Models of Phonological Loanword Adaptation

The Optimality Model as Opposed to the Perceptual and Phonological Models

Authors

  • Ahmed Hamid Abdulrazzaq College of Arts, University of Baghdad
  • Sundus Muhsin Ali Al-Ubaidy College of Arts, University of Baghdad

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31973/aj.v3i144.3881

Keywords:

borrowing, loanword adaptation, phonological adaptation, optimality theory, constraint-based

Abstract

Borrowing in linguistics refers to the process whereby a group of speakers incorporates certain foreign linguistic components into their home language via a process known as linguistic borrowing. The process by which these foreign linguistic elements, known as loanwords, go through phonological, morphological, or semantic changes in order for them to fit the grammar of the recipient language is referred to as loanword adaptation. Loanwords go through these changes in order for them to become compatible with the grammar of the recipient language. One of the most divisive topics in loanword phonology is whether adaptations occur at the phonemic or phonetic levels, and current literature distinguishes three primary viewpoints: nativization-through-perception, nativization-through-production, and the Optimality Model. This article provides an overview of lexical borrowing and then presents a detailed account of the three models of phonological loanword adaptation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Ahmed Hamid Abdulrazzaq, College of Arts, University of Baghdad

    MA in Linguistics/University of Baghdad + MA in Teaching Methods/University of Exeter + PhD student/University of Baghdad
    Lecturer, Department of English, College of Arts, University of Baghdad

  • Sundus Muhsin Ali Al-Ubaidy, College of Arts, University of Baghdad

    • PhD in Linguistics / University of Baghdad
    • Professor, Department of English, College of Arts, University of Baghdad

References

Boersma, P., & Hamann, S. (2008). Loanword Phonology as First language Phonlogical Perception’. In A. C. (ed)., Loan-Phonology: Issues and Controversies. John Benjamins.

Calabrese, A., & Wetzels, L. (2009). Loan phonology. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Crawford, C. J. (2009). Adaptation and transmission in Japanese loanword phonology. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Cornell University.

Dohlus, K. (2005). Phonetics or phonology: asymmetries in loanword adaptations - French and German mid front rounded vowels in Japanese. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 42, 117-135.

Haspelmath, M. (2009). Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In M. &. Haspelmath, Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 35-54. De Gruyter Mouton.

Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. . Language, 26(2), 210-231.

Haunz, C. (2007). Factors in loanword adaptation (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. thesis. University of Edinburgh).

Hyman, L. (1970). The role of borrowings in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 1: 1–48.

Kang, Y. (2010). The emergence of phonological adaptation from phonetic adaptation: English loanwords in Korean. . Phonology, 27(2), 225-253.

Kenstowicz, M. (2003). Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: a case study. MIT.

Kenstowicz, M. (2010). Loanword phonology and enhancement. Proceedings of the 2010 Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (SICOL-2010).

LaCharité, D., & Paradis, C. (2002). Addressing and disconfirming some predictions of phonetic approximation for loanword adaptation. Language Et Linguistique 28, 71–91.

LaCharité, D., & Paradis,C. (2005). Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 223–258.

Malmkjær, K. (2002). The Linguistics encyclopedia. Routledge.

Paradis, C., & LaCharité, D. (1997). Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of linguistics 33, 379-430.

Paradis, C., & LaCharité, D. (2001). Guttural deletion in loanwords. Phonology, 18(2), 255-300.

Paradis, C., & LaCharité, D. (2011). Loanword adaptation: From lessons learned to findings. The handbook of phonological theory, 751-778.

Paradis, C., & Tremblay. A. (2009). Nondistinctive features in loanword adaptation: The unimportance of English aspiration in Mandarin Chinese phoneme categorization. In A. a. Calabrese, Loan Phonology. John B.

Peperkamp, S. (2005). A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 341-352).

Peperkamp, S., & Dupoux, E. (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations the role of perception. Proceedings of the 15th international congress of phonetic sciences, (Vol. 367, p. 370).

Poplack, S. (2001). Code-switching (linguistic). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, 12, 2062-2065.

Radomski, M. (2019). Polish Consonant Clusters in the British Mouth: A Study in Online Loanword Adaptation. . Peter Lang.

Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology, 9(2), 289-328.

Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Terrence Kaufman. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.

Uffmann, C. (2015). Loanword Adaptation. In P. &. Honeybone, The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford University Press.

Yip, M. (2006). The Symbiosis between Perception and Grammar in Loanword Phonology. Lingua 116., 950-175.

Downloads

Published

2023-03-15

Issue

Section

English linguistics and literature

How to Cite

Models of Phonological Loanword Adaptation : The Optimality Model as Opposed to the Perceptual and Phonological Models. (2023). Al-Adab Journal, 3(144), 17-24. https://doi.org/10.31973/aj.v3i144.3881

Publication Dates

Similar Articles

1-10 of 386

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.