Global Journal of Human Social Science, G: Linguistics and Education, Volume 21 Issue 4

loanwords’ original form and pronunciation as it is in the source language, as if the word is getting copied from the source language and pasted into the recipient language” (2015:2). According to Bueasa (2015:2), adopted words are sometimes called foreignisms . In contrast, “adaption refers to the process where loanwords undergo certain phonological, morphological, syntactic, or orthographical alterations” (Bueasa, 2015:2). Loanword nativisation is foregrounded here whilst bearing in mind that there are basically three positions that may be assumed when describing the process (Kenstowicz and Suchato, 2006). Briefly, the exponents of the first position (i.e. LaCharité and Paradis, 2005; Jakobs and Gussenhoven, 2000), assert that loanword adaptation is performed by bilinguals who draw on their native-like competencies in both the donor and recipient languages to discern equivalences between phonological categories and structures that abstract away from the details of the phonetic realisation in each grammar (Kenstowicz and Suchato, 2006). The second position opposes the first in that, the hypothesis held by its exponents (i.e. Silverman, 1992, Peperkamp and Dupoux, 2003), is that the surface form of the foreign loan is mapped to L1 phonological categories and schemata in extra- grammatical speech perception module on the basis of language-independent acoustic similarities. This article prefers an intermediate position which posits that the loanword adaptation process essentially takes into account a variety of factors to achieve the best match to the source word including phonetics and orthography (see Shinohara, 2000; Steriade, 2001; Yip, 2002). On the latter position, Kenstowicz and Suchato (2006:2) proffer that, “the adapter is not a passive recipient of the speech perception module but exercises active control over the native grammar in shaping the loan, as well as possibly calling on implicit knowledge of phonetic similarity to fashion adaptations that lack a precedent in the native system”. In this article, the native Tshiven ḓ a speakers’ linguistic competence in altering loanwords for the purposes of conforming such words to the native (Tshiven ḓ a) lexical inventory is borne in mind when discussing the nativisation of foreignisms. II. T he C lassification, C haracteristics and C ontacts of T shiven ḓ a Tshiven ḓ a is spoken mainly in the Vhembe District and further north of the Limpopo Province in South Africa (Dakalo, 2009; Mulaudzi, 1987). The Tshiven ḓ a language belongs to the Bantu 1 1 The authors are deeply aware that the noun ‘Bantu’ has become stigmatised in South Africa (Madiba, 1994). However, the noun is used in this paper on purely linguistic grounds and also to avoid any ambiguities of reference. language family (a sub-category of the Niger-Congo family), and according to some scholars, Tshiven ḓ a emerged as a distinct dialect in the 16 th century (Loubser, 1988, 1989; Stayt, 1931; Wentzel, 1983). The Bantu language family is found in the area which runs from about 3 degrees north latitude southwards as far as the Cape (Ziervogel and Ferreira, n.d.:5). Ziervogel and Ferreira (ibid) further state that the languages of the northern areas have been much influenced by the Nilotic and Sudanic languages, the languages of the Northern neighbours of the Bantu. As a result of the genetic relationship that exists among Bantu languages, Tshiven ḓ a shares similar linguistic features such as specific noun classes, an open syllable structure, an extensive agreement system and a vocabulary similar to Sesotho, although its grammatical structures are closer to Chishona, which spoken in Zimbabwe. Tshiven ḓ a is a tonal language and acoustic prominence is awarded to the penultimate syllable of the last word in a sentence. Tshiven ḓ a is also an agglutinative code with a very complex morphology. Its orthography makes an extensive use of diacritic symbols for the representation of speech sounds foreign to languages such as English. The debate on whether Tshiven ḓ a has six or seven dialects, oscillates around the following dialects: Tshiilafuri , Tshironga , Tshilaudzi or Tshiman ḓ a , Tshiphani , Tshimbedzi , Tshilembethu and Tshiguvhu (Mulaudzi, 1987; Dakalo, 2009). Standard Tshiven ḓ a is Tshiphani , which consists of seven vowels, where five of them are basic vowels and two are raised vowels (Milubi, 2004; Mulaudzi, 1987). In terms of consonants, Tshiven ḓ a has bilabials, labio-dentals, inter- dentals, palatals, alveolars, velars, nasals and a glottal sound. Words in Tshiven ḓ a are built upon morphological patterns that include sequences of consonants and vowels (CV). Tshiven ḓ a syllables differ from those in English and Afrikaans, for instance, precisely because the syllable pattern of Tshiven ḓ a is predominantly CV whereas English syllables, for example, allow consonant clusters (CCV) and a coda. a) Possible Origins of the Vhaven ḓ a and the Tshiven ḓ a Language Makhado (1980:12-13) states that Tshiven ḓ a shows substantial similarities with the languages spoken in Central Africa, such as Chishona, Chichewa, Chinsenga, Luganda, Swahili, Tshiluba and Bemba, implying that Tshiven ḓ a either had contact with these languages or originated from them. The Central Africa hypothesis is, however, disputed by Lestrade (1927), Loubser (1988; 1989) and Madiba (1994), on the basis that there is no proof of the existence of a similar tribe to the Vhaven ḓ a in Central Africa. Other accounts hold that the Vhaven ḓ a and consequently the Tshiven ḓ a language, originated from the Great Lakes (Gottschling, 1905; Lestrade, 1932; Stayt, 1931; Wilson, 1969). Lestrade (1960) and Mathivha (1973), on the other hand, believe that the Vhaven ḓ a originated from Malawi, a © 2021 Global Journals Volume XXI Issue IV Version I 38 ( G ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 Loanword Nativisation in Tshiven ḓ a: A Descriptive Analysis