The causality of borrowing: Lexical loans in Eurasian languages


Autoři: Gerd Carling aff001;  Sandra Cronhamn aff001;  Robert Farren aff001;  Elnur Aliyev aff001;  Johan Frid aff001
Působiště autorů: Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Lund, Sweden aff001;  Institute of Caucasus Studies, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia aff002;  Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223588

Souhrn

All languages borrow words from other languages. Some languages are more prone to borrowing, while others borrow less, and different domains of the vocabulary are unequally susceptible to borrowing. Languages typically borrow words when a new concept is introduced, but languages may also borrow a new word for an already existing concept. Linguists describe two causalities for borrowing: need, i.e., the internal pressure of borrowing a new term for a concept in the language, and prestige, i.e., the external pressure of borrowing a term from a more prestigious language. We investigate lexical loans in a dataset of 104 concepts in 115 Eurasian languages from 7 families occupying a coherent contact area of the Eurasian landmass, of which Indo-European languages from various periods constitute a majority. We use a cognacy-coded dataset, which identifies loan events including a source and a target language. To avoid loans for newly introduced concepts in languages, we use a list of lexical concepts that have been in use at least since the Chalcolithic (4000–3000 BCE). We observe that the rates of borrowing are highly variable among concepts, lexical domains, languages, language families, and time periods. We compare our results to those of a global sample and observe that our rates are generally lower, but that the rates between the samples are significantly correlated. To test the causality of borrowing, we use two different ranks. Firstly, to test need, we use a cultural ranking of concepts by their mobility (of nature items) or their labour intensity and “distance-from-hearth” (of culture items). Secondly, to test prestige, we use a power ranking of languages by their socio-cultural status. We conclude that the borrowability of concepts increases with increasing mobility (nature), and with increased labour intensity and “distance-from-hearth” (culture). We also conclude that language prestige is not correlated with borrowability in general (all languages borrow, independently of prestige), but prestige predicts the directionality of borrowing, from a more prestigious language to a less prestigious one. The process is not constant over time, with a larger inequality during the ancient and modern periods, but this result may depend on the status of the data (non-prestigious languages often remain unattested). In conclusion, we observe that need and prestige compete as causes of lexical borrowing.

Klíčová slova:

Cattle – Culture – Semantics – Vocabulary – Languages – Historical linguistics – Language families – Agricultural production


Zdroje

1. Thomason SG, Kaufman T. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press; 1988.

2. Weinreich U. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton; 1953.

3. Bloomfield L. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1933.

4. Haspelmath M, Tadmor U. Loanwords in the world's languages: a comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 2009 2009.

5. Hock HH, Joseph BD. Language history, language change, and language relationship: an introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 1996.

6. McMahon AMS. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1994.

7. Matras Y. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

8. Carling G, Lindell L, Ambrazaitis G. Scandoromani: remnants of a mixed language / by Gerd Carling, Lenny Lindell and Gilbert Ambrazaitis. Leiden:: Brill; 2014.

9. Tadmor U, Haspelmath M. Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica 27. 2010;((2)):226–46.

10. Hammarström H. Basic vocabulary comparison in South American languages. In: O'Connor L, Muysken P, editors. The Native Languages of South America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. p. 56–69.

11. Brown CH, Holman EW, Wichmann S. Sound Correspondences in the World's Languages. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America. 2013;89(1):4–29. 2013930985. Gloss: Supplementary materials online.

12. Dellert J, Buch A. A new approach to concept basicness and stability as a window to the robustness of concept list rankings. Language Dynamics and Change. 2018;8(2):157–81. doi: 10.1163/22105832-00802001 edselc.2-52.0–85054480214.

13. Carling G. Language: the role of culture and environment in proto-vocabularies. In: Sonesson G, Dunér D, editors. Human Lifeworlds: The Cognitive Semiotics of Cultural Evolution: Peter Lang; 2016. p. 83–96.

14. Epps P. Historical linguistics and socio-cultural reconstruction. In: Bowern C, Evans B, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge; 2014. p. 579–97.

15. Haspelmath M. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In: Haspelmath M, Tadmor U, editors. Loanwords in the World's Languages A Comparative Handbook. Berlin—New York: DeGruyter; 2009. p. 35–54.

16. Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VeV, Winter W. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: a reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 1995.

17. Blažek V, Schwarz M. Early Indo-Europeans in Central Asia and China: cultural relations as reflected in language. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literatur der Universität Innsbruck, Bereich Sprachwissenschaft; 2017.

18. Mallory JP, Adams DQ. The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and The Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford;: Oxford University Press; 2006.

19. Mallory JP, Adams DQ. Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn; 1997.

20. DiACL—Diachronic Atlas of Comparative Linguistics Online [Internet]. Lund University. 2017. Available from: https://diacl.ht.lu.se/.

21. Buck CD. A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages: a contribution to the history of ideas. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press; 1949.

22. Carling G. Mouton Atlas of Languages and Cultures. Vol. 1: Europe and West, Central and South Asia. Berlin—Boston: Mouton de Gruyter; 2019.

23. Kirby KR, Gray RD, Greenhill SJ, Jordan FM, Gomes-Ng S, Bibiko H-J, et al. D-PLACE: A Global Database of Cultural, Linguistic and Environmental Diversity. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):1–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158391 116697593.

24. Hoffman K, Tichy E. “Checkliste” zur Aufstellung bzw. Beurteilung Etymologischer Deutungen. In: Mayrhofer M, editor. Zur Gestaltung des Etymologischen Wörterbuches einer Grosscorpus-Sprache. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; 1980. p. 46–52.

25. Campbell L. Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2013.

26. Kroonen G. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill; 2013.

27. Beekes RSP, Beek Lv. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill; 2016.

28. Frisk H. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter; 1954.

29. Mayrhofer M. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Winter; 1986.

30. Lubotsky A, Vaan MACd, Beekes RSP, Derksen R, Matasović R, Boutkan D, et al. Indo-European etymological dictionaries online. [Elektronisk resurs]: Leiden, The Netherlands; Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2010-; 2010.

31. François A. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification. Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In: Vanhove M, editor. From Polysemy to Semantic change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. Amsterdam: Benjamins; 2008. p. 163–215.

32. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M, editors. Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media; 2009.

33. Murdock GP, Ford CS, Hudson AE, Kennedy R, Simmons LW, Whiting JWM. Outline of Cultural Materials. 6th revised edition with modifications. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files; 2008.

34. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: Computing RFfS, editor. Vienna2018.

35. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer; 2016.

36. Monaghan P, Roberts SG. Cognitive influences in language evolution: Psycholinguistic predictors of loan word borrowing. Cognition. 2019;186:147–58. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.02.007 30780047

37. Vejdemo S, Hörberg T. Semantic Factors Predict the Rate of Lexical Replacement of Content Words. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0147924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147924 26820737

38. Pagel M, Atkinson QD, Meade A. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature. 2007;449:717. doi: 10.1038/nature06176 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06176#supplementary-information. 17928860

39. Atkinson QD, Meade A, Venditti C, Greenhill SJ, Pagel M. Languages Evolve in Punctuational Bursts. 2008:588.

40. Lévi-Strauss C. Les Structures Élémentaires de la Parenté [Elektronisk resurs]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Inc; 2002.

41. Talmy L. How language structures space. In: HPick H, Acredolo L, editors. Spatial Orientation. New York: Plenum; 1983. p. 225–82.

42. Frawley W. Linguistic semantics: Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; 1992.

43. Kristiansen K. Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1998.

44. Barker G. The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why did foragers become farmers? Oxford;: Oxford University Press Inc.; 2006.

45. Childe VG. What happened in history. Harmondsworth: Penguin books; 1942.

46. Ammon U. Die internationale Stellung der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter; 1991.

47. Graddol D, Graddol D, Graddol D. The impact of macro socioeconomic trends on the future of the English language. Stockholm: Department of English, Stockholm University; 2012.

48. Coulmas F. Language and economy. London: Blackwell; 1992.

49. Ronen S, Gonçalves B, Hu KZ, Vespignani A, Pinker S, Hidalgo CA. Links that speak: The global language network and its association with global fame. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(52):E5616–E22. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1410931111 25512502

50. Chan KL. Power Language Index. Which are the world's most influential languages? World Economic Forum on ASEAN, 2016.

51. Ammon U. To what extent is German an iternational language? In: Stevenson P, editor. The German Language and the Real World: sociolinguistic, cultural and pragmatic perspectives on contemporary German. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1996. p. 25–51.

52. Lewis MP, Gary FS, Charles DF. Ethnologue: [Elektronisk resurs] Languages of the World. Texas: SIL International; 2015.

53. IMF. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects International Monetary Fund2017 [cited 2018 September 11].

54. Phillipson R. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 1992.

55. Skutnabb-Kangas T. Linguistic human rights: overcoming linguistic discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter; 1994.

56. Ostler N. Empires of the word: a language history of the world. London: HarperCollins; 2005.

57. Gurney OR. The Hittites. London: Penguin Books; 1990.

58. Häkkinen K. Prehistoric Finno-Ugric culture in the light of historical lexicology. In: Carpelan C, Parpola A, Koskikallio P, editors. Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations Papers presented at an international symposium held at the Tvärminne Research Station of the University of Helsinki, 8–10 January, 1999. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 242; 2001. p. 169–86.

59. Hellquist E. Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund: Gleerup; 1948.

60. Vasmer M. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter; 1953.

61. Walde A, Hofmann JB. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter; 1965.

62. Cooke F. The encyclopedia of animals: a complete visual guide. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2008.

63. Kroonen G, Iversen R. Arkæolingvistik—kan vi bruge sprogvidenskaben til noget?. Arkæologisk Forum. 2015;33:3–7.

64. Landgraf AJ, Lee Y. Dimensionality Reduction for Binary Data through the Projection of Natural Parameters. Technical Report 890. Ohio: Department of Statistics, The Ohio State University; 2015.

65. Therneau T, Atkinson B. rpart: Recursive Partitioning and Regression Trees. R package version 4.1–15. 2019.

66. Greenfield HJ. The Secondary Products Revolution: the past, the present and the future. World Archaeology. 2010;42(1):29–54. doi: 10.1080/00438240903429722 47760274.

67. Lomax A, Arensberg CM, Berleant-Schiller R, Dole GE, Hippler AE, Jensen K-E, et al. A Worldwide Evolutionary Classification of Cultures by Subsistence Systems [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology. 1977;18(4):659–708.

68. Auwera Jvd. 15 Standard Average European. The Languages and Linguistics of Europe A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin—Boston: Mouton de Gruyter; 2011. p. 291–306.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 10