Epenthesis and deletion in loan phonology R.W.P. Brasington. Department of Linguistic Science University of Reading, UK.

Transcription

1 Epenthesis and deletion in loan phonology R.W.P. Brasington. Department of Linguistic Science University of Reading, UK. [Work in Progress No Phonetics Laboratory, University of Reading ] In a previous issue of Work in Progress, Brasington (1978), an attempt was made to present detailed support from Rennellese for a set of general principles governing the selection of different epenthetic vowels in the process of loan naturalisation. The more general question of the conditions governing the selection of epenthesis itself as a means of resolving phonotactic difficulties was in that instance simply avoided. The present paper takes up this more general point and offers some preliminary evidence from borrowing in Marshallese which suggests that universal conditions governing the modification of inadmissible consonant sequences can also be found at this more basic level, in particular that the choice of epenthetic versus deleting solutions is positionally determined. Marshallese has over the years, as a result of a set of interesting tonality-based co-occurrence restrictions holding between consonant and vowel types, suffered a variety of phonemicisations (v. Kroeber (1911), Carr (1945), Bender (1963), Bender (1968)). The essential phonological characteristics of the language from our point of view can fortunately, however, be summarised quite briefly. All consonantal types are permitted initially, finally and medially, but, while consonant clusters are admissible word internally, the only possibilities in word initial and word final positions are for single consonants. Marshallese forms cited below are given in normal orthography 1. 1 Marshallese orthography distinguishes fairly adequately the phonological contrasts of the language, rather less adequately the systematic relationships between the contrasting units. Three series of vowels are distinguished: (a) front unrounded (from high to low) 'i', 'e', 'a ', (b) back unrounded (from high to low) 'u ', 'o ', 'a', (c) back rounded (from high to low) 'u', 'o', 'o '. In the case of the consonants the basic tonality distinction between 'light' (neutral/palatalized) and 'heavy' (velarized/pharyngealized) is in part represented diacritically. There are three series: (a) labial, with 'p', 'm' light and b m heavy, (b) apical, with 'j' ([t y ] or [t s ]),'n', 'd', [ ]), 'l' light and 't', 'n ', 'r', 'l ' heavy (c) dorsal with 'k' and 'n ' ([ ]). There are some rounding distinctions in the consonants which are not indicated orthographically.

2 As far as borrowing is concerned, the history of the Marshall Islands in this last century has encouraged the adoption of loans from German, Japanese and English and of these the most recent and most numerous are from English. Because of the considerable differences between English and native phonotactic constraints, Marshallese thus provides an excellent opportunity for an examination of the treatment afforded to phonotactically difficult sequences in a variety of structural positions. To this end, a collection including variants of 758 borrowings from English was abstracted from Abo et al (1976). In relation to the source text this list was intended to be exhaustive rather than selective: any omissions in the collection process will have been random (i.e. accidental) and will be quite unlikely to have affected the following results. Not all of the loan words collected give rise, of course, to the particular difficulties chosen for discussion in this paper. A general survey of the consonant clusters occurring in English source forms within this database in relation to the 'corresponding' Marshallese phonological structures reveals that, in naturalising English word forms, Marshallese employs (in varying degrees and combinations) the whole gamut of potential modificatory processes - epenthesis, deletion, feature adjustment and even, arguably, metathesis. Epenthesis appears for example in deletion in 'stamp' > 'jitaam ' 'trump' > 'turum ' 'milk' > 'milik' 'tank' > 'ta a n ' 'cataract' > 'ko tra a k' 'stocking' > 'takin' feature modification in 'flunk' > ' bu l an ' 'project' > 'bu roja a k'

3 while metathesis is a possible interpretation of the final cluster modification in 'scientist' > 'jaintiij' 'yeast' > 'iij' given that 'j' represents [t s ]. (We would no doubt say phonemically of these last examples, however, that the English cluster /st/ was represented monophonemically in Marshallese.) But although the use of a variety of modificatory processes is observable in our data, it is also the case that examples of metathesis - even granting the appropriateness of the interpretation - are relatively few and that feature adjustment in itself does not offer a resolution of the problem of consonant clusters. The two primary processes serving this end are clearly epenthesis and deletion. And while it is true that examples of epenthesis and deletion may each be found in a variety of structural positions, if we correlate the occurrence of these two tactics with initial and final position in the word a quite unambiguous pattern of positional dependence appears. Table 1 presents the relevant figures for our data. Epenthesis Deletion Totals Initial Position Final Position Totals Table 1 Cases of epenthesis and deletions in relation to word position in English loans in Marshallese As far as I am aware, there are no particular characteristics of Marshallese phonological or morphological structure which would force such a consistent selection of epenthesis initially and deletion finally. If for example 'president' had emerged as 'reejto nit' rather than the actual ' bu reejto n ', the phonological and morphological acceptability of the word would have been apparently no less assured. If this is indeed so then the selection of epenthesis initially and deletion finally would seem to be determined by the properties of 'initialness' and 'finalness' in themselves and to that extent the principles involved are likely to be general rather than language particular, general rather than specifically Marshallese.

4 Pursuing this point somewhat further, it is not difficult to see a connection between the claim that phonologically epenthesis is a natural initial process and deletion a natural final process in loan modification and the claim, based usually on 'purer' synchronic and diachronic facts, that initial position is a strong or strengthening position and final position is a weak or weakening position (cf., for example, Hooper 1976). For if initial position is both perceptually and productively a strong or salient position, then in borrowing an epenthetic treatment of an initial inadmissible consonant cluster is phonologically natural in that it both preserves all the apparently clearly perceived information of the source and at the same time adds 'body' or 'weight' to the original phonological sequence in the adapted reproduction. Equally if final position is by contrast both perceptually and productively weak or non-salient then clearly deletion for just the opposite reasons is the natural phonological treatment of inadmissible foreign clusters in that position. The distribution of epenthesis and deletion which has been found in borrowed forms in Marshallese can perhaps be seen, then, as governed by the same general phonological principles which, for example, in the historical development of Romance (and indeed in the contemporary pronunciation of English by Spanish speakers) have led (and lead) on the one hand to the introduction of support vowels initially - in clusters of /#sc/ - and on the other hand to the elimination in final position of elements from consonantal groups. It would be surprising, of course, if the claim that in loan phonology epenthesis is natural initially and deletion finally were not apparently challengeable by counter-example. It is. But it seems quite reasonable to argue at least in the case of perhaps the most blatant such instance - in Finnish - that factors other than purely phonological ones have intervened, as we should no doubt expect, to complicate the naturalisation process. Finnish has in borrowing from the neighbouring Baltic and Germanic languages regularly reduced word initial consonant sequences and at the same time regularly supported final consonants by vowel addition. For example, strand > ranta, glas > lasi, stol > tuoli This apparent reversal of the 'natural phonological processes' is, however, much less disturbing

5 when we take into account the morphological characteristics of Finnish. For, although it is true that Finnish words may be particularly long, so that a series of epenthetic vowels breaking up the initial cluster in 'strand' would seem to have offered a phonologically acceptable solution to the cluster problem presented, it is also true that the typical Finnish root is disyllabic with a short vowel (most often finally) in the second syllable. Long forms are thus only acceptable morphologically to the extent that they are amenable to analysis into simple or compound stems with affixation. A borrowed form which is both long and unanalysable is particularly awkward within a morphology of this type (v. Sauvageot (1973) p463 ff.). If then, in loans of the type cited, the addition of a final short vowel is required or at least preferred for morphological reasons the further embarrassment of initial epenthetic vowels must clearly be avoided. Morphological patterning seems here to take precedence over a natural phonological tendency. It would be surprising also if, among phonological factors, word position were the only one to emerge as relevant in the choice of epenthesis or deletion. And indeed a closer examination of the Marshallese date reveals some variation in the strength of the positional factor in relation to the consonantal types involved in the clusters. Although initially, for all clusters, epenthesis seems the preferred solution, in final position it is clear that not all cluster types succumb equally readily to the process of deletion. For nasal + non sibilant obstruent groups, for example, the figures are: deletion 33, epenthesis 3, but for lateral + obstruent types the modifications are: deletion 3, epenthesis 3. And it may be significant that the second of these patterns is a mirror image of a common initial cluster while the first is not. But granted that real situations are not likely to be open to simple explanations based on single explanatory principles, we should not be deterred for that reason from attempting by a suitable choice of natural data (or failing that by an appropriate collection of experimental data), to separate out the various principles involved in loan naturalisation. The existence of data not conforming to the pattern which seems to emerge so directly in Marshallese does not of itself immediately invalidate the claim made here that, in borrowing, position is a general determining factor in the selection of epenthesis or deletion - the effect of other factors such as consonantal types are fields for further study.

6 References Abo, T., Bender, B. W., Capelle, A. and Debrum, T. (1976): Marshallese - English Dictionary. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press (PALI Language Texts series). Bender, B.W. (1963): Marshallese phonemics: labialization or palatalization. Word Bender. B.W fl968): Marshallese phonology. Oceanic Linguistics Brasington, R.W.P. (1978): Vowel epenthesis in Rennellese and its general implications. Work in Progress 2. (Phonetics Laboratory, University of Reading, ) Carr, D. (1945): Notes on Marshallese consonant phonemes. Lg Hooper. J.B. (1976): An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press. Kroeber, A.L. (1911): Phonetics of the Micronesian language of the Marshall Islands. American Anthropologist Sauvageot, A. (1973). L élaboration de la langue finnoise. Paris: Klincksieck.