French Loanword Adaptations in Mandarin Chinese: A Focus on

Rising-Sonority Consonant Clusters HILARY MAIR

University College London, UK

1. INTRODUCTION

Understanding the processes through which a language is able to successfully borrow and

adapt foreign lexical items into their own phonological structure can shed important light on

phonological properties of that language that may have otherwise remained overlooked.

Particularly, by determining how speakers adapt nonnative words to meet the constraints of their

native language – namely, those words containing unfamiliar segments or structures – we may

uncover aspects of their knowledge that may not have been apparent through studying their

native language alone (Kang, 2011). In this way, loanword adaptations provide a unique avenue

for researchers to further probe the various phonological aspects of native speakers’ underlying

knowledge. In fact, this realm of study contributes to the understanding of all aspects of a

language’s phonology: As Kang (2011; p.1) puts it, “adaptation affects all facets of phonological

structure, reflecting the segmental, phonotactic, suprasegmental and morphophonological

restrictions of the borrowing language”. As it provides such a unique and lucrative perspective,

research focusing on loanword adaptation has become increasingly prominent in the phonology

literature.

However, difficulties arise when loanword adaptations are studied under a traditional

rule-based approach (Guo, 1999). Oftentimes loanwords contain segments and/or structures that

are nonnative, and thus illicit, in the borrowing language. As such, these structures would not be

represented in the grammar’s underlying forms, requiring that new rules be introduced to handle

their adaptation. It is argued, however, that the added complexity of new rule introduction is

disagreeable (Peperkamp, 2004). Though, if these rules are not ‘new’, one might ask where they

originate. Guo (1999) studied English loanwords in Mandarin and found no evidence of the illicit

structures’ representation in Mandarin underlying forms; with no alternations to support the

presence of loanword-relevant rules, it is unlikely that they already exist in Mandarin phonology.

Clearly, these rules also would not have been imported from the donor language (English, in this

case), and as such the question of their origin remains unanswered. Furthermore, not every

proposed rule can apply across-the-board to all relevant inputs (Guo, 1999). Loanword

adaptations can produce variable outputs; the same illicit segment or structure will often be

adapted in different ways within a single language. For example, since syllables cannot end with

consonants in Mandarin, the syllable-final /l/ of English must be adapted when it appears in

loanwords. Notably however, this segment is dealt with in variable ways by the Mandarin

phonology; in some cases it is deleted altogether, while in others it remains intact (Guo, 1999).

This unpredictability adds yet another complexity to the rule-based approach, in that multiple

non-systematic exceptions would be required to explain the different outputs.

In light of the complications associated with studying loanword phonology from a rule-

based perspective, many researchers suggest that instead a constraint-based approach be adopted.

Unlike rules, which are posited to be language-specific, phonological constraints are universal in

nature; they apply to all languages, but their relative ranking is language-specific. As such, when

a language borrows a foreign word the adaptations made are in congruence with a set of well-

formedness constraints that already exist in that language (Guo, 1999). As Peperkamp (2004;

341) puts it, “the transformations in loanwords are driven by constraints that are already part of

the grammar”. In this way, complications surrounding the introduction of new rules or otherwise,

where the applicable rules originate, are avoided. It has been argued that since these constraints

are already present in the borrowing language, adaptations made to loanwords with illicit

segments/structures are consistent with that language’s phonological structure (Paradis 1995).

Furthermore, many are of the mind that loanword adaptations not only agree with the native

phonology, but that they provide an avenue for further insight into its structure; namely,

constraint rankings which may otherwise have been hidden (Peperkamp, 2004). Thus, by

studying loanword phonology from a constraint-based view, we may shed light on the ranking of

constraints within a language that only native speakers would otherwise have access to.

Understandably, as Peperkamp (2004; p. 341) points out, “the rise of constraint-based theories

has thus given a particularly strong impetus to the study of loanword adaptations”.

As a result of this increased motivation, a wide variety of languages and their adaptation

patterns have been considered. Consequently, researchers have attained an improved

understanding of language-specific phonological structures. Of the array of languages that have

benefited from this deeper exploration, Mandarin Chinese is one that is commonly studied.

Subsequently, a wealth of information regarding native speakers’ otherwise hidden knowledge

and preferences has, and continues to surface.

Notably, Mandarin Chinese exhibits a great deal of variability with respect to its

adaptation of foreign loanwords. As previously mentioned, adaptations can target any aspect of a

languages phonology (i.e. illegal segments, syllable structures, etc.) (Kang, 2011). Thus,

predictably, this variability is manifested in all types of adaptations.

Segmentally, as Miao (2005; p. 2) points out, “the same foreign sound can have

alternative substitutes in Mandarin”. Often, illicit segments are mapped onto their closest

phonetic/phonological match in Mandarin, the result of which is referred to as a faithful output.

However, it is not uncommon for a foreign segment to be substituted for a different, less

phonetically/phonologically similar phoneme. Outputs of this less predictable mapping are

referred to as deviant (Miao, 2005). An example of this mapping scheme comes from Miao’s

(2005) account of Mandarin adaptations of English plosives. While in English, voiced/voiceless

contrasts are phonemic and aspirated/unaspirated contrasts are allophonic, the opposite is true in

Mandarin Chinese. As such, one might predict that an English voiceless plosive would be

systematically mapped onto a Mandarin aspirated plosive, and that a voiced plosive of English

would be substituted for an unaspirated plosive of Mandarin. Yet, while this scheme is frequently

followed, deviant outputs are not uncommon. Figure 1 below compiles a few examples from

Miao (2005) of both faithful and deviant outputs of plosive substitution.

Fig. 1: Variable Phoneme Substitutions (from Miao, 2005)

Segment

Faithful Outputs Deviant Outputs

English

(Source

Form)

Mandarin

Chinese

(Pinyin)

IPA

English

(Source

Form)

Mandarin

Chinese

(Pinyin)

IPA

/p/ Puma piao1-ma3 /pʰiɑu-ma/ Portland bo1-te4-lan2 /puɔ-tʰɤ-lan/

/t/ Tylenol tai4-nuo4 /tʰai-nuɔ/ Texaco de2-shi4-gu3 /tɤ-ʂɻ-ku/

/d/ Mead mi3-de2 /mi-tɤ/ Tide tai4-zi4 /tʰai-tsz/

/n/ Enron an1-ran2 /an-ɻan/ Avon ya3-fang1 /ia-faŋ/

Phonotactic adaptations also exhibit flexibility in Mandarin. Just as a single foreign

segment can be substituted for distinctive native phonemes, the same illegal syllable structure

can be repaired by different strategies. For illustration purposes, consider a foreign source form

containing a coda consonant, such as “Dallas” (/dælɪs/) or “Cheetos” (/tʃiɾoʊz/). Loanwords of

this nature pose a problem for Mandarin phonology, which considers consonantal codas to be

illegal1 and subsequently, these illicit structures become subject to adaptation. The two most

commonly employed methods for syllabic repair are epenthesis and deletion. The strategic

insertion of a vowel (or syllabic consonant) into a given loanword triggers re-syllabification,

which serves to rectify the illegal syllable structure2 (e.g. /dæ-lɪs/ à /ta-la-sz/). In a similar vein

however, the illicit structure can also be repaired by removing the offending coda consonant

from the equation altogether3 (e.g. /tʃi-ɾoʊz/ à  /tɕʰi-tuɔ/). Since both strategies resolve the

phonotactic illegality, they both serve as suitable candidates for adaptation (Miao, 2005). This

claim is substantiated by evidence verifying that the same illegal structure can be adapted via

different repair strategies in different cases. Figure 2 below outlines some examples of this

phonotactic variability.

Fig. 2: Variable Mechanisms of Phonotactic Repair (from Miao, 2005)

Strategy English Mandarin Chinese Pinyin IPA

Epenthesis

Gap jia1-pu3 /tɕia-pʰu/

Dallas da2-la4-si1 /ta-la-sz/

Compaq kang1-bai3 /kɑŋ-pai/

Cheetos qi2-duo1 /tɕʰi-tuɔ/

                                                                                                               1 The exceptions to this restriction are the alveolar and velar nasals, /n/ and /ŋ/, which are allowed in coda position in Mandarin (Duanmu, 2000; Miao, 2005; Guo, 1999). 2 In this case, re-syllabification (triggered by the insertion of syllabic /z/) leads to the former coda consonant, /s/, being realized as the onset of the newly formed syllable. Since /s/ is a legal onset in Mandarin, and /z/ a legal coda, the loanword is phonotactically repaired.    3 In this case, the offending coda consonant, /z/, is deleted as part of the adaptation process, and as a result the output obeys the phonotactic restrictions of Mandarin.

  5  

Understandably, this vast amount of variation makes it difficult to predict the specific

outcomes of loanword adaptations in Mandarin. In light of this, however, Mandarin does exhibit

a certain level of regularity in both segmental and phonotactic adaptations. Evidence exists to

suggest that within the chaos of these flexible outputs, a few overriding preferences do prevail

(Miao, 2005).

Segmentally, evidence suggests that both faithful and deviant mappings are subject to

phonological restrictions to ensure as close of a phonetic/phonological tie to the foreign source

form as possible. On the other hand however, outputs must also conform to the grammatical

constraints of the borrowing language. As such, an ideal adaptation strategy is one that represents

an appropriate balance between faithfulness to the source form and adherence to Mandarin

phonological structure (Miao, 2005). Based on existing loanwords in Mandarin from English,

German and Italian, Miao (2005) discovered that in pursuit of this balanced adaptation strategy,

Mandarin phonology holds a general preference for the adaptation of voicing and place features

over manner features (i.e. features associated with the manner of articulation were more resistant

to change). For instance, given that voiced/voiceless contrasts are not native to Mandarin

phonology, they must be adapted in loanwords such that they do not retain their illegality. As

mentioned previously, these contrasts are represented in Mandarin by contrasts in aspiration and

thus, voicing/aspiration features are altered. However, as demonstrated Figure 1, all other

features of the adapted segment remain in tact; the place and manner features are retained so as

to match the source form as closely as possible, even in deviant outputs. Miao (2005) found that

generally, obstruents and nasals respect this trend; voicing/aspiration and place features are

prone to modification while manner features are most often retained. Conversely, certain manner

features associated with the laterals, “r” sounds and glides appear to be susceptible to adaptation

(Miao, 2005). While this may seem at first to be a contradiction, further inspection highlights the

necessity of flexible manner features in in certain phonotactic environments. For instance, Miao

(2005) found that when in coda position, /l/ is most often substituted for the Mandarin rhotic

vowel, /ɚ/: a substitution that involves the modification of manner features. While /l/ is a legal

segment in Mandarin, its positioning in the coda violates the constraint against coda consonants.

So, to agree with this phonological restriction, words in which /l/ is found in coda position must

be adapted. Furthermore, if one considers alternate substitutes differing from /l/ only in place or

aspiration features, it becomes clear that none are available in Mandarin phonology; neither

  6  

voiceless l nor any of the other lateral sounds differing in place features are existing phonemes in

Mandarin. Additionally, English /l/ is perceptually very similar to the Mandarin rhotic vowel, /ɚ/

(Miao, 2005). Thus, a balanced adaptation strategy is maintained, since the output maintains

phonetic similarity with its source form while conforming to the phonological structure of

Mandarin. Examples of the adaptation of /l/ are outlined below in Figure 3.

Fig. 3: Mandarin adaptation of English and German /l/ (from Miao, 2005)

English Mandarin Chinese (Pinyin) IPA

Intel ying1-te4-er3 /iŋ-tʰɤ-ɚ/

Kehl ke4-er3 /kʰɤ-ɚ/

The phonology of Mandarin also exhibits a certain predisposition for which method is

used in the adaptation of illicit syllable structures. As mentioned above, epenthesis and deletion

are both regularly employed strategies of phonotactic repair in this language. Yet while both are

applied, epenthesis is favored over deletion and as such is chosen for repair more often (Guo,

1999). Under a constraint-based approach, this preference can be accounted for by the interaction

of 4 grammatical constraints4:

Ø *COMPLEX: no consonant cluster is allowed within a syllable

Ø MAX-IO: every segment in the input must have a correspondent in the output

Ø DEP-IO: every segment in the output must have a correspondent in the input

Ø CODACON: syllables must have no coda, except an alveolar or velar nasal

The confliction between the first three constraints becomes immediately evident;

epenthesis would violate DEP-IO, and deletion would violate MAX-IO, yet one of these strategies

would be required to simplify consonant clusters and satisfy *COMPLEX. Since a retained

consonant cluster would blatantly defy the phonological structure of Mandarin, violation of

*COMPLEX is considered fatal, and as such it is ranked the highest of the three constraints; a

ranking that is substantiated by the data (Guo, 1999). Thus, either epenthesis or deletion must be

employed to rectify the illicit phonotactic structure. Upon reviewing the existing English                                                                                                                4  Constraint definitions and rankings come from Guo, 1999  

  7  

loanwords in Mandarin, Guo (1999) found that epenthesis is chosen more often than deletion,

suggesting that MAX-IO is ranked above DEP-IO (as it is violated less often).

A similar line of reasoning holds when the fourth constraint, CODACON, is added into the

mix. Once again, evidence shows that epenthesis over deletion is preferred for the repair of illicit

coda consonants, suggesting that MAX-IO remains at a higher rank than DEP-IO (Guo, 1999). This

ranking scheme, borrowed from Guo (1999) can be simplified as:

Ø *COMPLEX, CODACON5 >> MAX-IO >> DEP-IO

The phonological preference for epenthesis over deletion stems from the same line of

reasoning as the previously mentioned segmental partialities: the pursuit of maximum source

form preservation. Deletion involves the removal of segments that are present in the foreign

source, and as such results in a loss of phonetic/phonological information (Miao, 2005). Yet as

mentioned earlier, an ideal adaptation strategy is one that resembles the foreign source as closely

as possible while meeting the criteria of the borrowing phonology. Thus, given that epenthesis

does not result in any phonological/phonetic loss, it presents a more appealing option for

phonotactic repair in many cases.

Alongside the general tendencies and preferences of Mandarin phonology, loanword

research has also contributed to the understanding of segment- and structure-specific adaptation

patterns. As part of a comprehensive overview of Mandarin loanword phonology, Miao (2005)

looked into loanwords containing simplex and complex codas, and onset consonant clusters from

English, German and Italian, and explored the repair mechanisms they underwent.

As previously discussed, the alveolar and velar nasal, /n/ and /ŋ/ respectively, are the only

consonants permitted in coda position in Mandarin. That being the case all other simplex codas

including obstruents, liquids and illicit nasals must be adapted either by epenthesis, deletion, or

by converting to a licit coda. Miao (2005) found that in general, the chosen strategy for

adaptation hinged on the phoneme category of the coda consonant. With respect to obstruents,

the most common method of adaptation is epenthesis, followed by deletion. Examples of both

processes are shown in Figure 4.

                                                                                                               5  At this point, no evidence has been discussed regarding the relative ranking between *COMPLEX and CODACON, as it is not crucial.  

  8  

Fig. 4: Adaptation of Simplex Codas – Obstruents (examples from Miao, 2005)

Strategy Donor

Language Source Form

Mandarin Chinese

(Pinyin) IPA

Epenthesis

English Fenbid fen1-bi4-de3 /fəәn-pi-tɤ/

German Kaub kao3-bo2-(shi4) /kʰɑu-buɔ-(ʂɻ)/

Italian Fiat fei1-ya4-te4 /fei-ia-tʰɤ/

Deletion English Cheetos qi2-duo2 /tɕʰi-tuɔ/

German Elac yi4-li4 /i-li/

Illicit nasals are most commonly adapted via vowel epenthesis, or by changing to a licit

nasal coda (i.e. /n/ or /ŋ/). Predictably, when licit nasal codas appear in loanwords they are

predominantly retained as is, given that there is no motivation for them to adapt (Miao, 2005).

Examples of these strategies are outlined in Figure 5.

Fig. 5: Adaptation of Simplex Codas – Nasals (examples from Miao, 2005)

Nasal

Coda Strategy

Donor

Language

Source

Form

Mandarin Chinese

(Pinyin) IPA

/m/ Epenthesis English Viacom wei2-ya4-kang1-mu3 /uei-ia-kʰɑŋ-mu/

Substitution English Centrum shang4-chun2 /ʂan-tʂʰun/

/n/ Retention English Lipton li4-dun4 /li-tun/

/ŋ/ Retention English Corning kang1-ning2 /kʰɑŋ-niŋ/

The same adaptations strategies are employed in the rectification of /l/ and “r” simplex

codas, though the two sounds differ in how often each method is used. The lateral is most often

transformed into a nuclear segment, the Mandarin rhotic /ɚ/. Half as often, it is deleted, and it

rarely undergoes vowel epenthesis. On the other hand, “r” sounds in Mandarin are most often

deleted, are only occasionally converted into the rhotic /ɚ/, and never seem to be repaired via

vowel epenthesis (Miao, 2005). Examples of these methods of adaptation are given in Figure 6.

  9  

Fig. 6: Adaptation of Simplex Codas - /l/ and “r” Sounds (data from Miao, 2005)

Coda Strategy Donor

Language

Source

Form

Mandarin Chinese

(Pinyin) IPA

/l/

Substitution English Dell dai3-er3 /tai-ɚ/

Deletion English Whirlpool hui4-er3-pu3 /xuei-ɚ-pʰu/

Epenthesis English Dunhill deng1-xi3-lu4 /təәŋ-ɕi-lu/

/ɹ/ Deletion English Caterpillar ka3-te4-bi3-le4 /kʰa-tʰɤ-pi-lɤ/

Substitution English Lear li3-er3 /li-ɚ/

Consonant clusters, another phonotactic illegality in Mandarin, were also reviewed as a

part of Miao’s (2005) phonological investigation. It was found that when a consonant cluster is

in onset position, adaptation is achieved through one of four options. Given C1C2V as a foreign

source form:

Ø Vowel epenthesis between C1 and C2 – C1C2V à C1VC2V

Ø Deletion of C1 – C1C2V à C1C2V

Ø Deletion of C2 – C1C2V à C1C2V

Ø Transformation of C2 (Glide) into a vowel – C1GV à C1VV

Of the four strategies, epenthesis is most commonly used, followed by deletion of C2 and

Glide transformation (when relevant). The deletion of C1 is very rarely employed as a repair

tactic (Miao, 2005). Some examples of the most common strategies have been compiled in

Figure 7.

  10  

Fig. 7: Adaptation of Onset Consonant Clusters (examples from Miao, 2005)

Strategy

Type

Donor

Language Source Form

Mandarin Chinese

(Pinyin) IPA

1 (C1VC2V)

English Grammy ge2-lai2-mei3 /kɤ-lai-mei/

German Braun bo2-lang3 /puɔ-laŋ/

Italian Trento te4-lan2-tuo1 /tʰɤ-lan-kʰuɔ/

3 (C1C2V)

English Propet bo1-pai4 /puɔ-pʰɤai/

German Grohe gao1-yi2 /kɑu-i/

Italian Monte Bianco bo2-lang3-(feng1) /puɔ-lɑŋ-(fəәŋ)/

4 (C1VV)

English Quaker gui4-ge4-[mai4-pian4] /kuei-kɤ-[mai-pʰian]/

German Quedlinburg kui2-de2-lin2-bao3 /kuei-tɤ-lin-pɑu/

Italian Rieti li-ai1-di4 /li-ai-ti/

Similar to the adaptations made to simplex codas, those made to coda consonant clusters

were dependent on phoneme category. Namely, obstruent clusters were resolved by either

epenthesis or deletion, /l/ and “r” were either converted to a rhotic /ɚ/ or deleted, and licit nasals

were retained while illicit nasals underwent epenthesis or transformed to /n/ or /ŋ/. A few

examples of these processes are highlighted in Figure 8.

Fig. 8: Adaptation of Coda Consonant Clusters (examples from Miao, 2005)

Strategy C1 C2 Donor

Language

Source

Form

Mandarin Chinese

(Pinyin) IPA

Epenthesis +

Epenthesis /s/ /t/ English Comcast kang1-mu3-ka3-si1-te4 /kʰɑŋ-mu-kʰa-sz-tʰɤ/

Retention +

Epenthesis /n/ /t/ English Sprint si1-pu3-lin2-te4 /sz-pʰu-lin-tʰɤ/

Deletion +

Epenthesis

/l/ /m/ German Schwelm shi1-wei1-mu3 /ʂɻ-uei-mu/

/ɹ/ /f/ German Bendorf ben3-duo1-fu1 /pəәn-tuɔ-fu/

Rhotic +

Epenthesis /ɹ/ /s/ English Sears xi1-er3-si1 /ɕi-ɚ-sz/

  11  

Upon reviewing some of the existing work on Mandarin loanword phonology, it becomes

evident that many of its facets have been considered. Notably, a wealth of knowledge has been

uncovered with regards to the adaptations made to a wide range of specific segments and

structures, and the phonological preferences they adhere to. However, only those structures

adhering to the universal constraints on sonority sequencing have been considered. In general, a

syllable’s most sonorous segment occupies the nucleus position with less sonorous segments

working outwards towards the syllable’s edge. Thus, onsets must rise in sonority from their left

margin towards the nucleus position, while codas must fall in sonority from the nucleus position

to their right margin. The current body of research has focused solely on Mandarin adaptations of

structures that adhere to this restriction. This fact, in combination with the illegality of consonant

clusters in Mandarin, leaves us with no information on how the phonology deals with sonority

violations, or how constraints on sonority sequencing are ranked.

Notably the syllable structure of French, uniquely, permits rising-sonority consonant

clusters in coda position. In other words, the language’s phonology allows codas to rise in

sonority from the nucleus position to their right margin, despite the violation of universal

sonority constraints. Examples outlining this unique coda structure are shown in Figure 9.

Fig. 9: French Nouns with Rising-Sonority Coda Clusters

Example C1 C2 Sonority Ranking

/pãtufl/ -f -l l > f

/ʃɑbʁ/ -b -ʁ ʁ > b

/livʁ/ -v -ʁ ʁ > v

Since the apparently universal constraint on sonority is blatantly disregarded in this

unique group, studying how Mandarin speakers adapt them as loanwords should serve to clarify

how their native phonology deals with such sonority violations. Thus, the availability of foreign

words containing rising-sonority coda clusters provides the opportunity to further probe the

underlying knowledge of native Mandarin speakers and as a result, offers the potential to fill

some of the gaps in the current research.

The goal of this dissertation is to shed light on some of the issues surrounding sonority

sequencing in Mandarin phonology; namely, I seek to determine whether or not the adaptation

  12  

strategies imposed on syllable structures containing illegal sonority sequencing (namely, French

nouns containing rising-sonority coda clusters) differ from those that do not. As a result, I hope

to contribute to the understanding of constraint ranking in Mandarin phonology; specifically, the

constraints imposed on sonority sequencing.

In the following section, I will outline the experimental methodology and procedure, as

well as provide an overview of my predictions of the outcome, and the actual results obtained.

Section 3 discusses the phonological importance of the results and highlights some areas of the

experimental design that should be improved upon in future studies. This dissertation contributes

to the research on loanword phonology and on the phonology of Mandarin Chinese in general.

2. EXPERIMENT

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the adaptations made to loanwords,

borrowed into Mandarin Chinese, that contain certain syllable structures of interest; specifically,

those in which the universal constraints imposed on sonority sequencing are violated. In the

pursuit of this goal, native Mandarin speakers were presented with a group of French nouns

containing rising-sonority coda consonant clusters (as discussed in Section 1) in hopes of

eliciting accurate and informative adaptations.

2.1 METHOD

2.1.1 Participants

14 Mandarin-English bilinguals were recruited for this experiment. All were females

between the ages of 22 and 26 with (self-reported) normal hearing. They were native Mandarin

speakers who were born and raised in China: 13 from Mainland China and 1 from Hong Kong.

At the time of the experiment, all participants had been living in the UK for at least 9 months

with 1 participant having lived there for almost 2 years. 9 of the participants declared having no

background in reading, writing or speaking French, while 5 claimed to have some experience in

learning the language (though none considered themselves to be proficient). All were pursuing a

Master’s degree at the time of the experiment, in varied subject areas.

  13  

2.1.2 Stimuli

The experimental stimuli were 24 French nouns, each containing a rising-sonority coda

consonant cluster. 4 different types of rising-sonority consonant clusters were represented

(Appendix A) with 6 stimuli corresponding to each type (Appendix B). The stimuli were

categorized based on 2 criteria, viz. the place of articulation of C1 (i.e. front or back of the

mouth) and the quality of C2 (i.e. /l/ or /ʁ/). The first criterion stems from evidence suggesting

that in Mandarin loanword adaptations, “epenthetic vowels generally share the place features

(including, but not limited to the [+/–labial] features) of the preceding consonant” (Miao, 2005;

p. 125). The second criterion represents the fact that laterals and “r” sounds tend to be adapted

differently, both segmentally and phonotactically (as discussed in Section 1).

In addition to the target stimuli, there were 3 practice and 24 filler stimuli, none of which

contained a target consonant cluster (Appendix C). 12 of the filler stimuli contained simplex

codas word-finally while the other 12 contained no word-final codas (i.e. they ended with

nuclear vowels). The practice stimuli were chosen at random, with no regard for their syllable

structure. These practice stimuli were incorporated to familiarize participants with the

experimental procedure, while the filler stimuli served to ensure that participants did not become

too familiar with the targeted structure so as to keep their responses as spontaneous as possible.

Each stimulus was presented to participants in 2 forms: written and as an audio clip. The

written stimuli were all embedded in the same Mandarin carrier sentence (Appendix D)6 –

presented in Pinyin – along with their corresponding Mandarin nouns (Appendix B). Each

stimulus occurred in written form twice – once in Phase 1 and once in Phase 2 of the experiment

(see 2.1.3 Procedure for details). The auditory stimuli were digitally recorded in a soundproof

booth, and were read by a female native French speaker (see Appendices B and C for IPA

transcriptions). They were then randomized and presented to participants (only once) in Phase 2

of the experiment (see 2.1.3 Procedure for details).

                                                                                                               6  The carrier sentence was chosen based on the advice of native Mandarin speakers – it was suggested that phrasing the sentence in this way would elicit the most natural adaptations.    

  14  

2.1.3 Procedure

Participants were tested, individually, in a soundproof booth in the Speech Sciences

Listening and Video Labs in the Department of Psychology and Language Sciences at University

College London. Prior to testing, the participants were asked to fill out a short demographic

questionnaire (Appendix E), read through the experiment instructions (Appendix F), and were

familiarized with their task through 3 practice trials. Both the demographic questionnaire and the

experiment instructions were given on paper.

The experiment consisted of two phases of testing. In Phase 1 participants were presented

with a series of 48 pictures on a computer screen – 24 depicting the referent of the experimental

stimuli, and 24 of the filler stimuli. Each picture was accompanied by the aforementioned carrier

sentence in Pinyin containing the appropriate written stimulus and its corresponding Mandarin

noun (i.e. those which denoted what was being shown in the picture). These 48 items were

presented one-by-one in a sequential fashion (i.e. one picture and its corresponding sentence

would appear at a time). Participants were instructed to read each sentence aloud as it appeared

on the screen. After completing all 48 items (and thus reaching the end of Phase 1) participants

were given the opportunity to take a short break before the start of Phase 2. It should be noted

that this phase was included to serve as a baseline for the adaptations made to the target stimuli.

In Phase 2 participants were presented with the same series of 48 pictures, once again

one-by-one in a sequential fashion. However in this phase, the pictures would first appear in

conjunction with the appropriate auditory stimulus (i.e. that which expressed what was being

shown in the picture) before the accompanying carrier sentence would appear. Participants were

asked to listen to each audio clip, and to read the corresponding sentence aloud once it appeared

beneath the picture (just as in Phase 1). In both phases, the experimenter monitored the

participants’ speech through headphones, outside of the soundproof booth.

  15  

2.2 PREDICTIONS

As discussed in Section 1, Mandarin exhibits a great deal of variability in loanword

adaptations, making it difficult to predict the outputs with any level of specificity. However,

given the language’s phonological preferences, a hypothesis of general patterns can be made.

While the current study focuses on syllabic repair, forecasting the segmental adaptations

can nevertheless prove useful. By having an idea of the ways in which loanwords may be altered

aside from the syllabic changes, confusion can be avoided; segmental adaptations can be

recognized as such rather than being misinterpreted as obscure phonotactic repairs. As such, in

accordance with Miao (2005) it is predicted that French phonemes, /l/ and /ʁ/, will be mapped

onto their closest phonetic/phonological match in Mandarin. For French /l/, this results in a

mapping onto its Mandarin counterpart (/l/) as they are virtually identical both phonetically and

phonologically. However, in conjunction with evidence from Miao (2005), for phonotactic

reasons /l/ is likely to be substituted for the Mandarin rhotic vowel, /ɚ/ (discussed further below).

With regards to /ʁ/, the path is not quite as clear. Phonemically, the Mandarin rhotic7 represents

the closest match, as /ʁ/ is, phonemically, a rhotic. Phonetically, the French rhotic has many

realizations including an alveolar trill ([r]), an alveolar tap ([ɾ]), a uvular trill ([ʀ]), and both a

voiced and a voiceless uvular fricative ([χ], [ʁ]) (Fougeron & Smith, 1993). However, since the

pronunciations presented to participants incorporated only the voiced uvular fricative ([ʁ]),

predictions will be based on its features. Since Mandarin does not utilize the uvular node,

adaptation is likely to target the place features. Furthermore, voicing features will also be

adapted. The velar node is the closest available place of articulation to the uvular origin of the

French source form, and notably only a voiceless velar fricative ([x]) is available; the voiced

companion ([ɣ]) is not present in Mandarin phonology (Guo, 1999). Thus, the predicted phonetic

substitute for /ʁ/ is the Mandarin /x/. These predictions are summarized in Figure 10.

                                                                                                               7  According to Duanmu (2000), the retroflex approximant and vowel are in complementary distribution, and as such are considered variants of the same phoneme. This being the case, substitutions for /ɻ/ and /ɚ/ will be considered together.    

  16  

Fig. 10: Predicted Segmental Substitutions

Foreign Sound Predicted Output(s) in Mandarin

/ʁ/ /x/ and /ɻ, ɚ/

/l/ /l/

More relevant to the current study, though, are the phonotactic adaptations. As discussed

in Section 1, three predominant options exist for syllabic repair: epenthesis, deletion, and

transformation to a licit coda segment or nuclear segment. With respect to the chosen target

stimuli, three primary phonotactic constraint violations are present: (1) violation of *COMPLEX,

(2) violation of CODACON, and (3) violation of universal constraints on sonority sequencing.

However, as the ranking of sonority violations in Mandarin is sparsely understood as of yet,

predictions will be made regarding the repair of the first two constraints, in the hopes that the

results of this experiment will shed the light on the third.

As previously mentioned, epenthesis is chosen more often than deletion in the pursuit of

avoiding violation of *COMPLEX (Guo, 1999). Furthermore, evidence suggests that when found

in C1 position of consonant clusters obstruents most commonly undergo vowel epenthesis (Miao,

2005). Thus, since the C1 position in the target stimuli is consistently filled by obstruent sounds,

it is predicted that *COMPLEX will be rectified via vowel epenthesis. A few examples of this

prediction are outlined in Figure 11.

Fig. 11: Predictions for *COMPLEX repair8

French Source Form Predicted Mandarin Output

tabl ta.bVl

ɔɡʁ ɔ.ɡVʁ

vãtʁ vã.tVʁ

With respect to the quality of the epenthetic vowels, evidence suggests that in Mandarin

the chosen segment will agree in place with the preceding consonant. The key feature in this

assimilation process is [+/-labial], though other place features also come into play (Miao, 2005).

                                                                                                               8  At this point, only the repairs made in avoidance of *COMPLEX are being shown. Those made in avoidance of CODACON are discussed later on, and will be similarly illustrated (hence the persistent coda consonant).        

  17  

Miao (2005) found that when epenthesis occurred after labial consonants, such as /p/, /b/, /f/, /v/

or /m/, the close, back, rounded Mandarin vowel (/u/) was chosen most frequently. With regards

to non-labial consonants (specifically plosives) such as /t/, /d/, /k/ and /g/, the close-mid, back,

unrounded vowel (/ɤ/) was most often inserted (Miao, 2005). Thus with these findings in mind, it

is predicted that Mandarin /u/ will be inserted following labial consonants, while /ɤ/ will follow

the non-labial consonants (as all non-labial consonants in this study are plosives). These

predictions are represented below in Table 1.

Table 1: Predictions for Epenthetic Vowel Quality

C1 Type C1 Predicted Epenthetic Vowel

Labial Consonant

/p/

/u/ /b/

/f/

/v/

Non-Labial Consonant

/t/

/ɤ/ /d/

/k/

/g/

In a similar vein to the repair of *COMPLEX, Mandarin exhibits a general preference for

epenthesis as a means of adapting foreign structures that violate CODACON (Guo, 1999).

However, evidence from English, German and Italian loanwords in Mandarin display a different

pattern when the illicit coda consonant is /l/ or “r”. As mentioned in Section 1, /l/ in coda

position is most often swapped for the Mandarin rhotic vowel, /ɚ/, and is even deleted more

often than it undergoes vowel epenthesis. Similarly, “r” sounds are primarily deleted when found

in coda position (Miao, 2005). A possible account for this contradictory pattern has to do with

the relatively low perceptual salience of liquids. Liquid consonants, such as /l/ and “r” sounds,

have relatively vowel-like qualities. As a result, they do not stand out from adjacent sounds as

well as the less vowel-like sounds, such as fricatives (Miao, 2005). Based on evidence from

Cantonese loanword adaptations, Silverman (1992) suggests, “that salient sounds will be

preserved, but non-salient segments tend to be deleted”. With these factors in mind, it is

  18  

predicted that codas containing /l/ will either be exchanged for the Mandarin rhotic vowel, /ɚ/, or

will be deleted, with the latter occurring less often, and that codas containing /ʁ/ will primarily

be deleted. Examples of these predictions are given in Table 2.

Table 2: Predictions for CODACON repair

French Source Form Adaptation Strategy Predicted Mandarin Output

tabl /l/ à /ɚ/ ta.bV.ɚ

Deletion ta.bV

ɔɡʁ Deletion ɔ.ɡV

2.3 RESULTS

The recordings of 9 out of the 14 participants were counted as valid data, viz., those who

had no background in French. As predicted, the recordings of the other 5 participants failed to

provide insight into the adaptations made to the target stimuli. As such, these recordings were

not used. Similarly only the recordings taken in Phase 2 of the experiment were analyzed. In

Phase 1, stimuli were only presented to participants in writing, and evidence suggests that

orthography has minimal influence on loanword adaptations. For instance, LaCharité and Paradis

(2005) examined 12 large corpora of English and French loanwords in a number of different

languages and determined that orthography impacted only 2% of adaptations (860/43 855 cases).

As such, these recordings were also not analyzed.

As discussed in Section 2.2, two major types of adaptations were made in Phase 2:

segmental and phonotactic adaptations. Substitution was the chosen method of repair for

segmental illegalities, while a variety of different methods were employed to repair illicit

syllable structures; namely epenthesis, deletion, and liquid syllabification9.

2.3.1 Segmental Adaptations

The various outputs of substitution were categorized as either faithful or deviant, based

on whether or not they were the result of the closest phonetic/phonologic mapping (Miao, 2005).                                                                                                                9  This term will be used to refer to the transformation of /l/ and or /ʁ/ into syllabic consonants.  

  19  

As discussed in Section 2.2, /x/ and /ɚ, ɻ/ were taken for the closest phonetic and phonemic

Mandarin alternates (respectively) of French /ʁ/, while Mandarin /l/ was deemed as the closest

match to French /l/ in both aspects. As such, those outputs that adhered to this mapping scheme

were classed as being faithful while all other outputs were considered to be deviant.

In line with the predictions made in Section 2.2, French /ʁ/ was faithfully mapped onto its

closest phonetic substitute, /x/. However, it was only mapped onto its closest phonemic match,

/ɚ, ɻ/ in a few cases. In fact, /ʁ/ was mapped onto each of the deviant outputs /χ/ and /l/ more

often than the predicted Mandarin rhotic. Further deviant outputs included /ʒ/ and /ʂ/.

French /l/ was faithfully mapped onto Mandarin /l/ in the majority of cases, as predicted.

However in 10% of relevant outputs, /oʊ/ was chosen as a substitute (8/80 cases). Other deviant

outputs included /x/ and /ʂ/, but each was only chosen as a substitute in 1 case. Relative

proportions of the abovementioned outputs are outlined in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Results of Substitution – Faithful and Deviant Outputs

French

Source Form

Number of

Substitutions

Faithful Outputs Deviant Outputs

Output n % Output n %

/ʁ/ 64

/x/ 42 65.6 /χ/ 9 14

/l/ 8 12.5

/ɚ/, /ɻ/ 3 4.7 /ʒ/ 1 1.6

/ʂ/ 1 1.6

/l/ 80 /l/ 70 87.5

/oʊ/ 8 10%

/ʂ/ 1 1.25

/x/ 1 1.25

2.3.2 Phonotactic Adaptations

Of more importance to the current study are the adaptations made to illicit syllable

structures, which were accomplished through the use of four methods of repair; epenthesis,

deletion, a combination of the two, and liquid syllabification. There were also a number of cases

  20  

in which the illicit syllable structures were not adapted (aside from segmental substitutions).

Examples of these different adaptation/nonadaptation10 strategies are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Phonotactic Adaptations

Cluster-

Final

Liquid

Epenthesis Deletion Epenthesis +

Deletion

Liquid

Syllabifica-

tion

No

Phonotactic

Repair

/ʁ/ kɑdʁ à ɡatχəә sykʁ à sykʰ ʃɑbʁ à ʃɑmbəә kɑpʁ à kapɚ vãtʁ à vɑntx

/l/ tabl à tabləә kupl à kʰup ʒœɡl à ʐəәŋɡəә õɡl à əәŋɡl bukl à bukx

As predicted, epenthesis was chosen most often, followed by deletion. A surprisingly

large number of outputs, however, were not phonotactically adapted at all; nonadaptation was

chosen almost as often as deletion. Both liquid syllabification and a deletion/epenthesis

combination were chosen for phonotactic repair, but much less often than the other strategies.

The relative proportions of these different tactics are outlined in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Proportions of Phonotactic Adaptations

Repair Mechanism n % n (Total Number of

Outputs)

Epenthesis 83 38

216

Deletion 61 28

No Repair (Nonadaptation) 58 27

Deletion + Epenthesis 11 5

Liquid Syllabification 3 2

Of the 83 cases in which epenthesis was the chosen method of repair, 68 contained

clusters ending in /l/ (82%), and 15 contained those ending in /ʁ/ (18%). With regards to the

quality of the epenthetic vowel, there was a strong preference for /əә/, in both /ʁ/ and /l/ clusters.

Other vowels – namely /u/ and /i/ – were chosen to repair /ʁ/ clusters, but so infrequently that

                                                                                                               10  The  term  nonadaptation  has  been  borrowed  from  LaCharité and Paradis, 2005  

  21  

their qualities are unlikely to reveal much phonologically. The relative proportions of epenthetic

vowel qualities are outlined in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Epenthetic Vowel Qualities

Epenthetic Vowel C2 n n (Total) % of Repairs by Epenthesis

/əә/ /ʁ/ 13

81 98 /l/ 68

/u/ /ʁ/ 1

1 1 /l/ 0

/i/ /ʁ/ 1

1 1 /l/ 0

Of the 61 cases in which deletion was the chosen method of repair, 39 contained clusters

ending in /ʁ/ (64%), and 22 contained those ending in /l/ (36%). Conversely, the majority of

cases in which deletion and epenthesis were combined contained clusters ending in /l/, albeit a

very slight majority. With regards to the quality of the epenthetic vowel, /əә/ was chosen most

often (64% of the time), followed by /oʊ/ (27%) and /u/ (9%). The relative proportions

associated with this combined method are outlined in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Deletion + Epenthesis and Epenthetic Vowel Quality

C2 n (Total) %

(Total)

Proportion of Cases by Vowel Quality

/oʊ/ /əә/ /u/

n % n % n %

/ʁ/ 5 45 3 100 2 29 0 0

/l/ 6 55 0 0 5 71 1 100%

Syllabification of the cluster-final liquid was not chosen as a repair mechanism very

often, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, of the 3 cases in which it was elected 2 contained

clusters ending in /l/ (66.7%) and 1 contained a /ʁ/-final cluster (33.3%). Conversely,

nonadaptation was a relatively common choice amongst participants, representing 27% of all

  22  

outputs. Notably, 83% of these nonadaptation cases contained clusters ending in /ʁ/ (48/58

cases), while only 17% contained those ending in /l/ (10/58 cases).

Overall, nonadaptation was the most common choice for clusters ending in /ʁ/, followed

closely by deletion. Conversely, epenthesis was strongly preferred for the adaptation of /l/-final

clusters, with deletion placing a distant second. These cluster-specific preferences are

numerically represented in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Percentage of Total Adaptations by Cluster Type

Method of Repair % of Total Adaptations by Cluster Type

-C1(ʁ) -C1(l)

Epenthesis 14 63

Deletion 36 20

No Repair 44 9

Deletion + Epenthesis 5 6

Liquid Syllabification 1 2

With regards to the quality of C1 and its impact on the chosen adaptation strategy, only

place-related features appear to have an affect, albeit a small one. Clusters with labial consonants

in C1 position heavily favoured epenthesis over any other type of repair with 53% of relevant

outputs undergoing this strategy (48/90 cases). Nonadaptation and deletion were employed

almost equally as often in 21% and 19% of outputs, respectively. Conversely, velar-C1 clusters

underwent deletion most often, followed by epenthesis and nonadaptation. However, the

preference between the three strategies was not exceptionally strong, with deletion accounting

for 34% of outputs, epenthesis 31%, and nonadaptation 28%. Clusters containing alveolar C1’s

were most often not repaired phonotactically (9/18 outputs), but underwent deletion almost as

often (7/18 outputs) – they were rarely adapted via epenthesis (2/18 cases). These relative

proportions are outlined in Table 911.

                                                                                                               11  Based on the adaptations made to loanwords from English, German and Italian in Mandarin, Miao (2005) found that place features did not have an impact on the variation exhibited by the various adaptation strategies. This finding, in combination with the insubstantial nature of effects noted above, suggests that place does not have a phonologically significant effect on phonotactic adaptations.    

  23  

Table 9: Effect of C1 Place Features on Chosen Adaptation Strategy

Place Total # of

Adaptations

Epenthesis Deletion Deletion +

Epenthesis

Liquid

Syllabification

No

Phonotactic

Repair

n % n % n % n % n %

Labial 90 48 53 17 19 4 5 2 2 19 21

Bilabial 54 33 61 7 13 3 5 2 4 9 17

Lab-dent 36 15 42 10 28 1 2 0 0 10 28

Alveolar 18 2 11 7 39 0 0 0 0 9 50

Velar 108 33 31 37 34 7 6 1 1 30 28

3. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of the current experiment are only partially consistent with the predictions

made. Firstly, the segmental adaptations of /l/ were somewhat as predicted – the French variant

was faithfully mapped onto Mandarin /l/ in the majority of cases, yet substitution for /oʊ/

occurred in a number of cases as well. This deviant mapping is representative of the process of l-

vocalization: the substitution of /l/ – most often velarized (dark) “l” (i.e. /[l]) – for a vowel

sound. At first glance this result seems unreliable, since /l/ is realized as a clear, non-velarized [l]

in French, which eliminates any impetus behind its substitution for [oʊ]. However in English, /l/

is commonly realized as [l] in word-final position12. Notably, it is well known that l-vocalization

occurs commonly in pronunciations of English by speakers of Mandarin (e.g. Deterding, 2006)

and as mentioned in Section 2.1.1, all participants were fluent speakers of English. As such, it is

likely that they were familiar with the velarized quality of English word-final [l], and were

accustomed to adapting this segment via l-vocalization. Thus, since /oʊ/ was only chosen as a

substitute for /l/ when it was in word-final position (when chosen at all), I posit that those

participants who made this adaptation were treating the clear French [l] as if it were a dark

English [l]. Though as previously mentioned, 75% of cases in which /l/ was vocalized were

outputs produced by a single participant (6/8 cases).

                                                                                                               12  Examples of this word-final l-vocalization in English include “spectacle” ([spɛktəәkl ]), “jungle” ([dʒʌŋɡl ]) and “obstacle” ([ɑbstəәkl ]).  

  24  

With regards to /ʁ/, a number of different adaptations, both faithful and deviant, were

made. As predicted, /ʁ/ was faithfully mapped onto both /x/ and /ɚ, ɻ/. However, /x/ was chosen

overwhelmingly more often than the Mandarin rhotic. A possible explanation for this preference

lies in the proposed perceptual origin of loanword adaptations. Peperkamp, Vendelin and

Nakamura (2008) looked at English and French loanwords ending in /n/ and how they were

adapted when borrowed by Japanese. Notably, the segment in question was adapted differently

when found at the end of English words than when in the same position in French words.

Furthermore, it was found that native Japanese speakers perceive the fine phonetic differences

between /n/ in English loanwords and the same phoneme in French loanwords, and consider the

two variants to be closest to two different Japanese segments. As such Peperkamp, Vendelin and

Nakamura (2008) posit, “loanword adaptations are considered to be the formal reflex of

perceptual assimilation, a process that applies during speech perception and that maps non-native

sound structures onto the phonetically closest native ones.” With this in mind, it seems

reasonable to believe that participants produced their mappings during speech perception, and

given that French /ʁ/ is phonetically most similar to Mandarin /x/, its appearance in the majority

of outputs containing a coda /ʁ/ is fitting.

Once again, of more importance to the current study are the phonotactic adaptations

made. Surprisingly, while there were some cases in which all constraint violations were avoided,

the majority of outputs retained at least one structural illegality; the violation of CODACON. I

suggest the avoidance of *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ13 over CODACON in these partially repaired

outputs speaks to the ranking of these constraints.

As discussed in Section 2.2, it was predicted that *COMPLEX would be avoided in /l/

clusters via substitution for the Mandarin rhotic, /ɚ/, or deletion, and in /ʁ/ clusters primarily

through deletion. However, the results presented in Section 2.3 exhibit quite the reverse. Coda

clusters containing /l/ most often underwent epenthesis14, only sometimes experienced deletion,

and /l/ was never substituted for the Mandarin rhotic. Also out of keeping with the predictions,

                                                                                                               13  This acronym will be used to represent the aforementioned constraint on sonority sequencing.  14  With regards to the quality of the epenthetic vowel, /əә/ was the overwhelming favourite, occurring in 98% of the relevant outputs. Despite the predictions made in Section 2.2, a possible explanation for these results does exist. Uffman (2004) posits 3 possible approaches that occur cross-linguistically in the selection of epenthetic vowels: “insertion of a default or unmarked vowel, a copy vowel, or a vowel sharing place features of a neighboring consonant” (Miao, 2005). As such, it seems reasonable to believe that participants were employing the first of these methods in selecting /əә/ as often as they did.  

  25  

/ʁ/ clusters were most commonly not repaired (phonologically) at all. With these discrepancies in

mind, I suggest that participants elicited a great deal of intentional phonetic approximation, or

importation (LaCharité and Paradis, 2005). These importations represent “attempts to have the

[native] phonological system accommodate characteristics of [the foreign source language],

whereas adaptations are geared to ensuring that the [native] system remains unchanged”

(LaCharité and Paradis, 2005). More specifically, importations are the results of speakers’ best

attempts to properly pronounce foreign source forms (Danesi, 1985). Perhaps, then, the elevated

rate at which French structures – illicit in Mandarin – were retained suggests that participants

were in fact attempting to imitate the target stimuli15. In fact, this hypothesis is substantiated by

the results in other ways. As discussed in Section 1, even deviant outputs of segmental

adaptations are subject to strict phonological constraints to ensure harmony with the foreign

source form. The results show, however, that participants imported a number of French segments

that are not otherwise present in Mandarin: segments that, in other loanword studies (e.g. Miao,

2005) have been systematically adapted. For example, the French word /tabl/ (“table”) contains a

voiced bilabial plosive (i.e. /b/). As demonstrated in Section 1 this segment is generally adapted

when borrowed, as voicing contrasts are not phonemic in Mandarin. As such, the expected

output16 would be /tapl/, or even the deviant /tapʰl/. Yet as the results reveal (Appendices G-1

and G-2), a common output is actually /tabləә/, in which the illicit bilabial plosive is imported into

Mandarin. Given that this process is very common across the all outputs (Appendices G-1 and G-

2), I suggest that participants were in fact attempting to imitate the pronunciations made by the

native French speaker and as such, the retention of illicit structures is unlikely to have much

grounding in the phonological structure of Mandarin.

However, while this illegal preservation itself does not provide any further phonological

wisdom, I suggest that the choice of adaptations that were made versus those that were not

provides insight into the ranking of the constraints question. Overall, epenthesis was the most

commonly employed mechanism for phonotactic adaptations, occurring only after the final

cluster consonant. Following this, the second most common choice for repair was deletion of the

cluster-final liquid, with no epenthesis after the obstruent coda. Notably, these adaptation

                                                                                                               15  This presents a methodological concern that will be discussed later on in this section.    16  Phonotactic adaptations are being ignored for the purposes of the example, as are any other irrelevant segmental adaptations (such as the possible adaptation of /t/).    

  26  

strategies only serve to repair violations of *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ: CODACON remains violated

in both scenarios, as is demonstrated by the examples given in Figure 12.

Fig. 12: Persistent Violation of CODACON Following Epenthesis and Deletion

Input Mechanism Output

kɑpʁ Epenthesis kʰap.ɻi

sufl Epenthesis suf.ləә

vinɛɡʁ Deletion vĩ.nakʰ

livʁ Deletion liv

So, it is clear that when participants did make phonotactic adaptations, they focused on

avoiding the violation of *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ and accepted the violation of CODACON as a

consequence of importation17. This pattern suggests that *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ are both ranked

more highly than CODACON in Mandarin phonology. This interaction is demonstrated in Tableau

1 below.

Tableau 1: /tabl/ à /tabləә/

Input: /tabl/ *SONSEQ *COMPLEX CODACON

a) ⇒tab.ləә *

b) tabl *! *! *

Noticeably, the relative ranking of *SONSEQ and *COMPLEX remains unknown. Given that

consonant clusters are disallowed in Mandarin, any cluster – whether it violates *SONSEQ or not

– will be repaired in avoidance of *COMPLEX18. As such, the adaptations made to evade

*COMPLEX in the current study cannot be analyzed separately from those attempting to prevent

*SONSEQ violations. This concern, among others, presents a point of possible improvement for

further research in this area19.

                                                                                                               17  The exceptions to this claim are those examples in which both deletion and epenthesis were employed, which will be discussed in further detail later on.    18  This statement assumes that cases of importation are exceptions to the standard practice, as they represent imitations rather than loanword adaptations.      19  This topic will be discussed later on.    

  27  

As mentioned previously, there were a number of cases in which all violations in

question were successfully avoided: those in which both deletion and epenthesis were applied20.

For example, given the French source form /kɑpʁ/, both *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ can be avoided

by deleting the final consonant and furthermore, CODACON would also be successfully evaded by

inserting a vowel after the remaining plosive. An example of a resulting output of this process is

provided in Tableau 2.

Tableau 2: /kɑpʁ/ à /kʰapəә/

Input: /kɑpʁ/ *SONSEQ *COMPLEX CODACON

a) ⇒kʰa.pəә

b) kʰap.ləә *

c) kʰapʁ *! *! *

However, adaptations of this nature (i.e. deletion and epenthesis combined) account for

5% of all outputs, the rest of which remain in violation of CODACON. As such, the original

hypothesis regarding importation and the fatality of *COMPLEX and/or *SONSEQ remains valid.

Overall, the adaptations made by participants provide useful insight into certain

constraint rankings in Mandarin phonology: namely, that *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ are ranked

higher than CODACON. This hierarchy, in combination with the rankings discussed in Section 1, is

schematically represented below.

Ø *COMPLEX, *SONSEQ >> CODACON >> MAX-IO >> DEP-IO

Notably, the repair mechanisms employed in this experiment differ greatly from those

used in the adaptation of other consonant clusters (e.g. those discussed in Miao, 2005). However,

it is most likely the case that this discrepancy is the result of amplified levels of importation,

rather than a reflection on the sonority sequencing of the target stimuli. As such, the relative

ranking of *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ still poses an explanatory gap in the research.

                                                                                                               20  Notably, cases of l-vocalization also avoid the abovementioned constraint violations. However, I posit that these segmental substitutions were influenced by participants’ English proficiency rather than an attempt at avoiding constraint violations.    

  28  

A few methodological concerns arise upon analysis of this experiment. Firstly, all

participants were bilingual speakers of Mandarin and English. LaCharité and Paradis (2005)

provide evidence for the notion that a borrowing community with a higher proportion of

bilingual speakers (of the loaning language and the borrowing language) will have a higher rate

of importation than communities with only monolingual speakers. Although the participants of

the current study were not proficient in French, some aspects of the imported structures are

present in English as well. More specifically, since consonant clusters and consonantal codas are

permitted in English (as they are in French), it seems reasonable to think that participants fluent

in English would exhibit a higher rate of importation of these structures. Perhaps they felt less

‘pressure’ to repair these structures, as they are structures that are permitted in English – a

language in which they were all proficient. Similarly, as evidenced by the vocalization of word-

final /l/, it is possible that their background in English had an influence on the adaptations made.

If in fact this is the case, then the level of confidence in the authenticity of the adaptations (and

subsequently, the insight they provide) diminishes significantly. With this in mind, future studies

in this area should seek to recruit participants who are monolingual Mandarin speakers.

Additionally, as mentioned previously, the illegality of consonant clusters in Mandarin

presents some difficulty for analyzing the relationship between *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ as

separate constraints, from the current results. With this in mind, future research in this area

would benefit from analyzing the adaptations made to consonant clusters in which *SONSEQ is

not violated (i.e. where only *COMPLEX is violated)21 and comparing them to the adaptations

made to clusters violating both *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ, as a ‘next step’. If the adaptations were

to differ between the two cluster types, it would suggest that those made to clusters violating

both *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ were representative of *SONSEQ repair (as the violation of this

constraint denotes the point of differentiation between the two cluster types). Thus, since

(hypothetically) *COMPLEX repair was not targeted in the adaptations made to clusters violating

both *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ, this result would suggest that *SONSEQ is more highly ranked than

*COMPLEX, and as such would provide legitimate insight into the constraint rankings in question.

                                                                                                               21  Examples of this cluster type, from French, include “fleuve” ([flœv]), “fleur” ([flœʀ]), “pluie” ([plɥi]) and “prix” ([pʁi]). As these words were included in the list of filler stimuli for this experiment, they would have ideally been analyzed to at least provide some insight into this phenomenon. However, these recordings were unfortunately lost – due to unforeseeable circumstances – prior to this conclusion being made.  

  29  

However if the same patterns of repair were to arise for both cluster types, the question

regarding the relationship between *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ would remain, as two possible

explanations exist for the (hypothetically) chosen repair. On one hand, the adaptations made to

clusters violating both *COMPLEX and *SONSEQ could be representative of *COMPLEX repair,

since the same methods were employed in the repair of clusters in which only *COMPLEX is

violated. This would suggest that *COMPLEX is ranked higher than *SONSEQ. Yet on the other

hand, it is also possible that the methods (hypothetically) employed in avoidance of *COMPLEX

violation (e.g. the adaptations made to [flœv]) are identical – on the surface – as those used to

evade *SONSEQ violation (e.g. the adaptations made to [tabl]). As such, it would be possible for

*SONSEQ to be more highly ranked than *COMPLEX.

With the abovementioned result an unfortunate possibility, it may also be worth

considering a borrowing language – other than Mandarin – in which consonant clusters are licit,

so that *SONSEQ rankings may be studied independently. While this type of focus would not shed

light on the rankings specific to Mandarin phonology, contributions would still be made to the

understanding of constraints on sonority sequencing in general – a field which, even outside of

Mandarin, lacks sufficient investigation.

  30  

4. REFERENCES

Chang, G. (1996). The Phonological Structure of Transliterated English Loan Words in

Chinese. Manuscript. National Chengchi University.

Danesi, M. (1985). Loanwords and phonological methodology. Ville LaSalle: Didier.

Deterding, D. (2006). The pronunciation of English by speakers from China. English World

Wide, 27(2), 175-198.

Duanmu, S. (2000). The Phonology of Standard Chinese. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fougeron, C., Smith, C.L. (1993). Illustrations of the IPA: French. Journal of the International

Phonetic Association, 23 (2): 73–76.

Guo, H. L. Y. (1999). Mandarin loanword phonology and optimality theory: Evidence from

transliterated American state names and typhoon names. In The 13th Pacific Asia

Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 191-202).

Kang, Y. (2011). “Loanword Phonology” in Companion to Phonology. Wiley Blackwell.

LaCharité, D., and Paradis, C. (2005). Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic

approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic inquiry, 36(2), 223-258.

Miao, R. (2005). Loanword Adaptation in Mandarin Chinese: Perceptual, Phonological and

Sociolinguistic Factors. Ph.D. Thesis. Stony Brook University: NY.

Paradis, C. 1995. Native and loanword phonology as one: constraints versus rules. In K. Elenius

& P. Branderud (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic

Sciences 3, 74-81. Stockholm.

Peperkamp, S. (2004). A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. In Proceedings of the

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 30, No. 1).

Peperkamp, S., Vendelin, I., & Nakamura, K. (2008). On the perceptual origin of loanword

adaptations: Experimental evidence from Japanese. Phonology, 25(01), 129-164.

Silverman, D. (1992). Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence form

Cantonese. Phonology, 9, 289-328.

Uffmann, C. (2004). Vowel epenthesis in loanword phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, Philipps

Universität Marburg, Germany.

  31  

5. APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Types of a Rising-Sonority Coda Consonant Clusters

CODA CLUSTER TYPE C1 C2 1 Labial obstruent /l/ 2 Labial obstruent /ʁ/ 3 Velar obstruent /l/ 4 Velar obstruent /ʁ/

APPENDIX B: List of Experimental Stimuli

CODA CLUSTER

TYPE

STIMULI Orthographic

Spelling IPA English Mandarin (Pinyin)

1

Table /tabl/ Table Zhuōzi Sable /sabl/ Beach Shātān

Meuble /møbl/ Piece of furniture Jiājù Couple /kupl/ Couple Qínglǚ Souffle /sufl/ Breath Hūxī

Pantoufle /pãtufl/ Slipper Tuōxié

2

Chambre /ʃãbʁ/ Bedroom Wòshì Livre /livʁ/ Book Shū Cadre /kadʁ/ Frame Kuāng Câpre /kɑpʀ/ Caper Cìshāngānhuālěi Coffre /kɔfʁ/ Chest/Trunk Xiāngzi Ventre /vãtʁ/ Stomach Wèi

3

Ongle /õgl/ Fingernail Shǒuzhǐjia Triangle /tʀijɑgl/ Triangle Sānjiǎoxíng Jungle /ʒœɡl/ Jungle Yǔlín

Spectacle /spɛktakl/ Spectacle Qíguān Boucle /bukl/ Buckle Dàikòu

Obstacle /ɔpstakl/ Obstacle Zhàng’àiwù

4

Tigre /tigʁ/ Tiger Lǎohǔ Ogre /ɔgʁ/ Ogre Guàiwù

Vinaigre /vinɛɡʁ/ Vinegar Cù Sucre /sykʁ/ Sugar Táng Nacre /nakʁ/ Mother-of-Pearl Zhēnzhūmǔ Ancre /ɑkʁ/ Anchor Máo

  32  

APPENDIX C: List of Practice and Filler Stimuli

STIMULI TYPE

STIMULI Orthographic

Spelling IPA English Mandarin (Pinyin)

PRACTICE Maison /mɛzɔ/ House Fángwū Fantôme /fɑtom/ Ghost Guǐ Gâteau /ɡɑto/ Cake Dàngāo

FILLER – WORD-FINAL C

(SIMPLEX CODA)

Juge /ʒyʒ/ Judge Fǎguān Vache /vaʃ/ Cow Nǎiniú Canard /kanaʁ/ Duck Yāzi Fleuve /flœv/ River Héliú

Ciel /sjɛl/ Sky Tiānkōng Tête /tɛt/ Head Tóu

Bouche /buʃ/ Mouth Zuǐbā Chemise /ʃ(əә)miz/ Shirt Chènshān

Ville /vil/ City/Town Chéngzhèn Colline /kɔlin/ Hill Qiūlíng Fleur /flœʀ/ Flower Huāduǒ Singe /sɛʒ/ Monkey Hóuzi

FILLER – WORD-

FINAL V

Cerveau /sɛʁvo/ Brain Nǎo Pluie /plɥi/ Rain Yǔ Prix /pʁi/ Price Jiàgé

Sortie /sɔʁti/ Exit Chūkǒu Forêt /fɔʁɛ/ Forest Sēnlín

Cheveux /ʃ(əә)vø/ Hair Tóufa Cou /ku/ Neck Bózi Main /mɛ/ Hand Shǒu

Chapeau /ʃapo/ Hat Màozi Manteau /mɑto/ Coat Wàitào Bureau /byʁo/ Office Bàngōngshì

Pompier /pɔpje/ Firefighter Xiāofángyuán

APPENDIX D: Carrier Sentence

ENGLISH MANDARIN CHINESE (PINYIN) (With picture of target noun) In Mandarin, this is known as (Mandarin noun). If you want to

use the fancier way to say it, it can also be referred to as a (French noun).

(With picture of target noun) Zài zhōngwén pǔtōnghuà zhōng, zhè bèi rènwéi shì

(Mandarin noun). Rúguǒ ní xiǎng yǐ yìzhǒng gèng biézhì de fāngshì lái shuō de huà, tā kěyǐ

shì (French noun).

  33  

APPENDIX E: Participant Demographics (Questionnaire)

1. How old are you? 2. Do you have normal hearing? 3. Where in China are you from (i.e. where were you born and raised)? 4. How long have you lived outside of China? 5. Do you have any background in reading, writing or speaking French? 6. If so, how proficient do you consider yourself to be (i.e. how well do you read, write, or

speak French)? 7. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved or are currently pursuing?

APPENDIX F: Experiment Instructions

Practice Trials

• The experiment will begin with a practice session made up of 6 items – 3 resembling those you will encounter in Phase 1, and 3 resembling those you will encounter in Phase 2

Please see instructions below for details on how to complete each type!

• During this practice, please feel free to request clarification if necessary (as once the real trials begin, no clarification will be given)

Phase 1: No Audio

• A series of 48 pictures, each accompanied by a short phrase in Pinyin will appear on the screen in front of you, one-by-one in a sequential fashion

• For each picture, please read aloud the accompanying phrase in a clear voice • Once you have read all 48 phrases aloud, you will be given the option to take a short

break before Phase 3 begins Phase 2: Integrated Audio

• The same series of 48 pictures will appear on the screen in front of you, however this time, they will appear in two stages:

1. First, the picture will appear without a sentence, but accompanied by a short audio clip – this audio clip will be played for you, so all you must do at this point is listen

2. Next, a short phrase will appear under the picture – once this phrase appears please read it aloud in a clear voice, just as in Phase 2

• You will be notified once Phase 3 (and thus, the experiment as a whole) has finished

  34  

APPENDIX G-1: Adaptations – Participants 1-4

Phase Stimuli (Orth.

Spelling)

IPA (Native French

Speaker)

IPA Transcription (Participants)

Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4

1

Table /tabl/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ Sable /sabl/ /saboʊ/ /seɪboʊ/ /sɛmpoʊ/ /saboʊ/

Meuble /møbl/ /maboʊ/ /mɛmboʊ/ /mjuboʊ/ /mʊeblɛ/ Couple /kupl/ /kʰɐpʰoʊ/ /kʰãpoʊ/ /kʰapoʊ/ /kʰɐpʰoʊ/ Souffle /sufl/ /sʊlfɨl/ /tsʰoʊfɪl/ /sufi/ /soʊf(əә)l/*

Pantoufle /pãtuf(əә)l/* /patɕʰufɨl/ /pʰãntʉfi/ /pantəәfioʊ/ /pantoʊf(əә)l/* Chambre /ʃãbʁ/ /tʂʰɛmbɻeɪ/ /tʂʰambɻeɪ/ /tʂɛmbɻeɪ/ /tʂʰɑmbɻɛ/

Livre /livʁ/ /lyvəә/ /livəәɻi/ /liɻi/ /livɻɛ/ Cadre /kadʁ/ /kʰatɕoʊ/ /kʰãndɻi/ /kʰadəәɻi/ /kʰadɻɛ/ Câpre /kɑpʁ/ /tʰapɻɨ/ /kʰapɻɨ/ /kʰapju/ /kapʰɻɛɪ/ Coffre /kɔfʁ/ /kʰɑfɻɨ/ /kʰɑfɻi/ /kʰɔfi/ /kʰɔfɻɛ/ Ventre /vãtʁ/ /vãntɻəә/ /vɛntɻi/ /vɛntɻi/ /vɛntɾɛ/ Ongle /õɡ(əә)l/* /ɑŋɡəәl/ /ɔɡləә/ /ɔŋkoʊ/ /ɑŋɡoʊ/

Triangle /tʁijɑɡl/ /tʂʰaɪɛŋɡoʊ/ /tɻieɪŋɡoʊ/ /tɻəәeɪŋkoʊ/ /tɻaɪɛŋɡ(əә)l/* Jungle /ʒœɡl/ /tʐəәŋɡoʊ/ /dʒəәŋɡoʊ/ /tʂʰəәŋɡoʊ/ /tʐəәŋɡoʊ/

Spectacle /spɛktakl/ /spəәkɛsɨl/ /spɛktʰɪkoʊ/ /spʰɛktakʰ/ /spɛktəәk(əә)l/* Boucle /bukl/ /bəәkoʊ/ /bɔnsɛl/ /bokʰo/ /boʊk(əә)l/*

Obstacle /ɔpstakl/ /ɑbstɨkoʊ/ /ɐbstɪkʰ(əә)l/* /ɑbstakʰoʊ/ /ɑbstəәkʰ(əә)l/* Tigre /tiɡʁ/ /tʰaɪɡɻ/ /tʰaɪɡɻ/ /tɛtʂʰɻi/ /tʰaɪɡɻɛ/ Ogre /ɔɡʁ/ /ɔ/ /ɔɡɻi/ /oɡɻi/ /oɡɻɛ/

Vinaigre /vinɛɡʁ/ /vĩŋɡɻi/ /vĩneɪɡɻɨ/ /vɛneɪɡɻeɪ/ /vĩnaɡɻɛ/ Sucre /sykʁ/ /ʂiukɻəә/ /susɻɨ/ /sukʰɻeɪ/ /sukɻɛ/ Nacre /nakʁ/ /nakɻuo/ /naθɻɨ/ /nɑkʰɻeɪ/ /nakɻɛ/ Ancre /ɑkʁ/ /ãŋkɻuo/ /ãnkɻ!/ /ãŋkʰɻeɪ/ /ɑŋkɻɛ/

2

Table /tabl/ /tapləә/ /tapləә/ /dɛpləә/ /tʰɑbləә/ Sable /sabl/ /sapləә/ /sabləә/ /sɑpləә/ /sabləә/

Meuble /møbl/ /mabləә/ /mabləә/ /mabləә/ /moʊpʰləә/ Couple /kupl/ /ɡupʂ/ /kʰup/ /kʰupləә/ /ɡupʰ/ Souffle /sufl/ /sufləә/ /suf/ /sufləә/ /sufləә/

Pantoufle /pãtufl/ /patuf/ /bɑtũf/ /bãtufləә/ /bɑntufləә/ Chambre /ʃɑbʁ/ /ʃɑmp/ /ʃɑmbəә/ /ʃɑmpx/ /ʒɑmpx/

Livre /livʁ/ /lifx/ /lif/ /lifx/ /lifx/ Cadre /kadʁ/ /ɡatʂ/ /kʰadʒu/ /kãtx/ /kɑtx/ Câpre /kɑpʁ/ /kapʰ/ /kʰapɻi/ /kapʰ/ /kɑpləә/ Coffre /kɔfʁ/ /kɑfx/ /kʰɑf/ /ɡafx/ /kɑfx/ Ventre /vãtʁ/ /vɑntʰ/ /vɑtʰ/ /vɑntʰ/ /vɑntx/ Ongle /õɡl/ /ɑkʰ/ /əәŋɡ(əә)l/* /ɑŋɡləә/ /œŋɡləә/

                                                                                                               *  /(əә)l/ represents a syllabic /l/ (i.e. /l/)

  35  

Triangle /tʁijɑɡl/ /tsʰiɑŋkʰ/ /tɻiəәŋkʰ/ /tʰaɪɑŋɡləә/ /tɾiɑŋkʰ/ Jungle /ʒœɡl/ /ʐɑŋk/ /dʒəәŋɡoʊ/ /ɻəәŋk/ /ʐəәŋɡəә/

Spectacle /spɛktakl/ /spɨktak/ /spɛktəәkʰ/ /spektakləә/ /spɛktʰɪkʰ/ Boucle /bukl/ /bukləә/ /bukləә/ /bʊkləә/ /bukx/

Obstacle /ɔpstakl/ /apstɪkʰ/ /əәbstak/ /ɔbstakləә/ /ɔbstʰəәkləә/ Tigre /tiɡʁ/ /tʂɨkʰ/ /tʰik/ /tsʰikʰ/ /tʰikx/ Ogre /ɔɡʁ/ /ɑk/ /ɑk/ /ɑkxəә/ /ɑŋkx/

Vinaigre /vinɛɡʁ/ /vĩnakʰ/ /vĩneɪkʰ/ /vĩneɪkʰ/ /vineɪɡləә/ Sucre /sykʁ/ /ʂykʰ/ /sukɻəә/ /sukləә/ /sukləә/ Nacre /nakʁ/ /nãkʰ/ /nakʰ/ /nakʰ/ /nɑkx/ Ancre /ɑkʁ/ /ɑkʰ/ /ɑŋkʰ/ /ɑŋkʰ/ /ɑŋkx/

APPENDIX G-2: Adaptations – Participants 5-9

Phase Stimuli (Orth.

Spelling)

IPA (Native French

Speaker)

IPA Transcription (Participants)

Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7 Participant 8 Participant 9

1

Table /tabl/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ /tʰeɪboʊ/ Sable /sabl/ /seɪboʊ/ /saboʊ/ /sɛmboʊ/ /seɪboʊ/ /sapləә/

Meuble /møbl/ /moʊboʊ/ /muboʊ/ /mãmboʊ/ /mjuboʊ/ /moʊbu/ Couple /kupl/ /kʰɐpoʊ/ /kʰapoʊ/ /kʰɐpoʊ/ /kʰapoʊ/ /kʰap(əә)l/ Souffle /sufl/ /sɑf(əә)l/ /sɑf(əә)l/ /soʊfɚ/ /saʊfɻi/ /soʊf(əә)l/

Pantoufle /pãtuf(əә)l/ /pʰantoʊf(əә)l/ /pʰantaʊfli/ /pantoʊf(əә)l/ /pʰantʰəәflaɪ/ /pʰantʰoʊfɪl/ Chambre /ʃãbʁ/ /tʃɛmboʊ/ /ʃambəә/ /tʂʰãmbɚ/ /tʂʰambɻeɪ/ /tʂʰɛmbɻeɪ/

Livre /livʁ/ /lifoʊ/ /livɚ/ /livəә/ /livɚ/ /livəә/ Cadre /kadʁ/ /kadəә/ /kʰadɚ/ /kɑtʂəә/ /kʰɑdɻi/ /kʰadəә/ Câpre /kɑpʁ/ /kapɻoʊ/ /kʰapli/ /kʰapʰɻoʊ/ /kʰapri/ /kʰapleɪ/ Coffre /kɔfʁ/ /kɔfeɪ/ /kʰɔfəә/ /koʊfɚ/ /kʰɑfɻi/ /kʰɔfi/ Ventre /vãtʁ/ /vɛntʰoʊ/ /vantʂɚ/ /vaʊtʂʰoʊ/ /vɛntɻi/ /vɛntχəә/ Ongle /õɡ(əә)l/ /əәŋɡoʊ/ /ɑŋɡoʊ/ /ɔŋɡ(əә)l/ /əәŋɡoʊ/ /ɑŋɡoʊ/

Triangle /tʁijɑɡl/ /tʰɻəәãŋɡoʊ/ /tsɻaɪaŋɡ(əә)l/ /tʂʰaɪaŋɡoʊ/ /tʰɻəәɛŋɡoʊ/ /tʰɻaɪɛŋɡ(əә)l/ Jungle /ʒœɡl/ /dʐəәŋɡoʊ/ /tʂãŋɡoʊ/ /dʐəәŋɡoʊ/ /tʐəәŋɡoʊ/ /tʂəәŋɡoʊ/

Spectacle /spɛktakl/ /spɛktʰak(əә)l/ /spɛktak(əә)l/ /spatʂʰoʊ/ /spɛktʰəәkoʊ/ /spɛktʰak(əә)l/ Boucle /bukl/ /bəәŋkoʊ/ /bukoʊ/ /boʊntʂʰ/ /baʊkoʊ/ /boʊk(əә)l/

Obstacle /ɔpstakl/ /ɔbstəәkəә/ /ɑpstəәkoʊ/ /ɑpstɚ/ /ɑbstəәkoʊ/ /ɑbstʰak(əә)l/ Tigre /tiɡʁ/ /tʰaɪɡɚ/ /tʰaɪɡɚ/ /tʰaɪɡɑɻ/ /tʰaɪɡəә/ /tʰaɪɡəә/ Ogre /ɔɡʁ/ /ɔɡ/ /ɔɡɚ/ /ɔɡɚ/ /ɔɡɚ/ /ɔɡəә/

Vinaigre /vinɛɡʁ/ /faɪnəәɡɚ/ /vinaɡɚ/ /vɪŋɡoʊ/ /vɪnaɡɻi/ /vinaɡʋeɪ/ Sucre /sykʁ/ /sukɚ/ /sukɚ/ /sʊkoʊ/ /sukɻeɪ/ /sukʋi/ Nacre /nakʁ/ /nakɚ/ /nakɚ/ /nɛkʰəә/ /nakɻi/ /nakʋi/ Ancre /ɑkʁ/ /ãŋkəәŋ/ /ãŋkɚ/ /ɑŋkʰoʊ/ /ɛŋkɚ/ /ãŋkʰəә/

2 Table /tabl/ /tabləә/ /dapləә/ /dabləә/ /tʰabləә/ /dapləә/ Sable /sabl/ /sabləә/ /sapləә/ /sabləә/ /sabləә/ /sapləә/

Meuble /møbl/ /mɑʊboʊ/ /mɔbləә/ /məәmb(əә)l/ /mɑbləә/ /mɛpləә/

  36  

Couple /kupl/ /kʰupləә/ /kʰupləә/ /kʰupu/ /kupləә/ /kupləә/ Souffle /sufl/ /sufləә/ /sufləә/ /sufləә/ /sufləә/ /sufləә/

Pantoufle /pãtufl/ /patoʊf/ /pantufləә/ /pɑntoʊf/ /patoʊf/ /bãntʰufləә/ Chambre /ʃɑbʁ/ /ʃɑmpx/ /ʃambx/ /ʃɑmb/ /tʂʰɑmbx/ /ʃɑmpx/

Livre /livʁ/ /lifx/ /lifx/ /liv/ /liv/ /lifx/ Cadre /kadʁ/ /ɡatx/ /kʰatx/ /kɑtʰ/ /dʒad/ /ɡatχəә/ Câpre /kɑpʁ/ /kʰapləә/ /kʰapʰ/ /kapɚ/ /kʰapəә/ /kapχ/ Coffre /kɔfʁ/ /kʰɑfləә/ /kɑfləә/ /kʰoʊfoʊ/ /kɑfx/ /kɑfχəә/ Ventre /vãtʁ/ /vɑntx/ /vɑntx/ /vaʊntʰ/ /vɑnt/ /vɑntχ/ Ongle /õɡl/ /ɑnɡləә/ /ɑŋɡləә/ /əәŋɡoʊ/ /əәŋɡləә/ /ɔŋɡləә/

Triangle /tʁijɑɡl/ /tɾiɑŋɡləә/ /txiɑŋɡləә/ /tʂʰaɪnɛŋɡoʊ/ /tʰɻəәɛŋɡləә/ /tχiəәŋɡləә/ Jungle /ʒœɡl/ /dʒəәŋɡ/ /ʐəәŋɡəә/ /dʒəәŋɡoʊ/ /ʐəәŋɡ/ /jəәŋɡəә/

Spectacle /spɛktakl/ /bɛktakəә/ /spɛkʰtakləә/ /spɛktəәkoʊ/ /spɛktʰakəә/ /spekʰtʰakləә/ Boucle /bukl/ /bɑkləә/ /bukləә/ /bukoʊ/ /bukləә/ /bukləә/

Obstacle /ɔpstakl/ /ɑbstakləә/ /ɑbstʰakləә/ /ɔkstakoʊ/ /ɑbstəәkʰ/ /ɑbstakləә/ Tigre /tiɡʁ/ /tʰikx/ /tikx/ /tʰiɡ/ /tʰiɡ/ /tʰikx/ Ogre /ɔɡʁ/ /ɑkx/ /ɑkx/ /ɔɡ/ /ɑɡ/ /ɑkχ/

Vinaigre /vinɛɡʁ/ /vĩnakx/ /vĩnakx/ /vɪknak/ /vɪnakx/ /vinakχ/ Sucre /sykʁ/ /sukx/ /sykləә/ /sukoʊ/ /ʃukʰ/ /sukχ/ Nacre /nakʁ/ /nakx/ /nakx/ /nakoʊ/ /nakx/ /nakχəә/ Ancre /ɑkʁ/ /ãŋkx/ /ãŋkx/ /ɑŋkʰ/ /ɑkʰ/ /ɑŋkχ/