Table of Contents [621451]

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

The thesis attem pts 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 ve ry
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. The 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 contemporary 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 Romanian
advertisements in ter ms 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 relationships or intercourse results in instant interact ion 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 same group is using at least two
languages alt ernately (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 Ku thy: 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 on ly 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 influenced 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 of 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 c ommunication 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 la nguage, 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 that 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
situatio ns, 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 language 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 (Hickey 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 Def inition 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 and 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, howev er, borrowing
frequently takes a form of a steam that is smaller 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 la nguage is not depriv ed of the borrowed
element but is rather 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 borrowing 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 -induced 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: th e native language is maintained
but is changed by the addition 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 con tinuing 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 and 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 featur es
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 can 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