Loanwords are borrowed through language contact and incorporated into another source language (Hoffer, 2005). To satisfy the borrowing requirement and lexical understanding, there must be no morphemic substitution, and pronunciation must resemble the source language (Schmidt and Jien-shou, 2020). English has been enriched by this practice (Quirk et al., 1968; Darwish, 2015), which is commonly seen in the field of linguistics among major cultures (Hamdi, 2017). Some examples of English words borrowed from other cultures are “ease,” and “café,” borrowed from the French; “area” borrowed from Latin; “kindergarten” from German; and “algebra” and “alcohol” from Arabic. However, linguistic and phonetic limitations have caused the adoption and assimilation of some loanwords to change drastically (Calabrese, 2009; Darwish, 2015), whose origin is almost unrecognizable. Monolinguals may not be cognizant of the origins of these integrated words (Romaine, 1989). For instance, the English word “coffee” is Arabic in origin and emanates from Yemen; however, it vastly differs from the original word, qahwah. Similarly, the word “lute” emanated from the Arabic al-ud (the oud) but experienced language interference via the French term “lut.” In recent years, globalization has undoubtedly expanded the scope of borrowing practices, bringing diverse linguistic elements into closer contact. This global exchange highlights the need for focused studies on specific phonetic features, such as guttural sounds in Arabic loanwords, to understand their adaptation and assimilation into English (Durkin, 2014; Darwish, 2015). This study adopted a synchronic approach by identifying loanwords through non-native sound segments and morphological structures. The grammatical, phonological, and morphological systems of Arabic, including the Hebrew, differ significantly from those of English. This study targets the guttural sounds of loanwords of Arabic origin in English. Arabic guttural sounds are more diverse than those in English. For instance, Arabic guttural sounds are k, χ, ɤ, q, ħ, ʕ, ʔ and are transformed into English respectively as k, kh, g, gh, q and h. Current research in the area continues to challenge and expand assumptions of European-based linguistics (Smeaton, 1973; Hafez, 1996; Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003; Alahmari, 2022).

Hafez (1996) maintains there are degrees of standardization of loanwords, one of which could be resistance to integration because they do not conflict with the patterns of the recipient language. Standardizing the articulation of loanwords from Arabic to English is more difficult with regard to phonological adaptation. For instance, “Khalifah” is a loanword that is pronounced /χa.li:.fah/ by the Arabic native speaker but the English speaker pronounces it as [ka.li:.fa]. A significant mismatch exists in the articulation of loanwords with guttural sounds because of significant mismatches in the articulation of the two languages. The challenge of integrating Arabic loanwords into English is partly due to Arabic's unique guttural sounds, which are absent in English. These sounds are broadly categorized based on their phonetic placement in words, which influences how they are adapted in English according to their placement, that is, guttural-initial (/χ/ ≈ ﺥخ - “Khadem” - /χadɪm/ - Servant; see Table 1 for an additional list of Arabic examples), guttural-medial (/ħ/ ≈ ﺡح – “Saara” - / saħraʔ/ - Desert; see Table 2 for additional exemplars), and guttural-final (/ ʕ/ ≈ ﻉع – “burqa”- /burqʕ/ - Veil; see Table 3 for additional exemplars).

This study investigates the constraints and use of Arabic loanwords with guttural speech sounds, and suggests ways to overcome difficulties in their use among English speakers. According to Sylak-Glassman (2014, p. 1), Semitic languages involve “various phonological processes and distributional constraints [that] require reference to the post-velar consonants as a phonologically active class.” Loanwords undergo processes of “sound alteration, addition, omission, and shifting” (Hafez, 1996, p. 384). Without these constraints, it is difficult to understand how and why such changes occur.

This study focused on guttural consonants, which are speech sounds that begin in the throat, such as k and g. According to McCarthy (1994), the articulation of guttural sounds are called “throat consonants,” which are produced primarily at the laryngeal—back of the throat; pharyngeal—the middle of the throat; and uvular—part of the throat nearest to the mouth. Sylak-Glassman (2014) notes these post-velar or guttural consonants comprise a universal guttural natural class, which he situates within a phonologically active class, and is prevalent in Arabic. The Arabic sound system includes more consonant sounds and fewer vowel sounds than English sounds (Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003). However, Arabic further distinguishes between the “emphatic” consonants that are pronounced with a tense and retracted tongue, moving any vowels adjacent to them backward in the mouth, with Arabic consonants known as the “gutturals” (Palfreyman and al Khalil, 2003). Articulation is determined by pharyngeal consonant phones, such as /ʔ/ and /ħ/ (Hess, 1990). The speech organs that produce these guttural sounds are shown in Figure 1. In addition, Hess (1990) highlighted the emphatic sounds of Semitic languages and their secondary pharyngeal constrictions. Generally, gutturals and emphatic constrictions occur in the laryngeal and pharyngeal regions of the vocal tract. This association suggests a connection between post-velar sounds and other types of sounds (Miller, 2007; Moisik et al., 2021).

Arabic comprises a rich consonantal system, which is far more difficult than its vowel system (Alahmari, 2022). Compared to English, Arabic has a maximum of two successive consonant systems (Hafez, 1996). Several studies have investigated the integration of English loanwords from different forms or dialects of Arabic (e.g., Hafez, 1996; Zibin, 2019; Alahmari, 2022). The guttural use of Arabic is often incongruent with other language systems. Alqarni (2021) found the inventories of Amharic and Argobba included the laryngeal [h], the uvular [q], and other glottalized ejectives. This contrasts with studies such as the Francophone systematic deletion of gutturals in Arabic loanwords because of the non-availability of the pharyngeal node. Paradis and LaCharité (2001) explained the reason for the systematic deletion of gutturals ħ, ʕ, h, and ʔ in French is because there is nothing close enough to the required adaptation. They maintain that gutturals are deleted when the foreign segment is unrealizable in L1. However, in an examination of the Central Kurdish (CK) adaptation of Arabic loan consonants, Hamid (2021) found a connection between faithful borrowing of guttural consonants and the frequency, orthographic input, and sensitivity of faithful pronunciation. Kurdish and Arabic represent two distinct language families, although they both have extensive contact through religion, politics, and education. Hamid highlighted that CK adapted emphatic sound by removing emphatic features. For political reasons, native Kurds ignored guttural phonemes in their writing by replacing them with non-guttural ones, for example, “penus” for “qa.lam.” Furthermore, the Arabic and Uzbek languages experienced mutual lexical and phonetic influences (Yulduz, 2022). Currently, loanwords borrowing in languages such as Uzbek also lack emphatic consonants in addition to gutturals in their language, and these omissions have resulted in phonetic changes (Yulduz, 2022). Calabrese (2009) noted that non-native learners may encounter sounds that are excluded from the inventory of their language. Therefore, she claims that preservation of the phonological and morphological shape of the foreign word is unnecessary. However, in some instances of loanword adaptation and transfer, the language is unwritten, as in the case of the colloquial Arabic of Palestine (Butros, 1963). Omission is another process of loanword integration that Smeaton (1973) confirms is the result of syllabic omission to either facilitate pronunciation or trim consonants and syllables.

The phonological OT analysis rejected the null hypothesis. The two English speakers struggled with pronunciation, although they had orthographies of each word placed before them as a guide. An influential version of OT that incorporated CT explicitly invoked correspondence between the elements in the input and output strings. Here, an influential version of OT that incorporated CT (McCarthy and Prince, 1995) and explicitly invoked correspondence between the elements in the input and output strings was applied. The two English speakers amended the articulation of Arabic loanwords with distinctive guttural sounds, thereby supporting H1 and H2.

Optimal transitions of loanwords into second languages require there to be few and specific differences between the two language systems, as in the case of Arabic states, for example, CK. Native English speakers adjusted the distinct guttural sounds in Arabic loanwords according to their speech backgrounds. Due to the lack of guttural phones in the English language phonemic inventory, the participants experienced difficulties articulating guttural consonants (Al Mahmoud, 2020; Yulduz, 2022). Appendix A presents the English orthography of the Arabic guttural phones. Using the regular OT approach, two native English speakers articulated Arabic loanwords based only on input. However, the CT was more precise because it allowed for the consideration of other outputs under the highlighted constraints. The difficulties of uttering loanwords with distinct sounds were confirmed, as English speakers attempted to account for these constraints using deletion, replacement, and repair. In addition, this study showed that orthography influences the understanding of distinct sounds from a different language, making it easier to understand and articulate Arabic loanwords. Orthography is another influential factor when considering a speaker's knowledge of a source language (Haugen, 1950; Lovins, 1973; Dohlus, 2005; Vendelin and Peperkamp, 2006). In addition, orthography affects pronunciation quality and supports the work of fellow linguists (Bassetti and Atkinson, 2015; Bassetti et al., 2018; Stoehr and Martin, 2021). However, despite the confirmation of these revelations in the literature, there is still limited research on the influence of loanwords, especially Arabic guttural consonants loaned to English, which could be a methodological flaw. Orthographic effects are pervasive in adaptation; however, their subtle impacts can often be detected only by large-scale statistical studies or carefully targeted experimentation (Daland et al., 2015). However, the results showed possible orthographic influences.

This study demonstrated how English speakers can unconsciously adopt these three phonological mechanisms as they listen to and read loanwords that contain guttural sounds in the absence of corresponding sounds in their L1 speech inventories. Code-switching differs from loanwords and should be explored further as it illustrates how bilinguals and learners alternate between the two languages using single words or phrases. Mustafawi's (2002) examination of loanwords within an Arabic context found that loanwords operated according to the grammar of the recipient language and were better at borrowing than code-switching. While the application of L1 to L2 is normal, this does not mean that L2 is a loanword. Code-switching does not illustrate the adaptation of phonological and morphological features as in well-established borrowing. Pronunciation is essential for better word comprehension (Al Mahmoud, 2020; Yulduz, 2022). Written words contain spaces, punctuation, and different letter representations (Ahmed, 2019) that help readers better understand loanwords. However, for oral mastery, the quality of loanwords' pronunciations minimizes the confusion between the speaker and listener. Pronunciation quality improves the understanding of Arabic loanwords (As-Sammer, 2015; Yulduz, 2022), even when the task requires the phonology mechanisms of deletion, replacement, and repair (Hamdi, 2017). Poor-quality pronunciation of loanwords reduces the understanding of the particular loanword but also negatively influences the pronunciation of adjacent words that precede or follow it and facilitate misunderstanding. McCarthy (1994) did not consider the uvular stop /q/ as an Arabic guttural, despite its non-appearance in the English phonemic inventory. Furthermore, the research challenges Sylak-Glassman's (2014) contention that the uvular stop is grouped with the dorsal consonants (/k/ and /g/) and the pharyngealized consonant.

Loanwords are inevitable and enrich the language of recipient borrowers. This study investigated the challenges English speakers encounter when articulating Arabic loanwords with guttural consonant sounds. The study involved a comparison of the outputs, which were the intermediate stages spent in deriving the correct candidate with the best pronunciation. A concise description was provided using the OT approach to demonstrate how English speakers learn the pronunciation of Arabic loanwords using the three phonological mechanisms of replacement, repair, and deletion. This study advances the understanding of communication between Arabic and English speakers and elucidates how and why constraints occur. These findings are instructive for teacher education, assessments, and pedagogy.