Native vs. Borrowed Material as Approached by Estonian Language Planning Practitioners: The Experience of the Dictionary of Standard Estonian

Native vs. Borrowed Material as Approached by Estonian Language Planning Practitioners: The... Abstract An overview is given of how Estonian language planners and lexicographers deal with foreign words accruing in the language. As Estonian is a small language, special attention is paid to language planning and lexicography in Estonia to ensure the survival of the language. Development of Estonian language planning is discussed, concentrating on issues regarding native versus foreign words. The Dictionary of Standard Estonian (DSE) is introduced in more detail. The DSE has been the clearest manifestation of general language planning in Estonia. Backed by a century of tradition and expertise, it provides the national standard for Estonian. The focus of the article is on how the DSE handles foreign words. 1. Introduction For nearly a century, Estonian lexicography has pivoted around the dictionary of correct usage (DSE, Estonian abbr. ÕS), which has grown out of the spelling dictionary of Estonian published in 1918 (DSE 1918). Although the Estonian title ÕS is an abbreviation of õigekeelsus ‘correct usage’, the current DSEs (DSE 1999 and its descendant line of DSE 2006, DSE 2013, DSE 2018) are essentially dictionaries of language planning, informing the user not only of Estonian spelling, pronunciation and morphology, but also of its semantics, word formation and syntax. The structure and direction of the DSE underwent a major change in the late 1980s, when the Institute of the Estonian Language started compiling a new type of normative dictionary (DSE 1999), which was meant to continue the tradition of dictionaries of correct usage, yet providing users with more substantial and diverse information. The necessity for such a dictionary arose from the democratisation of Estonian language planning in the 1970s and 1980s, when commanding and prohibiting came to be replaced by directing and recommending. The abbreviation ÕS was, however, retained in the title for its popularity and good reputation. In 2006, when a government regulation was adopted to the effect that the DSE defines the norm of standard Estonian, the word õigekeelsus ‘correct usage’ was inserted into the title. The DSE is a monolingual normative dictionary, which not only presents words and expressions, but also evaluates them in terms of expediency, that is, the user is told which words improve the expressive power of Estonian and which do not. As a basis for the norm of standard Estonian, the DSE is also a dictionary from which guidance is taken when compiling other dictionaries of general language, such as the Explanatory Dictionary of Standard Estonian (Langemets et al. 2009), despite its being descriptive in essence, or the Dictionary of Foreign Words (Paet 2012) which tries to find a balance between description and prescription. Balteiro (2011) suggests that some intermediate positions between prescriptivism and descriptivism might be helpful for dictionary users, describing actual usage and including additional information on whether a form may be accepted by some or refused by others. The central position of the DSE places a great responsibility on the compilers, both for word selection and evaluation. An area of increasing importance concerns issues of native versus foreign words, as the last 30 years have brought a considerable amount of new referent concepts as well as new loanwords. The compiling of DSE 1999 began in the time during which Estonia managed to shake off Soviet occupation and re-establish its political independence. The political changes led to linguistic ones: several fields replaced a major part of their old terms, while the long-awaited opportunity to communicate with the Western world enabled a massive influx of English loanwords. In the 2010s there has also been an increase of words of Japanese and Arabic origin, which has motivated a revision of the spelling principles for those words. The Language Committee of the Mother Tongue Society1, whose responsibility is to solve the most important problems concerning the norms of standard Estonian, has issued their recommendations for the Estonian spelling of words of Japanese (in 2008) and Arabic (in 2009) origin. Linguistically, the current period of borrowing, which started in the late 1980s, is characterised by a flood of new referent concepts and a parallel occurrence of various spellings (Leemets 2003: 571). Estonian language planners tried to manage the flood by suggesting native equivalents or, with none available, resorting to adaptation. The compilers of the DSE published a number of lists of English loanwords with appropriate Estonian equivalents. The first (and longest) list was published in 1996 (Leemets 1996); the following ones (published in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2015) were increasingly shorter, due to the diminishing number of new stems. Over time, many words once included in such a list have acquired an Estonian equivalent, but not all. The lists have been a vital part of the preparation of new words for presentation in the DSEs. The aim of the present article is to provide a survey of native versus foreign words in the DSEs, taking a closer look at the selection and presentation of unadapted foreign words, the treatment of foreign-native lexical pairs, and changes in the meaning of foreign words. Note that we define ‘foreign word’ as a borrowing that has not been fully adapted to Estonian, thus being structurally alien, i.e. having certain non-native traits (foreign letters, accent off the first syllable). A special group is made up of unadapted foreign words which are used in their source form. In the liminal period, some concepts can be simultaneously referred to by both unadapted foreign words (e.g. boutique, hijab, sushi) and partially adapted foreign words (butiik, hidžaab, suši). Estonian spelling is based on the phonological principle aiming for the best possible match between spelling and pronunciation. Fitting new loanwords into Estonian usually proceeds from their pronunciation, seldom from their source spelling. We also address New Word contests, which are very popular in Estonia and which offer an option to manage, to an extent, the large influx of words from foreign languages. Even though the replacement of foreign words by native ones is not the main aim of the contests, the results are often conducive to that purpose. 2. The treatment of native versus foreign words in Estonian language planning Modern Estonian language planning originates in the early 20th century. The first Dictionary of Standard Estonian was published in 1918, the same year an independent Estonian Republic was established. The preparatory period included discussions held during 1908–11 to formulate and harmonise the basic orthographic principles for standard Estonian. Rule fixing and harmonisation were continued throughout the 1920s and 1930s. A substantial contribution to the process was made by Elmar Muuk (1901–1941), author of the popular Concise Orthological Dictionary (DSE 1933). On his initiative, several fundamental rules for loanword spelling were set, including the one subordinating all loanwords to the Estonian system of marking quantity degrees (bruto, neto < brutto, netto). Muuk also formulated the Estonian spelling rules for the words of English origin. The principle is that the Estonian spelling of English loanwords should more or less follow their English pronunciation (Muuk 1935: 180–185), which principle has been generally adhered to ever since. True, there has been some recent decrease in the use of š and ž, notably, while earlier the typical English loans included džemm ‘jam’ and džiip ‘jeep’, we now rather find geel ‘gel’ and frantsiis ‘franchise’ (Leemets 2003: 578–579). The reasons may vary from the influence of other languages (in Finnish, for example, English loanwords tend to have s rather than š or ž), through technical considerations (in the early 1990s many computers and word processors were too primitive to manage writing š or ž), to word meaning (see, e.g., Bańko and Hebal-Jezierska 2014: 986). A general tendency for recent English loanwords to be spelt following the source orthography rather than pronunciation exhibits itself in occasional modifications to the Estonian spelling of some older English loanwords (e.g. džäss > jazz). In Estonian language planning, the issue of native versus foreign words has been addressed most fully by Valter Tauli (1907–1986), the author of the theory of Estonian language planning based on the language-reformist principles of Johannes Aavik, and Henn Saari (1924–1999), the leading theoretician and practitioner of Estonian language planning, addressing both general and special language problems. Valter Tauli, who lived and worked in Sweden since 1944, was an advocate of the principle of internationality requiring that, with all other conditions being equal, the international word should be preferred over the native one (Tauli 1968: 96). According to Tauli, there is no reason to consider a loanword as less clear than a native word, since clarity depends on whether we know the referent or not. He admits, though, that some loanwords may be uneconomical and thus he advocates zero derivation of verbs as a way to shorter and more simply structured loanwords, e.g. süsteemima instead of süstematiseerima ‘systematise’, and motiivima instead of motiveerima ‘motivate’. Tauli does not deny that sometimes the preference could well follow the aesthetic principle. For example, in the 1920s the Russian loanword uulits ‘street’ (for Estonians, Russian was the language of a foreign power during 1710–1917) was replaced by tänav (an old Germanic loanword long ceased to be sensed as such). A similar tendency was observed in the early 1990s, when the word partei ‘political party’, which was associated with Soviet power (cf. Rus партия, Ger Partei), was replaced by erakond, which had been used before the Soviet occupation of 1940 (Laanekask, Erelt 2007: 330–331). Henn Saari, whose most productive years of work at the Institute of Language and Literature (currently, the Institute of the Estonian Language) fell in the period of occupation, has dealt with the issue of native versus foreign words on the example of special language. Having evaluated Estonian native versus borrowed terms with respect to three aspects, namely, precision power, formative power (capability to produce derivational families or series of compound words) and system mirroring power (capability to offer the necessary means for an adequate mapping of the conceptual system), Saari found that loanwords score less on all those three aspects than native words. According to Saari, the better the internal structure of a term corresponds to the concept referred to, the higher its precision power. He points out that a major reason for the superiority of native terms over borrowed ones lies in the fact that the former are free from the motley history, homonymy, and polysemy of their foreign counterparts, while educated attention to Estonian terminology has often produced terms of sufficiently good precision power (see Saari 1981: 207–210, 282–285). As for the proportion of native versus borrowed words, Henn Saari endorses the principle of originality, admitting that although both word creation and borrowing are necessary, priority should be given to the former (Saari 1976: 165–166). The proportion of borrowed versus native words in language use should be such that the people would retain their skill to apply the native patterns of word formation, as a decrease of that skill would mean a collective incompetence in their own mother tongue (Saari 1999: 686). In practical language planning, modern Estonian linguists have been following Saari’s principles rather than Tauli’s, thus, other conditions being similar, a native word is preferred over a foreign one. Tiiu Erelt has called it the principle of self-existence (Erelt 2007: 135–136), noting in addition that the principle enables one to fend off excesses such as linguistic purism or excess use of foreign words. 3. The Dictionary of Standard Estonian (DSE) The first DSE was published in 1918 and the latest dictionary was released in 2013. Since 2006, the DSE has been available online for free like all other dictionaries compiled by the government-funded Institute of the Estonian Language. The next edition of the DSE is due in 2018, while an online Handbook of Correct Estonian is being prepared in parallel (Leemets, Raadik 2016). As pointed out by one of the editors-in-chief for the DSE, Tiiu Erelt (2007: 5), it is almost for a century that a prescriptive dictionary named Õigekeelsussõnaraamat (ÕS, ‘orthological dictionary of standard Estonian’) has served as the main dictionary for Estonians. This differs from the situation for many an Indo-European language (such as English and Russian), where the main dictionary is more often an explanatory dictionary. The DSE is a universal dictionary, similar in type to the German Duden. Preparations for the first DSE started in the year 1910, leading to the first publication eight years later. The main focus of the first DSE was orthography. The dictionary contained 149 pages and 20,000 headwords, while compounds were mostly excluded. Altogether, there have been nine general dictionaries of standard Estonian so far. They are listed in Table 1, together with the year of publication and the number of headwords. Table 1. Dictionaries of Standard Estonian Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  Table 1. Dictionaries of Standard Estonian Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  The second DSE (1925–1937) was a substantial work; it was divided into three volumes and contained 130,000 headwords, so it was more than six times bigger than the first dictionary. It also contained many derivatives and compounds and numerous terms with explanations, and German or Latin equivalents. The sixth DSE was completed in 1976, and it set the language standard for almost a quarter of a century, because the next dictionary was not published until 1999. It was also very rich and influential and had 100,000 headwords. The DSE of 1999 has provided the basis for the editions of 2006, 2013, as well as for the one to be published in 2018. The DSE of 1999 was edited by Tiiu Erelt (for a review of the dictionary see Veldi 2000), and since 2013 the responsibility lies with Maire Raadik. The DSE 2013 contains about 50,000 headwords (in addition, numerous compounds and derivatives are listed in entries, about 130,000 words altogether). The appendix adds a selection of about 4,000 place names with information on their inflection and, in some cases, pronunciation. As its predecessor DSE 2006, DSE 2013 was published on paper as well as electronically2, and it was compiled with the help of the in-house dictionary writing system Eelex (Jürviste et al. 2011). The DSE is a universal dictionary, giving information about orthography as well as pronunciation, marking the degree of quantity, stress and palatalisation. In addition, the basic inflectional forms are displayed (typologically, Estonian is an agglutinating language, see e.g. Viitso 2007: 32), and the definitions of not-so-well known words are added in the dictionary. Most words are provided with usage examples. Since one of the tasks is to point out what belongs to standard Estonian and what does not, notes or tags such as ‘informal’ or ‘officialese’ are added to words that are considered to belong outside the standard language. Also, the changes in norms are included. Instructions are taken from the Mother Tongue Society’s Language Committee, which is responsible for establishing the language norms in Estonia at present. Following DSE norms is mandatory mainly in official language use and documents, for other users it just offers guidelines for good language practice. The DSEs have traditionally been very popular. The one first published in 1933 by Elmar Muuk was followed by nine more printings. The four impressions of the DSE of 1976 had a total circulation of 100,000 copies. The DSE of 1999 was published in three impressions (1999, 2001, 2003). Hence, it seems to be important indeed for Estonians to have a reliable source to consult for the linguistic standard. 3.1. New words in DSE 2013 One of the greatest challenges of the DSE is the planning of Estonian vocabulary, that is, the monitoring of lexical changes and providing advice on lexical usage. The DSE being the normative dictionary of standard Estonian, the lexicographers need to be especially meticulous about what words are selected for the dictionary and how they are presented therein. The lexicographers and language planners of the Institute of the Estonian Language keep recording new words in their in-house database. In addition, the compilers of the DSE maintain a public online list of new words embracing a selection of the new words that have arrived in Estonian since the latest publication of the DSE. The first public list was opened in 2008, and most of the words listed were included in the 2013 edition. At present, a new list is open for the 2018 edition.3 In the 2000s, the dictionaries have been published with an average interval of seven years, during which about 2000-2500 new words would be added to the dictionary. Not all of them are new in the language, of course; there are always some that have not been included in the previous editions, for whatever reason. The public list (not accessible to public any more) of new words for DSE 2013 contained 335 words. Although this is but a small part of all words added to the 2013 edition, it gives an idea of the composition of the list of additions. As for the ratio of native and foreign words, it is 256 and 57 words, respectively. Unadapted foreign words i.e. citations (4) are relatively few. Most of the native words are compounds (234), while derivatives are far fewer (22). Compounding in general is the most typical way of word creation in Estonian. Anyone following the (relatively simple) rules of compounding can feel free to create a new word. Of course, no dictionary could ever contain them all, but most dictionaries offer examples of compound words, expecting the users to resort to analogy when the need arises. Coining new derivatives is a little more complicated due to the numerous restrictions to be considered and so may require some philological knowledge. An example of awkward derivation is arvutiseerima (Eng computerise), spreading since the 1990s, which is a combination of a native stem (arvuti ‘computer’) and a foreign suffix (-iseeri); -ma represents the infinitive. The rules of Estonian word formation allow a native affix to be attached to a foreign stem, but not the other way around (Erelt 2008). Therefore, some other derivatives, like raalistama, or arvutistama, combining a native stem (raal4, arvuti ‘computer’) and a native suffix (-sta), have been suggested as translation equivalents for the English verb computerise. An absolute majority of the new words are compound words combining native words or a native and a foreign lexical component. Many of the new Estonian compounds are actually loan translations inspired by English, sometimes also Finnish expressions. Some examples: tüvirakk (Eng stem cell), kehakeel (Eng body language), mugavustsoon (Eng comfort zone), õpitud abitus (Eng learned helplessness); kepikõnd (Fin sauvakävely ‘Nordic walking’), narkomuul (Fin huumemuuli, Eng drug mule). Although most of the new translation loans fit well in the Estonian language, there are some in which literal translation has not led to the best result, being even somewhat confusing. For example, the English expression hate speech has been translated into Estonian as vihakõne, but the English hate translates better as vaen, and so hate speech should rather have been translated as vaenukõne or vaenuõhutus. 3.2. Foreign words in DSE 2013 All DSEs contain some unadapted foreign words, i.e. words of foreign origin that are used in Estonian as there is no native equivalent or, if there is, the native word is lesser known than the foreign one. The DSE 2013 has 289 such words, of which 84 are of English, 80 of Italian and 69 of Latin origin. In the 2010s there has been some discussion about what might be the reasonable amount of unadapted foreign words in the ÕS (Liiv 2001: 425, Tomusk 2013: 19–20). According to the Language Act5 the information on ‘signs, signposts, business type names and outdoor advertisements’ installed in public places should be in Estonian; the Estonian text may be complemented by a translation in a foreign language, but the Estonian text should remain in the forefront. The officials in charge of the enforcement of this regulation sometimes face a situation where proprietors interpret all words presented in the DSE as being Estonian, including the totally unadapted words such as happy hour, drive in, catering, or check-in (Tomusk 2013: 20). Thus, the dictionary-makers are faced with a tricky task: on the one hand, the best-known unadapted foreign words need to be included in order to enable the users to check their spelling, pronunciation, as well as their native equivalents, if available (workshop, see õpikoda); on the other hand, the user should be given a clear clue of the word’s origin. If an unadapted word has developed a native equivalent that is well known and well rooted in the language, the foreign word is dropped from the entry list as, for example, the words holding company, offshore, and outsourcing, which were among the entry words of DSE 2006, yet have been replaced by the native equivalents valdusühing, maksuvaba, and väljasttellimine, respectively, in DSE 2013. In some cases such foreign words are nevertheless used in explanations. For example, the explanations of inseneriteave and oskusteave are limited to their respective English equivalents engineering and know-how, while the English paintball explains both värvikuul and värvikuulimäng. The question remains, how big an effect does a lexicographer’s conscious preference of native or even purist words actually have on the language users? Van der Kuip (2010) compared the use of purisms and their equivalent loan-words in Frisian and found that after a few years, the purisms included in dictionaries performed considerably better than the corresponding loan words and loan translations, while the purisms not in the dictionaries performed considerably worse. In Estonian texts, unadapted foreign words are usually written in a different typeface, usually italics, to emphasise their alien status. If such words keep pouring in, it can make their spelling troublesome (Leemets 2003: 576), which could, after all, be seen as another reason for finding suitable native or even borrowed substitutes to replace at least the more frequent of the unadapted foreign words. Foreign words in Estonian, as indicated above, have been respelt to match the traditional Estonian spelling system. However, some spontaneous popular adaptations deviate from the regular respelling rules. For example, the French word buffet has become fixed in Estonian as bufee, although the French pronunciation combined with Estonian orthography should result in büfee: but the latter did not catch on with the users. Actually, the borrowing of the French word, which took place in the 1990s, was not the first time the word was borrowed into Estonian. The first borrowing probably followed the Russian example буфет, resulting in puhvet (see DSE 1918). One of the principles adhered to, if at all possible, by Estonian lexicographers is to recommend a borrowing directly from the source language, rather than from an intermediary language (Erelt 2007: 222). For instance, imidž, a phonetic adaptation of the English image, would be less welcome than imago, which originates in Latin (there is also the Estonian word kuvand, derived from kuvama ‘make visible’).6 This is why we do not recommend the new English loans arrived in Estonian through Russian, such as kreeker ‘cracker’ (Rus крекер), breketid ‘dental braces’ (Rus брекеты), kruiis ’cruise’ (Rus круиз). Some new words are fended off by homonymy. The phonetic adapation of the English cruise, for example, would be kruus, but as it coincides with two native words kruus : kruusa ‘gravel’ and kruus : kruusi ‘mug’, both DSE 2006 and DSE 2013 recommend the native ristlus (cf. Fin risteily) over the foreign-sounding kruiis. It has been observed that adaptations that have homonyms in Estonian are adopted more reluctantly by the speakers than the rest (Leemets 2003: 579), no matter whether the homonym happens to have a negative connotation or not, cf. the English loanword lobi ‘lobby’ and the native Estonian lobi ‘grub, slops’, or the English loan vokk ’wok’ and the native Estonian vokk ‘spinning wheel’. The more naturalised loanwords often have a more or less adequate native equivalent, if not several ones. In the DSE such pairs of native versus borrowed words usually carry either a direct or implicit recommendation. The latter means that a foreign word is presented together with its native equivalent, whereas the native word carries no reference to the foreign equivalent. Veldi (2014) discusses this practice in greater detail on the example of Estonian dictionaries. Direct recommendations come in a two-tier system: (a) the use of the word in Estonian should be avoided; (b) the word can be used, but is not the recommended alternative. The words of group (a) are printed in braces, in a smaller font, followed by an arrow pointing to the recommended word, e.g. {blender} → kann+mikser. Entries of group (b) include the word parem ‘better’, e.g. glamuur <22e: -muuri, -muuri>, parem elegants, võlu, lumm ‘glamour’. In the DSE, a native word is almost exclusively preferred over a foreign alternative in two cases: (1) if the referent concept has been familiar to Estonian speakers for a long time, and its native designator has fairly wide distribution (biatlon → laskesuusatamine ‘biathlon’, bädminton → sulgpall ‘badminton’); (2) if a new concept has relatively quickly inspired the emergence of a native designator, which is already known well enough (blender → kannmikser, bändi ‘bandy’ → saalihoki). Both cases are usually handled as tier (a), but a comparison of different editions of the dictionary reveals that with time the recommendation can change, mostly towards the more liberal side. In DSE 2006, for example, the entries of bränd ‘brand’ and transfeer ‘transfer’ belong to (a), whereas DSE 2013 prefers (b), which is the more permissive approach. True, throughout the DSE the recommendations fail to be quite consistent: namely, in some cases the native and foreign words have been treated as perfect- or near-equals, despite the native word being well known (grant = uurimisraha, uurimistoetus ‘grant’). Most native words that are listed as candidate replacements for foreign items have emerged and become rooted in the language spontaneously. The words invented by DSE-makers are few, and even those are never included unless accepted by the users (e.g. the compound word suhtekorraldus for the English phrase public relationship). In the 2010s the English word multitasking started spreading in Estonian. Two equivalents, mitmiktegevus and mitmiktöö, were invented by the compilers of the DSE, but people have grown fond of another compound: rööprähklus. Comparing the words mitmiktegevus (mitmik ‘a group of several’ + tegevus ‘activity’) and rööprähklus (rööpne ‘parallel’ + rähklema ‘to drudge’), we can see that the more popular compound is witty, figurative and contains alliteration. Another positive example is the English word shopping, which was first adapted to Estonian as šoping, but later, as the concept got ever more familiar and popular, the loanword was gradually replaced by the native derivatives poodlemine (< pood ‘shop’) and ostlemine (< ost ‘purchase’, ostma ‘to buy’). These examples show that Estonian language users have maintained both the desire and necessary skill to develop their language. If a foreign word is nevertheless presented as superior in the DSE, this signals the lexicographers’ motivated choice. In such cases, the suggested native equivalent may not be sufficiently well rooted or a suitable native word has not been found at all. For example, the English word curling has been matched with jääkeegel (jää ‘ice’ + keegel ‘bowling’), which is, however, not nearly as popular as the respelt version kurling. In addition, a foreign word may be stylistically marked, which has been the reason for including colloquialisms such as bläkk ‘embarrassing situation’, diil ‘deal’, drink, friik ‘freak’, despite their having literary equivalents. Some of these decisions to recommend foreign words are based on the choices of special language planners. In Estonia, special languages (LSP) are taken care of by terminology committees, which operate on a voluntary basis. Every such committee includes specialists as well as linguists, and so a close cooperation is guaranteed between LSP and general language planners. At the moment, there are approximately sixty terminology committees registered, including, for example, the committees for military, aviation, nautical, educational, bibliographical, botanical and zoological terms, but also some for narrower sub-fields such as Estonian folk dance and Estonian handicraft. The terminology committees publish their results in the form of both special dictionaries (see, e.g. the Dictionary of Education and Instruction in five languages, Erelt 2014) and databases such as the Militerm for military terms. The DSE editors normally follow the decisions passed by the terminology committees. For example, once the Committee of Educational Terminology has decided that intellektipuue ‘intellectual disability’ sounds more politically correct than vaimupuue (intellekt is a foreign word, while vaim is native); or once the developers of IT vocabulary (see Lexicon of Data Protection and Information Security) find that the native derivative lehitseja ‘the one who browses’ is too ‘naive’ a translation to be used as a native substitute for the foreign word brauser ‘browser’; or else that the colloquial-sounding English loanword äpp ‘app’ should be included in the term list (besides the existing parallel term mobiilirakendus ‘mobile application’), the DSE can do nothing but comply. As a whole, Estonian LSP planning proceeds from the same principles as general language planning, but as demonstrated by the above examples, the LSP planners feel the inevitable pressure of actual usage and take it into account. The biggest problem of the 2000s so far has been the semantic change of established foreign words. The foreign vocabulary in Estonian has mainly been formed under German and Russian influence. More specifically, our foreign words of Latin or Greek origin have entered Estonian via German or Russian. This is why the foreign words often share the reference of their German or Russian source words. Now the situation has changed: Estonian words of Latin or Greek origin, nowadays coming via English, have started acquiring additional senses, normally evident in English words of the same stem. The number of such semantic Anglicisms has been growing from year to year, thus posing a threat of a real cultural interruption: the words meaning one thing for the 40- or 50-year-olds already mean something else for the 20-year-olds. For example, the Estonian word simuleerima (< Lat simulare) traditionally used to mean ‘to pretend’, but now, influenced by English, it has come to be used in the sense of ‘to imitate’. Often a foreign word with a new meaning will oust another foreign word previously used in that sense. For instance, people now say indikatiivne (< indicative) instead of orienteeriv ‘approximate’ or provisoorne ‘preliminary’, or sensitiivne (< sensitive) instead of delikaatne ‘delicate’ or konfidentsiaalne ‘confidential’, while massiline ‘mass (adjective)’ is sometimes replaced by massiivne (< massive), and projektsioon (< projection) stands for prognoos ‘prognosis’ (Raadik 2008). Estonian language planners keep track of lexical changes and raise the users’ awareness of undesirable semantic changes, which fail to enhance the expressive potential of the Estonian language. For that purpose, the DSE uses the comments ‘ei soovita tähenduses’ ‘sense not recommended’, often with usage examples. The DSE contains about a hundred words with the above warning, about sixty of which are of foreign origin. The future will show whether and to what extent the semantics of Estonian foreign words can still be kept within tradition, that is, how seriously the recommendations of the language planners will be taken into account. Not all English-induced changes apply to the meaning of foreign words, some of them concern word formation. There is a curious group of Estonian foreign words which originate from Latin words ending in -cāre. The Estonian verbs of the same stem have traditionally taken the ending -tseerima (Raiet 1966), e.g. komplitseerima (Lat complicāre, cf. Gm komplizieren) ‘to complicate’, provotseerima (Lat provocāre, cf. Gm provozieren, Rus провоцировать) ‘to provoke’, analogously: dislotseerima ‘to dislocate’, duplitseerima ‘to duplicate’, fabritseerima ‘to fabricate’, publitseerima ‘to publish’. The shape of some of the words has, however, been changed. The verb inditseerima (Lat indicāre, cf. Gm indizieren) ‘to indicate’, for example, can be found in DSE 1960, but now, in line with English, the previous -ts- has been replaced by -k-, resulting in indikeerima (cf. Eng indicate). By way of analogy, Estonian has acquired the verb aplikeerima (Lat applicāre) instead of aplitseerima ‘appliqué; administer’, as well as the verbs kommunikeerima (Lat commūnicāre, Gm kommunizieren) ‘to communicate’, allokeerima (Medieval Latin allocāre) ‘to allocate’, sofistikeerima (Medieval Latin sophisticāre) ‘to sophisticate’, which would probably have received a -tseerima ending if they had been borrowed early enough (Raadik 2008). 4. New Word Competitions Estonia has a strong tradition of collective lexical creation, which was boosted in the 1970s. In 1972, following the Finnish example, the Estonian Mother Tongue Society ran a contest on neologisms (Kull 1972). The contest was expected to yield new Estonian native-sounding expressions as well as to stimulate public interest in language matters and channel that interest to the common good. Nearly 200 participants entered their terms for at least one of the twenty concepts set up. Several of the winning words, such as pardel ‘electric razor’, kohuke ‘a sweet curds snack’, sõõrik ‘doughnut’, selve ‘self-service’, or eirama ‘ignore’ are still in current use. The new millennium brought a new boom in New Word competitions, with as many as thirteen taking place: three in 2002, one each in 2010, 2011, 2015, and 2017, and two each in 2012, 2014, and 2016 (Raadik 2017: 165). The competitions differ in scale: seven of the thirteen contests were bigger, each aiming at a dozen terms, while each of the six smaller ones had just one target concept. The biggest competition of all took place in 2002, where the target list contained thirteen concepts associated with the European Union, e.g. crisis management, non-governmental organisation, structural funds, subsidiarity, zero tolerance, task force, eliciting a total of 5300 entries (Erelt 2003). As for the targets, terms have been asked for abstract as well as concrete concepts from different domains including social life, economics, transportation, politics, military matters, filmmaking, pop culture, etc. Some of the targets already have an Estonian equivalent, some do not. The suggested options are usually evaluated by a jury panel, who mainly favour native Estonian compounds or derivatives. Loanwords are rare among the winners. An exception occurred in 2016, when a phonetic adaptation kootsima was declared the winner for the English verb coach (although there is a homonymous dialect word kootsima ‘to stroll’). In addition to the given target concepts, there are free rounds in the competitions, where people can offer Estonian words for concepts of their own choice. At the 2014 competition participants offered, for instance, nöha (< nohu ‘runny nose’ + köha ‘cough’) as a portmanteau word to describe the situation of having both a runny nose and a cough. In addition, kärgpere ‘blended family, lit. honeycomb family’ was suggested in 2010 for the new type of family where parents have children from previous relationships as well as with each other. The first quantitative analysis (Küngas 2013) of the spread of the words submitted to Estonian word competitions was published in 2013 and its focus was the competition of 2002. The study explored the frequency of occurrence of the winning words in journalistic texts. The results include the somewhat surprising fact that the subsequent spread of a winning word depends not only on its ease of use, but also on political will. Notably, the spread of such neologisms as lähimus ‘subsidiarity’, kriisiohjamine ‘crisis management’ and tõukefondid ‘structural funds’ has been considerably impeded by the reluctance of public authorities to adopt the new words for use. More often than not, a change in an EU legal word is repressed on the grounds that it could risk the consistency of the texts of EU treaties. Participation in the Estonian New Word competitions is open to both linguists and non-linguists. Experience has shown that the latter are just as skilled in using every possible option for word creation, including compounding, derivation, use of dialect stems, etc. The two winner words of the 2000s, however, come from language experts, namely, in 2002 the derivatives lõimimine, lõiming (< lõim ‘warp’) were launched by the writer Ain Kaalep as equivalents for integratsioon ‘(social or inter-ethnic) integration’, and in 2010 taristu (< tari- ‘assemblable’) was suggested by the technical editor Andres Valdre to replace infrastruktuur ‘infrastructure’. Both integratsioon and infrastruktuur are old foreign words in Estonian. Through frequent use in administrative language, the words have developed a strong association with officialese and hence the new words, which are shorter and sound more native, have met an enthusiastic welcome on the part of both officials and journalists. Nevertheless, the main aim of the Estonian New Word competitions is not to replace foreign words with native words, but rather to replace clumsy expressions (either native or foreign) with alternatives that are easier to use. In total, the thirteen competitions held in the 21st century have presented the participants with 89 target concepts. Most of the announced winners in current use are either compounds, such as vabaühendus ‘non-governmental organisation’, kärgpere ‘blended family’, viipekaart ‘proximity card’; or derivatives, such as lõimimine ‘integration’, üleilmastumine ‘globalisation’, taristu ‘infrastructure’, kestlik ‘sustainable’ and vabakond ‘third sector’. 5. Discussion Compared to earlier times, the language planning direction of the DSE in the recent decades has moved from strict rules and standardising to a softer, more recommendation-based approach. Instead of rigid boundaries, the DSE now concentrates on the cores of rules and follows a centre-periphery principle (Erelt 2002: 256). In regards to vocabulary, native words are generally preferred over loanwords. As Erelt (2002: 261) has pointed out, the issue of maintaining the native language, while being in close contact with others, is both a national and collective issue for European countries. In this globalising world, Estonian language planners are face to face with English influences, as are many other peoples who feel concerned about their non-English languages. Estonian language planners have extensive experience in coping with foreign influence. Much of this experience comes from the period 1940–1990, when Estonia was under Soviet occupation and the Estonian language had to fight back against a strong pressure of Russian. Although during the fifty years of Soviet occupation numerous Sovietisms entered standard Estonian, it was still common practice that direct loans were not allowed to enter standard Estonian from colloquial usage, e.g. pagasnik ‘boot (of a car)’ or maika ‘top (of a shirt)’ (Laanekask, Erelt 2007: 139). As text production was firmly channeled at that time, it was easier to manage the linguistic aspect of those texts; that is, all books, periodicals and acts of law were subjected to a process of linguistic edition, enabling the elimination of most of the undesirable Russianisms. For the purposes of proposing proper Estonian equivalents, the best Estonian language planners even took part in the making of a four-volume Russian-Estonian dictionary (published in 1984–1994). The Estonian language planners and compilers of the DSE are constantly expected to take a stand on how to handle borrowed material in general and foreign words in particular. As for new stems arriving from English, their heyday was in the 1990s, when Estonian contacts with the English-speaking world were on the rise. The same period brought an increasing cognate influence from the related Finnish language. In the 2000s, the influx of new loan stems has stabilised, but not of loan translations: a considerable part of new Estonian compounds are loan translations from English, e.g. tüvirakk (Eng stem cell), kehakeel (Eng body language), less frequently from Finnish, e.g. kepikõnd (Fin sauvakävely ‘Nordic walking’), or narkomuul (Fin huumemuuli, Eng drug mule). The proportion of native vs. borrowed material also largely depends on the attitudes of the language users. Estonians have a strong tradition of collective word creation. There are New Word competitions that are open to linguists as well as non-linguists, where everyone is invited to enter either terms for new concepts or alternatives for some ungainly expressions. The 2000s have already witnessed as many as thirteen such competitions and many of the suggested terms have been met by a warm welcome from Estonian language users. Interesting developments are taking place in the Estonian loaned vocabulary. Although it was first formed mainly on the basis of Russian and German material, English influences have become dominant since the beginning of the 2000s. Those influences are mostly manifested in word semantics and, to a lesser extent, in word formation. Semantic change has been particularly extensive: the loanwords or international stems traditionally used in a certain sense (often shared with German or Russian) have come to be used in a new sense, which is typically associated with the stem in English. In parallel, new loanwords keep entering the Estonian language, often in the form of simple transcriptions from English. As mentioned previously, Tiiu Erelt has formulated an important principle of Estonian language planning, based on which, given equal circumstances, preference is to be given to a native word over a foreign one (2007: 135–136). In practical lexicography work in compiling the DSEs, it is expressed through the viewpoint that Estonians should only borrow when they really need to, and never borrow more than necessary (that is, take just the meaning you need, leaving the rest alone). Thus, word borrowing is justified first and foremost for unfamiliar concepts. The above statement also summarises the DSE’s approach to foreign words. Native words are generally preferred, in order to preserve the specific character of the language. For the numerous foreign words, the compilers have to decide which of the words and meanings are genuinely needed to fill a semantic gap, and which just confuse the existing system. For example, it is not recommended to use the word referents (from the English ‘reference letter’), in the sense of a ‘letter written about you by someone who knows you, particularly for presentation to a new employer’, because we already have the common native words soovitus and soovituskiri. Thus, besides the origin of the word, the lexicographers also try to consider how the new word might enrich the expressive qualities of the language. The authors of the DSE do not just fix the usage of the present moment; they also try to look ahead and present the material that might become necessary in the future (for example Estonian equivalents for some new concepts that may not yet be in wide use). Therefore, the DSE sometimes offers neologisms next to Anglicisms, which makes it somewhat like a bilingual dictionary, including words for which there is sometimes no recorded evidence yet (for details see Leemets and Raadik 2006). The extent to which the users have accepted the new Estonian equivalents proposed in explanations has not yet been studied. However, some proposals have become very popular, for instance the Estonian word suhtekorraldus, an equivalent for the term public relations, which came from the language planners of the Institute of the Estonian Language. As for borrowed words versus native words, it is up to the users of the language. It is our own choice whether we remember and use a word we already have in the language or whether we choose to cast aside the native word as soon as we learn a foreign equivalent. The purpose of language planning is not to enforce certain behavior, but to support it, and the choice to use native words or adaptations instead of foreign words should be a liberty, not an obligation. The Estonian language planner Henn Saari (1976: 165–166) has emphasised that as long as the nation has the skills to create words based on native regularities, the language endures, which means that it is not the loans that are dangerous, but the situation where loanwords are the only accretion. Footnotes 1 For information on the Mother Tongue Society seehttp://emakeeleselts.ee/vaatmikud/keelekorraldus. 2 http://www.eki.ee/dict/qs. 3 http://keeleabi.eki.ee/?leht=9. 4 The noun raal is an artificial stem launched by Manivalde Lubi in the 1960s. 5 Language Act 2011, Pars 1,2, Sec. 16, Ch. 4. https://www.riigiteataja.ee. 6 Loaning without intermediary languages gives an opportunity to resist Russian and English language influences. However, there is a second aspect. Sometimes words loaned directly from Greek or Latin fit better with the Estonian language structure than words loaned through other languages such as English or Russian. For example, the English loanword imidž ‘image’ contains the letter ž, which is not present in native words, but the word derived from Latin, imago is structurally similar to native Estonian words. References Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat. 1918. Tallinn: Rahvaülikooli kirjastus. (DSE 1918) Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat. 1925–1937. [Eds.: J. V. Veski, E. Muuk.] Tartu: Eesti Kirjanduse Seltsi kirjastus. (DSE 1925–1937) Erelt T. (ed.). 1999. Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. (DSE 1999) Erelt T. (ed.). 2006. Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. http://portaal.eki.ee/dict/qs2006/. (DSE 2006) Erelt T. (ed.). 2014. Hariduse ja kasvatuse sõnaraamat . Eesti. Inglise. Saksa. Soome. Vene. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. http://www.eki.ee/dict/haridus/. (Dictionary of Education and Instruction) Kull R., Raiet E. (eds). 1976. Õigekeelsussõnaraamat . Tallinn: Valgus. http://portaal.eki.ee/dict/qs76. (DSE 1976) Langemets M., Tiits M., Valdre T., Veskis L., Viks Ü., Voll P. (eds). 2009. Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. (Explanatory Dictionary of Standard Estonian) Lexicon of Data Protection and Information Security. http://akit.cyber.ee/. (Accessed on October 20, 2017) Militerm. http://termin.eki.ee/militerm/. (Accessed on January 15, 2017) Muuk E. 1933. Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat . Tartu: Eesti Kirjanduse Seltsi kirjastus. (DSE 1933) Nurm E., Raiet E., Kindlam M. (eds). 1960. Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat . Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus. (DSE 1960) Paet T. (ed.) 2012. Võõrsõnade leksikon . 8., põhjalikult umber töötatud trükk. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut & Valgus. (Dictionary of Foreign Words) Raadik M. (ed.). 2013. Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. http://www.eki.ee/dict/qs/. (DSE 2013) Balteiro I. 2011. ‘ Prescriptivism and Descriptivism in the Treatment of Anglicisms in a Series of Bilingual Spanish-English Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography  24. 3: 277– 305. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bańko M., Hebal-Jezierska M.. 2014. ‘What can Lexicography Gain from Studies of Loanword Perception and Adaptation?’. In Abel A., Vettori C., Ralli N. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. 15-19 July 2014, Bolzano/Bozen . Bolzano/Bozen, 981– 991. Erelt T. 2002. Eesti keelekorraldus . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. [Estonian Language Planning] Erelt T. 2003. ‘Sõnavõistlus andis uued eesti sõnad.’ Oma Keel, 1, 5–19. [New Estonian Words Gained from Competition] Erelt T. 2007. Terminiõpetus . Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. [Terminology] Erelt T. 2007. ‘Õigekeelsussõnaraamatud läbi sajandi.’ In Sutrop U. (ed.) ÕSi lätted. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus , 5– 34. [Dictionaries of Standard Estonian through the Past Century] Erelt T. 2008. ‘Kas hakkame eesti keelt tõhuseerima?’ Õiguskeel 2005−2007 . Tallinn: Juura, 259– 262. [Should the Rules of Estonian Derivation be Abandoned?] Kuip F. van der. 2010. ‘Dictionaries and Their Influence on Language Purification in Minority Languages. The Case of Frisian.’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress (Leeuwarden, 6-10 July 2010) , 1497– 1504. Jürviste M., Kallas J., Langemets M., Tuulik M., Viks Ü.. 2011. ‘Extending the Functions of the EELex Dictionary Writing System Using the Example of the Basic Estonian Dictionary.’ In Kosem I., Kosem K. (eds), Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century New Applications for New Users: Proceedings of eLex 2011, Bled, 10–12 November 2011 . Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovenian Studies, 106– 112. Kull R. 1972. ‘Sõnavõistlus ja võistlussõnad.’ Keel ja Kirjandus 9: 524−530. [Word Competition and the Words Competing] Küngas R. 2013. ‘Sõnavõistlusel väljapakutud sõnade juurdumisest.’ Keel ja Kirjandus 3: 171–191. http://kjk.eki.ee/ee/issues/2013/3/326. [The Rooting of the Words Suggested at Word Competitions] Laanekask H., Erelt T.. 2007. ‘Written Estonian.’ In Erelt M. (ed.), Estonian Language . Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series. Volume 1. Second Edition. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, 273– 342. Leemets T. 1996. ‘Uuemaid inglise laene.’ In Erelt T., Leemets T., Mäearu S., Raadik M., Keelenõuanne soovitab . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, 35– 41. http://keeleabi.eki.ee/artiklid/inglise.html. [Recent English Loanwords] Leemets T. 2003. ‘Inglise laenud sajandivahetuse eesti keeles 2003. Keel ja Kirjandus 8: 571–584. [English Loans in Estonian at the Turn of the Century] Leemets T., Raadik M.. 2006. ‘ÕS 1999: Experience of a New Language Planning Dictionary.’ Kalbos kultūra  79: 124– 130. Leemets T., Raadik M.. 2016. ‘An Interactive Solution: a Grammar Handbook Linked to a Prescriptive Dictionary.’ In Margalitadze T., Meladze G. (eds), Proceedings of the XVII EURALEX International Congress : Lexicography and Linguistic Diversity, 6 - 10 September 2016, Tbilisi, Georgia . Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi University Press, 893– 897. Liiv S. 2001. ‘Kuul selver ruulib. Mõtteid ka 1999. aasta ÕS-i kohta.’ Keel ja Kirjandus , 6, 424– 426. [On Some New Anglicisms in Estonian and the Dictionary of Standard Estonian of 1999] Muuk E. 1935. ‘Inglispäraste võõrsõnade õigekirjutus.’ Eesti Keel , 4–6, 180– 185. [The Estonian Orthography of Some English Loanwords] Raadik M. 2008. ‘Võõrad võõrsõnad.’ In Raadik M. (ed.), Keelenõuanne soovitab 4 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, 43– 63. http://keeleabi.eki.ee/pdf/043.pdf. [Semantic Change of Foreign Words] Raadik M. 2017. Uudissõnu uue aastatuhande algusest . Tallinn: Tänapäev. [New Words from the Beginning of the New Millennium] Raiet E. 1966. Võõrsõnade kuju sõltuvus lähte- ja vahendajakeeltest tänapäeva eesti kirjakeeles. Väitekiri filoloogiateaduste kandidaadi kraadi taotlemiseks. (Manuscript.) Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut, 54–55. [The Dependence of the Shape of Foreign Words on Their Source and Mediating Languages in Modern Standard Estonian] Saari H. 1976. Keelehääling . Tallinn: Valgus. [Language Broadcasts] Saari H. 1981. ‘Omasõna ja võõrsõna paarid eesti oskussõnavaras (2).’ Keel ja Kirjandus, 4, 201–210; 5, 282–288. [Pairs of Native and Foreign Words in Estonian Specialised Vocabulary] Tauli V. 1968. Keelekorralduse alused . Stockholm: Vaba Eesti, 1968. [Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning] Tomusk I. 2013. ‘Põhiseaduse riigikeele sätted 20 aastat hiljem.’ Õiguskeel , 13– 20. [Constitutional Provisions on Official Language 20 Years After] Veldi E. 2000. Review: Tiiu Erelt (ed.) Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999. (A Dictionary of the Estonian Language: Orthological Dictionary 1999). International Journal of Lexicography 13.4: 341–345. Veldi E. 2014. ‘Concerning the Treatment of Co-existent Synonyms in Estonian Monolingual and Bilingual Dictionaries.’ In Abel A., Vettori C., Ralli N. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. 15-19 July 2014, Bolzano/Bozen . Bolzano/Bozen, 2014, 829– 835. Viitso T-E. 2007. ‘Structure of the Estonian Language. Phonology, morphology and word formation.’ In Erelt M. (ed.), Estonian Language. Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series . Volume 1. Second Edition. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, 9– 129. © 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Lexicography Oxford University Press

Native vs. Borrowed Material as Approached by Estonian Language Planning Practitioners: The Experience of the Dictionary of Standard Estonian

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/native-vs-borrowed-material-as-approached-by-estonian-language-xDZyp0Xdo3
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0950-3846
eISSN
1477-4577
D.O.I.
10.1093/ijl/ecy007
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract An overview is given of how Estonian language planners and lexicographers deal with foreign words accruing in the language. As Estonian is a small language, special attention is paid to language planning and lexicography in Estonia to ensure the survival of the language. Development of Estonian language planning is discussed, concentrating on issues regarding native versus foreign words. The Dictionary of Standard Estonian (DSE) is introduced in more detail. The DSE has been the clearest manifestation of general language planning in Estonia. Backed by a century of tradition and expertise, it provides the national standard for Estonian. The focus of the article is on how the DSE handles foreign words. 1. Introduction For nearly a century, Estonian lexicography has pivoted around the dictionary of correct usage (DSE, Estonian abbr. ÕS), which has grown out of the spelling dictionary of Estonian published in 1918 (DSE 1918). Although the Estonian title ÕS is an abbreviation of õigekeelsus ‘correct usage’, the current DSEs (DSE 1999 and its descendant line of DSE 2006, DSE 2013, DSE 2018) are essentially dictionaries of language planning, informing the user not only of Estonian spelling, pronunciation and morphology, but also of its semantics, word formation and syntax. The structure and direction of the DSE underwent a major change in the late 1980s, when the Institute of the Estonian Language started compiling a new type of normative dictionary (DSE 1999), which was meant to continue the tradition of dictionaries of correct usage, yet providing users with more substantial and diverse information. The necessity for such a dictionary arose from the democratisation of Estonian language planning in the 1970s and 1980s, when commanding and prohibiting came to be replaced by directing and recommending. The abbreviation ÕS was, however, retained in the title for its popularity and good reputation. In 2006, when a government regulation was adopted to the effect that the DSE defines the norm of standard Estonian, the word õigekeelsus ‘correct usage’ was inserted into the title. The DSE is a monolingual normative dictionary, which not only presents words and expressions, but also evaluates them in terms of expediency, that is, the user is told which words improve the expressive power of Estonian and which do not. As a basis for the norm of standard Estonian, the DSE is also a dictionary from which guidance is taken when compiling other dictionaries of general language, such as the Explanatory Dictionary of Standard Estonian (Langemets et al. 2009), despite its being descriptive in essence, or the Dictionary of Foreign Words (Paet 2012) which tries to find a balance between description and prescription. Balteiro (2011) suggests that some intermediate positions between prescriptivism and descriptivism might be helpful for dictionary users, describing actual usage and including additional information on whether a form may be accepted by some or refused by others. The central position of the DSE places a great responsibility on the compilers, both for word selection and evaluation. An area of increasing importance concerns issues of native versus foreign words, as the last 30 years have brought a considerable amount of new referent concepts as well as new loanwords. The compiling of DSE 1999 began in the time during which Estonia managed to shake off Soviet occupation and re-establish its political independence. The political changes led to linguistic ones: several fields replaced a major part of their old terms, while the long-awaited opportunity to communicate with the Western world enabled a massive influx of English loanwords. In the 2010s there has also been an increase of words of Japanese and Arabic origin, which has motivated a revision of the spelling principles for those words. The Language Committee of the Mother Tongue Society1, whose responsibility is to solve the most important problems concerning the norms of standard Estonian, has issued their recommendations for the Estonian spelling of words of Japanese (in 2008) and Arabic (in 2009) origin. Linguistically, the current period of borrowing, which started in the late 1980s, is characterised by a flood of new referent concepts and a parallel occurrence of various spellings (Leemets 2003: 571). Estonian language planners tried to manage the flood by suggesting native equivalents or, with none available, resorting to adaptation. The compilers of the DSE published a number of lists of English loanwords with appropriate Estonian equivalents. The first (and longest) list was published in 1996 (Leemets 1996); the following ones (published in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2015) were increasingly shorter, due to the diminishing number of new stems. Over time, many words once included in such a list have acquired an Estonian equivalent, but not all. The lists have been a vital part of the preparation of new words for presentation in the DSEs. The aim of the present article is to provide a survey of native versus foreign words in the DSEs, taking a closer look at the selection and presentation of unadapted foreign words, the treatment of foreign-native lexical pairs, and changes in the meaning of foreign words. Note that we define ‘foreign word’ as a borrowing that has not been fully adapted to Estonian, thus being structurally alien, i.e. having certain non-native traits (foreign letters, accent off the first syllable). A special group is made up of unadapted foreign words which are used in their source form. In the liminal period, some concepts can be simultaneously referred to by both unadapted foreign words (e.g. boutique, hijab, sushi) and partially adapted foreign words (butiik, hidžaab, suši). Estonian spelling is based on the phonological principle aiming for the best possible match between spelling and pronunciation. Fitting new loanwords into Estonian usually proceeds from their pronunciation, seldom from their source spelling. We also address New Word contests, which are very popular in Estonia and which offer an option to manage, to an extent, the large influx of words from foreign languages. Even though the replacement of foreign words by native ones is not the main aim of the contests, the results are often conducive to that purpose. 2. The treatment of native versus foreign words in Estonian language planning Modern Estonian language planning originates in the early 20th century. The first Dictionary of Standard Estonian was published in 1918, the same year an independent Estonian Republic was established. The preparatory period included discussions held during 1908–11 to formulate and harmonise the basic orthographic principles for standard Estonian. Rule fixing and harmonisation were continued throughout the 1920s and 1930s. A substantial contribution to the process was made by Elmar Muuk (1901–1941), author of the popular Concise Orthological Dictionary (DSE 1933). On his initiative, several fundamental rules for loanword spelling were set, including the one subordinating all loanwords to the Estonian system of marking quantity degrees (bruto, neto < brutto, netto). Muuk also formulated the Estonian spelling rules for the words of English origin. The principle is that the Estonian spelling of English loanwords should more or less follow their English pronunciation (Muuk 1935: 180–185), which principle has been generally adhered to ever since. True, there has been some recent decrease in the use of š and ž, notably, while earlier the typical English loans included džemm ‘jam’ and džiip ‘jeep’, we now rather find geel ‘gel’ and frantsiis ‘franchise’ (Leemets 2003: 578–579). The reasons may vary from the influence of other languages (in Finnish, for example, English loanwords tend to have s rather than š or ž), through technical considerations (in the early 1990s many computers and word processors were too primitive to manage writing š or ž), to word meaning (see, e.g., Bańko and Hebal-Jezierska 2014: 986). A general tendency for recent English loanwords to be spelt following the source orthography rather than pronunciation exhibits itself in occasional modifications to the Estonian spelling of some older English loanwords (e.g. džäss > jazz). In Estonian language planning, the issue of native versus foreign words has been addressed most fully by Valter Tauli (1907–1986), the author of the theory of Estonian language planning based on the language-reformist principles of Johannes Aavik, and Henn Saari (1924–1999), the leading theoretician and practitioner of Estonian language planning, addressing both general and special language problems. Valter Tauli, who lived and worked in Sweden since 1944, was an advocate of the principle of internationality requiring that, with all other conditions being equal, the international word should be preferred over the native one (Tauli 1968: 96). According to Tauli, there is no reason to consider a loanword as less clear than a native word, since clarity depends on whether we know the referent or not. He admits, though, that some loanwords may be uneconomical and thus he advocates zero derivation of verbs as a way to shorter and more simply structured loanwords, e.g. süsteemima instead of süstematiseerima ‘systematise’, and motiivima instead of motiveerima ‘motivate’. Tauli does not deny that sometimes the preference could well follow the aesthetic principle. For example, in the 1920s the Russian loanword uulits ‘street’ (for Estonians, Russian was the language of a foreign power during 1710–1917) was replaced by tänav (an old Germanic loanword long ceased to be sensed as such). A similar tendency was observed in the early 1990s, when the word partei ‘political party’, which was associated with Soviet power (cf. Rus партия, Ger Partei), was replaced by erakond, which had been used before the Soviet occupation of 1940 (Laanekask, Erelt 2007: 330–331). Henn Saari, whose most productive years of work at the Institute of Language and Literature (currently, the Institute of the Estonian Language) fell in the period of occupation, has dealt with the issue of native versus foreign words on the example of special language. Having evaluated Estonian native versus borrowed terms with respect to three aspects, namely, precision power, formative power (capability to produce derivational families or series of compound words) and system mirroring power (capability to offer the necessary means for an adequate mapping of the conceptual system), Saari found that loanwords score less on all those three aspects than native words. According to Saari, the better the internal structure of a term corresponds to the concept referred to, the higher its precision power. He points out that a major reason for the superiority of native terms over borrowed ones lies in the fact that the former are free from the motley history, homonymy, and polysemy of their foreign counterparts, while educated attention to Estonian terminology has often produced terms of sufficiently good precision power (see Saari 1981: 207–210, 282–285). As for the proportion of native versus borrowed words, Henn Saari endorses the principle of originality, admitting that although both word creation and borrowing are necessary, priority should be given to the former (Saari 1976: 165–166). The proportion of borrowed versus native words in language use should be such that the people would retain their skill to apply the native patterns of word formation, as a decrease of that skill would mean a collective incompetence in their own mother tongue (Saari 1999: 686). In practical language planning, modern Estonian linguists have been following Saari’s principles rather than Tauli’s, thus, other conditions being similar, a native word is preferred over a foreign one. Tiiu Erelt has called it the principle of self-existence (Erelt 2007: 135–136), noting in addition that the principle enables one to fend off excesses such as linguistic purism or excess use of foreign words. 3. The Dictionary of Standard Estonian (DSE) The first DSE was published in 1918 and the latest dictionary was released in 2013. Since 2006, the DSE has been available online for free like all other dictionaries compiled by the government-funded Institute of the Estonian Language. The next edition of the DSE is due in 2018, while an online Handbook of Correct Estonian is being prepared in parallel (Leemets, Raadik 2016). As pointed out by one of the editors-in-chief for the DSE, Tiiu Erelt (2007: 5), it is almost for a century that a prescriptive dictionary named Õigekeelsussõnaraamat (ÕS, ‘orthological dictionary of standard Estonian’) has served as the main dictionary for Estonians. This differs from the situation for many an Indo-European language (such as English and Russian), where the main dictionary is more often an explanatory dictionary. The DSE is a universal dictionary, similar in type to the German Duden. Preparations for the first DSE started in the year 1910, leading to the first publication eight years later. The main focus of the first DSE was orthography. The dictionary contained 149 pages and 20,000 headwords, while compounds were mostly excluded. Altogether, there have been nine general dictionaries of standard Estonian so far. They are listed in Table 1, together with the year of publication and the number of headwords. Table 1. Dictionaries of Standard Estonian Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  Table 1. Dictionaries of Standard Estonian Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  Year of publication  Title  Number of headwords  1918  Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat  20,000  1925–1937  Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat  130,000  1933  Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat  40,000  1953  Väike õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  36,000  1960  Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat  100,000  1976  Õigekeelsussõnaraamat  115,000  1999  Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999  130,000  2006  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006  130,000  2013  Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013  130,000  The second DSE (1925–1937) was a substantial work; it was divided into three volumes and contained 130,000 headwords, so it was more than six times bigger than the first dictionary. It also contained many derivatives and compounds and numerous terms with explanations, and German or Latin equivalents. The sixth DSE was completed in 1976, and it set the language standard for almost a quarter of a century, because the next dictionary was not published until 1999. It was also very rich and influential and had 100,000 headwords. The DSE of 1999 has provided the basis for the editions of 2006, 2013, as well as for the one to be published in 2018. The DSE of 1999 was edited by Tiiu Erelt (for a review of the dictionary see Veldi 2000), and since 2013 the responsibility lies with Maire Raadik. The DSE 2013 contains about 50,000 headwords (in addition, numerous compounds and derivatives are listed in entries, about 130,000 words altogether). The appendix adds a selection of about 4,000 place names with information on their inflection and, in some cases, pronunciation. As its predecessor DSE 2006, DSE 2013 was published on paper as well as electronically2, and it was compiled with the help of the in-house dictionary writing system Eelex (Jürviste et al. 2011). The DSE is a universal dictionary, giving information about orthography as well as pronunciation, marking the degree of quantity, stress and palatalisation. In addition, the basic inflectional forms are displayed (typologically, Estonian is an agglutinating language, see e.g. Viitso 2007: 32), and the definitions of not-so-well known words are added in the dictionary. Most words are provided with usage examples. Since one of the tasks is to point out what belongs to standard Estonian and what does not, notes or tags such as ‘informal’ or ‘officialese’ are added to words that are considered to belong outside the standard language. Also, the changes in norms are included. Instructions are taken from the Mother Tongue Society’s Language Committee, which is responsible for establishing the language norms in Estonia at present. Following DSE norms is mandatory mainly in official language use and documents, for other users it just offers guidelines for good language practice. The DSEs have traditionally been very popular. The one first published in 1933 by Elmar Muuk was followed by nine more printings. The four impressions of the DSE of 1976 had a total circulation of 100,000 copies. The DSE of 1999 was published in three impressions (1999, 2001, 2003). Hence, it seems to be important indeed for Estonians to have a reliable source to consult for the linguistic standard. 3.1. New words in DSE 2013 One of the greatest challenges of the DSE is the planning of Estonian vocabulary, that is, the monitoring of lexical changes and providing advice on lexical usage. The DSE being the normative dictionary of standard Estonian, the lexicographers need to be especially meticulous about what words are selected for the dictionary and how they are presented therein. The lexicographers and language planners of the Institute of the Estonian Language keep recording new words in their in-house database. In addition, the compilers of the DSE maintain a public online list of new words embracing a selection of the new words that have arrived in Estonian since the latest publication of the DSE. The first public list was opened in 2008, and most of the words listed were included in the 2013 edition. At present, a new list is open for the 2018 edition.3 In the 2000s, the dictionaries have been published with an average interval of seven years, during which about 2000-2500 new words would be added to the dictionary. Not all of them are new in the language, of course; there are always some that have not been included in the previous editions, for whatever reason. The public list (not accessible to public any more) of new words for DSE 2013 contained 335 words. Although this is but a small part of all words added to the 2013 edition, it gives an idea of the composition of the list of additions. As for the ratio of native and foreign words, it is 256 and 57 words, respectively. Unadapted foreign words i.e. citations (4) are relatively few. Most of the native words are compounds (234), while derivatives are far fewer (22). Compounding in general is the most typical way of word creation in Estonian. Anyone following the (relatively simple) rules of compounding can feel free to create a new word. Of course, no dictionary could ever contain them all, but most dictionaries offer examples of compound words, expecting the users to resort to analogy when the need arises. Coining new derivatives is a little more complicated due to the numerous restrictions to be considered and so may require some philological knowledge. An example of awkward derivation is arvutiseerima (Eng computerise), spreading since the 1990s, which is a combination of a native stem (arvuti ‘computer’) and a foreign suffix (-iseeri); -ma represents the infinitive. The rules of Estonian word formation allow a native affix to be attached to a foreign stem, but not the other way around (Erelt 2008). Therefore, some other derivatives, like raalistama, or arvutistama, combining a native stem (raal4, arvuti ‘computer’) and a native suffix (-sta), have been suggested as translation equivalents for the English verb computerise. An absolute majority of the new words are compound words combining native words or a native and a foreign lexical component. Many of the new Estonian compounds are actually loan translations inspired by English, sometimes also Finnish expressions. Some examples: tüvirakk (Eng stem cell), kehakeel (Eng body language), mugavustsoon (Eng comfort zone), õpitud abitus (Eng learned helplessness); kepikõnd (Fin sauvakävely ‘Nordic walking’), narkomuul (Fin huumemuuli, Eng drug mule). Although most of the new translation loans fit well in the Estonian language, there are some in which literal translation has not led to the best result, being even somewhat confusing. For example, the English expression hate speech has been translated into Estonian as vihakõne, but the English hate translates better as vaen, and so hate speech should rather have been translated as vaenukõne or vaenuõhutus. 3.2. Foreign words in DSE 2013 All DSEs contain some unadapted foreign words, i.e. words of foreign origin that are used in Estonian as there is no native equivalent or, if there is, the native word is lesser known than the foreign one. The DSE 2013 has 289 such words, of which 84 are of English, 80 of Italian and 69 of Latin origin. In the 2010s there has been some discussion about what might be the reasonable amount of unadapted foreign words in the ÕS (Liiv 2001: 425, Tomusk 2013: 19–20). According to the Language Act5 the information on ‘signs, signposts, business type names and outdoor advertisements’ installed in public places should be in Estonian; the Estonian text may be complemented by a translation in a foreign language, but the Estonian text should remain in the forefront. The officials in charge of the enforcement of this regulation sometimes face a situation where proprietors interpret all words presented in the DSE as being Estonian, including the totally unadapted words such as happy hour, drive in, catering, or check-in (Tomusk 2013: 20). Thus, the dictionary-makers are faced with a tricky task: on the one hand, the best-known unadapted foreign words need to be included in order to enable the users to check their spelling, pronunciation, as well as their native equivalents, if available (workshop, see õpikoda); on the other hand, the user should be given a clear clue of the word’s origin. If an unadapted word has developed a native equivalent that is well known and well rooted in the language, the foreign word is dropped from the entry list as, for example, the words holding company, offshore, and outsourcing, which were among the entry words of DSE 2006, yet have been replaced by the native equivalents valdusühing, maksuvaba, and väljasttellimine, respectively, in DSE 2013. In some cases such foreign words are nevertheless used in explanations. For example, the explanations of inseneriteave and oskusteave are limited to their respective English equivalents engineering and know-how, while the English paintball explains both värvikuul and värvikuulimäng. The question remains, how big an effect does a lexicographer’s conscious preference of native or even purist words actually have on the language users? Van der Kuip (2010) compared the use of purisms and their equivalent loan-words in Frisian and found that after a few years, the purisms included in dictionaries performed considerably better than the corresponding loan words and loan translations, while the purisms not in the dictionaries performed considerably worse. In Estonian texts, unadapted foreign words are usually written in a different typeface, usually italics, to emphasise their alien status. If such words keep pouring in, it can make their spelling troublesome (Leemets 2003: 576), which could, after all, be seen as another reason for finding suitable native or even borrowed substitutes to replace at least the more frequent of the unadapted foreign words. Foreign words in Estonian, as indicated above, have been respelt to match the traditional Estonian spelling system. However, some spontaneous popular adaptations deviate from the regular respelling rules. For example, the French word buffet has become fixed in Estonian as bufee, although the French pronunciation combined with Estonian orthography should result in büfee: but the latter did not catch on with the users. Actually, the borrowing of the French word, which took place in the 1990s, was not the first time the word was borrowed into Estonian. The first borrowing probably followed the Russian example буфет, resulting in puhvet (see DSE 1918). One of the principles adhered to, if at all possible, by Estonian lexicographers is to recommend a borrowing directly from the source language, rather than from an intermediary language (Erelt 2007: 222). For instance, imidž, a phonetic adaptation of the English image, would be less welcome than imago, which originates in Latin (there is also the Estonian word kuvand, derived from kuvama ‘make visible’).6 This is why we do not recommend the new English loans arrived in Estonian through Russian, such as kreeker ‘cracker’ (Rus крекер), breketid ‘dental braces’ (Rus брекеты), kruiis ’cruise’ (Rus круиз). Some new words are fended off by homonymy. The phonetic adapation of the English cruise, for example, would be kruus, but as it coincides with two native words kruus : kruusa ‘gravel’ and kruus : kruusi ‘mug’, both DSE 2006 and DSE 2013 recommend the native ristlus (cf. Fin risteily) over the foreign-sounding kruiis. It has been observed that adaptations that have homonyms in Estonian are adopted more reluctantly by the speakers than the rest (Leemets 2003: 579), no matter whether the homonym happens to have a negative connotation or not, cf. the English loanword lobi ‘lobby’ and the native Estonian lobi ‘grub, slops’, or the English loan vokk ’wok’ and the native Estonian vokk ‘spinning wheel’. The more naturalised loanwords often have a more or less adequate native equivalent, if not several ones. In the DSE such pairs of native versus borrowed words usually carry either a direct or implicit recommendation. The latter means that a foreign word is presented together with its native equivalent, whereas the native word carries no reference to the foreign equivalent. Veldi (2014) discusses this practice in greater detail on the example of Estonian dictionaries. Direct recommendations come in a two-tier system: (a) the use of the word in Estonian should be avoided; (b) the word can be used, but is not the recommended alternative. The words of group (a) are printed in braces, in a smaller font, followed by an arrow pointing to the recommended word, e.g. {blender} → kann+mikser. Entries of group (b) include the word parem ‘better’, e.g. glamuur <22e: -muuri, -muuri>, parem elegants, võlu, lumm ‘glamour’. In the DSE, a native word is almost exclusively preferred over a foreign alternative in two cases: (1) if the referent concept has been familiar to Estonian speakers for a long time, and its native designator has fairly wide distribution (biatlon → laskesuusatamine ‘biathlon’, bädminton → sulgpall ‘badminton’); (2) if a new concept has relatively quickly inspired the emergence of a native designator, which is already known well enough (blender → kannmikser, bändi ‘bandy’ → saalihoki). Both cases are usually handled as tier (a), but a comparison of different editions of the dictionary reveals that with time the recommendation can change, mostly towards the more liberal side. In DSE 2006, for example, the entries of bränd ‘brand’ and transfeer ‘transfer’ belong to (a), whereas DSE 2013 prefers (b), which is the more permissive approach. True, throughout the DSE the recommendations fail to be quite consistent: namely, in some cases the native and foreign words have been treated as perfect- or near-equals, despite the native word being well known (grant = uurimisraha, uurimistoetus ‘grant’). Most native words that are listed as candidate replacements for foreign items have emerged and become rooted in the language spontaneously. The words invented by DSE-makers are few, and even those are never included unless accepted by the users (e.g. the compound word suhtekorraldus for the English phrase public relationship). In the 2010s the English word multitasking started spreading in Estonian. Two equivalents, mitmiktegevus and mitmiktöö, were invented by the compilers of the DSE, but people have grown fond of another compound: rööprähklus. Comparing the words mitmiktegevus (mitmik ‘a group of several’ + tegevus ‘activity’) and rööprähklus (rööpne ‘parallel’ + rähklema ‘to drudge’), we can see that the more popular compound is witty, figurative and contains alliteration. Another positive example is the English word shopping, which was first adapted to Estonian as šoping, but later, as the concept got ever more familiar and popular, the loanword was gradually replaced by the native derivatives poodlemine (< pood ‘shop’) and ostlemine (< ost ‘purchase’, ostma ‘to buy’). These examples show that Estonian language users have maintained both the desire and necessary skill to develop their language. If a foreign word is nevertheless presented as superior in the DSE, this signals the lexicographers’ motivated choice. In such cases, the suggested native equivalent may not be sufficiently well rooted or a suitable native word has not been found at all. For example, the English word curling has been matched with jääkeegel (jää ‘ice’ + keegel ‘bowling’), which is, however, not nearly as popular as the respelt version kurling. In addition, a foreign word may be stylistically marked, which has been the reason for including colloquialisms such as bläkk ‘embarrassing situation’, diil ‘deal’, drink, friik ‘freak’, despite their having literary equivalents. Some of these decisions to recommend foreign words are based on the choices of special language planners. In Estonia, special languages (LSP) are taken care of by terminology committees, which operate on a voluntary basis. Every such committee includes specialists as well as linguists, and so a close cooperation is guaranteed between LSP and general language planners. At the moment, there are approximately sixty terminology committees registered, including, for example, the committees for military, aviation, nautical, educational, bibliographical, botanical and zoological terms, but also some for narrower sub-fields such as Estonian folk dance and Estonian handicraft. The terminology committees publish their results in the form of both special dictionaries (see, e.g. the Dictionary of Education and Instruction in five languages, Erelt 2014) and databases such as the Militerm for military terms. The DSE editors normally follow the decisions passed by the terminology committees. For example, once the Committee of Educational Terminology has decided that intellektipuue ‘intellectual disability’ sounds more politically correct than vaimupuue (intellekt is a foreign word, while vaim is native); or once the developers of IT vocabulary (see Lexicon of Data Protection and Information Security) find that the native derivative lehitseja ‘the one who browses’ is too ‘naive’ a translation to be used as a native substitute for the foreign word brauser ‘browser’; or else that the colloquial-sounding English loanword äpp ‘app’ should be included in the term list (besides the existing parallel term mobiilirakendus ‘mobile application’), the DSE can do nothing but comply. As a whole, Estonian LSP planning proceeds from the same principles as general language planning, but as demonstrated by the above examples, the LSP planners feel the inevitable pressure of actual usage and take it into account. The biggest problem of the 2000s so far has been the semantic change of established foreign words. The foreign vocabulary in Estonian has mainly been formed under German and Russian influence. More specifically, our foreign words of Latin or Greek origin have entered Estonian via German or Russian. This is why the foreign words often share the reference of their German or Russian source words. Now the situation has changed: Estonian words of Latin or Greek origin, nowadays coming via English, have started acquiring additional senses, normally evident in English words of the same stem. The number of such semantic Anglicisms has been growing from year to year, thus posing a threat of a real cultural interruption: the words meaning one thing for the 40- or 50-year-olds already mean something else for the 20-year-olds. For example, the Estonian word simuleerima (< Lat simulare) traditionally used to mean ‘to pretend’, but now, influenced by English, it has come to be used in the sense of ‘to imitate’. Often a foreign word with a new meaning will oust another foreign word previously used in that sense. For instance, people now say indikatiivne (< indicative) instead of orienteeriv ‘approximate’ or provisoorne ‘preliminary’, or sensitiivne (< sensitive) instead of delikaatne ‘delicate’ or konfidentsiaalne ‘confidential’, while massiline ‘mass (adjective)’ is sometimes replaced by massiivne (< massive), and projektsioon (< projection) stands for prognoos ‘prognosis’ (Raadik 2008). Estonian language planners keep track of lexical changes and raise the users’ awareness of undesirable semantic changes, which fail to enhance the expressive potential of the Estonian language. For that purpose, the DSE uses the comments ‘ei soovita tähenduses’ ‘sense not recommended’, often with usage examples. The DSE contains about a hundred words with the above warning, about sixty of which are of foreign origin. The future will show whether and to what extent the semantics of Estonian foreign words can still be kept within tradition, that is, how seriously the recommendations of the language planners will be taken into account. Not all English-induced changes apply to the meaning of foreign words, some of them concern word formation. There is a curious group of Estonian foreign words which originate from Latin words ending in -cāre. The Estonian verbs of the same stem have traditionally taken the ending -tseerima (Raiet 1966), e.g. komplitseerima (Lat complicāre, cf. Gm komplizieren) ‘to complicate’, provotseerima (Lat provocāre, cf. Gm provozieren, Rus провоцировать) ‘to provoke’, analogously: dislotseerima ‘to dislocate’, duplitseerima ‘to duplicate’, fabritseerima ‘to fabricate’, publitseerima ‘to publish’. The shape of some of the words has, however, been changed. The verb inditseerima (Lat indicāre, cf. Gm indizieren) ‘to indicate’, for example, can be found in DSE 1960, but now, in line with English, the previous -ts- has been replaced by -k-, resulting in indikeerima (cf. Eng indicate). By way of analogy, Estonian has acquired the verb aplikeerima (Lat applicāre) instead of aplitseerima ‘appliqué; administer’, as well as the verbs kommunikeerima (Lat commūnicāre, Gm kommunizieren) ‘to communicate’, allokeerima (Medieval Latin allocāre) ‘to allocate’, sofistikeerima (Medieval Latin sophisticāre) ‘to sophisticate’, which would probably have received a -tseerima ending if they had been borrowed early enough (Raadik 2008). 4. New Word Competitions Estonia has a strong tradition of collective lexical creation, which was boosted in the 1970s. In 1972, following the Finnish example, the Estonian Mother Tongue Society ran a contest on neologisms (Kull 1972). The contest was expected to yield new Estonian native-sounding expressions as well as to stimulate public interest in language matters and channel that interest to the common good. Nearly 200 participants entered their terms for at least one of the twenty concepts set up. Several of the winning words, such as pardel ‘electric razor’, kohuke ‘a sweet curds snack’, sõõrik ‘doughnut’, selve ‘self-service’, or eirama ‘ignore’ are still in current use. The new millennium brought a new boom in New Word competitions, with as many as thirteen taking place: three in 2002, one each in 2010, 2011, 2015, and 2017, and two each in 2012, 2014, and 2016 (Raadik 2017: 165). The competitions differ in scale: seven of the thirteen contests were bigger, each aiming at a dozen terms, while each of the six smaller ones had just one target concept. The biggest competition of all took place in 2002, where the target list contained thirteen concepts associated with the European Union, e.g. crisis management, non-governmental organisation, structural funds, subsidiarity, zero tolerance, task force, eliciting a total of 5300 entries (Erelt 2003). As for the targets, terms have been asked for abstract as well as concrete concepts from different domains including social life, economics, transportation, politics, military matters, filmmaking, pop culture, etc. Some of the targets already have an Estonian equivalent, some do not. The suggested options are usually evaluated by a jury panel, who mainly favour native Estonian compounds or derivatives. Loanwords are rare among the winners. An exception occurred in 2016, when a phonetic adaptation kootsima was declared the winner for the English verb coach (although there is a homonymous dialect word kootsima ‘to stroll’). In addition to the given target concepts, there are free rounds in the competitions, where people can offer Estonian words for concepts of their own choice. At the 2014 competition participants offered, for instance, nöha (< nohu ‘runny nose’ + köha ‘cough’) as a portmanteau word to describe the situation of having both a runny nose and a cough. In addition, kärgpere ‘blended family, lit. honeycomb family’ was suggested in 2010 for the new type of family where parents have children from previous relationships as well as with each other. The first quantitative analysis (Küngas 2013) of the spread of the words submitted to Estonian word competitions was published in 2013 and its focus was the competition of 2002. The study explored the frequency of occurrence of the winning words in journalistic texts. The results include the somewhat surprising fact that the subsequent spread of a winning word depends not only on its ease of use, but also on political will. Notably, the spread of such neologisms as lähimus ‘subsidiarity’, kriisiohjamine ‘crisis management’ and tõukefondid ‘structural funds’ has been considerably impeded by the reluctance of public authorities to adopt the new words for use. More often than not, a change in an EU legal word is repressed on the grounds that it could risk the consistency of the texts of EU treaties. Participation in the Estonian New Word competitions is open to both linguists and non-linguists. Experience has shown that the latter are just as skilled in using every possible option for word creation, including compounding, derivation, use of dialect stems, etc. The two winner words of the 2000s, however, come from language experts, namely, in 2002 the derivatives lõimimine, lõiming (< lõim ‘warp’) were launched by the writer Ain Kaalep as equivalents for integratsioon ‘(social or inter-ethnic) integration’, and in 2010 taristu (< tari- ‘assemblable’) was suggested by the technical editor Andres Valdre to replace infrastruktuur ‘infrastructure’. Both integratsioon and infrastruktuur are old foreign words in Estonian. Through frequent use in administrative language, the words have developed a strong association with officialese and hence the new words, which are shorter and sound more native, have met an enthusiastic welcome on the part of both officials and journalists. Nevertheless, the main aim of the Estonian New Word competitions is not to replace foreign words with native words, but rather to replace clumsy expressions (either native or foreign) with alternatives that are easier to use. In total, the thirteen competitions held in the 21st century have presented the participants with 89 target concepts. Most of the announced winners in current use are either compounds, such as vabaühendus ‘non-governmental organisation’, kärgpere ‘blended family’, viipekaart ‘proximity card’; or derivatives, such as lõimimine ‘integration’, üleilmastumine ‘globalisation’, taristu ‘infrastructure’, kestlik ‘sustainable’ and vabakond ‘third sector’. 5. Discussion Compared to earlier times, the language planning direction of the DSE in the recent decades has moved from strict rules and standardising to a softer, more recommendation-based approach. Instead of rigid boundaries, the DSE now concentrates on the cores of rules and follows a centre-periphery principle (Erelt 2002: 256). In regards to vocabulary, native words are generally preferred over loanwords. As Erelt (2002: 261) has pointed out, the issue of maintaining the native language, while being in close contact with others, is both a national and collective issue for European countries. In this globalising world, Estonian language planners are face to face with English influences, as are many other peoples who feel concerned about their non-English languages. Estonian language planners have extensive experience in coping with foreign influence. Much of this experience comes from the period 1940–1990, when Estonia was under Soviet occupation and the Estonian language had to fight back against a strong pressure of Russian. Although during the fifty years of Soviet occupation numerous Sovietisms entered standard Estonian, it was still common practice that direct loans were not allowed to enter standard Estonian from colloquial usage, e.g. pagasnik ‘boot (of a car)’ or maika ‘top (of a shirt)’ (Laanekask, Erelt 2007: 139). As text production was firmly channeled at that time, it was easier to manage the linguistic aspect of those texts; that is, all books, periodicals and acts of law were subjected to a process of linguistic edition, enabling the elimination of most of the undesirable Russianisms. For the purposes of proposing proper Estonian equivalents, the best Estonian language planners even took part in the making of a four-volume Russian-Estonian dictionary (published in 1984–1994). The Estonian language planners and compilers of the DSE are constantly expected to take a stand on how to handle borrowed material in general and foreign words in particular. As for new stems arriving from English, their heyday was in the 1990s, when Estonian contacts with the English-speaking world were on the rise. The same period brought an increasing cognate influence from the related Finnish language. In the 2000s, the influx of new loan stems has stabilised, but not of loan translations: a considerable part of new Estonian compounds are loan translations from English, e.g. tüvirakk (Eng stem cell), kehakeel (Eng body language), less frequently from Finnish, e.g. kepikõnd (Fin sauvakävely ‘Nordic walking’), or narkomuul (Fin huumemuuli, Eng drug mule). The proportion of native vs. borrowed material also largely depends on the attitudes of the language users. Estonians have a strong tradition of collective word creation. There are New Word competitions that are open to linguists as well as non-linguists, where everyone is invited to enter either terms for new concepts or alternatives for some ungainly expressions. The 2000s have already witnessed as many as thirteen such competitions and many of the suggested terms have been met by a warm welcome from Estonian language users. Interesting developments are taking place in the Estonian loaned vocabulary. Although it was first formed mainly on the basis of Russian and German material, English influences have become dominant since the beginning of the 2000s. Those influences are mostly manifested in word semantics and, to a lesser extent, in word formation. Semantic change has been particularly extensive: the loanwords or international stems traditionally used in a certain sense (often shared with German or Russian) have come to be used in a new sense, which is typically associated with the stem in English. In parallel, new loanwords keep entering the Estonian language, often in the form of simple transcriptions from English. As mentioned previously, Tiiu Erelt has formulated an important principle of Estonian language planning, based on which, given equal circumstances, preference is to be given to a native word over a foreign one (2007: 135–136). In practical lexicography work in compiling the DSEs, it is expressed through the viewpoint that Estonians should only borrow when they really need to, and never borrow more than necessary (that is, take just the meaning you need, leaving the rest alone). Thus, word borrowing is justified first and foremost for unfamiliar concepts. The above statement also summarises the DSE’s approach to foreign words. Native words are generally preferred, in order to preserve the specific character of the language. For the numerous foreign words, the compilers have to decide which of the words and meanings are genuinely needed to fill a semantic gap, and which just confuse the existing system. For example, it is not recommended to use the word referents (from the English ‘reference letter’), in the sense of a ‘letter written about you by someone who knows you, particularly for presentation to a new employer’, because we already have the common native words soovitus and soovituskiri. Thus, besides the origin of the word, the lexicographers also try to consider how the new word might enrich the expressive qualities of the language. The authors of the DSE do not just fix the usage of the present moment; they also try to look ahead and present the material that might become necessary in the future (for example Estonian equivalents for some new concepts that may not yet be in wide use). Therefore, the DSE sometimes offers neologisms next to Anglicisms, which makes it somewhat like a bilingual dictionary, including words for which there is sometimes no recorded evidence yet (for details see Leemets and Raadik 2006). The extent to which the users have accepted the new Estonian equivalents proposed in explanations has not yet been studied. However, some proposals have become very popular, for instance the Estonian word suhtekorraldus, an equivalent for the term public relations, which came from the language planners of the Institute of the Estonian Language. As for borrowed words versus native words, it is up to the users of the language. It is our own choice whether we remember and use a word we already have in the language or whether we choose to cast aside the native word as soon as we learn a foreign equivalent. The purpose of language planning is not to enforce certain behavior, but to support it, and the choice to use native words or adaptations instead of foreign words should be a liberty, not an obligation. The Estonian language planner Henn Saari (1976: 165–166) has emphasised that as long as the nation has the skills to create words based on native regularities, the language endures, which means that it is not the loans that are dangerous, but the situation where loanwords are the only accretion. Footnotes 1 For information on the Mother Tongue Society seehttp://emakeeleselts.ee/vaatmikud/keelekorraldus. 2 http://www.eki.ee/dict/qs. 3 http://keeleabi.eki.ee/?leht=9. 4 The noun raal is an artificial stem launched by Manivalde Lubi in the 1960s. 5 Language Act 2011, Pars 1,2, Sec. 16, Ch. 4. https://www.riigiteataja.ee. 6 Loaning without intermediary languages gives an opportunity to resist Russian and English language influences. However, there is a second aspect. Sometimes words loaned directly from Greek or Latin fit better with the Estonian language structure than words loaned through other languages such as English or Russian. For example, the English loanword imidž ‘image’ contains the letter ž, which is not present in native words, but the word derived from Latin, imago is structurally similar to native Estonian words. References Eesti keele õigekirjutuse-sõnaraamat. 1918. Tallinn: Rahvaülikooli kirjastus. (DSE 1918) Eesti õigekeelsuse-sõnaraamat. 1925–1937. [Eds.: J. V. Veski, E. Muuk.] Tartu: Eesti Kirjanduse Seltsi kirjastus. (DSE 1925–1937) Erelt T. (ed.). 1999. Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. (DSE 1999) Erelt T. (ed.). 2006. Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2006 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. http://portaal.eki.ee/dict/qs2006/. (DSE 2006) Erelt T. (ed.). 2014. Hariduse ja kasvatuse sõnaraamat . Eesti. Inglise. Saksa. Soome. Vene. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. http://www.eki.ee/dict/haridus/. (Dictionary of Education and Instruction) Kull R., Raiet E. (eds). 1976. Õigekeelsussõnaraamat . Tallinn: Valgus. http://portaal.eki.ee/dict/qs76. (DSE 1976) Langemets M., Tiits M., Valdre T., Veskis L., Viks Ü., Voll P. (eds). 2009. Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. (Explanatory Dictionary of Standard Estonian) Lexicon of Data Protection and Information Security. http://akit.cyber.ee/. (Accessed on October 20, 2017) Militerm. http://termin.eki.ee/militerm/. (Accessed on January 15, 2017) Muuk E. 1933. Väike õigekeelsus-sõnaraamat . Tartu: Eesti Kirjanduse Seltsi kirjastus. (DSE 1933) Nurm E., Raiet E., Kindlam M. (eds). 1960. Õigekeelsuse sõnaraamat . Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus. (DSE 1960) Paet T. (ed.) 2012. Võõrsõnade leksikon . 8., põhjalikult umber töötatud trükk. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut & Valgus. (Dictionary of Foreign Words) Raadik M. (ed.). 2013. Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. http://www.eki.ee/dict/qs/. (DSE 2013) Balteiro I. 2011. ‘ Prescriptivism and Descriptivism in the Treatment of Anglicisms in a Series of Bilingual Spanish-English Dictionaries.’ International Journal of Lexicography  24. 3: 277– 305. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bańko M., Hebal-Jezierska M.. 2014. ‘What can Lexicography Gain from Studies of Loanword Perception and Adaptation?’. In Abel A., Vettori C., Ralli N. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. 15-19 July 2014, Bolzano/Bozen . Bolzano/Bozen, 981– 991. Erelt T. 2002. Eesti keelekorraldus . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. [Estonian Language Planning] Erelt T. 2003. ‘Sõnavõistlus andis uued eesti sõnad.’ Oma Keel, 1, 5–19. [New Estonian Words Gained from Competition] Erelt T. 2007. Terminiõpetus . Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli kirjastus. [Terminology] Erelt T. 2007. ‘Õigekeelsussõnaraamatud läbi sajandi.’ In Sutrop U. (ed.) ÕSi lätted. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus , 5– 34. [Dictionaries of Standard Estonian through the Past Century] Erelt T. 2008. ‘Kas hakkame eesti keelt tõhuseerima?’ Õiguskeel 2005−2007 . Tallinn: Juura, 259– 262. [Should the Rules of Estonian Derivation be Abandoned?] Kuip F. van der. 2010. ‘Dictionaries and Their Influence on Language Purification in Minority Languages. The Case of Frisian.’ In Dykstra A., Schoonheim T. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress (Leeuwarden, 6-10 July 2010) , 1497– 1504. Jürviste M., Kallas J., Langemets M., Tuulik M., Viks Ü.. 2011. ‘Extending the Functions of the EELex Dictionary Writing System Using the Example of the Basic Estonian Dictionary.’ In Kosem I., Kosem K. (eds), Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century New Applications for New Users: Proceedings of eLex 2011, Bled, 10–12 November 2011 . Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovenian Studies, 106– 112. Kull R. 1972. ‘Sõnavõistlus ja võistlussõnad.’ Keel ja Kirjandus 9: 524−530. [Word Competition and the Words Competing] Küngas R. 2013. ‘Sõnavõistlusel väljapakutud sõnade juurdumisest.’ Keel ja Kirjandus 3: 171–191. http://kjk.eki.ee/ee/issues/2013/3/326. [The Rooting of the Words Suggested at Word Competitions] Laanekask H., Erelt T.. 2007. ‘Written Estonian.’ In Erelt M. (ed.), Estonian Language . Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series. Volume 1. Second Edition. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, 273– 342. Leemets T. 1996. ‘Uuemaid inglise laene.’ In Erelt T., Leemets T., Mäearu S., Raadik M., Keelenõuanne soovitab . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, 35– 41. http://keeleabi.eki.ee/artiklid/inglise.html. [Recent English Loanwords] Leemets T. 2003. ‘Inglise laenud sajandivahetuse eesti keeles 2003. Keel ja Kirjandus 8: 571–584. [English Loans in Estonian at the Turn of the Century] Leemets T., Raadik M.. 2006. ‘ÕS 1999: Experience of a New Language Planning Dictionary.’ Kalbos kultūra  79: 124– 130. Leemets T., Raadik M.. 2016. ‘An Interactive Solution: a Grammar Handbook Linked to a Prescriptive Dictionary.’ In Margalitadze T., Meladze G. (eds), Proceedings of the XVII EURALEX International Congress : Lexicography and Linguistic Diversity, 6 - 10 September 2016, Tbilisi, Georgia . Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi University Press, 893– 897. Liiv S. 2001. ‘Kuul selver ruulib. Mõtteid ka 1999. aasta ÕS-i kohta.’ Keel ja Kirjandus , 6, 424– 426. [On Some New Anglicisms in Estonian and the Dictionary of Standard Estonian of 1999] Muuk E. 1935. ‘Inglispäraste võõrsõnade õigekirjutus.’ Eesti Keel , 4–6, 180– 185. [The Estonian Orthography of Some English Loanwords] Raadik M. 2008. ‘Võõrad võõrsõnad.’ In Raadik M. (ed.), Keelenõuanne soovitab 4 . Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus, 43– 63. http://keeleabi.eki.ee/pdf/043.pdf. [Semantic Change of Foreign Words] Raadik M. 2017. Uudissõnu uue aastatuhande algusest . Tallinn: Tänapäev. [New Words from the Beginning of the New Millennium] Raiet E. 1966. Võõrsõnade kuju sõltuvus lähte- ja vahendajakeeltest tänapäeva eesti kirjakeeles. Väitekiri filoloogiateaduste kandidaadi kraadi taotlemiseks. (Manuscript.) Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Keele ja Kirjanduse Instituut, 54–55. [The Dependence of the Shape of Foreign Words on Their Source and Mediating Languages in Modern Standard Estonian] Saari H. 1976. Keelehääling . Tallinn: Valgus. [Language Broadcasts] Saari H. 1981. ‘Omasõna ja võõrsõna paarid eesti oskussõnavaras (2).’ Keel ja Kirjandus, 4, 201–210; 5, 282–288. [Pairs of Native and Foreign Words in Estonian Specialised Vocabulary] Tauli V. 1968. Keelekorralduse alused . Stockholm: Vaba Eesti, 1968. [Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning] Tomusk I. 2013. ‘Põhiseaduse riigikeele sätted 20 aastat hiljem.’ Õiguskeel , 13– 20. [Constitutional Provisions on Official Language 20 Years After] Veldi E. 2000. Review: Tiiu Erelt (ed.) Eesti keele sõnaraamat ÕS 1999. (A Dictionary of the Estonian Language: Orthological Dictionary 1999). International Journal of Lexicography 13.4: 341–345. Veldi E. 2014. ‘Concerning the Treatment of Co-existent Synonyms in Estonian Monolingual and Bilingual Dictionaries.’ In Abel A., Vettori C., Ralli N. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus. 15-19 July 2014, Bolzano/Bozen . Bolzano/Bozen, 2014, 829– 835. Viitso T-E. 2007. ‘Structure of the Estonian Language. Phonology, morphology and word formation.’ In Erelt M. (ed.), Estonian Language. Linguistica Uralica. Supplementary Series . Volume 1. Second Edition. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, 9– 129. © 2018 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

International Journal of LexicographyOxford University Press

Published: May 19, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off