Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grammatical paradigm uniformity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper develops a formal model of correspondence between words sharing a Morphological Structure, but not sharing a lexeme. The empirical data used to advocate for this relation is explored using an analysis of nouns and verbs containing /a/ as a Root Vowel in General Modern Hebrew in positions where the corresponding form in Sephardic Modern Hebrew has a voiced pharyngeal. The emergence of Root Vowels reveals mora related generalizations: Root Vowels emerge only if their parallel paradigmatic consonant (consonant that occupies the same prosodic position in other roots of the same Morphological Structure) is in a coda position, i.e. it is moraic. The theory presented in this paper employs Output-to-Output constraints in order to account for surface phenomena which cannot be explained by standard Paradigm Uniformity theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adam, G. (2002). From variable to optimal grammar: evidence from language acquisition and language change. PhD Dissertation, Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.

  • Baković, E. (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University.

  • Bar-Lev, Z. (1977). Natural-abstract Hebrew phonology. Folia Linguistica, 11, 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bat-El, O. (1989). Phonology and word structure in Modern Hebrew. PhD Dissertation, UCLA.

  • Bat-El, O. (1993). Parasitic metrification in the Modern Hebrew stress system. The Linguistic Review, 10, 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bat-El, O. (1994). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 571–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bat-El, O. (2002). True truncation in Colloquial Hebrew imperatives. Language, 78, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bat-El, O. (2003). The fate of the consonantal root and the binyan in Optimality Theory. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 32, 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bat-El, O. (2006). What does the morpho-phonology say about Hebrew participles? Ms. Thursday interdisciplinary colloquium. Tel Aviv University.

  • Bat-El, O. (2008). Morphologically conditioned V-Ø alternation in Hebrew: distinction among nouns, adjectives & participles, and verbs. In Sh. Armon-Lotem, G. Danon, & S. Rothstein (Eds.), Generative approaches to Hebrew linguistics (pp. 27–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, M. (2003). Hebrew stress: can’t you hear those trochees? In E. Kaiser & S. Arunachalam (Eds.), Proceedings of PLC 26 (Vol. 9.1, pp. 45–58).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, J. (1998). Positional faithfulness. PhD Dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

  • Benua, L. (1997). Transderivational identity: phonological relations between words. PhD dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

  • Bolozky, Sh. (1995). Hasegoliyyim—gzira kavit’o mesoreget? [the Segolates—linear or discontinuous derivation?]. In O. R. Schwarzwald & Y. Schlesinger (Eds.), Hadassah Kantor jubilee book (pp. 17–26). Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolozky, Sh., & Schwarzwald, O. (1992). On the derivation of Hebrew forms with the +ut suffix. Hebrew Studies, 33, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. (1994). Against split morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993 (pp. 27–49). Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, G. (1996). Inherent versus contextual injection and the split morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995 (pp. 1–16). Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology (pp. 119–141). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (1998). Multiple correspondence. Lingua, 103, 79–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (2002a). Missing players: phonology and the past-tense debate. Lingua, 112, 157–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (2002b). Surface-to-surface morphology: when your representations turn into constraints. In P. Boucher (Ed.), Many morphologies (pp. 142–177). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (2005a). Sources of paradigm uniformity. In L. J. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 65–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burzio, L. (2005b). Lexicon and grammar: unequal but inseparable. Ms. Johns Hopkins University.

  • Chomsky, W. (1957). The eternal language. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, G. N., & Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffin, E., & Bolozky, Sh. (2005). A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (2nd ed.). New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delattre, P. (1971). Pharyngeal features in the consonants of Arabic, German, Spanish, French, and American English. Phonetica, 23, 129–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dor, D. (1995). Deriving the verbal paradigm of Modern Hebrew: a constraint based approach. In H. van der Hulst & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Leiden in last: HIL phonology papers I (pp. 105–144). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faust, N. (2005). The fate of Hebrew gutturals. MA Thesis, Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.

  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 253–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, P. J. (1992). Grammaticalization. In W. Bright William (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, L. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iscrulescu, C. (2006). The phonological dimension of grammatical markedness. PhD Dissertation, University of Southern California.

  • Itô, J. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

  • Jackendoff, R. S. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenstowicz, M. (1996). Base identity and uniform exponence: alternative to cyclicity. In J. Durand & B. Laks (Eds.), Current trends in phonology: models and methods (pp. 363–393). Paris-X: University of Salford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, I. (1997). Weight-by-cycle. In B. Bruening, K. Yoonjung, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics: Vol. 30. PF: papers at the interface (pp. 183–208).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT (Published by Garland Press, New York, 1985).

  • McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In L. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 170–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1986/1996). Prosodic morphology 1986 (Report no. RuCCS-TR-32). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science (Excerpts appear in J. Goldsmith (Ed.), Essential Readings in Phonology (pp. 102–136). Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).

  • McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics (Vol. 18, pp. 249–384). Amherst: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pariente, I. (2010). Pharyngeal related non-lexical vowels in Sephardic Modern Hebrew. Linguistics in Amsterdam, 3, 1–19 (Handout available as ROA-1069).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pater, J. (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology, 17, 237–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkell, J. (1971). Physiology of speech production: a preliminary study of two suggested revisions of the features specifying vowels. MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics Quarterly Progress Report, 102, 123–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: constraint in interaction generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prunet, J. (1996). Guttural vowels. In G. Hudson (Ed.), Essays on Gurage language and culture (pp. 175–203). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimron, J. (2003). Language, processing, and language acquisition in a root-based morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. L. (1997). Noun faithfulness: on the privileged behavior of nouns in phonology. http://www.unc.edu/~jlsmith/home/pdf/nfaith97.pdf.

  • Smolensky, P. (1995). On the structure of the constraint component CON of UG. Talk presented at University of California, Los Angeles (Handout available as, ROA-86).

  • Spencer, A. (1997). A note on the lexeme and the paradigm. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 16, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, A. (2000). Inflection and the lexeme. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 47, 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steriade, D. (1999). Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In B. Bullock, M. Authier, & L. Reed (Eds.), Formal perspectives in Romance linguistics (pp. 243–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steriade, D. (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In M. B. Broe & J. B. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: acquisition and the lexicon (pp. 313–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, G. T. (1993). Position classes and morphological theory. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 129–1799). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topintzi, N. (2006). Moraic onsets. Doctoral Dissertation, London: University College London.

  • Ussishkin, A. (1999). The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew denominal verbs and output-output correspondence. Phonology, 16, 401–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ussishkin, A. (2000). The emergence of fixed prosody. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.

  • Ussishkin, A. (2003). Templatic effects as fixed prosody: the verbal system in Semitic. In J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm, & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar III, (pp. 511–530). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (selected papers from CAL 5).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Phonetic Sciences, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Itsik Pariente

Authors
  1. Itsik Pariente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Itsik Pariente.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pariente, I. Grammatical paradigm uniformity. Morphology 22, 485–514 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9207-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-012-9207-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation