Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 31:1 (2014) ► pp.74–105

Core vocabulary, borrowability and entrenchment

A usage-based onomasiological approach

| University of Leuven
It is often claimed in contact linguistics that core vocabulary is highly resistant to borrowing. If we want to test that claim in a quantitative way, we need both a quantitative measure of coreness and a method for quantifying borrowability. We suggest here a usage-based operationalization of coreness in terms of entrenchment, and of borrowability in terms of onomasiological success. Applying these measures in a corpus-based study on the use of English person reference nouns in Dutch, we show via a multivariate statistical analysis that there are indeed clear indications of an inversely proportional relationship between the success of the English nouns and the degree of coreness/entrenchment of the concept lexicalized by the loanwords.
Keywords: borrowability, entrenchment, core vocabulary, usage-based hypothesis, Cognitive Linguistics, onomasiological variation
Published online: 21 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.1.03zen
References (57)
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1-27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, Ad. 1996. Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch Turkish. In Rodolfo Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching worldwide II1, 125-154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Adam. 2009. Studies in Canadian English: Lexical variation in Toronto. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Boon, Ton den & Dirk Geeraerts (eds.). 2005. Van Dale groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal, 14th edn. Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Borland, Colin. 1982. How basic is “basic” vocabulary? Current Anthropology 23(3). 315-316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire, Patience Epps, Russell Gray, Jane Hill, Keith Hunley, Patrick McConvell & Jason Zentz. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages? PLoS ONE 6(9). e25195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Dan Slobin. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English present tense. Language 581. 265-289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L. & Alison L. Morris. 2008. Fast pairs: A visual word recognition paradigm for measuring entrenchment, top-down effects and subjective phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition 171. 1063-1081. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald. 1987. Is there a core vocabulary? Some implications for language teaching. Applied Linguistics 81. 187-193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesley, Paula & Harald R. Baayen. 2010. Predicting new words from newer words: Lexical borrowing in French. Linguistics 48(4). 1343-1374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1971. A method of semantic description. In Dany D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, 436-471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doğruöz, Seza & Ad Backus. 2009. Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(1). 41-63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyen, Isidore. 1965. Lexicostatistics in comparative linguistics. Lingua 131. 230-239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edmonds, Philip & Graeme Hirst. 2002. Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics 28(2). 105-144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embleton, Sheila M. 1986. Statistics in historical linguistics. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin Bergen & Jörg Zinken. 2007. The cognitive linguistics reader. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Everitt, Brian S. & Torsten Hothorn. 2010. A handbook of statistical analyses using R. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Faraway, Julian J. 2005. Linear models with R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Fischer, John L. 1961. The retention rate of Chamorro basic vocabulary. Lingua 101. 255-266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuster Marquez, Miguel & Barry Pennock Speck. 2008. The spoken core of British English: A diachronic analysis based on the BNC. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 371. 53-74.Google Scholar
Galwey, Nicholas W. 2006. Introduction to mixed modeling: Beyond regression and analysis of variance. Chichester, UK: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
. 2010. Lexical variation in space. In Peter Auer & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (eds.), Language in space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 1, Theories and methods, 821-837. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema. 1994. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Speelman. 1999. Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Dirk Speelman. 2010. Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity in dialects. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 23-40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Robert Blust & Russell D. Gray. 2008. The Austronesian basic vocabulary database: From bioinformatics to lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 41. 271-283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haarmann, Harald. 1990. “Basic” vocabulary and language contacts: The disillusion of glottochronology. Indogermanische Forschungen 951.7-37.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability. In Thomas Stolz, Dik Bakker & Rosa Salas Palomo (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes, 43-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 35-54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor. 2009. The loanword typology project and the world loanword database. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 1-34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2010. Beyond lexicostatistics: How to get more out of “word list” comparisons. Diachronica 27(2). 301-324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich & Brian D. Joseph. 1996. Language history, language change and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holman, Eric W., Søren Wichmann, Cecil H. Brown, Viveka Velupillai, André Müller & Dik Bakker. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42(2). 331-354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1960. Lexicostatistics so far. Current Anthropology 1(1). 3-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koops, Bert-Jaap, Pim Slop, Paul Uljé, Kees Vermeij & Dick van Zijderveld. 2009. Funshoppen in het Nederlands: woordenlijst onnodig Engels. Amsterdam: Bakker.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, Mark. 2007. Learning Python. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onysko, Alexander. 2007. Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, lexical productivity and written codeswitching. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onysko, Alexander & Esme Winter-Froemel. 2011. Necessary loans — luxury loans? Exploring the pragmatic dimension of borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1550-1567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petroni, Filippo & Maurizio Serva. 2011. Automated word stability and language phylogeny. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 18(1). 53-32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum & Geoffrey Leech. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohde, Ada, Anatol Stefanowitsch & Suzanne Kemmer. 1999. Loanwords in a usage-based model. In Sabrina Billings, John Boyle & Aaron Griffith (eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society (= CLS) 35: The Main Session, 265-275. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117-138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 101-135. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skybina, Valentyna & Iryna Galutskikh. 2009. Historical core vocabulary: Spring and/or anchor. On tendencies and mechanisms of language evolution. In Monique Dufresne, Fernande Dupuis & Etleva Vocaj (eds.), Historical linguistics: Selected papers from the 18th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 6–11 August 2007, 295-306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Geeraerts. 2003. Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities 371. 317-337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starostin, S.A. 1995. Comments from Starostin. In William S.Y. Wang (ed.), The ancestry of the Chinese language (Journal of Chinese Linguistics 8), 393-404. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: With special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 961. 452-463.
. 1956. Some limitations of diffusional change in vocabulary. American Anthropologist 581. 301-306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, Uri, Martin Haspelmath & Bradley Taylor. 2010. Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica 27(2). 226-246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeon-Ju, Lee & Laurent Sagart. 2008. No limits to borrowing: The case of Bai and Chinese. Diachronica 25(3). 357-385.Google Scholar
Zenner, Eline, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2012. Cognitive sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 23(4). 749-792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

De Smet, Isabeau
2023. An assessment of the fourth law of Kuryłowicz: does prototypicality of meaning affect language change?. Cognitive Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
List, Johann-Mattis
2023. Evolutionary Aspects of Language Change. In Evolutionary Thinking Across Disciplines [Synthese Library, 478], ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
List, Johann‐Mattis
2019. Automated methods for the investigation of language contact, with a focus on lexical borrowing. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:10 DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2023. Productivity from a Metapragmatic Perspective: Measuring the Diachronic Coverage of the Low Level Lexico-Grammatical Construction Have the N (Body Part/Attitude) to ↔<Metapragmatic Comment> Using the COHA. Languages 8:2 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2024. How Is Stickage Different from Sticking? A Study of the Semantic Behaviour of V-age and V-ing Nominalisations (on Monomorphemic Bases). In Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Schuring, Melissa & Eline Zenner
2022. English from Scratch: Preadolescents’ Developing Use of English Lexical Resources in Belgian Dutch. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Geller, Ewa & Michał Gajek
2021. Loanwords vs relics. Diachronica 38:4 ► pp. 565 ff. DOI logo
Geller, Ewa, Michał Gajek, Agata Reibach & Zuzanna Łapa
2021. Applicability of Wordnet Architecture in Lexical Borrowing Studies. International Journal of Lexicography 34:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris & Jeanne Vigneron-Bosbach
2021. Introduction. Syntaxe & Sémantique N° 21:1 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Calude, Andreea Simona, Steven Miller & Mark Pagel
2020. Modelling loanword success – a sociolinguistic quantitative study of Māori loanwords in New Zealand English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Morin, Regina & Damián Robles
2020. The differing behavior of loanwords in the Spanish of technology and of fashion and beauty. In Hispanic Linguistics [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 26], ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo
Trye, David, Andreea S. Calude, Felipe Bravo-Marquez & Te Taka Keegan
2020. Hybrid Hashtags: #YouKnowYoureAKiwiWhen Your Tweet Contains Māori and English. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 3 DOI logo
Franco, Karlien, Eline Zenner & Dirk Speelman
2018. Let's Agree to Disagree. (Variation in) the Assignment of Gender to Nominal Anglicisms in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Ho-Cheong Leung, Alex & Wim van der Wurff
2018. Chapter 6. Anaphoric reference in Early Modern English. In The Noun Phrase in English [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 246], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
van Tilborg, Arjan & Stijn R. J. M. Deckers
2016. Vocabulary Selection in AAC: Application of Core Vocabulary in Atypical Populations. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 1:12 ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.