{"title":"汉语中的日语新词","authors":"C. Schmidt, Chien-shou Chen","doi":"10.1558/lexi.21513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Japanese loanwords in Chinese are currently not accepted as legitimate loanwords in the general loanword framework (Haspelmath and Tadmor, 2009a), mainly because they are considered to be graphic loans (Masini, 1997; Tranter, 2009) and not sound-meaning borrowings. This paper formulates a counterargument, developed mainly from the perspective of the Chinese scholarship: it focuses on how graphemic borrowing impacts the judgment of loanwordness and the types of resolving strategies that have been developed. The origin of word form, word meaning, and the pathways of historical borrowing particularly stand out as non-linguistic factors of loanwordness. Based on a metaanalysis of 25 studies of Japanese loanwords in Chinese, the authors propose a typology of Japanese loanwords in Chinese that bridges the Western and the Chinese frameworks. To put forward a concrete example, we compile a list of 2,920 Japanese loanwords in Chinese, which are discussed by at least three scholars, ordered by degrees of agreement within the Chinese scholarship. We compare this list against the vocabulary list of the World Loanword Database and demonstrate that Wiebusch and Tadmor (2009), in ignoring Japanese loanwords, also omits numerous loanwords in Chinese. We echo Tranter (2009) in arguing that Japanese loanwords in Chinese can be classified as material borrowing, putting graphemic borrowing on the same footing with phonetic borrowing, since graphemic borrowing is not limited to, though preferred by, the Chinese writing system. We demonstrate this by comparing how writing systems impact borrowing.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Japanese Neologisms in Chinese\",\"authors\":\"C. Schmidt, Chien-shou Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/lexi.21513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Japanese loanwords in Chinese are currently not accepted as legitimate loanwords in the general loanword framework (Haspelmath and Tadmor, 2009a), mainly because they are considered to be graphic loans (Masini, 1997; Tranter, 2009) and not sound-meaning borrowings. This paper formulates a counterargument, developed mainly from the perspective of the Chinese scholarship: it focuses on how graphemic borrowing impacts the judgment of loanwordness and the types of resolving strategies that have been developed. The origin of word form, word meaning, and the pathways of historical borrowing particularly stand out as non-linguistic factors of loanwordness. Based on a metaanalysis of 25 studies of Japanese loanwords in Chinese, the authors propose a typology of Japanese loanwords in Chinese that bridges the Western and the Chinese frameworks. To put forward a concrete example, we compile a list of 2,920 Japanese loanwords in Chinese, which are discussed by at least three scholars, ordered by degrees of agreement within the Chinese scholarship. We compare this list against the vocabulary list of the World Loanword Database and demonstrate that Wiebusch and Tadmor (2009), in ignoring Japanese loanwords, also omits numerous loanwords in Chinese. We echo Tranter (2009) in arguing that Japanese loanwords in Chinese can be classified as material borrowing, putting graphemic borrowing on the same footing with phonetic borrowing, since graphemic borrowing is not limited to, though preferred by, the Chinese writing system. We demonstrate this by comparing how writing systems impact borrowing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Lexicography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Lexicography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.21513\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Lexicography","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.21513","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目前汉语日语外来词在一般外来词框架中不被接受为合法的外来词(Haspelmath and Tadmor, 2009a),主要是因为它们被认为是图形外来词(Masini, 1997;Tranter, 2009),而不是有意义的借用。本文主要从中国学术的角度提出了一个相反的论点:它侧重于文字借用如何影响对借词性的判断,以及已经开发的解决策略的类型。词形、词义的起源以及历史借用的途径作为外来词的非语言因素尤为突出。在对25项日语外来词研究进行meta分析的基础上,作者提出了一种连接中西方框架的日语外来词类型学。为了提出一个具体的例子,我们编制了一个由至少三位学者讨论的2,920个日语汉语外来词的清单,按照中国学术界的一致程度排序。我们将此表与世界外来词数据库的词汇表进行比较,发现Wiebusch and Tadmor(2009)在忽略日语外来词的同时,也忽略了大量汉语外来词。我们赞同Tranter(2009)的观点,认为汉语中的日语外来词可以归类为物质借用,将字形借用与语音借用置于同一地位,因为字形借用并不局限于汉语书写系统,尽管它更受欢迎。我们通过比较书写系统对借阅的影响来证明这一点。
Japanese loanwords in Chinese are currently not accepted as legitimate loanwords in the general loanword framework (Haspelmath and Tadmor, 2009a), mainly because they are considered to be graphic loans (Masini, 1997; Tranter, 2009) and not sound-meaning borrowings. This paper formulates a counterargument, developed mainly from the perspective of the Chinese scholarship: it focuses on how graphemic borrowing impacts the judgment of loanwordness and the types of resolving strategies that have been developed. The origin of word form, word meaning, and the pathways of historical borrowing particularly stand out as non-linguistic factors of loanwordness. Based on a metaanalysis of 25 studies of Japanese loanwords in Chinese, the authors propose a typology of Japanese loanwords in Chinese that bridges the Western and the Chinese frameworks. To put forward a concrete example, we compile a list of 2,920 Japanese loanwords in Chinese, which are discussed by at least three scholars, ordered by degrees of agreement within the Chinese scholarship. We compare this list against the vocabulary list of the World Loanword Database and demonstrate that Wiebusch and Tadmor (2009), in ignoring Japanese loanwords, also omits numerous loanwords in Chinese. We echo Tranter (2009) in arguing that Japanese loanwords in Chinese can be classified as material borrowing, putting graphemic borrowing on the same footing with phonetic borrowing, since graphemic borrowing is not limited to, though preferred by, the Chinese writing system. We demonstrate this by comparing how writing systems impact borrowing.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Lexicography was launched in 1988. Interdisciplinary as well as international, it is concerned with all aspects of lexicography, including issues of design, compilation and use, and with dictionaries of all languages, though the chief focus is on dictionaries of the major European languages - monolingual and bilingual, synchronic and diachronic, pedagogical and encyclopedic. The Journal recognizes the vital role of lexicographical theory and research, and of developments in related fields such as computational linguistics, and welcomes contributions in these areas.