Download - 108 Semitic Templates - Outi Bat-El...108 Semitic Templates OUTI BAT-EL 1 Introduction Senutic morphology is characterized by phonological restrictions on the shape of the '"'ords,

108 Semitic Templates

OUTI BAT-EL

1 Introduction

Senutic morphology is characterized by phonological restrictions on the shape of the '"'ords, allo,ving only a lim ited set of prosodic templates and vocalic patterns. The prosodic templates, which set the size restrictions on '''ords and display the permissible syllable structure, host a limited set of vocalic patterns, and in some cases also affixes. The sten1 consonants fit into the consonantal positions provided by the prosodic ten1plates, as do the vo,vels of the vocalic pattern.

To clarify these notions, consider the dexivational para.digm in Table 1.08.1. The words in Table 108.l are structurally related on both the vertical and horizontal axes of the paradigm. On the horizontal axis, they share the stem consonants. On the vertical axis, they share a prosodic ten1plate, a vocalic pattern, and, in the t�'o rightmost colun1ns, an affix. The properties on the vertical axis provide '"ords 'vith their phonological structure. When these properties are combined, i.e. CaCaC, hiCCiC, CCiCa, they form '''hat is kno,,.,n as "Semitic templates" (McCarthy 1981). Throughout the chapter, I use the term "configuration" for this

Table 108.1 Derivational paradigm in "1'1odern Hebre\V

Prosodic cvcvc cvccvc CCV CV Stem fL'lnplnfe: C01l$0,ltlt1f

Vocalic la al li i I lil pntterti: Affix: ,,_ -ll

ga'dal 'to gro\v' hig'dil 'to enlarge' gdi' la 'growing' lg d I} sa'gar 'to close' his'gir 'to extradite' sgi'ra 'closing' ls g r) fa 'tak 'to keep quiet' hif'tik 'to quieten' fti'ka .-silence' lf t k) ka'lat 'to absorb' hik'lit 'to record' kli'ta 'absorption' lk I t) z.a'rak 'to throvr' hiz'rik 'to inject' zri'ka 'throv1ing, lz r k)

injection'

Material com direitos autorais

Semitic Templates 2587

combination of properties, ivhile the term "template" is used exclusively for prosodic templates.

The systen1 of configuration is found in all Semitic languages in various paradigmatic relations, although to various degrees. This is demonstrated in §2 \Vith examples from several languages. As the configurations consist of both segmental and prosodic elements, their structure is non-linear (see CHAPTER 105: TIER SEGREGATION). The structure of the configurations, and of Semitic \vords in general, is introduced in §3, with en1phasis on theoretical develop1nents in the representation of the prosodic te1nplate. The hvo ensuing sections illustrate the mapping of the configurations, where §4 is devoted to a procedural approach and §5 to a constraint-based approach. Within each of these two sections, two types of input are considered: the consonantal root and the word/stem. The concluding ren1arks in §6 draw attention to the status of the configurations "'ithin a crosslinguistic perspective.

2 The nature of Semitic morphology

In Semitic n1orphology, words are organized into classes, identified by their configuration. The class system in verbs (§2.1) is more prominent and restricted than in nouns (§2.2); nevertheless, the same structural generalizations hold, regardless of the lexical category.

2.1 Verb classes (binyanim) Verbs belonging to the same class have an identical configuration, as exemplified in (1). The designator of a verb class is the 3rd masculine singular perfect, \vhich is free of inflectional affixes.'

(1) Verb classes in Palestinian Arabic (Elihay 2004)

CiCeC tCaCCaC 'misek 'to grasp' 't�allam 'to study'

'fihem 'to understand' 'tdarra� 'to burp' 'nizel 'to go do"rn' 'tbaddal 'to be replaced' 'liimeq 'to lose temper' 'tbaxxar 'to evaporate' 'li!1eq 'to catch' 'tda\vwaf 'to sho,ver'

staCCaC 'sta�mal 'to use' 'staqbal 'to welco1ne' 'staw�ab 'to take in' 'staslarn 'to submit' 'stafhad 'to quote'

The restricted structure of the configurations is evident in (1), where all the configurations are disyllabic, with a final CVC syllable. They differ in the first syUable, CV in Ci.CeC and CCVC in staC.CaC and tCaC.CaC. The latter hvo configurations are distinguished by their prefixes, ivhere consonant positions (C-slots) not occupied by an affix are left for the sten1 consonants. In staC.CaC the prefix

' Throughout the chapter, I do not consider irregular verbs, whi,oh for phonological reasons (often only hislorically motivated) deviale from the regular configuration. I also ignore the epenthetic ['il in Arabic, which rescues word-initial dusters. Epenthesis is obligatory in Standard Arabic (e.g. ['is'ta<mall 'to use'), but optional in spoken dialects, unless the word appears phrase-initially or aher a <'Onsonant-final word (e.g. ['ba:sil is'taqbalol vs. ['fa:d.i (i)s'taqbalo] 'Basil/Fadi wekomed him').

Copyrighted material

2588 Outi Bat-El

occupies the two positions of the initial complex onset, thus leaving three slots for the stem consonants, while in tCaC.CaC the prefix occupies only one position in the complex onset, thus leaving four slots for the consonants. When a configuration provides four slots for steo1 consonants but the stem has only tluee different consonants, one consonant occupies hvo slots (e.g. ['t�allam] 'to study' vs. ['tt1arkaf] 'to provoke').

Semitic languages vary \vith regard to prosodic "plasticity." Hebre\v verbs accomn1odate as many stem consonants as possible (i.e. respecting the OCP and the Sonority Sequencing Generalization; CHAPTER 49; SONORITY), as long as the verb does not exceed the disyllabic maximal size (Bat-El l994a, 2003a). In contrast, Amharic adjusts the number of syllables in the template according to the number of consonants (McCarthy 1985; Rose 2003). That is, Hebre\v expands its syllabic inventory beyond CV and CVC, keeping the disyllabic te1nplate, while Amharic expands its syllabic template, keeping a restricted syllabic inventory (see Bender and Fulass 1978 for a study of Amharic verbs).

(2) Tem.platic plasticity (A111haric) vs. syllable plasticity (Hebrew)

Amharic Hebrew 3 Cs S<1bb;:ir-<1 'to break' s1per 4 Cs m;:is;;ikk;;ir-<1 'to testify' tirgem 5 Cs t;:i-ngadaggad-a 'to walk in a zigzag' flirt et 6 Cs aqanatt'ar-a 'through violently' trinsfer

'to tell' 'to translate' 'to flirt' 'to transfer'

The vocalic pattern of the configuration is an arbitrary subset of possible combi.nations of v(nvels. The vocalic patterns in Tigrinya verbs, for example, employ only four ([ii ;:i a]) out of the seven vo"'els ( [ i i u e ;:i o a]) in the language (Buckley 2003).

(3) Vocalic patterns in Tigrinya (Buckley 2003)

'offend' 'bless' simple perfective aa baddal-a aa barak-a sunple gerundive 31 baddil-u a1 bari.k-u causative jussive ell j<1-b<1ddil ai j<1-barik

In Standard Arabic, ho,vever, �vhich has only three vo,vels in its inventory, the vocalic patterns in the verb inflectional paradigm are partially predicted, given a base vtith a specified vovtel (Guerssel and Lowenstamm 1996).

(4) Predictable vocalic patterns in Standard Arabic (binyan [) pe1fective 0 'd'ar0b �

imperfective l 'jad'rib 'to hit'

1 'lab is � a 'jalbas 'to dress' a 'katab � u 'jaktub 'to write' u. 'kabur � u. 'jakbur 'to be great'

Verb configurations are often associated \Vith thematic-syntactic properties, such that verbs in different configurations are derivationally related if they share the san1e stem consonants.



(5) Derivational relations in Modern Hebreiv verbs

CaCaC CiCeC hitCaCeC ga'dal 'to gro,v' gi'del 'to raise' hitga'del 'to aggrandize' xa1Jav 'to think' xi'Jev 'to calculate' hitxa'Jev 'to consider' ka 'dam 'to precede' ki'dem 'to promote' hitka'dem 'to progress' pa'rak 'to unload' pe'rek 'to dismantle' hitpa'rek 'to disintegrate' ka'Jar 'to bind' ki'Jer 'to connect' hitka'fer 'to get in touch'

The thematic-syntactic properties of the configurations are relational ratl1er than absolute, such that the property assigned by a configuration is largely contingent upon the base of the derived verb (Berman 1978; Horvath 1981; Doron 2003; Laks 2007). For example, the Hebrew configuration hitCaCeC assigns deaccusative in [hir'giz] 'to make so111eone angry' --> [h.itra'gez) 'to beco1ne angry', but reciprocal in [x.i'bek) 'to hug' --> (hitxa'bek) 'to hug each othe.r'. Moreover, [hit?a'lel) 'to torture' is neither deaccusative nor reflexive, as it is not derived from another verb. Similarly in Arabic, ?aCCaC assigns causative in ['<tJalas] 'to sit do"rn' --> ['?a<tJlas] 'to bid one to sit do\vn', but ('?arsal] 'to send' is not causative, since it does not have a base verb (\rVright 1962). Verbs sharing a configuration may also share a semantic property, as is the case "'ith Arabic (t)CajCaC verbs. Watson (2006: 192) reports that in most dialects these verbs refer to ''physical state '"ith pejorative overtones of pretence," but in San'ani Arabic they denote "harmless childish naughtiness."

The granunatical function of the configuration is apparent in various Semitic languages, but not in all. In Modern Aramaic, which has only two verb classes (as opposed to five in Hebre1v, 11 in Maltese, and 14 in Standard Arabic), the configurations have only structural properties, to the extent that there are hardly any related verbs from the two classes (Hoberman 1992).

A verb class defines the inflectional parad.ign1 of the verb, such that verbs belonging to the same class have the same configuration in every forn1 in the paradigm (Aronoff 1994; see also CHAPTER 83: PARADIGMS).

(6) Jnflectional paradig111s in Palestinian Arabic verbs (Eliliay 2004)2

perfect imperfect pe1fect imperfect CiCeC -iCCaC CaCCaC -iCaCCeC 'misek -'imsak 'to grasp' 'massak -'massek 'to let hold' 'filiem -'ifham 'to understand' 'fahham -'fahhem 'to explain' 'nizel -'inzal 'to go do,vn' 'nazzal -'nazzel 'to bring down' 't1in1eq -1ilin1ag 'to lose temper' 'hanlmaq -'hanuneg 'to n1ake angry' 'liheq -'ilnaq 'to catch' 'lanha.q -'lahlieq 'to manage'

Since the inflectional paradigm of a verb is contingent upon its configuration, every new verb must belong to one of the verb classes. This is manifested by the native configuration found in loan verbs, suc11 as [til'fen] 'to phone', [si'n1es] 'to send

' Person/number/gender features are indicated by suffixes in the perfect (e.g. ['fihm-u) 'they Mdei:stood', [fah'ha.m-ti] 'you (F£M sc) expla.ined') a.nd prefl)(es + suf.6xes (in some forms) in the imperfect (e.g. ['t-ifham-u] 'you (PL) will understand', [n-'fahhem l 'we will explain'). As all imperfect forms take a prefix, the imperfect stems are preceded by a dash.



However, a rich configuration system in the nominal category is found in the singular /plural paradign1 of several Semitic languages (see Ratcliffe 1998b for a comparative study), such as Arabic (Hanlffiond 1988; McCarthy and Prince 1990; Ratcliffe 1997, 1998a; McCarthy 2000; \'\latson 2002, 2006), Tigre (Paln1er 1962; Raz 1983), and Tigrinya (Palmer 1955; Buckley 1990). In Arabic, for example, most underived nouns and lexicalized derived nouns (Abd-Rabo 1990; Boudelaa and Gaskell 2002) are pluralized in a configuration system called "broken plural," \Vhich contrasts with the suffixation n1ode of pluralization called "sound plural."

(8) Broken plurals

a. Standard Arabic (Wright 1962) plural singular

7aCCa:C ?ali'ka:m liukm 'judgment' 'aq'da:m 'qadam 'footstep' ?aj'ma:n ja'mi:n 'oath'

?aCCuC ''abhur bahr 'sea' ''azmtu1 'zan1an 'time' ''a!sun li 'sa :n 'tongue'

CuCuC 'suquf saqf 'roof' ''usud ''asad 'lion' 'surur sa'vri:r 'throne'

CiCa:C ri'ma:h rum'!\ 'spear' xi'ba:l 'xabal 'hill' li''a:m Ja''i:m 'base'

b. Tigre (Palmer 1962) plural singular

?aCCiC ?akbid kabid 'belly' ?ab7is bi? is 'husband' 7abnir binar 'sea'

'aCCuC 7aqlub qalib 'root' 'amtud mitid 'stake' ?adhub dihab 'gold'

CaCaCCi li.anaddi run di 'hoof' k;;itarri katra 'pigeon' kadabbi kadbet 'floor'

CaCaCit masanit masru 'friend' warazit \Vareza 'bachelor' ?ara,vit 'ar,ve 'serpent'

While in the verb system, every class has a fixed configuration for each tense/ aspect form, allowing a predictable system of one-to-one correspondence, in the noun system there is one-to-many correspondence (Bateson 2003). As sho\vn in (8) above, a singular configuration may correspond to several plural configurations (e.g. Arabic CVCC in [t1ukn1] - ['ah'ka:n1] vs. [rwnn] - [ri'1na:n]). In addition, a singular noiln may have h"o or three alternative corresponding plural for.ms, more so in the spoken dialects (e.g. Arabic ['�anzi] - [�i'na:z] - [�u'nu:z] - [''a�nuz] 'goat(s)', ['qafil] - ['aq'fa:l] - ('?aqful] 'lock(s)'). However, as disctissed in §4.2 below, there are some tendencies for nouns '"ith certain configurations to select particular plural configurations.


2592 Outi. Bat-El

The system of configurations is not limited to nouns and verbs. As sho\vn below, An'lharic argot (Leslau 1964) and Arabic hypocoristics (Davis and za,vaydeh 2001) take specific configurations (Caj(C)CiaCi and CaCCu:C, respectively) regardless of the shape of the base. Sinularly, Arabic adjectives and superlatives (Wright 1962) each take a consistent configuration.

(9) Other configu.rati.ons

a. Arabic adjectives CaCi:C ?aCCaC ka'bi:r 'big' '?akbar 'bigger'

' ' . 'small' '?as 'yar 'smaller' s a 111:r t'a'wi:l 'long' •?at\val 'longer' ba '�i:d 'far' '?ab�ad 'farther'

b. Arabic hypocoristics c. Amharic argot CaCCu:C Caj(C)C;aC; bas'su:m 'basma bajt<it bet 'house'

sal'lu:m sa'li:m gajbab gabba 'enter' jas'su:r 'ja:sir zajfnan zaffana 'sing' sa1n11nu:r sa'1ni:ra wajrk'ak' wark' 'gold'

The preference for disyllabic forms, also exhibited in (9), is ovenvhelming, although, as noted above, some languages display a limited flexibility. This preference is found also in Hebrew acronym \vords (Bat-El 1994b; Zadok 2002), which are mostly disyllabic, regardless of the number of "'ords in the input. For exan1ple, both the two-,vord base (n1at'bea xuc) 'foreign currency' and the three-word base (mer'kaz texno'logia xinu'xit] 'educational technology center' surface as the acronym "'Ord [ma 'tax]. Moreover, four-1vord bases also give rise to disyllabic acronym words, as in [n1am'ran1], whose base is [mer'kaz maxfe'vim (ve-)ri'fun1 me1nu'kan] 'automated computer center'.

3 The structure of Semitic configurations

The tern1 configuration correlates with the traditional Semitic ten1plate/pattern, represented as fully specified words, such as (qa:t'a!, qit't'el, hiqt'il], etc. (also [pa:�al] or [pa:qad] in Hebre'"' and [fa�al] in Arabic).4 As the stem consonants ( {qt<il, lpql, lpqdl, {f�ll) are not part of the configuration, replacing them \Vith C-slots gives us the type of structure used in the previous sections, i.e. Ca:CaC, CiCCeC, hiCCiC, etc.

Configurations play a central role in the older grrunn1arian studies (see §4.2) of Semitic morphology, mostly 'vith reference to dass membership and relations among words. In the absence of a theoretical model of non-linear phonological structure, these studies do not consider the internal structure of the configuration, and refer to relations among words in terms of phonological alternations, such as vo,vel change/ablaut and gemination.

'1 The h<lditional terminology associated Vv·ith the configurations is tvt1zan (plural ?1nvza:,1) in Arabic, and binyan. (plural birlljnnim) foe verbs and miska/ (plural miskalim) for nouns in Hebrew.


2594 Outi Bat-El

McCarthy (1981) points out the restrictive nature of the templates in (11). Every template in (lla) has a counterpart \Vith an initial con1plex onset in (llb), and another with an additional CV syllable in (1 lc). The absence of CVCVCVC in the first row in (1 lc) is due to a constraint prohibiting a sequence of hvo light syllables. These templates can be expressed \Vith an archi-template, which generalizes all and only the possible templates in (11), with the addition of a VO\vel deletion rule that resolves the prohibited sequence of two light syllables.

(12) Archi-te111plafe of the prosodic templates in Standard Arabic verbs (McCarthy 1981)

(V -? 0 I eve - CVC)

As sho\·Vn in Table 108.2, there are more configurations than CV te1nplates, ,.vhere the difference an1ong configurations sharing a templa.te is in the affixes a.nd their position, as \Veil as in the distribution of the stem consonants.

Although the templates consist of CV-slots, reference to the syllable is inevitable, as seen in McCarthy's (1981) generalizations, such as "no binyan which begins with a consonant cluster is three or n1ore syllables long overall" (1981: 386). This statement refers directly to the restriction on the number of syllables in the ten1-plate, 'vhicli is not explicitly expressed in the CV template. There is definitely a disyllabic core template, \vhich can be minimally expanded with either CV or C (see Kiparsky 2003 for C as a demi-syllable). Moreover, as shown in Table 108.2 (c), the CV expansion is ahvays a derivational prefix. In addition, Lowensta1nn1 and Kaye (1986), in their study of compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebre\v, demonstrate the essential role of the syllable in the configurations.5

3.2.2 Syllabic ten1plates The templates in (a) and (b) of Table 108.2 are disyllabic. The t"'O trisyllabic te1nplates in (c) are disyllabic on the stern level, since the initial CV, as noted above, is occupied by a derivational prefix (e.g. (ta-'baddal) 'to be replaced', [ta-'d'a:jaq] 'to be disturbed'). That is, verbs in Arabic are disyllabic either on the stern level, the \VOrd level, or both. The sarne is true for Hebre\v verbs, \Vhich can be disyllabic '"ith or without a derivational prefix (e.g. [hik'dim] 'to corne first', [ki'dem] 'to promote'), or trisyllabic, but only '"ith a prefix (e.g. [hitka'den1) 'to progress').

As argued in NlcCarthy and Prince (1986, 1993a, 1995), the di.syllabicity restriction found in Semitic n1orphology reflects a universal preference for a binary foot (see also CHAPTER 40: THE FOOT; CHAPTER 44: THE IAll·!BIC-TROCHAlC LAW). Thus, the most general ten1plate of Arabic verb is a binary syllabic foot. The advantage of the syl labic template has been supported with data from Modern .Hebre\v (McCarthy 1984), \''here verbs from the same class have different CV templates but an identical syllabic template, consisting of hvo syllables, i.e. a foot (see, ho,vever, Amharic templatic plasticity in (2)).

s Note that also the theory of Government Phonology i:efe.rs to syllabi.es, but tlte only possible syllable is CV (Lowenstamm 1996), in wltich case reference to syllables seems to be redundant. \•Vitltin this theory, Arabic template consists of CV-CVCVCV, where the initial CV is the deriva6onal head.


Table 108.2 CV templates and verb configurations in Standard Arabic'

CV template

a. 1. CV eve•

2. eve eve

3. evv eve

b. 1. c CV eve

2. e eve eve

3. c CVV eve

c. 2. CV eve eve

3. CV cvv eve

Co11jig11rntion

la lb Ic

II

IV

m VII VIII IX

x XII XJ!I XIV

VI

XI

v

VI

eaeae eaeie CaCuC

eaC;C,aC CaCCaC 'aeeae

ea:eae

neaCaC CtaCaC CCaC;aC,

staCCaC CCa\vCaC

' ' eCa\V\vaC CCanC;aC, CCanCaC CCanCay

CCa:C;aC;

taCaC,C;aC taeaCCaC

taCa:CaC

Verb

'fa tall 'to open' 'hasib 'to think'

'qabuli 'to be ugly'

'kassar 'to break' vfam�al 'to sea tter' ''akram 'to honor' 'sa:baq 'to rtm a race'

'nbasat< 'to be pleased' 'qtabal ,-to receive' 'hwalal 'to squint'

'sta�mal 'to ltse' 'hdavrdab 'to be curved' ·�ta'"''''ad 'to be heavy'

·�fanc!Jadj 'to go quickly' 'branfaq 'to bloom' '<landaj 'to be strong'

's\va:dad 'to be black'

ta'farraq 'to be dispersed' ta'�afrat 'to act like a devil'

ta'ka:lam 'to con\1erse'

• As Watson (2002) notes, most dfalects of Arabic do not retain configurations above X. In additfon, n1erger in the prosodic template (but not the configuration) is found in several dialects, incll1di11g Palestinian Arabic, where (c) merged with (b) via the deletion of the vowel in the first syUable. That is, Standard Arabic (ta'farraq] (c2) corresponds to Palesti.ni.an Arabic ('tfo.rraq) (b2). • The CVCVC template is considered one configuration (due to a unified inflectional paradigm), although it hos several sub-configurations thot differ in the quolity of the second vowel (see (4) above).

(13) Modern Hebrew verb configurations

Syllabic configuration I

II

III

IV

v

cr;, a;, "a. a ' , h cri cri

CT; CTc

1ti10 cr • •

CV configuration CaCaC pa'tax

niCCaC nix'nas

hiCCiC hig'dil hiCCCiC hif'prits

CiCeC gi'del CiCCeC tir'gen1 CCiCCCeC trins'fer

hitCaCeC hitla'bef h.itCaCCeC hitba.r'gen

'to open'

'to enter'

'to enlarge' 'to squirt'

'to raise' 'to translate' 'to transfer'

'to get dressed' 'to becoo1e a bourgeois'

In Arabic, unlike in Hebre\v, syllable structure plays a major role in distinguish· ing among configurations, as is evident fron1 the distinction a1nong CaCaC (I), CaCCaC (II), and Ca:CVC (III). The first configuration is distinguished fron1


Empirical support for this vie"' is provided by the transfer phenomena in broken plurals (§2.1.2), 'vhere properties of the singular form that cannot be encoded in the consonants are transferred to the plural forn1. Arabic broken plurals (17a) exhibit vo"rel-quantity transfer in trisyllabic plurals: a short vo\vel in the plural corresponds to a short vo,vel in the singular and a long vowel in the plural corresponds to a long vo,vel in the singular (McCarthy and Prince 1990; McCarthy 2000). Broken plurals in Tigre (17b), as \veil as in Tigri.nya (Palmer 1955), exhibit vowel-quality transfer in trisyllabic plurals: a high front vo,.vel in the plural corresponds to a front vo,vel in the singular, a high back vo"1el in the plural corresponds to a back vowel in the singular, and a central vo,,rel in the plural corresponds to a central vowel in the singular (Palmer 1962).

(17) Vowel q11a.ntity transfer

a. Ye111eni Arabic (Qafisheh 1992) singular plural

short vo,vel 'darzan da'ra:zin 'dozen' 'maktab ma'ka:tib 'office'

Jong vowel fin'dja:n fa'na:<!:Ji:n 'cup' n1al<'tu:b ma'ka:ti:b 'letter'

Standard Arabic (Ratcliffe 1998a) singular plural

short vowel 'xa:tam xa'wa:tim 'signet ring' ·�aqrab �a'qa:rib 'scorpion'

long vowel dJa:'mu:s c:t;awa: 1n1u:s 'buffalo' rnif'ta:li rnafa:'ti:li 'key'

b. Tigre (Palmer 1962) singular plural

central vo,vel misgid masagid 'n1osque.' dJandjar dJanadJir 'chain'

front vo"1el b<lrrnil b<lramil 'barrel '

bist'an b;isat'in 'garden' back vo"rel kHkut katakut 'young bird'

maskot masakut '\vi.ndo,v'

Similarly, Ratcliffe (l 998a) mentions cases of vowel polarity in Arabic CVCC nouns: \Vhen the vo,vel in the singular is low the vo\vel in the plural tends to be high ( [qalb] - [qu'lu:b) 'heart(s)'), and when the vo,vel in the singular is high the vowel in plural tends to be low ([qufl] - (7aq'fa.:l) 'lock(s)').

Other cases of transfer, \Vhich cannot be attributed to the consonantal root or the configuration, are drawn from the formation of Hebrew denominative verbs (Bolozky 1978; Bat-El 1989, 1994a, 2003a, 2003b; Gafos 1998; Ussishkin 1999, 2000). A verb derived fron1 a noun "'ith an affix n1ay include the affix consonant as part of its sten1 (e.g. [mer'kaz) 'center' � [mir'kez] 'to center'; cf. [ri'kez] 'to concentrate (INTRANS)'; [par'fan] � [pir'fan) 'to commentate'; cf. [pe 'ref) 'to interpret'). Also, when the base consists of consonant clusters, these clusters are preserved in the derived verb (e.g. [guf'panka] 'approval' -7 [gif'penk] 'to approve'; •[gfi'penk), •[gif'pnek]).


in the formation of [tu1'ru:b] ''vars' from [harb], the circumscribed material <liar> is mapped into the ten1plate [aµa1,f,]F, yielding [t1araa)p. Melodic overwriting assigns the appropriate vocalic pattern of the plural form and the residual base seg1nents ((b) in this case) are adjoined. In longer singular fonns, however, the residue is an entire syllable, in "'hich case the basic iambic template is expanded. This is the case in ['madxal] - [ma'da:xil] 'entrance(s)', '''here the material \vithin the iambic template is [mada:IF, while [xil] forn1s an additional syllable. As the final syllable is outside the template, it preserves its original structure fron1 the singltlar forn1, reflecting faithfulness to the base (McCarthy 2000). This explains the transfer phenomena in (18) above, which appear, as predicted, only in the final syllable.

5 Mapping a configuration: A constraint-based approach

As noted in §3.2.3, the prosodic structure of the configuration is assigned by the independently motivated constraints in (14): FTBIN, '"hich sets the lower bound at !\VO syllables, and ALIGN(<J, PrWd), '"'hich sets the upper bound at t"'O syllables. The segmental elements of the configuration, i.e. the vocalic pattern and affix (if any) are considered an affix, and thus provided in the input. The position of the affix \Vithin the \vord is determined by independent universal constraints.6 The type of constraints involved depends on the assun1ption regarding the input, i.e. whether it is a consonantal root (§5.1) or a fully specified word/ stem (§5.2). Throughout this section, I assume the effect of the templatic constraints in (14), and thus do not consider candidates that exceed the disyllabic template.

5.1 Root + configuration Under the root-based approach, the input consists of a consonantal root and the segmental elements of the configuration, \vhich are considered an affix. When the affix consists of vo,vels only, markedness constraints are responsible for syllable structure, and thus for the linear order of the vovvels and the consonants.

(19) *COMl'l<X, F1N11tC,7 ONs�r >> •coo11 (Hebre-w [xi'ber] 'to connect')

\xbrl+{iel *COJ-1PLEX FINA LC ONSET *CODA

a. xbier . , • b. xibre * I • c. ixber . , ••

.:;; · d. xiber •

' �Vithin the standard OT approach to morphology, affixes, just like bases, are inb·oduced as le>Ocal items in the input, as \Veil as in aHgnment constraints. Russell (1995, 1999) eliminates this duality, arguing that affixes should be introduced as constraints only (see also Yip 1998; Adam and Bat-El 2008). An amtlysis of Hebrew configurations within this approach is provided in Bat-El (2003b). 7 FINALC (i\1cCarthy 1993), formally stated as ALJCNR(PrWd, C), requfres a word to end in a consonant.

2602 Outi Bat-El

In general, '"hether the root consists of three consonants or four (e.g. [tir'gem] 'to translate'), or '�'hether the affix consists of vo•"els only or vo'"els plus a prefix (e.g. [hig'dil] 'to enlarge'), the te1nplatic constraints in (14) deternline the prosodic template and the n1arkedness constraints in (19) are responsible for the sequential order of the segments.

Note that the root consonants ("rith the exception of glides) must be surface-true, '"hich can be attributed to an undominated constraint MAx(Root). Anlharic and Hebre\v both respect this constraint, but they differ \vith regard to the violability of other constraints. As exen1plified in (2), Amharic verbs can be trisyllabic in order to accommodate aU root consonants •vithout violating *COMPLEX (e.g. [masakkar-a) 'to testify'). Therefore, the templatic constraints are violated. Hebre'" verbs always respect the templatic constraints, but *COMPLEX can be violated (e.g. [trins'fer] 'to transfer') in order to accommodate aU consonants.

5.2 Word + configuration

Under the "'Ord-based approach, the input consists of a base "'ord or stein and the segn1ental elements of the configuration (i.e. vocalic pattern and affix). The constrai.nt ranking FAITH AFFIX >> FAITHSTEl>f (Uss.ishkin 2000) is responsible for melodic overwriting (18b ), ensuring that all affix segments are surface-true. As in the root-based approach (§5.1), markedness constraints provide the syllable structure.

Hovvever, the 1narkedness constraints derive the correct output only vvhen the input consists of CV and CVC syllables (e.g. Hebrew [ga'dal] 'to grow' � [gi'del] 'to raise', ( 'telefon] 'phone' � [til 'fen) 'to phone'). Hebrew denominative verbs derived from bases "'ith more than four consonants violate the markedness constraints. For example, [prig'res] 'to progress' has an initial complex onset and [kirn'pleks] 'to n1ake complex' a medial con1plex onset, while [ib'strekt] 'to make abstract' has no initial onset at all, although a glottal stop is inserted in pluaseinitial position. The crucial observation is that consonants adjacent in the base are also adjacent in the derived verb. For such cases, it is necessary to adhere to the faithfulness constraint CoNTIGUITY, which preserves adjacency bet"1een consonants in the input. Of course, the phenomenon justifying CONTIGUITY cannot be accounted for within the root-based approach.

(20) (ab'strakti) 'abstract' � [ib'strekt) 'to make abstract'

abstrakti+{i el CONTIGUITY ONSET

a. bistrekt *! (b s) """ b. ibstrekt •

In Arabic verbs, CONTIGUITY is low-ranked, as seen in denon1i.native verbs such as in [baql) 'herbage' � ( '7abqal) 'to produce herbage', [s'ajf) 'summer' � ['ts'ajjaf] 'to go on a summer vacation' (d. Hebrew [faks] 'fax' � [fik'ses) 'to send a fax'), [frans] 'France' � ['tfarnas] 'become French, act like a Frenchman' (cf. Hebre"' [flirt] 'flirt' � [flir 'tet] 'to flirt').8

As for configurations vvith affixes, Arabic is challenging, as it en1ploys both prefixes and infixes. Arabic configurations display two types of contrast: contrast

• Note that Arabic loan nouns do preserve the source clusters, as in [blastik] 'plastic' and (?ekspres] 'express' (Thornburg 1980).

Bahan dengan hak cipta


in the prosodic template - medial vs. initial CC (?aCCaC (IV) vs. nCaCaC (VII)) - and contrast in affixation: prefix vs. infix (nCaCaC (VII) vs. CtaCaC (VIII)). All these configurations respect the temp la tic constraints in (14), which set the minimal and maximal bound of t•vo syllables. According to Wright (1962), verbs in these configurations are all derived from the basic configuration CaCaC (1).

Regardless of their position in the "'Ord, the affixes are attached via an align

ment constraint ALIGN-L(Aff, Pr\Nd), \vhich requires the affix to be aligned with the left edge of the prosodic word (McCarthy and Prince 1993b ). Each affix has its alignment constraint, con1peting '"ith ALIGN-L(Stem, PrWd), which requires the left edge of the stem to align with the left edge of the prosodic \vord. The ranking ALIGN-L(Aff, PrWd) >> ALIGN-L(Stem, PrWd) yields a prefix, and the opposite ranking yields an infix.

(21) Arabic prefix (?, n] vs. infix (t)

ALIGN-L(?, PrWd), ALIGN-L(n, PrWd) >> ALIGN-L(Stem, Pr\iVd) >> ALIGN-L-(t, Pr\'\ld)

Assuming gradient alignment, '"here the further the relevant element is from the edge the n1ore violation n1arks it gets, the constraints above account for nCaCaC and CtaCaC only; ?aCCaC is worse than •?CaCaC with respect to ALIGN-L(Stem, PrWd), and thus predicted not to be selected as the optimal candidate. However, '"ith the constraint *?C, '"hich prohibits a glottal fc>llO\ved by a consonant, all the three configurations are derived.9

(22) a. nCaCaC

{n\, {CaCaC} •?C ALIGN-L (?, PrWd)

a. naCCaC ..,. b. nCaCaC

c. CanCaC

d. CnaCaC

b. CtaCaC

{t}, {CaCaCl •?C ALIGN-L (?, PrWd)

a. taCCaC

b. tCaCaC

c. CatCaC roe d. CtaCaC

ALIGN-L (n, PrWd)

., . . ,

ALIGN-L (n, PrWd)

ALIGN-L (Sten1, Pr\\ld)

.. , •

ALIGN-L (Sten1, PrWd)

*l* •

ALIGN-L (t, Pr\\ld)

ALIGN-L (t, PrVvd)

.. , . •

9 A glottal stop is perceptually \Veak, and a preco11sonantal position is also \veak, a11d thl1S tJUs co·nstra.int .is highly motivated. Other effects of th.is constraint can be seen in the deletion of stem-iJ\itial ? (plus compensatory lengthening) in />a>0ar I --> ('?a:0ar] 'to prefer" (cf. ['akraml 'to honor') and />u'mul/ --> (''u:mul] 'work!' (['7ul<tub) 'write!') (Wright 1962).


2604 Outi Bat-El

c. ?aCCaC

(?), (CaCaCI

..,. a. ?aCCaC

b. ?CaCaC

c. Ca?CaC

d. C7aCaC

•?C

. , .

6 Concluding remarks

ALIGN-L ALIGN-L (?, PrWd) (n, Pr\Vd)

•1• • !

ALlGN-L (Stein, Pr\Vd)

, .. •

ALIGN-L {t, PrWd)

At the very beginning of her 1982 monograph The syntax of words, Selkirk notes the delimitations of her model: "The \ill-syntax of the Semitic languages, then, includes two components, only one of "'hich is of the sort I am attempting to characterize here" (1982: 2-3). The t\VO components are affixation and configuration, where the latter one is excluded fro1n Selkirk's 1nodel.

The system of configurations is characteristic of Semitic 1norphology and is often considered unique, and therefore excluded from various theoretic models. How·ever, a universal perspective of the system of configurations proves the contrary (Bat-El 2003a). A configuration consists of a prosodic template and vocalic pattern, and thus relation an1ong '"ords exhibit alternations in these structural properties. \\Tith reference to the vocalic pattern, the structural relation bet\veen [pi'ter] 'to dismiss' and (pu'tar] 'to be dismissed' in Hebre\v is like that between sing and sang in English. With reference to the prosodic structure, the structural relation bet"reen [ni-n1'fax] 'to last (PAST)' and [ji-1na'fex] 'to last (Fur)' in Hebre\v is like that between [hiwt-inaj] 'to •valk-GERUNO' and [hi\\1iit-al] 'to walk-oua' in Yawelmani (Kisseberth 1969; Archangeli 1984). Moreover, broken plurals are found also in Hausa, a non-Semitic language (Rosenthall 1999).

That Semitic languages seem to be unique is due to combination and pervasiveness (Bat-El 2003a). \!Vhile English exhibits only ablaut and Ya\velmani exhibits only prosodic alternation, Se1nitic languages combine both within the sanle paradigms (con1bination). While English exhibits ablaut in a subclass of paradign1s and Ya\velmani exhibits prosodic alternation in stems associated •vith specific suffixes (template suffixes), Semitic languages exhibit ablaut and prosodic alternation in n1ost paradigms (pervasiveness). See, ho\vever, Maltese in §2.1.1.

Viewing the configuration as a combination of independent structures allows the analysis of Semitic n1orphology '"'ithin the same theoretical models proposed for other natural languages.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Anbessa Teferra and Tareq Muhalwas for their help wjth the Amharic and Arabic data, respectively. I appreciate the comments on this chapter provided by Lior La.ks, the editors Keren Rice and Marc van Oostendorp, and two anonymous revie,Ners. All disclaimers apply.


2608 Outi Bat-El

Ussishkin, Adam. 1999. The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebre\V denominal verbs and output-<>utput correspondence. Phonologi; 1.6. 401-442.

Ussishkin, Adain. 2000. The emergence of fixed prosody. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Ussishkin, Adam & Andrew \IVedel. 2003. Gestural motor programs and the nature of phonotactic restrictions: Evidence from loanword phonology. P.roceedings of the West Const Confen'llCC on Formnl Linguistics 22. 505-518.

Watson, Janet C. E. 2002. The phonology nnd morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Watson, Janet C. E. 2006. Arabic morphology: Diminutive verbs and diminutive nouns in San'ani Arabic. Morplwlogy 16. 189-204.

Wright, William. 1962. A grammar of the Arabic language. 1st edn. 1859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yip, t-1oira. 1988. Template morphology and the direction of association. Natural Langungc and Linguistic Theory 6. 551-577.

Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Steven Lapointe, D.iane Brentari & Patrick Farrell (eds.) Nlorphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 216-246. Stanford: CSL!.

Zadok, Gila. 2002. Abbreviations: A unified analysis of acronym \Vords, clippings, clipped compounds, and hypocoristics. M.A. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.
