemlander 8 April, 2.van der Horst, J.M. (1995) Taalverandering in de 20ste eeuw. Ons Erfdeel 38 (1),

69�74.van der Horst, J. (1997) ‘Ik mankeer niets.’ Het Nederlands gaat kerngezond de

Twenty-Firste eeuw. In P.B.J. de Jong (ed.) Taalalmanak (pp. 205�208). TheHague: Sdu uitgevers.

van der Horst, J. and Marschall, F. (2000) Korte geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal.The Hague: Sdu uitgevers.

van der Sijs, N. (1998) Geleend en uitgeleend: Nederlandse woorden in andere talen &andersom. Amsterdam: Contact.

van der Sijs, N. (2004) Bijbelse sporen in het Nederlands.Onze Taal 73 (10), 264�266.van Heugten, W. (1999) Ziekte in de Nederlandse museumwereld. Neerlandia 103

(2), 8�9.van Kempen, Y. (2000) ‘Taal mixen is dope, is basis, is spang’: Straattaal van

Amsterdamse jongeren. Ons Erfdeel 43, 331�338.van Marle, J. (2004) Is Dutch in Danger? On the Effects of Globalization on Dutch. 12th

Interdisciplinary Conference onNetherlandic Studies, University ofMinnesota.van Oostendorp, M. (2002) Steenkolen Engels. Amsterdam: L.J. Veen.Vepreva, I.T. (2003) Metaiazykovoi privkus epokhi. In Russkoe slovo v mirovoi

kul’ture. Kontseptosfera russkogo iazyka: konstanty i dinamika izmenenii. Proceed-ings of the 10th Congress of the International Association of the Teachers of theRussian Language and Literature (pp. 14�22). St. Petersburg: Politekhnika, .

Verkuyl, H. (1998) Als Mulisch topauteur is, wordt hij in 2098 nog gelezen. NRCHandelsblad 26 November.

Viereck, W. and Bald, W.-D. (eds) (1986) English in Contact with Other Languages.Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.

Viereck, W., Schneider, E.W. and Gorlach, M. (1984) A Bibliography of Writings onVarieties of English, 1965�1983. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Villard, H.S. (1931) Motion Pictures. Commerce Reports: A Weekly Survey of ForeignTrade. 6 April. Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of Foreign and DomesticCommerce, United States Department of Commerce.

Voirol, M. (1990) Anglicismes et anglomanie. Paris: Le centre de formation et deperfectionnement des journalistes.

Bibliography 323

Von Polenz, P. (1979) Fremdwort und Lehnwort. In P. Braun (ed.) FremdwortDiskussion (pp. 9�32). Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Walker, J. (1998) Les attitudes envers les anglicismes: une etude sociolinguistiquedes emprunts dans differentes communautes francophones. These de doctoratreproduite et diffusee par: Atelier national de reproduction des theses (alsopublished as: Walker, J. (2000) Les attitudes envers les anglicismes: une etudesociolinguistique des emprunts dans differentes communautes francophones. Ville-neuve d’Ascq, France: Presses Universitaries du Septentrion).

Walter, H. (1988) Le francais dans tous les sens. Paris: Edition Robert Laffont.Walter, H. (1997) L’aventure des mots francais venus d’ ailleurs. Paris: Edition Robert

Laffont.Walter, H. (2000) French � an accommodating language: the chronology, typology,

and dynamics of borrowings. In Walter, H. (2001) Honni soit qui mal y pense.Paris: Edition Robert Laffont.

Walter, M.A. (2006) Child language. In K. Versteegh (ed.) Encyclopedia of ArabicLanguage and Linguistics (pp. 375�378). Leiden: Brill.

Ward, D. (1986) The English contribution to Russian. In W. Viereck and W.-D.Bald (eds) English in Contact with Other Languages: Studies in Honour of BroderCarstensen on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday (pp. 307�332). Budapest:Akademiai Kiado.

Warne, W.E. (1956)Mission for Peace. Indianapolis & New York: The Bobbs-MerrillCo.

Watanabe, S. (1974) Nihongo no kokoro [The Heart of Japanese Language]. Tokyo:Kodansha.

Watts, R. and Trudgill, P. (eds) (2002) Alternative Histories of English. London:Routledge.

Webster’s Dictionary (1983) New Universal Unabridged (deluxe 2nd edn). [s.l.]:Dorset & Baber.

Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: TheLinguistic Circle of New York (The Hague: Mouton).

Weinreich, U. (1967) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. London, theHague, Paris: Mouton.

Wexler, P. (1974) Purism and Language: A Study in Modern Ukrainian and BelorussianNationalism (1840�1967). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wilber, D. (1975) Riza Shah Pahlavi: The Resurrection and Reconstitution of Iran.Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press.

Wils, L. (2001) Waarom Vlaanderen Nederlands spreekt. Leuven: Davidsfonds.Wright, D. (1977) The English Amongst the Persians During the Qajar Period, 1787�

1921. London: Heinemann.Wright, D. (2001) Great Britain. I. Introduction, Encyclopaedia Iranica XI, 200�201.Wright, S. (ed.) (2000) French � An Accommodating Language? (pp. 31�56).

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Wright, S. (2004) Language Policy and Planning: From Nationalism to Globalism. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.Wu, D. (2003) Improve English education: Ma. Taipei Times June 24.Wu, G.H. (ed.) (1993) Chinese�English Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Commu-

nication University Press.


Yaguello, M. (2000) X comme XXL, la place des anglicismes. In B. Cerquiglini,J.-C. Corbeil, J.-M. Klinkenberg and B. Peeters (eds) Le francais dans tous sesetats. Paris: Flammarion.

Yamamoto, M. (1969) Gembun Itchi no Hassei [The Creation of Gembun Itchi] (p. 65).Tokyo: Kokugo Shirizu.

Yao, R. (1992) Taiwan xianxıng wailaiyude wentı [Problems of current borrowedvocabulary in Taiwan]. Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University 37, 329�362.

Yapp, M.E. (1980) Strategies of British India: Britain, Iran and Afghanistan, 1798�1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Young, R.L., Huang, S., Ocho, A. and Kuhlman, N. (1992) Language attitudes inTaiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 98, 5�14.

Yule, H. and Burnell, A.C. (1902 [1996]) Hobson-Jobson: The Anglo-IndianDictionary. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions.

Zemskaia, E.A. (1997) U liudei razviazalis’ iazyki. Izvestia 26 September.Zentella, A.C. (1997) Growing up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.Ziamari, K. (2004) Le code switching arabe marocain/francais des etudiants:

quelle evolution et quels changements linguistiques? A paper read at theworkshop Arabic Urban Vernaculars: The Effect of Migration and SocialChanges, 20�23 October, 2004, Aix-en-Provence, France.

Zipf, G.K. (1949) Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort; An Introduction toHuman Ecology. Cambridge, MA, Addison-Wesley Press.

Zirinsky, M. (1994) The rise of Reza Khan. In J. Foran (ed.) A Century of Revolution:Social Movements in Iran (pp. 44�77). London: UCL Press.

Zoka’, Y. (1350/1971) Artesh-e Shahanshahi-ye Iran az Kourosh ta Pahlavi. Tehran:Entesharat-e Shoura-ye Arteshi-ye Jashn-e Do-Hezar-o-Pansadomin Sal-eBonyangozari-ye Shahanshahi-ye Iran.

Zuckermann, G. (1999) Review article of Nakdimon Shabbethay Doniach andAhuvia Kahane (eds) The Oxford English�Hebrew Dictionary. Oxford � NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1998. International Journal of Lexicography 12,325�346.

Zuckermann, G. (2000) Camouflaged borrowing: ‘Folk-etymological nativization’in the service of puristic language engineering. D.Phil. Thesis, University ofOxford.

Zuckermann, G. (2003a) Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew.London � New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zuckermann, G. (2003b) Language contact and globalisation: The camouflagedinfluence of English on the world’s languages � with special attention toIsraeli (sic) and Mandarin. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 16, 287�307.

Zuckermann, G. (2005a) ‘Lexical engineering’ as a tool for judging other religions� A socio-philological perspective. In Omoniyi, T. and Fishman, J.A. (eds)Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion (Discourse Approaches toPolitics, Society and Culture series). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Zuckermann, G. (2005b) Hebrew as Myth. Tel Aviv: ’Am ’Oved.Zwart, C.J.W. (1999) Doet Diets draai in tot Engels? Over de ‘verengelsing’ van

het Nederlands. Ons Erfdeel 42, 323�335.

Bibliography 325

IndexAbbreviation 54, 94, 95, 114, 115Abjad 168Académie Française 63Academy of Ethiopian Languages, see also

Ethiopian Language Academy 180, 183Acadian French 65Accadian 5, 189, 294aAccent 22, 31, 67n, 79, 202, 233Acronyms– Amharic 177– French 54, 65– Hebrew 133, 140– Hungarian 95– Icelandic 30, 35– Japanese 256, 264, 271– Russian 114– Taiwanese 243Adams, John 5-6Adams, William 251Adäre, see HarariAddis Ababa– Dialect 165– University 15, 173Adjectivalisation 182Adjectives 12, 21-22, 37, 51, 53, 61, 62, 66, 78,

80, 90, 94, 108-109, 112-115, 126-127, 128,129-131, 137-139, 143, 155, 156, 158, 160,166, 168-170, 174, 182, 184, 264, 269, 272,273, 282

Adoption processes of English– into Amharic 174-175– into French 44, 46, 52, 54, 66n– into Hungarian 83, 85, 86-87, 88– into Iranian 190, 197– into Japanese 253, 258-259Adposition 168Adverbs 12, 22, 51, 78, 113, 126, 168, 273, 282Advertisements 63, 67n, 72, 93-94, 125, 128,

131, 143, 144n, 147, 177, 218, 222-223,243, 256

Afghans 191Afonso (Alfonso), King 214Afrikaans language 78, 212Afro-Asiatic language group 2, 164

Agäw 166Agglutinative languages 90Agriculture 84Albuquerque 213Alexander The Great 5Alliance Française 196Alliance Israélite Universelle 196Allochtonen 72Alphasyllabary 211Altaic language group 2, 18, 263Älvdalska 22Alveo-palatals 166America Online 7American culture 16, 25, 117, 118, 119, 131,

235, 256American English 26, 44, 80, 82, 85, 124, 133,

138, 143, 150, 159, 161, 212, 235, 276, 287Americanisation 224, 225, 249nAmericanism 44, 117, 119, 120nAmericanophobia 48Amhara region 173Amharic language 2, 16, 18, 144n, 164-184,

185n, 211, 284-286, 287Amharic Language Academy 173Amharic Science and Technology

Dictionary 172, 174, 180Amharic-English Visual Dictionary 172Amsterdam 69, 70, 72, 79Anaptyctic vowels 155Ang, Uijin 234Anglicisation 44, 46, 47, 50, 62, 63, 64, 100, 280Anglicism 11, 44-47, 48-50, 54, 57, 66n, 72,

76, 81, 98-100, 102, 117, 119, 120n, 224Anglo-American imperialism 8Anglomania 48, 63Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) 198,

199Anglophobia 48, 63Anglophone countries 11, 15, 278, 279, 280Anglo-Russian Convention of 178, 192Antilles 69Arabic– Bedouin dialect 146, 151– Beirut dialect 155

326

Globally Speaking

Index

– Dialects 146, 149, 155, 157, 159, 161, 281– Galilee dialect 134– Language 2, 4, 5, 18, 38, 42n, 43n, 67n, 83,

124, 144n, 145-162. 162n, 163n, 165, 175,185n, 188-190, 204-205, 206, 211, 215, 220,221, 225, 281, 282, 294-285, 288, 294

Arabisation 161Arai, Hakuseki 265Aramaean 189Aramaic 5, 149, 210, 211Argobba 165Arte da Lingoa de Japam 265Assyrian language 188Aurangzeb 214Australia 8Austria 74, 82, 84, 245Austro-Asiatic language group 208Austro-Hungarian Empire 84, 96, 286Austronesian languages 8, 229Avestan 187Axumite Empire 168, 170Ayatollah Khomeini 192Azeris language 188

Baha’i, 196Bahrain 161Baihuawen [vernacular literary writing]

movement 238Baluchis 190, 200Bamboo English 256Battle of Plassey 214BBC, see British Broadcasting CorporationBedouin dialect, see Arabic Bedouin dialectBeijing 237Beijing dialect 233Beirut Arabic, see Arabic (Beirut dialect)Bengali language 121, 208, 210, 223Bengali script 218-220, 223, 226nBergþórsson, Páll 35Bible 70, 222, 230Biblical Hebrew, see Hebrew (Biblical)Bilingual communication 9Bilingual language acquisition 9Bilingual speakers 9, 121, 280Bilingualism 12, 48, 76, 77, 98, 162nBjarnarson, Björn 37, 38Bokmål 21Bolshevik Revolution 6, 192Bombay 214, 218, 223Bonaparte, Napoleon 59, 179Bopomofo 228, 243, 248, 249Borrowing, see Lexical borrowingBosnian crisis 73Brahmi script 210

Britain, see Great BritainBritish– Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) 7, 14, 200– Council 200– British English 123-124, 159, 161, 212– Mandate 123, 133, 148, 159– Ministry of Agriculture 200Broadcasting and Television Law 1975

(China) 233Broken English (Steenkolen Engels) 76-77Broken plural 156-157Buddhism 238, 264Butler English 212

Cable News Network (CNN) 7, 72, 224Calcutta 214, 218, 219, 222, 223Calicut 213Calque 20, 24, 27, 41, 42n, 44, 46, 47, 91, 107,

109-110, 122, 126, 139, 141, 161, 253, 293Calvinist Protestantism 69Canada 5, 61, 157Catherine of Braganza 214Central Asia 238Central Europe 2, 92, 96Central India 208Charles II, king 214Chen Shui-Bian 247-248, 249nChen Yi 232Chennai (Madras) 216, 218, 220, 224Chiang Kai-Shek 232China (People Republic of China) 101, 228,

231, 232, 235, 237, 238, 241, 243, 244, 245,249, 249n, 252-253, 263, 264, 287

ChinaTimes 242, 246Chinese language 2, 5, 18, 28, 35, 36, 37, 40,

227-249Chirac, Jacques 52Christian Missionaries 25, 196, 230, 238, 265Christianity 31, 70, 84, 198, 221, 222Ciyuan [The Origin of Words] 237Clive, Robert 214CNN, see Cable News NetworkCodemixing 8, 9, 117, 244Code switching 4, 8, 9, 65, 66n, 91, 93, 121,

162n, 172, 228, 242, 243, 244, 247, 248,256, 267, 276, 294

Cognate 33-34, 70Collocation 109, 122, 182Colloquial Arabic 145-162, 163n, 281, 288Colloquial Hebrew 124, 281Colonialism 6, 8, 10, 16, 230, 231, 232, 235,

291-292Commissions Ministérielles de

Terminologie 63

Index 327

Committee on Broadcast ResearchLanguage [Hôsô Yôgo Iinkai] 261

Communist party 54, 56, 98Compound nouns 109, 111, 115, 116, 180,

181Compounding 20, 30, 168, 181Concise Amharic Dictionary 180Consonants 32, 69, 84, 127, 139, 140, 155,

156, 161, 166, 167, 168, 169, 210, 211,226n, 266, 267, 281, 288

Consonant gemination 167, 183Constitutional Revolution (Russia, 1905-06)

195Contamination 46, 48 ,241Copenhagen 23Création populaire 40Création savante 40Cree language 78Creole 292-194Croatia 70Cross-cultural pollination 227Culture– Cultural dominance 8, 255– Cultural impact 18Cushitic 165, 166, 170, 183Cyrillic script 210

Danish language 21, 23, 25, 26Dano-Icelandic language 23Dar al-Fonoun 195Dar al-Mo’alemin-e’Aali 204Dar al-Tarjomeh 195Dari 175-176Dative 21Délégation Générale à la Langue Française

50, 63Delhi 214, 223Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) 234,

245-246Demographic criteria 146Dental– Dental fricative 22– Dental suffix 22– Dentals 166Derivation 20, 21, 29, 33, 39, 40, 53, 62, 63,

114, 115, 130, 137, 146, 168, 174, 179Devanagari script 209-210, 218, 219, 220,

221, 222, 223, 224, 226nDialects– Addis Ababa dialect (Amharic) 165– Arabic dialects 146, 149, 155, 157, 159, 161,

281– Bedouin dialect (Arabic) 146, 151– Beijing dialect (Chinese) 233

– Beirut dialect (Arabic) 155– Galilee dialect (Arabic) 134– Gender-based dialect 146– Gojjam dialect (Amharic) 165– Gondar dialect (Amharic) 165– Menz dialect (Amharic) 165– Nederduits (Lower German) dialect 69– Vulgar dialects (Chinese) 233– Wello dialect (Amharic) 165Dialectology 7Dictionarium 71Dictionary 11, 29, 39, 79, 81, 124-125, 185n,

186n, 211, 261Dictionary of Foreign Words in Hebrew 124Diffusion 7, 44Diglossia 145, 161Diphthong 22, 39, 69, 89, 126, 133, 156Dissemination 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 178, 203,

274, 278, 280Dominant language 121, 150, 159, 160, 188Doublet 104, 109, 119, 282Dravidian languages 208, 210, 216, 220Druze 146Dubbing 72Duits 70Dutch 28, 68-81, 99, 230, 252, 265, 279, 284,

285, 286, 287, 289Dutch Language Union (Nederlandse

Taalunie) 68, 81Dutch Language Union Report (Rapport

Werkgroep Europa) 76Dutchification 79

East Asia 5East Europe 2, 92, 292East Germany 5East India 208East India Company 191, 213, 214Eastern Han dynasty 238Echoing word-formation 19Economy 10, 11, 20, 69, 82, 85, 88, 97, 99Education– Amharic 165, 166, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178– Arabic 146, 147, 148, 150, 159, 161, 162n– Dutch 73– Hebrew 150– Hungarian 87, 93, 97– Indian 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 220,

224, 225– Japanese 250, 253, 254, 259, 260, 261, 262– Persian 190, 193, 194-197, 198-199, 200,

204– Russian 99, 117– Taiwanese 231-232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 246,


247, 249nEducation, Culture, Sports, Science and

Technology Ministry (Japan) 250Egypt 157, 139, 161, 162n, 163n, 294Eighty-Year War 71eigoka haishiron [abolition of English

language studies] 255Ejective consonant 166Elamites 189Electronic communication media 14Elfdalian 22Elisabeth I, Queen 213Elision 167Elitism 49Emperor Menelik II 165, 171Enclitic suffix 22English– Alphabet 139, 140, 143, 213, 228, 241, 243,

247– as a foreign second language 7, 216, 278– as a second language 14, 279– Culture 148, 281– Language 15, 16, 17, 25, 68, 62, 63, 75, 78,

93, 118, 125, 147, 209, 211, 212, 213, 222,225, 276, 278, 280, 283, 286, 287, 289, 293

– Language Teaching (ELT) 7– Script 1139, 140English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of

English 7English-Amharic Science and Technology

Dictionary 172, 174Engrew 125Enlightenment 24Epenthetic vowel 84Esfahan 195ESTEL 65Ethiopia 2, 16, 164, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171,

172, 173, 174, 184, 185n, 277, 278, 279,Ethiopian– Empire 165– Jews 165, 171– Language Academy, see also Academy of

Ethiopian Languages 174– Languages Research Center 174– Orthodox Church 165, 171– People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front

(EPRDF) 166– Revolution of 1974 176– Script 168, 185nEthio-Semitic languages 164, 168Ethnic heterogeneity 17Etymological 32, 33, 35, 36, 122, 237Euphemism 269Eurasia 5

Eurocrats 74Europe– European Commission Action Plan 86– European Community (EC) 62– European Constitution 74– European Song Festival 72– European Union 72, 74, 83, 85Even-Shoshan monolingual Hebrew

dictionary 124Exoticism 110, 111, 119Expanded Dictionary 124Ezana, King 168

Farhangestan (Academy for the PersianLanguage) 204, 207n

Faroese 21Farsi language 187-206, 207nFashion 12, 13, 18, 45, 56, 60, 62, 100, 101,

108, 109, 114, 119, 127, 131, 143, 196, 229,244, 254, 255

Fath-Ali Shah 193Finnish 26, 40Finno-Ugric language group 2, 89Flanders 68, 69, 75Flat stress language 167Flemish Belgian languageFord Foundation 198Formal hybridity 15France 2, 10, 15, 44, 49, 50, 51, 58, 61, 65,

66n, 67n, 71, 72, 73, 190, 191, 193, 194,199, 202, 277, 280

Francophone 48, 49, 50, 58, 66nFranglais– Crisis 62– Interlanguage 45-49, 57, 60, 63, 65, 125Franglomanie 48Franks 69Freemasonry 202French– Academy 50, 285– Dialects 65– Franbreu 65– Language 2, 44, 195Fujian province 228, 230, 231Fukuzawa, Yukichi 253Furigana 265

Gafat 164, 165Gairaigo, see Loan wordsGairaigo Jiten [Dictionary of Foreign

Loanwords] 256 (as Gairaigojiten)Galilee dialect. see Arabic, Galilee dialectGaza Strip 146Ge‘ez language 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170,

Index 329

171, 173, 179, 180, 183, 185nGembun no Itchi Kai [Society for

Unification of Speech and Writing] 259Gemination 167, 183Gendai Yôgo no Kiso Chishiki [Basic

Knowledge of ContemporaryTerminology] 261

Gender 22, 61, 62, 79, 112, 156, 161, 168, 169,273

Gender-based dialect 146General Style [Futsûbun] Movement 258Generalization 95, 295 (as generalisation)Genitive 21, 31, 39Gentile 126German language 70, 84Germanic languages 20, 69, 149Germany 5, 10, 72, 73, 194, 199Glasnost 100Global lingua franca 1, 4, 7Globalisation 24, 44, 64, 67n, 81, 85, 95, 97,

143, 206, 227, 236, 237, 241, 244, 245, 248,249, 256, 275

Glottal 166Goa 209, 213, 218, 221, 222Gojjam dialect, see DialectsGondar dialect, see DialectsGoogle 7Gorbachev, Mikhail 100Grammar 24, 48, 61, 65, 71, 79, 144n, 168,

185n, 189, 212, 293Grammatical interference 44Graphemes 210-211, 218, 226nGraphic borrowing 47Great Britain 59, 280Greece 149Greek language 4, 5, 33, 42n, 47, 116, 122,

149, 166, 202, 294Green-Left party 73Grimm, Jacob 5, 6Guangdong region 231Guoyu 227, 228, 229, 232– Guoyu (Mandarin) Propagation Scheme

247Gurage 165Gylfi þ Gíslason 39

Haarlem 69Habsburg dynasty 84, 96Hadith 189Haifa 128, 144n, 147Hakka 229, 231, 233Halldórsson, B.’s Icelandic dictionary 39Han orthography 228Hanja 28

Hanyu da cidian [Great ChineseDictionary] 237

Harär 165Harari see AdäreHebraised 128Hebrew language– Biblical 38, 123, 130– Language Academy 123, 142– Language Committee 123– Medieval 123– Mishnaic 33– Modern 122-130, 133, 137, 138, 141, 142,

148, 162n, 281– Script 139, 218– Slang 124, 125, 143, 151Hedendaags Nederlands 79Hegemony 6, 211Hellenisation 125Herat Crisis, first 193Hið íslenska lærdómslistafélag (The

Icelandic Society for Learned Arts) 23,31

Hidden English 2, 213, 219, 221Higher education 16, 73, 93, 172, 173, 178,

225, 290Hindi belt 209, 216, 217, 223, 224, 225Hiragana 228, 243, 259, 264, 265Hirohito, Showa emperor 232Holland, see also Netherlands 69, 70Hong Kong 241Honorific language [keigo] 268Hungarian– Language 2, 18, 82-97, 282, 284, 285, 286,

287, 288, 294– Ministry of Education 87– Ministry of National Heritage 87– National Marketing Research Institute 86Hungary 82-88, 96, 97, 277-279Hunglish 91Hybrid-neologism 47

Iceland 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 32, 37, 38, 39, 245,277, 278, 286

Icelandic– Language 19, 20, 23-26, 31– Language Council Íslensk málnefnd 24– Language Institute (Íslensk málstöð) 24– Lexis 24, 40– Saga 21Ideology 100, 102, 121, 125, 179, 204, 205,

206, 246, 289Ideophonetic 240, 243Idiom 54, 70, 74, 76, 100, 120n, 122, 139, 141,

157, 164, 182, 183, 213, 273, 282


Il-Khanid period 190Immigrants 67, 70, 124, 126, 144, 147, 157,

159, 188, 230, 249n, 277, 280Imperfective forms 113, 115India 2, 15, 121, 191, 208-215, 218, 221-225,

264, 276, 277, 279, 286, 292Indian (sub-continent)– English language 212– Ministry of Education 215– Mutiny 213-214– Subcontinent 6-7, 191, 213, 292– Subgroup of languages 187– Union 208, 209, 221, 225Indo-– Indo-European language group 2, 18,

33-34, 82, 187, 208– Indo-Germanic 69– Indo-Iranian language group 187, 208,

210, 218Infinitive formation 181Inflexion (Inflection) 21, 31-32, 37, 78, 112,

114, 167, 168, 174, 265, 273Information Technology (IT) 174-175, 177,

205, 225, 244, 245Insertion 54, 66n, 98, 110-111, 118Institutionalisation 10Insular Scandinavian languages 21Interlingual comparison 18International Standard English 7Internationalism 26, 30, 33, 35, 37-38, 42n,

257Internet 6-7, 14, 20, 25, 26, 51, 57, 75, 83, 85,

98, 115, 118, 128, 150, 174, 175, 184, 206,228, 236, 241, 2422, 243, 245, 280, 286,287, 290, 293

Iran 2, 187-206, 277, 278, 279, 283, 286Iran Foundation 198Iranian– Academy of Persian Language and

Literature (IAPLL) 205– Language, see Farsi– Ministry of Education 195– Subgroup of languages 187Iraq 59-60, 67n, 147, 149Ireland 5, 73Iron Curtain 85Islamic Republic 192, 193, 194, 196, 204, 205,

206, 283Israel 2, 11, 15, 21, 27, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42n,

67n, 123-126, 128, 140, 143-144, 145-151,155-156, 157, 158, 159-160, 162n, 163n, 165,185n, 218, 277, 279, 286, 287, 292

Israeli Hebrew language 21, 27, 33, 40, 279, 287Istanbul 194

IT, see Information TechnologyItalian language 4, 33, 34, 35, 42n, 149, 155,

160, 171, 175, 178, 184, 185nItaly 73, 149, 171, 184

Jaffa 147Japanese– Language 250-275– Ministry of Education 253, 254, 259, 261,

262– Society for the Promotion of Science 262Japan Times 250Japaneseness, see NihonjinronJapanisation 231, 267Jargon 13, 24, 79, 94, 100, 106, 143, 151, 160,

277,279, 290Jazayery 202Jerusalem 123Jesuits 171, 221, 238Jewish 147, 148, 162nJews 122, 126, 142, 146, 147, 165, 171Jinnah, Mohammed 215Jordan 151, 159, 161, 162n, 163nJospin, Lionel 52

Kana 248, 249n, 259, 264, 265kango 251, 255, 262-263Kanji 28, 232, 239, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265Kannada 208, 216, 226nKaroun River 197Katakana 241, 247, 256, 259-262, 264,

265-266, 281keigo, see Honorific languageKerala 213Kharazmian 187Khotanese 187Khuzi 187King James Bible 70KMT (Kuo-ming-tang or Guomindang) 232,

233, 235, 245, 246Koizumi Jun’ichiro 250. 261, 267, 274Kominka 231Konkani 209, 210, 218, 221-222, 226nKoran (Qur’an) 189, 205Korean language 28Korean War (1950-1953) 235, 256Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong) 230-231Kremlin 108Kurds 188

Labial 166, 211Labio-velar 166Language– Death 8

Index 331

– Economy 100, 103, 105– Families 2, 11, 17, 18, 208, 209, 276– Intertwining 78– Shift 65, 73Language Association [Gengo Gakkai] 259Language Problems and Language Planning

(LPLP) 9Laryngeals 166, 169, 170, 183Latin 2, 5, 39, 47, 71, 83, 84, 89, 92, 111, 114,

122, 149, 202, 264, 281Law 84, 163, 194, 209, 228, 233, 234, 245, 246,

247, 248Laxnes, Halldór 36League of Nations 147Lebanon 35, 149, 159Legislation 24Legislative Yuan 227, 234Lehnclipping (loan-clipping) 29Lexeme 28, 35, 36, 37, 161, 268, 283Lexical– Assimilation 227, 238, 244– Borrowing 1, 4, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17-18, 30,

88-89, 96, 122, 174-175, 176, 227-229,237-238, 241-242, 242-244, 248, 274, 276,277-280, 281, 285-286, 293-294, 295

– Substitutions 46Lexicon 1, 9, 12, 44, 46, 64, 83, 84, 170, 183,

190, 227, 232, 237, 238, 244, 248, 253, 258,276, 283, 295

Lexicopoietic 32Lexis 20, 24, 26, 40, 101, 103Lingua franca 1, 4, 5-6, 7, 72, 76, 77, 82, 86,

96-97, 145, 148, 166, 183, 191, 198, 225,227, 228, 232, 252, 276, 292

Linguist 5, 6, 23, 78, 188, 292Linguistic– Borrowing 2, 83, 85, 97, 188, 258, 279, 290,

291– Diversity 15, 17, 246, 277, 290– Heterogeneity 10, 15– Hierarchy 8– Impoverishment 48Literary Modern Arabic 145, 147, 148-150,

155, 159, 161, 162, 162n, 163n, 288Loan words, see Loan noun, Loan

translation, Loan verbs, Loan-shiftLoan noun– Amharic 174, 182– Russian 109, 116Loan translation– Amharic 178, 179, 181, 182– Arabic 288– Hebrew 126, 128, 139, 141– Icelandic 283

– Japanese 253, 271, 272– Persian 288– Taiwanese 239, 241Loan verbs, Amharic 174Loan-blend– French 45, 50– Persian 202Loan-shift– French 45– Persian 202Loanword Committee (Gairaigo Iinkai) 250Logical semantic association 31Lok Sabh 209Low Countries 70, 81Low German 69, 70Low Lands 68-70, 71Lurs 188Luxembourg 73. 74

Macaulay, Lord 214-215Madrasehs 190Madreseh-ye Roshdiyeh 195Maharashtra 218Mahatma Gandhi 215Maktabs 190Malayalam 208, 216, 226nManchu government 231Mandarin language 4, 28, 36, 208, 227-229,

232-233, 234, 237, 241, 242-244, 246-249,249n

Marathi language 208, 210, 218Marxist-Leninist ideology 179Mass communication 97, 233, 241, 247, 250,

255, 279, 293Mass media 11, 14, 16, 24, 104, 117, 123, 124,

147, 165, 166, 178, 186n, 229, 233, 234,235, 241, 242, 243, 256, 257, 277, 280

Meaning– Change 157-158– Expansion 29, 207-108, 157– Narrowing 107, 157, 270Media, see Mass media, Mass

communicationMedieval Hebrew, see Hebrew (Medieval)Mediterranean 4, 123Meghalaya 212Meiji Restoration 252, 253Meirokusha 253Menz dialect 165Metaphor 3, 12, 43, 76, 91, 109, 114, 117, 141,

292Metatext 105, 118Middle Ages 12, 49, 71, 122Middle East 5, 146, 147, 149, 160, 191, 198, 199


Middle languages (Iranian) 187Migratory words 46Millspaugh, Arthur C. 192, 198Ming dynasty 230, 238Minnan Hua 228Mirza Saleh Shirazi 201Mishnaic Hebrew, see Hebrew (Mishnaic)Mizoram 212Mo’asseseh-ye Motale’at va Tahqiqat-e

Farhangi (The Institute for CulturalStudies and Research) 204

Modernization 12, 14, 16, 122, 148, 164, 171,187, 190, 191, 193, 196, 197, 201, 206, 227,231, 235, 238, 244, 245, 252, 253, 257, 258,260, 262, 274, 277, 279, 283

Mongol language 190Mongolia 5Monosyllabic 22, 30, 57Mori, Arinori 253Morocco 157Morphemes 22, 30, 39, 116, 127, 139, 155,

156, 161, 169, 238, 239, 240, 269, 273Morphemic structure 22Morphology– Morphological adaptations 115, 143, 156,

268, 290, 291– Morphological classification 126, 128– Morphological structure 21, 288Morphosyntax 45Mosaic Word 95Moscow 98, 110Mother tongue 10, 11, 13, 24, 81, 86, 89, 93,

121, 122-123, 125, 160,165, 170, 172, 188,216, 234, 242, 246, 290, 291

MTV, see Music TelevisionMughal Empire 214Multilingual language acquisition 9Multilingualism 76, 208, 216, 246, 247Munda language 208Music Television (MTV) 72, 243Muslims 146, 210, 220

Nagaland 212Nagasaki 252, 265Napoleonic wars 5Naser al-Din Shah 194National Institute for Japanese Language

(Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyûjo) 250National Japanese Language Research

Institute [Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyûjo]260

National Language Council [KokugoShingikai] 259-260

National Language Equality Draft Law 228,

246, 248National Language Equality Law 247-248National Language Inquiry Board [Kokugo

Chôsa Iinkai] 259National Language Inquiry Society

[Kokugo Chôsakai] 259Nationalism 15, 26, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 42,

122, 227, 245, 252, 257, 277, 290Native Americans 78Native speakers 7, 14, 40, 77, 82, 88, 89, 90,

122, 124, 150, 158, 183, 243, 293NATO 54, 85Near East Foundation 198Nederduits (Lower German) dialect 69Nederduitse Orthographie (Dutch

Orthography) 71Nehru, Jawaharlal 215Neologism 28, 32, 35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47,

51, 53, 57, 62, 64, 65, 66n, 67nNepali 210Netherlands 2, 68-71, 72-74, 75, 77, 81, 81n,

159, 245, 277, 279, 292Newton, Isaac 5NHK [Nippon Hôsô Kyôkai] 261Nicholas II, Tsar 6Nigeria 157, 161, 163Nigerian Arabic 157, 163nNihonjinron 257-258Nilo-Saharan families 164Nominative 21-22, 112Normans 12Norse language 23North Africa 5, 147, 149, 159North America 6, 8, 165, 282North Germanic (Scandinavian) 69North Germanic languages 20North Holland 69-70Norway 21, 25, 245Norwegian language 21-22Nouns 22, 32, 39, 53, 66n, 77, 79, 90, 91, 94,

102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116,127, 130, 137, 138, 139, 140 156, 166, 169,174, 176, 180, 181, 182, 184, 269, 271, 273

Nynorsk 21

Occupation era (1945-1952) (Japan) 255-256Office of Technological and Scientific

Terminology 123Oil Services Company of Iran 200Ólafsson, Ólafur M. 37Omotic language 165Ontario French 65Onze Taal 75Opium War 238

Index 333

Orissa 210Oriya language 210Oromo 173Orthographic 46, 241, 244Orthography 47, 71, 139, 228Ottoman Empire 124, 147, 149, 194

Pacific War (1941-1945) 255, 256, 260, 261, 262Pahlavi, Mohammad Reza, Shah 196, 197Pahlavi kingship, first 189, 193, 194, 195,

196, 198, 204, 206Pakistan 209, 210, 215, 219Palatal consonant 166Palatalisation 167, 170, 183Palestine 123, 159, 292Pálsson, Pálmi 21Pamir region 187Pan-Blue Camp 245, 247, 249, 249nPan-Green Camp 246, 247-249Pannonian plain 83Paragogue vowel 281Parthia 187Particles 160, 225, 265, 282Pashto language 188Patagonia 5Pax Americana 235People First Party 245People’s Republic of China 245Perestroika 98, 100, 102, 117Perfect tense 22Perfective form 113, 115Persian language 2, 18, 83, 149, 187-206,

207n, 220, 225, 284, 285, 294Persian Gulf 191, 194Persian script 188, 202Perso-Arabic– Alphabet (abjad) 211– Script 220, 221Peter I, Tsar 99Pharyngealisation 155Phonemes 20, 32, 39, 40, 41, 47, 90, 126, 133,

140, 155, 166, 175, 222, 260, 266, 288, 290Phonetics 22, 45, 89, 189, 202, 228, 267– Phonetic rendering 240– Phonetic rendition 219– Pure phonetic transcription 239Phonology 22, 31, 45, 84, 133, 155, 166, 266,

267, 281, 293– Phonological adaptation 112, 155, 288, 294– Phonological borrowing 47, 175, 184– Phonological vowel harmony rules 91– Phono-logographic 28– Phonosemantic Matching 2, 19, 26, 28, 29,

36, 38

Phrasal borrowing 182Phraseological unit 109, 111Pidgin 4, 40, 294– Pidgin English 212, 254, 256, 258– Pidgin Hungarian 91Planned vocabulary building 88Pluralisation 156Polish language 123, 138, 144Politics 64, 72, 73-74, 84, 88, 92, 96, 101, 102,

103, 108, 128, 174, 179, 187, 201, 228, 229,247, 249, 254, 276, 286, 290, 291

Polyglossic 225Polysemantic words 107Polysyllabic 30-31Pop culture (popular culture) 13, 14, 227,

232, 235, 244, 256, 259, 267, 279Portugal 73Postcolonialism 8Prefix 53, 139, 268– Productive prefix 92Present tense 127Principia 5Programming language 6Pronouns 12, 78, 168, 185nPronunciation 11, 24, 67n, 69, 79, 95, 111,

112, 120n, 212, 243, 249n, 254, 260, 264,266, 281, 282

Prosthetic vowels 176, 281Provisional Military Administrative

Council (PMAC) of Ethiopia 173Pseudo-anglicism 47Pseudo-loan 47, 182Psycholinguistics 3, 9, 125, 142, 276, 277,

281, 283, 288, 289, 290, 291, 294Punjabi 208, 210Purism 9, 10, 15, 24, 25, 26, 70, 75, 96, 99,

100, 279

Qajar period 190, 194, 196, 198, 206Qing dynasty 230, 231, 238Quadrilateral 53Quadriradical 169Quanzhou region 230Quebec (Québec) 61Québécois French 65Quinquiradical 169Qur’an, see Koran

Radio 14, 30, 34, 41, 60, 72, 83, 85, 123, 124,198, 201, 224, 232, 235, 255, 256, 261, 280,283, 290

rangaku [Dutch learning] 252Rasmus Rask 23Rederijkers 70, 71


Reikai Kokugojiten dictionary 256Relexification 121, 292, 293Religion 5, 69, 84, 188, 189, 203, 210, 214, 243Renaissance 70, 71, 145Reproduction 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31,

33, 35, 40, 188Republic of China (ROC), see ChinaRepublic of Iceland 20Research Group on Broadcast Research

Language [Hôsô Yôgo Kenkyûhan] 261Research Institute for Linguistics of the

Hungarian Academy of Sciences 87, 96Revolutionised Turkish 27Reykjavik 23Reza Shah Pahlavi 192, 204Reza’iyeh 196Rockefeller Foundation 198Rodrigues, João 265Roman script 140, 211, 212, 221-222, 223,

230, 231Romance languages 4, 78Romania 82Romanisation 230Root consonant 127, 156Rouznameh-ye Vaqaye’-eh Ettefaqiyeh 201Rovás 83Rushdie, Salman 193Russia 98, 99, 100, 117, 149, 190, 191-192,

193, 194, 197, 277, 278, 279Russian language 2, 5, 87, 97, 98-120, 120n,

123, 125-126, 138, 144n, 284, 285, 286,287, 288, 292, 294

Sabir atlantic 47Safavid 189-190Samanid 189Samaria and Judea 146Sane plural 156Sanskrit language 209, 210, 214, 216, 220,

225, 238, 264Sassanians187Saudi Arabia 161Scandinavian languages 21-22– Scandinavian languages (continental) 21Science and Technology Dictionary– Science and Technology Dictionary of

Amharic 172, 174, 180, 183Second Sound Shift 69Semantics 27, 31, 40, 45, 108, 119, 140, 157,

288– Semantic development 119– Semantic doublets 104, 109, 282– Semantic extensions 47, 109, 270– Semantic rendering 240

– Semantic shift 27, 33, 51, 270– Semantic translation 239, 241Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language group 2,

164Serbia 82Serbian language 210Serbo-Croat language 210Shakespeare, William 80, 215Shari’a 189Shi’i 189Shi’isation 189Shin Meikai Kokugojiten dictionary 256Showa era 255Shuster, William Morgan 198Silk Road 238, 243Sindhi language 209-211Sinkang Bunsu (Sinkang manuscripts) 230Sinkang Romanisation system 230Sino-Japanese War 231Sino-Tibetan language group 2, 18Siraya 230Six Day War 124, 148Slang dictionary 124, 125Slavic 2, 116Slovakia 82Slovenia 82Sociolinguistics 3, 7, 9, 30, 125, 142, 150, 164,

184, 234, 237, 263, 264, 268, 275, 276, 277,283, 289, 290, 291, 294

Somali language 173Source language (SL) 25, 28, 30, 89, 110, 114,

122, 129, 157, 280, 281, 293South America 69Southern Nations, Nationalities and

Peoples Region (SNNPR) 173Soviet bloc 5Soviet Union 85, 96, 125, 188, 286, 292, 294Spain 71, 149, 267Spanish language 212, 222, 260, 261, 281Spelling 11, 38, 71, 80, 85, 89, 90, 92, 111,

120n, 125, 139Srebrenica 73St. Petersburg 98, 106, 108, 111, 116Stalin, Joseph 100Standard Chinese 35, 36, 37Standard Mandarin 36Standardization 9, 21, 37, 95, 259State Duma 118Statenbijbel (States Bible) 70States General 70Stem 31, 33, 37, 127, 156, 169, 170, 174, 180,

182, 183, 193Stichting Nederlands 75Sturlunga Saga 31

Index 335

Stylistic stratification 119Subdued language 17Sub-Saharan language 168Subtitles 72, 172, 173, 185nSuffix 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,

47, 53, 57, 62, 90-91, 103, 113, 114, 127,129, 137, 138, 139, 143, 144n, 156, 157,161, 180, 272, 273, 283

Suffixation 156, 180Sumerian language 189Superstratum language 17, 28, 78Suriname 69, 79Suryani (Syriac) 187Sweden 22, 27, 73, 245Swedish language 22, 26, 27, 42nSwitzerland 194Syllabary 167, 18, 185n, 211, 259, 264, 266Syllable 22, 30, 31, 40, 112, 126, 140, 155, 156,

167, 168, 176, 188, 211, 219, 266, 267, 268,281

Synchronic Amharic 169sýndarsamsetningar (pseudo-compounds)

31Synonyms 34, 53, 141, 282Syntactic relationship 94Syntax 18, 45, 65, 78, 79, 89, 166, 170, 183Syria 35, 147, 149, 187-188

Tabriz 195Taipei 232, 236, 249nTaipei Times 236Taisho era 254-255Taiwan– Government Information Office 236– Mandarin 28, 227-229, 237, 243, 246,

248-249– Ministry of Education 234, 236, 247, 249n– Taiwan Review 234– Taiwan Solidarity Union 245Taiwanese 228-229, 231, 232, 233, 234,

235-236, 241, 242-243, 247, 247-249Tajiki language 188Tajikistan 188Tamil– Language 208, 216, 220-221, 226n– Script 218, 220, 224Tamil Nadu 216, 218, 220, 224Tang dynasty 238Täramaj Mäzgäbä Qalat (Progressive

Dictionary) 179Target language (TL) 28, 45, 88, 89, 92, 108,

110, 114Taxonomy 19, 29Teaching English as a Foreign Language

(TEFL) 7Teaching English as a Second or Foreign

Language (TESL-EJ) 7Technion (Israel Institute of Technology)

38, 144, 151Technology 12, 24, 41, 42n, 84-85, 88, 97,

103, 150, 160, 164, 172, 174, 174-175,175-177, 182, 184, 189, 190, 194, 202, 225,241, 242, 244, 245, 250, 252, 254, 263, 274,283

Tehran 191, 192, 194, 195-196, 200Tehran University 196Tel Aviv 147Television 14, 16, 25-26, 34, 41, 51, 52, 54, 58,

60, 61, 72, 82, 83, 85, 93, 102, 118, 123,141, 144, 149, 150, 175, 201, 215, 224, 228,233, 234, 235, 241, 242, 243, 256, 261, 283,280, 2287, 290

Telugu language 208, 216Terminology 12, 13, 14, 16, 24, 49, 50, 57, 59,

66n, 86, 88, 91-94, 95, 101-102, 103-104,123, 125, 142, 148, 149, 161, 190, 197, 257,261, 269, 272, 277, 285, 290

Tewodros II 171The Times of India 217, 222Tibeto-Burman languages 208, 226nTigre language 165Tigrinya 165, 168, 173, 185nTimurid period 190Tourism 11, 13, 16, 93, 141Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE)

173Transliteration 120, 213, 217-218, 219, 224,

225, 226n, 238, 241Triconsonantal 139Trilingual language acquisition 9Triphthong 140Triradical 169Truncated loan 47Turanian languages (Turan) 189Turkic languages 83Turkish language 4, 5, 27, 40, 41, 149,

189-190, 220, 225TV, see TelevisionTVBS 246-247Typology 19, 30

Ukraine 82Umlaut 22Unification 95, 144, 258, 259United Daily News 242Universalizing complex 7Urbanisation 147Urdu language 121, 210-211, 213, 220-221, 225


Urmiyeh 196

Varanasi 213, 217Vedas 215Velar 176, 185n, 211Velarisation 155-156Verbs 32, 37, 55, 61, 62, 85, 90-91, 113, 115,

127, 130, 156, 157, 166, 167, 169-170,174-179, 183, 212, 272, 273, 283

Viazemsky, Yuri 118Victoria, Queen 214Vietnam War 235Vilmundur, Jónsson 37, 39Vocabulary 1, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20,

21, 23, 45, 46, 65, 71, 78, 79, 80, 83-86, 88,88-90, 92, 93-94, 97, 99, 102, 108, 117,120n, 121, 122, 123, 126-127, 128130, 141,143, 145-146, 149-150, 158, 159-162, 163n,178, 184, 189, 190, 193, 199, 202, 206, 210,220, 225, 238, 243, 253, 254-255, 257,258-259, 262, 263-264, 271, 273, 274, 276,277, 279, 284-285, 287-288

Voice of America 14, 200Vowel 22, 69, 84, 89, 91, 127, 138, 140, 155,

156, 166-167, 168, 169, 183, 185n, 210-211,218, 219, 266-267, 281

Vulgar dialects (Chinese) 233

wago [Japanese words] 251

wakan [Sino-Japanese] 263-264wakon kansai [Japanese spirit, Chinese

technology] 263wakon yôsai [Japanese spirit, Western

technique] 252wasei eigo [English made in Japan] 255,

271-272Welfare 20Wello dialect 165Wenyen (classical Chinese) 230-231Western Europe 6, 13, 85, 165, 282Westernisation 85, 190, 193, 201, 238, 252,

283, 285Word-building 119Word-formation 19-20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 40-41World Englishes 7World War I (WWI) 1, 2, 6, 14, 30, 72, 100,

147, 162n, 192, 194, 198, 199, 201. 232World War II (WWII) 123-124, 282, 292World Wide Web 14

Yamato 263Yiddish language 123, 126, 141Youth culture 79Yuan-Ze University 234Yugoslavia 15, 210

Zhangzhou region 230Zhirinovsky [Zhirinovskii], Vladimir 118

Index 337

Date post:	07-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times