Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T20:26:44.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maps, meanings and loanwords: The interaction of geography and semantics in lexical borrowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2019

Karlien Franco Open the ORCID record for Karlien Franco [Opens in a new window] ,
Dirk Geeraerts ,
Dirk Speelman  and
Roeland van Hout
Karlien Franco*
Affiliation:
Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Geeraerts
Affiliation:
Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Speelman
Affiliation:
Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Roeland van Hout
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Karlien Franco, Email: karlien.franco@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of loanwords is generally attributed to a social feature, like social prestige, and to semantic features, like the need to fill a lexical gap. However, few studies take into account variation in the use of loanwords within a speech community, and directly compare the frequency of loanwords from more than one source language. This paper contributes to research on lexical borrowing by comparing the distribution of loanwords from three different source languages in two large databases of dialect data. We take an onomasiological perspective, which allows us to gauge the frequency of borrowed lexical items vis-à-vis alternative expressions. Using Generalized Additive Mixed Modeling, we show that the usage of loanwords can only be explained by taking into account the interaction between semantics and geographical diffusion. Our analysis confirms that the patterns that occur almost exclusively reflect changes in socio-cultural history.

Keywords

lexical borrowingdialectologydialectometryDutchGeneralized Additive Modeling
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistic Geography , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , April 2019 , pp. 14 - 32
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Auer, Peter. 2005. Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In Delbecque, Nicole, Van der Auwera, Johan & Geeraerts, Dirk (eds.), Perspectives on Variation. Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative, 7–42. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Backus, Ad. 2014. A usage-based approach to borrowability. In Zenner, Eline & Kristiansen, Gitte (eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations (Language Contact and Bilingualism 7), 19–40. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cornelissen, Georg. 2007. Uit de woordenschat van het Kerkraads: Duitse woorden [The vocabulary of the Kerkraad dialect: German words]. In Keulen, Ronny & Crompvoets, Herman (eds.), Riek van Klank: Inleiding in de Limburgse Dialecten [Wealth of Sound: Introduction to the Limburgish Dialects] (Veldeke taalstudies 2), 60–65. Sittard: Veldeke Limburg.Google Scholar
Crawley, Michael J. 2007. The R book. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daems, Jocelyne, Heylen, Kris & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2015. Wat dragen we vandaag: Een hemd met blazer of een shirt met jasje? [What to wear today: een hemd met blazer (‘a dress shirt with suit jacket’) or een shirt met jasje (‘a dress shirt with suit jacket’)? Convergence and divergence in Dutch clothing terminology]. Taal en Tongval, 67(2). 307–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vriend, Folkert, Giesbers, Charlotte, Van Hout, Roeland & Bosch, Louis Ten. 2008. The Dutch-German border: Relating linguistic, geographic and social distances. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2(1–2). 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vriendt, Sera. 2004. Brussels (Taal in stad en land 2). Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
Franco, Karlien. 2017. Concept features and lexical diversity: A dialectological case study on the relationship between meaning and variation. PhD dissertation. Leuven & Nijmegen: University of Leuven & Radboud University.Google Scholar
Franco, Karlien, Geeraerts, Dirk, Speelman, Dirk & van Hout, Roeland. 2019. Concept characteristics and variation in lexical diversity in two Dutch dialect areas. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1). 205–242. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Speelman, Dirk. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and divergence in the vocabulary of Dutch: A study into clothing and football terminology]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte & Peirsman, Yves. 2010. Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (Cognitive linguistics research 45). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giesbers, Charlotte. 2008. Dialecten op de grens van twee talen: een dialectologisch en sociolinguïstisch onderzoek in het Kleverlands dialectgebied [Dialects at the border of two languages: A dialectological and sociolinguistic study in the Kleverland dialect area]. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri. 2009. World Loanword Database. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wold.clld.org. (19 July, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havermans, Nele & Hooge, Marc. 2011. Kerkpraktijk in België: Resultaten van de zondagstelling in oktober 2009. Rapport ten behoeve van de Belgische Bischoppenconferentie [Church practices in Belgium: Results of the Sunday count in October 2009. Report for conference of Belgian bishops]. Leuven: KU Leuven, Centrum voor Politicologie.Google Scholar
Hinskens, Frans, Kallen, Jeffrey L. & Taeldeman, Johan. 2000. Merging and drifting apart: Convergence and divergence of dialects across political borders. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 145. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. & Joseph, Brian D.. 1996. Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 93). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janssens, Guy & Marynissen, Ann. 2008. Het Nederlands vroeger en nu [Dutch past and present]. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte & Dirven, René. 2008. Cognitive sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 39). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruijsen, Joep. 1990. Woordgeografie van ontleningen in een taalcontactsituatie [Word geography of loanwords in a language contact situation]. Taal en Tongval, 52. 4–45.Google Scholar
Kruijsen, Joep. 1995. Geografische patronen in taalcontact. Romaans leengoed in de Limburgse dialecten van Haspengouw. [Geographical patterns in language contact. Roman borrowings in the Limburgish dialects in the Hesbaye.] PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Margry, Peter J. & Caspers, Charles. 2000. Bedevaartplaatsen in Nederland: Limburg [Places of pilgrimage in The Netherlands: Limburg]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OpenStreetMap contributors. s.d. OpenStreetMap. https://www.openstreetmap.org. (20 December, 2018).Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1981. Principles of the history of language. Translated from the Second Edition of the Original by H.A. Strong, M.A., L.L.D. London: Longmans, Green and co.Google Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Frans, Debrabandere, Arend, Quak, Tanneke, Schoonheim & van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2003–2009. Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands [Etymological Dictionary of Dutch]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Sankoff, David & Miller, Cristopher. 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26. 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Schmeets, Hans. 2014. De religieuze kaart van Nederland, 2010-2013 [The religious map of the Netherlands, 2010-2013]. S.D.: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics, 21(2), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri, Loanwords in the World’s Languages, 55–75. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Kaufman, Terrence. 1991. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Van de Wijngaard, Ton. 2007. De Ripuarische dialecten [The Ripuarian dialects]. In Keulen, Ronny & Crompvoets, Herman (eds.), Riek van klank: Inleiding in de Limburgse dialecten [Wealth of sound: introduction to the Limburgish dialects] (Veldeke taalstudies 2), 45–59. Sittard: Veldeke Limburg.Google Scholar
Van de Wijngaard, Ton & Keulen, Ronny. 2007. De indeling van de Limburgse dialecten. In Keulen, Ronny & Crompvoets, Herman (eds.), Riek van klank: Inleiding in de Limburgse dialecten [Wealth of sound: Introduction to the Limburgish dialects] (Veldeke taalstudies 2), 15–23. Sittard: Veldeke Limburg.Google Scholar
Van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2005. Groot leenwoordenboek. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Van der Sijs, Nicoline & Engelsman, Jaap. 2000. Nota bene: De invloed van het Latijn en Grieks op het Nederlands [Nota bene: The influence of Latin and Greek on Dutch]. ‘s-Gravenhage: SDU.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Marijke & Van Bree, Cor. 2008. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands [History of Dutch]. Utrecht: Spectrum.Google Scholar
Van Hout, Roeland, Kruijsen, Joep & Gerritsen, Marinel. 2014. Exosmosis along the Romance-Germanic language border in Belgium: The diffusion of French borrowings in the Dutch dialects of Haspengouw. In Casesnoves-Ferrer, Raquel, Forcadell Guinjoan, Montserrat & Gavaldà Ferré, Núria (eds.), Ens queda la paraula: Estudis de lingüística aplicada en honor a M. Teresa Turell, 197–220. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada.Google Scholar
Van Keymeulen, Jacques. 2008. Latijnse leenwoorden in het Nederlands en de Nederlandse dialecten [Latin loanwords in Dutch and in the Dutch dialects]. Van Mensen en Dingen. Tijdschrift voor Volkscultuur in Vlaanderen, 6. 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rij, Jacoline. 2015. Overview GAMM analysis of time-series data. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~jvanrij/Tutorial/GAMM.html. (4 July, 2017).Google Scholar
WBD = Woordenboek van de Brabantse Dialecten [Dictionary of the Brabantic dialects] . 1967–2005. Assen: Van Gorcum & Amsterdam: Gopher.Google Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius A. 1967. Leenwoorden uit de Latinitas stratigrafisch beschouwd. Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde, 5. 365–480.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1968. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn. 2017. Statistics course on generalized additive Modeling. http://www.let.rug.nl/~wieling/statscourse/. (4 July, 2017).Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn. 2018. Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: A tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics, 70. 86–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, Nerbonne, John and Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. Quantitative social dialectology: Explaining linguistic variation geographically and socially. PLOS ONE, 6(9). e23613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willemyns, Roland. 2013. Dutch: Biography of a language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2010. Contact and borrowing. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), The handbook of language contact, 170–187. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WLD = Woordenboek van de Limburgse Dialecten [Dictionary of the Limburgish dialects]. 1983–2008. Assen: Van Gorcum & Amsterdam: Gopher.Google Scholar
Wood, Simon. 2006. Generalized additive models: An introduction with R (Texts in statistical science). Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Simon. 2017. Mixed GAM computation vehicle with GCV/AIC/REML smoothness estimation. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mgcv/mgcv.pdf. (15 March, 2017).Google Scholar
Zenner, Eline & Kristiansen, Gitte. 2014. Introduction: Onomasiological, methodological and phraseological perspectives on lexical borrowing. In Zenner, Eline & Kristiansen, Gitte (eds.), New perspectives on lexical borrowing: Onomasiological, methodological and phraseological innovations (Language contact and bilingualism 7), 1–17. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zenner, Eline, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2012. Cognitive sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(4). 749–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., Ieno, Elena N., Walker, Neil J., Saveliev, Anatoly A. & Smith, Graham M.. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R (Statistics for biology and health). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Franco et al. supplementary material

Franco et al. supplementary material 1

Download Franco et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.8 MB