WIXLIB

(1.4)There can be different levels of borrowing; foreign elements might be more or lessintegrated into the system of the receiving language. This implies some internalconditions for the acceptance of foreign characteristics, a certain proneness of thelinguistic system to adopt particular features of the donor language.From the definition presented above, it appears rather clearly that borrowing involves“externally-motivated changes” (Campbell 1989: 91), resulting first from a situation oflanguage contact and further determined by the duration of the contact situation, the status heldby the donor language and the intensity of the relations between the different linguistic groups.But the part played by internal, intralinguistic factors should not be overlooked. Even if hefocused on grammatical borrowing in his essay, Campbell explored the so-called “structuralcompatibility requirement” which claims that borrowing is only possible between very similarlinguistic systems, such as dialects of the same language. This is a claim held by severallinguists, the first being Jackobson: “a language accepts foreign structural elements only whenthey correspond to its tendencies of development.” (Jakobson 1938: 54, cited by Weinreich1953: 25, in Campbell 1989: 92). Weinreich also suggested that “such latent internal tendenciesexist even without the intervention of foreign influence; the language contact and the resultinginterference could be considered to have, at best, a trigger effect, releasing or acceleratingdevelopments which mature independently”. Campbell nevertheless demonstrated thatborrowing did not happen only in situations of shared structural similarity and that social factorsmight overcome structural resistance to borrowing (Campbell 1989: 94). In addition, lexicalborrowing is less constrained that grammatical borrowing, so that lexical items are more easilyborrowed than grammatical structures (Campbell 1989: 101). The structural-compatibilityprinciple should thus be considered as a general tendency rather than an absolute constraint(Campbell 1989: 104). However, differences between the grammatical systems of any twolanguages may well have a significant impact on borrowing, because borrowing is in generaleasier between closely related languages or between languages presenting some degree ofmutual intelligibility (Durkin 2009: 164). If borrowing is mainly triggered by external factors,internal factors within the linguistic system will have a crucial role to play in the scope of theborrowing and the extent to which the new elements will integrate and make their way into theborrowing language.8

1.1.2. Lexical borrowing: typologyThe type of borrowing that we are interested in in this paper is lexical borrowing. The lexisof a language is subject to two kinds of change: changes due to internal developments and wordformation processes inherent to the lexicon such as derivation, compounding, back-formationand conversion; and changes brought about by the external influence of another language(Aertsen 1989: 25-26). Lexical borrowing falls within this latter type of change. However, evenif lexical borrowing is triggered by external influence and sociolinguistic factors, it is alsomotivated by internal factors such as morphological analogy and functional utility (Nielsen1998: 82). The very act of borrowing is an act of inherent complexity and it is sometimesdifficult to assess the share of external and internal factors in the process. Some attention willalso be devoted to derivational processes in Chapter 4, but only as a secondary step resulting ofthe assimilation and naturalisation of foreign loanwords. Four different types of lexicalborrowing are generally distinguished (1.5-1.8):(1.5)Loanwords: this is the more general type of borrowing, when a word, its form and itsmeaning is transferred from the donor language into the borrowing language. Theremight be some degree of assimilation to the sound system as well as to the inflectionalmorphology of the borrowing language (e.g.: verb inflections or plural form).Loanwords show differing degrees of naturalisation from a phonological, prosodic ormorphological point of view, which are often related with the date of entry into thelexicon (e.g. oblige vs. prestige: difference in vowel quality; syllable vs. campaign:difference in pattern of accentuation; appendixes or appendices: difference inmorphological pattern). These will be the main focus of our study.(1.6)Loan translations (or calques) are the replication of the structure of a foreign-languageword or expression by means of synonymous word forms in the borrowing language.However, there is not always an exact correspondence between the words or expressionsin either language. This was one of the preferred methods of Old English: instead ofusing Latin loanwords as such, Old English “translated” them by means of native words(e.g. Evangelium, ‘good tidings’, became godspell in English).9

(1.7)Semantic loans: this was also a method frequently used by Old English. It consists intaking an existing word and extending its meaning to integrate or denote new concepts.(e.g. Easter, the name of the dawn Goddess, was eventually used to express a Christiancelebration). In the case of a semantic loan, a word of the donor language influences thedevelopment of a word in the borrowing language, but only from a semantic point ofview (it has little to no influence on its form).(1.8)Loanblends (and hybrids): this category is considered by some scholars as anintermediate category between loanwords and loan translations (Durkin 2009: 138). Itconsists of the borrowing of a complex word where morphs in the borrowed word arereplaced by native morphs (e.g. ofservet in the Ancrene Wisse). A loanblend is differentfrom a hybrid in that the latter is a complex word deliberately built from elements witha different etymology through processes of derivation (e.g. spushad or covershipe in theAncrene Wisse). As such, hybrids are considered by scholars as instances of indirectborrowing (Dekeyser 1986: 254) Hybrids and loanblends will be discussed in Chapter4, section 4.3.3. of this study.1.2.The mechanics of lexical borrowing1.2.1. Lexical borrowing: a long-term processThe study of lexical borrowing is closely interconnected with cultural history andextralinguistic factors (Durkin 2009: 149), but we have seen that internal processes are alsolikely to play a part, although they are often secondary to and might be overcome by socialfactors. In addition, once a word has been borrowed, it has to spread further into the lexicon:“initial interlinguistic borrowing is typically followed by intralinguistic borrowing” (Durkin:178). It is not because a loanword appears in the text of one specific author that it willautomatically be used (and understood) by all other speakers of the language. We should thusbe careful with single instances of a word in a text. The choice of words in the Middle Ageswas largely idiosyncratic and often dependent on the choices of the author or the scribe (Bennett& Smithers 1968: 52). Internal or secondary borrowing can occur from one dialect to another,or from a very specific to a more general use (Durkin: 144) and is more reliant on internalfactors since the loanword will exhibit a greater morphosyntactic integration.10

It emerges from what has been said that borrowing is not a “once-and-for-all process”.Instead, the process of adoption and spread into the lexicon is a very gradual one (Durkin 2009:141-142). Full acceptance of a lexical item as the dominant expression can take centuries tooccur, if it ever does. Dance (2003: 311-313, cited in Durkin 2009: 163) further emphasises that“some lexical redundancy is natural within a system, as are other types of variation. [ ] Lexicalborrowing can be seen simply as adding to variation in the first instance, and not as a drasticimposition on the core of a language’s vocabulary that needs to be accounted for by tremendouspressures of prestige attaching to the source tongue”. Dance’s affirmation is in line with ourstandpoint which tends to see lexical borrowing from French as a natural process of evolutionresulting from situation of language contact, rather than a ‘counterintuitive’ or unnaturalimposition by the dominant group of speakers.1.2.2. Motivations for lexical borrowingSeveral factors are at play for the adoption of a particular word into the lexicon. Durkinidentifies “need and prestige” as two “traditional” motivations for lexical borrowing, but healso stresses the limitations of both concepts (2009: 142). Borrowing in order to fill semanticneeds typically happens when the borrowing language lacks a word to express a particularreality, or when new concepts arise that need to be given lexical expression. However, if it istrue that new concepts constantly appear in a given society, it would be exaggerated to assertthat borrowing was necessary to fill structural gaps of Old English.The hypothesis according to which Middle English would have borrowed heavily fromFrench because of lexical gaps or insufficiency is challenged by the fact that Old English wasvery reluctant to borrow new words from Latin and preferred to use its own resources such asloan translations or semantic loans (Nielsen 1998: 133). However, those native resourcesgradually fell into oblivion simultaneously with the well-established West-Saxon literarytradition, as a consequence of tremendous historical and political changes (i.e. the NormanConquest), whereas religious reforms and social changes, taking place both in England andthroughout Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries, triggered the need for new means ofexpression (see Chapter 3, section 3.4.).Lexical borrowing as a result of the so-called prestige of one language is not acomprehensive concept either, because it fails to account for the wide-ranging changes thatoccurred in the wake of the Conquest. Prestige is linked with stylistic choices: the author makesa conscious use of a foreign element into his language. Trotter refers to that type of loanwords11

as ‘cultural borrowings’. Dominance would be a more suitable term to account for a type oflexical borrowing that involves the language of a politically or socially dominant class (Durkin2009: 143). Lexical borrowing because of prestige involves awareness on the part of the author;dominance, on the other hand, leads to the gradual obliteration of native words because of therecurrence of words of the dominant language in a less conscious process. It mainly concernswords that have to do with the new social order established by the ruling class. Finally, Nielsen(2005: 104) and Trotter (2003: 91) identified a third type of loanwords, that resulting fromlinguistic coexistence. This category is mainly made up of everyday words, referred to as ‘coreborrowings’.Furthermore, the role of bilingual speakers should not be overlooked. For the scribal class,who operated in multilingual environments, Anglo-French and Latin were ever-presentlanguages of record providing readily available lexical resources. According to Trotter (2003:85), the traditional concepts of separate and separable languages owe possibly more to modernideologies than to contemporary perceptions of linguistic reality and should be revised. Indeed,although they occurred in a situation of diglossia, Trotter suggests that Latin, French andEnglish interpenetrated more intimately than our modern conceptions of language allow us tothink, and that scribes, as all multilinguals do, plainly drew on every language at their disposal.The first attestation of a word of French origin into a Middle English text could therefore onlybe an isolated instance of code-switching and does not necessarily lead to the assumption thatthe word has been accepted in the general lexicon of the language on a larger scale.Finally, the internal factor of morphological compatibility, if not considered as a motivation,will nonetheless facilitate the subsequent adoption of a word into the lexicon and ensure itsultimate fixation into the vocabulary (see Chapter 4, section 4.5.). The motivations for lexicalborrowing are thus various and complex and go beyond the conventional explanations ofpolitical dominance or cultural prestige. One should therefore remain careful and critical withtraditional motivations for fear of oversimplification of complex sociolinguistic situations(Timofeeva 2018a: 6).12

1.2.3. Changes in form and meaningOnce they have integrated into the lexis of a language, loanwords are subsequently subjectto change, both in form and meaning. The change in word form can give information about theprovenance of a word and be traced back thanks to historical grammar. However, acorresponding historical semantics does not exist that would help the scholars trace back thesemantic evolution of a word. Semantic changes are not easily predictable and depend heavilyon extralinguistic factors (Durkin 2009: 259-260). As such, two words of identical etymologycan develop in different ways in different languages. Our corpus presents much evidence ofwords borrowed from (Anglo-)French that have a similar (if not identical) form and meaningat that time, but that will overtime suffer a semantic evolution as well as changes in word formthat will differentiate them utterly from one another. The loanword charge, recorded in theAncrene Wisse and the Cloud of Unknowing, entered the vocabulary of Middle English with thesame meaning as its French counterpart, ‘to weigh’. Overtime though, it came to signify ‘toaccuse’. Modern English very was originally borrowed from Anglo-French verrey ‘true’ andevolved both in form and in meaning overtime, ultimately shifting from one word-class toanother.Changes also occur within the system itself. The process of analogy is very important inthis evolution and often occurs between words (native or borrowed) that present a similarphonological structure or share some of their meanings. Two processes of analogy are worthemphasising: analogy in meaning (1.9) or in word form (1.10).(1.9)We speak of semantic contamination when a word often occurs in a collocation withanother word, and subsequently takes up the connotation associated with that other wordto acquire in turn a more positive or negative meaning. This is the case of the wordknave, meaning ‘boy’ in Old English and which evolve to denote ‘one of low birth’ inMiddle English, then took up the negative sense of ‘rogue, rascal’ (Durkin 2009: 238).(1.10) We speak of formal contamination when some words are remodelled on the basis ofperceived formal parallels within the linguistic system. Such an analogical change isobservable in the integration of the French loan cacchen into the paradigm of the nativeirregular verb lacchen ‘to seize’ in Middle English, as well as the integration of Frenchstrive in the paradigm of drive. This process of analogy and mutual formal influencewill be strong in the adoption of some loanwords into the English lexis (Durkin 2009:201).13

1.3. Lexical borr

7 Theoretical background 1.1. Theories on borrowing 1.1.1. Definition of borrowing In his Oxford Guide to Etymology, Philip Durkin gives the following definition of borrowing: "borrowing is the usual term for the process by which a language takes new