on the nature and structure of roots in tashlhiyt berber mohamed lahrouchi cnrs & university...
TRANSCRIPT
On the nature and structure of roots in Tashlhiyt BerberMohamed LahrouchiCNRS & University Paris 8
I. The consonantal rootII. The internal structure of the consonantal
rootIII. Complexity and strengthIV. Geminated Imperfective
I. The consonantal rootII. The internal structure of the consonantal
rootIII. Complexity and strengthIV. Geminated Imperfective
I. The consonantal rootII. The internal structure of the consonantal
rootIII. Complexity and strengthIV. Geminated Imperfective
I. The consonantal rootII. The internal structure of the consonantal
rootIII. Complexity and strengthIV. Geminated Imperfective
I. The consonantal root
• Recent work in linguistic theory has revived interest in the traditional debate on roots and their role in word formation.
• Several scholars have challenged the various attempts to define this object:
• What is a root made of? • What is its role in word formation processes?
• In Indo-European languages, the root corresponds to the smallest meaningful lexical unit that a set of items share.
I. The consonantal root
• In Semitic languages, semantically related words are described as sharing a common root that consists entirely of consonants, combined with other morphemes.
• In Classical Arabic, katab ‘he wrote’, kattab ‘he made write’, ka:tab ‘he corresponded’, ka:tib ‘writer’ and maktab ‘office’ share the root {ktb}.
• In Modern Hebrew, tasmir ‘handout’, méser ‘message’, masar ‘pass on’ and mimsar ‘relay’ share the three consonants {msr}.
I. The consonantal root
• In Berber krz ‘plough’, ikrz ‘he ploughed’, amkraz ‘ploughman’, and tayrza ‘ploughing’ the root {k,r,z}.
dl ‘cover’, addal ‘scarf’, imdl ‘lid’ and amdlu ‘cloud’ share the root {dl}.
• This leads to the assumption that the lexicon of the Afrosiatic languages consists mainly of triconsonantal roots (Greenberg 1955, Diakonoff 1970).
I. The consonantal root
• The consonantal root dates back to the medieval grammarians such as Sibawayh and Ibn Jinny. They used the triconsonantal {f l} ‘do’ as a model for ʕderivation.
• Within Autosegmental Phonology, the consonantal root has acquired a morphological status expressed through multi-tiered representations where the root consonants lie on a distinct tier (McCarthy 1979, 1981).
• Associated with vocalic melodies and affixes to specific templates, they form words.
I. The consonantal root
Further evidence for the consonantal root:
• Word games(McCarthy 1981: 379, 1991:12): kattab > battak, kabbat, tabbak…Moroccan Arabic: walu > lawu ’nothing’, ra l ʒə > ar lʒ ə ’man’ (Berjaoui 1997)Tashlhiyt Berber: skr ‘do’ > tissakrjukr / iksud ‘he is afraid’ > tikkasdjusd.
• Language impairment (Prunet et al. 2000, Idrissi et al. 2008): iħ-t-ima l ʔ ː > iħtila mʔ ː ‘probability’, ma-sbaħ > ma-ħbas ’swimming pool’
I. The consonantal root
• Alternative theories, couched for the most part within the Optimality Theoretic framework (Prince & Smolensky 1993), reject the consonantal root and instead suggest that words are derived from other words (Bat-El 1994, Ussishkin 1999, Bensoukas 2001).
• See also stem and word-based theories other than OT (Hammond 1988, Ratcliffe 1997, and Dell & Elmedlaoui 1992).
I. The consonantal root
• The consonantal root is an abstract morpheme, which never surfaces as such (i.e. without vowels).
• But see Tashlhiyt Berber where root consonants can surface without any other affix or vowel (e.g. skr ‘do’, lkm ‘arrive’, krf ‘tie’)
• Learnability issues: Complex and abstract systems are commonly considered difficult to learn, since they require more decisions from the learner (Dresher 1999).
• Learners face difficulties using the consonantal root in word formation; words make the learning process easier (Bat-El 2003:45).
I. The consonantal root
• The consonantal root fails to account for prosodic transfer:Hebrewflirt / flirtet, faks / fikses (Bat-El 1994,
Ussishkin 1999).Classical Arabic miljuːn (sg) / mala jː iːn (pl)
undʒ ub (sg) / ana dʒ ː ib ‘grasshopper’
Berber gzzr / agzzar ‘butcher’, bb / uʒˤ bbi ‘trampling’ʒˤ
Dell & Elmedlaoui (2002:35) : "Derived forms preserve as much as possible the length of the consonants in the source forms."
I. The consonantal root
• Languages games: evidence for the root as an abstract unit of morphological analysis in Tashlhiyt Berber.
• Two secret languages used by women in Tashlhiyt Berber:
a. Taqjmit (original data, Lahrouchi & Ségéral 2009), Isouktane south-west Morocco
b. Tagnawt (data from Douchaïna 1996, 1998), Tiznit south-west Morocco
I. The consonantal root
• Users of these languages have access to abstract levels of representation.
• They are able to extract root consonants from words and use them as an input to derivation.
• The morphological operations used to disguise words are captured as the direct result of the association of a consonantal root to a template.
I. The consonantal root
I. The consonantal root
I. The consonantal root
I. The consonantal root
I. The consonantal root
• Only the consonantal material of Tashlhiyt forms is kept in the disguised forms.
• The vocalic material is replaced in the disguised forms by a default vocalism : I A U (Taqjmit), A (Tagnawt).
• Affixes: aj- is prefixed and -wa- inserted in all Tagnawt forms; ti- and -
ju- in all Taqjmit forms.
• In the case where the root contains less than three consonants, the lacking material is supplied by epenthetic t in Tagnawt, i in both Tagnawt and Taqjmit.
I. The consonantal root
Two main observations
Only root consonants are extracted
Taqjmit ti R1R1 a R2 R3 ju R2 R3
Tagnawt aj R1R1 a R2 R3 wa R2 R3
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
Examples taken from a list of 222 native verbs of Tashlhiyt Berber (see Lahrouchi 2010):√OOS √OSO
gzm ‘cut’ frd ‘nibble’
bsr ‘spread out’ krz ‘plow’
bdr ‘mention’ xrb ‘scratch’
k mʃ ‘enter’ smd ‘add’
kbu ‘pierce’ ħlb ‘eat (liquid food)’
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
√SOS √OSS
mgr ‘reap’ knu ‘lean’
lkm ‘arrive’ bri ‘scratch’
nkr ‘stand up’ xmr ‘ferment’
rgl ‘knock’ mlʁ‘mold’
ntl ‘hide’ luʒ‘lose’
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
• In Tashlhiyt Berber, the segmental composition of roots obeys two main constraints: Each root contains at least one sonorant
94% of the roots examined obey this constraint. Counterexamples are roots such as bdg ‘be wet’ and bzg ‘swell’.
At least one sonorant in the root is preceded by an obstruent.
Of the roots examined, 82% obey this constraint.
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
The head-complement hypothesis:
• Roots in Tashlhiyt Berber display a binary-branching head-complement structure.
• The obstruent is the head and the following sonorant its complement.
• The remaining segment is a satellite segment that occurs indifferently at the left or right of the head-complement pair. Also it can be either sonorant or obstruant.
• An obstruent never occurs as the complement.
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
Biconsonantals• Following the HC hypothesis, biconsonantal roots
in Tashlhiyt Berber are expected to contain nothing but the head and its complement, viz. OS.
• 13 native biconsonantal roots out of 26 are of the form OS, e.g. fl ‘leave’, gn ‘sleep’, gl ‘bust’.
• 6 roots are of the form SO. However, they behave as underlying triconsonantal, e.g. ns > nssa ‘sleep’, rzˤ > rzz aˤ ‘break’.
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
Monoconsonantals• We also expect monoconsonantal roots, if any,
to contain only obstruents.• The very few Tashlhiyt Berber mono-
consonantal roots are all made up of obstruents: e.g. g ‘be’, kk ‘pass’, ʃʃ ‘eat’, f ‘give’.• Quadriconsonantals are reduplicated
biconsonantals: brbr ‘boil’, frfr ‘fly’, knkr ‘nibble’.
II. The internal structure of consonantal roots
Obstruent – Sonorant• Bella Coola OS reduplication (Bagemihl 1991: 599) tl’kw > tltl’kw ‘swallow (continuative)’kwn > kwukwn ‘take (continuative)’tqnk > tqnqnk ‘under-wear’• French phonology acquisition (Dos Santos 2012)Children start introducing manner of articulation in words with a stop:e.g. [p n ] < /b n / ‘hat’ᴐ ɛ ɔ ɛ [p m] < /p m/ ‘apple’ɔ ɔ [laba] < /laba/ ‘there’ [maze] < /ma e/ ‘eat’ʒ
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
Complexity• In Element theory, complexity is defined in terms
of the number of elements each segment contains: The more the segment contains Elements, the more complex it is.• Complex expressions qualify for the head position
in the root.• Obstruents are more complex than sonorants.
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
Complexity• Harris (1990)
U° labial, I° palatal, v° none, A° central (tongue), ʔ occluded, h° noise, N+ nasal, H- stiff vocal cords (voiceless), L- slack vocal cords (voiced), R° coronal. The head is underlined.Obstruents Sonorants
k ʔ° ⏐ v° h° H-⏐ r R°⏐ ⏐g ʔ° ⏐ v° h° L-⏐ l ⏐R° ʔ°⏐f U° h° H⏐ -⏐ n N⏐ +⏐ ʃ ⏐h° R° I⏐ m U° N⏐ + °⏐ʔ
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
Complexity• Harris (1994) and Harris & Lindsey (1995)
They use the same elements as in Harris (1990), except that Charm specification is abandoned, and fully voiced obstruents contain the element L , while voiceless ⏐ ⏐obstruents are unspecified for voice (i.e. do not contain H). @ replaces v° . ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐k ʔ ⏐ @ h⏐ r R⏐ ⏐g ʔ ⏐ @ h L⏐ l ⏐R ʔ⏐ ʃ ⏐h R I⏐ n N⏐ ⏐
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
• How complex are obstruents?• Are all obstruents equally complex?• Beyond complexity: the role of headedness.
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
• Stops and fricatives contain H :⏐ ⏐ Stop release (burst of energy). Continuous frication in fricatives. Lenition processes support this claim: the
outcome of stop weakening is a fricative (spirantization k > c, b > β,s > h).
If the outcome (fricative) contains H , then we ⏐ ⏐can assume that the original stop also has H . ⏐ ⏐
• Stops further contain ʔ .⏐ ⏐
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
Strength can be expressed in terms of a geometric tree, where expressions headed by higher elements in the tree are stronger than those headed by lower elements.
III. Complexity and strength in Element Theory
Element geometry adapted from Harris & Lindsey (1995: 76), but using Backley’s (2011) Elements.
So far• Tashlhiyt Berber roots display a HC structure.• The obstruent is the head and the following
sonorant its complement.• Arguments for the HC hypothesis:
• True biconsonantal roots are of the form OS.• Quadriconsonantals are reduplicated
biconsonantals• Monoconsonantal roots are all made of O.• Obstruents are more complex than sonorants;
which supports their head function in the root.
• Three processes are involved in the imperfective formation in Tashlhiyt Berber:
i. gemination of a consonant in the verbal base
ii. prefixation of tt-iii. insertion of a vowel
• As an imperfectivizing process, gemination operates on verbs containing no more than three consonants, without initial or medial vocoids.
IV. Geminated Imperfective
• Dell & Elmedlaoui’s (1988, 2002) account of geminated imperfective rests entirely on syllabic arguments. The process of gemination is presented as evidence in favour of their syllabic algorithm.
• Any segment in Tashlhiyt Berber can act as a syllable nucleus, including a voiceless obstruent, if it is the most sonorous segment in the syllabification domain.
IV. Geminated Imperfective
IV. Geminated Imperfective
IV. Geminated ImperfectiveProblematic data
Dell & Elmedlaoui's analysis accounts for almost all data, as far as they contain at least one sonorant in the non-initial position.
The problem arises with sonorantless verbs and verbs where the only sonorant is in the initial position.
IV. Geminated Imperfective
Geminate the onset!!
Why should the segment that appears in an optional position (onset) convey any grammatical information?
Geminate the head!
48
References
Backley, Phillip. An introduction to Element theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Clements, G. Nick & Elizabeth Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of Phonology. Blackwell.Dell, Francois & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1988. Syllabic consonants in Berber: some new evidence. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10: 1-17. Dell, Francois & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 2002. Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and in Moroccan Arabic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Harris, John 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology Yearbook 7/2: 255-300. Harris, John 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Harris, John & Geoff Lindsey 1995. The elements of phonological representation. Frontiers of Phonology, edited by J.Durand & F.Katamba, 34-79. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. Academic Press, New York. Humbert, Helga (1995). Phonological Segments. Their Structure and Behaviour. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Jespersen, Otto. 1904, Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Kaye, Jonathan 2000. A Users' Guide to Government Phonology. Ms., University of Ulster. Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Roger Vergnaud. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305-328. Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Roger Vergnaud. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology Yearbook 7: 193-231. Lahrouchi, Mohamed 2010. On the internal structure fo Tashlhiyt Berber triconsonantal roots. Linguistic Inquiry 41/2: 255-285. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris, Payot.Schane, Stanford. 1984. The fundamentals of Particle Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 129- 155. Scheer, Tobias 1996. Une théorie de l’interaction directe entre consonnes. These de doctorat, Université Paris Sievers, Eduard. 1881. Grundzuge der Phonetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel.