Lexical Representation in Semitic-type Morphology: A Phonological Perspective

1. Approaches to the Lexicon (Root III) ● June 2011 ●The Hebrew University Lexical Representation in Semitic-type Morphology: A Phonological Perspective Outi Bat-El Tel-Aviv University obatel@post.tau.ac.il http://www.outibatel.com

2. The issue Does the lexicon of Semitic languages include Consonantal roots (CRoots) Words Not a morphological unit Are words in Semitic languages derived from “morpheme-based view” “item & arrangement” “word-based view” “item & process” (Matthews 1972, 1974, Aronoff 1976, Anderson 1992) Most current views are mixed: CRoots & Words

3. Content of the talk • Semitic-type paradigms: Phonological properties • Universal perspective: The phonological properties of Semitic-type paradigms in non-Semitic languages • Word-based approach: A unified analysis • Root-based approach: Its disadvantages • Supporting the word-based approach: Errors (aphasics and children), historical change, and innovations • So what is the “CRoot”? Stem consonants • Conclusion: Lexical representation

4. Semitic-type paradigm Hebrew Configurations Configurations

5. Configuration • A configuration (“mishkal” or “binyan”) determines the phonological shape of the word • It consists of 2 phonological elements, a prosodic structure and a vocalic pattern, and in some cases also an affix(McCarthy 1981) C V C C V C V C C V C V C Prosodic structure h i t a e i e Vocalic pattern Affix hitCaCeC CiCeC

6. Configuration In syllabic terms, the prosodic structure (of regular verbs) consists of two syllables(McCarthy 1983), where the affix can be external or internal (Bat-El 2004) s s s s s s h i t a e i e h i i hitlabeš ‘dressed’kibel ‘received’ hixnis‘put in’ External affix Internal affix

7. Universal perspective The elements of the configurations characterizing Semitic languages, i.e. vocalic pattern and prosodic structure, are also found in non-Semitic languages

8. Universal perspective Vocalic Pattern Manchu (Northeast China) (Ramsey 1987)

9. Universal perspective Vocalic Pattern Vowel modification

10. Universal perspective Vocalic Pattern Prosodic Structure Vocalic Pattern Affix Manchu

11. Universal perspective Prosodic Structure Yawelmani (California) (Newman 1944, Kisseberth 1969, Archangeli 1984) Templatic affixes – enforce a specific prosodic structure on the stem

12. Universal perspective Prosodic Structure Prosodic modification

13. Universal perspective Prosodic Structure Yawelmani Prosodic Structure Vocalic Pattern Affix Manchu

14. Universal perspective • Similar phenomena in different languages correspond to one and the same phonological system • The morphology of Manchu and Yawelmani is word- based • There is no reason why this shouldn’t be the case in Hebrew as well Word-based morphology in all three cases

15. Universal perspective The difference between Semitic and Manchu / Yawelmani? • Combination: Alternation in both prosodic structure and vocalic pattern in Semitic morphology • Prominence: The system of configurations is prominent in the morphology of Semitic languages (though to various degrees, depending on the language) (Bat-El 2001, 2002)

16. Word-based approach Vowel Modification Manchu Feminine Hebrew Passive n č Fm t p l Pass e a i a e e u a Notice that the stem consonants are not activated, they are residues (Bat-El 2001)

17. Word-based approach Prosodic Modification Yawelmani -inay Hebrew -an s s sss hoy inay rakad an o o a Notice that the stem consonants are not activated, they are residues (Bat-El 2001)

18. Word-based approach Stem Modification hiCCiCCiCeC ss higd il higadal kinen s s s s i i e h i a a n e gadal ‘growV’ ken ‘nest N’  higdil ‘enlargeV’ kinen ‘nest V’ (McCarthy and Prince 1990, Bat-El 1994, 2002, Ussishkin 1999)

19. CRoot-based approach Word vs. CRoot • Stem Modification: Some words are basic and others are derived form words • CRoot & Configuration Radical: All words are derived from CRoots  Moderate: Some words are derived form CRoots and others from words Lexical Representation

20. CRoot-based approach Radical All major lexical items are derived from the association of a consonantal root with a configuration • <klt> & CaCaC  kalat‘to absorb’ • <klt> & niCCaC  niklat‘to be absorb’ • <klt> & hiCCiC  hiklit‘to record’ • <klt> & taCCiC  taklit‘a record’ • <t+klt> & CiCCeC  tiklet‘to D.J.’

21. CRoot-based approach Moderate Some lexical items are derived from CRoots, while others are derived from words • <klt> & CaCaC  kalat‘to absorb’ • kalat & niCCaC  niklat ‘to be absorb’ • <klt> & hiCCiC  hiklit‘to record’ • hiklit & taCCiC  taklit ‘a record’ • taklit & CiCCeC  tiklet ‘to D.J.’

22. CRoot-based approach Deriving Words from CRoots k l t k l t CaCaChiCCiC ‘to absorb’ ‘to record’ C C C C C C

23. CRoot-based approach Deriving Words from Words Consonants extraction (Ornan 1983, Bolozky 1978, 2002, Bat-El 1986, 1989) t t k k l l i t t a ‘a record’ Extraction t k l t C i CC e C t i kl e t ‘to D.J.’

24. Word-based approach Cluster Preservation • sandlar ‘shoe maker’ sindler ‘to make shoes’ *snidler • praklit ‘lawyer’ priklet ‘to practice law’ *pirklet (Bolozky 1978) Only local derivation, as in stem modification, can account for cluster preservation (Bat-El 1994) Extraction doesn’t work

25. Word-based approach Vowel Preservation • ken ‘nest’ kinen ‘to nest’ • kod ‘code’ koded ‘to codify’ ~kided (Bat-El 1994) Only local derivation, as in stem modification, can account vowel preservation Extraction doesn’t work

26. Word-based approach Configuration Preservation toxna‘computer program’ ← toxnit ‘program’ gonva‘a stolen computer program’ ← ganav ‘to steal’ porna‘a computer program with porno pop-ups’ corva ‘illegally burned program’ ← carav ‘to burn’ gomla ‘an old program’ ← gimlaot ‘pension’ CoCCa does NOT carry the meaning ‘program’ (e.g. yošra‘dignity’, xoxma‘wisdom’, ocma‘strength’) http://www.dorbanot.com Extraction doesn’t work

27. Word-based approach Configuration Preservation • hatrada minit‘sexual harassment’ hatrada milit‘verbal harassment’ ← mila ‘word’ • maskoret ‘salary’ maxsoret ‘low salary’ ← maxsor ‘deficiency’ • maceget ‘power point presentation (ppp)’ mavexet ‘ppp with embarrassing pictures’ ← mevix ‘embarrassing’ http://www.dorbanot.com

28. Word-based approach Configuration Preservation a a v o a

29. Word-based approach Configuration Preservation

30. Word-based approach Some lexical items are basic, while others are derived • CaCaC kalat ‘to absorb’ • kalat & niCCaC  niklat ‘to be absorb’ • hiCCiC  hiklit ‘to record’ • hiklit & taCCiC  taklit ‘a record’ • taklit & CiCCeC  tiklet ‘to D.J.’

31. Errors Whole Stem Aphasic morphological mismatch (Data provided by Naama Friedmann)

32. Creative errors Word-based Children create “legal” words, i.e. words that conform to the language’s licit structures (Berman 1980,1992, 1999) *According to Berman

33. Creative errors Word-based Children’s errors are word-base • Verbs such as *miradem (for nirdam‘he falls asleep’) are a “reformulation from the infinitive form” le-hiradem acquired very early by children (Berman 1980:275) • Evidence for local relations *maštiy-a‘gives drink fm.sg.’ (age 4;4) šote‘drinks ms.sg.’, šota‘drinks fm.sg.’, štiya‘a drink’ kley *negiva‘wiping tools/instruments’ (age 5;1) nigev ‘to wipe’ &kleynegina ‘musical instruments’

34. Historical change Words Change • Words (not CRoots) undergo semantic change • Had the root been some meaning-bearing item, we would expect it to undergo semantic change which would affect all words derived from it • This, however, never happens

35. Historical change Words change Words (not CRoots) undergo semantic change (Bat-El 2001)

36. Historical change Paradigm Uniformity Variation found in the verb paradigm does not affect a noun with the same “root”

37. Consonants CRoot What is the CRoot? • Independently listed morpheme – form and meaning (traditional) • An independent morpheme within a listed word – form and meaning (McCarthy 1981) • An independent morpheme within a listed word – form without meaning (Aronoff 2007) • Stem consonants, i.e. phonological elements in a morphological unit

38. Consonants CRoot • Universally, consonants are more prominent than vowels, as they provide lexical contrast Nespor et al. (2003) • For Dutch and Spanish speakers, the nonce-word kebra is more similar to kobra (identical consonants) than to zebra (identical vowels) Cutler et al. (2000) • French 16-20 month old infants can learn in a single trial two new nonce-words if they differ by one consonant (pize – tize)  but NOT if they differ by one vowel (pize – paze) Nazzi and New (2007)

39. Stem consonants CRoot Native speakers of Hebrew easily identify regular “CRoots”, but often fail to identify weak “CRoots” • Regular “CRoots”: 3 or more consonants, all surface true throughout the paradigm • Weak “CRoots”: Less than 3 consonants and/or not all consonants are surface true throughout the paradigm

40. Stem consonants CRoot • If “CRoots” were represented in the lexicon, there shouldn’t be a problem to retrieve them, regardless of their manifestation in the surface forms • “CRoot” retrieval is actually retrieval of stem consonants in a paradigm • The problem arises when the morphological affiliation of a consonant is not easily identified, because it does not appear in all forms of the paradigm

41. Stem consonants Paradigm CRoot • hibit ‘to look at’ • nibbat(Jesaiass 530) , hibbit(Numeri 2331) /ninbat/ ‘to look’/hinbit/ /hinbit/ assimilation hibbitdegemination hibit Stem consonants: bt • hinbit‘to cause to sprout’ Stem consonants: nbt

42. Final words • Representation  The “CRoot” does not have a morphological status  Reference should be made to stem consonants, which have a phonological status in a morphological unit • Organization  The lexicon consists of words organized in paradigms  The paradigms express relations among words  Words are derived form words

43. Anderson, S.R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archangeli, D. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, M. 2007. In the beginning was a word. Language 83:803-830. Berman, R.A. 1980. Verb-pattern alternation: The interface of morphology, syntax and semantics in Hebrew child language. Journal of Child Language 9: 169-191. Berman, R.A. 1992. Developmental perspectives on transitivity: A confluence of cues. In Y. Levy (ed.) Other Children, Other Languages: Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berman, R.A. 1999. Children innovative verbs vs. nouns: Structure elicitations and spontaneous coinages. In L. Menn and N.B. Ratner (eds) Methods for Studying Language Production. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 69-93. Bat-El, O. 1986. Extraction in Modern Hebrew Morphology. MA Thesis, UCLA. Bat-El, O. 1989. Phonology and word structure in Modern Hebrew. Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA. Bat-El, O. 1994. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:571-596. Bat-El, O. 2002. Semitic verb structure within a universal perspective. In J. Shimron (ed.) 29-59. Bolozky, S. 1978. Word formation strategies in the Hebrew verb system: Denominative verbs. Afroasiatic Linguistics 5:111-136. Bolozky, S. 2002. The ‘roots’ of denominative Hebrew verbs. In J. Shimron (ed.) Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-based, Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131-146. Cutler, A., N. Sebastián-Gallés, O. Soler-Vilageliu and B. van Ooijen. 2000. Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory and Cognition. 28:746-755. Kisseberth, C. 1969. Theoretical Implications of Yawelmani Phonology. University of Illinois Ph.D. diss. Matthews, P.H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, P.H. 1974. Morphology: Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure. Cambridge Textbook in Linguistics. McCarthy, J. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12:373-418. McCarthy, J. 1983. Prosodic templates, morphemic templates, and morphemic tiers. The Structure of Phonological Representations (Part I), H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds), 191-223. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. McCarthy J. and Prince A. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8:209-283. Nazzi, T. and B. New. 2007. Beyond stop consonants: consonantal specificity in early lexical acquisition. Cognitive Development 22:271–279. Nespor, M., J. Mehler, and M. Peña. 2003. On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio 2:203-229. New, B., V. Araujo, and T. Nazzi. 2008. Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science 19:1223-1227. Newman, S. 1944. Yokuts Language of California. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 2. Ornan, U. 1983. How do we build a Hebrew word. In M. Bar-Asher et al. (eds) Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Zee Ben-Hayyim. 13-42. [in Hebrew] Ramsey, S.R. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. Ussishkin, A. 1999. The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew denominal verbs and output-output correspondence. Phonology 16:401-442.

44. Thank You

45. Thank You

49. Comparison • Extraction Extraction of consonants Association Root&Configuration    Word Root  New Word • Stem modification Stem Modification Word&Configuration   Word New Word

50. Root & Pattern: Radical Version All major lexical items are derived from the association of a consonantal root with a pattern