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