Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 22:1 (2022) ► pp.77–113

Contact-induced grammatical change?

The case of proper name compounding in English, German, and Dutch

| University of LeipzigGermany
ORCID logo | University of LeipzigGermany
The paper discusses how language contact and borrowing can be established as a critical factor of quantitative and/or qualitative changes of abstract grammatical patterns, in particular if languages are genetically and areally closely related and thus structurally similar. More specifically, it deals with the question of whether the word-formation pattern of proper name compounding in German and Dutch is an instance of grammatical borrowing from English, as is often claimed in the literature. To this end, we conduct a structural analysis of the pattern in the three languages based on original and translation corpus data. We show that the pattern which, at first glance, seems to be identical in all three languages has in fact different properties in each language. Although this does not necessarily preclude transfer from English, we conclude that there is no evidence in favour of such an influence.
Keywords: grammatical borrowing, morphological borrowing, proper name, compounding, Dutch/English/German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Grammatical borrowing
    • 2.2Proper name compounding in English, German, and Dutch
    • 2.3Research questions
  • 3.Data analysis
    • 3.1Corpus used, extraction methodology and data coding
    • 3.2Results: Original data
    • 3.3Results: Translations
      • 3.3.1Name classes in translation
      • 3.3.2Semantic relations in translation
      • 3.3.3Regression analysis
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.20001.kos
References (48)
References
ANS. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Haeseryn (eds). Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies. Implications and Applications. In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. 2017. Compounding in German and English: A Quantitative Translation Study. Languages in Contrast 17(1): 43–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bliss, C. I. 1934. The Method of Probits. Science 79(2037): 38–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, T. 2018. Proper Names used as Modifiers: A Comprehensive Functional Analysis. English Language and Linguistics 22(03): 381–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, T. and De Smet, H. 2019. How do Grammatical Patterns Emerge? The Origins and Development of the English Proper Noun Modifier Construction. English Language and Linguistics 23(4): 879–899. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, T., Kolkmann, J. and Payne, J. 2019. The Impact of Semantic Relations on Grammatical Alternation: An Experimental Study of Proper Name Modifiers and Determiner Genitives. English Language and Linguistics 23(4): 797–826. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briegleb, O. 1932. Wider die Entartung der Sprache durch Erstarrung – Falsche Zusammensetzung – Wortverstümmelung. Leipzig: Verlag von Friedrich Brandstetter.Google Scholar
Carstensen, B. 1965. Englische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Sprache nach 1945. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Cartoni, B., Zufferey, S. and Meyer, T. 2013. Using the Europarl Corpus for Linguistic Research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 271: 23–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Caluwe, J. 1991. Nederlandse nominale composita in functionalistisch perspectief. ’s Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
De Metsenaere, H., Vandepitte, S. and Van de Velde, M. 2016. Dutch and German Noun-Noun Compounds in Translation. Lebende Sprachen 61(1): 175–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, F. 2018. On Morphological Borrowing. Language and Linguistics Compass 12(10): e12302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A. 2020. Introduction: A Two-Pronged Approach to Corpus-Based Crosslinguistic Studies. Languages in Contrast 20(2): 167–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2009. Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kann, H.-J. 1972. Bemerkungen zum Wortbildungsmuster “Name + Substantiv” (“Holland-Hähnchen”). Muttersprache 82(1): 290–298.Google Scholar
Koehn, P. 2005. Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation. Proceedings of the Tenth Machine Translation Summit (MT Summit X). Phuket, Thailand. 12–16 September 2005. Available at [URL] [last accessed 26 November 2020].
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 2009. Proper-Name Compounds in Swedish between Syntax and Lexicon. Rivista di Linguistica / Italian Journal of Linguistics 211: 119–148.Google Scholar
2013. A Mozart Sonata and the Palme Murder: The Structure and Uses of Proper-Name Compounds in Swedish. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession, K. Börjars, D. Denison and A. Scott (eds), 253–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosmata, E. in prep. Eigennamenkomposita im 20. Jh. PhD Thesis, Universität Leipzig.
Leest, J. 1929. Duitsche invloed op het Nederlandsch der protestantsche theologen sedert het begin der XIXe eeuw. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar
Levi, J. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Loock, R. 2013. The Emergence of Noun + Noun Constructions with a Regressive Order in Contemporary French? Journal of French Language Studies 23(02): 259–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 31(4): 829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onysko, A. 2007. Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, Lexical Productivity, and Written Codeswitching. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortner, L. and Elgin Müller-Bollhagen. 1991. Deutsche Wortbildung. Vierter Hauptteil: Substantivkomposita. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Riehl, C. M. 2001. Schreiben, Text und Mehrsprachigkeit: zur Textproduktion in mehrsprachigen Gesellschaften am Beispiel der deutschsprachigen Minderheiten in Südtirol und Ostbelgien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2007. Emerging Variation: Determiner Genitives and Noun Modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 111: 143–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. How Synchronic Gradience Makes Sense in the Light of Language Change. In Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, E. Closs Traugott and G. Trousdale (eds), 149–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. On the (Non-)Equivalence of Constructions with Determiner Genitives and Noun Modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 23(4): 759–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Royen, P. G. 1954. Buigingsverschijnselen in het Nederlands. Deel IV, slotstuk (Verhandelingen Der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde: Nieuwe Reeks deel LIX, No. 3). Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Publ. Co.Google Scholar
Sakel, J. 2007. Types of Loan: Matter and Pattern. In Empirical Approaches to Language Typology (EALT), Y. Matras and J. Sakel (eds), vol. 381, 15–29. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schelper, D. 1995. Anglizismen in der Pressesprache der BRD, der DDR, Österreichs und der Schweiz. Eine vergleichende, typologische und chronologische Studie. Quebec: Université Laval.Google Scholar
Schlücker, B. 2013. Non-Classifying Compounds in German. Folia Linguistica 47(2): 449–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Eigennamenkomposita im Deutschen. In Namengrammatik (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 23), J. Helmbrecht, D. Nübling and B. Schlücker (eds), 59–93. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
2018. Genitives and Proper Name Compounds in German. In Germanic Genitives, T. Ackermann, H. J. Simon and C. Zimmer (eds), 275–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. Von Donaustrom zu Donauwelle. Die Entwicklung der Eigennamenkomposition von 1600–1900. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 48(2): 238–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sijs, N. van der. 2005. Van Dale Groot leenwoordenboek. De invloed van andere talen op het Nederlands. Utrecht [etc.]: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Ström Herold, J. and Levin, M. 2019. The Obama Presidency, the Macintosh Keyboard and the Norway Fiasco: English Proper Noun Modifiers and their German and Swedish Correspondences. English Language and Linguistics 23(4): 827–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugarewa, T. 1974. Adjektivderivate zu Eigennamen und ihre Konkurrenz mit Substantivkomposita und syntaktischen Wortverbindungen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 941: 199–256.Google Scholar
Taeldeman, J. 1978. Französisch-flämische Sprachinterferenz in Flandern. In Sprachkontakte im Nordseegebiet. Akten des 1. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1977, P. Sture Ureland (ed.), 43–66. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toorn, M. C. van den. 1986. Samenstellingen met eigennamen in de Germaanse talen, speciaal in het Nederlands. Glot 91: 118–127.Google Scholar
Warren, B. 1978. Semantic Patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds (Gothenburg Studies in English 41). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Wustmann, G. 1891. Allerlei Sprachdummheiten. Kleine deutsche Grammatik des Zweifelhaften, des Falschen und des Häßlichen. Leipzig: Grunow.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G. 2010. Von Bush administration zu Kohl-Regierung: Englische Einflüsse auf deutsche Nominalkonstruktionen? In Strategien der Integration und Isolation nicht-nativer Einheiten und Strukturen, C. Scherer and A. Holler (eds), 165–182. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar