GRAPH OPH ONEMIC AS SIGNMENT 135

tive trttl) ium is especially common in the fixedphrases -lf,T Dllll ium dauar 'nothing', DtlrftrlPn be-ium maqom'nowhere', and D'JS Dllrfl5lNl be-ium panim udofez '(in) no way'.

Rubin (zoo5) provides a detailed treatmentof grammaticali zation in Semitic, with muchdiscussion of Hebrew. Other, more focused

treatments of particular examples of gram-

maticalization in Hebrew include Huehnergard(zoo6) and Cook (zoor).

RBFERENCESCook, John A. zoor. "The Hebrew verb: A gram-

maticalization approach'. Zeitschrift fiir Althe-braistik 14: r r7-r43 .

Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva, zoaL. World lexi-con of grammaticalization Cambridge: CambridgeUniversify Press.

Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugc)tt. Loo3.Grammaticalization. znd edidon. Cambridge:Cambridg. University Press.

Huehnergard, John. zc,c,6. *On the etymology ofthe Hebrew relative Je-' . Biblical Hebrew in itsNorthwest Semitic setting: Typological and his-torical perspectiues, ed. by Steven E. Fassberg andAvi Hurvitz, ro3-r25. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Katz, Aya, rgg8. "Recycled rnorphemes and grarn-maticalization: The Hebrew copula and pronoun".Sauthwest Jou.rnal of Linguistics 11 Sg-g7.

Rubin, Aaron. zoo5 . Surdies in Sentitic grammatical-ization 'Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine (eds.).rg9r. Approaches to grammaticalization. z vols.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

AnnoN D. RurrN(Pennsylvania State University)

Graphophonemic Assignment

One of the tenets of modern linguistics, still pre-vailing today, is that writing mer ely represents

language (Saussure t9r6; Sapir rgzr; Bloom-field rg1,i; Hall r95o; Hocket 1965; Lyonsl-968) and is therefore outside the scope of [in-guistic study. The widespread phonocentristicrepresentational approach has since been chal-lenged, nuanced, or completely refuted fromvarious perspectives which were articulated bysuch scholars as Vachek (r %g; rg74), Bolinger

Gg+6l;, Derrida (tg6Zl, Householder ftg7rl,Anis (rp8r; 1983), Jafftl, (rg8z), Eisenberg

ftg8 3 ), Srivast ava and Gupta (rg8 I ), Coulmas(tg8l; tg84; zoo3l, Camch (tg86), Olson(tgg+), and Harris (rgg+; zooo), to name buta few. An examination of speech and writingas semiotic systems in contact has shown how

wridng does affect language (Neuman zoo ga).

For example, since Israeli Hebrew results inmany respects from the vernacularization of(unspoken) literary Hebrew, one may assertthat in the absence of writing, Israeli Hebrewspeech would not exist at al[. And the genesis ofIsraeli Hebrew is undoubtedly the culminadngevent of a variety of writing-originated speech

formations, known as mots sauants 'learnedwords' (Bloomfield 1969 [rp nl), as they tendto appear whenever a vernacular and a presti-gious literary corpus are in contact.

On the phonological level, the phenomenonis usually referred to as 'spelling pronuncia-tion'. Given that the advent of Israeli Hebrervas a spoken language is, to a large extent, a

wholesale process of spelling pronunciation(Ros6n r9j8), we shall present here the pho-nological effects of Hebrew graphernic designthat have either derailed Hebrew raditionalorthoepy (i.e., the art, of performing what isconsidered'as 'correct' pronunciation) or led toeffects that are not warranted by it.

r. Tup PHoNEMTc ANDGnAPHEMTc SsquENcEs

A parallel'analysis of the phonemic and gra-phemic sequences may uncover a set of corre-spondences ber'ween their constituent segments,

namely phonemes and graphemes. To illusffatethis, one may consider the Hebrew wordfor 'peace', displaying the phonemic sequence

/5alom/ and the graphemic sequence <Etlbu,l>, intransliteration .SI-\frMr; the correspondencesbenveen the segments of the fwo sequences maybe presented as follows:

Phonemic sequence

Graphemic sequence

TransIiteration

Five correspondences arise: (r ) <lr> *> lil,(z) <st> * lal, (l) .)t ** lll, (+l <l> e lol and(S ) <D> ** lml. Of rhese five correspondences,(l ) and (S ) are unequivocal (one-to-one),

namely .), ..* lV and <D> *' tml ([<D>J and

[.or] are only position-dependent allographs).C)n the other hand, (r), (z), and (4) are equivo-cal, as for (r ), not only does <lt > + l(1, i.e.,

iin, but also <U)> n l3l, i.e., 6in; similarly, for

SalomwrloS LwM

ry6 GRAPHOPHONEMIC AS SIGNMENT

(z), not only does <et> --+ lal, but also <st> -)lel (e.g., <If,> <-+ ll<enl 'yes'), <st> --+ /Ll (e.g.,

<DIt> *.+ fiml 'with'), also <Q,> -+ lsl (e.g.,

<lrrff> +-r &vi5/'rout€'), and rarely <s> --+ lol(e.g., <nrlJn> <-+ ltoxnid 'program'); corre-spondence (+) <l> ** lol is also equivocal, as

<l> may correspond not only to lol, but also

to lul (e.g., <Dln> <+ /Xum/'brown') and to lvl(e.g., <nlPn>-<illlPn> .- /tiqva/ 'hope').

The examination of a much larger number ofutterances will help discern and further detailthe frequent lack of one-to-one correspon-dences between Hebrew phonemic and graphe-

mic sequences. Of those correspondences thatare equivocal, a hierarchy of frequency may be

drawn up. Thus, of the equivocal correspon-dences (r) <1r> +* l3l, (z) <s> ** lal, and (+) <l>** lol, a tentative frequency hierarchy may be

presented as fofiows:

frequent decreasing frequency

(r ) <vr> - l3l <lr> * l(;l(z) <fl> * lal <s> - lsl, <fr> n lel,

<gt> * ltl, <g> n lol(+) <1> * lol <l> - lulr<l> * lvl

The above specification of the grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences means that (l ) thegrapheme <lr> can correspond both to /5/ and

to 16l, but its correspondence to l(l outnumbersthat to 16l; (z) the zero grapheme <et> corre-sponds most frequently to the phoneme lal and

less frequently to zero, lel, |il, or lol; and (+)

the grapheme <1> corresponds most often tololr less to lul<specially when verbs are takenout of the count, as lul is a plural marker-ande\ren less to lvl . Further investigation rvith otherufferances suggesm that yad corresponds mostoften to /il, then to lyl, and least frequently tole(yll, especially when construct forms are notconsidered.

The precisely quantified grapheme-to-pho-neme mapping based on a representative cor-pus is a task yet to be carried out for Hebrew,but the tempo rary unavailabiliry of absolute

numbers does not make relative evaluationsimpossible. Such evaluations, like the obviousprevalence of <W> -r' /5/ over <lr> l3/, mayin turn account for cases where readers assign

to a grapheme its most frequent phonemic cor-

respondent when oral ffansmission has failed topass on the initially intended phoneme.

z. GnAPHoPHoNEMTc OpERAToRs

The equivocal iin in nlTU? .SDRHT (pointedn-ll?) lilderal 'boulevard' has prornpted thewidespread popular pronunciation lideralbecaus e iin corresponds to l{l much more fre-quently than to 16l. Hence, a graphophonemicoperator <10> -:+ l5l may be said to operatewhen the graphemic word's presence is strongerthan the linguistic transmission of the phonemiccounterpart word. Other frequency-modvatedgraphophonemic operators may be pointed outand their effect on the phonological sequence

of Hebrew may be drawn up. In what follows,some of these as we[ as other related issues arepresented.

j. GnAPHEMTc Llrvrrrs IlrPosEDoN MoRPHoPHoNEMTcNORMATIvISM

The design of Hebrew unpointed spelling issuch that it corresponds to the phonemicsequence only partially and ambiguously, so

that in the absence of context, sixty percentof written words can be read in rwo ways ofmore (Allon rggj). What this means for IsraeliHebrew is that spelling is, in some cases, indif-ferent to the gap benveen normative and non-normative pronunciations; for example, thespelling nJgn <M$NfI> does neither overtlywarrant the normative form masneal: 'para-chute' nor stand against the non-normativeform misnag which happens to coincide with a

non-used diction aty form for 'parachure jump'.Concurring with Haas ftg9z:zr) that "theextent to rvhich a'wricten language' can givesupport to standardization processes dependson its design" and rvith Comrie and Stone(tgZ8:z,4) that " [s]tandardization in pronuncia-tion is much more difficult to enforce than stan-dardizadon of those aspects of language thatare reflected directly in the written language", itis maintained here that the graphemic structureof written Hebrew is a determining factor inthe relative success or failure of morphopho-nological normativism in Israeli Hebrew. Thisis to say that in cases where spelling overtlydisagrees with a non-normative form, a speaker

using this form is likely to be pointed to as apoor speller and the form is therefore suscepti-ble to be socially stigmatized. A correlation thusarises: the more fully and precisely spelling cor-responds to a normative variant, the higher the

normative variant's chances are to gain groundat the expense of a concurrent non-normativevariant. Also, in cases where unpointed spefiingis indifferent to the gap, the normative formmight even be perceived as snobbish, pompous,and pretentious, thus ridiculous and, of course,

socially unacceptable.For instance, the spelling Dr:lrr <YSNTYM>

is sensitive to the difference between normativeye{enim 'sleep (participle, mpl)' and non-nor-mative yoinim (resulting from analogy to theparticiple form of regular qal verbs), thereforeyo{nim has become stigmatized and yeienim is

more prevalent among the educated class thanelsewhere; the same is true for nrbtl gdelim'grow up (participle, mpl)' vs. godlim. On the

other hand, the spelling Dnf,nf, <KTVTM> isinsensitive to the difference benveen normativektautdm'you (mpl) wrote' and non-normative

GRAPH OPH ONEMIC AS SI GNMENT r37

katdutem verb flrpes, the latter variant being thepredominant form used by all speakers. Thisis the case even for highly educated speakers

u'ho are sensitive to language issues, such as

the President of the Academy of the HebrewLangusg€, Professor Moshe Bar-Asher, who,in response to a comment made by a FrenchHebraist about a katdutetn rype verb that he

uttered, responded: "I don't speak pointedHebrew, I speak spoken Hebre (Paris, Les

Gobelins,March zoo5).Similatly, whereas spelling indifference to the

variation berween normative'alexem'towardsyou (*pl)' (spelled u:4H <'LYKM>) and non-norrnative 'elexenr leaves the lamer intacqspelling sensitiviry to the difference benveennormative 'etxem 'yo,r (acc. mpl)' (spelledD:nN <'TKM>) and non-normative 'otxem hassupported the use of the normative form. Thefollovving sample list presents for each case

a spelling that is insensitive to the differencebenveen a normative variant, and a variantwhich is non-normative, but accepted amongthe educated.

English gloss Non-normative Normative Indifferent Spelling

'one (cstr. )''dogs (f)''beaches''scorpion''brake''color''windshield''seashell'

'huge, enormous''report; ticket, citation''this (f)''enioy (fut.)''righnvard''chairs''Lod (place name)''helicopters'

'ey:adk"albotyupim'aqrabbalamgauan

ima{asdaf'ataqdotzute(b)eneyeminakisa'otIttdmesoqhn

'a.yadklauot&ofrm'aqraubelemgduen

iimiapedef

'ateqduatrzote(h)aneyaminakis'otlodmasoqim

<,HD> -TNN

<KLB\D7T> ntfbf,<HWPYM> D'rln

.'QRBt f-ti:P<BLM> ub:

<GWWN> lllJ.sr'r$lrfi?

<TQ> i7n!,<DWH> ntt'lJ

<zw> tt<TYHNH> nln'n<YMYNH>;.IJ.'N'

<KYS'WT> nlND'f<LWD> Tt'

<MSWKYM> E'prDn

Some of the above examples concern conso-

nant variatiotr, but most of them reflect the

fluidiry of vowels in Israeli Hebrew (Neuman

zooga:540-5 46). Some of the above normativevariants are so rare that they may be character-ized as pedantic, but all non-normative variants

are also socially accepted among the educated,which cannot be said of non-normative variantsthat are overtly unwarranted by spelling.

Some of the following discussions demonstratefurther graphemic limits imposed on morphopho-nemic normativism (Neuman zoo ga S j 4-S4o).

r38 GRAPHOPH ONEMIC AS SIGNMENT

4. VocALrc PenrrcuLARrTIEs IN'G nA P H E M r c A L LY Gu TTU RA L'ENvTRoNMENTs

Bentur (rgZ8; r978a) demonstrates that the

choice for (r ) an historically epenthetic [a] informs such as n-tlf boreaY 'escape' and for(z) an [al replacing [e] in the feminine nn-lEbora[at is, in a synchronic analysis, condi-doned by spelling with n <X> and lt <'>. This isalso confirmed by the fact that non-normativefeminine forms such as fiIDID so'rnaxAf 'count(on)', lr-fi;-l1r 'orAxAt-din 'lawyer', and n)gilJ)iofaxaf 'pour' (last example by Blau t 97o:4zlare limited to uneducated speakers. One shouldthen consider that the high regulariry of lal inthe environment of historic ftl and l'l relies, atleast partly, on literacy.

5. FrucruATroN oF FnoNTVowELS

The grapheme ' yod as a vowel-letter cor-responds to lil and to lel. Since its correspon-dence to /il is significantly more frequent thanto lel, some occurrences of le/ end up as |il,follou'ing the process lel +post-biblicat phonological truncation of /yosef/is lyosel, spelled nDr in Palestinian Tannaitictexts and rDr in the Babylonian Talmud (Breuer

zooz:S3-54). Since the Jevvish world embraced

Babylonian texts more than Palestinian Hebrewand Aramaic texts, the Babylonian spelling oflyosel was retained and the graphophonemicoperator <r> - ltl ended up modifying the [in-guistic transmission from lyose/ to lyosrl and

even the pointing ended up follou'ing the drift:rDir (Mishor r98o:rr3). Breuer (zooz:Sj-S4,rr. zr1) then summarizes: "This might be spell-

ing attraction, namely the perception of the yodas marking a ftiriqinstead of a g;ere". All Ashke-nazitraditions display hl inthis name and IsraeliI{ebrew kept this variant, although the Yeme-

nite Hebrew reading tradition maintains the

original lel (Shivtiel lrg++l rg7r:zz8). Several

other Talmudic sages whose names are spelled

rvith a yod in final position, originally corre-sponding to lel, are pronounced with lil in Ash-kenazi maditions (Breuer ?oozt5 3 ), but at the

same time are maintained with lel in the Yeme-

nite tradition (Morag rgq:T), L381. Anotherexample is the month of '-tun <TSRYt, varying

in Hebrew orthoepies betvreen tiire(y) and tiiri,

though stabilized in Israeli Hebrew as tiire(y).Josephus Flavius mentions rl paorl,ig'El.6vt1 'the

Queen Helena' in his Jewish Antiquities (IIz-4), and this queen is said to have helped the

Jews in their war against Rome. Jewish textsspell the name with yod for either both vowels,like <n:bnn r:b';t> <HYLNY HMLKHt, orwith only the final vowel-letter: <n:bnn 'Jbn><HLNY HMLKHT, both pronounced heleneham-ntalka 'Helena the queen'. As a result ofthe graphophonemic operator <r> + ltl, varioustraditional pronunciations of Hebrew knowthis name with ltl either in one or in both syl-lables. In modern times, the British mandateover Palestine named one of the streets of rhemodern ciry of Jerusalem Melisende Street as

a tribute to Queen Melisende, Queen of Jeru-salem (r ror-r r 5r ), whose reign (r r 3r-rr4;lsymbolized the continuir,v of Christian colo-nial presence since the Kingdom of Jerusalem(rogg-rz9r). As a reaction to the British sym-bolic act, the government of Israel changed thestreet name to nf,bnn 'lbil 'Queen Helena', nowevoking a qlleen who was good to the Jews.This act of extracting from the texts a relativelyunknown name and using it on street signs

without there being a stable linguistic tradirionof the name resulted in its public appropriationthrough graphophonemic assignmenr wirh+ |il, i.e. /heleni ha-malka/. Thus, a final yodcorresponding to lel in Tannaitic Hebrerv mightbecom e hl in communal reading traditions andin Israeli Hebrew.

Judeo-Spanish also uses , yod for both liland lel (Renard ry66:3 8 ). Thus, the Italiannames Conforte and Montefiore) both with a

final mid-front vowel, are written in Judeo-Spanish with a yod: r9ll5Jli; <QXfi{PWRTY>and r']l"llrJln <MWNTPI'rMRY>. As a result,these narnes are known in Israeli Hebrew as

/lronfortil and /montefyoril. One can only spec-

ulate that if Dante had been a Sephardic Jew,speakers of lsraeli Hebrew would have knownhirn as ldantil.

6. FrucruATroN oF BecK VowELS

Vau as a vowel-lemer corresponds to lul andto lal rvith higher frequency for the latter,especially in nouns (lul is more frequent inverbs, both as a passive marker and as a pluralmarker in prefix and suffix conjugations). Thedouble correspondence promp ts I ol -lul fluctua-

tion in nouns whose linguistic form is weak ornonexistent among speakers of Hebrew. Thus,the place name Lod is widely referred to as

lludl and similar hesitation is known frompointed manuscripts of Tannaitic Hebrew.A[so, one of the feminine forms of the demon-strative is 1l zo, whose non-normative vari-ant zu is by no means stigmatizing, as shownby its use also by educated speakers, such as

Dan Laor, professor of Hebrew literature andformer Dean of Humanities at Tel-Aviv Uni-versiry (lecture in Paris in June zoo5; Neumanzooga: j4r). Similarly, the letter names yod andqaf are widely referred to as lyudl and /quf/.Also, the graphemic abbreviation llf,Unl |*r

spontaneously lexicalized by speakers as ldodand later corrected to the normative variantlduad, but with no apparent success.

The term Fnn ,neros 'race (relative to cars,

running humans, etc.)' has a non-normativewidespread by-form merus; although the infini-tive Fnb larug 'to run' or the pattern qi.tpttl mayhave prompted the transformation from lol told, spelling with a I uau is helpless in enhanc-

ing the normative variant among proficientspellers. The Babylonian Aramaic word NTf,]lt<'\ilflBD'> 'ouada 'fact' was appropriated byIsraeli Hebrew as luvdal, and this is the stan-

dard form. Foreign proper nouns containingback vowels rvith no prior ingrained linguis-tic transmission in Hebrew end up reshaped

due to uat) ambiguity: Subaru -+ l-lNflD/sub6ro/, Ytong * JJlt 'N lirungl (Eyen-Shoshan

zoa3 points i]:l0rlt), Sudoku * lPlTlD /sodriko/,Mozarella - nbt$D /mugr6lal.

The Yiddish name /6[meft/, spelled t -t1tnh${

in Yiddish (such as the Yiddish newspaper

bx:rtult -UrJ.''nlrJbN at hnp://www.algemeiner.net), where uau as a vowel letter in non-Semiticwords can correspond only to lu/, ended up as

/olmert/ in Israeli Hebrew, including accordittgto Prirne A4inister (zoo6-zr,c,g) Ehud Olmert'sown testimony, rvhen asked about the precise

pronunciation of his last name at a meetingwith the Academy of the Hebrew Langu age.

Finatly, the adiective nhgtl /populSrtl 'popu-lar' is widely known as /popolSnl, occurringfive times in Olmert's (r S March zooT) speech:

'rhgtg H) nbrpnn uN-l "lN 'ani roi mer"neiala lopopolari 'I am an unpopular Prime Minister'.

GRAPHOPHONEMIC AS SIGNMENT

7. PeRTTAL MsRGERwrrH tr[AQTTL(A)

r39

oF MTQ,TAL(A)

In the Israeli Hebrew lexicon, nouns derived bymiqyal(a) and maq[el(a) patterns may be

semantically distinguished, in broad lines, as

locativ€, €.g., ;l-'l!DD mispara'barbershop' andinstrumental, e.g., iln)gn maslema 'camera'.The partial merger of miqpal(a) nouns withmaqfel(a) nouns is to some extent the resultof their graphemic idendry, since none of theinternal vowels is marked by r mater lectionisin these patterns. Hence colloquial Hebrewdisplays forms such as maspera as againstrnispara in normative Hebrew (Masson rg1o-rgT r:5o-5 r; Bentolila 2ooo: j S j; Bolozkyzoa3:r4i Neuman zooga:s8 L-58+). Masson(:-gTc-rg7r) shows that the correspondenceof the graphemic sequence <MQTLH> to bothmiqpala and maqpela noun patterns imposeslimits on their exploitation for word formationin Israeli Hebrew. Bentolila (zooo:3S1') showshow the graphophonemic opaciry of n?YD'work strength' with respect to internal vowelsunderlies its merger with n?SD 'rombstone,gravestone; memorial monument': "It seems

to me that no one has ever pronounced il?*Daccording to its dicdonary pointing". Likewisein the case of t'itll .SPYR> (a) iafir'amnion(anatomy)' vs. (b) {apir'benign', homographyis responsible for homonymy where lexicalautonomy would otherwise prevail (Neumanzooga:5 B 5 ).

Thus, homography constitutes a deterrentfactor when rvord formation is concerned:"Spelling ambiguiry of unpointed spelling alsoreduces the possibilities in lexical neologisms.Discarding a new-word proposal because 'thepublic would not know how to read it' is com-monplace practice in the committees of theAcademy of the Hebrew Language" (Sarfattir9g4: r 6).

8. THr OpERAToRAND DTsTRIBUTIoN oF THEDrpHrHoNG lnvl

Instances of the vorvel lel tn Modern Hebrewphonological sequences may be divided intotwo classes: (r ) the vowel /e/ displaying varia-tion rn'ith the diphthong leyl, such as }tunIt€6al alongside /t6y\al 'nine' and (e) the vowel

r40

/e/ displaying no variation with the diphthongleyl, e .8., p:1, lllval 'seven'. This classificationmay be traced back to the Ashkenazi pronun-ciation of Hebrew, where the distribution ofleyl vs. lel in the reading tradition of Hebrewconcords with that of the fere vs. segol; inthe Hebrew lexical component of spoken Yid-dish, only an open-syllable tere corresponds

to leyl. The Ashkenazi vernacular pronuncia-

tion of Hebrew being the point of departurefor the morphophonology of Hebrew speech,

the evolution of non-native spoken Hebrewtowards General Israeli Hebrew entailed the

gradual (partial) readiustment of leyl vs. leldistribution to yod presence or absence, respec-

tively, in spelling. Thus, variation could remainwhen warranted by a yod in the spelling, butwas gradually reduced to invariable lel in the

absence of what users perceive as orthographiclegitim acy. \(rords whose regular spelling isnon-phonemic, namely logograms, €.8., <9>,

<;J>, and <5>, have escaped the process ofleyl * lel simplification. Thus, the absence of ayod in ItUfl <T5! 'nine' has had no impaff onthe literate speakers' phonemic representationand therefore this numeral still displays leyl-lelvariation (Neuman zooga: S 46-5 Sz; zorz).

g. CoNsoNANT VeRIATIoNRrLATED To <J>, <J>, oR <5>

Three of the six ngf"Tlf bgdkpt Tiberianstop-spirant allophones a[so display stop-spirant variation in Israeli Hebrew, where theyare widely agreed to have phonemic status,

namely lbl vs. lvl, lkl vs. lxl and lpl vs. lfl(Ros6n rgTT; for an opposing opinion see

Ornan 1974). It follows from their phonemic

status that the lemers <J>, <J>, and <5> are

bi-phonemic, i.e., graphophonemically ambigu-ous and therefore opaque.

This opaciry (r ) has bearing on stop-spirantfluctuation dependittg on both paradigrnaticand (z) social factors, and (l) may in some

cases engender invariable forms displaying a

spirant instead of an earlier stop or vice versa.

(r ) The tendency towards morphological par-

adigmatic leveling is responsible for frequentnormatively unwarranted forms such as nitfosvs. normative nitpos'we will catch'; the spelling

Dl5nl <NTPWS> with a graphophonemically

opaque ! <P> gives no clue as to the normative

form, therefore the non-normative variant is

GRAPHOPHONEMIC AS SIGNMENT

not stigmatizing its users and spelling is devoidof any power to affect the distribution of lpl-lfland promote the normative variant, unlike incomparable cases such as yo*nim vs. yeienim,where the absence of uau in the spelling DtJlltt<ySNYM> exerts influence on the distributionof competing variants.

(z) The most frequent plural form of rof'beach', spelled lln <ffWP>, is the expectednormative tofim, but alongside this form thereis a hypercorrective tendency to make it 6upim,by semi-educated analogy with lm tuf andDrSn tupim'drum(s)'. Since the semi-educatedforms actually target what is thought to be

the norm, variation based on hypercorrectionsuch as this would never have been created if5 <P> corresponded to a single phoneme. Simi-larly, the noun f1Pp .'QRB>'aqrar,'scorpion',whose normative plural is Erf.ti?!, <'QRBYM>'aqrabim, is frequently pluralized 'aqrauim, inparticular among the less-educated, while theeducated tend to sdck to 'aqrabim. Some ofthem, however, also display hypercorrection inthe form of the singular 'aqrab. Similarly, thenoun fNun <MS'B> mai'au'resource', pluralma{'abim, sometirnes displays the non-norma-tive singula r ntai'ab, but if f, <B> were grapho-phonemically unequivocal, no lbl-lvl variationwould be possible for a lexical item r,r'ith sucha level of sophistication. To suggest that even

in case of diachronic b u transformation,unequivocal spelling would eliminate lbl*lvlvariatior, we may mention French liure'book',liuresque 'bookish', Iibrairie 'bookstore', andIibraire 'librarian', displaying no such varia-tion in any of these lexical items (Neumanzooga ST r-5 7 zl.

Foreign words without ingrained linguistictransmission in Hebrew may display lpl-lflvariation among the less educated (Bentolilargg72r79, no. 7l1, who might produce formssuch as ):'poE pestiual for festiual 'festival',nrglDlb'l pilosofya for filosofya'philosophy',lfn9lD sefpember for seplember'september',llrlli?'bn heliqoflt, for heliqopper'helicopter',uJ5;rb lehafnef for lehapnet'to hypnorize'. The

Judeo-Spanish name 1lD1br5 pilasof displays a

similar case, though invariant in that language(Benvenisti rg8 Sirz; Neuman zooga:648).

(l) lnvariant non-normative forms may also

result from particular graphophonemic assign-

ment. Thus, normative Hebrew iapir 'good,benign' and {afir 'amnion', both spelled -T5ll,

.SPYR>, are known in Israeli Hebrew only as

iafir. This means that even medical doctors qual-ify

^ tumor as lafir. This is a clear case where

homography is responsible for homonlmy.Lexicalized graphemic abbreviations may

display phonemic autonomy r,r'ith respect tothe original full-word sequence concerning the

choice berween stop and spirant. Thus, althoughthe rhird component of Etf,lnf, E'Nrfl n-tln toraneui'im htuuim begins with lkl, the third conso-

nant of the abbreviation J"ln tanax 'Tanakh,Hebrew Bible' is lxl . This phonelne results fromthe graphophonemic operator <J> -+ lxl in.J"lnr. To demonstrate that the final lxl is the

result of graphophonemic assignment and notof any phonological constraint, one may con-sider f"Jlu, /5abak/, which originates as follows:the graphemic sequence <')bfn iln?rrfn nlTu>/5erut ha-bigaxon ha-klali/'general securiry ser-

vice' was graphemically shortened to <J":lzl>,which rvas later lexicalized by graphophonemicassignment as liabaU. That the final <J> is

responsible for the lxl in J"Jn lanaxl becomes

clear in light of the presence of lW in J"Jl, ISabalC. But maintaining a non-final letter infinal position may also produce an oppositeresult: the graphemic sequence <nN]51n b'nt-) <!tt-tn> with <r> in final position is respon-sible for the fact that the lfl in the phonemicsequence /xel ha-refu'a/ 'medical corps' corre-sponds to lpl in its lexicalized graphemic abbre-viation, namely .5tt]n> * /xar apl.'Sfhereas inclassical Hebrew 5 and I are allographs of <P>

(Lieberman 19gz:2661, in Yiddish they are used

as autonomous graphemes in final position(as may be implicitly inferred from Birnbaumrg7g:zo}-zog and Katz r98 7:r 5-t 61, and the

Yiddish final correspondence <5> *' lpl has

remained unchanged in the graphemic system

of Israeli Hebrew (Neuman zoo4; zooga:r68;zor r ).

ro. VoIcING AssIMILATIoN

Israeli Hebrew displays optional regres-

sive voicing assimilation when fwo adjacentobstruents disagree in voicing. Thus, one finds

voiced-voiceless variation in forms such as

sgor-zgor 'close! (ms)' zkar-skor 'remem-

ber! (ms)', ryeibon-&eibon 'arithmetics',mautiag-maftiry 'promise', masbir-ntazbir' explain', ma qb il - ma gb il' p arallel', t zr,tztx - dztt za

'movement', mazkira-ntaskira 'secret ary (f )',

GRAPHOPHONEMIC AS SIGNMENT 14I

mayzik-magzik 'hold', mitbayei-midbayei'ashamed'. A priori, the same linguistic analysisseems to suit the voice assimilation process

in forms like midbayei and in the rypicalhitpa'el forms with memthesis like mizdaken'grow old'. In fact, the phonetic variation invoicing assimilation of the above examplesvs. the phonological stabiliry of the appar-ent similar forms like mizdaken amount tovery different synchronic phenomena, based ontheir correspondence to spelling. Adhering tothe prevailittg representational view of writingand its so-called irrelevance for synchronic lin-guistic analysis, Barkai (rg7 3;r 5 z-r S 3 ) notes:" (Curiously enough, the orthography indicatesthe voicing assimilation in these metathesizedforms but never anywhere e[se. I do not think,however, that this is relevant in a synchronicgrammar of Hebrew)". Rather than a mererepresentation of diachronic voicing assimila-tion, spelling is a synchronic semiotic fact withlinguistic impact. This case is therefore a piece

of evidence for a causal relationship berrnreen

spelling as a semiotic cause and phonology as

an outcome. As Bentur's study ftg78:Zg-8+)shows, whereas the optional voice assimilationin nridbayei is a phonologically spontaneousfeature of Israeli Hebrew based on linguisticsynchronic grounds, the historic voice assimila-tion inmizdaken conforms in synchronic analy-sis with oralized spelling rather rhan typicallinguistic consraints, and this process accountsfor the shift from historical phonetic variationto synchronic phonological stability of seg-

ments, which are thus unrypically invariable(Neum an zoog: 57 9- 58 z).

rr. FrucruATIoN BETwEEN lIlAND lSl CoRRESPoNDTNG To <lr>

The grapheme <lr> .Sr corresponds bothto l{l and to lsl (discussion based on Neu-man zooga:s8 6-590). As a result, graphemicsequences with this grapheme may induce Kl-lslvariation. The significantly more frequent cor-respondence to lil makes it the primary targetphoneme of .5r.

The homography of the unpointed variantsof Dlt keuei'sheep' and t ?? keuei'ramp' has

led to the keue.6-keuei fluctuation of 'ramp'.The verb n?? 'to spread (inransitive)' oscil-lates in speech bemreen the normative pasa and

the non-normative, but much more frequent

r42

paia.In case of competition between a popularvariant displaying 16l and a normative variantwith /5/, the graphophonemic ambiguiry of <t >

may thwart the introduction of the normativevariant into general usage or at least mightprevent it from becoming an educated alterna-tive. The Israeli Hebrew word for 'sesame',

whose normative variant /Sum5om/ originatingfrom Mishnaic Hebrew Dt ?q, is practicallyunknown to speakers, has the popular variant/Sum6uml, a lexical loan from colloquial Arabicthrough Old Yishuv Palestinian Yiddish (Kos-

over ry66:2481. Even-Shoshan (zoo3) does

contain the entry $pnlD, but only says "see

EIIJD?", thus making it clear that /5um56m/ isnormative and /srimsum/ is non-normative; atthe entry Dlr{IV, the diction ary warrants the

unpointed spelling ElltJDltt) (for the normative/5um55n/) and comments "in spoken Hebrew itis customary to call it nlonlD". But whereas onthe graphemic [eve[ both spellings are current,on the morphophonological level only sumsum

is attested; for example, the Hebrew renditionof the children's television show Sesarne Street

is ElDnlD f,ln-l re&ou sztmsum. The prevaiting

situation is that even a literate speaker whoknows the normative spelling may still ignorethe normative linguistic form, but if <Ut> were

graphophonemically unequivocal, the variantiumionT wotrld be at least known to some and

may have thus enabled some linguistic variationin this word. The Medieval Hebrew coinage

nlf-Urn TfiU 'reorganization of the system' is

known to few, and so there is 16l-16l fluctua-tion (Kaddari rgTo:4o): "'Sfe sometimes read

the phrase nl:-lyn 'TlTtIt. . . in studies and inthe press. And since the pointing disdnctionbenveen a right iin and a ltft *in is unusual inprint, some readers have acquired the habit ofuttering it with 161".

As the most obvious graphemically origi-nated linguistic forms, graphemic abbrevia-tions with .5r originally corresponding to 16l

are most likely lexicalized with lil. First ofall, Yiddish lya6l 'liquor' stems from Hebrew<1-111, l"), which Weinreich (tg8o:309) tran-scribes as yayen-ioref. In Israeli Hebrew, the

first letter of the word nrttl .SDHt liadel'field' is part of a few agricultural and many

military graphemic abbreviations, all of whichare systematically lexicalized with lil due tothe graphophonemic operator <w> l3l . For

GRAI'HOPHONEMIC AS SIGNMENT

example, the term /bitxon Sade/ 'Field Security',written nTU, ilnDrf, is graphemically short-ened to lr"uJ. The lexicalization of u;"t J bygraphophonemic assignment has produced thephonemic sequen ce /bata5/, whose /5/ is absentfrom the parent sequence /bitSon Sade/. Some

cases of graphemic reduction may be qualifiedas 'predetermined', since the graphemic prod-uct is made to coincide with an existing wordand would thus create homonymy. In suchcases, the target word may contain l3l or l3l,regardless of the original phonemic sequence.

For example, the graphemic sequence t:-tDnTrnb rlu: ll5ru corresponding to lmerkazSipur koSre(y) lemida/ (non-normative variant:/kiSre(y)/) 'Center for Enhancing Learning Skills',has been shortened to the graphemic sequence

b"flrD <VtSfL>, lexical ized as /miskal/, mean-itrg primarily 'intelligence'. Another example:the graphemic sequence -[DD

']PnU (-rl;'tt) cor-responding to /('igud) saxqane(y) masa:ry''Scene

Actors' Association', has been shortened to thegraphemic sequence D"nu, .SHMt, lexical izedas /5aXam/, primarily meaning 'granite'. Also,the last name of the Israeli linguist and Presi-dent of the Academy of the Hebrew Language,Moshe Bar-Asher, gained its /5/ from an origi-nal lsl through the process of predeterminedgraphemic reduction: nlllll Dil-lfN lf nUn ->llrtN -+ | 'a5er/ 'Asher' (an existent name). The16l of '|nrUr 'Israeli' becomes lll in predeter-mined lexicalized graphemic reductions such as

f"buln /mi5lav/ from fnf,f, nb:un)'bxrur ilf,Dtnaxon yi1re'eli le-baikala bi-xtau'Israeli Insti-tute for Literate Education' and b"NlttD /mi5'allfrom nfi:Jb rNt rD-tfrjrN ')Hlu'n l:tDn ha-merkaz h a-yi6r e' eli' unittersita' i li-nxuyot'IsraeliAcademic Center for Handicaps'.

rz. Tnn NuMERAL El'Rlr.5tYM>i

'T\ro'

The Masoretic pointing of the numeral DIAt|l,rvith an initial shewa under the w .$r and a

dagesh in che following letter n <T> presentsan anomaly in Tiberian Hebrew graphemics.This pointing is peculiar in ttrrat there is noother form where an initial shewa is followedby r dagesh. Given that (r ) every initial shewais mobile and (z) every shewa that is followedby r dagesh is quiescent, this shewa cannot be

both initial and followed by a dagesh.

GRAPHOPHONEMIC ASSTGNMENT r43

This case raises several questions: Is the the default vowel for the grapheme zero (Neu-sheu,a mobile or quiescent? Is the dagesh forteor lene? Vhat rvas the Masoretic pronunciationof this form? 'Was the /t/ simple or geminate?

Does the assimilation of the erymological lnl(cf. Dll?), whence Samaritan Hebrew iittem,have any implication for the dagesh of Maso-retic D:A!J? If it is a dagesh forte, how couldthe preceding vowel of the expected " iittdyim(<" iintdyim) be reduced to shewa? And if it isa dagesh lene, how could it occur after a shewa

in initial position? Is it the only case in TiberianHebrew of non spiranttzed bgdkpt consonantfollowing a mobile shewa?

The proposed solution is to consider sepa-

rately the morphology of the scribal biblicaltradition and that of the Tiberian tradition. Theunpointed graphemic sequence D?nu .STYMtgoes back to the erymologically expectedr'{ittdyim, which the Masoretes would have

pointed D:IlUt* if they held the same linguistictraditiorr. The actually pointed form testifies tothe lvlasoretic pronunciatio n eitdyim,which the

Masoretes would have pointed DIDIpS. if the

addition of letters had not been an illicit inno-vation in the traditional orthography of scrip-ture. The graphemic sequence D:Bl| is then a

hybrid of a ketiu going back to iittdyim andof a qere maintaining eitriyint The sheu,a is

then quiescent and the dagesh is lene. For the

man zoo4:gzi zoogazt6T-r68; zon:59-6r).For example, while the graphemic abbreviationof nrnln, n'nr nibgn miflaga datit le'umit'Religious National Party' -> <b"Tgn> couldhave been lexicalized as olmifd all, like the pat-tern of -lpln lmifqadl 'census', in reality it is

fmafdaV. Claims for the "acronym lal" to be

Hebrew's "morphological epenthetic vowel"(Bat-El tgg+) have been disproved (Neumanzooga:6og-6ro), oS has the claim that it resultsfrom the fact that the lal vowel has the high-est frequency among Hebrew vowels and thehighest phonetic sonoriry (Bolozky 19991, bydemonstrating that these criteria do nor deter-mine phoneme choice in the lexicalization ofgraphemic sequences, but it is rather phoneme

frequency in relation to the graphenre at handwhich determines the phoneme choice (Neu-man zorza), €.8., for consonant choice (r )t;IJTI l:-1n 'pedagogic center' + <T"!JD> -)lmarpadl and not "/marpaV (although Al is bothmore frequent in Hebrerv and is of higher pho-netic sonoriry than ldl) since <T> correspondsto ldl at a one-hundred percent frequency;and for vowel choice (z) n-ru b'n 'field bat-ralion' -+ <lzrt"n> * /xi5/ with hl and nor withlel (the latter is both more frequent in Hebrewand is of higher phonetic sonoriry than theformer) because

Masoretes, D'Blt/ was pronounced eitdyim, a more frequently than to lel. The same appliescase of lectio perpetua, as is shown by various to the phoneme choice given the zero graph-medieval traditions. eme: it corresponds to lal at - fitty percent of

Since the graphemic sequence n:Ittp cor- its occurrences (/e/ - nventy-nine percent, /i/responds exactly neither to iittdyim nor to - nine percent, and lsl - twelve percent). Theeitdyim, both these forms disappeared from the /a/ insertion in the Yiddish "direct Hebrewtraditional pronunciations in favor of the local verb formation" of the CaCC+en type, i.e.,uaditional graphophonemic interpretation Hebrew consonantal root + Germanic verbalrules characteristic of each Jewish community. suffix ('Weinreich ry65228), also results fromIsraeli Hebrew ittiyim continues the Ashkenazi <s> -) /a/, as implicitly put forward by Massongraphophonemic interpretation of the graphe- (19752168, n. r), given the graphemic rathermic sequence DlIt? (Neuman zooga 1r1-S33i than phonemic existence of the Hebrew root,zoogb). at least during the non-vernacular period of

Hebrew (Neuman zoogaz646). A very similart3. Zr.no GRApHEME * lal useof theabstractrootmorpheme+nounmay

be traced in the Modern Hebrew compoundAmedialzerographemecorresponds tolal morc lt'D1 r-m-z'to hint' + JIN 'or 'light' * 't'ltD't

frequently rhan to any other vowel. As a result, hamzorl 'trafific signal' (Neuman zooga:64),the graphophonemic realization of <s> 'zero' This graphophonemic operator also reshapes

is the vowel /a/ (Neuman zooga$o9-6fi). existent forms: nrlSD 'literature' /sifrut/ has

Thus, when graphemic abbreviations are lexi- the semi-educated by-form lsafratl (even incalized by graphophonemic assignment, /a/ is the url of Haaretz literary supplement:

r44

http ://wrtrur. h a are tz.co .iUliterature/sa fr u t ),' nec -

tarine' entered Hebrew as /naqgarina/ due to the<st> in ilJrlt i:l and in spite of IUP: lneqgar/, theterm b:r-r /rakev eU 'aerial tram\rray' is mostlyknown and used as kaxbaV despite its being

a compound of nff,-] rakeuet 'train' and ):nyeuel'rope', the term

"JrD! /pesimi/ 'pessimis-

tic' has a widespread by-form /pasimil, and the

Franciscan Terra Santa building, |IOJD n-19 {erasanta in Jerusalem has generally been known as

Itaru santa/ for speakers of both Hebrew andArabic (in both languages for the same reason,

also true of many other Franciscan sites in the

Middle East). Cases with unstressed *a-orig-

inated lol (Tiberian short A, pointed r,vith a

qamas qatanl take no uau in standard plene

spelling and are therefore affected by the opera-tor <o> - lal, thus displaying o-3 variation inearly semi-educated sabra Hebrew, €.8., DIDN

'omnAmlamnam'indeed', nrjf,n fuxnit-taxnit' program', Drt-l ;l! s oh or dy im - F ah ar dy im' noor',mnnb lemoyorat*lema[araf 'next d^y' (Tilein-

berg t966:S6h popular spelling tends to addan officially-unrvarranted unu in DJDIN and

ntjfln (but much less in 'noon' and 'next d"y'),so variation with lal ts becoming rare and the

variants famnam/ and /taxnit/ are now mostlyidentified with the speech of historic figures

like Yitzhak Rabin (Neuman ;.e,c,9:618-619).

The first verse of the book of Numbers begins

with':-'p rllFt n?h'r,l-t nl-nl rtlll wa-yfabbar'd/ondy 'el-mo{e ba-midbar stnay 'And the

Lord spoke unto Moses in the wilderness ofSinai' and so the Hebrew appellation of thisbook is lf,TDJ, but in the absence of pointingthe zera grapheme allowed for the reshapingof the word into /bamidbarl (Gevaryahu zoo4;Neuman zoo 9a:6r 5-61 6).

RTFERENCESAllon, Emmanuel. rgg1. Unuocalized Hebretu writ-

ing: The structure of Hebrew wards in s"yntacticcontexr (in Hebrew). Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion Uni-versity of the Negev Press.

Anis, ja.qu.s. r98r. "Ecrit/oral: Discordances,autonomies, transpositions". Etudes de linguis-tique appliqude 4z;7-zz.

GRAPHOPHONEMIC AS SIGNMENT

Bentur, Esther. rg78. "Some effects of orthographyon the linguistic knowledg. of Modern Hebrewspeakers". PhD dissertation, Universiry of Illinois.

-. tg78a. o'Orthography and the formulation of

phonological rules". Studies in the lingtistic sci-ences 8: r-25.

Benvenisti, David. 1985. "Hebrew words in Judeo-Spanish" (in Hebrew). Auraham Euen-ShoshanFestschrift, ed. by Ben-Zion Luria, gg-r38. Jeru-salem: Kiryat Sefer.

Birnbauffi, Solomon A. rg79. Yiddish: A su.ruey anda granln'Mtr. Toronto: Universiry of Toronto Press.

Blau, Joshua . rg7o. On pseudo-corrections in sorneSemitic languages. Jerusalem: The Israeli Academyof Sciences.

Bloomfield, Leonard. rg33. Langtaga New York:Holt.

-. rg6g ftgl3J. "The structure of learnEd !vords".

The English language, ed. by \'[hitney F. Boltonand David Crystal, vol. L, r 57-t62. Cambridge:Cambridge Universify Press.

Bolinger, Dwight L. 1946. "Visual morphemes".Language zz;jj3-j4o.

Bolozky, Shmuel. r9gg. "On the special status ofthe vowels lal and lel in Israeli Hebrew". HebrewSmdies 4ot z3i-2-Sa

-. Loo3. "Phonological and morphological varia-

tion in spoken Hebrew". Corpus lingristics andModern Hebrew: Towards the compilation of theCorpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CaSIH), ed. byBenjamin H, H"ry, rr5-r56. Tel-Aviv: Tel-AvivUniversity.

Breuer, Yochanan. zooz. The Hebrew in the Baby-Ionian Talmnd according to the manuscripts ofTractate Pesal,tim (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: TheHebrew Universify and Magnes Press.

Catach, Nina. 1986. *The grapherne: Its position andits degree of autonorny with respect to the systemof the language". New trends in graphemics andorthograpby, ed. by Gerhardt Augst, r-rr. Berlin /New York: \)ilalter de Gruyter.

Cornrie, Bernard and Gerald Stone. r978.Tbe RussianIangwage since the Reuolutian Oxford: Clarendon.

Ccrulmas, Florian. rgg1,. "Linguistic problerns ofliteracy-Introduction" . lournal of Pragmatics

7467-477.

-. Tg84. "The irnpact of writing on language".

Semiotics unfolding z: Proceedings of the SecondCongress of the International Associatian for Semi-otic Srudies, Vienna, Jtily rg7g Part 4: Linguisticsand Semiotics ed. by Tasso Borb6, r ro3-r r r r .

Berlin / New York I Amsterdam; Mouton.

-. zoo3. Writing systems: An introduction to

their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: CarnbridgeUniversity Press.

Derrida, Jacques. 1967. De Ia gramnxatologie. Paris:Minuit.

-. r94. "Pour une graph6matique autonome'. Eisenberg, Peter. 1983. "Writing system and mor-

Le signifiant graphique (Langue frangaise 59), ed, phology: Some orthographic regularities of Ger-by Jacques Anis, 3 r-44. man" . 'Writing in foans, ed. by Florian Coulmas

Barkai, Malachi. ry73. "Problems in the phonology and Konrad Ehlich, 63-8o. Berlin: Mouton.of Israeli Hebrew'. PhD dissertation, University of Even-Shoshan, Avraham. zoo3. Ha-milon ha:IuriIllinois at Urbana-Champaign. he-wdaS.Jerusalem: ha-Milon he-{ada5.

Bentolila, Yaakov. zooo. *Popular homonymy" (in Gevaryahu, Gilad Y. zoo4. "Is it be-midbar or ba-Hebrew). Raphael Nir Festscbrift, ed. by Ora R. midbar? A study of the nam-es of the Pentateuch

Schwarzwald et a1.,35v358. Jerusalem: Carmel. books' (in Hebrew). Beit Mikra 49t74-r84.

Haas, l7illiam. l 98z,. "On the normative characterof language'. Standard languages: Spoken andwritten, €d. by lfilliam Haas, r-36. N{anchester:Manchester University Press.

Hall, Robert. 19 50. Leaue yaur langttage Alone.Ithaca, New York: Linguistica.

Harris, Roy. 'r:.gg4. La s,1rniologie de I'6criture. Paris:CNRS.

-. zooo. Rethinking Writing. London: Athlone.

Hockett, Charles. rg6 S. A course in modern linguis-tics. New York: Macmillan.

Householder, Fred 'W. rg7r. "The primary of writ-ing". Linguistic speculations, ed. Fred Householder,244-264. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jaffr6, Jean-Pierre. 1982. "La question de lo6crit".Liaisons HESO 7i7-zz.

Kaddari, Menah em Zevi. rg7o. Tbe medieual heri-tage af Modern Hebrew usage (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Dvir.

Katz, Dovid. 1987. Grammar of the Yiddish lan-guage. London: Duckworth.

Kosover, Mordecai. tg66. Arabic elements in Pales-tinian Yiddish: Tlte Old Ashkenazic Iewish com-munity in Palestine, its language and its history.

Jerusalem: Rubin Mass.Lieberrnan, Stephen I. t9gr. "Toward a graphemics

of the Tiberian Bible" . Linguistics and BiblicalHebrew, €d. by l7alter R. Bodine, z5 5-,"78.

'Win-

ona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.Lyons, Johrr. 1968. Introdttction to theoretical lin-

guistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Masson, Michel. r97vrg7t "Remarques surI'exploitation s6lective des schEmes classiques en

lr6breu isra6lien". Comptes rendus du Groupe Lin-gttistique d'Etudes Chamito-S,hmitiques (GLECS)r 5:5 7-5 4.

-, rg76. Les mots nouueau)c en hdbreu ntodern.

Paris: Publications orientalistes de France.Mishor, Mordechay. r98o. "Ashkenazi traditions:

Towards a method of research' (in Hebrew).Massot'ot: Studies in the Language Traditions and

Jewish Languages j-4187-t27.Morag, Shelomo. r9q. The Hebreu, Iang'mge tradi-

tian of the Yemenite lews (in Hebrew). Jerusalern:The Academy of dre Hebrew Language.

Neuman, Yishai. zoo4. "De l'6crit i I'oral: La lexi-calisation des abr6r'iations de l'6crit en h6breumoderne". Ecritures abr6.gdes; No/es, notules,messflges, codes... .' L'abrduiation entre pratiquesspontandes, codifications, modernitt et histoire,ed. by Nelly Andrieux-Reix, Sonia Branca-Rosoff'and Christian Puech, 8 r-95. Paris: Ophrys.

-. zooga. "L'influence de l',Scriture sur la langue".

PhD dissertation, Universit6 de la SorbonneNouvelle.

-. zoogb. "The numeral u:nq in Biblical Hebrew"

(in Hebrew) . Tzaphenath-Paieaht Lfuguistic stu'd-ies presented to Elisha Qhnron on the occasian ofhis sixty-fifth birtbday, ed. by Daniel Sivan andDavid Talshir, L8g-3r8. Beer-Sheva: Ben-GurionUniversify Press and Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.

-. Lorr. "Pragrnatic, semantic and graphopho-

nemic factors in the lexicalization of graphemicabbreviations" (in Hebrew). Proceedings of tbeHaiim B. Rosdn Israeli Linguistic Society XVI[,ed. by Zohar Livnat, Yael Maschler and Tamar

GRAPHOPHONEMIC AS SI GNMENT r45

Zewi, 3 5-75. Bar-Ilan and Haifa: Bar-Ilan Univer-sity and University of Haifa.

-. zorz. *The diphthong [eyJ in Modern Hebrew:

Its origin and the factors conditioning its distribu-tion" (in Hebrew). Hebrew: A liuing language,vol. 6, ed. by Rina Ben-shahar and Nitza Ben-Ari,237-26o. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad andThe Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.

-, zorza. "On the productiviry of noun patterns

in graphemically-based lexical formation in IsraeliHebrew'. Paper presented at the NAPH Inter-national Conference, June LS-L7, Universiry ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

Olson, David. 1994. The world on paper: The con-ceptual and cognitiue implicatiotts of reading andwriting. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press.

Ornan, Uzzi. rg74. "Ordered rules and the so-calledphonologization of ancient allophones in IsraeliHebrew". Proceeding-s of the Eleuenth Interna-tional Congress of Linguistics, Bologna-Florence,Aug. z*-Sept. z, 1972, ed, by Luigi Heilmann,roL1-roz6. Bologna: il Mulino.

Rosrin, Haiim B. 19 j8, "L'h6breu isradlien". Reuuedes |nrdes iuiues rrTi1g-ga.

-. rg77. Contemporary Hebrew. Paris: Mouton.

Sapir, Edrvard. r9zr. Language, New York: Har-court-Brace.

de Saussure, Ferdinand. t9.t6. Cours de linguistiEtegi1ndrale. Ed. by Tullio De Mauro. Paris: Payot,1967.

Shivtiel, Itzhak. rg1r bg++\. "Yemenite traditionsin Mishnaic Hebrew grammar' (in Hebrew) . Col-lection of articles in Mishnaic Hebrew, vol. r,ed. by Moshe Bar-Asher, l-L4-zzg. Jerusalem:Akademon.

Sarfatti, Gad Ben-Ami. rgg4. "More on unpointedHebrew' (in Hebren'). L\iondnu IaJAm 45:16-r8.

Srivastava) Ravindra N. and R. S. Gupta. rg9j. *Alinguistic view of literacy" . lountal of Pragmatics7t533-549.

Vachek, Josef . Lgjg. "Zum Problern der geschrie-benen Sprache". Trauattx du Cercle Lingttistiquede Prague 8:g4-r04; English version: idem, rg8g."On the problem of written language". Writtenlanguage reuisited. Ed. by Philip L. Luelsdorff,ro3-r r 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

-. r9T4. "The primacy of writing?" Special issue

of IRAL on the accasion of Bertil Malmberg's6oth birthday, ed. by Gerhard Nickel, rzr-r3o.Heidelberg: Julius Groos; reprinted in idern,, 1989."On the problern of written language". WrittenIanguage reuisited. Ed. by Philip L. Luelsdorff,LS-34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Weinberg, 'Werner. 1966. "spoken Israeli Hebrew:Trends in the departures from classical phonol-ogy" . Journal of Semitic Swdies r r:4o-68.

Weinreich, Max. r98o. History of the Yiddish lan-gu"age. Chicago / London: The Universiry of Chi-cago Press,

Weinreich, Uriel. 1965. Ashkenazic Hebrew and theHebreru component in Yiddish (in Hebrew). Jeru-salem: The Acaderny of the Hebrerv Language.

YIssru NEuuex(State University of New York, Geneseo)

ENCYCLOPE,DIA OFHEBRE,\T LANGI.]AGE,

AND LII{GT]ISTICSVolume L

G-O

General Editor

Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors

Shmuel Bolok ySteven E, FassbergGary A. Rendsburg

Aaron D. RubinOra R. Schwarzwald

Tamar Zewi

*t: ,oo,

4

F

F

Iq'/og3'

BRILL

LEIDENT O BOSTONzor3