Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:50:14.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of prosody in morphological change: The case of Hebrew bound numerals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2008

Irit Meir
Irit Meir
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The morphological system of cardinal numerals in Modern Hebrew is currently undergoing rapid changes, enabling linguists to unravel the forces shaping the change as it takes place. In the free forms, gender marking on numerals is neutralized by collapsing both masculine and feminine forms into one paradigm, the feminine paradigm. In the bound (definite) forms, an opposite direction is attested, in that at least for some numerals, the masculine forms become more prevalent. The study reported here aims to determine whether the factor determining the change is prosodic or functional in nature, by eliciting production and grammaticality judgments of noun phrases containing bound numerals from five different age groups of native speakers. The results suggest that prosody plays a role in shaping the change, as forms with penultimate stress are favored over those with ultimate stress. In addition, processes of production and processes of grammaticality judgments seem to be subject to different kinds of constraints. This state of affairs indicates that the tension between the tendencies toward simplification on the one hand and maximal distinctness on the other occurs at the morphological level as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 41 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Berman, Ruth A.. (1978). Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A.. (1992). Child language and language change. In Ornan, U., Ben-Shachar, R., & Turi, G. (eds.), Hebrew: A living language. Haifa: Haifa University Press. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Blau, Joshua. (1972). Hebrew phonology and morphology. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hame'uchad. (In Hebrew)Google Scholar
Bloch, Ariel A.. (1971). Morphological doublets in Arabic dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies 16:53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel. (1982). Remarks on rhythmic stress in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 18:275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolozky, Shmuel, and Haydar, Adnan F.. (1986). Colloquial gender neutralization in the numeral systems of Modern Hebrew and Lebanese Arabic. Al-Arabiyya 19:19–28.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. (1998). On the morphological parallelism between compounds and construct. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1. Dordrecht: Foris, 45–65.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon, Gabi. (1998). Two syntactic positions for determiners in Hebrew. In Proceedings of IATL 13, ed.Wyner, Adam Zachary. The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. (2002). Case and formal definiteness: The licensing of definite and indefinite noun phrases in Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Israel.Google Scholar
Eilon, Amos. (2004). German requiem. Orbach, Danny (trans.) The pity of it all. Henry Holt and Company, New York, 217.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg. (1891). Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar
Gesenius, William. (1910). Gesenius' Hebrew grammar. Kautzsch, E. (ed.). Oxford: Calderon Press.Google Scholar
Glinert, Lewis. (1989). The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. (1967). Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 12: 169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian. (1998). Diachronic morphology. In Spencer, A. & Zwicky, A. M. (eds.) The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 351–373.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. (1949). La nature des process dits “analogiues.” Acta Linguistica 5:15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., & Mattingly, Ignatius G.. (1989). A specialization for speech perception. Science 243:489–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manczak, Witold. (1980). Laws of analogy. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical morphology. The Hague: Mouton, 283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MasterCard. (2005, April). Brochure.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. (2005). The vulnerability of gender marking in Modern Hebrew numerals. Hebrew Linguistics 55:31–42. (In Hebrew)Google Scholar
Nespresso Club. (2005). Brochure.Google Scholar
Organization for Excellence in Education. (2004, October 24). Letter.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, & Jackendoff, Ray. (2005). The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95(2):201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit. (1995a). Language change in child and adult Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravid, Dorit. (1995b). Neutralization of gender distinctions in Modern Hebrew numerals. Language Variation and Change 7(1):79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantic 25:37–62.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Shimon. (1995). Cardinal numbers in Mishnaic Hebrew: Loosening the gender agreement. In Dotan, A. & Tal, A. (eds.), Eliezer Rubinshtein memorial book. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.Google Scholar
Siloni, Tal. (1994). Noun phrases and nominalizations. Ph.D. thesis, Universite de Geneve.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.. (1977). Language change in childhood and in history. In Macnamara, J. (Ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
University of Haifa Calalog 2005.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda. R., & Lafford, Barbara A.. (2000). Markedness. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), Morphology. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 272–281.Google Scholar
Wintner, Shuly. (2000). Definiteness in the Hebrew noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 36:319–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisconsin program on its way (2005b, June 24). Haaretz, p. 1.Google Scholar
“Black smoke: the election of the new pope starts with disagreement”. (2005, April 19). Yediot Axavonot, p. 25.Google Scholar
‘The big ‘Specials’ competition’ (2003, October 13). Tapuz forum, http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?forum=828msgid=21804589Google Scholar
‘This week's time out: The big college derby’. (2007, February 3). Salnews, http://www.salnews.com/new/news-open.asp?IDNews=19693Google Scholar
‘The five keys for healthy food.’ (2007). Me'a Food http://www.meafood.org.il/health.html#a8Google Scholar