Semantic Fields and Castilianization in Galician: A Comparative Study with the Loanword Typology Project

IF 0.9 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Languages Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.3390/languages9070244
María Álvarez de la Granja, Francisco Dubert García
{"title":"Semantic Fields and Castilianization in Galician: A Comparative Study with the Loanword Typology Project","authors":"María Álvarez de la Granja, Francisco Dubert García","doi":"10.3390/languages9070244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the correspondence between the borrowability indices from the Loanwoard Typology (LWT) project and Castilianization indices from the Atlas Lingüístico Galego (ALGa) across seven semantic fields. To this end, we identified all Castilianisms in the ALGa and conducted a quantitative analysis to compare these indices. Results obtained indicate a mismatch between the rankings of the LWT project and the ALGa. For example, the field ‘The body’ has the highest level of Castilianization according to the ALGa but the lowest borrowed score in the LWT project. Moreover, Castilianization levels in the ALGa show greater dispersion than borrowability levels from the LWT project. In fact, in each semantic field, many concepts (52.2%) have low levels of Castilianization, between 0% and 10%, and only a few concepts have high levels. A more detailed analysis of three semantic fields (‘The body’, ‘Agriculture and vegetation’, and ‘The physical world’) suggests that explanations based solely on semantic criteria (such as the existence of an unalterable central lexicon) are insufficient; other factors such as prestige, urbanization, cultural modernity, frequency of word usage, and perhaps other intralinguistic factors should be taken into account.","PeriodicalId":52329,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the correspondence between the borrowability indices from the Loanwoard Typology (LWT) project and Castilianization indices from the Atlas Lingüístico Galego (ALGa) across seven semantic fields. To this end, we identified all Castilianisms in the ALGa and conducted a quantitative analysis to compare these indices. Results obtained indicate a mismatch between the rankings of the LWT project and the ALGa. For example, the field ‘The body’ has the highest level of Castilianization according to the ALGa but the lowest borrowed score in the LWT project. Moreover, Castilianization levels in the ALGa show greater dispersion than borrowability levels from the LWT project. In fact, in each semantic field, many concepts (52.2%) have low levels of Castilianization, between 0% and 10%, and only a few concepts have high levels. A more detailed analysis of three semantic fields (‘The body’, ‘Agriculture and vegetation’, and ‘The physical world’) suggests that explanations based solely on semantic criteria (such as the existence of an unalterable central lexicon) are insufficient; other factors such as prestige, urbanization, cultural modernity, frequency of word usage, and perhaps other intralinguistic factors should be taken into account.
加利西亚语的语义场和卡斯蒂利亚化:与外来词类型学项目的比较研究
本研究探讨了 Loanwoard Typology (LWT) 项目中的可借用性指数与 Atlas Lingüístico Galego (ALGa) 中的卡斯蒂利亚化指数在七个语义领域中的对应关系。为此,我们确定了 ALGa 中的所有卡斯蒂利亚语,并对这些指数进行了定量分析比较。结果表明,LWT 项目和 ALGa 的排名不匹配。例如,根据 ALGa,"身体 "领域的卡斯蒂利亚化程度最高,但在 LWT 项目中的借用分数最低。此外,ALGa 中的卡斯蒂利亚化水平比 LWT 项目中的借用水平显示出更大的分散性。事实上,在每个语义领域中,许多概念(52.2%)的卡斯蒂利亚化水平较低,在 0% 到 10% 之间,只有少数概念的卡斯蒂利亚化水平较高。对三个语义领域("身体"、"农业与植被 "和 "物理世界")进行的更详细分析表明,仅仅根据语义标准(如存在不可改变的中心词库)来解释是不够的;还应考虑其他因素,如声望、城市化、文化现代性、词语使用频率,或许还有其他语言内部因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Languages
Languages Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
282
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信