Optimality and correspondence theories in phonological shifts: a case study on Arabic guttural consonants in English loanwords

The standardization of loanwords presents challenges for borrowers due to phonological adaptations, particularly with guttural speech sounds. This case study examined native English speakers' articulation of Arabic loanwords containing guttural consonants, applying optimality theory and correspondence theory to investigate phonetic and phonological constraints. The analysis revealed that participants experienced difficulty adhering to constraints in their articulation, resulting in the omission, repair, or replacement of guttural phones in Arabic loanwords. Contrary to initial assumptions, the study found that deletion and replacement mechanisms were not exclusively position-dependent but rather determined by specific guttural sounds. For example, replacement occurred with sounds such as /χ/, /q/, and /g'/, while deletion was applied to sounds like /ʕ/, /ʔ/, and /ħ/. The repair strategy, however, was observed to be position-dependent, occurring only with words containing a medial guttural. These findings contribute to the understanding of phonological adaptations in loanwords and the interrelationships among significant linguistic groups, highlighting the complex nature of guttural consonant articulation in cross-linguistic contexts.

1 Introduction

Loanwords are borrowed through language contact and incorporated into another source language (Hoffer, 2005). To satisfy the borrowing requirement and lexical understanding, there must be no morphemic substitution, and pronunciation must resemble the source language (Schmidt and Jien-shou, 2020). English has been enriched by this practice (Quirk et al., 1968; Darwish, 2015), which is commonly seen in the field of linguistics among major cultures (Hamdi, 2017). Some examples of English words borrowed from other cultures are “ease,” and “café,” borrowed from the French; “area” borrowed from Latin; “kindergarten” from German; and “algebra” and “alcohol” from Arabic. However, linguistic and phonetic limitations have caused the adoption and assimilation of some loanwords to change drastically (Calabrese, 2009; Darwish, 2015), whose origin is almost unrecognizable. Monolinguals may not be cognizant of the origins of these integrated words (Romaine, 1989). For instance, the English word “coffee” is Arabic in origin and emanates from Yemen; however, it vastly differs from the original word, qahwah. Similarly, the word “lute” emanated from the Arabic al-ud (the oud) but experienced language interference via the French term “lut.” In recent years, globalization has undoubtedly expanded the scope of borrowing practices, bringing diverse linguistic elements into closer contact. This global exchange highlights the need for focused studies on specific phonetic features, such as guttural sounds in Arabic loanwords, to understand their adaptation and assimilation into English (Durkin, 2014; Darwish, 2015). This study adopted a synchronic approach by identifying loanwords through non-native sound segments and morphological structures. The grammatical, phonological, and morphological systems of Arabic, including the Hebrew, differ significantly from those of English. This study targets the guttural sounds of loanwords of Arabic origin in English. Arabic guttural sounds are more diverse than those in English. For instance, Arabic guttural sounds are k, χ, ɤ, q, ħ, ʕ, ʔ and are transformed into English respectively as k, kh, g, gh, q and h. Current research in the area continues to challenge and expand assumptions of European-based linguistics (Smeaton, 1973; Hafez, 1996; Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003; Alahmari, 2022).

Hafez (1996) maintains there are degrees of standardization of loanwords, one of which could be resistance to integration because they do not conflict with the patterns of the recipient language. Standardizing the articulation of loanwords from Arabic to English is more difficult with regard to phonological adaptation. For instance, “Khalifah” is a loanword that is pronounced /χa.li:.fah/ by the Arabic native speaker but the English speaker pronounces it as [ka.li:.fa]. A significant mismatch exists in the articulation of loanwords with guttural sounds because of significant mismatches in the articulation of the two languages. The challenge of integrating Arabic loanwords into English is partly due to Arabic's unique guttural sounds, which are absent in English. These sounds are broadly categorized based on their phonetic placement in words, which influences how they are adapted in English according to their placement, that is, guttural-initial (/χ/ ≈ ﺥخ - “Khadem” - /χadɪm/ - Servant; see Table 1 for an additional list of Arabic examples), guttural-medial (/ħ/ ≈ ﺡح – “Saara” - / saħraʔ/ - Desert; see Table 2 for additional exemplars), and guttural-final (/ ʕ/ ≈ ﻉع – “burqa”- /burqʕ/ - Veil; see Table 3 for additional exemplars).

Table 1

Table 1. Guttural-initial Arabic nouns.

Table 2

Table 2. Guttural-medial Arabic nouns.

Table 3

Table 3. Guttural-final Arabic nouns.

This study investigates the constraints and use of Arabic loanwords with guttural speech sounds, and suggests ways to overcome difficulties in their use among English speakers. According to Sylak-Glassman (2014, p. 1), Semitic languages involve “various phonological processes and distributional constraints [that] require reference to the post-velar consonants as a phonologically active class.” Loanwords undergo processes of “sound alteration, addition, omission, and shifting” (Hafez, 1996, p. 384). Without these constraints, it is difficult to understand how and why such changes occur.

2 Literature review

This study focused on guttural consonants, which are speech sounds that begin in the throat, such as k and g. According to McCarthy (1994), the articulation of guttural sounds are called “throat consonants,” which are produced primarily at the laryngeal—back of the throat; pharyngeal—the middle of the throat; and uvular—part of the throat nearest to the mouth. Sylak-Glassman (2014) notes these post-velar or guttural consonants comprise a universal guttural natural class, which he situates within a phonologically active class, and is prevalent in Arabic. The Arabic sound system includes more consonant sounds and fewer vowel sounds than English sounds (Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003). However, Arabic further distinguishes between the “emphatic” consonants that are pronounced with a tense and retracted tongue, moving any vowels adjacent to them backward in the mouth, with Arabic consonants known as the “gutturals” (Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003). Articulation is determined by pharyngeal consonant phones, such as /ʔ/ and /ħ/ (Hess, 1990). The speech organs that produce these guttural sounds are shown in Figure 1. In addition, Hess (1990) highlighted the emphatic sounds of Semitic languages and their secondary pharyngeal constrictions. Generally, gutturals and emphatic constrictions occur in the laryngeal and pharyngeal regions of the vocal tract. This association suggests a connection between post-velar sounds and other types of sounds (Miller, 2007; Moisik et al., 2021).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Organs of speech. Source: https://dylansung.tripod.com/sapienti/phon/ipasymb.htm.

Arabic comprises a rich consonantal system, which is far more difficult than its vowel system (Alahmari, 2022). Compared to English, Arabic has a maximum of two successive consonant systems (Hafez, 1996). Several studies have investigated the integration of English loanwords from different forms or dialects of Arabic (e.g., Hafez, 1996; Zibin, 2019; Alahmari, 2022). The guttural use of Arabic is often incongruent with other language systems. Alqarni (2021) found the inventories of Amharic and Argobba included the laryngeal [h], the uvular [q], and other glottalized ejectives. This contrasts with studies such as the Francophone systematic deletion of gutturals in Arabic loanwords because of the non-availability of the pharyngeal node. Paradis and LaCharité (2001) explained the reason for the systematic deletion of gutturals ħ, ʕ, h, and ʔ in French is because there is nothing close enough to the required adaptation. They maintain that gutturals are deleted when the foreign segment is unrealizable in L1. However, in an examination of the Central Kurdish (CK) adaptation of Arabic loan consonants, Hamid (2021) found a connection between faithful borrowing of guttural consonants and the frequency, orthographic input, and sensitivity of faithful pronunciation. Kurdish and Arabic represent two distinct language families, although they both have extensive contact through religion, politics, and education. Hamid highlighted that CK adapted emphatic sound by removing emphatic features. For political reasons, native Kurds ignored guttural phonemes in their writing by replacing them with non-guttural ones, for example, “penus” for “qa.lam.” Furthermore, the Arabic and Uzbek languages experienced mutual lexical and phonetic influences (Yulduz, 2022). Currently, loanwords borrowing in languages such as Uzbek also lack emphatic consonants in addition to gutturals in their language, and these omissions have resulted in phonetic changes (Yulduz, 2022). Calabrese (2009) noted that non-native learners may encounter sounds that are excluded from the inventory of their language. Therefore, she claims that preservation of the phonological and morphological shape of the foreign word is unnecessary. However, in some instances of loanword adaptation and transfer, the language is unwritten, as in the case of the colloquial Arabic of Palestine (Butros, 1963). Omission is another process of loanword integration that Smeaton (1973) confirms is the result of syllabic omission to either facilitate pronunciation or trim consonants and syllables.

2.1 Phonetics and phonology

The human vocal organs produce diverse sounds during oral communication. Phonetics studies how humans produce and perceive sounds (O'Grady and Katamba, 1997), while phonology examines the significant speech sounds of a particular language. All the languages have a phonemic inventory with distinctive speech sounds. However, the phonetics and phonology of first- and second-language speakers are not identical (Cohen, 2009). Indeed, speech sounds have a duality that allows neither phonetics nor phonology to operate in isolation (Moisik et al., 2021). Moisik et al. (2021) propose a notion of phonological potentials and a framework based on the phonological potential models that emphasize the physical mechanisms of speech as the foundation for discreteness. This study is instructive for proposing a model that exhibits patterns of alignment with the interaction of tone, phonetics, and vowel qualities. Based on the spoken varieties of Arabic (UAE, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, etc.), the number of consonants ranges from 25 to 30 (Alahmari, 2022). Classical Arabic has ~28 consonantal phonemes in nine places of articulation and 38 phonemes (Watson, 2007). In comparison, the English language writing system has 26 letters, which generally correspond individually or in combination with the 44 significant sounds or phonemes in the spoken language (Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003).

2.2 Guttural speech sounds

Arabic has a larger phonemic inventory of guttural consonants and uses more guttural speech than does English (see Tables 4, 5). Points of guttural articulation are minor for English speakers, but can be heard in Scottish Gaelic, for example, the sound of /x/ (“loch”). The phonetic patterning of uvulars and glottals with pharyngeal, facilitated by articulation, provides a path for phonological association to occur (Sylak-Glassman, 2014). In the dialect of Central Kurdish (CK), Arabic alphabet loans with gutturals are left unadapted and are considered sounds within the consonant inventory of the CK. See for example, “qu.wa” and “raħ.ma” as words with gutturals with unmodified status to show faithful borrowing—“qu/.wat” and “raħ.mat” (Hamid, 2021). Similarly, in Uzbek, the guttural ه and ح, and the yawning sound ع is omitted and not pronounced.

Table 4

Table 4. Arabic guttural phonemic inventory.

Table 5

Table 5. English guttural phonemic inventory.

2.3 Standardization in pronunciation

Phonology provides insights into the use of loanwords with distinctive phonemes in English. Pronunciation is an infinite variable because speech sounds are uniquely individual. Standardizing the pronunciation of loanwords is difficult when considering speech sounds in a global language. In an attempt to understand standardization in language, the pronunciation of a word may vary according to dialect and idiolect, and each speaker may differ in sound even while pronouncing the same word (Calabrese, 2009). Although orthography attempts to address this issue, it may be more apt when dealing with phonetics and morphology. Therefore, Ferguson (1997) characterizes standardization as an increase in the communication network through a language or language variety acquired and welcomed throughout the speech community. In an earlier version of this definition, he termed it a “supradialectal norm” (Ferguson, 1966, p. 31).

2.4 Orthography

Orthography is the set of rules and regulations that enables the writing of spoken language, such as hyphenation, capitalization, emphasis, punctuation, and other symbol systems. Orthography standardizes language by reducing dialect and idiolect variations in speech sounds (Stoehr and Martin, 2021) and is “correlated with the choice of consonantal length” (Hamann and Colombo, 2017, p. 688) in writing. The importance of orthography in the loan adaptation process is correlated with second-language perceptions in writing (Hamann and Colombo, 2017; Hamdi, 2017). Despite this salience, Hamdi (2017) contends that orthography is often disregarded and marginalized in the literature, while Paradis and LaCharité (2001) contend that its minimal role is justified, as it cannot be controlled in adaptation. Multiplicity in orthographic forms is often shaped by L2 speakers' awareness and frequency. However, the influence of modern technology adds another dimension to this argument. Social media has demonstrated systematic innovation in written and spoken language, which affects emphasis and formality. Indeed, the expressiveness of the language, which is equally highly context-dependent, is also more conversational than written (Bevacqua and Scheffler, 2020, p. 4). Hamann and Colombo (2017) found no cases of the deletion of perceptual borrowings in their study of English intervocalic consonants after short vowels in Italian. Indeed, they noted a larger influence of auditory information on the borrowing of vowels, whereas the borrowing of consonants seemed to be more influenced by writing. The authors ascribed this pattern to the weaker perception of consonantal cues. Phonological and orthographic investigations can be useful for ascertaining the constraints and differences in English speakers' use of Arabic loanwords. In addition, while Smith (2009) noted that loanword adaptation provides little evidence of grammar in individual languages, it contributes to a comprehensive understanding of universal grammar and phonological theory.

3 Theoretical framework and hypotheses

3.1 Optimality theory

Prince and Smolensky introduced the optimal theory (OT), a novel approach to language (McCarthy, 2007). The subsequent development of OT by linguists (McCarthy, 2002; Kager, 2004) has resulted in a changed understanding of phonology and the history of generative grammar by establishing a dichotomy between the operational and constraint components of grammar (McCarthy, 2007). OT grammar consists of a generator (GEN) and an evaluator (EVAL). The GEN component generates possible output forms that deviate from the input in different ways. The EVAL component compares and evaluates all possible output forms with a series of ranked constraints (Cohen, 2009). In OT, each language has its own constraint ranking (McCarthy, 2007), although Kager (2004) claims that they differ in their ranking. OT recognizes two constraint rankings: faithfulness and markedness (Zibin, 2019). Markedness constraints are concerned with the formation of the output; that is, complex consonant clusters are bad, whereas faithfulness constraints require stability in that the grammatical output resembles its input (Prince and Smolensky, 2008). Because markedness constraints favor certain linguistic structures, they often compete with faithfulness constraints. The objective of faithfulness constraints is to resist modifications to the input structures, which is referred to as constraint conflict. For an OT system, if there are two freely ranked constraints or unranked constraints, then each individual ranking might produce a different output, which might invariably result in variation in a language.

3.2 Correspondence theory

McCarthy and Prince (1995) were instrumental in formalizing source-similarity effects in loanword adaptation using correspondence theory (CT). Other linguists classify it as a “subtheory of faithfulness constraints, allowing a limited set of structural changes, such as deletions, insertions, fusions, and featural changes” (Kager, 2004, p. 53). According to Smith (2009), loanword adaptation cannot be attributed to speech perception alone because borrowing word constraints are involved in loanword adaptation. The use of CT to model source similarity constraints means that such constraints are not required.

3.3 Hypotheses

This study examines how native English speakers articulate guttural Arabic speech sounds by applying the constraint ranking optimality theory (Kager, 2004) and source-similarity correspondence theory (McCarthy and Prince, 1995) to capture this articulation. The following three hypotheses are proposed:

H0: Native English speakers articulate loanwords with distinct guttural sounds exactly as native Arabic speakers do.

H1: Native English speakers change the articulation of Arabic loanwords with distinctive guttural sounds.

H2: Orthography significantly influences the articulation of Arabic loanwords by native English speakers.

4 Methods

4.1 Sampling and procedure

OT and CT were used to model source-similarity constraints to explain the Arabic guttural deletions of words adapted to English. The compilation of the sample list of Arabic loanwords considered the constraints and differences that might have occurred during the transfer and involved phonology and orthography. Participants included two monolingual native English speakers and a researcher whose vernacular language was Arabic. The participants were college students aged between 20 and 22 years who consented to act as volunteers. Participants had no Arabic knowledge or exposure of any kind. The sessions occurred in a quiet, private, and comfortable environment. First, a list of modern Arabic loanwords was typed in English and presented to participants. Subsequently, the researcher pronounced the words in Standard Arabic and asked the participants to repeat them three times. In this way, the participants implemented their visual-auditory senses through reading and listening. This procedure took approximately 5–6 min per participant and was recorded with consent.

5 Results

The phonological OT analysis rejected the null hypothesis. The two English speakers struggled with pronunciation, although they had orthographies of each word placed before them as a guide. An influential version of OT that incorporated CT explicitly invoked correspondence between the elements in the input and output strings. Here, an influential version of OT that incorporated CT (McCarthy and Prince, 1995) and explicitly invoked correspondence between the elements in the input and output strings was applied. The two English speakers amended the articulation of Arabic loanwords with distinctive guttural sounds, thereby supporting H1 and H2.

5.1 Constraints within optimality theory

With constraints acting as filters, the basic architecture and tenets of classical OT suggested there should be no particular underlying phoneme or structure inventory to protect (van Oostendorp, 2011). In the CT analysis data, participants used three mechanisms to articulate the peculiar guttural speech sound.

• Replacement: In the loanword, Khaliji /χali:ʒɪ/, the native English speakers replaced the guttural sound /χ/ with another guttural sound /k/ and pronounced it as /kali:ʒɪ/.

• Repairing: In the loanword, magreb /mag'.reb/, the native English speakers repaired through resyllabification and pronounced the word as /ma. greb/.

• Deletion: In the loanword, Surah /su:rah/, the native English speakers deleted the consonant phone /h/ in the last syllable and pronounced it as /su:ra/.

5.1.1 Constraints

The following constraint ranking was derived from the application of OT:

^*PHARY—“No pharyngeal segment is allowed in the output”

NoCoda—“Syllables do not have coda consonants”

MAX-IO—“Every input segment has an output correspondent”

MAX-OO—“Every output segment has an output correspondent” (no deletion)

DEP-OO—“Every output segment has an output correspondent” (no epenthesis)

^*UVU—“No uvular segment is allowed in the output”

Velar-OO [±Voi]—“Every velar output must have a velar output correspondent that agrees in voicing”

IDENT (syllabic)—“Output syllabic structure should have a correspondent syllabic structure in the input”

[^*RTR]—“Assign one violation mark for every segment that is [+RTR]”

“^*”—unattested

“!”—not correct at all

“^**”—no. of violations (Example: two times for two “^**”)

☞—output that wins

5.1.2 Guttural-initial nouns

In this section, two Arabic to English loanwords with initial gutturals were presented and discussed. Table 6 presents the tableau for the loanword Khalifah with the following ranking of constraints: NoCoda >> ^*PHARY >> MAX-IO. Reversing the first and third constraints (NoCoda >> ^*PHARY >> MAX-IO) gives the incorrect output presented in Table 7. Table 8 gives the tableau for Qur'an, the ranking for which is ^*UVU >> Velar-OO [±Voi] >> NoCoda >>MAX-IO.

Table 6

Table 6. Tableau for Khalifah/ χa.li:.fah/.

Table 7

Table 7. Tableau with different order for Khalifah/ χa.li:.fah/.

Table 8

Table 8. Tableau for Qur′an/ qur.ʔan/.

Under the correct ranking, the markedness constraint NoCoda dominates ^*PHARY, and that in turn outranks MAX-IO: Markedness overpowers and dominates faithfulness. The differences between two language systems must be limited and specific for the right outcomes (Chomsky, 1972, 2007).

5.1.3 Guttural-medial nouns

Magreb and Musta'rib are two examples of Arabic loanwords with medial gutturals. In this study, the two native English-speaking participants used the articulation mechanism of repairing through resyllabification, in addition to the replacement mechanism (i.e., substituting /g'/ into /g/) to pronounce magreb. Table 9 presents the tableau for magreb in correct ranking order, and Table 10 shows the incorrect ranking output if faithfulness is placed as the highest constraint.

Table 9

Table 9. Tableau for Magreb/ mag'.reb/.

Table 10

Table 10. Tableau with different orders for Magreb/ mag'.reb/.

Table 11 presents the optimal output for a word in which markedness rules over faithfulness, Musta'rib. For /mus.taʕ.rεb/, the medial guttural /ʕ/ is deleted in the outcome in the mechanism of deletion, entirely bypassing a foreign segment. Also, the repair mechanism through re-syllabification is used. The correct ranking for Musta'rib is ^*UVU>> Velar-OO[±Voi] >> NoCoda >> MAX-IO.

Table 11

Table 11. Tableau for Musta′rib/ mus.taʕ.rεb/.

5.1.4 Guttural-final nouns

The word souk means “mall or market” and is articulated in Arabic as /su:q/ with a final guttural (uvular)/q/. One of the English-speaking participants articulated /q/, which does not exist in the English phonemic inventory, as uvular as /k/, switching the unknown sound to a familiar one. This reflects the final mechanism of pronouncing loanwords with unfamiliar phonemes (replacement). Table 12 presents the tableau for souk with the ranking NoCoda >> [^*RTR] >> ^*PHARY >> MAX-IO.

Table 12

Table 12. Tableau for Souk/ su:q/.

5.2 Implementation of the correspondence theory

CT created multiple relationships among the proposed candidates, which were used in the OT approach. Given two strings S1 and S2, correspondence was reflected in the relationship R, shifting the elements of S1 to those of S2; the elements αεS1 and βεS2 correspond to αRβ. This comprehensive definition generated a full set of faithfulness constraints: IO:{MAX-IO, DEP-IO, IDENT[F]-IO, INTEGRITY-IO,...}; OO:{MAX-OO, DEP-OO, IDENT[F]-OO,...}BR:{MAX-BR, DEP-BR,...}. Differentiating faithfulness relationships, namely, input–output (IO), base–reduplicant (BR), and output–output (OO) relations, was the basic premise. The OO constraint was similar to an intermediate stage, in which the optimal candidate was checked against the intermediate-derived output. Outputs concerning other outputs enable an understanding of the constraints. Tables 13–16 reflect the CT analyses, which are useful for understanding the constraints more precisely than the regular OT approach.

Table 13

Table 13. CT Tableau for Mat′rah /mat'.raħ/.

Table 14

Table 14. CT Tableau for Magreb/ mag'.reb/.

Table 15

Table 15. CT Tableau for Musta′rab/ mus.taʕ.rεb/.

Table 16

Table 16. Tableau for Souk/ su:q/.

With the loanword mat'rah (Table 13), the study participants resyllabified the word by deleting the coda; /ħ/ is not recognized because English prohibits pharyngeal sounds. Therefore, participants used deletions to resolve this discrepancy.

In Table 14, the CT tableau for magreb, the ranking is MAX-OO >> DEP-OO >> NoCoda >> MAX-IO. Table 15 presents Musta'rab (MAX-OO >> DEP-OO >> NoCoda >> MAX-IO), and Table 16 presents souk (MAX-OO >> DEP-OO >> NoCoda >> MAX-IO).

MAX-OO “Every output segment has an output correspondent” (no deletion).

DEP-OO “Every output segment has an output correspondent” (no epenthesis).

NoCoda “Syllables do not have coda consonants.”

MAX-IO “Every input segment has an output correspondent.”

5.2.1 Implementation of orthography

English and Arabic differ in speech sounds, grammar, points of articulation, orthography, and alphabet, among other differences. For instance, /χ/ is an Arabic phone orthographically represented as /k/ by English speakers and pronounced “kh.” In English, the orthographic combination “kh” is negligible and indicates that the word is a loanword and will be articulated differently. Although the participants were presented with English orthographies of the list of loanwords, they still encountered difficulties with pronunciation. This suggests that orthography also influences the articulation of loanwords. Hence, orthographic representation of loanwords provides the speaker with clues, but is misleading in the case of pronunciation. Table 17 shows the Arabic sounds with English orthography.

Table 17

Table 17. English orthography of Arabic guttural phones.

6 Discussion

Optimal transitions of loanwords into second languages require there to be few and specific differences between the two language systems, as in the case of Arabic states, for example, CK. Native English speakers adjusted the distinct guttural sounds in Arabic loanwords according to their speech backgrounds. Due to the lack of guttural phones in the English language phonemic inventory, the participants experienced difficulties articulating guttural consonants (Al Mahmoud, 2020; Yulduz, 2022). Appendix A presents the English orthography of the Arabic guttural phones. Using the regular OT approach, two native English speakers articulated Arabic loanwords based only on input. However, the CT was more precise because it allowed for the consideration of other outputs under the highlighted constraints. The difficulties of uttering loanwords with distinct sounds were confirmed, as English speakers attempted to account for these constraints using deletion, replacement, and repair. In addition, this study showed that orthography influences the understanding of distinct sounds from a different language, making it easier to understand and articulate Arabic loanwords. Orthography is another influential factor when considering a speaker's knowledge of a source language (Haugen, 1950; Lovins, 1973; Dohlus, 2005; Vendelin and Peperkamp, 2006). In addition, orthography affects pronunciation quality and supports the work of fellow linguists (Bassetti and Atkinson, 2015; Bassetti et al., 2018; Stoehr and Martin, 2021). However, despite the confirmation of these revelations in the literature, there is still limited research on the influence of loanwords, especially Arabic guttural consonants loaned to English, which could be a methodological flaw. Orthographic effects are pervasive in adaptation; however, their subtle impacts can often be detected only by large-scale statistical studies or carefully targeted experimentation (Daland et al., 2015). However, the results showed possible orthographic influences.

This study demonstrated how English speakers can unconsciously adopt these three phonological mechanisms as they listen to and read loanwords that contain guttural sounds in the absence of corresponding sounds in their L1 speech inventories. Code-switching differs from loanwords and should be explored further as it illustrates how bilinguals and learners alternate between the two languages using single words or phrases. Mustafawi's (2002) examination of loanwords within an Arabic context found that loanwords operated according to the grammar of the recipient language and were better at borrowing than code-switching. While the application of L1 to L2 is normal, this does not mean that L2 is a loanword. Code-switching does not illustrate the adaptation of phonological and morphological features as in well-established borrowing. Pronunciation is essential for better word comprehension (Al Mahmoud, 2020; Yulduz, 2022). Written words contain spaces, punctuation, and different letter representations (Ahmed, 2019) that help readers better understand loanwords. However, for oral mastery, the quality of loanwords' pronunciations minimizes the confusion between the speaker and listener. Pronunciation quality improves the understanding of Arabic loanwords (As-Sammer, 2015; Yulduz, 2022), even when the task requires the phonology mechanisms of deletion, replacement, and repair (Hamdi, 2017). Poor-quality pronunciation of loanwords reduces the understanding of the particular loanword but also negatively influences the pronunciation of adjacent words that precede or follow it and facilitate misunderstanding. McCarthy (1994) did not consider the uvular stop /q/ as an Arabic guttural, despite its non-appearance in the English phonemic inventory. Furthermore, the research challenges Sylak-Glassman's (2014) contention that the uvular stop is grouped with the dorsal consonants (/k/ and /g/) and the pharyngealized consonant.

7 Conclusion

Loanwords are inevitable and enrich the language of recipient borrowers. This study investigated the challenges English speakers encounter when articulating Arabic loanwords with guttural consonant sounds. The study involved a comparison of the outputs, which were the intermediate stages spent in deriving the correct candidate with the best pronunciation. A concise description was provided using the OT approach to demonstrate how English speakers learn the pronunciation of Arabic loanwords using the three phonological mechanisms of replacement, repair, and deletion. This study advances the understanding of communication between Arabic and English speakers and elucidates how and why constraints occur. These findings are instructive for teacher education, assessments, and pedagogy.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Siham Alhaider/IRB/King Khalid University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

SA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The author extends her appreciation to the Deanship of Research and Graduate Studies at King Khalid University for funding this work through small group project under grant number RGP1/294/45.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Ahmed, H. (2019). “Distance-based authorship verification across modern standard Arabic genres,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Arabic Corpus Linguistics, 89−96. Available at: https://aclanthology.org/ (accessed December 25, 2023).

Google Scholar

Al Mahmoud, M. S. (2020). Native vs. nonnative raters in second language pronunciation assessment of guttural sounds. Open J. Mod. Linguist. 10, 468–479. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2020.105028

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alahmari, M. (2022). Shared vowels in English loanwords in Arabic: variation in similarity-based adaptation. Int. J. Arab.-Engl. Stud. 22, 203–220. doi: 10.33806/ijaes2000.22.1.11

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alqarni, M. (2021). Arabic loanwords in seven Ethiopian languages: theoretical challenges to the TCRS framework. Brill's J. Afroasiat. Lang. Linguist. 13, 423–475. doi: 10.1163/18776930-01302009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

As-Sammer, M. (2015). Phonetic and phonological adaptations of English Loan words into Iraqi Arabic: a generative study. J. Coll. Arts Univ. Basra 73, 1–46. doi: 10.33762/1162-000-073-012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bassetti, B., and Atkinson, N. (2015). Effects of orthographic forms on pronunciation in experienced instructed second language learners. Appl. Psycholinguist. 36, 67–91. doi: 10.1017/S0142716414000435

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bassetti, B., Sokolović-Perović, M., Mairano, P., and Cerni, T. (2018). Orthography-induced length contrasts in the second language phonological systems of L2 speakers of English: evidence from minimal pairs. Lang. Speech 61, 577–597. doi: 10.1177/0023830918780141

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bevacqua, L., and Scheffler, T. (2020). Form variation of pronominal it-clefts in written English. Linguistics Vanguard 6, 20190066. doi: 10.1515/lingvan-2019-0066

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Butros, A. J. (1963). English Loanwords in the Colloquial Arabic of Palestine (1917-1948) and Jordan (1948-1962) (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Google Scholar

Calabrese, A. (2009). “Perception, production and acoustic inputs in loanword phonology,” in Loan Phonology (Current issues in linguistic theory 307), eds. A. Calabrese, W. L. Wetzels (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 59–114. doi: 10.1075/cilt.307.03cal

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2007). “Approaching UG from below,” in Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, eds. U. Sauerland, and H. Gartner (New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter), 1–29. doi: 10.1515/9783110207552.1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cohen, E. G. (2009). The Role of similarity in phonology: Evidence from loanword adaptation in Hebrew (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Google Scholar

Daland, R., Oh, M., and Kim, S. (2015). When in doubt, read the instructions: orthographic effects in loanword adaptation. Lingua 159, 70–92. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.03.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Darwish, H. M. (2015). Arabic loan words in English language. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 20, 105–109. doi: 10.9790/0837-2077105109

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dohlus, K. (2005). Phonetics or phonology: asymmetries in loan word adaptations; French and German mid front rounded vowels in Japanese. ZAS Pap. Linguist. 42, 117–135. doi: 10.21248/zaspil.42.2005.275

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Durkin, P. (2014). Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574995.001.0001

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1966). “National sociolinguistic profile formulas,” in Sociolinguistics, ed. W. Bright (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton), 309–324. doi: 10.1515/9783110856507-016

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ferguson, C. A. (1997). “Standardization as a form of language spread,” in Structuralist Studies in Arabic Linguistics, eds. C. A. Ferguson, R. K. Belnap, and N. Haeri (London: Brill), 69–80. doi: 10.1163/9789004348578_009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hafez, O. (1996). Phonological and morphological integration of loanwords into Egyptian Arabic. Les Lang. Egypte 27–28, 383–410. doi: 10.4000/ema.1958

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamann, S., and Colombo, I. E. (2017). A formal account of the interaction of orthography and perception. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 35, 683–714. doi: 10.1007/s11049-017-9362-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamdi, S. (2017). Lexical borrowing in Arabic and the role of orthography. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 4, 17–28. doi: 10.30845/ijll

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamid, T. S. (2021). Kurdish adaptation of Arabic loan consonants: a feature driven model of loan adaptation. Koya Univ. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 4, 129–136. doi: 10.14500/kujhss.v4n1y2021.pp129-136

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26, 210–231. doi: 10.2307/410058

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hess, S. (1990). Pharyngeal articulations in Akan and Arabic (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles.

Google Scholar

Hoffer, B. L. (2005). Language borrowing and the indices of adaptability and receptivity. Intercult. Commun. Stud. 14, 53–72.

Google Scholar

Kager, R. (2004). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Lovins, J. (1973). Loanwords and the Phonological Structure of Japanese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. J. (1994). “The phonetics and phonology of Semitic pharyngeals,” in Papers in Laboratory Phonology III: Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form, Vol. 86, ed. P. Keating (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 191–233. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511659461.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. J. (2002). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613333

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. J. (2007). ‘What is optimality theory'? Lang. Linguist. Compass. 93, 260–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00018.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. J., and Prince, A. S. (1995). “Faithfulness and reduplicative identity,” in Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series, 10. Available at: https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/41852/PDF/1/play/ (accessed January 3, 2021).

Google Scholar

Miller, A. L. (2007). Guttural vowels and guttural co-articulation in Ju|'hoansi. J. Phon. 35, 56–84. doi: 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.11.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moisik, S. R., Czaykowska-Higgins, E., and Esling, J. H. (2021). Phonological potentials and the lower vocal tract. J. Int. Phon. Assoc. 51, 1–35. doi: 10.1017/S0025100318000403

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mustafawi, E. (2002). “Lone English-origin nouns in Arabic: codeswitches or borrowings,” in Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Université du Québec à Montréal, 219–231.

Google Scholar

O'Grady, W. M., and Katamba, F. (1997). Contemporary Linguistics. London: St. Martin's.

Google Scholar

Palfreyman, D., and al Khalil, M. (2003). “A funky language for teenzz to use:” representing Gulf Arabic in instant messaging. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 9. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00355.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Paradis, C., and LaCharité, D. (2001). Guttural deletion in loan words. Phonology 18, 255–300. doi: 10.1017/S0952675701004079

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Prince, A., and Smolensky, P. (2008). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Google Scholar

Quirk, C. R., Gimson, A. C., and Warburg, J. (1968). The Use of English. With supplements by AC Gimson.. and Jeremy Warburg. New York, NY: Longmans, Green and Company.

Google Scholar

Romaine, S. (1989). Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Google Scholar

Schmidt, C., and Jien-shou, C. (2020). Lexicography for loanwords and words with special orthography. Lexicography ASIALEX 7, 25–58. doi: 10.1007/s40607-020-00071-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smeaton, B. H. (1973). Lexical Expansion Due to Technical Change: As Illustrated by the Arabic of Al Hasa, Saudi Arabia. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Google Scholar

Smith, J. (2009). “Source similarity in loanword adaptation: correspondence theory and the posited source-language representation,” in Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. S. Parker (London: Equinox), 155–177.

Google Scholar

Stoehr, A., and Martin, C. D. (2021). Orthography affects L1 and L2 speech perception but not production in early bilinguals. Biling.: Lang. Cogn. 25, 108–120. doi: 10.1017/S1366728921000523

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sylak-Glassman, J. (2014). An emergent approach to the guttural natural class. Proc. Ann. Meet. Phonol. 1, 1–12. doi: 10.3765/amp.v1i1.44

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Oostendorp, M., (ed.). (2011). The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 5. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. doi: 10.1002/9781444335262

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vendelin, I., and Peperkamp, S. (2006). The influence of orthography on loanword adaptations. Lingua 116, 996–1007. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Watson, J. C. E. (2007). The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Yulduz, I. (2022). On the issue of setting the pronunciation of emphatic consonants. Web Sci. Int. Sci. Res. J. 3, 908–913. doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JNTQ7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zibin, A. (2019). A phonological analysis of English loanwords inflected with Arabic morphemes in Urban Jordanian spoken Arabic. SAGE Open 9, 1–13. doi: 10.1177/2158244019841927

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1. List of modern loanwords of Arabic origin.