Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
A MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF NOUNS BORROWED BY KISWAHILI
AND HAUSA FROM ARABIC
BY
YUSUF MUHAMMAD JIKA
REG NO: C50F/23632/2013
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH AND
LINGUISTICS, TO THE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
KENYATTA UNIVERSITY.
JUNE, 2017
ii
DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for the award of any degree in any
other University.
Yusuf Muhammad Jika
Signature…………………………………………..Date……………………………………..
Supervisors
I confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the student under my
supervision.
Signature ……………………………………….Date………………………………………….
Dr. Ruth Ndung‟u
English and Linguistics Department, Kenyatta University.
Signature ………………………………………Date……………………………………………
Dr. Mwangi Gachara
English and Linguistics Department, Kenyatta University.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My sincere appreciation goes to my supervisors Dr. Ndung‟u and Dr. Gachara for their support;
this is because a successful completion of an academic thesis like this is never the work of a
single hand. I therefore, would like to acknowledge their participation, guidance and
encouragement.
I must mention my mentor Dr. Phyllis Mwangia (forma chairperson of the Department) for her
assistance, suggestions and guidance. Similarly, I cannot forget Dr. Purity Nthiga (present
chairperson of the Department) I really appreciate your support. May the Almighty God bless
you all. I also appreciate the input of other members of staff such as Dr. Henry Nandelenga, Prof.
Martin Njoroge, Dr. Chivachi, Dr. Orwenjo, Dr. Kiguru, Dr. Nyamasyo among others.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the encouragement of other members of non- academic staff like
Frashia, Suzan, Maria, among others. Equally, I am grateful to my parents, brothers and sisters,
wives, children and friends for their guidance suggestions and support, thank you all.
Lastly, I thank the Almighty God who made it possible to finish my masters successful.
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 Hausa Trapezium
Fig. 2.2 Hausa Diphthongs
Fig. 2.3 Kiswahili Trapezium
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………………….i
DECLARATION………………………………………………………………………………...ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMNT………………………………………………………………………..……………………………iii
TABLE OF FIGURE……………………..………………………………………………………………iv
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................ v
DEFINITION OFTERMS…………………………………………………………………………..…..vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS……………………………………………………..viii
SYMBOLS…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………….…ix
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………………x
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………........6
1.3 Objectives of the Study………………………………………………………………………7
1.4 Research Questions……………………………………………………..................................7
1.5 Research Assumptions……………………………………………………………………….8
1.6 Rational of the Study………………………………………………………………………...8
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study………………………………………………………….8
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 10
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ..................................... 10
2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Lexical Borrowing…………………………………………………………………………..10
2.1.1 Chadic (Afro-asiatic) languages........................................................................................ 33
2.1.2 Bantu Languages ................................................................................................................ 41
2.2 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 50
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 59
3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 59
3.1 Research Design .................................................................................................................... 60
3.2 Target Population and sample size………………………………………………………..59
vi
3.3 Sampling Procedure………………………………………………………………….……..59
3.4 Method of Data Collection ................................................................................................... 61
3.5 Research Instruments………………………………………………………………………61
3.6 Data Analysis and Presentation……………………………………………………………62
3.7 Ethical Consideration………………………………………………………………………63
CHAPTER FOUR………………………………………………………………………………64
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION………………………………………………….64
4.0 Introduction…………............................................................................................................65
4.1. Syllable Repair Processes…..……………………………………………………………...66
4.1.1 Vowel Epenthesis…………………………………………………………........................67
4.1.2 Deletion ............................................................................................................................... 86
4.1.3 Syncope and Apocope ........................................................................................................ 86
4.1.4 Feature Change ................................................................................................................ 890
4.1.5 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………..90
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 92
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 93
5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 93
5.1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 93
5.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 94
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………………...96
APPENDDICES……………………………………………………………………………….. 96
Appendix1: Questionnaire…………………………………………………………...……….101
Appendix 2: List of Nativized Words………..…………………………………………........102
Appendix 3: Timeline…………………………………………………………………………106
Appendix 4: Budget………………………………………………………………………….. 107
Appendix 5: Consent Letter…………………………………………………………………..108
Appendix 6: Research Clearance Permit…………………………………………………….109
Appendix 7: Research Authorization Letter……………………………………………..….110
vii
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Candidates: Possible realizations of an input in which the optimal form is
chosen from.
Constraint: A structural requirement that may either be satisfied or violated.
Donor language: The language from which a loanword comes.
Evaluator: The function that evaluates all the possible candidates and selects
the optimal output
Faithfulness: A constraint that requires some kind of similarity between the
output form and its input.
Generator: The function that generates a set of possible candidates‟ analyses,
Based on the universal well-formedness constraints.
Input: The original word in the donor language before it is phonologically modified
Receiving language: The language that takes up borrowed /loanword
Loanword: A lexical item derived from another language.
Markedness: A constraint that requires that output forms meet some
criterion of structural well-formedness.
Nativization: Phonological modification of loanwords by the receiving language.
Output: The nativized word in the receiving language.
viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMES
OT - Optimality Theory
PLS - Posited Source Language
SB - Source-Borrowings
IO - Input-Output
Con - Constraint
Eval - Evaluator
Faith - Faithfulness
ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
[ ] phonetic transcription
/ / phonemic transcription
→ is produced as/is realized as
. Syllable boundary
! Serious or fatal violation
☞ Optimal candidate
x
ABSTRACT
This study is a morphophonological analysis of some nouns borrowed by Hausa and Kiswahili
from Arabic. Despite the fact that Hausa and Kiswahili belong to different linguistic families and
are spoken in such distant areas of Africa they share a special historical background. The three
main objectives of this research are: to identify the Kiswahili and Hausa nouns borrowed from
Arabic; to determine the word formation processes applied in the Hausa and Kiswahili nouns
borrowed from Arabic; to determine the morphophonological differences between the adaptation
of nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic. The research respondents are selected
Kenyatta University students from both West and East Africa. The source of data for this
research used was written literature. Informants who are native speakers of Hausa and Kiswahili
speakers had also been used to supplement or justify the data generated; the study narrowed itself
on nouns only, a hundred (100) loanwords were collected and analyzed within the framework of
the Optimality Theory (OT) which accounts for loanword adaptations using internal
phonological grammar of the borrowing language only. The presentation of the data analysis of
this research was based on loanword adaptation in the two languages that depends on three
repairs that is vowel epenthesis, consonant deletion, and feature change respectively. The
analyses revealed that in dealing with disallowed codas and consonant clusters, three main
strategies: insertion, deletion and feature change were applied in order to satisfy highly-ranked
markedness constraint in Hausa and Kiswahili. In a few examples, however, faithfulness prevails
over markedness, leading to change in the phonology of Hausa and Kiswahili. The findings of
research have implications on the expansion and growth of the two languages as the research
discusses phonological and morphological modification of which loanword makes languages
develop their vocabulary. Finally, the research endeavored to show that morphophonology is
involved in the adaptation of Hausa and Kiswahili from Arabic.
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
This study analyzed nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic. This section
therefore, highlights the background of the study, the statement of the research problem,
objectives of the study, research questions, research assumptions, the rationale of the
study, followed by scope and limitations of the study.
1.1 Background to the study
Research in the field of General Linguistics forms a basis for studies on languages in
general. The trend in linguistics analysis has been, until recently, to study each language
in isolation. The dimensions of study were arranged hierarchically from semantic, syntax,
morphology to phonology which occupied the bottom slot. This separation persisted
through American structuralism until the 1970‟s when it became apparently clearer that
studying the dimensions together was productive. Hence the interaction between syntax
and morphology, morphology and phonology could be studied with clearer result
(Katamba, 1993).
This review explores how Hausa (West Chadic) a major language of Nigeria and a
couple of West African nations, and Kiswahili (lingua franca) in East Africa utilize
repair techniques, for example, vowel epenthesis, (Abubakre, 2008; Musa &
Alltakhaineh, 2015) and segmental substitutions (Newman, 2000) in rebuilding
loanwords from Arabic. Loanword repair techniques went for accomplishing syllable
2
structure modification fluctuate crosswise over languages because of language variety
(Sahayi, 2007: 255). There might be phonological procedures that ordinarily happen
cross-linguistically (Uffmann, 2004; 2006) however languages receive diverse routes in
settling loanword clashes. Vowel epenthesis, glide arrangement, vowel elision, segmental
replacements and substitutions, feature spreading, consonant deletions, among numerous
others, are as often as possible referred to forms as exemplified by numerous languages
towards accomplishing loanword phonological adaptations ( Campbell, 2004; Adomako,
2008; Kadenge & Mudzingwa, 2011; Kadenge & Simango, 2014). In Hausa loanword
phonology a few of these procedures previously mentioned apply, with the real repair
techniques: vowel epenthesis and segmental substitutions. Abubakre (2008) and
Alqahtani and Musa (2014) say consonant deletions, a comparative repair system in
Akan, a major language of Ghana (Adomako, 2008) as an adjustment procedure in Hausa
loanword adaptation. Leben (1996; 2002) and Kenstowicz (2006) both note tonal
adjustments or adaptations, a repair system dynamic in Hausa phonology. Both authors
recommend that tones maximally supplant stress to impact or effect syllable structure
adjustment. Loanwords are lexical things acquired from one language and joined into
another (Crystal, 1997). Winter (1992) points out that the recipient language receives
loanwords keeping in mind the end goal to fill expressive or semantic spaces not involved
by local words. Hoffer (2005) pays attention to that adopted forms (acquired words) now
work in the typical linguistic procedures with the nouns taking plural or potentially
possessive types of the new language and with verbs and descriptors accepting local
morphemes too. Eminently, there are a few situations where loanwords exist together
with local structures as doublets. This is called center acquiring or core borrowing and it
3
is, much of the time persuaded by the eminence connected to the contributor language
(Mwita, 2009). At the point when imported from a source to a receiving language,
loanwords regularly contain structures that disregard phonological well-formedness
constraints of the acquiring language. Consequently, the recipient language commonly
alters the new items with regards to prior structure of the language ( Katamba, 1993,
Appel & Muysken, 1997; Newman, 2000). Masamba (1991) opines that despite the fact
that languages share some fundamental sound attributes, no language has the same
examples as the other. The most basic part of change includes the adaptation of the
phonological structure (Mwihaki 1998). The phonemic inventories and syllable structures
of languages fluctuate extensively. Theories propounded using this interaction proved
effective. Among such theories is the lexical phonology theory (Kiparsky, 1982) that
interfaced phonology with morphology. This idea of interface was foreseen about 2000
years ago by Panini the Ancient Indian grammarian as quoted in Katamba (1993:1 89).
He argued that some phonological changes were occasioned by affixation.
Many of the studies that resulted this interface derived data from European languages.
This creates a conceptualization problem for students of linguistics especially of African
descent in understanding the theories propounded (Wanyoike, 2002). This being the case,
there is a need for studies based on African languages. With advanced interaction and
contact amongst languages, change is inevitable. Some languages develop and others die
as a result of contact and subsequent borrowing. A language borrows and adopts
phonologically and morphologically the elements of other languages that are
characteristically different and thus maintain the status. Nativization is thus a way of
protecting the language from death, in situations of excessive borrowing.
4
This study examined the phonological and morphological processes that are involved in
the nativization of words borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic. Hock
(1991:390) sees Nativization as the integration of foreign words into one‟s native
language. Nativization is similar to what Chimhundu (2002:3) refers to as adaptation.
Kiswahili has only 5 vowel sounds. The language also has a simple syllable structure
with the syllable typically ending in a single vowel. Kiswahili is a polysynthetic
language: complicated sentences are expressed using a single word (Fromkin, 2000).
Kiswahili is a Bantu language that is used by millions of people in the world (Massamba
et al, 1999: 2). Kiswahili speakers can be categorized into two groups, namely, the native
speakers, also known as the Waswahili who live on the East African coast. The other
group comprises the non-native Kiswahili speakers who are spread all over the globe.
Kiswahili is spoken by people living in the East African coast as well as the interior of
Tanzanian, Kenya, Uganda, Congo and Rwanda (Mwangi, 2010:6).Moreover, Kiswahili
is spoken outside the African continent where it is taught in Universities in countries such
as the United States of America and China to mention but a few. Besides, Kiswahili is
used by national and International media broadcasters in East Africa and beyond, for
example Idhaa ya Taifa (KBC) in Kenya, Radio Tanzania in Tanzania, British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Voice Of America ( VOA) and Radio China
International (CRI). Kiswahili has a number of dialects in addition to the Standard
variety. According to Mazrui and Mazrui (1998), Kiswahili had diverse dialects that are
geographically distributed such as Unguja, Gunya, Shaka, Paza, Siu, Mvita, Kilindini,
Jomvu, Barawa, Pemba, Tumbatu, Mtang‟ata and Ngazija. The Waswahili speak the
various Kiswahili dialects as their first language. One of these dialects, specifically
5
Kiunguja, was picked to become the Standard Kiswahili variety. It is for this reason that
Standard Kiswahili is not the same as Kiunguja dialect which continues to be spoken by
the Waswahili in Zanzibar as their first language. Standard Kiswahili is the most
widespread variety having diverse functions. Unlike the other geographical dialects, it is
used across the East African region (Massamba, 2002:260). That is, it is not limited to
geographical boundaries as the other dialects. It is the Standardization that led to spread
and development of Kiswahili. Standard Kiswahili is used in formal settings such as
Schools, Colleges, Universities, formal trade and official circles (Mwamgi, 2010:3).
Standard Kiswahili also functioned as a lingua franca in trade, religion, education, civil
administration, practical politics, and collective bargaining throughout the East African
region (Mazrui, 1998). Mwangi (2010:2) also states that Standard Kiswahili is viewed as
lingua franca by a number of scholars namely, Ngugi wa Thiong‟o (1993), Mathews
(1997), Habwe (1999), Chimerah (2000) and Okombo (2001). According to Winford
(2003) “most, if not all, languages have been influenced at one time or another by contact
with others‟‟. The phenomenon of contact between languages also seems to exist in
varying levels in terms of types, degree and direction. Whatever the temporal extension
old contact has resulted in borrowing, loanwords go through the nativization process
(Chambers, 2003). According to Bamgbose (1997:15), „nativization processes are
recognized and innovations in language and style are considered as indexical markers‟. A
number of linguists have shown that in a rule-based model, nativization of loanwords
requires rules that are otherwise unmotivated in the borrowing language (Silverman,
1992; Yip, 1993). For instance, the English word game [geim] is borrowed by Cantonese
(German) and the word surfaces as [KEM] (Silverman, 1992:297). Nativization is also
6
defined by Hock (1991:390), as the integration of foreign word into one‟s native
structure. The area of focus in this research is the investigation of the structure of the
nouns that are borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Languages have specific phonotactic constraints that control the syllable structures of
their words. In the context of borrowing, the recipient language often dictates the
structure of loanwords to conform to its syllable structures. Kiswahili and Hausa have
constraints on syllabification that are unique to each of them, if the two languages have
their structure thus there is need to investigate how the syllables of the nouns borrowed
from Arabic get structured in the recipient languages. The study therefore had analyzed
how the syllable structures of Kiswahili and Hausa loanwords from Arabic are adapted
into two languages‟ structure. The syllable is a unit that plays a central role in the
phonological organization of any language. For instance, it is the syllable structure of a
language that often determines the phonological changes on the incoming words. In
Kiswahili, for example, loanwords with closed syllables often have to be made open by
adding a vowel segment at the word final position (Mwaliwa, 2014). Therefore, the study
had shown the pivotal role of the syllable in the realization of phonological processes in
Kiswahili and Hausa loanwords. Finally, to fill the gap, there is no enough research that
focused on how Hausa and Kiswahili borrowed from Arabic. Therefore, the study had
analyzed and explained the borrowed words by displaying the syllable transformation
from Arabic source word to Kiswahili and Hausa loanwords.
7
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The research was carried out through a morphophonological analysis of nouns borrowed
by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic. The following were the objectives of the research:
1. To identify the Kiswahili and Hausa nouns borrowed from Arabic.
2. To determine the word formation processes applied in the Hausa and Kiswahili
nouns borrowed from Arabic.
3. To determine the morphophonological differences between the adaptation
processes of nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic.
1.4 Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What are the Kiswahili and Hausa nouns borrowed from Arabic?
2. What word formation processes were applied in Hausa and Kiswahili nouns
borrowed from Arabic?
3. What are the morphophonological differences between the adaptation of nouns
borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic?
1.5 Research Assumptions
The research was based on the following assumptions:
1. That there are some nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic.
8
2. That the word formation processes applied in the Hausa and Kiswahili nouns borrowed
from Arabic are different.
3. That there are morphophonological differences between the adaptation of nouns
borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic.
1.6 Rationale of the Study
Much research has been done on morphophonological analysis, but this study compares
two languages from different parts of Africa, that is to say, West and East Africa and also
from different language families that have borrowed from Arabic. Many researches on
nativization of borrowed words in other African languages such as Sliona, Bemba,
Chewa, Tswana,Zulu Zivenge (2009:7), Mwaliwa (2014), and Alqahtani (2015), have
been carried out but none has compared languages from different families.
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study
This study was done based on a morphophonological analysis of only nouns borrowed by
Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic language. This is because the two languages have
borrowed massively so the study is narrowed. This research focuses mainly on the
phonological and morphological processes through the nativization of Arabic loanwords
into Hausa and Kiswahili languages. Therefore, lexical borrowing is the main focus of
this study since it is the most common type of borrowing. The researcher limits himself to
standard Hausa and Kiswahili. Since he acknowledges that other Kiswahili dialects such
as Kimvita, and others have also borrowed from Arabic. The researcher has picked the
Standard Kiswahili because it is not limited by geographical boundaries, which enabled
him to gather harmonized data. The study limits itself and analyzed Kiswahili and Hausa
9
loanwords borrowed from Standard Arabic. That is, the source words used were from
Standard Arabic not dialectal Arabic. This study also limits itself to ten (10) respondents
from Kiswahili and ten (10) respondents from Hausa making twenty (20) respondents.
10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.0 Introduction
This section contains the review of related literature, and the theoretical framework of the
study. It discusses lexical borrowing, loanword nativization; related studies on Chadic
and Bantu languages In addition to that, the section discusses the related studies using OT
(Optimality Theory) and how it has been applied for the purpose of this study.
2.1 Lexical Borrowing and Loanword adaptation
Languages of the world occasionally acquire or exchange semantic or linguistic materials
from each another (Campbell, 2004). As per Yalwa (1992: 101), "No people group or
community can live without having contact with different groups around it. It is through
this contact group‟s impact each other at different levels – etymological or linguistic,
social, cultural, and at times religious too". Because of the way that linguistic materials
acquired from one language (donor) into another (receptor) are by and large thought to be
outside, it then implies that the new arrangement of materials (information) obtained or
borrowed would need to experience some kind of repair or adjustment, to guarantee they
fit in with the auxiliary necessities and requests of the acquiring language (Kang, 2010:
2). A research of this extent must identify with existing reviews, making reference to
written works and works of remarkable researchers with comparable interests inside a
similar area of study. Studies on linguistic borrowing and loanword phonology have
always reviewed by linguists everywhere throughout the world. It is very unavoidable
11
that with much fascination drawn by a specific request or research field, dissimilar
perspectives and assessments will undoubtedly emerge. This has been the situation for
loanword phonology as it has been explained (Rose, 1999; Rose & Demuth, 2006;
Gussenhoven and Jacobs, 1998; Uffmann, 2004, 2006; Fleischhacker, 2001; Kenstowicz,
2006; Kadenge, 2012). A few researchers like to cast loanword adaptation inside the
domains of phonological discourse, while others accord phonetic/perceptual
arrangements or alignments to the subject (Kadenge, 2012: 57). It has been uncovered
that amid the procedure of adaptation "a given information sound will be mapped onto
the nearest accessible phonetic classification of contributor language" (Peperkamp &
Dupuox, 2003). On the off chance that a sound is absent in recipient language, it is
adapted to the nearest accessible sound. There are number of terms found in the writing
of loanword phonology, for example, 'loanword adaptation and selection or adoption',
"importation" and so forth. Loanword adaptation implies that recipient language modifies
the phonological make-up of foreign words e.g. "call"/kɔ:l/ is changed as /ka:l/ in Punjabi
(Hussain, 2011), in spite of this; "appropriation" refers to the assimilation of loanwords
while protecting the real articulation of information input form (Holden, 1972 in Al-
Qinai,1421/2001). There are contrasts in 'loanword adjustment' and 'importation', that is,
the joining of words without changing their phonetics and phonology. The most vital
consider "importation" is level of bilingualism, the more bilingual a group is the more
shots of importation in a language, then again monolingual speakers nativize loanwords
as opposed to bring in them (Friesner, 2009). In writing, various methodologies can be
discovered, for example, regardless of whether repair process is perceptual,
orthographical, phonetic or phonological. It is contended that loanword adjustment is
12
observation arranged and the essential driver of repair (Dupoux & Peperkamp 2002;
Peperkamp and Dupoux 2003; Peperkamp, 2002). Borrowers do not have admittance to
the phonology of recipient language; therefore, foreign words with unlawful portions are
misperceived or, on the other hand saw to the nearer accessible sections in the recipient
language. For instance, /əʊ/ is perceptually nearer to /o/ in Punjabi and Urdu (Mahmood
et al., 2011; Hussain, 2011). The marvel of 'access to the contributor language' can be
tested in a way that it is definitely not material to all language contact circumstances.
Words are acquired by bilingual speakers that have to a few or the expansive degree
access to the phonology of giver or donor language ( Paradis & LaCharite 1997),
however as proposed by Silverman (1992) that while adjusting a loanword, bilinguals
would not have any significant bearing their insight into L1 and adjust or see the
loanwords like monolingual speakers, implies that Cantonese/English speakers will see a
word like monolingual Cantonese speakers. Other view rather than perceptual approach is
that, recognition is constantly impacted by the phonological arrangement of the native
language (recipient language). Some researchers put loanword adaptation between
phonological grammar and perception (Yip, 2006). Loanword adaptation is a result of
matching non-native perception within the limits of the recipient language, this idea leads
to the fact that loanword adaptation is neither purely grammatical nor purely perceptual
(Yip, 2006). Besides perceptual approaches to loanword adaptation, there are production-
oriented approaches that set forth the idea that perception has nothing to do in loanword
phonology and should be discarded; adaptations are particularly determined by
production grammar (Itô & Mester 1995; Davidson & Noyer 1997;Jacobs &
Gussenhoven 2000). This can be further explained that alternations to the alien words are
13
made while produced because some segments are difficult to pronounce by the speakers
of recipient language, thus deleted or repaired via epenthesis or substitution. From one
perspective, a phonological approach discusses repair systems like vowel epenthesis,
feature spreading, deletion, segmental protections or substitutions, among other
phonological procedures in adaptations of loanwords (Sahayi, 2005: 255). On the other,
perceptual and phonetic variables contend that loanword adaptation is made conceivable
with accentuation on phonetic/discourse impression of the local or native speakers (Davis
& Cho, 2006:1009). The cases of Silverman (1992) and Davis and Cho (2006) appear to
be established in Sagey's contention (1982:17) that, "greater understanding or
comprehension of phonology and a more illustrative phonological theories come about
because of researching phonology as an inseparable unit with phonetics". In a similar
vein, Josiah and Udoudom (2012: 72) express that, "language specialists (linguists) for
the most part recognize that there exists an unavoidable between relationship of various
levels of linguistic analysis; phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics".
In spite of the fact that it is essential to draw thoughts or ideas from both approaches –
phonetic and phonological – this specific review is phonologically roused as well as
based (Kadenge, 2012). Since each language is a conceivable borrower (Abubakre,
2008), it consequently implies that the process of rebuilding or remodeling loanwords to
suit language structure specific gets to be distinctly inescapable. Sahayi (2005)
recommends that English has additionally adapted words, expressing Spanish as the
donor (p. 253). Consider the adopted word from French into English:
/krēm/ crème → /kri:m/ cream „sweeteners, sweet milk‟.
14
In example above, since English maintains syllable structures going from straight forward
or complex onsets as said before, it selects to hold the onset [kr]. Since English tolerates
open syllables and in addition closed syllables (for the most part broke down as syllable
codas (Uffmann, 2006; Kadenge, 2012), it allows the consonant segment [m] word-
finally. It is important to stress that adaptation is motivated by the evident need to satisfy
syllable structure requirement of the receptor language. In this manner, in situations
where borrowing and donor languages have comparable or similar syllable structure
designs, remodeling needs not matter since the borrowed word frame shapes reliably, and
is well-formed to that of the receptor language. This claim is clear in the case above, as
the word types or forms of French and English share likenesses. English and French as
said before, show indistinguishable syllable examples and are sister languages of a
similar language family (Campbell, 2004). Katamba (1994) highlights cases where
English needed to nativize acquired or borrowed words from donor languages. Katamba
(1994) states that French treated phonemes /v/ and /z/ as allophones of particular /f/ and
/s/, and not as free phonemes. In this way, words which were borrowed into English with
these phonemes in this manner brought about a phonemic split. This split shows
adaptation by English as a repair technique, since its grammar treated both phonemes
particularly, as opposed to allophones of a similar phoneme. Talking about a specific way
to deal with an investigation of this nature, whether it is phonetically or phonologically
based, or even both, Kang's (2010) study on English loanwords in Korean. Kang
investigated the development of phonological adaptation from phonetic adaptation of
English loanwords in Korean. This specific review, very unpredictable in nature as the
author recommends, contends that the realization of surface structures, an aftereffect of
15
phonological adaptation, is achievable through the regularization of forms, which reflects
phonetic adaptations (p. 225). Kang states that English's back coronal obstruents /ʃ/ /tʃ/
/dʒ/ are dynamically adapted in Korean with a glide/j/ or /w/. The distribution of glides as
Kang opines that there is need as well as molded by the phonetic and phonological
attributes of the English input, and additionally the phonotactic constraints of Korean
native speakers (on the same page: 225). Generally speaking, Kang's (2010) proposes
vowel epenthesis and glide formation as well as insertions as real adaptation strategies
dynamic in Korean went for redesigning English loanwords, a run of the mill build of
Hausa phonology as observed as of now. In spite of the fact that Kang's review
distinguishes key adjustment techniques which upgrade syllable structure alterations or
adjustments, it doesn't utilize or consolidate theoretical instruments of OT for
investigative purposes. On the African front, it is intriguing to note that cross-
linguistically, languages obviously have comparative or similar properties. A good
number of African languages operate simple syllable onsets and codas, and often end in
open syllables typical of Shona, isiZulu, Swahili, Akan among numerous others
(Uffmann, 2004; 2006; Kadenge & Mudzingwa, 2011; Khumalo, 1984; Baldi, 1988;
Batibo, 1994; Adomako, 2008), along these lines displaying as syllable structure typical
of a CV design or pattern. Uffmann (2006) talks about vowel epenthesis in four
languages: Shona, Sranan, Samoan and Kinyarwanda. On Shona, a Southern Bantu
language for the most part spoken in Zimbabwe, he maintains that it disallows consonant
clusters and ignores the syllable codas in this manner reflecting a strict CV syllable shape
(p. 1083). His review also shows that the epenthetic vowel picked comes about because
of three conceivable techniques which incorporate default addition, consonantal clusters
16
and vowel congruity (p. 1081). Developing factual information from a corpus of
loanwords obtained into Shona from English, Uffmann recognizes that vowel [i]
represents just about 70% of epenthetic cases, while vowels [u] and [o] share a
consolidated 21.4%, with [u] the most noteworthy at 12.4, while [o] insertions represent
the vowels marginal. The general outcome from Uffmann (2006: 1083) as he notes,
.., demonstrates that /u/ is the favored or preferred epenthetic vowel after labial
consonants (61%) and that /i/ is preferred after coronals (around 92%). After a dorsal
consonant, with/i/being generally frequent. In light of the extract over, Uffmann's
perception associates with this present review.
Kadenge and Mudzingwa (2012), their review embraces logical analytical of OT in their
analysis, a similar method of study underscored in this research. Discoveries or findings
from their review demonstrated that ChiShona shows an open syllable structures at the
word final position, refuses complex onsets and syllable nuclei (long vowels and
diphthongs) instead of English which favored complex syllable structures. ChiShona
therefore depends on vowel epenthesis and feature spreading to via repair advances into
its vocabulary. For Kadenge and Mudzingwa, (2012) highlight spreading, basically an
insertion implies to all or a portion of the components of an epenthetic segment being
provided by one or all of the greater of the input segments (pp. 149-150). Consider the
following example:
/goʊt/ → [gáwùtì] „gout‟.
Since ChiShona disallowed complex syllable nuclei, a semi-vowel (glide) [w] was
inserted in the middle of vowels [a] and [u] to repair the grouping or sequence of vowels.
17
Bear it in mind that the closed syllable which ends with a consonant [t] in "gout"
vowel/i/was epenthesized word-finally to open up the syllable realizing an optimal
candidate [gáwùtì]. Interestingly, since this review was a comparison of monolingual and
bilingual ChiShona speakers, diferencies in the adaptation systems or strategies of both
speakers were observed. Monolingual speakers never hold complex onsets of English
structures accordingly depending on vowel epenthesis to settle or fix such 'illegality'.
(Kadenge & Mudzingwa, 2012). The investigation of loanword phonology has extended
our points of view and in much research from different fields in linguistics for a long
while now (Antilla, 1989; Newman, 2000; Campbell, 2004; Hoffer, 2005; Sahayi, 2005;
Kang, 2010; Kadenge & Mudzingwa, 2011; 2012; Kadenge, 2012). Campbell (2004 : 62)
within the field of linguistics, recommends that not just lexical items (words) can be
obtained into a language, however some other linguistic material e.g. sounds,
phonological guidelines, syntactic examples, discourse techniques, semantic affiliations,
grammatical morphemes among others. The investigation of loanword as an area in
linguistics has been taken by a number various researchers accordingly it is not another
range of study in linguistics. Lacharite and Paradis (1997) contend that loanword
adaptation is working on phonological aspect. Their real claim is that loanword repair
depends on the distinguishing proof of the phoneme classes of the source language
(donor) assumes a noteworthy part and that phonetic estimation assumes an insignificant
part. Kenstowics and Suchato (2006) observe that loanword adaptation is a repair, all
things considered; they additionally say that in receiving the loanword the speaker tries to
stay dedicated to the source word while as yet making the loanword fit in with the local
languages segmental inventory, phonotactic limitations or constraints and prosodic
18
structures. Karuru (2012) studies the phonological and morphological adaptation of
loanwords in Gi-gichugu. She observes loanword from English and Kiswahili utilizing
optimality Theory (OT). Peperkam and Dupoux (2003), Kenstowicz (2005) and others
hold the view that adaptation is controlled by acoustic and perceptual factors, they
recommend that all adaptations applied and that they are generally phonetic in nature.
Broad research on loanword phonology has been conducted on various languages going
from Fula (Paradis & Lacharife 1997) Fijian (Kenstowicz 2006), Hausa (Leben 1996),
Japanese (Ito & Mester 1995), (Shinahara 2000) Korean (Kang 2003, Kenstowicz 2005),
Mandarin Chinise (Mao 2005) among others. Extensive research has been done in
loanword adaptations. Mwangi and Karuru (2012:49) see that borrowing is as a result of
language contact. Winford (2003:33) states that: “This sort of contact (that is acquiring or
borrowing) might be the consequence, for example, migration, reversal or military
victory, trade, marriage and so on".Versteegh (2001) and Hall-Lew (2002) maintain that
borrowing happens for two fundamental reasons, specifically, need and prestige.
However, there are different purposes behind borrowing, for example, bilingualism,
euphemism and building a sense of character or identity (Hall-Lew, 2005:5). He also sees
that, borrowing is a standout amongst the most incessant methods for obtaining or
acquiring new words. Winford (2003:29) maintains that borrowing can happen under a
variety of conditions, including close connection between the recipient language and
source language speakers in bilingual groups. She asserts that most borrowing are
connected with contact that emerges from the need to assign new things, in places,
sharing ideas or concept particularly through contact with others, for example the
emerges of science and technology. Fromkin et-al; (2003:512) the borrowing words from
19
different languages are an imperative wellspring of new words. There are different
methods for developing the vocabulary of a language. These incorporate derivation,
compounding, reduplication, acronymy, blending and abbreviation (Fromkin etal; 2003:
93-112) .With the exception of borrowing, these procedures are intra-language.
One of the first of many reviews concerning Hausa loanword phonology was directed by
Baldi (1988) as he discovered words into Hausa and Swahili, from Arabic. Like Yalwa
(1992), Baldi proposes that Arabic has been exceptionally compelling to numerous
African languages in the areas of loanwords (p. 2). Through trade and religion (Islam) in
particular, language contact with Arabian vendors or merchants ensured the exchange and
borrowings of lexicons. He however opines that a systematic study at the time of
conducting his research still to be carried out on such African languages and their
incorporated loanwords. Therefore Baldi's work set out to only on loanwords on the basis
of similarity of borrowed structures or forms to that of nativized or potentially adapted
structures in Hausa and Swahili. In spite of the fact that Baldi's review is different to this
research did not recognize phonological adaptation forms like vowel epenthesis, section
substitutions, consonant deletion and so on, an examination of his word illustrations still
shows at large, inherited structures very unique to those of adapted forms in the receptor
languages. This phenomenon by implications proposes that borrowed words had to
undergo some kind of remodeling, so that native speakers could apply them in their day
to language use, and by so doing satisfy native language requirements. Arabic which
displayed consonant clustering at different word positions was to suit the phonologies of
Hausa and Swahili. This concept speaks a lot on the imminent need for alterations and
remodeling, which dovetails with Baldi's view as he proposes at quite early period, that
20
these loanwords were halfway changed to suit the necessities of Hausa and Swahili (p. 2).
Words acquired from Arabic and adapted into Hausa and Swahili in some example
below:
Arabic (AR) Hausa (HA) Swahili (SW) Gloss
[janā‟iz] [jànaa‟izaa] [jeneza] „Funeral‟ in SW as „bier‟
[talj] [talji] [theluji] „Snow‟
[miqass] [‟àlmakàsii] [mkasi] „Scissors‟
[hadd] [hadii] [hadi] „Boundary, limit, up to‟
[hadra] [halaraa] [hadhara] „Presence, in presence of‟
Baldi‟s examples above, recommend that Swahili and Hausa perform a moderate CV
syllable shape, as underlined in this research. In example two (2) above displays Swahili
and Hausa to depend on segment substitutions to replace foreign sounds as we see [k] of
both languages (Swahili and Hausa) supplanting the foreign [q] which does not exist in
the receptor languages but rather enlisted in the Arabic inventory. As it is observed,
Baldi's (1988) work like this present review recognizes key strategies pertinent to Hausa
and Kiswahili selection and adoption and adaptation processes, which incorporate vowel
epenthesis and segmental substitutions.
An indistinguishable review to Baldi's (1988) was that of Yalwa (1992) who additionally
discovered Arabic loanwords in Hausa. Hausa loanword study has constantly favored
Arabic as the understudied donor language due to the unusual influence it has had on its
vocabulary over time. Yalwa proposes that this example of borrowing was socially or
potentially religiously persuaded, since the two languages in contact were never
21
neighbors or variations (dialects) of a similar language (p. 101). Referring to religion
(Islam) as the significant impact, Yalwa proposes that within areas of written works and
grammar, law and administration, the Islamic educational system and modern works or
writings, Hausa and Kiswahili were incredibly affected with new sets of vocabulary.
Yalwa notices segmental substitutions of phoneme /q/ with phonemes /k, ƙ, g/ in all
situations or environments (p. 118). Observe Yalwa‟s example below:
[al-qabar] → [kàbàrī] „grave‟,
[al-qaaidah] → [ƙā‟ìdā] principle, rule‟,
[al-qahwah] → [gahawā] „coffee‟.
Baldi (1988) and Yalwa (1992) both affirm segmental substitutions as a noteworthy or
major phonological process in Hausa, aimed at restructuring loanwords. Vowel insertions
likewise include as a key modification system to ensure a CV syllable structure is held.
Illustration above obviously demonstrates vowel epenthesis to be dynamic, as vowel [i] is
inserted word-finally last to avoid consonants ending words in Hausa, while example
above indicate consonant deletions as [h] is omitted word-finally.
More recently, Abubakre's (2008) article on the domestication of Arabic loanwords in
Hausa additionally recognizes the tremendous fuse and impact Arabic has had on the
Hausa vocabulary. This specific study recognizes the phonological procedures in Hausa,
concerning the adaptation of loanwords. Abubakre proposes vowel epenthesis and
segmental deletions which are both underscored in this review, as adaptation procedures
utilized to repair non allowed or "unlawful" loanword frames fused into Hausa from
22
Arabic to suit Hausa's pre-existing grammar (p. 88). As cited examples by Abubakre
(2008, p. 84) as seen below such as:
/muna:fiq/ → [munafikì] „hypocrite‟
/ba:ʔaŋ/ → [ba‟yani] „explanation‟
/ema:ŋ/ → [imanì] „faith‟
In examples above, the Arabic structures caught in phonetic slashes all end with closed
syllables, a permitted syllable example in Arabic (Alqahtani & Musa, 2014). For Hausa
to open up the closed syllables, vowel [i] was epenthesized to safeguard its favored CV
design native to the grammar use. Like Yalwa (1992), Abubakre (2008) takes note of
Hausa which does not have the uvular plosive [q], yet registered segment in the Arabic
inventory, accordingly replaces the segment with [k] considered the nearest found in its
inventory as found in illustration above. In comparable pattern, the glottal plosive [ʔ]
which does not exist in Hausa but rather in Arabic, is supplanted with an
indistinguishable segment realized in Hausa /ʼ/ a glottal ejective, as captured in
illustration above. Abubakre (2008) additionally specifies segment deletions as a repair
technique in Hausa. Deletions occur in the word examples indicated just below
(Abubakre, 2000: 84):
[salah] → [salla] „prayer‟
[zakah] → [zakka] „alms‟
[niyah] → [niyya] „intention‟
Examples above have the last or final segment [h] deleted to avoid word-final consonants
in Hausa. It is important that during deletions, compensatory lengthening is gained in this
23
situation consonantal lengthening. Medial consonants [l], [k] and [y] were lengthened all
the while. Compensatory lengthening is generally known to occur in instances of
segmental deletions (Campbell, 2004). At the point when segments are lost, maintained
segments are remunerated with length. This does not assume Hausa has long consonants
each receiving of phonemic status, since instances of deletions only adapted consonantal
lengthening. Though consonant deletions are not a major adaptation processes in Hausa
as only a few cases, despite everything it remains a repair technique in Hausa loanword
phonology. Like Hausa, Akan, a major Ghanaian language in West Africa, likewise
depends on consonant deletions to ensure syllable structure conformities (Adomako,
2008). Despite the fact that Abubakre's (2008) study and this research demonstrate
similarities as they both distinguish the key adaptation techniques or strategies relevant to
Hausa and Kiswahili loanword phonology, this work varies from Abubakre's as it
employs joined analytical tools of Optimality Theory (OT) as its core framework.
Consolidated theoretical tools help to show more obviously how these phonological
processes show in terms of features shared between neighboring segments, in this
manner suggesting consistency (Kadenge, 2012: 58). Laver (1994:114), points out that
the phonological syllable as “a complex unit made up of nucleus and marginal elements”.
Winford (2003) discusses lexical borrowing in language maintenance contexts and
provides several examples of English and Chinese loanwords in Japanese lexical in
French that influence Middle English. He also discusses the social motivations for lexical
borrowing and demonstrates that borrowing is not just about direct importations of words
but can be integrated in varying degrees into the phonology, morphology and syntax of
the borrowing language. Once the lexical items have been adopted, they may undergo
24
further processes internal to the recipient language and may be subjected to semantic
change in addition to being subject to linguistics constraints. This particular work is
significant as it gives insights to this study. Mwangi (2008) posits that borrowing is
necessary to keep pace with new development occurring in areas where the language is
used. This is also significant to this study since most loanwords have been borrowed from
one language to another. The works reviewed here on borrowing and nativization is
indeed very significant in this research as they form a foundation to this study. The study
therefore, explores the processes of adaptation in relation to nativization of Arabic
loanwords into Hausa and Kiswahili. Schaderberg asserts that throughout its history,
Kiswahili has been a contact language…..‟ the adaptation of numerous loanwords
occurred in one way or the other (Schadeberg, 2009). It is well-known that Arabic has
always been in contact with other languages throughout history. Moreover, the linguist
describes Kiswahili as a Bantu language with many Arabic terms (Schadeberg, 2009).
Zhukov (2004:12) observes that Kiswahili-Arabic language achieved a high level of
development and there were an enormous number of Arabic borrowed words in a form of
oral and written tradition work in the 18th
and 19th
century. This includes the lexical
elements from Arabic and characteristic features of local dialectics that enriched the
Kiswahili manuscripts, a written heritage which replaced the written works unfasten
during the Portuguese invasion in the 16th
century (Zhukov, 2004:12). Therefore, there is
no doubt about the large number of loanwords from Arabic that have taken dominance in
Kiswahili vocabulary. It appears that supporters of this stand used loanwords from Arabic
as a criterion for determining Kiswahili‟s origin. However, as argued by Bosha (1993:
33), Massamba et al (1999:5) and Massamba (2002:17), the presence of borrowed words
25
from Arabic does not qualifies Kiswahili to be of Arabic uprightness. There is need to
consider other linguistic factors pertaining to Kiswahili structure (if it coincides with
Arabic structure) to be able to determine whether Kiswahili has Arabic origin or not
according to Mazrui and Sharif (1994), who believed that Kiswahili is a mixture of
Arabic and Bantu words. The coming of Islam into Hausa land had introduced
significant changes. The most important that relates to Hausa is the one brought by
Arabic. The language came with new terms relating to religious, administrative and legal
matters, as well as education and commerce. Hausa and Kiswahili readily responded to
the changes and adopted many of the new terms from Arabic words, such as alkali
(Judge), karatu (reading), makaranta (school), riba (profit), hakimi (village head) among
others that have now been adopted as Hausa and Kiswahili words. One of the area in
which the Hausa borrowed heavily from Arabs is language (Yalwa, 1992:101). Also,
Arabic influence now has a permanent effect on Hausa in all areas of life, as evidenced in
the Hausa language itself as spoken orally and in written literature. It is, however, very
difficult to explain the moment of the first contact between the two languages, since we
lack written materials that would show us the trend of such contact. The researcher,
therefore, considers the works cited in this section important to the present study because
they reveal the interwoven nature of living languages, such as Arabic, Hausa and
Kiswahili. All languages have their own sound framework or system in which the words
are being fabricated. Masamba (1991) asserts that despite the fact that languages have
certain essential properties which they tend to share; it is improbable that any two
languages will have the very same sound patterns. Moreover, each language has its own
particular consecutive constraints. He clarifies that those arrangements of sounds that are
26
allowable in the development of words of a language are said to be very much shaped
(well-formedness) while those that are not are said to be poorly framed (ill-formed). He
calls the attention that it is additionally conceivable to have a frame which, as indicated
by a sequence constraints of a given language, is badly shaped (ill-formed) however it is
found in the dictionary or lexicon of that language. For instance, an arrangement of [skw]
is prohibited in Kiswahili yet it happens in "skwea" adjusted from the English word
'square'. Such structures are known as unplanned or accidental gap fillers implying that
despite the fact that they violate the sequential constraint of the language, they
nevertheless serve to fill the gaps that surface in the language modernization and
language adaptation. This perception is of extraordinary significance in the present
review as the part of phonological change after borrowing. Newman (2000) reports that
the investigation of loanwords includes various interrelated inquiries, for example, what
alterations occur in tolerating the loanwords and what affect the loanwords have on the
recipient language. Numerous researchers concur that when languages receive loanwords;
they normally adjust or modify them with regards to the prior structure of the language.
Newman (2000) gives the case of Hausa which, before the deluge of Arabic loanwords,
did not have /h/ as a distinct phoneme. The sound /h/ existed, however just as allophone
of /f/ before back vowel as in: dafu [dahu] 'be cooked'. Therefore the wide achieving
Arabic impact, along these lines strengthened by loanword from English /h/ emerged as a
completely useful consonant in the language. There are many linguistic issues that remain
unresolved in Kiswahili. Kiswahili phonemic inventory is one of the key controversial
issues (Mwangi, 2010:40). Linguists give different positions on the number and types of
vowel and consonant segment in Kiswahili. According to Mwangi (2010) and Karuru
27
(2012), the issue of the number of Kiswahili consonant has been argued for long by
linguist with differing positions. Linguists hold different views about Kiswahili syllable
structure. Generally, all linguists attest that Kiswahili has the syllables CV and V.
However, most linguists hold different views on the syllable CCV because some like
Mgullu (1999), Kihore et al (2001), Massamba et al (2004), Habwe and Karanja (2004),
Mwangi (2010) and Matinde (2012), claim that Kiswahili has the syllable CCV
constituting a nasal consonant, and oral consonant and a vowel, for ins. Another CCV
syllable constitutes an oral consonant, a glide and a vowel, for example, the first syllable
of [kwεṥnda] for goes.
Arabic is a member of the Semitic division of the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) family
languages (Kaye 1997: 187; Ryding 2005:1 Aoun et al 2010). Basically, Arabic is a VSO
language, though some scholars like Fehri (1993:6) opines that it is also belong to a
“mixed VSO / SVO type”. The situation within the Arabic-speaking countries is a
diglossic one. This is to say that it has been characterized by the coexistence of two
varieties, a formal (classical or standard) variety and an informal (colloquial or dialectal)
one. Broadly speaking, within the diglossic situations the formal variety is regarded to be
high while the second type which is informal is considered as low. Jarrah (1993) on the
other hand, briefly discusses the syllable structure that is still found in Arabic. He says
that CV is a less heavy syllable, CVV and CVC are heavy syllables and last but not the
least, CVVC and CVCC are super-heavy syllables in Arabic. Similarly, he is of the view
that the first three syllables types mentioned above are the unmarked ones based on their
distribution. This is because they frequently occur than the other two types (CVVC, and
CVCC).
28
Table 2.1: Arabic consonants
* This Table is adapted from IPA Revised (2005), with modifications.
Table 2.2: Arabic Vowels
29
Hausa on the other hand, belongs to the Chadic branch of the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-
Semitic) family of languages. Before the colonial period it was written in a variety of the
Arabic script known as “Ajami”, but this has given way to a modified Roman script
introduced by the British. The language contains many words borrowed from Arabic, and
has a long tradition of songs and poetry within a cosmopolitan Islamic culture which
developed to the geographical location of the Hausa states astride the trans-saharan and
savannah trade routes (Abdulazeez, 1979).
Hausa is the most widely spoken language in West Africa and Africa apart from
Kiswahili. The language is categorized as a number of a Chadic group of languages
within Afrosiatic language families. The language is closely related to Arabic and
Hebrew more than any another language of Afrosiatic Phylum in sub-Saharan Africa
(Jaggar, 2011). It is largely established in the Northern part of Nigeria and the Republic
of Niger among others. Recently, Hausa language has been estimated the mother tongue
(first language) of approximately eighty to one hundred Million people, and relatively
over one hundred Million non-native speakers who demonstrate a varying degree of
aptitude in the language (Yusuf, 2011). Hausa language is regarded as one of the major
three native/indigenous languages in Nigeria (Adeniyi & Bello 2006). Summer Institute
of Languages (SIL) (2008), based on its prevalent benefit within Africa, it is considered
as second to Kiswahili, common language (lingua franca) (Abubakre, 2008). Hausa
language is spoken in Northern Nigeria, Northern Cameron and Ghana as well. Similarly,
it functions as a commercial language within West African capital cities, other region or
parts of Chad, Sudan, and in North and equatorial Africa.
30
Hausa has five (5) phonetic vowel sounds which are both single and long, giving a total
number of ten (10) vowel phonemes which are called monophthongs and four (4) joint
vowel sound that are called diphthongs giving a total number of fourteen vowel
phonemes (Sani, 2005). Also he asserts that it has between twenty three and twenty five
(23-25) consonant phonemes depending on the speaker or dialect. Hausa has three
possible syllable structures, CV (light syllable) and CVV or CVC (heavy syllables).
CVV syllable may consist of a consonantal onset plus a long vowel nucleus for example,
raa.naa „day, Sun‟, or a consonantal onset plus a diphthongs nucleus (syllable borders
marked by full stop symbol), for example, dau.kaa „pick up‟. CVC syllable made up of a
consonantal onset, a short vowel nucleus, and a consonantal coda, for instance, tsun.tsu
[s‟uns‟u:] „bird‟. The history of Arabic loanwords in Hausa shows that such words got
into Hausa at different times. However, we do not know what the form of these words
was at the time of their borrowing. An examination of the history of Hausa phonology
and morphology will help us to understand how the loanwords adapted to Hausa
linguistic and in that way attempt to reconstruct their original form (Yalwa, 1992: 107).
The Arabic sounds that are not found in Hausa sound system were replaced by the native
sounds that are phonetically close to the Arabic ones. Therefore, Arabic loans brought
about an increase in the phonemic inventory of Hausa language (Yalwa, 1992:127).
Borowsky and Avery (2009) have dissected Dhochi, a language game of Dholuo inside
the structure of Optimality Theory. They relate the diversion shape to its information, the
base word, which is the surface frame. The diversion requires that some sort of inversion
is shown as in: apwↄyↄ → ayↄpwↄ „here‟.
31
They demonstrate that the optimal game form fulfills or satisfies the requirement of
inversion by movement while insignificantly violating other phonological constraints on
the language. This examination brought together clarification of the distinctive results for
monosyllabic words when contrasted with polysyllabic words. In expansion, they observe
that a few words, for example /odwa/ → /wado/ „our house‟, the initial syllable of the
base word changes from VC (vowel consonant) to CV (consonant vowel). As far as
Optimality Theory, the output form which has open syllables (CV) fulfills or satisfies
NOCODA. Thus, the reversal is geared towards accomplishing the unmarked syllable
structure. This perception has guided the present review in investigating how Hausa and
Kiswahili acquired nouns from Arabic language. Omochonu (2008) establishes a
comparative Optimality account of primary stress task in Standard British English (SBE)
and Nigerian English (NE), especially from the perspective of Igala users of English as a
second language. The review exhibits how the constraint is requesting in Standard British
English is reordered in Nigerian English observing that different constraints, which
means it must be committed to universal grammar a fact that places the theory at an
advantage over its predecessors. The review has likewise demonstrated Optimality
Theory (OT) satisfies the requirement that any genuine theory of phonology must
depends intensely on well-formedness constraints, which implies it must be focused on
general sentence structure, a reality that places the theory at favorable position over its
antecedent or predecessor. The present review has additionally offered prominence to
Optimality Theory and dissect loanword adapted by Hausa and Kiswahili from Arabic
utilizing Optimality Theory. Acknema and Neeleman (2005) address how Optimality
Theory (OT) view on language structure, with its accentuation on rivalry between
32
structures communicating a similar idea, can be beneficially connected to issues of word-
formation. Guo (1999) has considered Mandarin interpreted American State names and
typhoon names utilizing Optimality Theory. He inspects how the consonant clusters and
unlawful codas are modified in Mandarin loanwords translated from English. He argues
that Mandarin translated loanwords borrowed from English such as: Maryland
[mԐrilӘnd] → mǎlǐlán [malilan] are predominant. He observes that since Mandarin and
English have diverse syllable structures-the last permits onset and coda clusters while the
previous does not, the syllable structures of the loanwords must be changed and
converted while they are borrowed into Mandarin. He likewise finds that three repair
systems feature change; epenthesis and deletion are for the most part found to work on
Mandarin loanwords. He contends that the epenthesis and the disyllability impact found
in the loanwords result from widespread constraints that are available in all sentence
structures yet are set apart by the impact of high-positioned or highly-ranked constraints
in Mandarin Chinese. Mwita (2009) has written a research paper on the adaptation of
Kiswahili loanwords from Arabic. Using a constraint-based investigation, He
demonstrates the procedures that loanwords experience when they are adopted from
Arabic into Kiswahili. Additionally the paper demonstrates that Kiswahili lean towards
vowel epenthesis to vowel syncope and apocope in the resyllabification of loanwords. It
sets up that however Kiswahili is an open syllable language; loanwords have constrained
it to take up shut syllables so as not to violate the sonority hierarchy inside the syllable.
He additionally takes note of how the incorporation of loanwords into Kiswahili has
resulted in an expansion of the Kiswahili syllable, that is, it has expanded the utilization
of other syllable structures which are not extremely regular in Kiswahili, for example,
33
CV and CCV. Kiswahili and Hausa share a considerable measure in spite of the way that
the two languages are from various language families. Considering the profitable reviews
on acquiring and loanword nativization, this study adds to existing knowledge on
loanword nativization forms using Optimality Theory.
2.1.1 Chadic (Afro-asiatic) Languages
Afroasiatic
Libyco-chadic Egypto-semitic Cushitic
Barber Chadic Egyptian Semitic Beja Narrow Cushitic
The Chadic language family
Chadic
West Chadic Central Chadic mass group East Chadic
A B A B Gidar A B
Hausa Bade-Ngizim Tera Buduma Tumak Dangalet
Bole Warji Bura Musgu Nancere Mokulu
Angas Boghum Higi Kere Sokoro
34
Ron Wandala
Mafa Sukur
Daba
Bata-Bacham
Massamba (1996) notes that every language takes a limited number of sounds from the
central pool of human speech sounds to form its phonetic inventory. A phonological
study of the language examines the structure and the function of the inventory: the sounds
that are likely to occur, their possible combinations and any restrictions to the
combinations.
The following is a brief description of the Hausa sound system:
Sani (2005) says many researches show that standard Hausa has the total number of thirty
four (34) constant sounds as follows:
/b/ voiced bilabial stop/plosive as in baya (back)
/б/ voiced bilabial implosive as in taбarya (pestle)
/m/ voiced bilabial nasal as in mangwaro (mango)
/ɸ/ voiceless bilabial fricative as in kumfa (foam)
/t/ voiceless alveolar stop/plosive as in tudu (hill)
/d/ voiced alveolar stop/plosive as in dare (might)
/l/ voiced alveolar lateral as in bulala (whip)
/r/ voiced alveolar trill as in bara (begging)
/n/ voiceless alveolar nasal as in nono (sour milk)
/s/ voiceless alveolar fricative as in sikari (sugar)
/z/ voiceless alveolar fricative as zane (wrapper)
/s‟/ voiceless alveolar ejective as in a tsintsiya (broom)
35
/ɽ/ voiced retroflex flap as in ruwa (water)
/ɗ/ voiced retroflex implosive as in tadi (conversation)
/ʃ/ voiceless post-alveolar fricative as in shanu (cattle)
/tʃ/ voiceless post-alveolar affricative as in ciyawa (grass)
/dʒ/ voiced post-alveolar affricate in jaki (donkey)
/j/ voiced palatal approximant/semi vowel as in yabo (praise)
/ɲ/ voiced palatal nasal as in hanya (road)
/k/ voiceless velar stop/plosive as in kare (dog)
/ƙ/ voiceless velar ejective as in kaya (thorn)
/ɡ/ voiced velar stop/plosive as in raga (net)
/ŋ/ voiceless velar nasal as in can (there)
/h/ voiceless glottal fricative as in hayaki (smoke)
/ɲ/ glottal stop/plosive as in baa (joke)
/ɸj/ voiceless palatalized-bilabial fricative in fyade (raping)
/w/ voiced labio-velar approximant/semivowel wuka (knife)
/kw/ voiceless labialized velar stop/plosive as in kwari (valley)
/ƙw/ voiceless labialized-velar ejective as in kwaro (insect)
/ɡw/ voiced labialized-velar stop-plosive as in gwani (expert)
/kj/ voiceless palatalize-velar stop/plosive as in kyau (beauty)
/ɡj/ voiced palatalized-velar stop/plosive as in gyara (repair)
/ƙj/ voiceless palatalized-velar ejective as in kyalle (piece of cloth)
/Ɂj/palatalized-glottal stop/plosive as in „ya‟ya (children
36
Hausa has 12 vowel phonemes (Newman, 2000). Different dialects acknowledge 12 to 14
phonemes (Smirnova, 1982). Because of provincial varieties, just data concerning diphthongs
has brought about various inventories. Up until now, segment inventories provided by different
literatures on Hausa have exemplified a practically comparable or indistinguishable (Newman,
2000; Caron, 2013). The case for vowel extending (long vowels) can be adjusted to tonal
communications, as seen in studies of Leben (1996) and Kenstowicz (2006). This phonological
adjustment or gives proof to the acknowledgment of long vowels in Hausa's grammar (Na' Allah,
1991). Tonal adaptations as a repair system in Hausa won't be expounded in this review as it just
harps on segmental phonology not auto-segmental phonology as I have specified before. Sani
(2005) points that from the phonetic point of view, it is a speech sound whose articulation does
not involve obstruction of air-flow, but essentially vibration of the vocal cords. In standard
Hausa, there are pairs of single vowels in which five are short and five are long, as follows:
/i/ and /ii/ as in ciyawa (grass) and jika (grandchild)
/e/ and /ee/ as in mace (woman) and gemu (beard)
/a/ and /aa/ as in gashi (roasting) and bashi (debt)
/o/ and /oo/ as in sabo (a proper name) and kofa (door)
/u/ and /uu/ as in uwa (mother) and buta (kettle)
37
Figure 2.1 Hausa Trapezium
Front central back
ii uu High
i u
ee oo Mid
e o
Low
All five pairs of single vowels are referred to as monophthongs. Apart from the above, however,
Hausa has another type of vowel, the diphthong. The term diphthong simply means a union of
two different vowels. In other words it is two different vowels articulated simultaneously (Sani,
2005).
Figure 2.2 Hausa Diphthongs
Front central back
i ui u High
ai au
aa low a a Low
A diagram showing tongue movement in the articulation diphthong.
38
Also Sani (2005) observes that in the articulation of /ai/, the tongue is in the first place kept low
in the mouth, and then its front part rose to the point to articulate /i/. In the articulation of au/au/,
it is somewhat the same that it is the back of the tongue that is raised to the point it has reach to
articulate /w/. Also as for the articulator of /ui/, the tongue is pulsed back and its front part
pushed forward to reach the point for the articulation of /i/.
39
Table 2.5: Hausa Consonant chart
Balabial Palatalized
Balabial
Alveolar Retrofl
ex
Postalve
olar
Palata
l
velar Labio
velar
Labialized
velar
Palatalize
d
velar
Gloti
al
Palatal
ized
Glotial
Stop/
explosive
b t d k ɡ kw ɡw kj ɡj Ɂ Ɂj
Implosiv
e
ƃ
ɗ
Ejective s‟ ƙ Ƙw ƙj
Nasal m n
ɲ
ŋ
Fricative Φ Φj s z ʃ h
Affricate tʃ dʒ
Lateral l
Trill/Roll r
Flap ɽ
Approxi
mant
Semi
vowel
j w
40
Regarding syllable structures, Hausa has three structure types found in its grammar – CV, CVV,
CVC (Clements, 2000, Caron, 2013; Musa & Altakhaineh, 2015). The CV (Structure as Caron
(2013) suggests is mostly found in ideophones and loanwords.
CVV Shi /ʃi/ „ him ‟
CVV yau/‟jau/ „today‟
CVC can/ʒaŋ/ „there‟
Figure Coda + onset of takalmi „shoe‟
σ σ σ
C V C V C C V
T a k a l m i
Figure….. coda + onset of karfi „strong‟
σ σ
C V C C V
k a r f i
41
Mubi is also an of Eastern Chadic language spoken in the Guera region of Chad. According to
the 1993 national census, there were approximately 35,277 Mubi people (Mbernodji & Johson
2001: 6) The Mubi people live in the northeastern part of Guera region of Chad. Most of the
speakers also speak Chadian Arabic, and a very small percentage of Mubi speakers know other
languages such as French, Birgit, or Hausa (Mbernodji & Johnson: 8).The dominant influence of
Chadian Arabic has led to the adoption of many Arabic loanwords into Mubi. Similarly, it is the
part of the Chadic language family. This family is roughly made up of at least 200 languages and
also is the largest and most divers family within Afrosiatic. Frawley (2003) classifies Mubi as
follows: Afrosiatic, Chadic, East, Group B, sub-group B1, 2. The phonology of Mubi can be
classified as consonant-driven (Barreteau 1991:297) state that for many Chadic languages, as
42
well as Afrosiatic in general, consonants bear the main semantic load, which vowels and tone
often have a more grammatical function.
Table 2.6 Mubi Consonant chart
The above table comprises major places of articulation: labial, alveolar, palatal, velar and glottal
of articulation. All places of articulation have a voiceless and voiced. On the other hand, Mubi
has five phoneme vowels, reflecting the system common to other Chadic languages.
Table 2.7 Mubi Vowel chart
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e o
Low a
43
Barain is a member of the Chadic family in Afrosiatic phylum. It is also one of the Chadic family
languages of Guera (East Chadic B). The East branch is said to consist of 36 languages spoken in
republic of Chad. This branch is further divided into two sub-branches: A and B. It has been
suggested by Roberts (2009) that it would be beneficial to refer to those sub-branches according
to their geographic languages.
44
Table 2.7 Barain Consonant chart
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar
Voiceless stop p t k
Voiced stop b d ɟ ɡ
Fricative s
Nasal m n ɲ ŋ
Lateral l
Trill r
Approximant w j
Chadic languages typically have three series of plosive- voiced, voiceless and implosive up to
four places of articulation (Newman 2006). Every language of Guera sub-branch that has been
subject to phonological study has revealed all three series; except for Brain (Lovestrand
2012).There are five phonemic vowels in Barain. They are shown below. East Chadic languages,
in general, are characterized by a phonologically stable five-vowel system, unlike the notoriously
complex vowel systems of other Chadic branches (Roberts 2001, Schuh 2003).
Table 2.8 Brain vowel chart
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e o
Low a
45
All five vowels have a contrastive long form. Contrastive long vowels have been found in every
language of Guera.
2.1.2 Bantu Languages
Loanword nativization in some Bantu language has, to some degree, been investigated by
different researchers. Mahlangu (2007) has researched and depicted how Ndebele, a South
African Bantu language, phonologically and morphologically adopted lexical items that originate
from Afrikaans and English. Mahlangu's review considers the conceivable guidelines that
Ndebele applies in the selection of foreign words. The review uncovers that not all Afrikaans and
English consonant clusters conform to the Ndebele consonant clusters. A portion of the donor
languages' consonant clusters, for example, are received 'as seems to be', implying that they do
not fit or conform in with the CV syllable structure of Ndebele similar to the instance of most
African languages. Mwihiaki (1998) had completed a phonological investigation of Gikuyu
loanwords acquired from English. The review recognizes three part of loanword adaptation:
phonemic, phonotactic and prosodic. Phonemic adaptation addresses the syntactic or
grammatical constraints of unitary sound substitution. Phonotactic adaptation defines the
harmonic motivation for phonemic combination and distribution in the loanword. Prosodic
adaptation considers the principles of syllabification and assignment of prosodic features. A
consonant is a segment which is articulated with a drastic stricture of the airstream in the vocal
tract (Ladefoged, 2000:5).
46
Table 2.9 Kiswahili Consonant Chart
Bilabial Labio-
dental
Dental Alveolar Post-
alveolar
palatal Velar Glottal
plosive P b t d ɟ c k ɡ
Nasal m n ɲ ŋ
Trill r
Fricative f v ϴ ð s z ʃ ɤ h
Approximant w j
Lateral
approximant
l
A vowel is a segment which is articulated without any obstruction of the airstream in the oral
cavity (Ladefoged, 2000:12). The phonological parameters used to categorize vowels are tongue
height, tongue position and lip shape (Ladofoged, 2000:13).
Figure 2.3 Kiswahili vowel chart
Every language has its own combination of sounds within a syllable and word (Ladefoged,
2000:230). A consonant vowel (CV) syllable constitutes one consonant and vowel segment.
Mwangi (2010:4) asserts that CV forms the bulk of syllables in Kiswahili. The syllable is
observed in many Kiswahili words of Bantu origin as demonstrated in the following examples
47
Kiswahili Gloss
a./fika/ arrive/reach
b./tʃapa/ to cane
c./kisogo/ back of head
d./fukuza/ to chase away
σ σ σ σ
C V C V C V C V
F i k a t a p a
σ σ σ σ σ σ
C V C V C V C V C V C V
k i s ↄ g ↄ f u k u z a
Consonant Consonant vowel (CCV) Syllable structure comprises a cluster of two consonants
ending with a vowel. Mwita (2005:50) observes that this syllable typed is usually found at word
or word syllable initial position of Kiswahili words. The syllable is found in Kiswahili words of
Bantu origin such as:
48
Kiswahili Gloss
a. /mwiko/ taboo
b. /fjԐka/ to slash
c. /tunza/ to take care of / maintain liar
σ σ σ σ
C C V C V C C V C V
m w i k o f j e k a
σ σ σ σ
C V C C V C C V C C V
t u n z a m w o ŋ g o
CCV is a syllable that constitutes a two cluster and a vowel. In this study, we observed that the
syllable is found in Kiswahili words of Bantu origin. Examples of Kiswahili word bearing the
syllable include:
Kiswahili Gloss
/cuᵑgwa/ an orange
49
σ σ
C V
C C CV
c u ŋ g w a
A Vowel syllable constitutes only a vowel segment, a syllabic nasal. The V syllable with a vowel
segment is commonly found in Kiswahili. For instance:
Kiswahili Gloss
a. /iʃi/ to live
b. /ukoo/ clan
c. /lea/ to bring up
σ σ σ σ σ
V C V V C V V
i ʃ i u k o o
σ σ
C V V
l e a
50
2.2 Theoretical Framework
Linguists generally formulated theories that account for loanword adaptations using internal
phonological grammar of the borrowing language only. This study considers some theories and
variation between adaptation strategies in human languages.
The Theory is Optimality Theory (OT) by Prince and Smolensky (1993/2004) that proposed to
account for loanword adaptations using internal phonological grammar of the borrowing
language only. The model stresses on faithfulness constraints that impose similarity between the
perceived source form and the corresponding spoken form, this postulates a loanword specific
correspondence relation. In the model a correspondence pair occurs between the posited source
language (PLS) representation and the loan form, the Source-Borrowing (SB) correspondence
relation which accounts for the source word and the borrowing word, ensures faithfulness
between the spoken form and perceived form.
The input-output (IO) correspondence governs the correspondence between the underlying form
and the spoken form. It stresses that segment in the source form must appear in the borrowed
form and those in the borrowed form must appear in the source form. It allows for repairs in the
loanword adaptation and therefore different repairs take place. Smith (2006) points out that while
epenthesis is normally used to repair illegal coda consonants and consonant clusters Japanese
loanwords for instance deletion is used instead for repairs in verb conjugation patterns. The
solution Smith proposed is to postulates a loanword specified correspondence relation for the
source language (L2) and the borrowing language (L1).She further proposes the corresponding
set of faithfulness constraint:
MAX-SB which asserts that segments in the source word must appear in the borrowing;
51
DEP-SB which asserts that segments in the borrowing segment must appear in the source and so
on. Therefore, this allows a free rankable source borrowing constraints.
The Theory has been used based on the following explanation:
How to use the Theory
Kager (1999:9) characterizes a constraint as 'a basic necessity that may either be satisfied or
violated by an output'. A shape fulfills or satisfies a constraint in the event that it completely
meets the structural requirement, while any form not meeting this prerequisite is said to violate
it. The surface forms of language reflect resolutions of clashes between contending constraints.
A surface form is a "winner" in the sense that it incurs the least violation of an arrangement of
violable constraints, positioned or ranked in a language-specific hierarchy. The notion of
markedness assumes a key part in OT. The idea is that a wide range of linguistic structures have
two qualities, one of which is 'marked', the other 'unmarked'. The unmarked qualities are cross-
etymologically favored and fundamental in all syntaxes, while the checked qualities are cross-
linguistically kept away from and utilized by grammars just to make difference. For instance, as
respects the syllable structure, the unmarked incentive for syllable closure is "open" since all
languages have open syllables (CV,V), while just a subset of languages permit closed syllables
(CVC, VC). The all-inclusive understanding of markedness constraints is accommodated with
the perception that languages, to a specific degree at any rate, endure checked sorts of structures
(Kager, 1999). This implies that constraints are violable. At the heart of OT lies the idea
language is an arrangement of clashing forces. These "forces" are encapsulated by constraints,
each of which makes a prerequisite about a few part of grammatical output forms. Ackema and
Neelam (2005) report that constraints are typically clashing to fulfill one constraints implies the
52
violation of another. There is no form which can satisfy all constraints at the same time so there
must be some component selecting forms that bring about "lesser" constraint violation from
others that bring about 'more fatal' ones. This component includes progressive positioning of
constraints, to such an extent that the higher-ranked constraints have priority over the lower-
ranked ones. Languages vary in the ranking of constraints, giving priority to some constraints
over others. Such rankings depend on "strict" domination: on the off chance that one constraint
outranks another, the higher ranked constraint has priority paying little mind to violations of the
lower ranked one. Generally, there are two major types of forces exemplified by constraints:
faithfulness and markedness. The later constraints demand that output forms meet some basic
well-formedness. Kager (1999) states that markedness is the general denominator for the
grammatical factor that apply weight towards unmarked sorts or types of structures. The
following are some general markedness constraints (Kager, 1999):
(a) Syllables must have onsets ONSET
(b) Syllables must not have codas. NOCODA
(c) Obstruents must not be voiced in coda position.*VOICED-CODA
The major force counterbalancing markedness is faithfulness – the consolidated grammatical
elements saving lexical complexities. Faithfulness constrains require that output save the
properties of their fundamental structures or forms, requiring some sort of similarity between the
output and its input. Kager (1999) asserts that grammar is maximally faithful to a lexical
distinguishable if the output structures are totally harmonious with their lexical inputs with
reference to some feature restriction. In this manner, we may consider faithfulness the general
prerequisite for linguistic structures to be acknowledged as close as conceivable to their lexical
'fundamental structures'. These are examples of faithfulness constraints (Kager, 1999):
53
(a) The output must preserve all segments present in the input. DEP-C
(b) Output segments must have counterparts in the input. DEP-V
(c) Output segments and input segments must share value for [voice].* VOICED-CODA
Markedness and faithfulness constraints are characteristically clashing. For example, when
Kiswahili and Hausa adopt an Arabic word that has a coda, it needs to alter it since codas are
entirely restricted in Kisiwahili and Hausa. The alteration might be finished by embeddings a
vowel or deleting the coda completely. This definitely satisfies the constraint that states 'syllables
must not have codas' at the same time violates faithfulness. The epenthetic vowel does not have a
partner in the input while deletion of the coda implies that the output has not safeguarded all
segments in the input. The language that receives might need to 'stay faithful' by safeguarding
all segments in the input yet this would be as well "costly" since it will lead to serious violation
of a highly- ranked constraint. This can be shown utilizing scene below.
Input (Arabic): rizk /rizk/
Output (Kiswahili) [riziki]
Input *CODA DEP-V
a. [rizk] *!
b. ☞ [ri.zi.ki] **
Candidate (a) is faithful because it has no insertion but it seriously violates *CODA = syllable
must not have codas. In candidate b. there is insertion of a vowel so that it deals with the banned
coda but it minimally violates DEP-V= no insertion of a vowel. The interaction of the two
constraints shows that candidate b. is chosen as the optimal since it does not violate a high-
ranked constraint in Kiswahili. Every output type of the grammar is the 'best possible' regarding
a hierarchy of constraints, instead of the form which coordinates all constraints in the meantime
(Kager, 1999). "Consummate" output structures are basically non-existent as each output form
54
will disregard or violate in any event a few constraints. Along these lines, the choice of the
"optimal" output form includes setting needs. The higher-ranked of a couple of clashing
constraints outweighs everything else over the lower-ranked one. Constraints are ranked or
positioned in a chain of command of strict control. This implies a candidate that violates just a
high-ranked constraint does worse on the progressive system than one that does not, regardless
of the possibility that the second hopeful fared more terrible on each other lower ranked
constraint. This additionally implies constraints are violable; the winning candidate need not
satisfies all constraints. Inside the language, a constraint might be ranked high that is constantly
complied; it might be ranked sufficiently low that it has no detectable impacts or it might have
some transitional ranking. In Hausa and Kiswahili for instance, *CODA is ranked high so it
should dependably be obeyed however ONSET is positioned low since both languages have
numerous "onset less" syllables.
The OT grammar is an input-output system that matches an output form to an input form with
the end goal that every output has definitely one input. The essential supposition of OT is that
each linguistic output form is optimal, in the sense that incurs the least serious violation of a set
of conflicting constraints. For a given input, the recipient language produces and after that
assesses a limitless arrangement of output candidates, from which it chooses the optimal
candidate, which is the real output (the nativized word). Assessment happens through an
arrangement of progressively ranked constraints (Con1 >> Con2 ˃˃… Conn), each of which
disposes of some candidate outputs, until a point is come to at which just a single output
candidate survives. The elimination is represented to schematically in Fig. 2.6
55
As indicated by Ackema and Neeleman (2005), evaluation continues as follows. The structures
to be looked at (which make up the candidate set) are initially assessed with respect to the most
highest-ranked constraint. In the event that two candidates get an equivalent score, they are
judged by the next highest constraint. In the event that there is still more than one surviving
candidate, they are judged on the third constraint, and so on. The candidate that at last survives
this strategy is optimal and subsequently grammatical. The optimal output candidate is the one
that is 'most harmonic' as for the arrangement of ranked constraints. "Harmony" is a type of
relative well-formedness, considering the seriousness of the violations of individual constraints,
as dictated by their progressive positioning (Kager, 1999). That is, violation of a higher-ranked
constraint incurs a greatest cost to harmony than violation of a lower-ranked constraint. A few
violations must happen in each output candidate, as constraints impose conflicting requirements.
Appropriately, a low-ranked constraint can be violated to maintain a strategic distance from the
violation of a higher-ranked one, yet violation is constantly kept to a base or minimum.
Brasington (2003) points out that a candidate that violates a highly-ranked constraint does worse
on the hierarchy than one that does not, regardless of the second candidate fared worse on each
other lower-ranked constraint. Given two candidate, A and B, A is superior to B on a constraint
56
if A brings about less violation than B. Candidate A is superior to B on a whole constraint
hierarchy of constraints if A bring about less violation of the most highest-ranked constraint
recognizing A and B. A is optimal in its candidate set on the off chance that it is better on the
constraint hierarchy of importance than every single other candidates. What follows after now is
a close look at the major of OT component in connection to the nativization process. The
recipient system contains components which map the input (the loanword) onto an infinite set of
candidates output forms, and another component that is burdened with evaluating the candidate
output forms by an set of ranked constraints, and selecting the optimal (the nativized word)
among these. These two components are Generator (Gen) and Evaluator (Eval). Gen decides
how components can be joined into a structure (Ackema & Neeleman, 2005). Given an input,
Gen produces a set of ranked candidates‟ analyses in light of the all-inclusive well-formedness
constraints. At that point this candidate set is submitted to Eval which assesses all the
conceivable candidates created by Gen in parallel and chooses one which best satisfies or
negligibly violates the ranking as the optimal. The idea of negligible violation or best fulfillment
or satisfaction is characterized regarding this ranking (Guo, 1999). The tableau below shows one
circumstance of minimal violation.
Input Constraint A Constraint B Constraint C
☞ Candidate 1 *
Candidate 2 *!
Candidate 3 *!
The tableau above demonstrates that constraint A is ranked higher than constraint B, trailed by
constraint C in language X. The violation of a higher-ranked constraint is serious. Subsequently,
despite the fact that all candidates violate just a single constraint individually, Candidates 2 and 3
57
are eliminated since they violate higher ranked constraints. Candidate 1 violates the lower-
ranked constraint with negligible minimal penalty and is chosen as the optimal output. The
domination order of constraint is appeared in a left-to-right order. Violation of a constraint is set
apart by * while satisfaction is shown by a clear blank cell. The sign "!" connotes a serious fatal
violation, the one that is in charge of a candidate's no optimality, the image "☞" shows the
optimal candidate. Shading emphasizes the irrelevance of the constraint to the destiny of the no
optimal candidate (Guo, 1999). It is important, at this point, to list a number of constraints that
interact in the nativization of Hausa and Kiswahili loanwords. These are:
*CODA: Syllables must not have a coda (syllables are open)
*COMPLEX-C No consonant cluster is allowed within a syllable
*COMPLEX-V: No string of vowels within a syllable
ONSET: Syllables must have onsets
DEP-V: Output vowels must have input correspondents (no V insertion)
MAX-V: Input vowels must have output correspondents (no V deletion)
MAX-C: Input consonants must have output correspondents (no C deletion)
IDENT-IOVOICE: The specification for the feature [voice] of an segment must be preserved
in its output correspondent
IDENT-IO (F): The specification for the feature of an input segment must be preserved in
its output correspondent
58
DEP-IO: Every segment in the output must have a correspondent in the input
(no insertion of a segment)
MAX-IO: Every segment in the input must have a correspondent in the output
(no deletion of a segment)
59
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This section discusses the research design, area of study, study population and sampling
procedures. The section also discusses method of data collection, analytical models, and sources
of data collection research instrument, data analysis and presentation that have been used.
3.1 Research Design
The study adopted a descriptive approach and analyzed Hausa and Kiswahili nativized
loanwords. This design is mainly concentrates on the description of the phonological and
morphological processes involved in the nativization of Arabic loanwords into Kiswahili and
Hausa within the framework of Optimality Theory. The use of different nativization strategies
have been shown in order to see how the loanwords have been influenced by the recipient
languages. The study elicited the data of nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic
that had been analyzed in order to describe the interaction or correlation of the two languages.
The data is mainly text- oriented. Both written references and informants had been used as
sources of information for the study.
3.2 Target Population and Sample Size
The target population was the Kenyatta University students, forty (40) (Nigerians Hausa native
speakers and Kiswahili speakers. Specifically, the research aimed at collecting loanword from
the speakers mentioned above, to achieve this, the research targeted the two speakers since they
60
are using many nativized words. Fifty nouns from Hausa and fifty nouns from Kiswahili making
a hundred (100) were collected and analyzed based on loanword adaptation. Nouns (names of
things) were studied because they are very similar to each other since the two languages
borrowed from the same language which is Arabic language. Twenty (20) informants had been
used, that is ten (10) Kenyatta University students (Nigerians Hausa native speakers) and ten
(10) Kenyatta University students and other Universities students (Kiswahili speakers). The
speakers were between 25-30 years.
3.3 Sampling Procedure
The research had adopted purposive sampling in selecting the respondents (network of
participants) used in the study. This enabled the researcher identified the information required on
the study. A sample of ten (10) respondents from Kenyatta University had been used in which
enabled the researcher gathered the information needed. It is advisable to use a small sample of
twenty (20) native speakers (respondents). This is because linguistic behavior is relatively
homogeneous (having the same genetic structure) and several researchers have observed that
large samples tend not to be necessary for linguistic surveys (Milroy & Gordon, 2003). Since the
nature of this study focuses on morphological and phonological phenomenon, it requires a good
and very thorough analysis of the data required.
61
List of some of nativized words used in the study
Arabic Hausa Kiswahili Gloss
/asl/ [asa.li] [a.si.li] „origin „
/idn/ [izi.nii] [i.dhi.ni] „permission‟
/afw/ [a.fu.waa] [afu/afua] „pardon‟
/ahl/ [a.ha.li] [a.ha.li] „family‟
/ajz/ [a.ji.zii] [a.ji.zi] „weak‟
/rizq/ [azzi.kii] [ri.zi.ki] „means of life‟
/sitr/ [siti.raa] [sta. ra] „veil‟
/sahn/ [sa.haa.nii] [sa.ha.ni] „dish, plate‟
/bahr/ [ba.ha.rii] [ba.ha.ri] „sea‟
3.4 Method of Data Collection
The two main sources of data collection had been used for the purpose of this research were
primary and secondary data. The written literature that contains many loanwords used as primary
data. This enabled the researcher read the text materials extensively and identified the
information needed that fits this study. This justified the limit selection of the sample to ensure a
manageable data. Therefore, seventy (70) borrowed nouns were collected within written
literature. Data also used here to refer to the sample of respondents that used as source of
information for the study. Therefore, thirty (30) borrowed nouns had been collected from the
respondents to make it one hundred (100) nouns as purposive amounts of data were analyzed
respectively.
62
The respondents were requested to write down the equivalent nouns in their language. The
observations were written down by the researcher in the field note book. This was done to find
out the phonological and morphological strategies employed between the codes under the study
in order to determine how the nouns integrated into the two languages. The questionnaires were
administered to twenty (20) respondents.
3.5 Research Instruments
The tools employed in this study were questionnaire, interview, and written wordlist. Open-
ended questionnaires were administered to the twenty (20) respondents (see appendix 1). The
questionnaire forms also contain nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic that he or
she can easily render to his/her native language. Essentially, the researcher must ensure that the
instrument chosen is valid and reliable. This is because the validity and reliability of any research
depends to a large extent and the appropriateness of the instruments. Tape recording would only
be used in a situation whereby respondents wish to read the nouns to be recorded. This tape
recording besides being fast will make it possible for materials to be replayed severally in case
where researcher had doubt and this is valuable at transcription stage. The Semi-structured
interview schedule is an oral administration of a questionnaire; therefore, Semi-structured
interview schedules have been used to elicit responses from the both native speakers of Kiswahili
and Hausa. The Semi-structured schedules meant to enable the researcher gather and verify the
respondents‟ responses in order to explain the data obtained from the questionnaire (Selinger,
1989:66). This open interview also allows for a greater in depth of response. In administering
Semi-structured interview, the interviewer used interview schedules, which lists the questions
were asked and provide space to record the information provided during the interview. It also
63
elicited more elaborated data in the form of expression and description obtained from
interviewers.
3.6 Data Analysis and Presentation
This contains the presentation of data and the analysis of the data gathered for the purpose of this
research. The loanwords collected were categorized based on how they are used in the two
languages. Therefore, an attempt had been made to compare inherent morphophonological
differences between the nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic language. The
target was 100 loanwords, since it was not practical to use all the 100 loanwords in the analysis;
the researcher picked forty one (41) loanwords. In the analysis of the data, the study employs
qualitative data analysis method. This method implies the main morphophonological processes
involved in the nativization of the sampled loanwords. This shows that the Arabic words (input)
were written on the tableaux, similarly, for each tableau had an input, and the input had limitless
number of candidates were generated, mentioned but a few on the left side on the tableau.
Therefore, the good selection of the most harmonic output form, it is the one that encounters the
minimal violation of a set of violable constraints; it is chosen after the interaction of the rest of
constraints identified. The interaction within the constraints themselves, leads to the selection of
the optimal candidate, moreover, absolute concentration needs to be given. Different strategies
are vividly explained in light of Optimality Theory terms such as input, output, constraint,
(markedness and faithfulness), optimal, highly ranked, violation, among others. Phonological
and morphological explanations are used to shed more light on nativized loanword under study.
Arabic loanwords were discussed as in input while Hausa and Kiswahili loanwords were treated
as the output forms. Hence therefore, it is assumed that establishing the syllable transformation
after the adaption of the words had definitely aid in the reproducing new words between the two
64
languages. The presentation of the data analysis of this research was based on the loanword
adaptation in languages that depends on three repairs; that is vowel epenthesis, consonant
deletion, and feature change.
3.7 Ethical Considerations
Most professions have ethical guidelines which govern their profession (Mugenda, 2003). Also
the major ethical considerations in this study were used as in privacy and confidentiality of the
respondents, since the obtaining valid data entails interview them. The respondents were
informed about the procedures of the study, objective of the study, the duration of participation,
benefits to the participants and the confidentiality that involved. Moreover, a consent letter and a
form signed by the respondents had been provided. The researcher also got permission from the
school administration, respective departments and other relevant authorities to allow the
researcher gather the information. The researcher had undertaken that all the ethical issues
concerning this research especially respondents would be protected by keeping the information
given confidential.
65
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with data analysis and presentation. In line with the objectives of this study,
the first section of this chapter deals with the identification of the Kiswahili and Hausa nouns
borrowed from Arabic through loanword adaptation in Optimality Theory (OT). The analysis
involves the description of the interaction between markedness and faithfulness constraints in the
selection of Optimal output forms (the borrowed words). In the process, the extent to which the
loanword phenomena in Kiswahili and Hausa can be explained by Optimality Theory (OT) is
assessed. This chapter also deals with the syllable repair process as a result of the operation of
phonological processes on loanword or nativization. Qualitative method had been used to
analyze the data. The first goal of this research was to establish the strategies used by the
recipient languages (Kiswahili and Hausa) to deal with phonological different words from the
donor language (Arabic). As observed earlier, when a word is borrowed from one language to
another, it may violate some constraints of syllable well-formedness. The borrowed word may
also contain some phonemes that are not found in the phonemic inventory of the recipient
language. The recipient language is, therefore faced with the challenge of dealing with non-
conforming syllables and foreign phonemes in the borrowed words. The loanword adaptation in
language depends on two repair mechanisms vowel epenthesis and consonant deletion.
Languages are impacted by their neighboring languages in contact circumstance and this contact
prompts to loan. It constantly depends on the level of contact. It also reveals that the concealed
linguistic frameworks of the languages in contact. It is imperative due to its multidimensionality;
it uncovers the contact of various languages, socio-psycholinguistic components, language
advancement as far as vocabulary, grammar use, phonology, and unquestionably we find out
66
about the sound and syntactic structure in ways we can't generally test. Past investigations of
foreign loanwords have prompted to the improvement of new theories in loanword phonology
(Theory of Constrains and Repair Strategies: Paradis & LaCharite 1997; Paradis, 1988b; Multi-
scansion display: Silverman, 1992). Under the shade of loanword phonology languages that have
been beforehand considered are incorporated Sesotho (Rose & Demuth, 2005), Cantonese
(Silverman,1992;Yip,1993), Japanese (Itô & Mester,1995; Shinohara, 2000;Kay,1995), Fula (Par
adis & LaCharite,1997;Paradis,1996),Punjabifmore, Urdu (Mahmood, Hussain, & Mahmood,
2011; Hussain, 2011), Korean (Kang, 2003), Fijian (Kenstowicz, 2007), and Selayarese
(Broselow, 1999), to give some examples. Researches on these languages enlarged the range of
loanword phonology and in light of their analyses presented new thoughts and distinguished
general phonological constraints working behind the loanword phonology of these languages.
4.1 Syllable Repair Processes
The idea of loanword adaptation or nativization at the phonological level is governed by syllable
well-formedness in the recipient language. When a word is borrowed from one language to
another, in most cases it violates some constraints of syllable well-formedness. The recipient
language moves fast to fix the problem. For examples, many languages try to avoid complex
onsets and codas. The typical avoidance strategies that Kiswahili and Hausa used to repair the
non-conforming syllables of the borrowed words are:
a. Vowel epenthesis
b. Consonant deletion
67
c. Feature change
4.1.1 Vowel Epenthesis
This involves the insertion of a vowel between two consonants or after a consonant in a syllable
final position. Epenthesis involves a violation of faithfulness because the epenthetic segment has
no counterpart in the input. Vowel epenthesis is motivated by initial consonant clusters, final
sonorant plus obstruent cluster, and single obstruent codas, while deletion targets final obstruent
clusters where the peripheral obstruent is deleted. However, the Arabic loanword adaptation in
Hausa and Kiswahili is somehow different from other languages for instance English language.
Hence, vowel epenthesis is mostly used to avoid codas, whereas vowel shortening is employed to
reduce long vowels. On the other hand, coda deletion targets final syllables that close with /h/ as
fricative voiceless consonant. For instance, the word luqmah in Arabic language becomes
loomaa- in Hausa and Lukma in Kiswahili. Therefore, vowel insertion (epenthesis) is the most
mutual repair strategy used in Arabic loanword adaptation. For example: Arabic borrowed words
of the consonant vowel, double consonant in Hausa and Kiswahili.
(1) Input: /asl/
Output: [a.si.li] „origin‟
Input /asl/ *CODA COMPLEX DEP-IO
a. [ asl] *! *!
b. [a.sil] *! * *
c. ☞ [ a.si.li] **
d. [as.i.li] * **
The optimal candidate in Kiswahili is (c). In order to satisfy * COMPLEX cc (consonant
cluster) = no consonant cluster is allowed within a syllable, /i/ had been inserted in between /s/
68
and /l/ to break the consonant cluster. Similarly, vowel /i/ had also been inserted at the final
position after consonant /l/ so as not to violate *CODA= syllable must not have a coda (syllable
are open). The result shows that we have three syllables in the nativized word compared to one
syllable within the input.
(2) Input: asl /asl/
Output: [a.sa.li] „origin‟
In the above example the optimal output form has been selected via the situation of highly
ranked markedness constraints in Hausa: *CODA and *COMLEX cc and faithfulness
constraint: DEP-IO = every segment in the output must have a correspondent in the output (no
insertion of a segment). The input has only one syllable with a consonant cluster at the final
position which is disallowed in Hausa. Therefore the vowel /a/ and /i/ have been used to break
the consonant cluster. After the resyllabification, we find out that output form has three syllables
compared to monosyllabic input.
Input /asl/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc DEP-IO
a. [asl] *! *!
b. [ a.sil] *! *
c. ☞ [a.sa.li] **
d. [as.lil] *! *
69
(3) Input: /idn/
Output: [i.zi.nii] „permission‟
Input /idn/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc DEP-IO
a. [ idn] *! *!
b. [ i.zin] *! *
c. ☞ [ i.zi.nii] **
d. [ iz.i.nin] *! **
The four candidates above, they are all possible realizations of the input form, after they undergo
the assessment, the evaluator has selected the optimal candidate which is (c) as it violates only
one constraint. The three candidates (a), (b) have fatal violation of highly-ranked constraints in
Hausa, though the candidate (d) also has a fatal violation, therefore their opportunities or chances
to be selected as optimal candidates are very minimal. The resyllabification processes leads to
get the number of syllables within the output form since the input has only monosyllabic word.
Therefore the tableau shows that an epenthetic vowel breaks up cluster in the medial and final
position respectively.
70
(4) Input: idn /idn/
Output: [i.dhi.ni] „permission‟
Input /idn/ *CODA *COMPLE cc DEP-IO
a. [i.dn] *! *
b. [ i.dhin] *! *
c. ☞ [ i.dhi.ni] **
d. [ i.dhi.nii] * **!
Here, the interaction between the constraints *COMPLEX cc, *CODA and that of DEP-IO, the
candidate (c) emerges as an optimal since it violates lower ranked constraint in Kiswahili and the
violation is not serious. But the candidates (a) and (b) violate the highly-ranked *COMPLEX cc
and *CODA hence therefore they cannot be emerged as an optimal candidates. As can be seen,
the output has two-to-three syllables as a result of resyllabification; but the input has only one
syllable.
(5) Input: /dars/
Output: [da.ra.sii] „ a lesson‟
Input /dars/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc DEV-IO
a. [da.rs] *! *!
b. ☞ [da.ra.sii] **
c. [dar.si] !* *
d. [da.raa si] ***!
Also here, the input has a COMPLEX cc (no consonant cluster is allowed within a syllable).
Therefore /a/ had been epenthesized to break the consonant cluster /rs/ and /ii/ is inserted at the
final position to tackle with the coda. The optimal candidate (b) has a minimal violation thus has
been emerged as an optimal output. The number of syllables had been increased based on
71
nativization processes since the input has only one syllable but now they are three syllables in
Hausa.
(6) Input: /dars/
Output: [da.ra.sa] „ a lesson‟
Input /dars/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc DEV-IO
a. [dars] *! *!
b. [dar.si] *! *
c. ☞ [da.ra.sa] **
d. [da.ra.si] *! *
The above tableau shows that the input has a consonant cluster which is broken by the insertion
of a vowel /a/ in between two consonants (/rs/). While the coda is dealt with the epenthetic vowel
/a/ at the final position. The candidate (a) and (b) violate the faithfulness constraint while
markedness constraints (*COMPLEX cc and *CODA) were satisfied by the same candidates.
Therefore candidate (c) is selected as an optimal since it only has a minimal violation on lower-
ranked constraints in Kiswahili. The number of syllable increases due to the resyllabification
from one to three syllables.
(7.) Input: /sahn/
Output: [sa.ha.ni] „ a plate/ dish‟
Input /sahn/ *CODA COMPLEX cc DEP--IO
a. [sa.hn] *! *!
b. [sah.ni] *! *
c. ☞ [sa.ha.ni] **
d. [sa.han] *! *
72
The consonant cluster [hn] is disallowed in Kiswahili. Therefore, it is broken by the insertion of
/a/ in between /h/ and /n/. And the coda deals with /i/ inserted at the final position of the word.
Hence therefore, the number of the syllable increases from two to three. Candidate (c) appears as
the optimal. Other candidates (a), (b) and (d) seriously violate the high-ranked constraint in
Kiswahili since they are not emerged as optimal candidates.
(8.) Input: /sahn/
Output: [sa.haa.nii] „a plate/ dish‟
Input /sahn/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc *LONG DEP--V
a. sa.hn *! *!
b. sah.ni *! *
c. sa.ha.nin *! **
d. ☞ sa.haa.nii ** **
The above tableau made up of four candidates: (a), (b), (c) and (d). Based on the evaluation,
candidate (d) is chosen as the optimal output form. The insertion of a long vowel /aa/ in between
two consonant clusters (/h/ and /n/), and also the long vowel (ii) deals with the coda at the final
position of the word. This makes the number of syllable to be increased from disyllabic
(appeared in the input) word to try syllabic word in the output in Hausa.
(9) Input: /harf
Output: [he.ru.fi] „a letter‟
Input /harf/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc DEP-IO
a. ☞ [ he.ru.fi] **
b. [ha.rf] *! *
c. [har.fi] *! *
d. [ha.ra.ff] *! *
73
Notably, two vowels have been epenthesized; /u/ is inserted to break the consonant cluster ([rf])
while /i/ is inserted to deal with the illicit coda. Even though, candidate (a) violates DEP-V,
nevertheless it satisfies the open syllable prerequisite and does not violate the *CODA and
*COMPLEX cc constraints. It, therefore, has been selected as an optimal among the above set of
candidates. It clearly shows that the input has only one syllable, but the output has three.
(10) Input: /harf/
Output: [ha.ra.fii] „ a letter‟
Input /harf/ *CODA *COMPLEX cc *LONG DEP-V
a. ha.rf *! *!
b. har.fi *! *
c. ha.raf *! *
d. ☞ ha.ra.fii * **
This is also another case of /a/ insertion to deal with the disallowed coda. The consonant cluster
[rf] is disallowed; and also long vowel (/ii/) is epenthesized at the word final position. Although
candidate d. violates DEP-V two times (since two vowels have been inserted), it is selected as
the optimal candidate as it does not violate the highly-ranked constraints in Hausa.
(11) Input: /rahmah/
Output: [re.he.ma] „mercy‟
Input /rahmah/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-V
a. [rah.mah] *!
b. ☞ [re.he.ma] * *
c. [rah.ma] *! * *
d. [ra.ha.mah] *! * *
74
The above tableau shows that the vowel /e/ is inserted between the consonant clusters [hm] at the
medial position of the word. Similarly, final coda /h/ in the input is deleted. This is because the
recipient languages (Hausa and Kiswahili) prefer consonant deletion to allow the syllable to be
opened. Therefore candidate (a), (c) and (d) violate the highly-ranked *CODA hence they cannot
be chosen as optimal candidate. Although apart from fatal violation done by the candidates c and
d they also violate other constraints (MAX-IO and DEP-V respectively) but it is not fatal. The
candidate b is selected as an optimal candidate, and the resyllabification makes the syllable to
appear three in the output instead of two in the input.
(12) Input: /rahmah/
Output: [ra.ha.maa] „mercy‟
The input is made up of two syllables. The insertion of a vowel /a/ in between two consonant
[hm] has led to an increase in the number of syllables in the output. Similarly, a long vowel /aa/
is inserted at the word final position of the candidate (a), and then the coda is dealt with the
deletion of the final consonant (voiceless glottal fricative) since Hausa words normally end with
a vowel sounds not a consonants. Notably, candidate violates MAX-IO once and DEP-V twice
but still it is selected as an optimal candidate. Candidate (b) has serious violation while other
candidates (c. and d.) violate MAX-IO and DEP-V constraints but it is minimal, this is why they
are not selected as an optimal.
Input /rahmah/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-V
a. ☞ [ra.ha.maa] * **
b. [rah.mah] *!*
c. [ ra.he.mah] *! * *
d. [ra.ha.mah] *! * *
75
(13) Input: /hikmah/
Output: [he.ki.ma] „wisdom‟
Input /hikmah/ *CODA MAX-IO *VHIGH(σ1) DEP-V
a. [hik.ma] *! *
b. [hik.mah] *!*
c. ☞ [he.ki.ma] * *
d. [ hik.ki.ma] *! * *! *
The examples analyzed above show that vowel /e/ substituted with a vowel /a/ at the first
syllable; also a vowel /i/ is inserted in between [km] in the output, and then final consonant at the
word final position is deleted in Kiswahili. Although candidate (c) violates MAX-IO and DEP-V
constraints but it is minimal, therefore it emerges as optimal candidate. Other candidates like (a)
and (b) have seriously violate markedness *CODA constraint but d. has only serious violation on
*VHIGH (σ1) constraint that is why they are not selected as an optimal candidate.
(14) Input: /hikmah/
Output: [hi.ki.maa] „wisdom‟
Input /hikmah/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-V
a. ☞ [hi.ki.maa] * *
b. [ hik.mah] *!*
c. [hi.ki.ma] * *
d. [he.ki.ma] *
The above tableau shows that the input has disyllabic word but the epenthesis of a vowels /e/ and
/aa/ changes the word to try syllabic word, and also voiceless glottal fricative /h/ is deleted at the
word final position in Hausa. Therefore, the candidate a. violates (minimal) MAX-IO (every
segment in the input must have a correspondent in the output, therefore, no deletion of a
segment) and constraint DEP-V which is output vowels must have input correspondents (no
76
vowel insertion) but it is chosen as an optimal. Candidate (b) has a serious violation, and then (c)
and (d) have a minimal violation so they are not selected as an optimal.
(15) Input: /hudʒdʒah/
Output: [hↄ.dʒa] / [hu.dʒa] „reason‟
Input / hudʒdʒah/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-V
a. [ hud.dʒdʒa] *! *
b. [hudʒ.dʒah] *! *
c. ☞ [hu.dʒa] **
d. [hudʒ.dʒaa] *! * *
The optimal candidate is (c) Although it violates constraint MAX-IO twice, but satisfies *CODA
and DEP-V. Voiced plosive affricate /dʒ/ at the first syllable is deleted and voiceless glottal
fricative /h/ at the second syllable final position is also deleted. Candidate (b) has serious
violation which is not allowed in Kiswahili, likewise a. violates constraint MAX-IO but minimal
and d. also violates constraints MAX-IO and DEP-V respectively so they are not emerged as
optimal candidate.
(16) Input: /hudʒdʒah/
Output: [hudʒ.dʒaa] „reason‟
Input /hudʒdʒah/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-V
a. [hu.dʒah] *! *
b. ☞ [ hudʒ.dʒaa] * *
c. [hud.dʒa] *! **
d. [ hod.dʒa] *! **
In Hausa a voiceless glottal fricative /h/ is not allowed at the word final position but words end in
a long vowel, thus /aa/ has been epenthesized to deal with the coda. Therefore the optimal
77
candidate is (b) as it does not incur any serious or fatal violation. Others such as candidate (a) (c)
and (d) have fatal violation therefore they are not chosen as an optimal candidate.
(17) Input: /haibah/
Output: [hai.ba] / [he.ba] „reverence‟
Input /haibah/ *CODA *LONG MAX-IO DEP-IO
a. [hai.bah] *!
b. [ haj.ba] *! * *
c. [ haj.baa] *! * * *
d. ☞ [ hai.ba] * *
Candidate (a), (b) and (c) seriously violate *CODA (syllable must not have a coda, so syllables
are open). It is prohibited in Kiswahili this is why the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ is deleted
constraint, similarly, b. and (c) Minimally violate three constraints (*LONG, MAX-IO and DEP-
IO) while candidate (d) minimally violates three constraints (MAX-IO, DEP-IO and *LONG).
Therefore candidate (d) is selected as an optimal candidate since it has only a minimal violation
among others.
(18) Input: /haibah/
Output: [hai.ba] „reverence‟
Input /haibah/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-IO *LONG
a. [hai.bah] *! *
b. ☞ [hai.ba] * *
c. [hai.baah] *! * *
d. [heh.ba] *! * *
The four constraints interacted in the selection of the optimal candidate. Candidate b. is chosen
as the optimal since it has an open syllable which is preferred by Hausa. Notably, the vowel /i/ is
78
sometimes substituted with a voiced glide semi-vowel /j/ at the first syllable of the word;
however, voiceless glottal fricative /h/ is deleted at the final position of the second syllable of the
word. Candidate (a), (c) and (d) are seriously violates *CODA (syllables are open) and also
violates *LONG minimally while (c) violates MAX-IO and *LONG and finally (d) violates
MAX-IO and DEP-IO respectively.
(19) Input: /taubah/
Output: [tu.bu] „repentance‟
Input /taubah/ *CODA *LONG DEP-IO MAX-IO
a. [tau.bah] *! *
b. [tau.ba] * *
c. [ tuu.ba] * *
d. ☞ [ tu.bu] *
The input has two syllables and the output also has two deletion of a vowel /a/ at the first syllable
is detected; also the vowel /a/ in the second syllable is sub. The situated with a vowel /u/, and
then the voiceless glottal fricative is omitted at the final position of the word. Hence therefore,
candidate (a) seriously violates constraints *CODA and minimally violates *LONG, candidates
(b) and (c) minimally violate constraints MAX-IO, DEP-IO and *LONG respectively. Therefore
candidate (d) even though minimally violates constraints MAX-IO and DEP-IO but still is
chosen as an optimal candidate.
79
(20) Input: /taubah/
Output: [tuu.baa] „repentance‟
Input / tuubaa/ *CODA MAX-IO DEP-IO *LONG
a. ☞ tuu.baa
b. tu.buu *
c. tau.bah *! *
d. tau.ba * *
Candidate (a) is chosen as the optimal candidate as incurs the minimal violation among the
candidate set. The input has two syllables, so the vowel /a/ is substituted with a vowel /u/ at the
first syllable then followed by the insertion of another vowel /a/ and finally the deletion of
voiceless glottal fricative /h/ at the final position of the second syllable. Candidate set (b) and (d)
have minimal or least violation of the constraints MAX-IO and *LONG, but (c) has fatal
violation so they are not selected as an optimal.
(21) Input: /waqf/
Output: [wak.fu] „religion endowment‟
Input /waqf/ *CODA *SYLL-C DEP-IO IDENT-IO (F)
a. [waa.kaf] *! ** * *
b. ☞ [wa.ki.fu] * *
c. [wa.ka.f] * ** *
d. [wak.fii] *! ** *
The voiceless velar plosive /q/ of the input is not found in the Kiswahili sound system. Therefore
it has been changed to its nearest equivalent in Kiswahili which is /k/. Also a vowel /u/ is
inserted at the word final position since the input is monosyllable word; it has been changed to
disyllabic word. The candidate (b) emerges as an optimal candidate though it has a least violation
80
of constraints DEP-IO and IDENT-IO (F) (the specification for the feature of an input segment
must be preserved in its output correspondent). But candidate (a) seriously violates constraint
*CODA, it is not selected as an optimal. Moreover, candidate (c) and (d) minimally violate
constraints DEP-IO and IDENT-IO therefore they are not chosen as an optimal.
(22) Input: /waqf/
Output: [wa.ka.fii] „religion endowment‟
Input /waqf/ *CODA DEP-IO IDENT-IO (F)
a. ☞ [wa.ka.fii] ** *
b. [wak.f] *! *
c. [wa.ka.fi] ***! *
d. [wak.fii] *! * *
The above tableau shows that the voiceless velar plosive has been substituted with a nearest
equivalent in Hausa since it is not found in its sound system, also input has only monosyllable
word, but as a result of the insertion of a vowels /a/ and /ii/ it has been broken to the tri syllable
word. The candidate a. is selected as a winner though it violates constraints DEP-IO and IDENT
–IO (F), while (b) seriously violates constraints CODA and least violation of DEP-IO. Notably,
(c) and (d) minimally violate constraints DEP-IO and IDENT-IO (F), so they are not chosen as
an optimal candidates.
(23) Input: /jaqut/
Output: [ja.ku.ti] „ ruby‟
Input / jakut/ *CODA DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [ja.kut] *!
b. ☞ [ja.ku.ti] * *
c. [jak.tu] *! * *
d. [ja.ku.t] *!* *
81
The input is disyllable word; velar voiceless plosive /q/ has been changed to the nearest
equivalent /k/ in Kiswahili. However, a vowel /u/ and /i/ epenthesized to break the word into
three syllables word, the candidate (b) is selected as the optimal candidate though it violates
constraints DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F). Candidate (a), (c) and (d) have seriously violate *CODA
and also (c) and (d) minimally violate constraints DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F) so they are not
chosen as an optimal.
(24) Input: /jakut/
Output: [ja.ku.tu] „ruby‟
Input /jakutu/ *CODA DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [ ja.kut] *!
b. [jak.ku.ta] *! * *
c. ☞ [ja.ku.tu] * *
d. [ jak.ku.ti] *! * *
The optimal candidate here is c., the input has disyllable word but the vowel epenthesis makes it
to be tri- syllable word after it has been nativized in Hausa. Similarly, the voiceless velar plosive
has been changed to nearest equivalent /k/ in Hausa. Candidates (a.), (b) and (d) seriously violate
the constraint *CODA, also candidate (b.) and d. minimally violate constraints DEP-V and
IDENT-IO (F), so they are not chosen as an optimal.
82
(25) Input: /aql/
Output: [a.ki.li] „intelligence‟
Input /akl/ *CODA DEP- V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [akl] *!
b. ☞ [a.ki.li] ** *
c. [ak.lu] *! * *
d. [a.ki.lul] *! *** *
The three constraints (*CODA, DEP-V, and IDENT-IO (F)) interact in the selection of the
optimal output form. The substitution of voiceless velar plosive consonant /q/ with the nearest
equivalent velar voiceless plosive consonant /k/ in Kiswahili, and also the insertion of a vowel /i/
at the second syllable of the output form, followed by the insertion of a vowel /i/ at the word
final position of the output, it therefore, shows that the monosyllable word becomes a tri-syllable
word. Candidate (a), (c) and (d) seriously violate constraint *CODA, also (c) and (d) minimally
violate constraints DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F).
(26) Input: aql/
Output: [a.ki.lii] „intelligence‟
Input /akl/ *CODA DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [akl] *!
b. [a.ki.lal] *! ** *
c. ☞ [a.ki.lii] ** *
d. [ak.ki.li] *! ** *
Here, the optimal candidate is c. Although it minimally violates two constraints (DEP-V and
IDENT-IO (F)), notably, voiceless velar plosive consonant /q/ has been changed to the nearest
equivalent consonant /k/ (voiceless velar stop), also the epenthesized vowel /i/ at the second
83
syllable of the output and the long vowel /ii/ at the last syllable has broken the input into tri-
syllable word. Candidate (a), (b) and (d) seriously violate constraints *CODA, while (b.) and (d.)
also minimally violate constraints DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F) so they are not chosen as an
optimal.
(27) Input: /qabar/
Output: [ka.bu.ri] „ a grave‟
Input /qabar/ *CODA DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [ka.bar] *!
b. [ kab.ba.ri] *! * *
c. ☞ [ka.bu.ri] * *
d. [kab.ri] *! * *
The input in the example above has two syllables: but Kiswahili speakers substitute the initial
consonant /q/ of the first syllable to the nearest equivalent /k/, also the insertion of a vowel /i/ at
the final position of the last syllable changes or broken the output to be three syllable words,
hence therefore, the candidate (c) has least violation of the faithful constraints (DEP-V and
IDENT-IO (F)) therefore, it is chosen as an optimal candidate. Candidate (a), (b) and (d) have
fatal violation of marked constraint (*CODA) also (b) and d. minimally violate of the faithful
constraint (DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F)) they are not chosen as an optimal candidate.
84
(28) Input: /qabar/
Output: [ka.ba.rii] „a grave‟
Input /qabar/ *CODA DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. ☞ [ka.ba.rii] * *
b. [kab.ba.ri] *! * *
c. [ka.br] *!
d. [ka.bur.ri] *! * *
The candidate (a) is selected as an optimal since it satisfies markedness constraint (*CODA)
though it has a minimal violation of faithfulness constraints (DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F)) in
Hausa. The output form shows that the consonant /q/ of the first syllable has been changed with
the nearest equivalent /k/ in Hausa; similarly, a long vowel /ii/ has been inserted at the third
syllable of the output so the word appears three syllable words instead of two syllable word.
However, candidate (b) and (d) Violate lower-ranked constraints (DEP-V and IDENT-IO (F)) in
Hausa, but (b), (c) and (d) violate markedness constraint (*CODA). Thus, they are not selected
as an optimal candidate.
(29) Input: /sunduq/
Output: [san.du.ku] „ a box‟
Input /sunduq/ *CODA DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. san.du.k *!* *
c. san.duk *!* *
c. ☞ sa.ndu.ku * *
d. san.duu.ki *! ** *
The input form in the above tableau has two syllables but after it has been nativized into
Kiswahili the output appears three syllables word. Moreover, the last consonant /q/ of the input
85
has been changed to the nearest equivalent consonant/k/ since it is disallowed in Kiswahili.
Therefore, candidate (a) violates faithfulness constraints and satisfies markedness constraint it
emerges as an optimal. In the same vein, candidate (a) and (c) seriously violate markedness
constraint, while (d) also minimally violates faithfulness constraint thus, they are not chosen as
an optimal.
(30) Input: /rizk/
Output: [ri.zi.ki] „means of life‟
Input / rizq/ *CODA DEP-V ONSET IDENT-IO (F)
a. [ar.zi.kii] *! ** * *
b. [ri.zik] *! *
c. ☞ [ri.zi.ki] * *
d. [azzi.ki] ** *! *
The consonant cluster of the input is disallowed in Kiswahili. It is, therefore, broken by the
insertion of a vowel /i/ at the second syllable within the output and third syllable of the output
respectively. Similarly, last consonant of the input /q/ has been changed to the nearest equivalent
consonant in Kiswahili. Candidate (c) is the optimal as it has unmarked open syllables that
preferred by Kiswahili. Candidate (a) and (b) seriously violate high-ranked constraint in
Kiswahili. While candidate (d) minimally violates lower-ranked in Kiswahili hence they are not
chosen as an optimal candidates.
86
(31) Input: /rizq/
Output: [ar.zi.kii] „means of life‟
Input /rizk/ *CODA DEP-V ONSET IDENT-IO (F)
a. ☞ [ar.zi.kii] ** *
b. [ ri.zi.k] *! * *
c. [irz.zi.ki] *! ** * *
d. [uri.zik] *! * * *
.
4.1.2 Deletion
Deletion refers to the omission of a segment or segments from a word. This is another
nativization strategy that Kiswahili and Hausa used to modify complex onsets and codas in
loanwords. Deletion of any segment involves violation of MAX that requires every segment in
the input to have a correspondent in the output.
The output [law.maa], [luqu.ma] admits the deletion of last consonant purposely to meet the
restriction of final consonant. Consequently, the output is considered or fixed as a desirable
participant, where the output [luqmah] conserves the last consonant of the prosodic word yet it
neglects to avoid transgression of the terminal consonant‟s restriction.
4.1.3 Apocope and Syncope
The loss or deletion of a vowel (even a consonant in some cases) from the interior of a word (not
necessarily initially or finally). Apocope refers to the deletion (loss) of a sound, typically a
vowel, toward the end of a word. Trask and McColl Millar (2007) express that the deleting of a
last portion is known as an apocope, while syncope implies the departure of a medial vowel.
Likewise aphaeresis is the loss of an initial segment. They noticed that aphaeresis and apocope
can apply to both vowels and consonants. Likewise, they comment that syncope is the most well-
87
known sort (Trask and McColl Millar, 2007). Similarly as it is in every linguistic procedure,
syncope is administered by principles. The principles that figure out which vowel can be
syncopated under which conditions are considered in theoratical phonology.
. (32) Input /hikmah/
Output [hikimaa] „wisdom‟
Input /hikmah/ *CODA *SYLLABIC DEP-V MAX-C ONSET
a. [hik.ma.i] *! * *
b. [hek.ma.e] *! * *
c. ☞ [hi.ki.maa] * *
d. [hi.ki.ma.h *! *
Notably, the input has a syllabic consonant /h/ (glottal fricative voiceless) which is totally
deleted in Hausa language and a vowel /a/ is inserted. Therefore candidates (a), (b) and (d)
cannot be optimal candidates as they seriously violate *CODA, similarly, candidate (d) also
seriously violates constraint *SYLLABIC. The candidate (c) is chosen as an optimal candidate;
although it minimally violates faithfulness constraints DEP.V (output vowels must have input
correspondents (no vowel insertion) and MAX-C (input consonants must have output
correspondents that is no consonant deletion).
88
(33) Input /hikmah/
Output /hekima/ „wisdom‟
Input /hikmah/ *CODA *SYLLABIC DEP-V MAX-C ONSET
a. ☞ [he.ki. ma] * *
b. [hi.ki. e.mah] *! *
c. [hek.ma.i] *! * *
d. [he.k.maa] *! * *
The input has two syllables, but it has been broken into three syllables in Kiswahili language and
the coda of the last syllable which is /h/ glottal voiceless fricative is deleted. Though candidate
(a) minimally violates faithfulness constraints (DEP-V and MAX-C) due to the deletion of the
syllabic consonant but it satisfies the *CODA and ONSET hence therefore it is selected as
optimal candidate.
(34) Input /luqmah/
Output [loomaa] „morsel of food‟
Input / luqmah/ *CODA *SYLLABIC DEP-V MAX-C ONSET
a. [low.maa] *! * *
b. [luk. ma.i] *! * *
c. [lo.k.ma.e] *! *! * *
d. ☞ [loo.maa] * *
The above tableau shows that candidate (d) violates DEP-V and MAX-C, once it is chosen as the
optimal output form. Also the violation of *CODA and *SYLLABIC-C is fatal since syllabic
consonants are not allowed in Hausa language. This explains that the syllabic consonant in the
output is totally omitted
89
(35) Input /salah/
Output [sallaa] „ritual prayer‟
Input / salah / *CODA *SYLLABIC DEP-V MAX-C ONSET
a. ☞ [sa.llah] *!
b. [sa.llaa] * *
c [ sal.lah ] *!
d. [ sal.la.a] *! *! *
In the example above, the coda of the second syllable is deleted, the recipient language (Hausa
language prefers consonant deletion to vowel epenthesis in nativizing the loanword. It is
interesting to note that the recipient language has the phoneme /h/ (glottal fricative voiceless) but
of course it is unrealized or rather deleted.
(36) Input /sallah/
Output [sala] „ritual prayer‟
Input /sallah/ *CODA DEP-V MAX-IO
a. [sah.laa *! * *
b. [sa.llah] *!
c. [saal.lah *!* *
d. ☞ [sa.la] *
The analysis of the data above shows that the codas of the first and second syllable are deleted in
the nativization of loanword in Kiswahili. Therefore candidate (d) is chosen as an optimal
candidate. Although it minimally violates faithful constraint (MAX-IO), other constraints
90
seriously violate high ranked constraint (*CODA), also candidate (a) and (c) minimally violate
constraints DEP-V and MAX-IO, so they are not chosen as optimal candidate.
4.1.4 Feature Change
Other changes noted in this data have got to do with the phonemes themselves. There are some
phonemes that are found in Arabic but are not in Hausa and Kiswahili phonemic inventory. If a
loanword has such phoneme, then it has to be changed to the nearest equivalent in the both
recipient languages. Below are examples where Arabic /q/and /kh/ are realized as /k/ and /h/
respectively in Hausa and Kiswahili languages.
(37) Input /qabar/
Output [kabari] „ a grave‟
Input /qabari/ *CODA NUC DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [ka.ba.r] *! * *
b. ☞ [ka.ba.rii] * ** *
c. [ka.bar] *! * *
d. [ka.bu.r] *! * * *
The voiced uvular plosive /q/, which is „strong‟, changes to the weaker voiceless velar stop /k/.
This occurs at the initial position of tableaux 32-35 while in a tableau 36 at the final position of a
word respectively.
91
(38) Input /qabar/
Output [kaburi] „ a grave‟
Input /qabar/ *CODA DEP-C DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [ka.bar] *! *
b. [kab.ba.rii] *! * *
c. [ka.ba.rr] *! * * *
d. ☞ [ka.bu.ri] * *
(39) Input /qissa/
Output [kissa] „ a story‟
Input /qissa/ *CODA *COMPLEX-C DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. [kis.sah] *!* *
b. [kis.sa] *! *
c. ☞ [ki.ssaa] * * *
d. [kis.saa] *! * * *
(40) Input /qissa/
Output [kisa] „ a story‟
Input /qissa/ *CODA *COMPLEX DEP-V IDENT-IO (F)
a. ☞ [ki.sa] *
b. [kis.sa] *! * *
c. [kii.sah] *! * * * *
d. [kis.saa] *! * *
92
(41) Input /munafiq/
Output [munaafikii] „hypocrite‟
Input /munafiq/ *CODA *COMPLEX DEP-V IDENT-IO(F)
a. [mu.na.fik] *! *
b. [mun.naa.fik] *!* * *
c. ☞ [mu.naa.fu.kii] * * * * *
d. [mu.na.fik] *! *
4.1.5 Summary
In this chapter, the data collected was analyzed. The main phonological processes used in the
nativization of loanwords in Kiswahili and Hausa were identified and analyzed in the light of
Optimality Theory. The analysis of the data virtually shown that insertion is the most productive
strategy used in loanword nativization in the two languages. Other phonological processes that
had been identified and described are deletion and feature change. The analysis has described
that the loanword nativization can be accounted for using Optimality Theory (OT). Furthermore,
the changes in the two languages (Kiswahili and Hausa) that created the phonological processes
operating on the loanwords borrowed from Arabic language were identified. The next chapter
gives the summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations and suggestions for further
research.
93
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
In this study, a morphophonological analysis of nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from
Arabic has been presented. The mechanism used to regulate conflicts between markedness and
faithfulness constraints in the selection of optimal output forms in both languages had been
explained vividly in the light of Optimality Theory (OT). Therefore this chapter gives the
summary, conclusions, recommendations and suggestions for further research.
5.1 Summary of Findings
This research explained that the processes that Arabic words maintain as they are being adapted
by Kiswahili and Hausa. First and famous, loanwords that had been analyzed were nouns
identified in Hausa and Kiswahili languages borrowed from Arabic. For instance, the word like
„asl‟ in Arabic is realized as „asali‟ and „asili‟ (origin) in Hausa and Kiswahli, similarly, „idn‟ is
realized as „izinii‟ and „idhini‟ (permission) „dars‟ as „darasii‟ and „darasa‟ (lesson) among
others. It had been established that the phonotactic of the donor language and the recipient
languages are different. Therefore the main strategies used in this research are insertion, deletion,
and feature change. The analysis shown that vowel epenthesis (anaptyxis) is more common than
consonant epenthesis (excrescence). No consonants are inserted in word final position since
Kiswahili and Hausa word final positions normally end in a vowel sound.
Further, it has been established that only three vowels,/a/, /i/ and /u/ are inserted in the word
medial and final positions. Only one type of deletion (apocope) has been found in Arabic
loanword in Kiswahili and Hausa. Feature changes exhibited in the borrowed words include
monophthongization, since Hausa language exhibits monophthongs either at the medial position
94
or final position respectively. Similarly, other changes noted in this data whereby some
phonemes that are found in Arabic but they are not in Kiswahili and Hausa phonemic inventory.
Therefore, if a loanword has such phoneme, then it has to be changed to the nearest equivalent in
the both recipient languages. Finally, since the two languages borrowed from one language
which is Arabic, the loanwords sound almost the same. For example the word „asali‟ in Hausa
and that of Kiswahili „asili‟, the only difference here is vowel sound /a/, also „darasii‟ and
„darasa‟ the difference is at the final syllable of the word (/ii/, /a/). Similarly, in terms of feature
change the same phonemes /q/, /kh/ had been used in the recipient languages as /k/ and /h/
respectively.
5.2 Conclusions
In the light of these findings, we explained how the main strategies used in the nativized
loanwords are motivated by some constraints (*CODA, *COMPLEX and *SYLLABIC-) in
Hausa and Kiswahili. A point that had clearly manifested itself is that, Hausa and Kiswahili
prefer vowel epenthesis to vowel syncope or apocope in the resyllabification of loanwords.
Similarly, consonant deletion and feature change were found in the data. The analysis had also
shown that Hausa and Kiswahili have three main epenthetic vowels, /i/, /a/ and /u/, which to
some extent are contextually predictable as can be seen in tableau 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8 among
others in chapter four. However, consonants are not inserted in a word final position as coda
consonants are strictly banned in Hausa and Kiswahili, in most cases the two languages maintain
vowel in a final position. Also it had been examined that, compared to other vowels /i/, /a/ and
/u/ are the most common epenthesized vowel. The Optimality Theory helped us in the
explanation of how and why the recipient language prefer insertion, deletion and feature change.
Therefore, this shows that Optimality Theory is in the better position compared to other theories
95
in accounting for the loanword adaptation. It seems that Hausa and Kiswahili borrowing
languages were at the substratum in comparison to the lending languages which were at the super
stratum. This made it prestigious to retain the phonotactic of the lending language. This means
that, although the two languages have a mechanism of adapting new words, sometimes not all
syllables or words are repaired: there is a high level of tolerance. Generally, this research shown
that the use of repair strategies in loanword adaptation, it was a development from the Optimality
Theory (OT) explanations that proposed to account for loanword adaptations using internal
phonological grammar of borrowing language that can be effectively used to analyze nativization
of loanwords without having to resort or to rule based phonology. It had been discussed by
looking at the interplay between faithfulness and markedness in the syllable repair processes.
5.3 Recommendations
This research has endeavored to show that indeed morphophonological analysis is involved in
the adaptation of loanwords in Hausa and Kiswahili from Arabic language. However, the
research had only been conducted on how few nouns that are adapted from Arabic; therefore,
there are other cases of borrowed words from Arabic language are still there for further research.
This study utilized Optimality Theory to study Arabic loanwords in Kiswahili and Hausa. The
study provided a spring board for the study of how the two languages borrowed other words
apart from Arabic language. We therefore, suggest that further research to be carried out in other
areas of phonology and morphology of the two languages such as stress, rhythm, intonation,
reduplication among others using Optimality Theory and other theories in order to aid in
understanding of Kiswahili and Hausa languages. We also recommend that researchers,
interpreters/ translators especially those that are carrying their research on either West or East
African languages to make use of the findings of the research.
96
BIBLIOGRPHY
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. (2005). Word formation in Optimality Theory. In P. Štekauer & R.
Lieber (Eds) Handbook of word-formation. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kapejuwpvxetf4pe/
Adomako, K. (2008). Vowel epenthesis and Consonant Deletion in Loanwords: A study of
Akan. A Master‟s Thesis. University of Tromso.
Aida, R. (2015) Arabic loanwords in Tatar and Swahili: Morphological Assimilation. Journal
Of sustainable Development Vol.8, No. 4; 2015.
Akmajian. A. (2000). Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication (4th
Ed).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology London MIT Press.
Ali S.& I. Jarrah (2013). Syllables and syllable structure in Arabic in the light of the
Optimality theory Department of languages and translation, College of Arts and
Humanities Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Alqahtani, M. (2015). Vowel Epenthesis in Arabic loanwords in Hausa. International Journal of
Linguistics Vol.7 No.2 2015.
Antilla, R. (1989). Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Auflage. Amsterdam, Netherland.
Philadelphia. John Benjamin Publishing company.
Asher, R.E (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
A comparative study” in South Africa journal of African languages Vol. 16.2
Batibo, H. M. (1994). Does Kiswahili have diphthongs: Interpreting foreign sounds in African
languages? South African Journal of African Languages, 14(4), 180-186.
Bloomfield, L.(1933). Language History: From Language. Holt: Rinehart and Winston.
NewYork.
Bosha, I. (1993). Taathira za Kiarabu katika Kiswahili Pamoja na Kamamusi Thulathiya.
Dares Salaam: Dar University Prees.
Bynon, T. (1997). Historical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, L. (2004). An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Caron, B. (2013). Hausa grammatical sketch. Retrieved from HAL Id: halshs-00647533
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00647533v3
Chimhundu, H. (2002). Adoption and Adaptation in Shona.: Unpublshed Dphil Thesis University
of Osolo.
Clements, G.N. (2000). Phonology. In D. Nurse and B. Heine (Eds.) African languages: An
introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
97
Crystal, D. (1997). Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Danladi, L. & Yalwa (1992). “Arabic Loanwords in Hausa”. Ufamu: A Journal of African
Studies.
David O. (2011).Introducing Phonology, Department of Linguistics Ohio State University.
Davis, S., & Cho, M. (2006). Phonetic versus Phonology: English word final /s/ in Korean
loanword phonology. Lingua 116, 1008-1023.
Evans W. M. (2014) Morphophonological changes of borrowed words from English to
Lubukusu dialect of Western Kenya. International journal of English and Literature
Vol.5(2) April, 2014.perspective. England: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Fassi F. A. (1993) Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht; Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Fleischhacker, H. (2001). Cluster Dependent Asymmetries. UCLA Working papers in
Linguistics, 7(5), 71-116.
Guo, H.L (1999). Mandarin loanword phonology and Optimality Theory: Evidence from
transliterated American state names and typhoon names. Graduate Programme in
Linguistics. National Chenghi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from
http://aclweb.org/anthology/Y/Y99/Y99-1021.pdf
Gussenhoven, C., & Jacobs, H. (1998). Understanding Phonology: London Hodder Arnold.
Hall-Lew, L.A.(2002). “English Loawords in Mandarin Chinese‟‟. B.A thesis,
University of Arizona.
Han, K. I. (2009). Sonority Constraint in Hausa. The Journal of Linguistic Science, 50, 269-282.
Hanah, C. M. (2014) An Analysis of the syllable structure of standard Kiswahili
loanwords from modern standard Arabic.
Hock, H.H. (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Hoffer, B. 2005. Language Borrowing and the Indices of Adaptability and Receptivity. In
journal of Intercultural communication studies, XIV(2), 54-72.
Iribe Mwangi, (2008). “A Synchronic Segmental Morphophonology of Standard
Kiswahili’’. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Josiah, U. E., & Udoudom, C. J. (2012). Morphophonemic Analysis of Inflectional Morphemes
in English and Ibibio Nouns: Implications for Linguistic Studies. Journal of Education
and Learning, 1(2), 72-81.
Kadenge, M., & Mudzingwa, C. (2011). Diphthong simplification through Spreading: An
optimality theory account. Language Matters, 42(1), 142 - 161.
98
Kadenge, M., & Mudzingwa, C. (2012). Comparing chiShona loanwords of Monolingual and
Bilingual speakers: An optimality theory analysis. South African Journal of African
Languages, 32(2), 141– 151.
Kadenge, M., & Simango, R. S. (2014). Comparing vowel hiatus resolution in ciNsenga and
chiShona: An optimality theory analysis. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 44,
105-127.
Kang, Y. (2010). The Emergence of Phonological Adaptation from Phonetic Adaptation: English
loanwords in Korean. Phonology, 27, 225-253.
Kang, Y. (2010). The Emergence of Phonological Adaptation from Phonetic Adaptation: English
loanwords in Korean. Phonology, 27, 225-253.
Katamba F.(1993) Morphology- Macmillan press United Kindom.
Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology. Palgrave: Hampshire.
Katamba, F. (1994). English words. London: Routledge.
Kenstowicz, M. (2006). Tone Loans: The Adaptation of English Loanwords into Yoruba. The
35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, ed. John Mugane et al., 136-146.
Somerville: MIT.
Khan.M. (2014). Phonological make-up of Portuguese loanwords incorporated into Urdu.
Department of Linguistics A.M.U Aligarh Utter Pradesh India.
Leben, W. R. - (1996). Tonal Feet and the Adaptation of English borrowings into Hausa. Studies
in African Linguistics, 25(2), 139-154.
Leben, W. R. (2002). Tonal feet. Papers from Typology of African Prosodic Systems Workshop
proceedings, Bielefeld University, Germany. May 18-20, 2001.
Lehman, W.P.(1962). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Holt: Renehart and Witon.
Leonard, C.M (2009).The Adaptation of Swahili loanwords from Arabic: A constraint-based
Analysis, Kiswahili Department Kenyatta University.
Mahlangu, K.S.(2007). Adoption of loanwords in isiNdebele (Unpublished Master‟s Thesis).
University of Pretoria. Retrieved from http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-
01062009120416/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf
Massamba, D.P.B. (1991). Phonological theory: History and development. Dar es Salaam: Dar
es Salaam University Press.
Massamba,D.P.B., Y.M. K. & J.I. H. (1999). Sarufi Miundoya Kiswahili Sanifu (SAMAKISA)
Secondari na Vyuo. Dares Salaam: Taasisi ya Uchunguzi wa Kiswahili (TUKI).
Maxwell, K. (2009). The Phonological characteristics of Shona loanwords from English. Journal
Of language & communication; 2009, Vol.3 Issue 1.
99
Mazrui, A.A & A.M. Mazrui (1998). The Power of Babel: Language and Governance
in the Africa Experience.Oxford: James curry Ltd.
Mbernodji, C. & Eric J. 2006. “Enquête sociolinguistique de la langue Moubi du Tchad.”
SIL Electronic Survey Reports (SILESR). Online version
<http://www.sil.org/silesr/abstract.asp?ref=2006-003>.
Mufleh, A. (2015) Vowel epenthesis in Arabic loan words in Hausa from Arabic.
International Journal of Linguistics vol. 7, No.2 2015,United Kindom.
Mugenda O.M (2003). Research Methods. African Centre for Technology Studies (Acts)
Nairobi Kenya.
Musa, R. I., & Altakhaineh, A. M. (2015). An Application Optimality Theory on Syllable
Structure within Reduplication in Hausa, spoken in Kano. International Journal of
English Language and Linguistics Research, 3(1), 32-44.
Mwihaki, A.N. (1998). Loanword nativization: A generative view of the phonological adaptation
of Gĩkũyũ loanwords (Unpublished PhD thesis). Kenyatta University, Nairobi.
Mwita, L.C. (2009). The adaptation of Swahili loanwords from Arabic: A constraint-based
analysis. In The journal of Pan African studies, vol.2, no.8, 46-60. Retrieved from
http://www.jpanafrican.com/docs/vol2no8/2._Adaptationofswahililoanwords. pdf
Na‟Allah, A. R. (1991). Vowel Length in Hausa. The Language Learning Journal, 3(1), 84-85.
Newman, P. (2000). The Hausa language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven &
London: Yale University press.
Nomadic Fulani of Nigeria” JONAE Journal of Arts and Education. Lapal
IBB University Press. Niger State, Nigeria.
Omachonu, G.S. (2008). Comparative Optimality Theory analysis of primary stress assignment
in Standard British and Nigerian English. In Journal of Language & Translation 9-1
Roberts, J. (2001). Phonological features of Central Chadic languages. In Ngessimo Mutaka &
Sammy Chumbow (eds.), Research mate in African linguistics, 93– 118. Köln:
Rüdiger Köppe.
Rodgers. J. (1995). “Using Diachronic Linguistics in the Classroom Language”.
Modern Language Journal. Vol. 111, Number 2.212-222.
Rose, Y. (1999). A Structural Account of Root Node Deletion in Loanword Phonology.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 44(4), 359-404.
Rose, Y., & Demuth, K. (2006). Vowel Epenthesis in Loanword Adaptation: Representational
and Phonetic Considerations. Lingua, 116(7), 1112-1139.
100
Rufai, A. (1979). ` Principal Resources of Lexeme Formation in Hausa`. Harsunan Nigeria
No Ix, C.N. S.L Kano: Bayero University Nigeria.
Sagey, E. C. (1982). The Representations of Features and Relations in Non-Linear Phonology. A
PhD Dissertation. Massachusetts: MIT.
Sahayi, L. (2005). Phonological Adaptations of Spanish Loanwords in Northern Moroccan
Arabic. University of Pennsylvania working papers in Linguistics, 2(1), article 20.
Selinger, H. & Sholami (1989). Second language research method. Oxford:
Oxford University press.
Sergio, B. (1988) A First Ethnolinguistic Comparison of Arabic Loanwords Common to Hausa
and Kiswahili, A Doctoral Thesis Not Yet Published.
Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple Scansions in Loanword Phonology: Evidence from Cantonese.
Phonology, 9(2), 289-328. Cambridge.
Smirnova, M, A. (1982). The Hausa language: A descriptive grammar. Languages of Asia and
Africa, 5. Translated by G. L. Campbell. Routeledge & Kegan Paul, London Law Book
Co of Australasia 1982.
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological Theory: An Introduction to words Structure in
Generative Grammar: London: Basil Blackwell.
Trask, R.I & McColl Millar, R. (2007).Tras‟k historical linguistics. London: Hodder Arnold.
Tuki (1996).English-Swahili Dictionary, Kamusi ya kiingereza-Kiswahili Institute
of Kiswahili Research University Dares Salam: Tanzania.
Uffmann, C. (2004). Vowel epenthesis in loanword phonology. A Ph.D dissertation. Phillips-
Universität Marburg.
Uffmann, C. (2006). Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: Empirical and formal issues. Lingua
116, 1079-1111.
Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to contact Linguistics. Oxford, Wiley,
Blackwell Publishers.
Winter, W. (1992). Borrowing and non-borrowing in Walapai. In E.H. Jahr (Ed). Language
contact: Theoretical and empirical studies. Berlin: Mounton de Gryter.
Yahaya, I.Y. (2002). Hausa a Rubuce: Tarihin Rubuce-Rubuce Cikin Hausa.
Zaria Northern Nigeria Publishing Company.
Yalwa, L. D. (1992). Arabic Loans in Hausa. Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies, University
of California, 20(3), 100-131.
101
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE
Both the respondents of this research were Kenyatta University undergraduate and postgraduate
students.
Please write and pronounce the word equivalent to the following words in Kiswahili or Hausa.
Borrowed words from
Arabic
Informants’ in Kiswahili Informants’ in Hausa
Dars
Harf
Kafur
Laimun
Buruda
Sabun
Ajiz
Halwa
Sahn
Masruf
Khabar
102
APPENDIX: 2
List of nativized words
Arabic Hausa Kiswahili Gloss
/asl/ [asa.li] [a.si.li] „grass root „
/idn/ [izi.nii] [i.dhi.ni] „permission‟
/afw/ [a.fu.waa] [afu/afua] „pardon‟
/ahl/ [a.ha.li] [a.ha.li] „family‟
/ajz/ [a.ji.zii] [a.ji.zi] „weak‟
/rizq/ [azzi.kii] [ri.zi.ki] „means of life‟
/sitr/ [siti.raa] [sta. ra] „veil‟
/sahn/ [sa.haa.nii] [sa.ha.ni] „dish, plate‟
/bahr/ [ba.ha.rii] [ba.ha.ri] „sea‟
Arabic Hausa Kiswahili Gloss
/ha kim/ [ha.ki.mi] [ha.ki.mu] „distric head‟
/kamil/ [kaa.mi.li] [ka.mi.li] „perfect‟
/galat/ [ga.la.dii] [gha.la.ti] „mistake‟
/najas/ [na.ja.saa] [na.ji.si] „impure‟
/baras/ [al.ba.ras] [ba.ra.si] „heamorrhoid‟
103
/yaqut/ [yaa.kuu.tu] [ya.ku.ti] „sapphire‟
/haid/ [hay.laa] [he.dhi] „menstruation‟
/sabun/ [saa.bu.luu] [sa.bu.ni] „soap‟
/bayan/ [ba.yya.ni] [ba.ya.na] „explanation‟
/sabab/ [sa.ba.bii] [sa.ba.bu] „reason‟
/dun.ja/ [du.ni.ja] [du.ni.ja] „world‟
/hik.ma/ [hiki.maa] [he.ki.ma] „wisdom‟
/rah.ma/ [ra.ha.ma] [re.hi.ma] „mercy‟
/fakhrah/ [al.fa.ha.rii] [fa.ha.ri] „glory‟
/nahw/ [na.ha.wuu] [na.hau.] „grammar‟
/qabr/ [ka.ba.rii] [ka.bu.ri] „grave‟
/harka/ [ha.ra.kaa] [ha.ra.ka] „movement‟
/madᴣ/lis/ [ma.dᴣa.li.sa] [ma.dᴣa.lisi] „council‟
/sun duq/ [san.duu.kii] [san.du.ku] „box‟
/tadbir/ [tada.bii.ri] [tadhi.biri] „planning‟
/was was/ [was. waas. sii] [ wasi.wasi] „doubt‟
/liqmah/ [law. ma_] [lu/ku.ma_] „morse of fool‟
/rah mah/ [ra.ha.maa_] [re.hi. ma_] „mercy‟
/haibah/ [hay.baa_] [hai.ba/heba_] „reverence‟
/najsah/ [na.ja.saa_] [na.ji. si_] „impure‟
/taurah/ [attau. Raa_] [to.rat.ti/taurati_] „old testament
/himmah/ [him.maa._] [hima_] „endeavor‟
/hikmah/ [hi.ki.maa_] [he.ki.ma_] „wisdom‟
/hujjah/ [hujj aa_] [ho.ja/huja_] „reason‟
/taubah/ [ tuu.ba._] [tu.bu_ ] „ repentance‟
104
The tableau shows the occurrence of the feature change (q→ [k/ḱ])
Arabic Hausa Kiswahili Gloss
Waqf [waka fii] [wakfu] „religions endowment‟
Aql [a ki lii] [a ki li] „intelligence‟
Yaqut [yak u tu] [yak u ti] „ruby‟
Waqt [wa ka t] [wa ka ti] „time‟
Qarantful [kanumfarii] [karafuu] „clove‟
Ittifaq [ itti faa kii] [itifaki] „ agreement‟
Yaqin [yak ii nii] [ya ki ni] „certainty‟
Naqas [ na ka su] [na ki si] „ blemish‟
Qissa [kissaa] [ kisa] „ story‟
Qabar [kabarii] [ kaburi] „grave‟
Munafiq [munaafukii[ [ manafiki] „ hypocrite‟
Sunduq [ sanduukii] [sanduku] „box‟
Qalam [al-kalamii] [ kalamu] „pen‟
Rizq [ar zi kii] [riziki] „means of life‟
haqiqah [ ha ki ka] [ ha ki ka] „ fact, reality, certain‟
qamus [ kamus] [ kamusi] „ dictionary‟
105
The feature change /kh →/h/
Tarikh [ta ri hi] [ ta re he] „history‟
Khabar [laabarii] [ habari] „news‟
Fakhar [alfaharii] [fahari] „glory‟
Khusuma [husuumaa] [husuma] „quarrel‟
Khamsin [hamsini] [hamsini] „fifty‟
Khaddar [hatsari] [hatari] „danger‟
Khair [alherii] [heri] „good thing‟
Khamis [al-hamis] [Alhamisi] „Thursdays‟
106
APPENDIX 3: TIMELINE
March- April 2014 Defense of the concept paper
May- June 2014 Section one
June –July 2014 Section two
July- August 2014 Section 3
August-September 2014 Editing
September 2014 Submission of the proposal
October – January Collection and analyzing data
February-May Corrections and submission of final copy
107
APPENDIX 4: BUDGET
PENS KSH. 400
PAPERS KSH. 1200
INTERNET KSH. 2500
PRINTING KSH. 900
TRAVELING KSH. 1500
ACCOMODATION KSH. 5000
108
APPENDIX: 5
CONSENT LETTER
Kenyatta University
School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Department of English and Linguistics,
P.O. Box 43844,
NAIROBI
Dear Sir/ Madam,
RE: TO WHOME IT MAY CONCERN
This letter is to request you to participate in the study whose purpose is to find information about
Some nouns borrowed by Kiswahili and Hausa from Arabic.
I assure you that the information you will provide will be kept confidential and will be
Exclusively used for the purpose of study.
Thanks in advance for your co-operation.
Yours Sincerely
Yusuf Muhammad Jika
REG. NO.C50/23632/2013
109
APPENDIX: 6 Research Clearance Permit
110
APPENDIX: 7 Research Authorization Letter
