Phonetics versus phonology: English word final /s/ in Korean loanword phonology [An article from: Lingua]

By: S. Davis and M.H. Cho

RRP: $7.95

Our Price: $7.95

You Save: (%)

Available for download now

Product Description

This digital document is a journal article from Lingua, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Description:
In this paper we consider various perspectives on loanword phonology by examining the borrowing into Korean of English words having a word-final /s/. These have been borrowed into Korean with a tense [] followed by an epenthetic vowel, as illustrated by the borrowing of English bus as [@?@?]. The realization of English word-final /s/ as [] is apparently unexpected given that English [s] and Korean plain (or lax) [s] seem to be quite similar. Moreover, English /s/ when part of a consonant cluster is consistently borrowed as lax [s] in Korean as exemplified by the borrowing of English test as [t^hes@?t^h@?]. Kim (1999) and Kim and Curtis (2002) claim that the borrowing of final /s/ as tense [] versus its borrowing in a cluster as lax [s] is a case where subphonemic (nonprimary) acoustic properties in both languages are at issue, and thus are supportive of a perceptual matching approach to loanwords. According to them, the property at issue is consonantal duration. They show that English /s/ in a cluster has a shorter duration than /s/ alone and this correlates with the durational difference between tense [] and lax [s] in Korean. Iverson and Lee (2004) agree with this view but take the length distinction between Korean tense and lax consonants to be phonemic rather than subphonemic. Here, we point out certain problematic aspects of the durational view of the borrowing of English /s/, and, then, offer a different account of the borrowing of English final /s/ as tense [] by referencing phenomena internal to Korean phonology. While we do not deny the role of subphonemic and perceptual factors in how loanwords are realized, we suggest that a variety of factors, both phonetic and phonological, are involved in determining how a particular sound or sound sequence is realized in borrowing.

Product Details