Ewe borrowings into Logba

Dorvlo, Kofi

doi:10.1177/1367006913481143

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adomako (2008) considers only two of the phonological processes, so this work built upon what he found and thus considered other processes apart from those two. Dorvlo (2011) examines Ewe (a non-noun class language) borrowings into Logba (an active noun class system language). Dorvlo's study shows agreement between Logba NP which is cross-referenced on the verbs in a form that agrees with the class of the subject.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This borrowing of items from Ewe into Logba, to him, is due to the dominance of Ewe, a majority language on Logba a minority language. The classes of borrowing that Dorvlo (2011) looks at are in nouns, locative verbs, grammatical items (relativizers, conjunctions, and clause linkers) and cultural expressions. Other domains noted for Logba borrowing are proverbs, riddles and emotional expressions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other domains noted for Logba borrowing are proverbs, riddles and emotional expressions. The observations Dorvlo (2011) makes are that nouns borrowed from Ewe (a non-noun class language) are allocated to a particular class because the semantics of a given noun shares some common characteristics with existing Logba nouns in the class. Also, Ewe verbs borrowed and used as locative verbs in Logba conform to the Logba pattern of displaying agreement with the subject.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, Ewe verbs borrowed and used as locative verbs in Logba conform to the Logba pattern of displaying agreement with the subject. However, in the borrowed grammatical items, Dorvlo (2011) discovered that Logba speakers have forms very similar to the ones in Ewe. Dorvlo's (2011) conclusion on these findings is that there is a contact-induced change in progress in which a noun class system of a minority language is exposed to interference by a majority language.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in the borrowed grammatical items, Dorvlo (2011) discovered that Logba speakers have forms very similar to the ones in Ewe. Dorvlo's (2011) conclusion on these findings is that there is a contact-induced change in progress in which a noun class system of a minority language is exposed to interference by a majority language. Dorvlo's work outlines both conformity and non-conformity to the source and the target languages, so this informed this research to consider both trends in the Anufo context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An Analysis in Assessing the Categories of Words Borrowed Into Anufo

Tasson¹

2022

EJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study was to linguistically analyze loanwords in Anufo. The study set forth to assess the kinds /types of words that are borrowed into Anufo. The research approach used was qualitative and the design is case study. This study used a total number of 30 participants. Ten (10) participants from each of the three selected communities were selected randomly and purposefully. The data collection strategies used for the study were interview, observation, and documents. The theoretical framework used for the study is Basic Linguistic Theory (Dixon 1997). The study established that Anufo has historically and socially heavily borrowed words from the three main languages, English, Likpakpaln and Akan, to fill lexical gaps. Apart from nouns, the main types of words that are borrowed into Anufo are adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and conjunctions. Borrowing in Anufo is distinct from other Ghanaian languages such as Likpakpaln. This is because Likpakpaln has closed syllable types like that of English language. Anufo syllables are of the open type therefore, when the borrowed word has a closed syllable, it must be repaired to be nativized. When a borrowed word into Anufo has a vowel other than /a/ at its initial position needs to go through some repair strategies for such a word to be nativised. A semantic and a comparative study of loanwords are recommended to find out differences and similarities of loanword adaptation strategies in the Ghanaian languages. Article visualizations:<img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0966/a.php" alt="Hit counter" />

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Analysis in Assessing the Categories of Words Borrowed Into Anufo

Tasson¹

2022

EJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Contact and Code‐Switching

Gardner‐Chloros¹

2020

The Handbook of Language Contact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language contact has been invoked with increasing frequency over the past two or three decades as a, or the, cause of a wide range of linguistic changes. Historical linguists have (of course) mainly addressed these changes from a diachronic perspective -that is, analyzing ways in which language contact has influenced lexical and/or structural developments over time. But sociolinguists, and many or most of the scholars who would characterize their specialty as contact linguistics, have focused on processes involving contact in analyzing synchronic variation. A few scholars have even argued that contact is the sole source of lan guage variation and change; this extreme position is a neat counterpoint to an older position in historical linguistics, namely, that language contact is responsible only for lexical changes and quite minor structural changes. (This long-superseded older position is echoed, surpris ingly, in Labov's recent claim that 'structural borrowing is rare ' and superficial (Labov 2007: 349, 383).) In this chapter I will argue that neither extreme position is viable. This argument will be developed through a survey of general types of contact explanations, especially explanations for changes over time, juxtaposed with a comparative survey of major causal factors in internally-motivated language change. My goal is to show that both internal and external motivations are needed in any full account of language history (Hickey 2012) and, by implication, of synchronic variation. Progress in contact linguistics depends, in my opinion, on recognizing the complexity of change processes -on resisting the urge to offer a single simple explanation for all types of structural change.The structure of the chapter is as follows. Section 1 provides some background concepts and definitions, and sections 2 and 3 compare and contrast contact explanations with internal explanations of change. Section 4 discusses a much-cited typology-based theory about contact vs. internal explanations. Section 5, finally, is a brief conclusion that includes a warning about the need to be cautious in making claims about the causes of change -both because in most cases no cause can be firmly established and because of the real possibility that multiple causes are responsible for a particular change. Some Background ConceptsFirst, what counts as language contact? The mere juxtaposition of two speakers of different languages, or two texts in different languages, is too trivial to count: unless the speakers or the texts interact in some way, there can be no transfer of linguistic features in either direction. Only when there is some interaction does the possibility of a contact explanation for

show abstract

Contact and Code‐Switching

Gardner‐Chloros

2010

The Handbook of Language Contact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ewe borrowings into Logba

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

An Analysis in Assessing the Categories of Words Borrowed Into Anufo

An Analysis in Assessing the Categories of Words Borrowed Into Anufo

Contact and Code‐Switching

Contact and Code‐Switching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About