New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing 2013
DOI: 10.1515/9781614514305.65
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Formal variance and semantic changes in borrowing: Integrating semasiology and onomasiology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As mentioned in Section 1.1, a variety of algorithms, strategies and parameters have been created to answer the question of what should count as English. Inspired by Roberts et al (2021), we synthesize the methods proposed in the literature into a phased identification protocol involving three levels (see Figure 1): etymology, recognizability and relative markedness (Levinson, 2000;Winter-Froemel, 2013). A decision task on each of the levels results in a classification into four borrowing types, ordered on a scale from low Englishness to high Englishness: no English, unrecognizable English (UE), recognizable unavoidable English (RUE) and recognizable avoidable English (RAE).…”
Section: Identifying Englishmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As mentioned in Section 1.1, a variety of algorithms, strategies and parameters have been created to answer the question of what should count as English. Inspired by Roberts et al (2021), we synthesize the methods proposed in the literature into a phased identification protocol involving three levels (see Figure 1): etymology, recognizability and relative markedness (Levinson, 2000;Winter-Froemel, 2013). A decision task on each of the levels results in a classification into four borrowing types, ordered on a scale from low Englishness to high Englishness: no English, unrecognizable English (UE), recognizable unavoidable English (RUE) and recognizable avoidable English (RAE).…”
Section: Identifying Englishmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recognizable English insertion must finally go through the last step of our protocol which is based on the principle of relative markedness (Levinson, 2000;Winter-Froemel, 2013). This principle corresponds to the labels of "catachrestic (∼necessary) and "noncatachrestic"(∼non necessary) loanwords (Onysko and Winter-Froemel, 2011, cf.…”
Section: %Engmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By linking up to the cognitive linguistic approach, research into loanwords has started to shift its attention to a usage-based perspective on borrowing and quantitative, corpus-based methods. Recent papers that rely on large corpora, as well as sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic experimental methods, speak in favour of this tendency (Rohde, Stefanowitsch, and Kemmer 1999;Kemmer and Barlow 2000;Zenner, Speelman, and Geeraerts 2011;Backus 2012;Winter-Froemel 2013;van Meurs, Hornikx and Bossenbroek 2013;Daems, Heylen and Geeraerts 2015;Serigos 2017...). Examining the usage of loanwords and their semanto-pragmatic nature as a field that has been neglected in traditional studies, the cognitive-linguistic approach has made a great contribution, both theoretically and methodologically, to the study of loanwords.…”
Section: Pragmatic Functions and Classification Of Loanwordsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most thorough discussions of the semantics of loanwords is provided by Winter-Froemel (2013). Following a usage-based approach, she tackles the issue of variance in the form of loanwords (ex.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%