Table of Contents [621450]

2
Table of Contents

Introduction
Chapter One: Borrowing
1.1 Language contact
1.2 Definition of borrowing
1.3 Typology of borrowing

1.3.1 Loanwords

1.3.2 Loanshifts

1.3.2.1 Loan translation

1.3.2.2 Semantic loan

1.3.3 Loanblends
1.4 Language features borrowab ility
1.5 Loan adaptation

1.5.1 Graphic adaptation

1.5.2 Phonological adaptation

1.5.3 Morphological adaptation
1.6 Motivation for borrowing
1.7 Brief history of borrowing in Romanian
1.8 Conclusions
Chapter Two: Advertising
2.1 Brief history of advertisements
2.2 Definit ion

2.2.1 Features of advertisements

3
2.2.2 Types of advertisements
2.3 Attitudes towards advertising
2.4 Functions and objectives
2.5 Language of advertisements
2.5.1 Slogan in advertising
2.5.2 Persuasion
2.6 Conclusions
Chapter Three: An alysis of loan adaptation in
Romanian advertisements
3.1 Methodology
3.2 Analysis of misadapted English linguistic elements
into Romanian
Conclusion
References

4
Introduction

(trebuieste de ad augat)
The thesis attempts to observe and analyse various linguistic features of loan adaptation in
Romanian advertisements, and deals especially with the cases of improper adaptation of
borrowed elements in the specific parts of advertisements. The first chapter provides the very
basic explanations an d definitions of borrowing and types of linguistic adaptation processes. It
gives typology and characteristic features of borrowing as well as indicates a differences
between lexical borrowing and loanword. Th e last part is devoted to a short description of
borrowing evolution on the Romanian historical background. The second chapter presents how
advertising has changed from prehistory until nowadays, as well as points out the most
significant types of contempo rary advertisements. It describes crucial aspects of proper language
use in advertising messages, and persuasion process with its influence on consumer’s mind and
attitude towards advertising. The final chapter is the analysis of loan adaptation in Romania n
advertisements in terms of improper assimilation of English linguistic elements into Romania .

5
Chapter One: Borrowing
1.1 Language contact
It is since the beginning of humankind when languages have come into contact, however, it was
probably the time when people started to speak more the one language (Thomason 2001: 6). The
need to form relationship s or intercourse results in instant interacti on of people using various
languages (Sapir 1921: 205).
The very basic explanation for the notion is that language contact occurs among people
being in the same place and time (Thomason 2001: 1), the sa me group is using at least two
languages alternately (Weinreich 1963: 1). Language contact demands speakers to come
somehow into contact as well. Nevertheless, it is not necessary for them to be in direct, physical
contact, as for instance writing can be a way in which people share a language (De Kuthy: 2).
Thomason (2001: 1) describes a simple exemplary situation illustrating the idea:

If two groups of young travelers are speaking two different languages while cooking their meals
in the kitchen o a youth hostel, and if each group speaks only one language, and if there is no
verbal interaction between the groups, then this is a language cantac t only in the most trivial
sense.
(Thomason 2001: 1).
In the above mentioned language contact example fluency in both languages is not
obligatory, however, any kind of interaction is vital.
The important thing is the fact that languages are not impossible to be changed, in the way
that they are likely to be infl uenced by another one while coming into contact. In this situation
one language or both of them may change, but possibility of creation of a new language when
several languages interact (De Kuthy 2001: 1).
There are several linguistic outcomes o f language contact, and Thomason (2001:10)
suggests threefold division as follows: language change, extreme language mixture and language
death. Possibly the most common type of result derived from intercultural communication is
borrowing (Hoffer 2002: 1), thus the thesis will focus on it mainly. The English language is a
good example, while approximately 75% of its vocabulary is mainly of French or Latin origin.
Thomason (2001: 10 -11) claims that it is impossible for that huge number of loanwords to exist
without any former language contact with another one, however, lack of loanwords does not
exactly mean that there have not been any contacts.
The process of borrowing occurs between donor and recipient language, for example a
Malay word orangutan with its exact meaning ‘forest man’ got into English. Consequently,
Malay plays role of the donor language while English is the recipient. In fact, both languages can

6
exist as a donor or recipient, nonetheless it frequently happens that donor language is t hat of
‘’higher social, cultural and/or political prestige than recipient’’ (Eifring et al. 2005: 2). With a
reference to this kind of status or power relations that occur among languages being in contact
situations, many authors use the terms superstrate , adstrate and substrate (Lutz 2013: 563 ). The
first notion signifies the language with greater status than substrate , and it is said that superstrate
gave higher prestige in the speech community. This inequality in powers conducts specific
results of lang uage contact, while commonly held view states that donor language is the one with
more status consequently, ‘’ borrowing is from superstrate by substrate’’ proving French and
Latin the pattern examples in terms of English in contact with those languages (H ickey 2010: 7 –
8). Finally, the relationship between languages where there is on asymmetry or dominancy of
one over another is called adstratal , and in this case borrowing is both sided (De Kuthy 2001: 5).

1.2 Definition of borrowing

Lexical borrowing is certainly the most frequent transference form in language contact
situations, and commonly the term lexical borrowing has been identified with borrowing
(Gomez Capuz 1997: 87).
Durkin (2009: 132) provides relatively simple an d lucid definition of borrowing as a
process in which linguistic material is taken by one language from another one (donor).
According to Heath (2001: 432), it is almost identical to loanword, however, borrowing
frequently takes a form of a steam that is s maller than a word, but also a phrase. As it was
mentioned earlier, borrowing results as a consequence of a language contact situation and is
regarded to be unavoidable. In the process, the donor language is not depriv ed of the borrowed
element but is rath er spread consequently, causing its presence in both donor and recipient
languages. Durkin (1009: 132) emphasizes that recipient languages does not ‘’owe’’ anything
because ‘’nothing has been given away’’. It is said to be a historical choice that borrowin g is not
called spreading, imitation or proliferation instead (Health 2001: 434). Moreover, it is possible
for a borrowed element to be modified or altered in a different manner (Durkin 2009: 132).
In their very influential work on contact -induce d change Thomas and Kaufman (1988: 37)
describe borrowing in a more detailed way: ‘’Borrowing is the incorporation of foreign features
into a group’s native language by speakers of that language: the native language is maintained
but is changed by the addi tion of the incorporated features’’, simultaneously pointing out that in
most cases words are on the first place when a borrowing situation take place. According to the
authors, the existence of continuing cultural pressure from source -language speakers on the
recipient language group of speakers may also results in other structural features borrowing like
phonological, phonetic, syntactic elements and rather seldom inflectional morphology.
On the other hand, a contradictory definition to Thomson a nd Kaufman’s is given by Hein
and Kuteva (after Winford 2010: 170). The idea is narrowed, whilst borrowing here is ‘’contact –
induced transfer involving phonetic substance of some kind or another’’ which differentiates it

7
from the transfer of meanings and syntactic relation concurrently suggesting transfer of structural
patterns not a case of borrowing.
In turn, Haugen (1950: 81) with his definition gives no explanation of any extent features
beside those on the word level. He defines borrowing as follow: ‘’ the attempted reproduction in
one language of pattern previously found in another’’. The problematic issue arises when
considering the concept of ‘’patterns’’ as it is not clearly stated which elements are included
here, and similar situation c an be observed in Durkin’s definition.
Researchers have employed numerous explanations for the term ‘’borrowing’’ and their
diversity mainly depends on the kind of borrowed features.

1.3 Typology of borrowing

Despite heterogenic chara cter of borrowing typologies, the diversity can be narrowed to the most
basic and crucial ones.
One of the first studies conducted under the issues of borrowing classification was
presented by Bloomfield (1933: 444), who proposes a division into c ultural, intimate and dialect
borrowing. Dialect borrowing -that is form a classification according to the kind of relationship
between languages (Gomez C apuz 1997: 82), occurs when ‘’the borrowed features come from
within the same speech -area (as, father, rather with [a] in an [3 intors] – dialect)’’ (Bloomfield
1933: 444). Cultural and intimate borrowing and on the other hand, can be assigned to
classification according to the king of hierarchy between affected languages ( Gomez Capuz
1997: 82). The first one is connected with cultural novelties. New words for objects or concepts,
like spaghetti from Italian, are brought into the culture of recipient language. It is notic eable for
this kind of borrowing to be vital in regarding English impact on other languages, however,
cultural borrowing does not have to occur only on one side and constant intensity of language
contact is not obligatory. Nevertheless, this intensive contact of people using different languages
leads to the extension of speech -forms not necessarily related with cultural novelties which
explains the phenomena of intimate borrowing (Bloomfield 1933: 61). It takes place in one
geographical location when at least two languages are in use. What is more, the intimate
borrowing is mai nly one -sided and incorporates upper languages – that is culturally or politically
dominant, and lower language with a frequent tendency of borrowing coming from upper to the
lower one (Hoffer 2002: 4).
Myers – Scotton adds to the distinction of c ultural borrowing the idea of core borrowing
that in turn, by some means corresponds to the features already existing in a recipient language.
This kind of borrowing is said to occur at first as a codeswitching form slowly turning out to be
the element of a native language (Myers – Scotton 2002: 239).
The further development of borrowing types can be found in Haugen’s work (1950) where
he presents his ideas paying attention on the structural curbs as well as on structural effects on

8
the recipient l anguage. He proposes classification of loans according to the relationship between
morphemes are incorporated into the recipient language, and if substitution of source language
morphemes or phonemes by recipient features takes place. The division is as fo llows:
1. Loanwords
2. Loanshifts

Loan translation (calque)

Semantic loan
3. Loanblends (hybrids)

1.3.1 Loanwords

Loanwords are regarded to be the most frequent type of borrowing and are defined as words or
phrases that are transferred from a donor to recipient language with meaning and form imported
as a whole (Sztencel 209: 4 -3) e.g. E fast food, P fast food; E businessman, P biznesmen
(Witalisz 2013: 331). It is speakers’ adaptation of an item, idea or simply word of the sourc e
language. Consequently, causing that the new form is being modified in according with the
regular grammatical processes of a recipient language for instance, many borrowed nouns can
obtain plural or possessive forms, while verbs and adjective native morp hemes (Hoffer 2005:
53). This proves that loanwords may adapt themselves to the inflection morphology or in some
extent adjust to the sound system of the borrowing language (Durkin 2009: 134). It is frequently
done by adding adjectival suffix -owy to the n oun, e.g. P consulting becomes konsultinowy,
however, the trend of loanword adjustment seems to become less common as it is fashionable to
show foreign origins of the word (Otwinowska -Kasztelanic, 2000: 34). Haugen (1950: 85)
explains the term loanword to ‘’show morphemic importation without substitution’’.

1.3.2 Loanshifts 0

Others types of borrowing that exist are loanshifts, and according to Hoffer (2005: 53) it is
simply ‘’adaptation of native words to the new meanings’’ . In this case, the only incorporated
feature is a meaning – simple or cmplex, however, the forms representing this meaning remains
from recipient language ( Appel and Muysken 1987: 165). What is more, loanshifts include both
loan translation and semantic loan, and here similarly to loanwords, morphemic substitution with
no importation takes place. The term shift suggests that those loans occur as functional shifts of
native features ( haugen 2005: 85).

9
1.3.2.1 Loan translation

Loan translation, also known as calque, is a type where elements of a donor language are
replaced by the semantically identical feat ures borrowin g of language (Sztencel 2009: 4). A
foreign form is translated element for element with a use of equivalent native items (Hoffer
2005: 53 ) e. g. (trebuieste de dat exemple) . In this case, foreign lexical elements entirely undergo
a morphemic substitution. Loan translation comprises an accurate replication of a foreign
structure by lexical material of recipient language, consequently this type is said to be a result of
translation. Besides, native material has already existed in the borrowing language as
independent lexemes, but they are new ‘’as a lexical compound with a global sense’’. Since a
foreign structure consists of at least two elements that are first analysed and then translated, it
implie s that loan translation is always a polymorphemic ( Gomez Capuz 1997: 88) .

1.3.2.2 Semantic loan

1.3.3 Loan blends

1.4 Language features borrowability

Researches put forward a variety of hierarchies concerning borrowability as well as its
limitations, where different elements of language are said to be easy or difficult to transform into
another language (Curnow 2001: 415).
Thus, commonly held perception states that only words are the object of borrowin g. In
truth, sounds, meanings, word order, derivational affixes, inflections and grammatical categories
can be borrowed as well, which means that nearly everything is borrowable. Nevertheless, words
or other lexical features are borrowed easier the bound m orphemes, grammatical items or
phonology (Eifring et al 2005: 4).
Words that belong to the open word class such as noun, verbs, adjectives, adverbs accept
addition of new morphemes, thus are more likely to be a loan (with a noun on the firs place ) than
those of closed word classes – pronouns, pre – and postpositions, conjunctions. It is the
consequence of the fact that the second group frequently forms hardly changed and fixed set of
words (Eifring et al. 2005: 4). Myers -Scotton (2002: 240) explain s why nouns are the group that
is borrowed the most frequently as follows: ‘’because they receive, not assign, thematic roles’’,
thus ‘’ their insertion in another language is less disruptive adjective borrowing, however, this
category lets us to bear in mi nd that while discussing the borrowing possibility of different parts

10
of speech, it is vital to identify whether it is donor or recipient part of speech. In terms od
adjectives the system varies, therefore both of them should be considered (Curnow 2001: 41 5).
Some scholars support the hypothesis that the core vocabulary, which includes terms of the
body parts, common activities, in general words used most often, is resistant for replacement and
borrowing processes. This, however, being true for most of languages does not always apply to
all of them (Eifring et al. 2005: 4). In addition, verbs as a whole are said to be difficult to borrow
as a result of their highly inflected nature in the system of original or borrowing language
(Curnow 2001: 415). O n the other hand, Weinreich (1963: 37 ) suggests the reason for
complexity of verb borrowing to have its background in lexical -semantic structure rather than in
grammar. Curnow (1001: 415) adds that words which pertain to definite objects rather than
action or abstract concepts perform greater chance to be borrowed, thus prospective loan is a
word the refers to an action.
Similar situation is with derivational and inflectional morphemes, where the first one is
said to be borrowed derivational affix in English language is Latin prefix pre – (Eifring et al.
2005: 5).
Borrowable, however, less easily than words can be also grammar. It mainly applies to
grammatical strategies encompassing broader range – sequences of sentences or clauses. Thus,
words like and or but – generally conjunctions, are frequently easily borrowed, since they often
‘’ have a bearing on two or more clauses, and sometimes longer stretches of discourse’’ (Eifring
2005: 5 -6).
Finally, also the sound system of a particular language may be changed as a consequence
of lexical borrowing. It primarily occurs while borrowed words carry the new sounds (Eifring et
al. 2005: 6).

1.5 Loan adaptation

1.6 Graphic adaptation
Although, for many structuralists spelling is not strictly connected with linguistics, here within
the analysis of lexical borrowing it s frequently taken into account, while it allows to asses how
much of the borrowing has been assimilated into the recipient langua ge. If the phenomenon
occurs, it is caused by the quantitative and qualitative differences between graphic system of the
languages.
In case of the two languages that are in our concern, the graphic system differs. Firstly, in
English there are 26 letters, while in Romanian 31. Besides in both languages there occurs letters
unique only for one of them like English: x, q, w, and in Romanian: ă, î, â ș, ț.

11
Apart from mentioned discrepancies, also worth noticing is the existence of double vo wels
in English language : ee – jeep; oo – footbal l. Furthermore, in English we can observe the
combination of letters that are not known in Romanian as follows:
 ay-highway;
 ey-key;
 oy-boy
 tch-thatcherism;
However different, in English as well as in the Romanian language there is a presence of two
letter combination to represent on phoneme. In English such combination does not always
correspond to the same phoneme, as double o can indicate / /, / / , / / , / / , at the same time.
Conversely, Romanian combinations of two letters represent single phoneme e.g. ( ).

Chapter Two: Advertising

2.1 Brief history of advertising

The history of advertising has its beggining in prehistory, when people tried to exhange or sell
goods, which was strictly connected with the creation of commerce and competition, thus, it is
hard to state when exactly it started . Nevertheless, Frank Pres brey (after Rorty, 1934:134)
suggests a definition that seems to indicate the starting point of advertising: ’’Advertising, in the
broadcast sense of the word, is as old as trade’’ (Rorty, 1943: 134). Initially, it took the form of
valling in the streets, fairs or markets, hence Romanian word reclamă taht stands for
’advertising’ originates from Latin clamo meaning ’calling’ or ’shouting loud’. Town -criers –
engaged to read out publi c notices, were employed by merchants to praise aloud their goods,
simultaneously being the precursors of voice -over radio and television commercials (Mc Donald,
Scott, 2007:18).
The evidence of the first advertising has been found in early civi lization of Mesopotamia,
Egypt, Greece and Rome. Coming form approximately 3000 B.C., the Babylon clay plate
conveys some information about various services of a writer, a shoemaker and an ointment
seller. What is more, the papyrus found in an Egyptian tom b indicated that ancient people also
wrote down advertising announcements, while Hellenes relied on heralds. Before the printing

12
techniques were developed many people had been illiterates, thus, explicit and evident pictures
were presented on signboards.

Figure1. Examples of medieval signboards (Liwak).
As an example, an icon of a cow signified a creamery, whereas a pig stood for a butcher’s shop
and a shoe for a shoemaker. Typical for inns and popular at that time, simultaneously most
effective means to inform members of society who were not able to read, were outdoor
advertisements.
The year 1450 was a watershed, as a printing press was invented and handbills, placards
and many other forms of advertising have developed. Thus, about 1480 the first printed
advertisements in English was created and took the form of a small handbill, including a set of
rules for conducting Easter celebrations (Bird, 2008). However, late 18th and early 19th century
when the Industrial Revolution took place, was a time of rapid economic, subsequently life
changes and forms the roots of modern advertising. Further developments of print, prompted by
invention of mass media (telephone, radio, television, film, photograp hy) enabled to diffuse
advertising messages even more widely (Mc Donald , Scott. 2007:18). In 1843, in Philadelphia
the first advertising agency was opened, however, it is said that in Europe similar business has
existed long before. Nonetheless, the 20th century is regarded as a time when advertising
agencies started offering vast range of commercials and services.

During the first decade of the twentieth century agencies established separate art departments, employing a
permanent staff that included art directors, illustrators, and layout artists supple mented by a large number of
designers who worked on commission. According to the advertising historian Frank Presbrey, between 1900 and
1905 the art department became an integral part of advertising agencies and the presence of an art director was
common. Still, agents felt the need to prove to their clients and to the public that adve rtising was not only
indispensable to success in business, but that it was a respectable endeavor. The advertising -psychologists’ theory of
design contributed to this effort.
(Thompson -Mazur, 1996: 253)
The advertising in Romanian has noticeably developed with a great delay. The situation
varied slightly, as until the beginning of the 19th century production of merchandise had not been
sufficient enough in a relation to the needs of the society…

13

14