156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...
156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...
156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...
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