Some problems of
borrowing in the Russian language
S.B. Nevejina
This article concerns borrowings
from European languages. Although the study of foreign lexics and,
wider, language borrowing has its own history over a long period of time in
linguistics both in Russia and abroad (one can mention the names of great
scholars who dealt with this problem: Bloomfield, Scherba, Grot. Haugen) the
problem of borrowing by the Russian language hasn't been solved yet. The least
investigated aspect is the graphic and orthographic one.
Spelling
of loans contains complex of theoretical problems: principals of spelling
borrowings and ways of reproducing foreign words in the Russian language;
description of phonetic and morphological adaptive processes in the foreign
lexics; forming orthographic standard, correlation of norm and codification of
borrowings.
Ways
of transmission of loans and processes of adaptation are examined in the paper.
They are considered as applied to the material of foreign words from
"Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639." - a business written language monument of
the XVII century.
Up
to now the active borrowing from European languages was believed to begin in
Peter I epoch. However the period just precedent was significant too. A lot of
words fixed in dictionaries for the beginning of the XVIII century penetrated
into the Russian written language in the XVII century. Thus examination of
"Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639." permits us to correct some data connected
with foreign word appearance. According to "Этимологический словарь
русского языка " by M. Fasmer the word "галера" penetrated into
Russian in 1665. But it was mentioned in the "Kuranty" in 1620. It
also concerns the following words: "герб"(1644) - 1620,
"коруна"(1613) - 1600, "карета"(XVII - XVIII) - 1636,
"миля"(1702) - 1620, "мызник"(1701) - 1600,
"персона"(1633) - 1620, "пистолет"(1689) - 1630-31,
"рота"(1701) - 1600, "секретарь"(1720) - 1621.[1]
As
for the Russian spelling the XVII century was the period of standardizing. Then
analyzing orthographical monuments of that time allows us both to retrace
orthographical norm forming and to realise phenomena of modern language.
Let
me make clear what I mean by borrowing. This concept is used in a variety of
senses. I shall use it to mean 1) the element of an alien language which is
carried from one language to another as a result of language contacts and also
2) the process of element transition.
It
may be said there is some tradition to call the words less adapted in the
Russian language "foreign words". Though it is fair that the division
of words depending on their adaptation is correct in a certain historical
moment only. I suppose the foreign word is more preferable for this work
because most of the words presented in the "Kuranty" are at the stage
of penetration. But the fact
of strange word penetration can't be the evidence of its borrowing yet.[2]
1.
Ways of reproducing foreign words
Spelling
of foreign words is a pressing and undecided problem in the Russian which is
explained by several ways of introducing borrowings into the Russian text. The
ways depend upon languages and loans. At present there are various classifications of borrowing ways Russian
scholars offer.[4,5,6]
Let
me introduce my system worked out on their base. It includes four ways of
borrowing: 1)translation; 2)transplantation (according to G.G. Tymofeeva
presupposes a mechanical transportation of lexical unit graphemes from one
language to another without any changes in borrowed word spelling. E. g.: 'ad
libitum' ); 3)transliteration (when graphemes are reproduced by equivalent
graphemes of another standardized written language. E.g.:'Диест - German: Diest
[i:]'); 4)transphoning (this term from the classification by Tymofeeva should
take the place of the conventional (but not very correct and convenient)
practical transcription first used by A.M. Suhotyn. So transphoning is a
reproduction of a word written form on script. E. g.: 'Киль - German: Kiel
[i:]'. It is necessary to divide it into codified transphoning coming through
the written language, concordant with accepted rules of transcribing by means of
the Russian alphabet and uncodified transphoning coming through the spoken
language, unnormatively, where influence of dialects, speaker's individual
peculiarities is possible).
"Vesty-Kuranty.
1600-1639." contains a great deal of foreign lexics so long as it is the
translation of foreign press reports mainly. The language which the foreign
words have come from directly having been defined, word forms in it should be
restored. Then, it is necessary to find out the spelling and pronunciation of
borrowings in that time. For our work all mass of the foreign words is limited
to borrowings from German (Ger.), French(Fr.), Italian (It.), Polish, Greek,
Latin.
After
the restoration of word forms in foreign languages and their analysis it is
observed the absence of transplantated forms in the "Vesty - Kuranty"
at all. A series of words is introduced by translation both total (f.e.: Теплый
колодезь - Warmbrunn) and partial (Eизеннов городок - Eisenstadt).
It
should be noticed there is an obvious tendency to borrow words by
transliteration. E. g.: Арбоис - Fr. Arbois [a:rbwa], Анор - Fr. Anor [ano:],
Полигна - Fr. Poligny [polin'i], etc.
There
is a great number of words demonstrating combination of transliteration and
transphoning. E.g.: Монпелир - Fr. Montpellier [mõpeje], Меисен - Ger.
Meissen, etc.
2.
Phonetic and morphological adaptive processes in the foreign lexics from the
material of "Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639."
After
being taken into a borrowing language system a foreign word begins to interact
it immediately. Therefore the borrowing is allowed to be considered as the
process of gradual adaptаtion into space and time i. e. the accommodation of
the foreign word to different parts of the recipient language system.
Adaptаtions may be various and cover all tiers of the language structure. The
process of adaptаtion has complex nature. The base for observation of
adaptаtion ways is vocal and consonant substitutions. (Substitutions are the
Russian sounds represented in a written fixed form which correspond to the foreign
language sounds being initial for them). Phonetic and morphological adaptаtions were described by V.G. Demyanov.[3] You
could see the following adaptations in the "Vesty-Kuranty".
1.
Simplification of vocal groups. Since combinations of vowels inside a morpheme
are not natural for the Russian words the language tries to get rid of unusual
combinations. There are some ways to realize this simplification tendency: by a
single vowel (Fr. ua: Мantua - Манту), by intervocalic [j] appearance (It. ia:
Bolognia - Бологнея, Pavia - Павия), by appearance of semivowel -в- (Ger. au:
Pillau - Пилоyв, It. ia: Savigliano - Савиглевано), and by consonantization of
one of vowels (Ger. au: Aurich - Аврик, Torgau - Торгав).
But
sometimes there is retaining vowel combinations. (Ger. Hildesheim - Гилдесгеим,
Ger. Naumburg - Наумбург, It. Cuneo - Кунео, It. Savigliano - Савиглиано).
2.
Contamination is an interaction of the language units contacting either in
associative (paradigmatic) or in syntagmatic relations. This interaction leads
to semantic or formal alteration of language units and frequently a new
language unit аppears. Contaminated form acquires traits of both interacting
forms.
At
first contaminated phenomenon is always a departure from language norms. But in
time it can become standard.
It
is accepted to distinguish the contamination proceeding within one language
system and the contamination connected with the interaction of various language
systems. The last takes place first of all in the part of vocabulary which is
the least common use in speech where regulating action of norms is minimal but
influence of different languages and multicontactivity are great. (Just that
very language situation is presented in the foreign word material of the
"Vesty - Kuranty".) It is not easy to recognize this process because
it presupposes knowlege of standard, ascertainment of foreign models. Besides
there are final results of this process in the texts.
Contaminated
forms may reflect: 1)reading (or pronunciation) of different languages. E. g.:
Fr. LaRochelle - Рошхелле showing mixture of French reading ch [ ∫ ] with
German that [h]; 2)various pronunciation in a language-origin. E. g.: Ger.
Steiermark - Шстирмарская земля. (German dialects vary in pronunciation of
combination st: [st] and [ ∫t ] ); 3)combination of different ways of
reproduction (transcription and transliteration). Fr. Marseille [marsej] -
Марсеили.
3.
Assimilation and dissimilation are combinatorial sound changes caused by
syntagmatic position of a sound in a word. Given as final results (sound
substitutions) they can be: vocal and consonant according to participation in
word-formation (а - а > а - е: Fr. Kalmar [а:] - Калмер; mb > нб: Ger.
Wirtemberg - Виртенбурх), contact and distant according to the level of
positional conditionality (sb > cn: Ger. Dinkelsbubl - в Дункелспиле; v - v
> в - б: Fr. Vervins - Верберъ), progressive and regressive according to the
direction in word phonetic structure (у - е > у - у: Ger. Ukermark - в
Укурмарке; е - о > о - о: Fr. Mentone - в Монтону), total and partial
according to the level of sound resemblance (а - е > а - а: Ger. Magdeburg -
Магдабур; е - а > у - а: It. Bergamo - из Бургама).
4.
Metathesis is an involuntary tansposition of two sounds or syllables in a word.
It is the peculiarity of language system periphery, that is why its prevalence
among foreign words is quite natural. Metathesis may be contact and distant:
gno > ног: It. Carmagnola - Карманогла; el > ле: Ger. Hameln - у Гамлена;
er > ра: Ger. Аmstеrdаm - Амстрадам (metathesis is accompanied by
assimilation); mm - e - r > р - е - мм: Ger. Emmerich - к Еремъмиху (in a
sound).
5.
Morphological and semantic analogies. Foreign words in the borrowing process
are subjected to both combinatorial changes and various analogy influence. Thus
the following forms: (в) Бярнове - Ger. Bernau, (в) Тоурговъ - Torgau, Ганов -
Hanau, Глагов - Glogau, Линдов - Lindau, Насовская земля - Nassau, Преслов -
Breslau, Диршев - Dirchau may be explained by the influence of inner morphological
analogy (i.e. by influence of the Russian borrowing system where the German
diphthong [ao] (combination au at the end of words) is associated with the
Russian suffix -ов-). Usually the analogy is accompanied by other processes:
progressive assimilation, simplification, hypercorrection.
There
is another type of analogy. An example of inner lexical and semantic analogy
may be the reproduction of German Gravenhage as Графова Гага
(not-understandable 'graven' is replaced by understandable 'графова') and
Стеколнъ (Holl. Stockholm) by analogy with 'glass', Старград (Ger. Stargard) by
analogy with 'an old town', (подле) Лизы (Ger. Lissa) on the analogy of the
female name etc.
6.
Hypercorrection. Wrong idea about rightness, correctness is the foundation of
it. The cause of these wrong ideas is divergence of script (spelling) and
pronunciation. Both vocal and consonant systems are involved into the sphere of
hypercorrection.
There
are a few words demonstrating hypercorrection in the "Kuranty". E.
g.: бискуб - ). Another examples: коpдинал in unstressed syllable. It is replaced by . This
substitution is not reflected in spelling too, e. g.: ''вода - вoды'' but - ).
But
hypercorrection could be accompanied by the processes complicating its
interpretation such as false analogy, assimilation and others.
3.
Conclusion
So,
I have tried to analyse spelling of foreign words from the business written
language monument of the XVII century. Words in the Russian language are
borrowed by translation, transplantation, transliteration and transphoning.
There are three ways of reproducing foreign words in "Vesty- Kuranty.
1600-1639.", the tendency to transliteration being observed.
Being
introduced by one of the ways a foreign word interacts the borrowing language
system. There are basic adaptive processes in loans in the XVII century:
simplification, contamination, assimilation and dissimilation, metathesis,
morphological and semantic analogies and hypercorrection.
It can be concluded that spelling of
a medieval written language monument is a very complicated phenomenon requiring
detailed examination and combined description. There is an urgent necessity to
work out a technique of orthographical analysis demonstrating not phonetic and
morphological features of monuments but the system relations in the
orthographical sphere. This article doesn't claim the completed
technique of orthographical analysis but it could be considered as an attempt
to approach solution of the problem.
Список литературы
Фасмер
М.Ю.Ф. Этимологический словарь русского языка. М., 1964-1973.
Аристова
В.М. Англо-русские языковые контакты. Л.,1978.
Демьянов
В.Г. Фонетико-морфологическая адаптация иноязычной лексики в русском языке XVII
века. М.,1990.
Суперанская
А.В. Заимствование слов и практическая транскрипция. М.,1962.
Тимофеева
Г.Г. Английские заимствования в русском языке. Автореф. дис.... канд. филол.
наук. СПб., 1992.
Щерба
Л.В. Транскрипция иностранных слов и собственных имен и фамилий // Л.В. Щерба
Избранные работы по языкознанию и фонетике. Л., 1958.
Для
подготовки данной работы были использованы материалы с сайта http://www.omsu.omskreg.ru/