1

Loanword Phonology

Loanword adaptation is an important field of the linguistic studies and many

questions regarding the nature of the adaptation patterns have been raised. No clear
answer has yet been given on whether it is the phonetic or the phonology of the source
and target language that determines the adaptation process.

On the one hand, a phonetic approach has been supported by a number of

linguistics (Silverman, ;Yip. 1993). Silverman developed a phonetic model of
loanword adaptation based on two distinct levels: the Perceptual and the Operative
level. The input of the loanword phonology is not based on linguistic data, but mainly
on the perception of the acoustic signals. At the Perceptual level (Scansion 1), the
non-native segments of the acoustic output of the source language are replaced by
native segments which are articulatorily or acoustically closer to the segment of the
source language. Silverman also proposes that non-native segments may never been
perceived by the non-native speakers and they are imposed to phonetic salience. In the
Operative Level (Scansion 2), the phonotactic constraints of the target language are
imposed to the input. To put it in different words a combination of perceptual factors
and concurrence of native phonetics constraints give the final outcome. [In the
examination of the English loanwords in Cantonese, Silverman notes that the adaptive
words have been minimally influenced by the phonological processes of the target
language.]

A similar perspective of loanword phonology has been supported by Yip

(1993). She also analyzes loanword adaptation based on two models the perceptual
and the phonological one, agreeing with Silverma’s view of salient segments.
However, Yip proposes the examination of the loanwords model into a constraint-
model.

On the other hand, the phonological approach gives more emphasis on the
adaptation of the ill-formed segments to the recipient language rather than on the
perceptual factors that determine the linguistic output (Paradu and La Charite, 1997;
Jacobs and Gussehoven 2000). Paradi and La Charite in their famous article
“Preservation and Minimality in Loanword Adaptation” (1997) propose a generativist
approach to loanword phonology. They support that the segments of the source
language are imposed to a series of universal repair mechanisms which determine the
adaptation of the ill-formed segments into the native phonology.

1. Preservation Principle: Segmental information is maximally preserved

within the limits of the Threshold Principle.
2. Threshold Principle: All languages have a tolerance threshold to the
amount of repair needed to enforce segmental preservation. This
threshold is the same for all the languages: two steps or two repairs
with a given constraint domain.
 2

3. Minimality Principle: A repair strategy must apply at the lowest

phonological level to which the violated constraint refers. Repairs must
involve as few strategies (steps) as possible

Agree that loanword adaptation occurs outside the phonological constraints of the
native grammar and is independent of the constraints of the borrowing language.

In addition, Optimality theory has been supported by many linguistics as a model of

analysis that facilitates the understanding of the adapted forms.

The recent years interaction of phonetic and phonological perspective in loanword

adaptation is emphasizes. Kang and Katsuda (….) in their article about loanword
phonology claim that both phonology and phonetic play an important role in loanword
adaptation and that emphasis should be given on the factors that support the
preference of the one over the other. Also, they claim that many non-grammatical
factors based on sociology, alphabet or language status may account for a variety of
alphabetical preferences. A sociolinguistic factor that may affect loanword adaptation
is bilingualism ( Paradi and Charite, 1997; Haugens 1950). Haugen (1950) proposes
that the loanwords are introduced to the target language by bilingual speakers of both
the source and the target language who are aware of the phonology of both languages.
There are two types of segmental information The adaptation of the segments is based
on whether the segmental information: Prohibited segments and Tolerated segments.
The former are the ill-formed structures that do not exist on the target language, while
the last refers to segments that do not need to be adapted differently in the target
language (Haugen, 1950). Bilingual speakers substitute the segments of the source
language taking into consideration the phonological constraints of the source
language.

Model of analysis

A constraint-based analysis of loanword adaptation is proposed by a number of

linguistics. Yip (1993) argues that loanword phonology can be examined only under a
constraint hypothesis… Smith examines OT in Loanword phonology under the
predictions of Correspondence Theory, proposed by McCarthy and Prince, 1995.

 Given two strings S1 and S2, correspondence is a relation ℜ from the elements
of S1 to those of S2. Elements α S1 and β S2 are referred to as correspondents
of one another when αℜβ. (McCarthy and Prince, 1995: 262; original
emphasis)
 3

A brief overview of Silverman’s mode

The view that the input of loanword phonology is “non-linguisticx” crucially assumes that
borrowers do not have access to L1 phonological structure, or do not use it (Silverman pp.
292: 305)

 . Incoming acoustic signal -SCANSION 1 Perceptual Level representation

(Native segmental and tonal inventory constraints)-SCANSION 2 Operative
Level representation (Native phonotactic constraints and preferences)-
OUTPUT. Silverman concludes that loanword and native phonology are
distinct. The view that the input to loanword phonology is non-linguistic (and
therefore lacking phonological structure)
 The phonological approach, as opposed to the phonetic one, accounts for
stability of phonological adaptations within a community

A debate among the linguistic community regarding the phonetic or phonological role
of loanword adaptation.

 Agree that loanword adaptation occurs outside the phonological constraints of

the native grammar and is independent of the constraints of the borrowing
language.
a) Paradis and La Charité in their article “Preservation and Minimality in
Loanword Adaptation” (1997) refer to some universal constraints regarding
loanword adaptation. Generativist approach.
4. Preservation Principle: Segmental information is maximally preserved
within the limits of the Threshold Principle.
5. Threshold Principle: All languages have a tolerance threshold to the
amount of repair needed to enforce segmental preservation. This
threshold is the same for all the languages: two steps or two repairs
with a given constraint domain.
6. Minimality Principle: A repair strategy must apply at the lowest
phonological level to which the violated constraint refers. Repairs must
involve as few strategies (steps) as possible.
 From a sociolinguistic perspective: The loanwords are introduced to native
lexicon because of the bilinguilist’s exposure to language. Paradis and La
Charité argue with Weinreich (1970) that the phonology of the bilingual
provides the initial and main locus of loanword adaptation (1997, pp. 393)
 4

 “We do not believe that it will ever be possible to explain every single counter-
example to a rule or a strong adaptation tendency, that is, to identify with certainty
the factor responsible for its divergence.” (pp. 382)
 (McCarthy and Prince, 1995) Correspondence by OT. Loanword Phonology is
not different from native phonology.
 Smith: perceptual information (phonetic approach, misperception. Look at
Orfanos) , orthographic information (=it cannot happen in the case of Arabic
and greek alphabet, mentioned by Haugen, 1950, explicit knowledge of Ls
grammar (=bilinguals)

b) Haugen 1950
 Haugen proposes that in loanword adaptation there are two types of segmental
information : Prohibited segments and Tolerated segments. Bilingual speakers
substitute the segments of the source language taking into consideration the
phonological constraintsof the source language.
 The bilinguals who make the first substitutions are in a rough way carrying
comparative linguistics. That substitution is a common phenomenon under
such cases has been recognized by phonetics Haugen’s classification of the
bilinguals (three stages). Haugen’s hypothesis that borrowings are introduced
by bilinguals
 bilingual speakers are the importers and main adapters of loanwords.
Monolinguals primarily use well adapted established loans, or established
loans that contain only native and peripheral segments, not prohibited
segments.
 What borrowing is: Loanwords in which the speakers have imported not
only the meaning of the form but also its phonetic structure though with more
or less complete substitution of native phonemes
 a division of loans according to their extent of morphemic substitution: none,
partial, or complete(=phonemic substitution)
 LOANWORDS show morphemic importation without substitution. Any
morphemic importation can be further classified according to the degree of its
phonemic substitution: none, partial, or complete.
 Loanword phonology is the attempts to recapture the process of analysis that
results in phonemic substitution.
 Words may come in through various members of community in several
different forms. The forms acquired will also be differently reproduced when
different dialects attempt to reproduce them
 A PRE- bilingual period
 5

c) Loanword Phonology, Yoonjung Kang and Hironori Katsuda

 Loanwords often undergo processes that have no precedents in the
borrowing language phonology, and adaptation is often more naturally
expressed as a repair of output constraint violations rather than an outcome
of rewrite rules of the native language
 it has been proposed that the contrastive status of the features in the native
phonology determines which features are preserved and which are
sacrificed during segmental adaptation
 Not all emergent patterns in loanwords can be explained by generalizations
in native phonology
 This view provides a solution to many puzzling adaptations, such as
unnecessary repair or divergent repair, where the adaptation pattern seems
to contradict the production grammar of the borrowing language
 we do not expect loanword adaptation to recapitulate native phonological
processes. Instead, we expect the reverse of native processes: vowels
inserted during loanword adaptation are precisely those most likely to be
deleted or reduced in native phonological processes and to appear in the
given phonotactic context
 Sociolinguistic or grammar-external factors
 Distinctive features are also evoked to account for some cases of
differential importation
 At the same time, there are many cases of adaptation where non-
contrastive but salient phonetic features are retained, sometimes at the
expense of contrastive features. This is unexpected if borrowing is
mediated by contrastive features or filtered by an underlying morpheme
structure constraint before it is fed through the rest of phonological
derivation
 This section explores how the representation of the source language
influences loanword adaptation. Some argue that loanword adaptation is
mainly phonological, based on the phonological representation of the
source language without redundant phonetic details (Paradis and LaCharité
1997; LaCharité and Paradis 2005). Others contend that the input is the
acoustic representation of the source language, including all subphonemic
phonetic details of the source language sounds. This view is central to the
adaptation-as-perception approach (Silverman 1992; Yip 1993; Peperkamp
2005; Peperkamp et al. 2008, Boersma & Hamann 2009) and to theories
that consider perceptual similarity as grammatical constraints (Y. Kang
2003; Fleischhacker 2005; Miao 2006; Kenstowicz 2007; Yun 2016,
among others). Empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that
loanword adaptation incorporates both phonetic and phonological
elements, often within the same contact situation, suggesting that the
 6

adaptation process may involve both phonological and phonetic (as well
as morphological2 , semantic, and orthographic) details of the source
language
 a more appropriate question is not whether loanword adaptation is
phonological or phonetic but what factors determine the likelihood of one
type over the other

History of Turkish-Greek Language Contacts. A tale of two languages

 “As far as the field of lexical copying is concerned, we can assume that
most of the Turkish words used in Greek and the Greek words used in
Turkish were copied during this important period of close historical and
political contact between Greeks and Ottoman Turks” (pp.15)

 At that time, bilingualism in the towns was certainly widespread, and

therefore it was the basic condition for lexical copying, especially from
Turkish into Greek – Turkish being the socially dominant language.9

 from the accounts of European travelers we know that the Turkish

population in Athens during the 17th century was effectively bilingual, and
that by the 16th century bilingualism was widespread in Greek cities
(Guillet de la Guilletière [1675] and Pierre Belon [1553], see Banfi 1985:
19-20 and 23).

 Actually, massive Turkization of the Greek-speaking population of Greece

and the islands did not take place, as opposed to the situation in Anatolia.
Even the Islamized groups in Epirus, Thessaly and Crete (numerically
significantly smaller than their Christian countrymen) kept their native
Greek dialect although they converted to the other religion

Ιστορία της Νέας Ελληνικής γλώσσας, Henry Tonnet, Μεταφραση: Καραμάνου Μ.

και Λιαλιάτσης Π. (1995) Εκδόσεις Δημ. Ν. Παπαδήμα.

 The main influence of turkization was the vocabulary borrowing from

Turkish. (pp. 38)
 Main language of the Ottoman empire was Turkish
 Attikism; Christian priests were using the archaic greek
 Alliterate population
 7

 Turkish loanwords were more than the italic borrowings; the vocabulary that
was introduced are daily words, cultural civilization, words that could not be
substituted by the already existent Greek ones.

Ομάδες δάνειων λέξεων από τα Τούρκικα στα Ελληνικά: αντικείμενο νοικοκυριού,

καθημερινές ανάγκες (π.χ. τζάκι, ταβάνι, κουβάς, μπρίκι, καπάκι, φλιτζάνι, τουφέκι,
τουλούμι, γλέντι κτλ.) φαγητό, ποτό (π.χ. πιλάφι,λουκουμάς, μεζές, μπακλαβάς, γιαούρτι,
καφές, χαλβάς, κιμάς, καρπούζι κτλ.) τέχνες, επάγγελμα (π.χ. καφετζής, μανάβης,
αφέντης, λεβέντης κτλ.) ρούχα (π.χ. παπούτσια, γιακάς, γιλέκο( γελέκι), τσέπη κτλ.)

Φωνηεντική αρμονία [vowel harmony]. Ένα αξιοσημείωτο, φαινόμενο είναι αυτό της
φωνηεντικής αρμονίας (δηλαδή της παρουσίας στο πλαίσιο της λέξης φωνηέντων με κατά
το δυνατόν παρόμοια αρθρωτικά χαρακτηριστικά), από επίδραση της τουρκικής, το οποίο
εμφανίζεται σε ποικίλες εκδοχές, ανάλογα με τα επιμέρους ιδιώματα, και κυρίως στα χωριά
της καππαδοκικής κοιλάδας: εκεί, π.χ., το φωνήεν της κατάληξης εξαρτάται από το ριζικό
φωνήεν της λέξης. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι. μια ρηματική κατάληξη μπορεί να μεταβάλλεται
ανάλογα με τα φωνήεντα που εμφανίζονται στο θέμα του ρήματος: π.χ. -dίζω μετά από i ή e
(καππ. ιστεντίζω '< τουρκ. istemek), -də́ ζω, μετά από a ή ə (ανλαdə́ ζω 'καταλαβαίνω' <
τουρκ. anlamaq), -dούζω μετά από o ή u (οτουρdούζω 'κάθομαι'< τουρκ. oturmaq), -düζω
μετά από ö ή ü (düσ̌ ündǘζω 'σκέφτομαι' < τουρκ. düšünmek). Το φαινόμενο απαντά κατά
κανόνα σε τουρκικά δάνεια. (βλ. Janse 2001 και Dawkins 1916, 67-68).

References

Vallera, S. (2006). Language Contact and the Lexicon in the History of Cypriot Greek. Bern:
Peter Language (only Cypriot greek) pp.20 different phonology from modern standard greek

Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowings. Language, 9.

Paradis, C. & LaCharité, D. (1997) Preservation and Minimality in Loanword

Adaptation. Journal of Linguistics. 33, 379-430

Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple Scansions in Loanword Phonology: Evidence from

Cantonese. Phonology, 9(2), Cambridge University Press. 289-328.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4420058

Yoonjung,K. & Katsuda, H. (). Loanword Phonology (2nd ed). The Wiley Blackwell
Companion to Phonology.
 8

Kappler, M. (2011). A Tale of two Languages: Tracing the History of Turkish-Greek

Language Contacts. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları, 21 (1), 95-130