Phonological features in the adaptation process

This subsection examines the role and behaviour of phonological features in the adaptation process. This is of crucial importance as it will shed more light on the AA phonological system and will enhance our understanding of the debated role and organization of phonological features in phonological theory. First, I will examine the behaviour of features in the adaptation process and then I will explain the factors that account for the behaviour of features in consonant adaptation. For the representation of features in AA, see §2.1.3.

100

3.1.3.1. Behaviour of features in the adaptation process29

Features do not behave alike in the adaptation process. Some features are never affected while others are frequently changed. Major class features, namely [sonorant], and [consonantal] are rarely affected –they don‘t delink or spread (cf. McCarthy 1988: 87; Morén 2003: 196; among others). This gives more evidence to justifying their attachment to the root node in feature geometries. On the other hand, laryngeal features, namely [voice] and [spread glottis] are the most affected. Manner features in the adaptation process come in-between. Finally, major place features turn out to have a vital role in the adaptation process.

3.1.3.1.1 Laryngeal features

The relevant laryngeal features for the adaptation process are [voice] and [spread glottis]. I argue here that AA, unlike English which is an [aspirating] language, is a voicing language. [voice] is the most single affected feature in the adaptation process where voiced consonants lose their specification for [voice] and voiceless consonants acquire it as the examples in (24) show.

(24) a) Voicing: packet > baakeet, Rolls Royce > rozraayz, wafer > weevar b) Devoicing: geyser > kiizar, service > sarfiis, valve > balf

The second most affected laryngeal feature is [spread glottis]. Aspiration is argued to be phonemic in English (Iverson & Salmons 2006). On the other hand, it does not seem to be phonemic in AA. To verify this, the VOT values of AA voiced and voiceless stops were tested and it was found that AA voiced stops are produced with a negative VOT or one that is close to zero while voiceless stops are produced with a VOT of 30msc on average. Given these facts, it follows that AA does not use aspiration contrastively so it is expected not to be mapped faithfully. This is the case for almost all cases where source aspirated voiceless stops are de-aspirated in AA, as in tank ‗tank‘.30

29 _{An earlier version of this section was presented at the ACCENTS conference, Poland 2013.}

30

101 3.1.3.1.2 Manner features

Manner features are not always mapped faithfully. The most violated manner feature is [continuant] while the feature [Strident] is never violated in the adaptation process. Other features are sometimes violated for assimilation or dissimilation factors as shown in (25) below.

(25) a) [ ] > [continuant]: check > ʃakk

b) [continuant] > [ ]: thinner > tinar, valve > balf c) [lateral] > [nasal]: goal > goon

d) [rhotic] > [lateral]: Charleston >ʃallistun e) [nasal] > [lateral]: > stainless > staallis f) [strident] is never violated31

3.1.3.1.3 Place features

Place features have a unique status in that major place features are rarely violated while violations within the same major phonological class are tolerated. That is, faithfulness to the phonological class of the consonant is respected such that another consonant from the same phonological class could replace the problematic consonant.32 The following phonological classes in (26) are hardly ever violated: (26) [labial] (m,f,v,p,b) > [labial]

[coronal] (l,r,n,t,d,θ,ð,s,z) > [coronal] [dorsal] (j, ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, k, g, w)> [dorsal] [pharyngeal] (h,ʔ …) > [pharyngeal]

Take for example the consonant /p/. According to its phonological place class it could be replaced by any of the other members of its class, i.e. [m, f, v, b]. This is the case in AA adaptation processes. The labial is adapted either as [b] or [m].33 It should be emphasised that this should be interpreted as a gradient rule rather than an absolute one.

31

Note that a strident is deleted in one case though.

32

This is in line with the general observation that similarity avoidance inArabic roots is mostly based on place features (see Frisch et al. 2004).

102

A final note on allophonic features is in order. Source allophonic features are either ignored, as in aspiration [spread glottis], or retained such as vowel backness. It seems that allophonic source features that are also allophonic in the borrowing language are ignored since they are not easily perceived by AA adapters and thus immaterial in the adaptation process whereas those that are phonemic in the borrowing language are faithfully adapted. This lends support to the phonological nature of the adaptation process.

The above observations on the behaviour of phonological features in the adaptation process indicate that the adaptation process is generally grounded on phonological articulatory features rather than phonetic ones. That is, loanwords are adapted in terms of L1 distinctive features where proximity in feature geometry and articulatory features better account for the adaptation process where repairs usually target terminal features. Moreover, faithfulness to place features is top ranked in AA while those to laryngeal features are bottom ranked.

Manner features are violated more frequently than place features, which appears to contradict Steriade‘s (2001) and Miao‘s (2006) claims that the perceptibility scale of featural distinctiveness is: Manner >> Place >> Voicing/Aspiration.

The primacy of place features receives support from other studies that report that faithfulness to place features is more respected than to manner and laryngeal features (cf. Broselow 2001; Apichai 2007; Wetzels 2009: 257; de Jong & Cho 2012). My findings support views advocated by articulatory-based approaches, which give primacy to articulation rather than acoustic terms.

3.1.3.2 Implications for phonological theories

Results suggest that a bigger role should be given to phonological place features in the Feature Geometry: a place featural description of consonants that is based on articulatory place features seems to be a better approach. This is consistent with the contention that active articulators only are argued to have cognitive reality (cf. Roca & Johnson 1999: 88). Moreover, major class features never delink or spread. This lends support to their association directly to the root node.

Findings are also relevant to Underspecification Theory. It can be argued that sonorants and the voiced labial stop are underspecified for [voice] in AA, as discussed

103

in §3.1.2.2.1. Coronals are specified in AA but they are the least marked. Moreover, results suggest that the nasal coronal is the least marked sonorant in AA. This might also apply to Arabic dialects in general, which is worth investigating.

Results also pertain to foreign language acquisition theories. Findings show that perception is guided by L1 phonemic status of features so extra attention should be given to perceptual training in language acquisition.

3.1.4 Section summary

This section has accounted for the adaptation of English consonants in AA. It has been shown that the adaptation is phonological in nature. For example, the labiodental /v/ is auditorily close to the velar glide /w/ (cf. Peperkamp & Dupoux 2003 for Cantonese);34 nevertheless, it is adapted phonologically as /f/ or rarely as /b/. It should be emphasized that it is the phonological status of the source segment in AA that determines the adaptation. A source phonetic feature that is phonemic in AA is mapped faithfully in AA cf. emphasis, while a phonemic source feature that is allophonic in AA is ignored cf. /p/.

With respect to the role of phonological features it has been shown that place features have a bigger role than manner and laryngeal features. Moreover, the adaptation process tends to seek to render the AA feature system more symmetrical. Incorporating the labiodental voiced fricative /v/, which is the norm in many loanwords, increases the system economy and symmetry. However, this is not the case for the bilabial voiceless stop due to its phonetic inefficiency.

It has been shown that markedness has a great role in the adaptation. The adaptation process is geared towards unmarkedness in that the least marked output surfaces. This manifests itself also in TETU, as pointed out throughout the section. This section has shed more light on AA segmental phonology. For example, results indicate that dark /l/ is an allophone rather than an independent phoneme in AA, which could extend to other secondary emphatics in AA and in Arabic in general. Findings also confirm that occlusivisation of the interdental voiceless fricative is a productive process in

34

Peperkamp & Dupoux (2003: 378) add that ―Cantonese lacks the voiced fricative [v]. In loanwords from English, it is changed into [w], not [f], arguably because [w] more closely approximates the acoustic properties of English [v].‖

104

progress. Finally, results point to the unmarked status of nasal codas in AA. In the following section, I turn to the adaptation of English vowels, which is expected to show more variance.