Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:13:47.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonologization and activation of latent phonemes in linguistic borrowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Rudolf Filipović
Rudolf Filipović
Affiliation:
(Institute of Linguistics, University of Zagreb)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1.0 In the process of linguistic borrowing, when the model (the foreign word in the donor language) turns into the replica (the loanword in the borrowing language), adaptation takes place on several levels, and it proceeds according to the principles of languages in contact. In the course of this adaptation two basic laws operate: substitution and importation. The first law regulates the replacement of donor-language phonemes and morphemes which occur in the model by phonemes and morphemes of the borrowing language. Thus substitution takes place at the phonological and at the morphological level and may take several forms, depending on the nature and type of replacement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , June 1982 , pp. 36 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1982

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

Camilli, A. (1947). Pronuncia e grafia dell'Italiano, (2nd ed.), Sansoni-Firenze.Google Scholar
Deroy, L. (1956). L'emprunt linguistique, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipović, R. (1959). ‘Consonantal Innovations in the Phonological System as a Consequence of Linguistic Borrowing. Phonemic Re-distribution in English Loan-words in Serbo-Croatian’, Studia Romanica el Anglica Zagrabiensia, Zagreb, 7: 39–62.Google Scholar
Filipović, R. (1960). ‘Phonemic Importation’, SRAZ, 9–10: 177–89.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1966). ‘The English Element in the Main European Languages’, SRAZ, Zagreb, 21–2: 103–12.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1972). ‘Some Problems in Studying the English Element in European Languages’, Studia Anglica Poznaniensia, 4, 1–2: 141–58; also in English Studies Today, Istanbul, 1973, 5: 25–52.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1973). ‘Prilog teoriji proučavanja anglicizama u evropskim jezicima’ (A contribution to the theory of the study of Anglicisms in the European languages), Suvremena lingvistika, Zagreb, 7–8: 3–10.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1977a). ‘Nekoliko metodoloških pitanja proučavanja stranog elementa u hrvatsko-srpskom jeziku’ (Some methodological questions in the study of the foreign element in Serbo-Croatian), Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane, Beograd, 1: 13–20.Google Scholar
Filipović, R. (1977b). ‘Some Basic Principles of Languages in Contact Reinterpreted’, SRAZ, Zagreb, 43–4: 157–66.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1977c). ‘Primary and Secondary Adaptation of Loan-Words’, Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 23: 116–25.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1980). ‘Transmorphemization: substitution on the morphological level reinterpreted, SRAZ, Zagreb, 25: 1–8.Google Scholar
Filipović, B. (1981). ‘Transphonemization: substitution on the phonological level reinterpreted’, Europäische Mehrsprachigkeit, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Fouché, P. (1956). Traité de la prononciation française. Paris.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, J. and Edmont, E. (1910). Atlas linguistique de la France, Paris.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1950). ‘The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing’, Language, 20, 2: 201–31.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1953). The Norwegian Language in America, vols. 1–2, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas; A Bibliography and Research Guide, American Dialect Society.Google Scholar
Ivić, P. (1957). ‘Dva glavna pravca razvoja konsonantizma u srpskohrvatskom jeziku’ (The two main trends in the development of consonantism in Serbo-Croatian), Godišnjak Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu.Google Scholar
Ivšić-Kravar, (1955). Srpsko-hrvatski jezik (The Serbo-Croatian language), Acta Instituti Fonetici, vol. 4, Zagreb.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1949a). ‘Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues’, Appendix IV, in N. S. Troubetzkoy, Principes de phonologie, Paris, p. 359.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1949b). ‘Principes de phonologie historique’, published as an appendix to N. S. Troubetzkoy, Principes de phonologie, Paris, and reprinted in Selected Writings, 1, Mouton, 1962, pp. 202–20.Google Scholar
Jones, D. (1956). An Outline of English Phonetics, (8th ed.), Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. (1959). ‘Affinité linguistique’, Bollettino dell'Atlante Linguistico Mediterraneo, 1, Venezia-Roma, 50: 151.Google Scholar
Popović, I. (1955). Istorija srpskohrvalskog jezika (History of the Serbo-Croatian Language). Novi Sad.Google Scholar
RHSJ = Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika (Dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language), Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb 1887–91, vol. 3.Google Scholar
Vaillant, A. (1950). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome I, pPhonétique, Paris.Google Scholar
Vogt, H. (1954). ‘Language Contacts’, Word, 10: 365–74.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact, New York.Google Scholar