Variations in English Loanword Adaptation in Korean Phonology: Attributable to the Borrowing Language's Internal Grammar Or Sp
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
English Language and Literature Vol. 58 No. 3 (2012) 541-63 Variations in English Loanword Adaptation in Korean Phonology: Attributable to the Borrowing Language’s Internal Grammar or Speech Perception?* Jin-young Tak I. Introduction Previous research on loanword adaptation generally agrees on the fact that when loanwords from a source language (henceforth, Ls) are intro- duced into a borrowing language (henceforth, Lb), they are usually altered to comply with Lb’s phonotatic constraints. However, remains an outstanding controversy regarding loanword adaptation as to the role of phonology and phonetics. From a phonology-only approach (LaCharite & Paradis 2005), the Lb-internal phonological grammar is attributable to any alternations of loanwords. Given this, any changes in loanword adap- tation are purely phonological, subsequently making subphonemic infor- mation unnecessary. On the other hand, a phonetics-only approach (Silverman 1992, Kang 1996, Peperkamp & Dupoux 2003) assumes that loanword adaptation takes place at the level of speech perception, not at the UR → SR mapping level. In this framework, maximizing the percep- tual similarity between Ls and Lb is the main factor to induce Lb out- puts; misperception of Ls enhances loanword adaptation. However, recent studies (Smith 2006, 2009; Yip 2006) try to show that loanword adaptation cannot be attributable only to the Lb-internal phonological grammar or perception-only module. Instead, all information Lb speak- ers have, drawn from Ls and Lb grammar, orthography, perception and other factors, might influence loanword adaptation such that Lb speakers * I would like to thank Stuart Davis who allowed me to audit his class Loanword Phonology in the fall semester of 2010 in Indiana University and gave considered and thoughtful suggestions leading to major improvements in this paper. Also, I am grateful to three anonymous reviewers of this journal for their valuable comments. Responsibility regarding any errors of fact and analy- sis of course remains mine. 542 Jin-young Tak produce specifically posited-Ls representations (henceforth, pLs) differ- ent from Lb inputs. Then, these forms have a corresponding relationship with the adapted loanword. Based on Smith’s (2006, 2009) integrated approach, which incorporates mostly the Lb-internal phonological gram- mar, perception, and orthography, this paper suggests that, in addition to these, both morphological knowledge of the Ls grammar and non-loan phonological rules might produce loanword doublets or variations. This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, different approaches (i.e., phonological, phonetic, and integrated) into loanword adaptation are investigated. Section 3 introduces problematic data in English loan- words, which support the assumption that neither perception-only nor phonology-only methods can sufficiently account for variations of English loans. Then, the paper introduces a new analysis which is sensi- tive to source-similarity effects and is characterized as having a corre- sponding relationship (i.e., SB (Ls-to-Lb) correspondence) between Lb outputs and the representations of Ls words perceived by Lb speakers influenced by perception, orthography, and Lb-internal grammar. A con- clusion and further remarks are given in Section 4. II. Previous Research on Loanword Adaptation A great deal of recent theoretical attention in loanword adaptation has been paid to input forms to the loanword module, in terms of whether it should be handled by phonetic cues or Lb speakers’ phonological gram- mar. The phonological model in loanword adaptation (Yip 1993, LaCharite & Paradis 2005, Shinohara 2004, following Sapir 1925) sup- poses that Lb speakers interpret the Ls sounds based on their phonemic inventory; when the Ls sounds do not exactly align with or match the Lb sounds, they are reshaped into the closest alternative phonemes in Lb to better satisfy Lb phonotactics. In this model, speakers who first borrow given words (i.e., bilingual speakers) play a critical role in terms of selecting the underlying form of Ls words. This is diagramed in (1). (1) Phonology-only approach (Kenstowicz 2006) lexical rules lexical rules /phonemic representation/ /phonemic representation/ Variations in English Loanword Adaptation in Korean Phonology 543 postlexical rules postlexical rules [phonemic representation] [phonemic representation] L2 L1 In this phonological model, perception does not play a role in the process of adaptation, but Lb speakers’ particular knowledge to the phonological structure of Ls does. However, the phonology-only approach has a drawback since there are many aspects of loanword adap- tation that the Lb-internal grammar cannot explain. For example, in Japanese, unsyllabifiable consonants are resolved by means of deletion, m not epenthesis (Smith 2009) as in /kak-rm / → [ka.k ] ‘write (nonpast)’ and /jom-sase/ → [jo.ma.se] ‘read (causative)’; loanwords undergo m epenthesis rather than deletion in Japanese as in /kri:m/ → [km .ri:.m ]. Similar to Japanese, Korean uses epenthesis repairs for loanwords, while native phonology prefers deletion or feature changing repairs (Kang 2003). The unresolved issue here is what factors affecting loanword adaption are different from native repair strategies. The alternative in this approach is to add more language-specific constraints to the Lb phono- logical grammar. Another competing approach based on phonetics is mostly based on speech perception, proposed by several scholars (Steriade 2002, Kang 2003, Peperkamp & Dupoux 2003). In this framework, perception plays an important role in loanword adaptation. Especially, when Lb speakers misper- ceive Ls sounds, the specific repair strategy undergoes. This is seen in (2). (2) Perception-only approach (Kenstowicz 2006) /input/ /input/ M and F M and F constraints constraints [output] Perception [xxx] [output] 544 Jin-young Tak This perception-only approach assumes that all adaptation processes occur during perception, and how the Ls acoustic signals are perceived by Lb speakers determines the outputs of loanwords. In this model, native speakers tend to distort the perception of nonnative forms when the nonnative forms are illicit in Lb; they cannot distinguish such forms from similar legal forms (Depoux et al. 1999; Smith 2006, 2009). For example, Japanese speakers perceive both illicit VCCV sequences and m well-formed VCm CV as VC CV since they perceive illicit VCCV as VCm CV with an illusory vowel (Depoux et al. 1999, Smith 2009). Therefore, as for Japanese Lb speakers, the input of English cream is m /k .ri:.mm / with an epenthesized vowel; therefore, in fact no epenthesis in the UR → SR mapping is required in the perception-only model. However, this perception-only approach cannot account for a different phonological status between an epenthetic vowel in loanwords and a non-epenthetic vowel in native words. For example, Japanese speakers distinguish an inserted vowel from an Ls-based (i.e., non-epenthetic) vowel in the process of accent assignment in loanwords from French (Shinohara 2000, Smith 2006). Due to the drawbacks of both the phonology-only and perception-only approaches toward loanword adaptation, this paper adopts Smith’s (2006, 2009) integrated approach modulated by phonology, perception and even other factors such as orthography, the Lb internal grammar, or the Ls grammar of Lb speakers. Interestingly, this paper suggests that Lb-speak- er knowledge of the Ls-morphological grammar and of native phonologi- cal rules is another important factor in loanword adaptation (Silverman 1992). This approach considers not only cases in which Lb-illicit struc- tures that are avoided in non-loans in order to conform to Lb phonotac- tics but also cases in which loanwords surface unfaithfully from Ls to do so. Incorporating the Lb speaker’s internal grammar, perception, and other factors in loanword adaptation, this approach facilitates the corre- spondence relation between Lb outputs and Ls outputs as perceived by Lb speakers (i.e., the pLs representation), indicated by the symbol | |. This is formalized as the SB (Ls-to-Lb ) correspondence, illustrated in (3) (Smith 2009). Variations in English Loanword Adaptation in Korean Phonology 545 (3) Integrated approach by facilitating pLs (Smith 2009)1 Lb speaker’s phonological /input/ IOcorr System ↔ ↔ IOcorr relation Information |pLs| representation ↔ [output] about Ls form SBcorr relation Again, the pLs representation is the borrower’s posited representation of the source-language form and part of the Lb speaker’s phonological system, controlled by perceptual information, orthographic information, explicit knowledge of the Ls grammar and so on (Smith 2009). Now con- sider productive English loanword doublets in Japanese loanword adap- tation repaired by either epenthesis or deletion, as discussed in Smith (2009). (4) Deletion and epenthesis in English loanwords in Japanese loanword deletion epenthesis (4) a. glycerine [_ri.se.ron] [gm .ri.se.ron] m m m m (4) b. jitterbug [dm i.r .ba_] [d i.r .bag.g ] (4) c. pocket [pok.ke_] [po.ket.to] (4) d. cement [se.men_] [se.men.to] m m (4) e. pudding [pm .rin_] [p .di\.g ] (4) f. Hepburn [he_.bon] [hep.pm .ba:n] The doublets in loanword adaptation in (4) are attributed to the exis- tence of the pLs forms gleaned from orthography as well as from audito- ry perception. Again, the optimal form is chosen through the evaluation of faithful constraints on the SB correspondence relation between the pLs representation and potential Lb candidates. Consider the evaluation of the Ls input /griserin/ → the pLs |griserin| → the output [gm .ri.se.ron]. 1 In addition to orthographical information, Yip (2002) argues that visual information on lip rounding and jaw height may affect the pLs representation. Moreover, it is reported that the degree of speaker, bilingualism or syntax can influence adaptation (Silverman 1992). 546 Jin-young Tak (5) Epenthesis in adaptation /griserin/G pLs: *r[CC Max-SB Dep-SB Dep-IO Max-IO |griserin| * a. gm .ri.se.rin ** * b. ri.se.rin *! * * c. gri.se.rin *! Due to the fact that the anti-deletion constraint Max-SB is highly ranked, candidate (5b), which deletes |g| in the pLs representation, cannot be the winner.