Vowels in Tarifyt and Tashlhit Implications for Standardisation

'\ \'\: S,tructures morphologiques de l'amazighe

Ir~ ~ at~~ ~~ et. CIIL 9 ~O~ i&ial-=d. IMS/'6J. ~t2t Je A c:Jk-~A~ift,ff-'U{UI3!j

A Comparative Approach to the Initial Vowel in Tarifiytand Tashlhit: Implications for a Standardization

Enterprlse'"

Nourddine AMROUSMohamed V UniversityFaculty of Education

ABSTRACT

The Tarifiyt variety of Moroccan Amazighe and its Tashlhit cogna te diverge with respect tathe surface manifestation of the initial vowel of masculine and feminine nouns. This paperdaims that this divergence obtains only at the surface level and sa is not likely ta restrainstandardization. It will be argued that Tarifiyt ranks root faithfu/ness higher than affixfaithfulness while Tashlhit privileges affixes over roots. ONSET is shawn ta be higherranking in Tarifiyt while violated under duress in Tash/hit. Neither variety is shawn taviolate MAX-RT (V) while bath behave idiosyncratically with regard ta other constraints.The findings indicate that standardizing of this aspect is feasible, an initial-a system beingjustifiably Jessproblematic as a standard system.

1. INTRODUCTION:

Research on the sound system of Tarifiyt has been both seant and erra tic incomparison with the research conducted on other varieties of Amazighe. Evenconsidering the existing studies on Tarifiyt, one would notice how balance hastipped in favor of studies on consonants at the expense of vowels. This state ofaffairs, coupled with the comparative complexity of the sound system of Tarifiyt in

34 The analysis presented in this paper has benefited from fruitful discussion with KarimBensoukas and ail other participants at the conference "Standardisation de l'amazighe",organized by the IRCAM, Rabat, on 17-18 October 2004. Gerninate sounds are transcribedwith doubled letters. Emphasis is transcribed with a dot undemeath. Other sounds aretranscribed using IPA.

120

Structures morphologiques de l'amazighe

general, has made a number of issues related to the vocalic system of Tarifiyt underresearched. One issue that sets Tarifiyt apart, but which is likely to provokediscussion among Amazighists is the behavior of the initial vowel of sorne nouns,an aspect the present paper purports to look into.

The behavior of initial vowel in Tarifiyt nouns is especial in the sense thatits deletion or retenti on is, at least as far as the existing accounts can tell,unpredictable. ln Tashlhit, the situation does not seem to be as problematic, so longas the vowel at stake remains intact in most instances. For example, to the Tashlhitwords 'afus' (hand), 'ajur' (moon) and 'anu' (weIl) correspond the Tarifiyt words'fus', 'joa' and 'anu', respectively. This inconsistency calls for an explanatorilyadequate account of the manifestation of the initial vowel in the two varieties, anaccount which the framework of Optimality Theory is justifiably able to handle.

It is proposed in the paper that the divergence between Tarifiyt andTashlhit with respect to the behavior of the initial vowel is the outcome of theinteraction of markedness and faithfulness constraints as in Optimality Theory.Tarifiyt will be shown to rank M-REAL (a) over Affix Faithfulness. It will also beshown that Tashlhit adopts reverse ranking of Affix Faithfulness over M-REAL (a)(Affix Faithfulness> M-REAL (a). Further ramifications of the issue will berevealed as the analysis unfolds.

The paper will be organized as follows: section II presents the background ofthe paper, for it presents a few facts that illustrate how the initial vowel of amasculine noun in the two varieties oscillates between deletion and retention.Section III presents the analysis of the problem in the light of the theoreticalframework of Optimality Theory. Section IV looks into the standardizability of theinitial vowel in Amazighe based on the results achieved. The paper then concludeswith a few remarks.

II. BACKGROUND:

1. Data:

Generally speaking, the initial vowel of masculine nouns is manifesteddifferently in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit, which seems to broaden the already existingphonological gap between the two varieties of Amazighe. Where Tashlhitconsistently maintains the vowel in question in the free state, Tarifiyt deletes it insorne words but keeps it in others, a complex situation that has presumably left thephenomenon hitherto unaccounted for. ln the following examples, abstraction

121


being made of such minor phonetic details as spirantization and coda-r deletion",the words in the two varieties carry the same meaning and are phonologicallyidentical, except with respect to the initial vowel.(1)

Tarifiytfusfudla:

Tashelhiytafusafudalar

Gloss'hand''knee''foot'

The focal point in the paper is the noun that is in the free state. ln the followingparagraphs are discussed the differences between the construct state and the freestate of nouns in order to make more explicit the difference between the two states.

ln the Amazighe language in general, nouns can occur in two major states:they can be either in the construct state or in the free state. A noun is said to be inthe construct state when it is the subject postposed to the verb, the complement ofcertain prepositions or as the second of the two conjoined NPs (Saib, 1982;Guerssel, 1983; Tangi, 1991, among others). AH other environments represent thefree state. This pan-Amazighe aspect can account for the otherwise complexmorpho-phonological phenomena that mark the language. It is therefore noaccident that the construct state and free state of nouns is used in the present paperto explain the behavior of the initial vowel in the two varieties under investigation.The following examples show the difference between the two states.

35Two salient features of Tarifiyt are coda-r deletion and spirantization. The former is aprocess deleting any Irl that is not a derivative of an III in the coda position (lazzi, 1991;Tangi, 1991; Armous and Bensoukas, 2004; in prep; ms.). Spirantization consists intransforming sorne stops into fricatives, so that sorne Tashlhit stops surface in Tarifiyt as africative.

122


(2)

Tarifiyt Tashelhit

Free state Construct state Free state Constructstate

fus ufus afus ufusfud ufud afud wafudda: uda: adar udarJoa ujoa ajjur wajjuranu wanu anu wanuataj wataj ataj wataj

'fus'= hand; 'fud'= knee; 'la:'=foot, leg; 'joa'=moon; 'anu'=well; 'ataj'=teaA few remarks on the chart in (2) are in order.

a) The Tarifiyt nouns in the free state with no initial vowe1 fail to acquire onein the construct state.

b) The Tarifiyt nouns in the free state with an initial vowel keep this vowel inthe construct state.

c) For Tashlhit, the prefixal initial vowel appears both in the free andconstruct states.

The phenomenon of initial vowe1 deletion in Tarifiyt affects feminine nouns aswell, ln Tashlhit, except in the construct state of feminine nouns, where the twovarieties under scrutiny seem to converge, these nouns conserve their initial vowelconsistently. The following chart illustrates how the initial vowel is realized inidentical words in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit.

123


(3)

Tarifiyt Tashelhit

Free state Construct state Free state Constructstate

Bfust Sfust tafust tfusttSfut Sfut tafut tfutt

dda.t dda.t tadart t1artt

SjoaS SjoaS tajjurt tajjurt

SanuS SanuStanut tanut

'Bfust'> hand (fem); 'Bfut'> knee (fem); 'dda.t=foot, leg (fem); 'SjoaS'=moon(fem);' SanuS'=well(fem).

ln the plural from, both Tarifiyt and Tashlhit keep sorne version of the initialvowel. This shows how similar the Amazighe varieties are where the morphologyis concemed. The following examples indicate such striking similarities betweenthe two varieties.(4)

Tarifiyt Tashelhit

SiDl?:ular Plural Sinaular Pluralfus ifassen afus ifassnfud ifadden afud ifaddnJoa ijoan ajjur lmanu anuSen anu unaajjaw ajjawen ajjaw ajjawn

'fus'= hand; 'fud'= knee'; anu'=well; 'ajjaw'=nephew, grandson.

2. The initial vowel in Amazighe and the prefixal radical distinction:

ln the literature on the linguistics of Amazighe, there has been a distinctionbetween two types of initial vowels: those that are part of the root and those are

124


affixes, indicating masculinity, and partially, femininity. The former category isreferred to as radical while the second is termed prefixal (Saib, 1976, 1982;Guerssel, 1983). Prefixal initial vowels are prone to deletion while radical vowelsare resistant to the process. There is no case in Tarifiyt to our knowledge in whichthe initial radical vowel undergoes deletion.

2.1. Radical vowels:

As a test to whether an initial vowel is prefixal or radical, one may resort to theconstruct state. If, in the construct state of a noun, an initial vowel survivessyncope, then this vowel is part of the root. If, on the other hand, this vowel deletesor, following, for example, Saib (1982), reduces to a schwa, it is a prefixal vowel.Consider the following data from Tarifiyt.

(5)

Free State Construct State Glossawar wawar 'speech'adda: wadda: 'cliffaru3 waru3 'porcupine'

8a33atS 8a33atS 'widow'8adda:8 8adda:8 'house'8ajjawt 8ajjawt 'granddaughter'

It should be pointed out that the examples in (5) above are attested both inTarifiyt and Tashlhit (see footnote 34). As is clear in the data, no initial voweldeletion takes place in the construct state ..

2.2.Prefixal vowels:

Radical initial vowels in Tarifiyt nouns do not undergo deletion as do non-radical ones. The behavior of these vowels in the construct state is illustrative ofthis state of affairs.(6)

Free Statefus

Construct Stateufus

Gloss'hand'

125


yamm8ma:8

uyamm8ma:8

'bamboo''beard'

ln the analysis section below, it will be shown that this distinction, although it doespredict the retention of radical vowels, only partially predicts the process ofdeleting the vowels that are prefixal. ln fact, assuming that the initial vowels thatare prefixal delete in Tarifiyt nouns is not enough of a generalization, since thereare many examples of prefixal vowels that resist deletion. Cases in point are thefollowing examples:

(7)Free Stateafunasa3a:8irada:yar

Construct Stateufunasu 3a:8iruda:yar

Gloss'bull''carpet''blind'

The data in (7) above show that, even if the initial vowel of sorne nouns isprefixal, it does not elide. This further complicates the issue of initial voweldeletion in Tarifiyt, more so than has as yet been assumed.

Further reca1citrant data to the generalization that prefixal initial vowels deletecornes from the following examples:

(8)Free State Construct State Glossasrm usrm 'fish'arnnzu urnnzu 'eIder'aYJur uvjur 'donkey'azwa: uzwa: 'vein'

It can be inferred from (7) and (8) above that -if the initial vowel is deleted, theoutcome will be a word with a complex onset. ln data (7), the long vowel is theoutcome of a deleted 'r' sound, the consequence of which is a long vowel (Arnrousand Bensoukas, 2004, in prep, ms.)

It is hypothesized in this paper that, due to the operation of Tarifiyt-exclusivephonological processes, morphological convergence among the dialects ofMoroccan Amazighe is blurred. The departure of Tarifiyt form its cognates is theimmediate consequence of adopting a different ranking of markendess andfaithfulness constraints.

126


The paper attempts to explain the phenomenon in the light of the theoreticalframework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; McCarthy andPrince, 1993, 1995, 1999; Kager, 1999; McCarthy, 2000 and related works).

3. Theoretical framework: Optimality Theory:

Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; McCarthy and Prince,1993, 1995, 1999; Kager, 1999; McCarthy, 2000 and re1ated works) is based on adifferent pairing of input and output than that assumed in standard generativephonology (Chomsky and Halle, 1968 and re1ated works). At the heart of OT is theclaim that the output is chosen from a set of candidates that GEN, the generatorfunction of OT grammar, provides for a given input. The theoretically infinitecandidates are ultimately evaluated against a hierarchy of ranked constraints in aparallel and inclusive fashion.

There are two major constraint families in the OT framework. These arefaithfulness and markedness constraints. Faithfulness constraints requirecorrespondence between input and output, or vice versa. For example, MAX-Vrcquires that input vowels appear in the output. Markedness constraints, on theother hand, regulate the markedness of an output. An example is ONSET, whichrequires that syllables have onsets. The optimality of a candidate is detennined onthe basis of how well that candidate satisfies the constraint hierarchy. A basicassumption in OT is that constraint re-ranking yields a different grarnmar, andhence a different language.

The process of evaluation is shown in OT by means of a constraint tableau.The conflict between two constraints is resolved through ranking the twoconstraints with respect to one another, as in tableau (9) below. ln (9), the input isgiven in the leftmost cell at the top. The candidates appear below the input. Theconstraints appear at the top row in front of the input. The ranking is indicated by asolid line, with the leftmost constraint being higher ranked. ln case the constraintsare not ranked with respect to one another, they are separated by a dotted line.Violation is indicated in the corresponding cell by a star (*), the absence of whichindicates constraint satisfaction. A star and an exclamation mark (*!) indicate fatalviolation. The optimal candidate is indicated by the pointing hand (


As an illustration, ln Ait Oulichek Tarifiyt, coda-r is not allowed (Arnrous andBensoukas, 2004, in prep, ms.). This is the outcome of the conflict between amarkedness constraint *Coda-r, which prevents coda 'r' sounds from surfacing inthe output and Max-seg, a faithfulness constraint requiring input segments to bephonetically manifested in the output. The conflicting demands of theseconstraints are made more explicit in the following tableau:(9)

/adrar/ *Coda-r MAX-Seg(if> a- adra: *

b- adrar *!

ln (9) above, 'adra:' is the winner in the hierarchy, while 'adrar' loses as itviolates *Coda-r, a higher ranked constraint than MAX-Seg. It is in this sense that'adra:' is accepted as optimal, while 'adrar' is rejected as suboptimal.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the following section, ananalysis of the data presented in (1 through 9) is attempted. Then, a section followswhich deals with the standardizability ofthis aspect of Moroccan Amazighe.

III. ANALYSIS

Within the framework of Optimality Theory, outlined above, theconstraints that are relevant to explain insertion or deletion phenomena aresubsumed under correspondence constraints. ln particular, deletion processesamount to violations of the faithfulness constraint Max-Seg. This constraint is itselfgeneral as it militates against any input form that does not have an outputcorrespondent. Therefore, any kind of deletion is a violation of sorne version ofMax-Seg. This constraint is at the center of the analysis in the present paperinasmuch as the locus of interest is the behavior of the initial vowel in Tarifiyt andTashlhit, which oscillates between deletion and retention.

This being so, and given that Tarifiyt realizes the initial vowel of nounsdifferently from Tashlhit as is shown in the previous section, one can alreadysurmise that a similar set of constraints is ranked differently in the two varietiesunder investigation. These constraints are Max-Seg, which militates against anyform of deletion and ONSET, which requires that any syllable have an onset. Basedon (Arnrous 2004), the present paper assumes that ranking these two constraintscan account for the mismatch between Tarifiyt and Tashlhit where the initial vowelis concemed. The two conflicting constraints at stake are listed in (10) below:

128


(10)REALIZE MORPHEME (M-REAL) (Kurisu, 2001:37) everyunderlying morpheme must receive sorne phonological exponence; failedin case morphemes have no phonological exponence.

ONSET (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; Kager, 1999:93) syllables musthave onsets; failed in case a syllable is onsetless.

It should be pointed out that the constraint M.REAL will bifurcate into twoconstraints: M-REAL (SING) and M-REAL (PL). This distinction will be relevantlater in the paper.

The constraints in (10) above are ranked differently in Tashlhit and Tarifiyt. SinceTashlhit realizes initial prefixal vowels phonetically, which Tarifiyt generally doesnot, it follows that the constraints requiring the masculine morpheme to bephonetically realized must take precedence over that requiring syllables to haveonsets. This is a strong argument why Tashlhit involves no initial vowel deletion inmasculine nouns. Tarifiyt seems to prioritize ONSET, a constraint that bansonsetless syllables, the reason why initial vowels are not permitted in sornemasculine nouns. Consider the following ranking in Tarifiyt and Tashlhitrespectively, a ranking that is subject to adjustments as the analysis unfolds.

(11)Tarifiyt ranking: ONSET and M-REAL (SING)

ONSET M-REAL (SING)Tashelhiyt ranking: ONSET and M-REAL (SING)

M-REAL (SING) ONSET

The following tableaux make even more explicit the ranking Tarifiyt andTashlhit adopt for the two constraints in (12).(12)Tarifiyt ranking: ONSET and M-REAL (SING)

/a+fus/ ONSET M-REAUSING)i- afus *!

r:r ii- fus *

Tashelhiyt ranking: ONSET and M-REAL (SING)

129


/a+fus/ M-REAL(SING) ONSET

Structures morphologiques de l'arnazighe

affixes. McCarthy and Prince (1995) argue for this privileged status of radical overaffixal material, so that root faithfulness (RF) is favored over affix faithfulness(AF): RF AF, a ranking corroborated by Beckman (1998). This amounts to theclaim that roots are less susceptible to phonological transformations than areaffixes. Ultimately, it seems that both Tarifiyt and Tashlhit privilege roots overaffixes, thereby conforming to the universal ranking of RF AF.

The third issue to be deaIt with in this section relates to the fact that, inTarifiyt, ONSET is violated under duress in sorne cases. ln fact, just as thelanguage chooses to sacrifie the morpheme in satisfaction of ONSET, so, too,does it sacrifice ONSET in cases of syllable-initial CC clusters. ln other words, theviolation of ONSET is less serious than its satisfaction if the outcome would be acomplex onset, which the phonotactics of Tarifiyt ban. This amounts to the claimthat ONSET, which in Tarifiyt ranks higher than M-REAL as illustrated in (12)above, is itself outranked by sorne other constraints which prevents the occurrenceof complex onsets. This constraint may be formulated as follows:

(15)*COMPLEX (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; Kager, 1999): No complexsyllable margins; failed in case a syllable has a complex margin.

The constraint in (15) above outranks ONSET, so long as complex onsets are notallowed in this variety of Amazighe. This constraint rules out 'jur' asungrammatical, a legitimate ranking of *Complex over ONSET. Consider thefollowing tableau.

(16)

/ a+yjur / *COMPLEX ONSETr:r a- aYJUf *

b- yjur *!

The ultimate ranking for Tarifiyt would be:(17)*COMPLEX ONSET M-REAL (SING)ln the case of Tashlhit, the constraint *COMPLEX is not relevant in that aIlmasculine nouns surface with an initial vowel.

To recapitulate, sorne prefixal initial vowels delete in Tarifiyt, while novowel deletion processes are attested in Tashlhit masculine nouns in the free state.This mismatch is the outcome of the specifie constraint ranking each language

131


adopts for the same constraints. Tashlhit prioritizes M-REAL over ONSET whileTarifiyt adopts the reverse ranking. ln Tarifiyt, moreover, ONSET, which outranksM-REAL, is govemed by a constraint banning complex onsets: *COMPLEX.

One remarkable fact about Tarifiyt is that, irrespective of whether theinitial vowel is radical or prefixal in nature, the plural form has to survive with aninitial vowel. This is also the case in Tashlhit, where no initial vowel deletion isattested in the free state. The legitimate question then arises as to why the initialvowel that is prefixal deletes in the singular form but is maintained in the pluralform. This further justifies the fact that the constraint M-REAL needs to split intoM-REAL (SING) and M-REAL (PL). This shows that realizing the pluralmorpheme is more pressing, so to speak, than realizing the singular morpheme. lnother words, while Tarifiyt may legitimately sacrifice initial vowels that areprefixal in satisfaction of ONSET, it simply cannot do so for plural morphemes.This state of affairs can be seen in altemations like 'fus' / 'ifassen' (hand). Thealtemation 'fus'/ 'fassen' is attested in no single Tarifiyt variety, to the best of ourknowledge.

This said, it tums out that M-REAL (PL) outranks ONSET, a ranking thatappears in (18) below.

(18)

Tarifiyt ranking of M-REAL (PL) and ONSET

M-REAL (PL>ONSET

The ranking in (18) above is exemplified as follows:

(19)

/ i+fassen / M-REAL(PL) ONSETrJir a- ifassen *

b- fassen *!

It should be recalled that the ranking in (18) above applies to Tarifiyt only, since,as has been stated earlier, Tashlhit involves no initial vowel deletion and, byimplication, no such asymmetry.

132


So far, the analysis has centered on the behavior of masculine nouns in Tarifiytand Tashlhit. However, such an analysis, which is couched within OptimalityTheory, can as well shed light on the behavior of feminine nouns. Central to theissue is the question as to why certain nouns in Tarifiyt survive with no initialvowel and behave, instead, like their masculine counterparts. The following data isillustrative of the phenomenon:(20)

Masculine Feminine Glossfus Sfust 'hand'Joa SjoaS 'moon'anu SanuS 'well'ajjaw Sajjawt 'granddaughter'

The phonetic form of the nouns in (20) above is heavily dependent on theform of the masculine noun rather than on the input. ln other words, to the input/t+a+fus+t1 corresponds the output 'Tfust' rather than sorne other form like'Tafust'. ln this case we are in a situation where the output form of these femininenouns is not faithful to the input, but rather to the output, an interesting situationindeed.

The framework being adopted for the analysis provides a satisfactoryanswer to this problem. According to output output correspondence theory(McCarthy, 1995), it is preferable to have uniform output paradigms than to haveoutputs which are not uniform. ln other words output output constraints check theidentity of morphologically related output forms. ln a situation like the present,there seems to be a need for a constraint that ensures that outputs are derived fromother outputs rather than inputs. This constraint can be expressed as follows:

(21)

Output Output Correspondence (OO-COR) (McCarthy, 1995):lndependently occurring surface forms must correspond.

Tableau (22) below shows that this constraint applies to the examples in(20) above. lndeed, the constraint that is otherwise high ranking in Tarifiyt-i.e.*COMPLEX- is now outranked by (OO-COR), so that the non-occurrence ofwords like 'Tafust' and the occurrence, instead, of "Tfust' finds convincingexplanations.

133


(22)

1tafustl OO-COR *COMPLEXr:ir a- Tfust *

b- Tafust * !

One further issue the paper brings up relates to the case of sorne masculinenouns in the free state whose initial vowel does not elide, even if the vowel inquestion is prefixal in nature. The following are illustrative examples, taken from(Amrous, 2004). It should be recalled that the construct state is herein used todetermine the identity of the initial vowel.

.(23)Free Stateasa:dunava.daama:was

Construct Stateusa:dunuva.dauma:was

Gloss'horse''mouse''loan'

The examples of the type illustrated above show that the claim that aIlprefixal vowels are susceptible to deletion may not hold. This is so because theconstruct state of each of the words in the data above is not realized with an initialvowel, while they appear with one in the free state. Another constraint isaccordingly called for to solve the problem.

One observation that can be made about the data above is that aIl the wordsinvolve the long vowel 'a:' deriving form an underlying sequence lar!. This processis a feature that many Tarifiyt dialects share (Tangi, 1991; lazzi, 2001; Amrous andBensoukas, 2003; Amrous and Bensoukas, in prep). Suspiciously enough,examples like these ones suggest that words like 'asa:dun' (horse), which wouldotherwise surface as 'sa:dun', would involve two deletion processes, one deletingthe initial vowel by virtue of being a prefix and the other deleting coda-r, It ishypothesized that two deletion processes may not be tolerated, the reason why onlythose nouns in which no other vowel is deleted can incur prefixal initial voweldeletion.

This is a phenomenon that can be accounted for using the OT concept ofConstraint Conjunction as laid down in Smolensky, (1993, 1995) and Padgett(2002). According to a constraint conjunction analysis, violating two constraints

134


separately is 1ess serious than violating them in combination. ln the case at hand,there are two constraints that are 'ganged up' in sorne manner. One is a faithfulnessconstraint that militates against deletion. This constraint is formulated as MAX-r.ln sorne Tarifiyt dialects, MAX-r is violated, permitting words with an underlyingrepresentation like 'asrdun', (horse) 'ayrda' (mou se) and 'arnrwas' (Joan) to surfaceas 'asa:dun', 'aya:da' and' ama:was, respectively. The other constraint is M-REAL(SING), formulated in (10) above, requiring that the singular morpheme be realizedphonetically.

ln order to account for the data in (23) above, therefore, it stands to reasonto invoke the concept of constraint conjunction, though the present paper does notc1aim the analysis to be exhaustive. The conflict between 'sa:dun', which, to thebest of our knowledge, is attested in no single Tarifiyt dialect, and 'asa:dun', wherethe prefixal initial vowe1 survives deletion, my be captured in terms of constraintconjunction la Smolensky (1993, 1995). This state of affairs motivates thefollowing ranking:(24)

MAX-r and M-REAL(SING>ONSET

The ranking in (24) above can be exemplified in the following tableau:(25)

a+yrda MAX-rM and M- ONSETREAL(SING)

Cff> a. aya.da *b. va.da *1

ln the tableau above it is 'aya:da' that is optimal, insofar as it satisfies the twoconjoined constraints MAX-r and M-REAL (SING). This is despite the fact that itviolates ONSET. 'ya:da', on the other hand, is suboptimal as it incurs twoviolations of the conjoined constraint and is assigned two violation marks.

It should be reiterated that the analysis of this phenomenon is notexhaustive in the present paper, with the hope that future research adoptingOptimality Theory will uncover further facts.

135


IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR A STANDARDIZATION ENTERPRIZE:

Account being taken of the overt divergences between Tarifiyt andTashlhit, there is good reason to believe that the standardization of the initial vowelin Amazighe is indeed a feasible undertaking, especiaIly given the similaritybetween Tashlhit and the other non- Tarifiyt varieties of Moroccan Amazighe.Wllile there seems to be a divergence in the two varieties under investigation inmatters concerning the initial vowel, this divergence seems to be minimal, in thesense that it is more phonological than morphological. Accordingly, an underlyingsystem can be reconstructed for the standardized Amazighe, in which the initialvowel is phonetically manifested.

The inconsistencies manifested by the initial vowel in Tarifiyt and Tashlhitseem to be more system-intemal than inter-dialectal. Indeed, as may be observed inthe data above, Tarifiyt is less consistent in deleting or maintaining the initialvowel. This is not the case for Tashlhit, in which this vowel is comparatively moreconsistent. This further motivates the suggestion that a surface- initial- 'a' -systembe taken as standard, insofar as the initial vowel will be posited as basic, while noreference will be made to the identity of the vowel in question -i.e., whether it isradical or prefixal in nature. A further boon of standardizing the initial vowel is thatit is recoverable in cases of deletion.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The present paper has focused on the behavior of the initial vowel inTarifiyt and Tashlhit within the framework of Optimality Theory. The analysis hasrevealed striking similarities between the dialects under investigation, though overtdifferences are evidenced as one moves from one dialect to another. The analysishas shown that the different grammars in the two languages result from thedifferences in ranking the same set of universal constraints.

Tarifiyt has been shown to prioritize ONSET, a constraint that requiressyllables 'l,J have onsets, while Tashlhit favors a constraint that maximizes themorpheme: M-REAL. It has been argued that Tarifiyt violates ONSET underduress if the latter threatens to result in a complex ons et, so that *COMPLEX takesprecedence over ONSET, which in turn dominates M-REAL. Furthermore, giventhe apparent inconsistency in the Tarifiyt system, in which sorne singularmorphemes do not surface in the output while aIl plural morphemes are realized,the analysis suggested that the M-REAL constraint be split into two constraints: M-REAL (SING) and M-REAL (PL), with M-REAL (PL) being higher ranking.

136


Tashlhit, on the other hand, does not seem to involve the splitting of the M-REALconstraint. The inconsistency of, say, 'fus'/ 'Tfust' called for the postulation 00-COR, a constraint that reveals how an output form can be derived from anotheroutput form rather than an input form. This constraint is not shown to be at stake inTashlhit, in which aIl initial vowels are manifested.

This said, it can be concluded that Tashlhit involves less complexity as tothe behavior of initial vowels, while the system of Tarifiyt does involve sornecomplexity. One recommendation in this regard is to take as standard the Tashlhitversion, which is more or less consistent. This is added to the fact that the initialvowel is recoverable in Tarifiyt if it is deleted, which can be indicated in the pluralform where, for example, 'fus' corresponds to 'ifassen'. A further advantage instandardizing an initial-'a'- system is that the feminine form always corresponds tothe masculine form, since aIl masculine nouns in Tashlhit have overt initial vowelsthat survive in the feminine form. This is unlike Tarifiyt where the initial vowelssometimes do not match in the masculine and the feminine. For pedagogicalpurposes, then, it would seem more preferable to teach a system than involves moreregularity. A system with a surface initial vowel is better equipped to beintroduced.

FinaIly, it should be stressed that the present paper is by no meansexhaustive as there are many aspects of the phonology of the initial vowel that need10 be researched. The phonology of Tarifiyt needs to receive due interest on thepart of researchers. Research on the linguistics of Amazighe should as weIl begeared towards more comparative studies.

Bibliography

Arnrous, N. (1999). Phonological Pro cesses in Ait Oulichek Tarifiyt Berber.Unpublished Memoir paper. Mohammed V University, Faculty of Lettersand Hurnan Sciences, Rabat.

Arnrous, N. (2004). "The Initial Vowel in Tarifiyt Nouns: An Optimality-TheoreticAnalysis". Paper presented at La langue Amazighe: Approche linguistique,a conference held at the Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, BenM'Sik, on March, 18,2004.

Arnrous, N. and K. Bensoukas. (2004). "Tarifiyt Long vowels and Diphthongs:Independent Phonemes or Simple Phonetic Variants of the Basic AmazigheVowels?". Standardisation de /'amazighe. eds, M. Ameur & A. Boumalk.Publications de l'Institut Royal de la Culture Amazighe, Rabat.

137


Amrous, N. and K. Bensoukas. (in preparation). "The Phonology of Liquids in AitOulichek Tarifiyt Berber". Mohammed V University, Faculty of EducationSciences and Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Rabat.

Amrous, N. and K. Bensoukas. (in preparation). "Compensatory VowelPhenomena in Ait Oulichek Tarifiyt Berber". Mohammed V University,Faculty of Education Sciences and Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences,Rabat.

Amrous, N. and K. Bensoukas (2003). "Coerced Vowel Weight in Tarifiyt Berber:A Comparison of Three Dialects"Ms Mohammed V University, Faculty ofEducation Sciences and Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Rabat.

Biarnay, S. (1917). tude sur les dialectes berbres du Rif. Paris: Leroux.Chami, M. (1979). Un Parler Amazighe du Rif- Approche Phonologique et

Morphologique. Thse de troisime cycle, Universit Paris V, RenDescartes.

Chtatou, M. (1982). Aspects of the Phonology of a Berber Dialect of the Rif.Doctoral dissertation, SOAS, London.

El Aissati, A. (1989). A Study of the Phonotactics of Asht Touzine Tarifiyt Dialect.D.E.S. thesis, Mohammed V University, Faculty of Letters, Rabat.

Guerssel, M. (1983) "A Phonological Analysis of the Construct State in Berber".Linguistic Analysis Il, 309-330.

lazzi, E. (2001). "L'Alternance r/0 en Tamazight Marocain du Nord- Une Analysepar Contraintes". ln Mthodes Actuelles en Phonologie et Morphologie, ed.by A. Jebbour and L. Messaoudi, 83-10 1. Publications de la Facult desLettres et des Sciences Humaines, Knitra. [Proceedings of conference 18-19-20 April, 1993].

Jebbour, A. (1991). "Structure morphologique du nom et problme de la voyelleinitiale des noms en Tachelhit, parler de Tiznit (Maroc)" Etudes etDocuments Berbres 8, 27 -51.

Kurisu, K. (2001). The Phonology of Morpheme Realization. Ph.D Dissertation.#ROA490#

McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. (1993). Prosodie Morphology : Constraint Interactionand Satisfaction. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and RutgersUniversity.

McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. (1995). "Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity".University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papersin Optimality Theory. [Rutgers Optimality Archive #60].

McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. (1999). "Faithfulness and Identity in ProsodieMorphology". ln The Prosody-morphology Interface, Ren Kager, H. vander Hulst, and W. Zonneveld. (eds.), 218-309. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

138


Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction inGenerative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University and University of Coloradoat Boulder.

Saib, J. (1988). "Rflexions sur la Phonologie des Dialectes Berbres du NordMarocain". ln Le Maroc et La Hollande, Publications de la FLSH, Rabat.271-289.

Saib, J. (1982) "Initial Vowel Syncope and Reduction in Tamazighet BerberNouns". Langue et Litterature 2, 159-184

Tangi, O. (1991). Aspects de la Phonologie d'un Parler Berbre du Maroc: Ath-Sidhar (Rif). Thse du Doctorat (Nouveau rgime), Universit de ParisVIII.

139

numrisation0016