Featural Faithfulness in Consonantal Repairs of Arabic Loanwords in Sundanese

Abstract

This paper provides an Optimality-Theoretic account of the consonantal repairs employed by Standard Sundanese to adapt seven illicit Arabic consonants in Arabic loanwords and thus bring them into conformity with its phonemic system. The study supports Best's Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM), which posits that the unfamiliar consonants are perceived to their closest native counterparts in terms of articulatory features. It has been found that all seven Arabic consonants are replaced with native Sundanese counterparts with, first and foremost, the same major articulator (i.e., labial or coronal: IDENT (ARTICULATOR)) and voicing quality (i.e., [±voice]: IDENT (VOICE)), followed by the same manner of articulation (i.e., IDENT (MANNER)), which is preserved in the adaptation of five Arabic consonants only. In addition, while the source place (i.e., IDENT (PLACE)) and stridency (i.e., IDENT (STRIDENCY)) features are matched in only three adaptations each, IDENT (C) (i.e., no change of features) is never reflected in the data. Moreover, the adaptation of Arabic consonants satisfies markedness restrictions (represented by *EMPHATIC, *LABIODENTAL, *DENTAL, */f/, */z/, and */ʃ/) in Sundanese phonology against the importation of Arabic consonants. This is captured by the following OT constraint ranking: MARKEDNESS, IDENT (ARTICULATOR), IDENT (VOICE)>> IDENT (MANNER)>> IDENT (PLACE)>> IDENT (C). In conclusion, this paper contributes to the insufficiently researched area of Sundanese loanword phonology.

Consonantal Debuccalization and Deletion in Minangkabau

“…As shown in Tables 1 and 2, Indonesian (Adelaar, 1992; Adisasmito-Smith, 2004; Batais, 2013; Lapoliwa, 1981; Soderberg & Olson, 2008) and Minangkabau (Adelaar, 1992; Almos, 2012; Erwandi, 2018; Medan et al, 1986; Zurmita et al, 2013) share 19 consonants: three bilabials /p, b, m/, six alveolars /t, d, s, n, r, l/, two post-alveolars /ʧ, ʤ/, two palatals /ɲ, j/, four velars /k, g, ŋ, w/, and two glottals /ʔ, h/. However, compared to Minangkabau, Indonesian has four additional consonants, namely /f, z, ʃ, x/, which are limited to foreign loanwords (as a result, they are placed in parentheses in Table 1).…”

“…The basic syllable structure in both Indonesian and Minangkabau is CVC (Batais, 2013; Wiratsih et al, 2014; Zaharani, 2005; Zurmita et al, 2013). In both languages, only singleton onsets and codas are allowed, and onsets and codas are not mandatory.…”

“…In both languages, only singleton onsets and codas are allowed, and onsets and codas are not mandatory. With respect to phonotactic constraints, according to Macdonald (1976), Lapoliwa (1981), and Batais (2013), in Indonesian words, all consonants except the glottal /ʔ/ can occupy the syllable onset position, but only /p, t, k, ʔ, s, h, r, l, y, m, n, ŋ/ are permitted in coda positions. On the other hand, in Minangkabau, only /m, n, ŋ/ are allowed to occupy coda positions, while /ʔ, h/ can only appear in word-final coda positions (Medan et al, 1986; Wiratsih et al, 2014).…”

Indonesian borrowing as evidence for Harmonic Grammar

“…In this study, we investigate the repair strategies employed to adapt Arabic and Dutch loanwords to the more restrictive set of phonotactics in Indonesian. A set of Arabic and Dutch loanwords containing initial and final consonant clusters was elicited from 24 participants and analyzed for syllabic repairs, such as consonant deletion and vowel epenthesis (Batais 2013). We find that speakers use both deletion and epenthesis to modify words to fit the phonotactics of Indonesian.…”