156 STUDYING LOANWORDS AND LOANWORD INTEGRATION ...

163
Winter-Froemel
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: