Abstract: Two complementary ways of looking at linguistic borrowing are
presented here with the aim of illustrating the complexity of this concept. The
complexity of the concept of linguistic borrowing leads to misconceptions,
which can however be clarified, by taking into account differing aims or points
of view leading to different practices. Jean-François Sablayrolles concentrates
on the process itself. Borrowing is traditionally defined as one of the three main
types of neology, but the distinction between these three classes proves
problematical in the practical task of extracting neologisms from texts and
assigning them to the appropriate category. Some solutions are proposed.
Christine Jacquet-Pfau, going beyond the question of process, aims at
pinpointing certain formal properties in written sources which indicate words of
foreign origin, not integrated into the system of the borrowing language. These
markers can be used at different stages and in different applications of automatic
analysis of language: retrieving information, indexing, identifying text types
(specialised texts in particular), subject fields dealt with, and language used,
especially for translation.
