Éva
Forintos
On
the Interlingual and Intralingual Language Contact
Phenomena in Australian Linguistic Environment
0. Introduction
This study examines language ecology questions
in Australia since it investigates how the
Hungarian language (L1) used by the Hungarian
minority group in Australia functions outside
its traditional setting, Central Europe, in
an environment where another language (L2)
is used (English in Australia). This is an
intraregional language contact situation where
Hungarian immigrants live among the English-speaking
population of Australia; and the two languages
involved are genealogically non-related and
structural-typologically non-identical languages.
The study is a contribution to the ongoing
research for an adequate theoretical framework
for the description and analysis of languages
that come into contact. Furthermore, it intends
to propose a lexicogrammatical approach to
the study of language contact in the light
of the recent developments in corpus research.
1.
The Research
The
focal point of this study is to examine one
version of the written language of the above
mentioned language minority with special regard
to the patterns that emerge out of language
contact situations. Research is carried out
to study the lexical contact phenomena in
which Standard Hungarian (henceforth: SH)
and Australian Hungarian (henceforth: AuH)
differ, e.g., what lexical items are present
in AuH that are not part of SH, in order to
categorise them as the result of the influence
of Australian English or language attrition
or both. Interlingual as well as intralingual
lexical contact phenomena are considered.
Interlingual lexical features are classified
according to Winford’s (2003:42-43) classification,
which is based on Haugen’s classification.
The main categories are lexical borrowings
and native creations. Intralingual lexical
features found in the AuH corpus are classified
into the following categories: (i) native
creations, (ii) semantic extensions, (iii)
collocations, and (iv) contaminations.
As
far as language contact research is concerned
in Hungary, the varieties of Hungarian spoken
is the neighbouring countries and overseas
have been the subject of research, about which
Bartha (1999) gives an almost exhaustive summary
(cf., Csernicskó, 1998, Fenyvesi, 1995; Göncz,
1999; Kontra, 1990; 1991, Lanstyák, 2000;
Rot, 1991; Gal, 1979; Fenyvesi (ed.) 2005.).
The language contact of Australian Hungarian
has been studied by Kovács (1996, 2001a, 2001b),
Hatoss (2003, 2004) and Vászolyi (2003). This
line of more sociolinguistically oriented
research is complemented by this study, which
is concerned with both linguistic and sociolinguistic
context of language contact.
In
connection with the investigation of the AuH
corpus the following hypotheses can be worded:
a) the occurrence of lexical borrowings is
relatively low compared to the whole number
of words found in the entire AuH corpus; b)
although AuH has existed for only about a
hundred years, which is a quite short period
for extensive internally-motivated changes,
certain intralingual features are expected
to turn up in the corpus.
2.
The Corpus of the Research
Since
the language of Hungarian migrants in Australia,
unlike that of their counterparts in the United
States of America, as well as the language(s)
of Hungarian minorities in the Carpathian
Basin, has not been the subject of much research,
this study employs the machine-readable corpus
of written language samples taken from the
only weekly published newspaper – titled Hungarian
Life (Magyar Élet) – of the Hungarian
community in Australia. The corpus is made
up of the advertisements found in the 98 issues
of Hungarian Life published in 2000
and 2001. The number of words of advertisements
found in the 98 issues of the chosen newspaper
is 96.351, (100%), only 4 per cent of which
is written in English, (3781 words). Obviously,
they have been excluded from the corpus. 7
per cent (6845 words) of the advertisements
are translations of governmental advertisements,
26 per cent (25,272 words) of them were written
in unmixed Hungarian, whereas 63 per cent
(60,453 words) of them are instances where
the two languages – Hungarian and English
– come into direct contact. The corpus of
the study is made up of the latter three,
altogether 92,570 words. Although the dimension
of the corpus is determined according to the
types, “the abstract representations of tokens”,
which “are instances of a linguistic expression”
(Sinclair 1991:19), tokens are not without
consideration; they are referred to in the
coding scheme.
The coding scheme I created for the research
includes the basic information in the following
sequence:
2000/1/1/96 (6)
2000 – the year of publication
1 – the issue number
1 – the page on which the
advertisement was spotted for the first time
96 – the number of occurrences
of the same advertisement (token)
(6) – the number of occurrences
of the linguistic manifestation in other advertisements
(token)
3.
Interlingual Lexical Features /1/
Lexical
borrowing must be seen as one aspect of a
creative process of lexical change under contact,
which builds on both native and foreign resources.
The results of the linguistic interference
of language contact on the level of lexis
of the receptor-language are manifested in
the form of lexical borrowing of different
kinds but mainly borrowings modelled on the
donor language and native creations (Winford
2003).
In
the relevant literature, a lot of definitions
exist for the different types of direct and
indirect loans. Linguists are not only incapable
of arriving at an agreement about the dividing
criteria of each term but also the terminologies
differ from each other to a great extent.
Winford
(2003) analyses the different attempts which
were made to establish a coherent framework
for dealing with contact-induced changes in
the lexicon. He states that “the most comprehensive
of the early frameworks may have been that
of Betz (1949), whose basic distinction between
loanword and loan-coinage still forms the
basis for current descriptions” (Winford 2003:42),
and his very detailed and refined terminology
describes word-borrowing in many aspects.
Following Haugen (1953), lexical contact phenomena
can be classified into two broad categories
– lexical borrowings, which involve
imitation of some aspect of the donor model,
and creations, which are entirely
native and have no counterpart in the donor
language” (Winford 2003:43). Winford (2003)
subdivides lexical borrowings into two categories,
e.g., “there are loanwords, in which
all or part of the morphemic composition of
the loan derives from the external source
language” (Winford 2003:43). In other words,
the most general term “loanword” refers to
the total morphemic importation of single
or compound words. “Loanwords may be divided
into two categories: ‘pure loanwords’”, (Winford
2003: 43) e.g., MONEY ORDER (2000/1/2/97)
(2) and “‘loanblends’” (Winford 2003:
43). Some cases that appear to belong in this
category involve phonological adjustment of
a native word on the model of a foreign one,
without change in the content. It is difficult
to say, however, whether these are really
cases of phonological adjustment of the native
word as distinct from importation (imitation)
of the foreign counterpart, (e.g., Registrált
agent (registered agent) (2000/33/20/2)
(2)).
Loanblends
are combinations of L1 material with L2 material,
e.g., they involve the transfer of part of
the foreign model and the reproduction of
the rest (importation of a foreign morpheme
combined with substitution of a native one).
Examples of such “hybrids” include (a) derivational
blends i.e., imported stem + native affix,
e.g., Church-ben (church-INE) (2001/5/12/2)
(72) or native stem + imported affix
(no example found in the corpus) and (b) compound
blends i.e., imported stem + native stem e.g.,
csirkeragout (chickenragout) (2001/4/3/10).
Loanblends – and many other products are not
strictly speech borrowings, but innovations
that have no counterparts in the source language.
And,
“there are loanshifts”, (also called
loan meanings) “in which the morphemic
composition of the item is entirely native,
though its meaning derives at least in part
from the donor language. Each of these categories
can be further subdivided, according to the
types of importation and substitution involved”
(Winford 2003:43). Loanshifts do not actually
include surface-level alien morphemes but
instead influence L1 material. They can be
divided into the following subtypes. Sometimes
a native word may undergo extension of its
meaning on the model of a foreign counterpart.
These are cases of “extensions” or “semantic
loans”. For example, Hungarian direkt
originally directly, straight; on purpose,
wilfully, intentionally, deliberately
was extended to mean direct/through bus,
non-stop bus, on the model of English
direct (2000/1/13/98). Winfords states
that “loanshifts may take the form of ‘pure
loan translations’ or calques in which the
foreign model is replicated exactly by native
words” (Winford 2003: 43), for example dupla
szobák (double bedrooms) (2001/6/3/1).
In
Winford’s words, “creative word formation
involving imported items is another by-product
of lexical borrowing, which Haugen includes
in his category of ‘native creations’ ” (Winford
2003:44). “Pure native creations” mean the
innovative use of native words to express
foreign concepts, e.g., hétvégi magyar
iskolákban (weekend Hungarian schools-PL-INE)
(2001/20/7/2). ”Hybrid creations” are blends
of native and foreign morphemes to express
foreign concepts e.g., special áraink
(special price-POSS-PL-1PL) (2001/4/3/17)
(3).
4.
Intralingual Lexical Features
The
linguistic features belonging to this group
are called “intralingual deviations” by Kontra
(1990:97). As for their motivation, Kontra
(ibid.) is of the opinion that they came into
existence due to language attrition in case
of the first generation immigrants, and imperfect
language learning in the case of those belonging
to the second generation. He (ibid. 97-8)
enumerates a few examples either with or without
context. The examples are not classified into
any linguistic groups, and no linguistic explanation
for their existence is provided. Internally-motivated
language change is discounted as a possible
source of changes in Fenyvesi’s (1995) study
because she is of the opinion that the investigated
dialect has existed for only about a hundred
years, which is a very short period for extensive
internally-motivated changes.
In
the following, an attempt is made to present
the linguistic features that are different
from SH and cannot be attributed to the influence
of Australian English (henceforth: AE) by
classifying them into different groups created
for this study. The new coinages categorised
into the group, called native creations,
are created similarly to the so-called native
creations that are attributed to the influence
of AE. At the same time, they differ, due
to the fact that they do not denote foreign
concepts. Sometimes, they refer to phenomena
and concepts which were parts of Hungarian
culture, and consequently, part of SH when
the older generations of the Hungarian community
in Australia used to live in Hungary, (approximately
50-60 years ago) before immigrating to Australia.
The noun kőművész (stone-art) (vs.
SH kőműves) taken from Kontra’s (1990: 98)
corpus could be classified into this group.
Intralingual semantic extensions
are similar to loanshifts in the sense that
their morphemic composition is entirely native
on the one hand; and they undergo extension
of their meanings on the other. Their meaning,
however, does not derive from a donor language.
The noun harapás (mouthful) (vs.
SH harapnivaló) taken from Kontra’s (1990:
97) corpus could be classified into this group.
And there are collocations found
in the corpus. Firth (cited in Lewis 2000:48)
described collocation as “the company words
keep their relationships with other words”
or “the way words combine in predictable ways”.
Lexical types of collocations generally contain
two or more open class items, which can be
nouns, adjectives and adverbs. McCarthy (1990:12)
defines this special relationship between
the words as follows: “it is a marriage contract
between words, and some words are more firmly
married to each other than others. It is an
important organising principle in the vocabulary
of any language”. Gairns and Redman (1986)
give a list of the most obvious types and
forms of collocations. In the corpus of AuH
examples of the following collocation types
can be found.
a) adjective + noun
b) verb + object noun
c) adjective + adjective
The phrase made up of a verb and object noun
problémát merített fel /2/
(problem-ACC draw(past)-up) (vs. SH problémát
vetett fel) taken from Kontra’s (1990:97)
corpus could be classified into this group.
One of the rarer word-formation processes
of SH is the so-called “contamination”, which
is a combination of synonymous word forms
where the beginning of one word is contracted
with the end of another, for instance, csokor
(bunch of flowers) + bokréta (bouquet)
= csokréta (nosegay). The new word
created as a consequence of contamination
is supposed to be synonymous with the original
words involved (Keszler, 2000).
The following examples representing intralingual
language contact features are regarded as
the results of contamination due
to the similarities in their word-formation
processes. Although the meaning of the new
coinages can be detected from the context,
they cannot be considered to be part of SH
as they are not included in the Hungarian
National Corpus. This feature can clearly
be attributed to language attrition and forgetting
as well as to imperfect learning. The phrase
rajtatok függ (on you-PL depend)
(vs. SH rajtatok múlik/áll – tőletek függ)
taken from Kontra’s (1990: 97) corpus could
be classified into this group.
4.
Summary
The
number of the features resulting mainly from
the influence of Australian English is exactly
338, which makes only 0,365 percent of the
entire corpus. It can be stated that the occurrence
of lexical borrowings is relatively low compared
to the whole number of words found in the
entire AuH corpus. This low percentage of
lexical borrowings proves that the language
contact situation of the Hungarians in Australia
can be considered a language maintenance situation
rather than a language death situation. As
for the ratio of the findings in the different
sub-groups of lexical borrowings the following
can be stated. Out of the 338 lexical borrowings
modelled on the donor language, 181 are loanwords,
which makes 54 percent of all the findings.
Out of the 181 loanwords 116 are “pure” loanwords
(34.3 percent) and 65 words are loanblends
(19.2 percent). Altogether there are 89 loanshifts
in the corpus, that is, 26 percent, out of
which 66 (19.5 percent) are semantic loans,
and 23 are calques (6.8 percent). As for the
third group of borrowings, i.e., native creations,
there are 68 items (20 percent) belonging
to this group. Out of the 68 items 13 are
purely native creations (3.8 percent) and
55 are hybrid creations (16.2 percent).
The
number of intralingual features found in the
AuH corpus is 53, which makes only 0,05 percent
of the entire corpus. Out of the 53 features
14 examples are – what I call – native creations
(26 percent), 7 examples are semantic extensions
(13 percent); 23 examples are collocations
(43 percent), and 9 examples are contaminations
(17 percent). Although the occurrence of intralingual
features is very low, they are worth studying
to see what levels of language are involved.
Whether the creation of these features contributes
to the decline of the language or it means
the development of it, it is hard to decide.
Supposedly, they are created to avoid using
the English language and thus they contribute
to the maintenance of the Hungarian language
in Australia, as well as they justify our
hypothesis.
5.
Suggestions for Future Research
The
generalisability of findings from one corpus
of Hungarian to another both in diaspora and
in the mainland is a necessary next step from
here. At present there are no corresponding
corpora of diaspora Hungarian of this kind
that can be used to compare the findings of
this research /3/.
An interesting follow up would be to compare
AuH corpus with a mainland corpus as well
as with another diaspora Hungarian corpus
of equal size. AuH corpus consists of a considerable
number of approximately 100,000 words taken
from written texts. A future development would
be the completion of the spoken component
of equal size.
Bibliography
Bartha, Cs. 1999. A kétnyelvűség alapkérdései.
Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Csernicskó, I. 1998. A magyar nyelv Ukrajnában
(Kárpátalján). Budapest: Osiris/MTA Kisebbségkutató
Műhely.
Fenyvesi, A. 1995. Language contact and language
death in an immigrant language: The case of
Hungarian.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh
Working Papers in Linguistics. 3:1-117.
Fenyvesi, A. 2005. Hungarian Language Contact
Outside Hungary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gairns, R. and Redman, S. 1986. Working with
Words. Cambridge: CUP.
Gal, S. 1979. Language Shift: Social Determinants
of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria.
New York:
Academic Press.
Göncz, L. 1999. A magyar nyelv Jugoszláviában.
Budapest/Újvidék: Osiris/MTA Kisebbségkutató
Műhely/Forum Könyvkiadó.
Hatoss, A. 2003. Do multicultural policies
work? Language maintenance and acculturation
in two vintages of
the Hungarian diaspora in Queensland, Australia.
In: Cohen, J., McAlister, K., Rolstad, K.,
and
MaySwan, J. (eds.) (2004). ISB4: Proceedings
of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Hatoss, A. 2004. Identity formation, cross-cultural
attitudes and language maintenance in the
Hungarian
Diaspora of Queensland. In: L. Kerr (ed.)
Cultural Citizenship: Challenges of Globalisation
Melbourne: Deakin University. 71-77.
Keszler, B. (ed.) (2000) Magyar Grammatika.
Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó.
Kontra, M. 1990. Fejezetek a South Bend-i
magyar nyelvhasználatból. [The Hungarian language
as spoken in
South Bend, Indiana.] Budapest: MTA Nyelvtudományi
Intézete.
Kontra, M. (ed.) 1991. Tanulmányok a határainkon
túli kétnyelvűségről. Budapest: Magyarságkutató
Intézet.
Kovács, M. 1996. Tulajdonnevek használata
az ausztráliai magyar nyelvben. In: Mészáros
Edit (ed.) Ünnepi
könyv Mikola Tibor tiszteletére. Szeged. 198-201.
Kovács, M. 2001a. “A szókincs az nekem nem
annyira bő” Az ausztráliai magyarság nyelvének
néhány lexikai
sajátossága a nyelvfenntartás szempontjából.
Szeged. Néprajz és Nyelvtudomány. XLI/2: 135-47.
Kovács, M. 2001b. Code-Switching and Language
Shift (in Australian Finnish in Comparison
with Australian
Hungarian) Abo: Abo Akademi University Press.
Lanstyák, I. 2000. A magyar nyelv Szlovákiában.
Budapest-Pozsony: Osiris Kiadó - Kalligramm
Könyvkiadó –
MTA Kisebbségkutató Műhely.
Lewis, M. 2000. Teaching Collocations – Further
Developments in the Lexical Approach. England:
Language
Teaching Publication.
McCarthy, P.(1990. Vocabulary. Oxford: OUP.
Rot, S. 1991. Language Contact. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang GmbH.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation.
Oxford: OUP.
Vászolyi, E. 2003. Magyusztrál. Hungarológia
Évkönyv 4. Pécs.
Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact
Linguistics. Malden-Oxford-Melbourne-Berlin:
Blackwell
Publishing.
APPENDIX
Interlingual lexical features (338)
- I.
Loanwords (181)
- A)
Pure loanwords (116)
(1)
drive (2000/1/13/98)
(1) (SH (erdei) út, fasor)
(2) election (2001/42/7/1)
(2) (SH választás(ok))
(3) handyman (2001/46/16/2)
(2) (SH ezermester)
(4) newsagent (2001/1/21/20)
(SH újságárus)
(5) take-away (2000/2/20/1)
(SH ~ elvitelre készített étel, kifőzde)
- B)
Loanblends (65)
- 1)
Derivational blends (64)
(1) armyban (2000/36/24/1)
(army-INE)
(2) avenue-ről (2000/8/11/1)
(Avenue-DEL)
(3) department-től (2000/23/15/1)
(department-ABL)
(4) junctionba (2001/12/20/4)
(3) (junction-ILL)
(5) rivernél (2001/6/11/1)
(1) (river-ADE)
- 2)
Compound blends (1)
(1) csirkeragout (2001/4/3/10)
(SH csirkeragu)
- II.
Loanshifts (89)
- A)
Semantic loans (66)
(1) regisztrált (építész)
(2000/1/20/98) (registered (builder)); (vs.
SH
bejegyzett/engedéllyel rendelkező)
(2) szervizünk (a mi ajánlólevelünk)
(2001/1/3/3) (service-PL-1PL); (vs. SH
szolgáltatás/kiszolgálás/ügyfelekkel való
bánásmód)
(3) speciális különjárat
(2000/30/11/1) (special train/plane); (vs.
SH különjárat (pl.
különvonat)
(4) látogassák meg (web
oldalunkat) (2001/1/5/2) (8) (visit
(our webpage); (vs. SH
nézze meg weboldalunkat)
(5) hivatalosan elismert
(… tolmács) (2000/1/20/98) (officially recognised
(interpreter)); (vs. SH hivatalosan bejegyzett)
- B)
Loan translations or calques (23)
(1) hivatalos órák (2000/12/7/1)
(office hours); (vs. SH félfogadás, fogadóóra)
(2) korai 40-es (2001/17/20/1)
(1) (early forties); (vs. SH negyvenes évei
elején jár)
(3) hideg felvágottak (2000/20/20/71)
(cold cut-LV o-PL); (vs. SH felvágott)
(4) angol főiskolai célokra
(2001/11/2/1) (English for special/specific
purposes
(ESP), English college-Deriv. affix purpose-LVo-PL-SUB);
(vs. SH szaknyelv)
(5) munkabevétel (2000/2/3/49)
(work-income); (vs. SH munkabér-jövedelem,
munkabér)
- III.
Native creations (68)
- A)
Purely native creations (13)
(1) Vasárnapi iskola (2001/48/10/1)
(52) (Sunday school)
(2) próbaleckék (2001/11/2/1)
(sample lesson-PL)
(3) vegyeskultúrájú … (fesztiválja)
(2000/6/6/1) (multicultural)
(4) ételmegoldásként (2000/1/5/3)
(food-solution-(essive-)FORmal)
(5) találkozónapon (2001/2/5/1)
(meeting/get-together day-SUP)
- B)
Hybrid creations (55)
(1) granny flat szállást
(2001/29/20/2) (granny flat accommodation-ACC);
(vs. SH
szülők számára elkülönített v. épített lakrészben/lakásban
szállás/lakhatás)
(2) Trash and Treasure vásár
(2001/6/5/2) (trash and treasure fair);
(vs. SH ~
bolhapiac)
(3) part-time elfoglaltsággal
(2001/14/10/2) (4) (part-time job/post/work-ESS);
(vs.SH részmunkaidejű elfoglaltság)
(4) Medicare pótlék (2001/25/5/1)
(1) (Medicare allowance); (vs.
SH
társadalombiztosítási pótlék)
(5) professional férfi
(2000/1/20/2) (professional man); (vs. SH
~ szakmával
rendelkező/szakképzett férfi)
Intralingual lexical features
(53)
- I.
Native creations (14)
(1) kantinszolgálat (2001/7/4/2)
(4) (canteenservice); (vs. SH éttermi/
büfé szolgálat)
(2) horgászkedvelőt (2000/4/8/1)
(angler-fan-ACC); (vs. SH horgászatkedvelő)
(3 krimikönyvek (2001/12/20/2)
(crimebook-LV e-PL) (vs. SH krimi/detektív
regény/bűnügyi történet)
(4) fejmosó (… fodrászüzletbe)
(2000/27/20/3) (shampooer); (vs. SH hajmosó)
(5) téglarakás, (vakolás)
(2000/1/20/1) (bricklaying); (vs. SH falazás)
- II.
Semantic extensions (7)
(1) (Kicsik: 8-12 évesek) középkorúak:
(13-16 év között) (2001/3/13/1) (middle-
aged-LV a-PL); (vs. SH középkorosztály)
(2) asztalrendelés (2001/19/5/2)
(11) (table ordering); (vs. SH asztalfoglalás)
(3) lakásfoglalással (2001/43/21/1)
(flatoccupying-INS); (vs. SH szállásfoglalás)
(4) ((lakás rövid …) lejáratra
… (bérelhető)) (2001/25/11/2) (date-SUB);
(vs. SH
idő/táv)
(5) (épületben lakó) házfelügyelő
(2000/37/20/3) (porter); (vs. SH házgondnok)
- III.
Collocations (23)
(1) jó megjelenésű /4/
… hölgy (2000/47/24/2)
(5) (smart appearance-Deriv. affix
…
lady); (vs. SH csinos/vonzó hölgy)
(2) komoly kapcsolatteremtés
(céljából) (2000/1/20/1) (close connection-formation);
(vs. SH komoly kapcsolat)
(3) díjtalan vonalon (2000/6/6/1)
(toll free line-SUP); (vs. SH díjtalan hívás;
ingyenesen hívható szám)
(4) világszínvonalú énekesünk
(2000/13/10/6) (world-standard-Deriv.affix
singer-
POSS-1PL); (vs. SH világhírű énekes)
(5) családi légkör (2001/19/17/2)
(family atmosphere); (vs. SH családias légkör)
- IV.
Contaminations (9)
(1) símezők (2000/22/19/2)
(skifield-PL); (vs. SH sípálya
– hómező)
(2) mosófülke (2000/37/20/3)
(laundry alcove); (vs. SH ~ mosókonyha
– hálófülke)
(3) tette munkáját (2001/12/8/1)
(did duty-POSS-3SG-ACC); (vs. SH tette
a dolgát –
végezte munkáját)
(4) Kérje jelentkezését
(2000/2/10/6) (ask for application-POSS-2SG(formal)-ACC);
(vs. SH kérje felvételét
– jelentkezzen)
(5) képletesen beszélve
(2001/43/21/1) (figuratively speaking);
(vs. SH képletesen
szólva – képletes beszéd)
/1/
Kontra (1990) calls them “interlingual deviations”.
/2/
The selection of the verb merit fel (draw
up) must have been influenced by the verb
felmerül (come up). A person can ‘raise a
problem’ (felvet problémát), whereas ‘a problem
can come up’ (felmerül probléma).
/3/
Kontra’s (1990) and Fenyvesi’s (1995) findings
are discussed under each relevant subheading
to provide a comparison between characteristics
of American Hungarian in South Bend and in
McKeesport and Australian Hungarian, although
they studied a variety of spoken Hungarian
in the USA.
/4/
The very same adjectives turn up with the
noun ‘man’ 13 times in the corpus. |
