Student: Stephanie Korthals Date:25. 03. 2009 Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. Definition 2. 1. What is a foreign word 2. 2. What is a loanword 2. 3. What is an Anglicism 2. 4. Pseudo Anglicism and Hybrid Anglicism 3. Mainstream Trends and the Corpus 4. Word formation 4. 1. Classification 4. 2. Indigen and eurolatin systems 4. 3. The foreign suffix – ing 4. 4. The foreign suffix – ical 4. 5. English verbs and German affixes . Conclusion 6. Bibliographie 7. Appendix 1. Introduction English seems to be everywhere and it accompanies us through our lives. Waking up in the morning, I listen to the radio. But I dislike the songs on the ‘Hitparade’.
So, I turn on the ‘CD-Player’ with my favourite ‘CD’. It is time to get dressed. Today is a sunny day and thus a great opportunity to wear a ‘T-Shirt’. Before leaving the house I put on my ‘Make up’, and use ‘Haarspray’ to fix my new ‘Trendfrisur’. Since I don’t have time to eat breakfast I stop by the ‘Backshop’ to get myself a ‘Sandwich’.
Arriving at work I start my ‘Computer’ and ‘update’ the latest ‘Virenscanner’.
It is so easy, I just have to press the ‘Enter- Taste’. I still have a couple minutes time to check my ‘E-Mails’ and look for a ‘Last Minute Angebot’ on the ‘Internet’. Hopefully, I might be able to find some ‘Insidertipps’ telling me which place is worth a visit or I just arrange a ‘Blinddate’ with the person I met in the ‘Chatroom’ last week. Longing for ‘Fastfood’ I am on my way to find a good restaurant. But ‘Mc Donalds’ or ‘Burger King’ doesn’t seem an appropriate option.
Finally, I enjoy my lunch, a ‘Chicken Kebap’ and a ‘Ginger Ale’, in the park nearby my office. Before heading home I make a short detour and decide to work out in the ‘Fitness Studio’. I finish the day in front of the ‘TV’ with a big bowl of ‘Erdnussflipps’ and can’t decide about the genre of ‘Movie’ I want to watch. On my shortlist I can choose between ‘Actionfilms’, a ‘Livesendung’, or a ‘Thriller’. Not quite convinced by the choice, I finally put my favorite ‘Movie’ in the ‘DVD-Player’ and watch ‘Dirty Dancing’-the perfect end of a day.
Quite a lot English words have made their way into the German language system. Some people even fear that English words constantly flood the German language, substitute its words and could finally lead to the extinction of German. Having a look at the newspaper one can find a number of English words, especially when it comes to advertisement: ,,Der Push up- BH, Magic fur Damen”, die ,,Jogginghose fur Kinder”, ,,Mildeen® Desinfizierendes Hautgel”, das ,,Trolley- Reisekofferset” or der ,, Digitale Design Festplatten Satelliten Receiver MEDION® LIFE ® ”are just a few examples. 1] English words or Anglicism are transferred into German either by being directly taken over, or by being combined with German word elements. This tendency seems to increase. The process of hybridization extends the possibility of creating new words because for some words there don’t exist an equivalent. In my paper I therefore want to have a closer look on these processes, particularly on affixation. Does the combination of foreign affixes and native lexemes as well as the other way around turns out to be productive?
Or is it the best to stick to the old rules and create words only by means of the traditional word formation and to not pay attention to the process of hybridization? Before concentrating on the process of word formation and in particular examining the influence of English elements in the German language system, I would like to give a general definition of the most important terms. 2. 1. What is a foreign word? The term ‘Fremdwort’ (foreign word) marks an expression or a word, which is taken from a language and is transferred to another one.
Here, the difference to loanwords is the uniqueness of their pronunciation and spelling, as well as their original meaning, which doesn’t belong to the recipient language thus doesn’t make any sense. Therefore it is easy to distinguish them from native words, which are familiar to the native speakers.  Muhr describes the term foreign word as the following: ,,Fremdworter : Sind Worter, die in Schreibung und Aussprache dem Deutschen nicht angepasst sind oder seinen Strukturen nicht entsprechen und daher deutlich als ein neues Wort erkennbar sind.  2. 2. What is a loanword ? In general, the distinction between a foreign word and a loanword is not easy to be drawn and controversial. Furthermore, there doesn’t yet exist an universal differentiation of the term (Lehnwort /loanword) from the term (Fremdwort/ foreign word), as for instance Haugen  doesn’t pay attention to the term ‘Lehnwort’, whereas German linguists are in favour of both terms.  From an etymological point of view both are forms that originate in a foreign language and have made their way into the recipient language. 6] Polenz differentiates these two terms by using the criteria of integration. He regards a foreign word therefore as not integrated, whereas a loanword is seen as integrated.  But here the definition is not quite clear and thus leaves room to focus either on sociolinguistic or structural criteria. While foreign words (Fremdworte) have kept their original form with regard to the spelling and pronunciation, loanwords (Lehnworter) have adapted morphologically, orthographically and phonologically to the receptor language in way that makes it quite effortful to recognize the difference from native word.
This is regarded as one way to define and differentiate loan words and foreign words. The focus at this is on conformity, with regard to the form, while other authors do punctuate the fact that foreign words distinguish from loan words by a certain structure, as for instance Kiesler does: ‘[…] a word borrowed from another language is a foreign word if the pronunciation and the spelling do not correspond to the pronunciation rules of the receiving language, while it is a loanword if they correspond to these rules.  2. 3. What is an Anglicism? Anglicism signalizes the impact English exerts on other languages and therefore can be seen as a generic term. As well as loanwords, they are a result of borrowing processes, indicating a transfer of lexical elements from a source language to a receptor language. Although one can act on the assumption that all borrowings are Anglicisms, it doesn’t always have to be the other way around. Not all Anglicisms are borrowings, according to Onysko.  Yang defines Anglicisms in general as: Oberbegriff von Entlehnungen aus dem britischen Englisch, dem amerikanischen Englisch, sowie den ubrigen englischsprachigen Landern [… ]’  Again, it is not quite clear and therefore debatable which category the term Anglicism belongs to and leaves room for speculations because the etymological perspective in this case, a crucial aspect for the definition, is often indistinct and thus is not a great convenience in defining Anglicisms properly.  On the one hand, anglicisms are seen as foreign words.
But mostly they are a result of loan transfers and therefore it is not clear whether they still can be treated as foreign words. Carstensen doesn’t see them as foreign words and rejects that idea.  Often the question arises whether Anglicisms have been directly transferred from their Source language or whether they are the result of a word creation process. (Babyboom / Snowboardboom). Barz believes that the process of Conversion (nomen -> verb) and derivation (Verb+ er as ‘Nomina agentis’) could be an explanation for the two different approaches of analyzing Anglicisms.
Some authors consider Anglicisms as foreign words, as some authors suggest them to be treated as loanwords. Muhr, for instance, regards Anglicisms as a result of a mixed form of loanwords and foreign words. According to him, Anglicisms are of English origin, which have been introduced into the German language. But still, with regard to the orthography, Anglicisms keep their original writing and thus are recognizable of foreign nature, as for instance words with the following letters, which aren’t frequently used in German orthography: ,,y”(as in ‘funky’), ,,oo”, ,,c” (as in ‘cool’), ,,sh”(as in ‘show’). Muhr 2002, p. 32). Viereck on the other hand, states in his definition that Anglicisms rather fall into the category of loanwords because he recognizes the process of modification, the word has submitted. “Anglicisms [… ] are those lexical items that have infiltrated contemporary German[… ]in the original graphemic form (graphemic importance) and, as such, have undergone certain modifications in the sphere of phonology and morphology: phonemic substitution and morphological importation. 
The morphological adaptation to the receptor language, in this case German, would explain why some words have lost their original orthography, as for instance the word club, which is in German no longer written with /c/ but with /k/. Another example would be to clone -> klonen or the sketch -> der Sketsch. According to the definition of Viereck, the term Anglicism fits into the category of loanwords, although there might be some exceptions.  2. 4. Pseudo anglicisms and Hybrid anglicisms Talking about Anglicisms, there are two other important forms exerting influence on German language.
I just want to mention and shortly explain these two terms: Pseudo anglicisms and Hybrid anglicisms. “Anglicisms as (German) lexical items of English origin or borrowed from English. Pseudo-borrowings, for instance, obviously fall outside this description: German (speakers) cannot borrow from English a lexical item or a significate not attested in English. ” Onysko states pseudo anglicisms as elements, that have been taken over from the Source Language into the Receptor Language in order to create a new word (neologism) that is unknown in the Source Language.
These words are Anglicisms by structure, but not by origin. The word ‘Handy’ or ‘Pulli’ would be an example for a Pseudo Anglicisms because the word ‘handy’ in English denotes an adjective (meaning nutzlich) and is not to be regarded as a telephone (the English equivalent would be cell phone/ mobile phone). Pulli in the Source Language English would only been known as pullover. Hybrid Anglicisms are a combination of English words and German elements, in this case. One could describe them as units of native and borrowed morphemes. The emphasis is rather on derivational processes, including, affixation and compounding. Fairerweise’ combines the English adjective fair with the suffix -er and- weise , as well as ‘herumsurfen’, a combination of the German prefix herum and the English verb to surf.  Fleischner states that this process can be seen as a link between foreign language elements and native linguistic parts.  Muhr adds, that these words imitate the English language in structure and orthography, although they don’t exist in this language 3. The mainstream trends: Anglicisms in German language Muhr claims that over the recent 40 years the usage and influence of anglicisms in German have increased, reaching a climax in the Nineties.
Due to the high prestige and cultural dominance of English, words have entered the German lexicon mainly in thematic fields as Media, IT and film industry. . Irmhild Barz seems to agree to that. She reports that there has been a tendency towards the increased use of lexical loaning since the second half of the 20th century. Here Barz stresses on the change in the lexical system of a language that always exerts an influence on its word formation. A Look at the ‘Neologismenworterbuch 2004’ indicates that 40 percent of all new words or lexemes, listed in this book, derive from English.
Another 20 percent of all neologisms are hybrid anglicisms. Although the tendency towards the use of anglicisms in German language is rising, it is obvious, according to Barz, that not all words will have the potential to become an inherent part of the German vocabulary.  Another data research proving the quantitative impact of English on the German language has been done by ‘Der Spiegel’, comparing the total number of anglicisms (types and tokens) in 2000. The corpus consisted of 52 weekly topics, starting in January and ending in December. Therefore 8621 text pages had to be searched for English words.
Fewer than 6 percent of the words listed in the corpus were of English/ American origin. More than two thirds of all anglicisms (75. 93%) are hybrid forms mainly compound nouns (53%), as Luxuskids. They turn out to be quite productive in creating new words. Only a small percentage of Anglicisms fit in to the categories of adjectives and verbs (less than 6 % each)  Searching my own corpus I analyzed 113 words of which 63 seem to be Anglicisms, which is more than 50 %. table 1: The occurrence of English words The majority of all words I have found in the corpus are hybrid forms, namely 55; most of them are nominal compounds.
One nominal compound even consists of a Pseudo Anglicisms constituent, namely Handykomponente. I analysed only 8 words being the result of loan transfers As the Spiegel research claims, the percentage of verbs and adjectives, found in the corpus is very low, since I found no verb and only one adjective, namely aufgepixelt. Table 2: Forms of Anglicisms Analyzing the words, the dominance of nouns is obvious. Except for the adjective aufgepixelt and two examples fitting into the category of Proper Names (Schnulliwood and Aktengate), the remaining words all belong to the word class of nouns. able 3: Word Classes With regard to the thematic fields anglicisms occur in, the corpus shows a correlation between certain fields and the frequency of anglicisms. The majority of English words cluster in nouns have to do with finances and business, IT, fashion and lifestyle. table 4: Thematic Fields Searching my own corpus, I can agree to this thesis. A large number of Anglicisms, namely 18 words, fit into the category of Information Technology, as for instance the words Krypto- Framework or Catching-Konzept. This equals 29% and therefore this field represents the majority of words. 2 words, nearly 20%, belong to the thematic field of society and lifestyle, as for instance Nerd- Szene or Charity- Versteigerung. The category ‘others’ includes the thematic fields of medicine, language, education and music. But since they appeared only once or twice in the corpus they don’t seem to be of big importance. With reference to the word form, there exists a current trend towards zero orthographical and minimal phonological integration of English words, which have found the way into the German language. Most of them have still kept their original spelling, such as Baby, Coach, Camp, Clip, Computer and Crew.
Actually, they now should have been written with /k/, instead of /c/. The results of survey by ‘Der Spiegel’, analyzing the pattern of assimilation of Anglicisms show that the trend towards adapting English words to the German orthography and phonetic has been reversed and the trend of ‘unassimilated integration’ is demonstrative.  English words increasingly seem to resist orthographical integration into the German language. Viereck supports this statement. Considering his corpus, he discovered a majority of English vowels that remained unaltered, when being ransferred into German. The exception would be the transliteration of ss-> ? an c ->k , man-> mann, and sh->sch, which is used infrequently. Furthermore, Viereck notes the tendency of ie->y replacement in words like Walkie-Talkie> Walky-Talky. Additionally, the plural form of y has not been adapted to the German language. According the English orthographical rule, y turns into -ies), when forming the plural. In contrast to that, in German the plural marker ‘s’ is to simply add ‘y’, So the plural of the word Party is not realized as ‘Parties’ but as ‘Partys’.
Analyzing the corpus, Viereck realized that the usage of hyphen, apostrophes, separated versus join spelling and the capitalization is very inconsistent. He assumes that the reason for this might be the absence of a precise definition. He finally discovered in his corpus a limited group of words, which he called hyperfalse adaptation. This includes sk>sc in words as roller skater versus Roller Scater or kk>ck in words such as trekking versus Trecking. . In my own corpus, the majority of words have been transferred into German without having lost their original spelling.
There is an exception with the word Fernseh-Fon, which has adapted to the German spelling rules. This could be seen in words such as Off- Road-Optik and Qualifying-System. Even the transliteration of /c/ to /k/ seems to be obsolete, since nearly all words, occurring in the corpus, containing a /c/ are not longer transformed. The only two words where this process has taken place are Klonmaus and Panikroom. Words like Catnippkissen, Actionrollenspiel or Protection- Effekt stick to their original orthography. Furthermore, the tendency to take over /y/ is supported by the words I have found in my corpus.
Words like Easy-Entry-System or Thirtysomething-Welt keep the /y/ instead of being replaced by an /i/. Another peculiarity is the frequent occurrence of a hyphen. 33 words out of 62, more than every second word, contain a hyphen in their spelling, as in Skull-and-Bones-Mann, Speed-Experte or Gaming-Professur. A reason for this phenomenon could be the intention to separate certain word elements and thus either marks the foreign element of this compound or to put emphasis on one of the constituents. But then again some words like Ablaufmanagement don’t have a hyphen.
This could be an argument for Viereck thesis about the missing precise definition. 4. Word formation From a morphological point of view, forming new words in a language can happen in several ways, either by taking over entire words from a Source Language to a Receptor Language or by adapting some foreign elements, and later combine them with native word elements. In this concrete case the focus is on the German lexical constituents. This is called hybridization, most commonly used in processes of compounding and derivation.
Compounding, derivation, conversion, blending, clipping or acronyms would just serve as an example. Fleischer includes assimilated loanwords in this category. Processes of borrowing and word formation not only run parallel but they also intersect.  Hybridization would be such an intersection. However, with regard to Anglicisms and their influence on German present-day word formation, Seiffert claims that besides compounding, affixation is most commonly used as a way to create new words.  “[… ] fur die Fremdwortbildung neben den freien Lexemen [… besonders die Kombineme von Interesse. [… ] ‘Wortbildungseinheiten, die nur in Kombination vorkommen, also nicht wortfahig sind. ‘ Dazu gehoren [… ] Affixe. ”  I am going to focus on the process of hybrid- derivation (adding an affix to an unbound lexeme, or a n affix to a confix – therefore one of the constituents has to be nonnative), especially on suffixation and prefixation. But before dealing with affixes, it is worth mentioning that hybridization in derivational processes has a lot more restrictions that in the process of compounding.
Affixes, added before the root of a word in order to create a new one, like im- in impossible, fit into the category of prefixes. This type of affix usually functions as a determinant of the word it is prefixed to.  The majority of prefixes maintain the word class of the base, whereas suffixes do change it. Only when modifying the meaning of the word, prefixes appear to be less common than suffixes.  The process of adding an affix to a root of a word is called suffixation.
Suffixes are divided into inflectional (denoting grammatical categories -s, -ed) and derivational suffixes (denoting lexical information).  4. 1. Classification Seiffert classifies the process of creating a new word, containing foreign elements, as the following: either it happens by the complete takeover of two free lexemes, two confixes, or by combining a confix and a free lexeme, which has to be analyzed as a compound. The combination of an affix and a free lexeme as well as a confix and an affix fits into the category of derivatives.
Focusing on the status of the second constituent as criteria for a further sub classification, she becomes more precise by differencing between the categories: ‘Suffixderivate’ (second constituent is an affix), ‘Prafixderivate’ (second constituent is a free lexeme) and ‘Konfixderivation’. Although this categorization is marked by heterogeneity, caused by the affixes, it still has the disadvantage that several new words, structural and semantically similar to the classes mentioned above, don’t belong there.  4. 2. Indigene and eurolatin systems
English and German, as Barz marks, share the same historical background (from a diachronic perspective) and thus have similarities in their lexical and word structure. Furthermore, both languages consist of the same amount of foreign lexical constituents of Latin, Roman and Greek origin. Referring to Barz, the latter aspect allows the opportunity to use two different subsystems to form words. The first includes indigene word formation processes. Desolating word elements (nonnative) on the other hand focuses on the word formation processes dealing with foreign word elements. Mainly these forms are the result of hybridization.
Those Greek and Latin elements for instance are highly effective to extend the scientific thesaurus and thus dominate the word formation process in the thematic fields of science, techniques, and the society.  However, to analyze a word regarding if it is loanword or a creation one should not only concentrate on the synchronic analysis but also take the diachronic perspective into account. Again, the diachronic analysis mainly examines whether the word in question is a loan transfer or the result of word formation processes by having taken over external word elements, such as affixes. Analyzing a linguistic unit from a ynchronic perspective the stress is on the matter of viability of a word as a morpheme.  Foreign lexemes serve as a pattern in order to easy the development of new structures, which turn out to be productive. Therefore the terms reactivation (‘Reaktivierung’) and morphemization (‘Morphematisierung) became quite common. This means that existing word segments from a Source Language are carried over to the Receptor Language and serve as constituents to form new words. It is most likely that this process might be a result of hybridization. The constituent is going to be translated and transferred to the Receptor Language.
Barz would see the word ‘Burger’ in German as a free lexeme, which comes from the word hamburger, whereas seller would be treated as a confix. Moreover this explains the acceptance of foreign (eurolatin) affixes in the German language system, such as ex-, mini-, top-, and -ing.  Seiffert adds the prefixes super-, mega, -ultra-, and hyper-. In general, prefixes tend to form verbs as suffixes tend to form nouns. She emphasizes that nonnative prefixes, expressing an augmentation or negation, have the highest rank in German word formation and thus are actively used to be connected with German word elements.
Again, it is quite striking that the addition nearly operates without any restrictions.  Fleischer supports this statement regarding newly developed ‘verb prefixes’ which, he states, are closer to the process of nominal compounding and therefore don’t show any difficulty in connection with eurolatin lexemes, as ‘ein’-, ‘aus’-, and ‘um’-. But with reference to the older or classic ‘verb prefixes’, Fleischer claims the hybridization with foreign lexemes as not very active and unproductive.  However, it is possible to combine eurolatin prefixes either with foreign roots as in supermodern or with native roots as in hypergenau.
Even complex or compounded bases seem to work with regard to the suffixation, there exists certain restrictions.  Having a closer look at this derivational process, it’s recognizable that there are two ways of suffixation. First would be the combination of a native suffix adding to a foreign lexeme, and second, the combination of an indigen lexeme with a nonnative suffix. Obviously, foreign suffixes in general only seem to connect with nonnative word elements. So, a hybridization of foreign suffixes and native lexemes in this case seems unlikely.
Then again, the other way around turns out to be effective, as it could be seen in words ending with -isch and -ung. Seiffert claims the reason to that has to do with the phonological distinctiveness of the eurolatin suffixes, as they tend to carry the stress of the word, whereas indigen suffixes don’t. This would mean that words that carry the stress on the last syllable contradicts to words with a native suffix.  Furthermore, Muller realises a tendency towards native suffix, which leads to better chances of integration of the foreign lexeme whereas the other process causes an alienation of the native lexeme and therefore the whole word. 43] Concerning prefixes, it would be the other way around. Since the prefixes maintain the same word category their function of integration is limited and less strong. A native prefix with a foreign lexeme integrates less. The tendency to combine a nominal as well as a verbal prefix and a nonnative lexeme is therefore low. On the other hand, the connection of a nonnative verbal prefix and a native lexeme is supposed to work better. An exception, with reference to Fleischer, would be the prefixes: ‘de’-, ‘dies’-, ‘in’-,’ per’-, ‘pro’-, and ‘re’-. 44] Now still the question arises if these two systems, the indigen and the eurolatin one, are competing against each other. Since both systems exists parallel and could cross, which would be hybridization, are commonly used in present- day German word formation. Indeed, as it is observed with prefixes kon/ko versus poly, the foreign suffix -ion and the indigen suffix -ung, + are both used to form ‘nomina actionis’ out of nonnative verbs (Refomation versus Reformierung). 45] This phenomenon occurs in foreign lexemes and the suffix. Here, the native suffix and the foreign suffix can be seen as rivals, as it works the same with the prefixes (indigen versus eurolatin), which are added to native lexeme.  One could assume that finally a word could exist doubly or a substitution could take place. According to Seiffert, there are several reasons to deny this thesis of double words, as for instance the economy of a language usually will never allow the existence of two identical lexical words.
Furthermore, the numerous appearances of hybrid elements in the area of derivational prefixation, for instance, stress an amalgation of native word formation and eurolatin word formation. This supports the idea of Barz that both systems are depending on each other, as complementing each other.  Fleischer finally mentions the importance of the semantic meaning. Not all native derivational foreign affixes cover the range of meaning, the native affix does and vice versa. They only partly ntersect, as for example the nonnative element extra- tends to connect with noun and adjectives, whereas the native equivalent sondern- only combines with nouns.  Taking all facts into consideration, to keep the best opportunity of forming new words, both systems are needed. 4. 3. The foreign suffix – ing Beside the group of nominal compositions , including adjective+ suffix, noun + noun, the suffix -ing belongs the category of verbal compositions, consisting of adjective+verb+ suffix, noun + verb+ suffix, verb+er, and verb + interrogative. 49] A view in the historical background of English shows that -ing in present- day English, is the result of a merger, starting in the 12th century, affecting the forms of the first participle as well as the verbal nouns / gerundial forms. The pattern- ing occurs in deverbal derivation und seems to be quite productive and therefore formally transparent. In the German language system, the original forms have been preserved (-ung/-ende). Therefore the pattern -ing is alien, as well as, in several other languages.
The process of borrowing -ing would be more restricted since the pattern -ing is normally expressed by the substantive infinitive. Here Hansen intentional excludes the derivation – ung. This leaves two ways of dealing with the pattern – ing, in particular. Either words, containing the deverbal derivation are directly transferred and remain unique, or they become replaced by the native equivalent – en, which is preferred for forming nouns. Even problems in pronunciation might make it hard for the pattern to be transferred to other languages, since the phoneme /? is not available in sound structure of most European countries. To analyze the morphological and phonological integratability of – ing, Hansen compared two categories (‘activity/ process’ versus ‘results /concrete objects’). According to Hansen the usage of -ing in loanwords, denoting activities is predominant, where 50% of them are transparent. The derivational morpheme -ing denoting a result are rare and in transparent. Mostly they morphological resemble other loan words in the same semantic fields and thus are like to be replaced.
In terms of morphology Haugen states that the tendency towards the usage of English derivatives, which are attached to native stems has decreased, whereas an increase of transferring unadapted loan words is noticeable. This simplifies the creation of loan morphemes like ing. Hansen does not see lot productivity in this. But other suffixes as -man and -ist turned out quite productive, so he suggests using -ing as pseudo Anglicism. As a conclusion Hansen stresses that the pattern- ing has small chance to integrate in other language in a way that is added to a native stem.
The suffix -ing as: ”not readily identifiable with a native morpheme is not combined withnative stems[… ] ing will increase in terms of the number of adopted loanwords, which contain them, [… ] ing is unlikely to be used to derive new words on native stems. ” In general, he states that English derived verbs have more difficulties in integrating.  With regards to my corpus, I can agree to Hansen’s statement in so far as all words, ending with the pattern -ing are of English origin and not consisting of a German native word stem, where -ing, as a suffix is added.
Reverse- Engineering, Cafe-hopping, Feinstaubscreening and Venenstripping would serve as examples. Although some words contain German elements, the pattern – ing always appears at the end of an English word (engineering, hopping, screening and stripping). The productivity of -ing as suffix would increase, if it was possible to add it to a great number of German verbs and acts as foreign suffix. Analyzing the corpus Barz claims that although there are quite a number of words in German, ending with -ing. But mostly the whole word is transferred from English words, like Walking, Doping.
Furthermore the words are able to combine with German word elements, such as Blut- ,Kinder- ,Wachstumsdoping, which happens frequently But still the question is not yet answered whether the possibility exists to use -ing as suffix , added to German indigene word elements and if this process is productive. Referring to Barz these word constructions are rare, at the moment. The only exception would be the word ‘Mieting’, invented by a car rental service. This combination is very eye-catching and evokes the feeling of trendyness and wittiness.
Then again, having a look on the Internet the pattern ing, used as derivational suffix, appears frequently. Examples for this are the following words, Faulenzing, Dauerzocking, Power-gassigehing. She assumes that these words, describing leisure activities, are lexically modeled after anglicisms, like Jogging, Walking or Inline skating. Barz here assumes that the usage of -ing might be a way of intentionally marking certain sequences as noun. Apparently there seem to be no limitations, regarding the phonological and morphological structures; -ing appears to be capable of combining with the majority of German verbs.
This leads Barz to the conclusion, that one can assume -ing to become a productive element in German word formation, exerting as suffix to verbs and thus turning them into nouns by changing