MINISTRY OFHIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
GULISTAN STATEUNIVERSITY
The Englishand Literature department
«The borrowedwords process development in English»
Gulistan‑2006
Introduction
Borrowingas means of replenishing the vocabulary of present-day Uzbek is of much greaterimportance and is comparatively active only in the field of scientificterminology and social-political terminology as many terms are often made up ofborrowed morphemes, mostly morphemes from classical languages.
Thepart played by borrowings in the vocabulary of a language depends upon thehistory of each given language, being conditioned by direct linguistic contactsand political, economic and cultural relationships between nations. Uzbekhistory contains innumerable occasions for all types of such contacts. It isthe vocabulary system of each language that is particularly responsive to everychange in the life of the speaking community.
Thedevelopment of the contacts between nations and the dominance of Englishlanguage as business language cause a big flow of words into Uzbek language,thus enriching its word – stock.
Theinfluence which English exerted on our language is seen in all aspects of life,social, political and hardly any walk of live was unaffected by it. The firstpoint to be emphasized is that here we are not dealing with completely newideas introduced from a different type of civilization and culture, but ratherthe imposing by a dominant race of their own terms for ideas which were alreadyfamiliar to the subject race. Such a state of affairs obviously means thatthere will arise pairs of words the native and the foreign term for the sameidea and a struggle for survival between the two, so that one of the words waseventually lost from the language, or survived only with some differentiationof meaning.
Borrowedwords have been called «The milestones of philology» – said O. Jesperson –because they permit us (show us) to fix appreciatively the dates of linguisticchanges. They show us the course of civilization and give us information of thenations». The well-known linguist Shuchard said «No language is entirely pure»,that all the languages are mixed. Borrowed words enter the language as a resultof influence of two main causes of factors; linguistic and extra-linguistic.
Borrowedwords have been considered in many scientific works, monographs andpublications. But detailed analysis of words borrowed into Uzbek from Englishin detail hasn’t been done so far.
Themain constituent part of the vocabulary system of any language is formed byborrowed words. Only borrowed words which were loaned from English into Uzbekhave been considered in the qualification paper.
Theactuality of the qualification paper is determined by increased interest oflinguistic in studying the origin of words and the source of borrowings. Stillmuch is left to investigate.
Thepurpose of the qualification paper is to reveal borrowed words that wereloaned from English into Uzbek and determine the origin and the source of them.
Thetasks of the investigation include:
· to reveal English borrowings in Uzbek language.
· to determine the reasons of enriching the vocabulary of anylanguage.
· to investigate the correlation of borrowings with native words.
Theproblem under consideration in the qualification paper possesses definite theoreticalvalue, for, fist of all, it is based on the principles of approach, whichis, revealed on all the stage of investigation. The results of theinvestigation present interest for a number of fields of contemporarylinguistics: linguistic typology, theory of translation, languishing,lexicology, theoretical grammar, lexicography.
Practicalsignificance of the results of investigation consists in the fact they canbe used in:
1. in teaching English for Uzbek and Russian students.
2. in compiling practical courses of English.
3. in compiling bilingual dictionaries.
4. in writing lectures on lexicology and theory of translation.
Investigationshave been carried out on a vast language material, based on lexicographicsources. We used mainly monolingual, bilingual and encyclopedic dictionaries.
Thestructure of the qualification paper.
Itincludes introduction, chapters, conclusion, list of used literature.
ChapterI «Borrowed words and their properties» is dedicated to the study of borrowedwords, their origin and their significance.
Inthe 2nd Chapter the problem of assimilation of borrowed words hasbeen discussed.
1.Borrowed words and their properties
1.1Etymological survey of the word-stock of a language
Etymologicallythe vocabulary of any language consists of two groups – the native words andthe borrowed words. E.g., in its 15 century long history recorded in writtenmanuscripts the English language happened to come in long and close contactwith several other languages, mainly Latin, French and Old Norse (orScandinavian). The etymological linguistic analysis showed that the borrowedstock of words is lager than the native stock of words. Uzbek language, as wellas English has been in long and close touch with other languages, mainlyArabic, Persian, Russian.
Anative word is a word which belongs to the original stock. An English nativeword is a word which belongs to Anglo-Saxon origin. To the native words weinclude words from Common Germanic language and from Indo-European stock.
Aborrowed word, a loan word or borrowing is a word taken over from anotherlanguage and modified in phonemic shape, spelling, paradigm or meaningaccording to the standards of the language.
Thenative words in English are further subdivided by diachronic linguistics intothose of the Indo-European stock and those of Common Germanic origin. Thenative words of Uzbek language belongs to Turkic language family, the origin ofwhich based on Altay-Yenisey manuscripts. It has been noticed that native wordsreadily fall into definite semantic groups. Among them we find terms ofkinship: father‑ота, mother‑она, son‑угил, daughter‑киз, brother‑ака etc; wordsnaming the most important objects and phenomena of nature: Sun‑куёш, moon‑ой, star‑юлдуз, wind‑шамол, water‑сув; names ofanimals and birds: bull‑хукиз, cat‑мушук, goose‑гоз; parts ofhuman body: arm‑кул, ear‑кулок, eye‑куз, heart – юрак
Wordsbelonging to the subsets of the native word – stock are for the most partcharacterized by a wide range of lexical and grammatical valency, highfrequency value and a developed polysemy; they are often monosyllabic, showgreat word – building power and enter a number of set expressions, e. g., watchDE Weccan is one of the 500 most frequent English words. It may be used as averb in more than ten different sentence patterns, with or without object andadverbial modifiers and combined with different classes of words.
1.2Borrowed words, kinds of borrowed words
Borrowedwords are words taken over from other languages. Many linguists considerforeign influence plays the most important role in the history of any language.
Butthe grammar and phonetic system are very stable and are not often influenced byother languages.
Forexample, in its 15 century long history recorded in written manuscripts theEnglish language happened to come in long and close contact with several otherlanguages mainly Latin, French and Old Norse. The great influx of borrowingsfrom these sources can be accounted for by a number of historical causes. Dueto the great influence of the Roman civilization Latin was for a long time usedin England as the language of learning and religion. Old Norse was the languageof the conquerors who were on the same level of social and cultural developmentand who nudged rather easily with the local population in the 9th,10th and the first half of the 11th century. French(Norman dialect) was the language of the other conquerors. Who brought withthem a lot of new nations of a higher social system developed feudalism it wasthe language of upper classes, of official documents and school instructionfrom the middle of the 11th century to the end of the 14thcentury.
Uzbeklanguage also developed under the influence of Persian, Arabic and laterRussian languages. Persian language spread in our territory in 500–300BC, sincethat time peoples of Central Asia have been in close contact with Iran, thebirthplace of Persian language. Till 15th century it was «Fashion»and desirable to write poems and prosaic works in Persian, though old Turkiclanguage was also used among nation, mainly by ordinary people. In the VIIcentury Arabs conquered Central Asia, carrying their religion and language tothe peoples. Thus, Arabic language was predominant till XI–XII centuries. Bookswere written in Arabic language too. e.g. outstanding scientists and scholarsAvicenna (Ibn Sina), Farabi, Beruni created their works in Arabic language.Only in XV century Alisher Navoi, great writer and statesman proved the beautyand importance of the Turkic language, starting to write his best masterpiecesin this language, though he knew Persian and Arabic languages very well. Andstarting with XVIII century Uzbek language was under the influence of Russianlanguage. In the study of the borrowed element in English the main emphasis isas a ruled placed on the middle English period and in Uzbek it is middle Turkiclanguage.
Borrowingsof later periods became the object of investigation only in resent years. Theseinvestigations have shown that the flow of borrowings has been steady anduninterrupted. They refer to various fields of social – political, scientificand cultural life. A large portion of them (41%) is scientific and technicalterms.
Whenwe speak about the role of native and borrowed words in the language we mustnot take into consideration only the number of them but their semantic,stylistic character, their word building ability, frequency value,collocability (valency) and the productivity of their word-building patterns.
Ifwe approach to the study of the role of native and borrowed words from thispoint of view we see, though the native words are not numerous they play animportant role in the English and Uzbek languages. They have value, great word– forming power, wide collocability high frequency, many meanings and they arestylistically neutral. Almost all words of native origin belong to veryimportant semantic groups. The number and character of the borrowed words tellus of the relations between the peoples, the level of their culture, etc. It isfor this reason that borrowings have often been called the milestones ofhistory.
Thewell known linguist Shuchard said «No language is entirely pure», that all thelanguages are mixed.
Itmust be pointed out that while the general historical reasons for borrowingfrom different languages have been studied with a considerable degree of throughthe purely linguistic reasons for borrowings are still open to investigation.The number and character of borrowings do not only depend on the historicalconditions, on the nature and length of the contacts, but also on the degree ofthe genetic and structural proximity of languages concerned. The closer thelanguages the deeper and more versatile is the influence.
Borrowedwords enter the language as a result of influence of two main causes orfactors: linguistic and extra-linguistic. Economic, cultural, industrial,political relations of speakers of the language with other countries refer to extra-linguisticfactors.
Forexample, due to the great influence of the Roman civilization Latin was for along time used in England as the language of learning and religion. Old Norseof the Scandinavian tribes was the language of the conquerors. French (Normandialect) was the language of the other conquerors who brought with them a lotof new notions of a higher social system, developed feudalism. It was thelanguage of upper classes, of official documents and school. The same is inUzbek language. Due to the expansion of Islam religion, Arabic was used forcenturies in Central Asia as the language of science and religion[1].For about two centuries Russian language hold a dominant position in thenations of former Soviet Union. It was priority to know Russian and it was alanguage of communication and friendship. These factors are extra-linguisticones.
Theabsence of equivalent words in the language to express new subjects or a phenomenamakes people to borrow words. E.g. the words football, volleyball, pitchman inUzbek; to economize the linguistic means, i.e. to use a foreign word instead ofa long native expressions and others are called linguistic causes.
Thecloser the two interacting languages are in structure the easier it is forwords of one language to penetrate into the other.
Borrowingsenter the language in two ways through oral speech (by immediate contactbetween the people) and through written speech by indirect contact throughbooks) Words borrowed orally are usually short and they undergo more changes inthe act of adopter. Written borrowings are often rather long and they areunknown to many people, speaking the language.
Wedistinguish translation loans, borrowings proper and semantic loans.Translation loans are words and expressions formed from the material alreadyexisting in the language but according to patterns taken from another language,by way of literal morpheme – for – morpheme translation, e.g. wall-newspaper – деворий газета.
Theterm «semantic loan» is used to denote the development in a word of a newmeaning due to the influence of a related word in another language. The Englishword pioneer meant «explorer» and «one who is among the first in newfields of activity.» now under the influence of the Russian word «Пионер» it has cometo mean «a member of the Young Pioneers’ Organization»
Borrowingsproper are words which are taken from another language with their sound graphicforms and their meaning.
1.3The influence of borrowings on the vocabulary of the language
Thenumber of borrowings on Old English was meager. In the Middle English periodthere was an influx of loans. It is often contended, that since the Normanconquest borrowing has been the chief factor in the enrichment of the Englishvocabulary and as a result there was a sharp decline in the productivity androle of word-formation. Historical evidence, however, testifies to the factthat throughout its entire history, even in the periods of the mightiestinfluxes of borrowings, other processes no less intense, were in operation – word– formation and semantic development, which involved both native and borrowedelements. If the estimation of the role of borrowings is based on the study ofwords recorded in the dictionary, it is easy to overestimate the effect of theforeign words, as the number of native words is extremely small compared withthe number of borrowings recorded. The only true way to estimate the relationof the native to the borrowed element is to consider the two as actually usedin speech. If one counts every word used, including repetitions, in somereading matter, the proportion of native to borrowed words will be quitedifferent. On such a count, every writer uses considerable more native wordsthan borrowings. Shakespeare, for example has 90%, Milton 81%, Tennyson 88%. Thisshows how important is the comparatively small nucleus of native words.Different borrowing are marked by different frequency value. Those wellestablished in the vocabulary may be as frequent in speech as native words,whereas other occur very rarely. The great number of borrowings in English leftsome imprint upon the language. The first effect of foreign influence isobserved in the volume of its vocabulary. Due to its history the Englishlanguage, more than any other modern language, has absorbed foreign elements inits vocabulary. But the adoption of foreign words must not be understood aswere quantities change. Any importation into the lexical system brings aboutsemantic and stylistic changes in the words of this language and changes in itssynonymic groups.
Ithas been mentioned that when borrowed words were identical in meaning withthose already in English the adopted word very often displaced the native word.In most cases, however, the borrowed words and synonymous native words (orwords borrowed earlier) remained in the language, becoming more or lessdifferentiated in meaning and use. As a result the number of synonymic groupsin English greatly increased. The synonymic groups became voluminous andacquired many words rarely used. This brought about a rise in the percentage ofstylistic synonyms.
Asa result of the differentiation in meaning between synonymous words many nativewords or words borrowed earlier narrowed their meaning or sphere ofapplication.
Abundantborrowing intensified the difference between the word stock of the literarynational language and dialects as well as between British English and AmericanEnglish. On the one hand a number of words were borrowed into the literarynational language which are not to be found in the dialects. In a number ofcases the dialects have preserved some Anglo-Saxon words which were replaced byborrowings in the literary language. On the other hand, a number of words wereborrowed into dialects are not used throughout the country.
Inspite of the numerous outside linguistic influences and the etymologicalheterogeneity of its vocabulary the English language is still, in essentialcharacteristics a Germanic language. It has retained a ground work of Germanicwords and grammar. A comparative study of the nature and role of native andborrowed words show that borrowing has never been the chief means ofreplenishing the English vocabulary. Word-formation and semantic developmentwere throughout the entire history of the English language much more productivethan borrowing. Besides most native words are marked by a higher frequencyvalue. The great number of borrowings bringing with them new phonon-morphologicaltypes, new phonetic morphological and semantic features left its imprint uponthe English language. On the other hand under the influence of the borrowedelement words already existing in the English changed to some extent theirsemantic structure, collectability, frequency and word forming ability.Borrowing also considerably enlarged the English vocabulary and brought aboutsome changes in English synonymic groups, in the distribution of the Englishvocabulary through sphere of application and in the lexical divergence betweenthe two variants of the literary national language and its dialects.
Uzbeklanguage is also under constant influence of borrowings. We are living in theage of progress and technology. New discoveries new inventions, bring about newnotions which are accepted by languages, and Uzbek language is also among them.The words connected with development of technology, sport terms, everyday wordshave been penetrating into Uzbek language from other languages, especially fromEnglish, Russian and through Russian or English from many European languages.
Inits turn many Uzbek words entered the word stock of world languages, such as ofsport terms: Kurash, halol, chala, the names of quinine: plov, manti, somsa,the names of clothes: chapan and etc.
Whenin two languages we find no trace of he exchange of loan words one way or theother. We are safe to infer that the two nations have had nothing to do witheach other, but if they have been in contact, the number of the loan-words, andstill more the quality of the loan-words, if rightly interpreted, will informus of their reciprocal relations, they will show us which of them has been themore fertile in ideas and on what domains of human activity each has beensuperior of the other. If all other sources of information were closed to usexcept such loan-words in our modern North-European languages as «piano», «soprano»,«opera», «libretto», «tempo», «adagio» etc. we should still have no hesitationin drawing the conclusion that Italian music has played a great role all overEurope.
Thereare many words, one a native word, the other a Romance loan, originally oflither identical or similar meaning with some distinction made today, such as «freedom»,and «liberty», «happiness», and «felicity», «help», and «aid», «love», and «charity»,and we should find that the native word has a more emotional sense is homelyand unassuming whereas the loan word is colder, aloof more dignified moreformal.
1.4 Recent Translation Theory and LinguisticBorrowing in the Modern Sino-Chinese
Fascinating developments in the new field of translation studiesmay help us advance our understanding of the evolving vocabulary of the ChineseRevolution in the twentieth century. Indeed, there has been an unconscioustheoretical convergence between translation studies outside the China field andmodern Chinese cultural history. The key concept is «culture» writ large inboth cases.
Translation theory has been virtually unknown in China untilrecent times. It is not that the Chinese historically have never been forced toconfront the issue; on the whole, however, until the later decades of thenineteenth century, most of those who came to China were prepared tocommunicate in Chinese. The important exceptions were the nativization of theBuddhist canon and the undoubtedly extensive use of Manchu during the earlydecades of the Qing dynasty. Since the Western nations only tagged on to thelong parade of countries coming to China over the centuries, we need to lookfirst at the other countries of East Asia for clues about translation theory inan ideographic context. Literary Chinese was the lingua franca of theEast Asian world for two millennia. Although the Japanese invented a nativescript as early as the tenth century, the Vietnamese in the thirteenth, and theKoreans only in the fifteenth, in all of these cases Chinese remained theprimary domestic language for politics and high intellectual culture until thedawn of the twentieth century. We shall return to this issue below.
There have been several traditions of translation theory in theWest. The oldest and most long-lasting of them–the transmission of holyscripture into lands in which its language was impenetrable–interestinglyparallels developments in East Asia. The story of the Septuagint graphicallytypifies a whole conception of translation. When the community of Greek rabbiswas called upon, ostensibly, to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek, seventyrabbis separately assumed the task. They reconvened to discover that allseventy Greek translations were identical. The implication is that only onetrue and correct–and implicitly divinely inspired–translation existed of thistext and accordingly any text. The veracity is thus guaranteed if thetranslator is properly trained and equipped for the task. In the case of Bibletranslation, the translator performs a semi – divine function–working with God–tospread the holy word to those unable to master the original, for viatranslation they will now be assured of the equivalent experience. God may havespoken in Hebrew, but He also guided the Greek translators to the one and onlypossible translation of His word. By the same token, translation errors were,on occasion, regarded as blasphemy and punished accordingly.
This conception of translation bespeaks a word-by-wordtransmission of a text from one context into another. It was not important thatthe Greek rabbis merely conveyed the general meaning of the Hebrew Bible northat they simply had the sentences more or less in the same order. The tellingpoints were two: first, that every word was the same in all seventytranslations, and second, that the unique translation was the equivalent (thoughnot the equal) of the original[2].
Despite the multilingual nature of literate culture in Europethrough the turn of the nineteenth century, no specific theory of translationwas forthcoming. Many would write in Latin or translate their ideas mentallyfrom the vernacular into Latin rather than write them down in the mothertongue. Few needed translation. George Steiner has suggested one possiblereason for the lack of translation theory: «The epistemological and formalgrounds for the treatment of `meaning’ as dissociable from and augmentative to`word’ are shaky at best.» In spite of the absence of theory, translation notonly continued, but was deeply intertwined with the evolution of modernlanguages: «The evolution of modern German is inseparable from the LutherBible, from Voss’s Homer, from the successive versions of Shakespeare byWieland, Schlegel, and Tieck.»
Translation theory began to undergo a radical transformation inthe nineteenth century, as translation began to involve a consciousmanipulation to «move the author toward the reader,» to make literary texts aspalatable in the target language and culture as they were in the sourcelanguage and culture. This development marks the effective realization thatprecise translation, especially in the case of literary works, wasinconceivable without regard for norms of the target language and culture. Itis also cotemporal with the widespread emergence of vernaculars as literarymediums, where in the past Latin would have been more frequently employed. Aspeople became less and less multilingual and as Latin declined in generic use,the multilingual knowledge necessary for remaining abreast of «world» literaturemade translation all the more crucial.
We have here the emergence of a new understanding of therelationship between source text (and perhaps author) and target text (andtranslator). No longer was a work worthy of translation approached as a longstring of words, but as an entire text. The translator now performed theall-important function of bringing into one universe a text from another whichoften might have remained unknown. Without English or French translations oftheir work, it is highly unlikely, for example, that the writings of Ibsen orStrindberg or Kierkegaard or Tolstoy or, in more recent times, I.B. Singerwould have been known outside the realm of native speakers of their mothertongues; it is inconceivable, as well, that Singer would have won the NobelPrize.
This development has now reached the point that readers outsidethe native languages of such authors have ceased thinking of their writings asforeign. The same is true of the King James Bible. Translation has actuallyenergized the target languages with new themes and genres deriving from thesource languages. The phrase, «Yea, that I walk through the valley of theshadow of death» – despite the fact that it is not an entirely correcttranslation–has so fully entered our discourse as to make ordinary mortalsbelieve King David spoke English.
Advances over the past two decades in translation studies haveevolved from this trend. We are now in the midst of a «cultural turn.» Theimportant unit for translation is now seen not as a series of words orsentences between languages nor even as a text moving from one setting toanother. Rather they themselves are now seen as emblematic of their contexts,as cultural entities that emerge from one distinctive cultural universe.Without an appreciation of that enveloping context, translation into the targetlanguage loses much. But traditional bemoaning of what is «lost in thetranslation» should also not consume our efforts excessively, for there arecountless instances in which translation can clarify or elucidate a crypticoriginal, in which the target language rises above the source language.Generations of Germans have turned to the English translations of Kant’scritiques to understand them, and you have not lived until you have read TsubouchiShy’s translations of Shakespeare: «Yo ni aru, yo ni aran. Sore ga gimon jya!»
Translators now speak not of source and target languages alone,but of source and target cultures as well, and the target culture is nowbeginning to loom almost as large as the source. There is as well less talk ofgood versus bad translations or faithful versus unfaithful ones. Thisparticular extension of the development of translation studies has a profoundlydangerous aspect to it. In the hands of theorists influenced by postmodernistliterary criticism, everything becomes relativized. All texts, translations aswell as originals, emerge on an even plain. While it strikes me that therecertainly is much room for nuance and uncertainty in translation, there arealso certain definable criteria, if not absolutes, that must remain in play.War is not peace, and love is not hate.
Responsible members of the community of translation studies,however, are fully aware of such potential pitfalls while remaining sensitiveto the new directions in their field. As Jirí Levý had noted: «Atranslation is not a monistic composition, but an interpretation andconglomerate of two structures. On the one hand there are the semantic contentand the formal contour of the original, on the other hand the entire system ofaesthetic features bound up with the language of the translation.»
The new realization, then, is that translation is not simply thetransference of meaning from one language system into another with the able useof dictionary and grammar. Language is at the heart of culture; it gives voiceto culture, and translators must see the source text within its surroundingcultural context. Texts have images in cultures and these are not always thesame in the source and the target. Images in turn have power through language.
In this conection, Susan Bassnett-McGuire has argued: To attemptto impose the value system of the SL [source language] culture onto the TL[target language] culture is dangerous ground, and the translator should not betempted by the school that pretends to determine the original intentionsof an author on the basis of a self-contained text. The translator cannot bethe author of the SL text, but as the author of the TL text has a clear moralresponsibility to the TL readers.
Mary Snell-Hornby goes this one half-step further. She notes that,as we move toward an understanding of translation that sees it as more acultural (rather than a linguistic) transfer, the act of translation is nolonger a «transcoding» from one context into another, but an «act ofcommunication.» Texts are part of the worlds they inhabit and cannot be neatlyripped from their surroundings. The new orientation in translation studies istoward the «function of the target text» rather than the «prescriptions of thesource text.» Hans J. Vermeer has argued that translation is first and foremosta «crosscultural transfer.» Thus, the translator must not only be bilingual – that’sa given – but effectively bicultural as well. «Translation is not the transcodingof words or sentences from one language to another, but a complex form ofaction, whereby someone provides information on a text (source languagematerial) in a new situation and under changed functional, cultural, andlinguistic conditions, preserving formal aspects as closely as possible.»
With the misgivings expressed above, I believe that the culturalturn in translation studies marks a major stride forward, and it can beespecially useful to those of us trying to understand the evolution of the newvocabulary of the Chinese Revolution. We should note in passing that theidentification of language with culture is elemental in East Asia where the twowords share the same root. This is, of course, not to say that Chinese andJapanese cultures are the same. Especially (though not exclusively) at theelite level, however, Neo-Confucian culture–a core canon of texts, a sharedtradition of commentaries on them, specific family and societal values derivingfrom them, and the like–had become strikingly similar in both countries from atleast the seventeenth century forward. Significant differences in socialorganization and particularly in the procedures by which men were chosen forpolitical decision-making jobs remained, making the Japanese and Chinesecultural contexts similar as opposed to identical, different strings on thesame guitar, different variations on the same theme[3].
The Japanese descendents of these elite men of the Edo period, menfrom the bakumatsu (late Edo)and Meiji eras who were trained initially in the Confucian classics, wouldlater in their careers learn Western languages and take upon themselves theformidable tasks of transmitting Western concepts into Japanese. Had it beenthe mid – to late twentieth century, they would surely have conveyed–as theirown descendents have–the new ideas from the West into katakanaexpressions taken largely from English. There are two reasons for this shift:English now enjoys the reputation of an international language, and the new «coiners»lack the training in Kanbun (literary Chinese) of their forefathers. A brieftrip to any electronics store in Japan will reveal just how dependent onEnglish the new Japanese terminology is. Because these new terms are notwritten in Chinese characters, they cannot easily be imported (let alonereimported) into China now, as was the case with the Chinese-charactercompounds coined by Japanese earlier.
In the Meiji period, however, the only appropriate language fortransmitting new philosophical, literary, and scientific terms was Chinese.Many of these creators of new terms were famous in their own right forcomposing works in literary Chinese. One of the most famous case is undoubtedlythe great liberal thinker, Nakae Chmin (1847–1901), who translated Rousseau’s SocialContract into Kanbun in the 1880s. Via such routes, numerous new words werecoined in Chinese for the literate Japanese reading public. Because the termsthen existed in Chinese ideographs, they were ready made for transport intoChinese. The second stage began roughly from the turn of the century, and,although not all terms were renativized into Chinese, the carriers were usuallyChinese studying in Japan or those who had taken refuge there.
To make matters even more complicated, the Japanese coinersfrequently derived their neologisms from traditional Chinese texts. Theresearch of Sanet Keish and its further development in the research of TamYue-him has now documented over 1000 such terms, usually two – orfour-character expressions. Many of these same terms also entered the Koreanand Vietnamese languages in the early decades of the twentieth century.
Although it is not completely exceptional, an ideographic languagelike Chinese–and the other East Asian languages that used Chinese and developedtheir own vernaculars later–may require a variety of qualifications indiscussing translation, either to or from. Achilles Fang overstated the case,though he raised some important considerations.
Another fetish of a group of Sinologists who still think Chinese(classical Chinese) is a «language» in the conventional sense is their firmconviction that a perfect dictionary will smooth their way. Alas, they arewhoring after false gods. First, such a dictionary is impossible to make; next,what earthly use is a two-hundred-volume dictionary to anyone? After all issaid and done, the meaning is determined from the context in the largest senseof the word, and there no dictionary will avail him. Moreover, a dictionary isno help if the wrong entry is chosen.
A great deal of research has been done on the entrance intoChinese and Japanese of the Meiji-period Japanese neologisms, though it remainsscattered. An entire generation of intellectuals in China tried to read YanFu’s Chinese renderings of Western concepts in his translations of Mill, Smith,Spencer, and Huxley, though most of his neologisms simply did not stick. Forexample, perhaps his most famous term, tianyanlun as a translation forthe «theory of evolution,» was soon replaced in the new Chinese lexicon by theJapanese created term, shinkaron (Ch., jinhualun). Why suchterms did not «take» in China cannot simply be stuffed off on the fact thatthey were too literary or assumed too profound a knowledge of classical Chineselore. When Yan Fu was writing, there was no widespread vernacular Chineselanguage in use, and most of those who were able to read his translations undoubtedlyunderstood his allusions (even if the Western ideas behind them remainedpartially obscured). Was Yan Fu aware of the Japanese translations by NakamuraKeiu of the same texts he labored over? Has anyone ever compared thevocabularies devised by Nakamura and Yan to render Western philosophical,political, and economic concepts?
There is a widespread, but extremely thin understanding of theprocess by which the abovementioned 1000 or so Japanese coinages were formedand entered Chinese. In fact, there are any number of actual, far more complexroutes by which these terms were created and adopted into modern, vernacularChinese. Sait Tsuyoshi has examined a number of fascinating cases in greatdetail in his major work, Meiji no kotoba (Meiji words). He is concernedprimarily with how a discrete set of expressions was forged in Meiji Japaneseand how it came to be part of the modern spoken and written Japanese language.Although most of the terms studied–such as Seiy (Ch. Xiyang,the West), shakai (Ch. shehui, society), kywakoku(Ch. gongheguo, republic), hoken (Ch. baoxian,insurance), and other philosophical and academic terms–also found their wayinto Chinese, Sait does not examine that phase of the process. He does, though,discuss many of the terms that were suggested and subsequently dropped forvarious Western political institutions and systems.
In a series of fascinating studies that approaches a similartopic, though largely from the Chinese side of the picture, Mizoguchi Yz looksas the numerous Chinese terms that surround the complex of issues involved inlaying out the modern distinctions drawn between the public (gong) andthe private (si). He begins his analysis in Chinese antiquity anddemonstrates the remarkable changes that transpired in the uses to which theseterms were put over time. From the late nineteenth century, however, theseterms became caught up in demands by Chinese intellectuals for Western-stylepolitical institutions. China’s readiness for such institutions, such asrepresentative government or democracy, were frequently justified on putativelong traditions in which, for example, the «people were the basis» of thestate.
Let me conclude with one small case which should demonstratesuccinctly just how thoroughly complicated this transmission process was: theparticle de (J. teki), used in general to form adjectivesfrom nouns, adverbs from adjectives, or to create the genitive case. In hisunsurpassed study of the transmission of Western learning to China and Japan,Masuda Wataru (1903–77) has described part of the story in discussing theimportant work of Yanagawa Shunsan (1832–70). Yanagawa was a scholar of Westernlearning at the end of the Edo period and head of the Kaiseijo, the main centerfor Western studies at the time in Japan; he also reputedly knew Dutch, French,English, and German. A few biographical details about the life and work of thecoiners of these neologisms may help us anthropomorphize this process; it putsflesh on the bones.
Yanagawa was also, though, a punctuator of Kanbun texts, writtenby Chinese or translations by Chinese of Western works. His reputation as ascholar was sufficiently formidable and well known that he appeared as acharacter at the very beginning of Nagori no yume (Lingering Dreams)by Imaizumi Mine (1858–1937), the daughter of Katsuragawa Hosh (1822–81), aphysician to the family of the shogun and a scholar of Dutch learning. Clearly,the community of Kangaku scholars and that of Western learning scholars hadsignificant overlap. Among his many works, Yanagawa wrote Furansu bunten(A Grammar of French), Igirisu nichiy tsgo [Everyday colloquialEnglish], and Ygaku benran [A manual of Western Learning]; and hisskills at Kanbun can be found in the literary Chinese versions of popularJapanese songs he prepared, his punctuation work on the Japanese version of theZhihuan qimeng (The circle of knowledge), a work comprising lessons onEnglish, Christianity, and natural science, based on James Legge’s Chinesetranslation. Yanagawa was also involved in a project to prepare a completeJapanese translation in twenty string-bound volumes of the Gewu rumen(Introduction to science) by W.A.P. Martin.
Among the many terms nativized into Japan by Yanagawa and hisassociates was the aforementioned particle teki (Ch. de). Inhis personal recollections, tsuki Fumihiko (1847–1928) once described the groupof men who worked together translating so many of these Chinese and Westerntexts. The group included: Yanagawa Shunsan, Katsuragawa Hosh, KurosawaMagoshir, Mitsukuri Keigo [d. 1871], Kumazawa Zen’an [1845–1906], and evenmyself. Odd as it might seem, this group in general [also] enjoyed readingChinese novels, such as Shuihu zhuan [Water margin] and Jinpingmei[Golden lotus]. One day we got together and began chatting, and someonementioned inadvertently the following. It was fine to translate «system» as soshiki(Ch. zuzhi), but it was difficult to translate the term «systematic.» Thesuffix «tic» sounded similar to the character teki (de) asused in [Chinese] fiction; so why not render «systematic» as soshiki teki(Ch. zuzhi de). Everyone thought it was a brilliant idea and agreed togive it a try. Eventually, we paid someone to write out the expression soshikiteki clearly and bring it to the authorities. «Have you put this into use?» «Yes.»«This is rather extraordinary, isn’t it?» «Not that I am aware, no.» We jokedwith these sorts of comic play-acting, but very often we were only able toescape difficult [translation] points with this character teki. Ultimately, itmoved from pure invention to fact, and it was used later without a secondthought, as people picked up on this usage.
Again, though, this is only half of our story. We need to know ifthis new colloquial usage in Japanese of teki was the source for de as acomparable particle in colloquial Chinese, or whether de entered modern baihuadirectly from its much earlier usage in colloquial Chinese literary texts ofthe Yuan and Ming periods. While twentieth-century spoken Chinese uses dealmost exclusively, written vernacular texts often use de alongside the othergenitive-forming particles zhi and di. Japanese has its own manner of formingthe genitive, with the particle no, not the precise counterpart ofteki but the two perform something more on the order of complementary, andoccasionally overlapping, roles.
Most serious scholars of the modern Chinese historical experience,even those most closely wedded to statistical data, consider culture–actually,cultural differences – elemental to their considerations in research andwriting. It would be almost impossible to imagine someone making the claim thatstudy of China could be pursued without taking culture into account. Thus, therecent turn in translation studies toward a broader, more cultural appreciationof both source and target contexts segues neatly with this widespread scholarlycriterion, and concerted attention toward the linguistic Sino-Japaneseinnovations over the past century could not have come at a better time.
Before blanket characterizations can be put forth about the natureof this borrowing – and long before we can generalize or theorize about it–weneed closer examination of as many of the different routes by which theterminology of the Chinese Revolution entered the modern Chinese lexicon fromJapanese as possible. We need to study the very texts in which these terms werefirst used, what Western concepts they were meant to translate, what theyconjured up in the Japanese setting, the process by which they entered Chinese,and the images (however different or similar from Japanese) these terms gaverise to in China. I do not mean to suggest that we conduct 1000 separatestudies, but we do need many separate studies for different clusters of terms.
2.The problem of assimilation of borrowed words
2.1Phonetic assimilation of borrowed words
Itis now our task to see what changes borrowings have undergone in the Englishlanguage and how they have adapted themselves to its peculiarities.
Allthe changes that borrowed elements undergo may be divided into two largegroups.
Onthe one hand there are changes specific of borrowed words only. These changesaim at adapting words of foreign origin to the norms of the borrowing language,e. g. the constant combinations [p n], [p s], [t p t] in the words «pneumatics»,«psychology», «ptolomey» of Greek origin were simplified into [n], [s], [t],since the consonant combinations [p s], [pt], [p n] very frequent at the end ofEnglish words (as in «sleeps», «stopped») were never used in the initialposition.
Itis very important to discriminate between the two processes the adaptation ofborrowed material to the norms of the language and the development of thesewords according to the laws of the language. This differentiation is not alwayseasily discernible. In most cases we must resort to historical analysis beforewe can draw any definite conclusions. There is nothing in the form of the words«procession» and «progression» to show that the former was already used inEngland in the 11th century, the latter not till the 15thcentury. The history of these words reveals that the word procession hasundergone a number of changes along side with other English words change indeclension, accentuation, structure, sounds, whereas the word «progression»underwent some changes by analogy with the word «procession» and other similarwords already at the time of its appearance in the language.
Sincethe process of assimilation of borrowings includes changes in sound-form,morphological structure, grammar characteristics, meaning and usage linguistsdistinguish phonetic, grammatical and lexical assimilation of borrowings.
Phoneticassimilation, comprising changes in sound-form and stress, is perhaps the mostconspicuous. Sounds that were alien to the English language were fitted intoits scheme of sounds. For instance, the long [e] and [E] in recent Frenchborrowings, quite strange to English speech, are rendered with the help of [ei] (as in the words «communiqué», «chaussee», «café») Familiarsounds or sound combinations the position of which was strange to the Englishlanguage, were replaced by other sounds or sound combinations to make the wordsconform to the norms of the language, e.g. German spits [spits] was turned intoEnglish [spits].
Substitutionof native sounds for foreign ones usually takes place in the very act ofborrowing. But some words retain their foreign pronunciation for a long timebefore the unfamiliar sounds are replaced by similar native sounds.
Inwords that were added to English from foreign sources, especially from Frenchor Latin, the accent was gradually transferred to the first syllable. Thuswords like «honour», «reason» were accented on the same principle as the native«father», «mother».
2.2Grammatical assimilation of borrowed words
Usuallyas soon as words from other languages were introduced into English they losttheir former grammatical categories and inflexions and acquired new grammaticalcategories and paradigms by analogy with other English words.
Ifa borrowed word loses its former grammatical categories and inflexions and getsnew grammatical categories and paradigms by analogy with other English words wesay the word is undergone grammatical assimilation. Sometimes the foreigninflexions are fallen off.
E. g.sputnik, sputniks, sputnik’s
Lat.consutare (v) English consult.
Howeverthere are some words in Modern English that have for centuries retained theirforeign inflexions. Thus a considerable group of borrowed nouns, all of themterms or literary words adopted in the 16th century or later, havepreserved their original plural inflexion to this day, e.g.
Phenomenon-phonomena
Addendum-addenda
Otherborrowings of the same period have two plural forms the native and the foreign,e. g. vacuum-vacua, vacuums, virtuoso-virtuosi, virtuosos.
Allborrowings that were composite in structure in their native language appearedin English as indivisible roat-words, unless there were already words with thesame morphemes in it, e. g. in the word «saunter» the French infinitiveinflexion-er is retained, but it has changed its quality, it is preserved inall the other grammatical forms of the word. (saunters, suntered, sauntering),which means that it has become part of the stem in English.
Itmust be borne in mind that when there appears in a language a group of borrowedwords built on the same pattern or containing the same morphemes, themorphological structure of the words becomes apparent and in course of timetheir word-building elements can be employed to form new words[4].
Sometimesin borrowed words foreign affixes are replaced by those available in theEnglish language, e. g. the inflexion – us in Latin adjectives was replaced inEnglish with the suffixes – ous or – al
Barbarus-barbarous
Botanicus-botanical
Balneus-balneal
2.3Lexical assimilation of borrowedwords
Loaningwords from another language causes some changes in meaning of the wordborrowed.
Whena word is taken over into another language its semantic structure as a ruleundergoes great changes.
Polysemanticwords are usually adopted only in one or two of their meanings.
Thusthe word «timbre» that had a number of meanings in French was borrowed intoEnglish as a musical term only. The words cargo and cask, highlypolysemantic in Spanish were adopted only in one of their meanings – «the goodscarried in a ship», «a barrel for holding liquids» respectively.
Insome cases we can observe specialization of meaning, as in the word hangar,denoting a building in which aero planes are kept and revive, which hadthe meaning of «review» in French and came to denote a kind of theatricalentertainment in English.
Inthe process of its historical development a borrowing sometimes acquired newmeanings that were not to be found in its former semantic structure. Forinstance, the word move in Modern English has developed the meanings of‘propose’, ‘change one’s flat’, ‘mix with people’ and others that the French movoirdoes not possess. The word scope, whichoriginally had themeaning of ‘aim purpose’, now means ‘ability to understand ‘, ‘the field withinwhich an activity takes place, sphere’, ‘opportunity, freedom of action’. As arule the development of new meanings takes place 50–100 years after the word isborrowed.
Thesemantic structure of borrowings changes in other ways as well. Some meaningsbecome more general, others more specialized, etc. For instance, the word «terrorist»that was taken over from French in the meaning of «Jacobin» widened its meaningto ‘one who governs, or opposes a government, by violent means. The word umbrella,borrowed in the meaning of a sunshade or pares came to denote similarprotection from the rain as well.
Usuallythe primary meaning of a borrowed word was a retained throughout its history,but sometimes it becomes a secondary meaning. Thus the Scandinavian borrowings wing,root, take and many others have retained their primary meaningsto the present day.
Sometimeschange of meaning is the result of associating borrowed words with familiarwords which somewhat resemble them in sound but which are not at all related.This process, which is termed folk etymology, often changes the form ofthe word in whole or in part, so as to bring it nearer to the word or wordswith which it is thought to be connected, e. g. the French sur (o) underhad the meaning of «overflow». In English r (o) under was associated bymistake with round – думалок and the verb was interpreted as meaning‘encclose on all sides, encircle’ Folle – etimologization is a slow process;people first attempt to give the foreign borrowing its foreign premonition, butgradually popular use involves a new pronunciation and spelling.
Anotherphenomenon which must also receive special attention is the formation ofderivatives from borrowed words. New derivatives are usually formed withthe help of productive affixes, often of Anglo-Saxon origin.
2.4The degrees of assimilation
Therole of loan words in the formation and development of English vocabulary isdealt with in the history of the language. It is there that the historicalcircumstances are discussed under which words borrowed from Latin, fromScandinavian dialects, from Norman and Parisian, French and many otherlanguages, including Russian, were introduced into English. Lexicology, on theother hand, has in this connection tasks of its own, being chiefly concernedwith the material and the results of assimilation.
Themain problems of etymology and borrowed words as they concern the Englishlanguage are comprehensively and consistently treated in Professor A.I.Smirnitskiy deals with these issues mainly in terms of word. Samenessreflecting his methodological approach to word theory.
Herewe are going to concentrated our attention on the assimilation of borrowedwords as a way of their interrelation with the system of the language as awhole. The term assimilation of a loan word is used to denote a partialor total conformation to the phonetically, graphical and morphologicalstandards of the receiving language and its semantic system.
Evena superficial examination of borrowed words in the English word-stock showsthat there are words among them that are easily recognized as foreign and thereare others that have become so firmly rooted in the language, so thoroughlyassimilated that it is sometimes extremely difficult to distinguish them from wordsof Anglo-Saxon origin.
Let’stake some examples: «we can easily determine that the words «décolleté»,graffito», «chemistry» are loaned words.
Butthe words like «pupil», «master», «city», «river» which became part of wordsused at least once a day are also borrowed words. In Uzbek language this kindof situation can be also observed. For example: «Kolxoz», «sputnik», «demokratiya»,«efir», etc words can be easily recognized as loan words. But the words like «maktab»,«kitob», «muhabbat», «ilm», «badavlat» and etc are not considered to be loanwords by ordinary people, because these words are deeply rooted in nativelexicon and are commonly used by people. But according to the etymology ofthese words they are not native words, they were borrowed from Arabic andPersian languages.
Unassimilatedwords differ from assimilated words in their pronunciation, spelling,frequency, semantic structure and sphere of application. However, there is nodistinct borderline between the two groups.
Sofar no linguist has been able to suggest more or less comprehensive criteriafor determining the degree of assimilation depends in the first place upon thetime of borrowing. The general principle is: the older the borrowing the morethoroughly it tends to follow normal language (Uzbek, English) of accentuation,pronunciation, etc. It is but natural that the majority of early borrowingshave acquired full language (English or Uzbek) citizenship and that most Englishspeaking people are astonished on first hearing, that such everyday words as «window»,«chair», «dish», «box» haven’t always belonged to their language. As you see inthe above Uzbek extract there are words which can be easily recognized as loanwords, e.g.: банк-bank, стратегия-strategy, сектор-sector, бизнес-business, кредит-credit, инфратузилма – infrastructure.
Aclassification of loan words according to the degree of assimilation can beonly very general as no rigorous procedure for measuring it has so far beendeveloped. The following three groups may be suggested:
1.Completely assimilated borrowed words
2.Partially assimilated borrowed words
3.Unassimilated borrowed words or barbarism.
Thegroup of partially assimilated words may be subdivided depending on the aspectthat remains unaltered, i. e. according to whether the word retains features ofspelling, pronunciation, morphology or denotation that are not English. Thethird group is not universally accepted, as it may be argued that words notchanged at all cannot form part of the vocabulary of language, because theyoccur in speech only, but don not enter the language.
Completelyassimilated borrowed words are found in all the layers of olderborrowings.
Theymay belong to the first layer of Latin borrowings, e, g: cheese, street,wall, or wine. Among Scandinavian borrowed words we find suchfrequent nouns as husband, fellow, gate, root, wing; such verbs as call, die,take, want and adjectives like happy, ill, low, odd and wrong. Completelyassimilated French words are extremely numerous and frequent. Suffice it tomention such everyday words as table, chair, face, figure, finish, matter. Aconsiderable number of Latin words borrowed during the revival of learning areat present almost indistinguishable from the rest of the vocabulary. Neitheranimal nor article differ noticeable from native words.
Uzbeklanguage like English is vulnerable to new nations. It mainly enriches its wordstock by loaning words from Persian, Arabic Russian and via Russian fromEuropean languages. A large number of words in Uzbek language are the words fromPersian. Tajik languages which are completely assimilated and widely used byUzbek people: дастурхон, даструмол, хокандоз, пояндоз, пойдевор, барг, дарахт, гул, фарзанд, дутор, сетор and etc.
AfterArabic invasion of Central Asia a number of Arabic words were borrowed, whichbecame the indivisible part of our daily speech: мактаб, китоб, мактуб, адабиёт, ахолии, оила, Фан, санъат, хизмат, мехнат, раис, идора, давлат and etc.
Startingfrom XIX century new notions began to penetrate into Uzbek language fromRussian and via Russian from European languages. They denote new notions, newinventions which don’t have equivalence in Uzbek that’s why they are completelyassimilated borrowings:
Стол, стул, ручка, паровоз, студент, министр, операция, (Latin) грамматика, комедия, театр, музей, опера, (Greek) солдат, галстук, штаб, лагерь, (German) костюм, пальто кабинет, генерал, (French) опера, ария, ложа, топор, (Italian) трамвай, вокзал, митинг, футбол, баскетбол, бокс (English)
Thenumber of completely assimilated borrowed words is many times greater than thenumber of partially assimilated ones. They follow all morphological,phonetically and orthographic standards. Being very frequent and stylisticallyneutral, they may occur as dominant words in synonymic groups. They take anactive part in word-formation. Moreover, their morphological structure andmotivation remain transparent, so that they are morphologically analyzable andtherefore supply the English vocabulary not only with free forms but also withbound forms, as affixes are easily perceived and separated in series of loanwords that contain them.
Toillustrate the frequency of completely assimilated words it is sufficient tomention that many of them are included by E.L. Thorndike and I. Lorge inthe list of 500 most frequent words. Some of these are: act (Lat), age(Fr),army(Fr), bill(Lat), case(Fr), cast(ON), cause(Fr), die(Scand).
Thesecond group containing partially assimilated borrowed words can besubdivided into subgroups.
Theoppositions are equipollent.
a) Loan words not assimilated semantically, because they denoteobjects and notions peculiar to the country from which they come. They maydenote foreign clothing: mantilla, sombrero; foreign titles and professions:shah, rajah, sheik, bei, toreador; foreign vehicles: caique (Turkish), rickshaw(Chinese), food and drinks: pillow(Persian) sherbet(Arabian); foreign currency:krone (Denmark), rupee(India), zloty(Poland), peseta(Spain)
b) Borrowed words not assimilated grammatically, for example, nounsborrowed from Latin Greek which keep their original plural forms: bacillus;bacilli, crisis; crises, formula; formulae, index; indices. Some of these arealso used in English plural forms, but in that case there may be a differencein lexical meaning as in: indices: indexes.
c) Loan words not completely assimilated phonetically. The Frenchwords borrowed after 1650 afford good examples. Some of them keep the accent onthe final syllable: machine, cartoon, police.
d) Borrowed words not completely assimilated grammatically. Thisgroup, as V.I. Balinskaya shows, is fairly large and variegated. Thereare, for instance, words borrowed from French in which the final consonant isnot pronounced, e.g: battet, buffet, corps. Some may keep a diacritic mark: café,cliché. Specifically French digraphs (ch, qu, ou) may be retained inspelling: bouquet, brioche.
Itgoes without saying that these sets are intersecting, i.e. One and the sameloan word often Shows in complete assimilation in several respectssimultaneously.
Thethird group of borrowings comprises the so-called barbarism, i. e. words fromother languages used by English people in conversation or in writing but notassimilated in any way, and for which there are corresponding Englishequivalents. The examples are the Italian addio, ciao ‘goodbye’, the Frenchaffich for’ placard’ and coup or coup d’ Etat ‘a sudden seizure of state powerby a small group’, the Latin ad libitum ‘at pleasure’ and the like.
Uzbeklanguage is full of barbarisms which are mainly used by the youth: конечноcertainly(Russian), okay (English) and etc.
Theincompleteness of assimilation results in some specific features which permitus to judge of the origin of words. They may serve as formal indications ofloan words of Greek, Latin, French or other origin. Another factor determiningthe process of assimilation is the way in which the borrowing was adopted intothe language. Words borrowed orally are assimilated more readily, they undergogreater changes, whereas with words adopted through writing the process ofassimilation is longer and more laborious. Whenever the need filling motiveplays a part, the borrower is being confronted with some new object or practicefor which he needs words. Under these conditions three rather distince thingsmay happen, giving rise respectively to «loanwords», «loanshifts», and‘loanleands’. The borrower may adoptthwedonor’s word along with the object orpractice; the new form in the borrower’s speech is then a loanword.
Whenconfronted with a new object or practice for which words are needed, theborrower may somehow adopt material in his own language. A new idiom arises andsince it arises under the impact of another linguistic system, it is a «loanshift».
Aloanblend is a new idiom developed in the borrowing situation in which both theloanword and the loan shift mechanisms are involved: the borrower imports partof the model and replaces part of it by something already in his own language.
Thetype of the word borrowed by personal contact would undoubtedly at first benames of objects unfamiliar to the borrowers, or products, and commoditiesexchanged by way of trade. If the contacts were maintained over a long periodthen ideas concerned with government, law, religion and customs might beabsorbed and perhaps the names of these would be adopted. Only in the case ofnations in relatively advanced stages of civilization would there be muchinfluence exerted through the written word; concrete objects would come first,then abstract ideas learnt from what might actually be seen from their effectsin everyday life and abstract ideas through the indirect contact achieved bybooks would come much later.
Theinternational word-stock is also growing due to the influx of exotic borrowedwords like anaconda, bungalow, kraal, orang-outang, sari etc. These come frommany different sources.
Internationalwords should not to be mixed with words of the common Indo-European stock thatalso comprise a sort of common fund of the European languages.
Thislayer is of great importance for the foreign language teacher not only becausemany words denoting abstract notions are international but also because he mustknow the most efficient ways of showing the points of similarity and differencebetween such words as control: контрол (назорат), general: генерал, industry: индустрия (саноат), magazine: магазин (дукон), etc.usually called ‘translator’s false friends.
Thetreatment of international words at English lessons would be one-sided if theteacher did not draw his pupils’ attention to the spread of the Englishvocabulary into other languages. We find numerous English words in the field ofsport: football, out, match, tennis, time. A large number of English words areto be found in the vocabulary pertaining to clothes: jersey, pullover, sweater,nylon, tweed etc. Cinema and different forms of entertainment are also a sourceof many international words of English origin: film, club, cocktail, jazz. Atleast some of the Russian words borrowed into English and many other languagesand thus international should also be mentioned: balalaika, Bolshevik,cosmonaut, czar, kremlin, rouble mammoth, sambo, steppe, vodks.
Weshould also include here Uzbek language which was under influence of Russianlanguage for a long period of time but didn’t lose its properties and its ownword-stock and now being.
2.5International words as loan words
Asthe process of borrowing is mostly connected with the appearance of new notionswhich the loan words serve to express, it is natural that the borrowing isseldom limited to one language. Words of identical origin that occur in severallanguages as a result of simultaneous or successive borrowings from oneultimate source are called international words.
Expandingglobal contacts result in the considerable growth of international vocabulary.All languages depend for their changes upon the cultural and social matrix inwhich they operate and various contacts between nations are part of this matrixreflected in vocabulary.
Internationalwords play an especially prominent part in various terminological systemsincluding the vocabulary of science, industry and art. The etymological sourcesof this vocabulary reflect the history of world culture. Thus, for example, themankind’s cultural debt to Italy is reflected in the great number of Italianwords connected with architecture, painting and especially music that areborrowed into most European languages: allegro, andante, aria, arioso,barcarole, baritone, concert, duet, opera, piano and many more.
Therate of change in technology, political, social and artistic life has beengreatly accelerated in the 20th century and so has the rate ofgrowth of international word-stock. A few examples of comparatively new wordsdue to the progress of science will suffice to illustrate the importance ofinternational vocabulary: algorithms, antenna, antibiotic, automation, bionics,cybernetics, entropy, gene, genetic, code, graph, microelectronics etc. Allthese show sufficient likeness in English, French, Russian, Uzbek and severalother languages.
Toadapt means to make or undergo modifications in function and structure so as tobe fit for a new use, a new environment or a new situation. Being adaptivesystem the vocabulary is constantly adjusting itself to the changingrequirements and conditions of human communications and cultural and otherneeds. This process of self-regulation of the lexical system is a result ofovercoming contradictions between the state of the system and the demands ithas to meet. The speaker chooses from the existing stock of words such wordsthat in his opinion can adequately express his thought and feeling. It isimportant to stress that the development is not confined to coining new wordson the existing patterns but in adapting the very structure of the system toits changing functions.
Accordingto F. de Saussure synchronic linguistics deals with systems and diachroniclinguistic – with single elements, and the two methods must be kept strictlyapart. A language system then should be studied as something fixed andunchanging, whereas we observe the opposite: it is constantly changed andreadjusted as the need arises. The concept of adaptive systems overcomes thiscontradiction and permits us to study language as a constantly developing butsystematic whole. The adaptive system approach gives a more adequate account ofthe systematic phenomena of a vocabulary by explaining more facts about thefunctioning of words and providing more relevant generalizations, because wecan take into account the influence of extra – linguistic reality. The study ofthe vocabulary as an adaptive system reveals the pragmatic essence of thecommunication process, i. e. the way language is used to influence theaddressee. There is a considerable difference of opinion as to the type ofsystem involved, although the majority of linguists nowadays agree that thevocabulary should be studied as a system. Our present state of knowledge is, however,insufficient to present the whole of the vocabulary as one articulated system,so we deal with it as if it were a set of interrelated systems.
Thelanguage of independent Uzbekistan is contributing to the world languagesenriching them with new notions: kurash, chap, halol, chala, (sport terms),bazar, sumalak etc.
Tosum up this brief treatment of loan words it is necessary to stress that instudying borrowed words a linguist cannot be content with establishing thesource, the date of penetration, the semantic sphere to which the word belongedand the circumstances of the process of borrowing. All these are veryimportant, but one should also be concerned with the changes the new languagesystem into which the loan word penetrates causes in the word itself, and onthe other hand, look for the changes occasioned by the newcomer in the Englishvocabulary, when in finding its way into the new language it pushed some of itslexical neighbors aside. In the discussion above we have tried to show theimportance of the problem of conformity with the patterns typical of thereceiving language and its semantic needs.
Conclusion
Therole of loan words in the formation and development of English vocabulary isdealt with in the history of the language. It is there that the historicalcircumstances are discussed under which words borrowed from Latin, fromScandinavian dialects, from Norman and Parisian French and many otherlanguages, including Russian, were introduced into English. Lexicology, on theother hand, has in this connection tasks of its own, being chiefly concernedwith the material and the results of assimilation.
Themain problems of etymology and borrowed words as they concern the Englishlanguage are comprehensively and consistently treated in Professor A.I.Smirnitsky’s book on lexicology. Professor A.I. Smirnitsky deals with theseissues mainly in terms of word sameness reflecting his methodological approachto word theory.
Inthe present paragraph attention must be concentrated on the assimilation ofloan words as a way of their interaction with the system of the language as awhole. The term assimilation of a borrowed word is used to denote a partial ortotal conformation to the phonetically, graphical and morphological standardsof the receiving language and its semantic system. The degree of assimilationdepends on the length of period during which the word has been used in thereceiving language, upon its frequency. Oral borrowings due to personalcontacts are assimilated more completely and more rapidly than literaryborrowings, i. e. borrowings through written speech.
Thelist of used literature
1. «A textbook of translation» Peter Newmark 1995
2. A course in theoretical English Grammar M.Y. Blokh.
3. БлумфилдЛ «Язык» М. 1968
4. Смирницкий А.И.«Синтаксис английского языка». Москва 1957
5. Bryant M.A. «Functional English Grammar». N.Y. 1945
6. Strang B. «Modern English Structure» L.D. 1974
7. Sweet H.A. «New English Grammar Logical and Historical» Pt.1. Oxf., 1891. Pt. 2. Oxf., 1898
8. «A Grammar of Present-day English» E.M. Govdon, I.P. Krylova.Москва 1971
9. Francis W.N. «The structure of American English» New York.1998
10. Information from Internet. http. www.
11. Zandvoort R.W. «A Handbook of English Grammar» 1958
12. Reference Guide top Grammar. A Handbook of English as a secondlanguage USIA Edition first published 1994
13. I.G. Koshevaya «The theory of English Grammar» «Просвешение», 1982
14. Ilyish. «The structure of Modern English» «Просвешение», Ленинград 1971
15. Хаймович,Б.С. Роговская Б.И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. «Высшая школа» Москва 1987
16. Чейф У.Л. «Значения и структура языка» Москва 1975
17. M.A. Ganshina, N.M. Vasilevskaya «English Grammar» Higherschool Publishing House 1964
18. André Lefevere, «Translation: ItsGeneology in the West,» in Translation, History amd Culture, ed. SusanBassnett and André Lefevere (London and New York: Pinter Publishers,1990), 14.
19. George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects ofLanguage and Translation (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), 265–66,276–78, citations on 277, 266, respectively. See also Lefevere, «Translation:Its Geneology in the West,» 16–18; Susan Bassnett-McGuire, TranslationStudies (London and New York: Methuen, 1980), 54, 56, 58.
20. Lefevere, «Translation: Its Geneology in theWest,» 18–20 (p. 19, paraphrasing Schleiermacher).
21. Cited in Bassnett-McGuire, TranslationStudies, 5–6.
22. Lefevere, «Translation: Its Geneology in theWest,» 26–27.
23. Bassnett-McGuire, Translation Studies,23.
24. Achilles Fang, «Some Reflections on theDifficulty of Translation,» in On Translation, ed. Reuben A. Brower(New York: Oxford University Press, 1966),