Segments and Subclasses of Pseudo-Borrowed Onyms in the German Literary Language
https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2023-25-1-1-9
Abstract
The article describes a system-structural analysis of 311 German pseudo-borrowings. The research objective was to classify pseudo-borrowed onyms in the German literary language as pseudo-borrowings or proper names. Pseudo-borrowed onyms are different from assimilates, erratives, pseudomotives, homeonims, memorative fictionyms, and pseudo-Latin cognomens. The sampling was based on six criteria: 1) the onyms developed from a morpheme of the donor language; 2) they violate the principle of reversibility; 3) they belong to the category of nomina propria ; 4) they are capitalized; 5) they belong to the German language; 6) they imitate a foreign language. German pseudo-borrowed onyms are represented by fourteen segments, the largest of which are the Maccaronian (Common Romanian) segments of pseudo-Latinisms (88 units, 28.3 %) and pseudo-Italianisms (80 units, 25.7 %). The largest onymic subclasses are represented by anthroponyms in the subset of realonyms (36 units, 11.6 %) and fictionyms (149 units, 47.9 %), as well as pragmonyms in the pseudo-Italian segment (70 units, 22.5 %). Fictionyms (166 units, 53 %) dominate over realonyms and come from translated fiction. Pseudo-borrowed onyms differ from appellants in their word formation because they are not tied to prestigious donor languages. The hybrid specificity of pseudo-borrowed onyms make it impossible to localize them as onymic or appellative.
About the Authors
Alevtina B. Volkova
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
The author declared no potential conflicts of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.
Yuriy V. Kobenko
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University,
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Scopus Author ID: 56523403200
Competing Interests:
The author declared no potential conflicts of interests regarding the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.
References
1. Bakh A. German language history. Moscow: Izd-vo inostr. lit., 1956, 344. (In Russ.)
2. Volkova A. B., Kobenko Yu. V. Pseudo-borrowed onyms in German literary language: aspect of word formation. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2022, (4): 7–14. (In Russ.)
3. Vorobyova E. A. Formation and development of the German literary language. Panorama, 2016, (23): 105–111. (In Russ.)
4. Geranina I. N. On the term "borrowing". Izvestiia Penzenskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. V. G. Belinskogo, 2008, (10), 101–103. (In Russ.)
5. Kabakchi V. V., Egorova K. A. Lexicography of the Xenon Dictionary. Language and culture in the era of globalization : Proc. 2nd Intern. Sci. Conf., St. Petersburg, 26 Mar 2015. St.-Petersburg: SPbSUE, 2015, pt. 1, 56–63. (In Russ.)
6. Kobenko Yu. V., Karpova N. A., Riabova E. S. Segments of pseudo-borrowings in contemporary literary German: historic, sociolinguistic, systemic and functional aspects. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija, 2020, (2): 18–34. (In Russ.)
7. Kobenko Yu. V., Solodovnikova O. V., Ryabova E. S. Systemic and structural peculiarities of onyms in the class of German pseudo-borrowings. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledovanija, 2022, (1): 91–104. (In Russ.)
8. Kolomeitseva E. B. Conceptual apparatus of the "foreign" lexis. Humanitarian Vector , 2013, (4): 65–69. (In Russ.)
9. Mitrofanova L. A. Contamination derivatives in modern German with Italian elements. Vestnik Samarskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2013, (8-1): 98–103. (In Russ.)
10. Nefedova L. A. Foreign language vocabulary of modern German: aspects of cultural integration. Moscow: MPSU, 2018, 184. (In Russ.)
11. Novikova S. Y., Stepanova V. V., Fedorova O. N. Arabic borrowing in the German language. Elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal, 2016, (3): 172–175. (In Russ.)
12. Parfinenko A. A. Loan-words as a factor of language variation development (study of the English and French languages). Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 2016, (6): 95–100. (In Russ.)
13. Podolskaya N. V. The proper name. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary , ed. Yartseva V. N. Moscow: Sov. entsikl., 1990, 473–474. (In Russ.)
14. Rozen E. V. German vocabulary: history and modernity. Moscow: Vyssh. shk., 1991, 97. (In Russ.)
15. Stepanov Yu. S. Methods and principles of modern linguistics. 4th ed. Moscow: URSS, 2003, 310. (In Russ.)
16. Filicheva N. I. German literary language. Moscow: Vyssh. shk., 1992, 176. (In Russ.)
17. Braun P. Tendenzen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache: Sprachvarietäten . 3., erw. Aufl. Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln: Kohlhammer, 1993, 265.
18. Elsen H. Die sprachliche Gestaltung phantastischer Szenarien – die Rolle der Namen. Muttersprache , 2008, 118 (2): 97–107. doi: 10.5282/ubm/epub.14677
19. Elsen H. Komplexe Komposita und Verwandtes. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 2009, (69): 57–71. doi: 10.5282/ubm/epub.22789
20. Gerr E. Das große Vornamenbuch . 12., aktual. Aufl. Humboldt. Schlütersche: Hannover, 2011, 344.
21. Grzega J. Zu den pseudo-englischen Fremdwörtern im Deutschen (und zum Einfluss des Englischen auf das Deutsche generell). In: Grzega J. Sprachwissenschaft ohne Fachchinesisch. 7 aktuelle Studien für alle Sprachinteressierten (Sprache und Kultur). Aachen: Shaker, 2001, 57–70.
22. Heisenberger M. Die Präsenz der italienischen Sprache im heutigen Österreich. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Diplomarbeit. Magistra der Philosophie (Mag. Phil.) Wien, 2015, 163.
23. Herberg D. Neologismen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Probleme ihrer Erfassung und Beschreibung. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 2002, 39 (4): 195–201.
24. Munske H. H. Ist das Deutsche eine Mischsprache? Zur Stellung der Fremdwörter im deutschen Sprachsystem. Deutscher Wortschatz. Lexikologische Studien. Festschrift L. E. Schmitt, Hrsg. von H. H. Munske u. a. Berlin-NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1988, 46–74.
25. Nübling D., Dammel A., Duke J., Szczepaniak R. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen: Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. 3. überarb. Aufl. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 2010, 299.
26. Polenz P. von. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. 2. Aufl. Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2000, Bd. 2, 400.
27. Schmidt J. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 1872, 76.
28. Schmidt W. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Ein Lehrbuch für das germanistische Studium. 11., verb. u. erw. Aufl. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Verlag, 2013, 514.
29. Schweikle G. Germanisch-deutsche Sprachgeschichte im Überblick. 5. Aufl. Stuttgart-Weimar: J. B. Metzler, 2002, 283.
30. Telling R. Französisch im deutschen Wortschatz: Lehn- und Fremdwörter aus acht Jahrhunderten. Berlin: Volk und Wissen, 1990, 120.
Review
For citations:
Volkova A.B., Kobenko Yu.V. Segments and Subclasses of Pseudo-Borrowed Onyms in the German Literary Language. SibScript. 2023;25(1):1-9. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2023-25-1-1-9
Views:
377
Email this article 