Annjo K. Greenall

To translate or not to translate: Attitudes to English loanwords in Norwegian

Introduction

To translate or not to translate: attitudes to english loanwords in norwegian. Explore attitudes towards English loanwords in Norwegian. This paper analyzes a discussion list to uncover divided views on translation vs. acceptance, using Bakhtinian dialogism.

Abstract

The ?fast forward? button for the influx of English loanwords1 into the Scandinavian languages has long since been pressed. The views on this phenomenon, both in academic and non-academic circles, can generally be divided into two categories. On the one hand, there are those who are more or less strongly concerned about the ?pollution? and possible future eradication of their language (these possibly constitute a majority, at least among Norwegian academics), and on the other there are those who do not seem to mind so much that English seems to be claiming some territory within their language. In this paper, I look at some material which illustrates the nature of this divide particularly well. The material stems from a Norwegian discussion list on the web (Ordlabben/?The Word Lab?)2, where people are invited to contribute suitable Norwegian translations for a set of recent English loanwords. I focus especially on a subset of these contributions, where the contributors, rather than straightforwardly accepting the task they are invited to perform, show fierce opposition to this proposed strategy of Norwegianization, thereby showing a positive attitude towards the influx of English loanwords into the Norwegian language. After presenting the material I discuss, mainly from the perspective of Bakhtinian dialogism, whether or not there exists a defence for this kind of attitude, and whether indeed such a defence ought to be considered at all, in light of the fact that the prevailing opinion within academic and policy-making circles seems to be that people representing this kind of attitude need to be ?protected from themselves?.

Review

This paper, "To translate or not to translate: Attitudes to English loanwords in Norwegian," offers a timely and highly relevant exploration of a persistent sociolinguistic debate concerning the pervasive influence of English on Scandinavian languages. The abstract effectively introduces the core tension: the attitudinal divide between those concerned about linguistic "pollution" and those more accepting of English loanwords. What is particularly compelling is the paper's innovative focus on the latter group, specifically those contributors to the "Ordlabben" web discussion list who actively resist the proposed task of finding Norwegian equivalents, thereby demonstrating a positive stance towards loanwords. This nuanced perspective promises to add significant depth to the existing literature. The strength of this study lies in its methodological approach and theoretical framing. By utilizing authentic discourse from a public online discussion forum, the author gains direct access to unfiltered public sentiment and the dynamics of linguistic attitudes, moving beyond more traditional survey-based methods. The decision to center the analysis on those who explicitly oppose Norwegianization is a commendable one, as it challenges the often-dominant narrative within academic and policy spheres that frequently frames such acceptance as problematic. The abstract's mention of Bakhtinian dialogism as the primary theoretical lens further indicates a sophisticated analytical framework that could effectively unpack the underlying ideological and social dimensions of these linguistic preferences. While the abstract provides a compelling blueprint, the full paper would benefit from a more explicit outline of the specific types of "fierce opposition" encountered in the Ordlabben material, and how these arguments directly feed into the Bakhtinian analysis. Further elaboration on the concept of individuals needing to be "protected from themselves" would also enrich the discussion, allowing for a deeper interrogation of the power dynamics inherent in language policy. Overall, this paper is poised to make a significant contribution to our understanding of language attitudes and policy, offering a fresh perspective on a contentious issue. It is a well-conceived and important study that is highly recommended for publication.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.