Encuesta N° 10 Elaborado por IBM SPSS Statistics 23

Although Heath suggests that '[f]or the most part, the famous “consonantal roots” of Arabic are best consigned to oblivion', Bat-El (2003:41) remarks that 'arguments against the consonantal root are rarely made explicit'. For example, in his treatment of doubled verbs, Gafos contributes evidence to the debate without specifically rejecting a root- based analysis, claiming that 'as soon as doubled verbs are properly understood, they cease to provide crucial evidence for root-based derivation' and that they 'present an argument rather than a problem for a stem-based view of Arabic morphology' (Gafos 2002:82,84). Moreover, it is uncommon for detractors of the root to dismiss it completely. Although committed to the imperfective verb as the basis of derivation, Benmamoun (1999:199) cautions that 'it is premature to argue at this point that all productive Arabic morphology is word based rather than root based'. Similarly, in his earlier work on denominal verbs in Modern Hebrew, Ussishkin is reluctant to generalise both to other structures within that language and to other Semitic languages:

In this analysis, I argue that the consonantal root plays no role in [Modern

Hebrew] denominal verb formation. However, more work is necessary to

determine the status of roots in the language as a whole in order to verify if such

entities may be dispensed with entirely. Previous analyses have argued for the

central role of the consonantal root in all Semitic grammars. The large body of

literature on Arabic phonology and morphology, for example, takes the root as a

necessary element of the grammar. Further research is necessary in order to

explore whether my claims against the root result in superior accounts of word

formation throughout Semitic languages. (Ussishkin 1999:41)

It should be noted that some years later, however, the same author is prepared to make the more sweeping claim that '[t]here is no need to refer to the consonantal root; the word is the base of affixation' and hence 'Semitic morphology resembles more familiar morphology' (Ussishkin 2005:172).

A strong conviction that a word-based analysis is correct does not necessarily preclude a role for the root within it. Ratcliffe does not 'deny the need for processes operating on roots' (1997:151) and he concludes that '[t]o the extent that the consonantal root plays a role in the morphology it is as an intermediate form extracted during a process of derivation' (1997:169). Ratcliffe, in common with other proponents of alternative approaches, focusses on specific shortcomings of the traditional model and it may therefore be helpful to examine some of these in the next section.

3.1.1.2 Specific arguments for a fully vocalised base

Ratcliffe (1997) begins by examining the vexing and frequently raised issue of broken plurals, focussing on those exhibiting long ā in the second syllable and analogous

diminutives containing theaydiphthong, such as examples (3a-c):

(3a)

ﺐـﻠـﻛ

بﻼـﻛ

ﺐـﯿـﻠـﻛ

CvCC >> CvCvvC

kalb kilāb kulayb

dog:SG dog:PL dog:DIM;SG

(3b)

ﺮـﺘـﻗد

ﺮﺗﺎـﻓد

ﺮـﺘﯿـﻓد

CvCCvC >> CvCvvCvC

daftar dafātir dufaytir

notebook:SG notebook:PL notebook:DIM;SG

(3c)

ﻦـﻄـﻠـﺳ

ﻦـﯿﻃﻼﺳ

ﻦـﯿﻄــﯿـﻠـﺳ

CvCCvvC >> CvCvvCvvC

sulTān salāTīn sulayTīn

sultan:SG sultan:PL sultan:DIM;SG

(after Ratcliffe 1997:148)

Observing that it is unsatisfactory to consider the various templates which correspond with these plurals and diminutives as separate morphemes as suggested by the root-and-pattern model, he concludes that plural and diminutive formation is not directly accessing the root, but rather modifying the fully-formed singular noun in a largely consistent manner (Ratcliffe 1997:147-148). Hence he characterises the root-and-

pattern model thus:

If we allow that some derivational rules must reference (phonologically-defined

parts of) words rather than underlying consonantal roots, we are in effect

admitting that the morpheme- (root-) based model of the Arabic lexicon argued

for in McCarthy (1979)12is inadequate. (Ratcliffe 1997:149)

That a root-based model is therefore without merit is not, however, an inevitable conclusion. The work of McCarthy (1981; 1985), as further developed by McCarthy & Prince, is foundational to the modern understanding of the root-and-template model of Arabic morphology. However, applying and extending the prosodic principles introduced in McCarthy & Prince (1990a), they allow that

[t]he broken plural … cannot be obtained with the ordinary resources of root-

and-template morphology. The category root is also morphologically

inappropriate as the basis of broken-plural formation, since some derivational

affixes are transferred intact…. (McCarthy & Prince 1990b:219)

For them, there is no inconsistency in maintaining that the root is the morphemic basis of derivation, but that other processes operate on words or stems derived templatically from the root. Hammond (1988) also develops a model of broken plural formation within root-and-template morphology. In contrast, although admitting that it is possible that some derivational processes operate on the root whilst others take words or stems as

12 McCarthy's 1979 PhD dissertation was published asFormal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphologyin 1985.

their base, Ratcliffe (1997:150) considers that 'it is clearly preferable on grounds of simplicity to assume that they all [operate on words or stems]', citing Beard (1995) in support of his position that the word, not the root, is the entry stored in the Arabic speaker's memory:13

Bound grammatical morphemes cannot be defined other than as modifications of

major class lexical items. It follows from this undeniable fact that all major class

lexical items must have fully specified phonological representations.

(Beard 1995 in Ratcliffe 1997:151)

However, reading further, it is clear that Beard (1995:40) is using the term 'bound grammatical morphemes' exclusively in the narrowest sense of affixes. Given that affixation is a concept applicable to concatenative rather than templatic morphology, it is not immediately apparent that Beard's constraint upon lexical items that they be phonologically fully specified is necessarily relevant for the templatic model of word formation which employs processes other than affixation and appears more adequate for Arabic.

A further problem for the root-based approach is that of the short vowels in underived nouns and verbs. Using examples including the nouns in (4a-c), Ratcliffe (1997:151) argues that 'if the three consonants of the stem are a separate morpheme, then [the stem] vowel too must be separate [sic] morpheme'. However in these examples, as he continues, 'the quality of the stem vowel is not predictable on semantic or grammatical grounds and may be any of the three short vowels in the language'.

(4a)

دﺮـﻗ

qird 'monkey' (4b)

ﺢـﻣر

rumH 'spear' (4c)

ﺐـﻠـﻛ

kalb

'dog' (after Ratcliffe 1997:151)

It is clearly true that the short vowels here cannot be considered morphemic in the sense that they carry any independent meaning when the root consonants are subtracted from the words. However, the concept of empty morphs, having form but not meaning, is not uncommon cross-linguistically. Some examples from Indo-European languages are given in (5a-c):

(5a) German compounds

Geburt + Jahr > Geburt-s-jahr birth-?-year

'year of birth' (Bauer 2003:30)

(5b) English neo-classical compounds psych-o-logy

(5c) French adverbs

doux > douce > doucement

/du/ /dus/ /dusmã/

soft:MSG soft:FSG softly (after Bauer 2003:111)

In the German and English examples, the elements linking the compounds add no meaning and appear merely to serve a phonological function, while in French, the feminine inflection of the adjective is consistently realised in the derived adverb, despite the category of gender being meaningless for this word class, rendering this also an empty morph in this context. Bauer's definition of an empty morph as 'a recurrent form in a language that does not appear to be related to any element of meaning' (2003:329) seems entirely applicable to the short vowels in examples (4a-c). Thus when Ratcliffe (1997:151) argues that the short vowels in the root-and-pattern model are 'phonological elements … whose meaning or function is empty', he is justified regarding meaning, but it is entirely plausible that they do fulfil a function which is purely phonological.

One further comment is necessary on the arbitrariness or otherwise of vocalisation in underived stems. Ratcliffe also uses three examples of pattern I verbs (6a-c), in which he demonstrates that the vowel on the middle radical in the p-stem can be any of the three available in the language, the choice of which he claims is not predictable.

(6a)

بﺮـﻀـﯾ

yaDribu (corresponding s-stemDaraba) 'he hits'

(6b)

ﺐـﺘـﻜـﯾ

yaktubu (corresponding s-stemkataba) 'he writes'

(6c)

بﺮـﺸـﯾ

yashrabu (corresponding s-stemshariba)

'he drinks' (after Ratcliffe 1997:151)

This is also the position of Gafos (2002:70), who furthermore specifies that '[n]o phonological factors condition its choice', although in the matter of phonology Heath (2003:151) differs, stating that 'a' is strongly favoured by the proximity of the pharyngeal consonants

ح

(H) and

ع

. However, as already discussed in section 3.1.2.2, there is evidence that there is some morphosemantic and/or morphosyntactic significance to the pattern I s-stem medial vowel. Holes (2004:101) identifies alternations in this vowel as 'broadly associated with different categories of transitivity and dynamic versus stative meaning'. Moreover, it is undeniable that the quality of the s-stem vowel to some extent determines the corresponding p-stem vowel, as in Table 2, where it may be observed that only medial 'a' in the s-stem corresponds with unpredictable vowelling in the p-stem. S- stem 'i' and 'u' are predictably 'a' and 'u' respectively in the corresponding p-stems. It is therefore perhaps simplistic to dismiss the vowelling of the underived p-stem as non- morphemic. Recall, however, that Ratcliffe does not view the s-stem as basic, but

favours the p-stem. His analysis requires that p-stem vowelling be considered arbitrary and must therefore dismiss any correlation of the vowelling of the s-stem (assumed to be derived) with transitivity or stativity.

In document Implementación de Un Sistema Web de Historial Clínico Para La Mejora De Los Procesos De Historias Clínicas Del Centro De Salud De La Provincia De Cañete (página 95-119)