/  150
 
1. INTRODUCTION
Languages borrow words. That is a fact purists around the globe are not prepared to acceptwithout a fight. English is no exception. On the contrary. It has always been, and as the present situation shows, will always be, one of the most easily penetrable languages in theworld. Its contributors come from all continents and all language groups.Our interest in this phenomenon will be limited to the input of the group of Slaviclanguages. The reason for that is perhaps a selfish but nevertheless, just one. Namely, our native tongue belongs to this group, and it was to discover its particular share in the Englishlexicon, that provided the initial stimulus for the selection of this specific topic.By examining Slavic loanwords in English, we hope to determine the extent of influenceSlavic languages had on the English vocabulary and language throughout history, therebygaining a comprehensive insight into the processes of linguistic borrowing in general.We are to achieve this aim by compiling a corpus of examples accompanied by quotes,which we will subsequently analyse. By doing so we shall touch upon the science of etymology, and ultimately semantics.To start with, we shall try to answer some basic questions about the background of  borrowing Slavic words into English. Next, the analysis of the corpus will commence, by presenting a concise overview of Slavic languages and their individual share in the body of examples. To continue, we shall analyse the corpus first in terms of the basic three-folddivision of loanwords into
 simple loans, adapted loans
and
calques
or 
loan translations
,and then in terms of Sir James Murray’s division into
casuals, aliens, denizens
and
naturals
,which will hopefully shed some light on the process of word-naturalization. Finally, asemantic analysis of the examples will follow, with the primary emphasis on the changes of meaning, as demonstrated with Slavic borrowings in the English language.
 
In the end, we hope this thesis with its body of examples, will prove a valuable reference toall interested in this area of linguistic science, and will also contribute a small fraction to thestudy of English – Slovene linguistic relations.
2. LOANWORDS FROM SLAVIC LANGUAGES: WHY, WHEN,AND HOW ?
 
 
English has never been a language of people isolated to the extent of not having anycontacts with the world outside their own speech community. On the contrary, as Baugh &Cable (1993: 1) put it : “The diversity of cultures that find expression in it is a reminder thatthe history of the English language is a story of cultures in contact during the past 1500years.” Following such reasoning, it seems inadequate to deal with loanwords simplylinguistically, and ignore the political, economic, social, technological, and military events,that brought words like
 perestroika
and
 glasnost 
into the scope of English vocabulary.English has over the centuries borrowed a great number of words from numerous languagesaround the world. Contributors range from well known Latin (delirium, axis…) and French(chauffeur, garage…) to more obscure Hindi (jungle, shampoo…) and Eskimo (kayak,anorak…). In this process Slavic languages have by no means been ignored: Russian, as themost prolific source, Polish, Serbo-Croat, Bulgarian and others, have made an impact onthe English word stock.But why does a language borrow a word from another language? Usually this happens as aresult of some new object or notion appearing for which the matrix or recipient language(Bright 1992: 199) has no word of its own. For example, a
samovar 
is characteristic of Russia but has no suitable counterpart in the British culture (similarly the Bulgarian andSerbo-Croat
rakia
, Serbo-Croat
tamburitza
or Polish
mazurka
). Consequently, the word isimported, together with the object, into the English language.This “importation” of words occurs via commerce (new products not familiar to the borrowing language), war (new weaponry, army units, garments), development in science(inventions, discoveries), and progress in the numerous fields of intellectual activity(philosophy, literature, arts…).Another reason for borrowing words, as described by E. Haugen in the
 International  Encyclopedia of Linguistics
(1992: 199), can also be the consequence of a particular word being felt prestigious or just novel. According to the author, this is especially true if thespeakers of the matrix language feel inferior to the speakers of the source language, as didthe English when they were ruled by the Norman French (p.199). In the case of Slavic
You're Reading a Free Preview
Pages 149 to 150 are not shown in this preview.

Words of Slavic Origin in the English Language

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

mitjakus

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

Polina Oleksenkoleft a comment

and what is the full name of the author?))
05 / 16 / 2011
Reply

Polina Oleksenkoleft a comment

Thanks a lot)
05 / 16 / 2011
Reply

Polina Oleksenkoleft a comment

Hi) great job you did with you thesis)) How can I make references on it? can you give it's bibliography? meaning year, university...etc)) I will be very greatful)
05 / 13 / 2011
Reply

mitjakus replied:

Hi, Polina! Yes, no problem: 2001. University of Ljubljana, Department of English. Menthor: Rastislav Šuštaršič , PhD. If there is any other info that you need just let me know.
05 / 13 / 2011

mitjakusleft a comment

I couldn't agree more with you Sharingham. Due to certain circumstances at the time of writing my thesis, I based the classification solely on the mentioned source, which, as you have pointed out, leaves much to be desired. I see you're quite the expert on the matter. I hope you've managed to battle through that rather tedious part and got to the semantic analysis which was (is) my favourite part. Any comments on that? Oh yes! Thanks for your comment! Much appreciated!
05 / 18 / 2008
Reply

Sharinghamleft a comment

Nice thesis, Mitja. I've actually been looking for something like this. However, you should probably not depend exclusively on the Britannica for your classification of Slavonic and the general info on individual languages - there are rather more academic and up-to-date sources you could have consulted. So, if you ever publish it the old-fashioned way... Regarding "Serbo-Croatian," again, take the Britannica with a grain of salt - or a lump. I don't know if you've heard of the Serbian linguist Pavle Ivic - he's the apparently the Britannica contributor responsible for EB staunchly refusing to lay the Serbo-Croatian myth to rest (with the sort of exasperating patronizing arrogance that leaves one spluttering incoherently) - and if you know something about his views on the matter, you will understand the Britannica position is hardly the result of objective consideration by a panel of experts. I presume EB is where the extraordinary assertion that "the standard Serbo-Croatian language was formed in the first half of the 19th century" comes from? Not even Yugoslav linguists who were card-carrying members of the Communist Party ever claimed that there ever had been such a thing as "a standard Serbo-Croatian language." "Serbo-Croatian" was only ever an umbrella term covering the several standard languages and - even less usefully - the continuum of Slavonic dialects spoken in the relevant territories (it is utterly silly to call Kajkavian and Chakavian "Serbo-Croatian" dialects rather than Croatian, isn't it?).
05 / 18 / 2008
Reply