Abstract. The current work attempts to position a specific language contact manifestation, namely, loanword adaptation, into the field of linguistic research at large. The study takes into account a contact language situation between typologically, genealogically and geographically distant languages, Slavic and Hungarian, in the context of facilitating the theoretical apparatus implemented in the language contact analyses.
Given the characteristics of the realizations, the triad of Hungarian language – Slavic lexical stratum – language contact is discussed in the light of outlining a comprehensive research contour. This could subsequently allow for language data to be investigated focusing on phonological and grammatical patterns, thus revealing idiosyncrasy of the phonotactics and grammar of contact languages in question.
Keywords: loanword adaptation, Slavic loanwords in Hungarian, language contact
REFERENCES
ADAMON, E., MATRA., Y. Adamon, E., Matra, Y. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Language Contact. New York: Routledge.
ALEKSOVA, K. 2024. Pertseptualnata sotsiolingvistika – novo napravlenie v sociolingvistikata. In: Aleksova, K, Sotirov, P., Kanevska-Nikolova, E., Stoyanov, K. Issa, K., Kancheva, P., Apostolova, D. (eds). Problemi na sotsiolingvistikata, vol. Novi napravlenia, temi I idei v sotsiolingvistikata 15. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, 2024, 39–50.
DAVIDSON, L. 2001. Hidden rankings in the final state of the English grammar. In: Horwood, G., Kim, S. (eds.). Ruling Papers II, 2001, New Brunswick: RUP, 21–48.
ITȎ, J., MESTER, A. 2003. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 42: MIT Press.
ZOLTÁN, A. 2005. Szavak, szólások, szövegek. Nyelvészeti és filológiai tanulmányok. Budapest: Lucidius kiadó.
KNIEZSA, I. 1974. A magyar nyelv szláv jövevényszavai 1–2. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó.
KOCSIS, M. 2018. A szláv nazálisok és a huszár. In: Magyar nyelv, 114 (1), 68–77.
PARADI, C., LACHARITḔ, D. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of Linguistics 33, 1997, 379–430.
SZIGETVÁRI, P. 2006. The markedness of the unmarked. In: Acta Linguistica Hungarica 53, 2006, 433–447.
H. TÓTH, I. 1996. A magyar és szláv együttélés kérdései a Kárpát-medencében. In: Bibliotheca Slavica Savariensis III. Szombathely, 213–218.
HEINE, B., KUTEVA, T. 2020: Contact and grammaticalization. In: Hickey, R. (ed) The Handbook of Language Contact. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020, 93–112.
HICHEY, R. 2020. The Handbook of Language Contact. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
JAKOBS, H., GUSSENHOVEN, C. 2000. Loan phonology: Perception, salience, the lexicon, and Optimality Theory. In: Dekkers, J., Leeuw, van der F., Weijer, van de J. (eds) Optimality Theory: phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 193–210.
PEPPERCAMP, S., DUPOUX, E. 2003. Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: the role of perception. In: International Congress of Phonetis Sciences 15: 367–370.
SIPTÁR, P. 2001. Hangtan. In: É.Kiss, K., Kiefer, F., Siptár, P. (eds) Új magyar nyelvtan. Budapest: Osiris kiadó, 293–390.
TRUBETZKOY, N. 1960. Osnovi fonologii. Moskva.
VISHOGRADSKA, I. 2015. Struktura na srichkata. Sapostavitelno izslsedvane. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo „Sv. Kliment Ohridski“.
