Word-Formation and Reduplication in Standard Arabic: a New 1 Distributed Morphology Approach 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Word-Formation and Reduplication in Standard Arabic: A New 1 Distributed Morphology Approach 2 Muteb Alqarni 3 King Khalid University 4 Reviewed and Accepted, to appear in PSiCL, mid-2022 5 Abstract 6 The current paper aims to capture the properties of reduplication within the distributed 7 morphology model (Halle and Marantz, 1993, 1994; Embick and Noyer, 2007; 8 Siddiqi, 2009; Embick, 2010). Taking Standard Arabic (SA) as a representative, the 9 article shows that SA, like many other languages, has both full and partial 10 reduplication. Full reduplication repeats entire stems while partial reduplication 11 doubles part of it. Rather than the available two analyses, i.e. the readjustment 12 approach (Raimy, 2000; Frampton, 2009) and the affixation approach (Haugen, 2008, 13 2010, 2011; Haugen and Harley, 2010), the current paper provides a novel approach 14 to the phenomenon of reduplication in the world languages. It argues that root 15 consonants and vowels should be decomposed into non-phonetic distinctive features 16 that undergo late insertion at PF. These non-phonetic distinctive features are supplied 17 with sound items at PF in the same fashion that the terminal nodes with 18 morphosyntactic features are fed with vocabulary items. This approach serves three 19 purposes. It accounts for speech errors, captures the non-concatenative morphology in 20 Semitic languages, and allows the reduplicant form to copy all the distinctive features 21 of the roots, yielding instances of full reduplication. Instances of partial reduplication 22 can be generated by root-sensitive impoverishment rules which target and delete some 23 of the features of the stem or the reduplicant form. 24 25 Keywords: reduplication, Standard Arabic, distributed morphology, sound items, 26 impoverishment rule. 27 1 28 2 1. Introduction 29 Reduplication is a morphological process in which a stem, segment, or 30 syllable are repeated (Raimy, 2000; Inkelas & Zoll, 2005; Haugen, 2008 among 31 others)1. It can be full or partial. Full reduplication repeats full stems as in (1) from 32 Halkomelem (cf. Shaw, 2004), whereas partial reduplication doubles only a part (a 33 sound, two sounds, or a syllable, etc) of the stem as in (2) from Agta (cf. Healey, 34 1960). 35 1. a. [qʷél] „tospeak‟ → [qʷél-qʷél] „talkative‟ 36 b. [kʼʷ ] „tocapsize‟ → [kʼʷ -kʼʷ ] „likelytocapsize‟ 37 38 2. a. [ɸuɾab]„afternoon‟ → [ɸu-ɸuɾab] „lateafternoon‟ 39 b. [ŋaŋaj]„alongtime‟ → [ŋa-ŋaŋaj] „alongtime(inyears)‟ 40 41 There are many grammatical or rhetorical purposes for reduplication 42 (Haspelmath, 2013). The primary use of reduplication is pluralization as in Agta in (3) 43 (cf. Raimy, 2000) and Dakota in (4) (cf. Shaw, 1980). 44 3. a. pusa „cat‟ → pu-pusa „cats‟ 45 b. kaldin „goat‟ → kal-kaldin „goats‟ 46 c. takki „leg‟ → taktakki „legs‟ 47 d. uffu „thigh‟ → uf-uffu „thighs' 48 49 4. a. hãska „tall‟ → hãska-ska „tall(plural)‟ 50 b. waʃte „good‟ → waʃte-ʃte „good(plural)‟ 51 52 Reduplication can also be used for intensifying events, as in Gunu in (5a) (cf. 53 Rekanga, 1989), Mbukushu in (5b) (cf. Fisch, 1998) or Yao in (5c) (cf. Ngunga, 54 2000). 55 5. a. bela „lie‟ →bela-bela „liecontinually‟ 56 b. kwata „touch‟ →kwata-kwata „toucheverything‟ 57 c. lima „cultivate‟ →lima-lima „cultivatefrequently‟ 58 59 1 Abbreviations used in this article are as follows: DM=Distributed Morphology; LF=Logical Form; MS=Morphological Structure; PF=Phonetic Form; SA=Standard Arabic; SI(s)=Sound Item(s); VI(s)=Vocabulary Item(s). 3 In contrast to the above uses of reduplication (i.e. multiplication and intensity), 60 reduplication can also express the opposite function, namely diminution or 61 attenuation, as in Mainland Comox in (6) (cf. Watanabe, 1994), or as in Ndyuka and 62 Sranan in (7) (cf. Kouwenberg & LaCharité, 2005). 63 6. a. supaju „ax‟ → suspaju „littleax‟ 64 b. ʔaltxw „room‟ → ʔaʔltxw „littleroom‟ 65 c. tala „money‟ → tatla „littlemoney‟ 66 67 7. a. lon „to run‟ →lon-lon „to be kind of running‟ [Ndyuka] 68 b. ferfi „to paint‟ →ferfi-ferfi „to paint a bit‟ [Sranan] 69 70 As far as Standard Arabic (SA) is concerned, reduplication is employed for 71 intensity and emphasis (Procházka, 1993; Elzarka, 2005; Maas, 2005; Abu-Mansour, 72 2015). Full stems can be reduplicated in SA as in (8). These examples are instances of 73 full reduplication. 74 8. Full Stem Reduplication 75 76 a. xarxar (cf. xar+xar) „bubble‟ 77 b. tamtam (cf. tam+tam) „mumble‟ 78 c. ɣamɣam (cf. ɣam+ɣam) „babble‟ 79 d. zaqzaq (cf. zaq+zaq) „chirp‟ 80 e. tˤaʔtˤaʔ (cf.tˤaʔ+tˤaʔ) „lower one‟s head‟ 81 f. kamkam (cf. kam+kam) „cover‟ 82 g. sˤarsˤar (cf.sˤar+sˤar) „scream‟ 83 h. ħasˤħasˤ (cf.ħasˤ+ħasˤ) „manifest‟ 84 i. fadˤfadˤ (cf.fadˤ+fadˤ) „disclose‟ 85 j. waswas (cf. was+was) „suspect‟ 86 87 Partial reduplication also exists in SA where part of the stem is doubled while 88 the rest thereof is deleted. In (9), the first CV of the stem is deleted, whereas, in (10), 89 the final VVC of the reduplicant form is the one being erased2. 90 2 Inthispaper,wefollowClements&Keyser‟s(1983) linear model of CV phonology in treating long vowels as VV. We also follow previous approaches such as Raimy (2000), Frampton (2009), Haugen 4 9. Partial Stem Reduplication (the 1st CV of the stem→∅) 91 a. ʕaram+ram (cf.ʕaram+[ʕa]ram) „very numerous‟ 92 b. ɣaʃam+ʃam (cf. ɣaʃam+[ɣa]ʃam) „very unjust‟ 93 c. ʕarak+rak (cf.ʕarak+[ʕa]rak]) „very experienced‟ 94 d. kaðab+ðab (cf. kaðab+[ka]ðab) „big liar‟ 95 e. ʕasˤab+sˤab (cf.ʕasˤab+[ʕa]sˤab) „very hard‟ 96 f. damak+mak (cf. damak+[da]mak) „very sweeping‟ 97 g. ʃalaʕ+laʕ (cf.ʃalaʕ+[ʃa]laʕ) „very tall‟ 98 h. ħarak+rak (cf.ħarak+[ħa]rak) „very quick‟ 99 i. hawal+wal (cf. hawal+[ha]wal) „very scared‟ 100 j. ɣatˤam+tˤam (cf.ɣatˤam+[ɣa]tˤam) „very deep‟ 101 102 10. Partial Stem Reduplication (2nd VVC of the reduplicant form →∅) 103 104 a. mar+mari:s (cf. mar[i:s]+mari:s) „a very hard land‟ 105 b. mar+mari:r (cf. mar[i:r]+mari:r) „a very empty land‟ 106 c. mar+mari:t (cf. mar[i:t]+mari:t) „a very empty land‟ 107 d. qar+qari:r (cf. qar[i:r]+qari:r) „a stomach sound‟ 108 109 Giventhat “allsyllables in Arabicrequireanonset”(Watson,2002:65), we 110 assume that the obliterated parts in (9) are syllables but those in (10) are not. The first 111 rhotic sound [r] in the words in parenthesis in (10) should function as the onset of the 112 following deleted parts, not as the coda of the preceding /ma/ or /qa/. Because this [r] 113 is preserved in (10), the deletion process must have applied only to part of the 114 syllable, namely VVC. 115 In this paper, we will develop a distributed morphology approach to account 116 for full and partial reduplication in the world languages, using SA as a representative. 117 We assume that reduplication behave uniformly in all the world languages. Because 118 the reduplicant form borrows all (or a number of) sounds from roots and stems as 119 original sources, we will begin our analysis with a discussion of the formation of 120 roots, stems, and words in SA. Understanding the root/stem/word formation in SA 121 helps in capturing reduplication facts in Arabic as well as other languages. 122 (2008, 2010, 2011) and Haugen and Harley (2010) which assume that the reduplicant form is syntactically left adjoined to the stem (see section 3.2). Thus, in light of syntactic linearization, we claim that the deletion in (9) affects the stem, but it affects the reduplicant form in (10). 5 The organization of the paper will be as follows. We will lay out the 123 framework of DM in section (2) focusing on the tools that can be of use in developing 124 our approach. We will move from there to present our approach in section (3) 125 showing that it can account for word formation as well as reduplication in SA. 126 Concluding remarks will be given in section (4). 127 2. DM Framework 128 Based on earlier realizational theories of morphology (Kiparsky, 1973; 129 Anderson, 1992), Distributed Morphology (DM) is developed as a unified piece-based 130 framework that modulates both morphosyntactic and moprhophonological phenomena 131 via the Chomskyan generative Y-model as shown in (11). Rather than listing 132 sound/meaning correspondences of words in the lexicon, DM, as its name suggests, 133 distributes the lexical properties among three grammatical components (Halle and 134 Marantz, 1993, 1994; Embick and Noyer, 2007; Embick and Marantz, 2008; Siddiqi, 135 2009; Embick, 2010). The first component, known as List A, provides the syntax with 136 the basic formatives which include roots and morphosyntactic features, which in turn 137 undergo the common syntactic operations such as Merge, Move and Copy, in the 138 sense of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004 et seq). Given 139 that DM is a late insertion approach, the second component, namely List B, contains 140 phonological material that realizes terminal nodes at PF. The third component, List C, 141 interprets the terminal nodes at LF. These interpretations proceed convergently and 142 yield the intended meaning of the final structure. 143 11. Grammar Architecture of Distributed Morphology 144 6 145 As represented in (11), every derivation sets out with a selection of language- 146 particular roots as well as feature bundles.