MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968866170 · doi:10.1353/lan.2003.0170

<b>A dictionary of European anglicisms</b> . Ed. By Manfred Görlach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xxvi, 352. ISBN: 0198235194. $105.00.

2003· article· en· W1968866170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan S. Kaye

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanHistoryRomanianLinguisticsBulgarianNorwegianIcelandicPortugueseSlavic languagesPolishClassicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: A dictionary of European anglicisms ed. by Manfred Görlach Alan S. Kaye A dictionary of European anglicisms. Ed. by Manfred Görlach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xxvi, 352. ISBN: 0198235194. $105.00. The editor and sixteen consultants, each from a different European country, document in this dictionary, the first of its kind, the numerous English loan-words that have found their way into German, Dutch, Norwegian, Icelandic, French, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Russian, Polish, Croatian, Bulgarian, Finnish, Hungarian, Albanian, and Greek. Happily, they are indicated for ease of reference in the same fixed order throughout (first Germanic, followed by Romance, Slavic, Uralic, and [Indo-European] Balkan). When the project began in 1993, the cutoff date of 1995 was arbitrarily selected. First, a few words of praise for some of the book’s outstanding features. The English etymon serves as a convenient headword for the forms listed. It should be noted that many proper names are not included since the process by which names become actual utilitarian ‘words’ is different in individual languages, thus making it impossible to decide what to include and what not to include. Thus, one will not find such lemmas as Weightwatchers. Two other classes of words also proved most difficult to handle: internationalisms (like telephone), and words unknown to educated readers. Fortunately, the latter have been ‘intentionally omitted’ (xix). Let me now briefly comment on the methodological aspects of this work. If an anglicism entered a language via another language, this fact is duly noted. If there is any doubt about the facts of transmission, a question mark is inserted in parentheses. For example, the word baby is said to be ‘one of the earliest and most widespread anglicisms’ (xxi, 11), but it was transmitted via French, in which an earlier rendition can be noted as bébé and a later one preserves the English orthography intact. However, I believe that sometimes the exact transmission would be most difficult to resolve. For example, let us take up the case of mango. The editor stipulates that the word comes from Portuguese, but ultimately derives from Tamil ‘with uncertain English mediation’ (195). Furthermore, in the case of the word igloo, we read that ‘its status as an anglicism is . . . uncertain’ even though we read that it was transmitted via Canadian English and possibly French (160). How can the editor rule out American English and British English as being sources as well since Americans and Britons have written about igloos, Eskimos, and Alaska? On the other hand, dingo ‘a wild Australian dog’ is said to be questionable as an anglicism, but how else could it have penetrated Icelandic, Romanian, French, and Spanish, etc. (88)? In a few cases, it is possible to spot American English as the donor language rather than British or other dialects. Consider the case of gin-tonic (133), which shows up in Spanish as [jintonik] but in Romanian and Hungarian as gin and tonic (corresponding exactly to American English). The spelling of center over British centre (53) is increasingly prevalent not only in Europe but also in China (e.g. fitness center), as I can attest from a recent trip to that country during August 2002. Let me conclude with three details. First, it is fascinating [End Page 654] to discover that barber-shop (sic) (16) is not where one goes for a haircut but rather a style of four-part harmony singing (from barbershop quartet). Second, Yankee shows up in all sixteen languages, but ‘mostly with pejorative connotations’ (350) (probably from the slogan ‘Yankee go home!’). Third, the word yacht (350) is not an anglicism in Dutch (jacht) and other languages; rather it derives from Dutch jacht (Webster’s new world dictionary of the American language, Cleveland: New World Publishing Co., 1960, p. 1691). Alan S. Kaye California State University, Fullerton Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.059

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguageSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207