Transcript What does phonology tell us about the lexicon? - Outi Bat-El

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
[email protected]
http://www.outibatel.com
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
2
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
3
Semitic-type paradigm
Hebrew
Verbs
CaCaC
niCCaC
hiCCiC
CiCeC
hitCaCeC
Nouns
CéCeC
CCiCa
taCCiC
kalat
niklat
hiklit
‘absorb’
‘precede’
‘be absorbed’
‘record’
Configurations
Configurations
kélet
klita
taklit
kadam
‘input’
‘absorption’
‘record’
‘come early’
hikdim
‘advance’
kidem
hitkadem ‘progress’
kédem
kdima
takdim
‘ancient’
‘priority’
‘precedent’
4
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)
hitCaCeC
CiCeC
CVCCVCVC
C V C V CProsodic structure
h i t
a
e
i
e
Vocalic pattern
Affix
5
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
h i t a e
hitlabeš ‘dressed’
External affix
s s
i e
kibel ‘received’
s s
h i i
hixnis ‘put in’
Internal affix
6
Universal perspective
The elements of the configurations characterizing Semitic
languages, i.e. vocalic pattern and prosodic structure, are
also found in non-Semitic languages
7
Universal perspective
Vocalic Pattern
Manchu (Northeast China) (Ramsey 1987)
Masculine - a
‘father’
ama
‘man’
xaxa
‘father-in-law’
amxa
‘older brother-in-law’
nača
‘uncle’
nakču
arsalan ‘lion’
‘male’
amila
xuwašan ‘Buddhist monk’
xabtaxa ‘man’s belt’
gangan ‘strong’
Feminine - e
‘mother’
eme
‘woman’
xexe
‘mother-in-law’
emxe
‘brother-in-law’s wife’
neče
‘aunt’
nekču
erselen ‘lioness’
‘female’
emile
xuwešen ‘Buddhist nun’
xebtexe ‘woman’s belt’
gengen ‘weak’
8
Universal perspective
Vocalic Pattern
Hebrew
Base - VV
‘take care of’
tipel
‘enlarge’
higdil
hitpater ‘resign’
Manchu
Masculine - a
‘uncle’
nakču
arsalan ‘lion’
‘male’
amila
Passive - ua
‘taken care of’
tupal
hugdal ‘enlarged’
hitputar ‘forced to resign’
Vowel modification
Feminine - e
‘aunt’
nekču
erselen ‘lioness’
‘female’
emile
9
Universal perspective
Vocalic Pattern
C V C C V C V C
h i t
Affix
a
e
C V C V C
i
e
Prosodic Structure
Vocalic Pattern
Manchu
10
Universal perspective
Prosodic Structure
Yawelmani (California) (Newman 1944, Kisseberth 1969,
Archangeli 1984)
Dubitative
caw-al
cuum-al
Gerundial
caw-inay
cum-inay
‘shout’
‘destroy’
hoyoo-al
hiwiit-al
hoy-inay
ciwt-inay
‘name’
‘walk’
Templatic affixes – enforce a specific prosodic structure on
the stem
11
Universal perspective
Prosodic Structure
Yawelmani
Dubitative
cawal
cuumal
hoyooal
Hebrew
Verb
hikpid
šiker
hitrašel
Gerundial
cawinay
cuminay
hoyinay
‘shout’
‘destroy’
‘name’
Prosodic modification
Noun
kapdan
šakran
rašlan
‘strict’
‘liar’
‘negligent’
12
Universal perspective
Prosodic Structure
Yawelmani
C V C C V C V C
h i t
Affix
a
e
C V C V C
i
e
Prosodic Structure
Vocalic Pattern
Manchu
13
Universal perspective
 Similar phenomena in different languages
correspond to one and the same phonological system
 The morphology of Manchu and Yawelmani is word-
based
Word-based morphology
in all three cases
 There is no reason why this shouldn’t be the case in
Hebrew as well
14
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)
15
Word-based approach
Vowel Modification
Manchu Feminine
Hebrew Passive
na ča e Fm
t i pe l u a Pass
Notice that the stem consonants are not activated, they are
residues (Bat-El 2001)
16
Word-based approach
Prosodic Modification
Yawelmani -inay
s
ss
hoyoo inay
Hebrew -an
s
s
rakad
a an
Notice that the stem consonants are not activated, they are
residues (Bat-El 2001)
17
Word-based approach
Stem Modification
hiCCiC
s
CiCeC
ss
ss
higd
ili
hi
i e
a a
higadal
en
kinen
gadal ‘grow V’
 higdil ‘enlarge V’
ken ‘nest N’
 kinen ‘nest V’
(McCarthy and Prince 1990, Bat-El 1994, 2002, Ussishkin 1999)
18
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
19
CRoot-based approach
Radical
All major lexical items are derived from the association of
a consonantal root with a configuration
 kalat
 <klt>
& CaCaC
 <klt>
& niCCaC  niklat
 <klt>
& hiCCiC
 hiklit
‘to record’
 <klt>
& taCCiC
 taklit
‘a record’
 <t+klt> & CiCCeC  tiklet
‘to absorb’
‘to be absorb’
‘to D.J.’
20
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.’
21
CRoot-based approach
Deriving Words from CRoots
k l t
kl t
C
C C
CaCaC
hiCCiC
CC C
‘to absorb’
‘to record’
22
CRoot-based approach
Deriving Words from Words
Consonants extraction (Ornan 1983, Bolozky 1978, 2002,
Bat-El 1986, 1989)
ta k l i t
‘a record’
Extraction
t k l t
Ct ii kCC
l e et C ‘to D.J.’
23
Word-based approach
Cluster Preservation
 sandlar ‘shoe maker’  sindler ‘to make shoes’
 praklit ‘lawyer’  priklet ‘to practice law’
*snidler
*pirklet
(Bolozky 1978)
Only local derivation, as in stem modification,
can account for cluster preservation
Extraction doesn’t work
(Bat-El 1994)
24
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
25
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’
http://www.dorbanot.com
CoCCa does NOT carry the meaning ‘program’
(e.g. yošra ‘dignity’, xoxma ‘wisdom’, ocma ‘strength’)
Extraction doesn’t work
26
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
27
Word-based approach
Configuration Preservation
c
a
r
a v
C V C C V
t
o
x
n
a
28
Word-based approach
Configuration Preservation
C V C C V
c
o
r
v
a
C V C C V
t
o
x
n
a
29
Word-based approach
Some lexical items are basic, while others are derived


CaCaC
kalat & niCCaC
kalat ‘to absorb’
 niklat ‘to be absorb’
 hiklit ‘to record’

hiCCiC

hiklit & taCCiC
 taklit ‘a record’

taklit & CiCCeC
 tiklet ‘to D.J.’
30
Errors
Whole Stem
Aphasic morphological mismatch
Target
yi-zlol
Error
3rdms.sg. Fut. – FUT me-zalal
Pres. – PAST
‘gluttonize’
 zalal ‘glutonized 3rd ms.sg.’
2ndms.sg. Fut. – FUT yi-kafac-ta Fut. – PAST – Past
ti-kfoc
‘jump’
 kafac ‘jumped 3rd ms.sg.’
3rd ms.sg. Fut. –
Fut – PRES
yi-kfoc
ye-kofec
FUT
‘jump’
 kofec ‘jumps ms.sg.
PAST – Pres
soxav-im PRES – ms.pl.
saxav-im
‘carry’
 saxav ‘carried 3rd ms.sg.’
(Data provided by Naama Friedmann)
31
Creative errors
Word-based
Children create “legal” words, i.e. words that conform to
the language’s licit structures (Berman 1980,1992, 1999)
Child
nix-ut
te-šarvel-i
Related to*
‘resting’
la-nuax ‘to rest’
‘to sleeve Imp. fm.sg.’ šarvul
‘a sleeve’
te-lamn-i
maštiy-a
miradem
‘put lemon Imp.fm.sg.’ limon
‘lemon’
‘gives drink fm.sg.’
‘drinks fm.sg.’
‘falls asleep ms.sg.’
šot-a
nirdam
‘falls asleep ms.sg.’
*According to Berman
32
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’ & kley negina ‘musical instruments’
33
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
34
Historical change
Words change
Words (not CRoots) undergo semantic change (Bat-El 2001)
zarak
‘to throw’
hizrik ‘to throw’
xazar
‘to return’
xizer
‘to turn’
nimlat ‘to escape’ himlit ‘to help s.o. to escape’
avad
‘to work’
kalat
‘to absorb’ hiklit
ibed
> ‘to inject’
> ‘to court’
> ‘to give birth’
‘to process by working’ > ‘to process’
‘to cause to absorb’
> ‘to record’
35
Historical change
Paradigm Uniformity
Variation found in the verb paradigm does not affect a
noun with the same “root”
Past
Future
safar yispor ~ yisfor
Noun
‘count’
mispar
*f
‘number’
zaxar yizkor ~ yizxor ‘remember zikaron *x ‘memory’
’
katav yixtov ~ yiktov ‘write’
pišet ~ fišet yefašet
‘simplify’
mixtav
*k ‘letter’
pašut
*f
‘simple’
36
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
37
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)
38
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
gadal
tigdal
godel gdila
migdal
‘he grew’
‘you’ll grow’ ‘size’
‘growing’ ‘tower’
 Weak “CRoots”: Less than 3 consonants and/or not all
consonants are surface true throughout the paradigm
šata
tište
štiya
šatuy
‘he drank’
‘you’ll drink’ ‘a drink’
‘drunk’
nosad
mosad
yised
‘was established’ ‘institution’
yesod
‘foundation’ ‘he established’
39
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
40
Stem consonants
 nibbat (Jesaiass 530) ,
/ninbat/ ‘to look’
CRoot
Paradigm
hibbit (Numeri 2331)
/hinbit/
 hibit ‘to look at’
/hinbit/
assimilation
hibbit
degemination
hibit
yabit
mabat
hebet
‘look at Pst’
‘look at Fut’
‘a glance’
‘a view’
 hinbit ‘to cause to sprout’
hinbit
yanbit
‘cause to sprout Pst’ ‘cause to sprout Fut’
hibit
Stem consonants: bt
navat
‘sprout Pst’
névet
‘a sprout’
Stem consonants: nbt
41
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
42
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 5:111136.
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
45
46
47
48
Comparison
 Extraction
Extraction
Word  of consonants
Association
 Root  Root&Configuration

New Word
 Stem modification
Word 
Stem Modification
Word&Configuration
 New Word
49
Root & Pattern: Radical Version
All major lexical items are derived from the association of
a consonantal root with a pattern
<klt>
CaCaC
niCCaC
hiCCiC
???
taCCiC
kalat
niklat
hiklit
tiklet
taklit
‘to absorb’
‘to be
absorbed’
‘to record’
‘to D.J.’
‘a record’
50
Paradigm I: Bilin (Cushitic, Eritrea)
Fallon (2006)
Correspondence
Singular
Plural
š-š
Red
Red
r-t
r-l
r - l & Red
l-l
l-t
w-w
w - kw
xw - k w
gw - k w
ʔəša
gəš
fιra
gira
gər
tər
mak’əla
ʔəlela
ʔawəd
tawin
ʔιxwina
gurιgwιm
ʔəš
gəšιš
fιrιr
git
gəl
təlιl
mak’əl
ʔəlet
ʔawəs
takwin
ʔιkwin
gurιkwιm
‘leaf’
‘face’
‘seed, fruit’
‘mountain’
‘calf’
‘breast bone’
‘female friend’
‘heifer’
‘fool’
‘clothes’
‘woman’
‘throat’
51
Bilin’s lexicon
[±cont] class
keləb - keləf ‘fence’
gəbəna - gəfən ‘river bank’
r - t class
gira - git ‘mountain’
gəmər - gəmət ‘rope’
Consonant Mutation
abir - afit ‘corn bag’
Apophony
gibar - gifat ‘wooden plate’
52