156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION: TWO CRITERIA 

OF CONFORMITY � 

ESME WINTER-FROEMEL 

Abstract 

How can phenomena of borrowing and loanword integration be adequately described 

and classified? Haugen’s (1950) distinction of importation vs. substitution is widely 

accepted in current research, but, as recognized by Haugen himself, it proves 

problematic with respect to loanwords like It. tango borrowed from Span. tango. Here, 

no formal changes occur, but at the same time, the patterns of the loanword already 

conform to the target language. Similarly, it can be shown that the concept of loanword 

integration and the distinction of Fremdwort and Lehnwort have not sufficiently been 

elaborated. The aim of this article is to solve these problems by proposing a distinction 

of two independent criteria, namely CONFORMITY TO THE SOURCE LANGUAGE FORM and 

CONFORMITY TO THE TARGET LANGUAGE SYSTEM. These can both take two different 

values (conformity vs. non-conformity) and be applied to single features of loanwords. I 

will try to show that only their combination permits us to fully describe loanword 

integration as well as to formulate three alternative options (transference, 

correspondence, hyper-foreignisms), which are also central to both synchronic and 

diachronic studies of loanwords. 

Problematic issues in traditional loanword studies 

Linguistic borrowing is a very common and intensively studied phenomenon. A 

particularly prominent group of borrowings are loanwords, and a series of recent 

publications analyzes their integration into the target language (e.g. Volland 1986, 

Meisenburg 1993, Hall & Hamann 2003, Heinemann 2003, Peperkamp & Dupoux 

2003, LaCharité & Paradis 2005). 1 However, various theoretical issues are still not well 

understood. How can we adequately describe and classify phenomena of borrowing and 

loanword integration? The first section of this article will be dedicated to a review of the 

answers given to this question in traditional loanword studies. I will argue that 

Haugen’s (1950) distinction of importation and substitution has not yet been sufficiently 

developed, and the concept of loanword integration itself remains to a certain extent 

imprecise. Another key issue in traditional loanword research is the question whether 

several subgroups of loanwords should be distinguished and if so, how these groups can 

be defined (see the controversies about foreign words and assimilated loanwords, Betz 

� Parts of this paper were presented at the School of Modern Languages Research Seminar, University of 

Newcastle upon Tyne (February 2006) and at the 2 nd Newcastle Postgraduate Conference in Theoretical 

and Applied Linguistics (June 2007). I am grateful to all participants and especially to Richard Waltereit 

for helpful comments. I would also like to thank Sam Featherston for linguistic revision of an earlier 

version of the article. 

1 The terms loanword integration, loanword adaptation, loanword assimilation and loanword nativization, 

which are used by the different authors, are considered as synonymous here. They will be understood in 

the sense of formal changes in loanwords by which these are made compliant to the structures of the 

target language. This kind of process is thereby distinguished from lexicalization, the process by which 

borrowed words enter the lexicon of the target language. 

156

157 

Winter-Froemel 

1959, 1974, 1975). I will argue that all three problematic issues can be overcome by 

distinguishing two criteria of conformity that can be applied to loanwords. The two 

criteria will then be discussed in more detail in section 0, where I will also propose a 

definition of Fremdwort (foreign word) and Lehnwort (assimilated loanword) that is 

based on these criteria. In section 0, I will finally argue that the criteria can be applied to 

the description of loanwords as well as to loanword integration, where they can each 

capture specific features of the linguistic items concerned. 

1.1 Haugen’s (1950) distinction of importation vs. substitution 

Haugen’s (1950) influential article on linguistic borrowing can still be 

considered as central for current studies of loanwords and loanword integration. Haugen 

distinguishes loanwords (e.g. AmE shivaree from Fr. charivari), loanblends (e.g. Fr. 

couronne jacket from Engl. jacket crown) and loanshifts (e.g. Fr. presqu’île modeled on 

Latin paeninsula; examples from Haugen 1950 and Blank 1995). As this article is 

concerned exclusively with the first group of borrowings, I will not comment on this 

distinction in detail here (see Winter in press). Of central importance for the concerns of 

this article, however, is the criterion that is used by Haugen to distinguish the three 

groups. He introduces the concepts of importation vs. substitution, which are defined as 

follows: 

If the loan is similar enough to the model so that a native speaker would accept it 

as his own, the borrowing speaker may be said to have IMPORTED the model into 

his language, provided it is an innovation in that language. But insofar as he has 

reproduced the model inadequately, he has normally SUBSTITUTED a similar 

pattern from his own language. This distinction between IMPORTATION and 

SUBSTITUTION applies not only to a given loan as a whole but to its constituent 

patterns as well, since different parts of the pattern may be treated differently. 

(Haugen 1950: 212). 

Let us consider an example where these terms are applied to the phonological 

patterns of borrowed words: in Span. estufa borrowed as [ehtúpa] by the Yaqui Indians 

(Haugen 1950: 215-216), various phonological substitutions occur. Haugen’s distinction 

seems very clear and easily applicable here. However, besides the two fundamental 

possibilities of importation and substitution, which are lengthily discussed in his article, 

Haugen briefly mentions a third option, which is characterized by partial correspondences 

between the languages, so that it becomes impossible to decide whether we are 

dealing with a case of importation or substitution: ‘If the loan contains patterns that are 

not innovations in the borrowing language, it becomes impossible to distinguish the two 

kinds of reproduction.’ (Haugen 1950: 213). An example for this latter case is the 

borrowing of Span. tango into Italian, where the form is not changed, so that there are 

no substitutions, but at the same time, no non-native elements are imported into Italian: 

(1) Span. tango > Ital. tango (DO, ZI, DELI) 2 

2 The full titles of the dictionaries that are cited can be found in the bibliography at the end of this article.


In my view, Haugen is addressing an important issue here, which, however, is 

not fully worked out in his article. This becomes clearer when we look back again at the 

definition of importation and substitution given above. The first part of the definition 

contains a COMPARISON OF THE SOURCE LANGUAGE FORM AND THE TARGET LANGUAGE 

FORM (‘If the loan is similar enough to the model so that a NATIVE speaker would accept 

it as his own,…’, Haugen 1950: 212, emphasis added). Then, however, Haugen adds a 

second, fundamentally different criterion, which refers to the STATUS OF THE IMPORTED 

ELEMENTS WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF THE TARGET LANGUAGE (‘…provided it is an 

innovation in that language.’, Haugen 1950: 212). 3 

In fact, the two aspects may appear to be closely linked to each other, as in many 

cases importations which are faithful to the source language (SL) form are innovations 

in the target language (TL) as well. Yet, there are also frequent cases in which they 

diverge. This is illustrated precisely by Ital. tango, whose phonological patterns are 

faithful to the SL form, but do not represent innovations in the TL. This suggests that 

Haugen’s definition does not cover all cases of borrowing. With respect to importation 

and substitution, I propose that these notions should be related to the first criterion 

exclusively, that is, to a comparison between the SL form and the TL form (see Winter 

in press). If an element (e.g. a word on the lexical level, or a phoneme on the 

phonological level) is kept during the borrowing process, it can be said to have been 

imported. Contrarily to Haugen, I assume that such an analysis is also possible for cases 

like Ital. tango, where we can state an importation of the word and its phonemes and 

graphemes. When we ask if certain patterns are new or already exist in the TL, in 

contrast, we are dealing with another issue. 

In a nutshell, we may distinguish two separate parameters on which loanwords 

can vary. As a result of our review of Haugen’s distinction, we have thus obtained two 

criteria which can each take two values: 

1) conformity vs. non-conformity to the source language (SL) form (importation vs. 

substitution), and 

2) conformity vs. non-conformity to the target language (TL) system. 

1.2 The notion of loanword integration 

To underline the importance of the two criteria, I shall now examine the notion 

of loanword integration itself. This term is commonly used to refer to processes like the 

following: 

(2) Engl. ski > Span. esquí (DLE, MOL) 

(3) Fr. béchamel > Ital. besciamella (DO, ZI) 

(4) Engl. meeting ['mi:tɪŋ] > Fr. meeting [mi'tiŋ] (PR, LAR) 

In examples (2)-(4), we can observe various changes in pronunciation, spelling 

and morphology. For example, an additional vowel is inserted in the borrowing of Engl. 

ski to Span. esquí for phonological/phonotactic reasons, and this change also becomes 

visible in spelling. In the borrowing of Fr. béchamel to Italian besciamella, there is a 

3 The two aspects are also mentioned in Humbley (1974: 47), but, at least as far as I can see, their 

distinction has not received appropriate attention in loanword studies up to now. 

158


1.3 The distinction of Fremdwort and Lehnwort 

Finally, serious controversies have arisen about the distinction of Fremdwort and 

Lehnwort. First of all, it has to be acknowledged that this distinction is not universally 

accepted. In English-speaking research, the category loanword is in general not 

subdivided. For example, Haugen (1950) makes no such distinction. In the Germanspeaking 

research tradition, however, an influential subdivision of the category 

Lehnwort has been proposed by Betz: 

Wird das Lehnwort in seiner fremden Lautgestalt bewahrt, so sprechen wir vom 

Fremdwort (Palais), wird es lautlich seiner neuen Umgebung angepaßt, von 

Lehnwort im eigentlichen Sinn (Pfalz). (Betz 1959: 128, see also Betz 1974, 

1975) 

If the loanword is kept in its foreign phonetic form, we speak of a foreign word 

([e.g. Germ.] Palais), if it is phonetically adapted to its new environment, of a 

loanword in the proper sense (Pfalz). 4 

His distinction between foreign words and assimilated loanwords is shown in 

Fig. 1: 

Fig. 1: The traditional distinction of two subcategories of loanwords (Betz 1959, 

1974, 1975) 

Fremdwort 

foreign word 

e.g. Germ. Palais (< Fr. palais) 

Lehnwort 

loanword 

� � 

vs. 

160 

Lehnwort (im eigentlichen Sinn) 

loanword (in the proper sense) 

e.g. Germ. Pfalz (< Fr. palais) 

However, this distinction has received various critical remarks. A first 

problematic aspect is the fact that the term Lehnwort is used ambiguously. On the one 

hand, when foreign words and loanwords are opposed to each other, the term is 

understood in the restricted sense of assimilated loanword (see also Carstensen 1968, 

Duckworth 1977, Kiesler 1993, Blank 1995). On the other hand, however, Lehnwort is 

also used as a general term comprising both foreign words and (assimilated) loanwords 

in the restricted sense. To overcome this terminological confusion, Duckworth (1977) 

and Kiesler (1993) have proposed the term entlehntes Wort (borrowed word) for the 

general category, but their proposal has not been widely adopted, and the term 

Lehnwort/loanword continues to be used in the general sense in most current research 

(see among others Blank 1995, Jacobs & Gussenhoven 2000, Hall & Hamann 2003, 

Peperkamp & Dupoux 2003, LaCharité & Paradis 2005). Similarly, in the remainder of 

this article, I will employ both LOANWORD and BORROWED WORD to refer to the general 

category. 

After this terminological clarification, I would like to discuss the delimitation of 

the two subcategories. Their distinction has been considered problematic (Scherner 

4 All translations of citations in this article are mine.

161 


1974: 264-267), and it has been concluded that ‘[…] it does not appear just how the line 

[between foreign words and assimilated loanwords] is to be drawn.’ (Haugen 1950: 

230). Various possible criteria have been discussed: sociolinguistic and stylistic criteria 

(which are adopted by von Polenz 1967: 72, but rejected by Duckworth 1977: 43), the 

question whether the words are borrowed for the first time or already lexicalized in the 

TL (see Gneuss 1955: 19), and structural factors. In the latter case, foreign words are 

defined as words containing non-native sounds, sound combinations, stress patterns, 

graphemes, etc., while no such elements appear in assimilated loanwords. These 

structural criteria have also been criticized (Gneuss 1955: 19, von Polenz 1967: 72), but 

they are generally regarded as decisive in current research (if Fremdwörter and 

Lehnwörter are distinguished at all, see Scherner 1974: 266-267, Blank 1995: 46). 

Besides their wide acceptance, structural factors offer the advantage of being 

characteristic for borrowed words only, while they are not pertinent to calques or 

loanshifts (Schottmann 1977: 26). 

Yet there is also a basic flaw in many definitions that are based on structural 

criteria. For example, the definition of Betz given above mixes up the two aspects that 

have been confronted in the preceding sections, that is, the question whether the 

borrowed form is changed from the SL form (‘…is kept in its … phonetic form’), and 

the question whether the features of the borrowed form correspond to the structures of 

the TL (‘…adapted to its new environment’). As we have already seen in 1.1, both 

aspects are in principle independent from each other. Therefore, it seems preferable to 

look for an alternative definition. A first possibility consists in referring to one of the 

criteria only. For example, Carstensen bases his definition on conformity towards the 

SL form exclusively. He defines a Fremdwort as a word which keeps the original 

spelling and pronunciation: 

Um die Scheidung in Fremd- und Lehnwort aufrechtzuerhalten, müssen wir von 

dieser Kategorie [Fremdwort] fordern, dass das aus dem Englischen kommende 

Sprachmaterial in Schreibung und Lautung seine ursprüngliche Form beibehält. 

(Carstensen 1968: 37). 

In order to maintain the distinction between foreign word and loanword, we have 

to demand of this category [the foreign word] that the linguistic material coming 

from English keeps its original form with respect to spelling and pronunciation. 

Other definitions, in contrast, only refer to the second aspect, correspondence to 

the structures of the TL, and consider foreign words as words that do not conform to 

certain structures (spelling, pronunciation) of the TL: 

[…] una palabra prestada de otro idioma es extranjerismo si la pronunciación y 

la grafía no corresponden a las reglas de pronunciación de la lengua receptora, 

mientras que es préstamo léxico si corresponden a estas reglas. (Kiesler 1993: 

508-510, compare Duckworth 1977: 46) 

[…] a word borrowed from another language is a foreign word if the 

pronunciation and the spelling do not correspond to the pronunciation rules of 

the receiving language, while it is a loanword if they correspond to these rules. 

The definitions of Carstensen and Kiesler both offer the advantage of being 

clear, since they do not mix up the two different aspects. Furthermore, in many cases


they lead to similar analyses, for example when applied to word pairs like the following, 

which may coexist within one language: 

(9) a. Fr. brioche > Ital. brioche (DO) 

b. Ital. brioscia (DO) 

While in both approaches the form in (9a), Ital. brioche, would be classified as a 

foreign word, the form in (9b), Ital. brioscia, would be analyzed as an assimilated 

loanword. However, there are also problematic examples: 

(10)a. Fr. bureau > Germ. Bureau [by'ro:] 

b. Germ. Büro [by'ro:] 

c. Germ. Büro ['bʏro] 

(DUDEN, EWDS, Munske 1983: 578-579, Nüssler 1987: 111) 

Here we have three TL forms. The form Bureau was mainly used in an earlier 

period of time, when the borrowing was recent. It is relatively unproblematic to analyze 

it as a foreign word, given that it closely corresponds to the SL form and at the same 

time contains patterns such as word-final stress and the graphemes and 

(corresponding to /o:/ and /y/ respectively), which are non-native with respect to the 

German system. 5 The latter two forms represent variants that are both largely used 

today. The last form can easily be analyzed as an assimilated loanword, as considerable 

changes with respect to the French form have taken place, and non-native patterns are 

substituted by native patterns (e.g. the form shows trochaic stress and contains the 

graphemes and corresponding to /o:/ and /y/). 6 Particularly problematic, however, 

is the middle form Germ. Büro [by'ro:], which is partially changed with respect to 

the French form, but at the same time, not fully integrated with respect to the German 

system. As Fig. 2 shows, the two criteria lead to divergent analyses here: 

5 Nevertheless, even here some objections could be made with respect to the first criterion: While we find 

the uvular fricative [ʁ] in French standard pronunciation, there are various allophones of the phoneme /r/ 

in German that may be realized. It could be argued that the difference between these realizations is not 

phonologically relevant, and that a possible substitution is just a minimal change between parallel items 

from the systems of the SL and TL. With similar justifications, such substitutions are frequently passed 

over in studies of loanword integration (compare e.g. Volland 1986: 57). Another imperfection in the 

correspondence to the SL form concerns the first letter, which is changed into a capital letter in German 

Bureau. Carstensen (1968: 37) admits this particular type of orthographic change as an exception (which, 

however, could also be considered as problematic), so that, according to him, a classification as a foreign 

word is still possible. 

6 Nevertheless, in this case an objection to the second criterion could be made because of the final -o. 

However, Munske (1983: 577) argues that an elaborated vowel system of non-primary stress syllables 

already forms part of a central system of German, so that an analysis as an assimilated loanword seems 

possible. 

162

163 


Fig. 2: The distinction of foreign words and loanwords according to Carstensen 

(1968) and Kiesler (1993) 

distinction based 

on conformity to 

SL form 

(Carstensen) 

distinction based 

on conformity to 

TL system 

(Kiesler) 

foreign words (assimilated) loanwords 

Ital. brioche, Germ. 

Bureau [by'ro:] Germ. Büro [by'ro:] 

Ital. brioscia, Germ. 

Büro ['bʏro] 

= � = 

foreign words (ass.) loanwords 

Ital. brioche, Germ. 

Ital. brioscia, Germ. 

Bureau [by'ro:] Germ. Büro [by'ro:] Büro ['bʏro] 

Carstensen would analyze Germ. Büro [by'ro:] as an assimilated loanword, as 

the spelling is considerably changed with respect to the French form. According to the 

criterion adopted by Kiesler, in contrast, this form would be analyzed as a foreign word, 

as the stress pattern deviates from native German words. At this point it seems 

problematic to decide which criterion should be accorded priority, and which definition 

should be preferred. Furthermore, the general relation between the two criteria and the 

implications of their distinction need to be investigated in some more detail. 

Two criteria of conformity 

After laying out a distinction between two criteria of conformity that can be 

applied to loanwords and loanword integration, I now want to examine them more 

closely in order to specify their characteristics and show to what extent they can be seen 

as complementary. I will then discuss typical and ‘untypical’ combinations of specific 

values of both criteria, and return to the definition of foreign words and assimilated 

loanwords in order to propose a revised definition of these categories. Finally I will 

consider the diachronic development of borrowed forms in the TL and discuss how 

processes of loanword integration relate to the two criteria. 

1.1 Methodological aspects 

The first criterion that has been shown to be relevant for loanword studies is the 

criterion of CONFORMITY TO THE SOURCE LANGUAGE FORM. This criterion inherently 

involves language comparison, as it involves a comparison between SL forms and their 

TL equivalents. The second criterion of CONFORMITY TO THE TARGET LANGUAGE 

SYSTEM, in contrast, assesses the status of borrowed words or single features of 

borrowed words within the system of the TL. This means that a language-internal 

perspective is adopted. Thus, the distinction of the two criteria has important methodological 

corollaries. When studying conformity to the SL form, the main goal consists in 

establishing relations between SL and TL elements, e.g. phonemes or graphemes. This 

means that a previous segmentation of the SL and TL forms is required:

165 


- nonconformity to the SL form + conformity to the TL system (NCSF + CTS) = 

LOANWORD INTEGRATION and 

- conformity to the SL form + non-conformity to the TL system (CSF + NCTS) = 

TRANSFERENCE. 

These combinations, however, leave open two alternative options, which are 

often not clearly indicated in research literature: 

- conformity to the SL form + conformity to the TL system (CSF + CTS) = 

CORRESPONDENCE and 

- nonconformity to the SL form + nonconformity to the TL system (NCSF + 

NCTS) = HYPER-FOREIGNISMS. 

Combining the two criteria, we thus obtain a simple and more comprehensive 

system for analyzing loanwords. Fig. 3 provides an overview of the four options: 

Fig. 3: Possible combinations of the two types of conformity 

conformity to the 

target language 

system (CTS) 

non-conformity to 

the target language 

system (NCTS) 

conformity to the source 

language form (CSF) 

CORRESPONDENCE: 

/t, a,…/, , ,… in Ital. tango 

(< Span. tango), , in Fr. 

wagon (< Engl. wagon) 

TRANSFERENCE: 

in Fr. wagon 

(< Engl. wagon) 

non-conformity to the source 

language form (NCSF) 

LOANWORD INTEGRATION: 

in Span. esquí 

(< Engl. ski) 

HYPER-FOREIGNISMS: 

in Fr. bifteck 

(< Engl. beef steak) 

The first option is represented by CORRESPONDENCE: a certain structure of a 

borrowed item may conform to the system of the TL without being changed from the 

original form. This option is very frequent in closely related languages, like e.g. Spanish 

and Italian, as the borrowing of tango illustrates. In this example, all phonemes and 

graphemes are both conform to the original Spanish form and to the Italian language 

system. Nevertheless, even if such nearly perfect correspondences are relatively rare, 

there are many cases of partial correspondences, in which certain elements of the 

borrowed form can be kept during the borrowing process without deviating from the TL 

system. In the borrowing of Engl. wagon to Fr. wagon (PR, LAR), the graphemes 

and as well as the phonemes /g/ and /n/ illustrate such correspondences. 

However, in this borrowing we can also detect a second option, the conservation 

of non-native structures or TRANSFERENCE (Volland 1986). The grapheme is kept 

in the borrowing process as well, but contrarily to and , it does not conform to 

the graphematic system of French (in fact, it only occurs in borrowed forms). 

In other cases, non-native structures may not be tolerated, that is, they may be 

changed to conform to the system of the TL. This option of LOANWORD INTEGRATION is 

illustrated by many of the examples cited above, e.g. Span. esquí, where is 

substituted by . Furthermore, an epenthesis is realized, which is reflected by the 

spelling of the Spanish form ( added). 

Finally, there are cases in which elements of a borrowed item are substituted by 

other elements which themselves do not conform to the native structures of the 

borrowing language (HYPER-FOREIGNISMS, see Hock & Joseph 1996: 270). For example,


the grapheme in Fr. bifteck (PR, LAR, DHLF) can neither be explained by 

referring to the English form (containing ), nor can it be led back to an integration 

process yielding an integrated form (as is non-native with respect to the 

graphematic system of French). Certainly such substitutions are not very frequent, and 

in fact they are not mentioned in most traditional and current studies of loanwords. 

Nevertheless, recent studies show that they can be observed in a broad range of 

languages (e.g. Janda, Joseph & Jacobs 1994), which provides further evidence for the 

usefulness of distinguishing and combining the two criteria. 

1.3 The definition of Fremdwort and Lehnwort in the restricted sense 

In 1.3, I have left open the question of how Fremdwort and Lehnwort in the 

restricted sense should be defined. More precisely, I have left open the question whether 

one of the two criteria of conformity should be accorded priority, and if so, which. 

Reconsidering the different options given in Fig. 3 and the traditional use of the concept 

‘loanword integration’, I propose to regard conformity to the TL system as decisive. 

That is, Fremdwörter can be defined as words which fall either partially or fully into the 

category of transference. They keep at least one element of non-native structure in the 

borrowing process (e.g. word-final stress as in Germ. Büro [by'ro:]), while Lehnwörter 

in the restricted sense entirely conform to the TL system (e.g. Ital. tango). 

However, this does by no means imply that the criterion of conformity to the SL 

form is completely rejected. On the contrary, it seems possible to combine it with the 

other criterion and to introduce further subdivisions. Thereby we can distinguish nonintegrated 

Fremdwörter (e.g. Ital. brioche) vs. partially integrated Fremdwörter (e.g. 

Germ. Büro [by'ro:]) and Lehnwörter by correspondence (e.g. Ital. tango) vs. 

Lehnwörter by integration (e.g. Ital. brioscia). 

1.4 The diachronic development of borrowed words 

As illustrated in Fig. 3 above, the combination of the criteria permits us to 

capture the different processes that may occur during the situation of linguistic 

borrowing proper, when a TL speaker borrows a certain expression and uses it for the 

first time in the TL. In addition, I shall now argue that both criteria can also be applied 

to the further development of borrowed items in the TL, that is, to processes by which a 

borrowed item may be increasingly adapted to the structures of the TL (recall the 

example of Germ. Büro cited above in (10) as well as examples (5)-(8)). The following 

proposals to change borrowed words provide further examples (in the case of Queneau, 

with clearly humoristic intentions): 

(14) Fr. snobe (instead of snob, Etiemble 1964: 316) 

(15) Fr. tiquet (instead of ticket, Etiemble 1964: 316) 

(16) Fr. guidenappeur (instead of kidnapper, R. Queneau, Zazie: 108) 

(17) Fr. bloudjinnzes (instead of blue jeans, R. Queneau, Zazie: 48) 

As we enter a temporal dimension here, the two criteria of conformity are 

combined with a further, chronological aspect. This means that we obtain altogether 

three aspects that are relevant for loanword studies. They can be opposed as 

comparative (criterion of conformity to the SL form), synchronic-internal (criterion of 

166

171 


Fig. 5: An analysis of Germ. Bureau according to the two criteria of conformity 

graphemes 

Fr. 

Germ. 

CSF / NCSF NCSF CSF CSF CSF 

CTS / NCTS CTS CTS CTS NCTS 

phonemes 

Fr. / b y r o / 

Germ. / b y r o: / 

CSF / NCSF CSF CSF CSF NCSF 

CTS / NCTS CTS CTS CTS CTS 

grapheme-phoneme-correspondences 

Germ. ↔ /b/ ↔ /y/ ↔ /r/ ↔ /o:/ 

CTS / NCTS CTS NCTS CTS NCTS 

word stress 

Fr. σ 'σ 

Germ. σ 'σ 

CSF / NCSF CSF 

CTS / NCTS NCTS 

In addition to the phonemes and graphemes, the table includes the graphemephoneme-correspondences 

and word stress, as these patterns undergo changes in the 

further processes of integration. Our analysis permits us again to sort out all 

instantiations of the different combinations: 

CFS + CTS (CORRESPONDENCE): , 

/b/, /y/, /r/ 11 

NCFS + CTS (LOANWORD INTEGRATION): � 

/o/ � /o:/ 

CFS + NCTS (TRANSFERENCE): 

σ 'σ 

to which the grapheme-phoneme-correspondences, possible and impossible in the TL, 

can be added: 

CTS: ↔ /b/, ↔ /r/ 

NCTS: ↔ /y/, ↔ /o:/ 

As I have argued above, the first criterion is not analyzed for graphemephoneme-correspondences, 

since they are only indirectly influenced by the SL form. 

Such a treatment is additionally justified by the example of ↔ /y/, which shows 

that we can have grapheme-phoneme-correspondences that do not conform to the TL 

even if the concerned graphemes and phonemes themselves are conform to it. Nonnative 

graphemes or phonemes are therefore a sufficient (cf. ↔ /o:/), but not a 

11 I do not consider here changes in phonetic realization that are not phonologically relevant (e.g. 

concerning the different allophones of the phoneme /r/ in German).


necessary (cf. ↔ /y/) condition for having non-native grapheme-phonemecorrespondences. 

The application of the two criteria has provided a detailed analysis of the 

originally borrowed form Germ. Bureau. Now it is interesting to consider the further 

development of this form in the TL. While the structures which conform to the TL 

system (correspondences, loanword integrations) should be expected not to change, the 

structures still exhibiting non-native features can be assumed to be potentially affected 

by further integration processes. And in fact, in the further development of the form, 

these latter features systematically disappear. In Germ. Büro [by'ro:], the graphemes 

and are substituted by the TL conform graphemes and , so that TL 

conform grapheme-phoneme-correspondences ( ↔ /y/, ↔ /o:/) are yielded. 

These changes leave open only one feature that still does not conform to the TL: the 

stress pattern. And in fact, the word-final accent is changed into a native stress pattern 

('σ σ) in a further step of integration, by which the form Germ. Büro ['bʏro] is obtained. 

In addition, this change in word stress triggers an opening of the vowel and a loss of 

vowel length (/y:/ � /ʏ/, compare Volland 1986). 

In short, according to our expectations, processes of progressive loanword 

integration act upon certain structures of loanwords only, while other structures, which 

are already compliant to the TL, are not affected. The distinction and combination of the 

two criteria of conformity therefore may contribute to a better understanding of 

diachronic processes of progressive integration of loanwords, as it permits us to locate 

these processes more precisely within the forms concerned. 

Concluding remarks 

Our review of the traditional literature on linguistic borrowing and loanword 

integration has shown that several fundamental issues have remained problematic up to 

now. Haugen’s distinction of importation and substitution is widely accepted, but, as 

Haugen himself acknowledges, it raises problems when applied to certain kinds of 

loanwords. In a similar way, the concept of loanword integration has not sufficiently 

been elaborated, and the distinction of Fremdwort and Lehnwort in the restricted sense 

has given rise to controversial discussions. In order to solve these problems, I have 

argued that we should distinguish two types of conformity that can be assessed in 

studies of loanwords and loanword integration: CONFORMITY TO THE SOURCE LANGUAGE 

FORM and CONFORMITY TO THE TARGET LANGUAGE SYSTEM. The criteria can each take 

two possible values (conformity vs. nonconformity). Both have been referred to in 

earlier studies, but they have not been systematically opposed to each other and 

combined up to now. I have tried to show that their distinction not only permits us to 

reconsider well-known cases of LOANWORD INTEGRATION and TRANSFERENCE, but also 

to focus on CORRESPONDENCES as well as HYPER-FOREIGNISMS. In addition, the criteria 

can be used to refer to both the initial stage of linguistic borrowing and further 

developments of borrowed words within the TL. In a nutshell, they can be applied to 

both synchronic and diachronic issues, and they may thus permit us to describe more 

precisely the structure of loanwords and phenomena of loanword integration. 

172

References: 

173 


Betz, W. (1959). Lehnwörter und Lehnprägungen im Vor- und Frühdeutschen. In 

Maurer, F. & Stroh, F. (eds.), Deutsche Wortgeschichte. 2., neubearbeitete 

Auflage, Bd. I, 127-147. Berlin: de Gruyter. 

Betz, W. (1974). Lehnwörter und Lehnprägungen im Vor- und Frühdeutschen. In 

Maurer, F. & Rupp, H. (eds.), Deutsche Wortgeschichte. 3., neubearbeitete Auflage, 

Vol. I, 135-163. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 

[Betz, W.] (1975). Lehnwortschatz. In Stammerjohann, H. (ed.), Handbuch der 

Linguistik. Allgemeine und angewandte Sprachwissenschaft, 250-251. München: 

Nymphenburger. 

Blánar, V. (1968). Die Einbürgerung entlehnter Wörter in graphischer Darstellung. 

Travaux linguistiques de Prague 3, 155-178. 

Blank, A. (1995). Lexikalische Entlehnung – Sprachwandel – Sprachvergleich: 

Beispiele aus dem Computer-Wortschatz. In Schmitt, C. & Schweickard, W. 

(eds.), Die romanischen Sprachen im Vergleich. Akten der gleichnamigen 

Sektion des Potsdamer Romanistentags, 38-69. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. 

Carstensen, B. (1968). Zur Systematik und Terminologie deutsch-englischer Lehnbeziehungen. 

In Brekle, H. E. & Lipka, L. (eds.), Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie. 

Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Hans Marchand am 1. Oktober 1967, 

32-45. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. 

Carstensen, B. (1981). Lexikalische Scheinentlehnungen des Deutschen aus dem Englischen. 

In Kühlwein, W. et al. (eds.), Kontrastive Linguistik und Übersetzungswissenschaft. 

Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Trier/Saarbrücken, 25. – 

30.9.1978, 175-182. München: Fink. 

Clahsen, H. et al. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German 

noun plurals. Cognition 45, 225-255. 

CLC = Ramsay, S. & Lozano-Hemmer, R. Ciber-Lexico Comparativo. Comparative 

CyberLexicon. . Updated on 05-07- 

2001. 

Daneš, F. (1966). The Relation of Center and Periphery as a Language Universal. 

Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2, 9-21. 

DELI = Cortelazzo, M. & Zolli, P. (1999). Il nuovo etimologico. DELI – Dizionario 

etimologico della lingua italiana. 2 nd ed. Bologna: Zanichelli. 

DHLF = Rey, A. (1998). Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. 3 Vols. Paris: 

Dictionnaires Le Robert. 

DICIO = Ferreira, A. M. C. Dicionário do Internetês. 

. Updated on 08-18-1995. 

DLE = Real Academia Española (1992). Diccionario de la lengua española. 21 st ed. 

Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 

DO = Devoto, G. & Oli, G. C. (2000). Il Dizionario della lingua italiana. Edizione 

2000-2001 con CD-ROM. Firenze: Le Monnier. 

Duckworth, D. (1977). Zur terminologischen und systematischen Grundlage der Forschung 

auf dem Gebiet der englisch-deutschen Interferenz. Kritische Übersicht 

und neuer Vorschlag. In Kolb, H. & Lauffer, H. (eds.), Sprachliche Interferenz. 

Festschrift für Werner Betz zum 65. Geburtstag, 36-56. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 

DUDEN = Duden. Rechtschreibung der deutschen Sprache(1996). 21., völlig neu 

bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Herausgegeben von der Dudenredaktion.

175 


LaCharité, D. & Paradis, C. (2005). Category Preservation and Proximity versus 

Phonetic Approximation in Loanword Adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36/2, 223- 

258. 

LAR = Le Petit Larousse illustré (1999). Paris: Larousse. 

Meisenburg, T. (1993). Graphische und phonische Integration von Fremdwörtern am 

Beispiel des Spanischen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 11, 47-67. 

Meisenburg, T. (1996). Romanische Schriftsysteme im Vergleich. Eine diachrone 

Studie. Tübingen: Narr. 

MOL = Moliner, M. (1994). Diccionario de uso del español. 2 Vols. 2 nd ed. Madrid: 

Gredos. 

Munske, H. H. (1983). Zur Fremdheit und Vertrautheit der ‘Fremdwörter’ im Deutschen. 

In Peschel, D. (ed.), Germanistik in Erlangen. Hundert Jahre nach der 

Gründung des Deutschen Seminars, 559-595. Erlangen: Universitätsbund 

Erlangen-Nürnberg. 

Munske, H. H. (1988). Ist das Deutsche eine Mischsprache? Zur Stellung der Fremdwörter 

im deutschen Sprachsystem. In Munske, H. H. et al. (eds.), Deutscher 

Wortschatz. Lexikologische Studien. Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 80. Geburtstag 

von seinen Marburger Schülern, 46-74. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 

Nüssler, O. (1987). Zum Problem einer Reform der Fremdwortorthographie aus der Perspektive 

der Fachsprachen. In Zabel, H. (ed.), Fremdwortorthographie. Beiträge 

zu historischen und aktuellen Fragestellungen, 111-125. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 

OALD = Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1989). Oxford: Oxford University 

Press. 

Peperkamp, S. & Dupoux, E. (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: The role of 

perception. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 

2003, 367-370. 

Polenz, P. von (1967). Fremdwort und Lehnwort sprachwissenschaftlich betrachtet. 

Muttersprache 77, 65-80. 

PR = Rey, A. & Rey-Debove, J. (2000). Le nouveau Petit Robert. Dictionnaire alphabétique 

et analogique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert. 

Rose, Y. & Demuth, K. (2006). Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation: Representational 

and phonetic considerations. Lingua 116, 1112-1139. 

Scherner, M. (1974). Die Begriffe zur Gliederung des sprachlichen Lehngutes. Archiv 

für Begriffsgeschichte 18, 262-282. 

Schottmann, H. (1977). Die Beschreibung der Interferenz. In Kolb, H. & Lauffer, H. 

(eds.), Sprachliche Interferenz. Festschrift für Werner Betz zum 65. Geburtstag, 

13-35. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 

Uspensky, B. A. & Zhivov, V. M. (1977). Center-Periphery Opposition and Language 

Universals. Linguistics 196, 5-24. 

Vachek, J. (1966). On the Integration of the Peripheral Elements into the System of 

Language. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2, 23-37. 

Vendelin, I. & Peperkamp, S. (2006). The influence of orthography on loanword 

adaptations. Lingua 116, 996-1007. 

Volland, B. (1986). Französische Entlehnungen im Deutschen. Transferenz und Integration 

auf phonologischer, graphematischer, morphologischer und lexikalischsemantischer 

Ebene. Tübingen: Niemeyer.


Wegener, H. (1999). Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen – ein Versuch im Rahmen der 

Optimalitätstheorie. Linguistik online 4, 3/99. . 

Wegener, H. (2002). Zur Funktion des s-Plurals im heutigen Deutsch. In Wiesinger, P. 

(ed.), Akten des X. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Wien 2000 „Zeitenwende 

– Die Germanistik auf dem Weg vom 20. ins 21. Jahrhundert“. Vol. 2: 

Entwicklungstendenzen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Lexikologie und 

Lexikographie, 109-116. Bern et al.: Lang. 

Wegener, H. (2003). Normprobleme bei der Pluralbildung fremder und nativer 

Substantive. Linguistik online 16, 4/03. . 

Wegener, H. (2004). Pizzas und Pizzen – die Pluralformen (un)assimilierter Fremdwörter 

im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23, 47-112. 

Wichmann, S. & Wohlgemuth, J. (in press). Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In 

Stolz, T., Palomo, R. & Bakker, D. (eds.), Romancisation Worldwide. Berlin, 

New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 

(15.2.2006). 

Wienold, G. (1968). Sprachlicher Kontakt und Integration. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 

35, 209-218. 

Winter, E. (2005). Zum Verhältnis sprachkontaktinduzierter Innovationen, lexikalischer 

Entlehnungen und fremder Wörter – zugleich ein Beitrag zu ‘Lehnschöpfung’ 

und ‘Scheinentlehnung’. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 56, 31-62. 

Winter, E. (in press). Ital. browser = span. hojeador = frz. butineur? Strategien des 

Umgangs mit sprachlicher Fremdheit im Kontext von Entlehnung und Übersetzung. 

In Gramatzki, S. et al. (eds.), Trennstrich oder Brückenschlag? Über- 

Setzen als literarisches und linguistisches Phänomen. Beiträge zum XX. Forum 

Junge Romanistik, Wuppertal, 2. – 5. Juni 2004. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. 

Zazie = Queneau, R. (1959): Zazie dans le métro. Paris: Folio. 

ZI = Zingarelli, N. (2000): Lo Zingarelli 2001. Vocabolario della lingua italiana. 12 th 

ed. Bologna: Zanichelli. 

Esme Winter-Froemel 

Romanisches Seminar 

Universität Tübingen 

Wilhelmstraße 50 

D-72074 Tübingen 

Germany 

esme.winter-froemel@uni-tuebingen.de 

176

156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?