Despite facing similar bilingual environments with Chinese, these languages have developed different approaches to incorporating Chinese loan words. Dr Lefort analyzed published data from fieldwork on the DMCL and Dongxiang, as well as stories compiled for Dongxiang bilingual education. This comparative approach allowed her to examine how each language handles the same linguistic challenge – integrating Chinese adjectives within their Mongolic syntactic frame.

Both languages frequently borrow Chinese adjectives together with a small grammatical particle that is used, among other things, to link adjectives to nouns in Chinese. However, their strategies diverge significantly from there. The DMCL, in contact with North-eastern Mandarin, shows remarkable uniformity in its approach. Every borrowed Chinese adjective must end with the suffix ‘.dii’, a localized form of this Chinese linking particle. Even adjectives that wouldn’t normally need this linking word in Chinese must take on the ‘.dii’ suffix in the DMCL.

Dongxiang demonstrates much greater flexibility and complexity. It uses three different strategies. The first is borrowing adjectives in their bare form. The second involves attaching the suffix ‘.ʨi’, borrowed from the local variety of Chinese called Linxia. The third approach uses .ni, which copies the grammatical functions of the Chinese particle by using a Dongxiang marker. The borrowing of ‘.ʨi’ has enriched the set of suffixes found in the Dongxiang language, while the use of .ni in this manner has enriched the functions associated with this marker.

Dr Lefort reveals that, while DMCL and Dongxiang have undergone similar exposure to Chinese, they have responded differently. DMCL has developed a stable, uniform system where Chinese borrowings form a distinct subclass of adjectives. Dongxiang, by contrast, shows ongoing grammatical change, and even borrows other Chinese grammatical particles used with adjectives that can attach to both borrowed and native stems.

These different patterns relate to the distinct sociolinguistic contexts of each community. DMCL speakers maintain strong connections to traditional Mongolian as a reference point, while many Dongxiang speakers identify as Hui Muslims, who speak Linxia Chinese, and show greater willingness to adopt Chinese structural patterns due to shared cultural and religious grounds. Dr Lefort’s study demonstrates that even when facing similar contact situations, languages can develop remarkably different solutions to the same grammatical challenges.