Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:52:42.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-native contrasts in Tongan loans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

Kie Zuraw ,
Kathleen Chase O'Flynn  and
Kaeli Ward
Kie Zuraw*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Kathleen Chase O'Flynn*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Kaeli Ward*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
*
E-mail: kie@ucla.edu, kcoflynn@gmail.com, kaelisward@gmail.com.
E-mail: kie@ucla.edu, kcoflynn@gmail.com, kaelisward@gmail.com.
E-mail: kie@ucla.edu, kcoflynn@gmail.com, kaelisward@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present three case studies of marginal contrasts in Tongan loans from English, working with data from three speakers. Although Tongan lacks contrasts in stress or in CC vs. CVC sequences, secondary stress in loans is contrastive, and is sensitive to whether a vowel has a correspondent in the English source word; vowel deletion is also sensitive to whether a vowel is epenthetic as compared to the English source; and final vowel length is sensitive to whether the penultimate vowel is epenthetic, and if not, whether it corresponds to a stressed or unstressed vowel in the English source. We provide an analysis in the multilevel model of Boersma (1998) and Boersma & Hamann (2009), and show that the loan patterns can be captured using only constraints that plausibly are needed for native-word phonology, including constraints that reflect perceptual strategies.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 127 - 170
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

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

Footnotes

We thank Manu Tu'uholoaki, Saia Moala and Piula Tonga for their expertise in the Tongan language and their patience in assisting with this project. Other participants in the UCLA linguistics field methods course also helped shape this project: Natasha Abner, Nicki Acker, Byron Ahn, Jason Bishop, Heather Burnett, Nancy Finifter, Marc Garellek, Hilda Koopman, Grace Kuo, James Pannacciulli, Craig Sailor and James White. Audiences at UCLA, UC Berkeley, UMass, Stanford University and Seoul National University provided valuable feedback, especially John Kingston and Jongho Jun. We are grateful to the UCLA statistics consulting staff for their help, especially Xiao Chen, Phil Ender, Andy Lin and Christine Wells. This research was supported by funding from the UCLA Academic Senate's Committee on Research.

References

REFERENCES

Alderete, John (1999). Head dependence in stress-epenthesis interactions. In Hermans, Ben & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.) The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 29–50.Google Scholar
Anderson, Victoria & Otsuka, Yuko (2006). The phonetics and phonology of ‘definitive accent’ in Tongan. Oceanic Linguistics 45. 21–42.Google Scholar
Árnason, Kristján (1996). How to meet the European standard: word stress in Faroese and Icelandic. Nordlyd 24. 1–22.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven (2014). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package (version 1.1-6). cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.) The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 8–83.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2011). A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. In Benz, Anton & Mattausch, Jason (eds.) Bidirectional Optimality Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 33–72.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (2009). Loanword adaptation as first-language phonological perception. In Calabrese, Andrea & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) Loan phonology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 11–58.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2006). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 4.4). http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (1982). On predicting the interaction of stress and epenthesis. Glossa 16. 115–132.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (2008). Stress-epenthesis interactions. In Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew (eds.) Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 121–148.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (2009). Stress adaptation in loanword phonology: perception and learnability. In Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (eds.) Phonology in perception. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 191–234.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen (2015). The typology of position-quality interactions in loanword vowel insertion. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.) Capturing phonological shades within and across languages. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 292–319.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (2002). Surface-to-surface morphology: when your representations turn into constraints. In Boucher, Paul (ed.) Many morphologies. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 142–177.Google Scholar
Cabré, Teresa (2009). Vowel reduction and vowel harmony in Eastern Catalan loanword phonology. In Vigário, Marina, Frota, Sónia & Freitas, M. João (eds.) Phonetics and phonology: interactions and interrelations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 267–285.Google Scholar
Churchward, C. Maxwell (1953). Tongan grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Churchward, C. Maxwell (1959). Tongan dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine (1998). Segmental vs. prosodic correspondence in Chamorro. Phonology 15. 281–316.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert, Oh, Mira & Kim, Syejeong (2015). When in doubt, read the instructions: orthographic effects in loanword adaptation. Lingua 159. 70–92.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: influences on the production of non-native sequences. JPh 34. 104–137.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2007). The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation. Phonology 24. 261–286.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa (2010). Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: evidence from English and Catalan. JPh 38. 272–288.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa & Shaw, Jason A. (2012). Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. JPh 40. 234–248.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2007). The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 281–307.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Fushimi, Takao, Kakehi, Kazuhiko & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Prelexical locus of an illusory vowel effect in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Budapest (Eurospeech ’99). 1675–1678. https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/archive_papers/eurospeech_1999/e99_1675.pdf.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Pallier, Christophe, Sebastián, Núria & Mehler, Jacques (1997). A destressing ‘deafness’ in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36. 406–421.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Peperkamp, Sharon & Sebastián-Gallés, Núria (2001). A robust method to study stress ‘deafness’. JASA 110. 1606–1618.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Peperkamp, Sharon & Sebastián-Gallés, Núria (2010). Limits on bilingualism revisited: stress ‘deafness’ in simultaneous French–Spanish bilinguals. Cognition 114. 266–275.Google Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Sebastián-Gallés, Núria, Navarrete, Eduardo & Peperkamp, Sharon (2008). Persistent stress ‘deafness’: the case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106. 682–706.Google Scholar
Feldman, Harry (1978). Some notes on Tongan phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 17. 133–139.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (1991). German schwa in prosodic morphology. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10. 65–85.Google Scholar
Garellek, Marc & White, James (2010). Acoustic correlates of stress and their use in diagnosing syllable fusion in Tongan. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 108. 35–65.Google Scholar
Garellek, Marc & White, James (2015). Phonetics of Tongan stress. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 45. 13–34.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Su, Yu-Sung, Yajima, Masanao & Hill, Jennifer (2010). arm: data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=arm.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie (2013). A typology of intermediate phonological relationships. The Linguistic Review 30. 215–275.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy (2003). Gestures and segments: vowel intrusion as overlap. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hall, Nancy (2006). Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology 23. 387–429.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin & George, Ben (2009). Maxent grammar tool. Software package. Available (November 2018) at http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/MaxentGrammarTool/.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Bretz, Frank & Westfall, Peter (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50. 346–363.Google Scholar
Hox, Joop J., Moerbeek, Mirjam & van de Schoot, Rens (2010). Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, C. Orhan & Zoll, Cheryl (1996). Exceptions and static phonological patterns: cophonologies vs. prespecification. Ms, University of California, Berkeley & University of Iowa. Available as ROA-124 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Iverson, Paul & Kuhl, Patricia K. (1995). Mapping the perceptual magnet effect for speech using signal detection theory and multidimensional scaling. JASA 97. 553–562.Google Scholar
Iverson, Paul & Kuhl, Patricia K. (1996). Influences of phonetic identification and category goodness on American listeners’ perception of /r/ and /l/. JASA 99. 1130–1140.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard (2007). Maximum entropy models and Stochastic Optimality Theory. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.) Architectures, rules, and preferences: variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI. 467–479.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith & Mullenix, John W. (eds.) Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 145–165.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto (2011). Experimental approaches in theoretical phonology. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.) The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. 2283–2303.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1996). Base-identity and uniform exponence: alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.) Current trends in phonology: models and methods. Salford: ESRI. 363–393.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1997). Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9. 157–187.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (2005). The phonetics and phonology of Korean loanword adaptation. In Rhee, Sang Jik (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Korean Linguistics (ECKL 1). Seoul: Hankook. 17–32.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (2007). Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: a case study from Fijian. Language Sciences 29. 316–340.Google Scholar
Kinkade, M. Dale (1998). How much does a schwa weigh? In Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa & Kinkade, M. Dale (eds.) Salish languages and linguistics: theoretical and descriptive perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 197–216.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo (2006). Where does loanword prosody come from? A case study of Japanese loanword accent. Lingua 116. 1140–1170.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene & Paradis, Carole (2002). Addressing and disconfirming some predictions of phonetic approximation for loanword adaptation. Langues et linguistique 28. 71–91Google Scholar
Lal, Brij V. & Fortune, Kate (eds.) (2000). The Pacific islands: an encyclopedia. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: languages of the world. 16th edn. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
McCallum, Andrew, Freitag, Dayne & Pereira, Fernando (2000). Maximum Entropy Markov Models for information extraction and segmentation. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. 591–598.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew (2005). Loanwords as pseudo-compounds in Malagasy. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 287–295.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (2002). El sistema vocàlic: reducció vocàlica. In Solà, Joan, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, Mascaró, Joan & Saldanya, Manuel Pérez (eds.) Gramàtica del català contemporani. Vol. 1. Barcelona: Empúries. 89–123.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin (1992). Some remarks on Tongan stress. Ms, University of California, Santa Cruz. Available (November 2018) at https://people.ucsc.edu/~mester/papers/1992_mester_tongan_stress.pdf.Google Scholar
Morton, Ermel J. (1962). A descriptive grammar of Tongan (Polynesian). PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela & Riggle, Jason (2004). Productivity and lexicalization in Pima compounds. BLS 30:2. 114–126.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–274.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2007). The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren & Werle, Adam (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory III. Amherst: GLSA. 259–296.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 123–154.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon (2005). A psycholinguistic theory of loan adaptations. BLS 30. 341–352.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2003). Reinterpreting loanword adaptations: the role of perception. In Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions. 367–370.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler (2007). Minimality and syllabification in Kabardian. CLS 39:1. 215–235.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 137–157.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. (1985). Cliticization to NP and Lexical Phonology. WCCFL 4. 262–272.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1983). Relating to the grid. LI 14. 19–100.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R. (2017). Phonological exceptionality is localized to phonological elements: the argument from learnability and Yidiny word-final deletion. In Bowern, Claire, Horn, Laurence & Zanuttini, Raffaella (eds.) On looking into words (and beyond): structures, relations, analyses. Berlin: Language Science Press. 59–97.Google Scholar
Sailor, Craig (2010). Notes on Tongan vowel devoicing and deletion. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1970). Phonological patterning of English loan words in Tongan. In Wurm, S. A. & Laycock, D. C. (eds.) Pacific Linguistic studies in honour of Arthur Capell. Canberra: Australia National University. 409–428.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (1978). English loanwords in Fijian. In Schütz, Albert J. (ed.) Fijian language studies: borrowing and pidginization. Suva: Fiji Museum. 1–50.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert J. (2001). Tongan accent. Oceanic Linguistics 40. 307–323.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. (2006a). Loan phonology is not all perception: evidence from Japanese loan doublets. In Vance, Timothy J. & Jones, Kimberly A. (eds.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14. Palo Alto: CLSI. 63–74.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer (2006b). Correspondence theory vs. Cyclic OT: beyond morphological derivation. NELS 36. 531–545.Google Scholar
Snijders, Tom A. B. & Bosker, Roel J. (2011). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. 2nd edn. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 313–334.Google Scholar
Stodden, Victoria, Leisch, Friedrich & Peng, Roger D. (eds.) (2014). Implementing reproducible research. Boca Raton, Fl.: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Taumoefolau, Melenaite L. (1998). Problems in Tongan lexicography. PhD dissertation, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Taumoefolau, Melenaite L. (2002). Stress in Tongan. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44. 341–354.Google Scholar
Uffmann, Christian (2007). Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Välimaa-Blum, Riitta (1986). Finnish vowel harmony as a prescriptive and descriptive rule: an autosegmental account. In Marshall, Fred, Miller, Ann & Zhang, Zheng-sheng (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh. 511–522.Google Scholar
Vicenik, Chad & Kuo, Grace (2010). Tongan intonation. Poster presented at the 160th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Cancún.Google Scholar
Williams, Daniel & Escudero, Paola (2014). A cross-dialectal acoustic comparison of vowels in Northern and Southern British English. JASA 136. 2751–2761.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2015). Allomorphs of French de in coordination: a reproducible study. Linguistics Vanguard 1. 57–68.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie & Huynh, Kevin (ms). Solving the problem of whole-language simulation: a case study from Tongan loan adaptation. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Zuraw et al. supplementary material

Zuraw et al. supplementary material 1

Download Zuraw et al. supplementary material(File)
File 498.1 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Zuraw et al. supplementary material

Zuraw et al. supplementary material 2

Download Zuraw et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 35.1 KB