Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:30:18.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indonesian borrowing as evidence for Harmonic Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2017

SALEH BATAIS  and
CAROLINE WILTSHIRE
SALEH BATAIS*
Affiliation:
King Saud University
CAROLINE WILTSHIRE*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
Author’s address: Department of English Language & Literature, College of Arts, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2456, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia[email protected]
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of Florida, Box 115454, Gainesville, FL 32611-5454, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses data from loanwords in Indonesian to argue for a phonological analysis using Harmonic Grammar (e.g. Smolensky & Legendre 2006, Pater, Bhatt & Potts 2007, Pater 2009). In original data consisting of Arabic and Dutch loanwords containing initial and final consonant clusters produced by 24 native speakers of Indonesian, we find both deletion and epenthesis to resolve word-final clusters, while word-initial clusters sometimes have epenthesis and sometimes are tolerated intact. The adaptations of Arabic and Dutch loanwords reveal the influence of three markedness constraints generally observed in Indonesian (*ComplexCoda, *ComplexOnset, and MinWord), and support a role for phonology in the analysis of borrowing, rather than a purely perceptual approach. When native monosyllables and borrowed monosyllables without clusters are considered, we find evidence that a standard Optimality Theory strict ranking is inadequate to account for the data; these constraints must be allowed to ‘gang up’, as in Harmonic Grammar, to account for the deletions, epenthesis, and non-adaptations found in the data.

Keywords

borrowingHarmonic GrammarIndonesiansyllable
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , 01 April 2018 , pp. 231 - 262
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

The authors would like to thank the Deanship of the Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this research project. We also thank the audiences at the 2015 LSA Annual Meeting in Portland, especially Bruce Hayes, the audience at the 23rd Manchester Phonology Conference, and three thorough Journal of Linguistics referees for useful comments. We regret that we were not able to incorporate all their suggestions in this paper, and take responsibility for its remaining shortcomings.

References

Abdurachman, Paramita R. 1978. Moluccan responses to the first intrusions of the west. In Soebadio, Haryati & du Marchie Sarvaas, Carine A. (eds.), Dynamics of Indonesian history, 161–188. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Abu-Salim, Issam M.1982. A reanalysis of some aspects of Arabic phonology: A metrical approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Adler, Allison N. 2006. Faithfulness and perception in loanword adaptation: A case study from Hawaiian. Lingua 116.7, 1024–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Ani, Salman. 1970. Arabic phonology: An acoustical and physiological investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Baertsch, Karen. 2002. An Optimality Theoretic approach to syllable structure: The split margin hierarchy. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batais, Saleh. 2013. Consonantal and syllabic repairs of Arabic and Dutch loanwords in Indonesian: A phonological account. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Pater, Joe & Potts, Christopher. 2007. OT-Help 1.2 Software. http://web.linguist.umass.edu/∼OTHelp (accessed 10 February 2015).Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke. 2009. Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. In Calabrese & Wetzels (eds.), 11–58.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen. 2004. Language contact phonology: Richness of the stimulus, poverty of the base. North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 34, 1–21.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.). 2009. Loan phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarence-Smith, William G. 1997. Hadhramaut and the Hadhrami diaspora in the modern colonial era: An introductory survey. In Freitag & Clarence-Smith (eds.), 1–18.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2007. The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation. Phonology 24, 261–286.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Shin, Seung-Hoon. 1999. The syllable contact constraint in Korean: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.4, 285–312.Google Scholar
El Azzabi, Ahmad M. 2001. Syllabic structure of Arabic. In Fatihi, A. R. (ed.), Aspects of Arabic phonology, 110–115. Delhi: Kalinga Publications.Google Scholar
Freitag, Ulrike & Clarence-Smith, William G. (eds.). 1997. Hadhrami traders, scholars, and statesmen in the Indian Ocean: 1750s–1960s. New York: Brill.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2001. Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and syllable contact. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 37.1, 175–185.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2004. Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: The case of syllable contact. Phonology 21.2, 201–250.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1970. The role of borrowing in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 1, 1–48.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1995. Japanese phonology: Constraint domains and structure preservations. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 817–838. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1999. The structure of the phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuku (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 62–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Forde. 2009. Hadrami Arabs in present-day Indonesia: An Indonesia-oriented group with an Arab signature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, Russell. 2008. Loan-words in Indonesian and Malay. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung. 2003. Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology 20, 219–273.Google Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung. 2010. The emergence of phonological adaptation from phonetic adaptation: English loanwords in Korean. Phonology 27, 225–253.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2003. The role of perception in loanword phonology. Review article on Les emprunts linguistiques d’origine europeenne en Fonby Flavien Gbéto (2000). Studies in African Linguistics 32, 95–112.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2007. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: A case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29, 316–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Louriz, Nabila. 2009. Reverse engineering: Emphatic consonants and the adaptation of vowels in French loanwords into Moroccan Arabic. Brill’s Annual of Afro-Asiatic Languages and Linguistics 1, 41–74.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Suchato, Atiwong. 2006. Issues in loanword adaptation: A case study from Thai. Lingua 116, 921–949.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunsoon. 2008. Loanword adaptation between Japanese and Korean: Evidence for L1 feature-driven perception. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 331–346.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunsoon. 2009. Korean adaptation of English affricates and fricatives in a feature-driven model of loanword adaptation. In Calabrese & Wetzels(eds.), 155–180.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2009. Coronals in epenthesis in loanwords with comparison to velars. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 53–67.Google Scholar
Lapoliwa, Hans. 1981. A generative approach to the phonology of Bahasa Indonesia. Australia: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Legge, John D. 1965. Indonesia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Ross. 1976. Indonesian reference grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Mandal, Sumit K.1994. Finding their place: A history of Arabs in Java under Dutch rule, 1800–1924. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1979. On stress and syllabification. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 443–465.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert & Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59, 514–528.Google Scholar
Othman, Mohammad. 1997. Hadhramis in the politics and administration of the Malay states in the last eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Freitag & Clarence-Smith(eds.), 82–93.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, Petrus C. 1978. ABN-uitspraakgids [Standard Dutch pronunciation guide]. Antwerpen: Heideland-Orbis.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of Linguistics 33, 379–430.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene. 2001. Guttural deletion in loanwords. Phonology 18, 255–300.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene. 2002. Addressing and disconfirming some predictions of phonetic approximation for loanword adaptation. Langues et linguistique 28, 71–91.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene. 2005. Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 223–258.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & LaCharité, Darlene. 2008. Apparent phonetic approximation: English loanwords in old Quebec French. Journal of Linguistics 44, 87–128.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole & Tremblay, Antoine. 2009. Non-distinctive features in loanword adaptation: The unimportance of English aspiration in Mandarin Chinese phoneme categorization. In Calabrese & Wetzels (eds.), 211–224.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33, 999–1035.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe, Bhatt, Rajesh & Potts, Christopher. 2007. Linguistic optimization. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon. 2005. A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 30, 341–352.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2002. Loanword adaptations: Three problems for phonology (and a psycholinguistic solution). Presented at the North American Phonology Conference (Naphc), Concordia University.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2003. Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: The role of perception. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XV), 367–370.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Vendelin, Inga & Nakamura, Kimihiro. 2008. On the perceptual origin of loanword adaptations: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology 25, 129–164.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael. 2010. Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: From linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27, 77–117.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. [Published 2004, Malden, MA: Blackwell].Google Scholar
Ricklefs, M. C. 1981. A history of modern Indonesia since c. 1300 to the present. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1992. Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9, 289–328.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar, vol. 1: Cognitive architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sneddon, James N. 2003. The Indonesian language: Its history and role in modern society. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Dunca. 2001. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in Indonesian. In Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 686–716. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tjandrasasmita, Uka. 1978. The introduction of Islam and the growth of Moslem coastal cities in the Indonesian archipelago. In Soebadio, Haryati & du Marchie Sarvaas, Carine A. (eds.), Dynamics of Indonesian history, 141–160. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mleke. 1983. The syllable in Dutch: With special reference to diminutive formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Uffmann, Christian. 2006. Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues. Lingua 116, 1079–1111.Google Scholar
Vendelin, Inga & Peperkamp, Sharon. 2006. The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua 116, 996–1007.Google Scholar
Waals, Juliette. 1999. An experimental view of the Dutch syllable. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Wiarda, Howard J. 2007. The Dutch diaspora: Growing up Dutch in new worlds and the old . New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1993. Cantonese loanword phonology and Optimality Theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 261–291.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 2002. Perceptual influences in Cantonese loanword phonology. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 6, 4–21.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 2006. The symbiosis between perception and grammar in loanword phonology. Lingua 116, 950–975.Google Scholar