Lexical convergence and divergence in Portuguese 71As to neologisms, it is of more interest to see their influence on the vo-
cabulary related to clothing. It is not a surprise that new clothing terms or
new uses of pre-existing terms are introduced in both varieties. These new
terms or uses contribute to the global divergence between the two varieties,
although they are not the only determinant factor. In fact, if we exclude
recent items from the calculations, the results continue to indicate diver-
gence, to a smaller extent and, yet, significance between 1970 and 2000: U’
(P50,B50) 78.41% > U’(P70,B70) 69.62% > U’ (P00,B00) 67.43%. The
impact of recent concepts will be analyzed in section 4.5.
Finally, Table 14 reveals that the anticipated growing influence of BP
on EP, particularly in the field of football, is not clearly confirmed. Two
measurements of the Brazilian terms in the corpus of EP are given in this
table: the percentages on the left include widely known Brazilian terms and
the ones indicated on the right show all the Brazilian terms registered in
reference dictionaries. As regards the percentage of Brazilian terms used in
the European variety, the weighted measure varies from 0.8% to 2.3% in
P50 and from 1.1% to 2% in P00. Examples of Brazilian terms which are
introduced in EP are bandeirinha (ASSISTANT REFEREE), atacante (FOR-
WARD), falta (FOUL), plantel (TEAM), among others. There are Brazilian
terms, however, for which no occurrence was found at all in the corpus of
EP: for instance, goleiro (GOALKEEPER), arqueiro (GOALKEEPER), avante
(FORWARD), escanteio (CORNER), impedimento (OFFSIDE), arco (GOAL 2 ),
gol (GOAL 1 , GOAL 2 ), and zagueiro (BACK). For this reason, the feature of
the Brazilian terms probably had little impact on the global convergence
between the two varieties. On the other hand, the percentage of European
Portuguese terms – as, for example, guarda-redes (GOALKEEPER), baliza
(GOAL 2 ) or defesa (BACK) – in the corpus of BP is nil, and, therefore, con-
firms the hypothesis that the European variety has no influence whatsoever
on the Brazilian variety.
Table 14. Brazilian terms in the corpus of European Portuguese for football
A’Braz (P50) 0,8% 2,3%
A’Braz (P70) 1,0% 3,4%
A’Braz (P00) 1,1% 2,0%Brazilian terms constitute exogenous terms in the European variety. When
EP adopts these terms, the proportion of exogenousness increases, as ex-
pected. Comparing Table 14 to Table 6 and 7, concerning endo-/exogenous