AUTHOR: Ngom, Fallou TITLE: Lexical Borrowings as Sociolinguistic Variables in Saint-Louis, Senegal SERIES TITLE: LINCOM Studies in Sociolinguistics 05 PUBLISHER: Lincom GmbH YEAR: 2006
Iris Flannery, U.C. Davis
SUMMARY This monograph is the result of a study of lexical borrowings in Saint-Louis Senegal. The use of lexical borrowings from Arabic, French, English, and Wolof by inhabitants of Saint-Louis is examined across registers, age groups, and genders. The main goal of this study is to demonstrate that lexical borrowings vary between age groups and genders and that lexical borrowings can be viewed as sociolinguistic variables. This book is relevant reading for anyone interested in multilingualism, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, Arabic, Francophone, or Wolof linguistics. Lexical Borrowings as Sociolinguistic Variables in Saint-Louis, Senegal consists of seven chapters, an appendix of methodology and a bibliography. It is the fifth book in the Studies in Sociolinguistics series published by LINCOM.
Chapter 1: Background In Chapter 1 the author begins by stating the hypotheses of the study, and then provides a general history of Senegal, as well as the Arabic, French, English, and Pulaar linguistic influences in the country, and concludes with a description of Saint-Louis.
The author begins with some perceived shortcomings of the literature on lexical borrowing. These shortcomings arise from simplifying assumptions, such as using a paradigm of contact between only two languages, or generalizing study results to entire communities, rather than to social groups within a community, or overlooking the wider social context of lexical borrowings. The following predictions, termed hypotheses by the author, are intended to correct for these errors. The author's first prediction is that the number of lexical borrowings used by an individual is influenced by their sex, age and social group. In particular, younger speakers, who are thought to have greater exposure to multiple languages and cultures, are predicted to use more lexical borrowings than other age groups. The author goes on to predict that lexical items used by the entire speech community are those which have become phonetically, morphologically and syntactically Wolof. It is then suggested that loanwords borrowed for reasons of prestige, rather than practicality, are inroads by which introduced languages and cultures begin to infiltrate Wolof. Building from this, it is predicted that a greater understanding of lexical change in multilingual societies requires consideration of the influence of social and political variables on lexical borrowing. Finally the author predicts that the process of lexical borrowing varies between individuals in part because they use particular mechanisms of borrowing to identify themselves as members of a specific age group.
The rest of the chapter provides an overview of Saint-Louis, Senegal, and the country's major linguistic influences. Senegal is a large country with a multiplicity of languages. The government recognizes six national languages: Wolof, Pulaar, Seereer, Mandinka, Joola, and Soninke. Arabic lexical borrowings in Senegalese speech are due to the Arabic invasion and the conversion of inhabitants to Islam. The French influence on Wolof result from colonization by the French. The author attributes the spread of English lexical borrowings to various smaller events, and more recently the rise of English as an international language. The influence of Pulaar on Wolof derives from the prominence of Pulaar speakers in Saint-Louis. To conclude this section the author delineates the history and geography of the city of Saint-Louis.
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature In this chapter the author reviews and comments on theoretical constructions of lexical borrowing, typologies of borrowing, the sociological importance of lexical borrowings, and the creation of language ideology. The author distinguishes between borrowing, interference, code switching and mixing (citing Haugen (1956)). Then he draws on the work of Gingras (1974) and Pfaff (1979) to define clearly what lexical borrowing is (one lexical unit) and what it is not (more than one lexical unit - code switching). Crystal's (1997:66) definition of lexical borrowing is introduced stating that a lexical borrowing can be ''phonological, morphological or syntactic'' (30). This broad definition allows consideration of the greatest amount of data.
The author draws on the literature to distinguish two types of loanwords: Unassimilated (perceived as alien) and assimilated (not perceived as alien) (Deroy 1956). The author acknowledges that these are not discrete, but continuous and that the progression from unassimilated to assimilated is considered an essential element of loans to some theories, such as Deroy's (1956). The author goes on to say that Deroy (1956) discovered some of the processes which loanwords undergo to become phonologically acceptable words (assimilated) in the borrowing language. To illustrate the morphological aspects of lexical borrowing the author provides some examples [such as _liiraat_ (to read again) _lire_ (Fr 'to read') + -_aat_ (Wolof 'to do again')] to show the fusion of French and Wolof.
Subsequently the author discusses prestige as an aspect of loanword promotion, and how it affects which lexical items are borrowed from which languages. Deroy (1956) is invoked as arguing that lexical items are borrowed if there is not an equivalent in the borrowing language or to satisfy reasons of prestige. Then the author focuses on the factors which make a language more highly valued ideologically. Beginning in colonial times the French language was promoted as superior to the national languages of Senegal, and of all the languages in the French colonial empire. This high prestige can be thought to account for the abundance of lexical borrowings. An essential understanding of prestige relations is stated by the author as ''History shows that a language or linguistic variety is worth what those who speak it are worth, i.e., their economic, political, social or cultural power, prestige and authority'' (47). The author concludes with an explanation of how this study will extend the examination of lexical borrowings from phonological variation in monolingual communities to a more holistic examination of variation in multilingual communities.
Chapter 3: Methodology Chapter 3 consists of a description of the Labovian sociolinguistic interview, a section on the participants, an overview of interviews and modules, a description of variables, the data transcription and coding, the analysis, the modified coach tests, a section on education levels in Arabic, French and English, and concludes with research difficulties.
The Labovian Sociolinguistic interview was used for the advantages that Labov (1994:157) cited for it, that it yields a large corpus of speech data, and allows the author to study linguistic variation in the community. The author spent four months in 2000 collecting speech data and interviewed 200 participants. Half the participants were male, half were female, and they were divided by age into two groups. All participants were from Saint-Louis. The interviews consisted of six modules and lasted twenty minutes. The modules were designed to bring out a response in one of three registers: Political, religious, and cultural. These registers were selected due to their close association with French, Arabic, and English. The six modules were: explanation of study, subjects' biography, warm-up, political register, religious register, and the cultural register.
In the next section the author defines the variables of the study. The independent are variables the age, gender, and register of the participants. The dependent variables are the number of Arabic, French and English borrowings, and the degree of assimilation they have undergone in Wolof. The author then describes the transcription and coding of the speech data according to the previously identified variables. Linguistic processes which indicate the degree of assimilation into Wolof are: Verlanization, hypercorrection, lexical innovation, semantic change, nasal unpacking, denasalization, cluster simplification, category change, truncation, calque, lexicalization, unincorporated and incorporated loans.
The author applied two statistical analysis tests to the data: Wilcoxon Rank sums test, and the Test of Contingency Tables. The author then describes Labov's Coach Test (1994). The Coach Test was designed by Labov (1994) to determine the phonological competence of members of a monolingual community (1994). The author modified the test to determine the lexical proficiency of study participants in a multilingual community. He describes the two modified coach tests, one for older subjects, and one for younger subjects. He adds education level as an independent variable, and defines it as years spent studying French, Arabic, or English. On average older subjects have more education in Arabic. Younger subjects have more education in French, and English. He concludes the chapter with a brief overview of a research difficulty that was encountered - older subjects reluctance to participate - and overcome.
Chapter 4: Results of the Statistical Analysis This chapter summarizes the statistical analysis applied to the data. The first section indicates that the lexical hybridization is a reflection of the cultural hybridization. The next three sections address lexical borrowings as they correlate with register, age group, and gender respectively. The concluding three sections address linguistic processes as they correlate with register, age group, and gender respectively.
The results of the statistical analysis show that French and Arabic have a high percent of loans incorporated in Wolof. English has fewer. Pulaar and Spanish have the same amount. One example from the data is [sarax-a:t] ('to give charity again'), which is a combination of [sadaqa] (Arabic 'charity') and -_aat'_ (Wolof iterative morpheme). The author states that based on the mixing of lexemes Saint-Louis is a ''Creolized society'' (88). Lexical borrowings are a linguistic reflection of the cultural melding.
The next three sections deal with the relationship between lexical borrowings and the register, age group, and gender of participants. Lexical borrowings from French are highest in the political and cultural register. Borrowings from Arabic are highest in the religious register. English borrowings are highest in the cultural register. The relationship between age and lexical borrowings shows that older participants use Arabic borrowings more frequently than younger, and English borrowings are more common for younger participants. There is no difference in the use of French borrowings between older and younger participants. In the final section on lexical borrowings the independent variable is gender. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference between genders regarding the number of lexical borrowings from Arabic or French. There is a significant difference in the use of English loans, in that male participants use more.
The final three sections of this chapter address the relationship between linguistic processes and the independent variables, register, age group, and gender. The results show that the linguistic processes verlanization, hypercorrection, category change, unincorporated, and incorporated loans are not statistically different across registers, whereas the other dependent variables are significant. The linguistic processes, lexical innovation, semantic change, nasal unpacking, denasalization, cluster simplification, lexicalization, unincorporated, and incorporated loans, are found to be statistically significant across age groups as well. The linguistic processes, semantic change, unincorporated, and incorporated loans, are the only variables of statistical significance across gender.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Interpretation of the Results Chapter 5 is composed of three sections interpreting the results of the lexical borrowings according to register, age group, and gender. The first section deals with the relationship between lexical borrowings and register. French loans are most common in the political and cultural registers, Arabic in the religious, and English in the cultural. The author states that this indicates that Arabic, French, and English are the dominant languages, distributing lexical borrowings to Wolof.
Next, the author discusses loans and age groups. The author suggests that older study participants use more Arabic borrowings to show their cultural, and religious knowledge; which has been gained with age. Younger participants, more concerned with demonstrating cultural hipness, use more English loans.
The chapter concludes with a section on loans and gender. Although there is no statistical relationship between gender and the number of Arabic and French loans used, the author interprets the trend for females to use them with greater frequency, and their significantly lower use of English, to indicate the linguistic conservatism of women. The author cites Foley (2000:302) who suggested that women are more conservative in their speech, using more standard prestigious forms than men.
Chapter 6: Sociolinguistic Implications of Linguistic Processes In this chapter the author analyzes the linguistic processes that are common to lexical borrowing in Saint-Louis. First the author gives a brief description of the phonotactic systems in Wolof, French, English and Arabic. This is followed by sections on incorporated Arabic, French and English loans. A chart of Wolof incorporations from Arabic, French and English is provided showing the linguistic processes which each item has undergone to become incorporated. The author proceeds to discuss the linguistic processes (verlanization, hypercorrection, lexical innovation, semantic change, nasal unpacking, denasalization, cluster simplification, category change, truncation, calqueing, lexicalization, unincorporated, and incorporated loans) in relation to age group. Each of these processes can be studied as an indicator of social identity.
Chapter 7: Conclusion The author concludes the book by reviewing how this study has tested and expanded Labovian and variationist approaches by studying lexical borrowings in a multilingual community. The assumption that sociolinguistic variables must be phonological, is incomplete, and should be enlarged to include morphological or syntactic variables as well. The author reiterates the importance of lexical borrowings in the formation of identity. He concedes that there are two limitations for his study of lexical borrowing: Human error in transcription and coding, and the larger theoretical issue of frequency and semantic equivalency. He also indicates areas for further research.
EVALUATION This book is an excellent introduction to the world of sociolinguistic analysis. There are only minor inconsistencies which distract from the overall focus and structure of the book. The first oddity is in the introduction which includes a section on Arabic, French, English and Pulaar influence in Senegal, but no section devoted just to Wolof. To understand the influence of other languages it seems important to understand the language being influenced. The second inconsistency occurs in Chapter 4 when Spanish suddenly appears in Table 2 (86) and Figure 6 (92), though Spanish was not mentioned previously. While one cannot take into account all the languages possibly influencing a speech community, the sudden inclusion of Spanish and the addition of it to the figure and chart seems arbitrary. As the results indicate that Pulaar and Spanish have each lent fewer than one percent of lexical borrowings to Wolof, both should be left out, or included. To treat them differently, even though they are roughly equivalent in the number of lexical borrowings lent to Wolof is inconsistent. Both of these issues are minor and do not touch on the main thesis of the book.
This study is unique in its application of theory in a multilingual community. It is grounded in Labovian theory and provides the reader with an understanding of the uses of the theory, as well as the shortcomings. The author undertook a great amount of field work, and data analysis to complete this study. The result is a succinct, data-rich examination of lexical borrowing.
REFERENCES Crystal, D. (1997). _The Cambridge encyclopedia of language_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deroy, L. (1956). _Les emprunts linguistiques_. Paris: Belles Lettres.
Foley, William A. (2000). _Anthropological Linguistics: An introduction_. Cambridge Massachussetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Gingras, R.C. (1974). Problems in the description of Spanish-English intrasentential code switching. In G. Bills (Ed.), _Southwest Areal Linguistics_ (pp. 167-174). University of California at San Diego: Institute for Cultural Pluralism.
Haugen, E. (1956). _Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliographical and research guide_. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Labov, W. (1994). _Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors_. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Pfaff, C.W. (1979). Constraints on language mixing: Intrasententential code-mixing and borrowing in Spanish/English. _Language_, 55, 291-331.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Iris Flannery is a former Peace Corps Volunteer (in Niger). She is a graduate student in Linguistics at UC Davis. Her research interests include West African languages, Slavic languages, language planning, literacy, and second language acquisition.