'\ \'\:

S,tructures morphologiques

Ir~ ~ at~~ ~~
d. IMS/'6J. ~t2t Je

de l'amazighe

et.

CIIL

~O~

i&ial-=

A c:Jk-~A~ift,ff-'U{UI3!j

A Comparative Approach to the Initial Vowel in Tarifiyt

and Tashlhit: Implications for a Standardization

Enterprlse'"
Nourddine AMROUS
Mohamed V University
Faculty of Education

ABSTRACT
The Tarifiyt variety of Moroccan Amazighe and its Tashlhit cogna te diverge with respect ta
the surface manifestation of the initial vowel of masculine and feminine no uns. This paper
daims that this divergence obtains only at the surface level and sa is not likely ta restrain
standardization. It will be argued that Tarifiyt ranks root faithfu/ness higher than affix
faithfulness while Tashlhit privileges affixes over roots. ONSET is shawn ta be higher
ranking in Tarifiyt while violated under duress in Tash/hit. Neither variety is shawn ta
violate 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 being
justifiably Jess problematic as a standard system.

1. INTRODUCTION:
Research on the sound system of Tarifiyt has been both seant and erra tic in
comparison with the research conducted on other varieties of Amazighe. Even
considering the existing studies on Tarifiyt, one would notice how balance has
tipped in favor of studies on consonants at the expense of vowels. This state of
affairs, coupled with the comparative complexity of the sound system of Tarifiyt in
The analysis presented in this paper has benefited from fruitful discussion with Karim
Bensoukas and ail other participants at the conference "Standardisation de l'amazighe",
organized by the IRCAM, Rabat, on 17-18 October 2004. Gerninate sounds are transcribed
with doubled letters. Emphasis is transcribed with a dot undemeath. Other sounds are
transcribed using IPA.

34

120

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

general, has made a number of issues related to the vocalic system of Tarifiyt under
researched. One issue that sets Tarifiyt apart, but which is likely to provoke
discussion 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 that
its 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 long
as the vowel at stake remains intact in most instances. For example, to the Tashlhit
words 'afus' (hand), 'ajur' (moon) and 'anu' (weIl) correspond the Tarifiyt words
'fus', 'joa' and 'anu', respectively. This inconsistency calls for an explanatorily
adequate account of the manifestation of the initial vowel in the two varieties, an
account which the framework of Optimality Theory is justifiably able to handle.
It is proposed in the paper that the divergence between Tarifiyt and
Tashlhit with respect to the behavior of the initial vowel is the outcome of the
interaction of markedness and faithfulness constraints as in Optimality Theory.
Tarifiyt will be shown to rank M-REAL (a) over Affix Faithfulness. It will also be
shown that Tashlhit adopts reverse ranking of Affix Faithfulness over M-REAL (a)
(Affix Faithfulness>
M-REAL (a). Further ramifications of the issue will be
revealed as the analysis unfolds.
The paper will be organized as follows: section II presents the background of
the paper, for it presents a few facts that illustrate how the initial vowel of a
masculine noun in the two varieties oscillates between deletion and retention.
Section III presents the analysis of the problem in the light of the theoretical
framework of Optimality Theory. Section IV looks into the standardizability of the
initial vowel in Amazighe based on the results achieved. The paper then concludes
with a few remarks.

II. BACKGROUND:
1. Data:
Generally speaking, the initial vowel of masculine nouns is manifested
differently in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit, which seems to broaden the already existing
phonological gap between the two varieties of Amazighe. Where Tashlhit
consistently maintains the vowel in question in the free state, Tarifiyt deletes it in
sorne words but keeps it in others, a complex situation that has presumably left the
phenomenon hitherto unaccounted for. ln the following examples, abstraction

121

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

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 phonologically
identical, except with respect to the initial vowel.
(1)

Tarifiyt
fus
fud
la:

Tashelhiyt
afus
afud
alar

Gloss
'hand'
'knee'
'foot'

The focal point in the paper is the noun that is in the free state. ln the following
paragraphs are discussed the differences between the construct state and the free
state 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 in
the construct state when it is the subject postposed to the verb, the complement of
certain prepositions or as the second of the two conjoined NPs (Saib, 1982;
Guerssel, 1983; Tangi, 1991, among others). AH other environments represent the
free state. This pan-Amazighe aspect can account for the otherwise complex
morpho-phonological
phenomena that mark the language. It is therefore no
accident that the construct state and free state of nouns is used in the present paper
to 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 a
process 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 in
transforming sorne stops into fricatives, so that sorne Tashlhit stops surface in Tarifiyt as a
fricative.

122

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

(2)

Tashelhit

Tarifiyt
Free state
fus
fud
da:
Joa
anu
ataj

Construct state

Free state

ufus
ufud
uda:
ujoa
wanu
wataj

afus
afud
adar
ajjur

anu
ataj

'fus'= hand; 'fud'= knee; 'la:'=foot, leg; 'joa'=moon;

A few remarks on the chart in (2) are in order.

Construct
state
ufus
wafud
udar
wajjur
wanu
wataj

'anu'=well;

'ataj'=tea

a) The Tarifiyt nouns in the free state with no initial vowe1 fail to acquire one
in the construct state.
b) The Tarifiyt nouns in the free state with an initial vowel keep this vowel in
the construct state.
c) For Tashlhit, the prefixal initial vowel appears both in the free and
construct states.
The phenomenon of initial vowe1 deletion in Tarifiyt affects feminine nouns as
well, ln Tashlhit, except in the construct state of feminine nouns, where the two
varieties un der scrutiny seem to converge, these nouns conserve their initial vowel
consistently. The following chart illustrates how the initial vowel is realized in
identical words in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit.

123

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

(3)

Tashelhit

Tarifiyt
Free state

Bfust
Sfut
dda.t
SjoaS
SanuS

Construct state

Sfust
Sfut

dda.t
SjoaS
SanuS

Construct
state

Free state

tfustt
tfutt
t1artt
tajjurt
tanut

tafust
tafut
tadart
tajjurt
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 initial
vowel. This shows how similar the Amazighe varieties are where the morphology
is concemed. The following examples indicate such striking similarities between
the two varieties.
(4)

Tarifiyt
SiDl?:ular

fus
fud
Joa
anu
ajjaw

Tashelhit
Plural

ifassen
ifadden
ijoan
anuSen
ajjawen

Sinaular

afus
afud
ajjur

anu
ajjaw

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

Plural

ifassn
ifaddn
lm
una
ajjawn

grandson.

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

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

124

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

affixes, indicating masculinity, and partially, femininity. The former category is

referred to as radical while the second is termed prefixal (Saib, 1976, 1982;
Guerssel, 1983). Prefixal initial vowels are prone to deletion while radical vowels
are resistant to the process. There is no case in Tarifiyt to our knowledge in which
the 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 the
construct state. If, in the construct state of a noun, an initial vowel survives
syncope, then this vowel is part of the root. If, on the other hand, this vowel deletes
or, following, for example, Saib (1982), reduces to a schwa, it is a prefixal vowel.
Consider the following data from Tarifiyt.
(5)

Free State

Gloss

Construct State

awar
adda:
aru3

wawar
wadda:
waru3

'speech'
'cliff
'porcupine'

8a33atS
8adda:8
8ajjawt

8a33atS
8adda:8
8ajjawt

'widow'
'house'
'granddaughter'

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

2.2.Prefixal vowels:
Radical initial vowels in Tarifiyt nouns do not undergo deletion as do nonradical ones. The behavior of these vowels in the construct state is illustrative of
this state of affairs.
(6)

Free State
fus

Gloss

Construct State

'hand'

ufus

125

Structures morphologiques

yamm
8ma:8

de l'amazighe

'bamboo'
'beard'

uyamm
8ma:8

ln the analysis section below, it will be shown that this distinction, although it does
predict the retention of radical vowels, only partially predicts the process of
deleting the vowels that are prefixal. ln fact, assuming that the initial vowels that
are prefixal delete in Tarifiyt nouns is not enough of a generalization, since there
are many examples of prefixal vowels that resist deletion. Cases in point are the
following examples:
(7)

Free State

Construct State

Gloss

afunas
a3a:8ir
ada:yar

ufunas
u 3a:8ir
uda:yar

'bull'
'carpet'
'blind'

The data in (7) above show that, even if the initial vowel of sorne nouns is
prefixal, it does not elide. This further complicates the issue of initial vowel
deletion in Tarifiyt, more so than has as yet been assumed.
Further reca1citrant data to the generalization that prefixal initial vowels delete
cornes from the following examples:
(8)

Free State

Construct State

Gloss

asrm
arnnzu
aYJur
azwa:

usrm
urnnzu

'fish'
'eIder'
'donkey'
'vein'

uvjur

uzwa:

It can be inferred from (7) and (8) above that -if the initial vowel is deleted, the
outcome will be a word with a complex onset. ln data (7), the long vowel is the
outcome of a deleted 'r' sound, the consequence of which is a long vowel (Arnrous
and Bensoukas, 2004, in prep, ms.)
It is hypothesized in this paper that, due to the operation of Tarifiyt-exclusive
phonological processes, morphological
convergence among the dialects of
Moroccan Amazighe is blurred. The departure of Tarifiyt form its cognates is the
immediate consequence of adopting a different ranking of markendess and
faithfulness constraints.

126

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

The paper attempts to explain the phenomenon in the light of the theoretical
framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; McCarthy and
Prince, 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 a
different pairing of input and output than that assumed in standard generative
phonology (Chomsky and Halle, 1968 and re1ated works). At the heart of OT is the
claim that the output is chosen from a set of candidates that GEN, the generator
function of OT grammar, provides for a given input. The theoretically infinite
candidates are ultimately evaluated against a hierarchy of ranked constraints in a
parallel and inclusive fashion.
There are two major constraint families in the OT framework. These are
faithfulness
and markedness
constraints.
Faithfulness
constraints
require
correspondence between input and output, or vice versa. For example, MAX-V
rcquires that input vowels appear in the output. Markedness constraints, on the
other hand, regulate the markedness of an output. An example is ONSET, which
requires that syllables have onsets. The optimality of a candidate is detennined on
the basis of how well that candidate satisfies the constraint hierarchy. A basic
assumption in OT is that constraint re-ranking yields a different grarnmar, and
hence 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 two
constraints with respect to one another, as in tableau (9) below. ln (9), the input is
given in the leftmost cell at the top. The candidates appear below the input. The
constraints appear at the top row in front of the input. The ranking is indicated by a
solid line, with the leftmost constraint being higher ranked. ln case the constraints
are 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 which
indicates constraint satisfaction. A star and an exclamation mark (*!) indicate fatal
violation. The optimal candidate is indicated by the pointing hand (<:V"). ln the text,
crucial ranking of two constraints is indicated by separating them by the symbol

"". When there is no prioritization

comma.

of the constraints, they are separated by a

127

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

As an illustration, ln Ait Oulichek Tarifiyt, coda-r is not allowed (Arnrous and

Bensoukas, 2004, in prep, ms.). This is the outcome of the conflict between a
markedness constraint *Coda-r, which prevents coda 'r' sounds from surfacing in
the output and Max-seg, a faithfulness constraint requiring input segments to be
phonetically manifested in the
output. The conflicting demands of these
constraints are made more explicit in the following tableau:
(9)

(if>

/adrar/
a- adra:
b- adrar

*Coda-r

MAX-Seg
*

*!

ln (9) above, 'adra:' is the winner in the hierarchy, while 'adrar' loses as it
violates *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, an
analysis of the data presented in (1 through 9) is attempted. Then, a section follows
which deals with the standardizability ofthis aspect of Moroccan Amazighe.

III. ANALYSIS
Within the framework of Optimality Theory, outlined above, the
constraints that are relevant to explain insertion or deletion phenomena are
subsumed under correspondence constraints. ln particular, deletion processes
amount to violations of the faithfulness constraint Max-Seg. This constraint is itself
general as it militates against any input form that does not have an output
correspondent. Therefore, any kind of deletion is a violation of sorne version of
Max-Seg. This constraint is at the center of the analysis in the present paper
inasmuch as the locus of interest is the behavior of the initial vowel in Tarifiyt and
Tashlhit, which oscillates between deletion and retention.
This being so, and given that Tarifiyt realizes the initial vowel of nouns
differently from Tashlhit as is shown in the previous section, one can already
surmise that a similar set of constraints is ranked differently in the two varieties
under investigation. These constraints are Max-Seg, which militates against any
form of deletion and ONSET, which requires that any syllable have an onset. Based
on (Arnrous 2004), the present paper assumes that ranking these two constraints
can account for the mismatch between Tarifiyt and Tashlhit where the initial vowel
is concemed. The two conflicting constraints at stake are listed in (10) below:

128

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

(10)

REALIZE

MORPHEME (M-REAL) (Kurisu, 2001:37) every

underlying morpheme must receive sorne phonological exponence; failed
in case morphemes have no phonological exponence.
ONSET (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; Kager, 1999:93) syllables must
have onsets; failed in case a syllable is onsetless.

It should be pointed out that the constraint M.REAL will bifurcate into two
constraints: M-REAL (SING) and M-REAL (PL). This distinction will be relevant
later in the paper.
The constraints in (10) above are ranked differently in Tashlhit and Tarifiyt. Since
Tashlhit realizes initial prefixal vowels phonetically, which Tarifiyt generally does
not, it follows that the constraints requiring the masculine morpheme to be
phonetically realized must take precedence over that requiring syllables to have
onsets. This is a strong argument why Tashlhit involves no initial vowel deletion in
masculine nouns. Tarifiyt seems to prioritize ONSET, a constraint that bans
onsetless syllables, the reason why initial vowels are not permitted in sorne
masculine nouns. Consider the following ranking in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit
respectively, 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 and
Tashlhit adopt for the two constraints in (12).
(12)
Tarifiyt ranking: ONSET and M-REAL (SING)

r:r

/a+fus/
i- afus
ii- fus

ONSET

M-REAUSING)

*!
*

Tashelhiyt ranking: ONSET and M-REAL (SING)

129

Structures morphologiques

<Jr

/a+fus/
i- afus
ii- fus

de l'amazighe

M-REAL(SING)
*!

ONSET
*

The contrast between Tarifiyt and Tashlhit illustrated in (12) above,

however, is neutralized whenever radical initial vowels are at stake. This is so
because radical vowels elide in neither variety, which subscribes to the idea that
radical vowels are given precedence over affixal vowels. ln other words, in both
varieties, ONSET, a markedness constraint, conflicts with a faithfulness constraint
requiring root vowels to survive in the output. This constraint is stated as follows:
(13)

MAX-ROOT

VOWEL (Max-RT(V))

(McCarthy and Pricne, 1995):

input roots must have output correspondents, failed in case and input root has
no output correspondent.
The tableau below shows that in both varieties under scrutiny, the initial vowel
does not elide if it is a root vowel:
(14)
Ranking ofMAX-RTCV) and ONSET in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit.

<Jr

/anu/
t-anu
ll-anu

MAX-RT(V)

ONSET
*

*!

It can be inferred from the tableau above that, for all the differences that
hold between Tarifiyt and Tashlhit, the two varieties have as a commonality the
fact that root vowels must remain intact. This amounts to the c1aim that MAX-RT
(V) always ranks higher than ONSET in both Tarifiyt and Tashlhit. For Tarifiyt,
then, it is ONSET that outranks M-REAL but outranked by MAX-RT (V). For
Tashlhit, MAX-RT (V) dominates ONSET. Much, however, remains to be said
about why this should be the case. Recall that the overarching question in the
present paper relates to why sorne vowels delete and others do not.
Since the vowels that are part of the root are not deleted in the initial
position of nouns, it becomes c1ear that ONSET is dominated, so that input vowels
appear in the output. One hypothesis is that radical segments are different in their
status from affixal ones and so are to receive special treatment. ln fact, proposals in
the literature have been propounded that roots enjoy a privileged status over

130

Structures morphologiques

de l'arnazighe

affixes. McCarthy and Prince (1995) argue for this privileged status of radical over
affixal material, so that root faithfulness (RF) is favored over affix faithfulness
(AF): RF AF, a ranking corroborated by Beckman (1998). This amounts to the
claim that roots are less susceptible to phonological transformations than are
affixes. Ultimately, it seems that both Tarifiyt and Tashlhit privilege roots over
affixes, thereby conforming to the universal ranking of RF AF.
The third issue to be de aIt with in this section relates to the fact that, in
Tarifiyt, ONSET is violated under duress in sorne cases. ln fact, just as the
language 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, the
violation of ONSET is less serious than its satisfaction if the outcome would be a
complex onset, which the phonotactics of Tarifiyt ban. This amounts to the claim
that ONSET, which in Tarifiyt ranks higher than M-REAL as illustrated in (12)
above, is itself outranked by sorne other constraints which prevents the occurrence
of complex onsets. This constraint may be formulated as follows:
(15)

*COMPLEX (Prince and Smolensky, 1993; Kager, 1999): No complex

syllable margins; failed in case a syllable has a complex margin.
The constraint in (15) above outranks ONSET, so long as complex onsets are not
allowed in this variety of Amazighe. This constraint rules out 'jur' as
ungrammatical, a legitimate ranking of *Complex over ONSET. Consider the
following tableau.
(16)
/ a+yjur /
r:r

a- aYJUf
b- yjur

*COMPLEX

ONSET
*

*!

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 aIl
masculine nouns surface with an initial vowel.
To recapitulate, sorne prefixal initial vowels delete in Tarifiyt, while no
vowel 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

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

adopts for the same constraints. Tashlhit prioritizes M-REAL over ONSET while
Tarifiyt adopts the reverse ranking. ln Tarifiyt, moreover, ONSET, which outranks
M-REAL, is govemed by a constraint banning complex onsets: *COMPLEX.
One remarkable fact about Tarifiyt is that, irrespective of whether the
initial vowel is radical or prefixal in nature, the plural form has to survive with an
initial vowel. This is also the case in Tashlhit, where no initial vowel deletion is
attested in the free state. The legitimate question then arises as to why the initial
vowel that is prefixal deletes in the singular form but is maintained in the plural
form. This further justifies the fact that the constraint M-REAL needs to split into
M-REAL (SING) and M-REAL (PL). This shows that realizing the plural
morpheme is more pressing, so to speak, than realizing the singular morpheme. ln
other words, while Tarifiyt may legitimately sacrifice initial vowels that are
prefixal 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). The
altemation 'fus'/ 'fassen' is attested in no single Tarifiyt variety, to the best of our
knowledge.
This said, it tums out that M-REAL (PL) outranks ONSET, a ranking that
appears 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)

rJir

/ i+fassen /
a- ifassen
b- fassen

M-REAL(PL)

ONSET
*

*!

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, by
implication, no such asymmetry.

132

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

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

Gloss

Feminine

Masculine

'hand'
'moon'
'well'
'granddaughter'

Sfust
SjoaS
SanuS
Sajjawt

fus
Joa
anu
ajjaw

The phonetic form of the nouns in (20) above is heavily dependent on the
form 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 feminine
nouns is not faithful to the input, but rather to the output, an interesting situation
indeed.
The framework being adopted for the analysis provides a satisfactory
answer to this problem. According to output output correspondence theory
(McCarthy, 1995), it is preferable to have uniform output paradigms than to have
outputs which are not uniform. ln other words output output constraints check the
identity 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 from
other 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 of
words like 'Tafust' and the occurrence, instead, of "Tfust' finds convincing
explanations.

133

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

(22)

1tafustl
r:ir

OO-COR

a- Tfust
b- Tafust

*COMPLEX
*

*!

One further issue the paper brings up relates to the case of sorne masculine
nouns in the free state whose initial vowel does not elide, even if the vowel in
question is prefixal in nature. The following are illustrative examples, taken from
(Amrous, 2004). It should be recalled that the construct state is herein used to
determine the identity of the initial vowel.
.(23)

Free State
asa:dun
ava.da
ama:was

Construct State

Gloss
'horse'
'mouse'
'loan'

usa:dun
uva.da
uma:was

The examples of the type illustrated above

prefixal vowels are susceptible to deletion may not
construct state of each of the words in the data above
vowel, while the y appear with one in the free
accordingly called for to solve the problem.

show that the claim that aIl

hold. This is so because the
is not realized with an initial
state. Another constraint is

One observation that can be made about the data above is that aIl the words
involve the long vowel 'a:' deriving form an underlying sequence lar!. This process
is a feature that many Tarifiyt dialects share (Tangi, 1991; lazzi, 2001; Amrous and
Bensoukas, 2003; Amrous and Bensoukas, in prep). Suspiciously enough,
examples like these ones suggest that words like 'asa:dun' (horse), which would
otherwise surface as 'sa:dun', would involve two deletion processes, one deleting
the initial vowel by virtue of being a prefix and the other deleting coda-r, It is
hypothesized that two deletion processes may not be tolerated, the reason why only
those nouns in which no other vowel is deleted can incur prefixal initial vowel
deletion.
This is a phenomenon that can be accounted for using the OT concept of
Constraint Conjunction as laid down in Smolensky, (1993, 1995) and Padgett
(2002). According to a constraint conjunction analysis, violating two constraints

134

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

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 faithfulness
constraint that militates against deletion. This constraint is formulated as MAX-r.
ln sorne Tarifiyt dialects, MAX-r is violated, permitting words with an underlying
representation like 'asrdun', (horse) 'ayrda' (mou se) and 'arnrwas' (Joan) to surface
as '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 realized
phonetically.
ln order to account for the data in (23) above, therefore, it stands to reason
to invoke the concept of constraint conjunction, though the present paper does not
c1aim the analysis to be exhaustive. The conflict between 'sa:dun', which, to the
best of our knowledge, is attested in no single Tarifiyt dialect, and 'asa:dun', where
the prefixal initial vowe1 survives deletion, my be captured in terms of constraint
conjunction la Smolensky (1993, 1995). This state of affairs motivates the
following ranking:
(24)
MAX-r and M-REAL(SING>ONSET
The ranking in (24) above can be exemplified in the following tableau:
(25)

a+yrda
Cff>

a. aya.da
b. va.da

MAX-rM and MREAL(SING)

ONSET
*

*1

ln the tableau above it is 'aya:da' that is optimal,

conjoined constraints MAX-r and M-REAL (SING).
violates ONSET. 'ya:da', on the other hand, is
violations of the conjoined constraint and is assigned

insofar as it satisfies the two

This is despite the fact that it
suboptimal as it incurs two
two violation marks.

It should be reiterated that the analysis of this phenomenon is not

exhaustive in the present paper, with the hope that future research adopting
Optimality Theory will uncover further facts.

135

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR A STANDARDIZATION

ENTERPRIZE:

Account being taken of the overt divergences between Tarifiyt and

Tashlhit, there is good reason to believe that the standardization of the initial vowel
in Amazighe is indeed a feasible undertaking, especiaIly given the similarity
between Tashlhit and the other non- Tarifiyt varieties of Moroccan Amazighe.
Wllile there seems to be a divergence in the two varieties under investigation in
matters concerning the initial vowel, this divergence seems to be minimal, in the
sense that it is more phonological than morphological. Accordingly, an underlying
system can be reconstructed for the standardized Amazighe, in which the initial
vowel is phonetically manifested.
The inconsistencies manifested by the initial vowel in Tarifiyt and Tashlhit
seem to be more system-intemal than inter-dialectal. Indeed, as may be observed in
the data above, Tarifiyt is less consistent in deleting or maintaining the initial
vowel. This is not the case for Tashlhit, in which this vowel is comparatively more
consistent. This further motivates the suggestion that a surface- initial- 'a' -system
be taken as standard, insofar as the initial vowel will be posited as basic, while no
reference will be made to the identity of the vowel in question -i.e., whether it is
radical or prefixal in nature. A further boon of standardizing the initial vowel is that
it is recoverable in cases of deletion.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The present paper has focused on the behavior of the initial vowel in
Tarifiyt and Tashlhit within the framework of Optimality Theory. The analysis has
revealed striking similarities between the dialects under investigation, though overt
differences are evidenced as one moves from one dialect to another. The analysis
has shown that the different grammars in the two languages result from the
differences in ranking the same set of universal constraints.
Tarifiyt has been shown to prioritize ONSET, a constraint that requires
syllables 'l,J have onsets, while Tashlhit favors a constraint that maximizes the
morpheme: M-REAL. It has been argued that Tarifiyt violates ONSET under
duress if the latter threatens to result in a complex ons et, so that *COMPLEX takes
precedence over ONSET, which in turn dominates M-REAL. Furthermore, given
the apparent inconsistency in the Tarifiyt system, in which sorne singular
morphemes 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: MREAL (SING) and M-REAL (PL), with M-REAL (PL) being higher ranking.

136

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

Tashlhit, on the other hand, does not seem to involve the splitting of the M-REAL
constraint. The inconsistency of, say, 'fus'/ 'Tfust' called for the postulation 00COR, a constraint that reveals how an output form can be derived from another
output form rather than an input form. This constraint is not shown to be at stake in
Tashlhit, in which aIl initial vowels are manifested.
This said, it can be concluded that Tashlhit involves less complexity as to
the behavior of initial vowels, while the system of Tarifiyt does involve sorne
complexity. One recommendation in this regard is to take as standard the Tashlhit
version, which is more or less consistent. This is added to the fact that the initial
vowel is recoverable in Tarifiyt if it is deleted, which can be indicated in the plural
form where, for example, 'fus' corresponds to 'ifassen'. A further advantage in
standardizing an initial-'a'- system is that the feminine form always corresponds to
the masculine form, since aIl masculine nouns in Tashlhit have overt initial vowels
that survive in the feminine form. This is unlike Tarifiyt where the initial vowels
sometimes do not match in the masculine and the feminine. For pedagogical
purposes, then, it would seem more preferable to teach a system than involves more
regularity. A system with a surface initial vowel is better equipped to be
introduced.
FinaIly, it should be stressed that the present paper is by no means
exhaustive as there are many aspects of the phonology of the initial vowel that need
10 be researched. The phonology of Tarifiyt needs to receive due interest on the
part of researchers. Research on the linguistics of Amazighe should as weIl be
geared towards more comparative studies.

Bibliography
Arnrous, N. (1999). Phonological Pro cesses in Ait Oulichek Tarifiyt Berber.
Unpublished Memoir paper. Mohammed V University, Faculty of Letters
and Hurnan Sciences, Rabat.
Arnrous, N. (2004). "The Initial Vowel in Tarifiyt Nouns: An Optimality-Theoretic
Analysis". Paper presented at La langue Amazighe: Approche linguistique,
a conference held at the Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Ben
M'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 Amazighe
Vowels?". Standardisation de /'amazighe. eds, M. Ameur & A. Boumalk.
Publications de l'Institut Royal de la Culture Amazighe, Rabat.

137

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

Amrous, N. and K. Bensoukas. (in preparation). "The Phonology of Liquids 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. (in preparation). "Compensatory
Vowel
Phenomena 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 of
Education 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, Ren
Descartes.
Ch tatou, 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 Analyse
par Contraintes". ln Mthodes Actuelles en Phonologie et Morphologie, ed.
by A. Jebbour and L. Messaoudi, 83-10 1. Publications de la Facult des
Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Knitra. [Proceedings of conference 1819-20 April, 1993].
Jebbour, A. (1991). "Structure morphologique du nom et problme de la voyelle
initiale des noms en Tachelhit, parler de Tiznit (Maroc)" Etudes et
Documents 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 Interaction
and Satisfaction. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers
University.
McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. (1995). "Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity".
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers
in Optimality Theory. [Rutgers Optimality Archive #60].
McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. (1999). "Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodie
Morphology". ln The Prosody-morphology Interface, Ren Kager, H. van
der Hulst, and W. Zonneveld. (eds.), 218-309. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

138

Structures morphologiques

de l'amazighe

Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in

Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University and University of Colorado
at Boulder.
Saib, J. (1988). "Rflexions sur la Phonologie des Dialectes Berbres du Nord
Marocain". ln Le Maroc et La Hollande, Publications de la FLSH, Rabat.
271-289.
Saib, J. (1982) "Initial Vowel Syncope and Reduction in Tamazighet Berber
Nouns". Langue et Litterature 2, 159-184
Tangi, O. (1991). Aspects de la Phonologie d'un Parler Berbre du Maroc: AthSidhar (Rif). Thse du Doctorat (Nouveau rgime), Universit de Paris
VIII.

139