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 14 october 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.