Root extraction or stem modification in Semitic morphology?

Evidence from
doublet formation in Palestinian Arabic

This study examines the debate regarding the nature of non-concatenative formation
with respect to variation in adjective formation in Palestinian Arabic, where adjectives
take an additional form of the CaCCan pattern.
(1) a. sˤaʕb ʕala mwazˤzˤaf ratboh maħdud
'it is difficult for a clerk whose salary is limited'
https://www.facebook.com/admitNajah/posts/3982978901762738
b. il-wadˤʕ sˤaʕban ʕale:ha
'the situation is difficult her'
https://www.facebook.com/admitNajah/posts/2008009939259654

The adjectives sˤaʕb (1a) and sˤaʕban (1b) denote 'difficult', share the sˤ-ʕ-b root, and
are formed in different patterns, CaCC and CaCCan respectively. In contrast, there
are adjectives without CaCCan doublets, e.g. muna:seb - *nasba:n 'suitable'. I show
that CaCCan formation can be predicted based on both semantic and morpho-
phonological criteria. The talk will address the morph-phonological aspect. I argue
that cases of CaCCan formation can be better explained under word-based approaches
without reference to the root.

Examining adjectives with CaCCan counterparts reveals that these are only adjectives
in patterns without derivational prefixes (2).

(2) baxi:l - baxla:n 'miser'

ya:bes - yabsa:n 'dry'
tˤwi:l - tˤawlan 'tall'

Adjectives with derivational prefixes systematically have no doublets. mabsu:tˤ

'pleased' is formed in maCCu:C, which consists of the prefix ma-. There seems to be
no semantic reason for it not to have a doublet like *bastˤan. More examples are
presented in (3).

(3) mašhu:r - *šahra:n 'famous'

atˤraš - *tˤarša:n 'deaf'
mutawa:dˤeʕ - *wadˤʕan 'modest'

The doublets in (3) are blocked because structure makes them incompatible with
CaCCan, as its prosodic structure cannot accommodate more than three consonants.
The formation of forms like *bastˤan would involve deletion of the prefix ma-, and
this would render low structural transparency between the forms. Evidence from other
cases of Semitic word formation reveals that derivational affixes are transfered from
the base to the derived form. The fact that prefixes are not transfered to CaCCan
forms blocks their formation.
I argue that gaps as in (3) are better explained under word-based approaches (Aronoff
1976, 2007) and specifically the theory of stem modification (Steriade 1988,
McCarthy & Prince 1990, Bat-El 1994, 2017, Ussishkin 1999, 2005) rather than the
extraction of a consonantal root. A formation of doublets like sˤaʕban 'difficult' can be
based on at least three scenarios: (i) from the root sˤ-ʕ-b; (ii) from sˤaʕb by extracting
of sˤ-ʕ-b and mapping it onto CaCCan; and (iii) from sˤaʕb by adjusting it to CaCCan.
(iii) is the only scenario that does not involve separate reference to the root. Both (ii)
and (iii) satisfy template imposition (Faust&Hever 2010), where words have to be
adjusted to certain patterns. However, (iii) in contrast to (i) and (ii), predicts that some
words cannot be adjusted to some patterns, as the morphological mechanism
examines relations between words and possible outputs. This does not mean that root-
based approaches do not consider such relations (Faust 2019, Kastner 2019), but
assuming that the morphological mechanism both examines such relations and then
performs extraction would render redundancy. The current study adds to the ongoing
debate on the nature of Semitic morphology, demonstrating the importance structural
transparency between words.

References

Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formatiom in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT

Press.
Aronoff, M. 2007. In the beginning was the word. Language 83, 803-830.
Bat-El, O. 1994. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. NLLT 12,
572-596.
Bat-El, O. 2017. Word-based items-and processes (WoBIP): Evidence from Hebrew
morphology. In C. Bowern, L. Horn, and R. Zanuttini (eds), On Looking into
Words (and beyond), 115-135. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
Faust, N. (2019). New reasons to root for the Semitic root from Mehri and Neo-Aramaic. The
Linguistic Review 36 (3), 575-599.
Faust, N. & Y. Hever. (2010). Empirical and Theoretical Arguments for the Discontinuous
Root in Semitic Languages. Brill’s Annual for Afro-Asiatic Languages 2, 80-118.
Kastner, I. (2019). Templatic morphology as an emergent property: Roots and functional
heads in Hebrew. NLLT 37.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince. 1990. Foot and word in Prosodic Morphology: the Arabic
broken plural. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 209-283.
Steriade, D. 1988. Reduplication and transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology
5:1, 73-155.
Ussishkin, A. 1999. The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew
Denominal Verbs and Output-output Correspondence. Phonology 16, 401-442.
Ussishkin, A. 2005. A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templatic
morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23, 169-218.