THE RISE OF GAIRAIGO: LANGUAGE BORROWING IN

JAPAN AS THE DIFFUSION OF AN INNOVATION

In this paper, I would like to apply the method created by Rogers to analyze the
diffusion of innovations1 to the phenomenon of language borrowing2. In doing so, I hope
I will be able to test if this framework can still be considered valid nowadays and whether
it is applicable to a field that is sensibly different from the one this work was originally
created for.
As defined by Hoffer, language borrowing is the process of «importing linguistic
items from one linguistic system into another», a process that «occurs any time two
cultures are in contact over a period of time»3. As so, it is an innovation, a phenomenon
in which a new item spreads «through certain channels over time»4 among the members
of a linguistic community, a special type of «communication, in that the messages are
concerned with new ideas»5.
Rogers states that every innovation has five perceived attributes. In the case of
language borrowing, we could say that it allows meeting communicative needs (fills
blanks, provides new concepts or entities, provides better expressions) for a low effort
(relative advantage), it is easily triable (triability: very accessible and easily rejectable)
and gives instant results (observability: the sense of accomplishment for better
communicative efficiency is instantaneous). The innovation being just a punctual
borrowing from the source language and not a systematic or comprehensive one, the level
of compatibility and complexity should remain low, but it is highly dependent on the age,
nature, and habits of the adopter. Therefore, these remain somewhat more problematic
aspects. Rogers provides a fairly functional method to classify and describe innovations;
what is lacking, though, from a linguistic point of view, is a specific category to account
for the social features of language, and further attention to synchronic linguistic analysis
(in terms of alterations of balance and differential descriptions: Rogers’ framework seems
more intended for diachronic and dynamic studies).

1
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, 2003.
2
I will try to study the latter on a broader scale, at first, and then more in detail, taking into
consideration the case of language borrowing in the Japanese language.
3
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion: an overview, in «Intercultural
communication studies», XI, 4, 2002, p. 1.
4
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, cit., p. 5.
5
Ibidem.
 The channels6 through which this innovation spreads (or spreaded) could be
considered travels, trade, and commercial relations with foreign countries, mostly from
the Meiji era on, and globalization-related media in more recent days.
Rogers provides a specific analysis of adopters; he tries to describe the kind of person
that is more likely to let an innovation arise or to adopt it earlier. Many of the
characteristics he links to earlier adopters (formal education, literate, upward social
mobility, larger-sized units, greater empathy, less dogmatic, greater ability to deal with
abstractions, greater rationality, more intelligence, more favorable attitude towards
change, better able to cope with uncertainty and risk, less fatalistic, higher aspirations)7
seem to be related to class, privilege and social positioning. Even though (as the studies
show)8 the adoption of linguistic innovation is still closely linked to elements such as
social awareness and values, probably the situation is more fluid and less constrained by
such rigid and specific norms nowadays9.
Another element to be considered is the network type10. In the case of language
borrowing, heterophily is particularly crucial: two different cultures need to establish
several points of contact for a considerable amount of time in order for language
borrowing to occur. Other than this, it would be important to underline that at least three
different types of networks for the diffusion of loanwords could be identified: in-person
communication, media exposure and imitation, and the imposition by an institution
(linguistics-related or not). The latter is especially interesting and peculiarly linked to
language phenomena11, but it is hardly analyzable using Rogers’ framework.
The innovation-decision process12 is probably the most interesting aspect of language
borrowing when seen through the lens of Rogers’ work. Studies13 have shown that, in the
field of linguistic innovation, successful processes of diffusion seem to follow the pattern

6
Ivi, pp. 18-20.
7
Ivi, pp. 287-292.
8
William Labov, Social Stratification of English in New York City, Washington, Center for Applied
Linguistics, 1966.
9
A large number of loanwords and linguistic innovations come from “below”: in Italy, for example,
very interesting examples of language borrowing, such as oneshottare, to kill with just one shot in the
Italian verbal conjugation, or spawnare, appear from out of nowhere, arise in social contexts linked to video
gaming, composed largely of teenagers, not highly educated and literate individuals.
10
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, cit., pp. 300-364.
11
The insertion of loanwords in dictionaries; the adoption of loanwords in official documents,
communications, or broadcasts; Coronavirus-related vocabulary in every non-English country.
12
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, cit., pp. 168-218.
13
Quirin Würschinger, Social networks of lexical innovation. Investigating the social dynamics of
diffusion of neologisms on Twitter, in «Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence», IV, 2021, pp. 1-20.

2
laid out in Diffusion of Innovations. To provide more evidence, I will refer to the
phenomenon of the diffusion of neologisms on Twitter14. In these cases, the items of
linguistic innovation that go through the most effective diffusion processes15, present a
!"#$%&& ($#)*#+,- 1#$,#+.%2# !( %3!1.#$4
𝑦= ./0#
curve that, if translated to a 𝑦 = ./0#
one, would

resemble the curve created by Rogers to depict the progress of the adoption process16.
Furthermore, centrality plays a vital role: new words, loanwords, and specific-context-
related words, usually thrive in a very narrow, limited social context in the earliest stages:
rejection can then be defined, here, as «a geographically located dialect that arises from
the contact situation»17. In fact, if the nonnative item carries «social significance»18, it is
usually more correct to define it (“just”) a «codeswitch»: «Poplack19 seems to suggest
that the use of a borrowed item is codeswitching until enough speakers use it and it is
accepted by native speakers into the dictionary» (which usually takes about 20-25
years)20. When the linguistic innovation is “successfully adopted”, instead, the process
leading to a larger adoption is usually one of decentralization. The habit to use a given
neologism, or loanword in this case, spreads from a central, specifically identified social
group towards the rest of the population, until the majority of the adopters are to be found
in external, unconnected groups very far from the “center” and without any links to it (or
among them21).
Beyond this, it is interesting to observe the similarity between the acceptance patterns
and mechanisms delineated by Rogers22, and the manners in which linguistic innovation
is absorbed into the existing system and modified or adapted to fit in properly23. I will
here provide a series of examples of those which could be considered the “acceptance
patterns and mechanisms” of language borrowing, with a particular focus on Japanese:

14
Neologisms present nearly the same perceived attributes of loanwords, and the two share a big
number of ulterior similarities. See Quirin Würschinger, Social networks of lexical innovation, cit.
15
Quirin Würschinger, Social networks of lexical innovation, cit., fig. 2, p. 8.
16
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, cit., p. 281.
17
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., p. 4.
18
Ivi, p. 10.
19
Shana Poplack, Contrasting patterns of codeswitching and transfer, in Codeswitching, edited by
Monica Heller, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1988, p. 220.
20
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., p. 10.
21
Quirin Würschinger, Social networks of lexical innovation, cit., fig. 5, p. 13.
22
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, cit., pp. 168-218.
23
Linguists, «since at least Whitney's work in 1881», have tried to include in their works «scale[s] of
adaptability along which linguistic features are distributed. Scales of receptivity have also been included»,
see Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., pp. 6-7.

3
bound morphemes («“unshinjirable” consists of the English affixes /un-/ and /-able/ with
the Japanese base form meaning “believe”, […] rarely encountered in print, they do occur
in spoken usage and may spread»24), productive affixes («J “demoru” is from E
“demo(nstrate)” plus the verbal ending “-ru”. J “naui” is from E “now” plus the adjectival
present tense ending J “-i” […]. The usage itself is J “naukatta” or “no longer up-to-
date”»25), import («an item similar to the model»26, J “kopī” from E “copy”), substitution
(«an inadequate version of the original, i.e. speakers of the origins of the original language
would not recognize it»27, J “kombini” from E “convenience store”), loan translation
(“wolkenkratzer”, “gratte-ciel”, “rascacielos”, “grattacielo” modeled after E
“skyscraper”), semantic loan («when a [new] meaning has been imported for a [similar]
existing word»28), underdifferentiation (E /l/ and /ɹ/ to J /r/), overdifferentiation (many
extended vowels in language borrowings to Japanese), phone substitution (E /ɹ/, voiced
alveolar approximant, F /ʁ/, voiced uvular fricative, and I /r/, voiced alveolar trill, to J /ɾ/,
voiced alveolar tap or flap), reductions («J “apaato” […] from E “apartment” and J “biru”
[birujingu] from E “building”»29), shortened compounds (E “human technology”
becomes J “hyuutekku”), two-language forms (J “haburashi” from J “ha” and E “brush”,
J “pachipuro” from J “pachinko” and E “pro”), English morphology (enlisted cases of
bound morphemes and productive affixes, or the addition of a “Japanized” English suffix
to a Japanese form30). All these examples could be considered re-inventions31, “coping”
or adaptation mechanisms emerging in the “implementation period” of a linguistic
innovation. Another very interesting phenomenon resulting from the heterophily of the

24
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., p. 15. See also Kayoko Ishikawa
and Brian Guenter Rubrecht, English loanword use on Japanese television, in Kim Bradford Watts,
JALT2007 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo, JALT, 2008; and Katherine Song, Exploring Japanese
Speakers’ Use of Japanese Words and Conversation Style, in English Language Interactions, Hiroshima
Studies in Language and Language Education, 2017, pp. 17-36.
25
Ibidem.
26
Ivi, p. 5.
27
Ibidem.
28
Ibidem.
29
Ivi, p. 14.
30
«Some Japanese scholars have encountered more and more in spoken language, especially among
the young, of the addition of E /li/ = E “-ly” (the English “Adverb” suffix) to these forms. One example is
J /sorosoro/ (E “leisurely”) + E/li/ = J/sorosorori/ = E “leisurely-ly”. Another example is J/simijimiri/ = E
“keenly-ly” or “heartilyly”. […] The use may or may not spread through more segments of society, but the
use of E '-ly' is reported from multiple sources», see Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language
diffusion, cit., p. 30
31
See Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, cit., pp. 168-218.

4
Japanese linguistic field (four writing scripts, loanwords, cultural influences), is the
emergence of creative word play. A good example could be the JR Eden line case.

A few years ago the Japan Railways East wanted to choose a name for a line which would have
good connotations for the viewers/users. They did a user study which resulted in the choice of
“E-den”, a combination of the capital English “E” and the kanji for the first element in “railroad
car”. According to reports in the paper at the time, the “E” was chosen for several reasons. E is
the first letter of the English form of the word for “Electric Rail Car” and of the word “East”.
“E” also relates to “every day”, “economy”, and “energy”, all of which are related to the riding
experience. “Extern” in Japan refers to work at a distance from home; “enjoy” suggests the type
of ride. Some suggested other related words as “ease”, “elegance”, and even “exotic”. In addition
to those connotations, the sound of “E” is J /ii/ which means “good”, so that the combination
means “good railcar”. One final point is that the English pronunciation of the combination is that
of “Eden” or “paradise” which has good connotations in English. This careful attention to all
properties of language, including the connotations of loanwords indicates the advanced stage of
borrowing in current Japan.32

There are many more cases that could be reported33. Linguistic word play is of the
utmost importance, deserves to be studied further, could lead to ulterior innovation, and
can certainly be considered an implementation mechanism.
Lastly, I would like to briefly focus on the consequences of linguistic borrowing. As
it is often pointed out, it is very difficult to predict what the consequences of an innovation
could be and act consequently, but it is worth mentioning and trying: in our case, it could
be even more relevant, since the percentage of words borrowed from other languages on
the total number of words present in Japanese dictionaries is raising quickly. «The
Sanseido publishing company's dictionary, first published in 1972, […] in 1987 contained
over 33,000 entries. By the 90's, the number was over 40,000»34. Japanese is today
composed of 49% of wago words, 33% of kango words, and 18% of gairaigo words, and

32
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., p. 21.
33
Walking on a street in Kyoto, I found a Spanish-Latino themed café called “茶-茶”, “cha-cha”,
recalling both the theme and the drink. «Japanese may be able to interpret more easily new blends with
English and/or other languages because they learn to read these many complexities in the writing of
Japanese alone», see Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., p. 28.
34
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion, cit., p. 13.

5
«more than 10% of the different words used in daily conversations are from English»35.
This data certainly provides the basis for further research on this topic.
To sum up, I believe that the “test” I have tried to conduct on Rogers’ analysis
framework has proven it to (still) be very effective. Although I must point out that it needs
to be implemented further and adapted to our contemporary society in some of its parts
(see pp. 1-2), it still provides insights that sometimes would not be obtainable very easily
in other manners. I believe it could be helpful in many different fields and lead to new
discoveries.

35
Ibidem.

6
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Frank E. Daulton, On the origins of gairaigo bias: English learners’ attitudes towards
English- based loanwords in Japan, in «The language teacher», XXXV, 6, 2021, pp.
7-12.
Bates L. Hoffer, Language borrowing and language diffusion: an overview, in
«Intercultural communication studies», XI, 4, 2002, pp. 1-37.
Kayoko Ishikawa and Brian Guenter Rubrecht, English loanword use on Japanese
television, in Kim Bradford Watts, JALT2007 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo,
JALT, 2008.
Kelly Ise, English Loanwords in Japanese. From Print to Discourse, in «城西国際大学
紀要 人文学部», XVI, 2, 2008, pp.41-55.
William Labov, Social Stratification of English in New York City, Washington, Center
for Applied Linguistics, 1966.
Ben Olah, English Loanwords in Japanese: Effects, Attitudes and Usage as a Means of
Improving Spoken English Ability, in «文京学院大学人間学部研究紀要», IX, 1,
2007, pp.177-188.
Shana Poplack, Contrasting patterns of codeswitching and transfer, in Codeswitching,
edited by Monica Heller, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 1988.
Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, 2003.
Katherine Song, Exploring Japanese Speakers’ Use of Japanese Words and Conversation
Style, in English Language Interactions, Hiroshima Studies in Language and
Language Education, 2017, pp. 17-36.
Caroline Tomaszewska, Lost in Gairaigo, Lund University: Center for Languages and
Linguistics Japanese studies, 2015.
Quirin Würschinger, Social networks of lexical innovation. Investigating the social
dynamics of diffusion of neologisms on Twitter, in «Frontiers in Artificial
Intelligence», IV, 2021, pp. 1-20.