Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-md8df Total loading time: 0.393 Render date: 2021-11-30T21:42:17.874Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Effects of English L2 on Norwegian L1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2018

Anne Mette Sunde
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Literature, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU 7491 Trondheim. anne.sunde@ntnu.no
Martin Kristoffersen
Affiliation:
Department of Structural Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU 7491 Trondheim. martin.kristoffersen@ntnu.no
Get access

Abstract

English outweighs other languages as a source for linguistic borrowing in present-day Norwegian. Most of the research on this topic has considered direct lexical loans, yet observations indicate that English is increasingly burrowing its way below the lexical surface of Norwegian – evident in the rising number of calques. This study investigates how a selection of recently observed multiword calques from English are evaluated by native Norwegian speakers. This is examined through acceptability judgements among young bilingual Norwegians (n = 83, mean age 18), and among two control groups comprising 10 bilingual adults (mean age 55) and 16 minimally bilingual seniors (mean age 75), respectively. A translation test was included to compare the judgements against production data. Based on our overall findings, we suggest that increased calquing is a sign of heightened proficiency in and exposure to the English language.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2018 

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

Amaral, Luiz & Roeper, Tom. 2014. Multiple Grammars and Second Language Representation. Second Language Research 30 (1), 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcom, Patricia. 2003. Cross-linguistic Influence of L2 English on Middle Constructions in L1 French. In Cook (2003) 168–192.Google Scholar
Bardel, Camilla & Falk, Ylva. 2012. The L2 status factor and the declarative/procedural distinction. In Amaro, Jennifer Cabrelli, Flynn, Suzanne & Rothman, Jason (eds.), Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood, 6178. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2011. Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. In Wei, Li (ed.), Applied Linguistics Review 2, 127. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian (ed.). 2003. Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie & Poletto, Cecilia. 2005. On standardising syntactic elicitation techniques (part 1). Lingua 115, 939957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curnow, Timothy Jowan. 2006. What Language Features Can Be ‘Borrowed’? In Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, 412436. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Ylva, Lindqvist, Christina & Bardel, Camilla. 2014. The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18 (2), 227235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2008. Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In Riehl, Claudia Maria & Rothe, Astrid (eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz?, Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Sabine. 2012. The influence of English on German phraseology. In Pulcini et al. (2012a) 239–260.Google Scholar
Fiedler, Sabine. 2017. Phraseological borrowing from English into German: Cultural and pragmatic implications. Journal of Pragmatics 113. 89102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, Henrik. 2012. Phraseology in flux. Danish Anglicisms beneath the surface. In Pulcini et al. (2012a) 169–198.Google Scholar
Graedler, Anne-Line. 1998. Morphological, Semantic and Functional Aspects of English Lexical Borrowings in Norwegian. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Graedler, Anne-Line. 2002. Norwegian. In Görlach, Manfred (ed.), English in Europe, 5781. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graedler, Anne-Line. 2004. Modern Loanwords in the Nordic Countries. Presentation of a project. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3 (2), 521.Google Scholar
Graedler, Anne-Line & Johansson, Stig. 1997. Anglisismeordboka. Engelske lånord i norsk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 2001. The bilingual’s language modes. In Nicol, Janet (ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing, 122. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 2008. Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guevara, Emiliano Raul. 2010. NoWaC: a large web-based corpus for Norwegian. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Sixth Web as Corpus Workshop, Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–7.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.), Loanwords in the World’s Languages. A Comparative Handbook, 3554. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellekjær, Glenn Ole. 2005. The acid test: Does upper secondary EFL instruction effectively prepare Norwegian students for the reading of English textbooks at colleges and universities? Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Hellekjær, Glenn Ole. 2007. Fremmedspråk i norsk næringsliv – engelsk er ikke nok! Halden: Fremmedspråksenteret.Google Scholar
Hellekjær, Glenn Ole. 2009. Academic English reading proficiency at the university level: A Norwegian case study. Reading in a Foreign Language 21 (2), 198222.Google Scholar
Jessner, Ulrike. 2008. A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. The Modern Language Journal 92 (ii), 270283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Priestley, Joel, Hagen, Kristin, Åfarli, Tor Anders & Vangsnes, Øystein Alexander. 2009. The Nordic Dialect Corpus – an advanced research tool, vol. 4 Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA 2009. NEALT Proceedings Series, 73–80. http://www.tekstlab.uio.no/nota/scandiasyn/index.html.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Jens Nordmann. 2008. Polylingual Languaging Around and Among Children and Adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (3), 161176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, Rune Lain & Fjeld, Ruth Vatvedt. 2013. LBK2013: A balanced, Annotated National Corpus for Norwegian Bokmål. Proceedings of the workshop on lexical semantic resources for NLP at NODALIDA 2013, NEALT Proceedings Series 19, 12–20. http://www.hf.uio.no/iln/tjenester/kunnskap/sprak/korpus/skriftsprakskorpus/lbk/.Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia. 2003. The Influence of L2 on L1 Collocational Knowledge and on L1 Lexical Diversity in Free Written Expression. In Cook (2003) 19–31.Google Scholar
Ljosland, Ragnhild. 2007. English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World Englishes 26 (4), 395410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljosland, Ragnhild. 2008. Lingua franca, prestisjespråk og forestilt fellesskap: Om engelsk som akademisk språk i Norge. Et kasusstudium i bred kontekst. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Ian. 2012. Fair play to them: Proficiency in English and types of borrowing. In Pulcini et al. (2012a) 27–42.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2010. Contact, convergence and typology. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Handbook of Language Contact, 6685. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2011. Universals of structural borrowing. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, 204233. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31 (4), 829865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 1996. English in the World and in Europe. In Hartmann, R. (ed.), The English Language in Europe, 325. Oxford: Intellect.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2007. Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, Janus Spindler & Jørgensen, Jens Normann. 2009. From language to languaging: changing relations between humans and linguistic features. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41 (1), 143166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Duelling Languages. Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 1994. Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Language Learning, 393419. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preisler, Bent. 1999. Functions and Forms of English in a European EFL Country. In Bex, Tony & Watts, Richard (eds.), Standard English: The Widening Debate, 239267. London: Routeledge.Google Scholar
Pulcini, Virginia, Furiassi, Cristiano & González, Félix Rodríguez (eds.). 2012a. The Anglicization of European Lexis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pulcini, Virginia, Furiassi, Cristiano & González, Félix Rodríguez. 2012b. The lexical influence of English on European Languages. From words to phraseology. In Pulcini et al. (2012a) 1–24.Google Scholar
Rindal, Ulrikke & Piercy, Caroline. 2013. Being ‘neutral’? English pronounciation among Norwegian learners. World Englishes 32 (2), 211229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøy, Helge. 2013. Linguistic globalization: Experiences from the Nordic laboratory. In Zenner, Eline & Kristiansen, Gitte (eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations, 225249. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics. Grammaticailty Jugdments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Sprouse, Jon. 2013. Judgment data. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, 2750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwab, Inger L. 2006. Learning to “Walk the talk”: Language Socialization in MBA Classroom and the Production of Marginality. University of Oslo MA thesis.Google Scholar
Sollid, Hilde. 2005. Språkdannelse og -stabilisering i møtet mellom kvensk og norsk. Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar
Sunde, Anne Mette. 2013. Bortfall av obligatoriske seg-refleksiver. En studie av mønsterlån fra engelsk til norsk. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. MA thesis.Google Scholar
Sunde, Anne Mette. 2016. “Inspect kniven i inventoryen min.” Språklig praksis i et nytt domene. Norwegian journal of Linguistics 34, 734.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, Pia. 2009. Extramural English Matters. Out-of-school English and its Impact on Swedish Ninth Graders’ Oral Proficiency and Vocabulary. Karlstad: Karlstad University dissertation.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, Pia & Wikström, Peter. 2015. Out-of-school digital gameplay and in-school L2 English vocabulary outcomes. System 51, 6576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylven, Liss Kerstin & Sundqvist, Pia. 2012. Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL 24 (3), 302321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Norwegian Language Council. 2005. Norsk i hundre! Norsk som nasjonalspråk i globaliseringens tidsalder. Et forslag til strategi. Oslo: Språkrådet.Google Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. 2001a. The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (1), 3769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ullman, Michael T. 2001b. The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4 (1), 105122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effects of English L2 on Norwegian L1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Effects of English L2 on Norwegian L1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Effects of English L2 on Norwegian L1
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *