Evidence of Lexical Re-Borrowing in the Spoken English of First Generation Finnish-Australians

English understanding of the word. Another example of substitution comes from the French cul-de-sac, which is often used in preference to no through road, or dead end because cul-de-sac is perceived to be more prosaic in form. The borrowed item sauna is an example of semantic addition to the English language. In English we had no other word to adequately describe this concept. In this we see a typical case of addition being used to express a new concept for the recipient culture found borrowing the word. Yet another example of addition borrowing from Finnish is kantele, which is a special musical instrument akin to a harp. Other, more common, sources of addition often come from food. English has borrowed heavily in this semantic field. For instance, espresso, cappuccino, pizza, camembert and brie are all well-known cases of borrowed words from other languages. They are also all cases of addition. Other examples of more established, hence usually less recognised, loans include tulip (Turkish), sky (Scandinavian) and yacht (Dutch). To this point, I have only concentrated upon typology but we also need to consider other factors when discussing lexical borrowing, such as the social and cultural determinants of borrowing and grammatical constraints. Weinreich (1953) provides several reasons why words may be borrowed: (1) cultural influence; (2) rare native words are lost and replaced by foreign words; (3) two native words sound so much alike that replacing one by a foreign word resolves potential ambiguities; (4) there is a constant need for synonyms of affective words that have lost their expressive force; (5) through borrowing, new semantic distinctions may become possible; (6) a word may be taken from a low-status language and used perjoratively; and, (7) a word may be introduced almost unconsciously, through intensive bilingualism (Appel &C Muysken 1987, 165-166). In relation to grammatical constraints, general consensus has it that certain categories of the lexicon are more easily and frequently borrowed than others. Sanskritist William Dwight Whitney (1881) suggested the following hierarchy:


Introduction
Lexical borrowing from one language into another is a natural consequence of any language contact situation and has been extensively discussed.The earliest seminal work for the latter half of the previous century is that of Haugen (1950) and Weinreich (1953).Lexical borrowing occurs when a speaker needs to account for some form of semantic gap in either LI or L2.For instance, a Finn who has emigrated to Australia will have been confronted with new cultural experiences.S/he will have promptly needed to acquire a broadened vocabulary, using words that may not have a Finnish equivalent.Hence, various words are borrowed from Australian English into the Finnish spoken at home, or with other Finnish immigrants, when discussing a particular cultural difference at hand.Equally so, Finns will bring new concepts with them that they will introduce into Australian culture.For instance, amongst English speaking people it is a little known fact that sauna derives from Finnish.
Instances of borrowings, where the minority language group consistently borrows from the host language group and vice versa, are well documented.However, little attention, if any, has been paid to the phenomenon of re-borrowing, where, for example, a word originally borrowed from Australian English into Finnish is then re-used (reborrowed) in the spoken English of the Finns, albeit in a slighdy different phonological and/or morphological form, when conversing with native speakers of Australian English.There have been documented cases of re-borrowing that have taken place over an extended period of time (for instance, Yiddish borrowed from Old Hebrew which was then re-borrowed back into Middle Hebrew) but no published data seems to exist which notes this behaviour during a much shorter period, within the space of 20 years or less (that is, less than one generation), which is the case with my informants.The remainder of this paper will offer a more extensive discussion of conventional borrowing before further describing the concept of reborrowing and offering a detailed investigation into this language pattern by first generation Australian Finns who speak English.

Lexical borrowing
Lexical borrowing has been extensively researched in the past.Particular attention has been paid to contact situations between English and other languages.For example, work related to English in contact includes that of Stoffel (1981), who pays attention to the adaptation of loan-words from English in New Zealand Serbo-Croation; Fisiak (1985), who looks at the adaptation of English loan-words, verbs in particular, in Polish; Diensberg (1986), who examines phonological aspects of French loan-words in English; Jokweni (1992), who studies English and Afrikaans loan-words in Xhosa; Eggarter (1995), who examines the influence of English loanwords in German; and Rees-Miller (1996), who investigates morphological adaptations of English loan-words in Algonquian.
Apart from English, much work has also been conducted in other areas of language contact.Schogt (1987) is interested in the integration and adaptation of foreign loan-words in Dutch; Evans (1992) looks at how Macassan words have found their way into the native Australian Aboriginal languages of the north of Australia; and Pavlou (1993) examines how semantic shift has taken place in a number of originally Turkish origin words in Cypriot-Greek.He classifies these words of Turkish origin into three categories.(1) Culturally borrowed, those that introduce a new concept into Cypriot-Greek and have no purely Greek equivalent; (2) doublets, those words which are used in Cypriot-Greek as synonyms for Greek words and (3), those words which have undergone a change in definition, most often resulting in a narrower meaning than the original meaning.Baldi (1995) examines Arabic loans in Yoruba; Milani (1996) looks at the role of morphological and phonological adaptation among North American people of Italian origin; and Shi (1997) investigates loan-words in the Chinese Sui language.
The typology of lexical borrowing is a complex matter.In the most straightforward of cases a word is borrowed as a whole unit, both morphologically and phonologically.But borrowing is not always this simple.For instance, one important distinction can be made between imported borrowings and substituted borrowings.An imported borrowing entails bringing a particular pattern into the language.Substitution involves replacing part of a loan-word from another language with a native pattern of the recipient language. (1) Menen shoppinki ostamaan vähän appelsid.
(I'm going shopping to buy some apples.) In (1) we see quite a complex example of borrowing in the Finnish language.Both shoppinki and appelsia are English loan-words and both are instances of importation.However, within these importations we can also see that substitution has taken place.Changes have occurred.The participle -ing in shopping has been phonologically and morphologically transformed to shoppinki and the English plural -s in apples has been changed to the Finnish singular partitive case in appelsia.
By using the distinction between importation and substitution Haugen (1950) devised other structuralist definitions of different types of borrowings.He, along with Appel and Muysken (1987, 1 This example was given to me by Deborah Ruuskanen, Helsinki University.One anonymous reviewer points out that the standard Finnish expression would be menen ostamaan (I am going shopping to buy...) and the -ia ending added to the English plural form appels could also be a plural rather than a singular form (cf. Omen-ia 'apples').In both instances, there appears a double marking for what the speaker is trying to say.This could be interpreted in two ways.Either we have a speaker of English whose command is only limited, or a speaker who is consciously code-switching using foreign words for particular effects.The author tends to think it is the former.Lehiste (1988), differentiates between loan-words, loanblends and loanshifls.A loan-word entails morphemic importation without substitution.This is the most typical, and simplest, kind of borrowing.However, this category can be further sub-divided between cases where there has been substitution at the phonemic level and those where there has not.

165) and
(2) From the Norwegian name Quisling we have acquired quisling, which means collaborator with an occupying enemy power.
(3) From Hindi we have borrowed coolie, which means labourer performing extremely hard physical work under conditions of exploitation." Loanblends, however, entail both morphemic substitution and importation.Lehiste (1988, 21) refers to these as "hybrids"."These arise when several processes apply at the same time: a loan morpheme may be filled into native models, one element of a compound may be imported and so on" (Lehiste 1988, 21).
(And then there, where those men are sitting?)Speaker 2: Aa, istumaruuma.
(Ah, sitting-room.)3(5) Ground floor in Pennsylvanian German becomes Grundfloor, and plum pie becomes Blaumepai.(Lehiste 1988, 21).The use of istumaruuma in (4) is an interesting example of hybriding.The latter part of the compound, ruuma, is an established loan from the English room.Istuma is an obvious loan translation from the English word sitting (istua = to sit).This compound appears to have become established in American Finnish, along with its companion word istumahuone (huone = room).The correct Finnish word for sitting-room is olohuone.Virtaranta (1992, 73-74) expands further upon this.
With loanshifts it is only the meaning which is imported, the forms remain native.Loanshifts are also referred to as literal translations by Tarone (1983,62) and Pietilä (1989, 138).Määttänen and Nissi (1994) refer to them as loan translations.Lehiste (1988, 20) refers to them as caiques.For example, the German Wolkenkratzer, French gratte-ciel, and Spanish rasca-cielos are all based on the English word skyscraper (Appel & Muysken 1988, 165).Sometimes there can be a slight shift in the meaning or then additional meaning might be attributed to the new loanshift.For example, in Finnish the meaning for computer has been adopted but translated into Finnish as tietokone, (which literally translates into knowledge machine).Equally so for aeroplane, which has become lentokone {flying machine) and washing machine which is referred to aspesukone (washingmachine).
(6) Livraria in American Portuguese means library rather than bookstore.The original Portuguese for library is biblioteca.(Lehiste 1988, 20). Appel and Muysken (1987, 165) discuss the distinction, first raised by Albö (1970), between substitution and addition of vocabulary.It is substitution if the borrowed item is used for a concept which already exists in the culture, but it is addition if the borrowed item is used to express a new concept.
(If you are around come and have coffee.)4 In (7) we see an example of substitution.The English word around has several meanings, one being nearby or in the vicinity.However, in Finnish ympärillä has a more restricted meaning, (it is a preposition which literally means "wrapped around something") yet, in this instance the meaning has been extended to include the more abstract English understanding of the word.Another example of substitution comes from the French cul-de-sac, which is often used in preference to no through road, or dead end because cul-de-sac is perceived to be more prosaic in form.
The borrowed item sauna is an example of semantic addition to the English language.In English we had no other word to adequately describe this concept.In this we see a typical case of addition being used to express a new concept for the recipient culture found borrowing the word.Yet another example of addition borrowing from Finnish is kantele, which is a special musical instrument akin to a harp.Other, more common, sources of addition often come from food.English has borrowed heavily in this semantic field.For instance, espresso, cappuccino, pizza, camembert and brie are all well-known cases of borrowed words from other languages.They are also all cases of addition.Other examples of more established, hence usually less recognised, loans include tulip (Turkish), sky (Scandinavian) and yacht (Dutch).
To this point, I have only concentrated upon typology but we also need to consider other factors when discussing lexical borrowing, such as the social and cultural determinants of borrowing and grammatical constraints.Weinreich (1953) provides several reasons why words may be borrowed: (1) cultural influence; (2) rare native words are lost and replaced by foreign words; (3) two native words sound so much alike that replacing one by a foreign word resolves potential ambiguities; (4) there is a constant need for synonyms of affective words that have lost their expressive force; (5) through borrowing, new semantic distinctions may become possible; (6) a word may be taken from a low-status language and used perjoratively; and, (7) a word may be introduced almost unconsciously, through intensive bilingualism (Appel &C Muysken 1987, 165-166).
In relation to grammatical constraints, general consensus has it that certain categories of the lexicon are more easily and frequently borrowed than others.Sanskritist William Dwight Whitney (1881) suggested the following hierarchy: (9) Nouns -other parts of speech -suffixes -inflectionsounds Haugen (1950) elaborated upon this with his work with Norwegian immigrants in the United States: (10) Nouns -verbs -adjectives -adverbs -prepositionsinterjections Yet others devised slightly different but still comparable hierarchies.Singh (1982), who studied English borrowings in Hindi, arrived at the following: (11) Nouns -adjectives -verbs -prepositions And Muysken (1981) arrived at the following from his work with Spanish borrowings in Quechua: Nouns -adjectives -verbs -prepositions -coordinating conjunctions -quantifiers -determinersfree pronouns -clitic pronouns -subordinating conjunctions As Appel and Muysken (1987) point out, it is difficult to make conclusive observations from the above studies, due, predominantly, to the different typologies at hand.Certain languages use different elements of language in different quantities.They claim that the most important reason for borrowing "is to extend the referential function of a language... Since reference is established primarily through nouns, these are the elements borrowed most easily" (Appel and Muysken 1987, 171).Appel and Muysken (1989) make an interesting distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic coherence as being important to the form of switching and borrowing which may take place: Paradigmatic coherence is due to the tightness of organisation of a given subcategory: the pronoun system is tightly organised, and it is difficult to imagine English borrowing a new pronoun to create a second person dual in addition to second person singular and plural.
For this reason determiners, pronouns, demonstratives, and other paradigmatically organised words are rarely borrowed.Syntagmatic coherence has to do with the organisation of the sentence: a verb is more crucial to that organisation than a noun, and perhaps therefore it is harder to borrow verbs than nouns.(Appel and Muysken 1987, 172) Thus far, I have only paid attention to "conventional" borrowing, but what of re-borrowing?Put simply, my discussion of all forms of conventional borrowing, to this point, has entailed the taking of a word from Language A and the use of this word in Language B. However, with re-borrowing, in a language contact environment, we see this process extended yet another step.The minority language borrows a word from the target language (e.g., an immigrant Finnish speaker borrows an Australian English word) but this same word, or a very close derivative of it (that is, in a slightly different phonological and/or morphological state5 ), then re-emerges in a reborrowed form back into the target language, as spoken by the minority group (that is, the Australian English spoken by Finnish immigrants).The re-borrowed word may have changed in meaning during this process, or then it may not.In addition, successful communication will depend upon the listener's interpretation of the re-borrowed word.If that listener is a native speaker of Australian English and the re-borrowed word has changed too dramatically from its original form (be it phonologically or morphologically) communication may break down.If the listener is a fellow immigrant Finn s/he is probably aware of this usage and feels comfortable with it.
To date there appears to be no published data on the phenomenon of re-borrowing.Extract 13 depicts one example of this form of speech.
(13) that the surgical team is waiting and ready, if anything goes wrong they put a, put straight away in to the operation theatteri and, we, I thi..., I think I was within 5 minutes I was underneath when ah, under the [anaesthetic] (FAEC 1A54) 6   Firstly, note that the word theatteri has been spoken here in a compromised form, with a combined phonology, beginning with the English |0| but concluding with Finnish phonology and Finnish stress.Secondly, note that the equivalent Finnish word teatteri (a loan-word in itself) is normally only used in the context of staged theatre when spoken in Finnish.The appropriate Finnish word in the above context is leikkauspöytä (operating table), or leikkaussali (operating room).So, what does one label this?On the surface it may appear to be a nonce (for it to be a nonce it needs to be a Finnish word being used under recipient language (RL) grammatical conditions), but the Finnish word in question is actually inappropriate should it have been used in Finnish discourse.Is it, then, an integrated loan?If deemed so, it is not fully established in the recipient language, at least not phonologically.It is also quite unusual to be using an English word as an integrated loan when English is the recipient language.
However, there is at least one possible explanation for this interpretation.If theatteri is used as a loan word, perhaps even an integrated loan, in the Australian Finnish of the discourse community of this speaker, it would go some way to explaining its presence and the unusual phonology in the Finnish Australian English discourse.That is, perhaps it has been re-borrowed back into this example of Finnish Australian English 7 .
6 FAEC = Finnish Australian English Corpus.See Watson (1996) for full description.7 However, I have found no collaboration for this point within the FAEC, that is, I cannot categorically claim that the use of theatteri is common among Finnish Australian.This would require further investigation involving a separate study which would try to elicit this language in natural discourse.If this would prove to be the case, it would add credence to my claim.This same logic also applies to all other examples of re-borrowing within this paper.At present, there appear to be no common items amongst my informants.
The following section will propose a methodology for exploring and categorising this phenomenon more closely.

Methodology
The method of classification proposed below was applied to the Finnish Australian English Corpus (FAEC), which contains a total of 120 recorded interviews.Of these there are 60 lAs (first generation Finns), 30 IBs (children of that first generation) and 30 2NDs (second generation Finns born in Australia).All 60 first generation interviews have been fully transcribed and digitised.Both sexes are equally represented in this generational group.All interviews were conducted by a native Australian.Watson (1996) presents a more detailed description of the FAEC.This paper is primarily concerned with the spoken English of first generation Finnish emigrants living in Australia, that is, the 1A group.Each interview consists of approximately 6,000 words.Hence, the total, approximate size of the corpus being examined here is 360,000 words.A computer search of this corpus isolated all instances of Finnish.Any instances of Finnish which may have been inadvertently initiated or prompted by the interviewer were disregarded.I also disregarded other cases where the speakers referred to proper nouns for which there are no English equivalents.For example, the following refers to a type of Finnish folk dance: (1) And quite a few of them haven't been there before so they want to learn little of Jenkka and these Finnish dances before we go.
(FAEC 1A53) The remaining instances were then classified as either code-changes, code-mixes, nonce loans or integrated loans according to the criteria presented in Watson (1999), see this for a detailed discussion of code-switching and borrowing amongst first generation Finnish Australians.However, not all instances neatly fitted this system of classification.It is these outstanding instances, which eluded initial classification, that this paper is predominantly most interested in.
All samples were cross-checked by a Finnish assistant.After this initial search, all findings were then sub-classified according to gender.Other extralinguistic criteria, such as social network membership, age, ethnic identity, reported bilingual ability, educational level and age of L2 acquisition, are virtually homogenous for this group under study, hence sub-classification according to these criteria would prove fruitless.As a group, the Finnish immigrants under study all arrived in Australia in their late 20s to mid 30s during the 1960s and 1970s (their mean age upon arrival was 30 and their current mean age is 59), they interact at all social levels with other Finns, identify strongly with the local Finnish community and Finland, and recognise that their fluency is not equal to that of balanced bilinguals, most having not known English at all upon arrival to Australia.Collectively, most of the informants have had no further schooling than lower secondary school.
Apart from studying the frequency of occurrence of these instances of re-borrowing and their distribution between the sexes, the next most likely area of investigation pertains to the grammatical categories that these instances fall into and the related question of whether there is paradigmatic or syntagmatic coherence present.The following section presents the results for these areas of investigation.

Informant
Instances of reborrowing % of total no.

Discussion
Table 1, Total number of re-borrowings, indicates that of the 60 informants studied, examples of re-borrowing were found with 12 of them.Hence, twenty percent of the informants had re-borrowed.This tends to suggest that the use of re-borrowed words among this generational group is not simply a random act.In all, there were 65 separate instances of re-borrowing but they were not evenly distributed.Some individuals had a greater propensity to re-borrow than others.Table 2, Gender distribution of re-borrowing, shows us that of the 12 informants, 8 were male and 4 female.This initially suggests that men re-borrow more often than women.However, the 4 women accounted for 33 separate instances of re-borrowing, that is 50.8% of the total data, whereas the men accounted for the remaining 49.2%.Hence, it seems that, on average, although fewer women re-borrow, when they do so they tend to re-borrow more frequently than men.
As we examine the distribution of re-borrowing amongst the male and female informants (see Tables 3 and 4), certain patterns arise.As previously stated, women tend to borrow, on average, more frequently than men, 8.25 instances to 4 instances respectively.A ratio just over 2:1.However, most of the informants (66.66%) reborrowed infrequently.Of the twelve who did re-borrow, eight reborrowed only once.The remaining four individuals accounted for 88% of the data.Male informant no. 5 and female informant no. 1 reborrowed most heavily.The following extracts offer some examples from these two very interesting cases.
(1) (Okay, so how did you get over this homesickness?)Urn, it just weart away.I won't go to the Finland now.(FAEC 1A1, female no. 1) 8 Note that the pronunciation of my informants' Finnish Australian English is very heavily influenced by their native Finnish.The phonology of their speech has not been transcribed in the FAEC.Those words emboldened within this paper have only been done so to highlight them for the point under discussion.See Watson (1996) for further information regarding the transcription process of the FAEC.
(2) Um, + it was to the ++ I had two children in Finland and I had a good [job] and ah then I fell the pregnant with my third child and um ++ I thought so that with two I can kouppi in Finland but I can not bring to the three children + up by myself.So... (FAEC 1A1, female no. 1) (3) Urn, at the time we thought so it's the time when the children were to school.We thought so that it's to the good to the children point of view and our eldest daughter start to lookki, urn, some help for the study for the kovernmentti and so on, we thought so that, urn, we have to be in Australian citizens before then.
(FAEC 1A1, female no. 1) (4) I notice that my children need me a lot now because they have a young oneses ((SHE USES A FORM OF DOUBLE PLURAL HERE)) and I have to babisitti probably two days a week or maybe two days a fortnight or whatnever.When they need it, somebody's sick, urn? (FAEC 1A1, female no. 1) Extracts (1-4) have been taken from female informant no. 1.Of the five highlighted examples four are verbs, a fact which helps to emphasise the higher usage of verbs among my female informants, see below.All of these examples, and those below have been phonologically nativised by the informants.In relation to this shift in pronunciation, we can also see with weari, kouppi, lookki, kovernmentti and babisitti another process taking place, that of stem formation.Most Finnish words, particularly nouns and verbs, end in a vowel so that they may be more easily inflected, Finnish being an agglutinative language.This process is clearly taking place and lends credence to my claim for the category of re-borrowing.For example, cope becomes kouppi in Australian Finnish and is then re-borrowed from Australian Finnish back into Finnish Australian English as kouppi.
Extract (3), kovernmentti, lends further weight to the argument that re-borrowing is taking place among the group under study.In Australian English it is quite common in everyday speech to refer to the government, be it federal, state or local, in an off-hand, almost irreverent manner.Hence, it is fair to assume that after having lived in Australia for a fair duration the Finnish community will have started to use the word government in their Australian Finnish, rather than the correct Finnish word hallitus.But they will not have done so without the use of Finnish stress, phonology and morphology, hence we arrive at kovernmentti, which we then see being re-used in their Finnish Australian English.
Borrowing usually occurs when there is a lexical gap which needs to be filled.Yet, one interesting point highlighted by the examples presented, both above and below, is that the concepts being covered by the words under scrutiny are rather mundane and simple.This leads one to ask why such borrowing even takes place?Why are my informants borrowing these words into their Finnish in the first place?This question is worthy of further investigation but outside the scope of this paper, perhaps their behaviour may be linked to word frequency or phonological structure.However, regardless of why it is that they choose these words, there is still the fact that they are then re-borrowing the English loan-words back into their Finnish Australian.It also seems that they are unaware of this behaviour.It must also be noted that this type of re-borrowing does not normally take place among acrolectal bilingual speakers, it seems to be found more among basilectal speakers.This phenomenon has been noted by others as well, for example Tent (1999) has noticed similar behaviour amongst the speakers of English in Fiji.Another interesting point is that with the majority of the words under study here there appears to be no obvious shift in meaning or nuance.Yet, Tent (1999) has noticed some shift: boss boso boso

EnglishFijian
Fiji English

gallon qaloni galen
The word boso in Fijian refers to any person that you want to ingratiate yourself with, as it does in Fiji English.Qaloni means a container for liquids, as it does also in Fijian English.It could, perhaps, be argued that there have been these semantic shifts because they involve concepts that may not have existed in Fijian before contact with English, but this is only a tentative claim. (5) We can not go back to Finlandia but I would, I, we like [just] to go for visit 'bout two, [three] month.
That we like to next, next ss..., summer.(FAEC 1A51, male no.5) Extract ( 5) is from male informant no. 5.The use of Finlandia is worthy of discussion.Finlandia is neither a Finnish nor English word.It appears to be part of this speaker's idiolect9 .It is, however, the brand name of a particular vodka currendy on market.This speaker was particularly weak in speaking English.He speaks of not going back to Finlandia, of not returning to Finland.I have labelled this a case of reborrowing because I have assumed that by Finlandia he means Finland.It is as if he has borrowed the English word Finland (Finland in Finnish is Suomi) and then added a Finnish partitive ending to it (Finland-ia).I cannot categorically state that the informant does this in Finnish, for I am only studying the spoken English of these informants, but it would be highly unusual to be using this form in his everyday English, without there being some influence from his spoken Finnish.This usage was not an isolated incident.This informant used the word Finlandia on 16 separate occasions.
One of the aims of this paper was to examine the data in relation to grammatical categories for potential paradigmatic (that is, the tightness of a given sub-system, e.g., pronouns, determiners, demonstratives) or syntagmatic (that is, the organisation of a sentence) coherence.It seems that the results presented here tend to agree with Appel and Muysken (1987, 172) that "paradigmatically organised words are rarely borrowed".Table 5, Grammatical classification of re-borrowings, shows us that only 6 words were paradigmatic, accounting for a total of only 9.2% of all the reborrowing.However, there was a clear syntagmatic dominance, accounting for 90.8% of the data.
A closer look at this syntagmatic data, through Tables 5, 6 and  7, and Figs. 1 and 2, offers some other patterns.As a collective group, my Finnish informants tend to re-borrow nouns (58.6%) more frequently than verbs (27.7%) which are, in turn, re-borrowed more frequently than adjectives (4.5%).This propensity to borrow nouns more frequently again concurs with Appel and Muysken (1987, 172): "a verb is more crucial to that organisation (syntagmatic) than a noun, and perhaps therefore it is harder to borrow verbs than nouns."Lauttamus (1990, 40) also found that his informants favoured the use of nouns (59%) rather than verbs (2.7%).Lauttamus' view (1990, 47) that Finns do not use switching or borrowing as common discourse modes, and that any switching found within the community can be best characterised as emblematic helps to explain why both the Australian Finns and their American counterparts use nouns so frequendy, in comparison with other grammatical constituents.It might also go some way towards explaining why re-borrowing even exists among these communities.
If we examine this syntagmatic data according to the sex of the speaker (Tables 6 and 7) different patterns arise.The men clearly used more nouns than they did verbs than they did adjectives.They used no pronouns or prepositions whatsoever.The females, however, differed somewhat in their usage.They used marginally more verbs than nouns and considerably more verbs than the men (a ratio of 2.6:1), but then, unlike the men, they used pronouns.They also used more adjectives than the men and some prepositions.This difference in usage raises many questions and warrants further investigation.For example, do the women have a greater propensity to use more verbs because they are more expressive?Do they tend to use verbs to refer to process more than men do?Or, conversely, have the men been better able to learn the English verbs and hence have no need to resort to re-borrowing techniques?These are interesting questions but they lie outside the scope of this present study.
(6) I'm not sure that, but I think so that time, because there is a..., then is uh, plenty uh, Finnish people.Extract (6) is an interesting example which again helps to support my argument for the existence of the special category of reborrowing.Määttänen and Nissi (1994, 42, 124) state that maini is a fully established integrated loan in American Finnish.This claim is supported by Virtaranta's dictionary of American Finnish (1992).
Virtaranta claims that maini is the most often used integrated form for the English word mine.So, it is fair to assume from this that maini is an integrated loan in Australian Finnish, initially borrowed from Australian English and then borrowed back into the Finnish Australian in its new form.It has, essentially, been re-borrowed.
(7) It was, ((SIGHS)) I've been driving, driving something over fifty years and uh I have been once [earlier] in a, it wasn't accident, one woman driving Finland < > completely < > service, service car.It was a, this transport komppaniin service vehicle.This one women drive it.... (FAEC 1A36, male no. 3) Extract ( 7) is interesting because of the manner in which the speaker has mixed both grammars.He also uses Finnish phonology.Instead of using the English possessive [s] (komppanii's) he has used the Finnish genitive ending -[n] (komppanii-n).I have categorised this as a re-borrowing because the original English word is spoken with Finnish phonology and stress and has incorporated Finnish grammar, yet it is found in the Finnish Australian speech.
(8) Why because we had that time big family and I working and, and now I can stay home and I can do what I want and no any problem, finanssi or anything like that, it's easy life.(FAEC 1A49, female no.4) I have included extract (8) because of the ambiguity of the word finanssi.It could be argued that this is a noun or then that it is an adjective.I have determined it to be an adjective because I believe this suits the surrounding discourse most appropriately.The woman is discussing her life in retirement.If she were to be using correct Finnish, the most appropriate noun in this context would be rahaongelmia, whereas the adjective would be taloudellisia.
(9) (Her occupation, what was her last occu..., occ..., last job?)Uh, she was al..., also masinisti.(FAEC 1A57, male no.7) Extract ( 9) is another clear case of the re-borrowing process.The speaker is talking about his wife's last occupation.We are told she was a masinisti, that is, that she was a machinist.However, if one was to use correct Finnish, a machinist, if we consider heavy industry, would be koneenkäyttäjä, or, if we are referring to a seamstress, it would be an ompelija.It seems quite apparent that the speaker has borrowed the English form into his Australian Finnish and then re-borrowed it back from his Australian Finnish into his Finnish Australian.
(10) That's right yes.There was a one Finnish, urn, family there and then they went to the another hydro-vilitsi so there was no Finnish people except what we got, got to the visitors coming from Hobart, Finnish people.Oh a but every day there wasn't none.(FAEC 1A1, female no. 1) Finally, extract (10) offers an interesting use of the compound noun hydro-village.During the 1950s through to the early 1970s, many of the Finnish immigrants and their families lived in specially established villages in the Snowy Mountains whilst working on the construction of the Snowy Mountain Scheme, a vast hydro-electric system.This informant (on more than one occasion) refers to one of these villages as a hydro-vilttst.She uses English phonology for hydro but Finnish phonology and morphology for village, that is, vilitsi.However, the Finnish word for village is kylä.Once again, it seems rather apparent that she has borrowed the English word village into her Australian Finnish and then re-borrowed it back into her Finnish Australian.

Conclusions
The natural language presented and discussed in this paper clearly supports the claim that re-borrowing is a concrete phenomenon.It is a category of borrowing most likely to be found amongst the speech of non-fluent bilinguals and, for the group under study, is predominantly syntagmatic in nature.The informants' overall propensity to mostly reborrow nouns indicates the predominantly emblematic nature of this category.
The existence of this unusual category of borrowing is difficult to dispute but it does lead one to question how this category comes into being.Is it a fossilised remnant of the speakers' initial interlanguage?If so, why is there no progress beyond this level towards improved fluency and why do women tend, as a whole, to re-borrow verbs more so than the men?Is this re-borrowing a manifestation of the dual lexicon hypothesis (Paradis 1983, Bokamba 1989), where the use of re-borrowed words suggests an overlap between these lexicons?If so, why is the speaker unable to correctly separate between these lexicons?These and other related questions are worthy of further investigation.

Table 6 :
Distribution of grammatical classifications for male informants.