Conclusion
In summary, we have shown how transfer can account for some cases of templatic morphology, beyond the reduplication examples discussed by Clements.Footnote 1 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.Footnote 2
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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.
References
Bat-El, O.: 1986, ‘Extraction in Modern Hebrew Morphology’, unpublished master's thesis, UCLA.
Brame, M.: 1970, Arabic Phonology: Implications for Phonological Theory and Historical Semitic, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Clements, G. N.: 1985, ‘The Problem of Transfer in Nonlinear Phonology’, Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5, pp. 38–73.
Davis, S.: 1986, ‘On the Nature of Internal Reduplication’, to appear in M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, Academic Press, Orlando.
Halle, M. and G. N. Clements: 1983, Problem Book in Phonology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Levin, J.: 1985, A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Marantz, A.: 1982, ‘Re Reduplication’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 435–482.
Marantz, A. and L. McIntyre: 1986, ‘Reduplication Revisited’, manuscript, University of North Carolina.
McCarthy, J.: 1979, Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.
—: 1981, ‘A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–418.
—: 1982, ‘A Prosodic Account of Arabic Broken Plurals’, in I. R. Dihoff (ed.), Current Approaches to African Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht.
—: 1984, ‘Prosodic Organization in Morphology’, in A. Aronoff and R. T. Oehrle (eds.), Language Sound Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp. 299–317.
—: 1986, ‘OCP Effects: Gemination and Antigemination’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–264.
McCarthy J. and A. Prince: 1986, ‘Prosodic Morphology’, manuscript, University of Massachusetts and Brandeis University.
--: 1987, ‘Quantitative Transfer in Reduplicative and Templatic Morphology’, manuscript, University of Massachusetts and Brandeis University.
Pulleyblank, D.: 1986, Tone in Lexical Phonology, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Yip, M.: 1987, ‘Edge-In Association in Classical Arabic’, manuscript, Brandeis; to appear in Proceedings of 18th NELS, University of Massachusetts at Amherst; revised version entitled ‘Template Morphology and the Direction of Association’, to appear in NLLT 7 (1989).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Thanks to D. Archangeli, M. Budiono, N. Clements, A. Corre, S. Cronce, S. Davis, M. Herman, A. Kraima, J. McCarthy, D. Pulleyblank, T. Sliwoski, D. Smokey, R. Wilson, three anonymous reviewers, and the editors for helpful discussion and comments. All shortcomings of data or analysis are due to the author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hammond, M. Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 6, 247–270 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134231
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134231