108 Semitic Templates - Outi Bat-El

Semitic Templates
108
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 pro sod i c templates and vo cal ic 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 clari fy 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 hori­
zontal axes of the paradigm. On the horizontal axis, they share the stem con­
sonants. 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 com­
bined, 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
CCVCV
C01l$0,ltlt1f
fL'lnplnfe:
Vocalic
pntterti:
Stem
la al
Affix:
li i I
lil
,,_
-ll
'to gro\v'
h ig'd i l
his'gir
sa'gar 'to close'
fa 'tak 'to keep quiet' hif'tik
ka'lat 'to absorb'
hik'lit
z.a'rak 'to throvr'
hiz 'rik
ga'dal
'to enlarge'
'to extradite'
'to quieten'
'to record'
'to inject'
gdi' la 'growing'
lg d I}
sgi'ra 'closing'
ls g r)
fti'ka .-silence'
lf t k)
kli' ta 'absorption' lk I t)
lz r k)
zri'ka 'throv1ing,
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 co nfigurations 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 n
i the
representation of the prosodic te1nplate. The hvo ensuing sections illustrate the
mapping of the co nfigurations, 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 cross­
linguistic 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 n
i flectional affixes.'
,
(1)
Verb classes in Palestinian Arabic (Elihay 2004)
CiCeC
'misek
fihem
'nizel
liimeq
'li!1eq
'
'
tCaCCaC
'to grasp'
't�allam
'to understand' tdarra�
'tbaddal
'to go do"rn'
'to lose temper' 'tbaxxar
'tda\vwaf
'to catch'
'
staCCaC
'sta�mal
'to study
'staqbal
'to burp'
'to be replaced' 'staw�ab
'to evaporate' 'staslarn
'stafhad
'to sho,ver'
'
'to use'
'to welco1ne'
'to take in'
'to submit'
'to quote'
The restricted structure of the configurations is evident n
i (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 con­
figurations 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 escues
r
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 posi­
tion 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 accom­
n1odate 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)
3 Cs
4 Cs
5 Cs
6 Cs
Amharic
S<1bb;:ir-<1
'to break'
'to testify'
m;:is;;ikk;;ir-<1
t;:i-ngadaggad-a 'to walk in a zigzag'
aqanatt'ar-a
'through violently'
Hebrew
s1per
tirgem
flirtet
trinsfer
'to tell'
'to translate'
'to flirt'
'to transfer'
The vocalic pattern of the configuration is an arbitrary subset of possible com­
bi.nations of v(nvels. The vocalic patterns in Tigrinya verbs, for example, employ
only four ([ii ;:i a]) out of the seven vo"'els ([ii u e ;:i o a]) in the language (Buckley
2003).
(3)
Vocalic patterns in Tigrinya (Buckley 2003)
simple perfective
sunple gerundive
causative jussive
'offend'
aa baddal-a
31
baddil-u
ell
j<1-b<1ddil
'bless'
aa barak-a
a1 bari.k-u
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 �
1
'labis
�
�
a 'katab
u.
'kabur �
imperfective
l 'jad'rib
a 'jalbas
u 'jaktub
u. 'jakbur
[)
'to hit'
'to dress'
'to write'
'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.
Copyrighted material
Semitic Templates
2589
(5) Derivational relations in Modern Hebreiv verbs
CaCaC
ga'dal
xa1Jav
ka'dam
pa'rak
ka'Jar
CiCeC
'to gro,v'
gi'del
'to think'
xi'Jev
' to precede' ki'dem
'to unload' pe'rek
'to bind'
ki'Jer
hitCaCeC
'to raise'
hitga'del
'to calculate' hitxa'Jev
'to promote' hitka'dem
'to dismantle' hitpa'rek
'to connect'
hitka'fer
'to aggrandize'
'to consider'
'to progress'
'to disintegrate'
i touch'
'to get n
The thematic-syntactic properties of the configurato
i ns 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' -->
i not causative, since it
['?a<tJlas] 'to bid one to sit do\vn', but ('?arsal] 'to send' s
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."
i
i al function of the configuration is a pparent in varous
The granunatc
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 belong­
ing 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
CiCeC
'misek
'filiem
'nizel
't1in1eq
'liheq
imperfect
-iCCaC
-'imsak
-'ifham
-'inzal
-1ilin1ag
-'ilnaq
pe1fect
CaCCaC
'massak
'to grasp'
'to understand' 'fahham
'nazzal
'to go do,vn'
'to lose temper' 'hanlmaq
'lanha.q
'to catch'
imperfect
-iCaCCeC
-'massek
-'fahhem
-'nazzel
-'hanuneg
-' lahli eq
'to let hold'
'to explain'
'to bring down'
'to n1ake angry'
'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 imper­
fect (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.
Copyrighted material
Semitic Templates
2591
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 a configuration system called "broken plural," \Vhich
contrasts with the suffixation n1ode of pluralization called "sound plural."
in
(8) Broken plurals
a.
Standard Arabic (Wright 1962)
singular
plural
7aCCa:C ?ali'ka:m liukm
'aq'da:m 'qadam
?aj'ma:n ja'mi:n
?aCCuC ''abhur
bahr
''azmtu1 'zan1an
li 'sa :n
''a!sun
saqf
'suquf
CuCuC
''usud
''asad
'surur
sa'vri:r
CiCa:C
ri'ma:h
rum'!\
'xabal
xi'ba:l
li''a:m
Ja''i:m
b. Tigre (Palmer 1962)
plural
singular
?aCCiC
?akbid
kabid
?ab7is
bi?is
7abnir
binar
qalib
'aCCuC 7aqlub
'amtud
mitid
?adhub
dihab
CaCaCCi li.anaddi rundi
k;;itarri
katra
kadabbi kadbet
CaCaCit masanit
masru
warazit
\Vareza
?ara,vit
'ar,ve
'judgment'
'footstep'
'oath'
'sea'
'time'
'tongue'
'roof'
'lion'
'throne'
'spear'
'hill'
'base'
'belly'
'husband'
'sea'
'root'
'stake'
'gold'
'hoof'
'pigeon'
'floor'
'friend'
'bachelor'
'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.
Copyrighted material
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
ka'bi:r
'big'
.
s a ' 111:r
'small'
t'a'wi:l
'long'
'far'
ba'�i:d
b. Arabic hypocoristics
CaCCu:C
bas'su:m 'basma
sal'lu:m
sa'li:m
'ja:sir
jas'su:r
sa1n11nu:r sa'1ni:ra
'
?aCCaC
'?akbar
'bigger'
'?as yar
'smaller'
•?at\val
'longer'
'farther'
'?ab�ad
c. Amharic argot
Caj(C)C;aC;
bajt<it
bet
gajbab
gabba
zajfnan
zaffana
wajrk'ak' wark'
'
'house
'enter'
'
'sing'
'gold'
The preference for disyllabic forms, also exhibited in (9), is ovenv helming,
although, as noted above, some languages display a limited flexibility. This
preference is found also n
i 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' sur­
face 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, lpq l,
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.
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.
'1
Copyrighted material
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 (1lc) is due to a constraint prohibiting a sequence of hvo light syl­
lables. 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 co nsonants.
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 direct ly to the restriction on the number of syllables in the ten1plate, 'vhicli is not explicitly exp ressed in the CV template. There is definitely a
disyllabc
i 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 addi tion, Lowensta1nn1 and
Kaye (1986), in their study of compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebre\v, demon­
strate 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 occupi ed 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 .syllabi city restric­
tion 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,v­
ever, Amharic templa tic plasticity n
i (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.
Semitic T mplates
2595
e
CV templates and verb configurations in Standard Arabic'
Table 108.2
CV template
a.
1.
CV
2.
b.
eve
eve•
eve
Co11jig11rntion
Verb
la
lb
Ic
eaeae
eaeie
CaCuC
'fatall
'hasib
'qabuli
'to think
'to be ugly'
II
IV
eaC;C,aC
CaCCaC
'aeeae
'kassar
vfam�al
''akram
'to break'
'to seatter'
'to honor'
ea:eae
'sa:baq
'to rtm a race'
'nbasat<
'qtabal
'hwalal
'
3.
evv
eve
m
1. c
CV
eve
VII neaCaC
VIII CtaCaC
IX
CCaC;aC,
2.
eve
e
x
eve
staCCaC
XII CCa\vCaC
'
'
XJ!I eCa\V\vaC
XIV CCanC;aC,
CCanCaC
VI
CCanCay
3.
c.
c
'<landaj
'
to be pleased'
,-to receive'
'
to squint'
'to ltse'
'to be curved'
'to be heavy
'to go quickly'
'to bloom'
'
to be strong'
'
'
to be black'
eve
XI
CCa:C;aC;
's\va:dad
eve eve
v
taCaC,C;aC
taeaCCaC
ta'farraq
ta'�afrat
'to be dispersed'
'to act like a devil'
taCa:CaC
ta'ka:lam
'to con\1erse'
CVV
2. CV
'sta�mal
'hdavrdab
·�ta'"''''ad
·�fanc!Jadj
'branfaq
'
to open'
3. CV cvv eve
VI
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 conside ed 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).
•
r
•
(13)
Modern Hebrew verb configurations
Syllabic configuration
I
cr;, a;,
CV configuration
CaCaC
pa'tax
'to open'
II
"a. a
niCCaC
nix'nas
'to enter'
III
h
hiCCiC
hiCCCiC
hig'dil
hif'prits
'to enlarge'
'to squirt'
'
cri
,
cr
i
IV
CT; CTc
v
1ti1
0
•
CiCeC
gi'del
CiCCeC
tir'gen1
CCiCCCeC trins'fer
cr
•
hitCaCeC
hitla'bef
h.itCaCCeC hitba.r'gen
'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·
n
i g among configurations, as is evident fron1 the distinction a1nong CaCaC (I),
CaCCaC (II), and Ca:CVC (III). The first configuration is distinguished fron1
2599
Semitic Templates
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 singu lar 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)
plural
singular
'darzan
da'ra:zin
short vo,vel
'maktab
ma'ka:tib
Jong vowel
fin'dja:n
fa'na:<!:Ji:n
n1al<'tu:b ma'ka:ti:b
Standard Arabic (Ratcliffe 1998a)
plural
singular
short vowel
'xa:tam
xa'wa:tim
·�aqrab
�a'qa:rib
long vowel
dJa:'mu:s c:t;awa: n1u:s
rnif'ta:li
rnafa:'ti:li
b. Tigre (Palmer 1962)
singular
plural
central vo,vel misgid
masagid
dJandjar
dJanadJir
b<lrrn il
b<lramil
front vo"1el
bist an
b;isat in
back vo"rel
kHkut
katakut
maskot
masakut
1
'
'
'dozen'
'office'
'cup'
'letter'
'signet ring'
'scorpion'
'buffalo'
'key'
'n1osque.'
'chain'
'barrel
'garden'
'young bird'
'\vi.ndo,v'
'
Similarly, Ratcliffe (l998a) 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]).
'
'
,
Semitic Templates
2601
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 templa te is expanded. This is
the case in ['madxal] - [ma'da:xil] 'entrance(s)', '''here the material \vithin the a
i mbic
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 n
i §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 syl­
lables. 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 n
i put,
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 syl­
lable structure, and thus for the linear order of the vovvels and the consonants.
(19)
*COMl'l<X, F1N11tC,7 ONs�r >>
\xbrl+{iel
.:;; ·
a. xbier
b. xibre
c. ixber
d. xiber
•coo11 (Hebre-w [xi'ber] 'to connect')
*COJ-1PLEX FINALC ONSET *CODA
.
•
,
•
*I
.
,
••
•
' �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 aHgn nt constraints. Russell (1995, 1999) eliminates this duality,
arguing that affixes should be n
i troduced 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
me
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 n
i put 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 pluase­
initial position. The crucial observation is that consona nts 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
*! (b s)
a . bistrekt
•
""" 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
2603
Semitic Templates
in the prosodic template - medial vs. initial CC (?aCCaC (IV) vs. nCaCaC (VII))
- and contrast n
i affixation: prefix vs. infix (nCaCaC (VII) vs. CtaCaC (VIII)). All
these configurations respect the templatic constraints in (14), which set the min­
imal 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 attach ed 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 p rosodic \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,
'"it h the constraint *?C, '"h ich proh ibits a glottal fc>llO\ved by a consonant, all the
three configurations are derived.9
(22)
a.
nCaCaC
ALIGN-L
ALIGN-L
{n\, {CaCaC} •?C ALIGN-L ALIGN-L
(?, PrWd) (n, PrWd) (Sten1, Pr\\ld) (t, Pr\\ld)
..,.
a. naCCaC
..
b. nCaCaC
•
,
,
c. CanCaC
. .
d. CnaCaC
.
,
b. CtaCaC
{t}, {CaCaCl
•?C ALIGN-L ALIGN-L
ALIGN-L
ALIGN-L
(?, PrWd) (n, PrWd) (Sten1, PrWd) (t, PrVvd)
* l*
a. taCCaC
b. tCaCaC
c. CatCaC
roe
9
d. CtaCaC
•
..
,
.
•
A
glottal stop is perceptually \Veak, and a preco11sonantal position is also \veak, a11d thl1S tJUs co·n­
stra.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).
Bahan dengan hak cipta
Outi Bat-El
2604
c.
?aCCaC
• ?C ALIGN-L ALIGN-L
ALlGN-L
ALIGN-L
(?, PrWd) (n, Pr\Vd) (Stein, Pr\Vd) {t, PrWd)
.
..,
. a. ?aCCaC
(?), (CaCaCI
, .
.
b. ?CaCaC
.,
•
•1•
c. Ca?CaC
•!
d. C7aCaC
6 Concluding remarks
At the very beginning
of her 1982 monog raph 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 configura­
tion, where the latter one is excluded fro1n Selkirk's 1nodel.
The system of configurations is cha racteristic of Semitic 1norpho logy and is
often co nsidered unique and therefore excluded from various theoretic models.
How·ever, a universal perspective of the system of configurations proves the con­
trary (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 rela­
tion 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 Sem itic language (Rosenthall 1999).
That Semitic languages seem to be unique is due to combination and perva­
siveness (Bat-El 2003a). \!Vhile English exhibits only ablaut and Ya\velmani exhibits
only prosodic alternation, Se1nitic languages combine both within the sanle par­
adigms (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 alter­
nation in n1ost paradigms (pervasiveness). See, ho\vever, Maltese
§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.
-
,
'
'
'
-
in
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.
Bahan dengan hak cipta
2608
Outi Bat-El
Ussishkin, Adam. 1999. The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebre\V denom­
inal 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 Univer­
sity 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.
Copyrighted material