Holistic loanword integration and loanword acceptance A comparative study of anglicisms in German and Japanese Johannes Scherling Anglicisms, i.e. English-based loanwords, are a much discussed topic in many language communities. Their rise in number over the past few decades has led to anxieties about their perceived lexical dominance gradually ousting ‘native’ words and about the ‘corruption’ of the language. These fears can be seen as relating, at least partly, to the degree of integration a loanword has undergone. Words that retain both their English spelling and pronunciation are much more salient than words that have become assimilated to the receiver language’s phonological and morphological system. This paper compares the different graphemic, phonological and morphological processes of integration in two languages, viz. German and Japanese. German, by and large, borrows anglicisms in their original spelling, with their pronunciation being relatively close to the original. Japanese, in contrast, due to its particular syllabic structure and different writing system, immediately assimilates loanwords into its system, making it much more difficult to perceive them as ‘foreign’ and thus foregrounding their function rather than their etymology. 1. Introduction Loanwords are a natural phenomenon of language. These lexical items are so-called contact phenomena (cf. Muhr 2002: 11f.), emerging through language contact in what Loveday (1996: 17) terms a “distant or dominant non-bilingual setting”, where “the community maintains no community-wide relations with speakers of the donor language and […] does not require the acquisition of that language” and where contact “is usually limited to lexical borrowing.” Loanwords may fulfill various functions, AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 38 (2013) · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Johannes Scherling 38 including the filling of lexical gaps “economically through donor transfer rather than recipient resources,” the drawing on the - often stereotypical - prestige that a certain language has (e.g. Italian as the language of (classical) music, French as the language of love, or nowadays English with its popular associations of modernity, freedom and internationality), or the obfuscating of unwanted content, e.g. in the context of taboo words of a sexual nature (cf. Loveday 1996: 190; Stanlaw 2005: 16ff.). Loanwords are by no means an entirely new phenomenon, but have always been a by-product of language and culture contact. However, due to the emergence of new media, most notably the Internet, and the accelerating process of globalization, language contact has dramatically increased over the past few decades, which has led to the adoption and creation of loanwords, particularly English-based loanwords, on a much larger scale. This has caused considerable uproar in some language communities, who fear for their linguistic and cultural identities (cf. Pfalzgraf 2006: 59ff.). For the purpose of this paper, German and Japanese have been chosen as objects of comparison because their speech communities maintain a purist notion of their respective languages to the effect that foreign ‘intrusions’ into the lexicon tend to be evaluated negatively (treated extensively in Befu 1991; Pfalzgraf 2006; Watanabe 1974). Besides, as members of the Axis-powers in WWII Japan and Germany (and Austria) share a common history in their relationships to English-speaking countries. German is exemplary of a language community in which the discussion of the influence of English-based lexical items, so-called anglicisms, has been led on a rather emotional level. This is for example demonstrated by numerous letters to the editor in various local newspapers, whose authors generally deplore the use and extent of such loanwords, as well as by many public and private societies whose purpose it is to guarantee that the German language remains ‘German’ (cf. Muhr 2002: 20ff; Kettemann 2002: 64ff.; Pfalzgraf 2006). Loanwords, and particularly anglicisms, are in such discourses usually seen as a sign of degradation and decay, as instances of a ‘sloppy’ use of German, as well as proof of a lack of pride, or self-confidence, of German native speakers, respectively (cf. Kurzmann 2002). Contrary to the predominantly negative attitude towards anglicisms in society, recent research (e.g. Kettemann 2002) has put things in perspective by showing how small their numbers actually are.In Japanese and its language community, on the other hand, anglicisms do not seem to have caused any major commotion or indignation. The main proponents of a purist stance in Japan are scholars, who engage in a discourse that mystifies Japanese words as an entity “pulling at [the] heart strings” (Watanabe 1974: 18), while the general population - though sometimes critical of the amount of borrowing - does not believe that eliminating them from the lexicon is a desirable option (cf. Scherling Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 39 2012: 140ff.; Olah 2007: 183f.). What is more, there appears to be a “general lack of concern with the current level of [English-based loanword] use” (Tomoda 2005: 142). The different popular and academic perceptions of, and attitudes towards, anglicisms in the Japanese and German language communities are surprising if we take a look at the actual proportions of anglicisms in these two languages: Kettemann (2002: 60) estimates that only 1% of all words in the German language are anglicisms, while in the Japanese language, their numbers are thought to be as high as 10% (cf. Scherling 2012: 54ff.; Stanlaw 2005: 12f.). Nevertheless, anglicisms seem to be much more accepted and used with more ease in the latter. I propose that one major reason for the different degrees of acceptance and adoption of anglicisms in the two languages is the extent of linguistic integration, which greatly differs in these two cases. While in Japanese, this integration happens on all levels - orthography, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics - and affects all loanwords on arrival, in the German case, English-based loanwords are imported or created with a high degree of similarity both on an orthographic and on a phonological level. It is these differences in integration that this paper is concerned with and that will be investigated more closely in the following, and it is this ease of loanword adoption that I argue is a major reason for why loanwords are treated as a much more natural phenomenon in Japanese than in German. 2. Orthography and phonology 2.1. Phonological integration in Japanese Japanese uses a complex orthography based on four distinct writing systems - Chinese characters (or Kanji), two phonetically-based syllabaries known as Hiragana and Katakana, and the Latin alphabet. The writing system used for the representation of non-Chinese loanwords is the Katakana syllabary and any loanword entering the language must be represented in Katakana. Along with this orthographic adaptation goes the phonological change that is required by Japanese phonotactic rules so that these new words can actually be represented through the syllabic writing system (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 73ff.). When this adaptation is complete, it “makes [loanwords] phonologically indistinguishable from native Japanese words” (Nian 2011: 100). Two major processes that this adaptation entails are the insertion of vowels to break up consonant clusters and the substitution of sounds that are non-phonemic in Japanese. Johannes Scherling 40 2.1.1. Vowel epenthesis Japanese phonotactics are based on a syllabic structure which does neither permit consonant clusters - i.e. every consonant has to be followed by a vowel - nor syllables ending in a consonant - i.e. closed syllables (with the exception of syllables ending in / n/ ) (cf. Nian 2011: 100; Stanlaw 2005: 73). The only syllables permitted are therefore V and CV. Any foreign-based lexeme that does not correspond to this particular phonological structure is thus immediately modified by the insertion of vowels (mostly / u/ , less frequently / i/ , / a/ , / o/ ) dissolving consonant clusters or preventing a consonant ending. The choice of the epenthetic vowel here depends on the phonological environment, i.e. it is “influenced by the vowel placed before or after it” (Nian 2011: 100). / u/ is inserted after most final consonants, / o/ after final stops / t/ and / d/ (e.g. Engl. hot  Jap. hotto; Engl. target  Jap. ta-getto), and / i/ after / dʒ/ or / tʃ/ (e.g. Engl. bridge  Jap. burijji; Engl. sponge  Jap. suponji) (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 74). Therefore, a word like Christmas - with its consonant clusters and its consonant ending - is rendered as kurisumasu in order to comply with the phonotactic requirements of Japanese. The processes modifying this loanword phonologically and orthographically can be summarized as follows: Engl. Christmas / krɪsməs/  breaking up of consonant clusters, insertion of vowels  k(+u)ris(+u)mas(+u)  ku-ri-su-ma-su  rendition into Katakana syllabary  クリスマス Other examples include: Engl. crystal  k(+u)ris(+u)tar(+u)  Jap. kurisutaru Engl. friendly  h(+u)-re-n-d(o)-ri-  Jap. hurendori- Engl. damage  da-me-j(+i)  Jap. dame-ji (the hyphen indicates a long vowel). Phonological integration happens automatically when a loanword is used as such, orthographic integration as soon as the new term is first represented in writing, but both happen instantaneously, i.e. there is no period in time where English-based loanwords retain their original pronunciation or spelling, but they are immediately assimilated to the phonological structure of Japanese. Their origins thus become imperceptible to native speakers of English. So perfect is the integration into the language that studies have shown that sometimes not even Japanese native speakers are aware of the fact that they are using an English-based lexical item (cf. Gabrielli 2005). Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 41 2.1.2. Sound substitution Given the differences between the Japanese and the English phonemic repertoires, there is the question of how to deal with sounds and sound combinations in loanwords that are not permitted in Japanese, for example, / θ/ , / tɪ/ , / dɪ/ , the distinction between / l/ and / r/ or between voiced / z/ and voiceless / s/ etc. These sounds are subjected to a process of replacement with approximate sounds in Japanese. An example of sound substitution is the phrase thank you, which has been imported into Japanese and is pronounced as sankyu-, i.e. / θ/ is replaced by / s/ . (there is no epenthetic vowel between k and the ensuing palatal glide y (/ j/ ); usually, it should be sanku yu-, but in Japanese ku and yu are merged into kyu). Other renderings of / θ/ are / ʃ/ (as in shinku tanku, ‘think tank’), / t/ (tema, ‘theme’), / ts/ (tsuriumu, ‘thulium’) (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 74). Another sound that is not phonemic in Japanese is / v/ , which is realized as / b/ , as in Engl. volunteer  borantia. Non-phonemic vowels are equally affected by sound substitutions. English vowels like / æ/ or / ə/ are replaced by similar, phonemic sounds in Japanese, e.g. Engl. bat  Jap. batto, Engl. personal  Jap. pa-sonaru, Engl. private  Jap. puraibe-to (cf. Nian 2011: 101). Recently, however, the influence of English-based loanwords has resulted in new phonemes like syllabary-intial v (e.g. ve, ヴぇ ) or f (before a, e, i, o, e.g. fo, フォ ) being added to the Japanese phonetic inventory, enabling previously impossible sound sequences like / ti, di, fa, fi, fe, fo/ for Western loanwords (cf. Nian 2011: 101), e.g. Engl. party  Jap. pa-ti-; Engl. fence  Jap. fensu; Engl. diesel  Jap. di-zeru. The use of these new phonemes, however, is strictly limited to loanwords (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 83ff.). The assimilation of unfamiliar sounds to the phonemic system is another major step towards the naturalization of a loanword in Japanese, and another step that occurs at the time of its first use. 2.1.3. Borrowing by visual or auditory channel According to Stanlaw (2005: 91f.), borrowing of English loanwords in Japanese happens by eye or by ear. Borrowing by eye means that loanwords are adopted on the basis of their spelling in the donor language. One reason for this, Stanlaw argues, is that much of the Japanese contact with English was - and in some ways still is - based on the written word, a fact that is epitomized by the grammar-translation method’s unbroken popularity in Japan (cf. Seargeant 2009: 45ff.). As a consequence, some new words are adopted based on their writing instead of their pronunciation (the two can sometimes differ greatly in English). Examples of borrowing by eye are: nyu-su ( ニュース ), ‘news’, in which the voiced / z/ in the final position of the English word is realized as a voiceless / s/ (and Johannes Scherling 42 complemented by a vowel to fulfill the requirements of Japanese phonotactics), therefore following its spelling. And motto- ( モットー ), ‘motto’, where the Japanese realization corresponds to the double (i.e. geminated) consonant in the spelling, which is realized in a way similar to a glottal stop - even though there is no glottal stop present in the actual articulation of the English word (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 92). Other examples of borrowing by eye (cf. Nian 2011: 102) are words that end in -age (image, damage), where the pronunciation in Japanese resembles the English pronunciation of the word age, even though the syllable -age in these words is unstressed, and the resemblance merely orthographic. Hence, Engl. image becomes Jap. ime-ji, and Engl. damage is realized as dame-ji. Such - at least partly - orthography-based pronunciation can be regarded as yet another step away from the original source word and therefore another step towards its integration into a different language system. Borrowing by ear, on the other hand, happens through aural exposure to a word and was particular prominent in the Meiji-Period (1868-1912), i.e. in the first stages of language contact between English and Japanese, and during the American occupation of Japan (1945-1952). Contact in these periods took place on a very personal level and “Japanese able to travel and study abroad, Japanese servants working in European households, Japanese teachers of English […], translators of European literature, and innovatory Japanese novelists transferring English into their work, contributed to the dissemination of English to varying degrees” (Loveday 1996: 69), which was in part based on the aural medium. Hence, in such cases, the pronunciation of a word by individuals serves as the source on which to base the phonetic realization of the respective loanword in Japanese. These loanwords frequently bear little resemblance to the original because their realization depends on the subjective perceptions by Japanese speakers. Examples in this category are: purin ( プリン ), ‘pudding’, where the alveolar stop / d/ was obviously perceived as a postalveolar flap, / ɽ / ; yu-ta-n ( ユーターン ), ‘u-turn’; mishin ( ミシン ), ‘machine’ (meaning ‘sewing machine’); suka-to ( スカート ), ‘skirt’, all of which were clearly borrowed by ear based on their perceived pronunciation (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 92). The same applies for the example presented above: kurisumasu, where the t from Christmas is elided, as it would be in English. 2.2. Phonological integration in German The aforementioned two phenomena do not seem to feature in anglicisms in the German language, where they are usually both orthographically and phonologically based on the English model, e.g. Engl. teen is adopted orthographically as teen, and phonologically as / ti: n/ , which is largely identical to its realization in the English language. While the phonological integration of loanwords in Japanese is self-evident (due to the need Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 43 to adapt them to the syllabic writing system and the restraints of Japanese phonotactics), in German the case is not so clear. Hausmann (2006: 41) argues that the question of whether English-based loanwords in German are actually phonologically integrated into the German sound system is still a matter of debate. But even those who propose that such integration takes place limit this claim only to single phonemes in individual cases. For the English word upload, for example, which is realized in German as uploaden, the diphthong is sometimes replaced in German by the monophthong / o/ . On the other hand, English phonemes formerly not a part of the German phonetic system have been added to it in order to prevent the emergence of homophones, as in Leser and Laser, the latter of which is sometimes realized as a diphthong not normally part of German, i.e. / eɪ/ (Hausmann 2006: 41). Some German speakers even choose to maintain the English pronunciation to indicate to others that they have a command of the English language or that they are aware of the word’s origin (Pittner 2001: 4). Of course, in cases where the function of the loanword is its association with the donor language (English, in this case), the retaining of the original pronunciation is to keep these associations alive. Pittner demonstrates that, by and large, English-based loanwords have adapted to German phonology, as in words like Multimedia or Mikrochip. However, she also maintains that more recently, there has been an increasing tendency to pronounce such words based on their original pronunciation, e.g. Jazz or Curry. As far as orthographic adaptation is concerned, a general trend towards a complete remodeling to conform to phonological orthography - e.g. to render comeback as Kammbeck, or hitch-hike as Hitschhaik - does not seem to be happening, whereas small adaptations are being made to bring orthography and pronunciation closer together, as in antörnen instead of anturnen or recyceln instead of recyclen (cf. Pittner 2001: 5). Generally speaking, English orthography seems to be retained for a longer period of time than it used to be the case (cf. Schippan 1992: 265, cited in Hausmann 2006: 40). Graphemic integration, if it occurs at all, takes the form of an ad-hoc replacement of graphemes by individual speakers (cf. Hausmann 2006: 40), meaning that it does not become the accepted form of the speech community. The standard argument for this is that a change in orthography cannot be achieved by individuals, but has to be established by the respective authorities (cf. Hausmann 2006: 41). It is evident that there is a clear difference in the way of integrating English-based loanwords on the graphemic and phonological levels. While Japanese assimilates these terms immediately into Japanese orthography and phonology, in German they retain their original form much longer - if not indefinitely - and are only adjusted to the German orthographic system if a speaker consciously decides to do so. Such efforts, however, remain idiosyncratic and do not normally become estab- Johannes Scherling 44 lished choices (cf. Hausmann 2006: 40). Hausmann (2006: 42) concludes that “die lautliche Anpassung von Anglizismen inzwischen vor allem von der sprachlichen Kompetenz und der Absicht der einzelnen Sprecher abhängt und offenbar keine allgemeingültige Aussage zur Aussprache getroffen werden kann.” Phonological and orthographical integration of English-based loanwords therefore seems to be occurring in a much more systematic way in Japanese than in German, where the time frame for these adaptations is much longer, and where these adaptations do not seem to be following any visible pattern. While in Japanese, this integration happens automatically, in German - because of its similar orthography and basic phonological structure - it requires - with regards to orthography - a conscious act, and therefore entails unfavorable notions of prescriptivism. 3. Morphology New loanwords are also normally adapted to the morphological system of the recipient language. The extent of this integration can vary greatly, resulting in a more or less deep integration. 3.1. Morphological integration in Japanese Following an established morpho-syntactic pattern for integrating loanwords in Japanese (described in Loveday 1996: 40ff.), the latter are treated “as uninflected nouns or bound bases that do not belong to a word class, but which are potentially convertible to any class by means of suffixation” (Loveday 1996: 138), even though there tends to be a correlation with the syntactic features a word has in English. This use of foreign language material regardless of their original morphological class distinction, Loveday maintains (1996: 140), is based on the centuries-old model of the adoption of morphologically unmarked and flexible Chinese bases. Examples are Engl. happy  Jap. happina (na-adjective); Engl. enjoy  Jap. enjoi suru (verbal noun, i.e. enjoi serves as a noun, verbalized through the auxiliary suru, ‘to do’); Engl. bride  buraido (noun). There are, however, also exceptions to this traditional pattern, most notably that of nouns or adjectives used as verbs (Engl. cunning  Jap. kanningu suru), of adjectives used as nouns (Engl. young  Jap. yangu, ‘young people’), and that of the compounding of noun and preposition resulting in a pseudo-loanword (Engl. goal + in  Jap. go-ru in, ‘to score a goal’) (cf. Loveday 1996: 139). Other major processes of morphological integration include compounding, clipping and the formation of hybrids. Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 45 3.1.1. Compounding and blending These two processes in Japanese are closely linked because blending usually immediately follows compounding for longer lexemes. Therefore, word processor was imported into Japanese as wa-do purosessa-, then blended into wa-puro. Due to the morphosyntactic pattern of loanword integration mentioned above, a great variety of compounds is possible in Japanese (cf. Loveday 1996: 142ff.): ‣ Noun + noun: image + change = ime-ji chenji ‣ Noun + preposition: image + up/ down = ime-ji appu/ daun ‣ Preposition + noun: over + doctor = o-badokuta- ‣ Noun + verb: engine + stop = enjin sutoppu (often blended to ensuto) ‣ (Clipped) verb + noun: fry[ing] + pan = furaipan ‣ Adjective + noun: my + car = maika- ‣ Affixation: mis + copy = misukopi- ‣ Adjective + noun + noun: one + man + car = wanmanka- As can be seen, all of the above compounds are not actually English words to begin with, but rather so-called Made-in-Japan-English, i.e. pseudo-anglicisms only exploiting English language material on the surface. Since compounding is thought to be involved in the creation or import of about two thirds of all loanwords (cf. Stanlaw 2005: 75), the number of pseudo-anglicisms can be assumed to be similarly high. 3.1.2. Clipping Loanwords are frequently clipped, a process of shortening morphologically complex words by omitting the parts that are thought to be of secondary importance to the overall meaning. Like compounding and blending, clipping is often encountered in the Japanese language. It can be interpreted as a sign of a certain linguistic economy in Japanese (cf. Scherling 2012: 110). In compound words, sometimes only one part of a compound is clipped, as in Engl. mass communication  Jap. masukomi. Other examples (cf. Loveday 1996: 143) include: ‣ Clipping of single words: illustration  irasuto, building  biru, cash register  reji ‣ Compound with one clipped element: om[elette] + rice  omuraisu; body + con[scious]  bodikon Through clipping, loanwords are even further removed from the English ‘source’ and are therefore less likely to be identified as loanwords in the first place. Johannes Scherling 46 3.1.3. Hybrids Another productive word formation process for loanwords is hybridization. Hybrids are compounds consisting of Japanese elements combined with foreign elements. Hybridization is also frequently encountered in Chinese ‘loanwords’ (which have been in the language for more than 1,000 years already). Examples of this process are: shirobai (Jap. shiro ‘white’ + Engl. bi[ke], denoting the white motorbikes used by the Japanese police), kuchikomi (Jap. kuchi ‘mouth’ + Engl. com[munication], denoting oral face-to-face communication), tonkatsu (Jap. ton, ‘pork’ + Engl. cut[let], a pork cutlet fried in bread crumbs), or karaoke (Jap. kara, ‘empty’ + Engl. orche[stra]). As is demonstrated here, hybridization in most cases goes hand in hand with the clipping of the loanword, which adds to its naturalization in Japanese and to the backgrounding of any marked ‘foreign’ associations. What all of these processes share is that on the one hand they integrate loanwords into the morphological structure of Japanese, and on the other hand - due to the nature of the major word formation processes, namely clipping, blending and hybridization - they remodel foreign language material drastically and to such an extent that many of those - like in the examples above - are no longer discernible as loanwords. 3.2. Morphological integration in German The German language requires certain morphological adaptations as well, especially for verbs and nouns, since German has more inflections than English. Nouns, for example, need to be marked for number and case (marking on the lexeme itself is mostly limited to plural and genitive forms, though) and has to be assigned a grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, neuter). Therefore, one major integrational process concerns the addition of inflectional suffixes. 3.2.1. Inflectional adaptation Nouns, adjectives and verbs that are ‘borrowed’ from English need to be morphologically adapted so that they can be inflected according to German morpho-syntactic rules. Nouns Nouns, as mentioned, have to be assigned to a grammatical gender, which becomes visible in various linguistic elements grammatically agreeing with the noun, most notable the article. The allocation of gender in German usually uses analogy to formally or semantically similar existing words (cf. Burmasova 2010: 106f.), e.g. der Drink  der Trank, das Girl  das Mädchen, die SMS  die Nachricht, der Fight  der Kampf, etc. Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 47 As for plural forms, there is a tendency to apply an -s plural suffix, e.g. Drink - Drinks, Skateboard - Skateboards, Fan - Fans, which, as some linguists (cf. Zifonun 2002: 5 cited in Burmasova 2010: 104) claim, is an indication that such nouns are not yet established in the German language. However, others (e.g. Wegener 2003, cited in Burmasova 2010: 104; Lewtschenko 2005: 8) maintain that the -s plural form is already an established German plural form, as can be seen in cases like Opa - Opas, Oma - Omas, Mutti - Muttis, or Uhu - Uhus. Other plural forms, e.g. the zero-morphemic plural, are applied to nouns that end in a weakened [ɐ] sound (Computer, Designer, Entertainer), and in cases where the noun ends in -s, the plural form no longer follows the English example, but is realized according to native German plural rules by suffixation of -e or -en (e.g. der Boss - die Bosse vs. bosses in English; die Box - die Boxen vs. boxes in English) (cf. Burmasova 2010: 105). Adjectives Lewtschenko (2005: 9f.) maintains that English adjectives are often imported unchanged (e.g. happy, funny, overdressed). In predicative position (e.g. Sie war ganz happy), inflection for agreement can be avoided, which is why many ‘borrowed’ adjectives tend to be used this way. If used attributively, however, agreement becomes mandatory, which is particularly difficult if the adjective ends in -y. In this case, the adjective (e.g. happy) would have to be inflected by (at least) adding the suffix -e (as in hell - die helle Farbe), resulting in an impermissible syllable structure, the socalled hiatus (cf. Lewtschenko 2005: 10, citing Zifonum 2002: 5), i.e. *der happye Mann. Therefore, such adjectives are used almost exclusively in a predicative position, with the exception of certain adjectives like easy, which have also come to be used in an attributive position without inflectional ending, e.g. eine ganz easy Sache. In yet other cases, both English nouns turned into German adjectives as well as adjectives ending in -y have become morphologically adapted by adding the adjectival suffix -ig, e.g. freak - freakig, rock - rockig; funky - funkig, groovy - groovig (cf. Lewtschenko 2005: 10). Thus, there appear to be different levels of integration for different adjectives. Verbs The morphological integration of verbs is even more complex. The imported element functions as a bound base to which inflectional suffixes are added. Preterite and past participle forms of the verb then follow the pattern of weak verbs, as in ich skate, ich skatete, ich habe/ bin geskatet (cf. Lewtschenko 2005: 10f.). However, for some loan verbs, the formation of the participle is problematic as strictly following the German pattern results in a visible gap between spelling and pronunciation. One example for this is the verb timen, where the formation of the participle varies Johannes Scherling 48 orthographically: getimt, getimet, getimed are all possible past participle forms of the same verb. According to Abresch (2007: 71), this variation points to a certain insecurity in the morphological integration of some English verbs. But while there is some problem with a strict adherence to grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules with the example, the real issue is just one of orthographical integration because there is no actual problem with pronunciation itself as all three versions will be pronounced the same. In this particular case, getimt follows the German formational pattern for the participle, but its orthography suggests a different pronunciation (the long monophthong / i: / instead of a diphthong / aɪ/ ), while getimed combines German geand English -ed (both forms used for the past participle), but indicates - due to its closeness to English orthography - a diphthong as the intended pronunciation. Other problems include the inflection of verbs like updaten or downloaden, where it is not clear whether up or down should be treated as prefixes or whether the whole verb should be seen as monomorphemic, i.e. whether the participle should be gedownloaded or downgeloaded. And while such insecurities are not restricted to loan verbs - similar issues surface with German compound verbs like bauchlanden or bausparen - the morphological structure of loan verbs should be less transparent than that of German words because the English morphemes up or down are more difficult to interpret as having morphematic same in the German language (cf. also Kettemann 2006: 51f; Lewtschenko 2005: 11). 3.2.2. Other loanword-integration processes We can also witness some other integrative processes like clipping or hybrids, i.e. such that can also be encountered in Japanese. Clipping Like Japanese, German, too, has a tendency of shortening certain loanwords. This process of clipping produces results that are no longer understood in the donor language, e.g. professional  Profi, pullover  Pulli, fashionable  fesch (here we also see the rare instance of a orthographically marked phonological adaptation); teenager  Teen (cf. Carstensen: 156f.). Clipping also covers compounds in which one part is clipped or omitted completely. Examples include smoking-jacket  Smoking, discount store  Discounter, happy ending  happy end, or jigsaw puzzle  Puzzle (cf. Carstensen: 159f.). Hybridization Combining English-based words with original German words is a frequent process in German. In hybrids, the English-based lexeme is more likely to be the determiner (e.g. Dumpingpreise, Imageschaden, Teamgeist) than the Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 49 head (e.g. Bankenpool, Krisenmanagement, Kultursponsoring). According to Burmasova (2010: 108), one reason for this can be seen in a certain uncertainty when it comes to inflections of non-indigenous words. Lewtschenko (2005: 9) describes different types of hybrids: those that are based on English compounds, with one part being translated into German (e.g. Heimcomputer < home computer), those without an English equivalent, which therefore are German creations (e.g. Gelegenheitsjob, Heimtrainer), and those where an English lexeme is combined with another non-German lexeme (e.g. Managerniveau, Teamchef). Derivation In derivational processes, German affixes are added to an English lexical base, thus integrating the loanword into the German morphological system. The most common case is the addition of a suffix to indicate gender, e.g. der Stalker - die Stalkerin, der Designer - die Designerin, der Manager - die Managerin. Prefixation occurs in cases like Vorstopper or Besprayung. Another area of derivation is that of English affixes that with time become independent from the words they were originally imported with and are then used productively with ‘native’ lexemes, e.g. super and top as in superklug, Superwahljahr or Topverdienst, topmotiviert (cf. Burmasova 2010: 109). This is somehow similar to the Japanese productive use of the English pronoun my, which has lost its first person pronominal status and is used as a prefix indicating ownership with the referent depending on the context, e.g. mai bu-mu (my+boom, someone’s current fashion/ interest), mai ka- (my+car, someone’s own car), mai ho-mu (my+home, someone’s own home), etc. (cf. Scherling 2012: 112). Loanwords that were subjected to processes such as clipping, hybridization or derivation show a high degree of morphological integration, which sets them apart from words that did not undergo any adaptive processes, but were ‘borrowed’ in their original form, retaining - to a large extent - phonology and morphology of the donor language English. 4. Conclusion What this comparison shows is that the integration processes for anglicisms in Japanese are much more comprehensive than those found in German. While integration in German is focused mainly on adapting the loanwords to its inflectional system, integration in Japanese starts on the phonological and graphemic levels and also affects the morphological level, where one major process at work is the clipping and blending of these lexemes. Through this holistic integration affecting words on all levels, anglicisms in Japanese naturally ‘blend in’ with the language, and thus lose - at least in spoken form - the markedness that is characteristic of anglicisms in German. It can be assumed that such factors are critical Johannes Scherling 50 in accepting loanwords as part of the language, as can also be seen in the case of graphemically and phonologically integrated loans in German (e.g. fesch), which are no longer perceived as foreign language material, but as an intrinsic part of the German lexicon. It is clear that Japanese has a ‘head start’ as far as integration is concerned, because its phonological structure necessitates immediate adaptation of non-permissible sound structures. It is also obvious that Japanese has a lot more experience in the large-scale adoption of foreign language material, having itself absorbed the Chinese writing system wholesale along with a huge number of vocabulary between the 5 th and the 10 th centuries A.D. to the effect that almost 50% of the contemporary lexicon are derived from Chinese (cf. Loveday 1996: 26ff.). In this sense, the extensive borrowing and integration of English-based loanwords nowadays is only a natural continuation of a “contact tradition” (Loveday 1996: 27). Nevertheless, despite the lack of such comprehensive borrowing and despite the phonological similarities with the English language, German has shown the same power of integration for long-lived loanwords in the language. This means that it is well possible that a gradual progression towards a more holistic integration of anglicisms will also take place in German in the long run and, thus, that negative/ preconceived attitudes towards loanwords reflected in recent debates on the issue will change. After all, loanwords are motivated, valuable and meaningful additions to the lexicon, and a natural part of language evolution. References Abresch, Julia (2007). Englisches in gesprochenem Deutsch - Eine empirische Analyse der Aussprache und Beurteilung englischer Laute im Deutschen. Dissertation an der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. Befu, Harumi/ Kazufumi Manabe (1991). “Nihonjinron: The Discursive Manifestation of Cultural Nationalism.” Kwansei Gakuin University Annual Studies 40. 101-115. Burmasova, Svetlana (2010). Empirische Untersuchung der Anglizismen im Deutschen am Material der Zeitung Die WELT (Jahrgänge 1994 und 2004). Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Carstensen, Broder (1979). “Morphologische Eigenwege des Deutschen bei der Übernahme englischen Wortmaterials“. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 4/ 1. 155-170. Gabbrielli, Richard (2005). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of English Loanwords in Japanese Television Commercials - A Case Study. Hiroshima: Keisuisha. Hausmann, Dagmar (2006). “downgeloaded“ und “geforwardet” - Sprecherverhalten in morphologischen Zweifelsfällen am Beispiel des Sprachgebrauchs im Internet. Arbeitspapiere (N.F.) 50. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Kettemann, Bernhard (2002). “Anglizismen allgemein und konkret: Zahlen und Fakten.” In: Muhr/ Kettemann (2002). 55-86. Loanword integration and loanword acceptance 51 Kettemann, Bernhard (2006). “Morphologische Integration von und semantische Differenzierung durch Anglizismen im Deutschen.” In: Christian Mair et al., (eds.). Corpora and the History of English. Heidelberg: Winter. 169-182. Kurzmann, Gerhard (2002). “Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall? Überlegungen zum Einfluss des Englischen und Amerikanischen auf unsere Sprache.” In: Muhr/ Kettemann (2002). 223-226. Lewtschenko, Tatjana (2005). Morphologische Integration der Anglizismen im heutigen Deutsch. München: Grin. Loveday, Leo (1996). Language Contact in Japan - A Socio-linguistic History. New York: OUP. Miller, Roy Andrew (1967). The Japanese Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Muhr, Rudolf (2002). “Anglizismen als Problem der Linguistik und Sprachpflege in Österreich und Deutschland zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts.” In: Muhr/ Kettemann (2002). 9-54. Muhr, Rudolf/ Bernhard Kettemann (eds.) (2002). Eurospeak. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Nian, Ong Shyi/ R.C. Jubilado (2011). “The Linguistic Integration of English Borrowings in Modern Japanese.” Polyglossia 21. 99-107. Olah, Ben (2007). “English Loanwords in Japanese: Effects, Attitudes and Usage as a Means of Improving Spoken English Ability.” 文京学院大学人間学部研究 紀要 9/ 1. 177-188. Pfalzgraf, Falco (2006). Neopurismus in Deutschland nach der Wende. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Pittner, Karin (2001). “Deutsch - eine sterbende Sprache? ” In: K. Pittner/ R.J. Pittner (eds.). Beiträge zu Sprache und Sprachen 3. Vorträge der 6. Münchner Linguistik-Tage. München: lincom europa. 229-237. Scherling, Johannes (2012). Japanizing English - Anglicisms and their impact on Japanese. Tübingen: Narr. Schippan, Thea (1992). Lexikologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Seargent, Philip (2009). The idea of English in Japan - Ideology and the Evolution of a Global Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Stanlaw, James (2005). Japanese English - Language and Culture Contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Tomoda, Takako (2005). The Loanword (Gairaigo) Influx into the Japanese Language: Contemporary Perceptions and Responses. Dissertation at the University of New South Wales. Watanabe, Shoichi (1974). “On the Japanese Language.” Japan Echo 1/ 2. 9-20. Wegener, Heide (2003). “Normprobleme bei der Pluralbildung fremder und nativer Substantive.” Linguistik online 16. [Online] http: / / www.linguistikonline.com/ 16_03/ wegener.pdf. (28 Feb 2013). Zifonun, Gisela (2002).“Überfremdung des Deutschen: Panikmache oder echte Gefahr? ” Sprachreport 3. 2-9.