156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

Winter-Froemel
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