Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-wfgm8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T02:17:23.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct and Indirect Affix Borrowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Frank Seifart
Frank Seifart*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication
*
University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands [F.C.Seifart@uva.nl]
Get access

Abstract

A widespread assumption in the language contact literature is that affixes are never borrowed directly, but only indirectly, that is, as part of complex loanwords. From such complex loanwords, affixes may eventually spread to native stems, creating hybrid formations, in a process of language-internal analogical extension. Direct borrowing is the extraction of an affix based on knowledge of the donor language, without the mediation of complex loanwords within the recipient language. This article suggests that direct borrowing can also be the only or primary process leading to productive loan affixes. Criteria are provided to assess instances of direct and indirect borrowing on the basis of the distribution of borrowed affixes across complex loanwords and hybrid formations. These are applied to corpora of various languages. A scale of directness of affix borrowing is proposed, based on the extent to which speakers of the recipient language rely (i) on their knowledge of the donor language (direct borrowing) and (ii) on complex loanwords within their native language (indirect borrowing).

Keywords

affix borrowingproductivitylanguage contacthistorical linguisticscorpora

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 511 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1987. Aymarismos en el quechua de Puno. Indiana 11. 223–31.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2001. Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of subgrouping: A North Arawak case study. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 167–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198299813.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allin, Trevor R. 1976. A grammar of Resígaro. Horseleys Green: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Alvre, Paul. 2002. Russische Lehnelemente in Indefinitpronomen und -adverbien der ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Linguistica Uralica 38. 161–64.10.3176/lu.2002.3.01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 29), ed. by Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bakker, Dik, and Hekking, Ewald. 2012. Constraints on morphological borrowing: Evidence from Latin America. In Johanson & Robbeets, 187–220.Google Scholar
Bereczki, Gábor. 2002. Az alaktani elemek kölcsönzésének néhány típusa a Volga-Káma-vidéki area nyelveiben. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 100. 97–101.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert. 1975a. Der türkische Einfluss auf das Albanische, Teil 1: Phonologie und Morphologie der albanischen Turzismen. (Albanische Forschungen 11.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert. 1975b. Der türkische Einfluss auf das Albanische, Teil 2: Wörterbuch der albanischen Turzismen. (Albanische Forschungen 12.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina; and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–55.10.1080/01690969508407111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciszek, Ewa. 2008. Word derivation in Early Middle English. (Studies in English medieval language and literature 23.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. (Topics in English linguistics 20.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110822113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echeverri, Juan Alvaro. 1997. The people of the center of the world: A study in culture, history and orality in the Colombian Amazon. New York: New School for Social Research dissertation.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2008. Borrowing of inflectional morphemes in language contact. (European University studies 320.) Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco, Arkadiev, Peter; and Amiridze, Nino (eds.) 2015. Borrowed morphology. (Language contact and bilingualism 8.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614513209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GaschÉ, JÜrg. 2009. La sociedad de la ‘Gente del centro ’. A multimedia documentation of the languages of the People of the Center: Online publication of transcribed and translated Bora, Ocaina, Nonuya, Resígaro, and Witoto audio and video recordings with linguistic and ethnographic annotations and descriptions, ed. by Seifart, Frank, Fagua, Doris, Gasché, Jürg, and Echeverri, Juan Alvaro. Nijmegen: DOBES-MPI. Online: http://corpus1.mpi.nl/qfs1/media-archive/dobes_data/Center/Info/WelcomeToCenterPeople.html.Google Scholar
Hall, Alton L, and Custodio, Andres. 1911. Dicsionario Bisaya-Inggleś: Visayan-English dictionary. San José: Alton H. Hall.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39. 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, and Baayen, Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9. 342–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1987. Morphosyntax und Morphologie: Die Ausrichtungsaffixe im Tagalog. Munich: W. Fink.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars, and Robbeets, Martine (eds.) 2012. Copies versus cognates in bound morphology. (Studies in language, cognition, and culture 2.) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kałużyński, Stanisław. 1962. Mongolische Elemente in der jakutischen Sprache. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, and The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2006. Typological changes in derivational morphology. The handbook of the history of English, ed. by Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou, 151–76. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten G. 2011. On inflectional borrowing. Paper presented at Rethinking Contact Induced Change, Leiden, June 9-11.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten G. 2013. The Arabic influence on Northern Berber. (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics 67.) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans, Kuhn, Sherman M.; and Lewis, Robert E. (eds.) 1952-2001. Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lipski, John M. 1992. New thoughts on the origins of Zamboangueño (Philippine Creole Spanish). Language Sciences 14. 197–231.10.1016/0388-0001(92)90005-YCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, Paz Buenaventura. 2005. On the stative predicate: Tagalog ‘existentials’ revisited. Current issues in Philippine linguistics and anthropology: Parangal kay Lawrence A. Reid, ed. by Liao, Hsiu-chuan and Galvez Rubino, Carl R., 419–35. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, SIL Philippines.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte (ed.) 2007. Documentation of Sakha (Yakut). Leipzig: MPI-EVA.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2015. A comparison of copied morphemes in Sakha (Yakut) and Even. In Gardani et al., 157–88.Google Scholar
Palmer, Chris C. 2009. Borrowings, derivational morphology, and perceived productivity in English, 1300-1600. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1891 [1880]. Principles of the history of language. London: Longman. [1st edn., Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1880.].Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. (Topics in English linguistics 28.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riego de Dios, Maria Isabelita O. 1989. A composite dictionary of Philippine Creole Spanish (PCS). Studies in Philippine Linguistics 7. 1–210.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2005. The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraña (North West Amazon). (MPI series in psycholinguistics 33.) Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/2066/26990.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2009. Resígaro documentation. A multimedia documentation of the languages of the People of the Center: Online publication of transcribed and translated Bora, Ocaina, Nonuya, Resígaro, and Witoto audio and video recordings with linguistic and ethnographic annotations and descriptions, ed. by Seifart, Frank, Fagua, Doris, Gasché, Jürg, and Echeverri, Juan Alvaro. Nijmegen: DOBES-TLA. Online: http://corpus1.mpi.nl/qfs1/media-archive/dobes_data/Center/Info/WelcomeToCenterPeople.html.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2011. Bora loans in Resígaro: Massive morphological and little lexical borrowing in a moribund Arawakan language. (Cadernos de etnolingüística, série monografias 2.) Online: http://www.etnolinguistica.org/mono:2.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2012. The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact: Evidence from morphological borrowing in Resígaro (Arawakan). Diachronica 29. 471–504.10.1075/dia.29.4.03seiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2013. AfBo: A world-wide survey of affix borrowing. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: http://afbo.info.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2015. Does structural-typological similarity affect borrowability? A quantitative study on affix borrowing. Language Dynamics and Change 5. 92–113.10.1163/22105832-00501004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinkrüger, Patrick. 2003. Morphological processes of word formation in Chabacano (Philippine Spanish Creole). Phonology and morphology of creole languages (Linguistische Arbeiten 478), ed. by Plag, Ingo, 253–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110884869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. (Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft 19.) Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2002. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2005. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Diachronica 22. 373–427.10.1075/dia.22.2.05winCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xhuvani, Aleksandër, and Çabej, Eqrem. 1962. Prapashtesat e gjuhës shqipe. Tirane: Universiteti Shtetëror.Google Scholar