Glide epenthesis as a repairing strategy of English complex peaks in the Tonga linguistic environment: the distinctive feature paradigm

The paper discusses how epenthesis, as a nativisation process, is applied to English words that enter into the Tonga linguistic environment as borrowings. It is generally the habit of speech communities that when they borrow new words from another language into their own systems, they nativise them to suit the linguistic expectations of their languages. This is because of the fact that there is not any language which is a replica of the other. Languages are unique in as much as the speakers of these languages are. As a result the phonological and morphological systems of languages are different. When new words find their way into another language, they are therefore linguistically remodeled to suit the rules of the receiving languages. One of the processes that can be adopted for this particular purpose is epenthesis. It is therefore the scope of this paper to discuss how English words, borrowed into the Tonga language are nativised, using the epenthetic principles. Only languages that are complete and integral can effectively handle loans. It is also within the framework of this discussion to assert Tonga as a complete and integral language or not, depending on how its speakers handle loans. Tonga borrows words from the English language quite often. The discussion is informed by the Distinctive Feature Theory. The theory enables the author to justify certain epenthetic behaviors that take place on English loans in the process of nativisation by the Tonga native speakers. Introduction The British invasion of Zimbabwe, in the 1880s, and subsequent colonization resulted in cultural and political domination of the Tonga and other indigenous groups. Education, technology, media and new institutions of administration were also introduced to the Tonga people, among other locals. Tonga therefore, adopts vocabulary used in these new institutions. According to Chikanza (1986:1), media, new 189 Vol. 5.1(2011) The Dyke administration and formal education constitute foreign phenomena that further promoted the introduction of English concepts in Zimbabwe. The political and linguistic contact between the Tonga and the British during this period resulted in the natural interaction of languages in a diaglossic scenario, where English was a high variety and Tonga a low variety (Mheta 2005: 287). In a so called bid to try and civilize the indigenous African people of Zimbabwe, the British then introduced new concepts through institutions of education, technology, public administration, urbanization, social work and so on (Chikanza 1986: 8). The Tonga had to respond by attending formal education in schools. Some were converted to Christianity and were also compelled to conform to the demands of the new forms of governance, technology and to adopt new values of life. They were also compelled to speak English since it was the medium of instruction in schools and other public gatherings. To this Mazrui, (1966:295-311) says an African in British Africa was regarded as an intellectual if he had acquired some fluency in the English language. The Tonga speakers also regard English speaking as a gateway to success. Tonga was in direct contact with English and borrowing was even expected, since English was a high variety language whilst Tonga was a low variety. Theoretical Framework The paper adopts insights from the Distinctive Feature Theory. This distinctive feature argument owes its inception and development to Chomsky and Halle (1968). The major concerns of this idea are the phonological features underlying surface phonetic forms which are called distinctive features. According to Katamba (1989:34), distinctive features are phonological ingredients beyond a phoneme. Each language has a unique inventory of phonetic features, from which different combinations are selected so as to construct a phoneme system. All speech communities world over are endowed with similar articulatory and auditory capabilities such that they are expected to produce and utilize speech sounds built up from a predetermined set of binary features, according to their biological endowment. This is the basis of all the distinctive features. This theoretical framework adopts Bloomfields (1933), claim that a phoneme is not the most basic phonological unit but rather can be decomposed into phonetic features 190 The Dyke Vol. 5.1(2011) (atomic). This is because phonological behavior of sounds in any language largely depend on the phonetic features. These are mostly distinctive articulator gestures. This implies that phonological segments or phones have internal structures, hence bundles of ordered phonetic properties called features which are very distinct. Chomsky and Halle (1968) provide distinctive features for each of the phonetic features on the International Phonetic Alphabet. The general observation is that all phonetic features are articulator-based. These features are helpful in describing and distinguishing consonants and vowels that exist in different languages. Phonological processes such as epenthesis can best be understood by employing knowledge of distinctive features. Distinctive features can be defined as sets of phonetic characteristics that when variously grouped together distinguish one sound from another, for instance, the bundle of distinctive features for the phoneme [m] includes [+cons] and [+ nas] while those of [p] are [+ cons] and [-nas]. In other words, distinctive features refer to the phonological pattering of phonetic properties of sounds. These features help to differentiate phones and phonological processes such as vowel coalescence, vowel harmony, elision, epenthesis, metathesis and many others that require knowledge of distinctive features (John 1984: 48). For the native speakers of a language, phonological features are mentally constructed and then assigned to correct representations, for example, Tonga has only one realization of the vowel [i] which is simply [+ high], [+front], whilst English vowels are elastic ( i,I etc). The distinctions are made possible by attaching different features such as height and rounding. According to Chomsky and Halle (1968) phonemes, that exists in a language, maybe similar, on the surface. What makes phonemes of languages different are underlying distinctive features, mentally constructed by the speakers of the language in question. The speakers are responsible for assigning correct phonetic representations to utterances in ways that reflect the native speakers internalized grammar. The concept of Distinctive Features helps the speakers to use consonants and vowels correctly as required by their phonetic inventory. In general terms, sounds that are similar display similar features, making it possible for class categories (of features). However, if these classes are 191 Vol. 5.1(2011) The Dyke penetrated further, beyond common binary features, scrutinizing, differences are bound to be established, thereby making each of the features distinct. According to John (1984:78), distinctive features are categorized as follows: Categorization of Distinctive Features + sonorant + approximant + voice + spread glottis A +constricted glottis + continuant + nasal + lateral B + labial consonants + rounded + coronal + distributed C + anterior + strident + dorsal + high vowels D + back + tense 192 The Dyke Vol. 5.1(2011) These sub-sets are referred to as natural classes. Those features that define natural classes from A-D are the so-called distinctive features. Each of the natural classes is composed of sounds that share a certain feature or group of features as follows: Distinctive Feature Matrix for Voiced Obstruents in Tonga The distinctive features specify the phonemic contrast that exists in languages. A change in the value of features can potentially generate new speech. This idea is part of a more general concept that drives a word sequence from feature representation. This means that a word is represented in a lexicon by a sequence of features, for each of the segments existing, (intra-language or inter-language). It is hypothesized that speakers substituting one phonetic segment for another would change only those features necessary, to obtain the target segment rather than substituting the entire phonemesised segment for instance [graund] ground > [girawundi] (from English to Tonga). The target segment differs from the original by varying numbers of distinctive features. This means that speakers manipulate feature seized units during speech production. The English version / graund/ ground is [-approximant), whilst the Tonga version epenthesises the approximant [w]. The substitution of consonants and vowels is governed by distinctive feature matrices, to successfully generate equivalent phonemes in the target language. Different target segments are generated manipulating the distinctive features. It also follows that establishing the phonemic inventory of specific languages means creating a phonemic grid of possible distinctions. b á d g v z cont. + + strid. + + distr. + ant. + + + + + lab. + + + cor. + + constr. + + 193 Vol. 5.1(2011) The Dyke The distinctive feature theory predicts that a small set of features can describe most if not all natural classes. The theory also suggests that these features are innate rather than learnt, hence sounds of a language are grouped together as a result of phonetically based generalization and distinctive features emerge as generalizations, based on the phonetic properties of sounds. Glide Epenthesis in Tonga to handle Complex Peaks The syllable nuclears [+sonorant], is said to be complex, when instead of having pure vowels, it is found to have either diphthongs or triphthongs. Diphthongs entail a V  element characterized by a double sequence of vowels. This is because the English language allows diphthongs and triphthongs as V  segments in a syllable. This means that the English language has two kinds of peaks, namely, the simple (CVC) and the complex peaks