Diffusion of linguistic innovations

Helge Niska's home page

Previous section	Table of contents	Next section

3 Diffusion of linguistic innovations ⁵

3.1 Diffusion models

If we want to predict the behaviour of interpreters in regard to their ability and willingness to adopt and diffuse terminological neologies, it may be fruitful to examine some concepts and findings from diffusion of innovation studies.7 Social change can be described as a three- stage process: 1. invention, 2. diffusion, and 3. consequences. According to Rogers & Shoemaker (1971; quoted in Benhamida 1989) diffusion is a special type of communication:

Diffusion is the process by which innovations spread to members of a social system. Diffusion studies are concerned with messages that are new ideas, whereas communication studies encompass all types of messages. As the messages are new in the case of diffusion a degree of risk for the receiver is present. This leads to somewhat different behavior on this part in the case of innovations than if he were receiving messages about routine ideas. (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971:12) Katz, Levin & Hamilton (1963:240, quoted in Benhamida 1989:39) give the following process- oriented definition of diffusion:

Viewed sociologically, the process of diffusion may be characterized as the (a) acceptance (b) over time (c) of some specific item - an idea or practice - , (d) by individuals, groups, or other adopting units, linked (e) to specific channels of communication, (f) to a social structure, and (g) to a given system of values, or culture. On the basis of models by Rogers & Shoemaker (1971) and others, Benhamida (1989) develops her own diffusion model for linguistic innovations. The model has five steps:

Awareness

2. Interest: The user learns about the source of innovations and concept or item it refers to.

3. Evaluation: The user develops an attitude toward the innovation(s) and evaluates the risks and payoffs of adoption/rejection.

4. Small-scale trial: The user determines appropriate contexts for use, especially if there are competing innovations.

5. Variable adoption, categorical adoption or rejection of terms.

Table 4-1 Diffusion model for linguistic innovations (Benhamida 1989:42-43)

3.2 Useful concepts in diffusion research

Certain concepts in diffusion research seem to especially interesting in the light of a study of planned lexical innovations. We will now discuss some of them very briefly.

3.2.1 Common culture

In diffusion studies, the terms heterophily and homophily are used to identify to what degree pairs of individuals who interact are different vs. similar in certain attributes, such as beliefs, values, education, social status etc. (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971: 14). Lack of common culture often impedes the diffusion of innovations.

According to lexicologist Alain Rey (1995) external pressure is one of the factors that trigger neological/onomasiological needs. An example of this is diffusion of technical innovations, e.g. computer terminology from English to other languages (Rey 1995:79-90). This certainly applies also to translation between the majority language and linguistic minorities within a country ("indigenous" minorities or immigrant languages). Here, it is often a question about social and cultural influence with subsequent lexicological and terminological problems (Niska 1998).

3.2.2 Effectiveness of decisions

With regard to diffusion, Rogers & Shoemaker (1971:36) present three general categories of decisions:

1. Optional decisions: individuals may act freely but may be influenced by social norms.

2. Collective decisions: individuals agree to make these by consensus and abide by group decision.

3. Authority decisions: forced on an individual by another individual (or organisation) in a superordinate power position (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971:36, cited in Benhamida 1989:44ff.).

We could boil this list down to two main types of decisions: the ones which are made by the individual more or less of free will (no. 1 and no. 2), and those which are imposed on the individual by some authority. The interesting question is to what extent it is possible (or desirable) for the "authority" to dictate or control the actual use of innovations by the individuals. The experience of the present writer is that interpreters willingly work out terminologies collectively and make collective decisions, but that some kind of authoritative judgement is needed at the end.

3.2.3 Adoption as a dynamic process

Diffusion research has found that the rate of diffusion of innovations increases as more individuals or organisations begin to use the items. At the same time old items or competing innovations lose ground even more rapidly. The "circles on the water" metaphor is appropriate in this context.

In the beginning of the 1970s, the usual way of expressing "sedimentation (rate)" in Finnish was senkka, which was a direct loan (or transfer) of the Swedish term sänka. By the time the present writer attended his first interpreting course at the university, the "pure" Finnish term laskeuma - a loan translation of the Swedish word? - was gaining ground. Interpreters had started to use this term, but it was realised that we had to use senkka simultaneously, at least temporary before laskeuma was accepted by the clients. But before it became thoroughly established, a new, competing form, lasko, was introduced and used in mass media. Within a short period of time, the new term had won the battle.

3.2.4 Attractiveness of innovations

Zaltman & Stiff (1973:428) list the following dimensions which may be relevant to a broad range of decisions about innovations: financial cost, social cost, efficiency, risk, communicability, complexity, and perceived relative advantage.

Financial costs. In the enforcement of certain linguistic norms, a state may use its legislative power to punish individuals and organisations that do not obey the rules. France is notorious for fining companies for using English instead of French in plane tickets or restaurant menus, but the same aggressive, puristic language policy can certainly be found elsewhere, too. Less spectacular but also decisive financial costs are connected to the replacement of printed materials, signs and labels of all kinds etc. (Benhamida 1989:49).

The social cost of use or non-use of a linguistic innovation must also be taken into account. As Benhamida (1989:55) points out, it can "entail an appreciable risk in social and professional spheres, especially if there are competing planned innovations with government support."

Benhamida (1989:50) discusses the notion of risk: what does one stand to lose? Using an anglicism which is an innovation may cost more financially than using an approved innovation in France. A native speaker may find using an anglicism a way of raising one's linguistic status, while a francophone with French as a second language may either look at an anglicism in the same way or as a risk because it might put the spotlight on his non-French ethnicity. A native speaker of English might try to avoid the anglicism to avoid reminding listeners of his non-native status. An employee is likely to follow the policy of his or her employer, at least while at work. (Benhamida 1989:50)

Zaltman & Stiff (1973:429) define efficiency in terms of 1. time-saving and 2. avoidance of discomfort. Cf. in this context Tauli (1968:32-33) who gives a number of Economy principles for language planning based on the assumption that the mental and physical effort of speaking and listening should be as small as possible:

Principle E1: The number of linguistic units must be the least possible.

Principle E2: The expression must be the shortest possible.

Principle E3: The more frequent the expression the shorter it must be.

Principle E4: The linguistic structure must be the simplest possible.

Principle E5: The expression must not convey more meaning than necessary (the principle of facultative precision).

Tauli argues that it is "a generally known fact that the ethnic languages are in some respect uneconomical", and that "most linguists and language planners regard simplicity (implying absence of useless grammatemes and irregularities) as a virtue in general". He refers to scholars who advocate a "deliberate methodical simplification of ethnic languages" (Tauli 1968:32-33).

It is probably Tauli's arguments, not his principles, that make American linguists (for example Haugen) "feel very uncomfortable" with this terminology, perceived as "the thin edge of the wedge of racism". (Benhamida 1989:49).

Communicability of linguistic innovations has to do with the resources and infrastructure available to the planners. It is a known fact that printing of dictionaries is an extremely costly affair. Even keeping up a hotline to the Language Council (see section 3.2) costs money. In times of shrinking budgets, the language planning authorities will have to look for new ways of informing the public.

Rogers & Shoemaker (1971) define compatibility in a social context in the following way:

Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived of as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of the receivers. An idea that is not compatible with the prevalent values and norms of the social system will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is compatible (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971:22).

In other words, a linguistic innovation which is compatible with, for example, "the characteristics and principles of the language in use" (Alloni-Fainberg 1977:52) will lead to better and quicker acceptance and dissemination.

The complexity of a linguistic innovation has to do with the effort needed (a) to understand the concept - conceptual complexity; (b) to use the term - complexity of use.

It has been hypothesised that complexity of use is more likely to impede acceptance (Zaltmann & Stiff 1973:429). This would mean that a term which is easy to use but designates a complex concept would be more readily accepted than a difficult term for an easy concept! Needless to say, such subjective terms as "easy", "difficult", "effort" and "complexity" are difficult (sic!) to make measurable.

The perceived relative advantage of an innovation can be economic advantage, but also social prestige, convenience, and satisfaction (Rogers & Shoemaker 1971:23). Cf. section 2.1.1 on language and nationalism in the present paper.

3.2.5 Fear of difficulty of communication

Fear of difficulty of communication may well be a relevant dimension perceived by potential adopters of linguistic innovations. It would for example be impractical from a communicative point of view if the interpreters would use terms during interpretation that the interlocutors would not understand. Alloni-Fainberg (1977:48) stresses that "the acceptor of a linguistic innovation must see that it is accepted by the surrounding speech community in order to be of real use, and that he may be understood".

3.3 Studies of the diffusion of planned lexical innovations

Very few studies have been made on the diffusion of planned lexical innovations. The following table attempts at summarising Benhamida's (1989) thorough review of those studies. For a full account, see Benhamida (1989:57-76). NB. The massive IRPLPP project is not reported here; see Fishman (1977) for a description.

Study Language Semantic field	Investigated variables/factors	Findings
Alloni-Fainberg 1974 Hebrew automobile part terms	Importance of word length in acceptance; importance of mass media in diffusion; importance of age, mother tongue, education, civilian occupation or military status
Alloni-Fainberg 1977 Hebrew mixed neologisms	- Linguistic variables: length of time required in pronunciation, newness of creation, usage register, semantic load on the root, verbal conjugation of the root; - major sociodemographic variables: sex, age, education, place of birth, mother tongue, other languages known; - criterion variables: awareness, knowledge, usage, attitudes toward Hebrew neologisms	Important predictors of claimed knowledge of planned innovations: a) years of formal education, b) membership in youngest age group, c) numbers of years in Israel, d) age, e) having learned Hebrew abroad, f) mother tongue Hebrew, g) gender; important predictors for claimed use: a) years of formal training, b) tendency too novelty, c) being born in Israel, d) gender, e) knowledge of a Western language, f) age, g) having learned Hebrew abroad, h) number of years living in Israel, i) membership in youngest age group.
Hofman 1974a Hebrew chemistry	- Language and personal background variables; - social attitudinal predictors, e.g. nationalism, language attitudes of sentimentalism or instrumentalism, components of private identity	Language background and skill are best predictors of positive attitudes and behaviour visavis planned lexical innovations
Hofman 1974b Hebrew psychology	Replication of Hofman 1974a	Attitudinal variables better predictors of use of Hebrew word than language background variables
Aleong 1981, 1983 French, Quebec automotive	Sociodemographic, occupational information; attitudes regarding shift from English to French as workplace language; reported language choice	Students and teachers maintain a dual terminology to satisfy authorities and yet keep overt prestige with peers
Daoust 1987 French, Canada trucking industry	Sociodemographic, occupational information; attitudes regarding shift from English to French as workplace language; reported language choice	Variables found useful in studies of natural change and variation are not applicable to planned change: ”direct economic motivation, involving job responsibility, is at the origin of the change-from-above pattern” (Daoust 1987:161)

3.4 Interpreters as adopters and agents of diffusion of lexical innovations

There is a good amount of literature on the role of translators and translation in the diffusion of, e.g., scientific and technical innovations through the ages. "Western Europe owes its civilization to translators", says Louis Kelly in "The true interpreter" (1979:1). For the importance of translations in forming modern Finnish literary language, see Sorvali 1986.

There are very few reports on the work of interpreters as agents of linguistic innovations. Spolsky & Boomer (1983) have traced terminological work of Navaho interpreters to the 1930s. The interpreters of the Tribal Council have not been permitted to use loan-words from English, which has forced them to engage in lexical innovation (Benhamida 1989:78). Downing and Fuller (1986) describe strategies employed by Hmong interpreters in the United States: lexical innovation is one of several techniques used to render Western concepts which lack an equivalent in Hmong.

Laurel Benhamida (1989) made a study of francophone translators and interpreters, living outside France, as adopters and agents of planned lexical innovations promoted by the French government. One of the research questions was whether there are relationships between sociocultural, sociolinguistic, and socioprofessional variables and (a) adoption, (b) variable adoption, or (c) rejection of planned innovations.

Indicators of the sociolinguistic profile of individuals were found to be good predictors of adoptive usage. While the majority of respondents are members of the group which believes translators and interpreters should be active agents of diffusion, missing data on this item suggests that it is controversial. Mother tongue French and years of experience were good discriminators of group membership.

Benhamida concludes that translators and interpreters, schools training them, and terminological organisations could be powerful agents of diffusion of planned lexical innovations primarily through their many links with francophones world-wide. Evidence of some of the difficulties in implementing the planning of an international language by a national government, such as loyalty to regional sources of authority or client demands, was found in the data analysis.

Previous section	Table of contents	Next section