From competing patterns to competing structures: Verbal constructions based on loanwords in Hebrew

The study examines the competition between morphological and periphrastic formation in the expression of verbal meaning, based on loanwords in Hebrew. Ristert vs. asa istart, for example, are derived from restart and denote ‘do restart’. Semitic morphology relies on non‑concatenative morphology, namely the combination of root and pattern. Most studies of Hebrew verb formation focus on the competition between patterns. For example, tilfen ‘telephone’ is formed according to the CiCeC pattern, while hiklik ‘click’ is formed according to hiCCiC. The current study examines a different type of competition, namely that between verbal patterns and a periphrastic construction. I will show that the selection between the two constructions can be partially predicted. Morpho-phonological criteria block morphological formation due to low structural transparency between the base and the derived verb and because of the existence of non-native suffixes, which make morphological adaptation more difficult. Low semantic transparency tends to block periphrastic formation, as there are cases with no alternative periphrastic construction that would express the same meaning of the derived verb. In addition, the lexical category of the base provides partial prediction with respect to the possibility to employ either construction. Many studies examined the competition between morphological and periphrastic structures from different points of view, but few studies have addressed it with respect to Semitic morphology. The study proposes one step in this direction, shedding light on the criteria for the selection between either construction to express verbal meaning as well as the degree of adaptation of loanwords in general.