Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2004. ‘Cultural Hybridity: Multisourced Neologization in “Reinvented” Languages and in Languages with “Phono-Logographic” Script’. Languages in Contrast 4.2: 281-318.
    
    Cultural hybridity
    Multisourced neologization in ‘reinvented’ languages and in languages with ‘phono-logographic’ script
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    University of Cambridge
    
    This paper analyses an important but hitherto neglected method of borrowing between languages. It introduces the term 'phono-semantic matching' (henceforth PSM) to describe the technique whereby a foreignism is reproduced in the target language, using pre-existing native elements that are similar to the foreignism both in meaning and in sound, and it traces its occurrence in two key language groups: (1) 'reinvented' languages, in which language-planners attempt to replace undesirable loanwords e.g., Israeli (a.k.a. 'Revived Hebrew' or 'Modern Hebrew') and Revolutionized Turkish; and (2) languages using a phono-logographic script e.g., Chinese and Japanese (to the extent that kanji are used). Such multisourced neologization is an ideal means of lexical enrichment because it conceals foreign influence from the future native speakers, ensuring lexicographic acceptability of the coinage, recycles obsolete autochthonous roots and words (a delight for purists) and aids initial learning among contemporary learners and speakers. Linguists have not systematically studied such camouflaged hybridity. Traditional classifications of borrowing ignore it altogether, and categorize borrowing into either substitution or importation. However, as this paper demonstrates, PSM is a distinct phenomenon, which operates through simultaneous substitution and importation. Its recognition carries important implications not only for lexicology and comparative historical linguistics, but also for sociolinguistics and cultural studies. Keywords: contact between languages/cultures, comparative historical linguistics, Arabic/Aramaic/Chinese/Hebrew/Israeli/Japanese/Mandarin/Turkish/Yiddish
    Languages in Contrast 4.2 (2002-2003): 281-318. ISSN 1387-6759 / E – ISSN 1569-9897 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
    
    282
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    1 Introduction
    Language is an archaeological vehicle, full of the remnants of dead and living pasts, lost and buried civilizations and technologies. The language we speak is a whole palimpsest of human effort and history. (Russell Hoban in an interview, cf. Haffenden 1985: 138)
    
    On 27 April 1890 the Hebrew newspaper HaZefira, published in Warsaw, carried an article entitled tsáad lefaním leharkhív sfat éver ‘One step forwards – to expand the Language of Eber (Hebrew)’. The author, Chaim Leib Hazan, from Hrodna (a.k.a. Grodno), wrote:
    ¯ – ¯ – ,(Brille, okulary, очки) , ¯, ¯, . ¯¯ ¯: ¯, ¯ ¯
    
    The glass tool, which we put over our eyes in order to see well (очки, okulary, Brille)1, which has been given many different names: ¯ kli makhazé [‘tool of vision’], ¯ kli reút, ¯ kli rói [‘seeing tool’], batéy eynáim [‘houses of eyes’], I propose to call mishkafáim. No one will deny that a one-word name is better than a multipleword name.2 (p. 4)
    
    Hazan goes on to explain – somewhat reluctantly3 – that he chose the (Biblical) Hebrew root √Sqp (the root of mishkafáim) ‘…because of its similarity to the Greek word σκοπέω skopéō (‘I look at’), which appears in the names for all glass lenses in the languages of Europe: telescope, microscope, kaleidoscope and the like’ (italics are mine. Hazan translates σκοπέω skopéō as ‘I will look at’). Note also Yiddish shpakúl ‘spectacles’ (cf. Standard Yiddish bríl ‘glasses’). Biblical Hebrew spakúl , the more common word being
    
    √Sqp originally meant ‘bend, arch, lean towards’ and later ‘look out (from the door/window), look through’ (e.g. in Proverbs 7:6).4 There are two possible etymological analyses at this stage: 1. INDUCTION (NO BORROWING): The etymon of spectacles’ is (Biblical) Hebrew (Rabbinic Hebrew>) Israeli Israeli mishkafáim ‘glasses, - -áim, cf.
    
    √Sqp fitted into the Hebrew noun-pattern misparáim ‘scissors’, (Biblical Hebrew>)
    
    miá in its dual form – with the dual suffix (Hebrew>) Israeli5
    
    ¯ mikhnasáim ‘trousers’. The [f] in [miSka»faim] is an allophone – S
    
    owing to spirantization – of the plosive radical /p/ ( ). The coinage was influenced by the Ancient Greek skopéō. Following this line of thought, mishkafáim is an induced creation or, more precisely, an induced discovery if one takes into account the fact that the neologizer knows in advance the
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    283
    
    approximate result of the neologization, i.e. a lexical item in the target language (henceforth, TL) that sounds similar to the parallel expression in the source language (henceforth, SL). In fact, Hazan admits that he selected the existing root √Sqp, which suited the sound of Greek σκοπέω skopéō.6
    
    2. MULTISOURCED NEOLOGIZATION (CAMOUFLAGED BORROWING): Israeli mishkafáim derives simultaneously from two distinct sources: Greek σκοπέω skopéō and (Biblical) Hebrew √Sqp fitted into the Hebrew nounpattern miá in its dual form. Figuratively speaking, one might say that the mother of the word is Hebrew since the word was born within the Hebrew language, from Hebrew elements; however, the father is a foreigner – in this case Ancient Greek. The latter is camouflaged by the Hebrew morphology of the coinage. Many linguists and most purists would suggest that Analysis 1 is the correct one, basing their judgement on conservative tenets such as (i) The etymology of a lexical item is determined by morphology (and mishkafáim is, in fact, morphologically Hebrew), and (ii) A lexical item necessarily has only one etymon (this is parallel to the belief that a language can have only one source7). However, such conservative, structural views, just like the traditional classifications of sources of lexicon-enrichment (cf. §5.4), fail to take into account the effects of language contact (which is certainly on the increase in this era of globalization). I would advocate a broader-based, motivational approach, one that considers the lexeme or sememe’s covert cultural and social aspects to be as important as its morphology. Analysis 2 would consequently be the correct one, its striking result being that mishkafáim can be considered a surface-cognate of English spectacles, spy, spectrum, specific, spice, species, special, and expect – all of which go back to PIE (Proto-Indo-European) *spek- ‘look’; as well as of English telescope, scope, sceptic – which can be traced back to PIE *skep- ‘look’, a metathetical form of PIE *spek-. Indeed, the logic of Hazan’s choice has been completely forgotten, since his use of the Hebrew morphemes serves as an effective camouflage for the Greek coetymon of this common word in Israeli. Furthermore, in 1896 Eliezer Ben-Yehuda invented a new word which is a secondary derivative from Pines 1897: mishkafáim: mishkéfet ‘telescope’ (see HaZevi, 1896, 22 Kislev h.t.r.n.z., as well as
    XIV),
    
    and this eventually gained currency with the meaning ‘field-
    
    glasses, binoculars’.8
    
    284
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    Israeli
    
    mishkafáim is but one example of what is, in fact, a pervasive
    
    form of lexical borrowing, which can be observed in Israeli, as well as in other languages such as Turkish, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew and Arabic. In accordance with Analysis 2 above, I call this phenomenon phono-semantic matching (PSM) and define it as camouflaged borrowing in which a foreignism is matched with a phonetically and semantically similar pre-existent autochthonous lexeme/root. Thus, PSM may alternatively be defined as the entry of a neologism that preserves both the meaning and the approximate sound of the parallel expression in the SL, using pre-existent TL lexemes or roots. 9 The following figure is a general illustration of this process: SL x ‘a’ TL(+PSM) y» ‘a»’         TL y ‘b’ »»
    y is phonetically similar to x b is similar to a y» is based on y a» is based on a Figure 1
    
    The figure below summarizes the process with regard to ‘glasses’:
    
    mishkafáim
    
    Ancient Greek
    σκοπέω skopéō
    
    Israeli
    mishkafáim
    
    (Biblical) Hebrew
    
    ‘I look at’
    cf. Yiddish shpakúl ‘spectacles’ (Lithuanian Yiddish spakúl )
    
    ‘glasses, spectacles’
    
    √Sqp
    ‘look out/through’
    
    Figure 2
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    285
    
    2 PSM as a neglected universal phenomenon
    The study of words may be tedious to the school-boy, as breaking of stones is to the wayside labourer, but to the thoughtful eye of the geologist these stones are full of interest – he sees miracles on the high road, and reads chronicles in every ditch. (Müller 1871: i:2)
    
    Although this source of lexical enrichment is widely diffused, it has not been systematically studied by linguists but rather dismissed with an honourable mention. In his Patterns and Trends of Linguistic Innovations in Modern Hebrew, Sivan hardly mentions this phenomenon; he makes only one reference to it, of just three lines (1963: 37-8). The phenomenon is mentioned briefly by Heyd (1954: 90), who refers to calques phonétiques, by Hagège (1986: 257), who calls it emprunt-calembour, and by Toury (1990), who refers to phonetic transposition. Chaim Rabin offered the term tatslúl (see Kutscher 1965: 37, with no tslil reference) 10 , fitted into the same noun-pattern of (Rabbinic Hebrew>>) Israeli targúm ‘translation’ but deriving from (Biblical Hebrew>>) Israeli ‘sound’. In the case of Chinese, Luó (1950) mentions 音兼意 MSC (Modern Standard Chinese) yīnjiānyì, lit. ‘sound+concurrent with+meaning’, while L (1990) describes MSC 音译兼意译 yīnyìjiānyìyì ‘phonetic translation along with semantic translation’. Whilst Hansell discusses semanticized transcription (1989) and semanticized loans (ms), Yáo (1992) refers to (Taiwan Mandarin) 音中有義 yīnzhōngy uyì, lit. ‘sound+middle+have+meaning’, i.e. ‘transcription in which the meaning lies within the sound’. PSM is widespread in two categories of language (cf. Zuckermann 2000): 1. ‘reinvented languages’, in which language planners attempt to replace undesirable loanwords, e.g. Israeli and Revolutionized Turkish. 2. languages that use phono-logographic script, e.g. Chinese, as well as Japanese and Korean (the latter two when using Kanji or Hanja respectively), all of which are influenced by cultural superstratum languages such as English. Let us consider two examples of PSM from Turkish, two from Modern Standard Chinese, one from Taiwan Mandarin and one from Japanese.
    
    286
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    2.1 Revolutionized Turkish
    A~aca balta vurmuşlar, ‘sapI bedenimden’ demiş. They struck the tree with an axe [and] it said: ‘The handle is from my body!’. (Turkish proverb, cf. Şinasi 1885, Aksoy 1965: 79, YurtbaşI 1994: 176) I know most of the dialects of the Asian Turks. I also understand the dialect spoken by you and people like Yakup Kadri. If there’s one dialect I can’t make head or tail of, it’s the dialect of the Turkish Language Society. (Abdülkadir to Atay in the 1930s, cf. Atay 1965, 1969: 478; translation by Lewis 1999: 54, cf. 1997: 26)
    
    Turkish belleten ‘bulletin’ (Heyd incidentally mentions belletem, 1954: 91) derives from (i) French/International bulletin and (ii) Turkish belle- ‘learn by heart’ (cf. Turkish bellek ‘memory’, bellemek ‘to learn by heart’). Turkish belleten has not gained currency but has been used as the name of the bulletin of the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) (see Belleten 1996). The Oxford Turkish-English Dictionary (=OTED, i.e. Hony, èz and Alderson 1992) (:65) defines Belleten as ‘learned journal’. A mere phonetic adaptation, which is in fact the current term for ‘bulletin’, is bülten ‘bulletin’ (cf. Lewis 1999: 61-2).
    
    Revolutionized Turkish belleten ‘bulletin’ French bulletin
    
    Turkish belle- ‘learn by heart’ (cf. bellek ‘memory’) + -t causative suffix (‘have someone learn by heart, teach someone something’) + -en (participle) ‘something that allows one to learn (by heart)’
    
    From 1937 the name of the journal of the Turkish Historical Association (Türk Tarih Kurumu)
    cf. bülten ‘bulletin’, a mere morphophonemic adaptation
    
    Figure 3
    
    Perhaps the most famous Turkish PSM is the one whose current form is Turkish okul [o»kul≥] ‘school’ (cf. OTED:364 and Deroy 1956: 287). It was created to replace Ottoman Turkish mektep, an old loanword from Arabic (cf. Arabic [»maktab] ‘desk, office’, ‘a place where one writes’; Arabic ‫[ آ ب‬ki»ta:b] ‘book’). Turkish okul was based on French école ‘school’ and might have been influenced by Latin schola ‘school’ (cf. the original Turkish coinage okula(~), mentioned below). On the other hand, the autochthonous co-etymon of okul is Turkish oku‘(to) read’, cf. okumak ‘to read, study’, okuma ‘reading’, okur ‘reader’
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    287
    
    (OTED:364). Note that the semantic affinity to Arabic to (Rabbinic Hebrew>) Israeli
    
    ‫»[ آ‬kataba] ‘wrote (m,
    
    sg)’, which is the ultimate origin of Ottoman Turkish mektep, and compare it also bet séfer ‘school’, lit. ‘house of book’. However, synchronically, Turkish okul cannot be regarded as öztürkçe (‘pure Turkish’) since the final -l is not a Turkish suffix and was imported ad hoc from French. One might claim that the -l is a result of analogy to Turkish words ending in l, e.g. Turkish kIzIl ‘red, ruddy’, from Turkish kIzmak ‘to get angry/hot’. There was also a suggestion that the suffix is in fact the Turkic -ul. However, adding the suffix -ul to oku would have yielded *okuyul (cf. Lewis 1999: 118). Diachronically, however, the original form of Turkish okul allegedly was okula~ or okula, in which -la(~) might be explained by analogy to (Ottoman) Turkish kışla ‘barracks, winter quarters’ (cf. kış ‘winter’) and (Ottoman) Turkish yayla ‘summer pasture’ (cf. yaz ‘summer’), although these two are not verb-based (ibid.: 117). Refet, the Deputy for the city of Urfa, falsely suggested that okula already existed in the Urfa dialect (ibid.: 118; cf. Heyd 1954: 91). Indeed, purists are likely to apply the method of revitalizing and standardizing dialectal words. However, in the case of Turkish okul, such an explanation seems to be no more than an ex postfacto rationalization. The following figure summarizes this PSM.
    
    French école
    
    Revolutionized Turkish okul ‘school’ (chosen by Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatu_rk in 1934) (superseding the Ottoman mektep, a loanword from Arabic)
    
    Turkish okula cf. oku- ‘read’ + -la (‘locative suffix’) (cf. -la~)
    
    Figure 4
    
    Turkish okul constitutes a successful creational PSM. As Lewis (1982: vi, reprint of 1953) puts it:
    Nothing is to be gained by adopting the ostrich-attitude and saying: ‘Okul (‘school’) is a ridiculous hybrid, out of the Turkish oku- ‘to read’, by the French école. We shall ignore it and continue to use the good old Ottoman word mektep.’ Turkish children nowadays don’t go to mektep; they go to okul.
    
    288
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    2.2 Mandarin Chinese
    
    MSC (Modern Standard Chinese) 声纳 shēngnà ‘sonar’ uses the characters 声 shēng ‘sound’ and 纳 nà ‘receive, accept’, as follows:
    
    sonar
    
    MSC shēngnà
    
    ‘sonar’
    
    Figure 5
    
    MSC shēng is a phonetically imperfect rendering of the English initial syllable. (Modern Standard) Chinese has a large number of homotonal/heterotonal homophonous morphemes, which would have been much better phonetically, but not nearly as good semantically. Consider SONG (cf. 送 sòng ‘deliver, carry, give (as a present)’, 松 sōng ‘pine; loose, slack’, 耸 sŏng ‘tower; alarm, attract’ etc.),
    SOU
    
    (cf. 搜 sōu ‘search’, 叟 sŏu ‘old man’, 馊 sōu ‘sour, spoiled’ and many others) or
    SHOU
    
    (cf. 收 shōu ‘receive, accept’, 受 shòu ‘receive, accept’, 手 sh u ‘hand’, 首 English (International) Viagra (the drug for treating impotence in men,
    
    sh u ‘head’, 兽 shòu ‘beast’, 瘦 shòu ‘thin’ and so forth). manufactured by Pfizer) was domesticated in 1998 in MSC as 伟哥 wěigē, lit. ‘great+elder brother’, hinting at the erection of the Viagra user’s penis (‘brother’). Viagra, which was suggested by Interbrand Wood (the consultancy firm hired by Pfizer), was itself an MSN, based on Skt Vyaº> vyāghráâ (m) ‘tiger’ (cf. Mayrhofer 1976: iii:274) but enhanced by vigour (strength) and Niagara (free/forceful flow). Note that 小弟弟 MSC xi odìdì ‘little younger brother’ can refer to the male organ, which might have facilitated the sexual connotation of 哥 gē ‘elder brother’, although in the Far East the distinction between a younger and an older brother is important. The following figure illustrates the linguistic process.
    
    Viagra
    
    MSC wěigē ‘Viagra’
    
    Figure 6
    
    声 纳 伟
    +
    
    哥
    
    纳声
    
    shēng ‘sound’ + nà ‘receive, accept’
    
    wěi ‘great’
    
    哥伟
    
    gē ‘(elder) brother’
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    289
    
    The Taiwanese have coined a parallel PSM, which some native speakers perceive as more suitable semantically, as follows:
    
    wēi ‘powerful’ + ér ‘and’ + gāng ‘hard, strong’
    
    Viagra
    
    wēiérgāng ‘Viagra’
    
    Figure 7 2.3 Japanese
    
    Japanese 背広 sebiro ‘suit-jacket, blazer’ (written in kanji), which was introduced in the nineteenth century, consists morphologically of two kun-yomi Japanese morphemes: se ‘back (of the body)’ (cf. 背 MSC bèi ‘back (of the body)’) and biro ‘broad, wide’, i.e. /hiro/ by the rule of rendaku (cf. Chinese 廣, cf. the simplified MSC 广 gu ng ‘broad, wide’). Rendaku (or sequential voicing, Martin 1952: 48) is a morpho-phonemic, sandhi, intervocalic, sequential voicing, applied only to compounds, and more precisely to the first consonant of the second element in a compound (for discussion, see Vance 1987: 133-48). In fact, many suit-jackets have artificial shoulders which give the impression of a wide back, and a further semanticization could be that when one wears a suit, one maintains a straight posture and thus one’s back looks wider. However, this is not the whole story. Japanese 背広 sebiro ‘suit-jacket, blazer’ also has a foreign co-etymon: Savile Row, the name of a street in London where exclusive tailor’s shops are situated, thus constituting antonomasia (cf. Armani suit):11
    Sino-Japanese (kanji)
    
    Savile Row (the name of a street in London celebrated for fashionable and expensive tailoring establishments; used to designate such tailors, their styles or wares, especially men’s suits)
    
    sebiro
    
    ‘suit-jacket, blazer’
    
    Figure 8
    
    背
    
    Japanese
    
    se ‘back (of the body), shoulders’ + biro ‘broad, wide’ (= hiro by the rule of rendaku)
    
    而 刚
    広
    
    Taiwan Mandarin
    
    威
    
    刚而威
    
    広背
    
    290
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    For a detailed discussion of PSM as exhibited in Turkish, Mandarin Chinese, Taiwan Mandarin, Japanese, Arabic and Yiddish, see Zuckermann (2000). Having examined the mechanisms governing PSM, however, let us now analyse the different linguistic features which predispose a language towards PSM (§3), as well as the various motivations for PSM according to language typology (§4).
    3 Characteristics predisposing a language to PSM
    Nil posse creari de nilo. (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, Book I, l. 155)
    
    3.1 ‘Phono-logographic script’
    
    The Chinese writing system, which was developed as a ‘morphemic script’ (cf. Backhouse 1993: 47) more than 3,000 years ago, is used by Chinese (Hànzì), Japanese (Kanji) and Korean (Hanja). Whilst Chinese uses this script exclusively, Japanese and Korean also have syllabaries. Throughout history there have been different theories analysing Chinese orthography, all of which could be presented schematically as follows: • pleremic (from Greek pluêrus ‘full’, ‘full of meaning’): pictographic, ideographic, logographic, morphemic. Of these, morphemic might be a better definition than logographic because, while in a logographic orthography each character (or logograph) represents a word as a whole (a semantic unit), in the case of Chinese, a compound-word like 灯泡 MSC dēngpào ‘lightbulb’ is written with two characters, representing two morphemes: 灯 dēng ‘light’ and 泡 pào ‘bulb’. • cenemic (from Greek kenós ‘empty’, i.e. ‘empty of meaning’): phonographic and even syllabic; see inter alios DeFrancis (1984: 111ff). In the case of loanwords, Chinese characters are often used in a similar manner to a syllabary. Evidence that might support this observation is that sometimes the same foreignism has several distinct Chinese phonetic adaptations. Note also that native Chinese-speakers use characters phonographically when they attempt to write down a word whose exact characters are unknown to them.12
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    291
    
    Traditionally, the most influential view has been the pleremic, and more specifically the ideographic one (cf. Suzuki 1975: 182). However, by now it seems that most linguists have rejected it. A harsh criticism of ‘the ideographic myth’ can be found in DeFrancis (1984: 133-148), Unger (1990, cf. 1987) and Frellesvig (1993). One of the main criticisms against the ideographic view is that characters of writing actually stand for linguistic units, not for ideas, and can therefore be either phonographic or logographic (or morphemic). I believe that the Chinese orthography should be regarded as multivalent and often as phono-logographic. In other words, it can be both cenemic and pleremic simultaneously. This can be proved not only by the existence but also by the extent of PSM in Chinese. Such PSMs are modelled as closely as possible upon the sound of the SL word but the choice of characters (and therefore morphemes) used to render the sounds is determined by semantic criteria. The phonetic fidelity may be somewhat distorted in an attempt to use a character which is more appropriate semantically. The main difference between Israeli and Chinese is that in Israeli there is the possibility of importing the Westernism as it stands, for example by morpho-phonemic adaptation, whereas in Chinese this is impossible: one can calque the Westernism or neologize, but one cannot import the sound without using indigenous characters which ipso facto, at least in theory, are associated with pre-existent morphemes. The use of Chinese characters is a necessity. However, which characters one chooses to use is an altogether different matter. This makes Chinese an incredibly fertile ground for PSM.
    3.2 Semitic apophony: consonantal root system and discontinuous morphemic patterns
    
    Morphologically, Israeli has dozens of possible noun-patterns, as well as verb- and adjective-patterns, which are discontinuous morphemes. They differ from each other in their vowels. Such a mechanism allows the phono-semantic matcher easily to find a pattern with a vowel sequence similar to that of the matched SL lexeme. This advantage can be seen in verbal morphemic adaptations into Israeli. This morpho-phonetic advantage of Israeli could be compared with the Chinese (and Sino-Japanese) semantic inventory in which almost every foreign syllable can be phonetically adapted by a suitable meaningful Chinese syllable. In other words, the Israeli phono-semantic matcher enjoys a rich inventory from which to choose a morpheme (in this case, a noun-pattern or a verb-pattern) which fits the vowels of the matched SL lexical item. The Chinese nativizer, on the other hand, enjoys a rich
    
    292
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    inventory from which to choose a morpheme (in this case, a lexeme) that fits the referent of the matched SL lexical item. Thus, the coiner of MSC 雅虎 y h , lit. ‘elegant tiger’, for Yahoo (the Internet service) could alternatively have used the following morphemes: • 亚 yà ‘inferior’, 哑 y ‘mute, dumb, hoarse’, 丫 yā ‘bifurcation, fork’, 涯 yá ‘margin, limit’, 牙 yá ‘tooth’, 鸭 yā ‘duck’, 压 yā ‘press, push down’, 呀 yā ‘ah, oh (indicating surprise)’, 押 yā ‘give as security, mortgage’, 崖 yá ‘precipice, cliff’, 芽 yá ‘bud, sprout’, 揠 yà ‘pull up’, 轧 yà ‘roll, run over’ etc.; as well as • 忽 hū ‘neglect, ignore’, 壶 hú ‘kettle’, 乎 hū (expressing doubt), 呼 hū ‘breathe out, exhale’, 胡 hú ‘non-Han nationalities living in the north and west in ancient times’, 湖 hú ‘lake’, 糊 hú ‘paste’, 鹄 hú ‘swan’, 狐 hú ‘fox’, 弧 hú ‘arc’, 户 hù ‘door’, 护 hù ‘protect’, 互 hù ‘mutual’ and so on. Similarly, the phono-semantic matcher of English dock (with Israeli suitable root (Biblical>Rabbinic Hebrew>>) Israeli mivdók13)
    
    could have used – after deliberately choosing the phonetically and semantically √bdq ‘check’ (Rabbinic Hebrew), ‘repair’ (Biblical Hebrew) – the noun-patterns miaá 14 , maeá, miéet, miaáim15 and so on. But s/he chose mió, which is not highly productive. The reason is that the [o] in mió makes the final syllable of the neologism ( mivdók) sound like English dock. téka ‘plug’, which is fitted into the ée noun-pattern (the ‘id.’ (The Hebrew Further examples of such phonetically-motivated choice of a specific nounpattern in Israeli are final [a] is due to the voiced pharyngeal constituting the third radical), matching phono-semantically German Stecker ‘plug’ and Yiddish root of téka is √tq÷ ‘blow, insert’). This neologism was introduced or adopted méser is fitted into the ée noun-pattern, matching phonoméser being √msr ‘hand
    
    by the Hebrew Language Council – see Zikhronot Va’ad HaLashon 5 (1921: 94).16 Likewise, Israeli semantically English message, the Hebrew root of over, deliver, transmit’. That said, cognitively, from the vantage-point of the speaker, due to the Semitic root system of Israeli, as well as to its apophonic morphology, the invariable – and hence important – elements in Israeli lexical items are the consonants rather than the vowels. The vowels provide the means for morphological integration, functionalization and grammatical information, but the basic referent is conveyed by the consonants. Hence the morphemic (or popularly ‘consonantal’) nature of Israeli
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    293
    
    orthography, which, unlike the phonemic/phonetic spelling of the European languages, lacks vowels. Consequently, if two Israeli words share the same consonants in the same order, no matter what the vowels are, they are often conceived of by the native speaker as related. So, a PSM which could not be fitted into a noun-pattern whose vowels correspond to the SL lexeme is still linked to the SL lexeme. The Hebrew apophonic system resembles Indo-European Ablaut (‘vowel gradation’) as in English [s ng] sing-sang-song-sung and German [spr ch] spricht-sprechen-sprachgesprochen-Spruch – cf. Umlaut (‘regressive vowel assimilation’) as in English [f t] foot-feet and [m n] man-men. However, Ablaut in modern Indo-European languages is far from having the variability, regularity and productivity of the Israeli apophony.17 Apophony is one of the most important Semitic features of Israeli. This phenomenon links Israeli with Semitic languages such as Arabic. In fact, the latter also makes use of apophony in nativizing alien terms phono-semantically in much the same way – albeit not to the same extent – as does Israeli. Consider the following examples:
    •
    
    A rabic ّ ‫»[ ﺕ‬taqni]/[»tiqani] ‘technical, technological, technician’, cf. Vernacular Arabic [»tiqani] and [»tiqni]18
    
    •
    
    A rabic ّ ‫[ ﺕ‬taq»nijja]/[tiqa»nijja]) ‘technology, technique’
    
    These terms derive from both the internationalism technical and Arabic .‫√ ت.ق.ن‬tqn ‘to master, improve, bring to perfection’, cf. Blau (1981: 171-2). The Arabic root √tqn can be found in proficiency’, ‫/»[ أﺕ‬atqana] ‘improved (m, sg)’, ‫/[ إﺕ ن‬it»qa:n] ‘perfection, thorough [»mutqan] ‘perfect, professionally done, strong, finished up, ‫[ ﺕ‬tiqn] ‘skilful, clever’.
    
    improved’ (often said about craft/art works), and
    
    It seems certain that Arabic .‫√ ت.ق.ن‬tqn played a role here (hence this is a PSM) for two reasons. First, because of the semantic link between technique and artistic mastery, as well as – in the information age – between technology and perfection. Second, since the expected form in the case of a mere loanword in Modern Arabic would have used Arabic ‫[ ك‬k] rather than Arabic ‫[ ق‬q]. In fact, the Arabic morphemic adaptation of the internationalism technique is Arabic rather than ّ ‘electron’. ‫[* ﺕ‬taqno:»lo:dÉZi]. See also Arabic ّ ‫ﻥ‬ ‫[ ﺕ‬tak»ni:k] rather than ‫ﺕ‬ *[taq»ni:k]. 19 Similarly, the Arabic form of technological is ّ mechanical’ and Arabic ‫ون‬ ‫[ ﺕ‬takno:»lo:dÉZi]
    
    [mi:ka:»ni:ki] ‘mechanic,
    
    ‫/[ إ‬ilik»tru:n] (Vernacular Arabic [/elek»tro:n])
    
    294
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    If asked to analyse Arabic ّ ‫»[ ﺕ‬taqni] morphologically, I would say that it consists of two morphemes: the adjective-pattern ái and the root √tqn. Note that normally, Arabic ái serves as an adjectival form of á, the final [i] being ّ ‫[ ی ء ا‬ja:/ an»nisba] (an adjectival suffix). Consider Arabic [Sams] ‘sun’, as well as Arabic ّ ‫أ‬ ‫/[ أ‬a‡l] ‘root, [»Samsi] ‘solar’, from Arabic
    
    [»/a‡li] ‘original, primary, authentic, pure, real’, from Arabic Arabic ّ ‫»[ ﺕ‬taqni] since there is no such word as Arabic does not by any means weaken my PSM analysis.
    
    trunk (of a tree), origin, source’. However, this is not exactly the case with ‫[* ﺕ‬taqn]. Hence, one might suggest that there is a morphological compromise here. Even if there is, it A skeptical reader might object to my argument that Arabic ّ ‫»[ ﺕ‬taqni] is a PSM, by adducing a non-PSM example of transposing a foreign [k] into Arabic ‫[ ق‬q]: Arabic ‫ة‬ [»qam(a)ra] ‘berth, bunk, cabin, stateroom’, which is traceable to Italian camera ‘room’. However, I would like to suggest three possible explanations for the choice of [q] over [k] in this case: (i) Differentiation from Arabic ‫»[ آ ة‬kamara] ‘glans, the head of the penis’. (ii) Arabic ‫ة‬ Arabic 3). (iii) Unlike the relatively modern Arabic ّ ‫»[ ﺕ‬taqni] ‘technical’, Arabic ‫ة‬ [»qamara] ‘cabin’ was introduced in the Middle Ages, when a non-aspirated [k] – as in Italian camera – was transcribed as ‫[ ق‬q]. Consider also Arabic ‫[ ﺱ اط‬suq»ra:„] ‘Socrates’ and Arabic ‫[ ﺏ اط‬buq»ra:„] ‘Hippocrates’, as well as Arabic ‫ی‬ (‫/([ )ال‬al)qilqidi:s], from Greek χαλκιτsδες khalkitîdes ‘rock ‫)ال( ه‬ alum’ (a kind of metal) (genitive), and Arabic ‫اس‬ hypocistis’ (a kind of plant).20 To sum up, then, we have seen that in addition to its unique historical and sociological circumstances, Israeli possesses basic Semitic morphological characteristics – shared by Arabic too – which make it particularly conducive to PSM. At the same time, Israeli’s apophonic morpho-phonetic flexibility is analogous to the rich orthographic inventory of languages such as Chinese, which use a phono-logographic script. [»qamara] ‘cabin’ is an ‘orthographic phonetic matching’ using [»qamar] ‘moon’, cf. Arabic ‫ي‬ ّ [»qamari] ‘lunar’ (on
    
    ‘orthographic folk-etymological nativization’, see Zuckermann 2000: 161-
    
    [(/al)hibu:qis„i:da:s] from Greek ›ποκιστίδας hupokistídas ‘Cytinus
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    295
    
    4 Comparative analysis of motivations for PSM across language typological categories
    Similia similibus curantur. (The basic principle of homeopathy)
    
    From a puristic point of view, which prefers native elements to those of alien pedigree, PSM is the ideal means of filling a native lexical void or, in other words, of replacing an unwelcome loanword (or ‘mutuatio non grata’, my term). To this end, PSM possesses the following main advantages: (1) For the native speaker of the future: camouflaging foreign influence (using autochthonous constituents); (2) For the reinventer: recycling obsolete lexemes; (3) For the contemporary learner: facilitating initial learning (mnemonization). Let us begin with Advantage (1): A PSM is an indigenous word which is morphologically ‘pure’ and therefore has a high level of lexicographic acceptability. This then allows the purist to ‘kill the (foreign) messenger’. No one can accuse Alterman (1963: 43), who uses borrowing, since glory’, from silúd to mean ‘salute’,21 of [sil»lūd] ‘awe, silúd derives from Medieval Hebrew
    
    √sld, and therefore can be regarded as a word with an salút, Russian
    
    impeccable Hebrew pedigree. Clearly, however, the modern sememe ‘salute’ is an imitation of the internationalism salute – cf. Yiddish салют salyút, Polish salut (the latter usually means ‘cannon-fire as a mark of respect’, cf. Polish salutowanie ‘salute (n) (with the hand)’, from Polish salutować ‘to salute’), and (the orthography of) French salut. Alterman was not the first to use silúd; it appears in Davar (17 June 1934), Milón leMunekhéy séled ‘salute’, a PSM which is haHitamlút (Dictionary of Gymnastics Terms) (1937: 96, Item 1218) and Avinery (1946: 143). Meltzer (1966: 78) uses a variant of silúd.
    
    Regarding Advantage (2), PSM allows for the application of khasifát gnuzót ‘rediscovery of hidden words’ or ‫/[ إﺱ ط‬istin»ba:„] ‘discovering, producing, deducing’ (see Blau 1981: 163), i.e. the adaptation of archaic words to the modern world. Sivan (1966: 200 = 1995: 26) calls such words milím mitnaarót ‘awakening words’. Bar-Asher (1995: 8) terms the process of recycling obsolete lexical items ekrón hasheivá mibifním ‘The Principle of Drawing from Within’ (also mentioned in Akadém 8, March 1996, p. 3), corresponding to the view expressed by Pines (1893: 61): hagdolá shebamaalót lemilá khadashá – im enéna khadashá ‘The greatest virtue
    
    296
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    of a new word is that it is not new’, and to that of Klausner (1940: 289): kedéy lekhadésh tsaríkh limtsó milá yeshaná, sheyésh la shóresh ivrí, sheyésh la tsurá ivrít, sheyésh ba táam ivrí ‘In order to neologize one should find an old word, which has a Hebrew root, a Hebrew form and Hebrew stress’. In response to Ben-Yehuda’s rebuke of not having neologized enough Aaron Meyer Mazia said:22
    Not only am I unashamed of it but I am in fact satisfied that the [Hebrew Language] Council decided on numerous words for athletics, arithmetic, dresses and the like, but that the majority of these words were nothing but old words […] we would not want to create new words as long as we are able to satisfy our needs with what is available from our ancient literature.
    
    Thus, PSM is often used to resurrect obsolete words, as in Israeli ‘tourist’:23
    
    tayár
    
    International tourist (cf. Russian turist turíst, Polish turysta, English tourist, German Tourist, Yiddish turíst)
    
    Israeli
    
    (Rabbinic) Hebrew [taj»jår] ‘guide’ »
    
    tayár ‘tourist’
    
    (< Biblical Hebrew √twr ‘spy out, explore’)
    
    Figure 9
    
    Consider also derivation from
    
    tiyér ‘toured, was a tourist (m, sg)’, which is either a secondary tayár ‘tourist’ or a resuscitation of Medieval Hebrew √twr). [tij»jer]
    
    ‘guided (m, sg)’ (from (1946: 137) said:
    ¯
    
    Concerning the benefit to the contemporary learner (Advantage 3), as Avinery
    
    ¯
    
    ¯– .
    
    ¯¯
    
    The more similar the sound of the foreign word is to the sound of the national word, the easier its absorption in the language is, and the more easily it can be interpreted as an original word and even influence changes of meaning in existing words.
    
    At first glance, Advantages (1) and (3) might seem to be in contradiction with one another since while (1) suggests that the matched SL lexeme is camouflaged, (3) implies that the matched SL lexeme will participate in facilitating the successful entrance of the PSM into the language. I propose two possible solutions to this apparent difficulty. First, complementary distribution: these advantages were not consciously or actively used by the same coiner simultaneously. Second, in the case of
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    297
    
    Israeli, wishful thinking: the coiner used both advantages consciously or actively, bearing in mind that Advantage (3) would serve only a contemporary learner of the emerging Israeli language, whereas Advantage (1) would serve only the native speaker of the Israeli of the future; after all, especially during the dawning of Israeli, the vision was to create a language for future generations. Advantages (1) and (2) are apparent in PSMs introduced during the Turkish ‘language revolution’ (dil devrimi, Ottoman Turkish lisan inkılâbı), which was put into action in 1928-36 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, also known as Gazi (‘champion, warrior’) Paşa. The similarity between these Turkish PSMs and those in Israeli lies in the fact that in both cases most of the neologisms are a result of deliberate, institutionalized fabrication by language planners, in contradistinction to spontaneous folk-etymological creations introduced by anonymous laymen. Still, in both Turkish and Israeli the methods used by the purists are technically folk-etymological. In fact, Atatürk himself was an amateur etymologist and often Turkicized Western words folketymologically. The following have been attributed to him: • Ne yaygara ‘Niagara’ is morphologically based on Turkish ne ‘what (exclamatory)’ and Turkish yaygara ‘howl, shouting, hullabaloo, fuss’ and thus means ‘What tumult!’ (Lewis 1999: 43), ‘What a noise!’, the instinctive response of some visitors to the Niagara Falls. • Ama uzun ‘Amazon’ derives from Turkish ama ‘but, still; really, truly’ and Turkish uzun ‘long’ and thus constitutes ‘But it is long!’ (ibid.), ‘How long!’ (surprised) (cf. Colloquial Turkish amma ‘how’, an exclamation expressing surprise, ‘but, still’). However, with respect to Advantage (1), there is a crucial difference between some Turkish PSMs and Israeli ones: the former involve the reanalysis of a foreign term as if it were Turkish rather than the adaptation of a foreign term into Turkish. This ‘Istanbul caput mundi’ attitude corresponds to the Güneş-Dil Teorisi ‘The Sun Language Theory’ (on the latter, see, inter alia, Lewis 1999). I am not arguing that ‘Hierosolyma caput mundi’ theories have not existed among linguists in Eretz Yisrael (see, for example, Slouschz 1930), but, indubitably, they have never gained as much success as in Turkey. As Atay (1965) claims, Atatürk did not mind the Turkish Language Society leaving foreign words in the language, so long as it could demonstrate that they were in fact Turkish. If the Sun Language Theory proves that all languages stem from Turkish, every so-called ‘foreignism’ ceases to be a foreignism, and thus is no longer a threat. It is possible that the theory was adopted by Atatürk precisely in order to legitimize the Arabic and Persian words which the language revolutionaries did not manage to uproot. Note that Atatürk was particularly concerned with ridding Turkish of the Arabic/Persian components, but did not mind too much
    
    298
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    about the influence of French (which he knew well). In other words, he was antiArabic/Persian rather than ‘purist’ in the traditional sense. Most PSMs in Israeli were created puristically, in an attempt to camouflage a foreignism or to ensure lexicographic acceptability. However, some PSMs were a result of sheer playfulness. In fact, PSMs in Hebrew, Yiddish and Israeli can be linked to the Jewish midrashic tradition of homiletic commentary on the Hebrew scriptures, in which punning, or use of coincidental similarity between distinct words, was employed in the service of interpretation. In later generations too, word-play has been a conspicuous feature of Jewish oral argumentation (cf. pilpul) – for discussion see Harshav (1993). Furthermore, many PSMs are a result of the ‘conventional’ popular etymology, the lay craving for meaningfulness. First, consider the perception of naïve young Israeli readers of dóktor sus (cf. English Dr Seuss [»dÅkt´(r) su:s]), the pseudonym of Theodore Seuss Geisel, American author and illustrator of children’s books (1904-91). Many Israelis are certain that he is ‘Dr Horse’ since (Biblical Hebrew>>) Israeli sus means ‘horse’. I have heard a popular etymologization according to which this arises from the prevalence of animals in Dr Seuss’s stories. This ‘misunderstanding’ might correspond to Haugen’s general claim with regard to borrowing, that ‘every speaker attempts to reproduce previously learned linguistic patterns in an effort to cope with new linguistic situations’ (1950: 212). But whilst the popular etymology in dóktor sus is only derivational (I call this DOPE, DerivationalOnly Popular Etymology), there are many cases of generative popular etymology (GPE) which result in lay PSM. For example, the obsolete Colloquial Israeli ' kshor taoznáim, lit. ‘Tie the ears!’, meaning ‘Go to hell!’, was a lay PSM of the Russian exclamation чёрт его знает chërt egó znáet (pronounced chort yevó znáyet), lit. ‘The devil knows him/it!’, used as ‘God knows!’ or ‘The devil only knows!’. Note the semantic modification of the Russian expression within Israeli, most likely induced by Russian curses which also use чёрт chërt ‘devil’. Dozens of further lay PSMs in Israeli and many other languages can be found in Zuckermann (2003). As far as phono-logographic languages are concerned, a similar set of both puristic and popular motivations for PSM can be detected. At first sight, one might think that a difference between Israeli and MSC (and Japanese) is that whereas the first speakers of Israeli were not monolingual, most Chinese- (and Japanese-) speakers are. A priori – setting aside the phono-logographic script which is highly conducive to PSM – this fact should lead one to assume that PSM would not be that common in
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    299
    
    MSC. However, my research uncovered hundreds of Chinese PSMs. It indicates that in addition to general usage, PSM in MSC is widespread in three main terminological categories: (i) (commercial) brand names (and hence antonomasias), (ii) computer jargon, and (iii) technological terms. It is no coincidence that these are precisely those areas suffering from native lexical lacunae, as well as being fields in which (educated) Chinese-speakers can be expected to have knowledge of foreign lexical items. Thus, monolingualism is not a serious obstacle to PSM in MSC, after all. Because the original International/American term is generally familiar, for example in the field of computers (e.g. Pentium), Chinese coiners prefer not to calque it or introduce an indirectly related neologism. Rather, they resort to camouflaging the foreignism by ensuring its nativization through PSM (cf. Advantage 1 above). The other written option here would be to use roman transcription, whilst the other oral option would be to mimic the American pronunciation (cf. code switching). Thus, PSM in MSC seems to be a case of choosing the ‘lesser evil’ (given that the coiner is interested in retaining a similar sound to the SL expression). In the case of brand names, there are additional motivations involved. First, the desire to attract customers with a catchy name, which will be easy to remember (cf. Advantage 3 above). Second, the wish to exploit many speakers’ belief that there is something intrinsic about the sound of proper names. This very same motivation is exemplified by the long-standing pre-MSC tradition of phono-semantically matching country names. 24 A classic example is 美 国 MSC měiguó, a PSM of America, consisting of 美 měi ‘beautiful, pretty’ and 国 guó ‘country, state’; cf. Cantonese meiko(k).25 In many Chinese toponymic PSMs (and my lists include dozens), the characters were chosen on the basis of political expediency, mostly to be flattering to the country whose name was being matched, i.e. they were politically correct. Contrast 美国 MSC měiguó ‘America’ with the pseudo-Aramaic, Modern Hebrew witticism (Israeli amá reká), lit. ‘empty nation’, which was utilized in some Hebrew texts to ridicule America, cf. in the opening page of Gershon Rosenzweig’s satirical Massékhet Amérika (Tractate America) from the collection Talmud Yanka’i, which was published in Vilna in 1894 – cf. Ben-Yishai (1971: 127); for discussion, see Zuckermann (2002, 2004) and Nissan (ms). This expression was modelled after Rabbinic Hebrew (Aramaic) nation.26 [÷am»må p´zò»zå], lit. ‘hasty nation’, which appears in the Talmud: Kethuboth 112a, referring to the youthfully thoughtless Israeli
    
    300
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    The above examples, ranging from Israeli to Mandarin, demonstrate that various motivations for PSM, cultural and structural, lay and scholarly, occur consistently across diverse language typologies. The universality of these motivations leads us to examine the theoretical and cultural implications of multisourced neologization.
    5 Theoretical and cultural implications
    Alle Dinge, die lange leben, werden allmählich so mit Vernunft durchtränkt, dass ihre Abkunft aus der Unvernunft dadurch unwahrscheinlich wird. Klingt nicht fast jede genaue Geschichte einer Entstehung für das Gefühl paradox und frevelhaft? 27 (Nietzsche 1881: Book I: Section 1, cf. 1971: V:i:15)
    
    5.1 Popular etymology
    
    [pūq Jzī maj ÷ammå d´b=ar] ‘Go out and see how the people conduct themselves’ (Aramaic, Talmud: B’rakhoth 45a)
    
    Despite significant recent developments in the study of popular etymology, for example, within cognitive and cultural linguistics (e.g. Holland and Quinn 1987, Coates 1987, Sweetser 1990), some linguists still regard any study related to folketymology as ‘boudoiresque’ or apocryphal. As shown by my discussion of the importance of popular etymology in multisourced neologisms, it is time to overcome this prejudice and to realize that popular etymology shapes speakers’ perceptions and the connotations of words, and thus influences people’s actual lives. Consider, for example, the tradition in some western Ashkenazic Jewish communities of eating cabbage soup on Hoshana Raba (the seventh day of the Sukkoth holiday, when each person’s fate for the coming year is irrevocably sealed in Heaven). The reason for this is that the name of the Jewish prayer recited on this occasion, Hebrew , lit. ‘a voice announcing’, pronounced in ' kol m’ vás´r) ‘cabbage Ashkenazic Hebrew kol meváser, was playfully reinterpreted as Western Yiddish koul mit vás´r (cf. Yiddish with water’, cf. German Kohl mit Wasser (cf. Weinreich 1973: i:7, 192). Consider also Swedish Vår fru dagen, lit. ‘Our Lady’s Day’, which used to be the signifier for Lady Day (25 March), the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is allegedly the day on which the Virgin Mary was told that she was going to give birth to Jesus – exactly nine months before Christmas. Throughout time Swedish Vårfrudagen has been reinterpreted as Våffeldagen, lit. ‘Waffle
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    301
    
    Day’. Consequently, on that day Swedes traditionally eat waffles with jam or cream. The waffles are sometimes heart-shaped, and those who still know about the connection with the Virgin Mary might rationalize the form in terms of the Virgin Mary’s heart. Such shifts in reality alone render popular etymology a worthy subject for research. Naphtali Herz Torczyner, who acted as the last president of the Hebrew Language Council (1942-9) and the first president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (1953-73), wrote in 1938:
    ¯ . ' '" . Our ancestors interpreted ktav hanishteván as ‘script that has been changed’ [mislinking nishteván with nishtaná ‘changed’], divided the word pat-bag into two and found within it the Hebrew word pat ‘bread’, and so on. These homiletic interpretations are far from the linguistic truth, in the same way as the interpretations of the Persian proper names in the Old Testament, so that even the name of the son of Haman the Wicked, Parshandáta, became a name of glory, the famous parshán hadát [‘interpreter of religion’], for Rashi. These are nothing but rhetorical games [cf. melitzah, an intertextual citational style] and not part of the living and true language. (Torczyner 1938: 8) ,' ¯' ¯ . ¯ ,' , '
    
    Whilst I agree that such ‘homiletic interpretations are far from the linguistic truth’, such ‘games of rhetoric’ are, in fact, an integral part of the ‘living and true language’. In an article punningly entitled balshanút uvatlanút (i.e. ‘Linguistics and Idleness’), Torczyner – after phonetically matching his surname to Tur-Sinai (lit. ‘Mount Sinai) – scorns laymen who think that German privat is derived from Hebrew (Israeli pratí) ‘private’ (see Tur-Sinai 1950: 5). While Tur-Sinai’s criticism is etymologically justified, he does not think to ask whether such coincidental similarity can actually affect language itself, and not only metalanguage. Thus, the internationalism private increased the use of (Hebrew>) Israeli pratí ‘private’. Torczyner, like many other good linguists, is blinded by an indoctrinated linguistic desire to repremand laymen for linguistic ignorance. The result is insensitivity, neglecting the fact that the subject of the matter, language, is, after all, spoken and shaped by these very laymen. The linguistic analysis of popular etymology should not restrict itself to discussing cases of mistaken derivation because popular etymology often results in a new sememe/lexeme, as we have seen in the PSMs analysed throughout this paper. Most importantly, folk-etymological methods are often employed by very august, scholarly, puristic language planners, especially within the highly prescriptive Hebrew Language Council and the Academy of the Hebrew
    
    302
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    Language – both headed at different stages by Torczyner/Tur-Sinai himself, as well as by puristic Turkish language revolutionizers. The following is an example of a recent creational PSM, which was officially introduced on 22 May 2000 in Session 254 of the Academy of the Hebrew Language: Israeli reservoir of underground water’ is based ) internationalism aquifer and (ii) (Biblical) Hebrew (water)’, cf. (Biblical Hebrew>>) Israeli ( akvá ‘aquifer, on (i) the simultaneously
    
    √qwh ‘collect/gather [miq»wå]
    
    mikvé máim ‘watering hole,
    
    reservoir, collection (of water), mikveh’, and Biblical Hebrew
    
    ‘water reservoir’. Thus, the distinction between créations savantes and créations populaires is not so categorical since many créations savantes are in fact ‘populaire’ and many créations populaires are indeed ‘savant’. PSM is a form of camouflaged borrowing which differs from other externally based sources of lexicon-enrichment such as unassimilated borrowing, phonetic adaptation, morphemic adaptation and calquing. PSM, which usually goes unnoticed by unsophisticated speakers (especially those of later generations), has introduced a substantial number of new sememes and lexemes in Israeli, as well as other languages such as Turkish, Chinese, Japanese and Yiddish itself (see Zuckermann 2000). In the case of Israeli, it reinforces the view that Israeli has been covertly dependent on Germanic and Slavonic languages, mostly Yiddish, but also Russian, Polish, German and English. The examples presented in this paper (polychronically analysed), as well as the dozens more discussed by Zuckermann (2000), prove that PSM is significantly widespread, the extent being remarkable both in absolute terms (200 PSMs out of several thousand neologisms) and in relative terms, i.e. taking into account the fact that the majority of SL words do not have a parallel TL element which may coincide on both phonetic and semantic levels. Such a constraint does not usually apply to calquing, morpho-phonemic adaptation and mere neologization. Hence 200 PSMs in Israeli (over and above their hundreds of secondary derivatives, as well as many toponyms and anthroponyms – see Zuckermann 2000) is a significant number. Discussing Turkish examples of PSM, Deny (1935: 246) claims that such neologisms are entirely ‘without precedent in the annals of linguistics’. This paper corrects that statement. Furthermore, Heyd (1954: 92) says that ‘Modern Hebrew, too, tried, for a short period and without much success, to follow the same road, forming words like khòlirá [ , lit. ‘bad disease’] for cholera, pràtey-kól [ ¯, lit. ‘details of everything’] for protocol, etc.’. Heyd underestimates the power of PSM. The cases collected and analysed throughout Zuckermann (2000) clearly
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    303
    
    show that PSM is an important phenomenon. It is difficult to provide a detailed chronology of the specific periods in which Israeli PSMs were favoured. However, throughout the Hebrew ‘revival’, PSM was a very common method of neologization. For example, it was used heavily by (1) Shalom Abramowitsch (a.k.a. Mendele Móykher-Sfórim, 1835-1917), the ‘Grandfather of Israeli’ and the father of modern literary Hebrew (on the crucial role of Mendele in the formation of Israeli, see Patterson 1962 and Kutscher 1982: 190ff, as well as Zuckermann 2000, 2003); (2) Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (1858-1922), the ‘Father of Israeli’, whose interest in Hebrew and Zionism began after he had read Daniel Deronda (1876), George Eliot’s Zionist novel, thus providing a Judaic channel for his Russian nationalism and Slavophilia, which had in turn been created under the influence of the Russo-Turkish war in the Balkans in 1877-8, cf. Harshav (1993: 55). Opposition to PSM arose later on (see Zuckermann 2000: 148-9), but, as we have just seen with Israeli akvá ‘aquifer’, PSM is still widely used by the Academy of the Hebrew Language today. This paper shows the power of serendipity: coincidental phonetic similarity induces PSM, which might result, among other things, in the revival of an obsolete morpheme (e.g. root, nounpattern) or lexeme.
    5.2 Camouflage linguistics
    
    This paper offers a new avenue of linguistic research, one which focuses on camouflaged interactions between languages.
    28
    
    The influence of folk-
    
    etymological camouflaged borrowing does not end with the PSM itself since the latter often produces dozens of secondary (and tertiary) derivatives. Consider Israeli ¯ mekhoná ‘machine’, a PSM by semantic shifting of the ¯ [m´k=¿»nå] ‘base’ (e.g. I ¯ internationalism machine, based on Biblical Hebrew
    
    Kings 7: 27, 30, 35; Ezra 3:3). This PSM has resulted in a secondary root, ¯ √mkn ‘(to) machine, add machines, mechanize’, and in many nouns, e.g. 16; Ben-Avi 1951; most probably a nominalization of the adjective in agalá mekhonít ‘automobile’, lit. ‘mechanical wagon’, as opposed to agalá khashmalít ‘tram’, lit. ‘electric wagon’, cf. Sivan 1978: 213), mekhonaút ‘mechanics’, ¯ mekhonáy ‘mechanic’. ¯ ¯ mekhonít ‘car’ (coined by Itamar, Ben-Yehuda’s son, in 1911, cf. Sivan 1981b:
    
    Dealing with Israeli, some linguists regard morphology as the study of noun-patterns, verb-patterns and affixes, while the study of roots is a part of
    
    304
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    etymology. The beauty of PSM is that Yiddish, as well as other non-Semitic languages, not only dictates the choice of root but also the choice of noun-pattern. Thus, the ée noun-pattern was chosen for téka ‘plug’ (cf. §3.2) and lahít méser ‘message’ in order to imitate the sound of German Stecker / Yiddish shték´r ‘plug’ and English message respectively. 29 Israeli (puristically lehít, but this form is already used by Israelis as a clipping of lehitraót, lit. ‘to see each other’, i.e. ‘goodbye’) ‘hit, popular song’ is fitted into the aí (cf. (´)í) noun-pattern because of English hit. Furthermore, mivdók ‘dock’, which was obviously motivated by the wish to maintain the sound of dock, might have improved the productivity of the mió nounpattern. Thus, PSM can act as a filter dictating which linguistic element will endure. Such a process has huge theoretical importance since it implies that the survival of some morphemes (in this case suffixes, noun-patterns and verbpatterns) is determined by parameters outside the language itself. Similar is the preference for a certain verb-pattern or noun-pattern in order to preserve the SL cluster. More specifically, the Hebrew ié verb-pattern is the most productive verb-pattern in Israeli because it makes it possible to preserve foreign clusters.
    5.3 Linguistic gender
    
    Trudgill (1998), inter alios, compares linguistic gender to male nipples, implying that it has neither purpose nor function. Although his analogy is flawed (since the male nipple is an erogenous zone for many men), most linguists might agree with his general intent. Israeli However, ‘camouflage linguistics’ can prove that mis’éret diachronically, linguistic gender can make a difference. Consider the common mivréshet ‘brush’ and the obsolete Israeli ‘(originally) brush, (later) soft brush consisting of long hair’, both of which are feminine. I believe that the choice of the feminine noun-pattern miéet was induced by the gender of Yiddish barsht (f), German Bürste (f) and French [»mabraSa] / brosse (f), all meaning ‘brush’; cf. Vernacular Arabic
    
    [»mabraSe] (f) ‘grater’, Russian щётка shchëêtka (f), Polish szczotka (f) ‘brush’ and Russian кисть kist’ (f) ‘painting brush’. The table below presents the various forms:
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    305
    
    Table 1
    Israeli mivréshet (feminine) Arabic [»mabraSa] (feminine) English brush Yiddish barsht (feminine) Russian щётка shchëêtka (f); кисть kist’ (f) ‘painting brush’ Polish szczotka (feminine) German Bürste (feminine) French brosse (feminine)
    
    Note that although the miéet noun-pattern is indeed used for instruments, there were other possible suitable noun-patterns, consider noun-pattern (resulting in ) of Yiddish coinage was Israeli Similarly, Israeli *mavrésh and *mivrásh – both masculine. One might say that the choice of the miéet mivréshet) was induced by the [t] (the sound of barsht ‘brush’. However, this does not weaken the hypothesis mivrashá, fitted into the miaá noun-pattern, the mivréshet came later. bet sfarím, sifriá ‘library’ was preferred to
    
    that the gender played a crucial role since Ben-Yehuda’s original form of this latter lacking [t] but still feminine. Israeli
    
    lit. ‘house of books’. Some intra-Israeli reasons might have been the wish to (a) rid Israeli of maskilic (Enlightenment) compounds, (b) streamline the word for convenience, or (c) prevent a possible confusion with
    30
    
    bet séfer, lit. ‘house
    
    of book’, referring to ‘school’. However, there was also a camouflaged external reason: sifriá is feminine, thus maintaining the gender of the parallel biblioték (f), Russian библиотека [»maktaba] ‘library’ played a role European lexical items – cf. Yiddish (f). Perhaps the feminine gender of Arabic
    
    bibliotéka (f), Polish biblioteka (f), German Bibliothek (f) and French bibliothèque as well. One might say that this camouflaged foreign influence is only lexical. However, one of the results of this mere neologism might have been, more generally, the strengthening of Israeli - -iá as a productive feminine locative suffix (consider also the combined influence of Polish -ja and Russian -ия -iya) and – most importantly – the weakening of the productivity of the construct state (smikhút), which is also reinforced by the general transition from a synthetic to an analytic structure, e.g. ába sheli, is currently more common that aví, both meaning ‘my father’. Future research should be conducted on ‘Camouflaged Grammatical Borrowing: Language Contact and Linguistic Gender’. One direction could be the analysis of the linguistic gender of borrowings in immigrant societies. For example, morphemic adaptations of English words into American Italian or British Italian often carry the gender of the parallel word in Italian itself, e.g. British Italian bagga ‘bag’ (f), induced by Italian borsa ‘id.’ (f). The reverse
    
    306
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    phenomenon often occurs, for example when an Italian-speaker subconsciously ‘changes’ the gender of pre-existing words in Israeli according to the Italian parallels.
    5.4 Classification of borrowing
    
    PSM does not (only) involve induction but rather borrowing. However, it does not fall discretely into either of the traditional categories of borrowing, which are substitution and importation. Therefore, a radical change in such classifications of borrowing is needed. Not only should PSM be added to the traditional classifications but, in this era of globalization and widespread communication in general and of internationalisms and ‘reinvented’ languages in particular, the categories of borrowing also need to be redefined.31 Haugen, although written as long ago as 1950, is considered by some to have presented the most complex typology of lexical borrowing (cf. Appel and Muysken 1987: 164). He did indeed manage to create order within the earlier confusing terminology. However, his treatment has the following shortcomings with regard to PSM: 1. OMISSION: Despite the fact that PSM is a common source of lexiconenrichment derived from language contact,32 it is hardly mentioned in Haugen (1950). He only briefly discusses ‘semantic loan’ (1950: 214), which is related to only one specific category of PSM, namely ‘phono-semantic matching by semantic shifting’, thus excluding, for example, the creational PSM mishkafáim ‘glasses’ (see §1). Furthermore, he seems to have had in mind only one of many cases belonging to this category; namely that in which the semantically shifted TL lexical item is a (surface) cognate of the SL word. Consider the following: • (American) Portuguese humoroso ‘capricious’ changed its referent to ‘humorous, funny’ owing to the English surface-cognate humorous (Haugen 1950: 214), cf. Portuguese humoristico ‘humorous’. • French réaliser ‘actualize, make real’ is increasingly used to mean ‘realize, conceive, apprehend’ – induced by English realize (Deroy 1956: 59), which derives from Italian realizzare or from the original French réaliser. • French toster ‘grill, roast’ took on in 1750 the additional sense ‘drink in honour of (a person or thing)’ – influenced by English toast (Deroy 1956:
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    307
    
    62), which goes back to Old French toster (twelfth century; Oxford English Dictionary). Only in the nineteenth century did toster ‘drink in honour of’ begin to be spelled toaster. Even the term ‘semantic loan’, as Haugen himself admits, is flawed, since according to his use of ‘semantic’, all the other loans are also semantic (the TL lexical item preserves the meaning of the SL lexical item), the only difference being that in the case of the so-called ‘semantic loan’, the only detectable evidence of borrowing is its new meaning. 2. INAPPROPRIATE CATEGORIZATION: A much more serious problem than the aforementioned neglect of PSM is the fact that PSM does not fall within Haugen’s main types of borrowing – substitution and importation – since PSM is a special case of simultaneous substitution and importation.
    5.5 Historical contact linguistics
    
    PSM is a biparental creation, which operates outside the conventional laws of sound change. Thus, it should be taken into consideration alongside these laws. This paper develops a polychronic (i.e. both diachronic and synchronic) method of lexical analysis, combining philological work with a sociolinguistic approach. One might argue that my use of polychronic is similar to that of the alreadyexistent diachronic in its broad sense since the latter ipso facto includes synchronic analysis. However, traditional philology is often not interested in the culturally motivated intermediate stages of the modern lexical items it analyses. As the study of PSM shows, there is a serious need to record not only the earliest documentations, but also the socio-cultural background and inter-cultural context of neologisms. I believe that polychronicity should also be the model for linguists dealing with any other aspect of language change. When one encounters a lexical item which is similar in both meaning and sound to a word in another language, the following possible analyses have traditionally been available: (i) the two words are real cognates; (ii) one word was borrowed from the other (as foreign word, loanword, phonetic adaptation or morphemic adaptation); (iii) they are both independently a result of onomatopoeia; (iv) the phonetic similarity is mere coincidence. This paper adds another possibility: (v) one word is a PSM of the other.
    
    308
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    Whilst foreign influence in syntax and morphology is concealed, it is commonly considered to be transparent in the case of lexicon. This paper, however, proves that vocabulary itself can conceal foreign impact effectively.
    6 Conclusion
    
    We have seen that, with regard to language typology, PSM is widespread in two categories of language: (i) ‘reinvented’ languages, in which language planners attempt to replace undesirable loanwords; and (ii) languages using phonologographic script. An additional category is (iii) minority languages or those spoken by stateless cultures. Whilst PSM in (i) and (iii) is mainly motivated by sociolinguistic factors, the major incentive for PSM in (ii) is orthography, which I regard as language-internal. Israeli, specifically, seems a fertile ground for PSM since, historically and linguistically, it possesses not only traits that are characteristic of (i) but also morphological inventory traits which are similar to the main PSM-related characteristic of (ii) (see §3.2). Israeli’s historical circumstances also resemble those shared by minority languages (see Zuckermann 2000: 285-91), as well as by pidgins and creoles (ibid.: 320-3). I have analysed in §3 and §4 the typological characteristics predisposing a language to PSM, as well as of the various motivations across language typological categories. As contemporary research shows (e.g. Zuckermann forthcoming), the concept of hybridization, or hybridity, is useful not only in lexicology, but also in the analysis of genetic classification of languages, as well as cultural studies. In fact, PSM reflects cultural and social interactions and often manifests the attempt of a culture to preserve its identity when confronted with an overpowering environment (e.g. American influence), without segregating itself from possible influences. In this new millennium, communications technology facilitates everincreasing contact between languages and cultures. With the influence of satellite television and the Internet, the mobility of words is reaching an unprecedented level. The study of the dynamics of language contact can hardly be more timely. Notes
    1 2
    
    Russian очки ochkí, Polish okulary [oku»larI] ‘glasses’. While compounds were favoured by the Haskalah writers (of the Enlightenment movement, 1770s-
    
    1880s), the ‘revivers’ of Hebrew – for ideological reasons – often attempted to replace them (see §5.3).
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    309
    
    3
    
    Before revealing the Greek co-etymon, Hazan says: ¯ , ¯ ¯
    
    – √Sqp? – Let us not
    
    .
    
    ‘But why have I chosen the root
    
    be too pedantic, because a preoccupation with such minutiae will only obstruct our path to new words.’
    4
    
    Jastrow (1903: 1625a) suggests that the ultimate etymon of Biblical Hebrew √qp (hence a possible relation to Biblical Hebrew √qpħ, √qph,
    
    √Sqp ‘bend, arch, lean √qp/, √qpj ‘arch,
    
    towards’ is
    
    bend’) fitted into the shaé verb-pattern. However, this verb-pattern is usually causative, cf. Hebrew ¯ √Slk ‘cast off, throw down, cause to go’ < ¯ √lk ‘go’, as well as wet’ < *spek-.
    5
    
    √S p ‘wash, rinse, cause something to be
    
    √ p ‘wet’. Ancient Greek σκοπέω skopéō is traceable to PIE *skep- ‘look’, a metathetical form of PIE
    
    I use the new coinage Israeli rather than Modern Hebrew. The genetic classification of Israeli – which is
    
    far beyond the scope of this article (see Zuckermann 1999, forthcoming) – has preoccupied linguists since the language emerged in Eretz Yisrael (Palestine) at the beginning of the twentieth century. The still prevalent, traditional view suggests that Israeli is Semitic: (Biblical/Mishnaic) Hebrew revived. The revisionist position defines Israeli as Indo-European: Yiddish relexified (cf. Horvath and Wexler 1997), i.e. Yiddish, the ‘revivalists’’ mother tongue, is the substratum whilst Hebrew is only a superstratum. My own mosaic (rather than Mosaic) hypothesis is that Israeli is simultaneously both Semitic and Indo-European; both Hebrew and Yiddish act as its primary contributors (rather than substrata). Therefore, the term Israeli is far more appropriate than Israeli Hebrew, let alone Modern Hebrew or Hebrew (tout court). It could be argued that the term Israeli is anachronistic because it equates the emergence of the language with the post-1948 nation state. However, this need not be the case. After all, Italian was also spoken before the Italian state came into existence.
    6
    
    Other possibilities might have been
    
    *mabatáim, from
    
    mabát ‘look (n)’;
    
    *iguláim, from khalón
    
    igúl ‘circle’ (cf. the Israeli slangism ‘window’; prior to ‘eye’ (cf.
    7
    
    iguládim ‘glasses’);
    
    *khaloniót, from
    
    ¯ ¯ zkhukhitáim, from mishkafáim);
    
    ¯ ¯ zkhukhít ‘glass’ ( *pishpasháim, from
    
    ¯ ¯ zkhukhitáim was actually used in Jerusalem pishpásh ‘wicket’; and eyniót, from áin
    
    eynít ‘eye-piece, ocular’ in Even-Shoshan 1997: 1318b).
    
    cf. the Stammbaum model, or the family tree, devised by comparative philologists in the nineteenth
    
    century to represent relationships between languages. For example, Sanskrit is a ‘daughter’ of Proto-IndoEuropean.
    8
    
    In Ben-Yehuda (1909-59: vii:3418b)
    
    mishkéfet is defined as ‘télescope’ but said to be used also
    
    as ‘lorgnette’ (‘spyglass’).
    9
    
    Here, as well as throughout this paper, neologism is used in its broader meaning, i.e. either an entirely
    
    new lexeme or a pre-existent word whose meaning has been altered, resulting in a new sememe.
    10
    
    Basing the term on
    
    tatslúl, Rosen (1994: 86) uses
    
    khatslúl, an acronym for
    
    khikúy tslilím ‘sound imitation’ in order to refer to morphemic adaptation.
    
    310
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    11
    
    Miller (1967: 253) claims that the co-etymon of sebiro is English civil, suggesting that in the early
    
    Meiji Period (1868-1912, cf. Nelson 1997: 1256b), Japanese civil servants and public officials had to wear Western clothing. However, note that the ‘Western civil clothing’ which Miller discusses was more likely to
    
    Kindaichi et al. (1975: xxii:66) also mention the toponym Cheviot as a co-etymon. I assume that this refers to the Cheviot Hills in Scotland and northern England, which produce good quality wool. Note that under normal circumstances of phonetic adaptation, English civil should have been recalibrated as *shibiru, in which the palatalization of /s/ is due to the [i] which follows it. This, however, does not necessarily rule out the possibility of civil because PSM, being lexical, can violate phonetic laws. Furthermore, following the Congruence Principle (Zuckermann 2003), more than one of the above sources could have contributed at the same time.
    12
    
    The terms pleremic and cenemic are referred to by French (1976: 118), Haas (1976) and Coulmas
    
    (1989 passim, 1999: 71, 408). They are based on Hjelmslev’s 1938 plérématique and cénématique (cf. Hjelmslev 1959: 152). For relevant discussions of Chinese orthography, see also Haas (1983), Norman (1988) and Frellesvig (1996).
    13
    
    Israeli
    
    mivdók ‘dock, shipyard’ alone usually refers to dry/graving dock, cf. the marked form mivdók with Israeli mispán ‘dock’, mentioned in mitspór
    
    mivdók tsaf ‘floating dock’. Compare
    
    Lešonénu 18 (3-4): 240b (1953). Another word fitted into the mió noun-pattern is Israeli ‘lookout (point) (with bird’s eye view)’, cf. (Hebrew>) Israeli
    14
    
    cf. Israeli
    
    miltashá ‘diamond-polishing workshop’ and Israeli
    
    mivdaká ‘censor’s office, testing laboratory’ is not in common use.
    15
    
    cf. Israeli
    
    mitbakháim ‘slaughterhouse’. I do not mention miá because Israeli
    
    most probably existed previously with the meaning ‘check, test’; the lexicographic meaning ‘test material’ (cf. Even-Shoshan 1997: 840a) is uncommon.
    16
    
    Note the Israeli minimal pair
    
    téka ‘plug’ and
    
    shtéka ‘plug or socket’, phonetically similar to German Stecker ‘plug’ and Yiddish
    17
    
    Note, however, that in the verbal system, σiσe – or ()()i()()é() (a.k.a. piél) – is
    
    currently the most productive verb-pattern in Israeli (cf. Wexler 1990: 85-6 and Bat-El 1994). The reason is the ease of inserting foreign consonants, which would thus constitute a camouflaged foreign influence on Israeli morphology. Bat-El (1994) introduces a novel approach according to which such verbs are based on the SL lexical item rather than on its naturalized root within Israeli. In other words, not derive from the root (cf. Israeli lemagnét ‘to magnetize’ does
    
    √mgn„ fitted into the σiσe verb-pattern, but rather from the internationalism magnet
    
    magnét) fitted into this specific verb-pattern in order to retain the foreign cluster. This view
    
    might weaken the Semiticness of Israeli morphology since the root system (which in this view does not play a role here) is one of the most fundamental elements of Hebrew and the other Semitic languages.
    18
    
    cf. Arabic ّ
    
    ‫ا‬
    
    ‫/[ ا‬al»÷amalu ttiqa»nijju] ‘the technical work’, pronounced thus in Nazareth.
    
    広背
    
    have looked like a collared military uniform, while
    
    sebiro refers to a fashionable, tailored blazer or jacket.
    
    tsipór ‘bird’. mispaná ‘dockyard’. Israeli
    
    mivdák
    
    shéka ‘socket’, cf. the obsolete ColloqI ‘id.’.
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    311
    
    19
    
    I have encountered native Arabic-speakers who, unaware of Arabic ّ ‫»[ ﺕ‬taqni], when confronted with ‫»[ ﺕ‬takni] ‘technical’.
    
    the internationalism technical, naturally transposed the latter into ّ
    20
    
    In the last example, one can also observe Greek τ (t) being transposed into the emphatic ‫ ]„[ ط‬rather
    
    than into ‫[ ت‬t]. However – as in the case of a foreign k, which can be transposed either into ‫[ ك‬k] or into the emphatic/pharyngeal ‫[ ق‬q] – in modern times the non-emphatic ‫[ ت‬t], like ‫[ ك‬k], is preferred; see Arabic ‫ﺕ ﻥ س‬ [»ti:ta:nu:s] ‘tetanus’, from the internationalism tetanus.
    21
    
    Alterman:
    
    nekabél otám behatsdaá vesilúd ‘We shall welcome them with a silúd hanasí ‘the president’s
    
    salute and silúd’; Kna’ani (1960-89: 4049; 1998: 4031a) mentions salute’ as having appeared in newspapers.
    22
    
    cf. Zikhronot Va’ad HaLashon 4 (1914: 42). A similar view by Mazia can be found in Zikhronot Va’ad
    
    HaLashon 6 (1928: 85).
    23
    
    The internationalism tourist (cf. Israeli
    
    turíst) is used as the ‘nativizing material’ in the case of
    
    the slangism
    
    turíst ‘digger, someone working with a large bladed hoe’ (see Sappan 1971: 35a), a jocular turíya ‘a large bladed hoe, mattock’
    
    adaptation of tourist to mean somone using a turíya – cf. Israeli (>) Israeli
    
    dakhpór ‘bulldozer’ – from (Rabbinic Hebrew>>) Israeli
    
    √ħpr ‘dig’ – which is an internal source of lexicon-enrichment and therefore outside the scope of Haugen’s research.
    
    References
    Akadém (The Bulletin of the Academy of the Hebrew Language) 1993-2000 (Issues 1-15). Einat Gonen (ed., 5-15). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. Aksoy, Ömer Asim 1965. Atasözleri ve Deyimler (Proverbs and Sayings ) (=Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 238; Turkish Language Society Publications 238). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basimevi (Ankara University Press). Alterman, Nathan 1963. ktavím (vol. iii): hatúr hashvií t.S.j.d.-t.S.k.b. (Written Works, vol. iii: The ‘Seventh Column’ 1954-62). Hakibbutz Hameuchad; Davar. Atay, Falih RIfkI 1965. ‘“Hüküm” NasIl Kurtuldu?’ (How Was the Word hüküm ‘judgement’ II Saved?). Dünya (World) (16 May). Atay, Falih RIfkI 1969. Çankaya. Istanbul: Do~an Kardeş. II Avinery, Isaac 1946. kibushéy haivrít bedorénu (The Achievements of Modern Hebrew). Palestine: ‘Sifriat Poalim’ Workers’ Book-Guild. Backhouse, A. (Tony) E. 1993. The Japanese Language: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bar-Asher, Moshe 1995. ‘al kharóshet hamilím beváad halashón uvaakadémya lalashón haivrít’ (‘Fabrication’ of Words by the Hebrew Language Council and the Academy of the Hebrew Language). Leshonenu La'am 47 (1): 3-18. Bat-El, Outi 1994. ‘Stem Modification and Cluster Transfer in Modern Hebrew’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 571-96.
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    313
    
    Belleten…1996… Ankara: Tu_rk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi (Turkish History Society Publishing House) Ben-Avi, Itamar 1951. Itamar Ben-Avi’s Letter to Daniel Persky, in Sivan 1981a. Ben-Yehuda, Eliezer 1909-59. milón halashón haivrít hayeshaná vehakhadashá (A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew). Tel Aviv: La‘am; Jerusalem: Hemda and Ehud Ben-Yehuda; New York – London: Thomas Yoseloff. (16 vols plus an introductory volume) Ben-Yishai, Aharon Zeev 1971. ‘Parody, Hebrew’ in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter, vol. xiii, pp. 124-40. Betz, Werner 1945. ‘Die Lehnbildungen und der Abendländischen Sprachenausgleich’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 67: 275-302. Betz, Werner 1949. Deutsch und Lateinisch: Die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel. Bonn: H. Bouvier. Blau, Joshua 1981. The Renaissance of Modern Hebrew and Modern Standard Arabic: Parallels and Differences in the Revival of Two Semitic Languages. (=Near Eastern Studies, vol. xviii). Berkeley – Los Angeles – London: University of California Press. Carstensen, Broder 1968. ‘Zur Systematik und Terminologie deutsch-englischer Lehnbeziehungen’ in Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1967, H. E. Brekle and L. Lipka (eds), The Hague – Paris: Mouton, pp. 32-45. Clyne, Michael 1967. Transference and Triggering: Observations on the Language Assimilation of Postwar German-Speaking Migrants in Australia. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Coates, Richard 1987. ‘Pragmatic Sources of Analogical Reformation’. Journal of Linguistics 23: 319-40. Coulmas, Florian 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Coulmas, Florian 1999. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. (First published in 1996) DeFrancis, John 1984. The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Deny, Jean 1935. ‘La réforme actuelle de la langue turque’ in En Terre d’Islam, Paris, pp. 223-47. Deroy, Louis 1956. L’Emprunt linguistique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Eliot, George 1876. Daniel Deronda. Edinburgh: William Blackwood. Even-Shoshan, Avraham 1997. hamilón hekhadásh – hamahadurá hameshulévet (The New Dictionary – The Combined Version). Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer. (5 vols) Frellesvig, Bjarke 1993. ‘On the Misconception that Kanzi are Ideograms and Some General Implications for the Teaching and Learning of Kanzi’ in Proceedings of Nordic Syposium on Teaching Japanese Methods and Improvements (21-3 August), Tokai University European Center – Tokai University Foreign Student Education Center – The Department of Asian Studies, University of Copenhagen, pp. 94-103. Frellesvig, Bjarke 1996. ‘On the Interpretation of Written Sources as Evidence for the Phonology of Earlier Language Stages – with Special Regard to the Reconstruction of Early Old Japanese’. Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 97-130.
    
    314
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    French, M. A. 1976. ‘Observations on the Chinese Script and the Classification of WritingSystems’ in Writing without Letters (=Mont Follick Series iv), William Haas (ed.), Manchester: Manchester University Press – Totowa (NJ): Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 10129. Gusmani, Roberto 1973. Aspetti del prestito linguistico. Napoli: Libreria scientifica editrice. (=Collana di Studi Classici, xv) Haas, William 1976. ‘Writing: The Basic Options’ in Writing without Letters (=Mont Follick Series iv), William Haas (ed.), Manchester: Manchester University Press – Totowa (NJ): Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 131-208. Haas, William 1983. ‘Determining the Level of Script’ in Part 1 (Linguistic Aspects of Writing) of Writing in Focus (=Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 24), Florian Coulmas and Konrad Ehlich (eds), Berlin – New York – Amsterdam: Mouton, pp. 15-29. Haffenden, John 1985. Novelists in Interview. London – New York: Methuen. Hagège, Claude 1986. L’homme de paroles: Contribution linguistique aux sciences humaines. Paris: Arthème Fayard. Hansell, Mark Donald 1989. ‘Lexical Borrowing in Taiwan’. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Hansell, Mark Donald ms (2000). ‘Phonetic Fidelity vs. Suggestive Semantics: Hanzi Choice in the Writing of Loanwords’. Harshav, Benjamin 1993. Language in Time of Revolution. Stanford (California): Stanford University Press. Haugen, Einar (Ingvald) 1950. ‘The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing’. Language 26: 210-31. Baltimore: Waverly. Haugen, Einar (Ingvald) 1953. The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (2 vols) Haugen, Einar (Ingvald) 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas: A Bibliography and Research Guide. Alabama: American Dialect Society. Haugen, Einar (Ingvald) 1973. ‘Bilingualism, Language Contact and Immigrant Languages in the United States: A Research Report 1956-70’ in Current Trends in Linguistics, T. A. Sebeok (ed.), The Hague – Paris, vol. x, pp. 505-91. Hazan, Chaim Leib (Arye) 27 April 1890. ‘tsáad lefaním leharkhív sfat éver’ (One step forwards – to expand the Language of Hebrew). HaZefira: Year 17, Issue 84, p. 4. Ch. S. Slonimsky and N. Sokolov (eds). Warsaw. (This is the third and last part of Hazan’s article; the first two parts appeared in HaZefira 17 (74), 15 April 1890; and in HaZefira 17 (79), 21 April 1890) Heath, J. 1994. ‘Borrowing’ in The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds), Oxford – New York – Seoul – Tokyo: Pergamon Press, vol. i, pp. 383b-94a. Heyd, Uriel 1954. Language Reform in Modern Turkey. Jerusalem: The Israel Oriental Society. Hjelmslev, Louis 1959. ‘Essai d’une théorie des morphèmes’ in Essais Linguistiques (=Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague XII), Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag (Nordic Language and Culture Publishing House), pp. 152-64. Hock, Hans Henrich 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin – New York – Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    315
    
    Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn (eds) 1987. Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hony, H. C., Fahir èz and A. D. Alderson (eds) 1992. The Oxford Turkish-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OTED] Horvath, Julia and Wexler, Paul (eds.) 1997. Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole Languages – With Special Attention to Haitian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Romani, and Rumanian (=Mediterranean Language and Culture Monograph Series, vol. xiii). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jastrow, Marcus 1903. A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Jerusalem: Horev. Kindaichi, Kyōsuke, Izuru Nòmura, M. Nishio et al. (eds) 1975. Nihon Kokugo Dai Jiten (Japan ò National Language Big Dictionary). Tokyo: Sh¿gakukan. Klausner, Joseph G. 1940.‘khamishím shaná shel váad halashón’ (Fifty Years of the Hebrew Language Council). Lešonénu 10 (4): 278-89. Kna’ani, Ya’akov 1960-89. otsár halashón haivrít (The Hebrew Language Thesaurus). Jerusalem – Ramat Gan – Givatayim: Massadah. (18 vols) Kna’ani, Ya’akov 1989. milón khidushéy shlónski (Dictionary of Shlonsky’s Neologisms). Tel Aviv: Poalim. Kna’ani, Ya’akov 1998. hamilón haivrí hamalé (The Comprehensive Hebrew Dictionary). Israel: Milonim Laam. (7 vols) (Revised edition of Kna’ani 1960-89) Kronfeld, Chana 1996. On the Margins of Modernism: Decentering Literary Dynamics. Berkeley – London: University of California Press. Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel 1965. milím vetoldotehén (Words and their History). Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher. (Originally: 1961) Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel 1982. A History of the Hebrew Language. R. Kutscher (ed.). Jerusalem: Magnes. Lešonénu (Our Language) 1928-2002 (A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects). Joshua Blau (current ed.). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. Lewis, Geoffey L. 1982. Teach Yourself Turkish. Kent (UK): Hodder and Stoughton. (17th impression of 1953) Lewis, Geoffrey (L.) 1999. The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success. Oxford: Oxford University Press. L , Lèyì 1990. ‘xiàndài hànyŭ wàilái cí dè tŏngyī wèntí’ (The Problem of Unifying Current Borrowings in Chinese). yŭwén jiànshè (Language Building). Beijing: Yŭwén Chūbănshè (Language Press), pp. 42-5. Lucretius Carus, Titus (c.99-55 BC) 1929. De Rerum Natura: Book I. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Luó, Chángpéi 1950. y yán y wénhuà (Language and Culture). Beijing: Guólì Běijīng Dàxué (National University of Beijing). Martin, S. E. 1952. Morphophonemics of Standard Colloquial Japanese. Language Dissertation 47, Supplement to Language. Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, Peter H. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    
    316
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    Mayrhofer, Manfred 1953-76. Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universtitätsverlag. (3 vols: 1953, 1963, 1976) Meltzer, Shimshon 1966. or zarúa: séfer hashirót vehabaládot hagadól (Sown Light: The Big Book of Poems and Ballads). Tel Aviv: Dvir. (cf. Biblical Hebrew la‡‡ad»dīq] ‘light is sown to the righteous’, Psalms 97:11) (1st Edition: 1959) Miller, Roy Andrew 1967. The Japanese Language. Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press. Milón leMunekhéy haHitamlút (Dictionary of Gymnastics Terms) 1937. Tel Aviv: Va’ad HaLashon HaIvrit (Hebrew Language Council) – Bialik Institute. Müller, Max 1871. Lectures on the Science of Language. London: Longmans, Green. (2 vols) (6th Edition, 1st Edition: 1861) Myers-Scotton, Carol 1988. ‘Differentiating Borrowing and Codeswitching’. Linguistic Change and Variation: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation: 318-25. K. Ferrara et al. (eds). Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas. Nelson, Andrew Nathaniel 1997. The New Nelson Japanese-English Character Dictionary. Rutland (Vermont) – Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle. Nietzsche, Friedrich 1881. Die Morgenröthe (The Dawn). Nietzsche, Friedrich 1967-2000. Werke – Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (8 parts, each containing several volumes) Nissan, Ephraim ms (2000). ‘The COLUMBUS Model’ (Part II of ‘Anticipatory Narrative Construal’). Norman, Jerry 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patterson, David 1962. ‘Some Linguistic Aspects of the Nineteenth-Century Hebrew Novel’. Journal of Semitic Studies 7: 309-24. Pines, (Rabbi) Yechiel Michal 1893. ‘davár laoskéy bitkhiyát sfaténu’ (Something for Those who Deal with the Revival of Our Language). Haór 9 (18). Pines, (Rabbi) Yechiel Michal 1897. séfer hakóakh (The Book of Power). Warsaw: Shuldberg. Rosen, Mordekhay 1994. mikhmenéy hamilím beivrít (The Secrets of Words in Hebrew). Dik. Sappan, Raphael 1971. milón hasléng hayisraelí (Dictionary of Israeli Slang). Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher. (2nd Edition) Simpson, John A. and Edmund Simon Christopher Weiner (eds) 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (2nd edition) ÷inasi, èbrahim 1885. Durab-I Emsal-I Osmaniyye (Ottoman Proverbs) (with additions by Ebüzziya Tevfik). Istanbul: Matbaa-i Ebüzziya (Ebüzziya Press). (3rd edition) Sivan, Reuben (Reuben Silman) 1963. ‘tsurót umegamót bekhidushéy halashón baivrít bitkufát tkhiyatá – mavó klalí vekhélek rishón: hapóal’ (Patterns and Trends of Linguistic Innovations in Modern Hebrew – General Introduction and Part 1: The Verb). Ph.D. Thesis. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Sivan, Reuben 1966. ‘lashón bitkhiyatá – sikhót al khidushéy milím’ (A Language being Revived – Discussions on Neologizations). Leshonenu La'am 17: 175-234. Sivan, Reuben 1978. ‘mekhayéy hamilím’ (From the Life of Words). Leshonenu La’am 29 (7-8): 210-5. [/ōr zå»ru÷a
    
    Cultural hybridity
    
    317
    
    Sivan, Reuben 1981a. ‘mikhtáv itamár ben aví el danyél pérski’ (Itamar Ben-Avi’s Letter to Daniel Persky). Leshonenu La'am 33 (3): 88-95. (cf. Ben-Avi 1951) Sivan, Reuben 1981b. ‘reshít harkhavát halashón beyaménu’ (The Beginning of the Language Expansion in our Era). Leshonenu La’am 33 (1-2): 1-64. Sivan, Reuben 1995. ‘al khidushéy milím’ (On Neologizations). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language. Slouschz, Nahum 1930. ‘mekhkarím ivrím knaaním’ (Hebrew-Canaanite Researches). Lešonénu 2 (4): 341-58. Suzuki, Takao 1975. ‘On the Twofold Phonetic Realization of Basic Concepts: In Defence of Chinese Characters in Japanese’ in Language in Japanese Society, Fred C. C. Peng (ed.), Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, pp. 175-93. Sweetser, Eve 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmud Bab=li (Babylonian Talmud) [Talmud] (third-sixth centuries AD; finally redacted in the sixth century AD; consisting of the Mishnah; the Gemara, written mostly in Aramaic by the Amoraim in Babylon; and auxiliary material) 1980. Y. B-R. A. A. Halevi (vocalization and comments). Jerusalem: Hamenaked. Torczyner, Naphtali Herz (see also Tur-Sinai) 1938. ‘milím sheulót bilshonénu’ (Loanwords in our Language). Lešonénu 9: 5-30. Toury, Gideon 1990. ‘From One Signifier to Another. Modified Phonetic Transposition in WordFormation and Translation’. Übersetzungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. R. Arntz and G. Thome (eds). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Trudgill, Peter 1998. ‘Language Contact and the Function of Linguistic Gender’. Paper presented at the University of Oxford. (22 May) Tur-Sinai, Naphtali Herz (see also Torczyner) 1950. ‘balshanút uvatlanút 1’ (Linguistics and Idleness 1). Leshonenu La'am 2 (4): 4-8. Unger, James Marshall 1987. The Fifth Generation Fallacy: Why Japan is Betting its Future on Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Unger, James Marshall 1990. ‘The Very Idea: The Notion of Ideogram in China and Japan’. Monumenta Nipponica: Studies in Japanese Culture 45 (4): 391-411. Vance, Timothy J. 1987. An Introduction to Japanese Phonology (SUNY Series in Linguistics, Mark R. Aronoff, ed.). Albany (NY): State University of New York Press. Weinreich, Max 1973. geshíkhte fun der yídisher shprakh: bagríf , fákt , metód (History of the Yiddish Language: Concepts, Facts, Methods). New York: YIVO (Institute for Jewish Research). (4 vols) Weinreich, Uriel 1963. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague – Paris: Mouton. (Originally published as Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York 1, New York, 1953). Wexler, Paul 1990. The Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Yáo, Rongsong 1992. ‘TáiwPn xiànxíng wàiláiyŭde wèntí’ (Problems of Current Borrowed Vocabulary in Taiwan). Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University 37: 329-62. YurtbaşI, Metin 1994. SInIflandIrIlmiş Türk Atasözleri (Classified Turkish Proverbs). Ankara: I Özdemir YayIncIlIk (Özdemir Publishing House).
    
    318
    
    Ghil‘ad Zuckermann
    
    Zikhronot Va’ad HaLashon (Proceedings of the Hebrew Language Council) 1912-28. Jerusalem – Tel Aviv. (6 vols: 1912, 1913, 1913, 1914, 1921, 1928) Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 1999. Review Article of Nakdimon Shabbethay Doniach and Ahuvia Kahane (eds). The Oxford English-Hebrew Dictionary. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. International Journal of Lexicography 12: 325-46. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2000. ‘Camouflaged Borrowing: “Folk-Etymological Nativization” in the Service of Puristic Language Engineering’. D.Phil. Thesis. University of Oxford. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2002. ‘El original es infiel a la traducción: La manipulación etimológica como instrumento de rechazo hacia otras culturas’ in L. Ruiz Miyares, C. E. Álvarez Moreno and M. R. Álvarez Silva (eds), ACTAS II, VIII Simposio Internacional de Comunicacion Social, Centro de Lingüística Aplicada, Santiago de Cuba, 896-900. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2003. Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. London – New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2004. ‘“LEXICAL ENGINEERING” as a Tool for Judging Other Religions – A Socio-Philological Perspective’ in Tope Omoniyi and Joshua A. Fishman (eds), Readings in the Sociology of Language and Religion. Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad (forthcoming). Mosaic or mosaic: The Genesis of the Israeli Language.
    
    Author’s address Ghil ‘ad Zuckermann Churchill College University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK www.zuckermann.org gz208@cam.ac.uk

Add Comment

To add a comment, you need to login or signup (you can signup without leaving this page)