Orthographic Traces in Romanian and Japanese Loanwords: Enriching Phonological Representations

in Journal of Language Contact

This paper presents a formal account of the influence of orthography in the adaptation of Romanian loanwords from French and Japanese loanwords from English. It agues that, in the course of adaptation, the accompanying presence of a written representation does play a part in shaping the phonological content of borrowed words. To explain such orthographic manifestations in loanwords, a grammatical mechanism is devised in which underlying input representations are composed of linguistic information emanating from both the native perceptual system and the grapheme-phoneme mapping procedure. Cast in the framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2004), the bulk of the analysis rests in determining how the grammar evaluates output forms resulting from such amalgamated inputs. Theoretical implications of such a proposal are also discussed, in particular as it concerns the nature of input coding and representation. In short, phonological representations are assumed to embrace the segmental richness imparted by both speech and print.

Abstract

This paper presents a formal account of the influence of orthography in the adaptation of Romanian loanwords from French and Japanese loanwords from English. It agues that, in the course of adaptation, the accompanying presence of a written representation does play a part in shaping the phonological content of borrowed words. To explain such orthographic manifestations in loanwords, a grammatical mechanism is devised in which underlying input representations are composed of linguistic information emanating from both the native perceptual system and the grapheme-phoneme mapping procedure. Cast in the framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2004), the bulk of the analysis rests in determining how the grammar evaluates output forms resulting from such amalgamated inputs. Theoretical implications of such a proposal are also discussed, in particular as it concerns the nature of input coding and representation. In short, phonological representations are assumed to embrace the segmental richness imparted by both speech and print.

1. Introduction

In his review article of Gbéto’s study on loanwords in Fon (Niger-Congo), Kenstowicz (2003: 96) emphasizes the opinion that “loanwords are no longer just a minor phonological curiosity or nuisance and [that they] merit the serious attention of theoretical research”. The last decade certainly saw the study of loanword adaptations gain significant attention as linguists have recognized their contribution to phonological theory.

Indeed, loanword adaptations are of particular interest to the exploration and understanding of phonological competence. As linguistic objects transitioning between two systems (foreign to native), loanwords embody the struggle to, on the one hand, remain as faithful as possible to the source language, and on the other hand, integrate as much as possible the borrowing language. Most studies have precisely focused on unraveling this balancing act, proposing various approaches and models that account for the nature and locus of the adaptations (see Calabrese and Wetzels, 2009; Kang, 2009 for a detailed overview and references). While each stance offers insightful perspectives into a general adaptation process, they nevertheless often tend to underestimate the role of external factors in shaping the phonological/phonetic form of borrowed words. One of such factors that is routinely overlooked in formal approaches of adaptation is orthography1.

The role of orthography as a source input has thus far been moderately acknowledged (Lacharité and Paradis, 2000, 2005; Paradis and Prunet, 2000) and almost exclusively ignored in formal models of loanword adaptations. Yet, orthographic traces can be observed in numerous loanwords. For the sake of illustration, a few loanwords in Czech and Polish have been chosen (1).

  1. Examples of orthographically informed loanwords in Czech and Polish.

  2. (data from Molęda, 2008)

    tab1

The loanwords in (1) show that silent orthographic letters in English (« t, k, l, d ») are phonemically encoded in their loanword counterparts. Because most treatments of loanwords concentrate on ‘sound-to-sound’ adaptations, they fail to capture these adapted forms, which “acknowledge the supremacy of the written form of the donor language in the process of loanword adaptation” (Molęda, 2008: 303).

The current dynamics of global communication and interactions force us to consider multiple sources of foreign borrowing, including print input. With the advent of technology, language contact situations have taken on various forms that no longer necessitate physical or geographical proximity – implying direct access to the foreign pronunciation. Rather, language contact situations are and will continue to be defined by increased exposure and reliance on print as well as speech. Subsequently, orthographic influences on the shape of loanwords will become saliently more manifest than has thus far been observed. As one of the potential sources of borrowings, orthography should therefore not be relegated to a mere happenstance in the loan process.

In this paper, I examine loanwords in Romanian and Japanese that arose from the confluence of information sources (oral and print) and investigate the way the adaptation process may have been carried out. I am therefore concerned with adaptation at its onset, when an adapter is confronted with two foreign sources simultaneously, from which a single loanword is generated. To formally account for the data at hand, I propose a grammatical mechanism that amalgamates information supplied by the native perceptual system and the grapheme-phoneme mapping procedure (Colheart et al., 2001, more specifically, the GPC route of the DRC Model) into a single lexical-phonological representation. Given this hybrid input representation, the Optimality Theoretic grammar (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2004) proceeds to generate a number of output candidates subject to evaluation by constraints defining the native, recipient grammar. Contingent on the set of constraints at play, the resulting, optimal output form will exhibit certain traces from the orthographic source. The model I propose and will make use of here is given in (2), which I return to in Section 3.

  1. The SimulTaneous model of Loanword Adaptation (STLA).

    tab2

The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 first addresses orthographic characteristics necessary for orthographic traces to be observed in loanwords, and then partitions into two subsections (Romanian first, Japanese second) each presenting the data followed by a formal analysis. Brief mention of the processes involved in the native channels (‘¦ box’ in (2)) will be made throughout, but the locus of the analyses rests in what goes on in the native production grammar (‘|| box’ in (2)). Throughout, it is important for the reader to keep in mind that I am proposing an analytical treatment of online adaptations; that is, adaptations as they may have occurred at the moment of borrowing. The model in (2) is meant to capture the state of an adapter’s grammar at that instant. In some cases, the paucity of the data coupled with adapter-specific idiosyncrasies (preferred reliance on speech vs. print) preclude us from making definite across-the-board generalizations. Nevertheless, the present study primarily serves as a theoretical exploration of the underlying (grammatical) process that is prompted when two simultaneous channels of information are available to a given adapter. The theoretical implications of the model in (2) are discussed in Section 3. Section 4 concludes.

2. Orthographic Considerations

In order for borrowers to rely on an orthographic source in the process of adaptation, a number of prerequisites must be defined.

  1. Required conditions for orthographic traces to be observed in loanwords.

    • The source language must be alphabetically scripted (i.e. sounds/phonemes are encoded in individual characters or a minimal combination of characters)

    • Borrowers must be familiar with the source language’s script (i.e. ability to decipher its symbolic representation).

    • Borrowers must be exposed to the source language’s script.

While failing to meet these prerequisites undoubtedly entails the absence of orthographic effects, their observance does not unavoidably guarantee the presence of orthographic traces in loanwords. The consideration of orthography in the loan process is entirely dependent on individual adapters’ proclivity. I presume however, that literate adapters are predisposed to attend to information provided by the written input, consequently registering it in the course of their linguistic processing (see Section 2.3).

Besides representing prime examples of the need to consider written source forms in the loan process, the languages under study also differ in terms of their orthographic transparency; that is, the degree in which grapheme-to-phoneme mapping is either uniform (one-to-one correspondences) or variable (one-to-many correspondences). Customarily, languages whose writing system generally presents a more uniform mapping are said to possess a shallow/transparent orthography, while languages whose writing system exhibits more variable mappings are said to rely on a deep/opaque orthography.

The Table in (4) shows an interesting dichotomy between each languages status and their respective orthographic transparency: both donor languages rely on a deep orthography, while both recipient languages rely on a shallow orthography. This difference in orthographic transparency is informative in determining whether borrowers mostly relied on their uniform L1 grapheme-phoneme correspondences or whether their knowledge of the variable L2 grapheme-phoneme correspondences was also exploited in shaping the phonological form of loanwords. It needs to be pointed out that grapheme-phoneme mapping was the only mechanism available to both Romanian and Japanese adapters, given that loanwords have no mental existence prior to their borrowing – there is therefore no lexical search or retrieval possible based on the print form.

  1. Taxonomy of the languages under study.

    tab3

The data presented here indicates that grapheme-phoneme mappings exclusively followed the spelling conventions of the recipient language. In other words, when adapting foreign words with one eye on their print form, Romanian and Japanese borrowers approached the textual source not only bound by the phonological composition of their native language, but also by the orthographic rules that govern the transcription of their native language (i.e. graphemic and orthotactic constraints reflect phonemic and phonotactic constraints and vice versa). In the case at hand, we therefore observe fewer mismatches between grapheme-to-phoneme mapping when borrowing involved the partial reliance on orthography: Romanian and Japanese having shallower orthographies, the mapping between graphemic source and phonemic input was straightforward2.

Additionally, as Table (4) shows, the differing type of scripts between the donor and recipient languages could presumably also affect the extent to which the foreign orthography was registered in the borrowing process. As will be shown, given that Japanese and English do not share a common writing system, Japanese adapters were more prone to attend to the foreign pronunciation, given their relatively modest experience with the Roman alphabet. That is to say, Japanese adapters would have been less likely to compute a written representation they are less accustomed to. On the other hand, Romanian and French do share a common script, which rendered Romanian adapters more attentive to the orthographic representation of the source language. That is to say, Romanian adapters were more likely to compute a written representation they are (highly) accustomed to.

This point is further strengthened when considering other recipient-donor language pairs whose written systems are dissimilar (e.g. Mandarin Chinese with a logographic script and European languages with an alphabetic script). The situation of Mandarin Chinese is similar to that of Japanese: the influx of foreign vocabulary is primarily channeled through print media such as newspapers, magazines, marketing campaigns/products and the Internet. In addition, extensive lines of commerce between China and Western countries have facilitated the introduction of foreign companies’ labels and brand names, whose written forms can be easily seen among the general population. Miao (2005: 53) makes note of several of such loanwords from English, German and Italian that pertain to industrial products or place names (5).

  1. English, German and Italian loanwords in Mandarin Chinese.

    tab4

In (6), the voicing contrast in plosives of the donor languages informs the phonemic aspiration contrast in loans, which follows an expected pattern of adaptation (6a-b). Note that, surprisingly, the phonetic aspiration contour of the source form is completely overlooked when establishing the adapted Mandarin Chinese plosive. Miao (2005: 54) also remarks that a number of loanwords display a deviant adaptation pattern (6c), in which foreign voiceless plosives are adapted as Mandarin Chinese unaspirated plosives, as exemplified in (7).

  1. Adaptation patterns of foreign plosives in Mandarin Chinese.

    tab5

  2. Deviant adaptation pattern of English, German and Italian loanwords in Mandarin Chinese.

    tab6

These latter loan forms are argued by Miao (2005) to arise from orthographic influences, where the exposure to the written form guides the adaptation outcome in selecting a nonaspirated plosive over its otherwise preferred aspirated counterpart. This orthographic effect can be most readily observed in the treatment of German word-final plosives. Miao (2005: 56) contends that German word-final orthographic « b, d, g » are responsible for their Mandarin Chinese unaspirated adaptation since phonetically, they surface as voiceless stops − German prohibiting voiced obstruent codas. Her corpus study enabled her to substantiate this orthographic effect. The Table in (8) shows that word-final “voiced” orthographic letters are adapted as unaspirated plosives, following the expected pattern of adaptation presented in (6a).

  1. Orthographic influence in the adaptation of German word-final plosives.

    tab7

The feasibility of such orthographically-influenced adaptations is due to the introduction in 1958 of “Pinyin, a phonetic script using Latin letters, as the standard spelling system for Mandarin” (Miao 2005: 33). Originally used as an educational tool designed to facilitate pronunciation, Pinyin rapidly became an alternative spelling system in communications with foreign correspondents. Knowledge of this secondary, phonetically-based writing system consequently enabled Mandarin Chinese adapters to uncover and extract the featural composition of alphabetic representations of foreign words, subsequently evaluating these features in the native grammar.

The Mandarin Chinese case, not only bespeaks the required conditions outlined in (3), but also clearly testifies to the fact that mastered L1/L2 grapheme-phoneme correspondences do intervene in the creation of phonological representations. Hence, the degree of familiarity with an alphabetically-scripted writing system (i.e. in the form of mastered grapheme-phoneme mappings) is ultimately going to be an important conditioning factor for the occurrence of orthographic traces in borrowed words. As will be shown in this section, extensive familiarity with a foreign, alphabetic script will lead to increased orthographic influence/incorporation (Romanian); while limited familiarity with a foreign, alphabetic script will lead to moderate orthographic influence/incorporation (Japanese, Mandarin Chinese).

The remainder of this section is organized around each recipient language, Romanian and Japanese respectively, and each subsection first presents the relevant loanword data, followed by a formal analysis.

2.1 Romanian Loanwords

2.1.1 Data3

Since the nineteenth century, the influx of foreign words (predominantly from French) has significantly inflated the Romanian lexicon (Chit̹oran, 2001; Sala, 2005; Friesner, 2009; Schulte, 2009). Instigated by well-established and affluent Romanian scholars, a conscious campaign of re-Romanization (Puşcariu, 1937) of the language led to the adoption of hundreds of foreign terminology, oftentimes entirely replacing existing, native vocabulary. Chit̹oran (2001) and Friesner (2009) note that Romanian adapters (e.g. scholars, dictionary writers, authors) were faced with the decision to borrow either from the written or the oral form (e.g. RM /plafon/ < FR « plafond » [plafɔ˜] vs. RM /rond/ < FR « rond » [ʁɔ˜]). Friesner (2009) in particular notes that a number of loanwords from French “were adopted and adapted from writing, in a conscious manner” (118) and that “final orthographic consonants that are not pronounced in French are occasionally realized in the Romanian loans” (128, my emphasis). The examples in (9-11) attest to this practice.

  1. Preservation of French word-final orthographic « r ».

    tab8

  2. Preservation of French word-final orthographic « s ».

    tab9

  3. Preservation of French word-final orthographic « t ».

    tab10

In all these cases, we observe that the French written form exerts a strong influence on the adaptation of loanwords in Romanian. Given the prevalence of silent letters in the French orthography and their rendition in Romanian loanwords, the role of orthography cannot be disregarded. This adaptation strategy can also be observed with word-medial orthographic vowels being preserved in the Romanian loans. Notice also that an orthographic final « e » is preserved in the Romanian pronunciation, where it is absent in the French pronunciation (12a and 12d).

  1. Preservation of French word-medial orthographic letters.

    tab11

At times, the influence of orthography can be so profound that it engenders the occurrence of novel linguistic outcomes. This is the case with surface [e.e] hiatus stemming from orthographic forms and only observed in loanwords from French (13).

  1. Preservation of orthographically based hiatus in Romanian loans.

    tab12

The examples in (13) reveal the noticeable impact of orthography on the sound system of Romanian: while surface hiatus is uncommon in the native vocabulary – as it is generally resolved by glide epenthesis – it is nevertheless permitted in loanwords4. The cases in (13) testify to the fact that hiatus may actually arise from written forms, where a sequence of adjacent orthographic vowels is readily adapted and preserved on the surface despite there being little (or no) precedence in the native vocabulary. This fact seems to indicate that orthographically-based, phonologically-encoded but phonetically-dispreferred configurations may survive in the borrowing language.

All of these examples suggest that in the presence of a print representation of French words, adapters resorted to Romanian grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules. Further evidence of this strategy comes from adaptations based on the graphemes « g » and « c ». In French, they are realized as /ʒ/ and /s/ respectively when followed by orthographic « i » and « e ». In Romanian, the same graphemes are realized as /ʤ/ and /ʧ/ respectively when followed by orthographic « i » and « e ». The adaptation of orthographic « g » and « c » in Romanian follows grapheme-to-phoneme rules, and is not based on the French pronunciation, knowing that both Romanian and French possess the phonemes /ʒ/ and /s/.

  1. Romanian grapheme-to-phoneme mapping: « g » → [ʤ] /____ « e, i ».

    tab13

  1. Romanian grapheme-to-phoneme mapping: « c » → [ʧ] /____ « e, i ».

    tab14

Although exceptions do exist, where silent orthographic letters are not pronounced (e.g. RM /avertisment/ < FR « avertissement » [avɛʁtisma˜]; RM /divertisment/ < FR « divertissement » [divɛʁtisma˜]), and grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules are supplanted by exposure to the French pronunciation (e.g. RM /sabotaʒ/ < FR [sabotaʒ] « sabotage »; RM /ruʒ/ < FR [ʁuʒ] « rouge ») the general trend was to attend to the written form and adapt accordingly. The presence of orthography during the course of borrowing therefore introduced additional information that literate Romanian adapters did not fail to take into account. As a result, Romanian loanwords exhibit an interesting amalgam of sound and/or written source forms. Such characteristics must be captured by any analytical treatment applied to this data.

2.1.2 Analysis

The Romanian data indicates that written input can shape the phonological form of loanwords. This situation then raises the question of what gets posited as an underlying representation of foreign words borrowed in such a fashion. Given two potential sources, and the availability to resort to grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules on the one hand as well as the availability of creating an underlying representation from the speech signal on the other hand, two phonological scenarios can be envisaged: two (related) input representations are posited, one perceptually-based, the other orthographically-based; or, one input representation is posited containing information from both modalities. Another yet conceivable scenario involves the reliance on correspondences between several representations (e.g. phonological input, phonetic output, orthographic output), a proposal that is not without modification to Correspondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince, 1995): indeed, one of the representations in correspondence must be of an orthographic nature. Such formalism does not however suppress the need for a grapheme-phoneme mapping procedure (i.e. the letter string still needs to be converted into sound pieces), therefore unnecessarily increasing the complexity of the theoretical machinery. I consequently abandon this latter analytical framework for the present study.

The first outcome (i.e. two inputs) is also unsustainable for several reasons. First, experimental evidence (see Section 2.3) suggests that orthographic information must be contained within phonological representations, rather than assuming a subsidiary expression of a given lexical entry. Evidence brought forth by Taft (2006) in particular indicates that orthography enriches phonological representations, and must do so at a level of abstraction that currently escapes any model of speech production and/or formal phonology (see Brewer, 2008 for implications for models of speech production). Second, from a formal perspective, the existence of two phonological representations corresponding to a single lexical entry would mean that the phonological grammar has to select and handle only one at a time for evaluation. Indeed, an OT grammar could orthodoxly not generate output candidates from two input representations at the same time; and even if one admits such innovative configuration, the burden of analysis still rests on accounting for the partial presence of orthographic material in the optimal candidate. How is the grammar extracting and interleaving segmental material from two input representations into a single output string? Third, given two phonological representations, it is entirely reasonable to expect the intermittent manifestation of two optimally corresponding output forms: one generated from the perceptually-based input, the other generated from the orthographically-based input. Such dual loanword forms are however not attested in Romanian (to the best of my knowledge).

Dismissing the idea of two related input representations, I therefore surmise that the recipient grammar actually posits only one single phonological representation. In creating this input, Lexicon Optimization (Prince and Smolensky, 1993: 191), acting on a principle of economy, coalesces identical segments (in terms of feature matrixes) from perception and grapheme-phoneme mapping. That is, Lexicon Optimization diagnoses the presence of identical elements corresponding to the same foreign target, and subsequently merges them into a single phonological unit, in this case, a single phonological segment. It also permits non-identical segments to remain ‘undetermined’ in the underlying representation (formally noted in { }). Within those curly brackets, it is further assumed that segments are unordered with respect to one another. Given that hypothesis, the locus of the analysis now rests in answering how the grammar handles such ‘coalesced’, but more importantly, ‘undetermined’ input material. Let us now turn to concrete examples.

We have seen in Section 2.1.1 that some of the Romanian loanwords are readily obtained from the French spelling. This suggests that print borrowings are handled by a component of the recipient grammar that manipulates orthographic representations. The assumption is that orthographic representations are subject to grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules to yield a phonological object (Coltheart et al., 2001). Going back to the examples in (13), a word such as « idée » would then result in the phonemic representation /idee/ as shown in (16). Given the nature of the Romanian orthographic system (i.e. shallow), the mapping is straightforward.

  1. Grapheme-phoneme mapping in Romanian.

    tab15

However, the sole reliance on grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules does not hold for all loanwords. As mentioned earlier, Romanian adapters were confronted with the task of borrowing either from the oral or the written form, or both. This conflict resulted in loanwords exhibiting influences from both media. If adaptations were only based on orthography, a number of loans would have a different form than what is actually observed. The loanwords in (17) indeed display segmental material emanating from both the phonetic source (i.e. [j]) and the print source (i.e. « l »). The unattested (starred) forms represent the outcome of Romanian grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules only.

  1. Confluence of source forms in Romanian loans.

    tab16

Crucially here, the attested loan forms do not result from phonotactic illegality since Romanian allows the sequence /lo/ (e.g. [lokujeʃte] ‘dwells’), and so orthographically based adaptation (i.e. resorting to grapheme-to-phoneme rules) had to be accompanied by exposure to the French pronunciation.

Via Romanian perception and grapheme-phoneme mapping of the French word ‘pavillon’, the native Romanian grammar posits an underlying representation that contains segmental material from a dual origin. If identical, this material is ‘coalesced’ (represented by subscripted s and t for speech and text respectively, basically recording their provenance); if non-identical, this material remains ‘undetermined’ (also represented by subscripted s and t and enclosed in { }). Giving the distinct origins of the segmental content in these phonological representations, OT constraints ought to be accordingly designed so as to determine the segmental material contained in output forms. Assuming that the segmental richness of these putative inputs is for the most part carried out all the way to the surface (at the phonetic level), indexed Max constraints are needed.

  1. Max-IOS (adapted from McCarthy and Prince, 1995)

  2. Every speech-based segment of the input has a correspondent in the output.

  3. Max-IOT (adapted from McCarthy and Prince, 1995)

  4. Every text-based segment of the input has a correspondent in the output.

Along with the constraints in (18) and (19), an adapter-specific constraint entitled BeFrench is also posited (20). Since I am concerned about the grammar of adapters, a constraint encapsulating an adapter’s knowledge of the foreign language from which she borrows represents a reasonable proposition. This portmanteau constraint therefore serves to formally capture an adapter’s knowledge of the foreign language, in this case, French. Because it is of the domain of the impossible to a priori set forth the precise content of such a constraint, holding across adapters, only the relevant constraints for the discussion at hand are provided below.

  1. BeFrench

    A cover constraint present in the phonology of Romanian adapters, encapsulating their knowledge of the French language. It may also stand in for the phonological knowledge of Romanian-French bilinguals. Specific constraints include:

    1. (cnvg)σ#

    2. The high front vowel [i] and the glide [j] are only tautosyllabic word-finally.

    3. */h/t

    4. Text-based /h/ is prohibited.

The Tableau in (21) illustrates what this amalgamated input representation looks like and how the evaluation is performed for the loanword ‘pavilion’.

  1. OT evaluation for the Romanian loanword ‘pavilion’.

    tab17

In (21), the segments /l/ and /i/ (the former emanating from text and the latter from speech) remain ‘undetermined’, meaning that the grammar has now to decide on their output status: retention? deletion? transformation? etc. High-ranked, indexed Max-IO constraints prevent their loss, therefore excluding candidates (c-e) from the competition. Candidates (a) and (b) are still contenders however. In terms of phonotactics, both candidates are legitimate output forms in Romanian. In order to set them apart, the constraint BeFrench demands that the output form conforms as best as possible to the foreign source, in accordance with its phonotactics (i.e. in French [pa.vi.jɔ˜], the high front vowel [i] and the glide [j] are heterosyllabic, causing an identical configuration in the Romanian loanword).

For the sake of illustration, the evaluation of the loanword in (17b) is presented below. The same ranking used in (21) is readily applicable here as well, where only /l/ from the French orthography is ‘undetermined’; the high front vowel /i/ in this case is ‘coalesced’ because it is present in both the foreign speech and text. Once again, the constraint BeFrench (more specifically (cnvg)σ#) breaks the tie between two phonotactically licit Romanian outputs.

  1. OT evaluation for the Romanian loanword ‘New Year’s Eve’.

    tab18

It needs to be noted however, that the presence of orthographic material in Romanian loanwords tends to be highly localized at the right edge of words. This is not surprising given the fact that French orthography possesses most of its silent letters word-finally. Those admittedly indicate the reliance on grapheme-phoneme mapping on the part of the adapter. But some loanwords exhibit an asymmetry in their segmental material that comes from exposure to the French pronunciation and the French spelling. The loanword example in (9e) shows the conflict between retaining either the word-initial silent « h » or the word-final silent « r ». The absence of [h] in the Romanian loan mirrors French pronunciation, but the presence of [r] mirrors its spelling. Given that Romanian /h/ may occur in all non-nucleic positions (either as a singleton or as part of a biconsonantal cluster; Chit̹oran, 2001), its absence in French loans clearly denotes its phonetic origin.

  1. OT evaluation for the Romanian loanword ‘hospitable’: conflict at the edges6.

    tab19

The Tableau in (23) establishes the constraint against orthographic « h » above Max-IOt, which discards candidates (c) and (d) from the competition. The latter constraint takes care of selecting the desired output (i.e. candidate (a)), which incurs fewer violations. The constraint */h/t can be assumed to be part of the cover constraint BeFrench, which encompasses Romanian adapters’ knowledge of the French language. Of course, the degree of familiarity with the foreign, lending language will be adapter-specific. Nevertheless, I surmise that the knowledge of French orthographic « h » being generally unpronounced is widely shared among literate Romanian borrowers. The Tableau in (24) seconds this view with the treatment of the loanword ‘inherent’ (see also 12c, 13e and 15a).

  1. OT evaluation for the Romanian loanword ‘inherent’.

    tab20

Just as in the Tableau (23) above, the presence of an orthographically based /h/ is prohibited in Romanian loans, despite its free distribution in the native vocabulary. The remaining orthographically based segments are however salvaged by Max-IOT. The formal treatment of such hybrid forms is a challenging task for any analytical enterprise concerned with accounting for the shape of Romanian loanwords. As previously mentioned, systematicity of adaptation in Romanian loanwords is compromised by the confluence of two sources (oral and print), not mentioning the fact that adapters’ idiosyncrasies may also interfere.

In this section, I have presented an analysis of orthographically informed loanwords in Romanian, introducing the notion of ‘coalesced’ and ‘undetermined’ input material. This formal concept enables us to capture the composition of input/output loanword forms, where certain segments originate from exposure to the speech signal and some from exposure to text. Elements that are recognized as identical by the grammar are coalesced in the underlying representation, while non-identical elements remain temporarily ‘undetermined’ and have to undergo an evaluation process. Upon initial utterance of the loanword, the underlying representation may be modified accordingly so as to establish a more stable input. In the following section, I import this formalism to another set of data also exhibiting orthographic traces. The sustainability of the present proposal will be strengthened in light of its implementation with Japanese loanwords displaying influence from English orthography.

2.2. Japanese Loanwords

2.2.1. Data7

As Shaw and Balusu (2010) observed, the language contact situation in Japan can be characterized by increased means of global communication (e.g. mass media, print media, Internet, etc.) coupled with an English-friendly language policy, altogether exposing Japanese speakers to various linguistic sources. At a time of heightened virtual globalization, direct contact with speakers of other languages no longer constitutes a necessary context. Furthermore, given the rather homogeneous and impermeable nature of the Japanese society, it is entirely conceivable that Japanese speakers equally have access to the print and oral form of foreign words. Crawford (2009:93) in fact acknowledges that “it is possible for the same source word to be borrowed via both the written and spoken route, showing that either input is potentially available for borrowers”.

Several researchers (Shibatani, 1990; Kay, 1995; Smith, 2006; Crawford, 2009; Shaw and Balusu, 2010) have noted that a phonological contrast (between /t/ and /ʧ/) unattested in the native phonology of Japanese, however survives in the loan vocabulary. While many view this contrast emerging from a phonetic/perceptual premise, I surmise that this novel structure might actually also be orthographically informed, or at least, be supported by exposure to the English spelling. The facts are as follows. In the native phonology of Japanese (Ito and Mester, 1995, 1999), affrication of coronal consonants before high (front) vowels is a regular, systematic occurrence, as is illustrated below in (25) with verbal suffixation.

  1. Affrication/Palatalization in Japanese verbal suffixation.

    tab21

In loanwords however, this affrication process is not pervasive. In (26), we observe that recent loanwords do not affricate /t/ preceding /i/, creating a phonological string unprecedented in the sound pattern of Japanese.

  1. Innovative sound sequence in Japanese loanwords: [ti].

    tab22

Given the influential socio-linguistic presence of English in Japan, one can argue that the preservation of [ti] in the speech of Japanese speakers is strengthened by their more visible experience with orthography. In fact, Crawford (2009:89) notes that “adaptations in recent loans are based on the spelling of the English source word, not on its phonological structure”. If we admit this scenario, we again identify a situation where orthographic input guides the adaptation process, and that in complete discordance with native phonological stipulations. It needs to be noted also that the innovative [ti] sequence is primarily found in recent borrowings. Indeed, the loanwords in (26) contrast with those in (27) for being diachronically less established, therefore escaping phonological processes found in the native phonology of Japanese.

  1. Nativization of English loanwords in Japanese.

    tab23

Crawford (2009) and Shaw and Balusu (2010) also note that Japanese orthographic variants reflecting the affricated and non-affricated forms do exist (‘teen’, チーン [ʧi:n] vs. ティーン [ti:n]). This Katakana adjustment bespeaks the robust presence of this innovative structure. It is entirely conceivable then that such a Katakana fossilization of the non-affricated pronunciation may in turn sustain its occurrence in the speech of Japanese non-adapters. In fact, Shaw and Balusu (2010) have shown exactly that: by manipulating the orthographic variation in Japanese loanwords, these researchers have found that overall Japanese tokens represented with this novel /ti/ Katakana representation (ティ) did yield a shorter frication period than tokens represented with Katakana /ʧi/ (チ). Such experimental findings would then again lead us to admit that orthographic input (in Katakana now) serves to maintain a novel phonetic/phonemic contrast in the language8.

The effects of orthography on the adaptation of English words is more readily observable when orthographic silent and geminate consonants are preserved in the Japanese loans, in contrast with their otherwise phonetic source. The examples in (28) testify to that fact9.

  1. Preservation of English consonant letters in Japanese loans.

    tab24

If adaptation were solely based on the actual sound representation, the loanwords in (a), (d) and (e) would not require gemination: the English onset-/t/, /s/ syllable could have been straightforwardly adapted as their Japanese onset-/t/, /s/ counterparts (i.e. /ta/ た and /sa/ さ respectively). The fact that /t/ and /s/ are geminated in the Japanese loans more likely reflects their orthographic provenance – the quality of vowels also supports this view, especially in the case of (28d) and (28e).

The loanwords in (28b) and (28c) are also of particular interest here. If adaptation partially occurred based on the written form, several possible outcomes could be postulated: [.bon.ba:.man.] vs. [.bo.mɯ.ba:.man.], [.bon.be.ɾɯ.man.], [.bo.mɯ. be.ɾɯ.man.], and [.don.to.main.do.] vs. [.do.no.to.main.do.]. However, these alternative forms are not attested (to the best of my knowledge). This suggests that given several viably adapted, orthographically-informed candidates, a selection must take place, resulting in a preferred (or optimal) adaptation outcome. It supports the idea that a mechanism of conflict resolution must take place.

Besides consonants, vowels qualities found in a number of loanwords can also be inferred from orthography. In these cases, the adapted vowel quality of the Japanese loans directly corresponds to the orthographic vowel, rather than the vowel quality present in the phonetic signal.

  1. Preservation of English ‘orthographic vowel’ quality in Japanese loans.

    tab25

Here again, if orthographic source is at play, we observe the possibility of alternative adapted forms. The loanwords in (29b) and (29d) display such flexibility in adaptation where the forms [.ɾe.mo.ne:.do.] vs. [.ɾe.mo.ne:.de.], [.ɾe.mo.na:.do.] or [.ɾe.mo.na.de.] and [.bɯ.ʤi.nes〈ɯ〉.], [.bi.sɯ.nes〈ɯ〉.], [.bɯ.ʤɯ.nes〈ɯ〉.], etc. could be expected. These potential candidates exhibit source material that emanate from both oral and written sources. Given the potential for multiple adaptation outcomes, and the convergence on a single – sometimes double (see Smith, 2006) – loanword form(s), a selection must be performed, ultimately assessing the segmental content originating from foreign speech and/or script.

2.2.2. Analysis

Akin to the Romanian data, the Japanese data signals the influence of the English orthography on the loan adaptation process. The written presence of English is conducive to the maintenance of a phonetic/perceptual contrast unprecedented in Japanese; the latter in turn being encoded in the orthographic system (Katakana) of the language, hence perpetuating the distinction between coronal (non-) affrication. The Japanese data also reveals that loanword adaptation based on print form may lead to multiple outcomes, always in compliance with the admissible syllable structure of the language. The empirical facts therefore support the idea that a conflict resolution mechanism must apply in order to yield the observed pattern.

Resorting back to the theoretical tools outlined in subsection 2.1.2, let us explore the possibility of positing ‘coalesced’ and ‘undetermined’ input segments in Japanese adapters’ grammar. Recall that underlying ‘coalesced’ segments are segments stemming from both the perceptual system and the grapheme-to-phoneme mapping procedure, and that the grammar has identified as identical in terms of their featural composition. ‘undetermined’ segments on the other hand are those segments also stemming from both native channels, but whose featural makeup differ. They are consequently temporarily admitted, until the grammar confirms their status via constraint evaluation. Upon production of the loanword, the grammar eventually settles on those ‘undetermined’ pieces of input material. Let us illustrate this claim with the support of a concrete example from (26b), displaying two instances of the innovative sequence /ti/.

The loanword /akɯtibiti/ presents two instances of /ti/: the first one supported by both perception and print, the second one only supported by print. Upon encountering the English pronunciation of the word « activity », Japanese adapters have the (difficult) task of extracting the relevant information necessary to posit an underlying representation that best matches the source rendition and, at the same time, complies with the phonological demands of the Japanese language. In accordance with experimental findings (Dupoux et al., 1999), I infer that the input representation emanating from perception contains an epenthetic vowel repairing the [kt] consonantal sequence. However, the insertion of such vowel is not supported by the English orthography; it will therefore remain ‘undetermined’ for now. In addition, Japanese lacking a voiced labiodental fricative /v/, the native phoneme /b/ is adapted as its phonetically closest match, but also remains ‘undetermined’ as it differs from its orthographic counterpart. Finally, English flap is presumed to correspond to Japanese /ɽ/, also on the basis of perceptual closeness (Steriade, 2008), but competes with orthographic « t ». These segments also remain temporarily ‘undetermined’, and are subject to evaluation by the native grammar.

In the event orthography plays a role in the sustainability of the novel /ti/ sequence – the position adopted here – it would entail that grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules are involved. In the case of English, familiarity with its spelling and sound correspondences is a necessary provision for Japanese adapters, where in the case of Katakana, only literacy constitutes a requirement for grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules to apply. The Tableau in (30) presents the evaluation of a number of output candidates in comparison to the posited input representation for the loanword ‘activity’.

  1. OT evaluation for the Japanese loanword ‘activity’.

    tab26

In (30), two high ranked markedness constraints */v/ and CodaCond (Ito, 1986; Ito and Mester, 1999; demanding that Japanese codas be restricted to place-linked consonants or the nasal glide /n/) enforce the Japanese adaptation process by eliminating output candidates exhibiting non-native segments (in the case of (c) and (d)) or structures (in the case of (e). Nevertheless, such constraints do not prohibit the occurrence of the non-native /ti/ sequence, composed of native Japanese segments arranged within the confines of its native syllable structure. Candidates (a) and (b), both containing at least one instance of /ti/ are therefore still in the running for optimality. If orthographic input exerts an influence on the shape of loanwords, we ought to have a faithfulness constraint maximizing the segmental content originating from orthography dominate a faithfulness constraint maximizing the segmental content emanating from foreign speech, both crucially dominating the markedness constraint *ti barring such foreign sequence altogether. Max-IOt consequently outranks Max-IOs, resulting in candidate (a) as the optimal output. Notice that in this particular case, the ranking of both faithfulness constraints with respect to one another does not actually make any difference: candidate (b) violates both constraints equally, and more severely so than candidate (a).

When retaining silent orthographic letters, the same duo of faithfulness constraints intervenes. We take the loanword in (28b) as example. Here, only /b/ from the English spelling is preserved, in a sense appended to the segmental material gathered from the English pronunciation. However, as mentioned in 2.1.1, several loanword forms could have also emerged if grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules applied (which was indeed the case). The Tableau in (31) recapitulates those alternative forms.

  1. OT evaluation for the Japanese loanword ‘bomberman’.

    tab27

In (31), the two subordinated, indexed Max-IO constraints ensure conservation of input material, while the higher ranked Dep-IO constraint prevents the excess of output material supplied by the grammar to compensate for syllabic deficiencies. Candidates (d) and (e) are therefore ruled out on these grounds. Candidate (c) on the other hand is eliminated from the competition because it ignores the presence of an orthographic input (i.e. by not incorporating the phoneme /b/ obtained via grapheme-phoneme conversion). This leaves the grammar with candidates (a) and (b) to choose from, both of which have minimally integrated the orthographic input. At this point, the markedness constraint CodaCond evaluates the well-formedness of the remaining candidates striving for optimality, and decidedly selects output (a) as the winner. This situation reveals that Japanese adapters do take the foreign print form into consideration in the adaptation process, but may do so more moderately (than Romanian adapters) given their limited experience with an alphabetic script. The impact of English orthography in the adaptation process is consequently subtler (in comparison to alphabetically-scripted donor and recipient languages).

The same observation can be made in light of (28a), where only the orthographic geminate consonant is retained in the loan form. To adequately account for the loanword in (28a) and others, the faithfulness constraints Max-IOs and Max-IOt must further be specified in terms of the segmental material they target, namely either vowels or consonants (32-33). The rationale behind this specification stems from the fact that vocalic and consonantal material do not hold equal value in Japanese. Indeed, because vowels predominantly carry mora, the Japanese linguistic unit par excellence, adapters are likely to be more sensitive to vowels than consonants, both in speech and writing (i.e. Katakana being a mora-based script predisposes Japanese adapters to register vocalic elements over consonantal ones when considering L2 script). This latter point is corroborated by acquisitional studies of reading indicating that Japanese children have at the outset of reading a greater awareness of moras than of phonemes given their reading experience with a mora-based script (Mann 1986). Such early reading disposition, in addition to increased phoneme awareness via subsequent introduction of Romaji, may later reveal influential in predisposing adapters to register L2 alphabetically-scripted mora-bearing units over non-mora-bearing ones. Such inclination is further supported by the incorporation of moraic geminate consonants in loan forms (e.g. 28a, d, e, f).

  1. Max-IO-V/Cs

    Every speech-based vocalic/consonantal segment of the input has a vocalic/consonantal correspondent in the output.

  2. Max-IO-V/Ct

    Every text-based vocalic/consonantal segment of the input has a vocalic/consonantal correspondent in the output.

  3. Prosodic Form (ProsForm) (Kubozono et al. 2008)

    Words must end in Heavy-Heavy or Heavy-Light sequences.

This partial sensitivity to vocalic elements therefore places Max-IO-Vs/t over their consonantal counterparts. This refined ranking, which in no way disrupts previous analysis, is implemented in (35); where a prosodic constraint (34) militating against a sequence of light-heavy or light-light syllables word-finally is “primarily responsible for consonant gemination in loanwords” (Kubozono et al. 2008: 958).

  1. OT evaluation for the Japanese loanword ‘jitterbug’.

    tab28

Given the fact that Japanese allows geminate consonants, the orthographic presence of geminates is readily adaptable via grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules (see also 28d-f). The Tableau in (35) again shows that the epenthesis of [ɯ] to salvage otherwise defective syllable configurations is punished by high-ranked Dep-IO, disqualifying candidates (e-g). The markedness constraint in (34) ensures consonantal gemination word-finally therefore discarding candidate (d) from the running. Faithfulness to the constraint enforcing orthographic input material to be present in output forms determines here the actual winner: by preserving the geminate /tt/, candidate (a) incurs fewer violation on Max-IO-Ct.

The current constraint ranking is however still a bit fluctuating given the subsequent evaluation of (28e). In (36), we indeed ascertain that faithfulness to vowels outranks faithfulness to consonants in both modalities, but we note here that segmental faithfulness to orthographic input trumps segmental faithfulness to phonetic input. Candidates (c-e) therefore fail to obey loyalty to the vocalic, orthographically-based material contained in the input representation, while candidate (b) fails to do so on consonantal orthographic grounds, resulting in candidate (a) as the optimal outcome.

  1. OT evaluation for the Japanese loanword ‘cassava’.

    tab29

This segmental stipulation of faithfulness constraints therefore informs us about a more resolute ranking of Max-IO-V with regards to Max-IO-C, leaving however some uncertainty as to which of vocalic foreign speech or print is more prevalent.

Turning now to faithfulness to orthographic vowel quality specifically, we note that the constraint ranking established thus far for vowels becomes more established. Indeed, data in (29e-i) show prevalence of the orthographic source, to the extent that one may wonder if these forms are not the sole product of grapheme-phoneme mapping, whereas data in (29a-d) more readily show the confluence of two borrowing mechanisms.

Taking (29d) as example, we observe that again faithfulness to the vocalic elements conjectured from the foreign spelling supplants faithfulness to the vocalic constituents posited from exposure to the English pronunciation. Additional constraints need to be invoked here to adequately account for the resulting loan form of ‘business’. First, according to Kubozona et al. (2008), word-final /sɯ/ in loanwords loses its syllabicity such that /CV+sɯ/ sequences behave as bimoraic heavy syllables, where /ɯ/ acts as an extraprosodic element. Such exceptional property serves to explain the absence of word-final gemination as it would violate the constraint in (37).

  1. Superheavy (*σμμμ) (Kubozono, 1999)

    Trimoraic syllables are banned.

Second, I surmise that the native perceptual grammar is not insensitive to the prominence of the source stressed vowel, making its quality more salient, more discernible, and consequently more amenable to being retained in the loan form, resulting in the constraint in (38).

  1. Ident-[v´]

    Retain the quality of the source stressed vowel(s).

It may be argued that such constraint could (more appropriately) find its place in the perception grammar where foreign speech signal is mapped onto native phonological units and structures (à la Boersma and Hamann 2009). In this perspective, adaptation would be auditorally-driven where Ident-[v´] >> Ident-« v »; in other words, auditory perception would trump visual perception (subsequently yielding a more stable /bi/ sequence underlyingly). For exposition’s sake however, the constraint in (38) is part of the production grammar, crucially eliminating candidate (e) in (39) from surfacing. Note also that the constraint ProsForm as been omitted from the Tableau in (39) given that all candidates violate it equally.

  1. OT evaluation for the Japanese loanword ‘business’.

    tab30

The treatment of (29b) is comparable to that of (39) above, with the extra constraint on the quality of the epenthetic vowel following word-final coronal stops (here labeled t/do]wd; see Itô and Mester 1995, 1998; Kaneko 2006 for descriptive statements).

  1. OT evaluation for the Japanese loanword ‘lemonade’.

    tab31

By ranking ProsForm (militating against a light-light syllabic sequence word-finally), Ident-[v´] (preserving the quality of stressed vowels) and t/do]wd (determining the quality of the epenthetic vowel post foreign word-final coronal plosives) above Max-IO-Vt and Max-IO-Vs, we manage to successfully eliminate otherwise troublesome output candidates (c-e) in terms of the selective vocalic content they exhibit (i.e. any permutation of the low-ranked faithfulness constraints alone would fail to generate the desired output candidate). In (40) then, the remaining candidate (b) violates the faithfulness constraint indexed to orthographic material more severely so than candidate (a), which comes out as the optimal output. Because, in the course of adaptation, the presence of an orthographic source occasions the computation and incorporation of some of its elements, I surmise that segment-specific Max-IOt are generally going to outrank their segment-specific speech-based counterparts. Based on the analysis of (30, 31, 36, 39 and 40) we can therefore contend that Max-IOt will more often than not be ranked higher than Max-IOs in the native grammar evaluating loanwords exhibiting orthographic traces.

In this section, I have presented an analysis of orthographically informed loanwords in Japanese, championing the concept of ‘coalesced’ and ‘undetermined’ input segments. I have shown that besides admitting such formalism, a mechanism of indexed constraints referring to specific input material enables us to capture the presence of segments arising from exposure to the foreign orthography. It is important to keep in mind however that the relative ranking of indexed constraints will be dependent on the contact situation between the donor and recipient language, as well as individual adapters. Hence, the goal of the analysis was here not to arrive at a unified constraint hierarchy (an impossible feat given the nature of the phenomenon), but rather to show how a constraint-based grammar would handle the confluence of two distinct information channels.

2.3. Summary

The data presented in this section shows that the co-occurrence of speech and print leads to the incorporation of written material in loanwords. The extent to which the foreign orthography is going to exert its influence in shaping the phonological form of loanwords is nevertheless difficult to assess given the numerous variables at play in the borrowing process (e.g. the level of L2 linguistic and orthographic knowledge/proficiency, individual vs. communitarian adaptation patterns, the nature of the donor and recipient script, etc.). It is however believed that when L1 adapters are exposed to and come to process the written representation of an L2 word, all L1 and L2 grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences mastered are automatically activated, in turn capable of contaminating the phonological content of borrowed lexical items12.

The idea of orthographic information shaping the underlying phonological representation of lexical entries has also some precedent in the experimental literature. Taft (2006), for example, reports that in a pseudohomophone judgment task, speakers of Australian English, a non-rhotic dialect, encountered greater difficulty in homophony judgments when presented with r-less pseudohomophones (e.g. ‘cawn’) corresponding to the pronunciation of real English words containing an orthographic « r » (e.g. ‘corn’). Crucially, for speakers of non-rhotic dialects of English, both ‘cawn’ and ‘corn’ are true surface homophones. The experimental findings revealed that participants had a harder time performing homophony judgments when asked not to pronounce the pseudohomophones than when pronouncing the pseudohomophones was allowed. Taft (2006: 75) takes those results as evidence that “phonological representations, or at least the ones involved in the processing of visually presented text, are moulded by orthographic considerations”. In other words, Taft argues that underlying phonological representations do include information about orthography (in the case above /r/, i.e. /kɔrn/, not /kɔ:n/), rendering them even more ‘abstract’ than has thus far been assumed. This is the very same proposal entertained in this paper with orthographically-influenced loanwords.

More specific to loanword adaptation, Vendelin and Peperkamp (2006) probed the influence of orthography in the French adaptation of eight English vowels contained in CVC nonwords. In a speech production task, two experimental conditions (oral: oral presentation of the stimuli only, and mixed: oral + written presentation of the stimuli) were devised to analyze the effect of the presence versus absence of written input during online adaptations. The French productions of English-French bilinguals were recorded and analyzed, revealing that adaptations in the mixed condition complied more often with a between-language grapheme-phoneme mapping strategy than those in the oral condition. In other words, English vowels contained in the stimuli presented both orally and visually reflected their French pronunciation more frequently than those presented only orally. It was then reported that the “results confirm the sensitivity of on-line adaptations to the presence versus absence of a written representation” (1002)13.

In another, more recent, experimental study addressing the same question, Hayes-Harb and colleagues (2010) obtained similar findings with English adult learners of novel English words. In that study, three groups of English native speakers participated in a word-learning experiment where auditory word-picture pairs were presented with either a) a congruent orthographic representation (e.g. [kɑməd], « kamad »), b) an incongruent orthographic representation (e.g. [kɑməd], « kamand »; [faʃə], « faza ») or c) a string of xxxx. It was found that “when learners are asked to listen to new words and to learn them, they also pay attention to the orthographic representations (if they are also available), and this affects their phonological representations of these items” (378). Indeed, participants in the incongruent spelling group performed less accurately at test compared to those with congruent spelling. Consequently, the presence of a written representation in the learning of new lexical items (i.e. comparable to loanwords) contributed to their resulting phonological shape.

The theoretical proposal advanced in this paper attempts to formally capture the state of the grammar at that moment (i.e. on-line adaptations), where speech and print are simultaneously available. The next section delves into the theoretical implications of such model.

3. Theoretical Implications

The model I have proposed and used throughout the analyses, repeated in (41) below, serves to capture linguistic traces resulting from the interaction of simultaneous access to foreign speech and text.

  1. The SimulTaneous model of Loanword Adaptation (STLA).

    tab32

It was shown in Section 2 that the native grammar postulates an underlying representation based on the information gathered from both perception and grapheme-phoneme mapping. Just as it indicates, the STLA model can actually be divided into two parallel pathways (42) and (43), resulting in the creation of an amalgamated input representation in the native phonology of a borrowing language.

  1. Perceptual route of STLA.

    tab33

  2. Graphophonemic route of STLA.

    tab34

Let us now address the implications of each channel of adaptation individually.

In (42), the perceptual system of the recipient language is believed to distort the incoming foreign speech signal according to native segmental and phonotactic structures. That is, loanword adaptation may actually start off in perception (e.g. Ident-[v´])and is subsequently carried on by the native grammar, once an input representation has been posited. This is essentially the view adopted by proponents of the perceptual/phonological approach. It is however not always clear where the line is drawn and what is of a perceptual and phonological nature. For instance, taking the cross-linguistically prevalent case of vowel epenthesis in loanwords, some (Kenstowicz, 2007) view it as a purely phonological reflex (i.e. the grammatical outcome of constraint interaction), while others (Boersma and Hamann, 2009) consider it an outcome of (mis)perception (i.e the L1 phonetic distortion of L2 speech). In our case, the same objection can be raised about [ɯ]-epenthesis in Japanese. The position adopted here however, following Dupoux et al. (1999), is that Japanese epenthetic vowels are the result of misperception of the foreign speech signal, and are therefore encoded in the input representation. That being said, the relevant implication here is that the native grammar may not completely be subject to its perceptual system, consequently admitting non-native segments (e.g. /ø/ and /y/ in Romanian) or structures (e.g. /ti/ in Japanese). The grammar in turn regulates the faithfulness and well-formedness of its production. Hence, the STLA model admits both perceptual and phonological adaptations.

In (43), the grapheme-phoneme conversion rules of the recipient language are believed to bias the phonological shape of loanwords. In cases where such mapping is uniform (i.e. one-to-one correspondences), little variability between loanword forms and adapters is to be expected. This is what we observed with the data presented in Section 2. On the other hand, if the borrowing language happens to rely on a more shallow or opaque orthography, where one-to-many correspondences are common, we predict a greater amount of mismatches in grapheme-phoneme mapping. This is exactly what we observe, for instance, in American English with a number of loanwords from the food domain. Relying on the orthographic form, an English speaker could, upon seeing the word-initial grapheme « g », assign either the phonemes /ɡ/, /ʒ/ or /ʤ/ to his underlying representation, as is exemplified with the various instantiations of the Greek word ‘gyro’, [ju/iɹo], [ɡiɹo], [ɡaɪɹo] or [ʤaɪɹo]. Another example of such opacity-induced variability comes from the Italian word ‘bruschetta’ pronounced either [bɹuskɛtə] or [bɹuʃɛtə], the latter being a more orthographically-based pronunciation.

All of these circumstances fuel the transient variability found among forms and adapters, especially at the early stages of borrowing (Haugen, 1950) – what I am formally attempting to model here. It is then on the part of the community of speakers to settle on a given pronunciation of foreign words. The main implication of the channels in the STLA model is that (partial) adaptation may well occur at that level of computation (e.g. mismatches in grapheme-phoneme mapping as well as mismatches in perceptual-phoneme mapping). The prediction that this makes is that input representation may well vary accordingly.

The implications that the STLA model generates for a theory of grammar are what we turn to next. First, let us examine the nature of the amalgamated input. In order to capture orthographic effects in loanwords, I propose that the underlying representation of foreign words includes the outcome of the grapheme-phoneme mapping procedure in addition to what the perceptual system provides. This in turn implies a flexible mechanism of input creation, allowing lexical representation to be temporarily and partially nebulous in terms of their phonological content. On purely formal grounds, such inputs are admittedly deemed viable if ascribed to Richness of the Base (Prince and Smolensky, 1993/2004). Indeed, the base here is rich of two sources: speech and text. It needs to be noted however that I do not take this to be a permanent state of representations, and that the grammar will adjust them upon production of such hybrid loanwords (see Escudero et al., 2008 for a discussion of lexicalization and novel second-language word learning). It follows that phonological representations can be substantially unstable at the onset of their creation, a condition not considered in previous installments of Optimality Theory.

Let us now turn to the nature of the evaluation process. Given a single input, CON evaluates a set of output candidates along faithfulness and markedness dimensions. In the case at hand, faithfulness constraints, enforcing identity between input-output forms, have revealed to play a major role. By admitting the amalgamated composition of the input representation, faithfulness constraints also have to be correspondingly designed, that is, via indexation. The business of indexed faithfulness constraints is not new (Fukazaw, 1999; Ito and Mester, 1999, 2001), but is traditionally restricted to faithfulness constraints only. Here however, we have also allowed indexed markedness constraints in the case of (20b) with Romanian. The motivation for positing these constraints stems from the need to capture adapters’ knowledge about the source language’s script. That is, Romanian adapters know that preserving French orthographic « h » will not be faithful to its pronunciation. In any case, the reliance on indexed markedness constraints does not disrupt the canonical evaluation procedure operating under the framework of Optimality Theory, but it leaves open the possibility of their existence.

Finally, given that the mechanisms on which the STLA model rest are not loanword-specific, I further assume that it equally applies to the acquisition of novel native words by literate adults exposed to both speech and text (cf. Hayes-Harb et al., 2010). In such a scenario, the perceptual system filters out predictable aspects of the native language (e.g. aspiration contrast in American English, final obstruent devoicing in German, vowel harmony in Turkish affixes, etc.) to posit an underlying representation. Additionally, grapheme-phoneme conversion rules apply, also informing the phonological content of such novel words. Again, depending on the degree of transparency of the home orthography, we expect more or less variability in grapheme-phoneme mapping. With regards to the OT evaluation, faithfulness and markedness constraints defining the grammar of the learner are called into action to select an optimal output. Assuming that learners of novel native words possess a comparatively uniform grammar (i.e. constraint ranking), we predict more consistent ‘adjustments’ in output forms than with adaptations of foreign words.

To sum up, the STLA model implies that the creation of phonological representations must be flexible in order to account for orthographic traces; that input representations are in turn rich in segmental content; that the grammar operates on such inputs (via constraint evaluation) yielding optimal outputs; and that it is equally applicable to the auditory and visual learning of novel native words.

4. Conclusion

This paper was concerned with accounting for the presence of orthographic traces in Romanian loanwords from French and Japanese loanwords from English. The language contact situation between both donor and recipient languages therefore involves adapters being exposed to the foreign script, along with its foreign pronunciation. The manifestation of orthographic traces in loanwords is captured by an OT grammar admitting phonological representations composed of segmental material resulting from the confluence of two simultaneous processes: a perceptual distortion of the incoming foreign speech signal on the one hand, and the application of a grapheme-phoneme mapping procedure to the foreign script on the other hand. Such grammatical configuration therefore demands flexibility in phonological representation as well as in evaluation. This flexibility is however not unrestrained as it respects the segmental and phonotactic provisions of the borrowing grammar.

From this study of orthographic traces in loanwords from two typologically distinct languages (Romanian and Japanese), a number of predictions can be formulated.

  1. Predictions about the presence of orthographic traces in loanwords.

    • Borrowers relying on a deep orthographic system will introduce more variability in loanword forms (cf. English examples in Section 3); and conversely with shallow orthographies (cf. Section 2).

    • Orthographic effects will never supplant phonological demands of the borrowing language if not accompanied and supported by exposure to foreign pronunciation (e.g. adaptation of the French word corps [kɔʁ] as Romanian [korp], *[korps]. Given the fact that Romanian does not allow coda *[rps], but does allow coda [rp], adaptation only preserves the licit codaic sequence).

    • Orthographic traces will predominantly be bound by available grapheme-phoneme correspondences in addition to native phonological stipulations (e.g. segmental and phonotactic),

    • Borrowing OT grammars will contain indexed faithfulness constraints, and possibly also indexed markedness constraints. Native markedness constraints pertaining to segmental and phonotactic requirements will generally outrank faithfulness constraints to input segments.

    • Borrowing OT grammars will be sensitive to individual knowledge of the source language, especially as it concerns its script.

Given the current state of language contact situations and the prevalence of foreign written representations, the continued study of orthographic traces in loanwords will enable us to verify whether the predictions outlined in (44) are borne out.

I conclude this paper by joining several researchers (Vendelin and Peperkamp, 2006; Friesner, 2009; Lee, 2009; Repetti, 2009) in appealing for a more inclusive view of loanword adaptations both in terms of empirical coverage and analytical treatment. I share the belief of many that loanwords are unique linguistic objects, rich in information about underlying, grammatical operations. It is the continued investigation and incorporation of extra-grammatical aspects in loanword adaptation research that will offer additional insights into our linguistic competence.

I am indebted to Diana Archangeli, Mike Hammond and Adam Ussishkin, for their valuable guidance and support in the development of this paper. I would also like to thank Sharon Peperkamp for taking the time to discuss some aspects of this project with me. Additional thanks go to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Finally, I extend my gratitude to my cohort for their feedback and collegiality. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

  • BoersmaPaulHamannSilke. 2009. Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. In CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo (eds.) Loan Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • BrewerJordan. 2008. Phonetic Reflexes of Orthographic Characteristics in Lexical Representation. PhD dissertation. The University of Arizona, Tucson.

  • CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo W.. 2009 (eds). Loan Phonology. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Chit̹oranIoana 2001. The Phonology of Romanian: A Constraint-Based Approach. Mouton de Gruyter.

  • ColtheartMaxRastleKathleenPerryConradLangdonRobynZieglerJohannes. 2001. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204256.

  • CrawfordClifford. 2009. Adaptation and transmission in Japanese loanword phonology. PhD dissertation. Cornell University.

  • DupouxEmmanuelPallierChristopherKakehiKazuhikoMehlerJacques. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6). 15681578.

  • DuyckWouter. 2005. Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudo-homophones: Evidence for non-selective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 13401359.

  • EscuderoPaolaHayes-HarbRachelMittererHolger. 2008. Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345360.

  • FriesnerMichael L. 2009. The adaptation of Romanian loanwords from Turkish and French. In CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo (eds.) Loan Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • FukazawaHaruka. 1999. Theoretical Implications of OCP Effects on Features in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. ROA-307

  • HaugenEinar. 1950. The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing. Language 26, 210231.

  • Hayes-HarbRachelBarkerJasonNicolJanet. 2010. Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. In The relation between orthography and phonology, Language and Speech, vol. 53(3).

  • ItôJunko. 1986. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Published 1988. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series. New York: Garland].

  • ItôJunkoMesterArmin. 1995. Japanese Phonology. In GoldsmithJohn (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory, 817838. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • ItôJunkoMesterArmin. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In TsujimuraMatsuko (ed.) The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 62100. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • ItôJunkoMesterArmin. 2001. Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: the role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 7:273299.

  • JaredDebraKrollJudith F. 2001. Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 231.

  • KanekoE. 2006. Vowel selection in Japanese loanwords from English, LSO Working Papers in Linguistics, 6 (Proceedings of the Workshop in General Linguistics 2006), 4962.

  • KangYoonjung. 2009. Loanword Phonology. In OostendorpvanMarcColin EwenHumeElizabethRiceKeren (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell.

  • KayGillian. 1995. English loanwords in Japanese. World Englishes, 14, 1:6776.

  • KenstowiczMichael. 2003. The role of perception in loanword phonology: A review of Les emprunts linguistiques d’origine europeenne en Fon. Studies in African Linguistics 32, 95112.

  • KenstowiczMichael. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: a case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29:316340.

  • KubozonoHaruo. 1999. Mora and syllable. In TsujimuraNatsuko (ed.) The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 3161. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • KubozonoHaruoItoJunkoMesterArmin. 2008. Consonant gemination in Japanese loanword phonology. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress of Linguistics, Seoul.

  • LaCharitéDarleneParadisCarole. 2000. Phonological evidence for the bilingualism of borrowers. In Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, ed. Jensenby JohnHerkGerard van, 221232. Ottawa, Ont.: Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa.

  • LaCharitéDarleneParadisCarole. 2005. Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 223258.

  • LeeAhrong. 2009. Korean loanword phonology: Perceptual assimilation and extraphonological factors. PhD dissertation. The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

  • MannVirginia. 1986. Phonological awareness: the role of reading experience. Cognition, 24, 6592.

  • MiroiuMihai. 2002. Romanian-English, English-Romanian Dictionary and Phrasebook. New York: Hippocrene Books.

  • MiaoRuiqin. 2005. Loanword adaptation in Mandarin Chinese: Perceptual, phonological and sociolinguistic factors. PhD dissertation. Stony Brook University.

  • MolędaJacek. 2008. Phonological adaptations of Anglicisms in Polish and Czech. A critical view. Downloadable at http://www.bohemistyka.pl/artykuly/2008/Moleda.pdf (Accessed February 19, 2010)

  • ParadisCarolePrunetJean-François. 2000. Nasal vowels as two segments: Evidence from borrowings. Language 76:324357.

  • PrinceAlanSmolenskyPaul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. [Published, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004.]

  • PuşcariuSextil. 1937. Etudes de linguistique roumaine, Cluj-Bucharest.

  • RepettiLori. 2009. Gemination in English loans in American varieties of Italian. In CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo (eds.) Loan Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • SalaMarius. 2005. From Latin to Romanian: The historical development of Romanian in a comparative Romance context. University of Mississippi, Romance Monographs 63.

  • SchmidtChristopher K. 2009. Japanese vocabulary. In: Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/21.

  • SchulteKim. 2009. Romanian vocabulary. In: HaspelmathMartinTadmorUri (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, 2270 entries. http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/8

  • ShawJasonBalusuRahul. 2010. Language Contact and Phonological Contrast: the case of coronal affricates in Japanese loans. In NordeMde JongeK.HasselblattC. (eds). Language Contact in Times of Globalization. Johns Benjamins.

  • ShibataniMasayoshi. 1990. Japanese. In ComrieB. (Ed.), The World’s Major Languages Cambridge University Press.

  • ShiraiSetsuko. 2002. Gemination in Loans from English to Japanese. MA thesis, University of Washington.

  • SmithJennifer L. 2006. Loan phonology is not all perception: Evidence from Japanese loan doublets. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 6374.

  • SteriadeDonca. 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In HansonKristinInkelasSharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky, 151180. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • TaftMarcus. 2006. Orthographically influenced abstract phonological representation: Evidence from non-rhotic speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 6778.

  • VendelinIngaPeperkampSharon. 2006. The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua 116, 9961007.

  • WatanabeSeiji. 2009. Cultural and Educational Contributions to Recent Phonological Changes in Japanese. PhD dissertation. The University of Arizona, Tucson.

1 Throughout, the following symbols will be used:

tab39

2 A recipient language possessing a deep orthography would on the other hand presumably introduce more variation in loanword forms. The examination of orthographic traces in loanwords present in such languages is however outside the scope of the present paper and is left for future study.

3 Data culled from Chit̹oran, 2001; Sala, 2005; Miroiu, 2002; Friesner, 2009 and Schulte, 2009.

4 Chit̹oran (2001: 120) notes however “some amount of speaker variation” in the productions of surface hiatus versus its resolution via glide epenthesis.

5 Since Romanian does not possess nasal vowels, I assume that the native perceptual system ‘unpacks’ such foreign nasal vowels as a VN sequence in the underlying representation (see Paradis and Prunet, 2000 for details).

6 Note that a faithfulness constraint to the right edge of the word could also be formulated to account for the retention of /r/ over /h/. While such constraint would justify the behavior of the loanwords in (9-11), it would nevertheless fail to identify which segments are likely to be preserved or omitted (e.g. not all French orthographic word-final « e » are present in Romanian loans, see 12c, 13d, 15a). A constraint discerning individual segments is consequently preferred.

7 Data mostly culled from Shirai (2002), Smith (2006), Crawford (2009) and Schmidt (2009).

8 An anonymous reviewer raised the question of the asymmetry in the maintenance of illegal [ti] versus [si] (e.g. Citibank [ʃiti:bankɯ]; Itô and Mester, 1995, 1999). While Itô and Mester (1995) conceded that “this may be in a process of flux in Japanese, since many younger speakers (who are conversant in English) incorporate the nonpalatal [si] quite often in spontaneous usage of English words in Japanese (17, footnote 24), many factors such as frequency and phonological similarity effects can be responsible for this asymmetry (see Crawford 2009). Certainly, the fact that [ti] is preferably maintained (over [si]) in turn augments the lexical pool containing this sequence, subsequently affecting further adaptations. This fact may originally arise from a more relaxed *ti markedness constraint relative to a *si markedness constraint in the stratified lexical phonology of Japanese as Itô and Mester (1995, 1999) have proposed. In any event, given the decent level of English literacy in Japan, there is a priori no principled reason to completely disregard the role of orthography in such adaptations: if not the original source of adaptation in these cases, orthography may nevertheless incite such adaptations’ further development and frequency of occurrence.

9 While I agree with Shirai (2002) that not all geminated consonants in Japanese loans arise from exposure to orthography, those that do still beg for an explanative treatment; the purpose of this paper.

10 The form [don mai] is also attested (Smith, 2006), more likely originating from the English sound representation [dɔʊn maɪ(n)]. Hence, the presence of the coronal stops stems either from a more careful English pronunciation or from their orthographic rendition.

11 I direct the reader to Crawford (2009, Section 2.3.3) for a treatment of velar palatalization before /a/.

12 cf. Jared and Kroll, 2001; Duyck, 2005 for orthographic activation in bilingual phonological processing.

13 In the same vein as Vendelin and Peperkamp (2006), see Kaneko (2006) for a similar study on Japanese.

  • 7

    Data mostly culled from Shirai (2002), Smith (2006), Crawford (2009) and Schmidt (2009).

  • 9

    While I agree with Shirai (2002) that not all geminated consonants in Japanese loans arise from exposure to orthography, those that do still beg for an explanative treatment; the purpose of this paper.

Journal of Language Contact

Evolution of Languages, Contact and Discourse

Sections

References

BoersmaPaulHamannSilke. 2009. Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. In CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo (eds.) Loan Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

BrewerJordan. 2008. Phonetic Reflexes of Orthographic Characteristics in Lexical Representation. PhD dissertation. The University of Arizona, Tucson.

CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo W.. 2009 (eds). Loan Phonology. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chit̹oranIoana 2001. The Phonology of Romanian: A Constraint-Based Approach. Mouton de Gruyter.

ColtheartMaxRastleKathleenPerryConradLangdonRobynZieglerJohannes. 2001. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204256.

CrawfordClifford. 2009. Adaptation and transmission in Japanese loanword phonology. PhD dissertation. Cornell University.

DupouxEmmanuelPallierChristopherKakehiKazuhikoMehlerJacques. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25(6). 15681578.

DuyckWouter. 2005. Translation and associative priming with cross-lingual pseudo-homophones: Evidence for non-selective phonological activation in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 13401359.

EscuderoPaolaHayes-HarbRachelMittererHolger. 2008. Novel second-language words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345360.

FriesnerMichael L. 2009. The adaptation of Romanian loanwords from Turkish and French. In CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo (eds.) Loan Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

FukazawaHaruka. 1999. Theoretical Implications of OCP Effects on Features in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. ROA-307

HaugenEinar. 1950. The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing. Language 26, 210231.

Hayes-HarbRachelBarkerJasonNicolJanet. 2010. Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. In The relation between orthography and phonology, Language and Speech, vol. 53(3).

ItôJunko. 1986. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Published 1988. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series. New York: Garland].

ItôJunkoMesterArmin. 1995. Japanese Phonology. In GoldsmithJohn (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory, 817838. Oxford: Blackwell.

ItôJunkoMesterArmin. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In TsujimuraMatsuko (ed.) The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 62100. Oxford: Blackwell.

ItôJunkoMesterArmin. 2001. Covert generalizations in Optimality Theory: the role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 7:273299.

JaredDebraKrollJudith F. 2001. Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 231.

KanekoE. 2006. Vowel selection in Japanese loanwords from English, LSO Working Papers in Linguistics, 6 (Proceedings of the Workshop in General Linguistics 2006), 4962.

KangYoonjung. 2009. Loanword Phonology. In OostendorpvanMarcColin EwenHumeElizabethRiceKeren (eds.), Wiley-Blackwell.

KayGillian. 1995. English loanwords in Japanese. World Englishes, 14, 1:6776.

KenstowiczMichael. 2003. The role of perception in loanword phonology: A review of Les emprunts linguistiques d’origine europeenne en Fon. Studies in African Linguistics 32, 95112.

KenstowiczMichael. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: a case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29:316340.

KubozonoHaruo. 1999. Mora and syllable. In TsujimuraNatsuko (ed.) The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 3161. Oxford: Blackwell.

KubozonoHaruoItoJunkoMesterArmin. 2008. Consonant gemination in Japanese loanword phonology. Paper presented at the 18th International Congress of Linguistics, Seoul.

LaCharitéDarleneParadisCarole. 2000. Phonological evidence for the bilingualism of borrowers. In Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association, ed. Jensenby JohnHerkGerard van, 221232. Ottawa, Ont.: Cahiers linguistiques d’Ottawa.

LaCharitéDarleneParadisCarole. 2005. Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 223258.

LeeAhrong. 2009. Korean loanword phonology: Perceptual assimilation and extraphonological factors. PhD dissertation. The University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

MannVirginia. 1986. Phonological awareness: the role of reading experience. Cognition, 24, 6592.

MiroiuMihai. 2002. Romanian-English, English-Romanian Dictionary and Phrasebook. New York: Hippocrene Books.

MiaoRuiqin. 2005. Loanword adaptation in Mandarin Chinese: Perceptual, phonological and sociolinguistic factors. PhD dissertation. Stony Brook University.

MolędaJacek. 2008. Phonological adaptations of Anglicisms in Polish and Czech. A critical view. Downloadable at http://www.bohemistyka.pl/artykuly/2008/Moleda.pdf (Accessed February 19, 2010)

ParadisCarolePrunetJean-François. 2000. Nasal vowels as two segments: Evidence from borrowings. Language 76:324357.

PrinceAlanSmolenskyPaul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. [Published, Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004.]

PuşcariuSextil. 1937. Etudes de linguistique roumaine, Cluj-Bucharest.

RepettiLori. 2009. Gemination in English loans in American varieties of Italian. In CalabreseAndreaWetzelsLeo (eds.) Loan Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

SalaMarius. 2005. From Latin to Romanian: The historical development of Romanian in a comparative Romance context. University of Mississippi, Romance Monographs 63.

SchmidtChristopher K. 2009. Japanese vocabulary. In: Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/21.

SchulteKim. 2009. Romanian vocabulary. In: HaspelmathMartinTadmorUri (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, 2270 entries. http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/8

ShawJasonBalusuRahul. 2010. Language Contact and Phonological Contrast: the case of coronal affricates in Japanese loans. In NordeMde JongeK.HasselblattC. (eds). Language Contact in Times of Globalization. Johns Benjamins.

ShibataniMasayoshi. 1990. Japanese. In ComrieB. (Ed.), The World’s Major Languages Cambridge University Press.

ShiraiSetsuko. 2002. Gemination in Loans from English to Japanese. MA thesis, University of Washington.

SmithJennifer L. 2006. Loan phonology is not all perception: Evidence from Japanese loan doublets. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 6374.

SteriadeDonca. 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In HansonKristinInkelasSharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky, 151180. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

TaftMarcus. 2006. Orthographically influenced abstract phonological representation: Evidence from non-rhotic speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 6778.

VendelinIngaPeperkampSharon. 2006. The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua 116, 9961007.

WatanabeSeiji. 2009. Cultural and Educational Contributions to Recent Phonological Changes in Japanese. PhD dissertation. The University of Arizona, Tucson.

7

Data mostly culled from Shirai (2002), Smith (2006), Crawford (2009) and Schmidt (2009).

9

While I agree with Shirai (2002) that not all geminated consonants in Japanese loans arise from exposure to orthography, those that do still beg for an explanative treatment; the purpose of this paper.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 9 9 1
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0