Anglicisms in the Bulgarian Press

67

University of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”

Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology

Department of English and American Studies

Anglicisms in the Bulgarian Press

Англицизми в българската преса

Mariya Doncheva

Sofia 2010

67

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER I. GLOBALIZATION. LEXICAL BORROWING FROM ENGLISH

1. Globalization………………………………………………………………………... 3

1.1. Common issues to solve…………………………………………………………. 3

1.2. English as a global language…………………………………………………….. 5

1.2.1. What makes a global language…………………………………………… 5

1.2.2. Why is English a lingua franca……………………………………………6

1.2.3. The future of English and World Englishes……………………………… 8

2. Lexical borrowing from English…………………………………………………....9

2.1. Factors for lexical borrowing……………………………………………………..10

2.2. Hierarchies of borrowability……………………………………………………...

11

2.3. Thematic classification…………………………………………………………....12

2.4. Treatments of lexical borrowing………………………………………………….13

2.4.1. Traditional treatment……………………………………………………....13

2.4.2. Alternative treatment………………………………………………………14

2.5. Lexico-semantic adaptation………………………………………………………16

2.6. Forms of linguistic borrowing…………………………………………………….17

3. Attitude………………………………………………………………………………..

20

CHAPTER II. MEDIA DISCOURSE. THE PRESS IN BULGARIA.

SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES FOR EMPLOYING ANGLICISMS

1. Media

discourse…………………………………………………………………. 22

The power of the press……………………………………………………………. 22

Effects of the news content on the audience……………………………………… 24

2. The press in Bulgaria. The press during the

transition………………………..26

3. Socio-linguistic perspectives fro employing

anglicisms……………………......29

3.1. Terminological rigour…………………………………………………………....29

3.2. Branch jargon…………………………………………………………….............30

67

3.3. Brevity………………………………………………………………………........30

3.4. Comprehensibility……………………………………………………………......31

3.5. Unconscious pro-English reflexes……………………………………………..…31

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH

1. Methodology and Goal of the

Research……………………………………………33

2. Results and

Analysis………………………………………………………………..35

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 46

APPENDIX I……………………………………………………………………………. 52

APPENDIX II…………………………………………………………………….………64

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………. 65

67

INTRODUCTION

In an epoch of globalization and using English as a lingua franca, it will be

interesting to study the steady influx of Anglicisms in the Bulgarian language. After many

years of reading newspapers there came a time when I started noticing that language

employed in journalese has started changing. Thus, I decided to devote the present thesis to

the anglicisms in the Bulgarian media, in particular, the Bulgarian newspapers, bearing in

mind their undeniable power to provide the Bulgarian language with Anglicisms. I shall

address the media because this is the alleged source through which many loanwords enter

the Bulgarian language. Journalists have no restrictions in writing so that they use a great

variety of words to reach the desirable effect. Moreover, the language of newspapers is

inundated with words of English origin which comes to show us the tendency to drawing

nearer to the Western societies. This process of Westernization of the Bulgarian language

and the effort to look like Western-oriented society by using anglicisms I shall call

“democratization” of the language.

For the purpose I shall choose two newspapers (Капитал and Стандарт). Both

newspapers are regarded as serious. Nevertheless, there is a difference between them.

Капитал is a newspaper which dwells on extremely serious and important issues, a

restricted number of people usually read it, its target audience is selected and has a

considerably high educational status; whereas, Стандарт is a daily paper known for its

varied audience and various topics mostly dedicated to far less important events, some of

which create the impression that they are just simple “fillings”, a material without any

significant value. The aim of my thesis is to answer the following questions - Which one of

the two newspapers has a higher percentage of Anglicisms? How does the frequency of

English borrowings vary in different news genres? Of what grammatical type are the

English loanwords? And finally, which are the most frequently used Anglicisms in

journalese in the two newspapers? These are questions whose answers will prove the

English influence on the journalistic register, the crucial role of the lexical borrowing from

English in the Bulgarian newspapers, and the efforts of journalists to draw nearer to the

Western societies. Conducting a thorough research backed up with a theoretical framework

of the literature available will help me supply the abovementioned research questions with

exhaustive answers.

Since globalization is probably the most significant socio-economic process that

affects the world, I shall devote the first chapter to issues concerning globalization together

67

with the issue of lexical borrowing from English. While developing the topic of

globalization, I shall address two main issues which are of particular concern and interest to

such a globalizing world – common issue to solve and English as a global language. The

second subsection dedicated to lexical borrowings from English will present the common

trends in borrowing lexical items from English into Bulgarian. The factors for borrowing,

thematic classification, lexico-semantic adaptation, the differences between the two leading

treatments of lexical borrowing and some forms of linguistic borrowing will constitute this

subsection, giving an overall idea of the process of lexical borrowing from English into

Bulgarian. As a next stage in developing the first chapter I shall express my own attitude

towards the English loanwords. In relation to the process of globalization I shall refer to

David Crystal, Graddol, McArthur and Kachru. As for the process of lexical borrowing I

shall draw on the observations and concepts of Nevena Alexieva, Maria Kolarova, Andrej

Danchev, Zhana Molhova and F. Field.

In Chapter II I shall cast light upon media discourse, and in particular, newspaper

discourse. Later on, I shall point out the media power and the effects of the news content on

the audience. Furthermore, I shall elaborate on the press in Bulgarian which encompasses

the period after the fall of the communist system and the rise of democracy. To me it is of

significant interest and importance to reveal how and in what direction the press language is

changing. It will become clear that the process of Westernization underlies the process of

democratization of the press. The next point which will be considered is the sociolinguistic

perspectives for employing Anglicisms in newspapers. For this purpose, I shall refer to

prominent researches in the field of Critical Discourse Analysis and Media Discourse, in

particular, such as Teun A. van Dijk and John Hartley.

Chapter III will be devoted to the research which I am going to conduct. First, I

shall present the methodology which I will apply in my analysis. I shall use the program

BUILD to process data. After explaining the major steps through which I will pass in the

section dedicated to methodology, I shall proceed with the results. As a final stage of this

section dedicated to my own research, I shall provide the analysis for the results attained,

reaching some conclusions that concern present-day journalese.

The three-partite body of my thesis will serve me to explore the sociolinguistic and

psycholinguistic factors for lexical borrowing in the Bulgarian language and press language,

in particular and present the trends in the Bulgarian press during the transition of a

communist regime to democratic in conditions of a globalizing world. I hope that my own

research will shed some more light upon the present period in terms of the heightened

67

interest towards English resulting in a great pool of anglicisms that has entered and

continued entering the Bulgarian press language. The investigation of anglicisms in the

Bulgarian newspapers will prompt several questions for further study, which I will propose

at the end of my master’s thesis.

GLOBALIZATION. LEXICAL BORROWING FROM ENGLISH.

1. Globalization

1.1. Common issues to solve

The idea of a “Global village” is spreading at a tremendous speed. Some are

inclined to think that the more superior nations will assimilate the weaker ones, whereas,

others are at variance with such a statement, foregrounding the preservation of cultural

diversities and national identities. Thus, a discrepancy between the defenders of the two

statements arises. The first group is at one extreme of the scale, expecting the bitter future in

which the process of globalization will threaten to wipe out almost any cultural heritage and

destroy any national identity. The other group holds the view that globalization should be

conceived of as an expression of “uniformity and homogeneity” (Graddol, 2000:33). The

concept of globalization comprises several principles which one is supposed to stick to – to

show respect towards cultural diversity and traditions, to preserve national identities, not to

let the minor societies be devoured by the powerful nations, etc. It is the latter group that

points out that the tendency towards differences and inequalities is expected to grow which,

on the other hand, will appear to be a stimulating mechanism for any development. The

statements themselves are irreconcilable, but what is obvious is the common issues that are

to be solved. These common issues that the process of globalization faces are climate

changes, migration and education. As climate change is not connected with the topic of my

paper, I will consider the other two issues, which are equally important.

What is the role of migration? More and more people tend to leave their native

homes in search of new horizons and a better life. This process of migrating ends up with

depopulation of poorly developed places and overpopulation of the cities of comparatively

stable and developed economies. If we consider migration on a large scale, we shall

conclude that lots of people prefer to seek new opportunities in English speaking countries,

especially in the USA, where everybody is considered to have equal opportunities provided

67

he/she possesses the potential to develop. The American dream is still alive and many tend

to believe that they will be able to achieve it.

Since the idea of knowledge-based economy is becoming prominent, the tendency

towards obtaining effective knowledge is gaining ground. Where could one obtain sufficient

and exhaustive knowledge in one’s field of interest in order to become competitive on the

world stage? The answer is obvious – developed countries offer that opportunity. Thus,

smart, intelligent and vigorous people are turning in one direction – better for them and

worse for their country. Such people, in their search of a better education, migrate and settle

in blossoming and prosperous countries. The USA is a striking example of a magnet for

“brains”. In this train of thoughts the phenomena known as “brain drain” and “brain gain” is

consistent with the picture sketched above. The countries which shelter those who decide to

search for better education abroad are in a position of “brain gaining” countries. The

countries, however, which are left without those people and are deprived of their “brains”,

execute the role of “brain drained countries”. In this way, brain gaining and brain draining

are properties of the above-mentioned issue – migration. Actually, people’s brains are not

lost; they continue their way, but this time, on foreign soil where a better educational system

and many more opportunities for personal and professional development are at hand.

The reason why I touched upon these global issues is to emphasize the crucial role

of the powerful countries in their solving. The USA as a representative of one of the

powerful countries as regards economy, politics and education, together with England form

a mighty consolidation of English speaking countries. The USA and England are preferable

destinations for migration because of the high living standards they offer. Knowing English

is useful no matter which country you want to settle in because as we shall see in the next

subsection English is a lingua franca. The educational system of highly developed countries

is preferred. This serves as a prerequisite for creating terms such as “brain drain” and “brain

gain”. England and the USA again hold the leading position in brain gaining. So, bearing in

mind the power of the USA in economy, technology and politics, its presence and

significance in solving these global issues is huge. It attracts brains and talent, to the

detriment of their homelands.

Another reason why I drew attention to migration and educational problems is that

these common issues presuppose international communication. People have started

interacting across borders to a far greater degree than ever before. “The circulation of ideas

and information through the medium of new technologies encourages transnational civil

society and worldwide virtual communities” (Wright, 2004:167). To meet the

67

communicational needs of a globalizing world, the English language has come onto the

stage as a global language. If we turn our glance to the other side of the process of

globalization – the devices for mass communications, the easier access to information and

the facilitation of communication between people of different cultures and religions, the

possibility to talk in one and the same language and understand each other, it turns out that

the process of globalization has its undeniable advantages. In other words, globalization

presupposes standardization. Standardization is a key factor in the process of globalization

which I shall consider in its linguistic aspect. That is why I shall proceed to the next stage of

globalization – the creation of an international language.

1.2. English as a global language

1.2.1.What makes a global language?

No one has a satisfactory answer to the question what makes a global language.

What is beyond any doubt is that the number of native speakers does not assign to any

language such a privileged position of a global language. In order to support this statement, I

shall mention Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic and French, languages which enjoyed the

privilege to be regarded as international languages. The speakers of these languages were

among those who dared to wage wars against more numerous people and, finally, succeeded

in conquering them. Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire were famous not only for their

giants in literature and arts, but also for their military power. It was their military power

thanks to which those languages became so widespread. One of the world’s authorities on

language, David Crystal, suggests that what makes a global language is who those speakers

are. He puts an accent on the power of the people, both military and economic (Crystal,

2003:7,10), which underlies the creating of a global language. Recognizing the power-based

prerequisite for a language becoming international, Crystal heavily inveighs against the

misconception that the ease of learning has to do with making a global language. That is

why he points out that “Ease of learning has nothing to do with it”, giving examples as

Latin, Greek, Arabic which have many inflectional endings and gender differences (Crystal,

2003:8). Thus, briefly outlining the prominent linguist's viewpoint on what makes a global

language, I shall present a model which will cast more light on this issue and, at the same

time, specify the way a global language comes into being.

While David Crystal yields precedence to military power, Graddol foregrounds the

complexity of acquiring such an importance which could not be based primarily on military

67

power. That is why Graddol regards David Crystal‘s viewpoint as outdated. He turns to the

engco model which gives an illustration of what other kind of approach, probably more

successful, can be taken. This forecasting model has been designed by The English

Company (UK) Ltd, “as a means of examining the relative status of world languages and

making forecasts of the numbers of speakers of different languages based on demographic,

human development and economic data” (Graddol, 2000:64). Thus, the model generates a

language hierarchy, taking into consideration not only the number and the wealth of the

speakers of a certain language, but also the likelihood that these speakers will enter social

networks beyond their locality. This means that these are the people with “the ambition to

go about the world, to influence it, and to have others seek to influence them” (Graddol,

2000:59). Considering these three variables - demographic, human development and

economic data – owing to which a reliable language hierarchy could be built, I shall present

in the next subsection revealing information as to the global influence of the English

language.

1.2.2. Why is English a lingua franca?

According to engco model, the English language occupies the first position (100

points). It also shows that English is a long way ahead of the other languages and it is

unlikely that any other language will overtake it. However, the positions of the rest of the

languages in all probability will change during the following decades.

1. English 100

2. French 42

3. German 33

4. Japanese 32

5. Spanish 31

6. Chinese 22

7. Arabic 8

8. Portuguese 5

9. Malay 4

10. Russian 3

11. Hindi/Urdu 0,4

12. Bengali 0,09

Table 1 “Global influence” of major languages according to the engco model.

67

Using the data of the engco forecasting model, the following world language

hierarchy can be built:

Figure 1 The world language hierarchy

As we delve into the history of the English language spreading, we cannot neglect

two factors that place English in such a high position in the language hierarchy. The first

factor which is to be emphasized is geographical-historical. It is related to the expansion of

British colonial power whose peak was at the end of the nineteenth century. Thanks to this

expansion “English is now represented in every continent, and in islands of the three major

oceans – Atlantic (St Helena), Indian (Seychelles) and Pacific (in many islands, such as Fiji

and Hawaii)” (Crystal, 2003:29). Such a world-wide spread of English adorns it with the

label global language.

The second factor which contributes to the present-day world significance of

English is the emergence of the United States as the leading economic power of the

twentieth century. It is this socio-cultural factor, which answers the question why is English

a lingua franca, and which furnishes evidence for why the English language continues to

hold this position. Since the language has permeated almost all the international domains

(political life, business, safety, communication, entertainment, the media and education),

people all over the world have become dependent on English for their economic and social

The big languages

ENGLISH FRENCH

Regional languagesARABIC, CHINESE, ENGLISH,

FRENCH, RUSSIAN

National languagesAround 80 languages serve over

180 nation states

Official languages within nation statesAround 600 languages worldwide

Local vernacular languages

The remainder of the world’s 6000+ languages

67

welfare. One example of such dependency is the computer software industry, which, in

itself, presents an example of total dependency.

All this points to the striking power, both in military and economic aspect, of the

USA, together with its cultural foundations, such as the creation of new terminology of

technologies and scientific advance that assign the English language the leading position

among all the languages.

Tom McArthur's book The Oxford Guide to World English (2002) contains a

remarkable collection of adjectives characterizing the present status of English. He sees

English as “world English”, “international English” or “global English”, as “the

universalising language of the human race”, or “the world's default mode”, or, “the world's

main medium of international expression” (McArthur, 2002:2, 13, 434).

1.2.3. The future of English and World Englishes

After considering the current status of English, let us look at the future of English.

The overwhelming assumption must be that the global future of English as a leading

language is assured at least in the foreseeable future. The notion of World Englishes implies

the idea that the language belongs to those who use it, applying their own rules and norms to

English and thus producing functional and formal variation in the language (Kachru &

Smith 1985:210). In order to make clear the idea of World Englishes, I shall draw on the US

linguist Kachru's model which presents different ways the language has been acquired and is

currently used.

The inner circle refers to those who speak it as a first language: it includes the

USA, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The outer or extended circle involves the earlier phases of the spread of English in

non-native settings and where the language plays an important “second language” role in a

multilingual setting: it includes Singapore, India, Malawi and over fifty other territories.

The expanding or extending circle involves those nations which recognize the

importance of English as an international language, though they do not have a history of

colonization by members of the inner circle, nor have they given English any special

administrative status. It includes China, Japan, Greece, Poland and a steadily increasing

number of other states. In these areas, English is taught as a foreign language. (Kachru 1985,

Crystal, 2003, Graddol, 2000).

67

The three circles of English according to Kachru

with estimates of speaker numbers according to Crystal (1997)

In present-day situation, “the native-speaker language use is just one kind of

reality”. According to the statistics, 1.5 billion people in the early 2000s speak fluent or

competent English. Thus the number of speakers of EFL is spreading at tremendous speed

and develops independently “with a great deal of variation but enough stability to be viable

for lingua franca communication” (Seidlhover, 2001:138).

The spreading of English triggers the phenomenon of lexical borrowing which has

touched almost every language in the world. In the next part of my thesis I shall present one

of the most frequent language changes, namely, lexical borrowing. Since the rise of English

as a global language is obvious, lexical borrowing from English has become an ongoing

process and continues gaining ground with every year.

2. Lexical borrowing from English.

One of the aspects of globalization is language contact due to communication.

Globalization presupposes higher intensity of contact between the languages. In turn, the

outcome of language contact is language change. I shall focus on one of the major

phenomena in language change – lexical borrowing.

The process of lexical borrowing is controlled by two equally important aspects that

support or hinder borrowing. The first one is the extralinguistic aspect of lexical borrowing

which leans on the essence of the language contact situation. The Bulgarian-English

language contact situation is intensive and it offers fruitful soil for the developing of lexical

67

borrowing in Bulgarian. Together with the extralinguistic aspect, the intralinguistic aspect of

lexical borrowing, i.e. the receptor language and its system are ready to accept the foreign

words, and thus the two aspects form a unity which will, inevitably, weaken if some crevices

appear in them.

I shall proceed with the concrete factors with the help of which the phenomenon

known as lexical borrowing is possible.

2.1. Factors for lexical borrowing

The most common factor for borrowing is a mere linguistic necessity. The advent

of new phenomena, concepts, ideas stimulate the speakers to use borrowed words to denote

these unfamiliar new objects and phenomena which have entered Bulgarian society and for

which a native equivalent does not exist. One of the domains, fully depended on the English

terminology, is the IT technology. The sports and music domains are also interspersed with

English terms – футбол, джаз, рокендрол, for they have been invented оn British or

American soil. In any case, borrowing these terms, which have already turned into

internationalisms, does not imply that English is superior to the other languages and the

other languages such as Spanish, German, and Bulgarian are inferior. Conversely, every

language is developing in such a way as to fulfill its communicative needs and increase its

word stock. This process of filling in communicative needs is called lexical gap filling.

Prestige is the second factor that stimulates the phenomenon of lexical borrowing.

It is beyond any doubt that the English language is a prestigious language for being globally

widespread and having so far-reaching influence. In the first subsection I have mentioned

the prerequisites for its being a global language which contribute to heightening the interest

in it. In the preface to the Dictionary of the New Words and Meanings in the Bulgarian

Language it is noted that the majority of lexical borrowings in Bulgarian are names of

technical, sports, musical, social and political phenomena originated in Britain or the USA

which have turned into internationalisms (Pernishka, 2003:7).

The prestige factor triggers another factor that deserves consideration – the striving

of the Bulgarians for “Westernization” (Borislavov, 2009). Another reason is the abrupt

transition from the communist system to democracy and market economy. The desire to

look like a Western-oriented society, founded on seemingly solid foundations of democracy,

result in an overuse of Anglicisms. Such an overuse also stems from deep psychological

motives such as fashion and snobbery (Молхова, 1979: 228). Some snobbery is typical of

67

foreign language beginners who have an ambition to show some knowledge, in this case, of

English. On the one hand, the words used by a certain person are characteristic only of

his/her idiolect and do not belong to the pool of English borrowings in the language. It is of

importance how frequently a foreign word is used by the majority of the language

community in order to acquire the label “borrowing”. Thus, finding its place among the

other English borrowings, the word becomes widely spread in Bulgarian society with a

tendency to becoming a well-established loanword such as “бизнес”. On the other hand,

some people generally prefer foreign-sounding words such as “хепънинг” and “френд” to

the native ones “събитие” and “приятел” simply because they sound modern, no matter

whether they are aware of the difference in meaning or register between the borrowings and

their native synomyns. In turn, such words become fashionable.

These factors and tendencies in employing words of English origin instead of the

native ones are present in journalese. I shall concentrate once again on them when

examining journalese.

2.2. Hierarchies of borrowability

Hierarchies of borrowability present the synchronic aspect of lexical borrowing.

Such a hierarchy presents a sequence of lexical elements borrowed from one language into

another. I shall refer to a distinguished linguist – William Dwight Whitney, who was the

first to state that some linguistic elements are borrowed more freely than others. William

Whitney was a Sanskrit specialist, who “in 1881 noted that nouns are mostly borrowed

elements of language, followed by other parts of speech, then suffixes, inflections, and

individual sounds" (Field, 2002:35). The offered idea of hierarchy of borrowability is

supported by irrefutable evidence and a reliable analysis of great amount of texts. Whitney

does not confine his field of interest only to the living languages. What he does is broaden

his scope of research by investigating hierarchy of borrowability in Sanskrit. He presents the

sequence in which all the borrowed linguistic elements appear and he devices a paradigm

applicable to almost all languages in terms of hierarchy of borrowability. Here is his

paradigm:

nouns > other parts of speech>suffixes> inflections>individual sounds

67

Another linguist suggests a similar hierarchy. Haugen built up a hierarchy of

borrowability based on a data collection from American Norwegian and American Swedish

(Haugen, 1950:224):

nouns>verbs>adjectives>adverbs, prepositions, interjections

These hierarchies present borrowing patterns specific to a particular contact

situation. As Field points out – content items are more easily borrowed from grammatical

items and grammatical items more frequently than inflexional affixes (Field, 2002:35). From

the hierarchies above, we can arrive at the conclusion that nouns are the most frequently

borrowed part of speech. Whitney does not divide the other parts of speech to make his

hierarchy more specific and to make clear which part of speech comes next; whereas,

Haugen puts the verbs immediately after the nouns and the adjectives after the verbs.

Haugen’s hierarchy is more sophisticated with respect to which part of speech follows the

nouns. On no occasion, however, should we overlook Whitney’s hierarchy, because it was

he who introduced such a hierarchy for borrowing patterns!

In chapter III, I shall determine the frequency of the borrowed items employed in

news articles. Then, I shall build a hierarchy of borrowability applicable to the present-day

Bulgarian-English contact situation reflected in the Bulgarian journalists’ word choice.

2.3. Thematic classification

Loanwords which have entered Bulgarian can be semantically grouped according to

the domain which they penetrated into. Thus, Andrei Danchev differentiates between 13

areas: Social and Political Life: митинг, брифинг, бойкот, Finance, Economy and Trade:

бюджет, бизнес, тръст, брокер, Science and Technology: дисплей, радар, компютър,

Maritime Terms: танкер, лайнер, яхта, демюридж, Military Terms: танк, бункер,

Traveling and Tourism: чартър, уикенд, Foods and Drinks: бекон, коктейл, Clothing:

джинси, Sports: футбол, финиш, корт, гол, Pop Music and Entertainment: джаз, хит,

хепънинг, Culture and Arts: филм, хепиенд, бестселър, Animals and Plants: пони,

бройлер, Measures: ярд, инч, пинта (Danchev, 1986:9,10). According to the frequency of

the English borrowings included in the Dictionary of New Words and Meanings in

Bulgarian, 2003, the terminology used in the Computer and Information Technologies and

the Internet domain (20,6%) constitutes the largest group. If we consider the fact that all the

recent borrowings registered in this dictionary number over 1000 and around 83% of them

67

are English borrowings, over ¼ from the overall number of the English borrowings consists

of terminology characteristic of the IT domain. This confirms the fact that IT domain is

totally dependent on the English terminology, on the one hand, and on the other, points to

the incredible speed with which Bulgaria has opened to the new technologies and attempts

to keep pace with them. One thing that the data on the English borrowing in Bulgarian cited

in the Dictionary show is that the lexical borrowings from English outnumber the

borrowings from other languages, which comes to show what a huge influence English has

had on Bulgarian over the past decade.

Bearing in mind Danchev’s classification and thematic division of the loanwords in

Bulgarian, I shall also divide the loanwords found in the news articles according to the news

genre they belong to. Later on, I shall make a table in which I shall show the percentage of

the loanwords found in these articles. On the basis of the information in the table, I shall

design a chart which will present the percentage of loanwords used in every single news

genre.

2.4. Treatments of lexical borrowing

2.4.1. Traditional treatment

The traditional treatment still dominates the field of lexical borrowing. According to

it, loanwords are new lexical units for the receptor language. The newly appeared word has

its own graphemic and phonemic structure characteristic of the source language and alien to

the recipient language. This is the case also with the English borrowings which enter

Bulgarian. The English phonemic system dramatically differs from ours - English differs

from Bulgarian as regards its diphthongs, the opposition between long and short vowels and

consonants which do not exist or are quite different from the Bulgarian ones. This phonemic

aspect together with the opaque and unmotivated meaning of the loanword at the very

beginning represent a very strong argument that supports the traditional view that foreign

words, actually, penetrate the recipient language. According to the traditional view a

loanword is identical with its source word because of their formal and often, semantic,

closeness. Apart from these factors, there is one more factor that contributes to the

completeness of this theoretical treatment – the meaning of the term “to borrow”. This term

has preserved the metaphorical secondary meaning “to use an idea (invention, etc.)

originated by another” (COD 1995:150). Modern cognitive linguists believe that

67

metaphorically extended meanings are due to the essentially associative nature of human

thinking.

But it should be pointed out here that the source language is not deprived of any of

its words “borrowed”by other languages. The receptor language also has not even the

slightest intention to “give back” or “return” the borrowed words. In addition to the

adaptations on all levels (phonological, morphological, derivational and lexico-semantic)

that the loanword is subject to, the loanword along with the word formation patterns starts

producing new derived words. In fact, the traditional treatment offers quite an extreme

viewpoint on lexical borrowing describing it as a process of an intrusion of foreign words

into the receptor language. Such a statement is contrary to facts and the threat of “foreign

intruders” is unrealistic. That is why I am turning to a more appropriate and insightful

treatment – the alternative treatment.

2.4.2. Alternative treatment

Nevena Alexieva is one of the proponents of an alternative treatment of lexical

borrowing. The linguist inveighs against the traditional treatment of borrowings which

imposes the idea of borrowings as foreign words, “foreign intruders in the receptor

language” (Алексиева, 2007:41). Moreover, Nevena Alexieva defends the standpoint that

once having entered the borrowing language, the so-called “foreign words” start their new

life as lexical copies. The recipient language uses its own phonemic, graphemic,

grammatical and lexical resources to imitate the foreign item. The point here is the

recognition of the active role that the recipient language plays in this process. This active

role is supported by the conceptual character of human thinking which constantly demands

new linguistic expressions. Thus, bearing in mind the undeniable role of the recipient

language, I also tip the balance towards the alternative approach to borrowings, which no

longer presents borrowings as actual foreign words, but as lexical copies of the respective

source language. After all the term “Anglicism” means “a lexical copy of the English

etymon”. What is more, the lexical copies fit the recipient language grammar rules and

supplement word formation by providing non-motivated new lexemes. Thus, this process

leads to the creation of further new meanings along with new derived words.

Another significant view of the alternative treatment is expressed by the British

linguist T. Hope. He explored in detail lexical borrowings in the Romance languages and

arrived at a very important insight into lexical borrowings’ true nature. Hope points to the

67

fact that “During the act of transfer the most important factor governing the reception of a

loanword is its loss of morphological and semantic transparency” (Hope, 1971:611). So this

factor leads to the creation of close lexical copies of the source words which cannot be

expected to convey the structural and semantic relationships of their models in the source

language. The borrowing which enters a new linguistic system loses its previous motivation

and starts adapting to the structural and semantic relations in the host language. Thus the

loanword becomes motivated by the receptor language's socio-cultural situation which it has

entered. If the prototype of the loanword is a compound word or a derivation (e.g. rating,

weekend, painkiller), the loanword itself is non-transparent and structurally simple

(рейтинг, уикенд, пенкилер). Few Bulgarians will think of the loanword painkiller as

consisting of two separate independent nouns, as is the case with English painkiller.

Therefore, once having entered the new language, the loanwords start their own life

independent of their etymons’ life and gradually find their place in the structural and

semantic networks of the recipient language.

The alternative method of lexical borrowing which I sketched above is the one that I

support and rely on. This treatment is far more realistic and close to the nature of lexical

borrowing. I fully accept and firmly support the idea of close lexical copies of the etymons

which enter the semantic and structural networks of the host language and start complying

with the host language’s grammar rules. That is why the organization of my corpora of

anglicisms is based on this alternative model. The anglicisms included are copies of the

etymons, which have entered our language mainly with only one of the whole range of

meanings of their etymons, the majority of them follow the grammar rules of Bulgarian and

produce different derived forms as well.

In the following subsection, I shall deal with the adaptation on the lexico-semantic

level which the loanwords undergo, leaving aside the phonological, morphological and the

derivational level, which I mentioned above.

67

2.5. Lexico-semantic adaptation

The process of integration of English loan words presupposes their lexico-semantic

adaptation which depends on the nature of the semantic structure of both the recipient and

source languages (Molhova, 1979:235). In a contact situation, lexical copies usually enter

the recipient language with only one meaning, leaving the rest of the model’s meanings in

the source language. Such a word, borrowed from one language into another, may remain

semantically unchanged when it is used to designate new objects, ideas, phenomena, and

activities, as is the case with the sports language and the language of IT. Thus, this lexical

copy enters the receptor language as a gap filler. Convenient gap fillers can be divided into

two groups: the first group comprises loan words which designate, as I said, new

phenomena, activities and ideas resulting from the rise of development in all domains. For

these loan words, native counterparts do not exist and they are infiltrated into the recipient

language to improve its communicative or referential functions. The second group of so-

called gap fillers comprises loan words for which Bulgarian equivalents exist but they are, in

most cases, long-winded native phrasal expressions (уикенд – “the days of rest”). The major

point here is that the need for such gap fillers is obvious as they help to achieve language

economy. Thus, gap fillers such as “уикенд” instead of a phrase meaning “the days of rest”

and “рейтинг” instead of a phrasal expression to mean “a degree of popularity” are already

an integral part of the Bulgarian word stock.

Borrowed words “may undergo some transformations of meaning depending on

how they are interpreted and used by the native speakers of the receptor language"

(Kolarova, 2005:10). The meaning with which the borrowed word initially entered the

recipient language can undergo different semantic changes due to the active role of the

native speakers and the receptor language, as well. It is important to note that the moment

the loan word enters the receptor language with a certain sense, the rest of its model’s senses

cease to exist. Thus, the loan word starts it independent development, which is different

from that of the etymon in its native environment. Breaking its relations with its etymon, the

loan starts building up new semantic relations in the recipient language. It enters the

complicated network of synonyms, antonyms and homonyms that bears the characteristics

of another semantic structure. The loan, thus, should get adapted to it and find its due place

(Молхова, 1979:236). Maria Kolarova also points out that “borrowed words are forced to

establish their own semantic identity” (Kolarova, 2005:10). Later on, the borrowed word

67

starts acquiring new meanings which, as I previously said, typically do not exist in the whole

range of meanings of the etymon.

To briefly outline the main semantic changes which the borrowed word is subject

to, I shall refer to Nevena Alexieva’s 5-prong division of the lexico-semantic adaptation of

the loan words – the semantic reduction, semantic narrowing, semantic widening, increase

of loan word meanings and loan clippings (Alexieva, 2008:42-51).

Semantic reduction denotes a reduction in the range of lexical meanings of a

polysemous English word. An example of this lexical phenomenon is the loanword гол –

it has retained only one of the 3 meanings of its etymon goal.

Semantic narrowing is a semantic change from a general meaning of the English

source word to a specific one in the host language. Here is an example – the general

meaning of the English word killer “a person, animal or, thing that kills” (COD 1995) was

narrowed down to “a hired, ruthless, killer” when the loan килър entered Bulgarian.

The phenomenon of semantic widening is opposite to semantic narrowing. It

implies that an individual meaning of an Anglicism is widened in comparison with the

corresponding sense of its etymon. Here I shall mention the example provided by the

loanword екшън in Bulgarian. It has developed, independently of English, the sense of “a

fight, conflict”. This meaning gained ground as an extension of the original meaning of the

loan – “an action movie”.

The loan екшън is a conspicuous example of how two semantic developments can

take place in parallel. On the one hand, we observe a semantic widening of an individual

loan meaning; on the other hand, the increasing of the loanword’s semantic range, as well.

Loan clippings comprise anglicisms both lexically and structurally different from

their English etymons. Here are some examples: паркинг, холдинг, екшън, баскет. These

pseudo-loans turned into internationalisms, whose English counterparts are parking-lot,

holding-company, action movie, basketball. All the English etymons are compounds which

in the process of borrowing end up in the host language as loan clippings.

2.6. Forms of linguistic borrowing

In her article in "English in Europe" (2002: 256-257) Nevena Alexieva

differentiates among three forms of linguistic borrowing - borrowing (or loan proper),

calquing (or loan translation) and pseudo-loans.

According to her, borrowings are to be divided into three types:

67

items which are unadapted and hence not felt too be part of Bulgarian.

These include foreignisms, quotation words, ad hoc loans (typically in media language);

words which still look foreign in form or are insufficiently adapted

phonologically and morphologically;

fully integrated items.

Some of the words borrowed from English and employed in the newspaper

discourse are sufficiently adapted phonologically and morphologically and usually produce

derived forms, such as медия, медиен, медийно(право); лидер, лидерски (стилове),

лидерство; старт, стартова (линия), стартиращ, стартиране. Others do not share

that possibility to produce different derived forms:

Уикенд (E weekend) is “the end of a week, especially the period of time between

Friday evening and Monday morning”, e.g. Всеки уикенд може да носи своя автентичен

дух - духът на Европа!

Килър (E killer) is “a hired person that kills”, e.g. Руски килър за Георги Илиев?

Имидж (E image) is “the general or public perception of a company, public

figure, etc., especially as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread

goodwill”, e.g. Анализ на различни видове имидж чрез интервю, анкета и медиен

образ.

Бизнес (E business) is “an occupation, profession, or trade”, e.g. Бизнесът губи

прекалено много време за преодоляване на административни прегради.

Although such loanwords do not produce derived forms, they usually combine with

other nouns thus creating the attributive model N+N, e.g. Работещи бизнес идеи от цял

свят, които чакат да бъдат приложени в България, имидж студио "Алис" София,

фешън обувки. Such N+N formations have become more and more frequently used in the

Bulgarian language, especially in journalese. The reason why such words have not

developed new derived forms probably is rooted in the fact that they have entered Bulgarian

as a certain part of speech, in this case, as nouns and people have not felt the need to coin

new derived forms. A second reason for this derivational deficit could be the increasing

number of N+N formations which are found to be concise, informative, convenient, and

contribute to language economy. Thus formations such as бизнес-дама, бизнес-код,

67

фешън-творение are produced. I shall cast some light on these attributive N+N formations

later on in my thesis.

Another form of linguistic borrowing which comes to fill in some lexical gaps and

to satisfy the terminological needs is calquing, the so-called loan-translation.

Calquing is a phenomenon in which the recipient language copies the meaning of

the simple word, compound word or phrase and employs native lexical material to render

this meaning. Calquing consists of four major groups:

o translation of the etymon (e.g. E hot news > Bg гореща новина, E

round table > Bg кръгла маса). Sometimes there can exist the so-called semi-calques, i.e.

just one part of it is translated, (e.g. E attached file > Bg прикрепен файл). Sometimes loan

proper and calques coexist (e.g. E freestyle > Bg фриистайл/свободен стил);

o rendering – provides looser equivalents for a part of the foreign item

or changes the order of the components as required in Bulgarian structure (e.g. E brain drain

> Bg изтичане на мозъци);

o creations – formally independent equivalents, prompted by foreign

items (e.g. E cornflakes > зърнени храни);

o semantic loans – “an existing item in Bulgarian, whether native or

previously borrowed, takes over one meaning of the partial foreign equivalent (e.g. in IT: E

memory > Bg памет).

The third type of linguistic borrowing is “pseudo-loans”. This form of linguistic

borrowing conveys the assumption that a receptor language uses borrowed items to produce

new linguistic units, which only formally resemble English words. The author breaks the

pseudo-loans into 3 subgroups:

lexical pseudo-loans, which are made with combinations of English

morphemic material (e.g. автогол “own goal”);

morphological pseudo-loans are shortenings of items which range from

simple words (e.g. крими<криминален “criminal”), through compounds (e.g. хепиенд<

“happy ending”); to phrases (e.g. коктейл – “cocktail party”);

semantic pseudo-loans, where the anglicism develops a meaning which

does not exist in its etymon (e.g. танкове “platform shoes” from the plural of танк

“tank”).

67

3. Attitude

Any language is alive and it is bound to be constantly enriched with new words.

Undoubtedly, new words are gaining ground, while others are fading away. It is a matter of

time which words will remain and which will not. This is an irreversible ongoing process

due to languages’ changing nature. That is why languages keep changing and nothing could

stop their change. They could not remain still and unalterable because it would be against

their nature.

The enrichment of each language’s lexicon is a normal and incessant process. It is

connected with the need to meet the growing necessity to name new objects and processes

from reality. Diana Blagoeva emphasizes in her article “Neologisms in Modern Bulgarian”

that the changes in the lexicon take several directions (Blagoeva, 2006). On the one hand,

there is a constant influx of new words into the lexicon which are created by means of word

formation or are borrowed from a foreign language. On the other hand, there are changes in

the lexical semantics and pragmatics, some words are developing new meanings, and others

are changing their evaluative content. Although it is a ceaseless process, the lexical addition

is performed in different ways at different stages of language evolution. In times of social

and historical equilibrium the processes of language development, in most cases, take their

normal course, and certain parts of the language system gradually undergo a certain change.

In periods of deep social, political and economical reforms, however, the language change

gains speed and the lexical system becomes more dynamic. This is a natural development,

bearing in mind that the vocabulary is prone to changes conditioned by extralinguistic

factors such as social changes, changes in social moods and attitudes.

The process of lexicon enrichment with loanwords, mainly of English origin, is

obvious. As I stated in the previous chapter, globalization requires standardization. Since the

English language is functioning as a global language, it is natural that the greatest number of

loanwords in any language is English in origin. Another reason why English loanwords are

being accepted and assimilated by the other languages is that the majority of new terms and

concepts are coined in the USA. In this way, the globalizing world engenders collaboration,

on the one hand, and the cultural and technological advance of the USA boost the process of

new terminology coinage, on the other hand. Collaboration goes hand in hand with the use

of new terms that mark the process of any advancement. Thus, any language’s lexicon is

being enriched with new lexemes which fill lexical gaps or are used to introduce some

nuance in the semantic network of an already existing native word.

67

I find myself wondering why some people regard loanwords as foreign intruders

when they exist in other languages out of a purely linguistic or psycholinguistic necessity.

The existence of loanwords confirms the fact that, in order that the language should serve

the human mind better, people need to resort to using loanwords. Thus several reasons for

using loanwords, especially English loanwords, could be enumerated. Bearing in mind that a

great variety of people tends to use various loanwords, the range of the English loanwords

employed is huge. It depends on one’s idiolect, professional sphere and social belonging.

This is the place to say that Rollason’s viewpoint that “the anglicisms should be confined to

the absolute minimum, i.e. technical terms and concepts connected with the Anglophone

culture” takes a completely wrong direction (Rollason, 2003:33). His viewpoint makes one

wonder what has made him go to such extremes and arrive at such an unrealistic conclusion.

Other purists also have extreme views on the phenomenon of borrowing English

loanwords. They suggest that all the unnecessary loanwords should be wiped out from the

lexicon. Such a suggestion inevitably raises the following questions – who will be in charge

of assessing which loanword is necessary and which one – is not? Who will be responsible

for labeling one loanword “useful” and another “superfluous”? The point here is that

objectively enough criteria which will help one decide which word could be regarded as

necessary or not simply do not exist. It is obvious that the two purist viewpoints are

extremely inappropriate and inapplicable in times of globalization. Such viewpoints are not

well-grounded as to solid facts and convincing explanations. No one can claim that some

words are unnecessary. Nor can he/she impose any restrictions on people’s word choice. In

this sense, the purists’ viewpoints are doomed not to take root.

I hope that it has become clear that I support the influx of English loanwords, for

they not only fill lexical gaps, but also benefit the expressiveness of the Bulgarian language.

I am against any purist ideas for the restriction of English loanwords by labeling them as

foreign intruders.

67

MEDIA DISCOURSE. THE PRESS IN BULGARIAN SOCIETY.

SOCIOLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE FOR EMPLOYING ANGLICISMS. Media

discourse.

The primary purpose of the media is to inform people. In Convention of human

rights and liberties, clause 10, it is said “everyone has the right to express freely his/her

opinion, to access and disseminate information and ideas”. Thus, legally the media have the

right to publish or broadcast whatever kind of information they have received, unless they

violate some legal norms pointed out in the same clause of the Convention (Convention of

Human Rights and Liberties, 1998:7). I shall confine my interest only to the first part of the

text in clause 10 concerning news, facts, ideas, conceptions and data, which are not

protected by copyright; therefore, they can be freely accessed, used and presented. The point

here is the way the media present this information, the motives which underlie the fashion in

which it is presented, and the purpose the journalists are striving to achieve.

In the chapter entitled Media discourse in the book Critical Discourse Analysis, Teun

van Dijk reveals the striking power of the media emphasizing how influential the language

is and what it could lead to (van Dijk, 2001:359). One of the processes it could lead to is

deviation of people’s attention from reality, i.e. defocusing, which is realized by several

language means. Fowler’s interpretation of adducing facts, on the other hand, defines news

“not as a reflexion of reality but as a product of political, economic and cultural forces”

(Fowler, 1991:23). Combining such interpretations of what exactly the news is, we shall end

up with the conspicuous conclusion that “power and domination are reproduced by text”

(van Dijk, 2001:363).

1.1. The power of the press

Media power is a broad concept which I shall restrict to the influence of the media

on their audience, excluding the role of the media in all the social, political, cultural and

economic power structures. I shall also elaborate not on the power of the media as a whole,

but on the power of the press. Thus, I shall be able to consider closely and in greater detail

the conditions under which the news media might exercise power over their audience.

In order to elucidate the role of the news media and their messages, one needs to

scrutinize the strategies used in media discourse, on the one hand, and pay attention to the

audience, on the other hand (Van Dijk,1985а:10). There should be drawn a line between the

topics selection and the content and form of headlines in the press. The topic choice suggests

67

certain access to specific sources of information, whereas the content and form of the

headlines can affect the readers’ interpretation. Bearing in mind these strategies of media

discourse, the manipulative role of media power comes into light. Such a manipulative role

implies presence of persuasive capacity and potential to control readers’ minds. As van Dijk

points out, media manipulation raises negative connotations because the mediated

information is veiled and biased. Thus, this phenomenon – media manipulation – is usually

related to power abuse which van Dijk calls “dominance” (van Dijk, 1997:10,11). Van Dijk

is the first to introduce the term “dominance” when speaking of the way the news media

take advantage of their opportunity to present news to their benefit and to the detriment of

the readers and the way the readers depend upon the news media. I can cite examples from

the two newspapers included in my research in which English loanwords are intertwined in

the news content making it hard for the readers to grasp at once what is being implied:

„В същото време лагерът на скептиците също се активизира, разпалвайки

т.нар. климатгейт и поставяйки за пореден път и по-гръмогласно от всякога под

въпрос научните доказателства за глобалното затопляне.” (Кап.)

„В серия от арести на терористи и рейдове на тайните им убежища през

последните седмици индонезийската полиция разкри значително количество взривни

вещества и други материали, свързани с тези планове.” (Кап.)

„Че ГЕРБ е различна партия от съществуващия политически истъблишмънт,

Бойко Борисов се опита да докаже, като привлече в партията някои нови лица,

включително учили на Запад икономисти и юристи.” (Станд.)

The manipulative role of the press, in this case, is presented by English loanwords

which only a certain circle of people would be capable of understanding. Some might be

able to get the general idea of the word of English origin with the help of the context, but

others might not. Thus, the dominance of the press comes into being in the light of using

English words which, in most cases, are non-transparent to most of the readers. The

examples given above are closely related to the effects of the news content on the audience

which will be considered later.

But the process of media manipulation is not that simple. Psychological and

sociological evidence suggests that a minority of the readers will let themselves be

manipulated. There are a great number of people who withstand the persuasive and

67

manipulative power of the news media. Such people represent the so-called “active

participants” (Van Dijk, 2001) or „active audience” (Allan, 2004:117). They do not take

news reports at their face value and usually accept them skeptically, with a certain amount

of suspicion and distrust. The facts exposed, which assign a due place to the reader’s

participation when speaking of the news media power, suggest that, in order to gain an

objective insight into media power, “mental representations, including so-called social

cognitions such as attitudes and ideologies, shared by groups of readers” (van Dijk, 1997:11)

should be taken into consideration. There are numerous studies on attitudes, attitudes change

and persuasion which cover to a significant extent the issue of social cognitions, i.e.

knowledge, attitudes, values, norms and ideologies.

1.2. Effects of the news content on the audience

Talking about the human nature and its idiosyncrasies, I shall refer to the words of

one of the dazzling figures in Roman history – Caesar, who says “Libenter homines id, quod

cupiunt, credunt” (People willingly believe what they want to believe). Such a perspicacious

thought holds its ground even today. It could be applied even to the debate about media

power and the way readers take an active participation in gaining an insight into the power

of news media. If we differentiate the passive readers from the active readers and leave aside

the passive ones, we shall come up with an arsenal of active readers for whom these ancient

words hold. These readers will be the ones to exercise power over the news reports and

believe what they think is convenient and what they want to believe. Such might be the

effect caused by the news content – rejection of the information provided by the press. Thus,

leaving aside the power of the media, which serves me as a point of departure on media

discourse, I focus my attention on the other side of the coin that is as important as media

power – the effects of the media content on the audience, how the audience negotiates with

the text and what the final results could be.

Another effect that is also common among the readers is the perversion of the

information presented by the press. This is due to readers’ ideologies, values and attitudes

toward the facts in the press, the majority of which are presented in a seemingly objective

fashion. This revealing fact will serve the function of a prerequisite for various

interpretations, no matter whether they border on acceptance with slight modifications of the

content, partial perversion, total perversion or complete rejection. In other words, whereas it

is the text, which defocuses and exerts power over the audience, here, the reader is in a

67

position to accept, reject or pervert the information. In this way, the role of the reader is not

neglected. That is why, the negotiation between text and audience is considered, and it

occupies a due place. It is pointed out that negotiation is an inseparable feature of the

reading process, which implies that the reader is not “a passive recipient of information”,

rather that it is the reader who shapes it (Hartley, 2002:82). The entire process of negotiation

between the written text and the readers is very complicated. Hartley claims that “reading

media texts is a process of negotiation between the text, a given audience and what

ideologies, beliefs and values those groups bring to the process” which comes to show that

not only do the media exercise power over and exert influence on their audience, but also the

audience decides whether to succumb to the media’s influence or approach it critically. Such

a critical approach is always useful when media manipulation is conspicuous. Van Dijk’s

reflections on the evaluative power of the human mind draw our attention to “the control of

attitudes that influence evaluation” (van Dijk, 1997:15). Before mentioning the readers’

attitudes which are so important for news reports evaluation, Van Dijk stresses the role of

knowledge that is of particular significance to understanding text messages. He declares the

importance of knowledge-based understanding without which a proper evaluation is

impossible. I shall recall the example with the “климатгейт” mentioned above, which also

confirms the idea of the control of knowledge. If one does not know that -гейт is frequently

added to common nouns and the new words are native creations whose meaning is related to

a political scandal, e.g. бръмбаргейт, петролгейт, he or she will not be able to understand

what this word means. While compiling the data, I came across other interesting instances in

which the formative -гейт is added to nouns, e.g. футболгейт, казангейт. The latter is

connected with the issue of Bulgarian rakia – whether its production should be restricted to

specialized areas which will be legally acknowledged as such in order to improve its quality

or anybody will be able to still rakia. Another example, which supports the idea of how

important the control of knowledge is, is the good command of English. In some texts in

both newspapers one can encounter words of English origin, (excluding those that are fully

domesticated and integrated in our language as gap fillers), which hamper to some extent

readers’ understanding. Such examples are:

“Премиерът обаче е дал изрична заповед - инвестиционната програма да не се

превърне в римейк на "царските чешмички" от 2005 година.”(Станд.)

“…обявиха членовете на управителния съвет на Българската ритейл

асоциация.”(Станд.)

67

“…международен сетълмент в Базел”(Кап.)

In these cases, the good command of English necessary for the readers to grasp the

whole phrase which at first sight seems quite usual should not be downplayed.

Thus ranked, the properties of evaluation (the control of knowledge followed by the

control of attitudes) form a dualistic relation. It is not sufficient to know the grammar and

syntax of a language, what is more, knowledge of the world is necessary for news

understanding. Otherwise, lack of knowledge may limit news understanding, on the one

hand, and limiting news understanding may result in limiting news evaluation, on the other

hand. Therefore, van Dijk reaches the conclusion that the integral unity of the control of

knowledge and the control of attitudes help readers “evaluate news events” (Van Dijk,

1997:16).

2. The press in Bulgaria. The press during the transition.

Every historical period leaves its own distinguishing mark on the language. Thus,

the 10th of November 1989 is a turning point in the political, social and economic aspects, on

the one hand, and cultural aspect, on the other hand. One of the cultural transformations,

which that change of the social order has brought about, refers to media language. Such a

radical historical change is usually accompanied by a change both for the elite groups and

language. No sooner had the communist regime fallen than the changes in our society began.

As I am going to particularize the language change, I shall leave aside the other

aspects of such a historical change. New keywords begin to flood (Borislavov, 2009) the

Bulgarian lexicon. At the end of the 90-s the Bulgarian lexicon is enriched with concepts

such as “цивилизационен избор, евроинтеграция, евроатлантически ценности, рекет,

мутри, чалга” along with euphemisms – “силови групировки, сенчест бизнес” until we

reach the following fresh examples “вещици” and “лоялен гражданин”. Most of them are

calques or semi-calques, such as shady business – сенчест бизнес and loyal citizen -

“лоялен гражданин”. Others are lexical copies, such as рекет or евроинтеграция. Thus

the Bulgarian language is turning west adopting new concepts and enriching its lexicon with

new terms that go hand in hand with the scientific and technological advancement. During

recent years hundreds of new lexemes have penetrated the Bulgarian language. Their

presence is due to the necessity to give names to the new objects, phenomena, that have

arisen because of the changes in our country. The significant reforms in our society are

67

closely connected with democratization and the development of market economy, the

freedom of speech, the intensification of parliamentary activity. These changes have led to

the appearance of words and phrases such as гражданско общество, отворено

общество, път към Европа, вятър на промяната, спускам информационна завеса. It is

important to say that the process of enriching the vocabulary is mediated by the media which

eagerly embrace every neologism. After the 10th of November, the media are freed from the

rigid dogmas of “la langue de bois”. What is more, journalists embark on searching for

effectiveness and functionality of the text production, which are found in the street language,

jargon and vulgar language. As a result, the media language has become many-sided –

sometimes it can be succinct, exact and colorful, sometimes – frivolous or cynical, and

finally, it can assume the image of a cruel, negligent and insipid destroyer and distorter of

what the freedom of language is supposed to be.

As every freedom leads to unexpected and pernicious effects, language freedom

leads to undesirable consequences. Being perverted and misinterpreted, the concept of

language freedom has attained new properties. The colloquial style has become a valuable

source of piles of expressive words which make the headlines less stiff, more attractive and

informative, and slightly extravagant. This process seems to be a kind of democratization of

the language - a democratization in the sense of language freedom close to cynicism and

vulgarity. What is obvious is that moral values have almost collapsed, previous restrictions

have fallen, and the jargon previously forbidden has become part of a fashionable writing

style. Along with the abovementioned consequences of the democratic power, the influx of

foreign words (mainly of English origin) has become palpable; street language is becoming

more and more frequently used so that the difference between the style of writing and oral

speech is almost blurred.

Another process, which is extremely notable, is the segmentation of the media

language, resulting from the segmentation of its audience. This process is highly palpable

among newspapers where the language employed by a newspaper speaks of the social and

the education class that its audience belongs to. For example, newspapers, which mostly

dwell on economic subjects, are likely to be read by a selected circle of readers whose

interests lie in the field of economics. Whereas, other newspapers engaged in, so to speak,

fields of interest less important as regards knowledge and intellectual capacity, such as

rumors, insignificant events, ordinary quarrels, “hot news” which do not presuppose mental

strain. Therefore, the language of newspapers such as "Dnevnik" and "Kapital" is different

from that of "Shok" and "Weekend" due to the target audience. In less serious newspapers,

67

the journalists are attempting to attract the audience’s attention, offering them more

interesting, diverting and piquant news, no matter how poor in information it might be. Such

newspapers’ one and only aim is to distance the audience from the gray and monotonous

reality and immerse them is a world of fictitious, unencumbered and scandalous stories.

Borislavov (2009) claims that it is the media (which involves the press, television,

the radio and advertising) that introduces new lexemes which either fill lexical gaps, or,

what is becoming a common trend, journalists simply employ a foreign word to improve

word expressiveness, to blur the ideas implied, to show a good command of English and so

on. All the above-mentioned reasons why journalists apply foreign words, mainly from

English, to the Bulgarian grammar rules, indicate that the language democratization is

revealed through the process of mere substitution of an existing Bulgarian word with its

borrowed equivalent. The author also points out that such a process hides many dangers

because people are used to believing that replacing a native word with its foreign equivalent

makes them more democratic, respectively, Western oriented.

In “Recent Tendencies in the Adaptation of Anglicisms in Bulgarian” Nevena

Alexieva argues that a new development on the syntactic level is gaining ground. This new

development comprises two models – the increase in the productivity of compounding and

the N+N attributive model (Alexieva, 2000:15). This is a noticeable trend in contemporary

Bulgarian syntax with a view to achieving a higher degree of language economy. Not

surprisingly, these models are also applicable to journalese for the sake of language

economy and word expressiveness. Compounding without a linking vowel is rapidly gaining

ground in Bulgaria as the influx of compound anglicisms is increasing. It is difficult to draw

a line between compounds borrowed and native creations. What is apparent to almost all the

natives is that the method of creating such compounds is not native, it is strictly English.

Here are some examples – топ новина, топмодел, топ репортер, сексгейт, казангейт,

сексскандал, допинг проба. The N+N attributive model has become dramatically intensive

over the past years as a consequence of borrowing. This phenomenon “is characteristic of

English and alien to the inflectional system of Bulgarian" (Alexieva, 2000:16). Nevertheless,

the receptor language - Bulgarian and its system – have accepted this attributive pattern,

which at presence is highly productive mainly in journalistic articles (cf. хай тек форум,

бизнес партньор, офис техника, тийм билдинг). This new attributive pattern is gaining

overwhelming popularity with acronyms where the acronym is the modifier - US политика,

VIP процес.

67

Having outlined some of the tendencies in the press language during the transition,

I shall proceed to the next point that concerns the sociolinguistic perspectives for employing

anglicisms.

3. Socio-linguistic perspectives for employing anglicisms.

There are several socio-linguistic factors of why the journalistic register is strewn

with anglicisms. These factors, such as terminological rigour, sectoral jargon, brevity,

unconscious pro-English reflexes, underlie the usage of terms of English origin. We shall

take a look at the sociolinguistic perspectives which are considered motives for the so

widespread use of anglicisms among Bulgarian journalists.

3.1. Terminological rigour

Journalists apply the loan word instead of a native one in many cases. Sometimes,

this is simply because an equivalent native word for the concept does not exist. Such cases

are numerous when using terms related to culturally or institutionally specific subjects. In

such cases, journalists usually use the loan word to denote the subject they are referring to.

In cases when a new object, idea or activity enters a culture, the word or words which

express them are borrowed. As Hoffer states in his “Language Borrowing and Language

Diffusion” “the most basic function of a loanword is communicating the new

object/action/idea” (Hoffer, 2002:18). Thus, the loanword enters the language and becomes

part of its lexicon. I will cite an example that is in accord with the abovementioned

statement that puts the communicative function of the loanwords first. Terms from IT and

Internet, whose terminology is coined in USA and Great Britain, enter the Bulgarian

language (e.g. компютър, принтер, скенер, драйвър, рутър). For these terms no

Bulgarian equivalents exist. Factors such as scientific-technical progress, the new

information and communication technologies and the steady information exchange lead to a

great range of innovations in the everyday life of individuals. These factors are the

prerequisites for the influx of new lexemes. So, words such as интернет, компактдиск are

bound to exist in our language. I could add one more example of a term which does not have

a Bulgarian counterpart - SPAM (a term for electronic junk mail). Speaking of the IT

terminology, we cannot overlook the fact that a lot of the terms used are translated in

Bulgarian but they are ignored either for being too long to articulate, or for people’s

preferring the English term to the Bulgarian one for different reasons – just a habit, a kind of

67

showing off, striving for being part of community, a fashion. On the other hand, a native

expression exists as a long-winded paraphrase which is not convenient at all. Such a long

phrase is obstructive to readers’ grasping its idea and could result in biases in its meaning.

3.2. Branch jargon

In some areas, there is “an arsenal of ready-made English-language terminology”

(Rollason, 2003:27) which cannot be substituted with a native one because of its specificity.

In addition, it is pointless to substitute it simply because it conveys certain associations that

a native word is not able to convey. An example of sector jargon could be non-classical

music: jazz, rock ‘n’ roll. This phenomenon dates back to the early 20th century when the

spread of non-classical music was rising. Famous names in these music branches succeeded

in making their music styles popular in the non-English speaking countries. These music

genres became extremely popular and the interest was rising. Another example of branch

jargon is sports. It inundates with English loans because the greater part of the sports

originates in England or the USA – „футбол, баскетбол, крикет, боулинг, волейбол,

тенис, and хокей”. This sports terminology has permeated the Bulgarian language and

remained here for good.

3.3. Brevity

The role of the Grecham’s law of language economy is undoubtedly acknowledged.

It says that we rarely use two words where we can use only a single word. It is the human

aspiration for saying something as concisely as possible. We could frankly state that

economy leads to progress and progress itself results in development.

Language economy will always hold an important position when talking, writing or

speaking. One always strives to say heaps of things within a minute and for the sake of

being quick one may use loanwords. Sometimes loanwords which are shorter than the native

ones are used in newspaper headlines. On the one hand, they are easy to read, on the other,

the idea is much easier to grasp and assimilate. One should not overlook the fact that some

writers and journalists apply loan words instead of native ones not only because of the

unwritten rule of language economy, but also because of one’s will to sound extraordinary

and to incite the readers to read the whole article. Journalists often play with words in an

attempt to attract the reader’s attention. Owing to English borrowings, journalists succeed in

shortening the message directed at the audience and making it more expressive. An

67

appropriate example here is the loanword „килър” instead of „наемен убиец”. First, the

borrowed word „килър” is much more expressive than the native combination of words

„наемен убиец”. Second, the loan is more concise than the native one. In this case, the law

of language economy and the striving for word expressiveness combine perfectly.

3.4. Comprehensibility

The factor of comprehensibility should not be underestimated because it is the key

to revealing what lies behind the word we use. A certain amount of people because of

nationalistic views try to preserve the language as pure as possible. They start substituting

acknowledged loanwords with native words. Thus, the outcomes of such substitutions

appear to be, at least, two – either the newly coined native word will be completely

incomprehensible to most people or the native made-up word will cause bewilderment at the

fact the foreign ready-made word is replaced by a native and less transparent one. That is

why for the sake of comprehensibility words of English origin are used to denote specific

objects, phenomena, concepts and activities.

3.5. Unconscious pro-English reflexes

Another sociolinguistic factor to which great importance should be attached is the

unconscious pro-English reflexes. Such reflexes could be engendered by two factors:

expression of fashion and over-exposure to English media. People talk about fashion in

clothing, fashion in music choice, the way one behaves and treats others, etc. Together with

these aspects of the fashion, there is another aspect, which is worth as much attention as the

abovementioned ones – the fashion in speaking. In terms of word usage, some people tend to

be the first to use new items that enter the lexicon. The reasons for preferring loanwords to

native ones are numerous. One reason for using loanwords is that they label the speaker as

fashionable. In an attempt to sound up-to-date, people usually resort to the usage of

loanwords. It is a worldwide trend to use a foreign word, especially English because of its

unprecedented position as a lingua franca. The fashion ensuing from the usage of English

borrowings leads to putting a sign of equality between English and fashion

(English=fashion). Such associations make people, who are greatly influenced by the current

tendencies in the fashion, including the fashion in language, turn to using Anglicisms. The

fact that English is a proven fashionable language, the language of the present and the

future, the language of a modern and prosperous life, is acknowledged. Endeavoring to keep

67

pace with this modern world and win the label of fashionable, one’s speech or written

discourse is interspersed with Anglicisms. The new items used may enter and remain for

centuries or they may enter for a time and then fall into disuse. I support Hoffer’s statement

that “students seem to be constantly aware of changes in the most recent usage in language

as well as in fashion from abroad” (Hoffer, 2002:19). It should be born in mind that some

fashionable items will probably be short-lived, unless they prove themselves useful.

The over-exposure to the English media is a core factor when considering

unconscious pro- English reflexes. It is so because the channels through which one can listen

to English speech or read English newspapers are numerous and the greater part of them is

easily accessible, bearing in mind the power of Internet and the influence which exerted on

the people, their way of thinking, speaking and way of life as a whole. Today English is a

source of information, communication and entertainment. There exists no obstacle which

could hinder one from listening to English radios or reading English newspapers. Even if

one is not willing to get closer to English, in the end, he/she faces reality – the unabated

flood of anglicisms. Unconsciously the individual starts using anglicisms and finally, he/she

gets accustomed to them.

The two factors considered – the expression of fashion and over-exposure to

English media – may account for the widespread use of loanwords (Rollason, 2003:28). As

an example I could give the words “хепънинг, дедлайн“ which make their way through the

exuberance of Bulgarian words and their synonyms and are gaining ground.

I.

67

RESEARCH Methodology and goal of the research

The goal of this research is to determine the density of anglicisms in two Bulgarian

newspapers - Капитал and Стандарт, focusing on four news genres that are common to

both newspapers – Politics and Economy, Society, World and Sport. This will enable me to

investigate how the frequency of English loanwords varies in different news genres and

which are the most frequently occurring anglicisms. The following research will give an

answer to the research questions posed in the introductory part:

(1). Which one of the two newspapers has a higher percentage of anglicisms?

(2). How does the frequency of English borrowings vary in different news

genres?

(3). Of what grammatical type are the English loanwords?

(4). Which are the most frequently occurring anglicisms in journalese?

To begin with, I downloaded the editions of Капитал of the last year (2009). The

total number of all its editions during that year is 46. I decided to randomly choose 46

editions of the daily paper Стандарт in order to make equal the number of the editions of

both newspapers. I examined them and found that four news genres overlap in the two

papers – Politics and Economy, Society, World and Sport. Thus I decided to investigate the

frequency of English loanwords in these 4 news genres. So, I investigated 184 articles per a

newspaper - 368 articles in all. Choosing different news genres allows me to determine

which of them is likely to have a higher percentage of anglicisms.

To alleviate the program, I divided all the articles of each news genre into 5 files in

Notepad format. As a next step, I processed all the 368 articles divided into several Notepad

files with the help of the program BUILD that gave me all the words in the newspapers in an

alphabetic order with the frequency they had appeared in the newspapers. From the lists of

words I extracted all the English loanwords, compound words with an English part and

shortened loan words making thus lists of anglicisms that were the material for my research.

Some types of words that are not included in the count are proper names, names of cities,

and names of events (festivals, TV broadcastings, newspapers e.g Music idol, Survivor,

Independent). Having compiled all the material needed I added every list of words

connected with a certain news genre to the list of the same genre. Thus, I came up with a list

comprising all the words of English origin in one news genre, e.g. Society. It gave me all the

anglicisms in an alphabetic order with the number of their occurrences. Bearing in mind that

67

I studied four news genres in each newspaper, I ended up with 8 lists dedicated to Politics

and Economy, Society, World and Sport in the two newspapers. Having counted all the

words, I determined the percentage of the anglicisms employed in each of the news genres

in the two newspapers, showing thus how the frequency of English loans varies in different

news genres. I have to point out that the lists of words are presented in Appendix I. The

adjectives/adverbs and participles are in bold, while all the verbs are underlined. Thus, it is

more convenient to distinguish nouns from adjectives, adverbs, participles and verbs. After

that, I determined which newspaper contains more English loanwords than the other. Then I

combined the percentages of each news genre of the two newspapers and concluded which

news genre is the most prolific in anglicisms. Furthermore, I determined the frequency of

the anglicisms used and noted which borrowing items are frequently used in journalese.

Table 6 shows the 15 most frequently occurring loanwords and their number of occurrences.

Finally, I built a hierarchy of borrowability applicable to the present-day Bulgarian-English

contact situation reflected in the Bulgarian journalists’ word choice. Thus it became evident

of what grammatical category the English loans typically are.

There is one more Appendix in which native creations under the influence of

English and calques are included. These native creations are divided into several groups

depending on the English component which is a constituent of a certain creation.

Conducting such research will help me identify one side of the phenomenon

popular with journalists, called “democratization” of newspaper language, which overlaps

with the idea of Westernization of journalese.

1. Results and Analysis

67

The present analysis will elucidate the major trends in the Bulgarian press

language, in this case in Kapital and Standart, under the influence of the English language.

The first trend noted in the two papers, which is characteristic of the English

language, is compounding without a linking vowel between the two roots. As Maria

Kolarova states “it has been boosted not only by the direct borrowing of English compounds

but also by some other important factors” (Kolarova, 2006:75). The high productivity of the

Noun+Noun pattern is the most important factor, which has stimulated the creation of a

great number of compounds known as “native creations” (Alexieva, 2001:253). Thus, for

example, the loan noun уеб (E web) combines with a number of native nouns so that a large

number of compound words are produced such as уебстраница, уебадрес,

уебдестинация, уебкамера. The first element is a modifier, while the second element,

which is the head, determines the lexical meaning and the morphological characteristics of

the compound word. Concerning the fact that all compound nouns are written either solid or

with a hyphen, the instances in which some combinations are not spelled solid or with a

hyphen are regarded as N+N syntactic constructions, not as compounds. For example,

допинг проба, рок звезда, интернет търговия and many others. Other examples of

compounds registered in my corpus are: барплот, голмайстор, голфиграч, гейфестивал,

джипбаничарка, интернетпотребител, митинг-концерт, секслобист, секспартия,

сексподдръжници, стрес-тест, фен-артикули, фенклуб, фолкидол. As is obvious, the

English atributive pattern N+N has become so productive in Bulgarian that a large number

of compounds have a loan noun as their first component. These compounds may not have an

English equivalent which is also a compound word (Kolarova, 2006:77).

Native combinations are being coined under English influence. An interesting

example of a native creation is джипбаничарка which does not have an English equivalent

for sure. Calques are also gaining ground, e.g. гост-звезда. This trend is becoming strong in

the Bulgarian press language out of the need for language economy, on the one hand, and

the increase of the English influence on the Bulgarian language as a whole, on the other.

Other examples created under the influence of English are: соцлистата, спецченгетата –

whose first components are clipped forms.

Some new elements in word-formation in Bulgarian encountered in my corpus are

топ-, е-. Топ- is a highly productive element in word-formation at present, which combines

with a variety of native nouns adding to them the feature of “of the best quality” or “highly

popular, important and demanded”. The examples with топ- as a first component in my

corpus are the following: топченге, топмафиот, топдепутат, топпартньор, топ

67

икономист, топфинансист, топексперт, топ играчи and топ такса, топ фирма, топ

ниво, топтим. The majority of the examples consist of nouns denoting people. Топ- also

combines with a number of inanimate nouns which boosts this pattern of word-formation -

топ такса and топтим, топ шампионат, топ форма, топ ниво.

E- or и- is another popular new element in word-formation due to the advances in

information technologies. It is used in combination with inanimate nouns adding to their

meaning the feature “electronic”. The examples with e-/u- as a first combining element in

my corpus are the following: и-геймър, e-банкиране. The first example with и- is based on

the English pronunciation of e-.

Other combining forms borrowed from English and registered in my corpus are:

видео- (E video-), евро- (E euro-), еко- (E eco-). These forms usually combine with native

and borrowed nouns to produce compound words such as видеоклип, видеокамери,

видеопослание, видеообръщение; еврофутбол, евролиста, европари, еврозона,

еврогафове, евросубсидия, еврофондове, евронорма; екомафия.

Another interesting and gradually increasing trend in the Bulgarian press is the

usage of the formative -гейт as a means to designate some kind of a growing scandal. It is

frequently added to common nouns and the new words are native creations whose meaning

is related to some kind of a scandal, either political (бръмбаргейт), nature-related

(климатгейт) or, as is the case with казангейт, economic. In the latter example, the

formative -гейт is added to казан to form a very curious compound word, which denotes

the issue related to rakia stilling. The question is whether there will be any restrictions

imposed on the production of rakia or not.,

Apart from the native creations under the influence of English, there is a good

number of direct English loanwords such as ъндърграунд –

„Връзките на ъндърграунда с управниците са кристално ясни” (Станд)

Other examples of Anglicisms are: феърплей, стрес, старт, роуминг, лоби,

конкракт, лизинг, клуб, кастинг, лаптоп, римейк, etc. As is salient, some of the words of

English origin are fully established, others are neologisms. It is a matter of time whether the

latter will gain ground or drop out of the Bulgarian word stock. No one can make any

suggestions whether one word will be able to adapt to the new system of the recipient

language and will be cordially accepted by the bulk of the Bulgarian community or not. That

is why a statement made by Andrei Danchev that a word such as шоу will turn out to be

only a fashionable word that will become obsolete and will drop out of the Bulgarian word

67

stock is unacceptable and too extreme (Danchev, 1981:201). As we see, this word has found

its proper place in the Bulgarian lexicon. Moreover, шоу is no longer considered foreign, but

a loanword necessary for the completion of the Bulgarian word stock.

There are examples that evoke pejorative associations – a sign of a stylistic

segmentation of English loanwords, which on native soil are stylistically neutral. The same

holds for гърла. Гърла is burdened with a pejorative connotation in Bulgarian, whereas girl

lacks such a pejorative connotation in the source language. Lately, however, it has started to

develop a more neutral sense. Some clippings registered in the corpus are also colloquial:

ник, сешън. The corpus also contains a number of loanwords, which have preserved the

colloquial connotation of their English etymon. Such examples are: бос, рекет, фен. Here

are some examples that illustrate the use of these loans:

„Двамата пътни босове отказаха да се ангажират с прогноза”(Станд.)

„Така фирмите са били подложени на своеобразен рекет” (Кап.)

„Разочарованието на феновете със сигурност е било голямо”(Станд.)

Similarly, гард, килър also have colloquial or pejorative connotations in Bulgarian

in contrast with their neutral English etymons: guard, killer. Гард refers to a person who is

supposed to protect another person of high reputation:

„гардовете са истински професионалисти и с тях никога не е имало

инциденти” (Кап.)

„Наши гардове пазят мадридски топмафиот” (Станд.)

Килър is mainly used in the press to refer to a person hired to kill someone. This

loan is also used to achieve a certain sensational effect. Here is an example of a headline in

Standart – “САЩ още търсят килърите на разчленен наш”.

Some loanwords take on a different, more favorable direction as opposed to their

English etymons. A good example from the corpus is ноу-хау which has a prestigious

English sounding unlike its etymon know-how which has a colloquial use:

„Просто ви е нужно чуждото ноухау“(Кап.)

”ще ни помогне да придобием ноу-хау за работа с тези пари” (Станд.)

„По програмата предприятията ще получат ноу-хау в областта на

използването на финансовите инструменти на ЕС” (Станд)

Direct borrowings such as VIP, US, USB, PR, GSM, TV, SMS are widely used in

journalese with their original English spelling preserved. Examples here are: VIP персони,

67

VIP номер, PR ефекти, US посланик, US войници, PR агент, GSM антени. But in the

articles in both newspapers, I came across some instances in which these acronyms are

spelled out in Cyrilic letters - есемес, пиар, вип.

More and more new concepts are making their way into Bulgarian. The steady

penetration into Bulgarian of concepts for items invented in England or the USA is easibly

noticeable. I can cite some of them that are included in my corpus, such as деливъридж,

левъридж, джойнт венчър, хендикап. Examples of this kind are:

„В САЩ процесите на деливъридж (обратното на левъридж процес, при

който с цел реализиране на по-големи печалби, се използват заемни пари),…,

принудиха американските домакинства да потребяват по-малко и да спестяват

повече.” (Kaп.)

„Ако това бъде позволено, на практика „Газпром“ ще стане собственик на

част от българските тръби, тъй като за „Южен поток“ е договорено да се създаде

джойнт венчър (50 на 50) с руския концерн.” (Кап.)

„Ливъриджът е финансов инструмент, при който инвеститорът участва в

покупката на даден актив с незначителни собствени средства, а останалите са

заемни. По принцип всяка ипотека е някаква форма на финансов ливъридж” (Станд.)

„Хендикап е личен коефициент за аматьори, изчислен според техните

постижения и степен на голф умения.” (Кап.)

The examples cited above are a good illustration of how the usage of English

loanwords can enrich the linguistic means through which one can express a certain thought.

On no occasion does such a usage of a loanword hinder readers from grasping what is

meant. The explanation of the new terms is what helps the audience to understand what is

being reported. It is exhaustive and the audience can easily follow the news content without

being embarrassed by the novel term.

The anglicisms паркинг and дансинг are some of the most frequently used words

that end in –ing. The point here is that once having entered the recipient language’s system,

the anglicisms break any relations with the lexical and grammatical system of their model

words. Thus, the lexical copies паркинг and дансинг, correspond to compounds in English –

parking-lot, dancing-floor. In this case, these partial lexical copies have preserved the

original meaning of their etymons and, at the same time, have undergone structural

67

simplification by dropping out their second root. I came across, however, an example in

which the two roots of the English etymon are preserved in the loan - паркинг-място. The

Anglicism completely corresponds to its etymon. This example is one of a kind and the

reason why the second root is preserved is simply a journalist’s decision. Apart from the

curious fact that the Anglicism is structurally similar to its English etymon, it is a sign that

the journalist has, at least, some knowledge in English.

There are several pseudo-loans that are included in my corpus. Examples are:

автогол, танкове, хепиенд, коктейл. These pseudo-loans are mingled with the direct

borrowings. Nevertheless, they do not have any effect on the total percentage of lexical

copies because they are few. However, these pseudo-loans suggest a striving for

Westernization not only of the press language, but also of Bulgarian as a whole.

Having made an analysis of the two Appendices and having outlined the major

trends in both newspapers, I shall turn to the quantitative aspect of this research.

Table 2 gives a summary of all the data collected. The numbers indicate the

percentages of Anglicisms out of the total number of words in the articles. The numbers that

correspond to a specific news section in a certain newspaper were calculated by dividing the

total number of anglicisms across all articles of that genre in the particular newspaper by the

total number of words in these articles. The last column indicates the percentages of English

loanwords in each genre across all articles in the two newspapers. The last row indicates the

percentages of Anglicisms in each newspaper across all articles in the four genres. The

number in the bottom right cell shows the overall percentage of English loanwords of all

articles included in the research.

Стандарт КапиталGenre

(overall)Politics & economy 1,04% 0,66% 0,85%Society 0,76% 0,68% 0,72%

Sport 3,04% 2,94% 2,99%World 1,26% 0,64% 0,95%Newspaper (overall) 1,53% 1,23% 1,38%

Table 2: Summary of all the data collected

Figure 2 below is a histogram of the data in Table 2.

67

Figure 2: Percentage of English loanwords in Капитал and Стандарт

(2) How d oes the frequency of English borrowings vary in different newspapers?

The Стандарт stands out with 1,53% English loanwords. The Капитал has the

percentage of English words 1,23%. The newspapers can be ranked with respect to the

percentage of English loanwords they have as follows:

NewspapersEnglish loanwords as a

percentage of total words

Стандарт 1,53%

Капитал 1,23%

Table 3: Frequency of English loanwords in the two newspapers

(3) How does the frequency of English loanwords vary in different genres of news?

With respect to the number of English loans in the press language of the two

papers, the Sport section stands out with 2,99%. Second place, but far below the Sport

section, holds the World section with 0,95%. The Politics & Economy (0,85%) and the

Society (0,72%) news genres are not too far apart from the World one. However, the Society

section occupies the last place in Table 3. The difference between the news genres in the

first and last place is palpable – 2,27%. Thus the Sport section among all four sections holds

the first position with the outstanding percentage of English loanwords of 2,99%.

67

Table 4 shows the percentage of English loanwords in different genres of news.

The last row indicates the overall percentage of anglicisms in the four news genres of each

newspaper examined.

News genreEnglish loanwords as a percentage

of total words

Politics & economy 0,85%

Society 0,72%

World 0,95%

Sport 2,99%

Overall 1,38%

Table 4: Frequency of English loanwords in different genres of news

The percentage of English loanwords across all genres is 1,38%. The news genre

Sport has the highest number of English loanwords, followed by World, Politics and

Economy and Society. As is clear from Table 4, Society has the lowest number of English

loanwords. The reasons for the higher percentage of English loans in the Sport section are

obvious. Many of the sport-related borrowings are domain-specific, i.e. there are no

Bulgarian equivalents, and the usage of English borrowings is a necessity. With the huge

number of sports terms coming from England and the United States, the Bulgarian language

has adopted a vast majority of new terms, e.g. футбол, крикет, тенис, волейбол. Apart

from the Sport section, the other sections have a relatively small percentage of English

loanwords ranging from 0,72% to 0,95%.

(5) Hierarchy of borrowability

Organizing the words into their grammatical categories provides an insight into

which grammatical type of words tends to be borrowed more often from English into

Bulgarian. Table 5 shows the number of occurrences of anglicisms in the grammatical

categories of noun, verb, adjective/adverb/participle, and other.

Grammatical TypeNumber of occurrences

67

Noun 7868Verb 147Adjective/Adverb/Participle 809Other 0

Table 5: Distribution of English borrowings with respect to grammatical categories

On the basis of the data from Table 5, I can build the following hierarchy of

borrowability applicable to the two newspapers involved in my research – Капитал and

Стандарт:

nouns > adjectives/adverbs/participles > verbs

The number of occurrences of nouns in the two newspapers is 7868. 7868 out of

the total number of English loanwords – 8824 - present 89,2% nouns. Thus, nouns are by far

the most frequently borrowed grammatical type. Verbs (147) and

Adjectives/Adverbs/Participles (809) together present 10,8% of the total number of the

English loanwords.

Verbs include examples like джазирам, шокирам, лобира, сканира, хоства.

Аdjectives/adverbs include футболен, бордови, бюджетен, лобиращ, медиен. No

English loanwords from any category other than the three abovementioned were borrowed.

The data in Table 5 illustrate a general tendency of language to borrow nouns over words of

any other grammatical category. According to Trask, there are three main reasons for this.

First, nouns are far more numerous than any other category of words. Second, new things

are most likely to be denoted by nouns, and third, new nouns are generally easier to

accommodate within the grammatical system of a language (Trask, 1996:23). According to

67

Trask, many English borrowings are terms denoting domain-specific innovations that did

not originate in Bulgarian. As such things are often objects invented or discovered in Britain

or the U.S., or names of people or groups of people first used in the U.S., it is normal that

most of them are nouns. In fact, looking at the list of the fifteen most frequently used

English loanwords (see Table 6 below), we find that two of them (интернет, холдинг) refer

to recent inventions in the U.S., and five of them (клуб, лидер, тийм, футболист,

бизнесмен) refer to or are connected with categories of people.

(5) And finally, which are the most frequently used anglicisms in journalese?

While some English loans are not used very frequently, others occur over and over

again. Table 6 shows the fifteen most frequently-occurring English loans among those

found in all the articles in the two newspapers included in my research. The value in the

frequency column on the right counts the occurrences of the word as well as the instances in

which they form part of a compound. For example, included in the word count for бюджет

is the number of times бюджет occurred as well as words like проектобюджет. Plural

forms are also included in the count.

№ LoanwordsNumber of

Occurrences

1. лидер,и 6592. бюджет,и 601

3. бизнес,и 4954. мач,ове 3975. клуб,ове 313

6. медия,ии 2177. бюджетен,ни,на,но 2088. бизнесмен,и 170

9. тим, тийм,ове 15910. футболист,и 14211. интернет 13612. холдинг,и 12013. футбол 118

14. интервю,та 11315. футболен,на,но 108

Table 6: 15 most frequently occurring English loanwords

Table 6 shows that лидер,и with 659 occurrences is the most frequently occurring

English loanword. Бюджет,и holds the second position with 601 occurrences. The third

67

place is for бизнес,и – 495. The fourth and fifth places are assigned to мач,ове (397) and

клуб,ове (313). The difference in number of occurrences between the next two English loans

- медия,ии (217) and бюджетен,ни,на,но (208) - is slight. Бизнесмен,и (170) and тим,

тийм,ове (159) occupy the next two positions in the table. The difference between the

following loans - футболист,и (142) and интернет (136) - is quite insignificant, only 6

words. The last four loans that have happened to be part of the most frequently used loans in

the two newspapers are холдинг,и (120), футбол (118), интервю,та (113) and

футболен,на,но (108). The interval between the last loanwords in the table ranges from 2 to

5 words. This comes to show that the four of them are competing with each other for the 12 th

place. Obviously, their places are interchangeable.

The Anglicisms in Bulgarian evidently belong to a variety of registers. But a large

number of words are fully integrated and belong to the neutral everyday language. Looking

through the list of the 15 most frequently appearing loanwords in the two Bulgarian

newspapers, one can easily come to the only conclusion possible – they are all fully

integrated in the Bulgarian language. In this way, these loanwords are regarded as

established loans. That is why the reason for their frequent occurrence in the Bulgarian

newspaper language is their thorough assimilation in our language. The second reason for

their widespread usage is that most of them are lexical gap fillers – бюджет, бизнес,

холдинг, футбол, клуб, медия. Solely the loan тим or тийм has a Bulgarian equivalent –

отбор. However, if we refer to people who work together, usually at one and the same

place, the Bulgarian word отбор will not be properly used. The monthly or yearly meeting

organized to bring together all the workers of a certain company is often called тийм

билдинг. It is becoming a steady trend in business environment to use this English loan

word.

From the analysis conducted above, together with the tables and charts that show

the English loanwords presence in the two Bulgarian newspapers, one can get a clear view

of the conspicuous use of English loanwords, both fully established and neologisms,

accepted by the whole Bulgarian society or characteristic of one’s idiolect, lexical gap fillers

or associatively and stylistically colored loanwords. The amount of the English loanwords in

any news genre is not too large but the use of almost any English word is noticeable. The

terms borrowed to meet the need to name a newly invented object, concept or phenomenon

(e.g. холдинг, импийчмънт, ливъридж) are becoming more and more as a result of the

advancing evolution of human thought. As Gadamer states - “it (language) is something we

live in and it lives in ourselves”. His thought represents the dualistic relation between

67

language and people. People use linguistic expressions to designate something they have

invented or discovered. On the other hand, language is alive due to our capability to use it in

such a way that we can express our thoughts, ideas and opinion, but, what is more, we can

add a nuance and a manipulative hue only through the careful word choice we make. Thus,

the desired effect will be achieved. Anglicisms, which have stylistic or associative nuance,

are used to achieve a certain effect and convey an idea as clearly as possible. However, some

loanwords, as we saw above, when I discussed media power and its effects on the audience

focusing on the control of knowledge, are being chosen, intentionally or not, to blur the

news content and hamper readers’ understanding. This fact once again corroborates the

undeniable power of language.

The English loans registered in my corpus are a clear manifestation of journalists’

attempt to integrate into the prestigious modern Western life. In this way, the usage of

English loans (and English syntactic constructions which have widened their scope)

illustrates the striving for Westernization – a characteristic feature of democratization.

67

CONCLUSION

Globalization is a dynamic process that is becoming more and more palpable among

people of different nations. One of the evident outcomes of the globalizing world is

standartization backed up by ongoing communication. The rising need for communication

and the pressing need for creating standartization are the two fundamental prerequisites for

the creation of an international language. The expansion of British colonial power and the

emergence of the United States as the leading economic power placed the English language

on top of the language hierarchy making it a global language. Thus, the English language

comes onto the scene at a certain historical point.

Since the usage of English as an international language is widespread, every

language is bound to change because of its contact with English. That is why language

change is due to language contact. The process of globalization, in turn, triggers language

contact. Thus, the reciprocity of these phenomena is evident. I have focused on one of the

major phenomena of language change - lexical borrowing, which is possible because every

language and its semantic system is ready to accept loanwords.

The Bulgarian-English contact situation triggers the advent of English loanwords in

Bulgarian. Bulgarian is quite a hospitable recipient language that embraces any new lexical

copy cordially. I am employing the term lexical copy for I follow the alternative treatment of

lexical borrowing which recognizes the active role that the recipient language plays in this

process. Moreover, the receptor language uses its own phonemic, graphemic, grammatical

and lexical resources to imitate the foreign item. Another point that is worth mentioning is

that the lexical copy loses its morphological and semantic transparency and becomes

motivated by the receptor language's socio-cultural situation.

The phenomenon of lexical borrowing is due to several factors. The most common

factor is a sheer linguistic necessity to fill lexical gaps, followed by the prestige attached to

the English language, the sign of fashion that evolves from using modern-sounding English

words, the striving for drawing nearer to Western societies that suggests Westernization of

the Bulgarian language, which, in turn, represents the process of democratization of our

language.

I narrowed down the scope of the great topic of lexical borrowing to lexical

borrowing from English in the Bulgarian press. The two newspapers that I have investigated

are Капитал and Стандарт. The data collected from each of them are organized in a corpus

applied in Appendix I. My corpus consists of 8824 English lexical copies: 7968 nouns, 809

67

adjectives/adverbs/participles and 147 verbs. It is important to mention that my corpus

comprises the three forms of linguistic borrowing: direct borrowing, calques and pseudo-

loans. Thus, the Appendix I comprises mainly direct borrowings and few pseudo-loans such

as автогол, хепиенд, танкове. As I said, these pseudo-loans constitute an insignificant

percent of the total number of English loanwords and it does not affect the calculations

further on. Calques as well as native creations are presented in a single Appendix entitled

Appendix II, which illustrates the flexibility of the host language to produce its own

meaningful lexical items. An interesting example of native creations is джипбаничарка

which harmoniously combines in itself the lexical copy джип and the native word

баничарка. Another interesting native creation in казангейт which I discussed above.

The overall percentage of the lexical copies in the two newspapers is 1,38%. Such a

percentage of Anglicisms cannot arouse any anxiety about language “pollution” with lexical

copies. In this way, the fears of purists that the influx of English loanwords will flood

Bulgarian are groundless. The Bulgarian press, which is one of the alledged sources through

which lexical copies are likely to enter Bulgarian, is not sprinkled with Anglicisms. That is

why our language is not in peril at all. There is no conspicuous evidence that English will

substitute Bulgarian. What is obvious is the English influence on our language, which comes

naturally, bearing in mind its position as a global language. After all, every language is

liable to change under the influence and in the contact with another language. In this case,

the Bulgarian-English contact has lead to the linguistic phenomenon of borrowing.

Moreover, the syntanctic construction N + N attributive model, which, previously, was

completely alien to the Bulgarian language, now, is becoming more and more usable as in

допинг проба, рок звезда, интернет търговия. Undoubtedly, this trend in the press

language is gaining ground under English influence.

Leaving aside the unquestionable influence of English, it is the law of language

economy that also has to be taken into account. It is less time-consuming and more space-

saving to say something in a compact way with less words. Journalists are trying to express

their thoughts in a concise way, on the one hand, and attract reader’s attention, on the other.

In this sense, I am touching upon the socio-linguistic perspectives for using English lexical

copies. The main socio-linguistic perspectives are terminological rigour, branch jargon,

brevity, comprehensibility and unconscious pro-English reflexes. Each of these socio-

linguistic perspectives is present in both the newspapers – Капитал and Стандарт.

To answer the first research question - Which one of the two newspapers has a

higher percentage of Anglicisms? – I shall refer to Table 3 which indicates that Стандарт

67

outruns Капитал by 0,30% in lexical copies usage. So, the percentage of Anglicisms in

Стандарт is 1,53% and in Капитал – 1,23%. No matter how small the difference of the

percentages of lexical copies of English is, after all, it exists! The two newspapers are

deemed serious. Стандарт, however, is an everyday newspaper, read by a great variety of

readers with various interests, of different social classes, political belonging and education

level. Here the educational level and the social class play the crucial role in understanding

the news content. The journalists who are well acquainted with this fact take advantage of

the poor knowledge of English of some readers and use Anglicisms to manipulate them.

Being unable to grasp what is being implied by a certain Anglicism unfamiliar to them, they

aare becoming dependent on the press language. In this way, the press reveals its true face –

that of the power abuser, a manipulative device for news creating and domination over the

news content.

I shall leave aside the dominance of the press that, as has become clear, goes hand in

hand with the control of knowledge and I shall turn to the other extreme of the scale. The

bigger part of the lexical copies is, in fact, lexical gap fillers. I was amazed at the fact that

those lexical copies, which are borrowed out of linguistic necessity, either because there is

no Bulgarian equivalent for the new concept, phenomenon or idea (e.g. бизнес, лидер,

футбол, интернет, холдинг), or the existing Bulgarian equivalent is a cumbersome and

long-winded phrase (e.g. уикенд “the days of rest”, импийчмънт “accusation of a public

figure of misconduct in office”, ливъридж “the use of a small initial investment, credit, or

borrowed funds to gain a very high return in relation to one's investment”), represent the

larger part of the whole pool of English loanwords. Another impression, which I gained

while tracking the unfamiliar and interesting examples, is that some of the terms were

accompanied by explanations that facilitate readers’ understanding. It is also a way of

introducing new terms that enrich the Bulgarian word stock as well as one’s own lexicon.

The second research question - How does the frequency of English borrowings vary

in different news genres? – is probably one of the most curious questions. During the whole

procedure of gathering and processing data, I was asking myself exactly this question.

Sincerely, I had an expectation that the Sport section would be the most prolific in lexical

copies since the sport-related terms are fully established and cannot be substituted by any

other words. I did not have any idea of which news genre would occupy the next position.

My expectation that the Sport section will be the most inundated with lexical copies is

grounded in the data in Table 2. The percentage of the Sport section in the two newspapers

is almost 3%, the second place holds the news genre World (0, 95%), the third place by the

67

Politics and Economy section (0,85%) and the last place is occupied by the Society news

genre (0,72%). As is evident, the distance between the first and the second place as to the

percentage of English lexical copies is enormous – 2,05%. Thus, the Sport section is a long

way ahead of the other news genres. The others have an almost equal percentage of lexical

copies. If we consider the percentage of English loanwords in different news genres in each

newspaper, we will see that the percentages in two of the news genres in both newspapers

overlap and they are – the Society section and the Sport section. In the Sport section there is

a variety of sports and sport-related terms invented or coined in the USA or in England,

which have come into the Bulgarian language with their original names. The Society

section, on the other hand, is organized in a considerably similar way in the two newspapers.

They dwell on almost the same topics, concerning the everyday life and everyday problems

of Bulgarian society. This is the reason why this news genre has а similar percentage of

lexical copies in the two newspapers. The rest of the news genres – Politics and Economy

and World – have different percentages of lexical copies in the two newspapers. The Politics

and Economy section has 0,66% in Капитал and 1,04% in Стандарт. Here, the difference is

due to the content of the news. I have come across several articles dedicated to resource

granting to sports organizations or a politician’s visit to a famous resort where he/she can

practice different sports. Also, articles which depict some situation, which has taken place in

virtual space, are sprinkled with IT terminology. The articles in which, apart from political

and economic terms, there are other domain-specific terms of English origin are not rare. It

is evident that the articles in which lexical copies related to other domains in the Politics and

Economy section in Стандарт are more than those in Капитал. The difference in percentage

is minimal, but it does exist. The World section is the last news genre in my research. It has

different percentages in the two newspapers – 0,64% in Капитал and 1,26% in Стандарт.

The title of the news genre presupposes the presence of various topics from all over the

world. The articles present different stories, related to different domains. The reason why

Стандарт outruns Капитал in lexical borrowings in the World section is that the articles

published in Стандарт dwell on such topics that suggest the usage of more lexical copies.

Another reason for its bigger number of lexical copies is the constant repletion of a set of

English loanwords. The lexical copies which are frequently employed in the World section

are имидж, интервю, бюджет, лидер, ръгби, рейтинг, долар, пикник, джакпот,

фермер – loanwords that are fully integrated into the Bulgarian language.

As I mentioned above, out of 8824 anglicisms, 7968 are nouns, 809 are

adjectives/adverbs/participles and 147 are verbs. This confirms the long-standing view that

67

the grammatical category of nouns is borrowed more easily than others. Nevertheless, the

second position of my own hierarchy of borrowability is occupied by

adjectives/adverbs/participles, which is at variance with Haugen’s hierarchy of

borrowability. However, if I apply the first ever-made hierarchy, created by Whitney, who

assigns the first place for the most frequently borrowed part of speech to nouns and the next

position to the other parts of speech, my hierarchy will completely tally with it. In this case,

the more general conclusions as regards borrowability serve me best. Thus, going back to

the third of the research questions posed at the beginning - Of what grammatical type are the

English loanwords? – I shall say that the greatest number of English loanwords is

represented by nouns, followed by the aggregate group of adjectives, adverbs and

participles. The last, third place is occupied by verbs. These findings undoubtedly present

nouns as the dominant grammatical category in lexical borrowing.

Finally, which are the most frequently used Anglicisms in journalese in the two

newspapers? I traced the 15 most frequently occurring lexical copies in the two newspapers.

These are: лидер, бюджет, бизнес, мач, клуб, медия, бюджетен, бизнесмен, тим,

футболист, интернет, холдинг, футбол, интервю and футболен. The most

conspicuous common feature of all these lexical copies (excluding the copy тим, which has

recently entered Bulgarian) is that they are fully established and integrated into our

language. They all are lexical gap fillers which do not have Bulgarian equivalents. This is

another proof that the greater part of the anglicisms in the two newspapers consists of lexical

gap fillers that do not endanger any native word. What is more, they enrich the Bulgarian

lexicon.

From all that has been said, four conclusions can be made. First, the greater number

of the lexical copies represents lexical gap fillers. Secondly, there are lexical copies that

together with English syntactic constructions, which are gradually gaining ground on

Bulgarian soil and some combining elements, hint at the Westernization of the press

language. As a third conclusion, I will mention that the introduction of new names of newly

created concepts or ideas enriches the journalistic arsenal of ready-made terms as well as the

Bulgarian word stock. The last conclusion is not less important – the aim of the usage of

more recent and opaque lexical copies of English origin is to manipulate readers and to

hinder them from understanding and grasping what is being implied.

A topic such as Anglicisms in the Bulgarian press offers numerous possibilities for

futher investigation. I will propose several questions that deserve attention: How does the

usage of Anglicisms in Bulgarian newspapers affect the meaning implied in the journalistic

67

articles? Does the usage of Anglicisms hinder or help readers grasp the ideas conveyed by

the journalists? How does the language of newspapers illustrate the process of

democratization of Bulgarian society? These questions are extremely interesting but they are

beyond the scope of my paper. However, it will be wonderful if these questions trigger one’s

interest and become the basis of a future study.

67

APPENDIX I

КАПИТАЛ

POLITICS & ECONOMY

LWs = 254 3 WORDS = 383   680 % LW = 0, 66

nouns = 224 5 adj./adv./part. = 274 verbs = 2 4

Ааутсайдери 2.

Ббанкери 3.банкноти 2.бар 3.бартер, и 9.барбекю 1.бестселър 1.Бизнес, -а, -ът, и 297.бизнесмен, и 74.бийч 2.билборд, ове 16.блог, ове 6.блогър, и 2.блокада 4.бокс 1.борд, ове 65.бордов 1.бос, ове 4.брифинг 2.брокер, и 2.букмейкър, и 5.букмейкърска 2.булдозери 1.бум 14.бумеранг 1.буфер, и 18.буферен 3.бюджет, и 355.бюджетиране 1.Бюджетен 128.

Вватман 2.

видеокадри 1.визита, и 3.Ггардове 1.гей 1.голф 46.голфъри 1.

Ддесктоп 1.деливъридж 3.джакпот 1.джет 1.джипбаничарка 1.джипове 2.джойнт венчър 1.дизайн 3.дизайнерско 1.долар 100.доларов 4.домейн, и 9.

Еекспорт, -ът 4.екшън 3.

Жжури 2.имейли 1.

Иимидж, -а 18.имиджмейкъри 1.имиджмейкърски 1.импийчмънт 1.интервюиран 1.интервю, та 62.интерконектора 1.интерфейс 1.инженеринг 1.интернет 36.

Ккетъринг 1.кеш 4.клуб, ове 25.

клъстъри 1.компютър, три 10.компютърна 3.Контейнер, и 10.корт 1.кросфинансиране 1.

Ллайтмотив 1.лаптоп 1.ливъридж 1.лидер, и 221.лидерския, -ка, -ко 13.лидерство 5.лизинг 7.лизингови 5.лимит, и 7.лимитира 1.лифт, -ове 11.лифтови 2.лоби, та 18.лобизма 2.лобиране 12.лобира 11.лобист, -ка, -ти, -тки 18.логовете 1.

Мманифест 1.маркетинг 6.маркетингова 1.мастър 1.мегабайти 1.мегахолдинг 2.медия, -ии 69.медийна, -но, -ни, -ен 57.мениджмънт 12.мениджър, -и 28.мениджърски 2.микс 3.митинг, -и 7.митингуващи 1.модел, -и 96.мол 2.мониторинг 14.мониторингов 1.

67

Нник 2.никнейм 1.ноу-хау 1.

Оонлайн 22.офис, -и 18.офшорка 1.офшорни, -ния, -на 8.

Ппай 1.паркинг, -и 8.парк, -ове 21.паркиране 1.паркирани 1.пик 1.плейофи 1.портфолио 2.постинг 1.проектобюджет 4.

Ррейд 1.рейтинг, -a, -ът 18.рекет 1.релси 1.релсов 1.рестартиране 1.римейк 2.роуминг 1.

Ссайт, -ове 46.сканира 1.ски 18.скиорите 1.скрийнинг 1.софтуер, -и 18.софтуерен 6.спийкър 1.спонсор, -и 5.спонсорирани 1.спорт 5.спортен, -ни 13.спортист 2.старт 9.стартира 7.стартирани 2.

стартова 1.стекове 1.стенд-бай 1.стоп 1.стрес 3.сървър, -и 5.сърфира 1.

Ттест, -ове 10.тенис 1.тим 9.тим билдинг 1.тийнейджъри 1.трафик, -а, -ът 15.тренд 2.турист 13.

Ччат 1.чатите 1.

Ууеб 2.уебсайт 3.уебстраница 1.уебкамера 1.уикенд, и 2.

Ффайл 1.факс 2.фал 1.фалстарт 3.фермер, -и 9.филм, -и 6.флаг 2.фитнес 2.флаш 1.флашки 1.флопита 1.франчайз 6.фронт 1.футбол 2.футболен, -ни 2.футболист 1.

Ххазарт 20.хазартна, -ни, -ния 4.

хардуер 1.хеджирали 1.хеджиращи 3.хепиенд 1.хипермаркети 2.холдинг, -а 102.холдингов 2.хостинг 2.хотел, -и 17.хотелски 2.хотелиер 1.

Шшопинг 1.

Ъъндърграунд 1.

Яяхти 6.

copy-paste 1.mainstreama 1.PR 4.

SOCIETY

WORDS – 71 802LWs - 4 84 %=0,6 8%

nouns = 4 52 adv ./ adj ./ part . = 27 verbs = 5

Ббарман 1.барманството 1.барплота 1.бестселъри 1.бизнес, -ът 14.бизнесмен, -и 3.блог, -ове 6.блогър,-ът, -ри 8.блъф 1.бордът 1.бойкотират 1.брокерка 1.бюджет, -a 3.

67

бюджетния, -ни 2.

Вволейбол 2.

Ггей 2.

Ддаунлоуд 1.десктопа 1.дизайн 1.дилъри 1.долар 1.донор, -и 15.донорство 3.

Еекшън 1.

Жжурито 1.

Иимейл, -и 2.имидж 1.импорт 1. интервю,-то, -та 15.интернет 56.интернетпотребител 1.

Ккавър 1.клик 1.клуб, -ове 4.колеж, -и 2.компютър,-а, -ът, -три 7.компютърна, -ни 2.

Ллидер, -ите 6.лимит 3.линк,-ът, -ове 4.лобита 1.

Ммаркет 1.медийно, -на, -иен 9.медии,те, медия 25.мейла 1.

мениджмънт 1.мениджър, -и 6.митинг, -а, -и 7.моделиер 2.модел, -ът, -и 10.мултимедийни, -но 2.

Нникнеймовете 1.

Оонлайн 30.офис, -и 8.офисен 1.офлайн 4.

Ппарк 1.пикник 1.постинг 1.провайдърите 2.

Ррейд 1.

Ссайт, -а, -ът, -ове 35.сканирана 1.ски 4.скрийншот 1. софтуер 1.спортист 1.стартира 1.супермаркета 1.сървърите 1.

Ттанкер,-а, -и 3.таргет 1.тениски 1.тества 1.тийнейджъри, -те, -рки 9.тийнейджърското 1.тим 2.тренд 2.тренировъчни 2.треньор 1.трилър 1.тишъртите 1.трафик 3.

тренинг 1.турист 9.

Ууебадрес 1.уебдестинация 1.уебсайт 1.уебстраницата 1.уикенд 1.

Ффайлове,-те 4.фалстарт 1.фен, -ове 11.фен-артикули 1.фенклуба, -ове 3.фенсайт 1.филм, -ът, -а, -и, -че 41.филмова 1.флаг 1.фолк 1.фолклорни, -рен 2.фрийлансър 1. футбол 2.футболни, -лен, -но 4.

Ххардуер 1.хепиенд 1.хобита 2.хотел, -и(те) 8.хотелиера 1.хотелиерство 1.

Ччат 1.

Ъъндърграунд 1.

Яяхта 2.

67

SPORT

LWs – 14 74 WORDS – 50   171 % LWs – 2, 94 %

nouns = 12 89 adj . /adv./part. = 1 7 6 verbs = 9

Ааутсайдер 3.

Ббар 2.баскетбол 11.баскетболиста 1.баскетболната 2.бейзбол 3.бизнес 11.бизнесмен 3.бинго 1.блогове 3.боксова 2.боксове 1.босовете 3.бридж 2.букмейкърската 3.букмейкъри 27.бюджета 27.бюджетни 1.

Ввехалфът 1.видео 1.волейбол 6.

Ггей 11.гейма 1.глетчер 2.голмайстора 1.голове 3.голови 1.голф 25.голфиграч 1.голфъри 7.

Ддетектив 1джогинг 1.долар 27.допинг 23.

Еевроспорт 1.еврофутбол 1.

Иимидж 5.имиджово 1.имиджмейкъри 1.интервю16.интернет 6.

Кклуб 202.клубни на, ен 16.корт 12.

Ммаркетинг 4.маркетингов 6.

Ллидера 10.лидерската 1.лидeрството 2.лимит 1.лимитиран 1.лоби 3.лобиране 1.

Ммаркетинг 2.мач 140.медиите 6.медийно 3.мениджмънт 2.мениджър 23.мениджърски 3.микроблогове 1.модел 10.моторспорт 2.

Ннискобюджетни 1.

Оонлайн 3.офиси 3.

Ппиар 1.пик 1.плейофите 4.

Рринг 2.

Ссайта 6.сервис 3.ски 36.скиор, ка 12.сноуборд 2.софтбол 1.спонсор 20.спонсорира 1.спонсорски 5.спонсорство 2.спорт 65.спортисти 8.спортна, ен 42.спринта 1.спринтираше 1.спринтьор 3.старт 27.стартира 2.стрийтбол 1.супербайк 1.

Ттайбрек 3.теста 5.тенис 37.тенисисти 12.тийнейджърска 1.тим 71.топклубове 1.топ скиори 1.тренира 5.тренировъчен, на 3.тренировка, и 9.треньор 47.треньорско 9.турист 3.

67

Ууайлд кард 3. уебсайт 1.уикенд 5.

Ффалстарт 1.фен 31.феърплей 1.фест 5.филм 2.фитнес 1.франчайз 1.фристайл 1.футбол 77.футболгейт 1.футболен 75.футболист 69.

Ххай-тек 5.халф 7.хард 1.хендикап, и 5. хокеисти 1.хокей 5.хотели 7.хотелска 1.хотелиерския 1.холдинг 2.

Шшопингът 1.шоу 4.

WORLD

LWs – 1 210 WORDS – 188 437%LW – 0, 64 %

nouns = 1079 adj./adv./part.= 1 16 verbs = 18

Ааутсайдер 2.аутсорсването 1.афроамериканец 11.афроамерикански 1.

Ббанкер, и 5.бар 3.барбекю 1.бейзболната 1.бестселърите 1.бизнеса 58.бизнесмени 47.билборд 3.блог, ове 7.блогосферата 1.блогър, и 3.блокада 9.блъфираха 2.блъф 2.бодигардове 2.бойкот 4.бойкотират 3 . борда 8.бордовия 2.бос, ове 6.брандове 1.брокер, и 4.брокерска 1.букмейкърите 1.букмейкърската 1.булдозери 1.бумът 4.буфер 3.бюджет 71.бюджетен 46.

Ввидеоклип 1.видеокамери 1.видеопослание 1.видеообръщение 1.видеото 2.визита 14.

Ггардове 1.геймър 3.голф 1.

Дджентълмен 1.джин 1.джипове 1.долар 190.доларов 3.допинг 4.

Еекшън 1.

Жжокери 1.жури 1.

Ии-геймър 1.имейл 1.имидж 27.имиджов 1.импийчмънт 1.интервюто 36.интернет 10.

Ккаубойски 1.кей 3.кечист 1.кеш 1.климатгейт 4.клуб 8.коктейла 1.колежа 4.компютри 4.контейнери 3.къмпинг 1.

67

Ллаптопа, и 2.лейбъла 1.лидер, и 141.лидерски 3.лидерство 2.лимит 2.лоби 6.лобира 7.лобиране 2.лобистът 3.

Ммаркетинг 1.маркетингов 1.мач 1.медия, ии 60.медийна 8.мениджмънт 2.мениджър 5.микс 4.митинг 8.модел 32.мониторинг 3.

Ннаркотрафика 3.нет 1.

Оонлайн 1.офис, и 18.офшорен 8.офшорките 1.

Ппарк 2.паркинг 1.пик 3.пикник 10.пиковия 1.плейбой 1.покер 2.проектобюджет 1.

Ррапъра 3.рейдове 3.рейтинг 13.рейтинговата 2.

рекет 1.рестарт 2.рестартира 4 . рестартиране 1.рок 3. ръгби 1.

Ссайт 9.сейф 1.секс 6.сексуален 1.ски 11.слоганът 1.смокинга 1.софтуеристи 1.софтуерни 1.спонсорират 1.спонсорите 1.спорт 1.старт 7.стартовата 2.стартира 5.супермаркет 2.

Ттанкер 1.танковете 1.тест 5.тийнейджърско 1.тим 4.трафик 8.трафикантите 5.трафикантските 1.тренинг 1.тренира 3.тренирана 1.тренировъчен 2.тренировки 3.трилър 1.тунели 1.турист 13.

Ууебсайт 1.уикенди 2.

Ффайла 1.фалстарт 1.

фенове 3.фериботна 2.фермер 5.филм 14.филмово 3.филмче 1.флагчета 1.фойерверки 2.франчайз 1.фронт 3.фронтмен 1.футбол 3.футболен 7.футболисти 3.

Ххандбален 1.хардлайнери 1.хедж 1.хит 2.хитовия 1.холдинг 1.хотелиерите 2.хотелите 14.

Ччат 1.чекове 1.чекпойнт 5.

Шшок 8.шокиращ, о 2.шокова 1.шопинг 1.шоуто 1.

Яяхта 2.яхтено 2.

67

СТАНДАРТ

POLITICS & ECONOMY

LWs – 803 WORDS – 77   521 % = 1, 04%

nouns =7 31 adj./adv./part. = 43 verbs = 29

Аавтопарка 2. агробизнесмените 1.

Ббанкер 6.банкиране 1.банкноти 3.бар 2.бизнес 37.бизнесмен, -и 22.билбордове 2.бойкотира 3.борд 10.бос 3.брадъра 2.браузър 1.брифинг 1.брокери 6.бум 3.бюджет 37.бюджетна, -ни 3.

Вваучери 1.визита, -ти 5.вип 10.волейболиста 2.волейболния 1.

Дджентълмен 1.джип, -ове 6.дъмпингов 1.

Ее-банкиране 1.евролиста 12.

евъргрийн 1.експорт 1.екшън 1.есемес 1.

Иимейли 1.имиджа 1.интервю 2.интервюираните 1.интернет 22.интерфейс 1.

Ккастинг 2.кеш 2.клуб 10.клъстер 1.коктейл 1.колцентъра 1.компютър 9.ксерокс 1.

Ллаптоп 1.лидер, -и 173.лидерското 5.лидерство 1.лизинг 13.лизинговият 1.лимит 4.лоби 2.лобираше 1.логото 2.

Ммастъркарт 3.мегабайт 2.мегамол 1.медии, -я 13.медийна, -но 4.мениджмънт 1.мениджър 9.митинг 11.митинг-концерт 1.модел, -и 18.мол 6.

Ннаркобос 2.

наркотрафикант 1.нелизингови 1.ноу-хау 2.

Оонлайн 5.офис, -и 9.

Ппарк, -ове 14.паркинг-място 1.паркиране 2.паркираха 1.пиар 4.пик 1.постер 1.проектмениджмънт 1.

Ррейтинг 10.рейтинговата 2.рекет 2.римейк 1. ритейл 1.рок 3.роуминг 5.

Ссайт 10.скенер 1.ски 4.соцлидерът 3.спорт 4.спортен, -на 8.старт 14.стартира 20.стартиране 1.стартиращи 1.стартова 1.супермаркета 4.сърфираме 1.

Ттества 1.тренира 2.трениран 1.треньор 1.тийнейджърите 1.тийм 1.тим 1.

67

тост 2.трафик 7.трилър 1.тунел 2.тунер 1.

Ффермер, -и 18.феърплея 1.филми 4.филмовите 1.филтъра 1.футбол 2.футболна, -ни 4.футболистите 1.

Ххазартната 1.халф 1.хедж 1. хепънинги 1.хипермаркетите 2.хит 5.хитова, -ви 2.холдинг 6.холдингов 1.хотел, -и 11.хотелиери 5.хотелиерска 1.хотелиерството 1.хотелски 1.

Шшезлонг 1.шоу 1.шоуменът 1.

Ююпитата 2.

Яяхта, -и 11.яхтено 2.яхтсмен 1.

gsm 7.vip 4.us 1.sms 3

SOCIETY

WORDS – 87   200 LWs – 666 % LW – 0, 76%

nouns = 579 adj./adv./part. = 63 verbs = 24

Ббаджовете 2.банери 1.банкнота, -и 2.банкери 3.банкрут 1.баскетболист 1.бизнес 65.бизнесмен, -и 8.билборд, -ове 5.блог 1.блъфираха 1.бодигард 1.бойкот 1.бокс 1.борд 11.бос, -ове 14.брадъра, -и 4.бранд 1.бум 2.бумеранг 2.бумерангът 1.буфер, и 3.буферен, ни 2.бюджет, -и 26.бюджетна, -ни, ния 22.ваучер, -и 2.

Ввип, -ът 7.волейболист 1.

Ггейфестивал 1.гол 1.голф 3.гърла 1.

Дджип 1.

джипито 1.дилъри 4.долара 45.дубъл 1.

Еевролиста 4.експорт 4.

Ззомбират 1.

Иимидж 7.имиджмейкъри 3.интервюирам 1.интервюираните 2.интернет 10.истъблишмънт 1.

Ккей 1.кеш 1.клуб, -ове 6.клубните 1.коктейли 1.кол 1.контракти 1.

Ллайтмотивът 1.ливъридж 9.лидер, -и 74.лидерска 4.лидерство 1.лоби 1.лобираме 4.лобиране 4.

Ммаркетинг 2.мач 7.медиен 3.медии, -я 25.медийна, -ни 6.мениджмънта 3.мениджъри 3.митинг, -и 6.модел 14.мониторинг 3.

67

Ннонстоп 1.

Оонлайн 1.офис 1.

Ппай 3.парк 2.пейнтбол 1.пиар, -и 14.пик 2.психотрилър 1.

Ррейтинг 19.рейтинговата 1.рекет 6.рекетьор 1.рекетьорски 2.римейк 1.рокендрола 1.

Ссайт, -ове 12.сетълмент 1. скечове 1.ски 1.скутер 1.смокинга 1.спонсори 2.спорт 5.спортен 7.спортсменски 1.старт 7.стартира 8 . стартиране 2.стартовият 1.стартиращи 1.стендбай 1.стрес 2.стрес-тест 2.супермаркет 1.сърфиращите 1.

Ттества 2.тестове 3.тийнейджъри 4.

тим 2.трафика 3.трикове 2.тунела 1.туристите 5.

Ууикенд 1.уиски 1.

Ффалстарт 1.фен, -ове 4.фермер, -и 6.фермерските 1.феърплея 1.филм 7.флашката 1.фолклорни 1.футболна, -ни 6.

Ххолдинг 2.хотел, -и 5.хотелиер, -и 4.

Ччартърните 1.

Шшок 1.шокира 1.шокиращо 1.шоу 4.шоумени 1.

Ъъндърграунда 1.ъперкъти 1.

SPORT

WORDS – 37 978LWs – 11 5 4 % LWs - 3, 0 4%

nouns = 10 53 adj./adv./part. = 74 verbs = 2 7

Аавтобус 5.автогола 1.айдълка 1.аут 2.аутсайдери 1.

Ббанкноти 1.баскета 2.баскетбол 5.баскетболистите 2.баскетболния 1.бизнеса 4.бизнесмен, и 7.бингото 1.блог, ове 3.бодигард 1.бокс 2.борда 1.бос, ове 10.букмейкър 4.бум 1.бюджета 2.

Ввип-ложата 1.волейбол 14.волейболист 4.волейболните 4.

Ггол, ове 76.голаджия 1.голмайстор 6.голово 2.грандхотел 2.грил 1.

67

Дджокер 1. долара 4.допинг 3.дрийм 1.дублиращия 1.дубъл 7.

Ееврофутбол 12.екшън 2.

Иинтервю 7.интернет 3.интерхотел 1.

Кказангейт 2.кастингите 1.кетъринг 1.клуб 57.клубен 9.

Ллидер 16.лидерство 1.лоби 1.логото 2.

Ммач 244.мачов 1.медии 7.медийните 2.мейл 2. мениджър, и 15.мениджърската 2.микс 1.

Оофиса 3.офшорка 1.

Ппарк 4.паркинг 3.паркираните 1.плейофната 1.

Ррефер 9.

Ссайт, ове 11.секс 2.сноуборд 1.софтуера 1.спонсор 5.спонсорски 1.спорт, ове 9.спортист 15.спортният 26.спортно-техническата 5.старт 8.стартира 7 . стартови 1.супербоул 2.

Ттайбрека 1.тенис 5.тента 1.тестваха 1.тестове 3.тийм 1.тим, ове 69.типтоп 1.тренирал 1 7 . тренировка, и 35.тренировъчен 2.треньор 99.треньорската 8.трилъра 1.тъчдаун 2.тъчлинията 1.тъчреферите 2.

Ууайлдкард 1.уебсайт 2.

Ффакс 2.фен 53.фенклуб 1.филмите 2.финишира 1.фитнеса 2.флаг 1.

фойерверки 1.фолк 1.фолкидолът 1.фолклор 1.футбола 34.футболисти 67.футболната 10.

Ххазарта 2.халфът 25.хеттрик 4.хотел 12.хулигана 3.хулиганство 1.

Ччартъра 1.чат 1.

Шшок 1.шокира 1.

67

WORLD

WORDS – 38 621LWs – 487% LWs – 1, 26%

nouns = 438 adj./adv./part. = 36 verbs = 13

Аавиошоу 1.автокъмпинг 1.автобус 3.аут 1.

Ббар 1.бизнес 9. бизнесмен 6.билбордове 1.блокадата 1.бодигардът 1.боинг 2.бойкот 1.борд 27.бордови 1.бос 1.бюджет 6.бюджетен 6.

Ввенчърс 2.визита 7.

Ггангстер 1.гардове 2.гей 7.голмайстор 1.

Ддерайлира 4.джазира 3.джакпот 5.джип 2.джогинг 1.долара 33.

Еекомафията 1. екшън 3.еърбъс 21.

Иимейл 2.интервю 11.интернет 3.интерфакс 3.

Кказиното 1.кеш 1.килърите 2.клуб 1.коктейли 1.компютър 11.компютърната 2.контейнера 2.круизен 4.къмпинг 1.къмпингуващи 1.

Ллайнерът 2.лидер 18.лидерската 2.линк, ове 2.лобира 1.лобиране 1.лобиращ 1.лобистка 1.

Ммач 5.медиен 1.медии 12.мейл 3.мениджърите 1.минимаркети 1.мистър 1.митинг 2.модел 7.мониторинг 1.

Ннаркобизнес 1.наркодилър 1.наркокартелите 1.

наркотрафика 1.наркотрафиканти 1.нокдаун 1.нонстоп 1.

Оонлайн 1.офис 5.

Ппарк 4.паркирани 2.пик 1.пикап 1.пиърсинги 2.покер 1.

Ррадарите 5.радарна 1.радио 7.рейтинг 2.релси 2.рестарт 1.рестартиране 1.рокендрол 1.

Ссайт 9.сейфа 1.секс 4.секслобистите 1.секспартия 3.сексподдръжниците 1.сексуални 5.сканира 1.ските 1.спорта 1.спортист 1.спортна 2.старт 2.стартира 1.стоп 1.стрес 2.супермаркет 3.сървър 1.

Ттаблоидите 1.танкер 4.

67

тест 9.тим 1.топмафиот 1.транссексуалните 1.трафик 12.трафикантите 2.тренировка 1.тренировъчни 1.туристи 10.

Ууеб 1.уестсайд 1.уикенд 2.

Ффайл 1.ферибота 7.фермери 13.филм 4.флаг 1.фронт 10.футболен 4.футболиста 1.

Ххолдинговата 1.хоства 1.хотел 11.

Шшелф, ове 2.шок 2.шокира 2.шокиращо 1.

Яяхта 4.

restart 1.US 20.

67

APPENDIX II

NATIVE CREATIONS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ENGLISH AND CALQUES

видео-видеоклипвидеокамеривидеопосланиевидеообръщение

евро-евровотевродепутатеврозоната еврокомисар европари еврочиновниците евросъдружие евротурниритеевроизборите евролиста еврофондовете еврогласуването европазарите евросредствата евробарометъревроскептицизмаевроразширяването евродипломатитеевроскептикътевроинтеграцияеврогрупата евроанализаторътеврооптимизъмеврооблигацииеврошампионата

евродоклад евроексперти еврокампанията еврокандидатиевросубсидии евроцента евроизискванията евроминистъркатаевроспециалистиеврогафовете евронормите

евроучастникаевросанкция еврогрупа европрограма

еко-екоданък екоенергията екоминистърът

топтоппартньор топченге топ играчитоп експерт топ икономист топ финансисттопформа топ фирма топ 50/100 топ шампионатитоп ниво топ таксатоп тим

-гейтклиматгейтфутболгейтказангейт

Гголмайстор голфиграч

гост-звездаДджипбаничарка

Ллидер-депутат

Ммитинг-концерт

Пполитици-функционери

Ссекслобистсекспартиясексподдръжницисоцлистата соцлидер

Ччовек-оркестър

Ффен-артикулифенклубфолкидол

Ххаус парчето

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexieva, Nevena. "Bulgarian". In English in Europe. edited by M. Görlach. Oxford: Oxford

UP, 2002. 241-260.

—. “How and Why are Anglicisms often Lexically Different from their English Etymons?” In

Anglicisms in Europe: Linguistic Diversity in a Global Context, edited by R. Fischer

and H. Pulaczewska, 42-51. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.

Alexieva, Nevena. „English in Europe. Bulgarian.“ The Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in

European Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

—. „Recent Tendencies in the Adaptation of Anglicisms in Bulgarian.“ Seventy Years of

English and American Studies in Bulgaria (Conference proceedings) , edited by Z.

Katalan, C. Stamenov, E. Pancheva. Sofia: St. Kl. Ohridski University Press, 2000:

13-18.

Allan, Stuard. News Culture. New York: Open University Press, 2004.

COD - The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th. D. Thompson (ed.). Oxford,

Clarendon Press. 1995.

Convention of Human Rights and Liberties. 1998.

Crystal, David. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2003.

Danchev, Andrei. „The English Element in Bulgarian.“ English in Contact with Other

Languages. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1986. 7-23.

Field, F. „Hierarchies of Borrowability.“ Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Context.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002. 35.

Fowler, Roger. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1991.

Graddol, David. The Future of English. London: The British Council, 2000.

Hartley, John. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. London and

New York: Routledge, 2002.

Haugen, R. „The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing.“ Language. 1950. 210-32.

Hoffer, B.L. „Language Borrowing and Language Diffusion.“ Intercultural Communication

Studies XI:4. Trinity: Trinity University Press, 2002.

Hope, Thomas. Lexical Borrowing in the Romance Languages. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

Kolarova, Maria. „The English Influence on Compounding as a Method of Word-formation in

Bulgarian.“ Contrastive Linguistics (2006): 75-80.

McArthur, Tom. The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2002.

Rollason, Christopher. „The Use of Anglicisms in Contemporary French.“ Crossing Barriers

and Bridging Cultures. Great Britain: Cromwell Press Ltd., 2003.

Seidlhover, Barbara. „Closing a Conceptual Gap: the Case for a description of English as a

lingua franca.“ International Journal of Applied Linguistics (2001): 138.

Trask, R. L. Historical Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1996.

van Dijk, Teun. „Media Discourse.“ Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell,

2001.

—. News as Discourse. Chicago: Adventure Works Press, 1986.

van Dijk, Teun. „Power and the News Media.“ Political Communication in Action.

Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 1997.

Wright, Sue. „Language Policy and Language Planning.“ Llamas, Carmen, Louise Mullany и

Peter Stockwell. The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge,

2004. 167.

Алексиева, Невена. „Доколко чужди са чуждите думи?“ Това чудо - езикът!

Изследвания в чест на проф. д-р Живко Бояджиев. София: Университетско

издателство, 2007. 41-48.

Данчев, Андрей. „Англицизмите в българския език.“ Contrastive linguistics. Sofia, 1981.

190-204.

Коларова, Мария. „Observations on the Semantic Change in the Process of Adaptation of

Recent English Loan Words in Bulgarian.“ Чуждоезиково обучение (2005): 10-16.

Молхова, Жана. „Английските заемки в българския език.“ Помагало по българска

лексикология. София: Наука и изкуство, 1979. 228-237.

Пернишка, Е. Речник на новите думи и значения в българския език. София: Наука и

изкуство, 2003.