Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In summary, we have shown how transfer can account for some cases of templatic morphology, beyond the reduplication examples discussed by Clements.John McCarthy observes that Modern Hebrew Pi'el and Hitpa'el could also be analyzed along these lines. See McCarthy (1984) and Bat-El (1986) for alternative analyses. We are not proposing that transfer should replace normal direct melodic linking. Rather, we are proposing that direct melodic linking cannot insightfully account for all cases of templatic morphology and must be supplemented by transfer. It should be noted that our use of transfer differs from that of reduplicative transfer. First, while a reduplicative affix undergoes linearization with respect to the stem, templatic transfer does not entail linearization. A second difference between templatic transfer and reduplicative transfer is that, in templatic transfer, association between skeleta is one-to-one, left-to-right. In reduplicative transfer, Clements proposes a different procedure where vowels associate before consonants. This latter method simply would not work in the case of broken plurals.A third potential differences between them is OVERRIDING. In templatic association, a directly associated melodic element overrides a transferred melodic element. In reduplication, it is unclear whether prespecificaion precludes association or overrides it as here. To maintain this analysis in light of these differences, it must be supposed that these differences correspond to parameters along which languages can vary. The strongest claim we could make is that these differences are not independent, but correspond to a single parameter. Another explanation for these differences might be that transfer simply does not occur in reduplication, and that its apparent effects there are due to other mechanisms, perhaps along the lines of those suggested in note 8 above. However, whatever the merits of reduplicative transfer, some sort of transfer must be available for templatic morphology.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)247-270
Number of pages24
JournalNatural Language and Linguistic Theory
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1988
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

language
Reduplication
Linearization
Merit
Affix
Summary
Modern Hebrew
John McCarthy
Consonant
Language

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. / Hammond, Michael.

In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 6, No. 2, 05.1988, p. 247-270.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5e7576d883ba40189a299960b19ccbc7,
title = "Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals",
abstract = "In summary, we have shown how transfer can account for some cases of templatic morphology, beyond the reduplication examples discussed by Clements.John McCarthy observes that Modern Hebrew Pi'el and Hitpa'el could also be analyzed along these lines. See McCarthy (1984) and Bat-El (1986) for alternative analyses. We are not proposing that transfer should replace normal direct melodic linking. Rather, we are proposing that direct melodic linking cannot insightfully account for all cases of templatic morphology and must be supplemented by transfer. It should be noted that our use of transfer differs from that of reduplicative transfer. First, while a reduplicative affix undergoes linearization with respect to the stem, templatic transfer does not entail linearization. A second difference between templatic transfer and reduplicative transfer is that, in templatic transfer, association between skeleta is one-to-one, left-to-right. In reduplicative transfer, Clements proposes a different procedure where vowels associate before consonants. This latter method simply would not work in the case of broken plurals.A third potential differences between them is OVERRIDING. In templatic association, a directly associated melodic element overrides a transferred melodic element. In reduplication, it is unclear whether prespecificaion precludes association or overrides it as here. To maintain this analysis in light of these differences, it must be supposed that these differences correspond to parameters along which languages can vary. The strongest claim we could make is that these differences are not independent, but correspond to a single parameter. Another explanation for these differences might be that transfer simply does not occur in reduplication, and that its apparent effects there are due to other mechanisms, perhaps along the lines of those suggested in note 8 above. However, whatever the merits of reduplicative transfer, some sort of transfer must be available for templatic morphology.",
author = "Michael Hammond",
year = "1988",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1007/BF00134231",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "247--270",
journal = "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory",
issn = "0167-806X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals

AU - Hammond, Michael

PY - 1988/5

Y1 - 1988/5

N2 - In summary, we have shown how transfer can account for some cases of templatic morphology, beyond the reduplication examples discussed by Clements.John McCarthy observes that Modern Hebrew Pi'el and Hitpa'el could also be analyzed along these lines. See McCarthy (1984) and Bat-El (1986) for alternative analyses. We are not proposing that transfer should replace normal direct melodic linking. Rather, we are proposing that direct melodic linking cannot insightfully account for all cases of templatic morphology and must be supplemented by transfer. It should be noted that our use of transfer differs from that of reduplicative transfer. First, while a reduplicative affix undergoes linearization with respect to the stem, templatic transfer does not entail linearization. A second difference between templatic transfer and reduplicative transfer is that, in templatic transfer, association between skeleta is one-to-one, left-to-right. In reduplicative transfer, Clements proposes a different procedure where vowels associate before consonants. This latter method simply would not work in the case of broken plurals.A third potential differences between them is OVERRIDING. In templatic association, a directly associated melodic element overrides a transferred melodic element. In reduplication, it is unclear whether prespecificaion precludes association or overrides it as here. To maintain this analysis in light of these differences, it must be supposed that these differences correspond to parameters along which languages can vary. The strongest claim we could make is that these differences are not independent, but correspond to a single parameter. Another explanation for these differences might be that transfer simply does not occur in reduplication, and that its apparent effects there are due to other mechanisms, perhaps along the lines of those suggested in note 8 above. However, whatever the merits of reduplicative transfer, some sort of transfer must be available for templatic morphology.

AB - In summary, we have shown how transfer can account for some cases of templatic morphology, beyond the reduplication examples discussed by Clements.John McCarthy observes that Modern Hebrew Pi'el and Hitpa'el could also be analyzed along these lines. See McCarthy (1984) and Bat-El (1986) for alternative analyses. We are not proposing that transfer should replace normal direct melodic linking. Rather, we are proposing that direct melodic linking cannot insightfully account for all cases of templatic morphology and must be supplemented by transfer. It should be noted that our use of transfer differs from that of reduplicative transfer. First, while a reduplicative affix undergoes linearization with respect to the stem, templatic transfer does not entail linearization. A second difference between templatic transfer and reduplicative transfer is that, in templatic transfer, association between skeleta is one-to-one, left-to-right. In reduplicative transfer, Clements proposes a different procedure where vowels associate before consonants. This latter method simply would not work in the case of broken plurals.A third potential differences between them is OVERRIDING. In templatic association, a directly associated melodic element overrides a transferred melodic element. In reduplication, it is unclear whether prespecificaion precludes association or overrides it as here. To maintain this analysis in light of these differences, it must be supposed that these differences correspond to parameters along which languages can vary. The strongest claim we could make is that these differences are not independent, but correspond to a single parameter. Another explanation for these differences might be that transfer simply does not occur in reduplication, and that its apparent effects there are due to other mechanisms, perhaps along the lines of those suggested in note 8 above. However, whatever the merits of reduplicative transfer, some sort of transfer must be available for templatic morphology.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0041142322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0041142322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF00134231

DO - 10.1007/BF00134231

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0041142322

VL - 6

SP - 247

EP - 270

JO - Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

JF - Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

SN - 0167-806X

IS - 2

ER -