Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 571–596 | Cite as

Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew

  • Outi Bat-El


In the formation of Modern Hebrew denominative verbs, two structural properties are transferred from the base to the derived form: the consonantal root and the consonant cluster. While the model of Root-to-Template Association (McCarthy 1981) is largely based on root transfer, it fails to account for cluster transfer. In this paper I argue that the model which can actually account for cluster transfer as well as root transfer is what I will term here Stem Modification (Steriade 1988). Within this model, segmental and prosodic adjustments are made on the base itself and not on some designated material extracted from the base. This approach to stem formation also eliminates the notion of the consonantal root from the grammar of Modern Hebrew.


Artificial Intelligence Structural Property Stem Formation Consonant Cluster Cluster Transfer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, Stephen R.: 1992,A-Morphous Morphology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Archangeli, Diana: 1991, ‘Syllabification and Prosodic Templates in Yawelmani’,NLLT 9, 231–283.Google Scholar
  3. Aronoff, Mark: 1976,Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Bat-El, Outi: 1984, ‘Reduplication in Modern Hebrew’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  5. Bat-El, Outi: 1986, ‘Extraction in Modern Hebrew Morphology’, unpublished M.A. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
  6. Bat-El, Outi: 1989, ‘Phonology and Word Structure in Modern Hebrew’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  7. Bat-El, Outi: 1994, ‘Resolving Prosodic Mismatch in Modern Hebrew’, to appear in the Proceedings of the 1st HIL Phonology Conference.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, Ruth A.: 1985, ‘The Acquisition of Hebrew’, in D. I. Slobin (ed.),The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, v.1, Lawrence Erlbaum Association, New Jersey, pp. 25–371.Google Scholar
  9. Berman, Ruth A.: 1990, ‘How a New Root is Formed? Denominative Verbs in Modern Hebrew’, paper presented at the 4th annual workshop of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, Yehoshua: 1972,torat hahége vehacurot, Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing, Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
  11. Bolozky, Shmuel: 1978, ‘Word Formation Strategies in the Hebrew Verb System: Denominative Verbs’,Afroasiatic Linguistics 5, 1–26.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, George N.: 1985a, ‘The Geometry of Phonological Features’, in C. J. Ewen and J. M. Anderson (eds.),Phonology Yearbook 2, 225–252.Google Scholar
  13. Clements, George N.: 1985b, ‘The Problem of Transfer in Nonlinear Phonology’,Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 38–73.Google Scholar
  14. Gesenius: 1910,Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, E. Kautzsch (ed.), A. E. Cowley (revised), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd English ed. (orig. Halle, 1813).Google Scholar
  15. Guerssel, Mohamed and Jean Lowenstamm: 1994, ‘On Apophony’, to appear in the Proceedings of the 1st HIL Phonology Conference.Google Scholar
  16. Hammond, Michael: 1988, ‘Templatic Transfer in Arabic Broken Plurals’,NLLT 6, 247–270.Google Scholar
  17. Heath, Jeffrey: 1987,Ablaut and Ambiguity: Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic Dialect, State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  18. Horvath, Julia: 1981, ‘On the Status of Vowel Patterns in Modern Hebrew: Morphological Rules and Lexical Representation’, in T. Thomas-Finders (ed.),Extended Word-and-Paradigm Theory, Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4, UCLA, pp. 228–261.Google Scholar
  19. Inkelas, Sharon: 1990, ‘Prosodic Replacement in Modern Hebrew’, in K. Deaton et al. (eds.),Papers from the 26th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parassession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar
  20. Itô, Junko: 1986,Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. Itô, Junko: 1989, ‘A Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis’,NLLT 7, 217–259.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, John J.: 1979, ‘Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  23. McCarthy, John J.: 1981, ‘A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology’,Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–418.Google Scholar
  24. McCarthy, John J.: 1984, ‘Prosodic Organization in Morphology’, in M. Aronoff and R. T. Oehrle (eds.),Language Sound Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, pp. 299–317.Google Scholar
  25. McCarthy, John J.: 1986, ‘OCP Effect Gemination and Antigemination’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–263.Google Scholar
  26. McCarthy, John J.: 1989, ‘Linear Order in Phonological Representations’,Linguistic Inquiry 20, 71–88.Google Scholar
  27. McCarthy, John J.: 1993, ‘Template Form in Prosodic Morphology’, in L. S. Stran (ed.), Papers from the 3rd annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, pp. 187–218.Google Scholar
  28. McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince: 1986, ‘Prosodic Morphology’, unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  29. McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince: 1990, ‘Foot and Word in Prosodic Morphology: The Arabic Broken Plural’,NLLT 8, 209–283.Google Scholar
  30. Mester, Armin R.: 1988,Studies in Tier Structure, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Mutaka, Ngessimo and Larry M. Hyman: 1990, ‘Syllable and Morpheme Integrity in Kinande Reduplication’,Phonology 7, v.1, 73–119.Google Scholar
  32. Ornan, Uzi: 1971, ‘binyanim ubsisim, netiyot ugzirot’, HaHa ? universita 16, 15–22.Google Scholar
  33. Schwarzwald, Ora: 1973–74, ‘šorašim, bsisim umivne hamorfémot’,Lešonenu 38, 131–136.Google Scholar
  34. Selkirk, Elisabeth: 1984, ‘On the Major Class Features and the Syllable Theory’, in M. Aronoff and R. T. Oehrle (eds.),Language Sound Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 107–144.Google Scholar
  35. Steriade, Donca: 1988, ‘Reduplication and Syllable Transfer in Sanskrit and Elsewhere’,Phonology 5, v.1 73–155.Google Scholar
  36. Wexler, Paul: 1990,The Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  37. Yannai, Yigal: 1973–74, ‘pe?alim merubei?icurim balašon ha?ivrit’, LeLešonenu 38, 118–130, 183–194.Google Scholar
  38. Yip, Moira: 1988, ‘Template Morphology and the Direction of Association’,NLLT 6, 551–577.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Outi Bat-El
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations