Measuring and parameterizing
lexical convergence/divergence
between European and Brazilian
Portuguese:
endo/exogeneousness and foreign and
normative influence
Augusto Soares da Silva
Portuguese Catholic University, Braga
[email protected]
10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference
Theme Session: Cognitive Linguistics
Krakow, 15-20 July 2007
Purpose
• use formal onomasiological variation
(denotational synonyms) to measure lexical
convergence/divergence between European and
Brazilian Portuguese
• analyze the impact of internal linguistic factors
on the global convergence/divergence of the
two national varieties
• contribute to the development of Portuguese
cognitive sociolinguistics: the issue of
convergence or divergence
TOC
1. Background and methodology
2. External diachronic analysis: uniformity
results
3. Internal diachronic analysis: item-related
results
4. Conclusions and further research
I
Background and methodology
Research questions
1. lexical convergence or divergence between P
and B in the last 50 years ?
an external diachronic analysis
2. how do internal linguistic parameters influence
the global convergence or divergence?
an internal diachronic analysis
3 sets of linguistic features …
Which features?
1. endo/exogeneousness
is there an exo/endogenous trend that makes one of
the varieties get closer to or away from the other?
2. foreign influence (loanwords)
what is the impact of English and French influence
upon the global convergence/divergence trend?
3. normative influence
what is the consequence of linguistic propaganda
upon the global convergence/divergence trend?
Which features?
Notes:
1. endo/exogeneousness: mathematically derived from
the corpus
ENDO: the extent with which an item is typical for one
subcorpus (occurs more often in that subcorpus)
EXO: the extent with which an item is typical for the rest of
the corpus
2. we have not enough data in order to assess the third
parameter
3. these features are item-specific; concept-specific
features will also be analyzed
The national varieties of Portuguese
• differences between EP and BP at all linguistic
levels
• B: diglossia; great social and regional variation;
didactic problems
P: an increasing standardization since the 1974
democratic revolution
• linguistic attitudes: the issue of the Brazilian
language vs. linguistic purism
Hypotheses/expectations
• divergence
• an increasing influence of B over P
• greater receptivity of loanwords (English loans
mainly) in B
Theoretical and methodological
framework
specific background:
This study is based on the general conception
and the quantitative methods of cognitive
sociolexicological research developed by
D. Geeraerts and his team for Dutch.
see Geeraerts, Grondelaers & Speelman (1999)
What?
formal onomasiological variation (sociolexicology) –
choices between denotational synonyms
Why?
denotational synonyms reveal the relationship
between language varieties
How?
profile-based linguistic uniformity (basic measure)
- profile: the set of synonyms designating a concept,
differentiated by relative frequency
- uniformity: measure of the correspondence between
two sets of usage data, defined in terms of “profiles”
Uniformity measures
U measure: the average without taking into account frequency
U (Y ,Y
Z
1
)
=
2
n
i =1
min(F Z ,Y 1 ( xi ), F Z ,Y 2 ( xi ))
U’ measure: the weighted average
U' (Y 1 , Y 2 ) =
n
i =1
U (Y 1 , Y 2 ). G
Zi
I/I’: internal uniformity measures
Zi
Featural measures
A measure: proportion A of all items x with feature K in the
onomasiological profile for concept Z in subcorpus Y
A K,Z (Y) =
n
i =1
F Z,Y (Xi). WXi (K)
A’ measure: proportion A’ of all items x with feature K in the
subcorpus Y
n
A’K (Y) =
i =1
A K,Zi (Y). GZi (Y)
Material and the CONDIVport corpus
• 3 lexical fields
- football terms: 21 concepts (profiles)
- clothing terms: 22 concepts (profiles)
- health terms: still under analysis
• period: 1950 – 1970 – 1990-2000
• materials (extracted manually from)
- sports and fashion newspapers and magazines
- shop window material
- Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels
Brazilian data: from São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro
the CONDIVport corpus
• variables
- geographical: Portugal vs. Brazil
- diachronic: 1950 – 1970 – 19990-2000
- stylistic: newspapers, magazines > shopwindows,
UseNet > IRC
• extent
- 4 million words from newspapers and magazines
- 15 million words from chats
• access: Linguateca (a Portuguese corpora site)
www.linguateca.pt/ACDC
Football profiles
BACK: “(full-)back”, beque, bequeira, defensor, defesa, lateral, libero, zagueiro.
BALL: balão, bola, couro(inho), esfera, esférico, pelota.
COACH: mister, professor, técnico, treinador.
CORNER: canto, chute de canto, “corner”, córner, escanteio, esquinado, pontapé
de canto, tiro de canto.
DRIBBLING: corte, drible(ing), engano, “feint”, finta, firula, ginga, lesa, manobra
enganadora, simulação.
FORWARD: atacante, avançado, avante, dianteiro, “forward”, ponta-de-lança.
FOUL: carga, falta, “foul”, golpe, infra(c)ção, obstru(c)ção, transgressão, violação
(das regras).
FREE KICK: chute (in)direto, falta, “free(-kick)”, livre (directo, indirecto),
pontapé livre, tiro dire(c)to, tiro livre (direto, indireto)
GOAL: bola, “goal”, gol, golo, ponto, tento.
GOAL: arco, baliza, cidadela, “goal”, gol(o), malhas, marco, meta, rede, redes,
vala.
GOALKEEPER: arqueiro, “goal-keeper”, goleiro, golquíper, guarda-meta, guardarede, guarda-redes, guarda-vala, guarda-valas, guardião, “keeper”, porteiro,
quíper, vigia.
MATCH: batalha, choque, combate, competição, confronto, desafio, disputa, duelo,
embate, encontro, jogo, justa, luta, “match”, partida, peleja, prélio, prova,
pugna.
MIDFIELDER: alfe, central, centro-campista, centro-médio, half, interior, médio,
meia, meio-campista, meio-campo, “midfield”, trinco, volante.
OFFSIDE: adiantamento, banheira, deslocação, fora-de-jogo, impedimento,
“offside”, posição irregular.
PENALTY: castigo máximo, castigo-mor, falta máxima, grande penalidade,
penalidade, penalidade máxima, penálti (pênalti, pénalti), “penalty”.
REFEREE: apitador, árbitro, director da partida, juiz, juiz de campo, “ref(eree)”,
referi, refre.
ASSISTANT REFEREE: árbitro auxiliar, árbitro assistente, auxiliar, 2º/3º/4º
árbitro, bandeirinha, fiscal de linha, juiz de linha, “liner”.
SHOT/KICK: chute, chuto, “kick(-off)”, panázio, pelotada, pontapé, quique,
“shoot”, tiro.
SHOT/PLAYING: jogada, lance.
TEAM: conjunto, formação, eleven, equipa/e, esquadra, esquadrão, grupo,
“match”, onze, onzena, plantel, quadro, “team”, time, turma.
WINGER: ala, extremo, ponta, ponteiro.
Clothing profiles
BLOUSE F: “blouse”, blusa, blusinha, “bustier”, camisa, camisa-body, camisão,
camiseiro(inho), camiseta/e, (blusa) “chémisier”, (blusa) chemisiê
COAT F: “blazer”, blêizer, casaco, casaquinho/a, “manteau”, mantô, paletó, “paletot”
COAT M: “blazer”, blêizer, casaco, paletó, “paletot”
DRESS F: camiseiro, “chemisier”, chemisiê, “shirt-dress”, traje/o, veste, vestido(inho),
vestido-camisa, vestido-camiseiro, vestido-camiseta, vestido-chemiser(ê), (vestido) caicai, (vestido) tomara-que-caia
GREAT COAT (winter) M/F: abafo, agasalho, balandrau, capote, casacão, casaco comprido,
casaco de abafo/abafar, casaco de agasalho, casaco de/em pele, casaco-sobretudo,
“duffle-coat”, gabão, “gilet”, “manteau”, mantô, manto, overcoat, paletó, “pardessus”,
“pelerine”, samarra, sobrecasaca, sobretudo, sobreveste, “trench (coat)”
JACKET (BLOUSON) M/F: “blazer”, blêizer, blusão, “bluson”, camurça, camurcine,
camisa esporte, casaco de pele, ganga, etc., colete, parka
JACKET M/F: casaca, casaco curto, jaleca, jaqueta, “jaquette”, jaquetinha, véstia
JEANS M/F: calça(s) de ganga, calça(s) em denim, calça(s) em jeans, ganga, jeans
JUMPER M/F: blusa, blusão, blusinha, “body”, cachemir, camisa, camisa-de-meia,
camiseta, camisinha, camisola, camisolinha, “canoutier”, canoutiê, malha, malhinha,
moleton, “pull”, “pullover”, pulôver, suéter, “sweat”, “sweat shirt”, “sweater”
KNITTED JACKET M/F: cardigã, “cardigan”, casaco/casaquinho de malha (de lã, de tricô),
“gilet”, japona, malha, “twin-set”
KNITTED JACKET M/F: cardigã, “cardigan”, casaco/casaquinho de malha (de lã, de tricô),
“gilet”, japona, malha, “twin-set”
LEGGINGS F: “fuseau(x)”, fusô, “legging(s)”
RAINCOAT M/F: “ciré”, “ciré-maxi”, “anorak”, canadiana, capa, capa de chuva, casaco
impermeável, corta-vento, casaco-gabardina, gabardine/a, impermeável, kispo, parka
SHIRT M: blusão, camisa, camisa de gravata, camisa de manga curta, camisa desportiva,
camisa esporte(iva), camisa jeans, camisa social, camiseta, camisete, “camisette”
SHORT JACKET F: bolero, carmona, casa(i)b(v)eque, casaco curto, casaquilha, colete,
colete camiseiro , corpete, corpinho, garibáldi, “gilet”, manguito, mini, minicasaco,
roupinha, “shortie”, vasquinha
SHORT JACKET M: casaco curto, colete, espartilho, gibão, “gilet”, jaleca, jaleco, jaqueta,
véstia
SHORT TROUSERS M/F: bermuda(s), calças-capri, calça(s) corsário, calça(s) curta(s),
calças 3/4, calções, “cool pants” , corsários, “hot pants”, “knikers”, “pantacourt”, “pedal
pusher”, “short(s)”, “short cuts”, “short shorts”, shortinho, “slack(s)”
SKIRT F: kilt, maxi (máxi), maxissaia, micro-mini, micro-saia, míni (mini), mini-saia,
minissaia, pareô, saia, saia-calça, saia-calção, saião, sainha, saiote
SUIT JACKET M/F: “black-tie”, casaca, casaco cerimónia, fraque, “manteau”, mantô,
paletó, “paletot”, “pelerine”, “smo(c)king”, sobrecasaca, “tuxedo”
SUIT M: beca, completo, costume, fato, terno
SUIT/OUTFIT F: “complet”, completo, conjunto, costume, duas-peças, “ensemble”, fatinho,
fato, saia-casaco, “tailleur”, “toilette”, toilete, vestido-casaco
TROUSERS M/F: calça, calças, pantalona
T-SHIRT M/F: camisa, camiseta/e, “camisette”, camisola, licra, “singlet”, “tee-shirt”,
“t-shirt”
II
External diachronic analysis:
Uniformity results
Questions
1. Convergence or divergence ?
2. Does the convergent/divergent trend occur
on both sides or mainly in one of them ?
3. Does uniformity increases or decreases
inside each variety ? Is internal uniformity
greater in P or B ?
Football
• 21 onomasiological profiles (183 terms)
• 2.7 million tokens (from 8 sports newspapers)
• 90.202 observations
1. U/U’ results
• convergence from the 50’s to the 70’s at U’
level, with a few restrictions however
P50
P70
35,13 / 43,78
35,90 / 55,17
B50
B70
36,80 / 56,76
P00
B00
2. U/U’ results
• B changes more than P (see vertical lines)
• from the 50’s to the 70’s, B seems to get closer
to P (see the diagonal line in red)
76,33 / 78,52
35,13 / 43,78
/5
/
5
6
,
3
0
9
8,0
/
4
8
,
04
7
2,2
/4
, 37
36
32
,
11
,34
35,90 / 55,17
37
34
,
2
1
36,80 / 56,76
B50
B70
B00
44,89 / 43,24
P50
P70
P00
57,22 / 49,96
77,34 / 84,81
86,09 / 86,74
83,69 / 87,32
3. I/I’ results
83,69 / 87,32
58,37
P70
55,63
7
3
,
36
32
,
11
35,90 / 55,17
37
/
4
,3
9
0
,
58
34
,21
36,80 / 56,76
60,61 P00
62,39
/4
8,
04
/5
6,3
0
30,85
57,22 / 49,96
7
2
,
2
4
/
B50 46,93
B70 65,10
61,85
77,34 / 84,81
86,09 / 86,74
61,09 P50
51,86
35,13 / 43,78
B00 75,80
65,77
• a late standardization of the Brazilian variety ?
• 3 reasons:
- the low value of I/I’ in B50 has a lot to do with the
big amount of loanwords keeping their original form
(see below)
- the great popularity and international prestige of
Brazilian football since the 60’s resulting from two
World Cup wins in a row (1958 and 1962)
- decrease of formal onomasiological variation in both
varieties, which is more noticeable in B
• greater standardization of the vocabulary of
football in B, or a careless attitude towards
stylistic refinement in today’s Brazilian
newspapers ?
Clothing
• 22 onomasiological profiles (264 terms)
• 1.2 million tokens (from 28 fashion
magazines)
• 12.451 observations
1. U/U’ results
• evidence of divergence along the time
P50
P70
P00
61,65 / 78,80
58,66 / 65,92
51,44 / 57,11
B50
B70
B00
2. U/U’ results
• evidence of symmetry in the evolutionary
trends of the two varieties (see vertical lines)
• divergence occurs on both sides, during both
time periods (see diagonal lines)
60,58 / 65,27
61,65 / 78,80
/
,99
53
66
,
0
5
,50
67
4
6
,2
2
/
58,66 / 65,92
/
5
8
,
2
8
9
3,9
/5
,4 1
44
53
,
1
3
51,44 / 57,11
B50
B70
B00
60,44 / 65,38
P50
P70
P00
57,52 / 68,05
67,70 / 74,74
59,92 / 68,67
68,25 / 74,40
3. I/I’ results
68,25 / 74,40
64,18 P70
62,99
65,09 P00
68,75
/
9
,9
3
5
46
,2
2/
58,66 / 65,92
/
1
,4
9
9
,
53
44
53
,13
51,44 / 57,11
66
,05
/5
8,2
8
76,48
57,52 / 68,05
0
5
,
67
B50 67,58
B70 56,24
55,71
67,70 / 74,74
59,92 / 68,67
57,37 P50
66,47
61,65 / 78,80
B00 67,12
67,87
to summarize
• divergence in the field of clothing and restricted
convergence in the field of football:
the hypothesis of divergence is confirmed in the
field of clothing but not for football!
• more internal changes in the Brazilian variety in
both lexical fields: B changes more than P
• the most significant changes happened between
the 50’s and the 70’s
• until now, we only had a few indirect hints about
the direction of these changes
Appendices: distribution of U values
• are the various profiles homogenous?
No. standard deviation in U values:
- football: 25,24 (50’s); 33,87 (70’s); 35,96 (2000)
- clothing: 36,36 (50’s); 35,19 (70’s); 33,67 (2000)
• which profiles best reflect the general evolution
trend?
profiles where the U’ value is higher, i.e, most
frequent terms
III
Internal diachronic analysis:
Item-related results
1. endogeneousness/exogeneousness
football
• increase of A’UNI from the 50’s to the 70’s,
stronger in B
• decrease of A’ENDO from the 50’s to the 70’s,
stronger in B
• greater decrease of A’EXO in B
these results match previous results: convergence and
more changes in B
but the most important measure is not this one
P
A’UNIp50,b50(P50) < A’UNIp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’UNIp00,b00(P00)
48,47
54,98
58,01
A’EXOp50,b50(P50) ≅ A’EXOp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’EXOp00,b00(P00)
4,09
4,99
4,24
A’ENDOp50,b50(P50) > A’ENDOp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’ENDOp00,b00(P00)
47,44
40,03
37,74
B
A’UNIb50,p50(B50) < A’UNIb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’UNIb00,p00(B00)
38,69
55,82
55,84
A’EXOb50,p50(B50) ≅ A’EXOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’EXOb00,p00(B00)
9,53
5,56
5,93
A’ENDOb50,p50(B50) > A’ENDOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’ENDOb00,p00(B00)
51,78
38,62
38,23
a new measure:
What happened in the 1970’s with terms that
were endogenous, exogenous and binational in
the 1950’s and so on ?
P
AUNIp50,b50(P50) ≅ AUNIp50,b50(P70)
36,48
36,20
A’UNIp50,b50(P50) ≅ A’UNIp50,b50(P70)
48,47
49,98
AEXOp50,b50(P50) ≅ AEXOp50,b50(P70)
4,75
7,29
A’EXOp50,b50(P50) ≅ A’EXOp50,b50(P70)
4,09
4,86
AENDOp50,b50(P50) ≅ AENDOp50,b50(P70)
58,76
54,65
A’ENDOp50,b50(P50) ≅ A’ENDOp50,b50(P70)
47,44
44,65
AUNIp70,b70(P70) ≅ AUNIp70,b70(P00)
34,79
36,95
A’UNIp70,b70(P70) < A’UNIp70,b70(P00)
54,98
60,10
AEXOp70,b70(P70) ≅ AEXOp70,b70(P00)
4,85
5,73
A’EXOp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’EXOp70,b70(P00)
4,99
5,56
AENDOp70,b70(P70) ≅ AENDOp70,b70(P00)
60,35
56,07
A’ENDOp70,b70(P70) > A’ENDOp70,b70(P00)
40,03
33,72
AUNIb50,p50(B50) ≅ AUNIb50,p50(B70)
33,77
33,98
A’UNIb50,p50(B50) < A’UNIb50,p50(B70)
38,69
45,32
AEXOb50,p50(B50) ≅ AEXOb50,p50(B70)
6,11
10,06
A’EXOb50,p50(B50) < A’EXOb50,p50(B70)
9,53
18,54
AENDOb50,p50(B50) > AENDOb50,p50(B70)
60,12
49,68
A’ENDOb50,p50(B50) > A’ENDOb50,p50(B70)
51,78
34,50
AUNIb70,p70(B70) ≅ AUNIb70,p70(B00)
37,01
35,21
A’UNIb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’UNIb70,p70(B00)
55,82
55,10
AEXOb70,p70(B70) ≅ AEXOb70,p70(B00)
3,74
6,54
A’EXOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’EXOb70,p70(B00)
5,56
8,00
AENDOb70,p70(B70) > AENDOb70,p70(B00)
59,25
53,63
A’ENDOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’ENDOb70,p70(B00)
38,62
35,48
B
1. endogeneousness/exogeneousness
clothing
• decrease of A’UNI and strong increase of
A’ENDO in P as well as in B
divergence on both sides
• B seems to change more than P, mainly from
the 50’s to the 70’s
P
A’ UNIp50,b50(P50) > A’UNIp70,b70(P70) > A’UNIp00,b00(P00)
75,76
67,10
57,78
A’EXOp50,b50(P50) ≅ A’EXOp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’EXOp00,b00(P00)
3,31
3,61
4,50
A’ENDOp50,b50(P50) < A’ENDOp70,b70(P70) < A’ENDOp00,b00(P00)
20,93
29,30
37,72
B
A’UNIb50,p50(B50) > A’UNIb70,p70(B70) > A’UNIb00,p00(B00)
82,20
65,50
54,84
A’EXOb50,p50(B50) ≅ A’EXOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’EXOb00,p00(B00)
1,83
4,59
4,74
A’ENDOb50,p50(B50) < A’ENDOb70,p70(B70) < A’ENDOb00,p00(B00)
15,96
29,91
40,42
P
AUNIp50,b50(P50) > AUNIp50,b50(P70)
58,15
49,21
A’UNIp50,b50(P50) > A’UNIp50,b50(P70)
75,76
65,15
AEXOp50,b50(P50) < AEXOp50,b50(P70)
5,88
12,99
A’EXOp50,b50(P50) < A’EXOp50,b50(P70)
3,31
9,41
AENDOp50,b50(P50) > AENDOp50,b50(P70)
35,61
19,46
A’ENDOp50,b50(P50) > A’ENDOp50,b50(P70)
20,93
13,69
AUNIp70,b70(P70) > AUNIp70,b70(P00)
52,89
37,03
A’UNIp70,b70(P70) > A’UNIp70,b70(P00)
67,10
52,86
AEXOp70,b70(P70) ≅ AEXOp70,b70(P00)
3,76
6,15
A’EXOp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’EXOp70,b70(P00)
3,61
7,41
AENDOp70,b70(P70) ≅ AENDOp70,b70(P00)
43,34
45,68
A’ENDOp70,b70(P70) ≅ A’ENDOp70,b70(P00)
29,30
33,71
AUNIb50,p50(B50) > AUNIb50,p50(B70)
61,55
45,85
A’UNIb50,p50(B50) > A’UNIb50,p50(B70)
82,20
61,23
AEXOb50,p50(B50) < AEXOb50,p50(B70)
2,60
8,31
A’EXOb50,p50(B50) < A’EXOb50,p50(B70)
1,83
7,64
AENDOb50,p50(B50) > AENDOb50,p50(B70)
35,85
25,15
A’ENDOb50,p50(B50) ≅ A’ENDOb50,p50(B70)
15,96
15,21
AUNIb70,p70(B70) > AUNIb70,p70(B00)
58,86
44,95
A’UNIb70,p70(B70) > A’UNIb70,p70(B00)
65,50
57,62
AEXOb70,p70(B70) < AEXOb70,p70(B00)
3,96
14,28
A’EXOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’EXOb70,p70(B00)
4,59
7,55
AENDOb70,p70(B70) > AENDOb70,p70(B00)
37,18
27,37
A’ENDOb70,p70(B70) ≅ A’ENDOb70,p70(B00)
29,91
30,94
B
2. loanwords
football
loanwords
A’English (P50) 7.1%
A’English (P70) 9.8%
A’English (P00) 10.2%
18.0% A’English (B50)
17.1% A’English (B70)
16.2% A’English (B00)
AEnglish (P50) 13.2%
AEnglish (P70) 15.0%
AEnglish (P00) 12.8%
18.5% AEnglish (B50)
20.4% AEnglish (B70)
20.3% AEnglish (B00)
A’loans (P50)
A’loans (P70)
A’loans (P00)
13.9%
17.9%
18.5%
23.5% A’loans (B50)
22.8% A’loans (B70)
23.3% A’loans (B00)
Aloans (P50)
Aloans (P70)
Aloans (P00)
15.9%
18.0%
15.9%
23.4% Aloans (B50)
25.0% Aloans (B70)
25.0% Aloans (B00)
adaptation of English loans
A’ENGL.ADAPT(P50) 6,0%
2,8% A’ENGL.ADAPT(B50)
A’ENGL.ADAPT(P70) 7,9%
16,9% A’ENGL.ADAPT(B70)
A’ENGL.ADAPT(P00) 8,9%
16,0% A’ENGL.ADAPT(B00)
the greater tendency of B not only to import
loanwords directly but also to adapt them
2. loanwords
clothing
loanwords
A’Fr (P50)
A’Fr (P70)
A’Fr (P00)
17,6%
15,9%
10,2%
18,5% A’Fr (B50)
18,1% A’Fr (B70)
7,9% A’Fr (B00)
A’Eng (P50)
A’Eng (P70)
A’Eng (P00)
3,3%
5,8%
16,9%
4,2% A’Eng (B50)
7,6% A’Eng (B70)
17,0% A’Eng (B00)
A’loans (P50)
A’loans (P70)
A’loans (P00)
22,4%
22.1%
28.2%
23,8% A’loans (B50)
26.7% A’loans (B70)
24.9% A’loans (B00)
for both lexical fields:
English
• the influence of English increases, but a slight decrease
in B in the field of football
• the influence of English is greater in B
French
• the influence of French diminishes
• the influence of French is NOT less important in B
rather than P
all Loans
• the influence of loans is greater in B
this result explains the emergence and the tremendous
failure of purist linguistic attitudes in Brazil !
3. other item-specific features
• formal changes (including archaisms, neologisms)
more in B
• increase or decrease of formal variation?
- football: decrease, but stronger in B
- clothing: increase, a little greater in P
• influence of B upon P?
Yes, in football (between 1% and 3,5%), but less
significant than expected
• recent items (clothing): responsible for divergence
removing: U’(50) 78,41 > U’(70) 69,62 > U’(00) 67,43
4. The mutual impact of uniformity and itemspecific features
Football PT
Football BR
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
LOAN'
ENGL>port'
ENGL'
ENDO'
0
EXO'
0
2000
U'
10
1970
10
1950
LOAN'
ENGL>port'
ENGL'
ENDO'
EXO'
1950
1970
2000
U'
20
Clothing PT
Clothing BR
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
2000
1970
1950
0
U'
EXO'
ENDO'
ENGL'
FREN'
0
LOAN'
1950
1970
2000
U'
EXO'
ENDO'
ENGL'
FREN'
LOAN'
FOOTBALL - Portugal
p
r2
CLOTHING - Portugal
p
r2
U' = -69,43 + 27,33 A'exo
0,6389
28,87%
U' = 139,7 - 19,03A'exo
0,2462
85,78%
U' = 110,6 - 1,406 A'endo
0,0734
98,68% U'=105,142-1,292A'endo 0,0698
98,8%
U' = 13,98 + 4,199 A'engl
0,004
100%
U'=78,991 - 1,352A'engl
0,2916
80,45%
U' = 14,36 + 4,94 A'engl>port
0,1488
94,63%
U'= 22,57 + 3,069A'fren
0,2613
84,08%
U' = 4,433 + 2,831 A'loan
0,0049
99,99% U' = 165,8 - 4,064A'loan
0,4298
60,94%
FOOTBALL - Brazil
p
r2
CLOTHING - Brazil
p
r2
U' = 74,97 - 3,292 A'exo
0,1254 96,17%
U' = 93,84 -7,141A'exo
0,2355
86,93%
U' = 91,41 - 0,9214 A'endo
0,0555 99,24% U'= 92,86 -0,8893A'endo 0,0171
99,93
U' = 198,6 - 8,581 A'engl
0,2617 84,03%
86,77%
U' = 84,23 - 1,766A'engl
0,237
U'=41,07 + 0,9099 A'engl>port 0,1079 97,15%
U' = 34,68 + 2,197A'fren 0,3808
68,28%
U' = 765,8 - 30,77 A'loan
U' = 462 -15,74A'loan
22,4%
0,5594 40,72%
0,6861
5. Concept-specific features
• semantic field
football and clothing terms present different results.
Therefore, we have to analyze other semantic fields.
• frequency
uniformity is always higher in frequent concepts; most
frequent concepts indicate better the global trend
• recent origin
T-SHIRT: a rather low U (existing items were selected)
JEANS, LEGGINGS: U is fairly above the average
IV
Conclusions and further research
Conclusions
1. the complexity of the study of convergence and
divergence between national varieties of a
transcontinental language
2. the hypothesis of divergence is confirmed in
the field of clothing
- clothing is more representative of common
vocabulary
- convergence in football: an effect of globalization
- a lot differences: uniformity is only 57% !
3. it doesn’t seem that one of the varieties has taken
a direction towards the other
- both varieties diverge from each other in clothing
- the closeness of B towards P in football results from the
adaptation of loans
- the influence of B upon P is less important than expected
4. B changes more than P
- the consequence of greater external complexity? greater
social variation? late standardization?
- probably a little of everything
5. foreign influence is clearly more important in B
There is more work to be done …
extensions:
• to words from other lexical fields
• to function words (such as prepositions) and
to non-lexical variables