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

concur that the Vhaven ḓ a’s origins in South Africa are linked to the story of Mapungubwe. f) The Vhaven ḓ a’s Linguistic Contacts in the Transvaal (Limpopo) In their postmigratory contacts in the Transvaal, the Vhaven ḓ a intensely came into contact with other groups such as the Basotho, Shona groups such as the Lembethu and Twanamba, and at a much later stage, they also came into contact with other languages such as Xitsonga, IsiZulu, English and Afrikaans (cf. Huffman, 2005:58). After settling in Ven ḓ a, the Vhasenzi and the Vhalemba are said to have lost their Karanga affinities through intermarriage with Vhangona wives, and were assimilated into Tshingona (Tshiven ḓ a) culture and language ( Ṋ etswera, 2012:11). To this day, there are still conflicting accounts on the origin of the Vhaven ḓ a and the Tshiven ḓ a language. All in all, the Vhaven ḓ a’s oral traditions predominantly present three successive cultural influences, namely: (1) the Vhangona groups who were found at Mapungubwe, (2) Shona groups from Zimbabwe (such as Lembethu and Mbedzi), and (3) Singo groups from Zimbabwe who conquered the country (Huffman, 2005:58). Thus, an attempt to account for the origin and character of the Tshiven ḓ a can only be stretched to a point of tediousness, precisely because of the ambivalences and ambiguities that characterise the subject. It is hoped that by foregrounding the conflicting hypotheses on the origins of Vhaven ḓ a, Tshiven ḓ a and Tshiven ḓ a’s contact(s) with other languages may yield some insight into the lexical inventory of the Tshiven ḓ a language. III. M ethodology and T heoretical P erspectives The study adopted the qualitative approach and descriptive design, respectively. Moreover, the study relied on the intuitive method in that the analysts identified loanwords in Tshiven ḓ a introspectively (cf. Netshisaulu, 2012), while a more data-driven methodology was also assumed through a systematic identification of loanwords within a predetermined set of loanwords from previous loanword research, and the Tshiven ḓ a grammar manuals. For expository and analytical convenience, the article discussed Tshiven ḓ a loanwords in light of (a) Loanwords which undergo neither segmental nor analogical alterations; (b) Loanwords which undergo segmental alterations but no analogical alterations, and (c) Loanwords which undergo both segmental and analogical modification to correspond to Tshiven ḓ a word patterns. The study also elucidated loanword nativisation in view of both the phonological and morphological changes that loanwords undergo within an Adaptability Scale which exhibits three positions. The first position in the scale is the Merely Adopted (MA) loanwords, which undergo no alteration but rather keep their source language’s form and pronunciation as it is. The second position is that of Partially Adopted (PA) loanwords, which undergo phonological changes but no morphological alterations. Finally, the third position in the Adaptability Scale is that of Fully Adopted (FA) loanwords, which undergo both phonological and morphological changes to conform to Tshiven ḓ a patterns. Furthermore, the current study employed the Generative Phonology Model (Chomsky and Halle, 1968) and CV-Phonology Model (Clements and Keyser, 1983), as its theoretical lynchpins. Clements and Keyser (1983) specifically designed the CV-Phonology Model to deal with the syllable (Katamba, 1989). The Generative Phonology Model, on the other hand, assigns the correct phonetic representations to utterances in a way that reflects the native speakers’ internalisation of grammar (Zivenge, 2009). The Generative Phonology Model’s major concerns are the phonological processes underlying surface phonetic forms. Zivenge (2009) adds that the dominant view is that the native speakers of a language unconsciously know the nature of the phonological structure of their language. Thus, in the subsequent section, the discussion on how loanwords are adapted bears in mind how a native Tshiven ḓ a speaker is likely to adapt a loanword into the Tshiven ḓ a lexical inventory based on his or her internalisation of Tshiven ḓ a grammar. IV. L inguistic A daptation in T shiven ḓ a In this section, examples of loanwords and how they are adapted into the Tshiven ḓ a language are provided and discussed. To achieve this, a prototype of the phases undergone by the loanword during the adaptation process in Tshiven ḓ a is used. The phases include phonetic adaptation, phonological adaptation, morphological adaptation and semantic adaptation, respectively. This can be best illustrated through an example of how the loanword, ‘Coke’, is adapted into Tshiven ḓ a. In the English language, the word ‘Coke’ may refers to a fizzy drink (i.e., Coca Cola beverage), cocaine or a black substance that is produced from coal and burnt to provide heat ( Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary , 2015). When adapted into Tshiven ḓ a and prior to its broadened meaning, the word simply refers to a fizzy drink; any fizzy drink, for that matter. a) Phonetic Adaptation To actualise the phonetic adaptation of the word ‘Coke’, a native speaker of Tshiven ḓ a would first listen to the speech sounds in the loanword in its original form against the speech sounds of the native language (Tshiven ḓ a). In other words, the native speaker will isolate the speech sounds of the loanword, and then proceed to search for such sounds in his or her language in an effort to relate them to those speech sounds present in the loanword. In this instance, the native speaker will isolate the first speech sound, ‘C’ in the word ‘Coke’, which in Tshiven ḓ a is represented by Volume XXI Issue IV Version I 41 ( G ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - © 2021 Global Journals Year 2021 Loanword Nativisation in Tshiven ḓ a: A Descriptive Analysis