Factores que afectan al sistema de carguío y acarreo

The findings of the present study help answering the research questions raised in 1.4. The co-occurrence pattern of foreign words in Arabic communicate evaluative language expressed through different collocation than their equivalents in English. The different collocations of agenda, liberal, and lobby between English and Arabic suggest different meaning constructions which do not agree with the traditional view of lexical borrowing as motivated mainly by the need to fill lexical gaps or prestige where loans meanings are almost identical to those in the source language. Furthermore, there was greater emphasis on certain senses that have negative associations (e.g. lobby only as a pressure group) unlike the case in English which tend to be relatively balanced as explicated by the discourse prosodies of agenda and lobby. The negative associations were encoded mainly in the connotations of loans which were made possible by the ELU model (Sinclair, 2005, 1998). Stubbs (2002) describes the evaluations drawn from the co- occurrence of words and phrases as one of the major findings of corpus semantics. The

166

different co-occurrence pattern between Arabic and English as well as the focus on using certain meanings and connotations suggest that language users are not passive recipients of foreign concepts. Rather, they contribute to meaning construction of foreign words by expressing their evaluative attitudes in actual language use. Unlike linguists or grammarians who pay more attention to structural aspects and conformity to native pattern during loanword adaptation, language users are more attentive to meaning. Meaning as Teubert points out is the essence of corpus linguistics (1999). Collocational relations between loans and other specific words, whether drawing on denotative or connotative meanings, are governed by shared knowledge between language users because "...communicative competence and cultural competence are inseparable" (Stubbs, 2002p.6).

The negative associations implied in agenda, liberal, and lobby in Arabic were argued to be ideologically motivated, since they were socio-politically oriented and more likely to trigger ideological stance. Arab language users have a foundation of shared social belief system, like other communities, and thus dominant ideologies such as religious, political, and linguistic control their discourse. These ideologies were related to the relationship with the West where language users assert their rejection to western hegemony and intervention in native issues which can be seen also as a form of resistant ideologies. This was consolidated in the co-occurrence of foreign concepts with words (e.g., external, the west, and American with agenda) where the relationship with the West was addressed with cautious distrust. Other ideological meanings associated with foreign concepts can be drawn from the sociopolitical terms (e.g., Islamic, liberal, secular, socialist) used as collocates and here language users involve mainly in promoting or

167

rejecting what they believe good for their social system and in accordance with their goals or affiliations. In doing so, language users are assuming their role as social members and enforcing their understanding of social reality. Following Van Dijk’s view of ideology as the interface between discourse and society (Van Dijk, 1995, 2014, 2016b, 2016a), I view the ideological influence as residing half the way between the discourse of agenda, liberal, and lobby and Arab language users as a homogenous society. Such interpretation of ideology from CDA perspective is obviously subjective, however, "CDA does not deny, but explicitly defines and defends its own sociopolitical position. That is, CDA is biased– and proud of it" (Van Dijk, 2001b, p. 96) and this is partly due to the nature of the subject matter of CDA where sociopolitics is the locus and focus. The impact of ideology on lexical borrowing should not be viewed as good or bad neither true nor false as much as a characteristic of a shared social belief system.

Nativizing foreign terms, especially sociopolitical ones, undergoes ideological bias which results in discrepancies between their meanings in isolation i.e., in the dictionaries and in real language use as the case in the present study. The influence of ideology in borrowed words in Arabic was echoed in the dictionaries as previously mentioned. Dictionaries compilers are also social members who are affected by the shared social belief system. It follows that the reproduction of ideologies in dictionary making consciously or unconsciously is no surprise. This is may be one way to reproduce some aspects of dominant ideologies and allow language users to acquire them. Learning, in formal or informal settings, is a powerful tool to maintain social belief system since it is a “way of talking about the shared historical and social resources, frameworks, and perspectives that can sustain mutual engagement in action” (Wenger, 1998, p. 5).

168

However, the apparent bias in defining and selecting specific meanings in dictionaries contribute to imperfect learning experience especially for language learners. This is not the case of real language use where learning is a form of social practice or social act that allows room for interaction among individuals (Fairclough, 2011; Gee, 1999; Rogoff, 1995 among others). When learners or student have difficulty understanding the linguistic code (i.e. a word), what happens is similar to what Bourdieu and Passeron describe as "semantic fog" (1994, p.10) in that it takes some time to have access to other meanings. A Lacking linguistic and cultural learning experience may result in learners being deprived of the various ways of seeing the world (López-Bonilla, 2011). Language learners are then prompted to learn more from real language use because much of learning takes place outside dictionaries and educational context. Language use in real life settings is not only a means to learn new concepts, but also to contribute to meaning construction.

169

CHAPTER7