A Study of Vowel Adaptation in Kanuri Loanwords in Pabər/Bura

This article is published in the Tasambo Journal of Language, Literature, and Culture – Volume 1, Issue 1.

Musa Grema¹

Saleh Jibir²

^{1 &2} Department of African Languages and Linguistics, Yobe State University, Damaturu, Yobe State, Nigeria 

Abstract

The paper focuses on identifying and studying those linguistic items borrowed from the Kanuri to Pabǝr/Bura language with special attention to the modifications made to the vowels of the source language (Kanuri) before incorporating the loanwords into the target language (Pabǝr/Bura). It is believed that in as much as two or more communities with different linguistic backgrounds came in contact with one another; there is a tendency that linguistic borrowing will take place. Therefore, even though the languages under study belong to different language phyla, there exists linguistic borrowing between them. Because of this, the paper specifically focuses its attention on the adaptation of vowels in borrowed words. The research can establish that the target language (Pabǝr/Bura) employed various phonological processes in incorporating the loan words. More so vowel substitution is found to be the major technique used by the target language in incorporating the borrowed words. However, there are also cases of vowel deletion and insertion. The research employed two distinct sources as methods of data collection. These sources are primary and secondary. The primary source includes unobtrusive observation when discourse is taking place in Pabǝr/Bura language and listening to Pabǝr/Bura radio program broadcast by Yobe Broadcasting Corporation, Damaturu. Similarly, the researchers’ intuition plays a significant role in identifying the loanwords. On the other hand, secondary sources include written records, such as journal articles, dissertations, theses, dictionaries, etc. The paper concludes that Pabǝr/Bura borrowed a good number of lexical items from Kanuri, a Nilo-Saharan language.

Keywords: Vowel, Kanuri, Pabǝr/Bura, adaptation, loan words, language

Introduction

Languages are affected and influenced by other languages through contact. Language contacts have been the focus of interest ever since philologists became aware of the fact that no language would be free of foreign elements, and that languages influence one another on a different levels. Such contact can have a variety of linguistic influences or outcomes from one language to the other. In most cases, it may result in borrowing (Dimanovski, (nd).

Communities interact through trade, shared festivals and rituals, inter-marriages, and maybe wars in some cases. Through all these, their languages change. They may come to sound more similar, they may borrow some lexical items and forms from closed classes, and even bound morphemes. The extent of the variation depends on numerous social and cultural factors including the degrees of speakers’ knowledge of each other’s languages, the domain in which different languages are used and the type of language contact (Aikhenvald and Maitz 2021).

Greenberg (1966) classifies Kanuri as one of the African languages which belong to the Nilo-Saharan phylum. Interestingly, the word ‘Kanuri’ refers to both the language and the people. Thus, the language is called Kanuri so also the speakers of the language. The native speakers of Kanuri, a Saharan language, are largely found in the Borno and Yobe states of Nigeria. But it is important to note that a good number of them are also found in Bauchi, Jigawa, and Nasarawa states. It is also spoken in the North-Eastern Republic of Niger, in towns like Zinder and Diffa, Northern Cameroon, and Northern Chad. The major dialects of Kanuri are Yerwa (standard form), Manga, Dagǝra, Bilma, Koyam, and Suwurti (Bulakarima, 1997, 1999, 2001 and Schuh 2003).

Löhr, Wolff, & Awagana, (2009, p, 166) are of the view that the Kanuri language is mainly spoken by three (3) to four (4) million people in and around the speaking areas. Some of these speakers use the language as a first or second language. Similarly, in some communities in Borno and Yobe states, the Kanuri language is used as lingua-franca.

Based on the historical account, the word Bura is used to refer to the language, the land, and the people who inhabit Biu and its environs. These areas include Kwaya-Kusar, Shani, Damboa, and Askira-Uba Local Government Areas in Borno State and Gombi in Adamawa State, as well as some areas in Gujba and Gulani Local Government Areas in Yobe State (Badejo, 1987; Mohammed, Shettima, & Mu’azu, 2002). According to previous studies, Pabǝr/Bura is grouped under the Biu-Mandara branch of Chadic languages of the Afro-Asiatic phylum along with Chibok, Marghi, Pidlimdi, Tera, Jara, Kanakuru, Kombari, Higi and Kilba among others (Greenberg, 1966, and Newman, 1977). On the other hand, Ayuba (2014) mentions that the estimated number of Bura speakers are seven hundred thousand (700,000).

A lot of scholarly research were conducted on linguistic borrowing and loanwords to be precise. These include Mohammed, (1987), Dikwa, (1988, 2006), Baldi, (1992, 1995, 2001), Yalwa, (1992), Bulakarima, (1999), Abdullahi, (2008), Sani, (2009, 2011), Shettima, & Abdullahi, (2010), Kukuri, & Grema, (2013), Zubairu, (2013), Bukar, (2014), Kaka, (2015), Grema, (2017, 2018) and host of others. However, to the best of our knowledge and ability, none of the previous research works on the adaptation of Kanuri loans in Pabər /Bura. Based on this notion, it is believed that there is a gap that needs to be closed by the present research work. Because of this, the present research work is aimed at identifying those linguistic item(s) borrowed into Pabər/Bura from Kanuri. It will also study those items linguistically to examine their phonological modifications in the target language, and the reason for such modifications is for the loanwords to behave like native words of the target language. The research is, therefore, expected to contribute to the area of linguistic borrowing.

Literature Review

As already mentioned above there are a lot of works on linguistic borrowing. Given this, in this part of the paper, related literature review is provided for better understanding. Let’s begin with Bulakarima (1999) who defines loan words as those linguistic elements which originally borrowed from one language and finally incorporated into another language. He goes further to state that such linguistic elements can be borrowed either directly or indirectly. He stresses that the form might be adapted to suit the phonological and morphological systems of the target language. However, it is likely that the loan items can or cannot retain the meaning of the original language he successfully succeeded in identifying and analyzing the Kanuri loanwords in Guddiranci.

On the other hand, Dikwa (2006) works on loanwords in Kanuri where he chronologically arranged the donor languages into Kanuri as Arabic, English, French, and Hausa. Arabic became first because of the early intimate contact with the Kanuri people. He is of the view that some of the Arabic loanwords in Kanuri require only a slight adaptation to be incorporated in Kanuri due to their nature and the lengthy duration of their usage by Kanuri people. As a result, they differ only slightly from their source. Shettima & Abdullahi (2010) observe that all Arabic and English loanwords in Kanuri must satisfy the Kanuri basic syllabic structure of CV and CVC and all onset and codas of the loanwords must have epenthetic vowels, except for those codas with sonorant or sibilant. Another issue raised is the insertion of an epenthetic vowel after the nasal cluster in the coda of the loanword.

However Shettima & Abdullahi (2010) went further to assert that not only syllabic structures change but appended vowels also behave systematically and they are predictable, adding that after the vowels /a/, /i/, and /e/, the appended vowel is /i/. The conditioning factor of the word-final /ǝ/ is vowel /a/ followed by an obstruent. In most cases, the vowel /u/ is preferred after labials and, in the case of Arabic loans in the syllable-final clusters, vowel harmony is employed by copying the adjacent one. They also observe that there are instances where Kanuri deletes extra syllabic vowels in its attempt to integrate loanwords. They provide examples to buttress all the issues they raised in the paper.

More so Kukuri and Grema (2013) center their attention on the phonological adaptation of Kanuri loanwords in Hausa. In their attempt to study those Kanuri words loaned into Hausa, they identify various processes that are involved in the course of the adaptation. According to them some sounds (consonants and vowels) are replaced with nearest equivalents in the target language. To justify this claim, they cite some examples such as gàltimà ˃ gàlààdiimàà (a traditional title), zarmà ˃ jarmà (a traditional title), maîràm ˃ mairàn (princess), kәskarí ˃ kiskaadii (outskirt Qur’anic recitation), bәlàmà ˃ bulààmà (ward head) and kәlisà ˃ kiliisàà (gallop).

Bukar (2014) is another work worth reviewing. He focuses his attention on the structural modification of Hausa loanwords in Babur-Bura. He examines the phonological and morphological behaviours of the Hausa words loaned into Babur-Bura. He identifies various phonological processes that are involved in the course of modifying the Hausa words before they are fully integrated into Babur-Bura. These processes are sound substitution, glottalization, deglottalization, palatalization, voicing, segment insertion, deletion of article at the initial position, and deletion of segments at the medial and final positions. In the case of vowel substitution Bukar (2014) observes two forms of such substitution. The Hausa vowel /i/ becomes /ә/ in the loanwords and /u/ changes to /ә/ in the target language. He cites some examples such as, [bireedì] > [bәreedì], ‘bread’, [bindígàa] > [bәndәgùu], ‘gun’, [bookìtì] > [boogәdì], ‘bucket’, [burgàa] > [bәrgàa], ‘bragging’, [burjìi] > [bәrjìi], ‘feeder road’ and [dubuu] > [dәvuu], ‘thousand’.

These are some of the previous works which are related to the present research. However, apart from these, there is a host of other research on linguistic borrowing and loanwords adaptation adoption to be precise.

Methodology and Theoretical Framework

This research employed two techniques as sources for data collection. These techniques are primary and secondary sources. The primary source includes unobtrusive observation and listening to Pabǝr/Bura and Kanuri Radio programmes broadcast by Yobe Broadcasting Corporation (YBC) while the secondary sources include written records such as dictionaries, journal articles, dissertations, theses, etc. The researchers take ample time and listen to two Pabǝr/Bura radio programmes; namely Sakar Vukci (discussions between the guests or artists on any chosen issue) and Sakar Thawarsi Akwa Pabǝr/Bura (Request in Pabǝr/Bura language) which is broadcast by the state own AM/FM radio stations in Damaturu.

The theoretical framework employed by this research article is Generative Phonology. This framework is credited to Chomsky and Halle (1968) and it is considered a sub-field of the general study of language known as Generative Grammar. In Generative Phonology, phonological components are analyzed using a sequence of phonological rules to produce surface forms. Therefore, it is a subfield that is mainly concerned with the analysis of the continuum of speech into distinct segments to establish a series of universal rules for relating the output of the syntactic component of generative grammar to its surface form. Because of this, all the examples cited in this research work are accompanied by a phonological rule to account for the phenomenon.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The data is presented here and the analysis focuses mainly on phonological adaptations, the lexical items are classified based on the phonological process involved in incorporating the loanword and each is analyzed separately. Two representations are used namely phonetic and orthographic representations for each language while the translation of each of the lexical items is provided to serve as gloss.

Vowel Adaptation

The concept of adaptation is derived from the verb ‘adapt’, therefore the term refers to a situation where a linguistic element undergoes some modification processes before it becomes accepted in the target language. Thus, the original form of the source language is altered to suit into the phonological or morphological patterns of the target language (Aktürk-Drake, 2015, p. 18). On the hand, a vowel is seen by Trask (1997, p. 235) phonetically as “speech sounds whose production involves no significant obstruction of the airstream” and, phonologically, as “a segment of high sonority which occupies the nucleus of a syllable.” Similarly, in the words of Sani (2005, p. 20) phonetically, a vowel is “… a speech sound whose articulation does not involve obstruction of air-flow, but essentially vibration of the vocal cords.” Having said that, this section of the research work will look at the modifications experienced by loanwords that involve vowels alone in the process of integrating it in the target language.

Vowel Substitution

It is noticed that vowel substitution is one of the strategies employed by the target language (Pabər/Bura) in integrating the Kanuri loanwords. In this case, some vowels in the source language are substituted with another vowel in the target language. This substitution process involves /ǝ/→ /u/, /ǝ/ → /a/, /a/ → /ǝ/, /a/ → /e/, /ǝ/ → /u/, /e/ → /i/ and /ǝ/ →/i/.

Let us begin with a situation where a mid, central, unrounded vowel /ǝ/ is substituted with a high, back, rounded vowel /u/ in the process of integrating the loanwords. Consider the following examples:

Example 1:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a.	[bəʤì]	bəji	[bùʤí]	buji	mat
b.	[bə՝ndə՝r]	bəndər	[bùndír]	bundir	manure
c.	[kámbígə`]	kambigə	[kámbígù]	kambigu	argue
d.	[kwúŋgənà]	kungəna	[kwúŋgwùnà]	kunguna	money
e.	[kwùtəràm]	kutəram	[kwùtùràm]	kuturam	mirror
f.	[mágə՝]	magə	[mágwù]	magu	week
g.	[zəmbələm]	zəmbələm	[zùmbùlùm]	zumbulum	uncircumcised

Considering the above example 1, it is established that a vowel in the source language with feature specification [-high], [-back] is substituted with another vowel in the target language with feature specification [+high], [+back] in the target language. It is interesting to mention that this phenomenon takes place in both open and closed syllable except for example 1b where the vowel concerned is also substituted with a high, front, unrounded vowel in the second syllable which will be discussed later. Using distinctive feature values, this phenomenon can be represented in the following rule.

Rule 1:

In the same vein, it is also noted that a mid, central, unrounded vowel /ǝ/ in the original form is substituted with a low, central, unrounded vowel /a/ when fully integrated in the target language. Let us consider the following examples:

Example 2:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a	[sártə]	sartə	[sártá]	sarta	deadline
b	[bàdìtə]	baditə	[bàxìtá]	baxita	begin
c	[fàràktə]	faraktə	[pàràktá]	parakta	widen
d	[kàlàktə]	kalaktə	[kàlàktá]	kalakta	return
e	[kàrə`ngə`]	karəngə	[kàràngà]	karanga	near
f	[álàgtə՝]	alagə	[álàgtà]	alagta	nature

 

Looking at the above example 2, it also established that in the process of integrating the Kanuri words into Pabər/Bura another form of vowel substitution is noticed. A vowel with feature specification [- low], [- back] in the original form of the source language is substituted with another vowel with feature specification [+ low], [- back] in the target language. It is important at this juncture to mention that all the substitutions take place at the word-final position as can be seen in example 2a – f respectably. This phonological phenomenon is represented in the below rule.

Rule 2:

Another plausible evidence of vowel substitution in the process of integrating Kanuri loans in Pabər/Bura is a situation where a low, central vowel /a/ in the original form of the word in the source language is substituted with a mid, central vowel /ǝ/ in the target language. Consider the following example;

Example 3:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a.	[kàká]	kaka	[k՝əgá]	kəga	grand parent

In this case also, one can notice that a vowel with feature specification [+ low], [- back] in the original form of the word in the source language is substituted with a vowel with feature specification [- low], [- back] in the target language unlike what appears in example 2a-f above. In this case, the substitution takes place between two consonants. The following rule represents the phenomenon.

Rule 3:

More so, another vowel substitution that is evident based on the data collected for the research is a situation where a mid, back, rounded vowel in the source language is substituted with a low, central, unrounded vowel in the target language. This is justified in the following example.

Example 4:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a.	[zówàr]	zowar	[záwàr]	zawar	divorced woman
b.	[kóró]	koro	[kórà]	kora	donkey
c.	[gwórò]	gworo	[gwárà]	gwara	kolanut
d.	[zòlì]	zoli	[zwàlì]	zwali	stupid
e.	[kótómí]	kotomi	[kwátámí]	kwatami	gutter
f.	[bòrkó]	borko	[bàrgó]	shakwara	blanket
g.	[shókórá]	shokora	[shákwárá]	shakwara	gawun

 

In the above examples, one can see that a vowel with feature specification [+ back] [+ round] [– high] in the source language is substituted with another vowel with feature specification [– back] [– round] [– high] in between two consonants or before a vowel at the end of a word. Using distinctive feature values let us provide a phonological rule to account for the substitution that takes place below.

Rule 4:

Additional plausible evidence of vowel substitution found to occur in the process of integrating Kanuri loanwords in Pabǝr/Bura is a situation where a mid, central vowel in the original form of the word is substituted with a high, front vowel in the target language. This phenomenon occurred in two distinct phonological environments namely before a consonant at the end of a word as in example (5a – c) and in between two consonants which can be seen in example (5d and e). Consider the following examples:

Example 5:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a.	[ŋgwùtə]	ngutə	[ŋgwùxì]	nguxi	bow down
b.	[làrdə]	lardə	[làrdì]	lardi	country
c.	[ŋgùdə]	ngudə	[ŋgùdì]	ngudi	poor
d.	[təmàjì]	təmaji	[tìmàjì]	timaji	fiancé
e.	[bə`ndə`r]	bəndər	[bùndìr]	bundir	manure

 

In the above examples, it is clear that in the process of integrating the Kanuri loans in Pabǝr/Bura vowel substitution takes place. This is because a vowel with feature specification [ – high] [+ mid] [– pal] in the original form is substituted with another vowel with feature specification [+ high] [– mid] [+ pal] before it is fully incorporated in the target language. Let’s formulate a phonological rule to account for the said phenomenon.

Rule 5:

Vowel Deletion

Furthermore, vowel deletion is another phonological process employed by the target language (Pabər/Bura) in integrating the Kanuri loanword. In this case, it is noticed that there is a situation where a vowel in the original form of the source language is completely deleted in the target language before it is fully integrated. A situation where a mid, central, unrounded vowel is completely deleted word medially is noticed. Consider the following examples.

Example 6:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a.	[sàntəràm]	santəram	[sàndràm]	sandram	antimony
b.	[shìtə՝rà]	shitəra	[shìdrà]	shidra	funeral

In the above example, it is established that a vowel with feature specification [- low], [- back] is a completely deleted word medially in the process of integrating the Kanuri loans in Pabər/Bura. Using the distinctive feature values this phenomenon is represented in the below rule.

Rule 6:

Vowel Insertion

Another phonological process employed by the target language in incorporating the Kanuri loans is vowel insertion. Vowel insertion is a phonological process where an additional vowel is inserted into a particular word. In the case of Kanuri loans in Pabər/Bura, two instances are noticed. Firstly, a situation where there is the insertion of a low, central, unrounded vowel /a/ and secondly where a high, front, unrounded vowel /i/ is inserted as in examples (7a and 7b-c). Interestingly all the phenomenon takes place at word final positions. Let’s consider the following example.

Example 7:

	Kanuri		Pabər/Bura
	Phonetic	Orthography	Phonetic	Orthography	Gloss
a.	[ŋgâl]	ngal	[ŋgâlá]	ngala	measure
b.	[ʤángàl]	jangal	[ʤáŋgàlì]	jangali	livestock tax
c.	[fásàl]	fasal	[pásàlì]	pasali	plan

 In the above example, it is evidence that there is a case of vowel insertion in the process of integrating the Kanuri loans in Pabər/Bura. In example (7a), a vowel with feature specification [+ low], [- round] is inserted word finally before the loan is fully incorporated. In the same vein, in example (7b - c), a vowel with feature specification [+ high], [- back] is also inserted word finally in the process of integrating the loanword. Let’s consider the below phonological rule in that respect.

Rule 7:

Conclusion

The paper attempted to study the vowel adaptation of Kanuri loanwords in Pabǝr/Bura. It is clear from the aforementioned discussions that vowel substitution, vowel deletion, and vowel insertion are found to be paramount in the process of incorporating the Kanuri loanwords in Pabǝr/Bura. In the substitution process, the paper noticed that there are cases of vowel raising and vowel lowering. The paper also succeeded in providing phonological rules per generative phonology to account for all the processes involved in integrating the Kanuri loans in Pabǝr/Bura. This justified that, the research employed Generative phonology as its theoretical framework. It is also clear that the research sought its data from two different sources; namely primary and secondary. The paper concludes that Kanuri and Pabǝr/Bura being neigbours for a long time, pave a way for linguistic borrowing to take place. Thus, Pabǝr/Bura borrowed some lexical items from the Kanuri language as clearly shown in the paper.

References

1.       Abdullahi, S. A. (2008). Loanwords in Kanuri newspapers: A descriptive analysis. [Unpublished Ph.D.Thesis]. Department of Languages and Linguistics: University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri.

2.       Aktürk-Drake, M. (2015). Phonological adoption through bilingual borrowing comparing elite bilinguals and heritage bilinguals [Unpublished Phd Thesis]. Centre for Research on Bilingualism Department of Swedish Language and Multilingualism Stockholm University.

3.       Ayuba, Y.M (2014). The Story of the Origins of the Bura/Pabir People of NORTHEAST Nigeria. Bloomington: Authorhouse LLC.

4.       Badejo, B. R. & Bura Orthography Committee (1987). Bura Language Orthography.

a.        Orthographies of Nigerian Languages, Manual v, National Language Centre.

5.       Baldi, S. (1992). Arabic Loanwords in Hausa via Kanuri and Fulfulde. In Ebermann, Erwin & Sommerauer, Erich R. & Thomanek, Karl E. (eds.), Komparative Afrikanistik (Festschrift Mukarovsky), 9–14.

6.       Baldi, S. (1995). On Arabic Loans in Hausa and Kanuri. In Ibriszimow, Dymitr &Leger, Rudolf (eds.), Studia Chadica et Hamito-Semitica: Akten des Internationalen Symposions zur Tschadsprachenforschung, 252–278.

7.       Baldi, S. N. (2001). ‘On Arabic Loans in Yoruba’, in Festschrift Für Hermann Jungraithmayr. Köln: Rüdiger Koppe Verlag. 253-278

8.       Bukar, M. M. (2014). An Examination of structural modification of Hausa Loanwords in Babur-Bura. [Unpublished M. A. dissertation]. Department of Languages and Linguistics, University of Maiduguri.

9.       Bulakarima, S. U. (1997). Survey of Kanuri Dialcets. In Cyffer, N. and Geider, T. (eds) Advances in Kanuri Scholarship. Rüdiger Koppe Verlag.

10.    Bulakarima, S. U. (1999). Kanuri Loanwords in Guddiranci. MAJOLLS: Maiduguri Journal of Linguistic and Literary Studies Vol 1. 61-70

11.    Bulakarima, S. U. (2001). A study in Kanuri Dialectology: Phonological and Dialectal Distribution in Mowar. Awwal Printing & Publications.

12.    Bussmann, H. (2006). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Gregory, T. and Kerstin, K. (Trns. & Eds). Taylor & Francis.

13.    Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row Publishers.

14.    Dikwa, K. A. (1988). Arabic Loanwords in Kanuri. [Unpublished M. A. Thesis]. Department of Languages and Linguistics: University of Maiduguri.

15.    Dikwa, K. A. (2006). Loanwords in Kanuri. [Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis]. Department of Languages and Linguistics: University of Maiduguri.

16.    Dimanovski, V. M. (nd). Linguistic Anthropology- Language in Contact. Institute of

17.    Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb.

18.    Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Languages of Africa. The Hague, Mouton.

19.    Grema, M, (2018). Linguistic Borrowing: A study of Hausa Loanwords in Kanuri. [Phd Thesis]. Department of Nigerian Languages, Bayero University, Kano

20.    Grema, M. (2017). Vowel Laxing as a Technique in Hausa Words Loaned into Kanuri. Yobe Journal of Language, Literature and Culture Vol. 5, 97-100.

21.    Kaka, A. K. (2015). A Descriptive Study of Phonological Substitution of Loanwords in the Dictionary: Kalmaram Təlamyindia Kanori Faransa-a. [Unpublished M.A. Dissertation]. Department of Languages and Linguistics, University of Maiduguri.

22.    Kukuri, M. M. and Grema, M. (2013). Linguistic Borrowing: Phonological Adaptation of Kanuri Loanwords in Hausa. In Yalwa, L. D. et al (eds) Studies in Hausa Language, Literature and Culture The 1^st National Conference. PP 150-157

23.    Löhr, D., Wolff, H. E. & Awagana, A. (2008). Loanwords in Kanuri, a Saharan Language. In M. Haspelmath (ed.) World’s languages a comparative handbook. De Gruyter. pp. 166-190

24.    Mohammed, A. B. (1987). A Linguistic Study of the Nativisation of English Loanwords in Gombe Fulfulde. [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. Bayero University, Kano.

25.    Mohammed, S. Shettima, A. K. and Mua’zu M. A. (2002). Assimilation Processes in Bura. Mojolls 1V (1) Department of Languages and Linguistics University of Maiduguri pp. 61-70.

26.    Newman, P. (1977). Chadic Classification and Reconstruction. Afro-asiatic Linguistics, 5 (1):1- 42.

27.    Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Maitz P. (2021). Language Contact and Language Change in Multilingual Context. Ilalian Journal of Linguistics [Online Available at: Doi:10.26346/1120-2726.168.

28.    Sani, M. A. Z. (2005). An Introductory Phonology of Hausa (with exercises). Benchmark Publishers.

29.    Sani, M. A. Z. (2009). A Look at Palatalyzing Tendencies of an Arresting /i/ in English and Arabic Loanwords in Hausa. In Sergio Baldi and Hafizu Miko Yakasai (eds.) Proceedings of the 2^nd International Conference on Hausa Studies: African Perspectives, Bayero University, Kano.

30.    Sani, M. A. Z. (2011). Tone Placement and Stress Replacement in English and Arabic Loanwords in Hausa. Studies in Hausa Language, Literature and Culture. Sixth International Conference. C.S.N.L. Bayero University, Kano.

31.    Schuh, R. G. (2003). The linguistic Influence of Kanuri on Bade and Ngizim. MAJOLLS: Maiduguri Journal of Linguistics and Literary Studies Vol V.

32.    Shettima, A. K. and Abdullahi, S. A. (2010). Vowel Epenthesis in Kanuri Loanwords. FAIS Journal of Humanities Vol. 4 No 1.

33.    Trask, R. L. (1997). A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Arnold, Hodder Headline Group.

34.    Yalwa, L. D. (1992). Arabic Loanwords in Hausa. Journal of the African Activist Association Vol. XX No III Special Issues on Afro-Arab. 101-131

35.    Zubairu, H. (2013). Phonological Study of Hausa and Yoruba Loanwords. In Munkaila, M. and Zulyadaini, B. (eds) Language, Literature and Culture Festschrift in Honour of Professor Abdulhamid Abubakar. Ahmadu Bello University Press.

DOI:  https://dx.doi.org/10.36349/tjllc.2022.v01i01.001