156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

171 Winter-Froemel 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).
Winter-Froemel 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
Page 1 and 2: STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INT
Page 3: Winter-Froemel In my view, Haugen i
Page 6 and 7: 161 Winter-Froemel 1974: 264-267),
Page 8: 163 Winter-Froemel Fig. 2: The dist
Page 11: Winter-Froemel the grapheme in Fr.
Page 20 and 21: 175 Winter-Froemel LaCharité, D. &

156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?