23.11.2012 Views

156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Winter-Froemel<br />

they lead to similar analyses, for example when applied to word pairs like the following,<br />

which may coexist within one language:<br />

(9) a. Fr. brioche > Ital. brioche (DO)<br />

b. Ital. brioscia (DO)<br />

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

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

loanword. However, there are also problematic examples:<br />

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

b. Germ. Büro [by'ro:]<br />

c. Germ. Büro ['bʏro]<br />

(DUDEN, EWDS, Munske 1983: 578-579, Nüssler 1987: 111)<br />

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

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

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

time contains patterns such as word-final stress and the graphemes and <br />

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

German system. 5 The latter two forms represent variants that are both largely used<br />

today. The last form can easily be analyzed as an assimilated loanword, as considerable<br />

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

substituted by native patterns (e.g. the form shows trochaic stress and contains the<br />

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

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

the French form, but at the same time, not fully integrated with respect to the German<br />

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

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

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

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

phonologically relevant, and that a possible substitution is just a minimal change between parallel items<br />

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

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

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

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

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

word is still possible.<br />

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

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

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

possible.<br />

162

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!