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
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
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.
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 Hausa Trapezium
Fig. 2.2 Hausa Diphthongs
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
3.3 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
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.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMES
OT - Optimality Theory
PLS - Posited Source Language
SB - Source-Borrowings
IO - Input-Output
Con - Constraint
Eval - Evaluator
LIST OF SYMBOLS
[ ] phonetic transcription
/ / phonemic transcription
→ is produced as/is realized as
. Syllable boundary ! Serious or fatal violation
ABSTRACT
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 &
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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,
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 &
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:
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
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
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‟.
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
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
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
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
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
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‟
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
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 18thand 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:
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
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
(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
Table 2.1: Arabic consonants
* This Table is adapted from IPA Revised (2005), with modifications.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
/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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
