Abstract
English outweighs other languages as a source for linguistic borrowing in present-day Norwegian. The aim of this article is to propose a lucid and comprehensible typology of English borrowings in Norwegian that takes into account phraseological as well as structural borrowing—two borrowing dimensions that have received relatively little scholarly attention, and where multiple terminology is in use. The typology is based on a division between word-level, phraseological and structural borrowing on the one hand and a formal division between direct and indirect borrowing on the other. A second goal is to illustrate the typology with recently emerged loans that can provide an updated picture of the influence exerted by English on the Norwegian language.
Highlights
In the postwar period, the dominance of British and in particular American culture has had a considerable impact on how languages change (Gottlieb 2004: 39)
The lines between related terms and concepts are difficult to draw, and it is challenging—if not impossible—to arrive at universally valid typologies that can cover the broad and nuanced spectre of the linguistic influence exerted by a source language on a recipient language
As I have shown in this article, there are varying ways of tackling the task, and the end product depends on terminological definitions as well as the range of borrowings and types of influence one wants to include
Summary
The dominance of British and in particular American culture has had a considerable impact on how languages change (Gottlieb 2004: 39). In Norwegian contact research, most research into English borrowings has considered direct lexical loans, meaning openclass word forms that are based on formal imitation of the English model While calques create new lexical units in the RL, semantic loans typically create homonym expressions (Capuz 1997: 88; Haugen 1950: 219), as is the case in mus from English ‘(computer) mouse’ borrowed into the Scandinavian languages (Gottlieb 2012: 176). The typology is built by transferring and expanding Pulcini et al.’s (2012) typology to two additional language levels, thereby illustrating that the distinction between direct and indirect borrowing is applicable outside the word level
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
