, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 37–40 | Cite as

Semitic Morphology: Root-based or Word-based?

  • Adam Ussishkin
Original Paper


John Benjamin Semitic Language Generative Linguistic Consonantal Root Denominal Verb 
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. de Alcala P. (1505). Arte parta ligera mente saber la lengua araviga, emendada y añada y segunda mente imprimida. Juan Verala de Salamanca, Granatae [cited in Lagarde 1883:1-66]Google Scholar
  2. Arad M. (2005). Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. Bat-El O. (1994). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:571–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bopp, F. (1824). Vergleichende Zergliederung des Sanskrits und der mit ihm verwandten Sprachen. Erste Abhandlung. Von den Wurzeln und Pronominen erster und zweiter Person. Gelesen in der Königlich-preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Druckerei der KoWiss.Google Scholar
  5. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). Non-concatenative morphemes in language processing: Evidence from Standard Arabic. Proceedings of the workshop on spoken word access processes 1, 23–26. Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Boudelaa S., Marslen-Wilson W. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic lexicon. Cognition 81:65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1951). Morphophonemics of modern Hebrew. M.A. thesis, University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  8. Darden B. (1992). The Cairene Arabic verb without form classes. In: Brentari D. et al. (eds) The joy of grammar: A festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp. 11–24Google Scholar
  9. Deustch A., Frost R., Forster K. (1998). Verbs and nouns are organized and accessed differently in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24:1238–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewald G. (1827). Kritische Grammatik derhebraïsche Sprache. Hahn, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  11. Frost R., Forster K., Deutsch A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew: A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23:829–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frost R., Deutsch A., Forster K. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complex words in a nonlinear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 26:751–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaon S. (1932). S.L. Skoss, Kutub al-Lughah, Fragments of unpublished philological works of Saadia Gaon. Jewish Quarterly Review (new series) 23:329–336Google Scholar
  14. Gaon S. (1942). A study of inflection in Hebrew from Sa’adia Gaon’s grammatical work Kutun al-Lughah. Jewish Quarterly Review (new series) 33:171–212Google Scholar
  15. Gaon S. (1969). Ha-Egron. In: Nehemia Allony (eds) Ha-egron kitab usul al-shir al-Ibrani [The book of the principles of Hebrew poetry]. The Academy of the Hebrew Language, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  16. Gesenius F.H.W. (1910). Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch, revised by A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press (original: Halle, 1813).Google Scholar
  17. Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT [Published 1979, New York: Garland].Google Scholar
  18. Harris Z. (1941). Linguistic structure of Hebrew. Journal of the American Oriental Society 62:143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heath J. (1987). Ablaut and ambiguity. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. McCarthy J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12:373–418Google Scholar
  22. McOmber M. (1995). Morpheme edges and Arabic infixation. In: Mushira Eid (eds) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 7. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 173–188Google Scholar
  23. Ratcliffe R. (1998). The “Broken” plural problem in Arabic and comparative semitic. John Benjamins, Amsterdam PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Ratcliffe R. (2003). Toward a universal theory of shape-invariant (templatic) morphology: Classical Arabic re-considered. In: Singh R., Starosta S. (eds) Explorations in seamless morphology. Sage Publications, New Delhi, London and Thousand Oaks, pp 212–269Google Scholar
  25. Rousseau J. (1987). La dècouverte de la racine trilité en Sèmitique par l’idèologue Volney. Historiographia Linguistica 14(3):341–365Google Scholar
  26. de Sacy S. (1810). Grammaire Arabe á l’usage des èléves de l’Ecole spèciale des languages orientales vivantes. Imprimerie Royale, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Ussishkin A. (1999). The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew denominal verbs and output-output correspondence. Phonology 16:401–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Volney C. (1787). Voyages en Syrie et en Egypte pendant les années 1783, 1784, 1785. Volland, Desenne, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Buisiness Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations