Using distributional semantics in loanword research: A concept-based approach to quantifying semantic specificity of Anglicisms in Spanish

Abstract

Aims and objectives:

This study aims to redress the paucity of research on the semantics of loanwords, by extending and empirically testing Backus’s ((2001). The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch-Turkish. Jacobson, Rodolfo (Hg): Codeswitching Worldwide. Bd, 2, 125–154) Specificity Hypothesis – ‘Embedded language elements in code-switching have a high degree of semantic specificity’ (p. 128).

Approach:

Adopting a concept-based approach to examine loanwords in a large, reliable corpus, the study pursues the following question: Do loanwords have a high degree of semantic specificity relative to their receiving-language equivalents? Specificity is operationalized as an entropy measure of the target word’s environment, the assumption being that more specific words have less variety in their surrounding context.

Data and analysis:

To test this hypothesis, Anglicisms in a 24-million-word newspaper corpus of Argentine Spanish were processed in three stages: detecting loanwords, selecting semantic equivalents, and measuring specificity.

Findings/conclusions:

A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test revealed that loanwords receive significantly lower entropy scores, that is, they are more specific than their Spanish equivalents. The results suggest a possible motive for adopting loanwords when terms already exist in the source language, namely, to utilize words that provide more nuanced meaning.

Originality:

Methodologically, this study offers innovative applications of computational methods to loanword research, employing a distributional model to measure entropy. Theoretically, it addresses an underrepresented aspect of loanword adoption, semantics, by extending Backus’s hypothesis to loanwords and increasing its scope to data often viewed as ‘monolingual’.

Significance/implications:

The conclusions offer novel perspectives on loanwords with existing semantic equivalents, often viewed as ‘unnecessary’ when compared to loanwords that introduce new concepts into the recipient language (e.g. blog). With the notion of specificity, we may understand these loanwords as disruptors to the semantic system of the recipient language, dividing up the semantic space formerly occupied solely by the native equivalent, thus increasing the level of nuance expressed in the original concept.

Keywords

Loanwords semantics distributional models quantitative methods Anglicisms Spanish

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaron

J. E.

(2014). Lone English-origin nouns in Spanish: The precedence of community norms. International Journal of Bilingualism. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 1367006913516021.

Al Btoush

M. A.

(2014). English Loanwords in Colloquial Jordanian Arabic. International Journal of Linguistics, 6, 109.

Alex

(2008). Comparing corpus-based to web-based lookup techniques for automatic English Inclusion detection. In LREC.

Andersen

(2005, July). Assessing algorithms for automatic extraction of Anglicisms in Norwegian texts. Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, UK.

Andersen

(2014). Pragmatic borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 67, 17–33.

Anderson

T. K.

Toribio

A. J.

(2007). Attitudes towards lexical borrowing and intra-sentential code-switching among Spanish-English bilinguals. Spanish in Context, 4, 217–240.

Backus

(2001). The role of semantic specificity in insertional codeswitching: Evidence from Dutch-Turkish. Jacobson, Rodolfo (Hg): Codeswitching Worldwide. Bd, 2, 125–154.

Baroni

Lenci

(2011). How We BLESSed distributional semantic evaluation. In Proceedings of the GEMS 2011 Workshop on Geometrical Models of Natural Language Semantics (pp. 1–10). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Bird

Klein

Loper

(2009). Natural language processing with Python. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.

10.

Boczkowski

P. J.

de Santos

(2007). When more media equals less news: Patterns of content homogenization in Argentina’s leading print and online newspapers. Political Communication, 24, 167–180.

11.

Bookless

T. C.

(1982). Towards a semantic description of English loan-words in Spanish. Quinquereme, 5, 170–85.

12.

Bordelois

(2011). El país que nos habla. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Sudamericana.

13.

Bullock

Serigos

Toribio

A. J.

(2015). The status of Anglicisms in Puerto Rican Spanish-language press. In Mazak

Parafita Cuoto

Guzzardo

(Eds.), Code-switching in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean and its diaspora. New York, NY: John Benjamins.

14.

Caraballo

S. A.

Charniak

(1999). Determining the specificity of nouns from text. In Proceedings of the 1999 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora (pp. 63–70). Citeseer.

15.

Chesley

(2010). Lexical borrowings in French: Anglicisms as a separate phenomenon. Journal of French Language Studies, 20, 231–251.

16.

Chesley

Baayen

R. H.

(2010). Predicting new words from newer words: Lexical borrowings in French. Linguistics, 48, 1343–1374.

17.

Edmonds

Hirst

(2002). Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics, 28, 105–144.

18.

Erk

(2012). Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 635–653.

19.

Erk

(2016). What do you know about an alligator when you know the company it keeps? Manuscript submitted for publication.

20.

Erk

McCarthy

Gaylord

(2012). Measuring word meaning in context. Computational Linguistics, 39, 511–554.

21.

Firth

(1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

22.

Gries

S. T.

(2006). Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora, 1, 109–151.

23.

Haspelmath

(2008). Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 35, 43.

24.

Haugen

(1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.

25.

Hlavac

(2006). Bilingual discourse markers: Evidence from Croatian -English code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1870–1900.

26.

Hornikx

Meurs

F. van

Boer

A. de.

(2010). English or a local language in advertising? The appreciation of easy and difficult English slogans in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Communication, 47, 169–188.

27.

Irwin

(2011). Loanwords in Japanese. Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pub. Co.

28.

Jurafsky

Martin

J. H.

(2008). Speech and language processing. 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

29.

Kang

(2011). Loanword phonology. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 4, 1003–1026.

30.

Koo

(2015). An unsupervised method for identifying loanwords in Korean. Language Resources and Evaluation, 49, 1–19.

31.

Lapesa

Evert

(2014). A large scale evaluation of distributional semantic models: Parameters, interactions and model selection. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2, 531–545.

32.

Lenci

(2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20, 1–31.

33.

Manning

C. D.

Raghavan

Schütze

(2008). Introduction to information retrieval. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Myers-Scotton

(1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

35.

Myers-Scotton

(2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. 1st Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36.

Myers-Scotton

Jake

J. L.

(1995). Matching lemmas in a bilingual language competence and production model: Evidence from intrasentential code switching. Linguistics, 33, 981–1024.

37.

Neupane

Guzman

Serigos

Ball

Bullock

Novak

(2015). Bon cop, bad cop: A tale of two cities. Presented at the Transcultural Urban Spaces: Where Geography Meets Language, University of Berne.

38.

Ngom

(2000). Sociolinguistic motivations of lexical borrowings in Senegal. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 30, 159–172.

39.

Onysko

Winter-Froemel

(2011). Necessary loans – luxury loans? Exploring the pragmatic dimension of borrowing. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1550–1567.

40.

Peterson

Vaattovaara

(2014). Kiitos and pliis: The relationship of native and borrowed politeness markers in Finnish. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 10, 247–269.

41.

Pfister

Romsdorfer

(2003). Mixed-lingual text analysis for polyglot TTS synthesis. In INTERSPEECH. Citeseer.

42.

Poplack

Dion

(2012). Myths and facts about loanword development. Language Variation and Change, 24, 279–315.

43.

Poplack

Pousada

Sankoff

(1982). Un estudio comparativo de la asignación de género a préstamos nominales. In El español del Caribe, VI Simposio de Dialectología, Santiago República Dominicana, Universidad Católica Madre y Nuestra (pp. 239–269).

44.

Poplack

Sankoff

Miller

(1988). The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics, 26, 47–104.

45.

Schmid

(1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of international conference on new methods in language processing (Vol. 12, pp. 44–49).

46.

Smead

R. N.

(2000). On the assignment of gender to Chicano Anglicisms: Processes and results. Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe, 25, 277–297.

47.

Thomason

S. G.

Kaufman

(1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

48.

Toribio

A. J.

Bullock

Serigos

Neupane

Ball

(2015). Towards developing a bilingual metric for U.S. Spanish. Presented at the Spanish Contact, Expansion, and Transformation: 25th Conference on Spanish in the United States and 10th Conference on Spanish in Contact with Other Languages, City College of New York.

49.

Turney

P. D.

Pantel

(2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188.

50.

Vendelin

Peperkamp

(2006). The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua, 116, 996–1007.

51.

Weinreich

(1953). Languages in contact, findings and problems. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.

52.

Winter-Froemel

(2013). Formal variance and semantic changes in borrowing: Integrating semasiology and onomasiology. New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations, 7, 65.

53.

Winter-Froemel

Onysko

(2012). Proposing a pragmatic distinction for lexical Anglicisms. In Furiassi

Pulcini

González

F. R.

(Eds.), The Anglicization of European lexis (pp. 43–64). Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.

54.

Zenner

Speelman

Geeraerts

(2012). Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of Anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 749–792.

55.

Zenner

Speelman

Geeraerts

(2014). A sociolinguistic analysis of borrowing in weak contact situations: English loanwords and phrases in expressive utterances in a Dutch reality TV show. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 333–346.