Analysis of Loan Words
Introduction
Hindi and English, two fundamentally different systems are a byproduct of colonial history (McGregor, 1993). One belonging to the Indo-Aryan family while the other to the Germanic family. Even though it is theorised that these languages share ancestry i.e. Proto-Indo-European (Fromkin et al., 2021), the remnants of a collective colonial past are still symbiotic, in that, English uses Hindi words to this day. Some of them are as follows: Bandana – bāndhnā (to tie), Cot – khāṭ (a bed), Loot – loot (to steal), etc. (McGregor, 1993). This essay analyses the nativization of English loanwords in Hindi, a process termed "Gairaigo" in other contexts but colloquially recognized here as the birth of Hinglish.
Nativization is defined as the systematic adaptation of loanwords to fit the phonological, morphological, and syntactic patterns of the receiving language. Universal Grammar (UG), hints to the fact that the physical form of these words must be heavily modified to fit the internalised rules of a native speaker (Chomsky, as cited in Fromkin et al., 2021). This could be due to the phonotactic constraints of the loaner language (Fromkin et al., 2021). Hindi for e.g. prefers a strict CV (Consonant-Vowel) pattern at the start of a syllable while English allows for complex patterns (Kachru, 2006). Station /steɪʃən/ then, becomes Ishteshan [ɪ]ʃʈeːʃən when spoken by a Hindi speaker (Pandey, 2014).
By examining these specific nativization ‘traits’, we can deduce the process of nativization itself, dissecting its adaptations that fit the phonological, morphological, or orthographic patterns of English as its receiving language. This essay will navigate these linguistic characteristics using the following scaffolds to pinpoint general rules that govern natiziation of Hindi loan words to English: Phonological Nativization, Morphological Nativization (Genetti, 2014) and Syntactic Analysis.
Phonological Nativisation
Phonological Rules are the guidelines the brain utilizes to convert a phonemic idea into an allophone (Fromkin et al., 2021). Nativization, when ascribed to phonological rules is then the phenomena whereby the speaker’s ‘mental grammar’ converts a foreign phoneme into a native allophone to satisfy internal phonotactic constraints (Fromkin et al., 2021). When Hindi words are adopted into English, the most striking modification occurs in the Place and Manner of Articulation.
1. Place of Articulation: Retroflex to Alveolar
In English, the Alveolar Ridge (bumpy part behind the teeth) is a key articulator ([t], [d] and [n]) (Ladefoged & Johnson, 2014). Hindi, however, uses Retroflex sounds where the tongue touches the hard palate (Kachru, 2006).
Example: Thug (Hindi thag /ʈʰəɡ/). The Hindi voiceless retroflex stop /ʈ/ is shifted forward to the English alveolar [t] (Bahri, 2006). This is simply because the brain opts for a path of least resistance as an English speaker nativizes a foreign sound (Ladefoged & Johnson, 2014). This satisfies the phonotactic constraints as they shift the Place of Articulation forward.
Example: Cot (Hindi khāṭ /kʰaːʈ/). The Hindi source word, khāṭ, has the final consonant as a voiceless retroflex stop [ʈ] (McGregor, 1993). The English speaker transforms this into an alveolar stop [t] making it /kɔt/.
2. Manner of Articulation: De-aspiration
Manner describes how airflow is blocked (Ladefoged & Johnson, 2014). Hindi utilizes this Contrastively, changing the meaning of the word (Snell & Weightman, 2014). In English, aspiration is merely an allophone (Fromkin et al., 2021).
Example: Shampoo (Hindi chāmpō /tʃãːpoː/). The Hindi source uses an aspirated affricate while English nativizes into a Voiceless Postalveolar Affricate [tʃ] (McGregor, 1993).
Example: Bungalow (Hindi baṅglā [bəŋɡlɑː]) where the voice-aspirated stop is de-aspirated to a voiced velar stop [ɡ] (Pandey, 2014).
Morphological Nativisation
According to Forth (2006), morphological nativization is defined as the systematic process of adapting a loanword to the morphological structure and word-formation rules of the receiving language. In this stage, the receiving language treats the loanword as a Free Morpheme and applies its own Bound Morphemes to satisfy its morphological typology (Genetti, 2014).
1. Inflectional Suffixation: The Plural Rule
English uses the bound morpheme {-s} to indicate plurality (Fromkin et al., 2021). English speakers, doing away with Hindi pluralization rules, force these loanwords into to English paradigm. Hindi pluralisation depends on the gender and ending of a noun while English bypasses this rule (Kachru, 2006).
Example: Pajamas (Hindi pāy-jāma). In Hindi, pāy-jāma is a singular compound noun. However, due to this item have two legs, the English mental grammar attaches the Inflectional Suffix {-s}, to establish plurality (McGregor, 1993).
2. Functional Conversion and Derivational Morphology
Derivational morphemes change the grammatical category or the meaning of a word (Fromkin et al., 2021). When a loanword is absorbed into English from Hindi, there is a Functional Conversion i.e. a noun gets converted to, e.g. a verb or an adjective, using the rules of English (Forth, 2006).
Example: Cushy (Hindi khuśī /ख़ुशी/). Khuśī means ‘happiness’ (Bahri, 2006). English nativizes this by applying the Derivational Suffix {-y}, which converts the root into an adjective (McGregor, 1993). E.g. "a cushy job".
Syntactic Analysis
According to Fromkin et al. (2021), syntactic analysis centers on the Lexical Category and Subcategorization of a word. For a word to function within the prerequisites of a receiving language, this is an essential rule (Genetti, 2014).
1) Linear Word Order
Hindi is a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) language, whereas English is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) (Kachru, 2006). When Hindi loanwords are moved into the English context, they adhere to the SVO order of English rules (Fromkin et al., 2021).
Example: "I bought a cot". khāṭ originates from Hindi, an SOV system (McGregor, 1993). English speakers apply Universal Grammar and transform the word into a Direct Object following the verb. This satisfies English’s SVO rule (Fromkin et al., 2021).
2) Categorization and Distribution: Noun [N]
Loanwords, for most of their part, are nativized as Nouns. This implies the inheritance of a set of syntactic positions it can assume (Forth, 2006).
Example: Bungalow. This loanword now has been assigned [N] for a noun in English (Bahri, 2006). This means it should follow the rule NP → (Det) (Adj)N with the noun [N] serving as the head of the Noun Phrase (Fromkin et al., 2021). Since English follows an SVO order while Hindi SOV, "I bought a bungalow” places bungalow in the Object position after the verb (Genetti, 2014). In the source language (Hindi), the word baṅglā would typically appear before the verb (Snell & Weightman, 2014).
Conclusion
Universal Grammar reaches an unprecedented level of expression when loanwords are transferred from one language to another. Considering phonology, morphology and syntax, it is clear that ‘mental grammar’ doesn’t just happen. But it a process whereby a speaker actively reconstructs foreign words to fit native parameters (Fromkin et al., 2021). Bungalow, Thug, and Cot, are some words where the English brain systematically prioritizes as phonotactic constraints, shifting retroflex sounds forward to the alveolar ridge and de-aspirating consonants to satisfy Germanic phonetic rules (Ladefoged & Johnson, 2014). Not to mention, English also treats root words like Free Morphemes and applies Bound Morphemes {-s} to ensure fluidity (Forth, 2006). Furthermore, by assigning a Lexical Category to loanwords, they are absorbed and integrated into the English SVO order, whereas Hindi utilizes SOV order (Genetti, 2014).
All in all, a linguistic mind is efficient and rigid while nativizing foreign words into a native language. By forcing foreign roots into native paradigms, English-speaking learners maintain the internal logic of their own grammar while enriching their lexicon with culturally diverse terms (Kachru, 2006).
Bibliography
Bahri, H. (2006). Learners' Hindi-English dictionary. Rajpal & Sons.
Forth, G. (2006). Morphological nativization in linguistic borrowing. Oxford University Press.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2021). An introduction to language (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Genetti, C. (2014). How languages work: An introduction to language and linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Y. (2006). Hindi. John Benjamins Publishing.
Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2014). A course in phonetics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
McGregor, R. S. (1993). The Oxford Hindi-English dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Pandey, P. (2014). Sounds and their patterns in Indic languages. Cambridge University Press.
Snell, R., & Weightman, S. (2014). Complete Hindi. Hodder & Stoughton.