**3.2 Iconicity and instanciators**

at phono-morphological errors across potential sensitive allomorphic processes. Furthermore, dealing with Berber [53] reduplication iconicity, we should first pinpoint the reason why we would not apply a morphological auto-segmental model proposed by McCarthy and others [54, 55] to study templatic languages. We consider the semitic root [56, 57] as a category to study Berber reduplication, emphasizing nonetheless that this last has been adapted [58] by early berberologists under the influence

Moreover, reduplication has been posited by the grammars rather as a reconstruction method widely interested in defining the morphological structure of the root/scheme of the verb (biliteral/triliteral roots), leading to a heterogeneous dealing between the definition of the etymon (diachronic, non-analytical object) and the verbal root lacking morpho-semantic thematicity unlike Arabic and Hebrew morphology (Hebrew Binyanim and Arabic awzān). Thus, what have been called Berber roots are, in our consideration, verbal individual consonantal templates of a formative principle (formantization) enabling flectional and reduced derivational

processes. An example from this heterogeneous fact is the following table:

**Phono-morphological**

No Yes (reduplication) No (diachronic or dialectal)

From which we can conclude that Berber reduplication [59] (except expressivity driven forms) is purely iconic in the sense that a segment of the lexical template undergoes a semantic process that implement its meaning or motivates it across its phono-lexical constituents (describing the process, the case in its aspectual nature, intensity, result, etc.). Henceforth, we will deal with lexical intra-reduplication

**Reduplicative pattern (with lexical**

**bV1** /Ca**CbV1C**<sup>0</sup>

If this reduplication could be defined as an example for iconicity (or analytical one), in the sense of Downing and Stiebels [60], phonosthemes present stable quantitative syllabic-prosodic patterns on phonotactic levels (onset/coda positions

**Phonotactic position Taxemes Cluster/lexical inventory** Onset (2/3 rules) T1 (O) /spr/, /st/: spread, stare Coda (2/3 rules) T2 (C) /mbl/, /zl/: mumble, dazzle Onset.coda (2/3.1 and 2/3.2 rules) T3 (O.C) /fl/./ʃ/, /gr/./pl/: flush, grapple

**bC**<sup>0</sup>

**bC**<sup>0</sup>

Yes Yes (tensing /g/) Flectional-aspectual (ign (perfect he

**Lexical distinctiveness**

slept/ ar iggan continuous he's sleeping)

**Inventory**

**bV2** RF/RG/SM: RG ---rgagi: shake and tremble

Zmummeg: smile pleasantly

**BCc** ZMG/CTL: ZMG ----

**BCd** SKRS ---- Skerkes: to lie

**process**

of semitic epistemology and not from an internal point of view.

**Allomorphic form**

*Cognitive and Intermedial Semiotics*

patterns on their CV skeletons as following:

CaCb **CaCbV1C**<sup>0</sup>

**CaCbCc CaCbV1C**<sup>0</sup>

**CaCbCCCd CaCbCCC**<sup>0</sup>

or on both) based on the following rules:

**melody)**

**Formative-verbal individual**

**root**

**112**

**Template "Root"/ example**

GN — gwnenni (aorist: rolling)

GN — gn (aorist: sleeping)

Our approach, whose frame we have presented earlier, grounds in iconicity defined as form/structure imitation and form/structure schematization of meaning from a non-morphological perspective. We would henceforth adopt the framework of gestural scores and phonological-prosodic representations of both English clusters and Berber sequences.

### *3.2.1 English typological processes*

*3.2.1.1 English 2/3 C and O/2.3*

We focus in the following both phonosthemic rules from the perspective of gestural scores (subsegment) and syllabic structure:

• 2/3 cluster rules (T1 (O)): inventory example (/sp/ in <spell>)

We adopt the approach of articulatory phonology considering gestures as potential units of sub-segmental events [61–63]. We thus describe gestural taxemes that enable segment insertion models in iconicity:

• The gestural scores for word initial <spell>:

• Featural/prosodic structure /spell/

• T2 (C): gestural /feature prosodic structures: <puzzle>

principle [64] are preserving or violating rules that stipulate sonority instructions for the representation on both coda/onset positions [65, 66]. Other approaches suggest some of these rules could be intuited from the lexicon [67]. Furthermore, instructions from moraic weight and sonority principle can explain why these rules

• Gestural instructions: deleting the alveolar fricative and opening the glottis.

• Sequencing deletion: from the sonority hierarchy rule (3 2 1): obstruent stops 3

Are elicited adopting the frame of both optimality theory [69] and the sonority/ weight derivation hierarchy, (a) and (b) optimal rules we emphasize in the following:

• Then, mora—sonority hierarchy as claimed by D. Zac (2003) may also explain

Where: weight is ruled by head/constituents and hierarchy levels on the syllable.

It also emphasizes the lexical basis of deletion/adding principle.

*3.2.2.3 2/3 deletion principle: English codas*

• Closing/opening the glottis

**/mbl/** ! **/bl/** Gestural principle:

**115**

are not preserved by many natural languages as shown by Zec [68].

*The Biolinguistic Instantiation: Form to Meaning in Brain/Syllable Interactions*

• SSP principle: preserving SSP for the syllable peak.

a. Only 2 (OF) > 3 (OS) <1 (A)

b. And 3 (OS) <1 (A)

(OS)—obstruent fricative 2 (OF)—Approximants (A)

• First, abrupt rise in sonority is more preferred [70, 71]

*3.2.2.2 3/2 deletion principle: English onsets*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89943*

/skr/ ! /kr/

this case:

Based on both gestural and phonological/prosodic structures, we would first pinpoint that the phasing rules of prevocalic/postvolcalic consonants (see Browman et al.) in clusters are restricted by the vowel (the so called C-center effect) which makes both coda-onset consonants dependent on vowel (nucleus) timing. We then hypothesize a lexical timing process related to sensitiveness. This would bring us to analyze both mirroring effect of 2/3 rules and their permutations within the phonotactic frame.

#### *3.2.2 Phonotactic and lexical-semantic iconicity*

#### *3.2.2.1 Onset deletion-adding rules: 2/3 clusters*

We hypothesize that 2/3 onset rules in English are gestural/featural deletion modes adding/deleting rules from both lexicon/syllable analysis oriented toward semantic clustering and conceptual framing of the verbs. We first, would like to underline that seen from the segmental point of view, addition/deletion rules of SSP *The Biolinguistic Instantiation: Form to Meaning in Brain/Syllable Interactions DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89943*

principle [64] are preserving or violating rules that stipulate sonority instructions for the representation on both coda/onset positions [65, 66]. Other approaches suggest some of these rules could be intuited from the lexicon [67]. Furthermore, instructions from moraic weight and sonority principle can explain why these rules are not preserved by many natural languages as shown by Zec [68].
