Geographic label: Anglicism

[anacastrosalgado]

The DLPC uses the label Angl. (Anglicism).

I think we have to slightly change the definition of the geographic label: marker which identifies the place or region where a lexical unit is mainly used

Here, we don't really have a place or region. It's just an English word that is used in another language. Don't you agree?

<entry xml:lang="pt" xml:id="icebergue" type="monolexicalUnit">
    <dacl:meta status="imported"/>
    <form type="lemma">
        <orth>icebergue</orth>
        <pron>isɨbˈεrgɨ</pron>
        <pron>ajsɨbˈεrgɨ</pron>
    </form>
    <gramGrp>
        <gram type="pos" norm="NOUN">s.</gram>
        <gram type="gen">m.</gram>
    </gramGrp>
    <etym type="inheritance">
        <seg type="desc">Do</seg>
        <cit type="etymon">
            <lang expand="inglês" norm="en">ing.</lang>
            <form xml:lang="en">
                <orth>iceberg</orth>
            </form>
            <pc>,</pc>
            <seg type="desc">do</seg>
            <lang expand="norueguês" norm="no">nor.</lang>
            <form xml:lang="no">
                <orth>isberg</orth>
                <pc>'</pc>
                <gloss>montanha de gelo</gloss>
                <pc>'</pc>
            </form>
        </cit>
    </etym>
    <sense xml:id="icebergue.1"> **<usg type="geographic">Angl.</usg>** <def>Massa de gelo flutuante
            de grandes dimensões, separada de um glaciar polar, a maior parte submersa, impelida
            pelas correntes marítimas.</def>
        <cit type="example"><quote>A parte do icebergue que emerge da água chega a atingir 200 m. de
                altura.</quote></cit>
        <cit type="example"><quote>Depois de ter colidido com o icebergue, o barco
                afundou-se.</quote></cit>
    </sense>
    <entry xml:id="ponta_do_icebergue" xml:lang="pt" type="relatedEntry">
        <form type="lemma">
            <orth>
                <ref type="entry">
                    <seg>ponta</seg>
                    <lbl>+</lbl>
                </ref>
                <seg>do icebergue</seg>
            </orth>
        </form>
        <pc>.</pc>
    </entry>
</entry>

[ttasovac]

Ok, so here's what I think:

1. Angl. doesn't really mean that this is an "English word" which is used in Portuguese: icebergue here is a Portuguese word, but it's one that has been borrowed, adopted etc. from English.

2. Since icebergue is a borrowed word, Angl. is not, I would argue, a geographic label at all. When we defined geographic labels, we added a note which said that some dictionaries don't put the actual place or region in the label, but simply indicate that something is not used everywhere (Region. = regionalism). But Angl. is very different: it has nothing to do with the region of Portuguese in which it is used. An Anglicism in Portuguese is geographically agnostic. If anything, Angl. could be treated as some kind of etymological label.

3. Your dictionary, however, has an etym section where it says that icebergue comes from English iceberg and Norwegean isberg. Why the editors then chose to slap another Angl. label on it is not very clear to me.

4. This leads me to believe that Angl. is not an etymological label either. Namely, etymology tells you where words come from, but an Angl. says that the word, while being used in Portuguese, is still perceived as different than say filosofia, which surely comes from Greek, but is not considered a "Grecism".

5. So what, then, is Angl.? Honestly, I think it's more like a domain. Didn't we encode trademarks as trademark at some point? I think we could do the same with Anglicisms. Now, the definition for domain labels may not be ideal for this either, but we may consider adding a note to it.

[anacastrosalgado]

Thanks for your feedback. You made me think a lot about this.

I will explain, first of all, why I associated Angl. (Anglicismo) as a geographic label. Because in DLPC we have Bras. (Brasileirismo, not Brasil), and it made me confused. It didn't seem to me, of course, to be a geographic label either.

I think the DLPC lexicographer wanted to use Angl. to point out that it is a borrowed form adapted to Portuguese (ortographic, phonetic, morphological). This is the only case in DLPC with this label! It costs me a lot to consider it as a domain label. May I use lbl? It's just a case. Now the list is clear:

In DLPC, we have: Afric. Africanismo – geographic label Amer. Americanismo (0!!!) Angl. Anglicismo (1!!!!) Angol. Angolanismo – geographic label Asiat. Asiatismo, Asiaticismo – geographic label Bras. Brasileirismo – geographic label Caboverd. Caboverdianismo – geographic label Gal. Galicismo (0!!!) Guin. Guineensismo – geographic label Moç. Moçambicanismo – geographic label Region. Regionalismo – geographic label Santom. Santomensismo – geographic label

Anyway, I think we have to consider these labels on other projects. See:

«Until recently, most European dictionaries have given labels a prescriptive, normative force, the current tendency being to given them a more descriptive load. For example, for the Dutch Van Dale it was customary to label words adopted from foreign languages as (Germ.), (Gall.), (Angl.), etc., explicitly indicating a negative opinion about their use as loan words. The current label (< German) is supposed to leave it to the users to decide whether or not they want to use it. Whether users accept the transition from prescription to description is a open question.» (Janssen et al., pp. 3-4; http://maarten.janssenweb.net/Papers/labels.pdf)

I am trying to find entries that have this label but in vain. The German dictionaries I have here are recent. There are other Portuguese dictionaries that list this label in the abbreviations list, but I still can't find an example. ☹

<entry xml:lang="pt" xml:id="icebergue" type="monolexicalUnit"> <dacl:meta status="imported"/> <form type="lemma"> <orth>icebergue</orth> <pron>isɨbˈεrgɨ</pron> <pron>ajsɨbˈεrgɨ</pron> </form> <etym type="borrowing">` 'Do ing.

iceberg

, do nor.

isberg ' montanha de gelo '

**Angl.** Massa de gelo flutuante de grandes dimensões, separada de um glaciar polar, a maior parte submersa, impelida pelas correntes marítimas. A parte do icebergue que emerge da água chega a atingir 200 m. de altura. Depois de ter colidido com o icebergue, o barco afundou-se.</quote></cit> </sense> <entry xml:id="ponta_do_icebergue" xml:lang="pt" type="relatedEntry">

ponta+ do icebergue

. `

[ttasovac]

how fascinating. I have a call starting in 3 minutes, but if Angl. etc. is meant to be used as a normative label, i.e. saying this isn't the "best" word to use, then it would fall under <usg type="normativity"> I have to go now, but I will think more about this...

[anacastrosalgado]

We seem to be in tune. I think I came to that conclusion too, but I wanted to find examples, and it is not easy. I will keep looking to make sure that normativity is the best label. For DLPC, it seems to be a lack of criteria. Someone added that information and then it was never applied again... :( In any case, this question led me to think about some questions that I had never thought about before.

[ttasovac]

I went back to Hausman's original classification (1989) and, guess what, this is EXACTLY what he had in mind diaintegrative labels — the criterium was "nationality" (sounds weird), but the marked periphery was "entlehnt/fremd", i.e. borrowed/foreign, and the example "Anglicism".

We never considered this because we relied too much on Svensén who described the marked periphery as "foreign word" and gave the examples Lat., Fr. where we immediately thought, no way, that's etymology. But as we agreed above, Anglicism is not about etymology, but rather about the extent to which the word is considered domesticated...

That is definitely a normative question... so there is overlap, but we may want to introduce a separate category for this... I haven't made up my mind yet.

[anacastrosalgado]

Yes, I think you're right. We need this category.

diaintegrative information (criterion: nationality) – a feature which associates a word or one of its senses with the dimension of integration into the native stock of words of a language (Vrbinc and Vrbinc, 2015)

Marked periphery: foreign word Spika, 2016 https://colloquium.aau.at/index.php/Colloquium/article/view/34

diaintegrative for foreign borrowings used in English (e.g. German for Weltanschauung)

It's not easy. For Portuguese Academy Dictionary it will works because we have this information in a particular field. But if you search for Weltanschauung in OED, for example, you will find:

Weltanschauung, n. Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈvɛltanˌʃaʊʊŋ/, U.S. /ˈvɛltɑnˌʃaʊʊŋ/ Forms: Also with lower-case initial. Plural Weltanschauungen. Frequency (in current use):
Etymology: German, < welt world n. + anschauung perception.

There is an overlap as you said. They put the information "German" in etymology.