The main sources and functioning of neologisms in english and kazakh languages

There are two main goals in the linguistic observation of neologisms. On the one hand, updating existing lexicons and dictionaries with the newly arisen words. And on the other hand the analysis and description of the neologisms themselves in terms of distribution over word-classes, statistics on derivational methods, statistics on loan word origination, etc. Especially the latter type of research depends on the detection of all the neologisms occurring in a given corpus. However, there is no clear definition of what a neologism is – making the detection of all neologisms a far from trivial task.

One of the best attempts at a definition of a neologism is given by Rey (1975/1995), who concludes that there are no objective criteria for being a neologism. Furthermore, there is a classification of neologism definitions formulated by Cabré : a psychological definition, a lexicographic definition, a diachronic definition, and a definition based on a word exhibiting systematic signs of formal or semantic instability. The fact that none of these give fully satisfactory identity criteria is accepted as an inevitable consequence of applied linguistics, and almost all observation groups take one of the four criteria of Cabré without further discussion.

This article attempts  to give a more substantial analysis  and comparison of the various criteria. It will give an overview of the advantages and shortcomings of the existing criteria, mainly the corpus-based and lexicographic criteria, and argue that a hybrid approach is called for. This hybrid criterion will be called the extended lexicographic diachronic criterion.

         The analysis will be given from the perspective of the semi-automatic detection of neologisms, and hence will focus primarily on  formal  or more precisely orthographic neologisms (the difference will be discussed in section 7.2). For the semi-automatic detection, a flexible on-line tool called NeoTrack will be used, described in section 3. The detection of neologisms with NeoTrack using the hybrid criterion goes hand in hand with the creation of a morphological database, containing all those word-forms that are considered to be non- neologisms.

 

Psychological Neologisms

A neologism is, by the very meaning of the term, a new word. The term ‘neologism’ is commonly found in dictionaries, where it is intended to be an established yet new word in the language, as for instance defined by Bußmann (1990): “Neugebildeter sprachlicher Ausdruck

... der zumindest von einem Teil der Sprachgemeinschaft … als bekannt empfunden wird”¹.

But from a linguistic perspective, the more interesting notion is that of a really new word that has not yet made it to the lexicon – words in the process of lexicalisation. Often, words are even traced from their very origin, meaning that any (intentional) occurrence of a new word will do, putting neologisms on a par with occasionalisms².

        Although a common label in dictionaries for a long time, a first serious attempt at a definition of a neologism was given in 1975 by Alain Rey, former chief editor of Le Grand Robert. Rey presents a discussion of what of a word is, the types of neologisms one can distinguish (formal, semantic and pragmatic), and what it means for a word to being new³. Concerning the latter, Rey concludes that no solid, objective criteria for newness can be given, and that hence the label neologism is only an indication of a subjective sentiment. His position is characterised by what Cabré (1999) calls the psychological definition:

 

• A neologism is a word that is perceived as new by the language community

 

Given the vagueness  of the term, Rey argues against the use of the word neologism in dictionaries, stating that ‘neologism’ is only a pseudo-concept. The basic motivation for Rey is the absence of the necessary temporal stability of a language and can be summarized as follows. Diachronically, the notion of neologism bears no meaning – it is not the abstract, timeless word that is “new”, but a neologism is a word that is new in a given language at a given moment in time. And only with respect to that time can a word count as a neologism.

         The word being new should imply that the word is currently part of the language, but was not so previously. But language does not progress through well-defined stages, where the words in the new lexicon can be compared to the words in the old lexicon. Firstly, “new” is a relative notion – some words may be older than others, but there is no demarcated period for being new. And secondly, there is no well-defined, stable lexicon of a language against which the newness can be tested - a language cannot be stably defined within “its limits in the chronological, spatial, and social dimensions” [ 26].

 

         Neologism and Community

Without the possibility of verifying a word as new against a stable language setting, the notion of a neologism reduces to a subjective feeling of being new, as in the psychological definition above. Given the nature of language, the feeling of newness should reside with the language community rather than the lexicographer assigning the term.

But there are two objections against using the perception of the language community as definitional for neologisms. Firstly, measuring the perception of the community is a tedious and time-consuming process, and not feasible for an entire lexicon. And secondly the language community itself is not the most reliable source for perceived novelty. This last point is made clear by an example given by Rey himself: I have been able to verify that French speakers categorise the word ‘stockfish’, borrowed from Dutch in the 14^th  century, as a neologism and an Anglicism in the same way as the recent ‘stockcar’. (Rey, 1995, p.74)

Rey does not intend to count the word stockfish as a neologism – the subjective perception is not meant as a correct criterion for being a neologism, but what Rey argues is that being a neologism reduces to a feeling in the absence of real criteria: merely the subjective opinion of the individual linguist or lexicographer assigning the label. In assigning the label neologism the linguist or lexicographer will attempt to apply a real notion of newness, but have no proper way of doing so.

Although the arguments given by Rey still hold, much work has been done in lexicology to attempt to give a delimitation of solid language segments – augmented greatly by the arrival of electronic corpora. The remainder of this article will attempt to give a definition of a stable language fragment in the light of these new developments. Although it is clear that no strict delimitation can be given, any clarification of when a word should count as new will lead to a more useful definition of a neologism than the psychological definition – which will be rejected as little more than the absence of a definition.

 

2.2 Neologisms of foreign origin in English and Kazakh defining neologism research

 

    The enrichment of vocabulary happens via three basic processes – borrowing, word- formation processes, and shifts in meaning. Neologisms are special because they involve a combination of at least two of these phenomena – borrowing and word-formation, and sometimes a shift in meaning.

     This paper presents research results in the latest English neologisms of foreign origin.. Such neologisms were collected with the aim of finding only those that entered the English language after 2000. As will be demonstrated, this criterion proved to be very hard to keep.

     The paper primarily focuses on two things: a) the origin of new words in English and b) the word-formation process by which neologisms were created. The presumption was that most neologisms would be of American origin and therefore had come into existence in British English via borrowing, and that the most frequent word-formation process would be compounding and blending.

 

                            1.  The overview of the sources of neologisms

In our work, we are determined to define the word-building means of the new word and the sphere of its use, we have presented the major types of word forming way and have mentioned some spheres where they can be used and their cultural acceptance. The top 50 neologisms were taken from the WORDSPY site.

We think it necessary to present the overview of the sources, where the information on neologisms can be taken. As it was said by – Andrew Lloyd James, (Welsh linguist, The Broadcast Word, 1935): «A language is never in a state of fixation, but is always changing; we are not looking at a lantern-slide but at a moving picture.» As English is a growing language new words and phrases emerge everyday at a pace that the Oxford English Dictionary and the Webster's cannot keep up with. While these dictionaries wait for years before they consider words 'fit to publish', the Web is working faster to bring these new terms to light.

Wordspy.com is one of the largest sites keeping track of emerging vocabulary of the English language. It is maintained by Paul McFedries, author of many computer and English language books. New terms are added to the site regularly.

Back in 1996, word spy began as a mailing list where each day McFedries would send out an interesting word to a few friends and readers. «After I'd accumulated a few dozen words, I created the site to give people a record of what had been posted and make it possible for other people to join the list,» says McFedries.

          Many new words may become household terms in a few years. Some of them are here only for a short while. McFedries describes language as volcanic mountain constantly spewing out new words and phrases. «Some of them are blown away by the winds and others are linguistic lava that slides down the volcano and eventually hardens as a permanent part of the language. Both types of ejector are inherently creative, so I'm interested in them equally,» he explains.

He finds most of these words through his own reading. For the citations, he usesLexis-Nexis, Dow Jones News Retrieval and ElectricLibrary. He also uses Google and his local library.

According to him, new words are a reflection of what's going on in the culture. «For example, if the culture is generating new terms such as 'work-life balance', 'joy-to-stuff ratio', and 'affluenza', to me it's an indication that a significant number of people are looking to slow down and live simpler, less materialistic lives.»

Wordspy has given emerging words a new life. It even provides an updated list of words and expressions that's not yet in the Oxford English Dictionary.

'Dellionaire' is a noun and means 'a rich person whose wealth is based on the stocks he owns at Dell Computer Corporation'. An 'Internot' (noun) is a person who refuses to use the Internet.

McFedries calls Wordspy 'lexpionage' (a word he coined himself), the sleuthing of new words and of old words used in new ways. His favorite word is obviously 'logophilia', the love of words.

There are nearly 2000 words and expressions in this collection. Every term has a page dedicated to it. This page has all the information of the word or expression: the figure of speech, what the word means, its usage, citations and a backgrounder. Earliest known usage of some words is also included. In some cases, history about the entry is also provided [27].

 

2.   Sociolinguistic aspects of mathematical education based in neologisms.

1) The notion of a `developed' language

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of human language is the range of purposes it served, the variety of different things that people make language do for them. Casual interaction in home and family, instruction of children, activities of production and distribution like building and marketing and more specialized functions such as those of religion, literature, law and government - all these may readily be covered by one person on one day's talk.

We can define a `developed' language as one that is used freely in all the functions that language serves in the society in question. Correspondingly an `undeveloped' language would be one that serves only some of these functions, but not all. This is to interpret language development as a functional concept, one which related to the role of a language in the society in which it is spoken.

          In the Caribbean island of Sint Maarten, the mother tongue of the habitants is English. Education and administration, however, take place in Dutch; English is not normally used in these contexts. In Sint Maarten, English is an undeveloped language. The islanders find it hard to conceive of serious intellectual and administrative processes taking pace in English. They are, of course, perfectly well aware that English is used in al these functions in Britain, the USA and elsewhere. But they cannot accept that the homely English that they themselves speak (although dialectally it is of quite `standard' type that is readily understood by speakers from outside) is the same language as English in its national or international guise.

In the same way, English in medieval England was not a developed language, since many of the social functions of language in the community could be performed only in Latin or in French.

Not unnaturally, the members of a society tend to attach social value to their languages according to the degree of their development. A language that is `developed', being used in all the functions that language serves in the society, tends to have a higher status, while an undeveloped language is accorded a much lower standing, even by those who speak it as their mother tongue.

2) The notion of a register

The notion of `developing a language' means, therefore, adding to its range of social functions. This is achieved by developing new registers.

A register is a set of meanings that is appropriate to a particular function of language, together with the words and structures which express these meanings. We can refer to a `mathematics register', in the sense of the meanings that belong to the language of mathematics (the mathematical use of natural language, that is: not mathematics itself), and that a language must express if it is being used for mathematical purposes.

Every language embodies some mathematical meanings in its semantic structure - ways of counting, measuring, classifying and so on. These are not by themselves sufficient to form the natural language component of mathematics in its modern disciplinary sense, or to serve the needs of mathematics education in secondary schools and colleges. But they will serve as a point of departure for the initial learning of mathematical concepts, especially if the teaching is made relevant to the social background of the learner. The development of a register of mathematics is in the last resort a matter of degree.

It is the meanings, including the styles of meaning and modes of argument, that constitute a register, rather than the words and structures as such. In order to express new meanings, it may be necessary to invent new words; but there are many different ways in which a language can add new meanings, and inventing words is only one of them. We should not think o a mathematical register as consisting solely of terminology, or of the development of a register as simply a process of adding new words.

3) Development of a register of mathematics

Inevitably the development of a new register of mathematics will involve the introduction of new `thing-names': ways of referring to new objects or new processes, properties, functions and relations. There are various ways in which this can be done.

1. Reinterpreting existing words. Examples from mathematical English are: set, point, field, row, column, weight, stand for, sum, move through, even, random.

2. Creating new words out of native word stock. This process has not played a very great part in the creation of technical registers in English (an early example of it is clockwise), but recently it has come into favor with words like Shortfall, feedback, output.

3. Borrowing words from another language. This has been the method most favored in technical English. Mathematics examples include degree, series, exceed, subtract, multiply, invert, infinite, probable.

4. `Calquing': creating new words in imitation of another language. This is rare in modern English, though it is a regular feature of many languages; it was used in old English to render Christian terms from Latin, e.g. almighty calqued on omnipotence. (Latin omnipotence is made up of Omni-meaning `all' and patens meaning `mighty'; on this model was coined the English word all-mighty, now spelt almighty).

5. Inverting totally new words. This hardly ever happens. About the only English example is gas, a word coined out of nowhere by a Dutch chemist in the early 18^th century.

6. Creating `locutions'. There is no clear line between locutions, in the sense of phrases or larger structures, and compound words. Expressions like right-angled, square on the hypotenuse, lowest common multiple are examples of technical terms in mathematics English that are to be classed as locutions rather than compound words.

7. Creating new words out of non-native word stock. This is now the most typical procedure in contemporary European languages for the creation of new technical terms. Words like parabola, denominator, binomial, coefficient, thermodynamic, permutation, approximation, denumerable, asymptotic, figurate, are not borrowed from Greek and Latin - they did not exist in these languages. They are made up in English (and in French, Russian and other languages) out of elements of the Greek and Latin word stock.

Every language creates new thing-names; but not all languages do so in the same way. Some languages (such as English and Japanese) favor borrowing; others (such as Chinese) favor calquing. But all languages have more than one mode of word-creation; often different modes are adopted for different purposes - for example, one method may be typical for technical words and another for non-technical. There is no reason to say that one way is better than another; but it is important to find out how the speakers of a particular language in fact set about creating new terms when faced with the necessity of doing so. The Indian linguist Krishnamurthi (1962) has studied how Telugu-speaking communities of farmers, fishermen and textile workers, when confronted by new machines and new processes, made up the terms which were necessary for talking about them.

Societies are not static, and changes in material and social conditions lead to new meanings being exchanged. The most important thing about vocabulary creation by natural processes is that it is open-ended; more words can always be added. There is no limit to the number of words in a language, and there are always some registers which are expanding. Language developers have the special responsibility of creating new elements of the vocabulary which will not only be adequate in themselves but which will also point the way to the creation of others.

4) Structural aspects

But the introduction of new vocabulary is not the only aspect of the development of a register. Registers such as those mathematics, or of science and technology, also involve new styles of meaning, ways of developing an argument, and of combing existing elements into new combinations.

          Sometimes these processes demand new structures, and there are instances of structural innovation taking place as part of the development of a scientific register. For the most part, however, development takes place not through the creation of entirely new structures (a thing that is extremely difficult to do deliberately) but through the bringing into prominence of structures which already existed but were rather specialized or rare. Examples of this phenomenon from English can be seen in expressions like `signal-to-noise ratio', `the sum of the series to n terms', `the same number of mistakes plus or minus', `each term is one greater than the term which precedes it', `a set of terms each of which stands in a constant mathematical relationship to that which precedes it'. We can compare these with new forms of everyday expression such as `it was a non-event' (meaning `nothing significant happened'), which are derived from technical registers although used in nontechnical contexts.

There is no sharp dividing line, in language, between the vocabulary and the grammar. What is expressed in one language by the choice of words may be expressed in another language (or in the same language on another occasion) by the choice of structure. The `open-endedness' referred to earlier is a property of the lexicogrammar as a whole. There are indefinitely many meanings, and combinations of meaning, to be expressed on one way or another through the medium of the words and structures of a language; a more can always be added. This is a reflection of the total potential that every language has, each in its own way.

In the past, language development has taken place slowly, by more or less natural processes (`more or less' natural because they are, after all, the effect of social processes) taking place over a long period. It took English three or four hundred years to develop its registers of mathematics, science and technology, and they are still developing. Today, however, it is not enough for a language to move in this leisurely fashion; the process has to be speeded up. Developments that took centuries in English and French are expected to happen in ten years, or one year, or sometimes one month. This requires a high degree of planned language development. Not everyone involved in this work is always aware of the wide range of different resources by means of which language can create new meanings, or of how the language in which he himself is working has done so in the past. But there is, now, a more general understanding of the fact that all human languages have the potential of being developed for all the purposes that human society and the human brain can conceive [28].

 

2.3 Neologisms from the point of view of semantic and phonetic factors

 

Stephen Ullmann is the professor of the Roman languages in the University of Oxford. In his book “Semantics and the Introduction to the Science of Meaning” described some phonetic factors that can be seen in some marginal elements of language - neologisms, place-names, foreign words.

          Phonetic factors - the phonetic structure of a word may give rise to emotive effects in two different ways. The first of these is onomatopoeia. Where there is an intrinsic harmony between sound and sense, this may, in suitable context, come to the fore and contribute to the expressiveness and the suggestive power of the word.

Vangelas, for example, described the new word exactitude as a monster against which everybody protested at first, though in the end they became used to it. English words adopted into French have been subjected to a great deal of adverse criticism because of their alleged harshness: Keepsake, for instance, which was very fashionable in the early 19^th century, was denounced in a magazine article as a `hard word' whose perilous pronunciation will prevent it from becoming popular.