Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Nonesuch phonemes in loanwords

Holly J. Kennard
  • Corresponding author
  • Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, Clarendon Institute, Walton Street, Oxford OX1 2HG, UK
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Aditi Lahiri
Published Online: 2019-11-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0033

Abstract

Loanwords may or may not affect the phonological system of a language. Much of the loanword literature has focused on the adaptation of “foreign” contrasts to native systems; however, there are certain cases where languages appear to have borrowed new phonemes. We argue that loanwords alone cannot introduce a new phoneme into a language unless there are special circumstances. We examine three case studies of apparently borrowed “unusual” phonemic contrasts: Swiss German initial geminates, Bengali retroflex stops, and English voiced fricatives. In each case, we find that rather than the loanwords introducing brand-new phonemes, an existing allophonic alternation has become phonemic due to a large influx of loanwords. Thus, the phonology rather than the phonetics alone – marked or otherwise – dominates the absorption of loans.

Keywords: phonology; loanwords; Bengali; English; Swiss German

References

  • Abramson, Arthur S. 1987. Word-initial consonant length in Pattani Malay. In Thomas V. Gamkrelidze (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th international congress of phonetic sciences, 68–70. Talinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR.Google Scholar

  • Algeo, John & Thomas Pyles. 2014 [1964]. The origins and development of the English language, 7th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

  • Allen, W. Sidney. 1965. Vox Latina: A guide to the pronunciation of classical Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Apte, Vamam Shivram. 1965. The practical Sanskrit-English dictionary. 4th edn. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Leon Gulikers. 1995. The Celex lexical database, release 2. http://web.phonetik.unifrankfurt.de/simplex.html (Accessed 25 November 2015).

  • Bennett, William H. 1955. The southern English development of Germanic initial [f s þ]. Language 31(3). 367–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Braunschweiler, Norbert. 1997. Integrated cues of voicing and vowel length in German: a production study. Language and Speech 40. 353–376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burrow, J. A. & Thorlac Turville-Petre. 2005. A book of middle English. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Calabrese, Andrea & Leo Wetzels (eds.). 2009. Loan phonology: issues and controversies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1975 [1926]. The origin and development of the Bengali language. Vol. 1. Calcutta: Rupa & Co.Google Scholar

  • Compton, Richard & Elan Dresher. 2011. Palatalization and “strong I” across Inuit dialects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 56(2). 203–228.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davis, Garry W. & Gregory K. Iverson. 1995. Segment organization in the High German consonant shift. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7(2). 111–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dresher, Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eckman, Fred R. & Gregory K. Iverson. 2015. Second language acquisition and phonological change. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32(1). 3–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gbéto, Flavien. 2000. Les emprunts linguistiques d’origine européenne en Fon. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Herbert, Robert K. 1990a. Hlonipha and the ambiguous woman. Anthropos 85(4–6). 455–473.Google Scholar

  • Herbert, Robert K. 1990b. The sociohistory of clicks in Southern Bantu. Anthropological Linguistics 32(3/4). 295–315.Google Scholar

  • Hock, Hans Henrich. 1975. Substratum influence on (Rig-Vedic) Sanskrit? Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 5(2). 76–125.Google Scholar

  • Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Iverson, Gregory K. & Joseph Salmons. 2008. Germanic aspiration: Phonetic enhancement and language contact. Sprachwissenschaft 33(3). 257–278.Google Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, Michael. 2003. The role of perception in loanword phonology. A review of Les emprunts linguistiques d’origine européenne en Fon by Flavien Gbéto, Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, 2000. Studies in African Linguistics 32(1). 95–112.Google Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, Michael. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: A case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29(2–3). 316–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kenstowicz, Michael & Atiwong Suchato. 2006. Issues in loanword adaptation: A case study from Thai. Lingua 116(7). 921–949.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kent, Ray D. & Charles Read. 2002. The acoustic analysis of speech. Albany, NY: Singular Thomson Learning.Google Scholar

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Phonological representations: Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory, 57–86. Tokyo: Taikusha.Google Scholar

  • Kohler, Klaus J. 1977. The production of plosives. Arbeitsberichte Des Instituts Für Phonetik an Der Universität Kiel 8. 30–110.Google Scholar

  • Kraehenmann, Astrid. 2001. Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word. Phonology 18(1). 109–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kraehenmann, Astrid. 2003. Quantity and prosodic asymmetries in Alemannic: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kraehenmann, Astrid. 2011. Initial geminates. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1124–1146. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kraehenmann, Astrid & Aditi Lahiri. 2008. Duration differences in the articulation and acoustics of Swiss German word-initial geminate and single stops. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(6). 4446–4455.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Lahiri, Aditi & Jorge Hankamer. 1988. The timing of geminate consonants. Journal of Phonetics 16. 327–338.Google Scholar

  • Lahiri, Aditi & Astrid Kraehenmann. 2004. On maintaining and extending contrasts: Notker’s Anlautgesetz. Transactions of the Philological Society 102(1). 1–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Laker, Stephen. 2009. An explanation for the early phonemicisation of a voice contrast in English fricatives. English Language and Linguistics 13(2). 213–226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lanham, Len W. 1963. The tonemes of Xhosa: A restatement. Studies in Linguistics 17. 35–58.Google Scholar

  • Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume 2: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lisker, Leigh & Arthur S. Abramson. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 20(3). 384–422.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MacDonell, Arthur Anthony. 1929. A practical Sanskrit dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Maddieson, Ian & Kristin Precoda. 1990. The UCLA phonological segment inventory database. http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/upsid.html (accessed 25 November 2015).

  • McColl Millar, Robert. 2015. Trask’s historical linguistics. 3rd edn. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Mikuteit, Simone & Henning Reetz. 2007. Caught in the ACT: The timing of aspiration and voicing in East Bengali. Language and Speech 50(2). 247–277.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Minkova, Donka. 2011. Phonemically contrastive fricatives in Old English? English Language and Linguistics 15(1). 31–59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Monier-Williams, Monier. 1979. A Sanskrit-English dictionary. new edn. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

  • Muller, Jennifer S. 2001. The phonology and phonetics of word-initial geminates. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Oxford English Dictionary. 2015a. “fan, n.1”. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/67999?rskey=9O58R1&result=1&isAdvanced=false (accessed 7 December 2015).

  • Oxford English Dictionary. 2015b. “fent, n.”. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/69287 (accessed 7 December 2015).

  • Oxford English Dictionary. 2015c. “vent, n.1”. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/222206?rskey=eUkk8t&result=1&isAdvanced=false (accessed 7 December 2015).

  • Oxford English Dictionary. 2015d. “vetch, n.”. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/222955?redirectedFrom=vetch (accessed 7 December 2015).

  • Oxford English Dictionary. 2015e. “vixen, n. and adj.”. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/224224?redirectedFrom=vixen (accessed 7 December 2015).

  • Paradis, Carole & LaCharité. Darlene. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 379–430.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Paradis, Carole & LaCharité. Darlene. 2011. Loanword adaptation: From lessons learned to findings. In John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & C. L. Yu Alan (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 751–778. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Raum, Otto Friedrich. 1973. The social functions of avoidances and taboos among the Zulu. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ridouane, Rachid. 2007. Gemination in Tashlhiyt Berber: An acoustic and articulatory study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37(2). 119–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schwarzschild, L. A. 1973. Initial retroflex consonants in Middle Indo-Aryan. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93(4). 482–487.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Silverman, David. 1992. Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9(2). 289–328.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Thurgood, Graham. 1993. Geminates: A cross-linguistic examination. In Joel Ashmore Nevis, Gerald McMenamin & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Papers in honor of Frederick H. Brengelman on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Department of Linguistics, CSU, Fresno, 129–139. Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar

  • Turner, Ralph L. 1966. A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Uffmann, Christian. 2015. Loanword adaptation. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Whitney, William Dwight. 1879. A Sanskrit grammar. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

  • Yip, Moira. 2006. The symbiosis between perception and grammar in loanword phonology. Lingua 116(7). 950–975.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-11-14


Citation Information: Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0033.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in