Loanword phonology in Modern Hebrew (original) (raw)
Related papers
The emergence of the unmarked: Vowel harmony in Hebrew loanword adaptation
Lingua, 2013
In this paper, it is argued that adult speakers of all languages have a universal predisposition to use vowel harmony, even when there is no evidence of productive harmony in the native lexicon. Evidence for this harmony may emerge in the lexicon’s periphery (e.g. loanwords). We investigate harmony in loanwords in Modern Hebrew, a language not considered to be a vowel harmony language, focusing on the universal aspects of vowel harmony. Different grammars operate on different areas of the lexicon, loanwords vs. native words, and the differences between the grammars are formally described within an Optimality Theoretical approach
2011
Building on previous works (e.g. Kubozono 2006, and Kang 2010), this article attempts to estab-lish a taxonomy for loanword prosody, referring specifically to the patterns of stress, tone, or pitch-accent that are found in loanwords. Toward a taxonomy, we consider the following factors: (i) whether the pronunciation of the word in the source language influences the assignment of prosody in the borrowing language; (ii) whether prosody assignment is aided by rules (or con-straints) that are specific to loanwords; and (iii) whether segmental features or suprasegmental features play a role. Exemplification of languages instantiating the taxonomy will be provided with discussion regarding issues that arise from the proposed taxonomy.
PhD Dissertation Tel Aviv University, 2010
This study investigates the notion of phonological similarity, while focussing on the relevance of similarity to the process of loanword adaptation, the categorisation of sounds, and the distinction among different sounds in a language. The study presents a formal model for the quantification of similarity, and suggests a grammatical system which predicts the outcome of processes of adaptation and perception. In order to construct this model, I appeal to loanwords, as their adaptation has long been recognised as being similarity-based. One may wonder why the study of loanwords is at all relevant in the study of phonological systems. Since the source of loanwords is, by definition, non-native, is there any point in investigating loanwords when studying native phonological systems? Despite their foreign source, loanwords are integrated into the native mental lexicon. Therefore, the study of loanwords could reveal the structural constraints on phonological well-formedness, constraints which are relevant to all lexical items. Since all living languages continue to adopt and adapt loanwords, and these, in turn, continue to undergo adaptation, the system of adaptation, whatever it may be, has to be an active system. I will only briefly address the question of whether the system of adaptation is the same as the native system (§2.2.2). What is important is that there is a system, and this system is similarity-based. The adaptation of loanwords is systematic, and the system is similarity-based. We adapt X as Y rather than as Z, because X is more similar to Y than to Z. The question, of course, is what makes X more similar to Y than to Z. Can this elusive property be identified and quantified within a formal framework? The notion of phonological similarity is appealed to in the literature in order to describe and explain various phenomena. The adaptation of loanwords relies on segmental and prosodic similarity (Hyman 1970, Kenstowicz 2001, Steriade 2001a,b, vii Shinohara 2006 inter alia), rhyming patterns in poetry depend on the similarity between segments (for example, Zwicky 1976, Kawahara 2007). Furthermore, our ability to distinguish categories from one another depends on how similar they are to one another (Best et al. 2001, Escudero et al. 2007, Cohen et al. in progress). And the list of similarity-dependent phonological phenomena goes on. It appears that the notion of similarity is most relevant to phonological theory. I deal with the various approaches to similarity in §5. This study is broken down into several sections. I start with a discussion of loanwords (§2) and the difference between them and the other lexical items in a language. First, I deal with compliant loanwords, those which follow the grammatical constraints of the language (§2.1.1), and then I discuss non-compliant loanwords, those which do not follow the language's restrictions (§2.1.2). I continue by presenting a formal definition of loanwords (§2.1.3 and §2.1.4) and the various sources of loanwords (§2.1.5). Following the introductory sections, I discuss adaptation (§2.2), starting with non-phonological influences on the adaptation process (§2.2.1), followed by the phonological aspects of adaptation (§2.2.2). After defining loanwords, I move on to investigate loanwords in contemporary Hebrew (henceforth: Hebrew). I start with an overview of the language's phonology (§3), focussing on a featural and acoustic analysis of the vowel system (§3.2.1 and §3.2.2), concluding with a rundown of the prosodic constraints on syllable structure and stress. The subsequent section §4 deals primarily with the theoretical frameworks which I adopt in my analyses, starting with Optimality Theory (§4.1) and Stochastic Optimality Theory (§4.2), continuing with a discussion of just noticeable differences, jnds (§4.3) and concluding with a similarity-based model, Steriade's (2001a) P-map (§4.4). viii Section §5 deals with the notion of similarity. First, I present a general view of the notion, focussing on phonological similarity (§5.1, §5.2 and §5.3). Then I present my formal model of similarity (§5.4). This study relies heavily on empirical data from various sources. These are presented in §6. I start with a discussion of my loanword corpus (§6.1), and follow with two experiments I conducted in order to evaluate the predictive powers of my model presented in §5. The following §7 is the heart of this study. Here, I integrate the various notions discussed in the previous sections and present the role of similarity in phonology as reflected in loanword adaptation. First, I discuss the notion of segmental similarity (§7.1) and prosodic similarity (§7.2). Later, I present a few apparent deviations from the norm (§7.3). The final §7.4 presents a similarity-based model for the adaptation of loanwords. The following §8 presents concluding remarks.
The interaction of vowel quality and pharyngeals in Sephardic Modern Hebrew
This paper examines the complex interactions between pharyngeals and vowel quality in Sephardic Modern Hebrew. Phonetically similar to low vowels, gutturals in general and pharyngeals in particular tend to trigger vowel lowering and epenthesis of low vowels. Sephardic Modern Hebrew exhibits multiple strategies in order to avoid the proximity of non-low vowels to pharyngeals. The language processes take into account several factors, including the syllabic position of the pharyngeal (onset or coda), prosody (stress) and lexical category (nouns vs. verbs).
How To Pick The Right Vowel: Adaptation Patterns Of English Vowels In Hebrew
Linguistics Colloquium at Ben Gurion University, 2007
(1) Objectives a. Constructing a model accounting for loanword (LW) adaptation in Hebrew b. Determining how much of adaptation is perception (and not: orthography, structural rules/constraints etc.) c. Defining the role of similarity in LW phonology, and quantifying similarity-i.e. giving a concrete and quantifiable definition of phonological similarity (see 9(b)). d. Creating a perception-based model for similarity in LW adaptation-How does perception-based adaptation "work"?
Inflection and Derivation in Hebrew Linear Word Formation
Folia Linguistica, 1998
Hebrew inflection is primarily suffixal. Suffixes also serve äs means for deriving substantives. Although derivational and inflectional phonetic Outputs overlap under certain conditions, analysis of either the base morpheme structure, the Suffixes, or the phonological processes ...
Language, 1982
Preface ix Notes on Transcription 8c Notation xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Descriptive Framework 4 Notes 6 CHAPTER TWO: SOME ASPECTS OF MODERN HEBREW PHONOLOGY by Shmuel Bolozky 2.0 Introduction 11 2.1 Voicing Assimilation: A Phonetically Conditioned Alternation 16 2.2 Some Morphologically, Categorially, and Lexically Restricted Alternations 16 2.2.1 Alternations confined to specific morphemes 17 2.2.2 Minor rules within a particular class of morphemes 17 2.2.3 More productive rules confined to a few classes of morphemes 19 2.2.4 Stem-final vowel lowering: a surface generalization in the verb system 23 2.2.5 Alternations confined to the verb system 26 2.2.6 Alternations confined to non-verbal forms: the case of a-deletion 29 2.2.7 Spirantization in Modern Hebrew 33 2.3 Phonetic Constraints and Related Rules 2.3.1 The class of low "gutturals" 2.3.2 The class of so no rant consonants 45 2.3.3 Consonant gemination 48 2.4 Assignment of Word-Stress 2.4.1 Stress in the "segolate" class of nouns 51 2.4.2 Verb stress 2.4.3 Influence of Yiddish stress 2.4.4 Variation in child speech 2.4.5 Stress in borrowed nouns and adjectives 61 Notes 64