Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-r6ggp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-19T16:43:11.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

True Truncation in Colloquial Hebrew Imperatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Outi Bat-El
Outi Bat-El*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
*
Dept. of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel [obatel@post.tau.ac.il]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are two types of truncation that yield shortening of a morphological constituent, fake truncation (templatic) and true truncation (a-templatic, subtractive). This article provides an analysis of true truncation in colloquial Hebrew imperatives. It is shown that true truncation cannot target a designated phonological unit, since in some forms CV is truncated and in others only V. In addition, there are cases where truncation is blocked. The framework of optimality theory adopted here allows a unified account of the data in terms of constraint interaction. It is argued that an antifaithfulness truncation constraint, which must be morphological, interacts with both faithfulness and markedness constraints. Truncation is minimized to one segment by a general antideletion faithfulness constraint, but markedness constraints may impose truncation of more than one segment. There are cases where truncation is blocked, which suggests that the truncation constraint is violable. The discussion includes regular and irregular verbs and instances of free variation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 651 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adam, Galit. 2002. From variable to optimal grammar: Evidence from language acquisition and language change. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University dissertation.Google Scholar
Adam, Galit, and Bat-El, Outi. 2000. Morphological knowledge without morphological structure: The emergence of inflectional suffixes in the acquisition of Hebrew verbs. Paper presented in the workshop on Phonology and Prosodic Morphology of Semitic Languages. Tel-Aviv. Online: http://spinoza.tau.ac.il/hci/dep/lingui/people/batel.html.Google Scholar
Alderete, John D. 1998. Morphologically governed accent in optimality theory. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published, New York: Routledge, 2001.]Google Scholar
Alderete, John D. 2001. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18:201–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1975. On the interaction of phonological rules of various types. Journal of Linguistics 11:39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1995. Rules and constraints in describing the morphology of phrases. Chicago Linguistic Society 31.2.15–31.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R., and Browne, Wayles. 1973. On keeping exchange rules in Czech. Papers in Linguistics 6:445–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 1994. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12.571–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 1995. Resolving prosodic mismatch in Modern Hebrew verb formation. Leiden in Last: HIL Phonology Papers 1, ed. by van, Harry Huist, der and van, Jeroen Weijer, de, 25–40. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2000. Anti-faithfulness: An inherent morphological property. Paper presented at the 5th international conference on Afroasiatic languages. Paris. Online: http://spinoza.tau.ac.il/hci/dep/lingui/people/batel.html.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2001. Multi-dimensional paradigm uniformity. Paper presented at the workshop on paradigm uniformity. Berlin: Zentrum fuer Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Online: http://spinoza.tau.ac.il/hci/dep/lingui/people/batel.html.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional Faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 2002.]Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. Papers in optimality theory, ed. by Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 77–136. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.) Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-74–0000: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-74–0000.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 2000.]Google Scholar
Bliese, Loren F. 1981. A generative grammar of Afar. Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1972. Categorical limitations on rules in the phonology of Modern Hebrew. Urbana: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1979. On the new imperative in colloquial Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 3.17–24.Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1991. Casual and formal vowel deletion in Modern Hebrew. Semitic studies in honor of Wolf Leslau, vol. 1, ed. by Kaye, Alan, 189–98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. 1999. On the special status of the vowels a and e in Israeli Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 40:233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1998. Multiple correspondence. Lingua 104.79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafos, Diamandis. 1998. Eliminating long-distance consonantal spread. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.223–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10.210–31. [Reprint, 1963, Readings in Linguistics, ed. by Martin Joos, 386–99. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwood, Graham. 2001. Anti-faithfulness and subtractive morphology. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-466–0901.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1988.]Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1994. Koasati dictionary (Studies in the Anthropology of North American Indians). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The phonology of morpheme realization. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda, and McCarthy, John. 1991. Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw morphology. Phonology 8.37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jack. 1988. Subtractive morphology as dissociation. Proceedings of the 7th conference on formal linguistics, ed. by Borer, Hagit, 229–40. Stanford: Stanford Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack. 1994. Implications of plural reduplication, infixation, and subtraction for Muskogean subgrouping. Anthropological Linguistics 36.27–55.Google Scholar
Matthews Peter, H. 1974. Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word-structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodie morphology 1: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Amherst, MA and New Brunswick, NJ: University of Massachusetts and Rutgers University, ms. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA–482–1201.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory, ed. by Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.) Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-60–0000: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-60–0000.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin. 1990. Patterns of truncation. Linguistic Inquiry 21.478–85.Google Scholar
Oomen, Antoinette. 1981. Gender and plurality in Rendille. Afroasiatic Linguistics 8.35–75.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1991. Stricture in feature geometry. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation. [Published, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1995.]Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66.78–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. (RuCCS Technical Report 2.) New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin. 1995. Morphemes and candidates in optimality theory. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-44–0195.Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin. 1999. MOT: Sketch of an OT approach to morphology. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-352–1099.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1998. Morphological operations. The handbook of morphology, ed. by Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 123–43. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1999. Lexical conservatism in French and adjectival liaison. Proceedings of the 25th linguistic colloquium on Romance languages, ed. by Authier, Marc, Bullock, Barbara, and Reed, Lisa, 243–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stonham, John T. 1994. Combinatorial morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam P. 1999. The inadequacy of the consonantal root: Modern Hebrew denominal verbs and output-output correspondence. Phonology 16.401–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam P. 2000. The emergence of fixed prosody. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/; ROA-445–0701.Google Scholar
Watson, Janet C. E. 1999. The syllable and syllabification in Modern Spoken Arabic (Sanʕānī and Cairene). The syllable: Views and facts, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Ritter, Nancy, 501–25. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weeda, Donald S. 1992. Word truncation in prosodic morphology. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. by Lapointe, Steven, Brentari, Diane, and Farrell, Patrick, 216–46. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zepeda, Ofelia. 1983. A Papago grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryll. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/;ROA-143–0996.Google Scholar