OCP 7 Nice, 30/01/2010

Template structure in Berber: constraints on derivations

Mohamed Lahrouchi
CNRS – University Paris 8
UMR 7023
mlahrouchi@univ-paris8.fr

I. Templates
(1) McCarthy 1979, 1981
Verbal templates: Classical Arabic
√ktb ‘write’ a. b.
Form I CVCVC katab
Form II CVCCVC kattab
Form III CVVCVC kaatab
Form IV CVCCVC /aktab
Form VII CCVCVC nkatab
(2) Guerssel & Lowenstamm 1990
One template:
The various forms the verb displays in Classical Arabic are derived by means of a unique
template composed of CV units, some of which play a grammatical role.
Heads

C VAff C V C VDS C V C V

The italicized syllables are morphological heads (CVAff = affixal syllable; CVDS =
derivational syllable). The boxed syllables constitute the complement of the head. The
identification of one of the head positions by some lexical material amounts to derivation.
(3) kattab ‘he made write’/ kaatab ‘he corresponded’ / nkasar ‘it broke’
a. k t b b. k t b
| | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| |
a a
c. n k s r
| | |
C V C V C V C V C V
|
a

1
(4) Only one head position is identified in each form. The identification of both head positions
leads to ill-formedness.
e.g. kasar ‘he broke’ / kassar ‘he shattered’ (intensive)

nkasar ‘it broke’ / *nkassar ‘it shattered’

*nkassar is ill-formed because headed twice (both morphological heads are identified in a

single form).
(5) Strict CV approach to syllable structure
- “[…] the syllable structure of all languages reduces to CV.” (Lowenstamm 1996: 419)
- The skeletal level of phonological representations consists of strict alternations of onset
and nucleus positions, i.e. C and V positions.
- The differences in the surface syllable types lie in the lateral relations that segments
share. Proper Government is one such relation which allows a vocalic position to remain
empty when followed by a vowel.
(See Scheer 2004 for details and discussion)
II. Templatic constraints
(6) Goal
- Show that the structure of the template proposed by Guerssel & Lowenstamm 1990 not
only accounts for a range of non-concatenative morphological operations but also captures
the distributional restrictions these operations obey.
- Account for co-occurrence restrictions that a number of nominal and verbal affixes obey
in Tashlhiyt Berber.
II.1. State, gender, number1
(7) FS CS
MS FM MS FM
SG PL SG PL SG PL SG PL
‘cat’ amuSS imuSSa tamuSSut timuSSa umuSS imuSSa tmuSSut tmuSSa
‘boy, girl’ afrux ifrxan tafruxt tifrxin ufrux ifrxan tfruxt tfrxin
‘pigeon’ atbir itbirn tatbirt titbirin utbir itbirn ttbirt ttbirin
‘reed, fishing rod’ a“alim i“alimn ta“alimt ti“alimin u“alim i“alimn t“alimt t“alimin
‘ox, cow’ afunas ifunasn tafunast tifunasin ufunas ifunasn tfunast tfunasin

1
Abbreviations: FS = free state, CS = construct state, MS= masculine, FM = feminine, SG = singular, PL =
plural, NOM = nominative, ACC = accusative.

2
(8) Distribution of markers
Gender: t prefixed and suffixed to the stem

Number: a- (SG) alternates with i- (PL)

-n (PL) suffixed to the stem

States: Free State vs. Construct State (Bound state)
FS CS
MS FM MS FM
SG a- t-a- u- t-
PL i- t-i- i- t-

(9) State alternation

a. iSSa ufrux a“rum
eat:3MS boy.CS-NOM bread.FS-ACC
‘The boy ate bread’

b. afrux iSSa a“rum

boy.CS-NOM eat:3MS bread.FS-ACC
‘The boy ate bread’

c. ittSa u“rum
eat-passive:3MS bread.CS
‘Bread was eaten’

d. a“rum /n ufrux/ → [uufrux]

bread-FS of boy-CS
‘The bread of the boy’
‘The boy’s bread’

e. iSSa tijmi s u“rum

eat:3MS SG sauce-FS with bread-CS
‘He ate sauce with bread’

f. tlla tammnt “ u“rum

be:3FM SG honey-FS in bread-CS
‘There is honey in the bread’

g. tammnt d u“rum
honey-FS and bread-CS
‘Honey and bread’

h. sin ifrxan / snat tfrxin

two boy-CS, MS, PL two girl-CS, FM, PL
‘Two boys’ ‘two girls’

3
 CS: - Subject NPs in VSO sentences
- NPs complements of light prepositions, d ‘and’, s ‘with, by’, “ ‘in’
- NPs complements of quantifiers jan ‘one’, sin ‘two’, etc.
FS: Elsewhere

Several works on state alternation: see, among others, Achab 2003; Bader & Kenstowicz
1987; Bendjaballah & Haiden 2005; Dell & Jebbour 1991; El Moujahid 1997; Ennaji 2001;
Guerssel 1992b, 1995; Ouhalla 1988, 1996.

(10) Distribution of state markers

- Why the FM marker t- never co-occurs with the CS marker u-?
- Why afrux vs. ufrux, but tafruxt vs. tfruxt (not *tufruxt)?
(11) State / Case
Guerssel 1992b: 175 “[…] the concept of State has no validity as a theoretical
notion, […] what has been labeled a Construct State form is either a Determiner Phrase,
or a Kase Phrase where the head K is not realized”.

a- is a kind of “porte-manteau” morpheme

See also Ouhalla 1988.

(12) Prosodic deficiency of the CS (Bendjaballah & Haiden 2005)

axxam vs w´xxam ‘house’

a. FS: axxam b. CS: w´xxam

CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV

a x a m w x a m

FS a- identifies the first two CV units of the template (12a)

CS w- is associated to only one CV unit, resulting in a prosodic deficiency (12b)

4
(13) When complement to light prepositions, the empty CV in the template of CS hosts light
prepositions.

/g w´xxam/ → ggw´xxam ‘in the house’

P D N
| |
CV CV CV CV C V CV

g w x a m

(14)
a. El Moujahid (1997:163)
“en théorie, il est difficilement soutenable de conférer à une même catégorie
plusieurs fonctions.”

a-frux ‘boy’ / ta-fruxt

ta ‘girl’ u-frux / t-frux-t

Case markers Det

Det Gender
Gender

b. Nouns with non-alternating vowels (see Dell & Jebbour 1991)

e.g. FS CS
ajjis wajjis ‘horse’
adgal wadgal ‘widower’
akal wakal ‘earth, ground’
ajdi wajdi ‘dog’

- Where is the Det? Where is the Case marker?

- Where is deficiency? In the CS, in the FS, or in both?

c. - Why is it that u- (or w-) never co-occurs with t-? Why CS tfruxt and not tufruxt?

(15) Proposal: The co-occurrence restrictions that the CS, Gender and Number
markers exhibit follow directly from the structure of the template.

5
(16) t- and w- compete for the same position in the template.2
a. w f r x b. t f r x t
| | | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| |
u u

c. f r x d. t f r x t
| | | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| | | |
a u a u

- CVDS is omitted since unidentified

- CS ufrux and tfruxt appear in (16a) and (16b)
- FS afrux and tafruxt appear in (16c) and (16d)
- Only one affixal C is available in template-initial position. Gender t- takes
precedence over CS w- (16b and 16d). When t- is absent, w- appears (16a).
- Parallel is drawn: in the CS between t- and w-, and in the FS between a- and ta-
(see also Achab (2003: 8).
- Given (16c) and (16d), the parallel should also be drawn between wa- and ta-,
since the empty initial C in (16c) can host w-, leading to *wafrux.
In Tashlhiyt Berber, many words do exhibit the prefix wa-:
e.g. wabiba ‘mosquito’, wabʒir ‘mallow’, waʃʃ ‘awful’, wafud ‘knee’, wakuz
‘weevil’, wamsa ‘anise’, wazzwit ‘afternoon tea’. Some of them coexist with
variants without glide: afud, akuz (further examples are provided in Brugnatelli
1998).3

The plural marker i- appears in the FS feminine form tifrxin, but not in the corresponding

CS feminine form tfrxin, whereas in the masculine, FS and CS are identical.

If we assume that t- and i- compete for the same position in the template, leading to the

CS form tfrxin, we should explain why these morphemes coexist in the FS form tifrxin.

This is illustrated in (17).

2
w surfaces as [u], when followed by a consonant. In Tashlhiyt Berber, any word-initial glide (w, j) surfaces as a
high vowel ([u], [i]) when followed by a consonant, and remains unchanged when followed by a vowel (e.g. ifta
‘he went’ / jufa ‘he found’). This is also true in word-final position, a glide surfaces as a high vowel when
preceded by a consonant (e.g. kmi ‘smoke’, xlu ‘destroy’); it remains unchanged when preceded by a vowel (e.g.
akmmaj ‘smoker’, amxlaw ‘mad’).
3
Vychil 1957, and Brugnatelli 1997 and 1998 reconstruct wa- as a determiner/demonstrative. Currently, wa- is
used as a vocative.

6
(17)
a. I f r x b. t f r x n
| | | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| |
a i
c. t f r x
| | |
C V C V C V C V
| |
i i
FS and CS ifrxan is represented in (17a), CS tfrxin in (17b), FS tifrxin in (17c).

CS plurals use the same morpheme as CS singulars: w-. There is no need to posit different

CS markers in the singular and plural forms, masculine and feminine.

To the FS masculine plural ifrxan corresponds the CS /wifrxan/. Surface homophony

results from the loss of w- and the association of the following I to the initial C, leading to

/jfrxan/ which surfaces as [ifrxan].

(18) illustrates the opposition ifrxan vs. tfrxin.

(18)
a. jfrxan b. tfrxin
f r x n t f r x n
| | | | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| |
I a I i

(19) tafruxt (SG) vs. (PL) tifrxin (not *tifrxtin)

II.2 Geminated Imperfective

Gemination in the Imperfective concerns verbs containing no more than three consonants and
no full vowels, as well as verbs with the following shapes: CCU, CCI.

(20) Aorist Imperfective

a. lkm lkkm ‘arrive’

kSm kSSm ‘enter’

gwmr gwmmr ‘hunt’

7
b. krz kkrz ‘plough’
xrb xxrb ‘scratch’
xwmʒ xxwmʒ ‘scrape’

Previous accounts of Geminated Imperfective: Dell & Elmedlaoui (1988, 2002); Bensoukas
(2001), Jebbour (1996, 1999), Lahrouchi (2008), among others.

(21) Within template morphology, gemination results from the identification of CVDS by
means of C-spreading. Medial consonant gemination obtains as illustrated below.

l k m
| | |
C V C V C V C V
- CVAff is omitted since unidentified.
- Segments are associated to the template from the edges-inward (Yip 1988),
resulting in the gemination of the medial consonant.
(22) Sonority effect: No segment can geminate in the imperfective if it is the most sonorous
segment in the root. (See Lahrouchi 2008: 35 for discussion)
Aorist Imperfective
C V C V C V a. C V C V C V C V
| | | | | |
k r z k r z

b. C V C V C V C V
| // | |
k r z

c. C V C V C V C V
| | |
k r z
[kkrz]

(23) Action nouns

Certain action nouns display a uniform pattern: aCCaC, where the medial consonant is

either simple or geminated depending on its sonority.

Verb Action Noun
a. ‘lend’ rd≥l artt≥al

‘swell up’ bzg abzzag

‘hide’ ntl anttal
b. ‘tighten’ frg afrag

8
 ‘be ashamed’ mrg amrag
‘sort out’ frn afran

In the first group of verbs the medial consonant is an obstruent, while in the other
group it is a sonorant surrounded by less sonorous segments. In the corresponding
action nouns, the first group geminates the medial consonant, but not the second
group.
II.3 Causative Imperfective
- Causative verbs are built by means of a monoconsonantal prefix s- attached to the stem.

Depending on the properties of the stem, the prefix is realized as a single or geminated
segment. It is argued in Lahrouchi (2003) that an initial templatic site is responsible for
the size variation of the prefix.

- The initial templatic site coincides with CVAff in (2).

- In the Imperfective, Causative forms all use vowel insertion, while their bases use
gemination or affixation (see examples in (24).

(24) Verb Causative

Aorist Imperfective Aorist Imperfective

a. ‘arrive’ lkm lkkm sslkm sslkam *sslkkm

‘stand up’ nkr nkkr ssnkr ssnkar *ssnkkr

‘hide’ ntl nttl ssntl ssntal *ssnttl

b. ‘pick up’ mun ttmuna smun smuna *ttsmuna

‘sit down’ gawr ttgawar sgawr sgawar *ttsgawar

‘change’ badl ttbadal sbadl sbadal *ttsbadal

The ungrammatical forms in the rightmost column are of two types:

- Forms in (24b), where imperfective and causative prefixes compete for the same
position in the template, i.e. CVAff.
- Forms in (24a), which involve the identification of both head positions (CVAff and
CVDS) at the same time, leading to an undesired multi-headed structure.

9
(25)
a. sslkm b. sbadal
s l k m s b d l
| | | | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| |
a a

II.4 Inchoatives
Inchoative verbs show a geminated consonant that degeminates when preceded by a
derivational morpheme, such as causative s- and imperfective tt-.
(26) Inchoative Causative
‘sit down’ ggawr sgawr
‘be a friend’ ddukkl sdukkl
‘be disgused’ mmuktu smuktu
‘be rotten’ llugmu slugmu
‘stand up’ mmatti smatti
Prefix s- prevents initial consonant form geminating, as shown in (27). See also Guerssel
1992a.
(27) ggawr sgawr
a. g w r b. s g w r
| | | | | | |
C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V C V
| |
a a
III. Conclusion
The template captures the distributional restrictions that certain nominal and verbal
morphemes undergo. The structure assigned to the template defines the way forms are
derived: (i) each form must be headed (i.e. one of the derivational head positions in the
template must be identified), (ii) multi-headed forms are prohibited (two derivational heads
cannot be identified in a single form).

References
Achab, Karim. 2003. Alternation of State in Berber. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II,
Jacqueline Lecarme (ed.), pp. 1-20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bader, Yousef & Michael Kenstowicz. 1987. Syllables and Case in Kabyle Berber. Lingua 73. pp.
279-299.
Bendjaballah, Sabrina & Martin Haiden. 2005. The Grammar of Prepositions in Berber (Taqbaylit).
Ms. CNRS & University Lille 3. lingBuzz/000261.
Bensoukas, Karim. 2001. Stem Forms in the Nontemplatic Morphology of Berber. Mohamed 5
University, Doctorat d’Etat Thesis.

10
Brugnatelli, Vermondo. 1997. L'état d'annexion en diachronie. In A. Bausi, M. Tosco (éd.),
Afroasiatica Neapolitana. Incontro di Linguistica Afroasiatica (Camito-Semitica). Université
de Naples – L’orientale. pp. 139-150.
Brugnatelli, Vermondo. 1998. La morphologie des noms berbères en w-. Considérations
diachroniques. In Mohamed Elmedlaoui, Saâd Gafaiti & Fouad Saa (eds), Actes du Premier
Congrès Chamito Sémitique de Fès (12-13 mars 1997). Saïs-Fès : publications de la faculté des
lettres et des sciences humaines. pp. 51-67.
Dell, François & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1985. Syllabic Consonants and Syllabification in Imdlawn
Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7. pp. 105-130.
Dell, François & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1988. Syllabic Consonants in Berber: Some New Evidence.
Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10. pp. 1-17.
Dell, François & Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 2002. Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and in Moroccan Arabic.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Dell, François & Abdelkrim Jebbour. 1991. Phonotactique des noms à voyelle initiale en berbère
(chleuh de Tiznit, Maroc). Linguistic Analysis 21. pp. 119-147.
El Moujahid, El Houssaïn. 1997. Grammaire générative du berbère, morphologie et syntaxe du nom
en tachelhit. Rabat : publications de la faculté des lettres et des sciences humaines.
Ennaji, Moha. 2001. The Construct State in Berber. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 31/2. pp. 55-72.
Guerssel, Mohand. 1992a. The Phonology of Berber Derivational Morphology by Affixation.
Linguistic Analysis 22. pp. 3-60.
Guerssel, Mohand. 1992b. On the Case System of Berber. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37/2. pp.
175-195.
Guerssel, Mohand. 1995. Berber Clitic Doubling and Syntactic extraction. Revue québécoise de
linguistique 24/1: 111-133.
Guerssel, Mohand & Jean Lowenstamm. Classical Arabic Apophony. Ms UQAM & Université Paris
7.
Iazzi, Elmehdi. 1991. Morphologie du verbe en tamazight (parler des Aït Attab Haut-Atlas Central) :
approche prosodique. Rabat : Mohamed 5 University, D.E.S Thesis.
Jebbour, Abdelkrim. 1996. Morphologie et contraintes prosodiques en berbère (tachelhit de Tiznit) :
analyse linguistique et traitement automatique. Rabat : Mohamed 5 University, Doctorat d’Etat
Thesis.
Jebbour, Abdelkrim. 1999. Syllable Weight and Syllable Nuclei in Tashlhiyt Berber of Tiznit. Cahiers
de Grammaire 24. pp. 95-116.
Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2003. Manifestations gabaritiques dans la morphologie verbale du berbère
(parler chleuh d’Agadir). Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 32. pp. 61-82.
Lahrouchi, Mohamed. 2008. A Templatic Approach to Gemination in the Imperfective Stem of
Tashlhiyt Berber. Studies in African Linguistics 37/1. pp. 21-60.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the Only Syllable Type. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds),
Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, volume 2. Salford: European Studies
Research Institute, University of Salford. pp. 419-441.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1999. The Beginning of the Word. In John Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer (eds),
Phonologica. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. pp. 153-167.
McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Massachusetts, MIT:
PhD. dissertation.
McCarthy, John. 1981. A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12.
pp. 373-418.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1988. The Syntax of Head Movement: a Study of Berber. London: University College,
PhD. dissertation.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1996. The Construct State in Berber. In Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur
Shlonsky (eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Scheer. Tobias. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be?
Studies in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vycichl, Werner.1957. L'article défini du berbère. Mémorial André Basset, Paris. pp. 139-146.
Yip, Moira. 1988. “Template morphology and the direction of association”. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 6: 551-577.

11