Espaces Linguistiques N° 4 | 2022
Anglicismes : variétés diatopiques et genres textuels
Anglicisms: Diatopic Varieties and Textual Genres

Sous la direction de Ramón Martí Solano , Cristiano Furiassi et José Luis Oncins Martínez

Espaces Linguistiques est une revue scientifique internationale qui accueille toute proposition relevant des champs disciplinaires suivants : analyse du discours, didactique des langues, linguistique comparée, linguistique de corpus, linguistique textuelle, phonétique, phonologie, pragmatique, psycholinguistique, sémantique, sociolinguistique, syntaxe, traductologie.
Elle a pour objectif de permettre un dialogue entre écoles de pensée et d’aborder les objets linguistiques dans leurs espaces d’actualisation.

ISSN : 2729-3548

Publié en ligne le 05 décembre 2022

Licence :

Référence électronique : Martí Solano, R., Furiassi, C. et Oncins Martínez, J. L. (dir.). (2022). Anglicismes : variétés diatopiques et genres textuels [Numéro thématique]. Espaces Linguistiques, 4. https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.456

PULIM, 2022
Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines
39E Rue Camille-Guérin
87036 LIMOGES Cedex
Tél. +33 (5) 05 55 43 56 00

Anglicismes : variétés diatopiques et genres textuels

Anglicisms: Diatopic Varieties and Textual Genres

Ramón Martí Solano, Cristiano Furiassi et José Luis Oncins Martínez

Research on Anglicisms is gaining ground among scholars working in general linguistics—especially contact linguistics—but also in lexicology, phraseology, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, and translation studies. The development of new technologies and the omnipresence of the internet and social media on a global scale over the last twenty years have boosted significantly the borrowing and loan translation of thousands of English words and phrases to different degrees depending on recipient languages and cultures.

The present issue of Espaces linguistiques is dedicated to Anglicisms with a focus on their presence in diatopic varieties and textual genres: it indeed includes four articles—one written in French and three in English—respectively dealing with four recipient languages (or language varieties), i.e. Canadian French, Doukhobor Russian, German, and Czech.

On the one hand, research on the influence of English on world languages, especially when some of them present distinct diatopic varieties, needs to encompass their linguistic, historical, geographical, and cultural diversity. For instance, Spanish has one national variety in Europe and no fewer than nineteen national varieties on the American continent—twenty if US Spanish is added to the list, albeit not being officially a ‘national language’. Many lexical borrowings are common to all the above varieties, as they have become internationalisms, such as brunch, internet, waterpolo, muffin, and hundreds of others. However, the influence that the United States has exerted and still exerts on its ‘backyard’—not just Mexico but all the other Latin-American countries—is not without consequences for the adoption of Anglicisms unknown or non-institutionalised in Spain.

By way of illustration, Mexican Spanish is particularly open to borrowings, either adapted, such as the verb checar (from to check) or the noun concreto (from concrete), or non-adapted, such as influenza, but also to calques, such as parque de diversiones (from amusement park) or cima de la tabla (from top of the table)—all of these absent from European Spanish. Other calques go beyond the mere linguistic contact and reflect the impact of American popular culture and lifestyle in Mexico, as with, for instance, tienda de conveniencia (from convenience store).

The situation is entirely different if one compares Quebec French and the French of France, as Quebec authorities have always made great efforts to preserve their linguistic and cultural identity against the ‘invasion’ of Anglicisms. However, this seemingly clear-cut distinction is becoming less so, as the prestige enjoyed by the French of France among French speakers in Canada is influencing the spread of anglicized usages in Quebec (see Elchacar, in this volume).

On the other hand, textual genres denote both written and oral texts belonging to a wide range of categories in all the various forms and formats that they may take. Before the era of electronic corpora, research on Anglicisms relied on the eagle eye and the acute ear of experts that jotted down words read in newspapers or heard on the radio or television. Nonetheless, the mainstream press is still widely exploited by researchers, both as a source and as a corpus, since journalism is a major breeding ground for lexical novelties of all sorts, including Anglicisms. The subgenres of sports games, business and finance, and information technology tend to abound in Anglicisms (see Klégr & Bozděchová, in this volume), as well as the language of gaming or social media, among many others.

A fine-grained quantitative and qualitative analysis of the different types of Anglicisms and English-induced lexical creations in various receptor languages definitely needs the specification of the textual genre or subgenre used as a corpus.

The article by Mireille Elchacar, written in French, deals with the situation of Anglicisms in the most widely studied variety of French on the American continent, that is Quebec French. The author focuses on two different types of Anglicisms: on the one hand, Anglicisms describing the diversity of gender identities and sexual orientations; on the other hand, Anglicisms common to Quebec French and the French of France, i.e. job, fun, and fin de semaine/weekend. As for the former, the author argues that even though the Canadian-French language organisation, the Quebec Board of the French Language, has come up with French equivalents for denominations such as queer or LGBT, speakers have not adopted them and instead regularly use the English words, a fact which shows that the need for clearly expressing sexual diversity prevails over the official French equivalents. As for the latter, the author reports on some interesting changes that account for the influence of the French of France as far the use of job, fun, and weekend are concerned: the progressive change of the grammatical gender of job, the alteration of the syntactic structure in which fun is embedded, and the extended use of weekend on a par with the traditional and well-established French Canadianism fin de semaine.

The article written by Veronika Makarova constitutes the very first lexicological description of Anglicisms in conversational Doukhobor Russian, an endangered language variety spoken in Canada by Doukhobors, an ethno-religious speech community of Christian dissenters and pacifists which originated in the Russian Empire between the 17th and the 18th century and whose beliefs include the rejection of church rituals, priesthood and materialism. She begins her investigation by tracing the history of Anglicisms in Doukhobor Russian, which spread over three main periods: the first wave of Anglicism importation generated in 18th-century Russia, prior to Doukhobor migration to Canada; the second stage developed throughout the 19th century, following the early years of immigration; the third and final phase of Anglicization also took place in Canada between the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. Furthermore, Makarova points out that, as Doukhobors have been mostly relying on oral history, no dictionary or grammar of Doukhobor Russian exists to date. Therefore, by examining an oral sample obtained from interviews with twenty fluent Doukhobor Russian speakers, she singles out the Anglicisms present therein and assesses their role both from a semantic and a pragmatic perspective. Makarova concludes by stating that the way in which Anglicisms are employed in Doukhobor Russian differs from their usage in Standard Russian, hence contributing to the perception of the former as an inferior language variety and, eventually, to its disappearance.

Sabine Fiedler’s article addresses the impact of English on German through an analysis of the presence of a considerable number of Anglicisms in an area of language traditionally associated with French, namely cuisine. It presents the findings of an empirical study on the use of Anglicisms in a German TV cooking show. Thus, her study is, first of all, original in that it deals with an unexplored genre which comes very close to spontaneous and naturally occurring communication. Moreover, through a detailed analysis of a large dataset she has compiled—with nearly four hundred Anglicisms—Fiedler comments on the communicative functions of the different types of Anglicisms found: direct borrowings, loan translations (calques), and hybrid constructions in all their different structural forms, e.g. simple and complex word lexemes, among which phraseological units stand out as very frequent. In so doing, Fiedler’s analysis convincingly demonstrates that the communicative purposes of cooking shows are closely related to the use of the Anglicisms under scrutiny.

Aleš Klégr and Ivana Bozděchová’s article examines the presence of hybrid Anglicisms in Czech, i.e. formations made up of English and Czech lexical morphemes (free or bound). Their study is based on a sample of 500 items of this type of Anglicisms collected manually from different sources. Their thorough analysis allows them to assess and outline the range of areas in which they occur and, more importantly, to delimit the concept of Czech hybrid Anglicisms in their two main categories: derivatives and compounds. Thus, as far as the distribution of hybrids across genres in Czech is concerned, the analysis shows that no remarkable differences are found when compared with other languages. However, it is in terms of the preference/prevalence of one type of hybrid over the other that the study offers interesting results. Indeed, while in the specialized literature hybrids are primarily associated with compounds, Klégr and Bozděchová’s examination shows that hybrid derivatives prevail in Czech, a finding which enables them to advocate for a language-specific approach to this type of Anglicisms.

On a final note, these four articles are hoped to provide a fresh impetus to further research on Anglicisms in the world languages and language varieties by stimulating linguists to delve into the intricacies of a global phenomenon that still remains largely unexplored in many of its nooks and crannies.

Pour citer ce document

Martí Solano R., Furiassi C. et Oncins Martínez J. L., (2022). Anglicismes : variétés diatopiques et genres textuels. Espaces Linguistiques, (4). http://lodel.private-d7.unilim.fr/espaces-linguistiques/lodel/edition/460

Auteurs

Ramón Martí Solano

Université de Limoges, France

ramon.marti-solano@unilim.fr

Cristiano Furiassi

Università degli Studi di Torino, Italie

cristiano.furiassi@unito.it

José Luis Oncins Martínez

Universidad de Extremadura, Espagne

oncins@unex.es

Licence

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Le modèle québécois de lutte aux anglicismes : une approche « mur-à-mur » ?

The Quebec Approach towards Anglicisms: a Wall-to-Wall Model?

Mireille Elchacar

Résumé : Le Québec est réputé suivre sa propre norme en matière d’anglicismes. En raison de l’histoire de l’anglicisation du français au Québec, les anglicismes sont, de manière générale, relégués au registre familier et remplacés, dans un registre standard, par les équivalents français proposés par l’Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF). Cette tendance générale connaît par contre certaines limites. Dans le cas des néologismes issus de la diversité de genres et d’orientations sexuelles, les équivalents français approuvés par l’OQLF pour remplacer l’anglicisme queer n’ont pas été repris par la population, si bien que l’OQLF n’en préconise plus l’usage. Dans le cas de certains anglicismes de la langue courante implantés depuis longtemps au Québec et également employés en France, on sent une légère augmentation de l’influence du français de France dans la presse écrite. Ceci amène parfois à utiliser weekend au lieu de fin de semaine, à employer job au masculin plutôt qu’au féminin et, plus marginalement, à omettre le déterminant qui accompagne fun (c’est fun).

Abstract : Quebec has the reputation of following its own standard when it comes to Anglicisms. Due to the history of anglicization of French in Quebec, Anglicisms are generally relegated to colloquial speech and replaced, in more formal speech, by the French equivalents proposed by the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF). However, this general tendency has some limits. In the case of neologisms created to name the diversity of genders and sexual orientations, Anglicisms, particularly queer, are maintained in Quebec French. The OQLF no longer recommends them. In the case of common Anglicisms that have been used for a long time in Quebec, we see a slight increase in the influence of France in the written press, which leads to use weekend instead of fin de semaine, to use job in the masculine rather than in the feminine and, more marginally, to omit the article that accompanies fun (c’est fun).

DOI : https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.466

Introduction

Depuis quelques décennies, on assiste à l’émancipation linguistique du Québec par rapport à la France dans plusieurs domaines. L’alignement inconditionnel sur le français de France, qui était souvent présenté comme l’idéal à atteindre au xix siècle (Mercier et al, 2017 ; Remysen, 2009), ne se fait plus autant sentir. C’est le cas par exemple pour la féminisation des titres, fonctions et autres appellations, dont le Québec est reconnu comme le chef de file dans la francophonie, après un premier avis officiel en ce sens en 1979 (Arbour et al, 2014). Parallèlement, la rédaction inclusive, même si elle n’est pas généralisée au Québec, fait l’objet d’une recommandation officielle de l’Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) depuis 2015¹, et tend à se répandre, alors que le Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de la Jeunesse et des Sports de France en a proscrit le recours dans son Bulletin officiel du 6 mai 2021². Cet affranchissement s’observe aussi en lexicographie (Mercier, 2008), le Québec s’étant doté en 2013 du seul dictionnaire général de langue française qui prend pour base à sa description une variété diatopique de français autre que la référence parisienne, le Usito.

Les anglicismes sont un autre domaine linguistique où le Québec est réputé suivre sa propre ligne directrice (Loubier, 2011 ; Cajolet-Laganière et Damico, 2012). Les anglicismes sont jugés de manière plus négative au Québec qu’en France (Loubier, 2011 ; Forlot, 2010 ; Bouchard, 1989), et les Québécois ont davantage tendance à adopter les équivalents français proposés par l’OQLF que les Français ceux de la Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France (DGLFLF) (Vincent, 2014 ; Walsh, 2014) ; le succès du mot-valise québécois courriel en remplacement de email est devenu emblématique de cette dynamique.

Or, cette attitude générale semble connaître des exceptions. Nous proposons dans cet article une analyse de deux types d’anglicismes où la tendance générale des Québécois à suivre leurs propres normes et usages fait exception : les néologismes de la diversité d’identités de genre et d’orientations sexuelles, et quelques anglicismes implantés dans la langue générale depuis longtemps au Québec et également en usage en France : fun, job et fin de semaine.

1. Bref rappel historique de la pénétration des anglicismes au Québec

Nous présentons un survol de l’histoire de la pénétration des anglicismes au Québec afin de mieux comprendre la différence actuelle de perception et d’attitude envers les anglicismes entre le Québec et la France, longtemps prise comme référence. Cette différence s’explique entre autres par le contexte dans lequel les emprunts ont été faits, et, selon une théorie développée par la sociolinguiste Chantal Bouchard, par la classe sociale de ceux par qui l’anglicisme est arrivé en français (Bouchard, 1989 et 1999).

Le français a commencé à emprunter des mots à l’anglais de façon significative aux xviiie et xixe siècles, d’abord de l’anglais britannique puis, surtout après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, de l’anglais américain (Treps, 2003). En France, les premiers à avoir employé des anglicismes sont ceux qui avaient les moyens financiers de se rendre en Grande-Bretagne (Bouchard, 1999). Au xviiie siècle s’installe une admiration générale envers les avancées britanniques, sous l’impulsion de la Révolution industrielle (tunnel, wagon). En politique, les Britanniques instaurent la monarchie parlementaire avec des représentants élus, perçue comme très moderne, alors que la France est toujours sous la monarchie de droit divin. Cette admiration se perçoit aussi dans le domaine juridique, où les Britanniques introduisent par exemple la notion de jury, mot qui se retrouvera en français (Steukardt, 2006).

Au Québec, les emprunts à l’anglais se font dans un contexte tout autre : celui de la domination politique, dès la Conquête britannique de ce qu’on appelait le Bas-Canada, en 1760. L’anglicisation concerne d’abord les institutions politiques et juridiques, puis, au xixe siècle, s’étend au commerce et à l’industrie. L’anglicisation résultera du contact entre l’anglais des patrons et le français du prolétariat sous-éduqué qui travaille dans les usines financées par des capitaux anglais. Les anglicismes pénètrent massivement le français canadien³, par champ lexical complet, là où la terminologie française n’est parfois pas connue ou développée (le commerce, les pâtes et papiers, l’industrie automobile, etc.). Le français en Amérique évolue loin de l’influence européenne pendant plusieurs décennies ; à la reprise de contacts plus soutenus avec la France, on constate que le français sur les deux continents s’est développé de manières différentes :

Après la chute de Napoléon et la fin du blocus continental, dans la deuxième décennie du xixe siècle, les journaux et livres français recommenceront à circuler plus librement au Canada, ce qui entraînera, chez les lettrés, une prise de conscience de l’écart qui, pendant la période d’isolement qui a suivi la Conquête, s’est creusé entre le français de France et le français canadien. Ce constat est culpabilisant, parce que l’écart est largement perçu comme le résultat d’une dégénérescence du français canadien, d’une corruption insidieuse principalement attribuable à l’influence de l’anglais. (Mercier et al, 2017, p. 284-285)

Ces événements créeront un terreau fertile pour l’insécurité linguistique telle que définie par Labov : une dichotomie ressentie par les locuteurs natifs entre leur idéal d’un modèle linguistique et leur propre compétence (Labov, 1966).

Ce n’est qu’au tournant que représente la Révolution tranquille que la situation commencera à évoluer, avec l’amélioration du statut socioéconomique des Québécois francophones et la hausse des taux de scolarisation. Des lois linguistiques sont mises en place pour protéger le français et en faire la langue de l’instruction publique. L’Office de la langue française (ancêtre de l’OQLF) est fondé ; il mettra sur pied des chantiers terminologiques pour franciser les domaines où les termes français manquent.

Les Québécois n’ont pas simplement cessé d’employer des anglicismes, mais ces derniers seront dorénavant réservés au registre familier, à la langue populaire. De manière générale, ils sont aujourd’hui considérés comme des fautes, et ce même si la situation linguistique a changé depuis les années précédant la Révolution tranquille.

Ceci nous ramène à la définition de « communauté linguistique » telle que développée par Labov : « Une communauté linguistique se définit comme un ensemble de locuteurs qui partagent des normes d’interprétation de la langue qui se reflètent par leur traitement des variables linguistiques : modèles de stratification sociale, changement de styles et évaluations subjectives. » (Labov, 1989, p. 2, notre traduction). Les membres d’une communauté linguistique ne partagent pas exactement les mêmes usages, mais plutôt les mêmes jugements linguistiques (Gadet, 2003). Ainsi, d’une manière générale, les anglicismes sont jugés négativement au Québec. Si on les utilise dans la langue orale ou familière, on a tendance à les remplacer par des mots français dans un registre plus neutre ou soutenu. C’est par exemple le cas de l’anglicisme québécois mur-à-mur qui figure dans le titre de cet article, et qui signifie « complet », « total » ou « uniforme ». Il est critiqué dans le Usito et dans le Multidictionnaire de la langue française, un ouvrage de référence se concentrant sur les difficultés de la langue française au Québec.

Lorsque les institutions linguistiques proposent des équivalents français pour remplacer les anglicismes, ils obtiennent davantage de succès au Québec qu’en France. Soit l’anglicisme hashtag, en usage tant en France qu’au Québec : pour le remplacer, la DGLFLF a recommandé mot-dièse, peu repris, alors que l’OQLF a proposé mot-clic, qui s’est imposé à l’écrit (Elchacar, 2017) ; c’est aussi le cas des équivalents français pour chat, podcast et email, soit clavardage, baladodiffusion et courriel (Vincent, 2014). Ce n’est par contre pas le cas de tous les équivalents français visant à remplacer des anglicismes.

2. Les néologismes de la diversité de genres et d’orientations sexuelles : lorsque les besoins identitaires l’emportent sur les pressions normatives

Depuis le début des années 2000, plusieurs néologismes ont été créés pour rendre compte de la diversité de genres (agenre) ou d’orientations sexuelles (pansexuel), certains mots intégrant ces deux paradigmes (queer, LGBT)⁴. Nous avons déjà dressé un portrait des néologismes les plus fréquents dans la presse générale de langue française au Canada⁵ ; une recherche lancée en 2022 dans la base de données journalistique Euréka (nommée Europresse en Europe) confirme que ces tendances se poursuivent :

Figure 1 : Fréquence des néologismes de la diversité des genres et des orientations sexuelles dans la presse canadienne française

Néologismes⁶

Fréquence dans la presse canadienne

En date du 7 février 2022⁷

LGBT*⁸

27 799

queer

6 123

trans⁹

4 642

bispirituel

637

cisgenre¹⁰

413

pansexuel

229

allosexuel

287

asexuel

229

altersexuel

45

agenre

32

Trois des quatre néologismes les plus utilisés dans la presse canadienne française, LGBT*, queer et bispirituel, peuvent tous être liés à la langue anglaise¹¹, ce qui est surprenant étant donné l’attitude des Québécois envers les anglicismes.

2.1. Bispirituel

Bispirituel est un particularisme du français québécois parce qu’il est lié au continent nord-américain : il s’agit d’un mot emprunté à des cultures et à des langues autochtones. Le mot est d’ailleurs souvent employé dans la presse lorsqu’il est question des communautés autochtones :

[1] Aujourd’hui, l’homophobie est encore présente à l’école, selon Gina Metallic, qui intervient d’ailleurs avec d’autres sur ce sujet pour réhabiliter la culture bispirituelle autochtone et lui rendre sa place d’honneur. (Ici Radio-Canada Ontario, 1er juillet 2016)

L’ancrage de bispirituel en Amérique explique pourquoi le mot est pratiquement absent de la presse européenne – il est présent uniquement dans 27 documents de toutes les archives francophones européennes, dont 14 portent sur le Canada, comme dans cet extrait où bispirituel est glosé entre crochets à la fin :

[2] Se disant « pétri de honte et de tristesse », le premier ministre canadien Justin Trudeau a présenté à la Chambre des communes d’Ottawa mardi 28 novembre les excuses officielles de son gouvernement à la communauté LGBT pour « des décennies de discrimination systémique envers les personnes lesbiennes, gaies, bisexuelles, transgenres, queers et bispirituelles [terme propre aux communautés autochtones] ». (Le Monde, 29 novembre 2017)

Bispirituel est absent du Petit Robert [PR] et du Petit Larousse¹². Au Québec, parmi les ouvrages de référence professionnels, on le trouve dans le Grand dictionnaire terminologique (GDT), base de données terminologiques produite par l’OQLF qui présente des termes français et leur traduction anglaise complétée parfois par une appréciation normative. Le GDT n’émet aucun jugement normatif sur bispirituel ; c’est également le cas dans la presse générale. Les seuls commentaires métalinguistiques trouvés dans Euréka visent à définir bispirituel, expliquer son ancrage dans les communautés autochtones ou encore indiquer que le « 2S », qui s’ajoute parfois au sigle LGBT, réfère à bispirituel. L’origine anglaise est parfois également mentionnée, mais sans préoccupation normative :

[3] La signification de l’acronyme « LGBTQ2 » commence tranquillement à être comprise du grand public. Les termes « lesbienne », « gai », « bisexuel » et « transsexuel » ont déjà fait leur chemin. […] Mais que signifie le 2 ? « Bispirituel » (two-spirited) est un terme propre aux communautés autochtones. (Métro, 11 août 2016)

Comme ce mot est absent des dictionnaires généraux professionnels¹³, il faut chercher ailleurs ses informations étymologiques. Lo Vecchio (2020) renvoie à l’origine anglaise du terme. Le Wiktionnaire donne cette information : « Calque de l’anglais two-spirit, de l’expression ojibwé niizh manidoowag pour remplacer bardache, considéré insultant¹⁴. » L’Encyclopédie canadienne abonde dans le même sens ; on y explique d’abord la signification du terme pour les peuples autochtones avant d’expliquer son passage vers l’anglais dans le cadre des études LGBT* :

Lors de la troisième édition annuelle de la Intertribal Native American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference, tenue en 1990 à Winnipeg, au Manitoba, l’activiste Albert McLeod propose le terme anglais two-spirit. Le terme est bien reçu par les participants à la conférence et gagne vite en popularité parmi les Autochtones pour désigner leur communauté LGBTQ¹⁵.

Bisprituel est d’abord passé par l’anglais avant d’arriver en français. D’autres mots des langues autochtones ont également suivi ce parcours ; il s’agit souvent de mots désignant des réalités autochtones (caucus, toboggan, pow-wow). S’ils ont parfois été critiqués par le passé, comme caucus, sur lequel plusieurs chroniques linguistiques normatives ont porté historiquement¹⁶, ils sont aujourd’hui perçus comme neutres. Ils ne portent pas de marque « Anglic. » dans le Usito et aucun équivalent français n’est proposé pour les remplacer.

2.2. LGBT*

Le néologisme de loin le plus fréquent dans notre corpus est le sigle LGBT et ses variantes. Les dictionnaires professionnels de langue française donnent une étymologie française : la plus récente édition du PR met 2002 comme date d’apparition et indique qu’il s’agit du sigle de lesbien, gay, bisexuel et transgenre, des mots français ; le Usito n’indique pas de date¹⁷ mais renvoie aussi aux mots français qui composent le sigle. Du côté des dictionnaires profanes, le Wiktionnaire indique l’origine anglaise du mot dans sa rubrique étymologique : « (Sigle) De l’anglais lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender dont la traduction littérale en français donne le même ordre : lesbienne, gay, bisexuel et transgenre. ».

Nous avons voulu obtenir un portrait plus précis de l’arrivée de LGBT* dans la presse de langues anglaise et française. Une recherche dans toutes les sources anglaises de Euréka (pas uniquement canadiennes) révèle que la date de la première utilisation remonte au 20 novembre 1997 (voir exemple [4]). En français, la première attestation du mot est le 25 mai 2001 et elle est liée à l’anglais ; il s’agit d’un article portant sur la ville américaine de San Francisco (voir exemple [5]) :

[4] Several weeks ago, all over campus, stickers promoting recognition and acceptance of LGBT at MUN (Lesbians, Bisexuals, Gays and Transgendered) began to appear. (The Telegram St-John’s, 20 Nov. 1997)

[5] San Francisco reste le royaume de la diversité, résumée par le Lyric, un centre qui aide les jeunes « lgbt and questioning ». Traduction : lesbiennes, gays, bisexuels, transsexuels et ceux qui hésitent. (Le Point, 25 mai 2001)

Dans les sources canadiennes francophones, le mot apparait pour la première fois dans le quotidien Le Devoir en 2002 :

[6] » Dans certains pays, la situation des minorités sexuelles empire », soutient Roberto Jovel, coordonnateur local du réseau Lesbiennes, gais, bisexuels et transgenrés (LGBT) d’Amnistie internationale. (Le Devoir, 3 août 2002)

On peut donc émettre l’hypothèse que le mot français LGBT* est né sous l’influence du mot anglais. Or, aucune marque métalinguistique n’indique qu’il est perçu comme un anglicisme dans le corpus, les dictionnaires n’y accolent aucune mention « anglicisme » ni de marque normative et aucun équivalent français n’est proposé par l’OQLF pour le remplacer. D’abord, le sigle n’a pas l’apparence d’un mot anglais en soi. Par ailleurs, les lettres qui le composent, initialement les premières lettres des mots anglais, ont pu être réinvesties par des mots français (lesbienne, gay, bisexuel, transsexuel ou transgenre…).

Les seuls éléments métalinguistiques trouvés dans le corpus sont des explications sur les mots représentés par les lettres du sigle, surtout durant les premières années de son utilisation, comme on pouvait le voir en [6] et ici, en [7] :

[7] En plus de permettre à 170 jeunes lesbiennes, gais, bisexuels et transsexuels (LGBT) d’étudier dans un univers d’où l’homophobie est totalement exclue, elle risque paradoxalement d’entraîner son lot d’effets pervers, craignent plusieurs observateurs du monde gai. (Le Nouvelliste, 2 août 2003)

LGBT* est non seulement le néologisme le plus fréquent de ce champ lexical, mais c’est aussi l’appellation retenue par de nombreuses organisations d’éducation et de défense des droits des personnes LGBT* au Québec, que ce soit dans leur nom (Coalition des familles LGBT) ou dans la description de leur mission (GRIS¹⁸, Jeunesse J’écoute¹⁹), y compris d’organisations gouvernementales (Conseil québécois LGBT²⁰).

2.3. Queer et ses équivalents français

L’anglicisme queer est apparu en français uniquement avec son sens lié à la diversité de genres et d’orientations sexuelles²¹. Au début, il est surtout utilisé dans des noms propres (le Festival Queer City, la série Queer as Folk). On le trouve pour la première fois employé en tant que nom commun dans les sources canadiennes françaises de Euréka en 1996 :

[8] Face au mouvement d’émancipation de la culture queer des dernières années, cette production paraît s’inscrire en faux. (Le Devoir, 12 octobre 1996)

Sa fréquence dans la presse demeure basse jusqu’à ce que la chanteuse Cœur de pirate fasse son « coming-out » queer suite à la tuerie homophobe d’Orlando, en 2016 :

[9] Cœur de pirate fait son coming out dans une longue lettre ouverte et utilise le terme queer qui laisse bien du monde perplexe […] ! (Le Journal de Montréal, 20 juin 2016)

Contrairement à LGBT*, queer ne peut pas être réinvesti par un signifiant français. C’est un anglicisme qui conserve son apparence tant à l’écrit qu’à l’oral. Sa prononciation au Québec se rapproche de la prononciation anglaise entre autres par la conservation du [ɹ] rétroflexe²². Son arrivée s’accompagne inévitablement de discussions sur son acceptabilité :

[10] Parce qu’il signifie tout ce qui n’est pas hétérosexuel, le terme anglais « queer » plaisait beaucoup aux dirigeants, mais devait être francisé. (Le Devoir, 14 juin 2002)

Jusqu’en 2019, lorsqu’on cherchait queer dans le GDT, on n’arrivait pas à une fiche terminologique qui décrivait ce terme. On était automatiquement redirigé vers une fiche décrivant allosexuel ou altersexuel, deux équivalents français recommandés dès 2015 par l’OQLF pour remplacer l’anglicisme queer et bâtis sur le modèle hétérosexuel et homosexuel. Les deux termes avaient d’abord chacun leur propre fiche²³, qui ont par la suite fusionné. Ils étaient présentés en tant que « termes privilégiés ». Voici brièvement le classement normatif du GDT :

[…] le terme vedette, placé en entrée de fiche, correspond au terme dont l’Office recommande l’emploi dans tous les contextes de communication. Les termes privilégiés, codés en vert dans la fiche, sont eux aussi acceptés dans tous les contextes pour désigner la notion. […] Certains termes des fiches du GDT sont codés en jaune, pour indiquer qu’ils devraient être réservés à certains contextes de communication, ou en rouge, pour signaler qu’ils sont déconseillés. (Saint, 2019, p. 41)

Queer apparaissait donc dans la section des termes déconseillés, et les termes privilégiés, accompagnés d’un crochet vert, étaient les québécismes allosexuel et altersexuel.

Allosexuel est une proposition du Regroupement d’entraide de la jeunesse allosexuelle du Québec (REJAQ) (Laprade, 2014, p. 4). Le préfixe allo- était vu comme véhiculant l’idée de la diversité sexuelle et de genre :

[11] Le préfixe allo- devenait donc intéressant pour désigner tout ce qui s’écarte de la majorité hétérosexuelle. (Le Devoir, 14 juin 2002)

Or, le sens du préfixe allo- n’est pas nécessairement connu par le locuteur moyen. Les mots formés avec ce préfixe relèvent surtout du vocabulaire spécialisé. Le TLFi en donne la définition suivante : « Élément entrant dans la formation de termes sc. et signifiant “qui est d'une nature différente” »²⁴. Usito, qui ne l’a pas à sa nomenclature (qui en compte tout de même plusieurs dizaines²⁵) ne décrit que quelques mots formés avec ce préfixe : allogène, allochtone, allogreffe, allopathie et allophone. De ces mots, seuls allochtone et allophone sont employés dans un contexte non spécialisé. Si allophone est assez répandu (présent dans plus de 14 000 documents de Euréka Canada francophone), la fréquence de allochtone est plus modeste, soit autour de 4 000 documents, et il est toujours employés en opposition à autochtone. Allochtone s’est davantage implanté au Québec durant les dernières années, depuis que les enjeux autochtones sont de plus en plus abordés (Elchacar, à paraître). Il se peut donc que le sens du préfixe allo- ne soit pas transparent pour les locuteurs, ce qui a pu contribuer à freiner l’utilisation de allosexuel. D’ailleurs, dans toutes les sources canadiennes françaises de Euréka²⁶, seulement 297 documents utilisent le mot. Mises à part les occurrences du mot dans un nom propre (surtout le RÉJAQ, mais également Le Projet alliance allosexuelle-hétérosexuelle), le mot apparaît souvent entre guillemets ou avec des marques métalinguistiques, indices que le mot est nouveau ou pourrait être inconnu du lectorat :

[12] La CJMLH organise ce printemps le premier concours « Raconte-moi ta différence », une tribune pour mettre en valeur la créativité des jeunes « allosexuels ». (Le VM Ville-Marie, 30 avril 2006)

Nous trouvons aussi dans le corpus allosexuel suivi de l’anglicisme queer entre crochets, indication que ce dernier est plus connu que l’équivalent français :

[13] Afin de soutenir financièrement un organisme d’aide aux communautés LGBTQ+ (lesbienne, gai, bisexuel, transgenre, allosexuel [queer], autres), l’écrivain et dramaturge Michel Tremblay met en vente des aquarelles qu’il a lui-même créées. (ICI Radio-Canada - Nouvelles (site web), 3 juin 2018)

[14] Changer les mentalités n’est pas chose simple et, pour les communautés francophones LGBTQ (lesbienne, gai, bisexuel, transsexuel, allosexuel [queer]), il est clair que la première réaction de certaines personnes est de se braquer face à l’arrivée d’un nouveau pronom dans une langue qui est si vieille, souligne Antoine Beaudoin-Gentes de la société à but non lucratif Enfants transgenres à Montréal. (ICI Radio-Canada – Nouvelles (site web), 10 janvier 2019)

On prend parfois la peine de définir le terme :

[15] L’Office québécois de la langue française propose quant à lui le terme « allosexuel », désignant une « personne dont l’orientation sexuelle est autre qu’hétérosexuelle, ou dont l’identité de genre ne correspond pas au sexe biologique ou assigné à la naissance ». (Le Journal de Montréal, 17 juin 2016)

On trouve également des personnes qui expliquent leur démarche pour éviter l’anglicisme queer :

[16] J’ai commencé par me tourner vers l’Office de la langue française, qui affirme que « queer » peut se traduire par « allosexuel » : « formé à partir du préfixe allo-, qui signifie “qui est d'une nature différente” ». (Le Journal de Montréal, 17 juin 2016)

L’autre équivalent français proposé est altersexuel, formé de la même base sexuel et du fractomorphème²⁷ alter-. Ce mot est encore moins fréquent qu’allosexuel²⁸, apparaissant dans seulement 40 documents de toutes les archives canadiennes francophones de Euréka à ce jour. Les mêmes marques métalinguistiques l’accompagnent :

[17] Altern’Art, avec l’appui de plusieurs organismes de la communauté altersexuelle de Québec, tiendra deux jours de festivités, les 3 et 4 septembre. Le mot altersexuel et un néologisme qui décrit ceux dont l’expression de la sexualité est autre que l’hétérosexualité. (Le Soleil, 25 août 2005)

[18] L’acronyme LGBTQ2+ signifie « lesbienne, bisexuel, gai et trans, altersexuel [queer, en anglais] et bispirituel ». (ICI Radio-Canada – Saskatchewan (site web, 25 avril 2019)

[19] Dans sa lettre, elle se présente comme « queer », un terme parfois traduit par « allosexuelle » ou « altersexuelle » et qui inclut les « personnes dont l’orientation sexuelle est autre qu’hétérosexuelle », selon l'Office québécois de la langue française. (La Presse, 16 juin 2016)

On sent la pression normative engendrée par l’utilisation de l’anglicisme queer ; l’utilisation des équivalents français n’est pas naturelle mais relève d’une volonté de se conformer à la norme. On trouve même des emplois de queer accompagné de altersexuel entre parenthèses, même si queer est mieux implanté :

[20] On y aborde même le mouvement queer (altersexuel) ! (Le Devoir, 3 mars 2012)

On voit dans le graphique 1 que les équivalents français ne se sont pas imposés dans le temps, alors que les anglicismes LGBT* et queer connaissent pour leur part une fréquence croissante. Nous avons débuté la collecte de données en 1996, année d’apparition de queer, le néologisme à l’étude qui est le plus ancien dans les sources canadiennes françaises.

Figure 2 : Évolution de l’utilisation de LGBT*, queer, allosexuel et altersexuel dans la presse canadienne française

Dans plusieurs articles, on se positionne en faveur de queer et en défaveur des équivalents français :

[21] En fait, « queer » l’emporte également en français, et « allosexuel » ne semble pas près de s’imposer. (Le Devoir, 9 juillet 2021)

[22] Sans équivalent convaincant en français – allosexuel ou altersexuel demeurent peu utilisés –, queer n’est pas un synonyme de bisexuel. (La presse Plus, 9 août 2016)

On se questionne même sur la capacité de la langue française à créer des mots satisfaisants. Le quotidien Le Devoir consacre un article d’une série sur cette question au mot queer et à ses équivalents français :

[23] Chez nous, le mot « allosexuel » est accepté par l’Office de la langue française en guise de traduction pour queer. Mais cette traduction n’a pas la même force de frappe, note Bruno Laprade, agent de communication et de liaison au Regroupement intersectoriel des organismes communautaires de Montréal (RIOCM) et doctorant en sémiologie. Le mot n’a pas remporté de véritable succès dans la population. « L’adoption du mot queer parle beaucoup de notre américanisation et des limites du français à rendre compte de ses fondements sexistes. Les langues fonctionnent par incorporation. Il n’y a pas de raison pour laquelle le français ne pourrait pas inclure le mot queer dans son vocabulaire sans avoir à le traduire », répond le jeune chercheur. (Le Devoir, 20 juillet 2017)

Allosexuel et altersexuel sont toujours à la nomenclature du Usito en date du 17 juin 2022. On constate la force de la pression normative, qui a pour conséquence qu’un terme très peu employé entre à la nomenclature d’un dictionnaire général, pourtant censé décrire l’usage, et y reste alors que l’organe qui en a fait la proposition ne le recommande plus. On peut supposer que ces mots seront retirés du Usito prochainement.

Le fait est que queer, au contenu sémantique volontairement flou (Elchacar, 2019), répond à un besoin de dénomination :

[24] Je pense que le terme « queer » est de plus en plus intéressant pour la jeune génération, qui a tendance à beaucoup plus insister sur sa fluidité, dit le postdoctorant Damiens. (Le Devoir, 9 juillet 2021)

Par ailleurs, queer est utilisé dans des communautés anglophones et francophones, et également dans d’autres communautés linguistiques :

[25] Pour [l’auteur-compositeur-interprète gaspésien] Silver Catalano, le terme, bien précis, a tellement été adopté qu’il peut être compris partout dans le monde. « Ce n’est même pas nécessairement un mot “anglais”. Je dirais que c’est un mot international. ». (Le Devoir, 17 juillet 2017)

Les besoins identitaires prennent ici le dessus sur la pression normative qu’exerce l’anglais sur le français québécois, vu dans ce cas comme secondaire. Le partage de dénominations avec d’autres langues est perçu comme un avantage. C’est également le cas avec notamment LGBT*, « un label mondialement reconnu et utilisé » (Prearo, 2015, p. 40). Ces dénominations communes créent des ponts entre les groupes LGBT* de partout, et offrent un sentiment d’appartenance à des communautés historiquement marginalisées.

3. L’alignement sur l’usage hexagonal pour quelques anglicismes courants

L’autonomie québécoise en matière d’anglicismes connaît des limites pour un autre type de mots, ceux-là implantés depuis des décennies. Il n’est pas question dans ces cas de refus d’équivalents français proposés par l’OQLF, mais plutôt de modifications d’anglicismes courants en français québécois sous l’influence du français de France. La paire fin de semaine/weekend a déjà fait l’objet de plusieurs commentaires. Nous dresserons un portrait de la situation actuelle par l’observation de deux corpus, puis nous ferons le même exercice avec le mot job et l’expression c’est le fun. Les corpus choisis sont, pour la langue écrite, la base de données journalistiques Euréka, et pour la langue orale, le Corpus de français parlé au Québec (CFPQ), mis sur pied pour « venir appuyer les études sémantiques portant sur le lexique caractéristique de la langue orale familière » (Dostie, 2016, p. 2)²⁹.

3.1. Fin de semaine ou weekend ?

La manière de désigner les deux jours généralement non ouvrés de la semaine, le samedi et le dimanche, est weekend en France et plus souvent fin de semaine au Québec. Cette différence est vue au Québec non pas comme un écart par rapport au français de France mais comme une particularité emblématique de la lutte des Québécois contre les anglicismes :

Il existe toutefois une petite classe de calques qui ont un caractère particulier. Ils ont été conçus pour remplacer des emprunts formels adoptés en France. C’est à mon avis une forme particulière d’hypercorrection³⁰, produite par la forte stigmatisation qui s’attache au Québec aux emprunts formels. La fin de semaine, le magasinage et le stationnement ont un statut un peu particulier car la plupart des gens sont conscients, en les employant, de s’écarter de l’usage français. C’est donc que cet usage est rejeté, perçu comme une forme de snobisme ou de démission de la part des Français. (Bouchard, 1999, p. 31-32)

Cette perception ne date pas d’hier. Des chroniqueurs de langue³¹ ont souligné cette différence, saluant le fait que les Québécois préféraient une expression à consonance française plutôt qu’anglaise. C’est le cas par exemple dans une chronique de la Société du parler français du Canada parue en 1945 : « Bien que week end se trouve dans le Larousse du xxe siècle, nous ne devrions pas l’employer au Canada. Disons plutôt fin de semaine. Les Français disent aussi : semaine anglaise ». Daviault abonde dans le même sens dans une chronique publiée en 1954 :

Week-end³² n’a jamais voulu dire que fin de semaine. Les Français y ajoutent l’idée de repos ou de congé simplement parce que les Anglais ont adopté, avant les Français, le congé du samedi après-midi, et c’est pourquoi, avant de dire week-end, on a parlé en France de « la semaine anglaise ». Encore une fois, les Français détournent de son sens une expression anglaise. Et bien inutilement ; fin de semaine dit autant que week-end. Nous disons fin de semaine et nous avons raison³³. (Daviault, 1954, p. 26-28)

Une enquête réalisée par l’OQLF en 2004 confirme la perception négative qu’ont en général les Québécois de la forme anglaise weekend : « Les deux tiers des personnes qui ont voyagé à l’étranger ont une opinion négative envers les mots anglais de type week-end et cette opinion s’est renforcée de 1998 à 2004 (62,4 % en 1998, 67,2 % en 2004, différence significative) (Maurais, 2008, p. 42).

Weekend est à la nomenclature du Usito sans marque géographique, alors que fin de semaine est marqué « Québec ». Une remarque normative est donnée au sujet de weekend :

Figure 3 : « Week-end », dans le dictionnaire en ligne Usito. Consulté le 10 mars 2022 (version 1645707306).
https://usito.usherbrooke.ca/définitions/week-end_ou_weekend

Or, ce jugement n’empêche pas que la forme weekend soit utilisée depuis plusieurs décennies au Québec, comme en témoignent les chroniques de langue citées précédemment ; on assiste même à une légère augmentation de l’utilisation de weekend au Québec dans la presse. Une recherche lancée dans les sources canadiennes françaises de Euréka montre que weekend a dépassé fin de semaine à partir de 2015 (mis à part en 1990, où les deux mots sont utilisés moins de cinq fois).

Figure 4 : Évolution des fréquences de weekend et fin de semaine dans la presse canadienne française

L’emploi de weekend semble plus courant dans un registre soigné, voire à l’écrit, qu’à l’oral familier. Dans le CFPQ, weekend revient une seule fois (exemple [26]) et fin de semaine, 84 fois (exemple [27]) :

[26] […] j’ai déjà eu des jobs moi où est-ce que le weekend je {me euh ;me :} je m’arrêtais pis je me rendais compte que je me stressais avec des dossiers dans la semaine que j’amenais dans ma tête à la maison [sous-corpus 30, segment 10, page 135, ligne 1]

[27] […] j’étais à Montréal je sortais à chaque fin de semaine euh : tous mes amis sont à Montréal [sous-corpus 30, segment 6, page 89, ligne 11]

Ceci s’expliquerait, selon Remysen, par l’aura qu’exerce le français de France sur le français québécois :

Les inégalités qu’il peut y avoir entre les différentes variétés d’une même langue sont du reste bien intériorisées par les locuteurs, ce qui se reflète dans leur imaginaire linguistique (par exemple, ils jugent souvent leur variété moins bonne et ils sont parfois réticents aux entreprises de codification de leur propre variété) et dans leurs pratiques langagières (par exemple, certains d’entre eux empruntent des faits de langue aux locuteurs de la variété plus prestigieuse ; ainsi peut-on entendre de plus en plus souvent les expressions mec ou week-end au Québec)³⁴. (Remysen, 2010, p. 121)

Nous croyons que le changement du genre de job et de la structure syntaxique de l’expression « c’est le fun » participent du même phénomène³⁵.

3.2. Le genre de l’anglicisme job

L’anglicisme job est attesté en Amérique comme en Europe. C’est son genre qui change : job est généralement féminin au Québec et masculin en France. Par ailleurs, le sens de job n’est pas exactement le même en France qu’au Québec. Alors qu’au Québec, il est synonyme de travail ou d’emploi, le premier sens donné par le PR est « Travail rémunéré, qu’on ne considère généralement pas comme un véritable métier (cf. Un petit boulot*). » S’ensuit le sous-sens « Tout travail, emploi rémunéré. » C’est uniquement ce dernier sens qui a cours au Québec, où existe un autre signifiant pour le premier sens de job, soit jobine. On peut, au Québec, avoir une « grosse job », c’est-à-dire un emploi bien rémunéré, avec de grandes responsabilités, etc.

Job est employé depuis plus longtemps au Québec qu’en France. Selon le PR et le Dictionnaire historique de la langue française, le mot est attesté surtout depuis les années 1950 en France (la première attestation, en 1819, étant un hapax). Au Québec, la rubrique étymologique du Usito indique justement la date de 1819. Job fait l’objet de nombreuses chroniques de langue antérieures à 1950 au Canada. Dans la base de données ChroQué, consacrée aux chroniques de langue publiées dans la presse canadienne française, le premier à aborder cet anglicisme est Louis Fréchette, en 1893, dans le cadre de sa chronique « À travers le dictionnaire et la grammaire, corrigeons-nous ! » (Fréchette, 1893). Job fera l’objet de nombreuses critiques par la suite. Dans cette chronique publiée par Henri Roullaud dans le quotidien La Presse en 1908, on voit que job est employé au masculin (rappelons que les chroniques de langue de la fin du xixe siècle prônaient souvent un alignement sur l’usage de France) :

On dit d’un imprimeur qu’il a obtenu un job du gouvernement, pour indiquer que le gouvernement lui a fait exécuter des travaux. Un bon job, c’est une bonne entreprise. Par contre, un mauvais job, c’est une entreprise qui ne paie pas. (Roullaud, 1908, p. 17)

Or au Québec, dans la langue courante, familière ou orale, le mot est féminin. Dans le CFPQ, il est attesté une seule fois au masculin, et 74 fois au féminin [28] :

[28] moi j’ai une job que j’ai rien à faire à l’ouvrage c’est pour ça que j’ai le temps en masse ⁷pendant que je travaille [sous-corpus 30, segment 5, page 64, ligne 11]

Nous avons cherché les formes un job, une job, le job, la job dans Eureka, par bonds de cinq ans de 1980 à 2010, puis annuellement à partir de là puisque job devient plus fréquent. On voit que job est employé avec les deux genres, même si le féminin est toujours plus fréquent.

Figure 5 : Évolution du genre de l’anglicisme job dans la presse canadienne française

Si l’emploi de job au masculin augmente jusqu’en 2015, l’emploi au féminin augmente aussi. La présence de job au masculin persiste dans des textes signés par des journalistes québécois (et non uniquement dans des dépêches d’agence de presse francophone comme l’AFP), y compris dans le discours rapporté. Dans l’extrait suivant, on voit même job employé au masculin à la suite de l’anglicisme lineup, lui aussi de registre familier, ce qui donne à la citation un caractère artificiel :

[29] » J’étais la seule femme dans le lineup pour le job. C’est moi qui l’ai eu. » (Le Droit, 13 nov. 2021)

3.3. La structure syntaxique autour de fun

L’anglicisme fun est employé depuis 1865 au Québec, selon le Usito et le PR, et depuis 1974 en France. Dans ce cas, c’est la structure syntaxique qui est en jeu. Au Québec, dans la langue familière, on emploie fun avec un déterminant (« c’est le fun »)³⁶, alors qu’on l’omet en France (« c’est fun »)³⁷.

Cette fois-ci, la particularité québécoise n’est pas célébrée, comme c’était le cas avec fin de semaine, mais plutôt décriée dans les chroniques de langage. Pierre Beaudry en parlera dans sa chronique « Les maux de notre langue » en janvier puis en avril 1975 :

Comme je l’ai signalé dans ma chronique du 11 janvier, c’est le fun n’a même pas l’excuse d’être un emprunt. Ce n’est que l’illustration, d’une part, de l’ignorance et de l’anglais et du français, et, d’autre part, d’un infantilisme intellectuel qui n’a d’autre base que la plus complète des incohérence. La seule présence de l’article défini « le » dans cette tournure devrait en effet la faire rejeter par quiconque a le moindre sens de l’analyse. Je ne connais personne qui pousserait l’inconséquence jusqu’à dire « c’est le plaisir » pour C’EST AGRÉABLE, AMUSANT, ETC., et même l’anglais ne s’exprime pas de la sorte puisqu’il dit non pas « it’s the fun » mais tout simplement « it’s fun ». (Beaudry, 1975)

La sociolinguiste Bouchard émet ce commentaire sur la différence d’usage de fun en France et au Québec :

[L’usage québécois] contraste […] avec l’usage qui est fait de ce mot en France depuis 15 ou 20 ans tout au plus, uniquement comme adjectif et toujours invariable. Je me souviens encore de ma surprise à la lecture, sur une grande affiche visible dans le métro de Paris, d’une publicité pour une station de radio : C’est fun ! Depuis, j’ai souvent revu cet emploi en France, mais il n’a toujours pas cours au Québec, et je doute que cela change. (Bouchard, 2016, p. 34-35)

Or, les quelques dernières années semblent montrer un timide début de changement au Québec. Afin de vérifier la fréquence de fun employé avec un déterminant, nous avons choisi l’expression « c’est le fun », répandue au Québec, et son pendant hexagonal « c’est fun ». « C’est le fun » revient 125 fois dans le CFPQ (sur 352 occurrences du mot fun) alors que « c’est fun » en est absent.

[30] 32 - F : je suis à dix minutes de mon travail moi c’est le fun ça [sous-corpus 18, segment 4, page 46, ligne 4]

Dans Euréka, nous avons ajouté la variante « c’est l’fun » souvent utilisée pour reproduire l’oral³⁸. La variante sans déterminant fait son apparition en 2011.

Figure 5 : Comparaison des expressions « c’est le fun » et « c’est fun » dans la presse canadienne française

La structure « c’est fun » commence donc à être utilisée dans la presse écrite depuis peu, même si elle n’est pas répandue. Dans toutes les occurrences relevées, une seule se trouve dans un texte d’une agence de presse européenne.

Comme il s’agit d’une expression familière de la langue orale, « c’est fun » apparait souvent dans des citations, alors qu’il est improbable qu’un Québécois ait réellement utilisé cette structure syntaxique :

[31] » L’idée était de commencer et finir au piano, alors que c’est un morceau à la guitare au départ, c’est une autre façon de voir le morceau, c’est fun », s’amuse-t-il.

Conclusion

Malgré la tendance réelle qu’ont les Québécois à suivre une norme endogène et à adopter les recommandations de l’OQLF en matière d’anglicismes, d’autres forces que la pression normative exercée par l’anglais entrent parfois en ligne de compte. Dans le cas du vocabulaire de la diversité sexuelle, des préoccupations identitaires de groupes historiquement marginalisés prennent les devants face aux préoccupations normatives.

Toutefois, dans le cas de fin de semaine, job et fun, dont l’usage en langue familière est stabilisé depuis des décennies au Québec, on constate dans la presse écrite une tentative de s’aligner sur l’usage de France, ce qui va à l’encontre de la tendance générale et à l’émancipation linguistique du Québec face à la France. On sent dans ce cas un relent d’insécurité linguistique qui amène les Québécois à aligner leur usage sur celui de la France, même pour des usages qui appartiennent à la langue familière dans les deux communautés linguistiques. Si un journaliste emploie fun ou job, qui ne sont pas de registre standard au Québec, c’est probablement en connaissance de cause et pour provoquer un effet, un rapprochement avec son lectorat, ce qui est raté lorsqu’on reproduit la langue familière ou courante d’une autre communauté linguistique. Si c’est plutôt dans le discours rapporté que se trouvent ces anglicismes, le résultat manque aussi de naturel.

S’agit-il de réflexes du passé qui peinent à disparaitre ou des relents d’insécurité linguistique ? L’observation de ces mots au cours des prochaines années permettra de constater si l’influence de l’usage de France sur celui du Québec continuera à se faire sentir ou disparaîtra.

Bibliographie

Bouchard Chantal, 2016, « Conférence inaugurale », in Organismes francophones de politique et d’aménagement linguistiques et Office québécois de la langue française (dir.), Les anglicismes : des emprunts à intérêt variable ? Recueil des actes : colloque du réseau des Organismes francophones de politique et d’aménagement linguistiques (OPALE), 19 et 20 octobre 2016, Québec : Office québécois de la langue française, p. 33‑44.

Bouchard Chantal, 1999, On n’emprunte qu’aux riches. La valeur sociolinguistique et symbolique des emprunts, Montréal, Fidès.

Bouchard Chantal, 1989, « Une obsession nationale : l’anglicisme », Recherche sociographiques, vol. 30, no 1, p. 69-90.

Cajolet-Laganière Hélène et D’Amico Serge, 2014, « Le traitement des emprunts critiqués à l’anglais dans le Dictionnaire de la langue française : le français vu du Québec (FVQ) », Les français d’ici : du discours d’autorité à la description des normes et des usages, Wim Remysen, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, p. 141-162.

De Villers Marie-Éva, 2021, Multidictionnaire de la langue française, 7e édition, Montréal, Québec Amérique.

Dostie Gaétane, 2016, « Le Corpus de français parlé au Québec (CFPQ) et la langue des conversations familières : Exemple de mise à profit des données à partir d’un examen lexico-sémantique de la séquence je sais pas », Corpus [en ligne], 15, URL : http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/2945).

Dostie Gaétane, 2015, « La dérivation verbale dans le domaine des sacres en français québécois. Sens, positionnement dans le diasystème et synonymes proches », Cahiers de lexicologie, vol. 107, no 2, décembre, p. 185-202.

Elchacar Mireille, à paraître, » De Indien à Autochtone : évolution des dénominations génériques des peuples autochtones du Québec », Circula : revue d’idéologies linguistiques.

Elchacar Mireille, 2019, « Comparaison du traitement lexicographique des appellations de genre non traditionnelles dans les dictionnaires professionnels et profanes », ÉLA – Études de linguistique appliquée, vol. 2, no 194, p. 49-65.

Elchacar Mireille et Salita Ada Luna, 2019, « Étude diachronique des anglicismes dans les chroniques de langue au Canada français : de Alphonse Lusignan à Guy Bertrand », Circula : revue d’idéologies linguistiques, no 9, p. 5-29.

Elchacar, Mireille et Salita Ada Luna, 2018, « Les appellations des identités de genre non traditionnelles. Une approche lexicologique », Langage et Société, no 165, p. 139-165.

Elchacar Mireille, 2017, « Le traitement lexicographique des anglicismes au vu de la variation géographique : l’exemple de deux outils en ligne », Repères DoRiF no 14 – Dictionnaires, culture numérique et décentralisation de la norme dans l’espace francophone, DoRiF Università, Roma.

Elchacar Mireille, 2016, « Étude diachronique de néologismes du vocabulaire sociopolitique – La vitalité de antimondialisation, altermondialiste et du fractomorphème alter- dix ans après leur apparition dans la presse générale », Neologica, Revue internationale de néologie, vol. 10, p. 75-100.

Éribon Didier, 2003, Dictionnaire des cultures gays et lesbiennes, Paris, Larousse.

Forlot Gilles, 2010, « » Oh là là, ça c’est vraiment de l’anglais ! ». Discours métalinguistiques évaluatifs et processus identitaires en contexte migratoire », Langage et société, vol. 134, no 4, p. 79-100.

Gadet François, 2003, « La variation : le français dans l’espace social, régional et international », Grand livre de la langue française, Marina Yaguello, Paris, Seuil, p. 91-111.

Gagné Frédérick et al, 2004, « La base de données textuelles ChroQué : un nouvel outil pour élargir la description du français en usage au Québec », in Louis Mercier (éd.), avec la collab. de Hélène Cajolet-Laganière, Français du Canada – Français de France. Actes du sixième colloque international tenu à Orford, Québec, du 26 au 29 sept. 2000, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer (« Canadiana romanica, 18 »), p. 247-261.

Humbley John, 2012, « Retour aux origines de la terminologie : l’acte de dénomination », Langue française, vol. 174, no 2, p. 111-125.

Labov William, 1989, “The exact description of a speech community. Short a in Philadelphia”, Language Change and Variation, édité par Ralph W. Fasold et Deborah Schiffrin, John Benjamins Publishing Company, p. 1-58.

Labov William, 1966, The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Arlington, Center for Applied Linguistics.

Laprade Bruno, 2014, « Queer in Québec : étude de la réception du mouvement queer dans les journaux québécois », Cygne noir 2 [en ligne], http://www.revuecygnenoir.org/numero/article/queer-in-quebec#body (consulté le 3 mai 2017).

Lo Vecchio Nicholas, 2020, Dictionnaire historique du lexique de l’homosexualité. Transferts linguistiques et culturels entre français, italien, espagnol, anglais et allemand, Strasbourg, Éditions de linguistique et de philologie.

Loubier Christiane, 2011, De l’usage de l’emprunt linguistique, Montréal, Office québécois de la langue française.

Martel Pierre et al., 2001, « Les textes journalistiques québécois sont-ils envahis par les emprunts critiqués à l’anglais ? », Terminogramme, Norme et médias, Office de la langue française, 97-98, p. 47-72.

Maurais Jacques, 2008, Les Québécois et la norme. L’évaluation par les Québécois de leurs usages linguistiques, Montréal, Office québécois de la langue française.

Mercier Louis, Remysen Wim et Cajolet-Laganière Hélène, 2017, « Québec », in Ursula Reutner (dir.), Manuel des francophonies, Berlin, De Gruyter (« Manuels de linguistique romane, 22 »), p. 277-310.

Mercier Louis, 2008, « Travailler depuis le Québec à l’émancipation de la lexicographie du français », Le français des dictionnaires. L’autre versant de la lexicographie française, Bruxelles, De Boeck Duculot, p. 289-306.

Prearo Massimo, 2015, « La naissance de la formule “LGBT” en France et en Italie : une analyse comparative des discours de mobilisation », Cultures & Conflits, no 97, p. 77-95.

Remysen Wim, 2010, « La politique linguistique des médias publics au Québec et en Flandre : de quelle conception de la langue est-il question ? », in Wim Remysen, Diane Vincent (dir.), Hétérogénéité et homogénéité dans les pratiques langagières : mélanges offerts à Denise Deshaies, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, p. 115-150.

Remysen Wim, 2009, Description et évaluation de l’usage canadien dans les chroniques de langage : contribution à l’étude de l’imaginaire linguistique des chroniqueurs canadiens-français, thèse de doctorat, Québec, Université Laval.

Remysen Wim et Côté Marie-Hélène, 2019, « L’adaptation phonologique des emprunts à l’anglais dans les dictionnaires québécois », Les discours de référence sur la langue française, Bruxelles : Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis.

Saint Élizabeth, 2019, « S’ouvrir aux suggestions des locuteurs pour aménager la terminologie au Québec : le cas du projet collaboratif “En bons termes” », Circula : revue d’idéologies linguistiques, no 9, p. 29-57.

Steuckardt Agnès, 2006, « L’anglicisme politique dans la seconde moitié du 18e siècle. De la glose d’accueil à l’occultation », Mots. Les langages du politique, no 82, p. 9-22.

Treps Marie, 2003, Les mots voyageurs. Petite histoire du français venu d’ailleurs, Paris, Seuil.

USITO, Dictionnaire général de la langue française, sous la direction d’Hélène Cajolet-Laganière, Pierre Martel et Chantal-Édith Masson, avec le concours de Louis Mercier, Éditions Delisme.

Vincent Nadine, 2017, « Présence et description d’emplois québécois dans des dictionnaires disponibles gratuitement en ligne », Repères DoRiF no 14 – Dictionnaires, culture numérique et décentralisation de la norme dans l’espace francophone, http://www.dorif.it/ezine/ezine_articles.php?art_id=379.

Vincent Nadine, 2014, « Organismes d’officialisation, dictionnaires et médias : le triangle des Bermudes de la francisation », Actes du 4e Congrès mondial de linguistique française (CMLF), http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20140801315.

Vinet Marie-Thérèse, 1996, « Lexique, emprunts et invariants : une analyse théorique des anglicismes en français du Québec », Revue québécoise de linguistique, vol. 24, no 2, p. 165-181.

Walsh Olivia, 2014, “« Les anglicismes polluent la langue française ». Purist attitudes in France and Quebec”, Journal of French Language Studies, 24, no 3, p. 423-449.

Références des chroniques de langue

Beaudry Pierre, 1975, « Les mots de notre langue », La Presse, Montréal, p. B12.

Dagenais Gérard, 1966, « Des mots et des phrases », La Presse, Montréal, 8 juin 1966, p. 12, col. 5 9. [Disponible à partir du Fonds de données linguistiques du Québec, https://fdlq.flsh.usherbrooke.ca/lexique/caucus].

DAVIAULT Pierre, 1954, « Propos sur notre français », La Patrie, Montréal, 30 mai 1954, p. 26 et 28.

Fréchette Louis, 1893, « À travers le dictionnaire et la grammaire. Corrigeons-nous ! », La Patrie, Montréal, 16 septembre 1893, p. 1, col. 5-6.

Lefranc Paul (pseud. D’Étienne Blanchard), 1923, « Autour de la langue française » La Presse, 1923, p. 46.

Roullaud Henri, 1908, « Leçons pratiques de français. Rectification du vocabulaire », La Presse, 7 mars 1908, p. 17.

Société du parler français au Canada (La), 1945, « Corrigeons-nous ! », Le Canada français, Publication de l’Université Laval, Québec, vol. 32, Septembre 1944 – Septembre 1945, n° 6 (février 1945), p. 464-470.

Notes

1 La recommandation officielle, révisée en 2018, a été publiée dans la Gazette officielle du Québec : https://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/bibliotheque/officialisation/avis-goq-feminisation-20180707.pdf.

2 https://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/21/Hebdo18/MENB2114203C.htm. À noter que ce même bulletin officiel préconise l’usage des formes féminines : « l’usage de la féminisation des métiers et des fonctions doit être recherché. ».

3 Ce n’est qu’après la Révolution tranquille dans les années 1960 qu’on adopte l’appellation « français québécois ».

4 Notre étude se concentre donc sur les néologismes apparus depuis les années 2000, et pas sur les appellations plus établies comme gay ou lesbienne, sur lesquelles plusieurs études se sont déjà penchées (voir par exemple Éribon, 2003 ou Lo Vecchio, 2020). Nous avons également écarté de notre étude les appellations injurieuses.

5 Voir Elchacar et Salita, 2018 ; la méthode de sélection des néologismes, fondée entre autres sur la fréquence dans la presse générale, y est détaillée.

6 Nous avons lancé les recherches avec toutes les formes qui s’appliquaient (masculin, féminin, singulier, pluriel).

7 La base de données Euréka ajoute régulièrement des articles ; par ailleurs, tous les textes ne sont pas versés au même rythme – les articles de certaines sources sont ajoutés quotidiennement, d’autres, hebdomadairement ou mensuellement. Les chiffres peuvent donc légèrement varier selon le jour où on lance la recherche.

8 La recherche a été lancée avec l’astérisque, ce qui permet de repérer toutes les variantes dans Euréka (LGBTQ, LGBTQ2, LGTQ2+, etc.). C’est également la forme LGBT* que nous emploierons dans ce texte.

9 Trans est un mot hautement homonymique et se retrouve dans plusieurs expressions (« gras trans », l’entreprise TransCanada, le train TransCanada, l’entreprise Trans Mountain, etc.). Nous avons donc lancé les requêtes avec des collocations fréquentes du mot trans dans le sens qui nous intéresse, soit avec les mots personne(s), femme(s), homme(s), enfant(s), adolescent(s), parent(s), individu(s) et identité(s). Comme les recherches dans Euréka donnent accès à des documents, ces formes adjectivales permettent d’accéder à des documents où trans est également employé en tant que nom.

10 Même si le néologisme cisgenre désigne une personne hétérosexuelle qui s’identifie au genre qui lui a été assigné à la naissance, il s’agit d’un signifiant nouveau créé pour s’intégrer dans le nouveau paradigme ; nous l’avons donc inclus dans notre recherche.

11 Le néologisme en deuxième place, trans, pourrait potentiellement être aussi lié à l’anglais, mais nous ne sommes pas arrivée à l’établir hors de tout doute. Il a été ajouté à la dernière version du Petit Robert, avec des informations étymologiques sommaires (« xxe », « abréviation »). Dans la rubrique étymologique du Wiktionnaire et du Wiktionary, aucune date n’est mentionnée ; on renvoie aux mots anglais d’où origine l’apocope pour les formes anglaise (« clipping of transgender and of transsexual »), et française (« apocope de transsexuel et transgenre »). On peut par contre se demander si le mot français n’a pas réinvesti les lettres de l’apocope anglaise par des mots français, ce qui rend le même mot possible dans les deux langues, comme c’est le cas pour LGBT* (nous y reviendrons). En outre, la grande polysémie du mot trans rend la recherche dans Euréka insatisfaisante.

12 Il est également absent des versions gratuites offertes en ligne par ces maisons d’édition.

13 Nous faisons une distinction entre les dictionnaires professionnels et profanes telle qu’établie par Vincent (2017) : « Les dictionnaires professionnels sont […] produits par des lexicographes œuvrant au sein d’institutions publiques ou privées, alors que les dictionnaires profanes émanent d’entreprises privées et sont rédigés par des non-lexicographes qui peuvent venir d’horizons variés, incluant la linguistique, mais sans spécialité en lexicographie. ».

14 https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/bispirituel

15 https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/fr/article/two-spirit

16 Voir par exemple le jugement que le chroniqueur de langue Gérard Dagenais portait sur caucus en 1966 : « Quant au mot « caucus », terme anglais d’origine amérindienne, on ne voit nullement pourquoi nous devrions l’adopter. » (Dagenais, 1966)

17 Le Usito ne met pas de rubrique étymologique pour les sigles.

18 « Le GRIS-Montréal est un organisme à but non lucratif créé en 1994 dont la mission est de favoriser une meilleure connaissance de la diversité sexuelle et de genre et de faciliter l’intégration des personnes LGBT+ dans la société. » https://www.gris.ca/notre-organisme/

19 Voir les thèmes listés sur le site de l’organisme : https://jeunessejecoute.ca/

20 Cet organisme s’appelait auparavant le Conseil québécois des gais et lesbiennes.

21 En anglais, il avait un sens péjoratif à l’origine. Pour plus de détails sur queer, voir Laprade, 2014.

22 Le seul dictionnaire professionnel qui donne la prononciation de ce mot est le Usito. Or la transcription [kwi:ʀ], avec un [R], ne nous semble pas représentative de la prononciation habituelle en français québécois ou canadien, sauf des régions ou le /r/ final dans les anglicismes est francisé, plus dans l’est du Québec. Voir Remysen et Côté (2019, p. 35), qui soulignent, dans les dictionnaires québécois, « les limites des règles de transcription dans l’adaptation des emprunts, lorsque les phonèmes et les règles de transcription des mots natifs correspondent mal aux prononciations en usage. » Ils mentionnent « l’adaptation de /əɹ/ en [œʀ], qui s’écarte des productions se rapprochant souvent de [əʀ] ou [ɚ]. ».

23 Les fiches pour allosexuel et altersexuel ne sont plus disponibles sur le site du GDT et les droits de reproduction nous ont été refusés.

24 http://stella.atilf.fr/Dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/visusel.exe?11;s=2790906660;r=1;nat=;sol=0

25 La liste en est dressée ici : https://usito.usherbrooke.ca/index/%C3%A9l%C3%A9ments_de_formation#a

26 En date du 9 mars 2022

27 La notion de fractomorphème, différent du formant en ce que tout le sens du mot est repris dans un fragment de celui-ci, repris pour créer des néologismes, a d’abord été proposée par Tournier. Même si les fractomorphèmes sont plus fréquents en anglais, ils sont tout de même attestés en français (Fradin, 2000 ; Humbley, 2012 ; Elchacar 2016).

28 Ce qui pourrait s’expliquer par le fait qu’il ne fasse partie d’aucun nom propre d’organisme, contrairement à allosexuel.

29 Sous la responsabilité de la chercheure Gaétane Dostie, « [l]e CFPQ regroupe aujourd’hui 30 sous-corpus de conversations à bâtons rompus enregistrées sur support audiovisuel ; chacun d’entre eux dure approximativement 1 heure et demie. Au total, 45 heures d’enregistrement ont ainsi été effectuées entre 2006 et 2013, dans diverses régions du Québec ». (Dostie, 2017 : 2)

30 Cette perception d’hypercorrection est sentie également par certains Français, comme en témoignent les répondants à une étude réalisée par Forlot, des Français ayant immigré au Québec : « Quoique ces pratiques soient construites pour séparer ces codes et travailler au maintien d’un français dit correct, elles sont paradoxalement souvent perçues comme hypercorrectes dans les interactions de ces immigrants lorsqu’ils retournent en France ». (Forlot, 2010, p. 87-88)

31 Il y a au Québec une longue tradition de chroniques linguistiques publiées dans les journaux dès le dernier tiers du xixe siècle. La plupart sont de type normatif. (Voir Gagné et al., 2004)

32 Nous avons gardé le gras qui apparaît pour les usages autonymiques dans ChroQué.

33 Daviault fait ce commentaire général plus tôt dans sa chronique : « Que les Français aient tort d’accepter des termes anglais souvent inutiles, c’est incontestable. ».

34 C’est également l’explication donnée par Martel et al. (2001).

35 Il serait intéressant d’étudier aussi ce phénomène d’un point de vue phonologique, par exemple avec le cas des finales anglaises en « -er », comme dans le mot soccer. Au Québec, à côté de la prononciation avec le [ɹ] rétroflexe, on entend aussi [sɔkœʀ] et, plus récemment, [sɔkɛʀ].

36 Pour une étude grammaticale de l’emprunt « le fun » en français québécois, voir Vinet, 1996.

37 Il faut noter toutefois que le PR décrit un emploi nominal de fun et donne l’exemple « Jouer pour le fun », donc avec un déterminant.

38 Cette variante n’apparaît pas dans le CFPQ, peut-être parce que la transcription choisie pour cette expression surtout orale est « c’est le fun ».

Pour citer ce document

Elchacar M., (2022). Le modèle québécois de lutte aux anglicismes : une approche « mur-à-mur » ?. Espaces Linguistiques, (4). https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.466

Auteur

Mireille Elchacar

Université Téluq

Licence

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Anglicismes en russe doukhobor

Anglicisms in Doukhobor Russian

Veronika MAKAROVA

Résumé : Cet article examine les anglicismes en russe doukhobor, une variété linguistique qui était parlée au Canada par les Spirit Wrestlers (ou Doukhobors, un groupe de dissidents chrétiens originaire de l'Empire russe et immigré au Canada en 1899), mais qui a presque entièrement disparu. Les résultats démontrent l’existence de trois vagues successives d’emprunts à l’anglais. La première (contenant très peu d’emprunts, composés principalement de gentilés) s’était déjà produite en russe avant l’immigration des Doukhobors au Canada. La deuxième vague a correspondu aux premières années de leur immigration, lorsque des dizaines de mots ont été empruntés à l’anglais, principalement pour exprimer certains nouveaux concepts liés à la vie dans leur nouveau pays : la technologie, la vie sociale, le vocabulaire général, la culture, les unités de mesure et le vocabulaire lié à l’alimentation. La dernière vague, à la fin du XXe et au début du XXIe siècles, était principalement composée d’emprunts de termes technologiques. Seule la deuxième vague a été prolifique et a créé de nouveaux mots à partir de mots sources anglais par le biais d’une dérivation morphologique. L’utilisation de mots d’emprunt qui sont absents dans le russe standard a contribué à l’idée selon laquelle le russe doukhobor était une variété linguistique inférieure. Cette notion, ainsi que certains facteurs démographiques et sociaux plus saillants, ont joué un rôle dans sa disparition.

Abstract : This article considers Anglicisms in Doukhobor Russian, a near-extinct language variety spoken in Canada by Spirit Wrestlers (or Doukhobors, a Christian dissenters group that originated in the Russian Empire and rejects churches, priests, and militarism). The results demonstrate that, chronologically, there were three waves of borrowing from English. The first one (with very few loanwords from English consisting mostly of demonyms) occurred already in the Russian language prior to Doukhobor immigration to Canada. The second wave was associated with the early years of their immigration, when dozens of words were borrowed from English, mostly to reflect concepts related to life in the new country, technology, aspects of social life, culture, units of measurement, and food. The final wave relates to late 20th-early 21st century English borrowings of mostly technological terms. Only the second wave was prolific and yielded new words created from English source words by derivational means. The use of English loanwords that differed from the ones in Standard Russian contributed to the perceptions of Doukhobor Russian as an inferior language variety, and ultimately to its disappearance (along with some more salient demographic and social factors).

DOI : https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.478

1. Introduction and Literature Review

1.1. Anglicisms

Anglicisms are “lexical borrowings from English including words imported via English” (Stålhammer, 2004, p. 85). Loanwords are generally seen as “convenience borrowings” caused by “the need for new words to denote new concepts and objects” or for other “more specific, culture-related” reasons (Stålhammer, 2004, p. 85). Due to globalization and the function of English as a global language, new Anglicisms appear in world languages on a daily basis (Naydenova & Taneva, 2019). Anglicisms may sometimes have an effect not only on the lexical, but also on the morpho-syntactic structure of language. For example, the English suffix -s has spread in Norwegian (Andersen & Graedler, 2020), and -er in Spanish (Roig-Marín, 2017).

Anglicisms are perhaps one of the most controversial and debatable areas of linguistics, as multiple concerns have been raised over them in “a manifestation of linguistic purism” (Weston, 2017, p. 89). For example, Anglicisms have been reported to create communication barriers (Firica, 2017). They have been described by means of metaphors related to violence (Hilton, 2021; Gazzardi & Vasquez, 2020; Naydenova & Taneva, 2019, p. 589) or diseases (Castellani, 1987). The reasons for the above opinions include politicization of language attitudes, whereby the spread of Anglicisms is associated with “the hegemonic status of English, and Anglo-American cultural influences” (Weston, 2017, p. 88) as well as with “multinational companies” (Naydenova & Taneva, 2019, p. 589).

To respond to these puristic attitudes, it is important to point out that “Anglicisms are not merely vehicles of some Anglo-American mental imperialism; they are the offspring of other languages’ voluntary intercourse with English” (Gottlieb 2020, p. 45). In fact, multiple positive functions of Anglicisms have been identified in research. For example, in the German context, Anglicisms have been described as “establishing or enhancing precision”, “producing vividness”, and “creating or increasing variation of expression” (Galinsky, 1967, p. 71, cf. Onysko & Winter-Froemel, 2011, p. 1550). “The borrowings of vocabulary from one language to another is as old as antiquity,” and so are debates about the social and cultural impacts of this phenomenon (Weston, 2017, p. 89). Any loanword in any language is simply a manifestation of language change. Young generations world-wide seem to be harbingers and supporters of Anglicisms (Luján-García, 2017), which is not surprising as language change is almost always initiated by youths (Holmes, 2013).

1.2. Anglicisms in Standard Russian

In Standard Russian (StR), Anglicisms have been a subject of multiple studies (e.g. Akishev, 2021; Starchikova et al., 2019; Loshakova & Pavlenko, 2019). From its early history, Russian has been borrowing vocabulary from the languages it came in contact with, such as Scandinavian, Finno-Ugric, Turkic languages, and Greek. Latinisms were also widely borrowed through other European languages, and also directly from Latin translations (Erova, 2017). The first Anglicisms appeared in the early 18th century during the reign of Peter I. They are attributed to his multiple reforms in the fields of economy, politics, education, and culture (Erova, 2017). With the development of the Russian fleet, the language borrowed many English nautical terms, such as яхта (yacht), and баржа (barge). Subsequently, the majority of borrowings came into Russian from French. However, between the 18th and the mid-20th century, a number of loanwords from English were added to the following areas–among others: society, e.g. клуб (club), лидер (leader), cuisine, e.g. кекс (cake), пудинг (pudding), lifestyle, e.g. вокзал (Vauxhall), пиджак (реа jacket), and sports, e.g. футбол (football), спорт (sport), финиш (finish) (Loshakova & Pavlenko, 2019, p. 3). In the 1980s, perestroika opened Russia to Western influences, new economic, technological, and IT developments, which brought forth a great deal of English loanwords to account for the changes taking place in society, e.g. флешка (flash-drive), риалтер (realtor). Like in many other societies, the Russian youth use Anglicisms on a large scale, and, in addition, the young generation also finds Anglicisms useful for English language acquisition (Starchikova et al., 2019).

Some Russian scholars express their fear of Anglicisms as they “may threaten its [the Russian language] distinctive development and, ultimately, cause significant damage to the national culture as a whole” (Loshakova & Pavlenko, 2019, p. 1). Another concern is for Anglicisms potentially undermining the Russian-specific world view (Hodzhagel’diev & Shurupova, 2015, p. 64). Moreover, English loanwords have also been claimed to shatter the very foundations of the synthetic nature of Russian morphology by introducing multiple indeclinable nouns (Rochtchina, 2012), and prepositional adjectives (Marinova, 2010).

By contrast, other scholars find that Anglicisms may add “bright expressiveness” not only to standard Russian, but even more so to slang and jargon (Prokutina et al., 2018). For instance, in music-related vocabulary, Anglicisms allegedly “contribute to the expressiveness and precision of musical reviews, enhance promotion of musical products, and become part of the unique identity that ties Russian music fans together” (Gritsenko & Aleshinskaya, 2020, p. 1). If, on the one hand, a few authors criticize the fear of foreignisms in general, and Anglicisms in particular, as a manifestation of purism (Argent, 2014; Ryazanova-Clarke, 2006a and 2006b), on the other hand, purists refer to Anglicisms and foreignisms as an “illness,” a “virus,” or an “infection” (Argent, 2014).

In many languages Anglicisms go through a process of morphological adaptation (Pungă, 2018 on Romanian; Gazzardi & Vásquez, 2020 on Italian). For example, in Bulgarian, loanwords (including Anglicisms) “get some grammatical categories like gender, number, tense, definite or indefinite article, and thus they become an integrated part of the language” (Naydenova & Taneva, 2019, p. 590). Similarly, in Russian, Anglicisms undergo a complex morphological transformation, which, as for nouns, involves gender assignment, class, inflection paradigm, and possibly the addition of a derivational suffix. By default, a derivational suffix is added to borrowed verbs, which, as a consequence, acquire a conjugation type; they may also receive a derivational prefix or suffix to reflect aspect (Loshakova & Pavlenko, 2019, p. 4).

1.3. Doukhobor Russian and its contact with English in Canada

This article deals with a very special case of Anglicisms that result not from the contemporary expansion of English as a global language, but from a direct language contact between a variety of Russian, known as Doukhobor Russian (DR) or Doukhoborese, and English that occurred in the first half of the 20th century. Doukhobor Russian is a near-extinct language variety spoken by Canadian Doukhobors. Doukhobors (originally Doukhobortsy) are a group of religious dissenters of Russian origin who, having been persecuted in Russia for heresy and anti-militarism, migrated to Canada in 1899 (Makarova, 2020). About 7,500 Doukhobor immigrants originally settled in the territories of contemporary Saskatchewan (and partly Manitoba). However, the government forced them to leave their allotments between 1905 and 1907. The reasons for these governmental actions were, first, the refusal of swearing an oath of allegiance to the British monarch by the Doukhobors, since swearing oaths went against their religious beliefs. The second reason for displacing Doukhobors was their desire to cultivate the land communally. Third, the government was interested in freeing the lands for more desirable settlers from Great Britain (Tarasoff, 1984). About two thirds of the Doukhobors then purchased land in British Columbia and moved there. Their history in Canada was further troubled by attempts by the government to dispossess them of their privately owned lands in British Columbia. Moreover, the authorities were taking children away from the parents of more radically minded Doukhobors known as the Sons of Freedom (Freedomites) and placing these children in a juvenile detention center in New Denver. They were kept there until the age of 15 in order to force them into monolingual English education and assimilation (Tarasoff, 1984).

Upon their move to Canada, Doukhobors encountered a new reality that had to be reflected in their language, and this became a major motivator for adopting loanwords from English. These Anglicisms are identified and analyzed in this article for the first time.

The first goal of the study is to identify Anglicisms in the speech of contemporary Doukhobor Russian speakers. The second goal is to single out the timeframes, types, and semantic fields of these Anglicisms. The research questions of the article are as follows: 1. How many Anglicisms are found in a sample of contemporary Doukhobor speech? 2. Which of these Anglicisms pre-date and post-date their immigration to Canada? 3. Were these Anglicisms created to denote a new concept or not? 4. What realities of life and experiences do they refer to?

2. Materials and methods

The materials analyzed in this article come from interviews conducted by the author between 2010 and 2018 with Doukhobors fluent in Doukhobor Russian and living in Canada. Twenty interviews with highly fluent speakers of Doukhobor Russian, who neither studied nor lived in Russia for long periods of time, were selected for the current study. Six of these participants came from the province of Saskatchewan, and 14 from British Columbia. The analyzed corpus comprised a total of 25,383 words with an average of 4,075 words per participant. The transcripts of the recordings were manually analyzed to extract foreign wordforms. All the foreign wordforms including Anglicisms and the number of participants who used these forms were entered into excel charts. To identify Anglicisms among other foreignisms and to establish the time of their borrowing (pre- or post-migration to Canada), all the foreignisms were checked with the help of the following etymological dictionaries and thesauri: Dal (1880-1886), Ozhegov (1949), Shanskij (1963-2007), and Vasmer (1938-1950). English-looking lexical items, not found in the above-mentioned dictionaries, were also added to the list: such additions are based on the prior knowledge of these Anglicisms by the author accumulated over almost 15 years of Doukhobor Russian studies. It should be noted that calques were excluded from the analysis, as they were extremely rare in the sample and related to phraseological rather than one-word lexical items.

“Making the distinction between codemixing and borrowing has preoccupied students of codeswitching since the earliest studies of language contact phenomenon” (Treffers-Daller, 1994, p. 90). At times, lexical borrowings and instances of single-word code-mixing are hard to differentiate (Cacoullos, 2012; Poplack, 2018, p. 1). Multiple criteria have been suggested to distinguish between codemixing and loans, such as a lexical gap or native synonym replacement (Treffers-Daller, 1994, p. 90), phonetic modification, frequency (Treffers-Daller, 1994, p. 57), speakers’ perceptions, degree of bilingualism (Poplack, 2018, p. 2), “cultural reference, persistence over generations, and attestation history of use” (Poplack, 2018, p. 7), morphological (Winford, 2003, p. 109) and syntactic integration (Bentahila & Davis, 1983, p. 314; Trefers-Daller, 1994, p. 143). However, some scholars claim that the proposed criteria are unreliable (e.g. Winford, 2010, p. 170). As suggested by Gardner-Choros (2010, p. 195), “there is no failsafe method of distinguishing at a synchronic level, between loans and code-switches” (or cases of code-mixing, according to the terminology adopted in this article), as borrowing is a diachronic process. Many of the criteria mentioned above were developed for diachronic studies of major national languages and are simply not applicable to a synchronic study of an earlier undescribed near-extinct variety as Doukhobor Russian.

As mentioned by Treffers-Daller in connection with non-standard varieties, “it is very difficult to find out which borrowings are recurrent, widespread and fully accepted in a speech community, and which ones are not, since there are generally no dictionaries of the language varieties under study” (1984, p. 30). A case of a near-extinct variety makes this task even more daunting. Doukhobor Russian has no existing dictionaries, grammars, or other description or documentation outputs, and it is currently spoken only by a few remaining speakers who are all bilingual in this variety and English. Moreover, many of the interviewed DR speakers are either not literate in any Russian variety, or literate in Standard Russian, as DR had no written form, like many other vernaculars. Therefore, the operational framework adopted here implies that a borrowing from English (Anglicism) must possess the first of the following features plus one:

A single word that looks and/or sounds English is embedded in a matrix Doukhobor Russian sentence.

This word could be either “an imitation satisfactory to a native speaker” (Haugen, 1950, p. 20), that is a (real/true) Anglicism, or something that “a native speaker of English would not consider part of his/her own language–and would neither understand nor use” (Furiassi, 2010, p. 13), namely a false Anglicism.

The word is used in the corpus of DR more than once, so as to exclude hapaxes.

The word shows phonological and/or morpho-syntactic integration.

The word originated when a new phenomenon was encountered by the Doukhobors while living in Canada or was already part of the DR vocabulary borrowed from English before immigration.

The description of Anglicisms was conducted following a classification of loans into catachrestic (C) and non-catachrestic (NC) (Onysko & Winter-Froemel, 2011; Schaefer, 2019), which is a replacement of a traditional distinction between ‘necessary’ and ‘luxury’ loans (e.g. Symon, 2016). The C/NC distinction is based on “whether the concept designated by the new expression (the innovation) is already expressed by another lexical unit in the language or not” (Onysko & Winter-Froemel, 2011, p. 1554). A C loanword does not compete with a predecessor in the recipient language (RL), as the concept and the word to denote it did not exist before. NC loans appear despite the RL already having “alternative synonymous expressions” (Onysko & Winter-Froemel, 2011, p. 1554). An additional classification by semantic fields was based on Stålhammer (2004); additional semantic fields which were not found in the list included therein, e.g. society, measurement units, food, were added.

Since Doukhobor Russian (DR) has no standardized orthography, in order to render its unique sounds by means of graphemes, transliterations close to the original pronunciation were employed rather than Standard Russian spelling. Transliteration of DR is based on the American Library of Congress, except for the use of j instead of ǐ for easier reading. DR voiced velar fricatives, non-existent in StR, are rendered by the digraph gh.

3. Results

Out of 25,383 words total in the corpus, all the foreignisms, and all the Anglicisms in their midst were identified as follows. The number of tokens (including multiple occurrences of the same word) of foreignisms in the corpus was relatively low: 926 (4%). Anglicism tokens constituted about half of all the foreignism tokens: 486 (52%), which makes 2% of the total number of tokens in the corpus. The overall number of distinct lexemes of English origin (Anglicisms) in the sample was 144 (Ref. most frequent examples in Appendix 1, Table 1).

Some other source languages of foreignisms include German, Dutch, Polish, and Latin. Some lexical items may prove difficult to analyze, as they sound very similar in Russian (either Doukhobor or Standard) and English, but are not in fact Anglicisms since they were borrowed into Russian and English from a common source (typically Latin). An example of a Latinism common across Russian and English is doctor, which has the archaic pronunciation dokhtar in DR and doktar in StR.

Another source of lexical borrowings into Doukhobor Russian was Standard Russian with which DR speakers had some contact in the 20th century. Some of this contact occurred through the Doukhobor leader Peter P. Verigin (Chistiakov) who was brought up in Russia and came to Canada to assume Doukhobor leadership in 1928. According to one participant, among these words was bibliˈoteka, an evening discussion group introduced by P. P. Verigin. The word sounds similar to its StR equivalent but has a different stress placement, i.e. biblioˈteka (meaning ‘library’). In addition, a semantic shift occurred in the DR from ‘a library’ in StR to ‘a discussion or interest group’ in DR. Another confusing group of items (in terms of their origins) in DR is made of words that are similar to their English equivalents but were borrowed into both English and Standard Russian from French and brought into DR from its contact with StR, and not from English. This group includes words like komunna, komunal’nyj and konventsiia, respectively meaning ‘commune’, ‘communal’ and ‘convention’.

The words most likely borrowed before the time of the Doukhobor arrival in Canada include a group of demonyms related to “the English”. The most frequent of them are anghlik (14 wordforms by 9 speakers) and anghlichka (3 wordforms by 2 speakers): these are specific Doukhobor forms for an English man and an English woman not used in Standard Russian. Henceforth, “wordform/s” and “speaker/s” will be referred to as wf and as sp respectively. Another infrequent wf for an English man and the English people (plural) observed in the corpus is anghlichan (close to Standard Russian anglichanin and anglichane). Several phonetic variant forms for English used as an adjective (like the English language) were produced by the participants: aghlitskij, anghlitskij, anghlijskij (compare with the Standard Russian form anglijskij). These variant forms suggest that the demonyms were not borrowed through direct contact with English. Indeed, the word Angliia was borrowed into Russian in the 18th century via Polish Anglia, from Latin Anglia, in turn going back to Old English Englisc/Angles (Vasmer, 1938-1950). The Polish word for an English person was anglik, which is also likely to have been initially borrowed into Russian and known to the Doukhobors at the time of their move, whereas in Standard Russian it subsequently developed into anglichanin (feminine anglichanka, plural anglichane) for people and anglijskij for the language. The adverb in English (pa-anghliski) is the word with the highest frequency among the Anglicisms in the sample (49 wf, 14 sp) and is fully congruent with the StR equivalent (except for the gh vs g sound difference).

Another pre-move Anglicism in DR is the name of the musical instrument gharmon’ (3 wf, 2 sp), an accordion or harmonica, a traditional Russian instrument commonly played by the Doukhobors. The word for coffee in DR, i.e. kofij (1 wf, 1 sp), is most likely a pre-contact Anglicism because of its specific 19th century colloquial pronunciation. The word for hospital in DR was also likely brought over from Russia due to its archaic pronunciation, namely khoshpital’ alternating with more contemporary khospital’.

According to the two major pragmatic types of Anglicisms in our sample, only 21 (15%) were non-catachrestic (NC), and 123 (85%) were catachrestic (C) borrowings. The NC ones include words that did not represent an entirely alien concept, but that had no direct equivalents in Russian, such as the noun fun. In Russian, there is a noun, i.e. vesel’e, but it means ‘joy’ or ‘good times’, and different verbs are used to describe the concept of ‘making fun of someone’, i.e. smeiat’sia, nasmekhat’sia, and ‘have fun’, i.e. veselit’sia, razvelkat’sia. In some other cases, DR borrowed an English word despite the fact that a StR equivalent had already been available in the late 19th century, but was not known by the Doukhobors, such as iksabishn (from English exhibition) instead of StR vystavka, or rejl instead of zheleznaia doroga, meaning ‘rail’. One very specific NC Anglicism is olrai (from English all right), which has a DR and StR equivalent, i.e. khorosho, meaning ‘fine’, ‘good’, ‘OK’. One can only speculate why olrai became popular with the Doukhobors: it could be a cultural fascination with a more relaxed lifestyle, when things are going to be all right as opposed to constant Doukhobor worries about daily survival, government pressures, and the details of religious doctrines. One culturally important NC Anglicism is kaal, meaning ‘call’, that relates to the military draft. As pacifists, Doukhobors strongly opposed military drafts and were penalized for this opposition during WWI and WWII. Russian words for military draft were available and used by the Doukhobors in the late 19th century, e.g. prizyv, meaning ‘call’, ‘conscription’, and bilet, meaning ‘ticket’, but the concept was ‘renamed’ in the Canadian context. Another example of a NC Anglicism is krismas (from English Christmas). A few participants referred to the event using the Russian word razhdestvo, but the original Russian nativity concept was ‘overwritten’ by the Canadian cultural context in 10 examples by 5 speakers. One highly creative form with a semantic shift is okaiannyj perets, literally ‘red pepper’, created despite the existence of a DR/StR equivalent krasnyj perec. The NC is a word play based on accidental similarities between Cayenne pepper in English and the Russian adjective okaiannyj coming from the Biblical name Cain, the alleged first murderer. This word was used to refer to the most reckless criminals. Thus, the form is a Russo-English bilingual joke exposing the ‘murderous and reckless’ nature of cayenne pepper. Another NC Anglicism is rum (from English room), whereby the StR word komnata exists and was used by five participants.

As indicated above, an overwhelming majority of loanwords from English are catachrestic, i.e., they were borrowed to address the new concepts that appeared in the new surroundings after the Doukhobors’ move to Canada. These include, among many others, bas (from bus), basik (from bicycle), elektrika (from electricity) and farma (from farm). One of the most frequent Anglicisms in DR is kara (23 wf, 9 sp), borrowed from English car and different from the StR equivalent mashina. By contrast, mashina in DR means a large agricultural harvester or some other type of large machinery, such as a locomotive. This difference has been a notorious source of misunderstandings between Doukhobors and StR speakers. According to one participant, back in the 1980s, he was supposed to meet a distant family relative from Russia arriving in the Port of Vancouver and take him home to visit for a few days. When they met at the port, the Russian asked whether the Doukhobor host had a machina (a ‘car’ for a StR speaker) to take them home. The Doukhobor responded that he had no machina (a ‘locomotive’ or an ‘agricultural combine harvester’ in DR), and that they were to travel home by kara (which the StR speaker could not understand, as the StR homophone kara means ‘punishment’).

As far as semantic areas are concerned, the Anglicisms in the corpus can be subdivided in the following groups (the number of lexemes is indicated in brackets).

Technology (41), e.g. bas (from bus), elektrika (from electricity), fridzh (from fridge), DVD, kompiuter (from computer);

Aspects of social life (31), e.g. deportirovat’ (from deport), klub (from club), palisman (from policeman);

Miscellaneous life aspects (30); it includes Anglicisms related to different religious groups (Baptist, Quaker), and various aspects of life, e.g. iksabishan (from exhibition), kommunikatsiia (from communication), lider (from leader), lanch (from lunch), millianer (from millionaire), waker (from walker);

Agriculture (11), e.g. farma (from farm), kambajn (from combine), tinowka (from thinning);

Culture (11), e.g. kavboj (from cowboy), vashrum (from washroom);

Units of measurement and currency (7), e.g. akr (from acre), milia (from mile), ghalan (from gallon), tsent (from cent);

Food (6), e.g. bort (from board): some words coming originally from other languages, e.g. bologna, salsa, spaghetti, but borrowed by DR from English are included in this group as well;

Ethnic groups identifiers (5), e.g. anglichan or anghlik (from Englishman), pa-anghlitski (meaning ‘in English’);

Sports (2): bejsbol (from baseball), and haki (from hockey).

Of the above groups, technology, social life and miscellaneous life aspects are the most prolific ones. The word bort, included within the semantic field of food, is an interesting example, which is not comprehensible to either an English or a Russian-speaking reader. It is employed 13 times by 2 participants in the corpus, and its meaning is ‘daily food’. Inquiries conducted by the author with two community elders yielded an explanation that the word originated most likely from the early-20th-century Room and Board signs, where board, via a semantic shift, was reconsidered as referring to food in general. The DR Anglicisms tinowka (N) and tinowat’ (V) came from the English agricultural term to thin, which relates to cutting and discarding smaller new apples on apple trees. It is worth noting the phonological restructuring of the English “th” sound into DR “t” as well as the addition of a derivational and an inflectional suffix to convert the English word into a DR noun and a DR verb respectively.

To summarize, there are three waves of Anglicisms in DR. The first wave (pre-move) was weak and only included five demonyms. The second highly productive wave contained mostly catachrestic Anglicisms reflecting life in the new country after the move. The third wave incorporated a few late-20th-century or contemporary technical or IT words. It should also be noted that in terms of language contact typology (Furiassi, 2010, p. 75), all the Anglicisms identified in this study are direct type.

4. Discussion

As anticipated, the task of identifying Anglicisms in Doukhobor Russian is complicated for a number of reasons. Most of these reasons are common to other languages. For example, the very concept of Anglicism is rather questionable, because English itself has experienced so much contact with French after the Norman conquest that, according to Yurtbasi (2015), its vocabulary is about 28% French. Another common problem identified in earlier studies relates to differentiating between borrowing and code-mixing. As was noted for Apache-English bilinguals, some topics are more easily discussed in English and some in Apache (Liebe-Harkort, 1979). The same is true for Doukhobors, as the participants were comfortable discussing their childhood and families in DR and made almost no code-mixing talking about the past, but often employed code-mixing between DR and English when talking about the present.

Some more specific challenges in the DR situation relate, first, to emotive attitudes connected with Anglicisms. While Anglicisms can cause a whole range of emotional attitudes among speakers of different languages (as shown in the Introduction), Doukhobors felt a specific emotive impact. DR speech was ridiculed by StR speakers partly because the DR Anglicisms were perceived to be ‘wrong’ as they differed from corresponding words in StR. As one DR speaker recalled, when she worked in a major Canadian university as an administrative support employee, she was called into the office of a StR speaking instructor only to be ridiculed for her ‘wrong’ word use: “Kara is a punishment, not a car”. As a former K-12 Doukhobor teacher of Russian noted, she was advising her students to keep some ‘wrong’ words for communication with grandparents at home, and use the ‘right’ (StR) words in class:

A ia ghavariu, znajte, èta nichjavo, vy s babushkami, s dedushkami patribliajti èti slava. Patamu shta ani … kaghda prishli u Kanadu, ani ni znali isho kakoe slova patribljat’: fridge – ani tak i nazvali fridzh, ni khaladil’nik, car – kara, i vot tak … Ja ghriu: kharasho, vy èta ghavariti, a f klase my budim izuchjat’ pravilnyje slava nekataryje.

And I say, you know, it’s OK, you can use those words with your grandmas and grandpas. Because when they …came to Canada, they did not know which words to use: fridge–they called it fridzh, not holodil’nik [a StR word for fridge], car–kara, and so on… I say: good, you say those, but in class, we will learn some correct words.

The second idiosyncratic difficulty of classifying Anglicisms in DR relates to the language contact with StR in the 20th century and low Russian literacy levels of Spirit Wrestlers before their immigration. Therefore, it is not clear whether some words such as universitet (from university) were already known to the DR speakers at the time of their move to Canada, or whether they were borrowed during the contact with English in immigration. Third, due to the contact with StR in the 20th century, some words could have been borrowed into DR either from StR or from English, and their origins are therefore not clear, e.g. deklaratsiia: (from declaration), komunna (from commune). The exploration of additional sources (Verigin, 1923) shows that the word komunna was not used before and immediately after the time of the Doukhobor resettlement as the word obshchina (the word for commune of Russian origin) was employed instead. However, this raises the question whether the word komunna was borrowed from StR or from English.

Just as in many other inflectional languages (Gazzardi & Vásquez, 2020), including Standard Russian (Loshakova & Pavlenko, 2019), borrowed Anglicisms adapt to the morphological structure of the recipient language. For example, the loanword farma was found in the singular in the nominative (farma), dative/prepositional (farme), and accusative (farmu) case; and in the plural in both the nominative (farma) and prepositional (farmakh) case. The En. stem farm, was also used to produce the following derivatives: farmal’, farmer (En. farmer), farmavat’ (En. to farm), farmal’skij (En. farming [adjective]), and farmerstva (En. farming [noun]). It should be noted that Anglicisms borrowed in the early 20th century yielded derivational forms and were phonetically fully adapted. By contrast, modern Anglicisms are typically not very productive and have a somewhat lower degree of adaptation–although they are still adapted in some cases, e.g. nominative waker but dative wakeru (from walker), nominative utub but prepositional utube (from youtube). The loss of derivation and the decrease of adaptation processes seem to be connected with language attrition and (eventually) death (e.g. Cook, 1995).

This language contact situation may suggest that the dominant language (English in this case) would become the major lexifier (Michaelis, 2008). However, the concepts of “lexifier” and “superstratum” in general have been mostly associated with European colonialism and the gradual replacement of the local languages with those spoken by colonizers (Selbach, 2008, p. 2). Although the analyzed sample of Doukhobor Russian contains 144 English loanwords, English cannot be considered the lexifier as the total amount of Anglicisms in the sample does not exceed 4%. By comparison, an analysis of a randomly selected sample of a contemporary StR media text of 1,179 words (Nikiforova, 2022) showed that it contained 107 Anglicisms, i.e. 9%, a percentage that is twice as high as the Doukhobor sample. Doukhobor Russian is therefore neither a creole nor mixed language; it is a unique variety of Russian with a significant number of loanwords from English due to language contact.

5. Conclusion

While some scholars might be worried about Anglicisms ‘taking over’ a given national language, other researchers consider Anglicisms to be a way to enrich the recipient language (Furiassi, 2010, p. 64), even though language contact inevitably leads to language change (Bonnici, 2007, p. 471). After having described Anglicisms in Doukhobor Russian, a near-extinct language variety spoken in British Columbia and Saskatchewan (Canada), the results of the analysis demonstrate that Anglicisms constitute about half of the foreignisms in DR: only a small part of them was borrowed before immigration to Canada, while the majority of Anglicisms came into DR through direct contact with English. Most of these Anglicisms appeared to refer to new concepts that the Doukhobors encountered in their new home country. The semantic areas where Anglicisms are most evident are technology, aspects of social life, miscellaneous aspects of life, agriculture, culture, units of measurement, food, ethnic group identifiers, and sports. Only ethnic group identifiers (demonyms) were borrowed prior to DR-English language contact. Some early 20th-century Anglicisms yielded derivative forms, but derivation decreased in modern times due to language attrition. Nonetheless, active derivation processes involving Anglicisms continue in Standard Russian (Nefedova, 2017).

This article is the very first attempt at providing a lexicological description of Doukhobor Russian conversational vocabulary and assessing the role of Anglicisms, and of borrowings from other languages in it. The Doukhobor Russian example discussed herein definitely opens a methodological discussion about how Anglicisms (and other borrowings) should be approached and studied in the context of highly endangered and near-extinct languages with no pre-existing dictionaries or diachronic descriptions.

Bibliographie

Akishev Timur, 2021, “Derivational Adaptation of -Ing Anglicisms in Russian”, International Journal of Russian Studies, vol. 10, n° 1, p. 29-35.

Andersen Gisle & Graedler Anne-Line, 2020, “Morphological Borrowing from English to Norwegian: The Enigmatic Non-possessive – s”, Nordic Journal of Linguistics, vol. 43, n° 1, p. 3-31.

Argent Gesine, 2014, “Linguistic Neuroses, Verbal Bacteria and Survival of the Fittest: Health and Body Metaphors in Russian Media Discussions About Foreignisms”, Language & Communication, n° 34, p. 81-94.

Bentahila Abdelali & Davies Eirlys E., 1983, “The Syntax of Arabic-French Code-Switching”, Lingua, vol. 59, p. 301-330.

Bonnici Lisa, 2007, “Pure” Change, Current Anthropology, vol. 48, n° 4, p. 471-472.

Cacoullos Rena Torres, 2012, “A Milestone Study: Structured Variability as the Key to Unraveling (Contact-Induced) Language Change”, Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, vol. 15, n° 2, p. 233-236.

Castellani Arrigo, 1987, “Morbus anglicus”, Studi linguistici italiani, vol. 13, n° 1, p. 137-153.

Cook Eung-Do, 1995, “Is There Convergence in Language Death? Evidence from Chipewyan and Stoney”, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, vol. 5, n° 2, p. 217-231.

Dal’ Vladimir, 1880-1886, Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language, St. Petersburg, Press of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature// ДАЛЬ Владимир, 1880-1886, Толковый Словарь Живого Великорусского Языка. Санкт-Петербург, Издание Общества Любителей Российской Словесности.

Erova Sabohat, 2017, “History of Word Borrowings in Russian”, Scientific notes of the Khujand State University named after Academician B. Gafurov, Humanitarian Sciences, n° 2, p. 155-160. // EРОВА Сабохат, 2017, “История заимствований слов в русском языке”. Ученые записки Худжандского госу-дарственного университета им. академика Б. Гафурова. Гуманитарные науки. n° 2, c. 155-160.

Firica Camelia, 2017, “Anglicisms in Romanian–A Barrier to Effective Communication”, Revista Transilvania, n° 7, p. 83–87.

Furiassi Cristiano, 2010, False Anglicisms in Italian, Milan, Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher.

Galinsky Hans, 1963, “Stylistic Aspects of Linguistic Borrowing: A Stylistic View of American Elements in Modern German,” in Broder Carstensen and Hans Galinsky (eds.), Amerikanismen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Entlehnungsvorgänge und ihre stilistischen Aspekte, Heidelberg, Winter, p. 35-72.

Luján-García Carmen, 2017, “Anglicisms and Their Use in an Internet Forum Addressed to Spanish-Speaking Teenagers”, Spanish in Context, vol. 14, n° 3, p. 440-463.

Gardner-Choros Penelope, 2010, “Contact and Code-Switching”, in Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, Hoboken, Blackwell, p. 188-207.

Gazzardi Antonella & Vásquez Camilla, 2020, “A Taxonomic Approach to the Use of English in the Italian Media”, World Englishes, vol. 1, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/weng.12524.

Gottlieb Henrik, 2020, Echoes of English: Anglicisms in Minor Speech Communities–with Special Focus on Danish and Afrikaans, Frankfurt, Peter Lang.

Gritsenko Elena & Aleshinskaya Evgeniya, 2020, “English in Russian Musical Reviews”, World Englishes, vol. 1, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/weng.12528.

Hilton Lisa, 2021 January, “‘Il trend’ for l’inglese: The Italian Language, Battered but Bouncing Back”, Times Literary Supplement, 6144, 13.

Hodzhagel’diev Bayram & Shurupova Olga, 2015, What Language Do We Speak? (Modern Russian Language in the Epoch of English Borrowings), Lipetsk, OOO Vesta. // ХОДЖАГЕЛЬДЫЕВ Байрам & ШУРУПОВА Ольга, 2015, На Каком Языке Мы Говорим? (Современный Русский Язык В Эпоху Английских Заимствований). Липецк: ООО «Веста».

Holmes Janet, 2013, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, London, Routledge.

Liebe-Harkort Marie-Louise, 1979, “Bilingualism and Language Mixing Among the White Mountain Apaches”, Folia Linguistica, vol. 13, n°]3/4, p. 345-356, available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/flin.1979.13.3-4.345/html.

Loshakova Natalia & Pavlenko Veronika, 2019, “History and Adaptation of Anglicisms in Russian”, Scientific and methodological electronic journal “Concept”, n° 5, p. 199-205. // ЛОШАКОВА Наталия & ПАВЛЕНКО Вероника, 2019, “История и адаптация англицизмов в русском языке”. Научно-методический электронный журнал «Концепт», n° 5, p. 199-205.

Makarova Veronika, 2020, “The Russian Language in Canada”, in A. Mustajoku, E. Protassova and M. Yelenevskaya (eds.), The Soft Power of the Russian Language: Pluricentricity, Politics and Policies, London/New York, Routledge, p. 183-199.

Marinova Еlena, 2010, “The Question of Analytical Adjectives in Domestic and Foreign Linguistics”, Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University, N. I. Lobachevsky, vol. 4, n° 2, p. 628-630. // МАРИНОВА Елена, 2010, “Вопрос об аналитических прилагательных в отечественной и зарубежной лингвистике”. Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского, глава 4, номер 2, с. 628-630.

Michaelis Susanne Maria, 2008, Roots of Creole Structures: Weighing the Contribution of Substrates and Superstrates, Giessen, John Benjamins, available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.33.

Naydenova N. & Taneva T., 2019, “Cultural Conquest of Bulgarian Language from Anglicisms”, Trakia Journal of Sciences, vol. 17 (Supplement 1), p. 589-599, available at: http://tru.uni-sz.bg/tsj/.

Nefedova L. A., 2017, “Pseudo-Anglicisms in German and Russian: Recent Trends in Word Formation”, Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture & Civil Engineering, vol. 18, n° 3, p. 113-122.

Nikiforova Victoria, 2022, “Inogda oni vozvraschaiutsia: rossijskie nepolzhivtsy edut domoj [Sometimes they come back: Russian “always right” people come home]”, RIA Novosti, 18 April, 2022, available at: https://ria.ru/20220418/vozvraschenie-1783982263.html.

Onysko Alexander & Winter-froemel Esme, 2011, “Necessary Loans–Luxury Loans? Exploring the Pragmatic Dimension of Borrowing”, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, n° 6, p. 1550-1567.

Ozhegov Sergei, 1949, Dictionary of the Russian Language, Association of State Book and Magazine Publishing Houses. // ОЖЕГОВ Сергей, 1949, Словарь Русского Языка. Объединение Государственных Книжно-Журнальных Издательств.

Poplack Shana, 2018. Borrowing: Loanwords in the Speech Community and in the Grammar. Oxford: Oxford university Press.

Prokutina E. V., Ostanina L. V. & Ermakova E. N., 2018, “Linguo-Creative Potential of English Loan Words in the Non-Standard Lexis of the Modern Russian Language”, International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences & Arts SGEM, vol. 5, p. 351-356. doi:10.5593/sgemsocial2018/3.6.

Pungā Loredana, 2018, “A Radiography of English Elements in Romania”, Romanian Journal of English Studies, vol. 15, n° 1, p. 92-104, available at: https://www.sciendo.com/article/10.1515/rjes-2018-0013.

Rochtchina Julia, 2012, “Morphology and Lexicology Interface. Latest Russian neologisms: The next step towards analytism?, in Veronika Makarova (ed.), Russian Language Studies in North America: New Perspectives from Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, London, Anthem Press, p. 71-84.

Roig-Marín Amanda, 2017, “Contextualising the Emergence of English-Induced Morphological Borrowing in Spanish: The Case of -er”, Spanish in Context, vol. 14, n° 3, p. 391-412, available at: https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/sic.14.3.03roi.

Ryazanova-Clarke Lara, 2006a, “The Crystallisation of Structures’: Linguistic Culture in Putin’s Russia”, in Ingunn Lunde and Tine Roesen (eds.), Landslide of the Norm: Language Culture in Post-Soviet Russia, Bergen, Department of Russian Studies, University of Bergen, p. 31-63.

Ryazanova-Clarke Lara, 2006b, “‘The State Turning to Language’: Power and Identity in Russian Language Policy Today”, Russian Language Journal, n° 56, p. 37-55.

Schaefer Sarah Josephine, 2019, “Anglicisms in German Media: Exploring Catachrestic and Non-Catachrestic Innovations in Radio Station Imaging”, Lingua, vol. 221, p. 72-88.

Selbach Rachel, 2008, “The Superstrate is Not Always the Lexifier: Lingua Franca in the Barbary Coast” in Susanne Michaelis (ed.), Roots of Creole Structures, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Shanskij Nikolay, 1963-2007, Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language of Moscow University, Moscow, Moscow University Press. // ШАНСКИЙ Николай, 1963-2007, Этимологический Словарь Русского Языка Московского Университета. Москва: Издательство Московского Университета.

Stålhammer Mall, 2004, “English Influence on the Swedish Vocabulary 1800-2000”, Nordic Journal of English Studies, vol. 3, n° 2, p. 85-100.

Starchikova Irina, Shakurova Evgeniya & Starchikova Elena, 2019, “Жизнь англицизмов в речи студенческой молодежи” [The Life of Anglicisms in the Speech of Students], Perspectives of Science & Education, vol. 39, n° 3, p. 399-409, available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/zhizn-anglitsizmov-v-rechi-studencheskoy-molodezhi.

Tarasoff Koozma, 1984, Plakun-Trava: The Doukhobors, Grand Forks, BC, Mir Publication Society.

Treffers-Daller Jeanine, 1994, Mixing Two Languages: French-Dutch Contact in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter.

Vasmer Max, 1938-1950, Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch [Russian Etymological Dictionary], Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag Carl Winter.

Verigin Grigorij, 1923. Bog ne v sile, a v pravde [God is not in Might but in Truth], Paris, Dreyfus & Charpentier.

Weston Daniel, 2017, “A(nother) Day in the Life of a Purist: Anglicisms in the Speech of Norwegian University Students”, Scandinavian Studies, vol. 89, n° 1, p. 87-114, available at: https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/ss/article-abstract/89/1/87/209057/A-nother-Day-in-the-Life-of-a-Purist-Anglicisms-in?redirectedFrom=PDF.

Winford Donald, 2003, An Introduction to Contact Linguistics, Malden, MA, Blackwell.

Winford Donald, 2010, “Contact and Borrowing”, in Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, Hoboken, Blackwell, p. 170-187.

Yurtbasi Metin, 2015, “Building English Vocabulary Through Roots, Prefixes and Suffixes”, Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, vol. 5, n° 1, p. 44-55.

Annexe(s)

Appendix 1

Тable 1. Most frequent Anglicisms in the sample

Anglicisms

frequency

Npartic

E translation

Russian

equivalent

time

type

area

aghlitskij, anghliskij/aj

26

15

English (Adj)

anglijskij

pre

C

demonyms

anghlik

13

9

English (N, person, m)

anglichanin

pre

C

demonyms

bort

13

2

food

pishcha

post

C

food

farma, ferma

37

9

farm

ferma

post

C

social

farmal'

13

8

farmer

fermer

post

C

social

kampaniia

12

3

company

kompaniia

?post

NC

social

kara

23

9

car

mashina

post

C

tech

krismas

10

5

Christmas

rozhdestvo

post

NC

culture

mashinerija

10

4

machinery

mashiny

?post

C

tech

pa-anghliski

49

14

in English

po-anglijski

pre

C

demonyms

trok

10

3

truck

gruzovik

post

NC

tech

Pour citer ce document

MAKAROVA V., (2022). Anglicismes en russe doukhobor. Espaces Linguistiques, (4). https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.478

Auteur

Veronika MAKAROVA

University of Saskatchewan, Canada

v.makarova@usask.ca

Licence

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

“Mit dem Topping bin ich auch fein”–Anglicisms in a German TV cooking show

« Mit dem Topping bin ich auch fein » –Anglicismes dans une émission de cuisine de la télévision allemande

Sabine FIEDLER

Résumé : En raison de son rôle de lingua franca, l’anglais est une source majeure d’influence linguistique dans le monde entier. Cet article traite de l’impact de l’anglais sur l’allemand. Les influences induites par le contact ont été largement décrites pour des domaines comme le commerce, le sport, le divertissement, la publicité et la politique. L’accent est mis ici sur un domaine traditionnellement associé à la langue française – la cuisine. Il présente les résultats d’une étude empirique sur l’utilisation des anglicismes dans une émission de cuisine de la télévision allemande. En Allemagne, ce format connaît un regain de popularité et constitue une base utile pour cette étude car il représente un type de communication orale qui est perçu comme authentique et se rapproche de la communication spontanée et naturelle. Les anglicismes trouvés dans l’ensemble de données comprennent des emprunts directs, des emprunts traduits (calques) et des constructions hybrides. Alors que la majorité d’entre eux sont des lexèmes simples et complexes, tels que peppern (« poivrer ») et Signature-Gericht (« plat signature »), plus d’un tiers peuvent être classés comme des unités phraséologiques ayant la structure de syntagmes (p. ex. in the making) et de phrases (p. ex. Safety first!). Les buts comunicatifs des émissions de cuisine sont l’instruction et le divertissement, et l’utilisation des anglicismes y est étroitement liée. Par exemple, les anglicismes servent à dénommer les produits et les plats (p. ex. green-zebra Tomaten, Surf and Turf, No-bake Cheesecake), sont utilisés pour combler les lacunes de l’émission lorsque les gens ne savent peut-être pas quoi dire ou comment réagir (p. ex. That’s life), et on les retrouve fréquemment dans les jugements positifs et négatifs (p. ex. ein Masterpiece, ein bisschen Old School). En outre, les animateurs insèrent des expressions anglaises pour donner à leur discours un caractère plus vivant, moderne et familier et pour créer un humour basé sur la langue.

Abstract : Due to its role as a lingua franca, English is a major source of language influence worldwide. This paper addresses the impact of English on German. Contact-induced influences have been widely described for areas like business, sports, entertainment, advertising and politics. The focus here is on a field traditionally associated with the French language–cuisine. It presents the findings of an empirical study on the use of Anglicisms in a German TV cooking show. In Germany, this format is enjoying an upsurge in popularity and provides a useful basis for this investigation because it presents an oral type of communication that is perceived to be authentic and comes close to approximating spontaneous and naturally occurring communication. The Anglicisms found in the dataset include direct borrowings, loan translations (calques) and hybrid constructions. While the majority of these are simple and complex word lexemes, such as peppern (‘to pepper’) and Signature-Gericht (‘signature dish’), more than one third can be classified as phraseological units, which have the structure of word groups (e.g. in the making) and sentences (e.g. Safety first!). The communicative purposes of cooking shows are instruction and entertainment, and the use of Anglicisms is closely related to these. For example, Anglicisms serve to denominate products and dishes (e.g. green-zebra Tomaten, Surf and Turf, No-bake Cheesecake), are used to bridge gaps in the programme where people perhaps do not know what to say or how to react (e.g. That’s life), and they are frequently found in positive and negative judgements (e.g. ein Masterpiece, ein bisschen Old School). In addition, hosts insert English expressions to give their speech a more lively, modern and colloquial character and to create language-based humour.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.488

1. Introduction

This paper addresses the impact of English on the German language. Contact-induced influences can be observed at all levels of the linguistic system in German, extending from preferences for particular morphemes to the structure of texts and genres, but they are felt especially in the field of lexis (for an overview, see Fiedler 2014, p. 29-38; 2018). Among the most important investigations into Anglicisms in the German language are large-scale descriptive studies by Carstensen & Galinsky (1963), Carstensen (1965), Fink (1970), Viereck (1980), Yang (1990), Lehnert (1990), Schelper (1995), Glahn (2002), Onysko (2007), Burmasova (2010), and the comprehensive dictionaries by Carstensen, Busse and Schmude (1993-1996) and Göhrlach (2001). Research has so far focused on Anglicisms in fields such as media, sports, business, journalism, science and technology, and advertising. This paper investigates the phenomenon in the area of cooking, using the example of the German TV cooking show “Die Küchenschlacht” (The Kitchen Battle). Following a characterisation of the genre of the cooking show in Section 2 and a description of the data and methods in Section 3, Section 4 will present the findings of the investigation as regards the structure of Anglicisms (simple and complex words as well as phraseological units), their types (direct borrowings, loan translations, and hybrid forms), usage and functions. Some final remarks and prospects for further research will conclude this paper.

2. The cooking show as a genre

TV cooking shows are going from strength to strength, and recent years have seen the emergence of a variety of formats. Oren (2013, p. 20-21) points out that “[p]opular food-themed TV programmes are so pervasive that, in many parts of the globe, a viewer can watch uninterrupted foodTV for twenty-four hours a day, everyday (sic).” Cooking shows have been around for a long time, as the first programme in Britain was broadcast at the end of the 1930s (Davidson, 2014); Collins (2008) describes the years from 1946-1962 as the Early Period of televised cooking shows in the US; and the first German programme of this kind, “Bitte in zehn Minuten zu Tisch” (Dinner Will Be Served in Ten Minutes) was broadcast in 1953 (Schmelz, 2018). In 2021, around 5.3 million Germans aged 14 or older very much enjoyed watching TV cooking shows such as “Das perfekte Dinner” (The Perfect Dinner) or “Die Küchenschlacht”¹.

On the basis of their long-standing tradition and socially-agreed-upon features and resulting viewer expectations, cooking shows can be regarded as a specific text type or genre. According to Swales (1990, p. 58),

[a] genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. […] In addition to purpose, exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience.

As regards their purpose, cooking shows are both educational and entertaining. They provide their audiences with practical cookery skills, the knowledge of vocabulary for ingredients and techniques, and facts about food and nutrition (e.g. how to eat healthier and how to save time). On the other hand, cooking shows incorporate entertainment, as cooking is presented as fun. Humour is evoked by both the hosts and the participating amateur cooks (see, for example, Matwick & Matwick’s 2015 and 2017 studies on teasing and self-deprecating humour in cooking programmes). In addition, cooking shows offer visual pleasure for home viewers by means of glamorous shots and suggestions for presenting food nicely.

TV cooking programmes have evolved from being mainly instructive to competitive in nature (Collins, 2008; Mühleisen, 2022). Referring to examples from US contexts such as “Chopped” or “Iron Chef America”, Matwick & Matwick (2019) describe cooking competitions as one of six sub-genres of TV cooking shows as follows:

Chefs compete on a reality-based cooking show competition; suspenseful with elimination round; challenges include limited time and unusual ingredients; judged by a panel of renowned food authorities. (Matwick & Matwick, 2019, p. 12)

The other sub-genres are How-to shows (in which a host shows viewers how to cook), Cooking live shows (in which a host interacts with a live audience, with an emphasis on entertainment), Food travel shows (in which a host travels and interacts with restaurateurs), Food talk shows (a talk show format about food with tips, games and recipes), and Food reality competitions (a dramatic and emotional format mentored by celebrity chefs, e.g. “Food Network Star” or “Worst Cooks in America”) (Matwick & Marwick, 2019, p. 12).

An important feature of cooking shows is their narrative structure. They interweave storytelling and recipe telling. As Oren (2013, p. 20) emphasises, the climax of a competitive cooking show is not the successful completion and presentation of the dish itself but its evaluation by a judge.

The TV cooking show that serves as a basis of this investigation is the cooking competition “Die Küchenschlacht” (The Kitchen Battle), a 45-minute show that has been broadcast on ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen ‘Second German Television’), a German public-service television broadcaster), from Monday to Friday since 2008. It is a competition in which six amateur cooks compete against each other. On Monday, the contestants prepare their favourite dish, on Tuesday a starter, on Wednesday a vegetarian dish, on Thursday a main course based on a specific theme, and on Friday a dish following a recipe set by the celebrity chef who hosts the show². In a tasting at the end of each programme, another celebrity chef decides which of the contestants will be eliminated. While preparing their dishes, the contestants converse with the host, answering questions about ingredients, preparation methods, but also about their hobbies and personal lives.

Like many other cooking shows, “Die Küchenschlacht” has a “double audience” (Matwick & Matwick, 2014, p. 155). The host addresses both the co-present studio audience, occasionally including special guests such as previously eliminated amateur cooks or a contestant’s relatives, who are then sometimes interviewed, and the viewers at home, when they introduce the show’s participants or share kitchen tips. For the viewers at home, the show is suspenseful, as they get familiar with the amateur cooks over the course of the week and can sympathize with their favourite contestant. Another aspect that draws them is the fact that the recipes of the dishes prepared on the show can be accessed on its website. Altogether, “Die Küchenschlacht” has aired with great success in the past years. Since it was launched in 2008, its average audience ratings have increased from 1.07 to 2.09 million in 2021, which amounts to a present audience share of 17.6%. It is notable that the show has proved popular even among people between 14 and 49 years of age, with an audience share of 9.9% (Krei, 2021).

3. Data and method

There are several reasons why the competitive cooking show “Die Küchenschlacht” has been chosen as a basis for this investigation into the use of Anglicisms. The first is that the area of cooking–despite the attention it has recently received in linguistics and media studies (as demonstrated by publications such as Culinary Linguistics [Gerhardt et al., 2013], Food Discourse and Celebrity Chefs of Food Network [Matwick & Matwick, 2019] or Talking about Food [Rüdiger & Mühleisen, 2020])–has not attracted much interest in research on Anglicisms so far. This study should contribute to filling this gap. This topic seems particularly relevant because the preparation of food (or culinary art) has been traditionally connected with the French language (Serwe et al., 2013)–haute cuisine and mise en place are terms often heard in kitchens all over the world. The fact that Anglicisms have entered this arena–and that we seem to find more occurrences of just in time than of à la minute today–is clearly indicative of the fact that English has made noticeable inroads into other languages.

A further reason is that Anglicisms cannot be restricted to word lexemes (simple words and compounds). There are many multi-word lexemes (i.e. phraseological units) among them, including conventionalized utterances used in recurrent situations (such as slogans, discourse markers, catchphrases, proverbs, and rhetorical formulae fulfilling various pragmatic functions), and these are a characteristic feature of oral communication and especially spontaneous speech. Cooking shows are a genre of oral communication, and the kitchen environment provides an informal space for interaction that induces productive and creative language use. True, the themes people talk about in the shows are restricted to a certain extent, as they are influenced by the meals being prepared. Also, it is obvious to the viewer that, when the host and amateur cooks talk about a contestant’s hobby or job, this is based on previous information. Nevertheless, due to unpredictable events during the preparation of the dishes there is much room for spontaneous reactions and responses, which is why the conversations between the host and the amateur cooks can be considered authentic and come close to approximating naturally occurring communication.

The cooking show “Die Küchenschlacht” is a speech event with the following recurrent structure:

The host welcomes the viewers at home and in the studio³.

Video clips of scenes from the previous show present a recap, reminding viewers about the contestant who was eliminated. In video clips, the host and some of the amateur cooks give their opinions about the show, and the contestant who had to leave the show bids farewell to the others.

The host announces the show’s theme or the contestants’ tasks as well as the celebrity chef who will evaluate their dishes at the end of the show.

In video clips, some of the contestants comment on the choice of judge.

The contestants, who have in the meantime already started cooking so as to make the most of the 35 minutes at their disposal, present their dishes. They have usually already practised their dishes at home, and a photograph of the result is shown and commented on by the host.

The contestants continue cooking. They are asked by the host to describe their progress. Occasionally, the host comments on this, tastes parts of the meals or reacts to problems that he or she may become aware of. On Thursdays and Fridays, the host prepares a dish himself/herself.

A countdown accompanied by studio effects tells the amateur cooks that they have only two more minutes to finish their dishes and to prepare them for presentation.

The amateur cooks evaluate their own dishes and, occasionally, describe difficulties that they had to overcome.

The host welcomes the celebrity chef.

The celebrity chef evaluates the contestants’ dishes and chooses both a winner and a cook who has to leave the show.

The material used for this study includes a random selection of video recordings of 158 cooking shows broadcast in the years from 2018 to 2021. With our focus on naturally occurring communication, elements (B) and (D) were excluded from the analysis, as these mainly comprise repeat scenes and clips that were prepared prior to the show. The dataset amounts to about 115 hours of video recordings with about 500 contestants and 22 celebrity chefs. Its analysis resulted in a collection of 390 Anglicisms in total, of which 246 (=63.1%) are words and 144 (=36.9%) phraseological units. Due to time constraints, only the passages containing Anglicisms have been fully transcribed. The transcription conventions, tailored to the needs of this study, are based mainly on the systems of Levinson (1983), Firth (1996) and Wagner & Firth (1997)⁴.

The identification of Anglicisms can be difficult, given that a large number of them occur as loan translations (calques), which are inconspicuous due to the lack of salience. Changes in the vocabulary of a language do not need to be a result of language contact, but can also be caused by the revitalization of lexis from an earlier period. In a previous study (Fiedler, 2012), four criteria were proposed to determine the English provenance of lexical material: (1) use in an English-speaking context (including translations), (2) explicit metacommunicative signalling of the origin (e.g. as the English say), (3) variability of form, and (4) parallel developments in other languages. As regards the fourth criterion, the joint endeavour by researchers to compile a Global Anglicism Database (GLAD) has provided important insights⁵. This study also utilises corpus-based approaches. Steyer (2004, p. 93) introduced the term “consultation paradigm” (Konsultationsparadigma) to describe the method where a corpus is used to obtain data which test a hypothesis that was made about a unit previously. This approach was adopted here: the collection of potential Anglicisms compiled by the author of this article was verified by means of the corpus of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) in Mannheim (DeReKo-2021-I) (See 4.2.).

4. Anglicisms in “Die Küchenschlacht”

4.1. Classifications

When we classify the main part of Anglicisms–these are the simple and complex words–according to word classes, the findings of previous investigations into Anglicisms in the German language are confirmed: nouns clearly dominate (see Figure 1). They are used, above all, to denominate ingredients and dishes, e.g. Dressing, dry-aged Lamm, Pulled Pork, Baconjam, Signature Dish, Salad Bowl, Burger, Crunch, Soulfood, Comfortfood, Curry, Eggnog, Sidekick, Gadget, Streetfood, Cheesecake, Kekscrunch, Chutney, Food Pairing, Eyecatcher, Old-School-Beilage, Patty, Chicken Fingers, Parmesanchip, Double Chocolate Drip Cake.

Verbs are the second most frequent word class. While most of them denominate kitchen techniques (e.g. [auf]pimpen, flavourn, crashen, upmoven, shaken, finishen, [auf]peppen, peppern, einwrappen), others refer to the amateur cooks’ feelings and attitudes (e.g. flashen, concentrate, rocken, wegbattlen, fighten, sich committen).

Adjectives describe the quality of ingredients and dishes and the manner of their preparation, e.g.

spicy, nice, cool, nature-belassen (natural, lit. nature-kept), hot, tricky, dangerous, easy, easy-peasy, fancy, crispy, crunchy, hand-made.

Interjections are often used to express pleasure about successful work (e.g. Yes) and admiration for contestants’ dishes (e.g. Wow).

Figure 1: Distribution of word classes among word-like Anglicisms

The decision on whether an Anglicism should belong to the group of word-like or phrase/sentence-like items, is not always an easy one to make. At first sight, in examples [1] to [3], ever, reloaded, and safe are the only English elements in the German text, which is why we might tend to identify them as word-like direct borrowings.

[1] Wir haben natürlich heute die charmanteste, beste und liebste Jurorin ever, ein ganz toller Mensch und eine wunderbare Köchin–Cornelia Poletto wird heute zu uns kommen. (11 November 2019) [Today of course we have the most charming, the best and nicest juror ever, a great woman and wonderful cook–Cornelia Poletto will be joining us today.]

[2] Himmel und Erde reloaded (22 July 2019) [Heaven and earth (= a traditional German dish) reloaded.]

[3] Deine Manti, da brauchen wir uns keine Sorgen machen? – Die sind safe, ja. (18 November 2019) [Your manti, we don’t have to be worried about them? – They are safe, yes.]

A comparison with other occurrences of these items in the dataset, however, leads us to the conclusion that it is not single words, but recurrent structures or patterns that are borrowed from English:

Determiner + Adjective (in superlative form) + Noun + ever, (e.g. die romantischste Küchenschlacht ever ‘the most romantic Küchenschlacht ever’ [8 February 2018]);

Noun [denominating a dish] + reloaded (e.g. Brot-Suppe reloaded ‘bread soup reloaded’ [16 November 2020])

Noun + be + safe / be + safe [with something] (e.g. das Fleisch ist safe ‘the meat is safe’ (29 January 2021) / Was macht deine Ente? Bist du safe damit? (24 May 2019) [How is your duck? Are you on the safe side with it?]⁶.

Here again, our knowledge of parallel loan processes in other languages can be helpful in identifying Anglicisms. An example is the pattern (the best/… ever), which has been described as a recent instance of an English borrowing in Scandinavian languages (Zenner et al. 2018, Anderson 2020).

The significance of multiword items (or phraseological units) among Anglicisms can not only be seen in their number (36.9% of all items, see above), but also in the fact that they represent almost all of the conventional types of phraseological units (cf. Burger et al., 2007, Fiedler, 2007), such as nominations (e.g. Jerk-Chicken-Burger), binomials (e.g. Surf & Turf), restricted collocations (e.g. ein Statement setzen ‘to make a statement’), catchphrases (e.g. Shit happens), proverbs (e.g. Never trust a skinny cook), and routine formulae (e.g. by the way).

Linguistic items borrowed from another language can be classified according to their degree of integration into the recipient language, as proposed in the seminal works on loan influence by Haugen (1950) and Weinreich (1953). Taking a closer look at the examples mentioned so far, we become aware that the following three types of Anglicisms can be identified in the dataset: direct borrowing, loan translations, and hybrid forms (cf. Fiedler, 2014, p. 41-49):

The first group is made up of items whose form and content are borrowed from English. They are used in their original English form and can therefore easily be identified as “foreign”. As Haugen (1950, p. 214) puts it, they “show morphemic importation without substitution”. Examples from the cooking shows analysed include items such as relax, geflasht (be blown away) or formulae such as That’s it! (18 July 2019).

The second group comprises items that are inconspicuous. The form is translated (or in Haugen’s term “substituted”) by German material. These are loan translations (also known as calques). Examples from the cooking shows are Komfortzone (comfort zone) or jemandem den Tag retten (cf. Engl. to save the day).

A third group that can be identified includes hybrid constructions characterised by “the transfer of some elements and the reproduction of others” (Weinreich, 1953, p. 51). Examples are Speedköchin (lit. speed cook), burnermäßig (burner-like) or OK sein (‘to be OK’).

The title of this paper contains two different types of borrowings. Whereas Topping will be immediately identified as an Anglicism because of its English morphemes, many German speakers might perceive fein sein mit etwas (to be fine with sth.) as a neologism in German, but not necessarily as English.

Processes of borrowing are complex and heterogeneous (Winter-Froemel, 2013). This is also evidenced in the fact that the three types of loans can occur simultaneously. For example, we find twenty-four seven both as a loan translation (vierundzwanzig sieben) and in its original English form (see examples [4] and [5]). Similarly, in the dataset Signature Dish and Highlight Dish occur as direct loans (Signature-Dish, Highlight-Dish) and as hybrids (Signature-Gericht, Highlight-Gericht).

[4] So ein Tag ist echt anstrengend (…) Erzähl mal, wie das bei dir so war. – Ja, vor allem vierundzwanzig sieben, ne, man hat eigentlich keinen Tag frei. (31 March 2021) [A day like this is really exhausting (…) Tell us what it was like for you – True, above all twenty-four seven, yeah, you don’t get a day off actually.]

[5] Wir arbeiten in einer Werbeagentur, auch zusammen, also wir sehen uns twenty-four seven gefühlt. Aber es funktioniert gut. (9 January 2020) [We work in an advertising agency, together, so it feels like we see each other twenty-four seven. But it works well.]

When we quantify the results according to the degree of integration into the German language, an interesting difference between word lexemes and multiword lexemes emerges (see Table 1). In both categories, the majority of Anglicisms are direct borrowings, but within the group of phraseological units, loan translations and hybrid forms are more frequent.

Table 1: Types of Anglicisms (For examples of the three types, see above.)

Direct borrowings

Loan translations

Hybrid forms

Word lexemes

83.0%

2.4%

14.6%

Phraseological units

56.9%

13.2%

29.9%

4.2. Anglicisms in “Die Küchenschlacht” in comparison with other sources

Table 2 presents twenty Anglicisms from our dataset that occurred at least five times⁷, together with the number of their occurrences in DeReKo and the languages for which the unit has also been established as an Anglicism in GLAD⁸. The list includes eleven word lexemes and nine phraseological units.

Table 2: Anglicisms in the dataset, the German corpus DeReKo and the database GLAD

Anglicism

DeReKo-2021-I

Entries in GLAD

safe sein (with sth.) (to be on the safe side with sth.)

22 (1999-2020)

Dutch

Challenge

54,964 (1948-2020)⁹

Catalan, Danish, Dutch, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Spanish

cool

117,220 (1950-2020)

Albanian, Catalan, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, French, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian (Bokmål), Polish, Spanish

nice

12,617 (1947-2020) (before 2012 only in quotes “Nice to meet you”, Mr Nice Guy)

Danish, Japanese, Korean

Crossover

12,650 (1980-2020)

Catalan, Danish, French, Japanese, Polish, Spanish

am Ende des Tages (at the end of the day)

14,066 (1989-2020) (use of the phrase in its figurative sense ‘finally/considering all circumstances’ only began in the late 1980s)

Albanian, Danish, Polish; also Spanish (see Oncins-Martínez 2012)

easy

29,223 (1950-2020) (according to Carstensen et al., first evidence in 1982; earlier uses in “Take it easy” and “Easy Rider”)

Italian, Japanese, Norwegian (Bokmål)

tricky

3,625 (1957-2020) (according to Carstensen et al., from 1973 on and mainly used for people; in our dataset referring to ‘sth. difficult to do’)

Danish

Komfortzone / aus der Komfortzone holen (to take sb. out of their comfort zone)

4,868 (1995-2020)

Danish, Italian

(just) in time

5,972 (1949-2020) (according to Carstensen et al. just in time from 1987 onwards)

Japanese

too much

2,672 (1950-2020) (before 2012, in quotes only)

Signature Dish

136 (2004-2020)

Czech, Danish

fein sein (mit etwas) (to be fine with sth.)

13 (2018-2020)

Danish (fine with me)

magic moment

72 (1991-2020)

Zeitmanagement (time management)

5,997 (1987-2020)

Czech, Japanese, Russian

spicy

706 (1994-2020)

Danish, Japanese

Surf and Turf / Surf & Turf / Surf ‘n’ Turf

318 (1994-1010)

Let’s go!

1,639 (1955-2020)

Danish, Korean

im Flow sein (to be in the flow)

605 (1996-2020)

Fusion Kitchen

12 (2002-2018)

Dutch

It can be seen that the English words and expressions entered the German language at different times, with six of them imported in the 1990s. Some specific culinary terms (e.g. Signature Dish) have been in use since the 2000s. Some of the phraseological units whose use might be considered typical of “Die Küchenschlacht” (e.g. mit etwas safe sein ‘to be safe with sth., to be on the safe side with sth.’ / etwas ist safe ‘sth. is safe’ and fein sein mit etwas ‘to be fine with sth., to have managed sth., to be well on one’s way’) seem to be of very recent origin, and they are not frequent in the German corpus and have not yet gained currency in other languages either.

4.3. Usage and functions

The Anglicisms in our dataset are closely related to the features of the genre. Words and expressions such as Challenge, Let’s go!, mit X safe sein / X ist safe (to be on the safe side with sth.), jemanden aus seiner Komfortzone holen (take / force sb. out of their comfort zone), (auf)pimpen (to pimp), ready, back in the game, am Ende des Tages (at the end of the day) or fein sein mit X (to have managed / to be well on one’s way) reflect the character of “Die Küchenschlacht” as a competitive show. Others illustrate how important evaluations are in the show (e.g. nice, cool, einen guten Job machen [to do a good job]).

An important function of the Anglicisms in our dataset is the denomination of ingredients, dishes, and utensils. The use of culinary jargon showcases the celebrity chefs’ as well as some amateur cooks’ expertise and knowledge, and the genre contributes to making highly specific culinary terms a part of everyday language. Examples include Five Spice, green-zebra Tomate, smoken, Fusion Kitchen, Ceasar Style, Surf & Turf, and Flaming Gun. These words and expressions are “cultural loans” (Haspelmath, 2008), i.e. Anglicisms that were adopted to introduce the new ingredients and food trends.

A second function of Anglicisms is closely related to how the show serves to entertain. Borrowings from English are often used because of the prestige that the English language enjoys as the embodiment of modern life, international flair, youth, coolness, informality, and education. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that English expressions play a significant role in general in this TV format. For example, the themes chosen for some of the Thursday programmes (see Section 2) are presented in English, such as Low Carb (8 April 2020), Hot & Spicy (18 March 2020), and Simply the Best (9 March 2021). In addition, a 2015 Christmas special titled Coming home for cooking saw former contestants return to the studio, and the weekly winners compete against each other in a final week at the end of the year called Champions Week. This shows that English slogans and set expressions are an integral part of the structure of the shows and that their use can serve as an in-group marker for their viewers.

Humour is a central element of entertainment. English words and phrases are interspersed for this purpose. For example, hosts create funny names for contestants and colleagues (see examples [6] and [7]), or they deliberately mishear or misinterpret a phrase in a way that gives it a fun new meaning (see example [8]).

[6] Wenn Johann Lafer nachher kommt, Mr Dessert himself, das ist tricky (…) (23 April 2020) [When Johann Lafer comes later, Mr. Dessert himself, that’s tricky (…)]

[7] Mr Putenbrust Frank [fræŋk], wie ist es gewesen für dich? (9 July 2020) [Mr. Turkey breast Frank, how was it for you?])

[8] Bei mir gibt es heute einen Hühnerhautchip, den ich- – Was, einen Hühnerhauptshit? (16 March 2021) [Today I am preparing a crispy chicken skin chip, which I– – What, a chicken head shit?]

Furthermore, hosts and contestants modify English phrases creatively to evoke humour, as can be seen in examples [9] to [12]. It is quite often that the codemix reminds us of Macaronic poetry, a traditional comedy strategy (see examples [13] to [15]).

[9] Ich wollte einfach mal so “High Five” und sie war so, weißte, “High Face”. (25 July 2019) [I was just doing like ‘High Five’, and she was you know ‘High Face’’.]

[10] (presenting the prepared dishes:) Ja, Lars but not least, ne, auch du musstest diese Aufgabe heute bewältigen. (16 March 2021) [Yes, Lars (= the contestant’s first name) but not least, you too had to manage this task today.]

[11] Nun bist du die letzte hier in der Runde. – Ja, last woman standing. (19 August 2021) [You’re the last woman in this round. – Yes, the last woman standing.]

[12] Mach die Bratkartoffeln, make Bratkartoffel sexy again. (9 Sept 2021) [Make fried potatoes, make fried potatoes sexy again.]

[13] This is part one of the Entenleber. (26 June 2020) [This is part one of the duck liver.]

[14] Dann ist das Curry so gut wie ready. (8 January 2020) [Then the curry is just about finished. (so gut wie fertig ‘as good as ready’ is a set phrase in German.)]

[15] Vielleicht erinnern Sie sich noch aus dem letzten Jahr. Er ist back at the Weihnachtsmarkt. (28 November 2019) [You might still remember from last year. He is back at the Christmas market.]

Occasionally, we find self-ironic comments on the use of English words and phrases, as in the following examples (see [16] and [17]):

[16] Ja, das ist die Challenge–auf Neudeutsch. (25 November 2019) [Yes, this is the challenge–as they say in German newspeak.]

[17] Das wird gewürzt mit Five Spice – Ja, Five Spice müssen wir erklären, das sind fünf Gewürze, so viel Englisch können wir. (31 October 2019) [This is spiced with five spice – Well, five spice, we have to explain this, it means five spices, this is how far we get with our school-boy English.]

In example [18], the use of English is made the topic of conversation. The humorous discourse based on English borrowings is even continued in succeeding shows, in this way enhancing coherence within the shows and deepening the relationship with the studio audience and TV viewers. The host plays with the contestant’s English job title (Feelgood Manager) and the way he uses the term back-up for a part of his dish that is prepared as a hidden reserve for use in an emergency, which is then even copied by another contestant.

[18] Contestant 1 (Lucas): Hallo, ich bin (…), 26 Jahre alt und ich bin Feelgood Manager. (26 August 2019, 1:50) [Hello, I’m (…), 26 years old and I’m a feelgood manager.]
Host: (addressing the viewers) Hm, wenn man dann am ersten Tag rausfliegt, ist vielleicht nicht mehr so viel feel good, aber das kann er ja dann managen. [Well, if he ends up being eliminated on the first day, that may not feel so good any more, but he’ll be able to manage it.]
Host: Meine Damen und Herren, kennen Sie den Beruf eines Feelgood Managers? (…) Hier steht einer–Lucas. (…) Fühlst du dich gut? (…) Erzähl mal kurz, was ist denn ein Feelgood Manager? (28 August 2019, 12:10) [Ladies and gentlemen, have you ever heard of a feelgood manager) (…)? Here is one–Lucas. Do you feel good? (…) Tell us briefly, what is a feelgood manager?]
Contestant 1 (Lucas): Ich betreibe einen kleinen Co-working Space hier um die Ecke. Da kannst du hinkommen mit deinem Laptop (…) das ist gerade für Freelancer total wichtig. (12:28) [I run a small co-working space just around the corner. You can go there with your laptop (…) for freelancers, this is really important.]
Host: Wir haben einen Feelgood Manager, der natürlich auch ein Feelgood-Gericht dabeihat. (13:20) (…) [We’ve got a feelgood manager here, who has of course brought a feelgood dish.]
Host: Das Ei pochiert hier so vor sich hin. Eins hattest du hier schon, hab’ ich gesehen, eins oder zwei. (24:35) [The egg is poaching away here. There was one here already, I saw it, one or two.]
Contestant 1: Ja, das ist so’n Back-up-Ei. [Yes, that is a sort of back-up egg.]
Host: Ein BACK-UP-EI! Wenn man diese Co-working-Space-Besitzer [hat], die Feelgood-Manager sind, dann braucht man natürlich auch ein Back-up-Ei, yeah. [A BACK-UP EGG! If you (have) these co-working space owners, who are feelgood managers, you need a back-up egg, of course, yeah.]
Host: Du hast dein Hähnchen schon rausgelegt. Das macht ein bisschen Sorge, vier Minuten Zeit ist noch. (30 August 2019, 28:54) [You have already taken out your chicken? I worry a bit, there are four minutes left.]
Contestant 1: Das ist das berühmte Back-up-Hähnchen. [This is the famous back-up chicken.]
Host: Tatsächlich, Lucas hat das berühmte Back-up-Hähnchen bzw. die Back-up-Zutat geprägt. Bei ihm gab es ein Back-up-Ei (…) Aber was soll man bei einem Feelgood-Manager auch erwarten? (Applause) [Indeed, Lucas coined the famous back-up chicken, or better the back-up ingredient. He prepared a back-up egg (…) But what else would you expect from a feelgood manager?]
Host: Das rechts sieht noch sehr roh aus. (29:20) [The one on the right still looks very raw.]
Contestant 2 (Pauline): Ja, deshalb hab’ ich die kleinen auch back-up-mäßig gemacht. [Yes, this is why I prepared the small ones “back-up style”.]

It is noteworthy that in a considerable number of occasions we find combinations of English and German. The use of an English expression follows a German expression of the same content, obviously serving as an intensification of expressiveness and power of persuasion (see examples [19] to [21]), or an English expression is immediately followed by its translation (see examples [22] to [24]).

[19] Fleisch mit Knochen zu braten ist immer ein bissl eine Herausforderung–eine Challenge. (7 October 2019) [Roasting meat with bones is always a bit of a challenge–a challenge.]

[20] Aber niemals aufgeben. You never give up. (6 June 2019) [But never give up. You never give up.]

[21] Das ist stimmig, das passt halt, von den Aromen her, vom Geschmack her, vom Tasting her. (25 March 2021) [This is coherent, it simply fits, as regard the flavours, as regards the taste, as regards the taste.]

Examples like these show that hosts and contestants insert English words and phrases not so much for communicative purposes but for the reason of being expressive and entertaining, giving their speech a more lively, modern and colloquial style (cf. Androutsopoulos 2007).

[22] Ja, nice, nett, läuft. (8 August 2019) [Yes, nice, nice, looking good.]

[23] Das merkt man, das ist hand-made, das ist handgemacht. (22 October 2019) [You can tell, it’s hand-made, it’s hand-made.]

[24] Es sieht aus wie Pulled Pork, also gezupftes Schwein. (30 January 2020) [It looks like pulled pork, that is pulled pork.]

The frequent translation of English expressions into German could also be explained by the fact that, in public service television, hosts might feel obliged to make sure that the audience is able to understand everything. The use of Anglicisms is not entirely undisputed among the German public. Some people are concerned about the dominant role of English and, from a language cultivation perspective, some even consider the massive borrowing to be a threat to their mother tongue¹⁰. The following conversation between a contestant and the host might be seen in this context (see also example [17]). However, more detailed investigation, including interviews with hosts and contestants of the show, would be necessary to confirm this assumption.

[25] - Und die Baconjam, ist das was sagen wir mal a bissl was Scharfes auch?
- Eigentlich nicht.
- Wenn du’s übersetzen würdest ins Deutsche, was würdest da sagen?
- Es wär’ eine Speckmarmelade.
- Eine Speckmarmelade, das passt doch.
- So richtig deutsch: Speckmarmelade
- OK, also wobei wir Deutsch jetzt nicht abwerten, gell.
- Nein, auf gar keinen Fall.
- Es muss ja nicht immer alles auf Englisch sein. Es (dürfen) ja auch immer noch ein paar deutsche Sätze dabei sein. (21 June 2021)
[- And the bacon jam, is it, would you say, a bit spicy?
- Not really.
- If you translated it into German, what would you say?
- It would be “Speckmarmelade”.
- “Speckmarmelade”, that fits.
- In real German: “Speckmarmelade”.
- OK, we don’t want to devalue German, right?
- No, by no means.
- After all, not everything has to be English. A few German sentences are allowed as well.]

In this regard, it is worth mentioning that English words and phrases in our dataset are not always used in the same way as in the donor language. Deviations concern their form (e.g. step for step [18 June 2020], relative easy [24 March 2020]), pronunciation (e.g. finger pronounced fɪŋə at the beginning and fɪŋgə at the end of the show [9 September 2021]), their pragmatic use (e.g. Dann müssen jetzt die Linsen dazu ‘Then the lentils have to be added now’. – Thanks for asking. [9 July 2020]), and translation (Morgen ist ein Motto, das ist großarrtig–Simply the best. Die absolut simplen, leichten Geschichten werden wir kochen. [Tomorrow we’ll have a great theme–Simply the Best. We’ll prepare absolutely simple, easy things]). English borrowings certainly have their point of departure with bilingual speakers (Haspelmath 2008). Their further use and dispersal, however, can be attributed to people with lower degrees of bilingualism, including speakers “with only a few words and phrases in a second language” (Li 2000, p. 6). Busse (2005, p. 67) writes about people’s motivation for using Anglicisms: “For many speakers with only limited knowledge their meaning is often only vague, but these words seem to convey an air of fashionable prestige.”¹¹

The third function of Anglicisms that can be observed in the dataset is connected with the discursive character of the cooking shows. The amateur cooks have to prepare their meals and converse with the host at the same time. The use of prefabricated speech, i.e. of ready-made constructions that the speaker does not have to produce laboriously, but can reproduce holistically from memory, seems to be a solution to such difficult communicative situations, and the origin of the reproduced material does not seem to matter. The use of catchphrases or clichés (including those in English) can help “bridge gaps” in the show when people do not know what to say or how to react¹². This can happen when contestants are pressed for time or become aware of mishaps, or when accidents in the cooking process occur (see examples [26] and [27]).

[26] Und das Soßerl? – Ist- is in the making. (6 August 2019) [And the gravy? – Is, it is in the making.]

[27] Normalerweise wird der Reis so’n bisschen fester an sich, sodass das wie so’n Kuchenstück ist, wenn man das anschneidet. Aber gut. Nobody is perfect. (27 January 2020) [Normally, the rice gets a bit more solid, more like a piece of cake when you cut into it. But OK. Nobody is perfect.]

From the host’s perspective, examples [28] and [29] represent such situations. In [28], one of the contestants pounds her schnitzel so loudly that the host cannot be understood. And in [29] the two final contestants in the last show of the week are too nervous to take part in the conversation. An English ad-hoc creation seems to be a solution in [28], while [29] alludes to the name of an Austrian TV cooking show (2006-2011, 3Sat).

[28] Aha, es wird gehämmert. It’s hammer time. (6 September 2019) [Well, sounds like hammering. It’s hammer time.]

[29] Vom Timing her auch OK ? – Ja. – Aber ich sehe schon. Ihr bevorzugt heute das Silent Cooking. OK. Ich widme mich mal meinem Fisch. (19 June 2020) [Are you OK for time? – Yes. – But I see. You prefer silent cooking today. So I’ll take care of my fish then.]

Finally, a specific pragmatic function should be mentioned: the use of English borrowings in judgements. As described in Section 2, the evaluation of the dishes by a celebrity chef constitutes the climax of a competitive cooking show. In contrast to a number of other TV programmes in which the contestants have to face harsh criticism or even aggressive and humiliating judgements¹³, the final evaluations in “Die Küchenschlacht” are nuanced and positive. More often than not, judges express how difficult it is for them to eliminate one of the amateur cooks and to choose the best dish. Positive criticism and sharing skills and knowledge seem to prevail even in this last part of the show. In this context, Anglicisms seem to fulfil two tasks. Firstly, they can be used to emphasise favourable assessments, as in [30] to [32]. Viewers have the impression that German expressions are simply not enough to praise the quality of a particular dish. Words such as nice, powerful and outstanding permeate the judgements.

[30] Das ist ein Masterpiece and für mich klar weiter. (19 June 2019) [This is a masterpiece and for me clearly a ticket to the next round.]

[31] Der Geschmack ist wirklich outstanding. (7 June 2019) [The taste really is outstanding.]

[32] Hm, I love Kaiserschmarren. (4 July 2019) [Hm, I love sugared pancake with raisins.]

Secondly, and even more frequently, Anglicisms seem to be used to alleviate negative judgements. English expressions such as too much, old school or no go sound better than their German equivalents (übertrieben, altmodisch, unakzeptabel) (see [33] to [35]); in addition, innovative expressions in English give judges the opportunity to be vague when delivering negative feedback (see [36] and [37]).

[33] Also, von der Anrichteweise ist das ein hei bisschen too much. (6 June 2019) [Well, as regards the presentation this is a bit too much.]

[34] Ein bissl Old School, aber trotzdem sehr charmant umgesetzt (5 September 2019) [A bit old school, but nevertheless charmingly executed.]

[35] Hier haben wir rohes Fleisch, das ist absolut ein No Go. (28 August 2019) [Here we have raw meat, which is absolutely no-go.]

[36] Ein bisschen Partyfeeling fehlt diesem Fisch. (16 March 2020) [This fish lacks a little party feeling; meaning approximately: it is not well seasoned.]

[37] Vielleicht noch ein bisschen mehr Handschrift, bisschen mehr Storytelling, ein bisschen Geschichte. (16 March 2020) [Perhaps a bit more signature, a bit more storytelling, a bit more story.]

The two ways of using Anglicisms in judgements can be seen as sociopragmatic choices (Hunston, 2013; Crombez et al., 2022). They soften the impact of negative evaluations and provide a resource for expressing indirectness. This strategy of showing politeness is intended to avoid face-threatening acts (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

5. Concluding remarks

The study has shown that the massive impact of English on the German language can also be felt in the area of cooking. Loans from English (borrowings used in their original form, loan translations and hybrids) play an important role in TV cooking shows. They serve various functions, including the denomination of ingredients, dishes and methods of food preparation, but also the function of entertaining the studio audience and TV viewers. Participants also use English expressions to construct language-based humour. A large number of the Anglicisms found reflects the character of the show as a cooking competition. Altogether, the language of cooking shows can be described as vivid, informal, playful and innovative, and borrowings from English contribute to this.

Given this paper’s focus on Anglicisms, this study was unable to address a number of issues worth exploring. These include, for example, the character of the cooking show as a semantically complex (or multimodal) genre. Indeed, further research should pay attention to the investigation of sound, visual elements and the presentation of captions with recipes on the screen and their relationship to spoken interactions. Furthermore, it would be worthwhile to study the influence that the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (no studio audience, social distancing between contestants and the host) in some of the shows had on language use and participant interaction. Finally, further studies might explore to what extent language use, and especially the use of Anglicisms, is reflected in the way the show’s fans communicate on Facebook and in TV viewers’ comments on the show’s website.

Bibliographie

Andersen Gisle, 2020, “Three cases of phraseological borrowing: a comparative study of as if, Oh wait and the ever construction in the Scandinavian languages”, Ampersand, vol. 7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2020.100062 (accessed 8 March 2022)

Androutsopoulos Jannis, 2007, Chapter10: Bilingualism in the mass media and on the Internet, in Monica Heller (ed.), Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 207-230.

Brown Penelope & Levinson Stephen C., 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Burmasova Svetlana, 2010, Empirische Untersuchung der Anglizismen im Deutschen, Bamberg, University of Bamberg Press.

Burger Harald et al. (eds.), 2007, Phraseologie. Phraseology. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin & New York, de Gruyter.

Busse Ulrich, 2005, “The Impact of Lexical Borrowing from English on German: Facts, Figures, and Attitudes”, in Claus Gnutzmann & Frauke Intemann (eds.), The Globalization of English and the English Classroom, Tübingen, Narr, p. 57-70.

Carstensen Broder, 1965, Englische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Sprache nach 1945, Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Carstensen Broder & Galinsky Hans, 1963, Amerikanismen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache: Entlehnungsvorgänge und ihre stilistischen Aspekte, Heidelberg, Winter.

Carstensen Broder, Busse Ulrich & Schmude Regina, 1993-1996, Anglizismen-Wörterbuch. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945, Berlin, de Gruyter.

COLLINS Kathleen, 2008, “TV Cooking Shows: The Evolution of a Genre”, FlowTV, 7 May 2008. Available from: http://flowtv.org/?p=1316 (accessed 8 March 2022)

Crombez Yasmin et al., 2022, “The sociopragmatic parameters steering the reported selection of Anglicisms or their Dutch alternatives”, Linguistics 2022, p. 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0237.

Davidson Alan, 2014, The Oxford Companion to Food, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Evert Stefan, 2004, The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pair and Collocations, PhD Thesis, Universität Stuttgart.

Fiedler Sabine, 2007, English Phraseology. A Coursebook. Tübingen: Narr.

Fiedler Sabine, 2012, “Der Elefant im Raum … The influence of English on German Phraseology”, in Cristiano Furiassi et al. (eds.), The Anglicization of European Lexis, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Benjamins, p. 239-259.

Fiedler Sabine, 2013, “Lassen Sie mich diesen Punkt noch machen – The influence of English on German phraseology”, in Melanija Fabčič et al. (eds.), Phraseology in Interlingual and Intercultural Contact, Bielsko-Biała et al., Zora, p. 207-222.

Fiedler Sabine, 2014, “Gläserne Decke und „Elefant im Raum“ – Phraseologische Anglizismen im Deutschen, Berlin, Logos.

Fiedler Sabine 2018, “Phraseological Anglicisms in German: A look at a satirical TV program”, Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, vol. 24, n° 1, p. 10-17.

Fink Hermann, 1970, Amerikanismen im Wortschatz der deutschen Tagespresse, dargestellt am Beispiel dreier überregionaler Zeitungen (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt), München, Hueber.

Firth Alan, 1996, “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis”, Journal of Pragmatics, n° 26, p. 237-159.

Galinsky Hans, 1963, Stylistic Aspects of Linguistic Borrowing (= Teil II in Carstensen / Galinsky 1963), Heidelberg, Winter, p. 33-72.

Gardner-Chloros Penelope, 2013, “Contact and Code-switching”, in Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, Hoboken, New Jersey, Blackwell Publishing, p. 188-207.

Gerhardt Cornelia, Frobenius Maximiliane & Ley Susanne (eds.), Culinary Linguistics: The chef’s special, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Glahn Richard, 2000, Der Einfluss des Englischen auf gesprochene deutsche Gegenwartssprache, Frankfurt am Main, Lang.

Görlach Manfred (ed.), 2001, A Dictionary of European Anglicisms, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Haspelmath Martin, 2008, “Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability”, in Thomas Stolz, Dik Bakker & Rosa Salas Palomo (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes, Berlin, de Gruyter, p. 43-62.

Haugen Einar, 1950, “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing”, Language, vol. 26, n° 2, p. 210-231.

Humbley John, 1974, « Vers une typologie de l’emprunt linguistique », Cahiers de lexicologie, n° 25, p. 46-70.

Hunston Susan, 2013, Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language, New York, Routledge.

Krei Alexander, 2021, „ZDF-„Küchenschlacht“ erreicht so viele Zuschauer wie nie. Available from: https://www.dwdl.de/zahlenzentrale/82228/zdfkuechenschlacht_erreicht_so_viele_zuschauer_wie_nie/?utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=&utm_term=

Kutlu Alkim, 2021, “Queering the competitive cooking show: performance on/of Netflix’s Nailed it!”, Whatever, n° 4, p. 521-540.

Lehnert Martin, 1990, Anglo-Amerikanisches im Sprachgebrauch der DDR, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.

Levinson Stephen C., 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Li Wei, 2000, “Dimensions of bilingualism”, in Li Wei (ed.), The Bilingualism Reader, London, Routledge, p. 3-25.

Manczak-Wohlfeld Elżbieta & Witalisz Alicja, 2019, “Anglicisms in The National Corpus of Polish: Assets and Limitations of Corpus Tools”, Studies in Polish Linguistics, vol. 14, n° 4, p. 171-190.

Marti Solano Ramón, 2012, “Multi-word loan translations and semantic borrowings”, in Cristiano Furiassi, Virginia Pulcini & Félix Rodríguez González (eds.), The Anglicization of European Lexis, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 199-215.

Matras Yaron, 2009, Language Contact. Cambridge University Press.

Matwick Keri & Matwick Kelsi, 2014, “Storytelling and synthetic personalization in television cooking shows”, Journal of Pragmatics, n° 71, p. 151-159.

Matwick Keri & Matwick Kelsi, 2015, “Humor and Performing Gender on TV Cooking Shows”, Humor, vol. 32, n° 1, p. 125-146.

Matwick Keri & Matwick Kelsi, 2017, “Self-deprecatory humor on TV cooking shows”, Language & Communication, vol. 56, p. 33-41.

Matwick Keri & Matwick Kelsi, 2019, Food Discourse of Celebrity Chefs of Food Network, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31430-9_1 (accessed 8 March 2022)

Moon Rosamund, 2008, “Conventionalized as-similes in English. A problem case”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 13, n° 1, p. 3-7.

Mühleisen Susanne, 2022, “Brutal spoons and cheesy gloves: The formal, the informal and the spoof cooking show on web stage”, Internet Pragmatics, vol. 5, n° 1, p. 92-114.

Myers-Scotton Carol, 1992, “Comparing codeswitsching and borrowing”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, n° 13, p. 19-39.

Oncins-Martinez José, 2012, “Newly-coined Anglicisms in Contemporary Spanish”, in Cristiano Furiassi, Virginia Pulcini & Félix Rodríguez González (eds.), The Anglicization of European Lexis, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 218-238.

Onysko Alexander, 2007, Anglicisms in German. Borrowing, Lexical Productivity, and Written Codeswitching, Berlin, de Gruyter.

Oren Tasha, 2013, “On the Line: Format, Cooking and Competition as Television Values”, Critical Studies in Television: The International Journal of Television Studies, vol. 8, n° 2, p. 20-35.

Philips Deborah, 2016, “Cooking Doesn't Get Much Tougher than This: MasterChef and Competitive Cooking”, Journal of Popular Film and Television, vol. 44, n° 3, p. 169-178.

Pulcini Virginia, 2020, “English-derived Multi-word and Phraseological Units across Languages in the Global Anglicism Database”, Textus, vol. 1, p. 127-141.

Quasthoff Uwe et al., 2010, „Häufigkeit und Struktur von Phraseologismen am Beispiel verschiedener Web-Korpora“, in Erla Hallsteinsdóttir, Stefaniya Ptashnyk & Noah Bubenhofer (Hrsg.), Korpora, Web und Datenbanken. Computergestützte Methoden in der modernen Phraseologie und Lexikografie / Corpora, Web and Databases. Computer-based Methods in Modern Phraseology and Lexicography, Baltmannsweiler, Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, p. 37-53.

Rodriguez Gonzalez Félix, 1996, “Functions of Anglicisms in Contemporary Spanish”, Cahiers de Lexicologie, vol. 68, n° 1, p. 107-128.

Romaine Suzanne, 1995, Bilingualism (2nd edition), Hoboken, New Jersey, Blackwell Publishing.

Rüdiger Sofia & Mühleisen Susanne (eds.), 2020, Talking about Food: The Social and the Global in Eating Communities, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Schelper Dunja, 1995, Anglizismen in der Pressesprache der BRD, der DDR, Österreichs und der Schweiz: Eine vergleichende, typologische und chronologische Studie (Dissertation), Universität Laval.

Schmelz Linda, 2018, Kochen im Fernsehen: Eine kulturwissenschaftliche Annäherung, Münster / New York: Waxmann.

Serwe Stefan Karl, Ong Kenneth Keng Wee & Ghesquière Jean-François, 2013, “Bon Appétit, Lion City”: The use of French in naming restaurants in Singapore”, in Cornelia Gerhardt et al. (eds.) Culinary Linguistics, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins, p. 281-304.

Steyer Kathrin, 2004, „Kookkurrenz, Korpusmethodik, linguistisches Modell, lexikografische Perspektiven“, in Kathrin Steyer (Hrsg.), Wortverbindungen – mehr oder weniger fest, Berlin & New York, de Gruyter, p. 87-116.

Swales John. M., 1990, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Viereck Karin, 1980, Englisches Wortgut: seine Häufigkeit und Integration in der österreichischen und bundesdeutschen Pressesprache, Frankfurt am Main, Lang.

Wagner Johannes & Firth Alan, 1997, “Communication strategies at work”, in Gabriele Kasper & Eric Kellermann (eds.), Communication Strategies, London, Longman, p. 323-343.

Weinreich Uriel, 1953, Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems, New York, Linguistic Circle of New York.

Winter-Froemel Esme, 2013, “Formal variance and semantic changes in borrowing: Integrating semasiology and onomasiology“, in Eline Zenner & Gitte Kristiansen (eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing, Boston & Berlin, de Gruyter, p. 65-100.

Witalisz Alicja, 2018, “Polish Anglicisms in the fields of leisure, fashion and entertainment against historical background”, Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, vol. 24, n° 1. Available from: https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/969 (accessed 8 March 2022)

Yang Wenliang, 1990, Anglizismen im Deutschen, Tübingen, Niemeyer.

Zenner Eline, Heylen Kris & Van de Velde, Freek, 2018, “Most borrowable construction ever! A large-scale approach to contact-induced pragmatic change”, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 133, p. 134-149.

Notes

1 See https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/171203/umfrage/interesse-an-kochshows-im-fernsehen/ [last access: 23 February 2022].

2 These are the amateur cooks’ tasks at the time of writing this article. They have varied over the course of the show, in previous years including, for example, the task to cook a meal with a limited selection of ingredients or to prepare both a starter and a main dish.

3 Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, from 23 March 2020 there was no audience in the studio.

4 Transcription conventions include: (text) parentheses indicate uncertainty on the transcriber’s part; text- a single dash indicates an abrupt cut-off or self-interruption in the flow of speech; TEXT capital letters indicate special emphasis.

5 Cf. https://lex-it.inl.nl/lexit2/?db=glad&lang=en.

6 There is only one occurrence of safe as a noun modifier: ein safer Gang (‘a safe dish’).

7 Researchers determine different threshold values: Onysko (2007) considers Anglicisms occurring more than three times in his corpus to be “frequent”; Moon (2008) includes items with a frequency of three, taking Evert’s (2004) statistical analyses as a basis; Quasthoff et al. (2010) point out that a phraseological unit with a frequency of ten can be identified automatically in web corpora.

8 Last access 8 March 2022.

9 For some of the Anglicisms in this list, the data found in DeReKo have to be checked carefully, as the corpus includes passages of English text. The year 1948 as the first evidence of Challenge, for example, is misleading. Carstensen et al. (1994, p. 642), in their article “Herausforderung” (challenge), point out that in contrast to the German loan translation the English form Challenge has not gained acceptance. See also the comments on am Ende des Tages (at the end of the day), nice, easy and tricky.

10 This attitude is also reflected in the following posts on the show’s Facebook page. E.g.:
- Ich musste schon wieder nachschauen: „Bist du in shape?!!!“ Die Medienwelt ist durchzogen von Anglizismen […] Was soll das? Fühlen sich die, die es benutzen, besser, klüger oder was?
- Die fühlen sich cooler. Der Rest lacht darüber. (18 January 2021) https://en-gb.facebook.com/pg/Kuechenschlacht/posts/
[- I had to look something up again. “Are you in shape?!!!” The media is riddled with Anglicisms (…) What’s the point? Do those who use it feel better, smarter, or what?
- They feel cooler. The others laugh about it.]

11 It is difficult to find clear-cut differences between borrowing and code-switching. A number of authors have discussed the relationship between these two types of contact form, using criteria such as frequency, degrees of assimilation and existence of an equivalent in the receiving language (Gardner-Chloras, 2013; Matras, 2009, p. 110-114; Myers-Scotton, 1992; Onysko, 2007; Romaine, 1995).

12 See also Fiedler (2013) on phraseological units used in this function in the genre of talk shows.

13 See, for example, analyses of the shows MasterChef and Nailed It! by Philips (2016), Oren (2013), and Kutlu (2021).

Pour citer ce document

FIEDLER S., (2022). “Mit dem Topping bin ich auch fein”–Anglicisms in a German TV cooking show. Espaces Linguistiques, (4). https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.488

Auteur

Sabine FIEDLER

University of Leipzig

sfiedler@uni-leipzig.de

Licence

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Les hybrides – une catégorie redondante d’anglicismes ? Les hybrides dans les textes tchèques

Hybrids–A redundant category of Anglicisms? Hybrids in Czech texts

ALEŠ KLÉGR et IVANA BOZDĚCHOVÁ

Résumé : Le présent article examine les anglicismes hybrides en tchèque à partir d’un échantillon de 500 items. Les formations hybrides sont identifiées par la présence de morphèmes lexicaux anglais et tchèques (libres ou liés). L’objectif de notre analyse est (i) d’évaluer la variété et la nature des hybrides dans le but de délimiter le concept des Anglicismes hybrides pour le tchèque ; (ii) d’évaluer et de décrire l’éventail des domaines dans lesquels ces hybrides apparaissent. Alors que dans la littérature linguistique les hybrides sont principalement associés aux composés, dans l’échantillon tchèque ce sont les dérivés hybrides, et tout particulièrement les hybrides polylexicaux, qui prédominent tandis que les composés hybrides sont sous-représentés. Pour en rendre compte, cette étude plaide en faveur d’une approche purement langagière aux hybrides. Plus important encore, plutôt que de trouver un seul type d’hybrides, l’analyse aboutit à cinq types distincts d’hybrides regroupés sous les catégories fondamentales non hybrides des anglicismes. La distribution des hybrides ne semble pas différer de celle des autres anglicismes dans les textes tchèques.

Abstract : This article examines hybrid Anglicisms in Czech, drawing on a sample of 500 items. Hybrid formations are identified by the presence of English and Czech lexical morphemes (free or bound). The sample analysis strives: (i) to assess the variety and nature of hybrids with the aim to delimit the concept of hybrid Anglicisms for Czech; (ii) to assess and outline the range of areas in which these hybrids occur. While in the literature hybrids are primarily associated with compounds, in the Czech sample hybrid derivatives and especially multi-word hybrids prevail and hybrid compounds are underrepresented. To account for this, the article argues for a language-specific approach to hybrids. More importantly, rather than finding one single type of hybrids, the analysis arrives at five distinct types of hybrids subsumable under the fundamental non-hybrid categories of Anglicisms. The distribution of hybrids appears to be no different from other Anglicisms in Czech texts.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.500

Introduction

Hybrids are an easily recognizable type among Anglicisms although they may not be as frequent as (un)adapted English loans: Luján García (2017) reports only 2.6% from the total of Anglicisms collected in a Spanish web forum during a period of two years. They are deceptively straightforward to define as lexical items containing both source language (SL) and recipient language (RL) components and as such are also commonly included in classifications of Anglicisms. In Czech, a highly inflected language, the incorporation of an English element in the lexicon typically requires some kind of morphological tweaking involving Czech material, and the situation therefore merits a closer look. Also, the diversity and range of hybrid expressions, which is rarely mentioned in the literature, calls for a detailed analysis. Following a brief review of the position of hybrids in general and English-based hybrids in particular in the taxonomies of borrowing, such an analysis is the goal of this article drawing on a sample of 500 items regarded as English-based hybrids in Czech. The article presents a detailed picture of hybrid Anglicisms in Czech and the implications of the findings.

1. The position of hybrid loans in general classifications of borrowing

Before turning to some of the classifications of Anglicisms, it is useful to have a brief overview of the seminal general taxonomies of borrowings as they inform classifications of Anglicisms. The three authors whose classical studies in this field have overwhelmingly influenced the subsequent development of classification of lexical loans are Werner Betz (1949, 1959), Einar Haugen (1950) and Uriel Weinreich (1953 [1963]). As their classifications are well-known, they will be only shortly summarised below. Synoptic studies reporting on the formation of the theory and taxonomy of borrowing are offered for instance by Oksaar (1996), Stanforth (2002) or Grzega (2003).

Betz (1949, 1959), who draws on the German tradition going back to the 19th century, distinguishes between outer and inner loanwords (Äusseres, Inneres Lehngut). The former include three types: loanwords proper (Lehworten and Fremdworten, foreign words), hybrid forms (Hybridbildung) and false or pseudo-loans (Scheinentlehnung). Inner loanwords, termed Lehnprägungen (loan coinages) by Betz, are represented by two types, Lehnbildung and Lehnbedeutung (loan meaning, i.e., semantic loan or semantic calque). Lehnbildung is further subdivided into (i) Lehnformung (loan formation) of two subtypes, Lehnüberseztung (loan translation or lexical calque) and Lehnübertragung (loan rendition, i.e., a loose translation such as “Vaterland” for the Latin “patria”) and (ii) Lehnschöpfung (loan creation; an RL expression inspired by, but not a translation of, the source language word, e.g. the German “Umwelt” for the French “milieu”).

Haugen’s (1950) much quoted classification is based on the concepts of importation and substitution and includes three basic types of borrowing: loanwords (showing morphemic importation without substitution), loanblends¹ (involving both importation and substitution), and loanshifts (based only on substitution without importation, i.e., loan translations and semantic loans). In addition, he singles out “creations” (cf. Betz’s Lehnschöpfung), i.e., indirect imitations of a foreign model which they render or rename in RL (and therefore “are not strictly loans at all”, p. 220). They may be composed of native elements or they may include a borrowed element in which case he calls them hybrid creations. He notes that in loanblends, or hybrids, the adaptation of foreign forms goes beyond a simple substitution of “native sounds and inflections for the foreign ones” and results in the insertion of “part or all of a native morpheme”, producing both blended derivatives and blended compounds.

Weinreich (1953, p. 47-62), drawing on both Betz (1949) and Haugen (1950), interprets borrowing in terms of lexical interference of one vocabulary with another. In simple (non-compound) words he distinguishes two types of interference: (i) a loanword resulting from “transfer of the phonemic sequence from one language to another”, and (ii) semantic extension of the native word in conformity with the foreign model, i.e., semantic loan. For complex lexemes (compounds and phrases) he envisages three possible types of interference: (i) transfer of all elements (loanword), (ii) reproduction of all elements by semantic extensions (loan translation; see below), (iii) a combination of transfer and reproduction (hybrid formations, corresponding to Haugen’s loanblends; see Note 1). This last type may involve semantic extension in native elements and, in derivations, both base and affix may be reproduced (i.e., translated). He focuses especially on reproduction (not only of lexemes but also larger units, such as proverbs) using equivalent native elements. Following Betz (cf. German terms in brackets), he also singles out three subtypes of loan translation: (a) loan translations proper (Lehnübersetzungen), (b) loan renditions (Lehnübertragung), i.e., loose translations, and (c) loan creations (Lehnschöpfungen; called ‘creations’ by Haugen, see above), inspired by, but not imitating, the foreign expression.

2. Hybrids in classifications of Anglicisms

Perhaps the most widely accepted and representative classification of Anglicisms published in relatively recent years is that by Pulcini et al. (2012). It is introduced as part of their answer to the question of what counts as an Anglicism and to set straight such lexicographically convenient but simplified definitions of Anglicisms as the one offered by Görlach (2003, p. 1), “[Anglicism is] a word or idiom that is recognizably English in form”.

Pulcini et al. (2012, p. 6) divide Anglicisms into (a) direct Anglicisms, under which they subsume (non-)adapted loanwords, false Anglicisms and hybrids, and (b) indirect Anglicisms, subdivided into calques (loan translations, loan renditions and loan creations) and semantic loans. Clearly, their classification follows Betz (1949), Haugen (1950) and Weinreich (1953) with the exception of several minor name changes. Given this affinity it is somewhat surprising that they define a hybrid Anglicism as a “multi-word unit which freely combines an English element with an RL element” (p. 7), i.e., they consider only compounds and phrases, unlike Weinreich and Haugen, who both explicitly mention hybrid derivatives and the possibility of both base and affix being translated. Also, the authors do not differentiate between hybrids with discoverable English models (loanblends or “half-translations”) and hybrid creations which are native creations without English models (see, however, Pulcini, 1999, below).

Figure 1: Types of lexical borrowings in Pulcini et al. (2012, p. 6)

In fact, a similar focus on compounds may be noticed in descriptions of hybrid Anglicisms in German (Yang, 1990; Busse and Carsten, 1993; Onysko, 2007) and in Italian (Furiassi, 2010). Furiassi (2010, p. 53-55) explicitly equates hybrids with hybrid compounds and defines them “in the narrow sense as the outcome of a combination of an Italian free morpheme with an English free morpheme” (p. 54).

An important aspect of hybrid Anglicisms is pointed out by Pulcini (1999, p. 354), who is well aware of Haugen’s distinction between model-based hybrids (loanblends) and model-lacking hybrid creations. When she compares Italian dictionaries for their treatment of Anglicisms, she notes that words are sometimes labelled as semi-English (i.e., as hybrids) regardless of “whether the word exists in English or it is an Italian coinage”, i.e., a false Anglicism.

Onysko (2007, p. 55-59) devotes a whole section to hybrid Anglicisms in German. He briefly mentions derivative hybrids (excluding cases of inflection), but then discusses only compounds as the largest group among hybrids (and surprisingly has nothing to say about open multi-word hybrids, such as the Czech akustický smog, ‘acoustic smog’ or startupový projektový asistent, ‘startup project assistant’). He observes that hybrid compounds are predominantly nouns; only a fraction of them are adjectives, verbs or adverbs, and they seem to be more in evidence in written than spoken language. He then discusses the classification of hybrids, starting with Haugen’s separation of model-based hybrids from model-lacking ones (which Haugen ranks with [loan] creations). Onysko notes that some authors (e.g. Carstensen, 1965, p. 39) follow suit and “try to divide” English-German compounds in this way, but points out that it is difficult to find the English model. In fact, he devotes a great deal of space to discussing the disputability of the notion of English influence and concludes that the “creation of hybrids merely symbolizes that German can combine native and borrowed elements of its lexical inventory in order to form new terms” (p. 57). Onysko goes on to demonstrate how English loans are productively used in German to create new compounds (e.g. Gelegenheitsjob, Heimtrainer). However, while he tentatively refers to cases with a presumably English model as partial loan translations, he offers no term for the model-lacking ones.

On the whole, there seem to be surprisingly few studies dedicated specifically to hybrid loans in European languages and those we have found are all concerned with hybrid compounds. Rafnung’s (1965) thesis deals with English loanwords in a Norwegian newspaper with special reference to hybrid compounds, Posthumus (1989) analyses English-Dutch hybrid compounds, Mitter (2003, 2008) describes hybrid combining form compounds in contemporary Czech² (a much earlier study of this type of compounds is Martincová and Savický, 1987). Using English-Polish hybrids as examples, Witalisz (2016) makes a distinction between loanblends, hybrid creations and adapted loanwords. Also referring to hybrid compounds, Zimmer (1997, p. 23) draws attention to what might be called nonce hybrids, i.e., hybrid Anglicisms used in advertising as one-off attention-seeking formations (Antiklau-Code, Open-air Gefühl, Politthriller, etc.).

3. Data collection

Data collection of hybrid Anglicisms is not an easy task. Hybrid Anglicisms cannot be obtained from Czech (or presumably any other) corpora by using automated data collection. This is confirmed by Manczak-Wohlfeld and Witalisz (2019, p. 171), who note that corpora “still lack readily available and efficient tools for foreign loans identification”, which means hybrids have to be gathered manually, unless the search focuses on specific English components (cf. Andersen, 2012; Manczak-Wohlfeld and Witalisz, 2016). Hybrids turn out to be spread thin over a large spectrum of areas (see below) and focusing on just one area is not a very effective strategy. Therefore, our collection is basically opportunistic (i.e., resulting from partly random, partly deliberate search based on everyday linguistic experience, press reading, advertising, etc.) and it follows that the sample cannot be truly representative of their frequency and distribution in different genres and areas. When collecting the sample, we considered a hybrid formation to be any lexical item made up of English and Czech components (in whatever order), provided the component is a free or bound lexical morpheme (i.e., root/stem or derivational affix). As there is a certain inconclusiveness about the definition of hybrids (concerning particularly single-word hybrids), the sample is primarily viewed as a testing ground for assessing the status of candidate hybrid Anglicisms, i.e., its goal is to help define the concept of hybrid Anglicisms for Czech, and only then and tentatively as a source of information on hybrid distribution.

4. Sample analysis

The sample of hybrid Anglicisms consists of 500 items, of which 320 (64.0%) are composed of two or more free-standing words (multi-word or MW hybrids) and 180 (36.0%) are single words³. (Some of these single-word hybrids may, but need not, be part of multi-word units.) As a matter of fact, many MW hybrids include expressions where the English word is at the same time a single-word hybrid, e.g. cloud-ový in cloudové úložiště (‘cloud storage’), event-ový in eventový prostor (‘event space’), startuper-ský in startuperský projekt (‘startup project’), with -ový and -ský being adjectival derivational suffixes. Sample analysis serves two purposes: to provide examples for the description and discussion of hybrid Anglicisms in Czech, and to afford a preliminary understanding of the range of areas in which this kind of Anglicisms is found. Despite the random nature of data, it is not unreasonable to assume that the more hybrids occur in a particular area the greater the chance they will make it into the sample which may thus provide a preliminary guidance to their distribution.

4.1. Single-word hybrids

The 180 single-word items were chosen because they contain Czech elements. The hybrids fall into two groups: derivatives and compounds. The derivatives in our sample are the larger group, made up of 135 items, while only 45 items are compounds. The ratio in the sample is largely accidental, but it does show that derivation plays a significant role in Czech (while in German it seems to be compounding; see, for example, Onysko, 2007). We start with derivatives as they seem to have been given little attention in the literature compared to compounds.

Table 1: Word-class distribution of single-word hybrids in the sample

single-word hybrids

noun

verb

adj.

total

%

derivatives

87

35

13

135

75.0

compounds

45

-

-

45

25.0

total

132

35

13

180

100.0

%

73.3

19.4

7.3

100.0

4.1.1. Hybrid derivatives

As noted above, although Onysko (2007, p. 55-56) acknowledges the relatedness of hybridity to derivational processes (inflection excluding), he focuses only on hybrid compounding in German. However, the preponderance of derivatives (and MW hybrids) in the sample suggests that the situation in Czech is different and, more broadly, that the composition of hybrids is very likely language-specific. Of the 135 derivatives in the sample, 87 are nouns, 35 verbs and 13 adjectives. Cases which start in the source language as compounds (‘upcycle’, ‘pole-dance’) but are transmitted into RL using derivation (upcyklovaný, poledancový) are also counted as derivatives.

Czech stem-forming affixes added to English bases divide into several categories: (i) derivational POS marking suffixes that integrate the English bases (primarily verbs and adjectives and nouns used as premodifiers) into the Czech morphological system and allow them to function syntactically in text (as part of morphological adaptation): ‘to like’ > lajkovat, ‘to hoax’ > hoaxovat, ‘to break down’ > brejkdaunovat (se), ‘online’ (program) > onlinový (program), ‘jazz’ (ballet) > jazzový (balet); (ii) transpositional (and POS marking) suffixes (sometimes in combination with a prefix) that transpose especially English nouns into Czech adjectives (‘biker’ > bikerský, ‘referring to bikers’) or verbs (‘prank’ > pranknout, “to prank sb”, i.e., ‘to play a prank on sb’; ‘virus’ > zavirovat, ‘infect with virus’); (iii) substitutive affixes that replace, i.e., translate, the English affix in the model word (‘toaster’ > toustovač, ‘startupper’ > startupič, ‘mailable’ > mailovatelný, ‘rebook’ > přebookovat, ‘overhype’ > přehajpovat; sometimes the affix replaces the English particle, e.g. ‘log in’ > zalogovat (se), ‘log off’ > odlogovat (se); (iv) meaning-changing affixes, the most interesting category, are of a different kind, their function is not so much morphological (not necessarily POS altering) as semantic. The meaning-changing process starts with an English multi-word expression whose one part is ellipted and the remaining word extended with a Czech affix (or a combination of affixes) typically forming a colloquial derivative with the same meaning as the original English expression (‘web page’ > ‘web’ > webovka, ‘homeless person’ > ‘homeless’ > houmlesák). Alternatively, the affixes modify the meaning of the English base in terms of explicit gender-marking (‘wrestler’ > wrestlerka, female wrestler), pragmatic or stylistic meaning (‘prepper’ > prepík, colloquial, jocular), or perfective meaning (‘delete’ > vydeletovat; book > zabookovat), etc.

Adjectival derivational hybrids in the single-word hybrid group are formed by seven derivational stem-forming suffixes with a wide range of meanings which are added to noun or verb bases. The most frequent ones are the suffixes -ový (poledancový [sál], ‘pole dance [hall]’, facebookový [účet], ‘Facebook [account]’) and -ovaný (trademarkovaný, ‘trademarked’). The other suffixes are -cí (pitchovací, ‘pitching’), -telný (tweetovatelný, ‘tweetable’), -ivý (postpravdivý [doba], ‘post truth [age]’), -ní (upcyklační, ‘upcycling’) and -ský (protiLGBTský ‘anti-LGBT’, startuperský [projekt], ‘startup [project]’). These suffixes are not the only Czech elements combining with the English base. The group contains cases of circumfixes, combinations of a prefix and a suffix: za- + -ovaný (zaaidsovaný, ‘infected with aids’), o- + -ovaný (očipovaný, with a chip, ospoilerovaný, i.e., having a spoiler, ‘bespoilered’), pro- + -ovaný (profejkovaný, i.e., full of fake news) and pře- + -ovaný (přeboostrovaný, using an unnecessarily strong booster, ‘overboostered’, přehajpovaný, ‘overhyped’) and z- + -ovaný (zlobovaný, influenced by lobbying, zremakovaný, being a remake)⁴. Other adjectives have the following two Czech prefixes before the English base: proti- (‘anti-’, protiLGBTský) and před- (‘pre-’, předinternetový, ‘preinternet’, předfacebookový, ‘preFacebook’). In two cases the Czech adjective has an English prefix: upcyklovaný (‘upcycled’), postpravdový (‘post-truth’). Naturally, not all adjectival loans from English need to be morphologically adapted by affixation, a minority remains formally unadapted (freeride lyže, ‘freeride skis’).

Verbal derivational hybrids differ from adjectives in that they have to be morphologically adapted (marked) to be able to function as verbs (while adjectives need not be). That is, they have to be supplied with verbal base-forming suffixes to which inflectional suffixes are added. So the Czech suffixal (noninflectional) element in verb loans from English is mostly a default feature (mostly because in some finite verb forms the base-forming suffix may have a zero form). The infinitival forms of the verbs in the sample exhibit the following verbal suffixes (formed by a base-forming suffix and the infinitival ending -t): -ovat (pitchovat, ‘to pitch’, relaunchovat, ‘to relaunch’, shortovat, ‘to short sell’, printscreenovat, ‘to printscreen’), -nout (kliknout, ‘to click once’), -at (klikat, ‘to click repeatedly’) and -it (trolit, ‘to troll’). As with adjectives, verbs are frequently supplied with prefixes which modify the meaning (often very much like an adverbial particle in English): od- (odkliknout, odklikat, ‘to click off’, odlogovat (se), ‘to log off’, odmejlovat, ‘to send off an email’, odskypovat, ‘to finish a skype call’, odvirovat, ‘to remove virus from’), o- (olajkovat, ‘to give a like’, ofejkovat, ‘to make a fake, to cheat, to copy’), pro- (progůglovat, ‘to google thoroughly’, prosérčovat, ‘to search thoroughly’, protweetovat, ‘to send a tweet’, proskypovat, ‘to call sb on skype’, prolobbovat, ‘push through by lobbying’), pře- (přebookovat, ‘to rebook’), pře- (přethinktankovat, ‘to overthinktank’, přehajpovat, ‘to overhype’), při- (připhotoshopovat, ‘to slightly improve by photoshopping’), roz- (rozparsovat, ‘to parse out’ [a text string]), vy- (vydeletovat, ‘to delete out’, vydevelopovat, ‘to develop’, vyfuckovat, ‘to tell sb to fuck off’), za- (zavirovat, ‘to infect with virus’).

Nominal derivational hybrids are the most varied and interesting group of derivatives. One prominent group among affixes is Czech agentive suffixes. Although some of the English ones can be transmitted into Czech without change (e.g. boxer, influencer, wrestler, youtuber), they are as often as not replaced by a host of Czech ones which, moreover, typically add pragmatic connotations making the loans colloquial, expressive or slangy, e.g. ‘wrestler’ > wrestlingáč, (whitewater) ‘rafter’ > rafťák, ‘youtuber’ > YouTubák, ‘outdoorer’ (?) > outdoorář, ‘prepper’ > prepík. However, there may be some unexpected semantic differences: the Czech eshopař is someone who runs an e-shop (while ‘e-shopper’ in English is someone who buys in e-shops), kempař (is only a person in Czech, not also a motor vehicle, cf. camper).

More importantly, the agentive suffixes often create nouns without a corresponding English model: ajťák (‘IT specialist’), džezbendista (‘jazz band musician’), hokejista (‘ice hockey player’), pinholista (‘pinhole photographer’), houmlesák (‘homeless person’), keškař (‘cache seeker’), chiptuningář (‘chiptuning specialist’), ralleykrosař (‘rallycross driver’), selfíčkář (‘selfie-taker’), skútrař (‘scooter rider/buff’), šortař (‘short seller’), webař (‘web designer’). Sometimes two or more variant suffixes with the same meaning are added to the base: deblíř, deblista (‘doubles player’), singlíř, singlista (‘singles player’, ‘canoe/kayak single’), offroadák, offroadař, offroadista (‘off-road enthusiast’), piarista, píárkář, píárník, píárovec (‘PR professional’). A special case is the creative hypocoristic modification of the word (sports) ‘fan’: (male) fanoušek, (female) fanynka.

Even more varied is the range of suffixes creating inanimate nouns. While preserving the word-class, the nouns depart from the English model by acquiring pragmatic meaning (i.e., evaluative and expressive connotations), and again they often replace an English multi-word expression through a process combining ellipsis and derivation (‘popcorn movie’ > popcorn > popcorňák).

In our sample we found no less than twenty-one such suffixes: -ač (toustovač, ‘toaster’), -áč (flopáč, ‘floppy disk’); -áče (slimáče, ‘slim-fit pants’); -ák (šoubyzák, ‘showbiz’; synťák, ‘synthesizer’); -árna (stejkárna, ‘steak house; (ham)burgárna, ‘burger house’); -(aře)ní (selfíčkaření, ‘taking selfies’); -čko (písíčko, ‘PC’; handsfreečko, handsfríčko, ‘handsfree set’); -ina (rockeřina, ‘rock music’; preppeřina, ‘prepper life style’); -iště (denoting a place for a certain activity: piknikoviště, eshopiště); -izace (denoting activity: offshorizace); -ka (softshelka, ‘softshell jacket’; shitovka, ‘anything worthless’; ramka, ‘RAM’; push-upka, pushapka. ‘push-up bra’; LEDka, ‘LED bulb’; keška, ‘cache’; hokejka, ‘hockey stick’; gangsterka, ‘gangser movie’; detektivka, ‘detective story’); -ko (píárko, ‘PR text’; jútubko, ‘YouTube’; fitko, fitnessko, ‘fitness centre’); -na (selfina, ‘selfie’); -(ová)ní (píárování, ‘PR activities’); -ovina (jeansovina, ‘jeans fabric’); -(ovit)ost (sitcomovitost, ‘sitcom quality’); -ovka (internetovka, ‘internet TV channel’; roadtripovka, ‘road trip movie’; popcornovka, ‘popcorn movie’; onlinovka, ‘online game’); -ovna (serverovna, ‘server room’); -(ov)ost (lifestylovost, ‘life style quality’); -ství (prepperství, ‘preppership’; dealerství, ‘dealership’); -ština (piárština, ‘PRese’).

The sample also includes instances of gender-marking and evaluative morphology, i.e., explicitly marked feminine forms (the suffix -ka can be added to any agentive noun): influencerka, píáristka, servismanka, wrestlerka, skautka, pinupka (‘pin-up girl’), lochnesska (‘Loch Ness monster, Nessie’) and diminutives formed by the suffixes -íček, -eček, and -ík typically adding hypocoristic, affectionate meaning, e.g. blekfrajdejíček (‘Black Friday’), tweeteček, PINeček/pineček, rúftopek (‘rooftop’, graffiti located high up), shopík (‘small shop’), skajpík (‘skype’), popík (‘pop music’).

There are three instances of noun prefixation, one Czech prefix added to an English base, spolulídr (‘co-leader’), and one English prefix added to two Czech bases postpravda (‘posttruth’), postčlověk/postlidé (‘posthuman(s)’).

4.1.2. Hybrid compounds

The relatively small number of items classified as compounds is due to several factors: the number of compounds in Czech is generally much smaller than that of derivatives (cf. Bozděchová, 2017), compounds are typically transmitted as phrases, and also the criteria for compound status in Czech and English are not the same. Czech morphological analysis does not recognize open compounds and so only solid or hyphenated items are considered to be compounds in Czech. Likewise the differences in the classification of compounds present a certain problem. For instance, the concept of coordinative compound is much narrower in Czech and the type “actor-director” viewed as a coordinative compound in English, is treated as apposition. On the other hand, many of the Czech single-word items in the sample are formed on the pattern of English compounds, and so the terminology will follow English morphological terminology. They include, for instance, blends and the closely related category of combining-form (or neo-classical) compounds.

Only two compounds in the sample (tweetosféra and steakobraní, ‘steak harvest’, by analogy with vinobraní, ‘grape harvest’) have the form of a typical (true) Czech compound (with the components linked by a medial vowel: -o-), all the other compounds are formed by juxtaposed bases. Most of the compounds (23) are of the noun-noun type, e.g., fanzóna, hitparáda, partyholka (‘party girl’), powerbanka, prideprůvod (‘pride parade’), sexbomba, skórkarta, skype-konference, spamtelefon (‘spam call’), dýmbuilding (a jocular variation on ‘teambuilding’ with ‘team’ replaced by dým, ‘smoke’, in reference to smokers banished outside the workplace), coververze, šoubyz-louže (‘showbiz pond’) and tescojogurt. Two are formed by analogy with fotbal (‘football’): hokejbal (‘hockeyball’) and nohejbal (a marked departure from the corresponding English term ‘foot tennis’). Four compounds are of the adjective-noun type, easy-práce (‘easy work’), slim-pračka (‘slim washing machine’), sweetzóna (‘sweet spot’), deblkajak (‘double kayak’), one is of the verb-noun type, pařman (‘hard-boozing man’). There are four cases of blends, fucktura (overlapping ‘fuck+[inve]tura’ [the Czech for ‘invoice’]), presstitutka (‘press+prostitute’), swopce (‘sw[ap]+option’) and webinář (half-translation of the English ‘webinar’, replacing ‘[sem]inar’ with the Czech [sem]inář), and eight cases of combining-form compounds, e.g., eknížka (‘e-book’), ekosystém, fotofiniš, ultralehký (‘ultralight’), and šopoholik⁵ (‘shopaholic’).

There is also one peculiar case of a Czech hybrid compound composed of an English and a German part, woodkopf (allegedly a Czech sport involving a pair of opponents wearing two-meter wooden boards on their heads and trying to knock the other’s board down without dropping their own).

4.2. Multi-word hybrids

The set of 320 open MW hybrids in the sample is composed of 295 two-word items, 24 three-word items and one five-word expression (výzkumná technika face to face, ‘face to face research technique’). Some of the expressions, especially two-word ones, would count as compounds (with initial stress) in English, but not so in Czech where they are terminological phrases (chatovací místnost, ‘chat room’, spin doktor).

Table 2: Word-class distribution of multi-word hybrids in the sample

multi-word hybrids

noun

verb

adv.

total

%

two-word

292

-

3

295

92.2

three-word

21

3

-

24

7.5

five-word

1

-

-

1

0.3

total

314

3

3

320

100.0

%

98.2

0.9

0.9

100.0

Most of the MW hybrids have Czech heads (fuzzy množina, ‘fuzzy set’, keškový výlet, ‘cache trip’, low-budget film, money-back záruka, ‘money-back guarantee’, online prodej, ‘online sale’, path analýza, peel efekt), but 88 (27.5%) have an English word as the head (ropný boom, ‘oil boom’, slevový voucher, ‘discount voucher’, radiový smog, ‘radio smog’, permanentní make-up, lifting obličeje, ‘face-lifting’, mrazící box, ‘freeze box’), counting in also long-established assimilated Anglicisms, i. e., those used in Czech for three decades and more (farma, faul, film, fotbal, hokej, trénink, klub [club], tým [team], and others, e.g., covid control tým). It is not uncommon to find combinations of “old” and “new” Anglicisms, which shows that there is a thin borderline between a loan translation and a hybrid Anglicism: emergency tým (‘emergency team’), eventový manažer (‘event manager’), flag fotbal (‘flag football’), gay klub, golfový handicap (‘golf handicap’), inline hokej (‘inline hockey’), talent skaut (‘talent scout’), sex kouč (‘sex coach’), etc. Most cases involve straightforward translation, but occasionally we find Czech equivalents either exclusive to a given area or not listed in the dictionary at all (‘lifted drive’ > liftovaný úder, ‘DVD drive’ > DVD mechanika).

A vast majority of the MW hybrids are nouns (314; 98.2%). There are six exceptions, three cases of an adverbial phrase: bezpečně online (‘safely online’), po bluesmansku (‘after the manner of a bluesman’), po hackersku (‘like a hacker’), and three interesting cases of verbs formed on the pattern “prefix pro- + verb base + obligatory reflexive pronoun se”: probuskovat se (z ulice na velká pódia)–‘to busk one’s way’ (from street to big stages), progooglovat se (‘google one’s way to’), profuckovat se (‘fuck one’s way to’). This disproportionate distribution of word-classes in MW hybrids is the same as is found with multi-word loan translations (Klégr and Bozděchová, 2022) and for the same reason: multi-word adjectives, adverbs and verbs are very rare in Czech.

5. Discussion

5.1. Model-based and model-lacking hybrids in the Czech sample

In spite of Onysko’s (2007) caveats concerning the possibility of proving the existence of an English model, the sample provides enough material for us to be able to say with confidence that there are clear cases of both model-based hybrids and those formed independently of English. They can be found among single-word hybrids (derivatives and compounds) and MW hybrids alike. Although we can’t always be certain that an English expression served as a model or, conversely, that the apparent absence of an English counterpart always means that there is no model, in principle there is little doubt that this bipartite split of the hybrids is a valid one.

Examples of model-based MW hybrids are: buňkový doping (‘cell doping’), facebookový účet (‘Facebook account’), nemocniční klaun (‘hospital clown’), níťový lifting (‘thread lifting’), responsivní design (‘responsive design’), feederový prut (‘feeder rod’), hardwarová peněženka (‘hardware wallet’), online překladač (‘online translator’), podcastový magazín (‘podcast magazine’), plunge podprsenka (‘plunge bra’), pop-up okno (‘pop-up window’), start-stop systém, seed kapitál (‘seed capital’), strategy hra (‘strategy game’), webový portál (‘web portal’), etc. Single-word hybrids with English models can be likewise found both among derivatives and compounds (together with blends and CF compounds): upcyklovaný (‘upcycled’), tweetovatelný (‘tweetable’), marketér (‘marketer’), powerbanka (‘powerbank’), fotofiniš (‘photo finish’), skórkarta (‘score card’), pubkvíz (‘Pub Quiz’), postčlověk (‘posthuman’), webinář (‘webinar’), eknížka (‘e-book’).

On the other hand, there is a sizeable group of hybrids that cannot be related to a particular English model. Apart from such idiosyncratic formations as nohejbal (‘foot tennis’ in English), fucktura (fuck + faktura [= invoice]), steakobraní (‘steak harvest’) or e-chalupy (‘e-cottages’, the name of a real-estate website), there are several distinct word-forming tendencies in Czech which transcend simple borrowing or translation. Perhaps the most typical is the amalgamation of English multi-word expressions into single Czech words using ellipsis and derivation: basebal(l)ka (‘baseball bat’ or ‘baseball cap’), push-upka (‘push-up bra’), webka (‘web camera’), offlinovka (‘offline game’), detektivka (‘detective novel’), gangsterka (‘ganster movie’), redka (‘red card’), wranglerky (‘Wrangler jeans’), hokejista (‘ice hockey player’), rugbista (‘rugby player’), UXař (‘UX designer’), singlíř (‘single canoeist’), etc. Another frequent phenomenon is adding style-shifting, especially colloquializing, nominal suffixes to single nouns: (CD) romka (‘ROM’), písíčko (‘PC’), cédéčko (‘CD’), jútubko (‘YouTube’), exka (‘ex’ [wife. girlfriend]), etc. The ability of forming new words, both abstract and concrete, from existing English bases by affixation is almost limitless: ajťáci (‘IT crowd’), steakárna (‘steak house’), webiště (‘a site for web advertising’), píárština (‘PRese’, language of PR specialists), kreativec (‘creative’). Last but not least, there are types of hybrids that basically cannot have an English counterpart, namely (hypocoristic) diminutives (tweeteček, *tweetie, PINeček, *PINie) and feminine forms (boxerka, skautka, wrestlerka, workoholička – *boxeress, *scoutess, *wrestleress, *workholicess).

Finally, there is a special group of hybrids based on English models that can be called adaptive hybrids. They are essentially adjectives and verbs which in Czech are marked by respective derivational affixes, i.e., adjectival and verbal stem-forming suffixes. While with adjectives it is possible to choose between morphologically unadapted and adapted forms, cf. freestyle/freestylové lyže (‘freestyle skis’), spinning/spinningové kolo (‘spinning bike’), cargo kalhoty (‘cargo trousers’), cargový vlak (‘cargo train’), eshop/eshopový systém, online vzdělávání (‘online learning, education’), onlinové podnikání (‘online business’), etc., with verbs this is impossible and verb-forming suffix must be added (networkingovat, netflixovat, startupovat, feedbackovat, powerpointovat, whatsappovat–meaning ‘to engage in, to use X’). Besides, as was shown above, English verb bases are often extended by Czech prefixes which sometimes correspond to (i.e., translate) the adverbial particle in English, but sometimes create a verb with a new meaning.

With nouns the situation is different. Nouns can be transmitted unadapted, e.g. trendhunter, trendsetter, banner (with only inflection added), but often the original, stylistically neutral, English suffix is replaced by one or more stylistically marked Czech suffixes, endowing the loan model with a new pragmatic meaning. Thus, the English ‘hashtagger’ is borrowed into Czech either as hashtager, or rendered as colloquial, even jocose hashtagáč, hashtagář, hashtagovač or hashtagista.

5.2. Relation to other categories of Anglicisms

The sample likewise provides enough material to reconsider affinities of hybrids to other categories of Anglicisms. The distinction between non-hybrid model-based and model-lacking borrowings effectively divides the classical taxonomies (Betz, Haugen and Weinreich) into two groups, bringing together categories which are otherwise seen as contrasting and separate. The group of model-based borrowings includes both importations and substitutions, i.e., loanwords and loanshifts (to use Haugen’s terminology i.e., loan translations, renditions and semantic loans), but also Haugen’s loanblends, while the group of model-lacking borrowings subsumes pseudo-loans and (loan) creations⁶. By contrast, hybrids, i.e., bilingual formations, can, according to Haugen, be both model-based (loanblends) and model-lacking (hybrid creations), and so belong to both groups. That is presumably why Haugen, unlike Betz (and others), avoids the general label hybrids and introduces the terms loanblend and hybrid creation instead. In addition to being both model-based and model-lacking, hybrids also defy the division of Anglicisms into outer and inner or direct and indirect (see Betz and Pulcini et al. above) as they combine both importation (loans) and substitution (translations), which complicates their position in the classification of borrowings.

There is, however, one type not mentioned in the literature in connection with hybrids, pseudo-loans. While hybrid creations are by definition of mixed origin, pseudo-loans, although they may be composed of only foreign components (for example, baby-box, beer spa, ClosedCard, OpenCard), typically combine foreign and RL elements alike (at least in Czech, e.g. insiderství, ‘the condition of being an insider’, JobDnes, ‘JobToday’, an internet job centre), which makes this type of pseudo-loans hybrids as well. Like hybrid creations, hybrid pseudo-loans also lack a direct SL model and the two types are very close (with a thin line between them), though hybrid creations seem to be fairly rare. Model-based hybrids, or loanblends in Haugen’s terminology, on the other hand, are paraphrased by Onysko (2007, p. 57) as “partial loan translations” (rather than partial loanwords), and for a good reason. There is a smooth cline between loan translations and hybrid loan translations (as we prefer to call them) due to long-established Anglicisms in Czech which are part of new hybrid expressions (hokej: ‘sledge hockey’ > sledge hokej; internet: ‘internet of things’ > internet věcí). Also, the act of translation is more labour-intensive, and so more prominent, than simple transfer (what is more, even the English component in many hybrids is often “hybridized”, i.e., it is also partly translated). Besides hybrid loan translations we must also mention hybrid variants of loan renditions (cf. Betz, Weinreich or Pulcini et al. above), e.g. ‘PDF file’ > soubor PDF (translation of ‘file’ by soubor is an innovative solution peculiar to computer terminology).

If we accept this argumentation, we arrive at four types of hybrids: hybrid pseudo-loans (pinholení, ‘making pinhole photos’), hybrid loan translations (emailový účet, ‘email account’), hybrid loan renditions and hybrid creations (spinning s nízkou zátěží, ‘low-intensity spinning’, nohejbal [foot + ball], ‘foot tennis’). There is, however, yet another type of hybrids, those containing Czech derivational affixes (stopnout, ‘to stop’) which we call adaptive hybrids (see 5.1). These are standardly interpreted as morphological adaptation. But the Czech derivational affix in them is part of the stem even if it neither translates some component of the English original, nor does it change meaning. As a result, we are dealing with five separate types of hybrids. To return to the question posed in the title, Are hybrids a redundant category?, there is clearly not one single category of hybrids as the typologies referred to above imply. Instead, the five types of hybrids which appear in the sample are arguably best treated as pertaining to the fundamental categories of borrowing, i.e., as subcategories of loanwords, pseudo-loans and what are called calques by Pulcini et al. (Lehnbildung by Betz, loanshifts by Haugen and loan translations by Weinreich), rather than categories of their own. The type of borrowing involved is plausibly of greater classificatory importance than the presence of a foreign element.

6. Hybrids in texts: subject areas of discourse

Like other types of Anglicisms (loanwords or loan translations), hybrids also occur in a vast array of spheres and texts, and it is likewise difficult to identify all these areas and choose adequate labels for them. Often the areas are closely related and intertwined and can be merged into still broader domains, something that we will attempt after a general overview of the areal distribution of hybrids in ascending order.

The largest group of hybrids in a single area is that of expressions related to sport (79: downhillové kolo [bike], feeder prut [rod], freestyle koloběžka [scooter], golfový handicap, skate rampa, hokejka [hockey stick], rallyekrosař [rallycross driver]). It is closely followed by hybrids related to business (72; floatingový režim [regime], hardwarová peněženka [wallet], QR kód, seed fond, investiční boom, offshorizace [-isation], píárovka [PR agency]), and information technology (69; cloudová platforma, desktopová aplikace, online překladač [translator], responzivní design, webový portál, jútubko). Still smaller is the number of hybrids related to social life (37; podcastový magazín, gay klub, džentlmenská dohoda [agreement], sexbomba), art, i.e., literature, music, film, etc. (35; crazy komedie, sc-fi literatura, open air festival, popík [pop music]), commerce (31; cashback portál, moneyback záruka [guarantee], slevový voucher [discount v.], dealerství [-ship]), leisure (30; gamblingový resort, last minute dovolená [holiday], wellness pobyt [stay], onlinovka [game]), and a somewhat miscellaneous category called product (24; LED osvětlení [lighting], selfie tyčka [stick], slim-pračka [washer], powerbanka). In the next groups of areas the numbers of hybrids start to taper off: health and medicine (18; chemický peeling, spa péče [care], postcovidový syndrom, tělesný handicap [physical h.], gonadotropin-releasing hormon), fashion, i.e., clothing, footwear, etc. (14; fitness oblečení [clothing], dámský top [women’s top], push-upka [bra], plimsolky [shoes]), education (12; eLearningový kurz, skype-konference, webinář), entertainment (10; akustický rekordní jackpot, stardancový tanečník [dancer]), environment/ecology (10; akustický smog, fotochemický smog) and transport (10; bike sharingový systém, charterový let ).

Fewer than ten hybrids in the sample are associated with science (9: dead-stop titrace, flash spektrum, path analýza, performanční inteligence), food (8; fastfoodová gastronomie, fitness recept [recipe]) and service (8; emailová služba [service], image poradenství [counselling], internetové bankovnictví). One area is represented by six expressions, life style (prepperství [prepperism], šopoholik, workoholik). Five hybrids are related to politics (spin doktor, prolobbovat [to lobby]), three hybrids come under the heading technology (start-stop systém) and work (homeofficový režim). Two hybrids come from the areas of administration (lockdownový formulář [form]) and cosmetics (permanentní make-up). Finally, one hybrid is associated with agriculture (králičí farma [rabbit f.]), construction (kontejnerová stavba [building]), military (Army Den [Day]), and (non-existent) fauna (lochnesska [Loch Ness monster]).

Although a fair amount of randomness and bias in data collection cannot be avoided, the areas covered by the sample provide a reasonably representative picture of the diversity of use of hybrid Anglicisms in Czech. If we take a broad view and collapse some of the closely related areas, hybrids flourish especially in three spheres: (i) business, commerce and product names, (ii) computer/information technology, and (iii) sport, leisure, art and entertainment. These major spheres are covered by both MW hybrids and single-word hybrids, and the two forms of hybrids also share two thirds of the identified areas (single-word hybrids figure in somewhat fewer areas, which might be due to their frequently colloquial, slang character and also to their smaller representation in the sample).

Conclusion

The findings of the study suggest that hybrid formations need to be given a language-specific treatment. If a general definition of hybrids, such as “a combination of English borrowings and German elements” (Onysko, 2007, p. 55), is restricted to lexical morphemes and consistently applied to a highly inflected language as Czech, the range of formations that fit the description is inevitably much wider than just hybrid compounds. As a result, the composition of the Czech sample is different (and admittedly messier) from the lists of hybrids reported for other languages such as German or Italian: open multi-word hybrids (64.0%) prevail over single-word hybrids (36.0%) among which derivatives (75.0%) prevail over solid or hyphenated compounds (25.0%). Although these proportions must be taken with a pinch of salt (data collection, as was noted above, was not systematic), it does not alter the fact that Czech hybrids come in these three formal types.

The other crucial claim (presaged in the title) which ensues from the language-specific approach is that hybrids should not be treated as an independent category separate from the fundamental types of borrowings, loanwords, pseudo-loans, loan translations, etc. Evidently hybrid Anglicisms in the Czech sample are not a homogeneous group when factors such as the presence or absence of the SL model, their function and the type of transfer involved are considered. Hence it seems more adequate to subsume hybrids under the basic, essential non-hybrid types of borrowing as their subcategories: adaptive hybrids under loanwords, hybrid pseudo-loans under pseudo-loans, and hybrid loan translations, hybrid loan renditions and hybrid creations under calques, i.e., loan translations, loan renditions and loan creations (see Pulcini et al., 2012; Figure 1 above). Apparently, most types of borrowings consisting of more than one component (if not all) may have hybrid variants.

The distribution pattern of hybrid Anglicisms in Czech over different areas of discourse is, judging from the picture in the sample, very much like that encountered in other types of Anglicisms, loanwords and loan translations. They occur primarily in three spheres, business/commerce, IT technology and entertainment (sport, art, leisure), but can be found in a host of other areas and like other types of Anglicism they are a powerful presence in the contemporary Czech lexicon. Yet Czech appears to cope with them rather well and vigorously subjects the English element to native word-formation processes. In terms of degree of incorporation in the lexicon, hybrids apparently have no problem to become institutionalized, but many (especially hybrid pseudo-loans) are, as suggested by Zimmer (1997), best described as nonce hybrids.

Bibliographie

Andersen Gisle, 2012, “Semi-automatic Approaches to Anglicism Detection in Norwegian Corpus Data”, in Cristiano Furiassi, Virginia Pulcini & Félix Rodríguez González (eds.), The Anglicization of European Lexis, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, p. 111-130.

Betz Werner, 1949, Deutsch und Lateinisch: die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel, Bonn, H. Bouvier u. Co.

Betz Werner, 1959, “Lehnwörter und Lehnprägungen im Vor- und Frühdeutschen”, in Friedrich Maurer & Friedrich Stroh (Hrsg.), Deutsche Wortgeschichte, 2nd ed., Berlin, Schmidt, vol. 1, p. 127-147.

Bozděchová Ivana, 2015, “158. Czech”, in Peter O., Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 4, Berlin/Boston, Walter de Gruyter, p. 2872-2891.

Bozděchová Ivana, 2017, “KOMPOZICE”, in Petr Karlík, Marek Nekula, Jana Pleskalová (eds.), CzechEncy - Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny, https://www.czechency.org/slovnik/KOMPOZICE.

Bozděchová Ivana & Klégr Aleš, 2022, “Pseudo-Anglicisms in Czech. Between borrowing and neology”, in Ramón Martí Solano & Pablo Ruano San Segundo (eds.), Anglicisms and Corpus Linguistics, Berlin, Peter Lang, p. 137-157.

Busse Ulrich & Carstensen Broder, 1993, Anglizismen-Wörterbuch: der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter.

Carstensen Broder, 1965, Englische Einflüsse auf die deutsche Sprache nach 1945, Heidelbeg, C. Winter.

Furiassi Cristiano, 2010, False Anglicisms in Italian, Milano, Polimetrica.

Furiassi Cristiano, Pulcini Virginia & Rodríguez González Félix (eds.), 2012, The Anglicization of European Lexis, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.

Grzega Joachim, 2003, “Borrowing as a word-finding process in cognitive historical onomasiology”, Onomasiology Online, n° 4, p. 22-42. http://www1.kueichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/grzega1032 (accessed 5 February 2022).

Haugen Einar, 1950, “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing”, Language, n° 26, p. 210-231.

Jorgensen Peter A. & Ferré Barbara M., 1986, “Kategoriale Überlappungen um Sprachlichen Entlehnungsprozessm”, Zeitschrift fiir Dialektologie und Linguistik, LIII. Jahrgang, Heft 1, p. 6-18.

Klégr Aleš & Bozděchová Ivana, 2022, „Opomíjené kategorie Anglicismů: lexikální a sémantické kalky“, Časopis pro moderní filologii, ročník, vol. 104, n° 2, p. 208-229.

Luján García Carmen, 2017, “Analysis of the presence of Anglicisms in a Spanish internet forum: some terms from the fields of fashion, beauty and leisure”, Alicante Journal of English Studies, vol. 30, p. 281-305.

Mańczak-Wohlfeld Elżbieta & Witalisz Alicja, 2016, “The influence of English on Polish morphology”, Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny LXIII, n° 4, p. 421-434.

Mańczak-Wohlfeld Elżbieta & Witalisz Alicja, 2019, “Anglicisms in The National Corpus of Polish: Assets and Limitations of Corpus Tools”, Studies in Polish Linguistics, vol. 14, n° 4, p. 171-190.

Martincová Olga & Savický Nikolaj, 1987, “Hybridní slova a některé obecné otázky neologie”, Slovo a slovesnost, vol. 48, p. 124-139. http://sas.ujc.cas.cz/archiv.php?lang=en&art=3164.

Mitter Patrik, 2003, Složená hybridní substantiva s prvním komponentem cizího původu v současné češtině (Acta Universitatis Purkynianae 95), Ústí nad Labem, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.

Mitter Patrik, 2008, Hybridní složeniny s prvním komponentem domácího původu v současné češtině, Ústí nad Labem, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně.

Oksaar, Els, 1996, “The History of Contact Linguistics as a Discipline”, in Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenĕk Starý & Wolfgang Wölck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Contact Linguistics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research / Linguistique de contact: Manuel international des recherches contemporaines, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, p. 1-12.

Onysko Alexander, 2007, Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, Lexical Productivity, and Written Codeswitching. Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter.

Posthumus Jan, 1989, “Hybridische woorden. Engels Nederlandse samenstellingen” (Hybrids: English-Dutch Compounds), Onze Taal, vol. 58, p. 219.

Pulcini Virginia, 1999, “Focus on Italian Anglicisms: a comparative study of three dictionaries”, in Gabriele Azzaro & Margherita Ulrych (eds.), Transiti linguistici e culturali, vol. II, Trieste, Edizioni Università di Trieste, p. 359-371.

Pulcini Virginia, Furiassi Cristiano & Rodríguez González Félix, 2012, “The lexical influence of English on European languages”, in Cristiano Furiassi, Virginia Pulcini & Félix Rodríguez González (eds.), The Anglicization of European Lexis, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, p. 1-24.

Rafnung Bjørn Thrane, 1965, English loan-words in a Norwegian newspaper with special reference to hybrid compounds, Unpublished thesis, Oslo, University of Oslo.

Stanforth Anthony W., 2002, “Effects of Language Contact on the Vocabulary: An Overview”, in Cruse, D. Alan et al. (eds.), Lexikologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen/Lexicology: an international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, p. 805-813.

Weinreich Uriel, 1953, Languages in contact, New York, Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York (1963, 2nd printing, The Hague, Mouton & Co.).

Witalisz Alicja, 2016, “Rozporekgate a oscypekgate, biznesowy a casualowy: angielsko-polskie hybrydy we współczesnej polszczyźnie” [English-Polish hybrids in Polish], Język Polski, vol. 96, n° 4, p. 65-74.

Yang Wenliang, 1990, Anglicizmen im Deutschen. Am Beispiel des Nachrichtenmagazins Der Spiegel, Tübingen, Niemeyer.

Zimmer Dieter E., 1997, “Neuanglodeutsch – über die Pidginisierung der Sprache”, in D. E. Zimmer (ed.), Deutsch und anders. Die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber, Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt, p. 7-104.

Notes

1 Although Haugen uses the label loanblends, he of course means hybrid formations. He actually uses the term hybrid when he distinguishes between foreign-model based loanblends (“only such ‘hybrids’ as involve a discoverable foreign model are included here”, p. 2015) and model-lacking bilingual creations (“[s]uch formations are sometimes confused with loanblends, since they resemble these in being ‘hybrid’”, p. 220; “[w]hen classified without regard to the borrowing process, they appear as ‘hybrids’; but their starting point is different from such loanblends as blaumepai ‘plum pie’”, p. 221). Hence Haugen recognizes two kinds of hybrids, those due to borrowing, i.e., loanblends, and those which are “not a part of the borrowing process”, i.e., hybrid creations.

2 For a brief English survey of the main Czech word-formation processes see Bozděchová (2015).

3 While single-word hybrids include derivatives and both solid and hyphenated compounds, in multi-word hybrids no attempt is made to distinguish between word combinations functioning as units and open compounds as the distinction is difficult to make and irrelevant to the purpose of the study.

4 However, it is also possible to interpret the word-formation process in these examples not as circumfixation, but as a case of parallel motivation by a prefixed verb and view only the addition of the suffix as a word-formation process (očipovat > očipovaný).

5 It would be interesting to test whether Czech speakers borrow the -holic words from English mechanically as a whole, or whether they perceive the underlying ‘alcoholic’ (or the Czech alkoholik), as the form šopoholik rather than the far more common English ‘shopaholic’ seems to suggest.

6 For a discussion of “overlapping” between categories of borrowing, including hybrids, see Jorgensen and Ferré (1986).

Pour citer ce document

KLÉGR A. et BOZDĚCHOVÁ I., (2022). Les hybrides – une catégorie redondante d’anglicismes ? Les hybrides dans les textes tchèques. Espaces Linguistiques, (4). https://doi.org/10.25965/espaces-linguistiques.500

Auteurs

ALEŠ KLÉGR

Charles University, Faculty of Arts: Prague 1, Jana Palacha 2, Czech Republic

klegaff@ff.cuni.cz

IVANA BOZDĚCHOVÁ

Charles University, Faculty of Arts: Prague 1, Jana Palacha 2, Czech Republic

bozdiaff@ff.cuni.cz

Licence

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0