Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:59:27.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling lexical borrowability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Roeland van Hout  and
Pieter Muysken
Roeland van Hout
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
Pieter Muysken
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we develop analytical techniques to determine borrowability – that is, the ease with which a lexical item or a category of lexical items can be borrowed. The analysis is based on two assumptions: (1) the distribution of items in both the host and donor language should be taken into account to explain why certain items are, and others are not, borrowed; (2) the borrowability of a lexical category may result from a set of (underlying) operative factors or constraints. Our analysis is applied to Spanish borrowings in Bolivian Quechua on the basis of a set of bilingual texts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 39 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

AguilóS. I., F. S. I., F. (1980). ¿Los cuentos: Tradiciones o vivencias? Cochabamba: Editorial Amigos del Libro.Google Scholar
Albó, X. (1968). Social constraints on Cochambamba Quechua. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (1989). A corpus-based approach to morphological productivity. Statistical analysis and interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Broeder, P., Extra, G., & van Hout, R. (1993). Richness and variety in the developing lexicon. In Perdue, C. (ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives: Volume I. Field methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 145–163.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26:210–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. (1989). From code-switching to borrowing: Foreign and diglossic mixing in Moroccan Arabic. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., & Muysken, P. (1988). Mixed categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. (1978). Language contact. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universal of human language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 93–122.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. (1981). Quechua en Spaans in het Andesgebied. TTT 1:124–138.Google Scholar
Payne, D. L. (1986). Basic constituent order in Yagua causes: Implications for word order universals. In Derkyshire, D. C. & Pullum, G. K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages: Volume 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 440–465.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in English Y TERMINO EN ESPAÑOL. Linguistics 18:581–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., Sankoff, D., & Miller, C. (1988). The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26:47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietveld, T., & van Hout, R. (1993). Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8:189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., Poplack, S., & Vanniarajan, S. (1990). The case of the nonce loan in Tamil. Language Variation and Change 2:71–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R. (1981). Aspects of language borrowing: English loans in Hindi. In Nelde, P. H. (ed.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt. Wiesbaden: Steiner. 113–116.Google Scholar
Steele, S., with Akmajian, A., Demers, R., Jelinek, E., Kitagama, Ch., Oehrle, R., & Wasow, T. (1981). An encyclopedia of AUX. A study of cross-linguistic equivalence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taber, C. R. (1979). French loanwords in Sango: The motivation of lexical borrowing. In Hancock, I. (ed.), Readings in Creole studies. Gent: Storia Scientia. 121–126.Google Scholar
Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffers, J. (1991). French-Dutch language mixture in Brussels. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van Hout, R., & Vermeer, A. (1989). Spontane taaldata en het meten van lexicale rijkdom in tweede-taalverwerving. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 30:67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. (1978). A case study in markedness. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Herzog, M., & Labov, W. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1881). On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 12:1–26.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (1993). Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar