A Morphological Analysis of Borrowed Nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny

A Morphological Analysis of Borrowed Nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny

¹Charles Kapkwomu Cherop, ²Janet Achieng’ Onyango, ³Joshua Itumo Mulinge

¹Department of Literature, Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Kenyatta University, Kenya

²Department of Languages and Literature, African Nazarene University, Kenya

³Department of Literature, Linguistics and Foreign Languages, Kenyatta University, Kenya

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020339

Received: 14 February 2025; Accepted: 19 February 2025; Published: 22 March 2025

ABSTRACT

All over the world, there have been varied studies on tendency of languages borrowing concepts from other languages. This has always had a significant mark of enrichment in languages. The aim of this paper is to establish the impact of loanwords borrowed from Luganda, a  Bantu language spoken in Uganda into Kupsabiny, a Southern Nilotic language in Uganda. Whereas studies  have been conducted on the same that reveal that loanwords have been a major source of vocabulary expansion in Kupsabiny, the present study  focuses on a morphological analysis of borrowed nouns by Kupsabiny language speakers from Luganda. This is done with an objective of examining the morphological and patterns exhibited by borrowed nouns; and  determining the morphological processes engaged in the adaptation of nouns borrowed. The study employed a descriptive study design. Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, with the aid of an interview schedule and audio tape recorder. Moreover, the targeted population was native speakers of the Kupsabiny language within the municipality of Kapchorwa District estimated at 12,399 in number. In addition, purposive sampling procedure was used to settle on a sample size of 50 informants. Thereafter, corpus of data collected were then analysed using Optimality Theory (OT) by Kager (1999). The findings reveal that Luganda borrowed nouns undergo morphological changes to conform to Kupsabiny’s noun class system. These findings are intended to shed light on the linguistic dynamics in language contact and adaptation. Consequently, the findings are also relevant to linguistics enthusiasts, language researchers, and those interested in the intricate workings of language borrowing and language change. The findings therefore seek to contribute to both empirical understandings of language borrowing and adaptation.

Keyword: Loanwords, borrowing, patterns, morphological, noun

INTRODUCTION

Communication between people speaking different languages results in languages getting into contact. Language contact envisages language convergence, borrowing and relexification. Hence, the process of borrowing entails the fact that the speaker uses lexical items from another language without any intention of utilizing different variety. Reference [10] describes borrowing as a process of adapting a word from language tor use in another language. It is notable that the impact of lexical borrowing significantly enriches languages [11]. According to [6], the study of lexical borrowing can be traced back to historical linguistics, which aims to understand the origins and development of languages over time. Linguists have developed interest on how languages change and evolve through contact with other languages. Reference [1] postulate that lexical borrowing normally occurs through various mechanisms such as direct borrowing, adaptation, and calquing. However, the focus of this study is on the morphophonological adaptation of borrowed nouns.

A plethora of studies indicates that lexical borrowing occurs in different languages. To begin with, [2] examines how Arabic incorporates foreign affixes into its lexicon, resulting in hybridized words. This process, known as lexical hybridization, involves combining native Arabic roots with borrowed prefixes or suffixes, leading to the creation of new terms that blend elements from different languages. This indicates that noun borrowing can introduce foreign elements that may cause phonological and morphological changes in the recipient language that the current study concerns itself with. This agrees with the study by [29] who investigates how morphophonological patterns influence the production of regular and irregular past-tense forms in individuals with aphasia. Aphasia, a language disorder resulting from brain injury, often impairs morphological processing, affecting verb inflection. This research explores whether the distribution of morphophonological patterns within a language impacts past-tense production in aphasic individuals.

In addition, [20] analysed lexical borrowing in Africa. The study focused on language contact situations in Tanzania. He investigated the characteristics of the borrowing and lending languages, highlighting insights into mechanisms and patterns of noun borrowing. On the other hand, [14] examined English borrowings in sub-dialects of the region by focusing on the integration of English loanwords into regional sub-dialects. This research is significant as it sheds light on the dynamic nature of language evolution, particularly how global languages like English influence local dialects.

In the same vein, [25] examined the borrowing of lexical items between English and Gikuyu, focusing on the characteristics of both the languages. The study investigated the borrowing patterns and processes. The analysis indicated that the nature of the lending language, in this case, English, plays a significant role in determining words that have been borrowed into Gikuyu. This finding is in support of [19], claiming that lending languages, which often have extensive vocabularies, have influence over the languages they come into contact with. In contrast, the present study investigated the linguistic characteristics of Kupsabiny, a Nilotic language. The focus was on how these characteristics shape the process of borrowing nouns from Luganda, a Bantu language. The study sought to find out the morphophonological modifications of Luganda nouns which align with the phonological and morphological systems of Kupsabiny, by considering factors such as sound inventory, syllable structure, and word stress patterns. The study concerns itself with unique features of these two languages indicating how borrowed nouns from Luganda are integrated into the Kupsabiny lexicon.

Kupsabiny and Luganda Languages

Kupsabiny, a Kalenjin language spoken in eastern Uganda, has been influenced by neighboring languages through trade, intermarriage, and other forms of contact. While specific studies on Kupsabiny’s handling of borrowed nouns are limited, it is likely that, similar to other languages, Kupsabiny employs morphophonological processes to adapt foreign nouns. According to [16], Kupsabiny and Luganda are two distinct languages spoken in different regions of Uganda. Kupsabiny belongs to the Nilotes, used by the Sebei in the Eastern part of the country, specifically Kapchorwa, Kween, and Bukwo districts. The national census by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics in 2014 reveals that the population of the Sebei is approximately 288,209, belonging to the Kalenjin, a Southern Nilotic group in Nilotic language family.

Reference [16] describes the Kupsabiny language phonologically as highly tonal with nine vowels and thirteen consonants. [26] describe Kupsabiny as an agglutinative language, forming words by adding prefixes and suffixes to roots. Nouns can be marked for number and case, typically through suffixes. The language exhibits a marked-nominative case system, where the object case is functionally unmarked, and both nouns and verbs utilize prefixes and suffixes, with some morphemes being portmanteaux. Phonologically, Kupsabiny is characterized by a vowel harmony system, where words contain the vowels a, e, i [i], o, and u [u], or ā, ē, i [ɪ/ə], ō, and u [ʊ]. This system influences the phonetic structure of words and plays a crucial role in the language’s morphology.

Luganda, also known as Ganda, is a Bantu language of the Niger-Congo language family. Luganda is spoken by the Ganda people, which is the largest ethnic group in Uganda, and serves as the lingua franca among various ethnic groups in the central region of Uganda, including the Baganda [23]. Phonologically, Luganda is a tonal language with three tones: high (á), low (à), and falling (â). These tones are essential for distinguishing meaning between words that may otherwise appear identical. Like many other African languages, Luganda, as described by [18], is a tonal language. This means that some words can only be differentiated by pitch. Words that are spelled the same may carry different meanings according to their pitch. Luganda a Bantu language spoken in Uganda, exhibits well-documented morphophonological adaptations for borrowed nouns. One notable process is vowel lengthening, which can occur when two identical vowels come into contact across morpheme boundaries, resulting in a long vowel. For example, in the phrase “bâ-agal-a” (they want), the sequence of vowels leads to a lengthened vowel in pronunciation.

Nannyonga [23] states that the Baganda people are found in the Northern and Western parts of Lake Victoria in the central Uganda. Approximately 14 million of people, representing about 16.5% of Uganda’s population, speak Luganda [32]. [31] suggests that Luganda developed from a subgroup of Bantu languages known as Northeast Bantu. Bantu migration played a significant role in spreading the language across the African continent, and it is mainly spoken in Uganda. With the establishment of the Buganda Kingdom in the 14th century, Luganda became the official language of the kingdom and gained prominence [28].

Morphologically, Luganda exhibits a complex noun class system according to [18], a characteristic feature of Bantu languages. Nouns are categorized into different classes, each with specific prefixes that affect agreement patterns in sentences. Verbs in Luganda must agree with their subjects in both gender and number, and object prefixes are used to indicate the object of the verb, aligning with the noun class system. While both Kupsabiny and Luganda adapt borrowed nouns to fit their linguistic systems, the specific morphophonological processes can vary based on each language’s unique phonological and morphological rules [31].

Morphophonological Process

[30] defines morphophonology as the study of how phonological processes impact the structure of words. Morphophonology examines how morphological and phonological factors interact during word formation. [29] posits that when languages borrow nouns, they often modify the morphological and phonological structure of these words to fit their sound systems. Common processes include vowel epenthesis (inserting vowels to break up consonant clusters), consonant deletion, and feature changes to adapt foreign sounds to native phonemes. These adaptations are crucial for maintaining phonotactic constraints and ensuring the borrowed words are pronounceable within the borrowing language’s sound system. The current paper focuses on the morphological processes involved when nouns are borrowed into a language.

Advertently, [24] investigate the borrowing of English inflectional morphemes into Chinese Newspapers. The two authors examine how English inflectional morphemes such as plural ‘-s’ and possessive ‘-‘s’, are integrated into Chinese media language. Their research highlights the increasing presence of English morphological elements in Chinese newspapers, reflecting broader linguistic borrowing and globalization trends.

The study by [24] investigates how Spanish-English bilinguals process grammatical gender in Spanish noun phrases (NPs), focusing on both syntactic and morphophonological cues. Grammatical gender in Spanish is typically indicated by determiners (e.g., “el” for masculine, “la” for feminine) and noun-final vowels (e.g., “-o” for masculine, “-a” for feminine).

[12] analyze inflectional morphemes in English and Ibibio nouns from a morphophonemic perspective to shed light on this phenomenon. Their study focuses on comparing the inflectional morphemes of nouns in these two structurally and historically distinct languages (English and Ibibio). Similarly, the current study further explores noun borrowing between two structurally different languages. For example, Luganda follows an SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) word order, while Kupsabiny exhibits a more flexible word order with both VSO and SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) patterns. Additionally, Luganda has a more complex morphology compared to Kupsabiny [16].

Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory (OT) aims to explain how languages organize and prioritize constraints to generate surface forms. In OT, constraints are rules or principles that govern linguistic structures and interactions. They can be phonological constraints, morphological constraints, syntactic constraints, or any other type of linguistic constraint.

Each constraint has a set of violable and ranked candidates, and the optimal candidate is the one that violates the fewest constraints. It assumes that languages have a set of competing constraints, and the optimal surface form is determined by the ranking of these constraints. OT also introduces the concept of markedness and faithfulness. Markedness constraints indicate what is considered less preferable or less natural in a language, while faithfulness constraints ensure that there is a correspondence between the input and output forms. To determine the optimal surface form in OT, a grammarian assigns rankings to constraints based on the data from a particular language or linguistic phenomenon. The analysis involves evaluating various candidate forms and determining which one satisfies the constraints and minimizes violations. This theory is based  on some tenets which are applicable to the study. First tenet is constraint-based analysis, ocus for morphological analysis and borrowing. This tenet assumes that languages exhibit constraints that rank in importance and conflict with each other. Constraints are rules or principles that govern linguistic structures.

The second tenet is faithfulness constraints. In OT, faithfulness constraints ensure that there is a correspondence between the input and the output forms. These constraints ensure that the borrowed nouns retain their original phonological and morphological features to some degree. While the third tenet is a markedness constraint. Markedness constraints determine what is considered more or less marked in a given language or context. They can account for language-specific preferences or restrictions in the adaptation of borrowed nouns.

METHODOLOGY

The Research Design

In this qualitative study, a descriptive research design was employed to gather information on the morphophonological status of borrowed nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny. This design involves investigating the structure of a language through the collection of firsthand data [20]. The design also facilitates discovery in a natural environment, allowing the researcher to gain a detailed understanding by actively engaging with the experiences. By utilizing this design, the study examined the borrowing of Luganda nouns as they naturally exist in Kupsabiny. The researcher interacted with adult proficient speakers of both Luganda and Kupsabiny to collect data through interviews and focus group discussions. The qualitative approach was used to analyze the morphophonological patterns and processes exhibited by borrowed nouns in Kupsabiny from Luganda in the Kapchorwa District.

Variables

The morphophonological features of borrowed nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny were treated as the dependent variables in this study. This refers to the specific characteristics of the borrowed nouns that were examined, including changes in vowels, consonants, syllable structure, stress patterns, and morphology. The independent variable on the other hand, was language contact, which refers to the extent of interaction between the Luganda and Kupsabiny speakers. This variable affects the borrowing process and influences the morphophonological features of the borrowed nouns.

The Study Site

The study was conducted in Kapchorwa District, located in the Eastern Region of Uganda. This district is known for its linguistic diversity, with the Kupsabiny community being the primary speakers of the language. Specifically, the study focused on the Sabiny people within the Kupsabiny community, who have had extensive contact with Luganda-speaking communities. This interaction is particularly notable in Kapchorwa municipality, where there is a significant presence of Luganda speakers. Over time, this interaction has resulted in the adoption of some Luganda nouns into the day-to-day conversations of the Kupsabiny speakers. The choice of Kapchorwa District as the research site is based on the availability of Kupsabiny-speaking communities with significant exposure to Luganda.

The Target Population

The target population for this study included individuals from the age of eighteen years and above, who are native speakers of Kupsabiny and have been exposed to Luganda. These individuals are residing in communities or language groups within Kapchorwa District that have had prolonged contact with Luganda-speaking communities. The target population consisted of individuals who actively use Kupsabiny as their primary language and have incorporated borrowed nouns from Luganda into their speech. According to the 2014 Housing and Population census results, Kapchorwa Municipality has a population of 12,933 people who speak Kupsabiny.

Sample Procedure and Sample Size

Purposive Sampling procedure was used in the selection of the informants who meet the criteria relevant to the research objectives. The researcher selected participants using purposive sampling, guided by the idea that this approach allows them to choose individuals they believe are suitable for the study [5]. The informants consisted of adults aged 18-50 years who have a good understanding of the use of Luganda borrowings in Kupsabiny. Their proficiency in both languages was considered for accurate data collection regarding borrowed nouns. The decision to focus on adults between 18-50 years is based on the assumption that speech is fully developed by adulthood, and older individuals may have less control over their articulators. It is important to note that the upper age limit for the study was set at 50 to minimize potential articulation issues. Sample sizes of 50 informants were considered, as this is manageable and sufficient to gather qualitative data. Selected individuals were approached and provided with a clear explanation of the study’s purpose, ensuring their voluntary participation and informed consent. It should be noted that according to [21], a sample size as low as 24 can still allow for generalization in a study.

Data Collection Methods

This study utilized semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Through semi-structured interviews, the researcher had the opportunity to explore the participants’ thoughts, experiences, and perspectives on borrowed nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny in depth. This method’s flexibility allowed for open-ended questions, enabling participants to provide detailed and nuanced responses. Additionally, focus group discussions encouraged participants to expand on ideas and engage in a productive exchange of viewpoints. The study aimed to collect 50 borrowed nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny and 40 were used for discussion.

Semi-structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews are a pivotal qualitative research method, particularly effective in exploring linguistic phenomena such as the morphophonological adaptation of borrowed nouns. This method combines predetermined questions with the flexibility to probe deeper based on participants’ responses, allowing for comprehensive insights into language adaptation processes. The study conducted a series of semi-structured interviews consisting of four sessions, each lasting ten minutes. These interviews utilized an interview guide containing open-ended questions to investigate the morphophonological aspects of borrowed nouns. Participants were encouraged to share their observations, experiences, and insights on borrowing and adapting nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny. The interview guides incorporated questions regarding the pronunciation of the borrowed nouns from Luganda.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

FGDs are designed to gather diverse perspectives through group interactions, providing depth to the research topic. Four focus group discussion sessions (FDG) were conducted with ten participants, each lasting for five minutes. A discussion guide was used to generate a set of open-ended questions, aiming to delve into the morphophonological aspects of borrowed nouns. These questions were intended to provide detailed responses from participants regarding the borrowing and adaptation of nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny, especially regarding the pronunciation and noun structure borrowed from Luganda.

The Data Collection Procedure

Data collection is an essential part of research, allowing the researcher to gather information systematically on the topic of study within a specific setting [33]. In this study, a purposive sampling method was employed to select 50 informants who are native speakers of Kupsabiny and know Luganda. This sample size ensured a diverse range of age groups and language proficiency levels. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, providing them with a detailed explanation of the study’s purpose and ensuring their anonymity and confidentiality. Each participant was individually interviewed in the four sessions, with each session lasting for 10 minutes. The interviews consisted of a set of open-ended questions that focused on the participants’ knowledge, usage, and perception of borrowed nouns from Luganda in Kupsabiny. Probing questions were used to elicit detailed responses and ensure a comprehensive analysis.

Additionally, four focus group discussions were conducted, each lasting for 5 minutes, with a group of 10 participants. These discussions allowed for the observation of group dynamics and interactions, capturing different perspectives and enriching the data collected. A predetermined set of topics related to borrowed nouns from Luganda were used as a guide for the discussions. All individual interviews and focus group sessions were audio-recorded to ensure accurate data transcription and analysis. The sessions took place in a comfortable and private location, minimizing distractions and facilitating open and honest responses from the participants. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and translated. During the data analysis phase, relevant morphophonological features and patterns in the borrowed nouns were identified and coded. This coding process assisted in the identification of commonalities and differences in the adaptation of borrowed nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny.

Validity and Reliability

The validity of the study was ensured through the following steps. Firstly, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to gather relevant information. Additionally, experts in the field were consulted to ensure the research instruments accurately captured the variables under investigation. Furthermore, a pilot study was conducted using ten informants in Kapchesombe town to collect a corpus of borrowed nouns from Luganda into Kupsabiny. Native speakers of both languages were consulted during this process, providing valuable insights and feedback.

To ensure the reliability of the study, the test-retest technique was employed. This involved conducting three repeated series of data collection from five informants, administering the same test to the same group of individuals on three separate occasions. This helped determine the consistency and dependability of the measurement over time. The results obtained from each instance were compared to assess accuracy and the ability to elicit the necessary and adequate responses. By employing this method, the researcher was able to establish the reliability of the data collected.

Analyses and interpretation

The integration of borrowed nouns from Luganda to Kupsabiny reveal distinct morphological patterns. This process involves adapting nouns, to necessitate morphological adjustments to align with the Kupsabiny structural norms. The study identifies the following morphological patterns from the data collected for discussion. First, prefix modification from Luganda to Kupsabiny.

Prefix Modification

Prefix refers to a word fragment added to the beginning of a word. It functions to alter the meaning of the word. Its modification is the act of adjusting, altering, or converting it. The given example shows how a prefix is modified when a noun is borrowed from Luganda to Kupsabiny.

(1). Luganda   Kupsabiny    Gloss

       Omusomesa         Musumsit Teacher

Table I: The Analysis of Prefix Modification

In the context of the Constraint-Based Tenet of Optimality Theory (OT), we notice from table I the following changes: Omission of the prefix vowel /o-/. There is also an addition of the suffix -sit to align with Kupsabiny morphology. Further, there is constraint ranking where faithfulness is compromised through the loss of /o-/to prioritize morphological alignment.

In Luganda, nouns are prefixed with class markers to indicate noun class and number. The prefix omu- in “omusomesa” denotes a singular noun, typically used for human beings. In Kupsabiny, the equivalent noun “musumsit” lacks this initial vowel, suggesting a morphological adaptation where the Luganda prefix is either omitted or altered to fit Kupsabiny phonological and morphological structures. This is in line with Ralli (2012) who examines the morphological patterns exhibited by borrowed nouns in Modern Greek dialects. Ralli’s findings reveal that borrowed nouns undergo modification in terms of gender and inflectional class. For example, nouns borrowed from French change their gender from masculine to feminine in Greek. In our study, we find that Luganda, a Bantu language, employs a noun class system where prefixes denote specific classes, influencing agreement patterns within sentences. For instance, the prefix omu- in “omusomesa” (teacher) indicates a common noun. However, Kupsabiny, a Southern Nilotic language, does not utilize a comparable noun class system.

Consequently, when borrowing from Luganda, Kupsabiny often omits these prefixes, retaining the root of the noun. In this instance, the Luganda prefix omu– is substituted with the Kupsabiny prefix mu-, maintaining the noun’s grammatical integrity within Kupsabiny’s linguistic framework. Additionally, Kupsabiny often modifies or adds prefixes to borrowed Luganda nouns to fit its morphological system. This adaptation ensures that the borrowed nouns conform to Kupsabiny’s noun class system, which is integral to its grammar as shown in the given data.

(2) Luganda        Kupsabiny                Gloss

      Ekanisa            Kaniset                     Church

The Luganda word “ekanisa” (church) becomes “kaniset” in Kupsabiny. Here, the prefix eka– is replaced with ka-, aligning the noun with Kupsabiny’s noun class system. This indicates that a Luganda noun with a prefix denoting a particular class may be assigned a corresponding Kupsabiny prefix that conveys a similar meaning or function. This process ensures that the borrowed noun integrates seamlessly into Kupsabiny’s grammatical framework. This indicates that morphological alignment with Kupsabiny noun structure overrides segmental faithfulness. Further, there can also be prefix removal and consonant adaptation in the borrowed nouns from Luganda, adapted in Kupsabiny as shown below.

(3) Luganda       Kupsabiny            Gloss

      Olwokusatu      Rukusaatu   Wednesday

In the provided data, the prefix olwo– is dropped whereas the consonant [k] is adopted after the addition of the prefix ru– to remain with the base, “kusaatu.”Both terms share the root “kusatu,” meaning “three,” indicating the third day of the week. The prefixes olwoku– in Luganda and ru- in Kupsabiny are used to form the names of the days. In Kupsabiny, the prefix ru– is added to the root “kusaatu.” Notably, the consonant [k] is retained after the addition of the prefix, resulting in “Rukusaatu.” This retention indicates that Kupsabiny have a different morphological structure compared to Luganda, particularly concerning consonant retention and syllable structure.

Suffix Addition

Data on suffix addition is presented in table II below as identified in the borrowed nouns. A suffix is a letter or group of letters that goes on the end of a word and sometimes changes the word’s meaning. Some suffixes have specific uses. The following is data analyzed to indicate suffix addition in Kupsabiny on borrowed nouns.

(4) Luganda         Kupsabiny     Gloss

    Ekitabo           Kitapuut          Book

Table II: Analysis of Suffix Addition

Table II reveals that Kupsabiny often appends specific suffixes to borrowed nouns, which can serve various functions, including indicating definiteness, plurality, or other grammatical nuances. This is in support of [7] who explores the morphological patterns exhibited by borrowed nouns. Evans highlights that English nouns borrowed from other languages often maintain suffixes such as –able, which then affect the derivational morphology of the recipient language. In our study, we find that the Kupsabiny suffix –puut which is a number marker is added to the Luganda stem “Kita-,” adapting the noun to Kupsabiny’s morphological rules. Additionally, Kupsabiny incorporates the borrowed noun by adding suffixes. For example, in the given data below.

(5) Luganda     Kupsabiny      Gloss

    Empisa            Mpisanik          Manners

The suffix –nik, a common nominalizing or class-indicating suffix in Kupsabiny, is added to the root word in Luganda “mpisa”. This suffixation serves to integrate the noun into Kupsabiny’s grammatical system indicating plurality, ensuring it aligns with native morphological patterns. The resulting form, “mpisanik,” thus becomes a fully functional noun within Kupsabiny.The agglutinative nature of Kupsabiny allows for such morphological adaptations, enabling the language to expand its lexicon while maintaining structural consistency. The suffixation of –nik to the Luganda noun “mpisa” in Kupsabiny illustrates the intricate processes involved in noun borrowing and morphological integration. By modifying borrowed nouns to conform to native grammatical patterns, Kupsabiny preserves its structural norms. Further, Kupsabiny may add suffixes to borrowed nouns to conform to its morphological rules, often for grammatical agreement. This is clarified with the given data.

(6) Luganda     Kupsabiny      Gloss

 Eladiyo       Reetyeet            Radio

The Luganda term for ‘radio’ is “eladiyo,” which fits into Luganda’s noun class system with the prefix e-. When this term is adapted into Kupsabiny, it becomes “reetyeet.” This transformation involves the addition of the suffix -tyeet, aligning the noun with Kupsabiny’s morphological rules and ensuring it conforms to the language’s noun classification system. The addition of the suffix –tyeet is intended to fit Kupsabiny’s noun class system. The process of adapting “eladiyo” to “reetyeet” illustrates the broader linguistic phenomenon of borrowed noun integration, where borrowed nouns are modified to fit the morphological patterns of the Kupsabiny. In this case, Kupsabiny modifies the Luganda term by adding a suffix, demonstrating its preference for suffixation in noun formation. This contrasts with Luganda’s use of prefixes in its noun class system.

Morphological Reduplication

In this section, data on morphological reduplication as observed in the Luganda borrowed nouns to Kupsabiny is presented.

(7) Luganda            Kupsabiny      Gloss

       Omuzikiti          Misikitiit      Mosque

Table III: Analysis of Morphological Reduplication

Table III shows that Kupsabiny in some cases employs reduplication as a morphological strategy to adapt borrowed nouns. This involves repeating a syllable or segment of the borrowed noun to fit Kupsabiny’s morphological patterns. This is in line with [3] who examines morphophonemic patterns of affixation in Tiv plural formation. The findings indicate that these borrowed nouns display distinct integration patterns that are influenced by the morphological rules of the recipient language. In the current study, we find that reduplication can serve various functions, such as denoting plurality, intensity, or diminutiveness. For example, the Luganda syllable “ti” in the noun “omusikiti” is reduplicated in the reverse in the Kupsabiny word “misikitiit” and “it” is added to the borrowed syllable “ti.”This is intended to align with Kupsabiny’s morphological conventions.

CONCLUSION

The study examined the integration of Luganda borrowed nouns into Kupsabiny, focusing on morphologicaland makes the following conclusions: First, Luganda nouns borrowed into Kupsabiny underwent morphological modifications to align with Kupsabiny’s noun class system. This adaptation involves adding appropriate noun class prefixes or suffixes to the borrowed terms, ensuring they conform to the grammatical structure of Kupsabiny. Additionally, morphological reduplication is employed as a strategy to integrate these nouns seamlessly. Lastly, Kupsabiny often appends specific suffixes to borrowed nouns, which can serve various functions such as indicating definiteness, plurality, or other grammatical nuances.

ACKOWLEDGEMENT

This paper is a product of consolidated effort of three scholars: Charles, Janet and Joshua. Each one person is appreciated for the part contributed. Moreover, we acknowledge Kenyatta University, Kenya for the enabling environment to study and research, together with the different authorization bodies.

REFERENCES

1. Adami, E., &Ottolini, L.(2014). Lexical Borrowing as a Sociolinguistic Phenomenon: Focus on early Chinese loanwords in Universitàdegli Studi di Torino.
2. Al-Jarf, R. (2023). Lexical hybridization in Arabic: The case of word formation with borrowed affixes. International Journal of Linguistics,  Literature and Translation, 6(10), 61-70.
3. Ayagah, F. (2023). Morphophonemic patterns of affixation in tiv plural formation.  International Journal of Arts, Languages, Linguistics  and Literary Studies, 12(4).
4. Chelliah, S., & De Reuse, W. (2010). Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Springer Science & Business Media.
5. David, M., & Sutton, C. (2011). Social research: An introduction.
6. Durkin, P. (2014). Borrowed words: A history of loanwords in OUP UK.
7. Evans, W. M. (2014). Morphophonological changes of borrowed words from English to Lubukusu dialect of Western    International Journal of English and Literature, 5(2),45 51.
8. Gardani,F. (2020). Borrowing matter and pattern in  Morphology, 30(4), 263-282.
9. Gribanova, V. (2015). Exponence and morphosyntactically triggered phonological processes in the Russian verbal complex1. Journal of    linguistics, 51(3), 519-561.
10. Havumetsa, N. (2023). Lexical borrowing in journalism in a time of political crisis. Perspective, 31(3), 562-575.
11. Indriani, L., & Bram, B. (2023). Lexical borrowing of social media terms in liputan. Com website. Journal of Language, 5(1), 11-
12. Josiah, U., & Udoudom, J. (2012). Morphophonemic Analysis of Inflectional Morphemes in English and Ibibio Nouns: Implications for  Linguistic Studies. Journal of education and Learning, 1(2), 72-81.
13. Kager, R. (1999).Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.
14. Karimullina, G. N., Karimullina, R. N., &Laykova, Y. V. (2023). Analytical study of English borrowings in sub-dialects of the region.  Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 421-425.
15. Kawachi, K. (2018). Kupsapiny. Levels in Clause Linkage, 741- 790.
16. Kawachi, K. (2010). An overview of the sociolinguistic situation of Kupsapiny, a Southern Nilotic language of Uganda. African Study    Monographs, 31(3), 127-137.
17. Kerkhoff, A. O. (2007). Acquisition of morphophonology: The Dutch voicing alternation (Doctoral dissertation, External Organizations).
18. Kiyinikibi, N. D. (2021). The locative in Luganda: a syntax-interfaces approach (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch  University).
19. Larrimore, L., Jiang, L., Larrimore, J., Markowitz, D., &Gorski, S. (2021). Peer-to-peer Lending: The relationship between language  features, trustworthiness, and Persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(1), 19-37.
20. Lusekelo, A. (2018). Lexical borrowing in Africa with special attention to outcomes of languages in contacts in Tanzania. Mgbakoigba:  Journal of African Studies, 7(2), 1-22.
21. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L.(2017). Varieties and variation. The handbook of sociolinguistics, 45-64.
22. Nakijoba, S., &Kawalya, D. (2024). Outcomes of the contact between Luganda and English pragmatic markers. Journal of Humanities, 32(1), 7-33.
23. Nannyonga-Tamusuza, S. Baakisimba. (2014). Gender in the music and dance of the Baganda people of Uganda. Rout ledge.
24. Ni, C., & Jin, X. (2023). Investigating the borrowing of English inflectional morphemes into Chinese Newspapers. Chinese Journal of  Applied Linguistics, 46(4), 587-604.
25. Njagi, J. K. (2016). Lexical borrowing and semantic change: A case of English and Gĩkũyũ contact (Doctoral dissertation, University of  Nairobi).
26. O’Brien, R. &Cuypers, W. A. (1975). descriptive sketch of the grammar of Sebei. Working Papers on Languages and Linguistics, 9,  1-94.
27. Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Colantoni, L., Thomas, D., & Chen, C. H. (2024). The Morphophonological dimensions of Spanish gender marking:  NP processing in Spanish bilinguals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 18, 1442339.
28. Ralli, A. (2012). Morphology in language contact: verbal loan blend formation in Asia Minor Greek (Aivaliot). Morphologies in Contact.  Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 177-194.
29. Rimikis, S., Buchwald, A., & Miozzo, M. (2023). Morphophonological patterns influence regular and irregular past-tense production:  evidence from aphasia. Language Cognition and Neuroscience, 38(3), 288-301.
30. Spencer, A. (2017). Split-morphology and lexicalist morphosyntax: The case of transpositions. On looking into words (and beyond),
31. Ssempuuma, J. (2019). Morphological and syntactic feature analysis of Ugandan English: Influence from Luganda, Runyankole-Rukiga,and Acholi-Lango (Doctoral Dissertation, Dissertation, Bochum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 2017).
32. Tumwine, F. &Ntozi, J. (2017). Urbanization fuelling marriage dynamics among the Baganda of central Uganda. African Population  Studies, 31(1).
33. Yin, R. (2012). Applications of case study research. Sage, (34)