Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:29:45.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arabic root and pattern morphology without tiers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Grover Hudson
Grover Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is an argument for the constraint on grammars known as the ‘true generalization condition’ (Hooper, 1976:13): all rules express generalizations true for all surface forms. I make this condition fully explicit by interpreting it to mean the prohibition of the three transformational rule-types: deletion, movement and feature-changing. The argument takes the form of a comparison of a recent autosegmental analysis of the intricate facts of Arabic root and pattern verb stem morphology with an alternative which observes the condition. I hope to show how the latter analysis in every empirical aspect is equivalent to the former in its claims about Arabic, and significantly differs, as the result of observing the true generalization condition, in its lack of numerous un-empirical claims made in the autosegmental analysis. In so far as both have descriptive adequacy, the analysis governed by the true generalization condition, termed ‘non-transformational’, has also explanatory adequacy in the sense of Chomsky, 1964: 28–9, since it is closely determined, or selected, by the true generalization condition.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 85 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brame, M. (1970). Arabic phonology: implications for phonological theory and historical Semitic. Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Brame, M. (1972). On the abstractness of phonology: Maltese?. In Brame, M. (ed.) Contributions to generative phonology. Austin: University of Texas Press. 22–61.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. (Janua Linguarum, 38.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fox, S. E. (1982). Autosegmental phonology and Semitic. Papers from the Eighteenth Regional Meeting, CLS. 131–139. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1979). The aims of autosegmental phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 202–222.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1950). The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6. 162–181. [Also (1978). In Al-Ani, Salman H. (ed.), Readings in Arabic linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 432–456].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haywood, J. A. & Nahmad, H. M. (1985). A new Arabic grammar of the written language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1974). The role of SPCs in natural generative phonology. Papers from the parasession on natural phonology, CLS 171–183. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1975). Suppletion in the representation of alternations. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1980). Automatic alternations in non-transformational phonology, Lg 56. 94–125.Google Scholar
Hudson, G. (1983). The principled phonology of Maltese verbs. Ninth LACUS forum 1982. 220–230. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 93–106.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A., Sanders, G. & Noll, C. (1974). The application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Lightner, T. M. (1973). Against morpheme structure conditions and other things. In Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. (eds.), Issues in phonological theory. The Hague: Mouton. 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, J. (1963). The Arabic derived verb themes: a study in form and meaning. Islamic Quarterly 7. 96–116. [Also (1978). In Al-Ani, Salman H. (ed.), Readings in Arabic linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 465–488].Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. LIn 12. 373–418.Google Scholar
Sanders, G. A. (1970). Constraints on constituent ordering. Papers in linguistics 2. 460–502. [Also (1979). In Meisel J. & Pam M. (eds), Linear order and generative theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71–98].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schramm, G. M. (1962). An outline of Classical Arabic verb structure. Lg 38. 360–75. [Also (1978). In Al-Ani, Salman H. (ed.), Readings in Arabic linguistics. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club. 497–516]Google Scholar
Thompson, L. C. & Thompson, M. T. (1969). Metathesis as a grammatical device. IJAL 35. 213–219.Google Scholar
Travis, D. A. (1979). Inflectional affixation in transformational grammar: evidence from the Arabic paradigm. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1971). Natural generative phonology. Paper at the LSA winter meeting, St Louis.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). Phonological uniqueness in natural generative grammar. Glossa 6. 105–116.Google Scholar
Wright, W. (1962 [1859]). A grammar of the Arabic language. 2 volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yushmanov, N. V. (1961). The structure of the Arabic language, (transl. Perlmann, Moshe.) Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar