Arabic - A Linguistic Introduction

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314HTL.3D

i [1–2] 24.10.2013 9:30AM

Arabic This lively introduction to the linguistics of Arabic provides students with a concise overview of the language’s structure and its various components: its phonology, morphology, and syntax. Through exercises, discussion points and assignments built into every chapter, the book presents the Arabic language in vivid and engaging terms, encouraging students to grasp the complexity of its linguistic situation. It presents key linguistic concepts and theories related to Arabic in a coherent way, helping to build students’ analytical and critical skills. Key features:


study questions, exercises, and discussion points in every chapter encourage students to engage with the material and undertake specific assignments;


suggestions for further reading in every chapter allow readers to engage in more extensive research on relevant topics; and


technical terminology is explained in a helpful glossary. k a r i n c . r y d i n g is Sultan Qaboos bin Said Professor Emerita of Arabic linguistics at Georgetown University, where she taught Arabic linguistics for over twenty years.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314HTL.3D

ii [1–2] 24.10.2013 9:30AM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4457415/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314TTL.3D

iii [3–3] 23.10.2013 2:31PM

Arabic A Linguistic Introduction

KARIN C. RYDING

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4465676/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314IMP.3D

iv

[4–4] 25.10.2013 5:26PM

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107606944 © Karin C. Ryding 2014 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2014 Printed in the United Kingdom by MPG Printgroup Ltd, Cambridge A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data ISBN 978-1-107-02331-4 Hardback ISBN 978-1-107-60694-4 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314TOC.3D

v [5–6] 24.10.2013 9:26AM

Contents Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations and symbols used in this book

page vii ix xi 1

1

Arabic linguistics: overview and history

2

Arabic phonology

13

3

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology

23

4

Arabic syllable structure and stress

33

5

Introduction to Arabic morphology

41

6

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

55

7

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon

79

8

Arabic inflectional morphology

89

9

Syntactic analysis and Arabic

107

10

Arabic syntax I: phrase structure

119

11

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

127

Appendices A Fields of linguistics and Arabic B Arabic transcription/transliteration/romanization C Arabic nominal declensions Glossary of technical terms References Index

141 145 149 157 167 181

v

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314TOC.3D

vi [5–6] 24.10.2013 9:26AM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314PRF.3D

vii [7–8] 24.10.2013 9:33AM

Preface Despite widening international interest in Arabic language and culture, few resources exist for a systematic introduction to the linguistics of Arabic and for teaching the basics of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics. This is true despite the fact that distinguished works exist in Arabic, English, and other languages examining and documenting Arabic language history, structure, and processes. Works by Aoun, Badawi, Bateson, Beeston, Bohas, Carter, Eid, Holes, Owens, Parkinson, Stetkevych, Talmon, Versteegh and others have contributed vastly to understanding the linguistics of Arabic. However, there is a place for an organized overview, both as a reference tool and as a foundational textbook for learning about the field. For teaching courses on Arabic linguistics, I have used books and articles by all the above-mentioned authors. In particular, I have found that Bateson’s Arabic Language Handbook, Beeston’s The Arabic Language Today, and Stetkevych’s The Modern Arabic Literary Language useful for concise summaries of key topics. These books originally date from 1967 (Bateson) and 1970 (Beeston and Stetkevych). Holes’ Modern Arabic (2004) is a more modern and comprehensive approach, but I have found that it is less useful as a textbook than as a reference work, and I usually assign only certain parts of it. Versteegh’s book The Arabic Language (1997), provides historical background for key developments in the Arabic language but does not analyze the actual linguistic structures and processes of contemporary modern standard Arabic (MSA). Owens’ many excellent works on the history of Arabic and of Arabic grammatical theory are focused primarily on premodern developments. Thus none of these books – despite their many merits – forms by itself a framework for a course in contemporary Arabic linguistics, and there is a distinct need for a more pedagogically focused work that includes discussion topics, questions, and suggestions for further readings on specific subjects. This book aims to meet the challenges of teaching elements of Arabic linguistics to students and teachers-in-training who may know little about linguistic theory, and for classes where there are mixed levels of ability in the language and in academic background.

vii

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314PRF.3D

viii

viii

[7–8] 24.10.2013 9:33AM

Preface

In 2005, I published A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic based on a corpus of data from contemporary Arabic newspapers and other types of expository prose. It was intended for audiences of Arabic learners and teachers, as well as those with a general interest in the grammatical features of the written language. The present book is a more technical introduction to the structures and processes that characterize Arabic linguistics, aiming to gather in one place current scholarly resources and theories for study and further research. It has emerged and been distilled from the content of graduate courses that I have taught at Georgetown University during the past thirty years. Rather than adopt one particular theoretical stance, I have chosen to be as objectively descriptive as possible, introducing theories of varying levels of formality and indicating where readers may want to pursue further reading on particular topics. Due to length limitations, I have had to omit a considerable amount of interesting and relevant research; likewise I have omitted extended descriptions of grammatical structures because this is not a grammar of Arabic, but an introduction to linguistics as applied to Arabic. A key factor motivating the writing of this book is the need for more extensive professional resources for teachers of Arabic as a foreign language, especially with the steady demand for knowledge of Arabic language both as a professional skill and as a discipline within the fields of humanities and social sciences. Teaching practical knowledge of Arabic relies on the sophistication and depth of understanding that teachers bring to their classes – understanding not only the rules of language structure, but the theoretical underpinnings of the language, its intellectual and scholarly heritage, and the ways in which its grammatical system can be elegantly and efficiently portrayed. This book may serve as a text in courses on Arabic language and linguistics, or courses on Arabic pedagogy, or it may serve to give non-specialists a general picture of linguistic issues in MSA. In designing this book, I have assumed an audience with some knowledge of the Arabic language, but little knowledge of technical linguistic terms, theories, or approaches. There are bound to be those who will find shortcomings and gaps in this overview, and I assume total responsibility for any errors or deficiencies. I hope that this book will constitute a useful first step in conveying the enormous wealth of meaningful data, methods of linguistic research, and critical insights into language systems that have made progress through close analysis of Arabic language structures and processes.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314ACK.3D

ix [9–10] 25.10.2013 9:38AM

Acknowledgments I would like to thank and acknowledge the following people, past and present, who inspired me, helped me form my ideas for this book, and assisted me toward its completion: my Georgetown professors Wallace M. Erwin and Michael Zarechnak, who led me to and through Arabic linguistics; my students, who challenged and stimulated my thinking on points of Arabic linguistics; my colleagues at Georgetown, outstanding Arabists and linguists; at Cambridge University Press, Andrew Winnard, for his unfailing support and encouragement every step of the way, and to Helena Dowson for her attentive and patient help in finalizing the manuscript; my husband, Victor Litwinski, for being a vital interlocutor on all things linguistic, and for his unstinting professional and emotional support; and His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman, whose patronage and encouragement of Arabic language study has been a great boon to the development of Arabic linguistics, transcultural communication, and intercultural understanding.

ix

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314ACK.3D

x [9–10] 25.10.2013 9:38AM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314LOA.3D

xi [11–12] 24.10.2013 9:37AM

Abbreviations and symbols used in this book Additional abbreviations used specifically in syntactic theory are listed at greater length in Chapter 9. acc. adj. adv. AP C dat. def. du. EALL ESA f./fem. fut. gen. IC imp. indef. indic. m./masc. MSA N no. nom. NP O pl. PP pron.

accusative adjective adverb active participle any consonant (phonology); complement, complementizer (syntax) dative definite dual Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics educated spoken Arabic feminine future genitive immediate constituent imperfect indefinite indicative masculine Modern Standard Arabic noun number nominative noun phrase object plural passive participle pronoun xi

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314LOA.3D

xii

xii [11–12] 24.10.2013 9:37AM

Abbreviations and symbols

S sing. subj. UG V vd vls VN VP VV WFR # {} // [] “” * ~ small caps

subject; sentence singular subject; subjunctive universal grammar any short vowel (phonology); verb (syntax) voiced voiceless verbal noun verb phrase any long vowel word formation rule word boundary morpheme boundary encloses morpheme encloses phonemic transcription encloses phonetic transcription encloses glosses indicates a hypothetical or nonstandard form ‘alternates with; or’ indicate morphemic structure

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

1 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

1

Arabic linguistics: overview and history 1.

Introduction

In approaching the study of human language in general, if the aim is to categorize, classify, and identify how languages work, then these functions must be based on clearly documented empirical observations. This kind of activity separates linguistics from anecdotal, philosophical, impressionistic, or speculative observations about language that may come from anyone anywhere. Linguistics can be defined as follows. (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Linguistics is “the study of language as a system of human communication” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 343). Linguistics is “a natural science, on a par with geology, biology, physics, and chemistry.” And “the task of linguistics is to explain the nature of human language, through active involvement in the description of language – each viewed as an integrated system – together with explanation of why each language is the way it is, allied to the further scientific pursuits of prediction and evaluation” (Dixon 2010: 1). “For the beginning linguist, saying that linguistics is a science can be interpreted as implying careful observation of the relevant real-world phenomena, classification of those phenomena, and the search for useful patterns in the phenomena observed and classified. For the more advanced linguist, saying that linguistics is a science is a matter of seeking explanations for the phenomena of language and building theories which will help explain why observed phenomena occur while phenomena which are not observed should not occur” (Bauer 2007: 17). “Linguists believe that their field is a science because they share the goals of scientific inquiry, which is objective (or more properly intersubjectively accessible) understanding” (Aronoff and Rees-Miller 2001: xiv). “The task of linguistics is to explain the nature of human language, through active involvement in the description of languages – each viewed as an integrated system – together with explanation of why each language 1

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

2

2 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Arabic linguistics: overview and history

is the way it is, allied to the further scientific pursuits of prediction and evaluation” (Dixon 2010a: 1). The field of linguistics is therefore seen as a scientific approach to language in all its diversity: spoken and written, formal and informal, internal and external. It concerns the analysis of language in use (such as conversation analysis), language as a universal form of human cognition (e.g., universal grammar), theories of language structure, and language acquisition in its various forms. Linguistics is descriptive rather than prescriptive; it aims to document and explain language as it is, rather than to prescribe rules of performance.1

1.1.

Linguistics and grammar

It is important to distinguish the realm of linguistics from the more subordinate concept of ‘grammar.’ In fact, it is important to delineate exactly what ‘grammar’ denotes. Usually, the term ‘grammar’ refers to the study of both morphology and syntax: word structure and clause structure. Because morphology and syntax often interact, a core component of grammar is morphosyntax. One definition of grammar states that “a grammar consists of a number of closed systems – categories such as tense, gender, and evidentiality – and a number of construction types, or ways of relating together words into phrases, clauses, sentences, and utterances” (Dixon 2010a: 23). A linguist’s way of looking at grammar is as a “descriptive” mechanism that accounts for all the morphological and syntactic phenomena in a language.2 A more didactic view of grammar is “prescriptive,” i.e., a grammar indicates what is correct and incorrect usage. The former takes language as it is and describes it; the latter takes an idealized standard of language and provides rules for adherence to that standard. Both are useful in terms of language pedagogy, but it is important to know that linguists rarely see language in black and white – correct or incorrect; rather, they view language as a feature of human cognition and behavior, and try to characterize that behavior (or cognition, as it may be) as accurately and empirically as possible.

2.

Linguistics and Arabic

Arabic linguistics is a vast field combining study of the Arabic language with the analytical disciplines that constitute the field of linguistics. Linguistic theories, methods, and concepts are used to analyze the structure and processes of Arabic; but at the same time, Arabic with its millennium-long intellectual

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

3 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Linguistics and Arabic

3

traditions, its complex morphology, and its current broad diversity of registers, informs linguistic theory. Many linguistic approaches to Arabic language analysis have been applied over the past fifty years both within the Arab world and from the point of view of western scholars. These approaches and their disciplinary procedures are both varied and convergent, covering a wealth of data but also coming to terms with central issues of concern to Arabic linguistics that had been neglected in the past, such as validating the prominent role of vernacular Arabic and variation theory in Arabic society and culture. Arabic linguistics is now an active subfield in sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, and computational linguistics as well as theoretical and applied linguistics. Both traditional and new genres of Arabic writing are now being examined within postmodern frameworks of literary theory and linguistic analysis. Media Arabic studies is a new and rapidly growing field; medieval texts are being re-examined in the light of new philology and discourse analysis; previously ignored forms of popular culture such as songs, advertisements, oral poetry, vernacular writing, letters, email, and blogs are now legitimate grist for the linguistics mill. The discipline of linguistics has a growing number of subfields. The traditional four core divisions usually include theoretical linguistics, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, and computational linguistics. Each of these has developed new applications, perspectives, hypotheses, and discoveries that extend their analytical power in novel ways, such as cognitive linguistics in theoretical linguistics, second language acquisition in applied linguistics, corpus linguistics in the computational field, and discourse analysis in sociolinguistics. When these perspectives and theories are applied to Arabic, the findings can be revealing, satisfying, or puzzling, but generally lead toward greater understanding of how languages work, how they resemble each other, and how they differ. The field of computational linguistics has provided ways to develop extensive corpora of spoken and written Arabic that can be used for pioneering research and analysis of language in use. An active subfield of linguistics – history of linguistics – examines linguistic historiography, the development of language analysis over time, and the evolution of grammatical theory in different cultures. The phonological, morphological, and syntactic structures of Arabic reflect its Semitic origins and its essential differences from Indo-European languages. These differences and their cultural embeddedness are what make Arabic of interest to research in many fields of linguistics. For example, the particularly well-defined and elaborated verb system and its derivations reflect an aspect of Classical Arabic that is both fascinating and rigorous in its structure and linguistic logic.3 As another example, the contrasts between vernacular and written language, their different roles within Arab society, and the tensions between local and regional linguistic identities, form areas of sociolinguistics that pose particular challenges to data

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

4

4 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Arabic linguistics: overview and history

collection, empirical study, and objective analysis. Many research challenges and opportunities still lie ahead in this regard.4

2.1.

Theoretical linguistics

In a very real sense theoretical linguistics is the mother of all branches of linguistic science and it is often referred to as “general linguistics” because of its wide range of coverage. Prior to the emergence of the field of modern linguistics, philology was the term used for the study of language structure and literary tradition, with special focus on historical developments and relationships among cognate languages (comparative philology). The examination and analysis of language families, their relationships and development is referred to as diachronic analysis (analysis of language structure and growth over time).5

2.1.1.

Background

The nineteenth century witnessed a shift in perspective away from diachronic analysis to synchronic analysis; that is, the examination of language as it is at any point in time, especially contemporary language. In pinning down language as an object of study, one of the first steps of early linguists was to establish its systematic nature and the difference between abstract language-as-a-system and concrete language-in-use (see Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole).6 It was language-as-a-system that early twentiethcentury structural linguists such as Jespersen, Sapir, and Bloomfield believed would yield the most fruitful research results because it was an objective reality measurable in reliable, empirical ways. Central to the structural linguistic approach is the difference between descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar, the idea that theories focus on discovering and describing the structures and processes of language as it is, rather than on placing particular values on the type or register of language involved, or on prescribing rules for “correct” language use. A turning point in theoretical linguistics was reached in the mid 1960s, when Noam Chomsky, in his seminal text on generative grammar, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, offered a distinction between human beings’ knowledge of language (“competence”) and their actual use of language (“performance”) (1965: 4). The focus was still on language as a system, only Chomsky’s theory crucially included cognition as a key component of language systems and processes. He stressed that “linguistic theory . . . is concerned with discovering a mental reality underlying actual behavior” (1965: 4).7 In Chomsky’s view, syntax – the structures and processes of sentence-building – is the key to revealing that mental reality. In addition to placing syntactic structure at the center of linguistic theory, Chomsky

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

5 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Linguistics and Arabic

5

posited the existence of linguistic universals, structures, and concepts that are common to all human communication, and which indicate that human beings are uniquely endowed with a shared cognitive capacity to learn and use language.

2.1.2.

Generative grammar and beyond

The notion of generative grammar within the study of linguistics is well defined by Haegeman, who states: “The total of all the rules and principles that have been formulated with respect to a language constitutes the grammar of that language. A grammar of a language is a coherent system of rules and principles that are at the basis of the grammatical sentences of a language. We say that a grammar generates the sentences of a language” (1994: 5) (emphasis in original). The concept of generative grammar is thus based on sentence grammar, how humans construct their syntactic rule-systems, and what those rule-systems are. Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, debate and conceptual developments in theoretical linguistics have flourished, different theoretical approaches yielding different types of analysis, from the detailed descriptions done in terms of structuralism to the powerful formalisms of generative syntactic theory. In recent years various theoretical approaches to the study of language have developed in addition to generative theory, such as relational grammar, lexical– functional grammar, cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, functional linguistics, lexical semantics, and others.

2.1.3.

Basic linguistic theory and relational grammar

One approach that has been fruitful for the discussion and description of many languages is Dixon’s “Basic Linguistic Theory” (BLT) (Dixon 2010). BLT “consists in study and comparison of the grammatical patterns of individual languages” (Dixon 2010: 5), and centers on the fact that “every grammar is an integrated system. Each part relates to the whole; its role can only be understood and appreciated in terms of the overall system to which it belongs” (Dixon 2010: 24). Along these lines, Dixon also characterizes grammar as “an abstract system of interlocking elements” (2010: 34). This concept of language structure helps to focus analysis not just on individual components of language (e.g., morphology, phonology, syntax), but how those parts interrelate with the whole; that is, how various language systems and sub-systems synchronize and synthesize to create a complex and effective network of communication.8 Relational grammar (RG) emerged as an alternative to transformational/generative grammar in the 1970s. “RG sought to do justice to the interaction between grammatical relations, case relations, and thematic roles across language” (Butt 2006: 33). I have found that RG is useful in analyzing Arabic syntax and semantics,

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

6

6 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Arabic linguistics: overview and history

in part because “RG implicitly assumes a relationship between overt case marking and grammatical relations,” (Butt 2006: 36) but also because of its compatibility with traditional categories of Arabic dependency relations. In addition, concepts from lexical semantics (formerly “generative” semantics) and lexical decomposition (especially predicate decomposition) are well suited to the analysis of Arabic syntax and especially morphosyntax.9

2.1.4.

Arabic linguistics

As applied to Arabic, linguistic theory has yielded many insightful studies and also ways of approaching the language with precise, well-delineated analytical, and discovery procedures. Particularly in the area of derivational morphology, Arabic offers a highly systematic and even exemplary perspective on language structure. In an overview of Arabic linguistics, Eid notes that: Two approaches are identified as being dominant in research in theoretical linguistics. One is more focused on developing a theory, or a part thereof, with data from individual language(s) serving as a testing ground for a specific model being developed or an argument being made. The other is more focused on analyzing linguistic data and discovering principles underlying a linguistic system, with the theory being a means of approaching the data . . . Both approaches are well represented in the literature on Arabic theoretical linguistics. (1990: 12–13)

Modern theoretical linguistics focuses to a large extent on syntax: phrase structure and clause structure. Much of the linguistic work on Arabic in recent years has centered around word order, subordination, coordination, conjunction, agreement, relative clauses, prepositional phrases, transitivity, argument structure, and other components of syntax and morphosyntax. The John Benjamins series, Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics (now amounting to more than twenty volumes), reproduces selected papers from the annual meeting of the Arabic Linguistics Society, and is a key resource for anyone interested in current theoretical thinking about Arabic. As well as analyzing Classical Arabic and MSA, theoretical linguistics has significantly improved the understanding of vernacular Arabic grammatical structures through the results of persistent and painstaking fieldwork. The subdiscipline of Arabic dialectology has produced extensive and valuable descriptive studies of colloquial Arabic in numerous regions in the Arab world and sponsored conferences on that topic (see, for example, the web site of AIDA: Association Internationale de Dialectologie Arabe at www.aida.org.at). Publications such as the journal Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik regularly provide a range of articles on Arabic linguistics, examining both standard and spoken Arabic variants. Brill’s

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

7 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

The Arabic grammatical tradition

7

recent publication of the five-volume Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (2006–2009)has provided a much-needed reference work for researchers in Arabic linguistics.

3.

The Arabic grammatical tradition

“Every scientific discipline has a chronologically earliest paradigm, in other words, there is a definite point in time when a field achieves scientific maturity” (Percival 1976: 287). For Arabic, the earliest paradigm for language analysis dates to the days of the young Islamic empire. The examination and analysis of Arabic language structure do not start in the contemporary era. Centuries of indigenous erudition have preceded the application of current linguistic approaches to the description of Arabic, providing a powerful intellectual lineage for those who study Arabic today. The Arabic linguist who is not familiar with the key conceptual insights of the great Arabic grammarians is bound to see only part of the picture of Arabic language analysis. Because of the central importance of the Qur’an and its message, and because of the more practical but essential role of Arabic literacy in building and administrating an international political and religious power, Arabic language sciences were among the earliest disciplines to emerge in the context of the Islamic empire, starting as early as the seventh century ad.10 Sociolinguist and historian of linguistics Dell Hymes proposed that the rise of linguistic analysis in any society is based on two factors: first, the existence of a corpus of written material; and, second, the recognition of language change – the awareness of discrepancy – either synchronic or diachronic, i.e., language differences emerging within a speech community, language change because of contact with other language groups, or a recognition of difference between the current stage of a language and a previous one. It is particularly this “consciousness of imminent loss” of a valued form of language that appears to be a driving force in the growth of conscious awareness of language structure (Hymes 1974: 5). In the case of Arabic, the language of the Qur’an was not only revered, but sacred, an “inimitable” rhetorical gift. Its preservation, therefore, and the analysis of its linguistic processes and structures became a foundational disciplinary activity in early Islam. The earliest Arabic grammarians used not only the Qur’an but also the highly regarded genre of pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry as the cornerstones of eloquence and correct usage for Arabic. As the context of Arab society shifted to greater horizons, and with the passing of time, the language of the Qur’an and of the old poetic tradition became distanced from everyday spoken vernaculars, and the need for literacy in the written language became more

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

8

8 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Arabic linguistics: overview and history

acute in order to maintain cultural awareness of the Arabic word – both sacred and aesthetic. To Hymes’ two factors for the development of language analysis I would add two more that apply, especially to the situation of classical Arabic: first, the need for transference of language skills to other groups, i.e., the need to teach Arabic as a foreign language; and, second, the demand for translations and translators. These four factors were all at play during the early days of the Islamic empire as it spread its culture, religion, and language over a vast expanse of territory, encouraged popular conversion to Islam, and developed a sophisticated cultural/political base in and around the Abbasid capital, Baghdad. With the establishment of a definitive written version of the Qur’an during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph (644– 656) had come the need to define principles of Arabic orthography, and with the stabilization of orthography came increased attention to grammar and lexicon.11 Scholarly momentum and literacy burgeoned during the first hundred years of Islam, and a great thirst for systematized knowledge pervaded the Muslim world in the eighth and ninth centuries. Language disciplines were leading components of the surge in translation, commentary, exegesis, documentation, education, and legislation that were needed to form the foundations of Muslim culture, civil society, science, and governance. At the same time, other disciplines – medicine, alchemy, music, astronomy, and mathematics to name a few – began to flourish and form principles of practice, each with their own needs for taxonomies and technical terms, translations, forms of education, and transmission of knowledge.12 The foundations for Classical Arabic grammar and lexicography were set by the end of the eighth century ad, with the extraordinary lexicographical legacy of AlKhalil ibn Ahmad (Kitaab al-ʕAyn), and the evergreen grammatical masterwork of Sibawayhi (Al-Kitaab). The Arabic grammatical tradition thus consolidated its fundamentals in written form over a thousand years ago, and constituted a background against which disciplinary progress could be initiated, taxonomies could be compiled, terminology could be refined, and theoretical speculation could be engaged in – a matrix of information, analysis, and procedure that fostered the development of a lasting research tradition in Arabic language study. The story of the development and elaboration of Arabic grammatical theory is a long, intellectually fascinating, and distinguished one. Further readings in this area are listed at the end of this chapter. I encourage those who have not yet had the experience of dealing with Arabic primary sources from the late classical period/ early Islamic period to try their hands at reading Sibawayi, at reading Ibn Jinni, Al-Khalil, or many of the prominent grammarians of early Islamic times, probing their architectures of linguistic complexity. Careful, close reading of original sources helps us contemporary readers to integrate the intellectual discourses of the past into our epistemological frameworks and to prepare us for grounded,

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

9 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Aims of this book

9

thoughtful, and coherent analyses and queries not only about Arabic language but of linguistics as applied to the Arabic language. Foundational questions may now yield transformational answers.

4.

Aims of this book

This work aims to provide readers with a systematic introduction to the descriptive methods and terminologies of contemporary Arabic linguistics, especially as regards modern standard Arabic (al-fuşħaa). This book deals with levels of linguistic analysis beginning with the sound system (phonology), progressing through morphology (derivational and inflectional), and to syntax. At each level, descriptive analysis is provided as well as an introduction to various theoretical approaches and intellectual trends. In addition, each chapter includes review and discussion questions as well as suggestions for further reading. Questions and discussion points (1)

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

Some definitions of linguistics are given at the beginning of this chapter. Do they all agree? Do you know of others? Look up two more definitions of linguistics and see how they compare. How does linguistics differ from the traditional field of philology? How does it differ from the study of “grammar”? The terms “diachronic” and “synchronic” linguistics make a key distinction in how the study of language structure is approached. Discuss this difference and its implications for Arabic. A further key distinction is between Chomsky’s use of the terms “competence” and “performance.” How do these terms relate to each other, and what do they imply for the study of Arabic linguistics? Discuss and evaluate the four factors mentioned in this chapter that are prerequisites for the initiation of language analysis within a particular culture. Do you agree that these are foundational? Do you think that there are other factors that were especially pertinent for the emergence of Arabic language science?

Further reading Bauer, Laurie. 2007. The Linguistics Student’s Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bohas, Georges, Jean-Patrick Guillaume, and Djamal Eddine Kouloughli. 1990. The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London and New York: Routledge.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

10

10 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Arabic linguistics: overview and history

Carter, M. C. 1972. Les origines de la grammaire arabe. Revue des Études Islamiques. 40: 69–97. 1973. An Arab grammarian of the eighth century, A.D. A contribution to the history of linguistics. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 146–157. 1981. Arab Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1985. When did the Arabic word naħw first come to denote grammar? Language & Communication 5(4): 265–272. Eid, Mushira. 1990. Arabic linguistics: The current scene. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Mushira Eid, 3–37. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Myths about Arabic. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 12, 75–82. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1962. Glossary of Terms Related to Languages of the Middle East. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1990. “Come forth with a surah like it:” Arabic as a measure of Arab society. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Mushira Eid, 39–51. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Owens, Jonathan. 1997. The Arabic grammatical tradition. In The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron, 46–58. London: Routledge. 2006. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013b. History. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. J. Owens, 451–471. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retsö, Jan. 2013. What is Arabic? In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. J. Owens, 433–450. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Talmon, Rafael. 1985. Who was the first Arab grammarian? A new approach to an old problem. ZAL 15: 128–145. Versteegh, C. H. M. (Kees). 1978. The Arabic terminology of syntactic position. Arabica 25(3): 261–281. 1980. The origin of the term ‘qiyās’ in Arabic grammar. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 4: 7–30.

Notes 1. “Linguistics is an empirical science, like biology or physics or astronomy. As such, its goal is the structure of explanatory hypotheses: empirically vulnerable accounts (theories) of observed phenomena” (Green and Morgan 1996: 37). 2. Dixon states further that “the grammar of a language has two components, syntax and morphology. Some linguists treat phonology as a third part of a grammar; others regard phonology as distinct from grammar, but linked to it. A feature can be called ‘morphosyntactic’ if it both occurs in a morphological paradigm and marks syntactic function; for example a system of case affixes” (2010a: 93). 3. See Danks 2011, for an extensive analysis of the Arabic verb system. 4. See Appendix A for an outline of sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, and computational linguistics as applied to Arabic.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

11 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

Aims of this book

11

5. Study of language history and development from an empirical point of view is now primarily referred to as historical or comparative linguistics. 6. de Saussure (1857–1913) is considered the founder of modern structural linguistics, mainly by virtue of his Course in General Linguistics, given at the University of Geneva (1907–1911), and later published as a text through the efforts of certain of his students. See de Saussure 1972, 1983 [2009]: 9 “The linguist must take the study of linguistic structure as his primary concern, and relate all other manifestations of language to it,” and 19: “The study of language thus comprises two parts. The essential part takes for its object the language itself” (i.e., langue). “The subsidiary part takes as its object the individual part of language, which means speech” (i.e., parole). See also Culler 1986, for de Saussure’s intellectual biography and his theory of language. 7. van Valin in his article, “Functional linguistics” (2001: 325–327) has a useful summary of these issues. 8. But note that Dixon also observes that “divisions within a grammar are seldom neat and tidy, and . . . one morphological form may have several roles in the syntax of a language” (2010a: 97). 9. For lexical semantics, see Cruse 1986 and 2001; for lexical semantics and predicate decomposition, see Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1998; for a foundational study of lexical decomposition, see Gruber 1965; see also Jackendoff 1972; and for generative semantics, see Parisi and Antinucci 1976. 10. “Face aux peuples civilisés, détenteurs de cultures supérieures à la leur, les Arabes prirent conscience de la nécessité de faire la conquête de leur propre langage par la réflexion sur ses structures, afin de découvrir toutes les richesses et mieux saisir toutes les significations du texte sacré” (Belguedj 1973: 169). 11. “The Qur’an conformed to Arab speech: it provided the reason for codifying Arabic grammar and stylistics and was used as a criterion for these disciplines” (Abdel Haleem 2009: 21). 12. “A thorough knowledge of grammar . . . was considered as a fundamental prerequisite for any other intellectual pursuit, religious or secular” (Bohas, Guillaume, and Kouloughli 1990: 49). See Baalbaki (2013) and Larcher (2013) for authoritative surveys of the Arabic grammatical tradition.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D

12 [1–12] 26.10.2013 10:12AM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

13 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

2

Arabic phonology Phonology is the analysis of the sound system of a language, including the study of the individual sounds themselves and how they are articulated (articulatory phonetics) and how they are perceived (acoustic phonetics). Phonology also includes the analysis of meaningful segments of sound (phonemes): their composition, distribution, and function (phonemics). This chapter will concern itself primarily with the phonemics of Arabic, that is, analysis of distinctive MSA sounds and their variants (allophones). This analysis involves detailed description of the phonemes themselves as well as description of processes that can be “phonemic,” (meaningful) such as vowel lengthening and consonant doubling (gemination).

1.

Phonemics

The study of phonemics is concerned with the sounds of a language that make a difference in meaning; phonemes can be described as the semantically significant sounds of a language. In order to establish a sound’s status as a phoneme, linguists look for environments or contexts in which everything is identical except for one sound or a particular feature of a sound (such as voicing). If that sound or feature of a sound carries a difference in meaning and it contrasts with another sound in the same position, it is established as a phoneme. Phonemes are said for this reason to be in “contrastive” distribution.1 By contrasting sounds in paired contexts, the identity of a phoneme can be established. This kind of contrastive comparison is called minimal pair analysis.2 For example, in English the pair of words pet and bet, are exactly the same except for the initial sound, but they are completely different in meaning. This contrast in meaning establishes that the sounds /p/ and /b/ are separate phonemes.3 Note that phonemes are conventionally written between two forward slashes, e.g., /k/. In Arabic, one can also come up with significant minimal pairs that establish meaning differences between sounds (phonemes). Some of the most commonly used examples are: 13

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

14 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

14

Arabic phonology

(1)

kalb ‘dog’ / qalb ‘heart’ (both /k/ and /q/ are voiceless stops; the difference is in point of articulation: /k/ is velar and the /q/ uvular.) sayf ‘sword’/ şayf ‘summer’ (both /s/ and /ş/ are voiceless alveolar fricatives, but the /ş/ has an added feature, velarization, that makes it a distinctive, separate phoneme.) tiin ‘fig’ / ŧiin ‘clay’ (both /t/ and /ŧ/ are voiceless alveolar stops, but /ŧ/ has the added feature of velarization.)

(2)

(3)

In the above example, the sounds /k/ and /q/ are established as phonemes, as well as /s/ and /ş/, and /t/ and /ŧ/. These sounds, in addition to being recognizably different from each other are also thus established as theoretical constructs – components of the phonemic system of Arabic. Each language has a particular sound inventory, or phoneme inventory that represents all the meaningful sounds of the language. “In Modern Literary Arabic, we find a very small vowel inventory . . . but a very rich consonant inventory” (Cohn 2001: 182). In an ideal situation, the phoneme inventory will correspond precisely with the symbols of an alphabetic writing system. This is not the case for English (which has a complex and historically divergent system for spelling), but it is largely true of Arabic, where the letters of the alphabet essentially represent all the consonant phonemes of the language.4

1.2.

Phoneme feature matrix

Phonemes each consist of a matrix of features that characterize them, and they are described in these terms. The matrix consists of two basic sets of features: (1) place (or point) of articulation and (2) manner of articulation, i.e., where and how the sound is produced in the vocal tract. A third feature, voicing (vibration of vocal chords), is also a distinctive feature for many phonemes. For example, the phoneme /b/ is described as a voiced bilabial stop; the phoneme /s/ is described as a voiceless alveolar fricative, and the Arabic phoneme /ʕ/ is described as a voiced pharyngeal fricative. Note that sometimes a sound exists as a phoneme in one language but not in another. For example, the glottal stop (usually transliterated as /’/ or /ʔ/ ) is a phoneme in Arabic, but not in English (even though it exists in many dialects).5

1.3.

Consonants of modern standard Arabic (MSA)

The phoneme inventory of a language is usually represented in the form of a chart that indicates point of articulation, manner of articulation, and voicing. Arabic has twenty-eight consonants: eight stops: /b/, /t/, /ŧ/, /d/, /đ/, /k/, /q/, /ʔ/, thirteen fricatives: /f/, /th/, /dh/, /Z/, /s/, /ş/, /z/, /sh/, /x/, /gh/, /ħ/, /ʕ/, / h/, one

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

15 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

15

Phonemics

LabioLabial dental Interdental

Affricates Voiceless Voiced

f

Voiced

s

th dh

Z

S

sh

z

x

H

gh

c

h

n

m

Laterals

l

Flaps

r

Semivowels

q

j

Fricatives Voiceless

Nasals

k

T D

t d

b

c

Stops Voiceless Voiced

Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal

w

y

(approximants)

Figure 1 Phonemic chart of MSA consonants Source: Ryding 2005

affricate: /j /, two nasals; /m/ and /n/, one lateral: /l/, one flap: /r/, and two semivowels: /w/ and /y/. They can be charted as follows. Note that the point or place of articulation is represented in the line across the top of the chart, proceeding from the front-most point of articulation at the lips to the farthest-back point, near the trachea (windpipe). The manner of articulation is noted in the far-left column and indicate the degree of stricture or closing of the articulators. Generally, the degrees of stricture include stops (where the airflow is blocked completely), affricates (where the airflow is blocked and then released into a fricative), fricatives (where the airflow is restricted but allowed through), and resonants (consonant sounds where the air flows smoothly – nasals, laterals, and semivowels).6

1.3.1

Arabic consonant phonemes

Descriptions of Arabic consonants are usually expressed in the following technical terms: hamza (ʔ) baaʔ (b)

voiceless glottal stop voiced bilabial stop

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

16

16 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Arabic phonology taaʔ (t) thaaʔ (th) jiim (j)

ħaaʔ (ħ) xaaʔ (x/ kh) daal (d) dhaal (dh) raaʔ (r) zayn or zaay (z) siin (s) shiin (sh) şaad (ş) đaad (đ) ŧaaʔ (ŧ) Zaaʔ (Z)

ʕayn (ʕ) ghayn (gh) faaʔ (f) qaaf (q) kaaf (k) laam (l)

miim (m) nuun (n) haaʔ (h) waaw (w) or (uu): yaaʔ (y) or (ii):

voiceless alveolar stop voiceless interdental fricative Three standard variants: (1) voiced alveopalatal affricate; /j/ as in “judge” (2) voiced alveopalatal fricative /zh/: as in “rouge” (3) voiced velar stop; /g/ as in “guy” voiceless pharyngeal fricative voiceless velar fricative; also described as a uvular fricative voiced alveolar stop voiced interdental fricative: /ð/ or /dh/ pronounced like the /th/ in “there” voiced alveolar flap or trill7 voiced alveolar fricative voiceless alveolar fricative voiceless palatal fricative voiceless velarized alveolar fricative: /s/ pronounced with a retracted tongue root voiced velarized alveolar stop: /d/ pronounced with a retracted tongue root voiceless velarized alveolar stop: /t/ pronounced with a retracted tongue root Two standard variants: (1) voiced velarized interdental fricative: /dh/ as in “there” pronounced with a retracted tongue root (2) voiced velarized alveolar fricative: /z/ pronounced with a retracted tongue root voiced pharyngeal fricative voiced velar fricative; also described as a uvular fricative voiceless labiodental fricative voiceless uvular stop voiceless velar stop voiced lateral: this has two realizations: (1) the “dark” /l/ as in “wall” or “bull” (back or “dark”/l/) (2) the “clear” /l /as in “lift” or “leaf” (fronted or “light” /l/) voiced biblabial continuant voiced nasal continuant voiceless glottal fricative bilabial semivowel: /w/ as in “wind” or long vowel /uu/ pronounced like the “oo” in “boot” palatal semivowel: /y/ as in “yellow” or long vowel /ii/ pronounced like the /i/ in “machine.”8

The consonant inventory of Arabic (listed above in standard alphabetical order) is characterized by two things in particular that distinguish it from the consonant inventory of English: consonants with secondary articulation (the velarized

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

17 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Phonemic processes Front high

Central

i/ii

17

Back u/uu

mid low

a/aa

Figure 2 Phonemic chart of MSA vowels

consonants), and what are often termed “guttural” consonants: the velars, uvulars, and pharyngeals. Other components of the sound system vary as well, of course, but these two sets of phonemes are distinctive. In this book, I have chosen to represent word-initial non-elidable glottal stop with the symbol /ʔ/ because it forms either part of the lexical root or part of the pattern. Often, word-initial glottal stop is omitted entirely from romanization in textbooks, but in that case there is no distinction between strong hamza (hamzat alqaŧʕ) and weak or epenthetic hamza (hamzat al-waşl).

1.4.

Vowels of MSA

The Arabic vowel system is straightforward: three different vowel qualities, each with a short and long variant. The difference in vowel length in Arabic is not a difference in vowel quality, but in duration. This is similar to the difference in duration of musical notes, where a half-note, for example, is held twice as long as a quarter note, and so on. There are two ways of analyzing the number of vowel phonemes in Arabic: they can be seen as six: three short and three long, or they can be seen as four: three short vowels plus one “length” phoneme that can be added to each one. Either way is acceptable. Transliterated representation of long vowels varies from system to system. For my own use and in agreement with a number of other scholars, I prefer to represent long vowels as doubled short vowels (i.e., aa, ii, uu) rather than use a macron (ā, ī, ū) or the dotted length notation ( a:, i:, u:).9

2.

Phonemic processes

In addition to the consonant and vowel phoneme inventory of Arabic, there are also two phonemic processes, (1) vowel lengthening (as in kataba ‘ he wrote’ → kaataba ‘he corresponded’) and (2) gemination, or doubling (tashdiid),

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

18

18 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Arabic phonology

as in darasa ‘he studied’ → darrasa ‘he taught). Each of these processes contributes to the derivation of words from a lexical root and forms a key component of the derivational system of Arabic. It is important to note, however, that various forms of non-phonemic doubling also occur. For example, in certain forms of preposition plus first person pronoun suffix: instead of *ʕan-ii ‘away from me; about me’ the form is ʕannii; likewise, for *min-ii ‘from me; than me’ the form is minnii. In both of these cases the nuun is doubled, but this does not change the meaning of the expression. Various contextual situations also cause assimilation to occur, which often results in doubling the pronunciation of a consonant, as in the assimilation of the laam of the definite article to the first sound of a word beginning with a “sun letter” (ħarf shamsi), e.g., al-nuur is pronounced an-nuur; al-salaam is pronounced as-salaam. The processes of assimilation are discussed more extensively in the following chapter.

3.

Allophones

An allophone is a contextually caused pronunciation variant of a phoneme. That is, the pronunciation of the sound varies because of the environment that it is in. An allophonic variation of a phoneme is not a separate or independent phoneme because it does not carry or cause a difference in meaning. For example, American English has two kinds of pronunciation for /l/ – the fronted or “light” /l/ of ‘leaf’ and the backed or “dark” /l/ of ‘well.’ The fronted /l/ occurs prevocalically and the backed /l/ occurs after a vowel. These two slightly different realizations of /l/ are still the same phoneme, just variant in pronunciation.

3.1.

Allophones of laam

The /l/ phoneme in Arabic is usually realized as a fronted, “light” /l/ sound. This Arabic /l/ is fronted and palatalized, approximating French /l/ as in “belle.”10 In certain restricted contexts, it is pronounced farther back in the articulatory tract, with a raised tongue, as a “darker” /l/ sound. Thus the /l/ of fiil ‘elephant’ and the /l/ of wallaah ‘by God’ are different, but not separate phonemes; they are allophones of the phoneme /l/.11

3.2.

Allophones of jiim

The most variable consonant phoneme in MSA is /j/, represented by the letter jiim. Acceptable MSA pronunciations of jiim include the palatal voiced fricative /zh/ (as in the English word ‘measure’ or the French word ‘je’ ‘I’), or it may be the voiced velar stop, /g/ (as in ‘good’) if the speaker’s regional spoken

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

19 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Allophones

19

variant is Egyptian or Sudanese, or it may be a voiced alveopalatal affricate, /j/ as in English ‘judge.’12 Some Arabic speakers use both the /j/ and /zh/ variants. These pronunciations are all allophones of the MSA phoneme /j/.13

3.3.

The issue of taaʔ marbuut¯ a

The special form of taaʔ which can be written as word-final (taaʔ marbuuŧa) shows contextual variation as well, but it is unclear if this is truly allophonic. In pause form, if a word spelled with final taaʔ marbuuŧa is the first part of an ʔiđaafa, or construct phrase, then the taaʔ is usually pronounced as a voiceless alveolar stop (e.g., madiinat bayruut, ‘the city of Beirut’). Elsewhere in pause form, it is pronounced as the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ (fii l-madiinah ‘in the city’; madiinah kabiirah ‘a big city’). Because of its word-final position, the /h/ is sometimes difficult to hear at all, and it sounds as though the word ends with the vowel /a/. There are also optional pronunciations of taaʔ marbuuŧa when it follows the long vowel /aa/, as in the word Hayaat/Hayaah ‘life.’ This particular variation process is complex because it is bound up with historical linguistics, grammatical structure, orthographic conventions, morphology, and regional differences in pronunciation.

3.4.

Arabic vowel allophones

The pronunciation of Arabic vowels, especially /aa/ and /a/, but also /ii/ and /i/ varies over a rather wide range, depending on word structure and the influence of adjacent consonants, but also on regional variations in pronunciation.14 The primary cause of “backed” vowel allophones is the presence of an emphatic (velarized) consonant in a word. Ranges of vowel variation (front to back): for /i/: min, xiffa, qiŧŧ, ŧ ifl, nişf for /a/: hal, sakan, qatal, şaff, tafađđal for /aa/: islaam, waadii, ŧaalib, bayđaat for /ii/ : diin, ŧiin, tamshiiŧ The transference of the feature of velarization or emphasis from consonants to adjacent or even non-adjacent vowels and other consonants is referred to as tafxiim, or “emphasis spread.”15 The retraction and raising of the tongue root toward the velum (soft palate) or even farther back toward the uvula or pharyngeal area for the pronunciation of the consonant, causes “backing” of the vowel.16 Postvocalic raaʔ also has a “backing” effect on /aa/ e.g., naar ‘fire’,

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

20

20 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Arabic phonology

daar ‘house’; so does the prevocalic uvular stop qaaf, e.g., qaadir ‘mighty,’ maqaal ‘article.’ To sum up, the consonant system of modern standard Arabic shows little allophonic variation except for jiim and laam, whereas the pronunciation of vowels – especially /a/ and /aa/ – shows considerable allophonic variance due particularly to the spread of emphasis. Questions and discussion points (1)

(2)

(3)

Where are the major contrasts between the Arabic phonemic inventory and the English phonemic inventory? What kind of impact might these differences have on English speakers who are learning Arabic as a foreign language? On Arabic speakers learning English? Come up with ten minimal pairs in Arabic, establishing certain sounds as phonemes. Remember, the sounds must occur in identical environments and be similar in terms of articulatory features, such as comparing the words ħaal ‘condition’ and xaal ‘maternal uncle’, or ʔaxŧar ‘more dangerous’ and ʔaxđar ‘green.’ Read the article on “emphatic /l/” by Ferguson and discuss his ideas about the phonemic status of “dark” /l/. Does he make a convincing argument? Why or why not?

Further reading For book-length studies of Arabic phonology, see Al-Ani 1970, Gairdner 1925, and Semaan 1968. Al-Ani, Salman H. 2008. Phonetics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 593–603. Leiden: Brill. Bauer, Laurie. 2007. The Linguistics Student’s Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Especially 127–136 on the International Phonetic Association (IPA) and phonetic symbols.) Cohn, Abigail. 2001. Phonology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 180–212. Oxford: Blackwell. Ferguson, Charles. 1956. The emphatic l in Arabic. Language 32: 486–552. Gordon, Cyrus. 1970. The accidental invention of the phonemic alphabet. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29:3: 193–197. Ladefoged, Peter. 1997. Linguistic phonetic descriptions. In The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, eds. William J. Hardcastle and John Laver, 589–618. Oxford: Blackwell. Laver, John. 2001, 2003. Linguistic phonetics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 150–179. Oxford: Blackwell. Mitchell, T. F. 1990. Pronouncing Arabic. vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

21 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Allophones

21

Notes 1. Also called “parallel” distribution. 2. “Minimal pairs (or sets) are words with distinct meanings differing only in one sound” (Cohn 2001: 186). 3. In fact, /p/ and /b/ are similar in both point and manner of articulation (bilabial stops) but differ in one feature, voicing (/p/ is unvoiced, /b/ is voiced/). It is actually this single feature, voicing, that distinguishes the two words and the two phonemes. 4. For an interesting article on the correspondence between the Arabic phoneme inventory and the Arabic alphabet, see Gordon 1970. 5. The glottal stop exists in English in various positions and in various dialects, but it is not considered an English phoneme. A Scotsman might pronounce the word ‘bottle’ as [boʔl]’; I myself pronounce the word ‘kitten’ as [kiʔn] and the word ‘satin’ as [saeʔn] in my Michigan dialect. In the clear enunciation of vowel-initial words in English, a glottal stop is sometimes inserted to clarify word boundaries: “I said ‘an ʔice house,’ not ‘a nice house.’” Parrish, in his classic book on English pronunciation, Reading Aloud, colorfully refers to this as a “glottal attack” (1932: 160–161). The English expression ‘oh-oh’ normally has two glottal stops, one before each ‘oh.’ 6. See Laver 2001: 168 for a concise description of degree of stricture. 7. “The conventional use of r in the transcription of Arabic and English completely obscures the fact that the sounds so symbolized in the two languages are entirely different; in Arabic r represents an apical trill, in English a slightly retroflex resonant continuant (a vocoid)” (Lehn and Slager 1983: 35). 8. “Certain consonants have some of the phonetic properties of vowels. . . they are usually referred to as approximants (or frictionless continuants), though [/w/ and /y/] are commonly called semi-vowels, as they have exactly the same articulation as vowel glides. although phonetically vowel-like, these sounds are usually classified along with consonants on functional grounds” (Crystal 1997b: 159). 9. “Long vowels are best analyzed . . . as two identical short vowels. A universal rule, which need not be included in the grammar . . . accounts for this” (Abdo 1969: 9). 10. See Gairdner 1925: 17–19 for discussion of ‘dark’ and ‘light’ /l/. 11. See Ferguson 1956 for an analysis arguing that “dark” Arabic /l/ is indeed a separate phoneme. 12. For this reason, the phoneme is often transliterated as /dj/, to indicate affrication (i.e., stop + fricative). 13. Note that these variants are regionally determined, rather than caused by linguistic context. These widely accepted MSA variants do not include the /y/ variant of vernacular Gulf Arabic because it is considered nonstandard. 14. Arabic allophonic variations were recognized by the Arab grammarians long ago, and given technical names referring to the manner of articulation: (1) imaala (‘leaning’ or ‘inclination’ i.e., toward the high front part of the mouth), e.g., /aa/ or /a / → fronted to [ae] or [e]; (2) tafxiim ‘thickening’ (or ‘heavying’ – pronouncing the vowel farther toward the back of the vocal tract). Consonants that cause the latter pronunciation are called mufaxxama in Arabic, ‘emphatic’ or ‘velarized’ consonants. See Bakalla 2009 for more on tafxim (tafkhiim), and Barkat 2009 for acoustic analysis of vowel backing in Arabic dialects.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D

22

22 [13–22] 25.10.2013 1:59PM

Arabic phonology

15. See Davis 2009: 636–637 for a discussion of “velarization” and “emphasis.” Note that the term “pharyngealization” is also used to describe the coarticulation feature of these consonants. Abdo and Hilu state that “a constriction in the throat, a sort of tightening of the muscles, accompanies the articulation of emphatics” (1968: 61). As Davis notes about velarization and pharyngealization, “there is very little acoustic distinction between the two” (2009: 636). 16. “Articulatorily, backed vowels are characterized by a constriction in the pharyngeal cavity caused by Retracted Tongue Root” (Barkat 2009: 670). The term “retracted tongue root” is abbreviated as RTR. See Davis 1993: 150.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

23 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

3

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology The term “phonotactics” refers to the study of sound distribution patterns and distribution restrictions within words (and sometimes across word boundaries).1 Phonotactic rules influence Arabic word structure in derivational and inflectional morphology, and also in lexical root structure.2 Most of these rules and restrictions were discovered and described by the Arabic grammarians over a thousand years ago (in particular by Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad, but also Sibawayhi and others). They are organized and described in this book in technical linguistic terms as they apply to MSA, using formalizations whenever possible. There are at least two aspects to Arabic phonotactics: the phonotactics of root morphology and the phonotactics of derivational and inflectional morphology. The study of morphological processes interfacing with phonological structures and rules is termed morphophonemics. In Arabic the study of phonotactics and morphophonology are closely interrelated. Four phonological processes are essential to the Arabic sound system: assimilation (one sound absorbing or affecting another), epenthesis (vowel insertion), deletion (of vowel or semivowel), and vowel shift.

1.

Assimilation (iddighaam/idghaam)

Assimilation can be defined as a change or spread of phonetic feature values (such as voicing or velarization) that makes segments more similar, or even identical. In Arabic it often occurs as a result of phonological rules applying at the intersection of morphological processes, for example, as a result of a pattern (wazn) applying to a particular lexical root (jidhr). Assimilation is normally nonphonemic; i.e., it does not affect the meaning of a segment or word. It may be progressive or regressive.

1.1.

Progressive assimilation

Progressive assimilation refers to the influence of a previously articulated sound on following sound, i.e., A → B, A influences B. The most prevalent 23

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

24

24 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology

examples of this result from the infixed /t/ of Form VIII verbs: the iftaʕala form, changing the nature of the infixed taaʔ to a pronunciation closer to that of the first phoneme of the lexical root. It usually involves an orthographical change as well as a change in sound.

1.1.1.

Partial assimilation of infixed taaʔ (spelling variant) işŧadama izdaada izdawaja

1.1.2.

t→ŧ t→Z t → th t→d t→d

to view, be informed to suffer injustice to be avenged to allege, claim to be assimilated

Reciprocal (or mutual) assimilation (infixed taaʔ and preceding consonant both change to a different consonant) iddakara iddaxara

1.1.4.

to collide, clash to increase to be double, to pair

Full assimilation of infixed taaʔ to preceding consonant (shadda in spelling) iŧŧalaʕa iZZalama iththaʔara iddaʕaa iddaghama

1.1.3.

t→ŧ t→d t→d

t + dh → dd t + dh → dd

to remember to accumulate, preserve

Assimilation of initial waaw in Form IV verbal noun

Because of an Arabic phonological rule that prohibits the occurrence of the sequence [i + w] within a syllable, in the Form IV waaw-initial verbal noun, the kasra of the ʔifʕaal pattern assimilates the waaw and lengthens into a long vowel /ii/. This assimilation and lengthening is reflected in spelling as well as pronunciation. *ʔiwdaah → ʔiidaah *ʔiwqaaʕ → ʔiiqaaʕ

1.1.5.

clarification rhythm

Assimilation of initial hamza in Form IV verbal noun

Because of a phonological rule that prohibits the sequence [ʔ + V + ʔ] (hamza – vowel – hamza), the hamza of Form IV hamza-initial verbs is assimilated to the kasra of the ʔifʕaal pattern.3 *ʔiʔmaan → ʔiimaan *ʔiʔdhaan → ʔiidhaan

faith proclamation

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

25 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Assimilation (iddighaam/idghaam)

1.1.6.

25

Vowel assimilation/assimilation at a distance/vowel harmony

The vowel /i/, whether long or short, as well as the semi-vowel /y/, assimilate the short vowel /u/ when it occurs after the third person pronominal suffix /-h/. That is, the suffixes -hu, -hum, -hunna, -humaa all convert to -hi, -him, -hinna, -himaa when preceded by a high front vowel or semi-vowel. This kind of assimilation at a distance is usually referred to as ‘vowel harmony.’ *fii maktab-i-hu → fii maktab-i-hi *fii maktab-i-hum → fii maktab-i-him *al-salaam-u ʕalay-hu → al-salaam-u ʕalay-hi

in his office in their (m.) office peace be upon him

Note that this kind of assimilation occurs only with third person pronoun suffixes and is therefore conditioned by grammatical rules. In other contexts, such as when the /haaʔ/ forms a part of the lexical root, it does not occur, e.g. tawjiih-u-naa mutanizzih-uuna

1.2.

our guidance walkers, promenaders

Regressive assimilation

Regressive assimilation results from the influence of a following sound on previous sound, i.e., A ← B. The most prevalent occurrence of this form of assimilation is with the assimilation of the laam of the definite article (al-) to the sound of the first phoneme in a word; it also occurs with certain types of Form IV and Form VIII verbs.

1.2.1.

Assimilation of laam to first sound of word

This assimilation occurs in the context of what are termed “sun letters” of the Arabic alphabet.4 It is important to note that the laam of the definite article remains in the spelling of such words, but that the first sound in the word is doubled in pronunciation and spelled with shadda. *al-daftar → ad-daftar *al-shams → ash-shams *al-raabiʕ → ar-raabiʕ

1.2.2.

the notebook the sun the fourth

Assimilation of initial semi-vowel waaw in Form VIII verbs:

Due to the phonological rule that prohibits the occurrence of the sequence [i + w], the waaw of waaw-initial verbs is assimilated to the infixed taaʔ of Form

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

26

26 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology

VIII. This is a case of total assimilation and spelling change. The waaw disappears in orthography as well as in pronunciation. *iwtaşala → ittaşala *iwtaħada → ittaħada

1.2.3.

to contact to be united

Assimilation of affixed nuun of Form VII

Form VII verbs whose initial consonant is miim may optionally assimilate the nuun of the form VII pattern (infaʕala). They may be spelled either way. inmaħaa/ immaħaa inmaħaqa/ immaħaqa

1.2.4.

to be erased to be destroyed

Assimilation across word boundaries

This process of regressive assimilation occurs with prepositions ending in /n/ followed by a word starting with /m/. The bilabial nasal /m/ assimilates the coronal nasal /n/ and doubles, usually causing the words to fuse orthographically as well as phonetically: min + maa → mimmaa ʕan + maa → ʕammaa

1.3.

from which about which

Partial assimilation in pronunciation but not spelling (feature spread)

A velarized consonant occurring anywhere in a word may lead to assimilated velarization in the entire word or in surrounding syllables.5 “A well-known fact about emphasis is that it spreads from an emphatic consonant to neighboring segments” (Younes 1993: 119). This process of “feature spread,” is also known in particular for Arabic velarized consonants as “emphasis spread.”6 For example, the following words may be pronounced identically although the velarized consonant is in different positions: şawt sawŧ

voice whip

The degree of emphasis spread varies among speakers of Arabic, and varies considerably between vernacular speech and careful MSA pronunciation.7 The velarized consonant may affect the pronunciation of a whole word, even if that consonant is word-final. Or it may affect one syllable only. To some extent, the spread of emphasis beyond the velarized syllable is in free variation, that is, it is an

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

27 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Vowel insertion: epenthesis

27

optional phonetic feature that does not affect word meaning.8 For example, different native speakers may pronounce the following words with a greater or lesser degree of emphasis spread: ixlaaş niZaam şabaaħ ŧalabaat

2.

sincerity system morning demands

Vowel insertion: epenthesis

The term “epenthesis” refers to the insertion of a sound into a sequence in order to ease pronunciation and facilitate transition from one sound to the next.9 For this reason in Arabic these epenthetic vowels are often called “helping vowels.” Because of Arabic phonotactic rules prohibiting the occurrence of three consonants in a row, vowel insertion is used to prevent consonant clusters.10 These consonant clusters result from the interaction of lexicon, morphology, and syntax. All three short vowels (/u/, /i/, and /a/) are used in Arabic epenthesis, each vowel with its own rules of occurrence.

2.1.

Medial clusters

In medial clusters of three consonants, helping vowels are added according to the rules as set out below.

2.1.1.

The vowel /u/ (đamma) or /uu/ (waaw)

This may be inserted to ease pronunciation after the occurrence of suffixed past tense second person masculine plural marker -tum. If -tum is followed by a noun with the definite article, the short vowel /u/ is inserted hal katab-tum-u l-maqaaal-a?

Have you (m. pl.) written the article?

When the -tum suffix is followed by a suffixed pronoun object, then the long vowel /uu/ is inserted between the inflectional suffix -tum and the object pronoun: hal katab-tum-uu-hu? mataa raʔay-tum-uu-hum?

2.1.2.

Have you (m. pl.) written it? When did you (m. pl.) see them (m.)?

The vowel /a/ (fatħa) This is inserted as a helping vowel in one case: after the word min ‘from’

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

28

28 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology hiya min-a l-yaman-i. min-a sh-sharq-i ʔilaa l-gharb-i

2.1.3.

She is from Yemen. from the east to the west

The vowel /i/ This is inserted in all other instances man-i l-munassiq-u? saʔal-at-i s-suʔaal-a.

2.2.

Who is the coordinator? She asked the question.

Initial clusters: vowel prosthesis

The procedure of “prosthesis” refers to adding a vowel to a word, usually through prefixing. Because there is an Arabic phonological rule prohibiting utterance-initial or syllable-initial consonant clusters (i.e., two or more consonants), Arabic allows the addition of a vowel prefix in order to make an utterance pronounceable.11 However, Arabic also has an even stronger rule that no utterance or syllable may start with a vowel. It is therefore necessary to add hamza plus vowel in initial position in order to provide a glottal onset for starting an utterance. The hamza in this position is elidable (hamzat al-waşl) because it is neither a root consonant nor part of a morphological pattern; it is used purely for phonological reasons to ease pronunciation. Nonetheless, the ʔalif “seat” for the elidable hamza remains present in orthography in most cases. Elidable hamza plus vowel occurs in the following situations: (1) with the laam of the definite article (vowel /a/) (e.g., al-burhaan ‘the proof’); (2) with the small group of common biliteral nouns (vowel /i/) (e.g., -bn ‘son,’ -sm ‘name’); (3) with Forms VII–X verbal nouns, imperatives, and past tense verbs (vowel /i/) (e.g., inʕikaas ‘reflection,’ istanbaŧa ‘to discover; to invent,’ istamiʕ! ‘listen!’); (4) with Form I imperatives (vowel /u/ if verb stem vowel is /u/; otherwise, /i/) (e.g., uktub! ‘write!’, iftaħ! ‘open!’); (5) with borrowed words that start with consonant clusters (vowel/i/) such as istuudiyuu ‘studio.’

3.

Deletion (h¯adhf)

Deletion of vowels and semivowels occurs in Arabic, but rarely if ever, deletion of consonants. For example, the semivowel waaw of waaw-initial verbs (termed ‘assimilated’ verbs in English and ʔafʕaal al-mithaal in Arabic) may be deleted in the present tense (e.g., waqaf-a / ya-qif-u ‘to stand’; wađaʕ-a/ya-đaʕ-u ‘to put’).12

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

29 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Vowel shift (qalb)

29

Short vowel deletion occurs under the following circumstances: where a vowel would occur (based on a pattern template) between identical consonants preceded by a short vowel: marar-a *radad-uu

→ marr-a → radd-uu

he passed by (compare: marar-tu they replied (compare: radad-tum

I passed by) you (m. pl.) replied)

This rule may be expressed in formal notation, using the category symbols C for any consonant and V for any short vowel, as follows: C1 VC2 VC3 V ! C1 VC2 C3 V=C2 ¼ C3 That is, the sequence CVCVCV will become CVCCV if and when the second and third consonants are identical and followed by a vowel.13 In general, mathematical-style formalizations are considered strong evidence for the status of rule-application because they summarize regularities and can be tested and evaluated for their predictive power.14 They strengthen the theoretical rigor of observations about language.

4.

Vowel shift (qalb)

In addition to complete vowel deletion, Arabic phonological rules may require vowel shift, i.e., displacement of a vowel from one position in a word to another, as a result of either derivational or inflectional morphology. This is a subrule that applies after the application of the vowel-deletion rule in cases where vowel deletion would result in a three-consonant cluster. This rule applies with geminate roots when a short vowel occurs between identical consonants preceded by another consonant: Form IV:

*ʔaħbab-a → ʔaħabb-a

he loved

(The /a/ between the /b/’s is deleted according to the vowel-deletion rule, and shifts to the position before the /b/s in order to avoid a three-consonant cluster *ʔaħbb-a.) Form X:

*na-staʕdid-u → nastaʕidd-u

we are getting ready

(In the same way, the /i/ between the /d/’s shifts to the position before the /d/’s in order to avoid the unpronounceable *na-staʕdd-u.) In the elative form of adjectives derived from geminate lexical roots, this rule also applies:

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

30

30 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology *ʔajdad-u → ʔajadd-u *ʔaqlal-u → ʔaqall-u

newer fewer

And in certain plural patterns of nouns and adjectives from geminate lexical roots: *ʔaŧbibaaʔ → ʔaTibbaaʔ *ʔaʕzizaaʔ → ʔaʕizzaaʔ

doctors dear (pl.)

A formalization of this rule might read: V1 C1 C2 V2 C3 V3 ! V1 C1 V2 C2 C3 V3 =C2 ¼ C3 That is, a vowel between two identical consonants shifts to the position preceding those consonants if the deletion of the vowel results in a three-consonant cluster. Thus it is evident that there are strong phonotactic rules in Arabic that affect word structure, and these rules apply with regard to both derivational and inflectional processes. The study of this intersection of the rules of phonology with morphological processes is referred to as morphophonology, and will be dealt with more extensively in later sections of this book as we delve into morphological processes. Questions and discussion points (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Find ten examples each of progressive and regressive assimilation, other than the ones listed in this chapter. Note when orthography changes as a result of these rules. Avoidance of consonant clusters is a key rule of Arabic phonotactics. Are there any times or occasions when certain clusters (two consonants or three consonants) are allowed to occur? Think of word- or utteranceinitial, medial and final positions. Consider pause form as well as fullform pronunciation. Vowels and semivowels are sometimes incompatible in Arabic. We have seen that the combination [i + w ] is prohibited by Arabic phonotactic rules, but not [w + i ] (e.g., wikaala ‘agency’). What other combinations of vowels and semivowels are permitted or prohibited? Provide five examples of these combinations or combination restrictions. Can you produce a formal rule or rules for the structure of these combinations? The use of formalizations adds to the elegance and explanatory power of linguistic observations. What areas of Arabic linguistics do you think lend themselves to formalized rules? Could you improve on the formalized

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

31 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Vowel shift (qalb)

31

rules written in this chapter? Write a rule for the assimilation of /u/ to /i/ when it occurs in a third person pronoun suffix (1.1.6.).

Further reading Bakalla, Muhammad Hasan. 2009. Tafxīm. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 421–424. Leiden: Brill. Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press (especially sections on affixes and bases, pp. 146–156). 2007. The Linguistics Student’s Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (For explanation of general linguistic material and especially 95–103 on “notational conventions.”) Broselow, Ellen. 2008. Phonology. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 607–615. Leiden: Brill. Frisch, Stefan A. 2008. Phonotactics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 624–628. Leiden: Brill. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (especially pages 19–34 on phonology). Zemánek, Petr. 2006. Assimilation. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 204–206. Leiden: Brill.

Notes 1. “An essential component of the phonological description of a language is statement of which systems and subsystems of consonants and vowels correspond to the various slots in the structure of syllable and of phonological word. This is ‘phonotactics’” (Dixon 2010a: 275). 2. “Arabic has phonotactic restrictions between consonants within the verbal roots that have played an important role in the development of phonological theory” (Frisch 2008: 624). 3. This rule applies widely, but usually when the hamza is fixed (hamzat al-qaŧʕ), not when the first hamza is weak (hamzat al-waşl). Thus, sequences such as the Form VIII verbal noun ʔiʔtilaaf ‘agreement; coalition’ are permitted. 4. The sounds represented by the ‘sun letters’ (ħuruuf shamsiyya) include “dentals, sibilants, and liquids” (Zemánek 2006: 204). These include t, th, d, dh, r, z, s, sh, ş, đ, ŧ, Z, l, n. 5. “The emphatic consonant influences its neighborhood (the minimal domain of emphasis is the syllable, but in many cases, especially in the Arabic dialects, its domain can be a whole word” (Zemánek 2006: 205). 6. Shahin refers to emphasis spread in Palestinian Arabic in different terms, as “postvelar harmonies: pharyngealization harmony and uvularization harmony” (1996: 131). 7. See Bakalla (2009) and Younes (1993) for discussion of this point. 8. This does not mean that emphasis spread is random, especially in vernacular Arabic, where it may play key roles in discourse and identity. See Younes (1993) and Davis (1993).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C03.3D

32

32 [23–32] 25.10.2013 1:40PM

Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology

9. The inserted sound itself is described as “anaptyctic” or “excrescent.” 10. As my very first Arabic professor constantly reminded us, “Two sukuuns never meet.” 11. The existence of consonant clusters at the start of an Arabic word is usually the result of morphological processes; it may also occur when a lexical item is borrowed from another language. 12. This is true of verbs whose stem vowel is fatħa in both past and present tenses, and verbs whose past tense stem vowel is fatħa and present stem vowel is kasra. Other forms of assimilated verb roots do not allow semivowel deletion. See Ryding (2005: 460–461) for more explicit rules and examples. 13. For a detailed analysis of this phenomenon based in prosodic morphology (McCarthy and Prince 1990), see Moore (1990). 14. The arrows of such rules are usually interpreted as “becomes,” “changes into.” The forward slash is usually read as “in the environment of” or “when.” (See Bauer 2007 34– 35 for more description of linguistic rule formats.)

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

33 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

4

Arabic syllable structure and stress Syllable structure constitutes the component of phonological word division focused on pronounceable segments of words and how they are composed, divided, and distributed. Syllable structure is also a subdivision of the study of phonotactics, or the rules of sound distribution, the specific sequences of sound that occur in a language. And, third, the study of syllables in Arabic involves the analysis of lexical stress. Although syllables themselves are linear and segmental in nature, word stress (the loudness or emphasis placed on a syllable) is suprasegmental; that is, it occurs at the same time as the pronunciation of the segment, adding a dimension of complexity to the syllable itself. MSA has explicit structural restrictions on syllables, as well as predictable rulebased stress based on syllable strength.1 Although not a spontaneous spoken register of Arabic, MSA is nonetheless spoken on formal occasions (usually scripted) and in broadcast news and information formats, and adheres to established norms of stress placement. Recent published work on the stress system of MSA has largely been done within the theoretical framework of prosodic morphology.2 The discussion set forth here uses a basic descriptive approach similar to the one used in Ryding 2005 (36–39), Mitchell 1990 (19–21), and McCarus and Rammuny (1974: 7–8, 23).

1.

Syllable structure

In general, the core of a syllable is a vowel; in addition to a vowel, a syllable has “margins” that consist of consonants – either prevocalic or postvocalic or both. The vowel core of a syllable is referred to as the syllable nucleus.3 In addition to the nucleus, a syllable has an onset or initial consonant, and may have a final consonant or consonants, termed the coda. Therefore in an Arabic word such as min ‘from’, the onset would be /m/, the nucleus /i/, and the coda /n/. 33

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

34 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

34

Arabic syllable structure and stress

2.

Arabic syllable constraints

There are clear phonotactic constraints on syllable structure in Arabic.4 Two sets of rules apply to MSA: one for full-form pronunciation and one for pauseform pronunciation.

2.1.

For full-form pronunciation

The first constraint in the segmentation of MSA syllables is that no syllable may start with a vowel. Second, no syllable may start with a consonant cluster (two or more consonants). Taken together these two rules yield the result that all Arabic syllables start with CV (consonant–short vowel) or CVV (consonant–long vowel). A third rule is that syllables must nowhere contain a cluster of three or more consonants. Therefore the permissible syllable types in full-form pronunciation MSA are usually three, each assigned a metrical value: either “weak” or “strong.” (1)

(2)

(3)

CV (consonant plus short vowel) “weak” or “light” syllable /wa/ /li/ /fa/ /mu/ CVV (consonant plus long vowel) “strong” or “heavy” syllable /maa/ /tii/ /Duu/ CVC (consonant-short vowel-consonant) “strong” or “heavy” syllable /mak/ /ras/ /tin/ /tub/

For example: here are some full-form Arabic words broken down by syllables separated by hyphens. In these examples, the hyphens do not indicate morpheme boundaries, but syllable boundaries.5 Stressed syllables are in bold. shuk-ran mu-qab-bi-laa-tun dha-ha-bun ħaf-la-tun faa-zuu

thanks appetizers gold party they (m. pl.) won

yu-dar-ri-saa-ni nak-tu-bu na-jaħ-naa ta-waq-qa-ʕat

they (two, m.) are teaching we are writing we succeeded she expected

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

35 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

Formalization of syllable structure

(4)

CVVC: in restricted circumstances a CVVC syllable may occur within an MSA word. This is most often the result of the morphophonology of geminate roots, where the active participles of Form I verbs results in words such as: jaaf-fun xaaş-şun maad-da-tun

2.2.

35

dry special, private substance, material

Pause-form pronunciation

In addition to the syllabic sequences listed above, pause-form (omitting final short vowels) phonotactic rules allow for a word-final syllable to be either CVVC or CVCC. These syllables are considered superstrong or “superheavy.” (5) (6)

CVVC (consonant–long vowel–consonant): superstrong /-liin #/ /-riim # / /-suun #/ /-maan # /6 CVCC (consonant–short vowel–consonant–consonant): superstrong /-rast # / /-rudd # / /-milt # / Examples include: yaʕ-ta-qi-duun nu-ħibb ħa-milt mu-raa-si-liin ma-li-ka-taan mab-niyy

3.

they believe we like, we love I carried reporters two queens built

Formalization of syllable structure

Mitchell (1990) provides a concise formalization of Arabic syllable structure, stating that “any [Arabic] syllable is derivable from the expression CV ðVÞC0=1=2 where the [parentheses] enclose a potential increment of vowel length and zero indicates the non-occurrence of a final consonant in the structure of a syllable. If C0 occurs, then the syllable is open; otherwise it is closed” (20).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

36

36 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

Arabic syllable structure and stress

This rule tidily covers a range of lexical stress constraints. Other more specific rules follow.

4.

Lexical stress

Stress is a prosodic or suprasegmental (non-linear) feature of pronunciation dependent in Arabic for its placement upon the nature of the syllable structure within a word. The placement of lexical stress in Arabic is predictable and nonphonemic; in fact, one author states that Arabic “stress in most instances is trivially predictable” (Brame 1971: 556). Syllable structure and stress interrelate because one determines the other in Arabic, and it is therefore useful to be able to describe the system, especially when it comes to conveying to learners of Arabic a rule of thumb for stress placement.7 Although McCarthy and Prince (1990b) state that “there is inconsistency in the stressing of standard Arabic words between different areas of the Arab world” (252), they also admit that there is a “nearly universal norm” which they summarize as follows: “The stress system is obviously weightsensitive: final syllables are stressed if superheavy CvvC or CvCC; penults are stressed if heavy Cvv or Cvc; otherwise the antepenult is stressed” (252).8 This sentence nicely summarizes the prevalent system of Arabic stress and I will unpack it as follows.

4.1.

Basic rules of lexical stress9

Stress is always measured from the end of an Arabic word. A second feature of Arabic stress is that it never falls farther back than the third syllable from the end of a word (the antepenult). Stress rules differ slightly in full-form and pause-form pronunciation.

4.1.1.

Full-form stress

When Arabic is pronounced in “full form,’ i.e., including all desinential inflection markers, there are three basic stress constraints. (1)

Stress does not fall on a final syllable. In a word of two syllables, it therefore falls on the first, no matter whether that first syllable is strong or weak: ħat-taa qab-la hu-naa

until before here

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

37 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

Lexical stress hi-ya naħ-nu

(2)

she we

Stress is assigned to the second syllable from the end (the penult) if it is a strong/heavy syllable: hu-naa-ka yad-ru-suu-na mu-ta-ŧaw-wi-ʕii-na sa-fii-na-taa-ni qa-raʔ-tum

(3)

there they are studying volunteers two ships you (m. pl.) read

Stress is on the third syllable from the end of the word (the antepenult) if the second syllable from the end is weak/light: mux-ta-li-fun da-ra-sat ma-dii-na-tun mad-ra-sa-tun ta-kal-la-muu ʕuy-yi-na

4.1.2.

37

different she studied city school they (m.) spoke he was appointed

Pause form

An additional stress rule applies in pause-form pronunciation (where desinential inflection is omitted): that stress falls on the final syllable if it is CVVC or CVCC. ka-riim fa-naa-jiin tar-jamt ruk-kaab naʕ-saan mus-ta-ħiqq yu-ħaa-wi-luun

4.1.3.

Karim (man’s name) cups I translated riders sleepy worthy, entitled they (m.) try

Stress shift

As noted, words in Arabic may be pronounced in full form or in pause form, depending on circumstances and context. Arabic words may also include pronoun suffixes that extend the length of the word and as a consequence (since stress is calculated from the end of a word), shift the stress. The rules stated above

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

38

38 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

Arabic syllable structure and stress

still apply; it is the length or pronunciation style of a word that conditions the application of those rules. For example:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

word ti-jaa-ra ti-jaa-ra-tun ti-jaa-ra-tu-naa mu-ħaa-đa-ra mu-ħaa-đa-ra-tun mu-ħaa-đa-ra-tu-haa jaa-mi-ʕa jaa-mi-ʕa-tun jaa-mi-ʕa-tu-hum jaa-mi-ʕa-tu-hun-na mad-ra-sa mad-ra-sa-tun mad-ra-sa-tu-haa ħa-ma-la ħa-ma-la-hum raa-qab-naa raa-qab-naa-hum

form pause form full form suffixed pronoun pause form full form suffixed pronoun pause form full form suffixed pronoun suffixed pronoun pause form full form suffixed pronoun full form suffixed pronoun full form suffixed pronoun

gloss commerce, trade commerce, trade our commerce, our trade lecture lecture her lecture university university their (m.) university their (f.) university school school her school he carried he carried them (m.) we observed we observed them (m.)

Questions and discussion points (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Select twenty Arabic words at random from a newspaper and put them into phonological transliteration. Then assign the syllable boundaries within each word. After having done the first exercise, note where stress falls in each word, according to full-form pronunciation and then according to pause-form pronunciation. Write a brief introduction to syllables and stress for a group of students studying first-year Arabic, and provide them with examples from the textbook they would be using. Try writing formal rules for Arabic stress placement. For example, “stress is on the penult (second syllable from the end) if it is strong (CVV or CVC)” might look something like this: fCVVg fCVC=g

fCVg  fCVVg fCVCg

#

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

39 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

Lexical stress

(5)

39

The bold indicates stress; the forward slash indicates “in the environment of”; the lank indicates where the bolded items would occur; hashmark indicates word boundary. How would you compare the role of stress placement in English to the role of stress placement in Arabic? Are they equally important? If someone pronounces Arabic using mistaken stress placement, is it still understandable to most speakers?

Further reading Abdo, Daud A. 1969. On Stress and Arabic Phonology: A generative approach. Beirut: Khayats (especially ch. IV, which deals with stress rules in Classical Arabic). Jesry, Maher. 2009. Syllable structure. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 387–389. Leiden: Brill. Mitchell, T. F. 1990–1993. Pronouncing Arabic. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press (especially 1990, vol. I, 19–21). Ryding, Karin. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (especially 36–40).

Notes 1. “In English, the incidence of the accent is unpredictable, having to be learned for individual words, whereas in Classical Arabic it is dependent upon the syllable structure of the total word-form” (Mitchell 1990: 19). 2. See McCarthy and Prince 1990a and 1990b. 3. Sometimes in other languages, a sonoric consonant (‘sonorant’) such as /l/, /r/, or /n/ will serve as a syllable nucleus, like the /l/ in the English word “edible.” 4. “Classical Arabic syllables are delimitable by the fact of their beginning with a consonant and containing a vocalic nucleus, as well as by the inadmissibility of syllable-initial clusters and of sequences of more than two consonants” (Mitchell 1990: 19–20). 5. Because of the incomplete nature of Arabic script, it is customary to use transliteration for syllable analysis and discussion. 6. The # symbol indicates the end of a word. 7. English-speaking learners tend to be uncertain about Arabic stress placement because lexical stress is not predictable in English. Sometimes they will borrow stress rules from another L2 that they have studied (e.g., French or Spanish) and apply to them to Arabic; but this experimentation usually leads to error and even more uncertainty. It is useful to provide them with the rules, even if those rules are not immediately mastered. They can serve as a resource and a rule of thumb for stabilizing pronunciation progress. 8. Whereas this holds true in most Arab countries, Egyptian stress patterns tend to be affected by Egyptian dialect stress, which is subject to a different set of rules. 9. These stress rules apply for Eastern forms of pronunciation of MSA; they do not apply for Egyptian pronunciation.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C04.3D

40 [33–40] 24.10.2013 1:11PM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

41 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

5

Introduction to Arabic morphology 1.

Word structure

Ask most anyone, and they will say that words are at the heart of language. Words are definitely at the center of discourse, and single words are the first language elements that infants normally acquire. But seemingly simple questions such as “what is a word?” have been surprisingly difficult to answer. Distinctions can be made according to various criteria. Three general aspects of “word” can be listed: the phonological word or word as a phonological unit; the lexeme, or content word with a dictionary meaning; and the “grammatical word,” the word stem that serves as a base for grammatical/inflectional markers. One definition of ‘word’ is “a unit of expression which has universal intuitive recognition by native-speakers, in both spoken and written language” (Crystal 1997b: 419). However, the concept of “intuitive recognition” is neither empirical nor rigorous. Another definition is “the smallest of the linguistic units which can occur on its own in speech or writing” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 636). Here again, the concept of “on its own” is open to discussion. As Richards and Schmidt note, “it is difficult to apply this criterion consistently” (2010: 636). Morphology, the study of word structure, examines systematically the nature of words, their forms, their components, their interactions, and – to some extent – their meanings.

2.

What is linguistic morphology?

Morphology in linguistics deals with the structure of words: how they are formed and the identity and character of their component features. Sometimes words consist of solid stems (such as the Arabic noun yad ‘hand’ or the English word book), but more often (especially in Arabic) words are composed of more than one morpheme (such as the English words books, bookshelf, booked; or the Arabic word maktab ‘office’ consisting of the 41

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

42

42 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Introduction to Arabic morphology

lexical root morpheme { k-t-b} ‘write’ and the grammatical pattern morpheme specifying “place,” { ma __ __ a __ }).1 A morpheme, then, can be defined as a minimum unit of form endowed with an independent meaning.2 Another definition is that a morpheme is “a minimal distinctive unit of grammar, and the central concern of morphology” (Crystal 1997b: 248). Morphemes may be free, meaning that they can stand alone as words, or they may be bound, meaning that they exist only as components of words. In Arabic, most words are morphologically complex, that is, they consist of more than one morpheme.

3.

Where is morphology?

The location of morphological information and processes within theories of language has been for some time a matter of discussion and debate.3 Central to this debate is the question of the nature of morphological structure: are morphemes things (‘items”) or processes, or both?4 For structural descriptive linguistics, morphology is often represented as a tier or layer of language analysis situated between the phonological level and the syntactic level, and interacting with both. Morphology is an area of extensive calibration between sound and meaning, interfacing with both sound systems and the rules of syntax through the medium of word formation. For transformational–generative linguistics, morphology is not a separate level, but functions within the generative component of the grammar as well as within the lexical component. In “generative morphology” (Aronoff 1992a: 2), morphology is seen as autonomous, and “should be dealt with on its own terms . . . it is different from phonology and syntax. . . although it inevitably must interact with the rest of language.” In fact Aronoff states that morphology “lies at the center of language” (1992a: 3). Because of its interfaces with phonology and syntax, the role of morphology within the architecture of grammar is still open to many questions, such as: how to determine and characterize the ways in which morphology, phonology, and syntax interact; how to distinguish complex or compound words from phrases; where are the boundaries between morphology and syntax (or between morphology and phonology) and how can they be identified? For Arabic in particular these are important theoretical questions, and ones whose answers may be revealing for the field of morphology and morphological analysis inasmuch as Arabic represents a mixture of non-concatenative and concatenative morphological processes.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

43 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Derivation and inflection

4.

43

Derivation and inflection

Morphology is traditionally seen as composed of two subfields: derivation and inflection.5 It entails the examination of both the way that word stems or lexemes are formed (lexical or derivational morphology) and the ways that words behave in context (inflectional morphology).6 Certain scholars, such as Aronoff, consider morphology to be an autonomous component of the grammar.7 For others, derivation and inflection are seen as segments of grammatical structure that are distributed on an interactive spectrum or gradient, one end of which interfaces with the lexicon and the other with syntax.8 Derivation is closer to the lexical end of the spectrum because its processes result in lexeme formation (e.g., derivation of participles and verbal nouns from lexical roots). Inflection ranks closer to the syntax end of that spectrum because of its greater degree of interface with syntactic processes (e.g., agreement and government).9 Derivation and inflection differ from each other in that derivation creates word stems that are protected or “buffered” from the effects of grammatical operations, whereas inflection affects words by marking them for particular grammatical categories (e.g., case and mood; in Arabic, ʔiʕraab). The word stem (such as maktab-) is a lexical unit, can be looked up in a dictionary, and carries semantic as well as grammatical information. When it is used in a sentence, it takes upon itself a role (e.g., subject of a verb, object of a verb, object of a preposition) and that role is marked by an inflectional suffix (for example, fii l-maktab-i). According to Chomsky (1970) and Anderson (1988), the integrity of derived word stems gives rise to the “Lexicalist Hypothesis:” “The syntax neither manipulates nor has access to the internal form of words” (Anderson 1988: 23). Most current theories of grammar limit the interaction between syntax and lexical morphology. These theories differ, though, on whether they place the mechanism for composing inflected forms in the lexicon along with derivational word formation rules (Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis, SLH) or in some syntactic or phonological component (Weak Lexicalist Hypothesis, WLH). (Baedecker and Caramazza 1989: 109)10

For Arabic these morphological distinctions form an interesting field of study, especially as they relate to distinctions found in other languages. In a previous article, I noted the following: That [Arabic] case and mood, as separate from number and gender, are more closely related to the syntax end of the grammatical spectrum, and that there may be two distinct subcategories definable within inflection: the syntactically relevant categories of number and gender [e.g., agreement] relating more closely to

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

44

44 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Introduction to Arabic morphology semantic and lexical specifications and the syntactically determined categories of case and mood more closely bound to syntactic processes. If this distinction is relevant for Arabic, then it lends credence to Perlmutter’s split morphology hypothesis because it posits an even farther distance between derivation and desinential inflection; furthermore, it lends support to the continuum concept proposed by Bybee because of the differentiations and distinctions of categories within the inflectional component of morphology, some categories (e.g., number) being more closely bound to semantics and some (e.g., case) to syntax. (Ryding 1993: 177–178)

I would go as far as to say that morphology occupies the arena of prime importance in Arabic linguistic analysis. As opposed to syntax (considered central in standard theories of generative grammar) morphology and its interfaces (morphophonology and morphosyntax) constitute the most significant components of the powerful interlocking grammatical system that is Arabic. The key role of morphology in Semitic grammar has been noted by Aronoff, who notes the influence of this field on Western grammatical analysis and even proposes that “it may. . . well be that all Western linguistic morphology is directly rooted in the Semitic grammatical tradition” (Aronoff 1994: 3).

5.

Morphological models

Several morphological models have been central to the field of theoretical morphology. Five of the most important ones for Arabic are listed here: (1)

(2)

(3)

Item-and-arrangement model: a “model of morphological structure in which a complex word consists of a sequence of concatenated morphemes” (Booij 2005, 2007: 315). Item-and-process model: a “model of morphological structure in which each complex word is the output of one or more morphological processes such as affixation and internal modification” (Booij 2005, 2007: 315). It “sets up one underlying form for alternating allomorphs and derives the surface forms by applying feature-changing rules to the underlying form” (Bybee 1988: 119). Word-and-paradigm model: a “theoretical model of inflection that takes the lexeme and its paradigm of cells as the starting point for the analysis of inflectional systems” (Booij 2005, 2007: 324). “Word-and-paradigm is an approach to morphology which gives theoretical centrality to the notion of the paradigm and which derives the word-forms representing lexemes by a complex series of ordered rules which do not assume that the wordform will be easily analyzable into morphs or that each morph will realize

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

45 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Morphophonology and morphosyntax

(4)

(5)

6.

45

a single morpheme. It is also known as a-morphous morphology” (Bauer 2003: 344). Lexical Phonology and Morphology (LPM): a theory of the interaction of morphology and phonology, especially as pertaining to issues of cyclicity and sequencing of morphophonological processes. Lexeme–Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM): “is a theory of morphology which claims that lexical morphemes, called Lexemes, and grammatical morphemes, Morphemes, are radically different linguistic phenomena” (Beard and Volpe 2005: 189) (emphasis in original). Essentially, lexemes are word stems of the major syntactic categories (nouns, verbs, adjectives), whereas grammatical morphemes such as tense, person, plural, and so forth, are non-lexical. This theory reflects a rather long-standing distinction between lexical and grammatical morphemes, although some theories of morphology consider all morphemes, whether lexical or bound, to be of essentially the same nature: meaningbearing minimal forms.

Morphophonology and morphosyntax

In Arabic (as in many other languages) it is often the case that morphology overlaps or interfaces with phonology – e.g., through application of phonological rules – (morphophonology) and also with syntax, through application of syntactic requirements such as government or agreement rules (morphosyntax). As far as possible, linguists seek to identify morphemes, morpheme boundaries, and morphological rules in order to be able to characterize fully the structures and functions that operate within Arabic morphological theory, and to systematically relate sound to meaning. Sometimes morpheme boundaries are “fuzzy,” that is, they fuse into each other. One step in analyzing word structure, then, is to be able to distinguish all the morphemes that compose a particular word as well as variants of the base form or word stem which may occur as a result of derivational or inflectional processes. For example, hollow verbs in Arabic, such as qaal-a ‘to say’ have two stems in the past tense: qul- and qaal-. This is referred to as “stem allomorphy,” or stem variance, resulting from phonological rules that apply as a result of morphological processes such as inflection or derivation. Arabic is a “synthetic” or “fusional” type of language (like Latin) wherein several morphemes may “fuse” together in one word, indicating various kinds of grammatical and lexical information.11 Sometimes these morphemes are relatively easy to identify and sort out, and sometimes not. A knowledge of Arabic root types and their variants as well as a knowledge of morphological processes need to be combined in order to deal with the complexities of Arabic word formation.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

46 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

46

Introduction to Arabic morphology

7.

Analytical procedures Morphological analysis usually entails three basic steps:

(1) (2) (3)

7.1.

reducing word components to the smallest units of meaning (decomposition);12 studying and categorizing recurrent elements of word structure; and seeking generalizations that lead to “efficient, economical, and elegant” explanations of word formation.13

Noun decomposition

In an Arabic word such as maktab-un, ‘an office,’ one can find at least four overt morphemes, realized by particular morphs: (1) (2) (3) (4)

the lexical root {k-t-b} ‘write’ the noun-of-place lexical pattern {ma __ __a __} the nominative case-marker suffix { -u } the indefinite marker suffix {-n }

For the word maktab, one can also specify the morphological features number (singular) and gender (masculine). These features are grammatical components of point number (2), the derivational pattern {ma __ __a __ }. In Arabic, the morphological properties “masculine” and “singular” are often unmarked, that is, without external features, and therefore more subtle in their presence.14 Nonetheless, they are part of the word’s essential feature matrix and play key roles in agreement structures. For example, in order to say “a new office,” maktabun jadiid-un, one needs to know that the modifier must be masculine, singular, indefinite, and nominative in order to be in strict concord with the noun. Altogether, the single word maktab-un has six morphemes: two derivational (root and pattern) and four inflectional: number, gender, case, and definiteness.

7.2.

Verb decomposition

In an Arabic word such as ya-ktub-u ‘he writes, he is writing’ one can identify eight morphemes realized through the following morphs: (1) (2) (3) (4)

the lexical root {k-t-b} ‘write’ the verb stem pattern { __ __ u __}, which also marks the present tense and active voice the person and gender inflectional prefix { ya- } (third person masculine)

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

47 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

¸sarf and nah¯w

(5)

47

the mood-marking and number-marking inflectional suffix for indicative singular: {-u}.

In this (and any) Arabic verb, these eight morphemes occur: root, stem pattern, tense (or aspect), person, gender, mood, number, and voice.15 Two of these morphemes are derivational (root and pattern); the other six are inflectional.

8.

Words, morphemes, boundaries

Arabic word structure falls into several categories and subcategories. To define a word in Arabic often means thinking across morphological boundaries, as most words are composed of at least two derivational morphemes: a lexical root and a pattern template, as well as inflectional affixes. Because of the nature of Arabic pronouns, some words (nouns and verbs) can be extended to include suffix pronouns.16 It is therefore possible, in Arabic, that one word will be the equivalent of a clause, or full predication. If one takes a transitive verb, for example, inflects it for tense, voice, subject, person, number, and mood and adds a pronoun object suffix, it may yield a complete one-word predication: ya-staʕmil-uuna-haa. sa-na-ntaxib-u-hum.

They are using it. We will elect them.

Word boundaries in Arabic are flexible, but obey specific grammatical and orthographical rules. We know that the above expressions are considered words because of the application of word stress rules to the entire expression (phonological criterion) and because of Arabic spelling conventions (orthographical criterion). They are nonetheless full predications.

9.

¸sarf and nah¯w

şarf is the indigenous term used to refer to most of the morphology of Arabic, derivational (above the root level), inflectional categories such as gender, number, and person, and suffixal inflection on the past tense verb, and morphophonological change. “In relation to language, the science of taşriif is usually called ʕilm al-şarf. Both indicate a change in the form of words, and both are used indiscriminately to designate the science of morphology” (Åkesson 2009: 119). Neither şarf nor taşriif cover the inflectional categories of case and mood (desinence), however. Desinential inflection is normally considered a morphosyntactic category classified under the rubric of naħw, or syntax.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

48 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

48

Introduction to Arabic morphology

10.

Other forms of lexical expansion

Although Arabic vocabulary resources are solidly anchored in the root/ pattern system of word formation, other processes of lexical expansion also exist in Arabic, such as borrowing words from a foreign language, coining new words, lexical blending, and compounding. Such processes have increased in frequency for Arabic in recent years due to the ever-growing need for new technical terms, and also due to the increased rapidity of communication and exchange of ideas at a global and international level. These non-root-and-pattern word-formation processes often originate in vernacular Arabic but are also developed in media Arabic, both spoken and written. These are dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 7.

11.

Morphological terminology

“A vital requirement for all scientific work is a set of terminology which is clear and unequivocal” (Dixon 2010: 75). Here are some terms frequently used in the discussion of morphology as it applies to Arabic.17 A more comprehensive glossary is found at the end of this book. affix: “A letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds (= a morpheme), which is added to a word, and which changes the meaning or function of the word” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 17). This includes prefixes, circumfixes, infixes, and suffixes. Another definition states that “an affix is a grammatical element, belonging to a closed set, which can only function as a component of a word” (Cruse 1986: 77). allomorph: a variant of a morpheme that does not alter its basic identity or function, e.g., different forms for the English plural morpheme such as: books, dogs, houses, oxen, children, sheep; or the contextual variation of the indefinite article a/an that depends on the initial sound of the following word. In Arabic also, the plural morpheme takes on various shapes: sound feminine plural (-aat), sound masculine plural (-uuna/ -iina), and the many variations of broken or internal plurals. The laam of the definite article (al-) has a wide range of allomorphic shapes because of the fact that “sun letters” assimilate it, and change its realization (e.g., al-dhahab ‘gold’ is pronounced adh-dhahab). bound morpheme: a grammatical formative that cannot occur on its own as a word (e.g., in English word parts such as -ish, -ment, un-, -ly, s, -ed). In Arabic, a lexical root (jidhr) such as {k-t-b} or {d-r-s}, a word pattern or template such as {ma__ __ a __ } for noun of place, or

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

49 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Morphological terminology

49

case-markers such as -u, -i and -a). Arabic abounds in bound morphemes. circumfix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added at both ends of a word (i.e., prefix and suffix together), and which changes the meaning or function of the word, as in the Arabic present tense structure ya-ktub-na ‘they f. write.’ citation form: the basic word stem listed in a dictionary. concatenative morphology: the formation of words through combination of elements into a linear sequence. derivational morphology: the creation of lexical items, word stems. discontinuous morphology: splitting one morpheme by insertion of another unit, such as the interlocking of grammatical patterns and lexical roots in Arabic. formative: any element entering into word formation, either derivational or inflectional. free morpheme: can function independently as a word (e.g., Arabic min ‘from’). infix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds, which is added inside a word or morpheme, and which changes its meaning or function. inflectional morphology: the study of word variation in context (e.g., number, gender, case, definiteness, tense, voice, and person are some categories of inflectional morphology). Inflections are applied to word stems. lexeme: “A lexeme is a (potential or actual) decontextualized vocabulary word, a member of a major lexical category: noun (N), verb (V) or adjective/adverb (A)” (Aronoff 1992b: 13). Another definition is “the abstract unit that stands for the common properties of all the forms of a word” (Booij 2005, 2007: 316). Cruse refers to lexemes as “the items listed in the lexicon, or ‘ideal dictionary,’ of a language” (1986: 49).18 Aronoff 1994 states, “a lexeme, at least in its extrasyntactic state, is uninflected, both abstractly and concretely” (1994: 11).19 lexicon: essentially, the set of all words and idioms known to a native speaker of a language, including information on a word’s syntactic category (sometimes called “lexical category”), its grammatical functions and patterning, and its meaning/s. morph: “A morph is a constituent element of a word-form. It is the realization of a morpheme (or sometimes more than one, see portmanteau morph)” (Bauer 2003: 334).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

50

50 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Introduction to Arabic morphology

morpheme: a minimum unit of form having an independent lexical or grammatical meaning. “The morpheme is an abstract unit realized. . .by morphs, or . . . allomorphs” (Bauer 2003: 334–335). Some theories of morphology crucially distinguish between lexical and grammatical morphemes (e.g., lexeme–morpheme base morphology). morphology: the study of word structure and word formation, especially in terms of morphemes and morphological processes. morphophonology: the study of the interaction/interface between morphology and phonology. morphosyntax: the study of the interface between morphology and syntax. non-concatenative morphology: “morphology that makes use of other processes than affixation or compounding to create new words or word forms” (Booij 2007: 318). The root/pattern morphology of Arabic is an example of non-concatenative morphology because the root morphemes and the pattern morphemes are discontinuous and are combined through interlinking rather than linear affixation. paradigm: “A set of forms, corresponding to some subset (defined in terms of a particular morphological category) of the grammatical words from a single lexeme. Paradigms are frequently presented in tabular form” (Bauer 2003: 337). For example, in Arabic, the possible forms of a word can be listed in a table consisting of “cells” that constitute the range of word-form options possible in the language. For example, a triptote or fully inflectable (muʕrab) noun paradigm would look like this, showing both case and definiteness within six cells: Word-stem; najm- ‘tower’ Case nominative genitive accusative

Definite najm-u najm-i najm-a

Indefinite najm-u-n najm-i-n najm-a-n

pattern (Arabic): a pattern is a bound and in many cases, discontinuous morpheme consisting of one or more vowels and slots for root phonemes (radicals), which either alone or in combination with one to three derivational affixes, interlocks with a root to form a stem, and which generally has grammatical meaning.20 portmanteau morph: incorporates two (or more) meanings in one morpheme, such as the dual suffix in Arabic: -aani = number (dual) and case (nominative) -ayni = number (dual) and case (accusative/genitive)

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

51 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Morphological terminology

51

prefix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added to the beginning of a word, and which changes the meaning or function of the word. root (Arabic): a root is a relatively invariable discontinuous bound morpheme, represented by two to five phonemes, typically three consonants in a certain order, which interlocks with a pattern to form a stem and which has lexical meaning. In this book, usually referred to as a “lexical root.” Aronoff defines a root in more vivid terms: “A root is what is left when all the morphological structure has been wrung out of a form. This is the sense of the term in Semitic grammar” (1992b: 15). stem or word stem: the base or bare form of a word without inflectional affixes. A lexeme may have more than one stem. stem allomorphy: the variation of a stem resulting from interaction with inflectional or derivational morphology. suffix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added to the end of a word, and which changes the meaning or function of the word. WFR: word formation rule. A rule that applies in derivational morphology.

Questions and discussion points (1)

Morphological analysis. Analyze the following Arabic words into their minimal morphological components by identifying the morphs (realizations) of those categories. Separate the inflectional morphemes from derivational morphemes. How many do you come up with? Are there any that are difficult to identify? (a) jaamiʕatun (b) sayuTaalibuuna (c) ilayhimaa (d) muħaamiihinna (e) taʕaaluu (f) naʕam (g) mufiidun (h) zilzaalun (i) al-muxtabaru (j) nataħaddathu (k) tamtaddu (l) tastaʕdidna

(2)

university they (m.) will demand to the two of them their (f.) lawyers come! yes beneficial earthquake the laboratory we are speaking it extends, spreads out you (f. pl.) are preparing

Arabic morphology is said to be essentially “non-concatenative.” However, it also has concatenative (linear) processes of affixation, especially in

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

52

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

52 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Introduction to Arabic morphology

inflectional systems (for example, the suffixation of sound plural morphemes, e.g., muhandis-uuna). What would be some other types of linear or concatenative morphology in Arabic? Discuss the concepts of derivational and inflectional morphology as they apply to Arabic. Are the boundaries between the two clear and distinctive, or do they ever blur? Does the Arabic term şarf cover both derivational and inflectional morphology? If you are unsure, find an Arabic definition of şarf and compare it to the concepts of derivational and inflectional morphology. List five free and five bound morphemes in Arabic. A “portmanteau” morph realizes more than one morpheme, as noted above. Make a list of four other examples of “portmanteau” morphs in Arabic. In note 13, I quoted as follows: “In science, elegance aligns with precision, concision, and ‘ingenious simplicity’: an elegant solution is the one that maps the most efficient route through complex terrain” (Sword 2012: 165). Do you think that this definition of elegance applies in general, or just to sciences such as linguistics?

Further reading Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (This book has an excellent glossary of technical terms in Appendix C.) Booij, Geert. 2005, 2007. The Grammar of Words: An introduction to morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (This book also includes a useful glossary of technical terms in morphology.) McCarthy, John. 2008. Morphology. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 297–307. Leiden: Brill. Ratcliffe, Robert. 2013. Morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. J. Owens, 71–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ryding, Karin C. 1993. Case/mood syncretism in Arabic grammatical theory: Evidence for the split morphology hypothesis and the continuum hypothesis. In Investigating Arabic: Linguistic, pedagogical and literary studies in honor of Ernest N. McCarus, Raji M. Rammuny, and Dilworth B. Parkinson, eds., 173–179. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press

Notes 1. A standard notational convention is to enclose morphemes in curly brackets { } (also called ‘braces’). The slots in the pattern morpheme stand for the phonemes that constitute the lexical root.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

53 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Morphological terminology

53

2. “A morpheme cannot be divided without altering or destroying its meaning” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 375). 3. “There are essentially three ways of thinking about morphology. One is to treat it as an autonomous ‘module,’ some of whose primes and principles are entirely independent of other aspects of language (specifically, syntax, phonology, semantics or conceptual structure): morphology-by-itself. Another is to think of morphology as a ragbag of idiosyncratic phenomena . . . whose main interest for linguistics lies in the way it relates to ‘genuinely’ linguistic levels of representation: morphology as merely a set of interface phenomena. The third tack is to admit that there are linguistically interesting phenomena in morphology (such as affix order or stem allomorphy), but to claim that these are reducible to principles of other models, e.g., syntax and phonology, respectively: reductionism (in the form of classical generative, SPE-type approach to allomorphy, or to the more recent ‘syntax-all-the-way-down’ approaches to morphosyntax). To a large extent, current ideology favors the second and/or third position” (Spencer 1994: 811–812). NB: The abbreviation “SPE” refers to The Sound Pattern of English, a landmark text in generative phonology by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, originally published in 1968. 4. “To simplify the polar positions [thing or process], in the former case we view morphemes as Saussurian signs – each a meaning paired with an identifiable form, presumably worthy of a lexical entry; strategies of word-formation like reduplication, ablaut, truncation, and metathesis then require some explanation. In the latter case concatenative and nonconcatenative morphology alike are deemed processual; ordinary affixation, like reduplication, ablaut, etc., is treated as a process” (Lieber 1996: 130). 5. “The distinction is delicate, and sometimes elusive, but nonetheless important” (Aronoff 1976: 2). Aronoff later notes: “Derivation and inflection are not kinds of morphology but rather uses of morphology: inflection is the morphological realization of syntax, while derivation is the morphological realization of lexeme formation” (Aronoff 1994: 126). 6. See Ryding 1993 for an analysis of Arabic derivational and inflectional morphology. 7. “In a number of recent publications on morphology, attention has been drawn to the autonomy of morphology in the sense that the formal expression of inflection and word formation is not always related to its content in a simple one-to-one fashion” (Booij 1996: 812). 8. Perlmutter’s “split morphology” hypothesis proposes that derivational morphology is much more tightly bound to the lexicon, or the lexical end of the spectrum, than is inflectional morphology, and that “only syntactically relevant morphology can be extralexical” (1988: 94). 9. Carstairs refers to “a kind of spectrum of morphological behavior with ‘derivational’ and ‘inflexional’ extremes” (1987: 4). Baedecker and Caramazza argue that “inflectional and derivational processes or representations are distinguished in the ‘cognitive lexicon’” (1989: 114). 10. Putting this another way, one scholar states that “there is some morphology (namely inflection) which is integrated with the syntax in a crucial way; while other aspects of morphology (derivation) are primarily tied up with meaning” (Anderson 1988: 23). 11. See Dixon 2010: 226–227 for discussion and analysis of the terminology used in classifying languages by morphological type. 12. Booij refers to these components as “atoms of words” (2005, 2007: 27).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4461818/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C05.3D

54

54 [41–54] 24.10.2013 2:04PM

Introduction to Arabic morphology

13. Chomsky (1974: 3). In his 1974 work on modern Hebrew morphophonolgy, Chomsky emphasizes the concept of a “maximally simple grammar,” and states that “elegance” is a key factor in grammatical explanation, as well as simplicity (1974: 4). The following definition of elegance is a very apt one: “In science, elegance aligns with precision, concision, and ‘ingenious simplicity’: an elegant solution is the one that maps the most efficient route through complex terrain” (Sword 2012: 165). 14. Marked vs. unmarked features are components of “markedness theory,” which sees “certain linguistic elements . . . as unmarked, i.e., simple, core, or prototypical, while others are seen as marked, i.e., complex, peripheral, or exceptional” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 352). Typically, in Arabic, masculine gender in substantives is seen as “unmarked” or most basic, whereas feminine gender often carries an overt femininemarking morpheme, and is considered “marked.” Essentially the same argument can be made for singular and plural number, singular being considered as the most basic, or “unmarked” category. 15. In this book I use the term “tense” rather than “aspect,” as I believe it is maximally informative for those readers new to linguistic analysis. In fact, tense and aspect seem to be interwoven in Arabic verbs. See Ryding (2005: 51–52). 16. Bound pronouns are considered clitics, words/morphemes that are bound to other words and do not stand on their own. “A simple clitic differs from other lexical items in lacking the prosodic status of ‘word:’ it has segmental, and possibly syllabic and even foot structure, but it is not a word” (Anderson 1988: 24). 17. See Carstairs-McCarthy (2005) for a concise introduction to and explanation of morphological terminology. 18. Cruse makes a distinction between lexemes and “lexical units,” especially as these terms are used in lexical semantics (1986: 49–50). 19. Aronoff adds that “a lexeme is a (potential or actual) member of a major lexical category, having both form and meaning but being neither, and existing outside of any particular syntactic context” (1994: 11). 20. I am indebted to my mentor, Professor Wallace Erwin, for this definition.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

55 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

6

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system 1.

Introduction

Derivational morphology creates word stems, or lexemes.1 It builds and enlarges the lexicon so that concepts may find expression within a language. Sometimes the process of derivation changes a word’s form class (e.g., creating an adjective from a noun, such as tuunis-iyy ‘Tunisian’ from tuunis “Tunisia’); sometimes it changes the subclass of a word (creating a transitive verb from an intransitive base, e.g., ʔadxala ‘to insert’ from daxala ‘to enter’). It affects almost all form classes or syntactic categories except those that are closed, such as function words (prepositions, conjunctions, particles).2 In Arabic, systematic derivation of words from lexical roots is at the heart of the word-creation system, and remains the distinctive feature of Arabic morphology. The fact that Arabic word stems consist primarily of discontinuous morphemes (interlocked roots and patterns) has been of substantial interest to morphological theory in general.3 Derivational morphology can be expressed in terms of Word Formation Rules (WFRs). “A basic assumption . . . is that WFRs are rules of the lexicon, and as such operate totally within the lexicon. They are totally separate from the other rules of the grammar, though not from the other components of the grammar. A WFR may make reference to syntactic, semantic, and phonological properties of words, but not to syntactic, semantic, or phonological rules” (Aronoff 1976: 46). It is also the case that “derivational markers will be encompassed within inflectional markers” (Aronoff 1976: 2). That is, derivation applies to word-stem formation, creating a lexical unit. Inflectional markers are subsequently added to word stems when words are used in context. Derivation – in other words – is prior to inflection. Or, as Aronoff remarks, “Lexeme formation intrinsically feeds inflection” (1994: 127). In Arabic, the predominant word-formation process is based on root/pattern morphology. However, other forms of lexical creation and innovation also exist, such as borrowing and compounding, and these have characteristics of their own. 55

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

56

56 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

In this chapter traditional Arabic derivational morphology is dealt with, and in the following chapter, other forms of lexemes, lexical innovation, and expansion.

2.

Paronymy in Arabic

The lexical root in Arabic is the source of semantic information upon which the Arabic meaning system is built; it is the key lexical element in word formation. Usually consisting of three or four consonants (rarely, two), the root is an abstract concatenation of phonemes in a particular order which has lexical or dictionary meaning (such as {k-t-b} ‘write’ or {b-l-w-r} ‘crystal’). By virtue of this fact, Arabic dictionaries are constructed according to roots, and within the root, according to the order of root phonemes – not according to word orthography.4 This is a key reason for the importance of understanding derivational morphology, for all words related to a particular root are clustered under that root, not by their spelling.5 The technical term for words derived from a lexical base is “paronym.” The relationship between one word and another belonging to a different syntactic category and produced from the first by some process of derivation . . . [is] paronymy; the derivationally primitive item [is] called the base, and the derived form the paronym. (Cruse 1986: 130) (emphasis in original)

Paronymy largely characterizes the lexical resources of Arabic, with each base or lexical root extending its rich semantic power through morphological modifications to create paronyms that cover the entire range of Arabic syntactic categories. This process of analogical modeling and building lexical resources through the application of analogous patterns and processes is a foundational feature of Semitic linguistics.6 In this regard, one of the key accomplishments of traditional Arabic grammar was the ability to express any potential word-stem by fitting a grammatical pattern or template into a specific model root: { f-ʕ-l }, thus giving form to both the abstract concept of lexical root and the equally abstract concept of grammatical pattern. By doing this, they provided a method for referring to patterns and a basis for discussion of morphological structures (e.g., faʕiil or tafaʕʕul). “The use of the root f-ʕ-l as the prime exemplar for Arabic words is a powerful symbolic formalization that provides a model of any morphological template or word pattern” (Ryding 2005: 436).7

3.

The Arabic verb system and its derivations

Verbs are the quintessential example of the systematicity of Arabic derivational morphology and its basis within analogy, qiyaas. At the heart of the verb-creation process is the lexical root which interlocks with a set of “patterns” –

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

57 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

The Arabic verb system and its derivations

57

intercalcated vowels and consonants – in a fixed order, which have grammatical meaning.8 Moreover, within the verb derivation system, the various prepatterned “Forms” of the verb (ʔawzaan), or verb stem templates, convey a certain amount of semantic information such as intensity, association, or reflexivity. Each triliteral lexical root in Arabic can potentially produce ten to fifteen verb Forms, and each verb Form in turn produces participles (active and passive) and a verbal noun (maşdar). A practice of referring to these ʔawzaan, or Forms of the verb, using the Hebrew term, binyan (pl. binyanim) has emerged in theoretical morphology research, especially autosegmental morphology and templatic morphology (see for example Aronoff 1994: 123–164; Bauer 2003: 216–217; Booij 2005, 2007: 61; Durand 1990: 258–259; Spencer 1991: 17 and 1994: 816). In this book I will refer to these elements using the Arabic terms (wazn/ʔawzaan) or the established technical English term “Form” (capitalized) along with the reference numbers used in western scholarship and noted by roman numerals (I–XV). The British usage of the term “measure” to capture the meaning of wazn is close to its original sense, but is not used here. In traditional Arabic grammatical analysis, the term ishtiqaaq is used to refer to derivational systems of paronymy, but this term means more than derivation in the narrow sense: it is also used as an equivalent of the English term “etymology.” The kind of etymology involved here, however, does not trace word histories and their derivations from other languages or stages of language (as the English term usually denotes); it refers to the system of root/pattern derivation, especially verb-stem templatic morphology, that characterizes Semitic languages and Arabic in particular.9 This has led to the use of the term “derivational etymology” to express the concept of ishtiqaaq in English.10

3.1.

Verb morphology

Arabic verb stems must conform to certain stem templates or patterns, and if a notion needs to be borrowed into Arabic as a verb from another language, the foreign word must be adjusted to conform to one of the permitted verb-stem forms (e.g., talfana – ‘to phone’ based on a Form I quadriliteral pattern – faʕlala). Arabic verbs may be based only on triliteral or quadriliteral roots. If a biliteral root meaning is to be expressed as a verb (such as {b-n} ‘son’), it must be converted into a triliteral stem based on analogy with other triliteral stems (in the case of {b-n}, converted into a Form V defective verb stem, tabannaa ‘to adopt as a son’). There are ten essential verb-stem templates for triliteral verbs, each customarily denoted by a roman numeral (I–X).11 In addition, there are five extended but relatively rare verb-stem templates (XI–XV), taking the number of possible Forms up to fifteen. There are also four verb-stem templates for quadriliteral verbs (QI– QIV). Thus the complete verbal system of Arabic consists of nineteen stem

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

58

58 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

templates. A particular Form or wazn (or binyan) has been defined as “a function that maps a root onto a corresponding set of templates. The result of this mapping is a stem that undergoes inflectional morphology” (Aronoff 1994: 138). I would add that the particular Arabic verb stem created by this process also undergoes derivational morphology in that it produces a specific verbal noun (maşdar), an active participle (ism faaʕil), and (for transitive verbs) a passive participle (ism mafʕuul), all of which exhibit characteristic features that distinguish them as members of an individual verb-stem templatic class, wazn. Thus the process of verb-stem creation in Arabic is particularly rich, systematic, and productive.

3.2.

Verb semantics

Each verb stem template or carries with it semantic implications or information conveyed by its pattern. This semantic information – or, as I have previously referred to it, its “semantic slant” (Ryding 2005: 434) – is interpreted within the sphere of the lexical information provided by the root morpheme, yielding a distinct lexical entity composed of both lexical and grammatical/semantic information. These semantic components include elements such as associative action (i.e., action involving another) (Form III), repeated action (Forms II and III), reciprocal action (Form VI), intensive action (Form II), causation (Forms II and IV), reflexive action (Forms V and VIII), resultative (Forms VII and VIII), acquisition of a trait (Form IX), requestative or estimative (Form X).12 These categories do not exhaust the possibilities of semantic modification of the root, but are some of the most frequent.13 One of the most pithy summaries of Arabic verb-stem lexeme formation is given by French linguist, Gérard Lecomte: Si l’on met à part la forme dérivée IX, qui est nettement en marge du système, et la forme VII, commune à tout le domaine sémitique et de constitution claire, on peut expliquer comme suit la formation des autres formes dérivées: les formes I, II, III et IV sont les quatre formes de base, auxquelles correspondent respectivement les formes VIII, V, VI et X, obtenues en principe par préfixation d’un t-, qui leur confère une valeur réfléchie-passive. Le principe est appliqué sans altération dans les formes dérivées Vet VI. Dans la forme dérivée VIII, on observe une métathèse immédiatement perceptible. La forme dérivée X est issue non de la forme dérivée IV à préfixe hamza, mais d’une forme dérivée IV à préfixe s- qui a existé dans d’autres langues sémitiques (ex. assyrien tardif). (1968: 34) If one sets aside derived Form IX, which is clearly marginal to the system, and Form VII which is common to all Semitic languages and of clear constituency, one can explain as follows the formation of other derived forms: Form I, II, III, and IV are the four base forms, to which correspond respectively Forms VIII, V, VI, and X, obtained in principle by prefixing of a /t-/, which confers on them a reflexive– passive value. The principle is applied without alternation in the derived Forms V and VI. In derived Form VIII, one sees an immediately perceptible metathesis.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

59 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

The Arabic verb system and its derivations

59

The derived Form X issues not from derived Form IV with the prefix hamza, but from a derived Form IV prefixed by /s-/ which has existed in other Semitic languages (e.g., late Assyrian).14

An Arabic root morpheme keyed into verb stem templates will therefore be realized as lexemes with different forms of transitivity: intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive. Figure 3 shows the typical templetic patterns, or Foms of the

Arabic verb forms Passive Participle

Active Participle

Verbal Noun

Unpredictable

Present Tense

Past Tense

Form

I

II

III

IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Figure 3 Arabic verb forms Source: Copyright 2005 of Georgetown University Press. ‘Arabic verb forms’. From Formal Spoken Arabic: Basic course with MP3 files, 2nd edn, Karin C. Ryding and David J. Mehall, 263. Reprinted with permission (www.press.georgetown.edu)

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

60

60 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

triliteral lexical root. This transitivity shift may also be viewed as a shift in valency, with the verbal predicate taking one, two, or three arguments, or semantic roles within a predication.15

4.

Arabic lexical roots and root types

As noted above, the traditional Arabic root typically consists of three phonemes in a certain order which convey lexical or dictionary-type information. This three-consonant minimal core is the lexical anchor that provides the key semantic notion around which its derivatives are structured and elaborated. It is important to note that the sequence of consonants within a root is as important as the root phonemes themselves, and that their sequence is considered a component of a root’s lexical meaning. In mathematical terms, an Arabic lexical root may be seen as an “ordered set” of phonemes, e.g., < k, m, l >.16 The same members of the set in a different sequence convey substantially different semantic information (e.g., ‘complete’ vs. ‘possess,’ ‘speak’).17 Each set is uniquely identified by its members and by the particular sequence of those members. Each Arabic root is, in other words, very much like a formula for meaning, expressed in terms of phonemes in sequence. In terms of root-set membership, there are explicit cooccurrence restrictions on root phoneme combinations, constraining the presence of homorganic consonants (phonemes that share point and/or manner of articulation, such as ħaaʔ and ʕayn – both pharyngeal fricatives) in a triconsonantal Arabic root, especially in adjacent positions. This key determination about co-occurrence restrictions within root morphemes was discovered and described at length as early as the eighth century by Arabic grammarian Al-Khalil ibn Aħmad (d.791), in the introduction to his multi-volume dictionary, Kitaab al-ʕayn, and later explored and described by Greenberg in his classic 1950 article, “The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic.”18 More recent studies, such as that of Pierrehumbert (1992) and Bachra (2001), have explored the nature of these restrictions through application of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP). Bachra makes a case for “cooccurrence preferences” as well as co-occurrence restrictions in both Arabic and Hebrew lexical roots (2001: 80–111). It is the nature of the stem interacting with the inflectional systems of Arabic that lead to a wide variance in “stem allomorphy” – that is, the modifications to a word stem that occur as a result of inflectional or derivational morphological processes, such as the short and long stems for hollow verbs (e.g., qaal-; qul-; -quul-), the shifts in stem morphology that take place in assimilated verbs (e.g., wajad-; -jid-), or in verbs and other form classes derived from doubled verbs (e.g., radd-; radad-;

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

61 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Arabic lexical roots and root types

61

-rudd-; -rdud-). For this reason, knowing possible root-types is essential to predicting possible form variants.

4.1.

Biliteral roots

The role of biliteral roots in Arabic is deeply important in terms of both the evolution of the language and in terms of its current structure and semantics. Although standard Arabic is clearly built around triliteral roots and their variants, there is a strong research tradition proposing that the original archaic Semitic (and Afro-Asiatic) root system may well have been biliteral.19 This essential biliterality is evidenced in the number of “weak” roots (containing waaw or yaaʔ as a root consonant) and geminate roots that exist within the triconsonantal system, as well as in the two-consonant commonalities shared by many different roots (for example, {w-ş-l}, {b-ş-l}, {f-ş-l}, {ş-l-w}, {ş-l-ħ}, {ş-l-b}, and many others).20 Some biliteral roots persist to this day, in very common words, almost always nouns: ʔumm ʔab yad fam/fuu ʔax (i)sm (i)bn

4.2.

mother father hand mouth brother name son

Triliteral root (al-fiʕl al-thulaathiyy)

It is with the use of triliteral lexical roots that the Arabic verbal system has flourished and found profound signifying delicacy and expressive power. Within this system, the lexical roots interlock with grammatical or form class patterns that elaborate a root-based reservoir of actual and potential meaning. The nature of root phonemes and their interactions with patterns of derivational and inflectional morphology are key to the structure of the verbal system in Arabic, as well as knowledge of word stems and word-stem variants (stem allomorphy). As Aronoff notes about Hebrew, “most irregularities in the forms belonging to the paradigm of a given verb can be characterized in terms of the phonological peculiarities of certain root consonants. . . Once the nature and position of the weak consonant is given, the properties of the verb paradigm follow automatically” (1994: 190–191). It is therefore useful to quantify the triliteral root-types in order to classify their

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

62

62 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

paradigm variations. The various forms of Arabic lexical root weakness involve gemination, hamza, waaw, and yaaʔ as phonemes in various positions within the root.21

4.2.1.

Strong/regular root (saalim) Three different consonants, none of which are waaw, yaaʔ, or hamza: write fasten; knot lift up

4.2.2.

k-t-b ʕ-q-d r-f-ʕ

Geminate root (muDaʕʕaf) Two consonants, the second of which is geminate, or doubled: reply happy; secret solve

4.2.3.

r-d-d s-r-r ħ-l-l

Hamzated root (mahmuuz)

The glottal stop, hamza, interacts with morphology in various ways in both orthography and in phonetic shape. It occurs in root-initial, medial or final position. (1)

hamza-initial eat take sorry

(2)

ʔ-k-l ʔ-x-dh ʔ-s-f

hamza-medial ask mend be pessimistic

(3)

hamza-final read begin hide

q-r-ʔ b-d-ʔ x-b-ʔ

s-ʔ-l l-ʔ-m sh-ʔ-m

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

63 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Arabic lexical roots and root types

4.2.4.

63

Assimilated root (al-fiʕl al-mithaal) Assimilated roots are ones which start with waaw or yaaʔ: find arise put

4.2.5.

w-j-d y-q-Z w-đ-ʕ

Hollow root (al-fiʕl al-ʔajwaf)

Hollow roots have “weakness” in the middle, in the medial radical, in the form of either waaw or yaaʔ: sell say sleep

4.2.6.

b-y-ʕ q-w-l n-w-m

Defective root (al-fiʕl al-naaqis) Defective roots have “weakness” in the third radical, the final radical: appear invite throw

4.3.

b-d-w d-ʕ-w r-m-y

Arabic quadriliteral root types: (al-fiʕl al-rubaaʕiyy)

Arabic quadriliteral roots are of five types: sound, reduplicated, compound (blended), acronymic, or borrowed.

4.3.1.

Sound quadriliterals

Sound roots consist of four different consonants, one of which is usually a liquid or continuant: raaʔ, laam, nuun, or waaw.22 translate adorn overturn

4.3.2.

t-r-j-m z-r-q-sh d-h-w-r

Reduplicated quadriliterals

Reduplicated quadriliterals consist of a repeated CVC pattern. These verbs are usually onomatopoeic, reflecting a sound or repeated movement.23

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

64

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system neigh flutter shake

4.3.3.

64 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

h-m-h-m r-f-r-f z-l-z-l

Compound (blended) quadriliterals

Compound quadriliterals are the result of blending elements of two triliteral roots into one, such as jalmada ‘to be petrified’ (from the roots j-l-d ‘freeze’ and j-m-d ‘harden’)

4.3.4.

Acronymic quadriliterals

Acronymic quadriliterals result from using the initials of words in a set phrase, such as basmala (from bi-sm-i llaah ‘in the name of God’), and refer to the saying of that phrase. Other examples include: ħamdala, ‘to say al-ħamd-u li-llaah’ ‘Praise be to God.’ fadhlaka, ‘to say fa-dhaalika kadhaa wa-kadhaa, ‘and that is thus and so. . .’

4.3.5.

Borrowed quadriliterals

Many contemporary quadriliterals are the result of borrowings from other languages, such as: talfana falsafa

4.4.

to telephone philosophize

Quinquiliteral roots

Five-radical “roots” are items borrowed from other languages. They are used only as nominals, not as the basis for deriving verbs. banafsaj shaŧranj

5.

violet chess

Derivational affixes in Arabic (zaaʔ ida/zawaaʔ id: ‘augments')

Like other languages, Arabic makes use of certain sounds and sequences of sounds to convey grammatical and lexical information. Arabic uses a subset of

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

65 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational consonant formatives

65

phonemes in order to create patterns or templates into which root lexemes fit, and by means of which word stems are created and/or inflected. This subset of sounds are called zawaaʔid ‘augments’ in Arabic (singular zaaʔida), and are usually referred to as formatives in technical English terms, that is, they participate systematically in word formation. One morphologist defines formative as “serving to form words: said chiefly of flexional and derivative suffixes or prefixes” (Aronoff 1994: 2). The set of items used in Arabic derivational morphology overlaps with the set used in inflectional morphology.24 In this chapter derivational affixes and their uses are described; in the following chapter, inflectional affixes will be described.25

5.1.

Arabic derivational formatives

In Arabic, formatives may be used in prefixes, suffixes, infixes or even circumfixes, and in derivational morphology they work as components or subcomponents of pattern formation. For example, the prefix mu- is a formative used with participles of derived forms of the verb, both active and passive. It constitutes part of many patterns, such as mufʕil (e.g., mumkin ‘possible,’ or mushrif ‘supervising’) or muftaʕal (e.g., muntadaħ ‘alternative,’ or muħtaram ‘respected’). The systematicity of word-building strategies and features in Arabic and other Semitic languages exemplify the concept of derivational morphology in a particularly clear and compelling way. The formative nature of linguistic morphology is especially clear when we look at Semitic languages, where roots are mere collections of consonants from which all individual word-forms are quite dramatically given form by the laying on of templates and affixes. (Aronoff 1994: 3)

Semitic vowels are well known as components of derived word-stems including the full vowel repertoire, three long and three short: /aa/, /ii/, /uu/, /a/, /i/, /u/. The consonantal affixes, on the other hand, have received less attention, and certainly less systematic analysis. The consonantal derivational affixes used in Arabic are seven: hamza, taaʔ, miim, nuun, siin, yaaʔ, and waaw. These thirteen formatives (six vowels and seven consonants) constitute the phonemic inventory for patternformation in Arabic. (Note that this set of derivational affixes is not identical with inflectional affixes, although it contains some of the same items.) In addition to this set of phonemes, Arabic also employs a derivational process: gemination.

6.

Derivational consonant formatives

The following formatives are used to create word stems in Arabic as components of particular patterns or templates that intersect with lexical roots.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

66

66 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

I cite the phoneme and give examples of its use in three positions: word-initial, word-medial, and word-final. These lists are not exhaustive, but contain common examples.

6.1.

hamza

hamza occurs frequently as part of derivational patterns. This function of hamza is not to be confused with its role in inflectional morphology (for example, the occurrence of hamza as part of the plural inflection in patterns such as qabaaʔil or jaraaʔid, or its use marking the first person singular inflection of an imperfective verb, e.g., ʔa-drus-u, ‘I study’). This use of hamza is strictly limited to its role in lexeme formation.

6.1.1.

Word-initial hamza Derivational word-inital hamza occurs as follows:

(a) In the stem class of Form IV verbs and verbal nouns (wazn ʔafʕal), e.g. ʔaʕlana/ʔiʕlaan ʔaqaama/ʔiqaama ʔakmala/ʔikmaal

to announce/announcement to establish/establishment to complete/completion

(b) In the creation of nouns using the patterns ʔufʕuul and ʔufʕuula: ʔusbuuʕ ʔusluub ʔuŧruuħa

week style dissertation

(c) In the pattern-formation of the names of colors and physical characteristics: ʔaħmar ʔazraq ʔashqar ʔaʕmaa

6.1.2.

red blue blond blind

Word-medial hamza

Medial hamza is used in the derivation of the active participle of Form I hollow verbs: kaaʔin raaʔid zaaʔir

being pioneer visiting, visitor

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

67 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational consonant formatives

67

6.1.3.

Word-final hamza

(1)

hamza occurs as a component of verbal noun patterns for defective verbs: binaaʔ ilghaaʔ inqiđaaʔ intihaaʔ istiftaaʔ

(2)

hamza also occurs in final position in some singular noun patterns, e.g. şaħraaʔ thulathaaʔ

6.2.

building elimination expiration end referendum

desert Tuesday

taaʔ

The formative taaʔ is used widely in the creation of Arabic word-stems/ lexemes, and “is the only marker of the reflexive” (Larcher 2009: 642).

6.2.1.

Word-intitial taaʔ Word-initial taaʔ is used to form the following stem classes:

(1)

Verb Forms V and VI, and their verbal nouns: tamarrada/tamarrud tanaffasa/tanaffus taʕaawana/taʕaawun takaafaʔa/takaafuʔ

(2)

the verbal nouns of Form II: takraar tartiib takwiin

(3)

to rebel/rebellion to breathe/breathing to cooperate/cooperation to be equal/equivalence

repetition arrangement creation

the Form II quadriliteral verb and verbal noun tadahwara/tadahwur tabalwara/tabalwur

to tumble/tumbling to crystallize/crystallization

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

68 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

68

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

6.2.2.

Word-medial taaʔ

(1)

Taaʔ is inserted after the first root consonant in the verb pattern for Form VIII, its verbal nouns, and its participles: istamaʕa/istimaaʕ mustami/mustamaʕ iktasaba/iktisaab muktasib/mutktasab

to listen/ listening listener/ listened-to, heard to earn/earning earning/earned, attained

(2)

Taaʔ is also added to stem classes of Form X verbs, along with the formative /s/. These two are dealt with together in section 6.5.

6.2.3.

Word-final taaʔ

As a word-final derivational element, taaʔ is not used with verbs. Used with nouns, it most often takes the form of taaʔ marbuuŧa. Many noun patterns contain the taaʔ marbuuŧa formative as part of their lexical formation. This is, of course, distinct from its use as an inflectional gender marker, i.e., marking a modifier as feminine (e.g., maħZuuZa (t) – ‘fortunate, lucky.’). In the transliteration used here, the taaʔ marbuuŧa is noted in parentheses, as it is not normally pronounced in pause form. Some examples include: (1)

Form IV and form X hollow verbal nouns: ʔidhaaʕa (t) istifaada (t)

(2)

broadcasting benefit

Form III verbal nouns: musaaʕada (t) muħaawala (t)

(3)

Forms I and II verbal nouns of defective verbs: daʕwa (t) tarbiya (t)

(4)

invitation education, upbringing

Some verbal nouns of assimilated verbs: thiqa (t) şifa (t)

(5)

help, assistance attempt

trust, confidence characteristic; adjective

A number of basic noun formations, for example: janna (t) fikra (t) ʕalaaqa (t)

garden thought, idea relationship

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

69 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational consonant formatives

(6)

As a marker of singularity on unit nouns and instance nouns: mawza (t) raqşa (t)

(7)

a banana a dance

As a derivational suffix on nouns of instrument:26 fattaaħa (t) thallaaja (t)

(8)

opener freezer

As a derivational suffix on nouns of place and participles: maktab ‘office’/maktaba(t) jaamiʕ ‘mosque’/jaamiʕa(t)

(9)

69

library university

And as part of the derivational suffix -iyya (t) used to refer to concepts: qawmiyya (t) furuusiyya (t) nujuumiyya (t) huwiyya (t)

nationalism horsemanship stardom identity

This listing of the derivational uses of taaʔ marbuuŧa is by no means complete, but it provides an idea of the wide-ranging functions of this particular formative in Arabic derivational morphology.

6.3.

miim

The derivational formative miim is used only in word-initial position. It is not used with verbs, only nouns (verbal nouns and participles). It may be used with short vowels đamma, fatħa, or kasrah as a prefix: (1)

In participles of derived forms of the verb /mu-/: muntadaħ muslim mustaʕmar

(2)

(PP VIII) (AP IV) (PP X)

In the verbal noun of Form III verbs /mu-/: muħaađara musaaʕada mubaadara

(3)

alternative, choice Muslim colony

lecture help, assistance initiative

With the passive participle (PP) of Form I verbs /ma-/: mawđuuʕ manduuħa mawjuud

subject, topic alternative, choice found; present

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

70 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

70

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

(4)

With nouns of place /ma-/: malʕab markaz maxraj

(5)

With the miimi maşdar, a verbal noun of Form I that starts with miim /ma-/: maʕrifa maşiir maʕnan

(6)

knowledge destiny meaning

With nouns of instrument /mi-/: miftaaħ miSʕad mimsaħa

6.4.

playground center exit

key elevator cleaning cloth; (board) eraser

nuun Nuun is used as a derivational formative in several ways, as set out below.

(1)

As a prefix marking Form VII verbs and their derivatives. In the past tense, the word stem result of this prefixation process is -nfaʕal-, unpronounceable because of the resultant initial consonant cluster. An epenthetic short vowel /i/ is therefore prefixed, preceded by hamzat al-waşl when necessary. (i)nfajara (i)nbasaŧa (i)ndamaja

(2)

(Much more rarely) as an infix in the extended Forms XIV (ifʕanlala) and XV (ifʕanlaa) of the verb: isħankaka israndaa

(3)

to be dark to conquer, vanquish

(Form XIV) (Form XV)

And as an infix in the Form III quadriliteral verb (ifʕanlala):27 ibranshaqa

(4)

to explode to be content, glad be absorbed; incorporated

to bloom, flourish

In word-final position, nuun is a component of the nominal derivational suffix -aan on deverbal nouns such as: fiqdaan ghufraan fayađaan

loss forgiveness flood

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

71 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational consonant formatives

(5)

And as a component of derived adjectives of the form faʕlaan:28 farħaan kaslaan naʕsaan

(6)

glad, happy lazy sleepy

A possible sixth instance of nuun as part of a derivational suffix could be its use in deriving adverbials from nouns and adjectives through use of the inflectional accusative indefinite nunation suffix, -an. Although nunation is not normally considered a derivational suffix, I propose that this increasingly standardized process is one way to see the manner in which inflectional morphemes may become derivational over time, changing a word from one form class to another. Unlike other forms of nunation, the adverbial accusative /-an/ is pronounced, even in colloquial Arabic. ʔabadan ʔaħyaanan muŧlaqan ŧabʕan

6.5.

71

never sometimes absolutely of course, naturally

/-st-/

The /-st-/ formative is used as a prefix for Form X verbs and their derivatives. Because this formative is a consonant cluster, an epenthetic /i/ is prefixed to the past-tense stem and to the verbal noun to ease pronunciation. (i)stawrada (i)stankara (i)stithmaar

6.6.

to import to disdain, detest investment

yaaʔ

The formative yaaʔ is used extensively in Arabic derivational morphology. Aside from its use as a long vowel in many patterns of derived verbs, nouns, and adjectives, it is also used as a consonant, as follows. (1)

Word initially, it is used in the derivational noun pattern yafʕuul: yarbuuʕ yaxđuur yanbuuʕ

(2)

jerboa chlorophyll spring, source, well

Word medially, yaaʔ surfaces as a consonant in a number of noun and adjective patterns, such as in verbal nouns of derived forms of

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

72

72 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

hollow roots and in the derivation of diminutive nouns, adjectives, and adverbs: ixtiyaar inqiyaad buħayra qubayla

(3)

Tunisian Greek eastern historical lunar orange

In addition to its important role in the nisba suffix creating adjectives, the formative yaaʔ is also a component of the derivational suffix {-iyya} (along with taaʔ marbuuŧa), creating abstract nouns from a range of other form classes:31 ʔahammiyya kammiyya masʔuuliyya ʔafđaliyya

6.7.

(VN VIII) (VN VII)

But by far the greatest use of consonantal yaaʔ in standard Arabic is as a word-final derivational formative for the process of conversion from one syntactic category to another {-iyy}.29 It is used extensively (with shadda) as a suffix to convert nouns to relative adjectives (alnisba).30 tuunisiyy yuunaaniyy sharqiyy taariixiyy qamariyy burtuqaaliyy

(4)

choice compliance, submission lake shortly before

importance quantity responsibility priority

waaw

The formative waaw, like yaaʔ, is also used extensively as a long vowel in Arabic derivational morphology, but in addition, it is used as a consonant that expands and regularizes biliteral or defective stems thereby allowing them to take derivational and inflectional suffixes: sanawiyy ʔaxawiyy yadawiyy ʔaxawaani sanawaat

annual fraternal manual two brothers years

Waaw is also used, much more rarely, in the derivation of two extended verbstem templates:

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

73 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational consonant formatives

(1)

Form XII verbs on the pattern of ifʕawʕala: iħdawdaba

(2)

to become convex; humpbacked

And doubled, in the derivation of Form XIII verbs, on the pattern of ifʕawwala: ixrawwaŧa

6.8.

73

to last long

Gemination

In addition to these derivational phoneme formatives, a derivational process is also used in Arabic: gemination/doubling. It does not occur in wordinitial position, but it occurs frequently in medial position, and to some extent in final position. (1)

In medial position: (a) In the creation of Form II and Form V verbal templates and their derivatives through doubling of the medial radical: Form II: rattaba qaddara ʔajjala Form V: taŧawwaʕa tamannaa tanabbaʔa

to arrange to appreciate to delay to volunteer to wish to predict

(b) In the derivation of nouns and adjectives of intensity or profession through doubling of the medial radical: nashshaafa jarraaħ baqqaal qadduus

(2)

dryer surgeon grocer most holy

In stem-final position: (a) In the Form IX verb, through doubling of the final radical: ixđarra iħmarra

to turn green to become red

(b) In the Form XI verb based on the pattern ifʕaalla: ismaarra işfaarra

to be dark brown to turn temporarily yellow

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

74

74 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

(c) In the Form XIV verb, based on the pattern ifʕanlala. In this pattern, a vowel is inserted between the doubled final consonants. isħankaka

to be dark

(d) In the Form IV quadriliteral verb, on the pattern of ifʕalalla:32 iŧmaʔanna iqshaʕarra

7.

to be calm, reassured to shudder

Summary

The above phonemes and formative processes constitute the inventory of consonantal derivational formatives in Arabic. They have been described in some detail in order to emphasize the systematicity of Arabic pattern-formation, the pool of linguistic resources put to use in word-formation, and the many varied uses to which consonants as well as vowels are put in Arabic derivational morphology. Some morphologists downplay the key role of particular consonant affixes in Arabic/Semitic, focusing more on consonant–vowel (C–V) prosody (in terms of tiers, melodies, prosodic templates, stem prosody).33 In producing a comprehensive inventory of the formatives, we have also introduced many types of derivation that take place in Arabic, and have begun to estimate the power of Arabic patternformation resources. For a more complete description of Arabic form classes, their types, and their morphology, see Ryding (2005). Questions and discussion points (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Arabic verb derivational systems are justly famous for their systematicity based in analogy (qiyaas). What is your opinion about nominal derivation in Arabic? Do you think it is just as systematic? Why or why not? Word-formation rules (WFRs) are key components of Arabic derivational morphology. List five WFRs used in Arabic. Make your statements of these rules as explicit and as concise as possible. Compare your list with others in your class. Read the articles “Stem” (Gafos) and “Root” (Zemánek) (see Further reading) in the Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. IV, and write a two-page summary of the most important points. Read the 1950 article by Greenberg and compare it to the work of Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad, as published by Sara (1991). Write a five-page paper discussing and comparing their insights.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

75 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Summary

75

Further reading Aronoff, Mark. 1992. Stems in Latin verbal morphology. In Morphology Now, ed. Mark Aronoff, 5–32. Albany: State University of New York Press. (This article deals with Latin, but much of the analysis can be related by analogy to Arabic stem morphology.) Bachra, Bernard M. 2001. The Phonological Structure of the Verbal Roots in Arabic and Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. Gafos, Adamantios I. 2009. Stem. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. iv, ed. Kees Versteegh, 338–344. Leiden: Brill. Greenberg, Joseph. 1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 162–181. Larcher, Pierre. 2009. Verb. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. iv, ed. Kees Versteegh, 638–645. Leiden: Brill. Sara, Solomon. 1991. Al-Khalil, the first Arab phonologist. International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies 8(1): 1–57. Stetkevych, Jaroslav. 1970, 2006. The Modern Arabic Literary Language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Especially ch. 1, on qiyaas. Zemánek, Petr. 2009. Root. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. iv, ed. Kees Versteegh, 93–100. Leiden: Brill.

Notes 1. “Derivational affixes produce new lexical units” (Cruse 1986: 77). 2. But note, for example, that the derivational suffix {-iyya} may be used even with pronouns and particles, e.g., huwiyya, ‘identity’ from huwa ‘he’; kammiyya ‘quantity’ from kam ‘how much?’ or kayfiyya ‘quality’ from kayfa ‘how.’ 3. “The formative nature of linguistic morphology is especially clear when we look at Semitic languages, where roots are mere collections of consonants from which all individual word-forms are quite dramatically given form by the laying on of templates and affixes” (Aronoff 1994: 3). A caveat: western morphologists who are not well acquainted with Arabic have sometimes reported inaccurate data on Arabic verb Forms. For example, an incorrect representation of the Form IV verb (wazn ʔafʕal) imperfective stem as “ʔu-ʔaktib” instead of “ʔu-ktib” is adduced in several linguistics texts (McCarthy 1982: 134; Durand 1990: 258). See also Bauer (2003: 217); Spencer (1991: 17). 4. That is, Arabic dictionaries are organized alphabetically by root, not by word spelling. The root, of course, is an abstraction (e.g., {k-t-b}). The standard “citation form” for Arabic lexemes is the third person masculine singular past tense, e.g., katab-a, used when discussing or listing lexemes. 5. For learners of Arabic, in particular, dictionary usage is important, and the process needs to be formally instructed, for it depends on morphological knowledge rather than orthography and on declarative knowledge of the derivational systems of Arabic. 6. Stetkevych notes that “Qiyās as a linguistic concept and as method germinated and defined itself in the relatively short span of time between ʽAbd al-Lāh Ibn Abī Isħāq (died A.H. 117) and al-Khalil ibn Aħmad (died A.H. 175)” (1970: 2). He also observes that

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

76

76 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system

among the early Arabic grammarians (particularly the Basran school), “analogy itself was turned into a binding rule, powerful enough not only to explain, but also to correct and to form” (1970: 3). 7. McCarthy states that the “basic insight” of early Arabic and Hebrew grammarians “was to abstract away from the particular root, but not to any richer understanding of the morphological system than this” (1982: 117). He also refers to their understanding of the elaboration of ishtiqaaq as “rudimentary.” This conclusion seems questionable, given the extensive and centuries-long body of work – both speculative and pragmatic – by Arab grammarians, especially Ibn Jinni (d. ad 1002). 8. The use of the term ‘molds’ (a translation of the Arabic term qawaalib, sg. qaalib) to denote patterns within the pattern-based analogical system of Arabic derivation, is preferred by Stetkevych, who states, “in the practical application of the analogical method of derivation, we find the organizing criterion to be that of the linguistic molds or qawaalib. All neologisms have to obey this criterion” (1970: 14). 9. See Stetkevych (1970: 7–47) for a classic analysis of ishtiqaaq and qiyaas. 10. See Wright (2000). 11. The original use of roman numerals to denote Arabic verb Forms dates to the seventeenth century and is attributed to Thomas Erpenius, author of a famous Latin grammar of Arabic and professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands. 12. Larcher states that although both II and IV may be causative, “when Forms IV and II both occur, there is always a difference of meaning between the two” (Larcher 2009: 642). Note that the “resultative” Form VII may be interpreted as “unaccusative” in some respects. See Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995: 33–78 for discussion of resultatives and unaccusativity. 13. For a more comprehensive analysis of this topic as well as detailed morphology of the verb system, see Ryding (2005: 429–605). 14. See also Schramm (1962) for a detailed outline of the Arabic verb system. my translation of French original. 15. For valency see Chapter 9. 16. The angle brackets < > indicate an ordered set. 17. The Arabic grammarians – in particular Ibn Jinni – were aware of the combinatory aspects of phonemes within particular lexical roots (or sets) and explored the idea of varied phoneme sequences in the study of what they termed “al-ishtiqaaq al-ʔakbar,” or “greater derivational etymology.” See Wright (2000). See also Bohas (1997) for more recent analysis of root morphemes and their semantic implications. 18. For an English translation alongside the Arabic text of Al-Khalil’s analysis of Arabic root phonology and phonotactics, see Sara (1991). Interestingly and unfortunately, Greenberg seems to have been unaware of Al-Khalil’s work. For more recent analyses of co-occurrence restrictions within Arabic lexical roots, see Mrayati (1987), Pierrehumbert (1992), and Bachra (2001). 19. See Ehret (1989) and also Bohas (1997) for more on the biconsonantal underlayment of Semitic root structure. 20. For foundational work on this topic in both French and English see Bohas (1997), and Bohas and Saguer (2006), (2007). 21. Nydell 1967 notes that there are 3,337 verb roots in the Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, of which about half are sound, about 25 percent are “weak”

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

77 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

Summary

22.

23. 24. 25.

26. 27.

28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

77

(hollow, defective, or assimilated), 8 percent are geminate, 4 percent are hamzated, and 10 percent quadriliteral. “Certain quadriliteral verbs seem to be expanded triliterals, with liquid or continuant phonemes . . . added to the root” (Ryding 2005: 600). For more on quadriliterals see Ryding (2005: 599–605). See Procházka (1993) for a discussion of reduplicated quadriliteral roots. “Morphology can be put to either derivational or inflectional ends, and the same morphology can sometimes serve both” (Aronoff 1994: 127). Arabic uses a traditional mnemonic device that contains all the morphological components of word structure in the form of an invented word: sa’altumuuniihaa, ‘you asked me it.’ See Ryding (2005: 48). See Ryding (2005: 87–89) for more examples of this usage. Note that the Form XIV triliteral pattern is identical with the Form III quadriliteral pattern, but when this pattern is plugged into the different roots, it yield different results, the Form XIV showing a doubled final radical and the Form III quadriliteral showing four different root consonants. Note that this -aan suffix is not the same as the dual suffix, -aani, which is inflectional. Note that although this suffix is often pronounced as a long /ii/ in pause form (thus losing its consonantal nature), it formally consists of a short vowel /i/ plus the geminated yaaʔ: {-iyy}. But see Kouloughli (2007) for a different interpretation of the yaaʔ of nisba, which he considers inflectional, rather than derivational. For more extensive examples see Ryding (2005: 90–92). See Ryding on extended forms of the triliteral verb and on extended forms of the quadriliteral verb (2005: 596–605). See McCarthy (1982) McCarthy and Prince (1990a, 1990b).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C06.3D

78 [55–78] 25.10.2013 1:45PM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

79 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

7

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon 1.

The Arabic lexicon

The Arabic lexicon, the word-stock of the language, consists primarily of words derived through the dominant paronymic root/pattern system of derivational morphology. However, a substantial segment of the lexicon consists of non-root/pattern-based lexemes. These items include solid stems that date back to the earliest forms of Arabic (such as laa ‘no,’ or hum ‘they m.’), borrowed foreign words and expressions, and the results of non-root/pattern processes such as suffixation and compounding for word-creation and lexical expansion. This chapter examines both solid stems and the processes for expansion of the lexicon which supplement the richness of root/pattern Arabic morphology.

2.

Solid stems

Solid stems are words which cannot be reduced morphologically or analyzed in the typical root-and-pattern system. They consist of primarily four sets in Arabic: function words, pronouns, adverbs, and loanwords. Unlike words based on lexical roots, solid-stem words are normally listed according to their orthography in Arabic dictionaries.

2.1.

Function words

A common subset of solid stems consists of Arabic function words – such as prepositions and conjunctions. These are high-frequency items, and in terms of their structure, they are usually short or even monosyllabic. They include, for example, items such as fii,‘in, at’; ʔilaa, ‘to, towards;’ wa- ‘and;’ fa- ‘so, and then;’, min ‘from;’ negation markers lam and lan; kay ‘in order that;’ ʔanna ‘that;’ lakinna ‘but.’ 79

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

80 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

80

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon

2.2.

Pronouns

A second solid-stem subset consists of Arabic pronouns, including personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and relative pronouns. These categories do not fit into the standard root-and-pattern system, although they show definite phonological relationships to each other within their categories, such as the relation between haadhaa ‘this (m.)’ and haadhihi ‘this (f.).’

2.3.

Basic adverbs

The number of word-stems in this class is small, but of relatively high frequency, e.g., hunaa ‘here;’ hunaaka ‘there;’ hunaalika ‘(over) there’; faqaŧ ‘only,’ haakadhaa ‘thus,’ ħaythu ‘where.’

2.4.

Loanwords

There are also many loanwords (primarily nouns) in MSA that are borrowed from other languages, and these are considered, for the most part, to have solid stems, e.g., they cannot be broken down into root-and-pattern morphemes (some of them may take broken plurals, however, if the singular stem reflects a typical Arabic noun pattern, such as bank/bunuuk and film/ʔaflaam).1 This category of words is a large and growing one, including words such as raadiyuu ‘radio’ kumbiyuutir, ‘computer,’ and siinamaa ‘cinema,’ ‘movies.’2

3.

Lexical expansion through morphological processes: suffixation, compounding, blending, acronyms, and semantic shift

3.1.

Suffixation: {-iyy } and {-iyya}

The yaaʔ of nisba {-iyy}, which creates relative adjectives, and the nominalizing suffix {-iyya} which creates abstract nouns, are both highly productive derivational suffixes in Arabic. The yaaʔ of nisba may be attached to nouns of all types (even compound nouns and noun phrases) in order to convert them into modifiers.3 maghribiyy januubiyy ħaaliyy duwaliyy laa-nihaaʔiyy sharq ʔawsaŧiyy

Moroccan southern current international never-ending Middle Eastern

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

81 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

Lexical expansion through morphological processes

81

The feminine nisba suffix {-iyya} derives abstract nouns from a range of stems, including singular and plural nouns, adjectives, particles, and pronouns: ʕamaliyya nujuumyya diibluumaasiyya ħurriyya ʔakthariyya mawđuuʕiyya kayfiyya huwiyya

operation stardom diplomacy freedom majority objectivity quality identity

Note that the fact that this particular derivational affix may be applied subsequent to inflections for pluralization or comparativeness contravenes the general morphological principle that “words inflected for number usually do not feed word formation”, and that “inflection is peripheral to derivation” (Booij 1996: 814). This fact makes the {-iyya} suffixation process in Arabic of particular interest to morphological theory.

3.2.

Compounding

This refers to the derivation of new lexical items (single word-stems) by putting two (or more) words together, such as English laptop, has-been, sunburn, outlaw, schoolboy, snowflake, football, handyman, update, hand-me-downs, and so forth. In English compounding may also apply to modifiers, such as: would-be, middle-of-the-road, glow-in-the-dark. In Arabic, compounding is of several types: ʔiđaafa-based, negation-based, and phrase-based.4 In Arabic the process is usually known as tarkiib:

3.2.1.

One-word compounds

(1)

From iđaafa structures: raʔsmaal ʕarđħaal qaaʔimaqaam

(2)

capital petition district official

From negation structures: laa-markaziyya laa-faqaariyy laa-ʔadriyya laa-qaanuuniyy

(3)

decentralization invertebrate skepticism, agnosticism illegal

From common phrases: maa-jaraa yaa-nasiib

course of events lottery

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

82 (4)

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon

From coordinated noun phrases: barmaaʔiyy

(5)

amphibian

From adverbials plus the indefinite pronoun, maa: qabl-a-maa ħayth-u-maa

3.2.2.

82 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

before; prior to + verb wherever

Two-word compounds

Noun–noun phrases: ʔiđaafa Frequently used two-word compounds, although orthographically separate words, may come to be lexicalized as a single concept, and cohere as a single syntactic or lexical unit. For example, the expression jawaaz safar ‘passport’ is pluralized as jawaazaat safar, indicating the separate identity of the first noun (almuđaaf ). However, when this concept is used with a possessive pronoun, that pronoun is suffixed to the end of the expression: jawaaz safar-ii ‘my passport,’ treating the ʔiđaafa as a morphological unit and stem for possessive purposes. Other examples include: rawđat ʔaŧfaal radd fiʕl rajul ʔaʕmaal suuʔ tafaahum

kindergarten reaction businessman/men misunderstanding

Certain verbal nouns used as the first term of an ʔiđaafa, have acquired lexicalizing functions: ʕadam used as a negativizing prefix, and ʔiʕaada as a prefix indicating repetition or renewal. To a great extent in MSA, these two words are becoming ‘grammaticalized,’ that is, they are shifting from being solely content words to being items that carry a specific grammatical function. This is especially the case with loan-translations, or calques, where each morpheme or part of a source word is converted into an Arabic equivalent. ʕadam wujuud ʕadam istiqraar ʕadam al-inħiyaaz ʔiʕaadat farđ-i l-ʕuquubaat-i ʔiʕaadat taʕyiin-i l-waziir-i

non-existence instability neutrality, non-alignment re-imposition of sanctions reappointment of the minister

Adjectival compounds Loan translations of complex adjectives may occur through the medium of the adjective ʔiđaafa (ʔiđaafa ghayr ħaqiiqiyya): mutaʕaddid al-ʔaŧraaf mutaʕaddid al-jinsiyyaat ʕaalii al-mustawaa

multilateral multinational high-level

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

83 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

Lexical expansion through morphological processes

83

Regularized negative adjectival compounds Loan translations of modifiers expressed in negative terms are often expressed with the prefixation of the term ghayr ‘non; other than’ to an adjective or participle: al-Zuruuf ghayr al-munaasiba şuʕuubaat-un ghayr-u mutawaqqaʕat-in ħasab-a ʔarqaam-in ghayr-i rasmiyyat-in

the inappropriate conditions unexpected difficulties according to unofficial figures

A further process to identify the internal coherence of a compound is to ascertain if the second term can be conjoined to another term: for example, rawđat-u ʔaŧfaal-in wa-zuhuur-in (?) *‘garden of children (kindergarten) and flowers’. If the second term cannot logically be conjoined, that is an indication that the phrase functions as a lexical unit.

3.3.

Blending and contractions (Arabic nah¯t)

This involves parts of two (or more) words blending into one, sometimes with truncation of the first component.

3.3.1.

Fusing of word components al-fawq-waaqiʕ iyya faw-şawtiyy qab-milaadiyy maa-qab-taariixiyy mimmaa

3.3.2.

the supernatural supersonic before Christ (bc) prehistoric from which

Formula-based verbs

These are verbs which have been coined based on the sequence of sounds in frequently used formulaic phrases. They tend to take the shape of Form I quadriliterals: basmala Hawqala fanqala

3.4.

to say ‘bi-sm-i llaah-i’ to pronounce the formula: ‘laa Hawl-a wa-laa quwwat-a ʔillaa billaah-i’ to say ‘fa-na-quul-u. . .’

Acronyms

These use the initials of a group or organization to form a word. Arabic does not usually create acronyms, but it may convert them from foreign languages

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

84

84 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon

into Arabic in two ways, either as spelled-out words or as phrases denoting the foreign letters (or numbers): yuuniskuu ʔuubik sii ʔaay ʔiih ʔam ʔaay sitta

3.5.

UNESCO OPEC CIA MI-6

Criteria and diagnostics for determining compounds

Linguists search for principles and constraints to determine the status of language elements. Determining whether compounds are morphological units or phrases can be done in three ways:

3.5.1.

Orthography

This shows or does not show word-boundaries, and can be one criterion for determining that an item is a lexical unit. A compound word may be written as one word. qaaʔimaqaam ʕarđħaal

3.5.2.

administrative officer petition

Meaning

Meaning or semantic opacity is another criterion for determining the unity of a compound. The meaning of the compound may be non-compositional (opaque). That is, the separate parts combine to constitute a meaning that is not determinable from their individual meanings, e.g., raʔsmaal ‘capital.’

3.5.3.

Distributional

Distributional evidence can be used to determine if the sequence is considered a lexical unit (e.g., placement of definite article, demonstrative pronouns, -iyya, pluralization): Placement of definite article A compound may take the definite article: al-laa-wujuud al-raʔsmaaliyya al-şayd al-laa-qaanuuniyy

the non-existence the capitalism illegal hunting

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

85 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

Lexical expansion through borrowing

85

Pluralization A compound may pluralize as though it were one word, either by means of a plural suffix at the end of the phrase or by means of a broken plural based on analogy with similar singular structures: maajaray-aat ʕarđħaal-aat rasaamiil barmaaʔiyy-aat

courses of events petitions (forms of) capital amphibians

Derivational affix A compound may take a derivational affix, such as the yaaʔ of nisba or the {-iyya} suffix denoting an abstract entity: raʔsmaaliyy raʔsmaaliyya

capitalist capitalism

Pronouns A compound may take a pronoun suffix maa-ʔadriyyat-ii jawaaz safar-ii

4.

my skepticism my passport

Lexical expansion through borrowing

Borrowing is either direct (taking a foreign word and Arabizing it in terms of pronunciation), or accomplished through loan-translation:

4.1.

Borrowing

4.1.1.

Nouns Examples include: talifiziyuun intirnat buuliis duktuur bank

television internet police doctor bank

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

86 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

86

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon

4.1.2.

Adjectives

Sometimes an adjective is borrowed without change; other times the suffix -iyy replaces the adjectival suffix in the donor language: biij muuf iliktruuniyy muusiiqiyy

4.1.3.

beige mauve electronic musical

Verbs

These borrowings are less common and need to be fitted creatively into an Arabic verb-stem template, usually through quadriliteral Form I, or Form II and Form V triliteral stem templates.5 talfana talvaza balshafa taʔamraka

4.2.

to telephone to televize to Bolshevize to be Americanized

Loan translation (calque)

These are words or expressions whose individual components are translated literally into Arabic: kiis hawaaʔ laa-markaziyya naad-in layliyy al-wujuudiyya

5.

airbag decentralization nightclub existentialism

Lexical expansion through semantic shift Sometimes a traditional Arabic word acquires a new, additional meaning,

such as: haatif shabka dharra

invisible caller → telephone net → network speck, mote → atom

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

87 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

Summary

6.

87

Summary

Arabic derivational systems combine both root/pattern morphology and other highly productive morphological processes to create an extensive lexical base for MSA. Compared to root/pattern processes, the other forms of lexical derivation have been much less studied and yet raise some key questions and concerns for morphological theory in general, especially the nature of compound or complex words and the criteria for determining their lexical status, and the ability in Arabic to derive new lexemes from inflected word stems.

Questions and discussion points (1)

(2)

(3)

How would you express in Arabic “our passports?” or “their businessmen?” What is happening morphologically with these expressions? Think of three new Arabic compound expressions and how they are pluralized, or how the possessive is expressed. The creation of new abstract nouns using the {-iyya} suffix seems to apply to all sorts of form classes or syntactic categories. Take a section of an Arabic newspaper or a book chapter and find all the {-iyya} words in it. Do any of these surprise you? If you like, do a more extensive survey and write up your analysis in a short (five-page) paper. How would you classify these expressions in Arabic, one-word-stem or two (or more)? How can you tell? What are your criteria? ghayr marghuub fii-hi ʕadam taqdiir al-rabiiʕ al-ʕarabiyy ʕammaa maaward laa-silkiyy al-sharq al-ʔawsaŧ

undesirable disrespect the Arab spring about which rosewater wireless the Middle East

Further reading Booij, Geert. 2005, 2007. The Grammar of Words: An introduction to morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Especially chapter 4 on compounding. Borer, Hagit. 2009. Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and Pavel Štekauer, eds., 491–511. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4462417/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C07.3D

88

88 [79–88] 24.10.2013 5:03PM

Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon

Hijazi, Mahmoud Fahmi. 1978. Al-lugha l-ʕarabiyya ʕabr al-quruun. Especially pp. 61–118 for examples of ishtiqaaq, tarkiib, and naHt. Kossman, Maarten. 2013. Borrowing. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 349–368. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lieber, Rochelle and Pavel Štekauer. 2009. Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and Pavel Štekauer, eds., 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (especially pp. 90–92 and 254–275).

Notes 1. Although most borrowed nouns are pluralized using the sound feminine plural suffix /-aat/ (e.g., tiishirtaat ‘T-shirts’ kiibuurdaat ‘keyboards’), creative and even playful broken pluralizing of foreign terms by analogy with Arabic terms is very popular and productive in vernacular Arabic, texted Arabic (“Arabizi”), and to some extent, media Arabic, if and when the singular matches a typical Arabic singular noun template/pattern which normally takes a broken or internal plural. Some examples include kaardiinaal (Roman Catholic ecclesiastical official)/karaadilah; fuldir ‘folder’/falaadir; filla ‘villa’/ filal. In the case of such broken plurals, one might claim that the stems, although borrowed, are not actually solid, but permeable to inflection. 2. Many non-Arabic Middle Eastern place names also fall into the solid-stem category, like baghdaad, ‘Baghdad,’ tuunis ‘Tunisia,’ and bayruut, ‘Beirut’ These names are not originally Arabic, but originate from other Middle Eastern languages, such as Aramaic or Persian. For more on these geographical names, see Ryding (2005: 96). 3. For a more extensive and detailed analysis of this derivational process, see Ryding (2005: 261–269, 272–273). 4. The ʔiđaafa structure itself is a phrase, but I have noted it as a separate source of compounding because of its central importance for this type of morphology. 5. Vernacular Arabic is much more flexible than standard Arabic in borrowing or creating verbs based on foreign expressions, e.g., kansal ‘to cancel,’sayyaf ‘to save,’ ‘kayyash’ ‘to cash.’ Note still, however, that the verb-stem template rule must be followed (quadriliteral verb or Form II verb).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

89 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

8

Arabic inflectional morphology 1.

Introduction to inflection

Inflectional morphology examines the nature and processes of word-change within syntactic structures. It examines inflectional paradigms (conjugations, declensions) and the types of inflectional change realized on words-in-use. That is, it examines the range of inflectional possibilities available to particular word-stems (their paradigms) and it examines the nature of their roles in context (their syntagmatic relations). Paradigms can be compared to wardrobes of choices for particular words (options for dress), whereas syntagmatic relations can be compared to events which determine the wardrobe selection of particular words (a particular event requires a particular wardrobe choice – black tie, casual, come-as-you-are). Therefore, a word in context which is filling a particular syntactic role bears a paradigm mark determined both by the word’s inherent nature (an Arabic diptote, for example) and also by its contextual relations (object of a preposition, for example). Here are three instances of a prepositional phrase whose noun object inflects for the genitive case in different ways: fii dimashq-a in Damascus fii l-madrasat-i at the school fii l-mustashfaa at the hospital Every noun falls into a particular inflectional class or declension, which allows or restricts its ability to exhibit the full range of inflectional distinctions. There are eight noun declensions in Arabic. See Appendix C for these declensions.

89

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

90 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

90

Arabic inflectional morphology

2.

Arabic inflection

Compared to English, words in Arabic are highly inflected.1 This was partially illustrated in Chapter 5 where two words, maktab and ya-ktub-u were analyzed down to their most basic morphological components, maktab showing six morphemes (four of which were inflectional), and ya-ktub-u showing eight (six of which were inflectional). Western linguistics recognizes inflectional grammatical categories such as number, gender, case, person, mood, tense, and voice – all essential elements in marking word-function within syntax. Arabic grammatical theory, however, designates that case and mood belong to a separate category which is determined by or governed by syntactic rules (ʕawaamil). The difference between categories of number, gender, person and tense, on one hand, and case and mood on the other, are clear and significant. In the case of nouns, for example, number and gender are conceived of as determined directly by real-world information, (i.e., semantically) whereas mood and case are determined by the syntactic function of the item within the clause structure; i.e., they are purely intralinguistic features. (Ryding 1993: 175)

Bauer refers to these two types of inflection as “inherent” (semantic, extralinguistic) and “contextual” (syntactically determined). “Contextual inflection is the kind of inflection that is determined by the syntactic structure: agreement for person, gender/noun class and number, case-marking. Inherent inflection is the kind of inflection that is not entirely determined by the syntax although it may have some syntactic relevance” (Bauer 2003: 106).

3.

Arabic morphosyntax

Within any phrase or clause in Arabic there are interactions between morphology and syntax, networks of dependency relations that determine the shape or form of individual words. Two principles regulate these relations:

3.1.

Agreement or concord (mut¯ aabaqa)

Agreement or concord is where lexical items or words in a phrase or clause match or conform to each other, or reflect each other’s features, in order to make sense. For example, a feminine dual noun will require a matching feminine dual adjective (madiinataani kabiirataani ‘two big cities’); likewise, an Arabic verb with a masculine singular subject will inflect for masculine singular agreement (e.g., ħađar-a kariim-un ‘Karim came’).2 Agreement categories in Arabic

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

91 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional categories

91

include: gender, number, definiteness, and case for nouns and adjectives, and inflection for gender, number, and person for verbs and pronouns.

3.2.

Government (ʕamal)

Government is “a type of grammatical relationship between two or more elements in a sentence, in which the choice of one element causes the selection of a particular form of another element” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 249). Traditional Arabic grammar identifies the “governing” element as the ʕaamil ‘operator, governor, regent’ (plural: ʕawaamil). The ʕaamil is typically a verb, preposition, or particle that requires its ‘governed’ object to inflect in a particular way (e.g., transitive verbs will take a direct object in the accusative case; a particle such as lam requires its following verb to be in the jussive mood; a preposition requires its object to be in the genitive case). Sometimes an ʕaamil is not a concrete word but a principle or rule that applies in particular situations (such as, that the subject of an equational sentence is in the nominative case). This latter type of governing element is referred to in Arabic grammar as an ʕaamil maʕnawiyy, an ‘abstract operator’ (as opposed to the overt ʕaamil, the ʕaamil lafZiyy). Inflectional categories determined by ‘governing’ elements include only case and mood, both of which are classified under the Arabic technical term ʔiʕraab, or desinential inflection.3 When speaking about Arabic “grammar,” most people who study and teach Arabic are referring to the principle of governance or ʕamal; but agreement or muŧaabaqa is equally significant and far more salient because it is usually overtly marked, whereas government is marked only by desinential or word-final inflection, often in the form of short vowels, which are invisible in ordinary running written text.4

4.

Arabic inflectional categories

Inflection for Arabic words includes the following eleven categories. Within each category are subcategories usually referred to as “morphological properties” that are manifested on words in order to show the nature of the category. Each category applies to particular form classes, as noted through its distributional patterns. Usually, a number of these inflections apply at the same time, such as tense, person, voice, mood, gender, and number for verbs, or definiteness, case, number, and gender for nouns. Certain of these categories are inherent and others contextual (determined by syntax through rules of agreement or

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

92

92 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional morphology

government). some, such as gender, are inherent in nouns and contextual in adjectives. Category 1. Tense/aspect (inherent) Properties: present, past, future (for tense); imperfect, perfect (for aspect) Distribution: verbs Category 2. Person (inherent/contextual) Properties: first, second, third Distribution: verbs, personal pronouns Category 3. Voice (inherent) Properties: active or passive Distribution: verbs, participles Category 4. Mood (contextual) Properties: indicative, subjunctive, jussive, imperative Distribution: verbs Category 5. Gender (inherent/contextual) Properties: masculine or feminine Distribution: nouns, adjectives, verbs, participles, pronouns Category 6. Number (inherent/contextual) Properties: singular, dual, plural Distribution: nouns, adjectives, verbs, participles, pronouns Category 7. Case (contextual) Properties: nominative, genitive, accusative Distribution: nouns, adjectives, participles, demonstrative and relative pronouns Category 8. Definiteness: determiners (inherent/contextual) Properties: definite and indefinite Distribution: nouns, adjectives, pronouns Category 9. Comparison (inherent) Properties: positive, comparative, superlative Distribution: adjectives Category 10. Deixis (distance from speaker) (contextual) Properties: near, far, (in some cases) farther Distribution: adverbs and demonstrative pronouns Category 11. Humanness (inherent) Properties: human/non-human distinction Distribution: nouns The inflectional category of humanness is an inherent quality of nouns. It comes into play in agreement situations when the noun head of a construction is in the plural. If the noun is plural and human, agreement will reflect plurality. If the noun

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

93 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Inflection in Arabic: definitions and examples

93

is plural and non-human (e.g., inanimate objects, animals, abstractions), agreement is deflected to feminine singular.

5.

Inflection in Arabic: definitions and examples

As noted above, Arabic has syntactically relevant (or inherent) inflectional categories such as number and gender which are less bound to syntax but which trigger agreement processes; and it also has syntactically determined (or contextual) categories such as case and mood which are more tightly bound to syntax and even determined by syntactic rules. Inflectional categories or paradigms are characteristic of particular lexical classes. Each class has a range of paradigmatic values (“cells” in the paradigm chart) that are distinctive to that class. Nouns and adjectives fall into specific “declensions” that show case and definiteness, whereas verbs fall into “conjugations.” Verb conjugations in Arabic are extraordinarily regular and predictable; complexities arise, however, when the inflectional markers of conjugations encounter weak or defective lexical roots, with resulting stem allomorphy. Inflectional markers in Arabic may take the form of prefixes, suffixes, infixes, or circumfixes (also referred to as “transfixes” [Bauer 2003: 30–31]). Larcher maintains that the Arabic verb fascinates linguists because the regularity of its inflection contrasts so starkly with the complexities of its derivation and stem variation.5

5.1.

Verbs

These “conjugate,” showing six morphological distinctions: tense, person, gender, voice, number, and mood.6 Arabic distinction in tense is often portrayed as a difference in aspect (perfect and imperfect rather than past and present). The difference between these two usages reflects the way time is viewed, either as a linear stretch of points from past to future, or with reference to completion of an action (complete or incomplete). Soltan makes the proposal that “the tense-aspect debate can actually be captured if the language is assumed to have both tense and aspect categories, but that tense is syntactically prominent in certain grammatical contexts, while aspect is prominent in others, with syntactic prominence yet to be defined” (2011: 245). I think that Soltan is on the right track, here, and that ambiguity about tense or aspect relates to speaker/hearer perspective. I would suggest that one could replace Soltan’s “syntactically prominent” with the concept of “semantically prominent,” inasmuch as it is not so much the grammatical structures at play in the differences between tense and aspect interpretation as it is the meaning of such structures and utterance context.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

94

94 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional morphology

From I Sound root:

AP:

PP:

VN:

Active

Active

Active

Active

Perfect

Imperfect

Imperfect

Imperfect

Indicative Subjunctive

Jussive

‘to do; to make’ Active

Passive

Imperfect Perfect

Passive Imperfect

Imperative

Figure 4 A typical verb conjugation in all moods of the verb Source: From Ryding (2005) Verbal expression also includes compound tenses, where the verb kaana is used as an auxiliary with a main verb to precisely denote tense or aspect. These compound verbs include: past progressive (kaana [past tense] + present tense main verb), past perfect or pluperfect (kaana [past tense] + past tense main verb), future perfect (present or future tense of kaana + past tense of main verb), and contrary to fact condition (kaana [past tense] + future tense of main verb) (see Figure 4).

5.2.

Nouns

These “decline,” showing distinctions for case and definiteness. They also inflect for number and (in some instances) gender. Most Arabic nouns have

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

95 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Inflection in Arabic: definitions and examples

95

inherent gender (feminine or masculine [although a few are both]), but nouns that refer to gendered beings such as male and female authors, engineers, chefs, or surgeons; or that refer to animals, inflect to indicate biological gender.7

5.3.

Adjectives

Adjectives also “decline,” showing the same range of case distinctions as nouns. they also inflect for number and gender. In addition, they inflect for comparative and superlative.

5.4.

Participles (deverbal adjectives)

These inflect as nouns do, but exhibit the additional feature of “voice” – i.e., they are either active or passive.

5.5.

Pronouns These divide into three classes:

5.5.1.

Personal

Independent personal pronouns (ʔanaa, ʔanta, ʔanti, huwa, hiya, ʔantumaa, humaa, naħnu, ʔantum, ʔantunna, hum, hunna) show inflection for number, gender, and person.8 The suffix personal pronouns (-ii/-nii, -ka, -ki, -hu, -haa, -kumaa, -humaa, -naa, -kum, -kunna, -hum, -hunna) realize either possessive function (when suffixed to nouns) or object function (when suffixed to verbs).

5.5.2.

Demonstrative

Demonstrative pronouns (haadaa, ‘this’; dhaalika ‘that’ and their variants) in Arabic inflect for number, gender, case (in the dual), and deixis (distance-relation).

5.5.3.

Relative

Relative pronouns inflect for number, gender, and case (in the dual). They also exhibit differences in definiteness, with one set (alladhii ‘who, which’ and its variants) marked for definiteness (the initial al-) and others, i.e., maa (‘what, whatever’) and man (‘who, whoever’) serving as indefinite relative pronouns. Adjectives and pronouns are “referential” rather than denotational in function. Therefore they “agree” with nouns and reflect their inflectional categories.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

96 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

96

Arabic inflectional morphology

5.6.

Locative adverbs (of time and space) These may inflect for case under specific conditions:

(1)

When the adverb is not followed by an object noun, it is inflected with đamma: xaraj-tu min taħt-u

(2)

I emerged from below.

When the adverb is preceded by a preposition, it inflects with kasra: xaraj-tu min taħt-i l-shajar-i.

(3)

When the locative adverb is followed by a noun in the genitive or a pronoun, it inflects with fatħa: kutub-ii taħt-a l-shajar-i. kutub-ii taħt-a-hu.

6.

I emerged from under the tree.

My books are under the tree. My books are under it.

Case, case relations, case theory

As a manifestation of particular importance in linguistic theory, casemarking, case relationships and “case theory” are key areas of analysis. As Letourneau states, “Case is a concept with deep historical roots in Western and indigenous Arabic grammatical theory” (2006: 347). It is important to distinguish between the many uses of the term “case” in linguistics. Case-marking, that is, the overt labeling of nouns and adjectives according to grammatical rules of agreement and government (i.e., the use of ʔiʕraab), is an area of Arabic grammar that has received attention from Arabic grammarians since the inception of indigenous grammatical analysis in the seventh century, and is to this day a central focus of the teaching of Arabic grammar. On the other hand, case relationships, in linguistic terms, refer not only the surface structure realization of grammatical structure, but also the deeper and more abstract relations among sentence elements that are semantic as well as syntactic. Case theory, especially as initiated and developed by Gruber ([1965]1976) and Fillmore (1968 and 1977), is an area of theoretical semantics that embeds the concept of “case” in analysis of predicate-argument structure. Elements of Fillmore’s case theory (“thematic roles”) were ultimately incorporated in generative grammar in the form of theta-rules or theta-structure, which provide case-type labels (e.g., Agent, Beneficiary, Object) for sentence constituents that identify their relationships within the predication.9 Cases, their relationships, their meanings, and their theoretical status thus occupy central ground in linguistic theory, but, as yet,

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

97 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Key terms for Arabic inflectional morphology

97

few in-depth studies of Arabic case relationships have emerged, even though Arabic in this respect has a great deal to offer linguistic theory in general.10 Key studies of case include the classic work of Louis Hjelmslev ([1935] 1972), Blake 1994, Anderson 2006, Butt 2006, and Malchukov and Spencer 2009. Surprisingly, Malchukov and Spencer, an expansive 900-page edited volume that includes studies of case theories and case systems in a wide range of languages and language families, contains no contribution on Arabic.11

7.

Key terms for Arabic inflectional morphology case: “Case is a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads” (Blake 1994: 1). As Anderson points out, “the relations expressed by morphological case can be expressed in other ways, notably by adpositions and position. ‘Case’ refers to these common relations; and morphological case is only one kind of ‘case form’, one way of expressing ‘case relations’, or simply ‘case’” (Anderson 2006: 2). declension: a paradigm of case and definiteness inflectional realizations for nouns, adjectives, and participles. Standard Arabic has eight nominal declensions: triptote (three-way inflection), dual, sound feminine plural, sound masculine plural, diptote (two-way inflection), defective, uninflectable (for case, but showing definiteness), and invariable.12 In Arabic, therefore, inflection for number (dual, plural) “can shift a noun into a different inflectional class” (Ryding 2005: 168). defective: refers to Arabic lexical roots whose final radical is either waaw or yaaʔ. desinential inflection: word-final inflection. Arabic case (on substantives) and mood (on verbs) are marked at the end of a word. This sort of inflection is called “desinential inflection” (desinence = termination, ending, suffix). Case and mood inflections in particular are determined by the role of the word in context, in a sentence. These roles are affected by governing words, or “operators” – ʕawaamil – which can be in the form of particular lexical items (such as ʔan + subjunctive or lam + jussive) or through the application of abstract rules (such as “The subject of a sentence is in the nominative case”). diptote: a nominal word class or declension that is restricted to only two overt case inflections when indefinite: /-u/ for nominative and /-a/ for genitive and accusative. Diptotes do not take nunation. When they are definite, they inflect regularly, as triptotes.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

98

98 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional morphology

exponent: in morphology, the formatives or features that realize inflectional categories.13 gender: “A grammatical distinction in some languages that allows words to be divided into categories such as masculine, feminine, or neuter on the basis of inflectional and agreement properties” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 240).14 Arabic has two genders: masculine and feminine. grammatical word: Aronoff defines a grammatical word as “a lexeme in a particular syntactic context, where it [is] provided with morphosyntactic features (like case and number) and with the morphophonological realization of these morphosyntactic features as bound forms. Grammatical words are members of the paradigm of a particular lexeme” (1994: 11). That is, they are instances of words with particular, syntactically relevant inflections. inflectional class: a form class defined by the nature of its inflectional paradigm. For example, a verb would be defined by the fact that it takes verb inflections (conjugations); a noun would be defined by the fact that it inflects for noun distinctions (declensions showing case and definiteness). That is, the type of paradigm that the word fits into determines its “inflectional class.” number: “A grammatical category used for the analysis of wordclasses displaying such contrasts as singular, plural, dual . . . and paucal (few)” (Crystal 1997: 265). Arabic displays all these number variants. paradigm: a fully inflected model of an example of a form class. Carstairs-McCarthy makes a distinction between the concept of paradigm in general (which he labels “paradigm1”) and a specific paradigm for a given language (which he labels “paradigm2” ), as follows: Paradigm1: the set of combinations of morphosyntactic properties or features (or the set of ‘cells’) realized by inflected forms of words (or lexemes) in a given word-class (or major category or lexeme-class) in a given language; Paradigm2: the set of inflectional realizations expressing a paradigm1 for a given word (or lexeme) in a given language (Carstairs-McCarthy 1994: 739). The idea of “cells” within a paradigm refers to the organization of inflectional properties of a form-class into tabular form, each box (or “cell”) in the table representing one of the properties by means of its particular exponents. For example, Arabic nouns have three cases (nominative, genitive, and

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

99 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional affixes

99

accusative) and two forms of definiteness (definite and indefinite). Therefore each noun paradigm has six cells: Inflectional paradigm for bayt ‘house’ Definite Indefinite Nominative: al-bayt-u bayt-u-n Genitive: al-bayt-i bayt-i-n Accusative: al-bayt-a bayt-a-n

Sometimes number (singular, dual, plural) is also indicated within an inflectional paradigm, but Arabic noun inflection for number is often distinct, and falls into different paradigm variants, or declensions (for example, diptote or dual). stem: the base form of a word without inflections. Stem allomorph: a variant or alternant of the base or stem form of a word, conditioned by the nature of an affix. For example, a doubled or geminate Form I pasttense verb has two forms, depending on whether the inflectional suffix starts with a vowel or a consonant. Taking the verb radda, ‘to return; to reply’ for example, if the suffix starts with a vowel, then it is suffixed to the form radd- (e.g., radd-at, ‘she replied’); if the suffix starts with a consonant, it is affixed to the form radad- (e.g., radad-naa ‘we replied’). Stem allomorphy characterizes many Arabic verbs and their derivatives, caused by the intersection of inflectional affixes with phonological rules. stem class: a particular class of words that exhibits similarity in form and which falls into a particular inflectional class (such as verbs in Semitic languages). triptote: an Arabic noun or adjective that shows inflectional distinctions for all three cases: nominative, genitive and accusative (muʕrab).

7.

Arabic inflectional affixes: (zaaʔ ida/ zawaaʔ id) – ‘augments'

Certain consonant phonemes are used as exponents in the marking of inflectional properties. Some phonemes (like taaʔ) have a wide range of functions; others have more limited marking functions. These consonants are not normally used alone, but along with vowels as components of inflectional patterns or templates. These inflectional affixes are in many cases the same consonant phonemes as used for derivational morphology, but have different functions and different meanings when used as inflectional markers. Note that vowels are prevented by phonological rules from occurring alone as word-initial prefixes.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

100 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

100

Arabic inflectional morphology

7.1.

hamza

7.1.1.

Word-initial hamza This is used inflectionally as follows:

(1) (2) (3)

7.1.2.

In the first person present tense verb, e.g., ʔa-ktub-u ‘I write’; ʔu-ħibb-u ‘I like’; ʔa-staʕmil-u ‘I use.’ In certain plural patterns, e.g., ʔashjaar ‘trees’; ʔaqlaam ‘pencils’; ʔaşdiqaaʔ ‘friends.’ In elative (comparative and superlative) inflections, e.g., ʔakbar ‘bigger’; ʔahamm ‘more important.’

Word-medial inflectional hamza

This occurs in some noun/adjective plural patterns, such as faʕaaʔil: e.g., qabaaʔil, jaraaʔid.

7.1.3.

Word-final inflectional hamza

This occurs in noun plurals of the type ʔafʕilaaʔ and fuʕalaaʔ e.g., wuzaraaʔʔ ‘ministers’; ʔaşdiqaaʔ ‘friends.’ It also occurs in color adjectives inflected for feminine gender, e.g., Hamraaʔ ‘red f.’

7.2.

taaʔ taaʔ as an inflectional affix occurs as follows:

7.2.1.

Word-initial taaʔ

This occurs in the second and third person prefixes of present tense/ imperfect verbs: ta-drus-u ‘you m. study/ she studies’; ta-drus-aani ‘you two study’; ta-drus-uuna ‘you m. pl. study’; ta-drus-na ‘you f. pl. study.’

7.2.2.

Word-final taaʔ This occurs frequently as a component of gender and number inflections:

(1)

In the form of taaʔ marbuuŧa, as the feminine gender inflection on adjectives and certain nouns, e.g., şaghiira(t) ‘small f.’; ŧabiiba(t) ‘doctor f.’

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

101 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional affixes

(2) (3) (4)

(5) (6) (7)

7.3.

101

In the sound feminine plural suffix {-aat}, e.g., intixaab-aat ‘elections’; majall-aat ‘magazines.’ In the feminine singular third person past tense verb suffix -at, e.g., katab-at ‘she wrote, takallam-at ‘she spoke.’ In the first and second person singular past tense suffixes: {- tu}, {-ta}, {-ti}, e.g., katab-tu ‘I wrote’; katab-ta ‘you m. wrote’; katab-ti ‘you f. wrote.’ In the second person dual past tense suffix {-tumaa}, e.g., katab-tumaa ‘you two (m. and f.) wrote.’ In the third person feminine dual past tense suffix {-ataa}, e.g., katabataa ‘they two f. wrote.’ In the second person plural past tense suffixes {-tum}, {-tunna}, e.g., katab-tum ‘you m. pl. wrote’; katab-tunna ‘you f. pl. wrote.’

laam

Although laam is not an affix, it is a clitic in the form of the prefixed definite article {-l-} which attaches to nouns and adjectives. It therefore functions as an inflectional marker of definiteness.

7.4.

miim

As an inflectional affix, miim only occurs in past tense suffixes, as a component of the past tense second person dual suffix, {-tumaa} and the second person masculine plural suffix, {-tum}, e.g., katab-tumaa ‘you two wrote’; and katab-tum ‘you m. pl. wrote.’

7.5.

nuun Inflectional nuun occurs word-initially and in word-final position

(1) (2)

As a prefix for the first person plural in the present tense/imperfect: {na-} or {nu-}: na-ktub-u ‘we write;’ nu-rattib-u ‘we arrange.’ In word-final position, nuun forms a part of several suffixes: (a) Past tense/perfect verb suffix {-naa}: katab-naa ‘we wrote.’ (b) On nouns and adjectives, the suffix {-n} occurs in the form of nunation (tanwiin): e.g., kitaab-u-n, kitaab-i-n, kitaab-a-n. (c) On nouns, adjectives and verbs, the suffix {-uuna} is used to indicate human masculine plural, e.g., mudarris-uuna ‘teachers m.’; kathiir-uuna ‘many m.’; ya-ktub-uuna ‘they m. write.’ (d) On nouns, adjectives, and verbs, nuun also occurs as part of the suffix /{-iina}, but this suffix has different distribution and meanings. For nouns and adjectives, it indicates the oblique

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

102

102 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional morphology

(non-nominative) case of the sound masculine plural inflection, e.g. mudarris-iina ‘the teachers m.’; kathiir-iina ‘many m.’ As a verb suffix, {-iina} is used to mark the second person feminine singular: ta-ktub-iina ‘you f. write.’ (e) On verbs, the suffix {-na} indicates feminine plural, e.g., ya-ktub-na ‘they f. write’; ta-ktub-na ‘you f. pl. write,’ and in the past tense, katab-na ‘they f. wrote.’ (f) On verbs, nouns, and adjectives, nuun is a component of the dual markers: {-aani} and {-ayni}: ta-ktub-aani, ‘you two write’ and ‘they f. dual write’; ya-ktub-aani, ‘they two m. dual write.’ For nouns, dual pronouns, and adjectives, the dual suffix {-aani} alternates with /{-ayni} according to case restrictions, e.g., kitaab-aani ‘two books nom.’ and kitaab-ayni ‘two books gen./acc.’; kabiir-aani ‘big du. nom.’ for demonstrative and relative pronouns, the dual inflection is also marked by case, e.g., haadh-aani/ haadh-ayni ‘these m. du.. nom./gen.- acc’; alladh-aani/alladh-ayni ‘which/ who du. nom./gen.- acc’.

7.6.

siin

The inflectional morpheme {sa-} is prefixed to present tense/imperfect verbs to specify future tense, e.g., sa-na-ktub-u ‘we will write.’ The proclitic sawfa may also be used in this way, e.g., sawfa na-ktub-u ‘we will write.’

7.7.

yaaʔ Inflectional consonantal yaaʔ occurs:

(1)

(2)

As the third person masculine prefix in present tense/imperfective verbs ({ya-} or {yu-} in the singular, dual, and plural, e.g., ya-ktub-u ‘he writes’; ya-ktub-aani ‘they two write’; ya-ktub-uuna ‘they m. pl. write’; and ya-ktub-na ‘they f. pl. write.’ Similarly, yu-rattib-u ‘he arranges’; yurattib-aani ‘they two arrange’; yu-rattib-uuna ‘they (m.) arrange and yuratttib-na ‘they (f.) arrange.’ As a component of the nominal dual oblique (genitive/accusative) suffix {-ayni}, e.g., kitaab-ayni, ‘two books.’15

Inflectional long-vowel yaaʔ occurs: (1)

In nouns as part of the sound masculine plural oblique (genitive/accusative) suffix {-iina}, e.g., mudarris-iina ‘teachers m. gen./acc.’

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

103 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional affixes

103

(2)

In verbs as a component of the present tense/imperfect second person feminine singular suffix, e.g., ta-ktub-iina ‘you f. write.’

7.8

waaw

Consonantal waaw is used as an inflectional component in noun plurals of the fawaaʕil type, e.g., ʕawaamil, shawaariʕ. Vocalic waaw is used inflectionally as follows: (1) (2)

(3)

As a component of the sound masculine plural nominal suffix /-uuna/ , e.g., mutarjim-uuna ‘translators.’ As a verb suffix, in the present tense/imperfect second and third persons masculine plural, e.g., ta-ktub-uuna ‘you m. pl. write’ and ya-ktub-uuna ‘they m. write.’ As the marker of the third person masculine plural on past tense verbs {-uu}, e.g., katab-uu ‘they wrote.’

Questions and discussion points (1)

Fill out the following chart, noting which inflectional distinctions apply to which form classes. What sort of patterns do they make? What conclusions can you derive about the nature of Arabic inflection? Inflectional distinctions in Arabic: verb

noun

adjective

participle

pronoun

tense person voice mood gender number case def./indef. compar. deixis humanness

(2)

Indicate the inflectional categories in the following words: aljazaa’iru satataħaddathuuna alladhayni ʔantumaa yatakallamna

adverb

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

104 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

104

Arabic inflectional morphology

(3)

Choose ten more Arabic words (of all lexical classes) from a short Arabic text, and analyze their inflectional affixes. Compare your list with your classmates. Is there anything that you disagree about? Within those ten words and their inflectional morphemes, break down the meanings of the affix morpheme components, e.g., for the suffix {-uuna}, which part of the suffix indicates case? Which part indicates plural? Which part indicates ‘human’? Can other Arabic inflectional morphemes be analyzed this way? What are the minimal meaningful components of Arabic inflectional affixes? In section 7 of this chapter (“inflectional affixes”), the most common inflectional uses of phonemes have been listed. Can you think of others?

(4)

(5)

Further reading Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2006. Case roles. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 343–347. Leiden: Brill. Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kouloughli, Djamel Eddine. 2007. Inflection. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. II, ed. Kees Versteegh, 345–354. Leiden: Brill. LeTourneau, Mark S. 2006. Case theory. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 347–353. Leiden: Brill. Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Morphology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 213–237. Oxford: Blackwell. Stump, Gregory. 1998. Inflection. In The Handbook of Morphology, eds. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell.

Notes 1. “English [is] a language poor in inflection” (Carstairs-McCarthy 1994: 737). 2. Verb-subject agreement in Arabic is complex, and depends to a large extent on word order. This is dealt with in Chapter 11 on clause structure. 3. Abbas Hasan, in his extensive Arabic reference grammar, Al-naħw al-waafii, defines ʕaamil as “what supervenes on a word and thereby affects its ending by making it nominative/indicative, accusative/subjunctive, genitive, or jussive” (maa ya-dxul-u ʕalaa l-kalimat-i fa-yu-ʔaththir-u fii $aaxir-i-haa bi-l-raf ʕ-i ʔaw-i l-naşb-i, ʔaw-i ljarr-i ʔaw-i l-jazm-i) (Hasan 1987: 441). 4. Arabic theory posits a distinction between syntactically-governed inflection and other types of inflection. . . within the domain of inflectional theory, Arabic does not distinguish at all between case and mood, or on the basis of the form-class category of the stem, but instead makes distinctions on the basis of the effect or effects of the “operating” syntactic element. That is, whether the inflection is realized on a noun or on a verb

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

105 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

Arabic inflectional affixes

5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

105

is irrelevant. What is important is the nature of the inflectional marker itself, as determined by the governing element . . . The fact that the suffix markers for most forms of nominative and indicative are syncretised into one ending, -u, and that the same applies for the accusative/subjunctive suffix, -a, gives us some idea of why and how the parallelism between case and mood emerged and was perceived. It was apparently established on purely formal grounds, by taking the shared phonological features of the inflectional exponents and adducing a unified classification based on their phonological identity. In fact, in medieval Arabic grammatical theory the term for “imperfect indicative” verb is muđaariʕ, literally, “resembling,” or “resembler” because, it was said, the imperfect indicative “resembled” nouns in its ability to “inflect,” or change the vowel termination. This is due to the fact that the imperfect form of the verb is the only one that changes mood (indicative, subjunctive, jussive), and this feature causes it formally to resemble the change of case in nouns. (Ryding 1993: 176–177) “Thanks to the simplicity of its inflection and the complexity of its derivation and morphophonology, the Arabic verb continues to fascinate Western scholars of Arabic” (Larcher 2009: 645). See Ryding (2005: 439–440) for discussion of this point. See Appendix C for the eight nominal and adjectival declensions. Except that there is no first person dual, or gender marking on the first person. “The notion of case employed in theories of syntax is an abstract notion which is used to characterize the interaction between verbal lexical semantics, grammatical relations and word order. The overt realization of case must be dealt with by some component of the theory, however, that component is often left underspecified” (Butt 2006: 11). See the articles on case roles, case theory, and theta-theory in EALL (i.e., Abdul-Raof 2006, LeTourneau 2006 and 2009) for an introduction to these concepts as they apply to Arabic. Note also that Butt fortunately refers to “the Arabic tradition” as part of her “foundational perspectives” on theories of case (Butt 2006: 18–20). Hjelmslev notes that in languages that have few cases (as does Arabic), then those cases tend to have very abstract (rather than localist) meanings. “Dans un language tel que le grec qui est (selon la grammaire traditionelle) pauvre en cas et riche en prépositions, la signification d’un cas est très abstraite par rapport à celle d’une préposition” (1935 1972: 41). It does contain one article on a Semitic language, Amharic. See Amberber (2009). For full illustrations of these eight declensions see Ryding (2005: 182–204). “The features which identify a morphosyntactic property may be referred to as its exponents” (Matthews 1974: 144) (emphasis in original). “The classification of nouns into different genders is quite an intriguing phenomenon because of its strong arbitrariness” (Booij 2007: 129). Sometimes this form of yaa’ is transliterated using an /i/ (e.g., kitaab-aini). In keeping with the phonological rule against vowel combination or vowel adjacency in Arabic, however, I believe it is more accurate to indicate the diphthongal nature of the sequence as /-ay-/, e.g., kitaab-ayni.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C08.3D

106 [89–106] 25.10.2013 1:52PM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

107 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

9

Syntactic analysis and Arabic 1.

The study of syntax

Benmamoun provides a definition of syntax as follows: “Syntax is the study of phrasal and sentential patterns of natural language. It is the engine that combines the sound/gesture and meaning components of language. Syntax deals primarily with how words combine to form phrases and sentences, and the dependencies that obtain between the constituents of the phrase or sentence” (2009: 391). Thus, the study of syntax deals with phrase structure and clause structure – the way that words interrelate to form coherent, meaningful, and grammatically acceptable sentences. “A linguist . . . will try to characterize the principles that determine the formation of [Arabic] sentences. The goal will be to provide a systematic description of [Arabic] sentence formation, the grammar of [Arabic]” (after Haegeman 1994: 4).1 In order to undertake the study of syntax, it is necessary to make certain distinctions between form and function of lexical items within sentences for discussing surface structure phenomena. A first step is to distinguish labels of linguistic “forms” or “form classes” (such as noun, verb, adjective) from the labels of their linguistic functions in context (e.g., terms such as subject, object, predicate). This enables discussion of the nature of individual words (such as their derivation, meaning, or inflection) separately from the syntactic slots or functions that they fill when used in context, as syntactic constituents. At a more abstract level of analysis, constituency may be viewed from a number of angles that involve hierarchical relations, semantic relations, and various theories of dependency. 1.1.

Traditional Arabic syntax: ʕamal and mut¯ aabaqa

The rules and structures of Arabic syntax have long been the object of study within the Arabic grammatical tradition, under the rubric of the term naħw. The scope of naħw includes both the analysis of combinatorial sequences of words in context and the effect of syntactic regulations on the inflection of words. The two key components of traditional Arabic syntactic analysis are the functions of 107

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

108

108 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic analysis and Arabic

government (ʕamal) and agreement (muŧaabaqa), as discussed and defined in Chapter 7. The rules of government (ʕamal) require that words in context obey the requirements of syntactic operators (ʕawaamil) through the processes of desinential (word-final) inflection. Rules of agreement and anaphora require that modifiers, verbs, pronouns, and other referents to a particular noun head of a construction, must be in concord with, or match the nature of that noun in all respects: semantic (e.g., inflection for number and gender) and grammatical (e.g., inflection for case). The classic work in English on modern Arabic syntax is Cantarino’s three-volume opus, The Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose, published in the 1970s. Nothing matches it in terms of coverage of literary Arabic. However, Cantarino omits media Arabic from his work, and media Arabic is easily the most far-reaching and widely accessed form of Arabic today. It is also what many contemporary students are studying and want to study.

2.

Syntactic theory

In order to provide a linguistic overview of Arabic syntax, it is useful to review some theoretical approaches to syntax and their fundamental assumptions. Choosing what to provide as an introduction to ways of analyzing syntax is, however, a daunting task. As one linguist puts it: The available literature is vast. The consensus on any particular analysis, however, is minimal. It is therefore a challenge to illustrate the basic ideas and assumptions comprehensively without also introducing the complete formal machinery and the various discussions which argue for or against a particular solution. (Butt 2006: 46)

In western linguistics, especially of the American school, structural linguistics approaches using immediate constituent (IC) analysis were predominant until the late 1960s.2 But with the emergence and development of the work of Noam Chomsky in the 1960s and 1970s, the major theoretical paradigm became that of generative grammar.3 The key difference between structural approaches to syntax and generative ones is that structural linguistics focuses on the organization of ‘surface’ structure, i.e., language as it is used, whereas generative syntax focuses on the cognition of language, i.e., language and mind.4 Probably the most salient feature of the shift of linguists’ attention to “generative” syntax was the emergence of the importance of abstract mental structures that underlie sentence structure and meaning; that is, instead of examining only the surface structure of language, or its overt structure, attention shifted to abstract levels of language called “deep structure,” conceptual structures that operate to produce language.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

109 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic theory

109

The most important point of [Chomsky’s] position is this; the goals of linguistic theory are psychological. Language is a mental phenomenon, to be studied as such, and theories of language are to be considered psychological theories. So the object of study is the human mind, and it is the nature of the human mind as reflected in the acquisition and use of language that provides the central questions of the field. (Green and Morgan 1996: 2)

With the success of the Chomskian approach to linguistic analysis, syntax emerged as the central component of general linguistic theory.5 Generative grammar called attention to the fact that syntactic rules and operations operate at a very abstract and perhaps even autonomous level of cognition, as illustrated by Chomsky’s famous example, ‘Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.’ As one linguist observes, “syntax works (i.e., makes sentences seem right, somehow) independently of any reasonable context of use, and even in the absence of interpretable meaning itself” (Hall 2005: 157). The most widely applied and widely published research articles and books on theoretical syntax often derive from the Chomskian school of generative syntax, but that school itself has undergone many refinements and extensions since the emergence of Standard Theory in the 1970s and 1980s. Perhaps the most widely known is Government and Binding Theory, later versions of which were termed Principles and Parameters Theory. Most recent work in this vein is usually done through the prism of the Minimalist Program and postMinimalist theory. These latter works are characterized, however, due to the success and explicitness of the original theory, by the fact that they take a great deal of highly explicit technical terminology for granted (by using what one linguist calls “baroque technical terms”).6 It is therefore difficult for those outside this disciplinary subfield to read and comprehend its writings in all their detail and theoretical ramifications.7 Moreover, the study of morphology as well as semantics has in many ways moved beyond the limits of syntactic theory, especially in terms of the study of case.8 2.1.

Sentential syntax

The essentials of Arabic sentence structure are described here not from any particular formal theoretical viewpoint, but with regard to providing a general framework for further study. This is done to provide options to the reader in view of the fact that many publications on Arabic syntax published in the past twenty years have employed a generative approach, which focuses on syntactic hierarchies and relationships within the Principles and Parameters framework (Chomsky 1981), and the subsequent Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995, 2000). Whereas this is a popular and pervasive approach to the analysis of Arabic syntax (especially in the United States), it is also undertaken with particular goals of exploring how Arabic

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

110

110 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic analysis and Arabic

syntax relates to human cognitive language faculties in general, and ultimately, the issue of Universal Grammar (UG). Rather than this, a more theory-neutral approach seems called for in an introductory study of linguistics and Arabic. I will, therefore, in addition to discussing generative theory, incorporate elements of basic linguistic theory (BLT) (Dixon 2010a and 2010b), construction grammar (Goldberg 1992 and 2006), case grammar (Fillmore 1968 and 1977) and predicate-argument structure (Goldberg, Levin and Rappoport, Pinker) in discussing the elements of Arabic sentential syntax. 2.2.

Strengths and limitations of generative grammar

The most useful aspects of generative theory for descriptive purposes are (1) the rigor of its logical argumentation and (2) its development of abstract relations and formalizations to explain grammatical regularities.9 The use of treediagrams (hierarchical structures with branching nodes) to illustrate relationships within clauses and sentences has been a salient element of generative theory, as has the incorporation of case theory, which studies the nature and number of participants in any predication, and their thematic roles (or “theta” roles).10 This latter area of syntactic theory interfaces with Arabic morphology to a great extent, and should be considered “morphosyntax.” In fact, I think that to a great degree, Arabic syntax is so deeply interwoven with inflectional morphological structure that the central features of Arabic syntactic theory fall under the category of morphosyntax. This is why agreement and government structures are key to understanding Arabic syntactic dependencies, and why the issue of case relationships (overt and abstract) are of special interest. 2.3.

Predicate/argument syntax and valence theory

In predicate/argument approaches to syntax, the predicate (usually a verb, but prepositions as well) is key to determining the structural roles of other components of a phrase, clause, or sentence.11 “The predicate is the nucleus of a clause. The word – generally a verb – that is placed in the predicate slot will determine the number and type of arguments which the predicate takes. . . The meaning of a [predicate] determines the kinds of noun which can fill a core argument slot” (Dixon 2010a: 98).12 The key analogy made here is chemical, comparing the predicate to an atom surrounded by a specific number of electrons which determine its ability to bond chemically with other atoms (the “valence” of an atom). But a second analogy is also logical and mathematical, relating to the field of predicate calculus, which is a way of stating how certain objects, or “arguments,” relate to a predicate, and of mapping those arguments to appropriate truth values.13 There are therefore two analogies applicable to the constructions of

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

111 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Topics and approaches in Arabic syntax

111

predicates, both of which share the image of a central force surrounded by and bounded by entities that lie within its sway and which are cast into ‘roles’ in expressing syntactic argument functions.14 The concept of valence (or valency) deals with the number and nature of semantic roles that are associated with the meaning of a particular verb (most often, one to three roles); some roles are central, others peripheral. These roles have been labeled differently by different authors as “cases,” “arguments,” “theta roles,” and “functions.” Research based on argument structure designates those semantic roles as to their syntactic function (Agent, Patient/Object, Beneficiary/Recipient), or refers to them with semantically neutral labels such as X or Y.15 By “decomposing” predicate meaning through analysis of the interaction between predicate and arguments, one can discover interrelated semantic and syntactic regularities, a “set of principles for relating semantic representations with facts about grammatical form and the structural organization of sentences” (Fillmore 1976: ix).16 Designations of cases or arguments vary, depending on authors’ preferences. Although case frames and function labels are not directly equatable to traditional or pre-theoretical grammatical terms (such as “subject” or “object”), some of the following apply. For the traditional notion of indirect object, Fillmore 1968 used “Dative” and Chafe used “Beneficiary,” whereas Goldberg and others use “recipient.” For the traditional concept of direct object, Fillmore used “Object” or “Objective,” Blake and others have used “Patient,” and others use the term “Theme,” introduced by Gruber ([1965], 1976). Arabic is, from a surface-structure viewpoint, a nominative/accusative language with the genitive as the third separately marked case in inflectional paradigms. All case-type relations are therefore marked with one of these three cases. The dative case, for example, is not separately marked in Arabic; datives (Recipients) are marked either as accusative (in ditransitive structures), or genitive, as object of the benefactive/allative preposition li- prefixed to the Recipient argument.17

3.

Topics and approaches in Arabic syntax

As previously noted, much of the recent work done in Arabic syntactic analysis has been done from the generative standpoint, ranging from the Principles and Parameters framework to Minimalist and post-Minimalist frameworks. One strength of these studies is that they have examined spoken (especially Egyptian, Lebanese, and Moroccan) as well as written Arabic, and have yielded insights into both.18

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

112

112 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic analysis and Arabic The most prominent issues that have received a great deal of attention in the last four years include lexical and functional categories, clause structure and Verb Subject (VS) order, agreement, particularly the correlation between the richness of agreement and the position of the subject relative to the verb, verbless sentences and copular constructions, negation, questions, relatives, the status of the ‘subject’ in the Subject Verb (SV) order, Case, Tense/Aspect, and the structure of the noun phrase, with the so-called Construct State getting more scrutiny. (Benmamoun 2009: 391–392)

From the standpoint of general syntactic knowledge, research on Arabic syntax has brought attention to its differences from and its commonalities with other world languages. “The picture that emerges is that the syntax of Arabic is not . . . radically different from the syntax of other languages” (Benmamoun 2009: 399–400).

4.

Predication analysis, agreement, and government

Construction grammar, case grammar, frame semantics, and the predicate decomposition approach focus on the central role of predication and the manner in which it determines the semantic/syntactic relationships within phrases and clauses (predicate/argument structure). These approaches have the advantage of dealing with syntactic and semantic relationships by casting a wide and yet fine-gauge net around predication structures and then being able to sort and assign sentence components to their particular, context-determined roles. The incorporation of semantics into syntactic analysis works very well for Arabic in particular, where meaning-based relationships are often determined by the meaning potential of the lexical root combined with grammatical templates, and the valency-changing nature of the Arabic verb template system. The following chapters will discuss Arabic syntactic structures through illustration of agreement and government, the nature of decompositional procedures, case roles, and grammatical relations at the phrase level and the clause level.

5.

Syntactic terminology

Terminology and shorthand notation of terms form at the same time one of the key advantages and disadvantages of contemporary syntactic theory. The shorthand notations in particular are advantageous in writing and illustrating formalizations of rules, but some are not intuitively comprehensible, and need to be learned as part of syntactic study. As noted earlier, a thorough grasp of

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

113 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic terminology

113

syntactic notation is usually taken for granted in writings within the generative framework; other approaches are less opaque. Here are some terms that are useful in the study of syntax. ACC.: accusative adj.: adjective adv.: adverb Agent: in theta theory, “the one who intentionally initiates the action expressed by the predicate” (Haegeman 1994: 49) AGR.: agreement aux: auxiliary verb; kaan may be used as an auxiliary verb in Arabic (e.g., kaan-at ta-drus-u, ‘she was studying’) Beneficiary: in case theory, the person or entity that receives the benefit of the action. See also Recipient. C: constituent (in IC analysis)/complement or complementizer in generative syntax categorical specification: labeling of lexical or syntactic categories (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, preposition) complement: object or object-clause; “a term used in the analysis of grammatical function, to refer to a major constituent of sentence or clause structure, traditionally associated with ‘completing’ the action specified by the verb” (Crystal 1997: 75) complementizer: a subordinating conjunction that joins clauses (such as that or whether in English; or such as ʔinna and her sisters in Arabic), creating an embedded sentence or complement CP: complementizer phrase DAT.: dative det.: determiner DP: noun phrase (“In recent work it has been proposed that the head of NP is not N but rather the determiner. NP is reinterpreted as DP” (Haegeman 1994: 99). head: the main or central part of a phrase; the head of an NP is a noun, the head of a PP is a preposition, etc. I: inflection (also, INFL.): the category (in generative syntax) INFL contains all verbal inflection, including tense, person, and number, as well as agreement features (AGR.). “Inflection” is actually considered the head of a sentence (IP) because it controls the inflectional properties of the verb.19 IC: immediate constituent. In syntactic analysis, a grouping of words that form a construction, such as a noun phrase, a relative clause, or

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

114

114 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic analysis and Arabic

prepositional phrase. Immediate constituents are usually reducible to “ultimate constituents” IP: inflection phrase lexical category: the form class of a particular word, e.g., noun (n.), verb (v.), adjective (adj.), preposition (p.)20 NP: noun phrase O: object (in discussions of word order) Patient: in theta theory, “the person or thing undergoing the action expressed by the predicate” (Haegeman 1994: 49) PP: prepositional phrase PS: phrase structure Recipient: (also Beneficiary): “person [or entity] that benefits from the action expressed in the predicate” (Haegeman 1994: 50) S: sentence; subject (in discussions of word order, e.g., SVO) Spec: “specifier” (e.g., article, demonstrative pronoun, quantifier for an NP; a qualifier for a VP) SVAA: subject–verb agreement asymmetry syntactic categories: “the syntactic category to which a word belongs determines its distribution, that is, in what contexts it can occur” (Haegeman 1994: 36). See note 20 to this chapter. T: tense theme: in discussions of theta theory, “the person or thing moved by the action expressed by the predicate” (Haegeman 1994: 49), sometimes amalgamated with the term “Patient” UG: universal grammar ultimate constituents: the morphological units that constitute a phrase or clause. Ultimate constituents are said to be “irreducible.” V: verb VP: verb phrase wh.: shorthand for “wh-word” that is, a question word that starts with the sequence wh- but also includes “how.” It also refers to wh- relatives, that is, English relative pronouns such as “who” and “which” XP: here “X” is a generalization that stands for any syntactic category that is a “head” in a phrase; thus XP might stand for NP, VP, or PP or other types of phrases

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

115 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic terminology

115

Questions and discussion points (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

The Arabic term naħw is often used as the equivalent of the term “syntax.” Look up a definition of naħw and see what it covers explicitly in Arabic, and compare it to the English term, “syntax.” Syntax deals with word order and word groupings in sentences. In fact, it is sentence-based analysis (rather than discourse-based). Do you think the sentence (Arabic jumla) is the most central or most useful component of the study of grammar? If so, why? If not, what do you consider the most central component of Arabic grammar? Some approaches to syntax consider it a system of sentence structure independent of meaning (e.g., Chomsky’s “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”). Sibawayhi in chapter 6 (baab al-istiqaama min al-kalaam wa-l-ʔiħaala) (‘Chapter on correctness and deviation in speech’) of his eighth-century work Al-Kitaab, gives the example “sawfa ʔashrab-u maaʔ-a l-baħr-i ʔams-i” (‘I shall drink sea-water yesterday’), calling it “al-muħaal al-kadhib” (‘impossible and false’) (1991: 26). Discuss Sibawayhi’s example and compare it with Chomsky’s. How are they different? Read the entire chapter 6 of Al-Kitaab (it is only about one page long), translate it into English, and discuss Sibawayhi’s categorization of sentences. What are his criteria for correctness? How does he distinguish between form, meaning, and distribution of constituents? Read the EALL article “Syntax” by Benmamoun and prepare a discussion of one of the five sections/topics that he deals with. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of his analysis? How would you approach a description of Arabic syntactic theory?

Further reading Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2009. Syntax. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 391–402. Leiden: Brill. Benmamoun, Elabbas and Lina Choueiri, 2013. The syntax of Arabic from a generative perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed Jonathan Owens, 115–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Green, Georgia and Jerry L. Morgan. 1996. Practical Guide to Syntactic Analysis. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications. Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Introduction and Part 1.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

116

116 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic analysis and Arabic

Maalej, Zouhair. 2009. Valency. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 624–627. Leiden: Brill. Sibawayhi, Abu Bishr ʻAmr bn ʻUthman bin Qanbar. 1991. Kitaab Siibawayhi, ed. ʻAbd al-Salam Muhammad Harun. Beirut: Daar al-jiil. Chapter 6.

Notes 1. Haegeman refers to English in the original text, but this quote applies to Arabic (or any other language) as well. 2. Immediate constituent (IC) is “a term used in grammatical analysis to refer to the major divisions that can be made within a syntactic construction” (Crystal 1997: 190). The idea is to divide constituents into ever smaller components until the parts of a sentence were reduced to their smallest form (free or bound morphemes). In a sentence such as “The girl jumped,” the immediate constituents would be “the girl” and “jumped.” Then each of these would be further broken down into “the+ girl”, and “jump + -ed.” The final, reduced form of a sentence that has undergone IC analysis is said to consist of its “ultimate constituents” – the morphologically irreducible components that cannot be further analyzed (such as the {-ed} morpheme in the previous sentence. 3. For a concise summary of major developments in twentieth-century linguistic theory see Ferguson (1992). 4. Another way to put this is to use Chomsky’s distinction between performance and competence. Competence is the internal, conscious or unconscious abstract model of language in the speaker/hearer’s head (“I-language”). It underlies the ability to use language. Performance is the actual use of language – how it is externalized and how humans use rules and models in accomplishing real-world language tasks (“E-language”). 5. “Some syntacticians like to argue that their area of linguistics is at the very core of human language, since it is the only component of our mental grammars that directly interfaces with neither sound nor meaning, both of which lie outside of language: phonology connects sound with the lexicon; the lexicon and morphology mediate between sound, syntactic patterns and meaning; and semantics connects the lexicon and syntax with meanings in conceptual systems” (emphasis in original) (Hall 2005: 154). 6. Aronoff (1994: 2), where he also refers to the sometimes excessive coining of new terms, taxonomies, and abbreviations in generative grammar as its “terminological ebullience.” 7. “The technical terms in contemporary syntactic theory tend to be very unstable and shortlived; how linguist X defines a term in a certain paper may differ from the way linguist Y uses it in a different paper. . . We urge readers to use their wits to track down what particular linguists mean by the terms they use, and to keep in mind that it isn’t always possible to tell exactly what a term is being used to refer to – sometimes writers fail to say exactly what they mean by some term that figures crucially in their analysis. It is not an acceptable practice, but it sometimes happens anyway” (Green and Morgan 1996: x). 8. For example, Lexical-Functional Grammar (Butt 2009), Lexical Semantics (Lieber 2004), Case Grammar (J. Anderson 2006 and 2009, and Spencer 2009).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

117 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

Syntactic terminology

117

9. Helpful introductions to generative theory include Radford (1988), Haegeman (1994), and Green and Morgan (1996). Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010) use generative theory to analyze a number of key Arabic syntactic structures. 10. For an introduction to argument structure and theta roles see Haegeman (1994: 42–60); for a discussion of theta roles in Arabic see LeTourneau (2009). 11. “Le verbe est au centre du nœud verbal. . . Il est donc le régissant de toute la phrase verbale” (Tesnière 1959: 103). 12. In generative theory, it is said that the verb “theta-marks” its arguments, or clause constituents. It is also said to “theta-govern” its object, but not its subject (Haegeman 1994: 87). 13. The foundation of the predicate-argument approach can be found in predicate calculus as applied to language structure by German logician and mathematician Gottlob Frege in his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (1893/1903; 1962). 14. “Most theories of case today assume that predicates (verbs, nouns, prepositions, and also adjectives) come with some kind of underlying specification as to their argument structure, that is, a specification as to the number and semantic type of participant roles involved” (Butt 2009a: 33). 15. Labels of semantic roles are usually capitalized. 16. In the predicate decomposition approach, “the verb’s meaning is represented using members of a fixed set of primitive predicates together with constants – typically chosen from a limited set of semantic types” (Levin and Rappoport-Hovav 1998: 251). 17. The dative “case” is a widely studied subject in case analysis and in theoretical approaches that include aspects of semantic and syntactic roles typically indicated by case-type relations (e.g., theta-roles, frame semantics, construction grammar, lexical semantics). See Ryding (2011) for a discussion of ditransitive relations in Arabic syntax. 18. For recent work in agreement systems, negation, and wh-questions, see especially Soltan (2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012). 19. Haegeman states: “We propose that INFL, a category of the zero level. . . is the head of S (sentence). If we assume that S is headed by INFL, it follows that S, like other phrasal categories, such as VP, is endocentric; it is a projection of I, IP” (1994: 114). I find this role for “inflection” perplexing because it inserts a morphological category at the highest level in the hierarchy of a syntactic structure and thus morphology is given a central role in syntactic analysis. Although I acknowledge the centrality of morphosyntax, especially in Arabic, the privileged nature of “inflection” here, as I understand it, only applies to verbs, not other syntactic categories such as nouns or adjectives. It is thus a restricted notion of inflection. 20. Lexical categories are sometimes referred to as “syntactic categories” and to some extent as “grammatical categories,” depending on the author or the system being used (in non-linguistic terms, they are usually referred to as “parts of speech”). In general, lexical categories refer to single words, rather than to phrases, whereas “grammatical categories” in generative grammar may refer to larger groupings such as sentences (S.), noun phrases (NP), or verb phrases (VP).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C09.3D

118 [107–118] 25.10.2013 1:55PM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

119 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

10

Arabic syntax I: phrase structure 1.

Arabic phrase structure

Arabic syntactic study can be undertaken from several perspectives, as noted in the previous chapter. Phrases and clauses are the two key sites of syntactic analysis; phrases are organized groups of words that fill particular functions within sentences, but which also have a certain integrity and rule-structure of their own. Phrases have no predication (for example, haadhihi l-şuurat-u ‘this picture’ or al-bayt-u l-ʔabyađ-u ‘the white house’). Clauses (or sentences) involve a predication of some kind (for example, haadhihi hiya l-şuurat-u ‘This is the picture,’ or al-bayt-u ʔabyađ-u ‘The house is white’). This chapter focuses on Arabic phrase structure; the following chapter will focus on clause structure.1 As noted earlier in the discussion of Arabic morphosyntax, the dominant principles of Arabic syntactic structure are agreement and government. These prevail in both phrase structure and clause structure, but in different ways. In this chapter I will first discuss agreement-based phrase structure and then governmentbased phrase structure.

2.

Agreement-based phrase structures

Phrases consist of “heads”and other phrase components. The head of a phrase determines its syntactic category and its distribution within a sentence.2 Typical agreement-based Arabic phrase structures include the following.

2.1.

Noun phrases (NPs)

2.1.1.

N + N: nouns in apposition

Nouns in apposition co-identify and co-specify each other, each referring to the other and therefore acting as one syntactic unit. They are in a balanced 119

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

120

120 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

Arabic syntax I: phrase structure

relationship and together constitute one common type of Arabic phrase structure. Normally, they agree with each other in case.3 For example: al-malik-u ħusayn-un fii l-waqt-i nafs-i-hi al-ʔumm-u maryam-u

2.1.2.

King Hussein at the same time Mother Mariam4

N + N (+N): Nouns in coordination

Nouns in coordination are linked by the coordinating conjunctions wa‘and’ or ʔam ‘or, or ʔaw ‘or.’ Syntactically, they behave as a coordinated group, filling a single syntactic slot, such as Agent, Object, or Beneficiary. Each member of the coordinated group carries the same case-marking. Unlike nouns in apposition, each term of the coordination structure counts as an individual, so that noun phrases with nouns in coordination are usually counted as two or more in terms of reference and agreement structures. al-raʔiis-u ʔaw-i -l-waziir-u ‘the president or the minister’ al-thaʕlab-u wa-l-ghuraab-u ‘the fox and the crow’ kariim-un wa-rashiid-un wa-qaasim-un ħadar-uu l-muʔtamar-a. Karim, Rashid, and Qasim attended (3 pl.) the conference.

2.1.3.

N+adj. (+adj.)

Arabic noun–adjective phrases require multiple agreement: in case, definiteness, gender, and number. al-hilaal-u marduud-u-n yield (m.)-nom.-indef. madiinat-u-n city (f.)-nom.-indef.

l-xaSiib-u the-crescent (m.)-nom. ʔiijaabiyy-u-n positive-(m.)-nom. -indef. faransiyyat-u-n french-f -nom.-indef.

the Fertile Crescent the-fertile m. nom. a positive yield

kabiirat-u-n a big French city big-f.-nom.-indef.

2.1.3.1. Deflected agreement The term ‘deflected’ agreement refers to the Arabic use of feminine singular agreement with non-human nouns in the plural:5 fii l-ʔaʕwaam-i l-ʔaxiirat-i in the-years-gen. the-recent-f.-gen. al-dhiʔaab-u l-ramaadiyyat-u the-wolves-nom. the-gray-f.-nom.

in recent years the gray wolves

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

121 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

Government-based phrase structures

2.1.4.

121

Agreement in DPs: Arabic determiner phrases6

Determiners may be of various types in Arabic: articles, personal pronouns, or demonstrative pronouns. The definite article does not exhibit variation in gender. Possessive personal pronouns agree semantically with their referents, not with the noun to which they are attached. Demonstrative pronouns, however, must exhibit agreement with their nouns in case, gender, and number. In terms of definiteness, the semantics of demonstratives require that the noun be definite.7 haadhaa this-m. haadhaani these-two-m. ʔuulaaʔika those

3.

l-maŧʕam-u the-restaurant (m.)-nom. l-miftaaħ-aani the-two-keys-m.-nom. l-baaħith-uuna the-researchers-m.-nom.

‘this restaurant’ ‘these two keys’ ‘those researchers’

Government-based phrase structures

In some cases, phrases exhibit internal governing; that is, one part of the phrase governs another and causes it to inflect for a particular case, usually genitive. The two main categories in this respect are prepositional phrases and the genitive ‘construct’ phrase, or ʔiđaafa.

3.1.

Prepositional phrases (PP)

Prepositions and semi-prepositions (locative adverbs, Zuruuf) in Arabic require the genitive case on the following noun. If the object is a pronoun, it is in suffix form. preposition plus noun fii at

l-jaamiʕat-i the-university-gen.

at the university

‘semi-preposition’ plus noun8 baʕd-a after-acc.

l-ħaflat-i the-party-gen.

preposition plus pronoun min-haa from-her

from her

after the party

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

122

122 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

Arabic syntax I: phrase structure

‘semi-preposition’ plus pronoun fawq-a-naa above-acc.-us

3.2.

above us

N + N genitive construct, ʔ id¯aafa

The ʔiđaafa, variously translated as the ‘genitive construct,’ or ‘annexation structure,’ is one of the most productive, distinctive, and frequently occurring phrase-types in Arabic, used to indicate an entire range of meaningful relationships between entities, from possession (maktab-u ʔabii ‘my father’s office’), to identity (madiinat-u baghdaad-a ‘the city of Baghdad’), to determination/quantification (kull-u l-mudarris-iina ‘all the teachers’), to measurement (nişf-u finjaan-in ‘half a cup’), to composition (timthaal-u dhahab-in ‘a statue of gold’), to contents (finjaan-u qahwat-in ‘a cup of coffee’), and even to activities (e.g., wuşuul-u l-waziir-i, ‘the arrival of the minister’). The essential logical notion behind the NP-internal ‘possessive’ construct is that of connection. The primary syntactic feature is that the first term (al-muđaaf ) “governs” the second (al-muđaaf ʔilay-hi) in the genitive case.9 The first term, as head of the construction, takes the case required by its syntactic function. Thus the two terms are tied together in a closeknit construction. Other morphosyntactic restrictions apply: (1) (2)

The first term may carry neither the definite article, nor nunation; that is, it is unmarked for definiteness. The second term defines the first through its definiteness or indefiniteness. That is, it may be definite (by virtue of the definite article, or by virtue of its being a proper noun) or indefinite, marked typically by nunation.

The two terms in this way impose mutual restrictions: the first term carries the casemarker of syntactic function; the second term carries the definiteness marking. The strength of the binding between these two nouns is such that they cannot be interrupted by any other word, except for a demonstrative pronoun modifying the second term (nişf-u haadhaa l-finjaan-i ‘half of this cup’). Any modifiers must follow the entire ʔiđaafa structure (maktab-u ʔabii l-jadiid-u ‘my father’s new office’). Overlapping relations may occur when a complex relationship among items needs to be expressed, such as wuşuul-u malikat-i l-ʔurdun-i, ‘the arrival of the queen of Jordan.’ In such a case, all terms but the first are in the genitive case; all but the last are unmarked for definiteness.10

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

123 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

Summary lawn-u color-nom. zuʕamaaʔ-u leaders-nom. kull-u all-nom. kiis-u bag-nom.

l-baab-i the-door-gen. qabaaʔil-a tribes-indef.-gen. l-banaat-i the-girls-gen. fustuq-i-n nuts-gen.-indef.

123

the color of the door leaders of tribes all the girls a bag of nuts

One aspect of construct structure which has been of interest to linguists is the ability of the first term – if it is a verbal noun derived from a transitive verb – to govern a following object noun in the accusative: qabl-a mughaadarat-i l-raʔiis-i l-ʕaaşimat-a before-acc. leaving-gen. the-president-gen. the capital-acc. before the president’s leaving the capital

This kind of iđaafa NP is analyzed by some researchers as a reduced sentence, with the subject marked as genitive, the object as accusative, and the action (verbal noun) open to taking whichever case is required by its function within a larger predication.11

4.

Summary

The two phrase types – agreement-based and government-based – form the core of Arabic phrasal (non-predicational) syntax. Note that the identification of the category of a phrase is not the same as identifying its function within syntax. For example, a prepositional phrase (PP) may function as an adjective phrase (AP), as in: “The student in her office is from Yemen.” Where “in her office” describes the subject of the sentence. Or a PP may function as an adverbial expression as in “We were reading in her office,” where “in her office” describes the location of the action. In linguistic description and argumentation it is essential to be able to distinguish form from function at all levels. Questions and discussion points (1) (2)

Discuss the difference between phrases and clauses and give five examples of each in Arabic. Examine the nouns-in-apposition examples listed above. Why are none indefinite? Can indefinite appositions occur?

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

124 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

124

Arabic syntax I: phrase structure

(3)

Demonstrative pronouns in English include ‘this,’ ‘that,’ ‘these,’ and ‘those.’ They are said to indicate “deixis.” Look up a definition of deixis and discuss how Arabic handles this feature. The semantic relations between the parts of the genitive construct are many and complex. How many can find examples of and list?

(4)

Further reading Badawi, El-Said, Michael G. Carter, and Adrian Gully. 2004. Modern Written Arabic: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge (especially on annexation structures 130–143). Belnap, R. Kirk and Osama Shabaneh. 1992. Variable agreement and nonhuman plurals in classical Arabic and modern standard Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics Vol. IV, eds. Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid, and John McCarthy, 245–262. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hoyt, Frederick. 2008. Noun phrase. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 428–434. Leiden: Brill. Procházka, Stephan. 2008. Prepositions. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, Kees Versteegh, ed., 699–703. Leiden: Brill. Ryding, Karin and Kees Versteegh, 2007. Iđaafa. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. II, ed. Kees Versteegh, 294–298. Leiden: Brill.

Notes 1. Note that in generative grammar, there is a component called “verb phrase” (VP) which contains the predication. VP will be discussed in the next chapter. 2. Note also that in some types of grammatical analysis, a “phrase” may consist of only one word. For example, a “noun phrase” (NP) may actually consist of only one noun. The term “phrase” is often redundant here, but is standard usage. 3. This is true except in the case of “accusative apposition” where a noun is apposed to a pronoun and identifies it by means of a form of tamyiiz, or accusative of specification, e.g., naħnu l-ʕarab-a, “We, the Arabs.” 4. For a more extensive analysis of the apposition structure in Arabic see Ryding (2005: 224–227). 5. See Belnap and Shabaneh (1992) for the use of the term “deflected,” and for further discussion of feminine singular agreement patterns. See also Belnap (1999, 2000). 6. DP (determiner phrase) is an alternative form of reference to NP, but NP is still used by many authors. 7. Dixon refers to demonstratives as “the class of shifters with deictic reference to some person (or some thing) other than speaker or addressee” (2010b: 224). On “shifters” see Dixon (2010a: 114), and especially Jakobson (1990: 386–392).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

125 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

Summary

125

8. Semi-prepositions are locative adverbs that behave in ways very similar to prepositions, but which are more noun-like, and related to triliteral roots. When followed by a noun or pronoun they are marked for accusative case. 9. See Dixon (2010b: 267–271) for discussion of genitive-marking in NP-internal possessives. 10. For more detailed examples of ʔiđaafa structures see Ryding (2005: 205–224). For a historical overview and analysis see Ryding and Versteegh (2007: 294–298). See also Badawi, Carter, and Gully on annexation (2004: 130–143). For a generative approach to construct state analysis, see Benmamoun (2006). 11. See Ouhalla (1997), “Genitive subjects and the VSO order” for an analysis of both standard Arabic and Berber NP structures.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C10.3D

126 [119–126] 25.10.2013 6:51AM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

127 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

11

Arabic syntax II: clause structure 1.

Clauses in Arabic

Clauses are centered structurally and systematically around the predicate, and the predicative essence of a clause is what distinguishes it from a phrase. In Arabic syntax, there are verbal sentences and verbless (equational) sentences, and predicates may be of almost any lexical category: verbs (daras-naa l-kitaab-a ‘We studied the book’), pronouns (haadhaa huwa ‘This is he’), prepositional phrases (al-kitaab-u fii l-maŧbax-i ‘The book is in the kitchen’), adjectives (al-bayt-u kabiir-un ‘The house is big’), or nouns (haaʔulaaʔi ŧullaab-un ‘These are students’).1 Thus although verbs are at the heart of most predications, because the verb ‘to be’ in Arabic does not surface in the present tense indicative, other syntactic categories may bear the predicate or copular function in equational sentences. Traditional Arabic grammars often classify sentence-types according to the first word in the sentence (noun or verb – jumla ismiyya/ jumla fiʕliyya, ‘nounsentence’/ ‘verb-sentence’), but the division is also viewed alternatively, according to whether or not the sentence contains an overt verb at all.2 Verbless sentences are considered a distinct linguistic category and usually referred to in English as “equational” sentences, with a basic predication distinction between the “topic” component (al-mubtadaʔ) and the “comment” component (al-xabar).

2.

Verbal sentences/verbal clauses

Syntactic relations in Arabic verbal sentences may be characterized as centering around the verbal predicate, which acts as the primary “governor” or ʕaamil within the clause. The verb assigns theta-roles, marked overtly as Arabic accusative case. In traditional Arabic syntactic analysis, and in some discussions of argument structure, the subject NP of the verb is “governed” in the nominative case. In generative grammar, subject NPs are seen as different from object arguments, as indirect and external to the VP. It is said that the verb “theta-marks” a 127

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

128

128 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

constituent directly if it assigns a role directly; “if a verb theta-marks an argument compositionally we call this indirect theta-marking” (Haegeman 1994: 72).3 Interestingly, in terms of contemporary Arabic syntactic theory, “the verbal clause seems to have elicited less theoretical interest than nominal clauses have, except with relation to agreement” (Hoyt 2009b: 653). Word order issues have dominated in the analysis of Arabic syntax, especially as they relate to subject-verb agreement, but as Hoyt notes, “In the Government-Binding and the Minimalist traditions. . . the verbal clause has no independent theoretical status. . . These frameworks make extensive use of ‘null’ or unpronounced abstract structure, and as such, ‘word order’ as it is traditionally known does not correspond directly to constituent order” (Hoyt 2009b: 657). This difference, albeit subtle, is important to understanding the aims and procedures of Arabic generative syntactic analysis. In terms of constituency and schematic relations, agreement features and government features characterize Arabic clausal relations: agreement between subject and verb, and various kinds of hierarchal relations between the verbal predicate and its arguments, including clausal arguments. The argument structures that surface in verbal clauses are factors of the semantic valence of the verb. In an earlier work I have summarized these relations as follows: The valence of a verb or other predicate (such as a preposition) is expressed in terms of the number of core arguments that the predicate requires. Thus a verb such as ‘give’ in English or ʔaʕŧaa in Arabic has a valence of three (Agent, Object, and Recipient), whereas a verb such as ‘buy’ or ishtaraa, has two core arguments (Agent and Object). Pinker proposes the term “thematic core” for the set of a predicate’s required arguments and defines it as follows: “a thematic core is a schematization of a type of event or relationship that lies at the core of the meanings of a class of possible verb” (1989: 73). Goldberg considers argument structure of central importance in relating semantics to syntax, stating that “argument structure constructions are a special class of constructions that provides the basic means of clausal expression in a language” (1995: 3). In some approaches to argument structure, such as Fillmore’s ‘case grammar’ (Fillmore 1968 and 1977), the different arguments are distinguished according to thematic role labels such as “Agent,” “Patient,” and “Beneficiary.” As Haspelmath notes, “Fillmore’s intention was to highlight the importance of abstract semantic roles for languages like English that have (almost) no case distinctions” (2009: 507). Anderson states that “if we interpret the relations involved here [in dative and accusative relations] as semantic . . . in the case of the post verbal elements (at least), then their identification is ensured by the semantic valency of the verb, which regulates the syntax. This . . . is the crucial insight of ‘case grammar.’” (Anderson 2006: 28) Other approaches to predicate-argument structure, such as Pinker 1989 and Levin and Rappaport 1998, forgo the semantic labeling of arguments and differentiate them only as X and Y. In a later work, Levin and Rappaport describe the verb’s semantic core structure using the term “lexical semantic template” (1995: 24). In

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

129 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Verbal sentences/verbal clauses

129

their 1998 article on morphology and lexical semantics, Levin and Rappaport Hovav distinguish between “the lexical syntactic representation, often called ‘argument structure,’ and the lexical semantic representation which . . . has come to be known as ‘lexical conceptual structure’” (LCS) (1998, 2001: 249). Thus, a number of alternative perspectives have been proposed regarding the nature of semantic core arguments required by predicates, focused on the interrelationship between the syntax and semantics of the clause, and on linking or mapping the semantic information to surface structure. (Ryding 2011: 288–289)4

Five syntactic issues are introduced here as examples of topics of interest to researchers in Arabic syntactic theory: word order and subject-verb asymmetry, wh-movement, dative-movement, sentential complements, and case theory.

2.1.

Word order

Verbal sentences in standard Arabic tend to have VSO word order (VerbSubject-Object); but this is by no means a strict standard, and it varies depending on context and discourse function. For example, newspaper headlines tend to be SVO, reflecting “the attention-getting function of the SVO word order” (Ryding 2005: 67). Moreover, vernacular Arabic word order differs considerably from standard Arabic and is heavily influenced by discourse context. Current issues in word order studies (for both standard and colloquial Arabic) have centered around the following factors, as described by Dahlgren: (1) foreground and background, (2) topicalization, (3) focusing, (4) topicality, (5) animacy, (6) aspect, (7) rhythm (2009: 731–734). According to Soltan the study of clause structure and word order has figured as one major topic in the study of Arabic syntax. There have been three main questions in this regard: (i) what are the syntactic categories in the clausal hierarchy, e.g., is Arabic a tense language, and if so, how is tense expressed? (ii) What are the dominance relations between such categories on the hierarchy, e.g., where is Neg projected in the clausal hierarchy? (iii) How can this clausal hierarchy account for possible word orders attested in Arabic dialects, e.g., the alternation between verb-initial . . . and nominal-initial . . . structures. (2011: 238)

Researchers have engaged in a rich debate about these topics, particularly as they affect both standard and colloquial Arabic.5

2.1.1.

Subject-verb agreement asymetry

Certainly the topic of key interest in Arabic word order studies is subjectverb agreement asymmetry (SVAA). Agreement rules normally require that verbs

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

130

130 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

reflect the number and gender of their subjects, but in Arabic, this rule only applies fully when the verb follows the subject: al-banaat-u daras-na the-girls nom. studied 3f.pl. The girls studied in the library.

fii l-maktabat-i in the-library-gen.

al-bint-aani daras-ataa the-two-girls nom. studied 3f.du. The two girls studied in the library.

fii l-maktabat-i. in the-library gen.

If a plural or dual subject follows the verb, agreement is only partial; the verb agrees in gender only, not number: daras-at al-banaat-u studied 3f. sing. the-girls-nom. The girls studied in the library.

fii l-maktabat-i in the-library-gen.

daras-at al-bint-aani studied 3f. sing. the-two-girls-nom. The two girls studied in the library.

fii l-maktabat-i in the-library-gen.

This agreement restriction applies solely to human subjects, because only human plurals are reflected in Arabic agreement morphology. If the subjects are non-human dual or plural, their agreement features are feminine singular no matter what the word order: al-Suquur-u ʔakal-at the-hawks-nom. ate 3f. sing. The hawks ate the fish.

al-samakat-a the-fish-acc.

ʔakal-at al-Suquur-u ate 3f. sing. the-hawks-nom. The hawks ate the fish.

al-samakat-a the-fish-acc.

Accounting for the agreement asymmetry with human subjects has been a topic of extended discussion, especially in generative approaches to Arabic syntax. “The major challenge in this respect has always been how to account for the presence of the SVAA in SA [standard Arabic] given standard assumptions about agreement in generative syntax” (Soltan 2006: 241).6 In Chekili’s analysis of word-order issues he notes that “Arabic raises the question of how to analyze the initial NP in SVO, as subject or topic,” and notes that this question “has given rise to a dual account of such structures” (2009: 527). Ouhalla states that “a more appropriate way of characterizing the situation in standard Arabic is not in terms of the notion ‘lack of agreement,’ but, rather, in terms of the notion ‘poor agreement’ (1997: 205). He

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

131 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Verbal sentences/verbal clauses

131

further refers to “the fact, attested in a large number of languages . . . that poor subject agreement elements (characteristic of so-called impersonal forms) tend to be identical with the third person singular agreement morpheme” (205). Soltan speculates that “full agreement obtains in the SV orders because of the presence of a pronominal subject . . . Partial agreement in the VS order could be viewed then as the result of a default agreement on T(ense)” (2005: 203).7 The topic of Arabic SVAA has generated substantial research and theoretical speculation, especially among generative linguists, and remains an area of key interest for theoretical linguistics.

2.2.

WH-movement

The study of interrogative structures through WH-movement is a second topic of research interest in Arabic linguistics from a generative viewpoint.8 Wh-words are question words (e.g., who, when, why) or relative pronouns (who, which). Chekili notes that certain transformational/generative models generated “even greater interest in ‘WH-constructions’ because they relied on such constructions in developing a general theory of conditions on transformations” (2009: 524). According to Choueiri, “WH-movement plays a key role in the syntax of long-distance dependencies. Typically, it is involved in the derivation of wh-interrogatives, but it is also involved in the formation of other constructions, such as topicalized constructions and relative clauses” (2009: 718). In recent articles, Soltan (2010 and 2011) addresses issues of scope and questionformation in Egyptian Arabic. Most wh-movement studies have focused on vernacular Arabic, since it is spoken discourse that most vividly contextualizes the various kinds of question formation, their acceptability, their structure, and meaning.

2.3.

Case relationships and case theory

Case theory centers around the key role of the verb and its semantic valence (the number of arguments that the verb takes). The relationships of sentence or clause constituents to the verbal predication are characterized in terms of their case roles, which include labels such as Agent, Benefactive/ Recipient, Experiencer, Instrumental, Locative, and Object. These terms have been subject to discussion and dissatisfaction within syntactic theory, so the number of them and labels of them are still under scrutiny and evaluation.9 It is important to note that these “cases” do not correspond exactly to the case-marking system of Arabic (or any other language), nor are they intended to. They are labels of semantic relations between the verb and its arguments, rather than syntactic categories. Nonetheless, case theory and case-marking can be interrelated and used productively to discuss and analyze Arabic case structures and their functions.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

132

132 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

Particularly important to this analysis is the study of Arabic verbal ʔawzaan, the Forms of the verb, and their valency alternations. Amberber (2000) is a study of Amharic verbs and valency encoding, but similar studies for Arabic have yet to be developed.10 Ryding (2011) discusses dative structures and their underlying caserole relationships, as does Ryding-Lentzner (1977) and 1981. Abdul-Raof (2006) and Letourneau (2006) and 2009 describe case roles, case theory, and theta roles as they apply to Arabic.

2.4.

Dative structures in Arabic

The morphology of Arabic verbs wherein lexical root information interrelates with morphosyntactic verbal template information yields a perspective for analysis of “key issues in syntactic theory through analysis of the formal semantics of Arabic lexical roots and their derivational modifications. . . Modern Standard Arabic lexical items remain largely transparent in terms of their lexical structure and syntactic argument requirements. When derivational or syntactic modifications yield ditransitive constructions, it is often possible to discover semantic reasons for particular syntactic constraints” (Ryding 2011: 283–284). In Ryding (2011) and Ryding-Lentzner (1981), Arabic ditransitive constructions and the distinction between Arabic ‘to’- datives and ‘for’ – datives, are analyzed using case grammar, construction grammar, and lexical semantics to examine the composition of dative semantics and their realizations in Arabic. Ditransitive structures in Arabic include the double-object construction and the li-construction. The double-object constructions result from the underlying semantics of the verb, including those that are doubly transitive due to the lexical content of the root and others that result in double transitivity through derivational morphology. Here are some categories of ditransitives in Arabic: (1) (2)

The dative-alternation construction where the beneficiary argument shifts place, with preposition deletion, often based on the notion of “giving.” Causative constructions where a valency-changing derivation modifies the lexical root, e.g. Form IV ʔaħđara Form IV ʔaŧʕama

(3)

to bring (Cause-to-come) to feed (Cause-to-taste)11

Verbs of permission or denial, e.g. manaʕa manaħa

to forbid to grant

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

133 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Verbal sentences/verbal clauses (4)

Verbs of perception and cognition (afʕaal qalbiyya), e.g. ʕadda iʕtabara wajada

(5)

133

to consider, deem to consider, deem to find, deem

Verbs of transformation (afʕaal al-taHwiil), e.g. şayyara ittaxadha jaʕala ʕayyana tawwaja

to convert take, adopt (as) to make to appoint to crown12 (Ryding 2011: 286–287)

For example, in the predication of “giving,” the option is to use either double accusative, or the prepositional dative structure, li-with Beneficiary noun, shifted to the second object position, a procedure that is referred to as “dative shift” or “dative movement:” ʔaʕtay-tu l-bint-a i-gave the-girl-acc I gave the girl the book. ʔaʕtay-tu l-kitaab-a i-gave the-book-acc I gave the book to the girl.

l-kitaab-a the book-acc. li-l-bint-i to-the-girl-gen

With the predicate for “buying,” however, the ditransitive structure is not possible in Arabic (although it is in English): ishtaray-tu l-kitaab-a i-bought the-book-acc. I bought the book for the girl.

li-l-bint-i for-the-girl-gen.

But not: *ishtaray-tu l-bint-a i-bought the-girl-acc. I bought the girl the book.

l-kitaab-a the-book-acc.

In Ryding 2011 I show through compositional analysis that variations on Arabic dative structures are clearly semantically motivated, and that there is “a major difference in syntactic behavior between the to-dative and the for-dative in Arabic, even though they are represented in the surface structure by an identical item, li-” (295).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

134 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

134

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

2.5.

Complement clauses in Arabic

Complement clauses are predications which are subordinated within another sentence. In Maria Persson’s work on object complements in standard Arabic, she defines a complement as “any element whose presence and form is decided by the principal lexical item of the phrase or clause in which it occurs” (2002: 7). Complement clauses are often linked to main or matrix clauses through the use of subordinating conjunctions referred to as “complementizers.” Persson considers a complementizer as “a morpheme (a word, particle, clitic, or affix) signalling that the preceding or following clause is a complement” (2002: 13). In Arabic this would include ʔinna and her sisters as well as ʔan-plus-subjunctive clauses. From a theoretical standpoint, Persson takes a “functional perspective” to analyze complementation, rather than a generative standpoint. Dixon (2010b) also provides a useful definition of complement clause: “A complement clause is a type of clause which fills an argument slot in the structure of another clause” (370). Dixon’s analysis of the grammatical structure of clauses sets “three defining criteria for a complement clause.:” (1) “It has the internal constituent structure of a clause [not a phrase], at least as far as core arguments are concerned,” (2010b: 375); (2) it “functions as a core argument of a higher clause. In every language in which complement clauses occur they function as O[Object] argument; there are often other possibilities as well” (2010b: 377); (3) “A complement clause must refer to a proposition, something involving at least one participant who is involved in an activity or state” (2010b: 380). In addition, Dixon provides an analysis and summary of the semantics of matrix verbs, which in Arabic determine the nature of the complementizer and complement clause. These semantic types include: (1) attention (see, hear, notice, smell, show (2010b: 395), (2) thinking (think, consider, imagine, assume, suppose, know, understand (2010b: 396); (3) deciding (decide, resolve, plan, choose (2010b: 397); (4) liking (like, love, prefer, regret, fear, enjoy (2010b: 397); and (5) speaking (say, report, inform, state – among others) (2010b: 397–398). Although covering the full range of variation in Arabic complement studies here is not possible, I would like to provide an indication of what is theorized about such structures. First of all, the type of complementizer is selected by the semantic nature of the main verb. Kirk Belnap’s research on Arabic complementation structures (1986) focused on the use and distribution of ʔan, ʔinna, ʔanna, and verbal noun complements in a corpus of about 17,000 words, classifying them according to Givón’s (1980) “hierarchical implicational scale of binding.” Whereas English may use the word ‘that’ to embed a complement in many different respects (“I wish that. . .; they told me that . . .; she thinks that . . .” ), Arabic

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

135 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Verbless predications

135

distinguishes among the complementizers (and the structures they govern) according to the meaning of the matrix verb. These complementizers in Arabic, the “sisters of ʔinna,” are subordinating conjunctions that are followed by a clause whose subject is required to be in the accusative case. For example, after the verb qaal-a ‘to say,’ the complementizer ʔinna is required: qaal-uu ʔinna l-siyaasiyy-iina said-they m. that the-politicians m. muşŧalaħaat-in diiniyyat-an terminologies-acc. religious-acc. They said that politicians use religious terms.

ya-staxdim-uuna they-use-m.

After verbs of reporting or relaying factual information, the particle ʔanna is used as complementizer: ʔadrak-a ʔanna-hu nasiy-a he-realized that-he he-forgot He realized that he forgot the word.

l-kalimat-a the-word-acc

After a matrix verb indicating an attitude or feeling toward the action in the complement clause, the complementizer ʔan is used, with subjunctive marking on the verb: tu-riid-u she-wants-indic

ʔan that

ta-ʕrif-a she-know-subj

maadhaa what

sa-ya-ʕnii haadhaa l-salaam-u will-he-mean this-m the-peace-nom She wants to know what this peace will mean.

Matrix verb semantics, the choice of complementizer, and subsequent complement structure have been areas of some interest for Arabic syntactic study. As Persson states in her conclusion, “The CTPs [complement-taking predicates] in the MSA corpus have rather well-defined semantic fields, and . . . each class of CTPs is, to a remarkable extent, associated with specific complement patterns” (Persson: 2002: 135).

3.

Verbless predications

Equational or verbless sentences constitute one of the major categories of Arabic syntax, one that has attracted substantial attention from researchers in syntactic theory. The key feature of these sentences is that there is no surface representation of the present tense indicative verb ‘to be’, although it surfaces in

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

136

136 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

negatives, in subjunctive mood, in jussive mood, and in the past and future tenses. Bahloul writes that “contextual triggers such as tense, aspect, modal, and mood markers” affect the appearance of the verb ‘to be’ (kaana) in copular sentences, and he advocates a “model which places modality at the center of the sentence structure” (2006: 510). Because verbless sentences often begin with a noun or NP, they are sometimes terminologically conflated with verbal sentences that start with a nominal (jumal ismiyya ‘nominal sentences’). As Badawi, Carter, and Gully point out, Arabic has no separate term for “equational sentence,” rather, “it falls under ‘nominal sentence’” (2004: 307). It is helpful, however, to examine the specific nature of verbless sentences. Verbless predications in standard Arabic are of two types: one in which there is no overt “copula morpheme,” and one where there is. The copula morpheme is realized, when it occurs, as an Arabic subject pronoun.13

3.1.

Predications with no copula pronoun

In Arabic, predication without a copula pronoun is standard for expressing quality, quantity, location, identity, and other states of being in the present tense indicative. The two parts of the sentence, the subject (al-mubtadaʔ) and the predicate (al-xabar) form a balanced predication. The subject of such sentences is usually definite. If the predicate is a modifier, it agrees with the subject in number and gender, but is indefinite. Both parts of the basic equational sentence are in the nominative case. When the predicate is a prepositional phrase it normally follows the subject, except when it indicates possession. al-ŧariiq-u the-road-nom. The road is long.

[is]

ŧawiil-u-n long-m.-sing.-nom. -indef.

ʔuxt-u-haa sister-nom.-her [is] Her sister is a professor.

ʔustaadhat-u-n a-professor-f.-nom.-indef.

ʔax-uu-naa brother-nom.-our [is] Our brother is traveling.

musaafir-u-n traveling-m.-sing.- indef.

al-zuwwaar-u fii the-visitors-nom. [are] in The visitors are in the office.

l-maktab-i the-office-gen.

la-naa to-us [is] We have the ability.

l-qudrat-u the-ability-nom.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

137 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Summary

3.2.

137

Predications with copula pronoun

The copula pronoun is used when it is necessary to distinguish a phrase (e.g., ‘this book’) from a predication (‘this is a book’), or when the predicate of the equational sentence is definite. haadhaa this-m. sing. this place haadhaa this-m. sing. This is the place.

l-makaan-u the-place-nom. huwa he [is]

l-makaan-u the-place-nom.

haaʔulaaʔi l-masʔuul-uuna these the-officials-nom these officials haaʔulaaʔi hum-u l-masʔuul-uuna14 these they-masc. [are] the-officials-nom. These are the officials.

This predicative function of the pronoun has led one researcher to maintain that “evidence from Arabic suggests that the copula pronoun be analyzed as a predicate expressing the relation of identity” (Eid 1991: 33), and that “pronouns function as anti-ambiguity devices to force a sentential, vs. a phrasal, interpretation of a structure” (Eid 1991: 42).15

4.

Summary

Arabic clausal syntax is a vast and fertile field for linguistic study, no matter which approach is taken or which theories applied. Generative theory has shown that Arabic has an important role to play in contributing to the concept of Universal Grammar; valence theory has shown the importance of Arabic in extending the analysis of lexical and morphological composition of verb forms; and the special role of copular clauses in Arabic has brought attention to the centrality of mood-marking in Arabic surface structure.

Study questions and discussion (1)

Find ten examples of subject-verb asymmetry in Arabic and discuss these examples with the other students in your class. What would be the ten best examples, overall, for use in teaching Arabic as a foreign language?

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

138 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

138

Arabic syntax II: clause structure

(2)

Subordination or complementation is a complex topic in standard Arabic. Aside from ʔinna and her sisters, list any other kinds of complementizers and their effect on the embedded clause. Be sure to cite examples. Equational or verbless sentences may or may not have a copula morpheme. Find five examples of each and discuss them. What kind of insight can valence theory provide for Arabic syntax or morphosyntax? Prepare a two-page paper discussing valence theory and Arabic.

(3) (4)

Further reading Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun and Lina Choueiri. 2010. The Syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Especially chapter 1 on comparative Arabic syntax. Chekili, Ferid. 2009. Transformational grammar. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 520–528. Leiden: Brill. Ryding, Karin C. 2011. Arabic datives, ditransitives, and the preposition li-. In In the Shadow of Arabic: Festschrift for Ramzi Baalbaki, ed. Bilal Orfali, 283–298. Leiden: Brill. Soltan, Osama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Agreement Systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Notes 1. “Apart from a Verb Phrase (VP), the initial NP of the copular sentence may be followed by any other lexical category” (Bahloul 2006: 507). 2. Issues of clause classification have been significant factors in Arabic theoretical syntax. Hoyt, for example, reviews the implications of two definitions of “verbal clause,” one referring to “V-initial” word order, and the other to “V-headed” clauses, making the distinction between sentences (clauses) in which inflected verbs come first, and sentences where the verb appears later in the sentence (2009: 653). 3. “The theta role assigned to the subject is assigned compositionally: it is determined by the semantics of the verb and other VP constituents. Roughly, the verb assigns an object role first, the resulting verb-argument complex will assign a theta role to the subject. The subject argument is as if it were slotted in last” (Haegeman 1994: 71–72) (emphasis in original). 4. For more on case roles and theta roles in Arabic, see LeTourneau (2006, 2009).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

139 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

Summary

139

5. See for example, Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010); Chekili (2009: 523–524); Soltan (2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012). 6. For an examination of SVAA in both spoken and written Arabic, see Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010: 73–95) on sentential agreement. For summaries of the issues and helpful bibliographies, see Hoyt (2009a, 2009b). 7. See Soltan (2006, 2011) for further discussion of a minimalist approach to Arabic syntactic derivations, especially as regards SVAA. 8. Wh-movement “is used to refer to a transformational rule which moves a wh-phrase (wh-XP) to initial position in the sentence” (Crystal 1997b: 418). 9. “Across theories there is a huge amount of dissatisfaction with these role labels” (Butt 2009a: 33). 10. See Maalej (2009) for a discussion of valency as it applies to Arabic. 11. For more on the semantics of ‘cause’ in Arabic, see Măcelaru (2006). 12. Categories 4 and 5 include verbs which belong to the traditional ‘nawaasix’ category in Arabic grammar, that is, verbs that shift one or more arguments in the VP to accusative case. See Ryding (2005: 176–179) for further description. 13. The term “copula morpheme” is taken from Eid (1991). 14. The /-u/ suffix on hum ‘they’ in this sentence is a helping vowel, not an inflectional vowel. 15. For more extensive discussion of copular sentences in Arabic, see Ryding (2005: 59–63); and especially Badawi, Carter, and Gully (2004: 307–344). Bahloul (2006) provides an excellent summary of copular structures in standard Arabic.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C11.3D

140 [127–140] 25.10.2013 1:57PM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4458965/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX01.3D 5:37PM

141

[141–144] 23.10.2013

Appendix A: Fields of linguistics and Arabic Because the main part of this book focuses on theoretical linguistics, this appendix summarizes research interests and traditions of three other major fields of linguistics: applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, and computational linguistics, as they relate to Arabic. 1.

APPLIED LINGUISTICS AND ARABIC

The core of applied linguistics is the connection between theory and practice. The field of applied linguistics is concerned with real-world issues that involve language, such as language teaching. It also includes disciplines such as lexicography (dictionary design and compilation), language and the law (forensic linguistics), interpretation and translation, second language acquisition research, language testing, and language planning. As it applies to Arabic at the current time, applied linguistics has been heavily weighted in the direction of language teaching and learning, textbook and curricular design, proficiency testing, and teacher training. The practical needs and professional demands of teaching a greatly expanded number of students have necessitated a critical professional focus on language teaching resources and approaches. There are no dedicated journals or other periodicals that specialize in Arabic applied linguistics. Articles on Arabic do appear in applied linguistics journals and foreign language teaching journals (Elkhafaifi 2005a and 2005b; Al-Batal 2006; Ryding 1991; Alhawary 2009), in Al-Arabiyya, the journal of the American Association of Teachers of Arabic, and in edited collections (e.g., Al-Batal 1995, Elgibali 1996 and 2005, Wahba, Taha, and England Owens 2013a 2006). A key issue in applied Arabic linguistics is diglossia, the systematic disparity and coexistence of spoken and written Arabic variants in the Arabic speech community, and the effect of this disparity on language use and language teaching. The foundational work on this topic is Ferguson (1959a). Diglossia has since become a widely discussed topic and has developed into theories of discourse continua, interpersonal discourse pragmatics, and many more fine-grained analyses. This topic can raise resistance among 141

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4458965/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX01.3D 5:37PM

142

142

[141–144] 23.10.2013

Appendix A

some native speakers, who perceive the Arabic language as a unified whole and who consider the study of spoken variants trivial, divisive, and distracting. This attitude has strongly privileged the study, analysis, and teaching of written Arabic and discouraged the formal study and teaching of colloquial Arabic discourse. For many years, the sole topic of study considered legitimate in formal learning situations has been Classical Arabic (CA) or Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), the written language. Formal study of vernacular Arabic has been neglected in academic curricula and in government-based training programs – even programs that claim to be teaching full communicative competence. With pressing real-world needs for interactive skills, the profession has had to turn its attention to spoken Arabic, but there is as yet no consensus on the timing, amount, proportion, or varieties that would best serve English-speaking learners. Recent articles by Choueiri (2009), Ryding (2006a, 2006b, 2008, 2009), and Younes (2009) deal explicitly with this issue. This area of study is interwoven with deeply felt attitudes and ideologies having to do with the social, cultural, and religious values attached to written and spoken varieties of Arabic. 2.

SOCIOLINGUISTICS AND ARABIC

Sociolinguistics, the study of language use in social contexts, has emerged as one of the central fields for the study not only of Arabic language, but of culture, nationalism, and identity in the Arabic speech community. Discourse of all kinds and at all levels provides the raw data for sociolinguistic analysis (see Haeri 2003, for example), but much of the work thus far has been done on political discourse (Dunne 2003, Bassiouney 2006, 2009) and other forms of public discourse (Suleiman 2003, 2004), especially as seen through various forms of media (Eid 2007; Bassiouney 2010). Studies of Arabic language in society and the relationship between the written and spoken variants have been done by Badawi 1985; Ferguson 1959a and 1959b; Parkinson 1991, 2003; Haeri 2003 and 2006; Hary 1996, Mejdell 2006, and Rosenbaum 2008, among others. These studies have focused on discourse in both formal and informal situations, on the different registers or levels of Arabic in use, on the mixing of language registers, and on attitudes toward language that characterize the Arabic speech community. MSA borders on vernacular Arabic in many situations and native speakers easily cross and re-cross those discourse borders as they see necessary and fit for rhetorical purposes within different contexts and different genres. Thus there is, especially in more formal spoken Arabic situations, a tradition of code-mixing or hybridization that occurs on a regular basis. Code-mixing (the mingling of language levels and registers) has become more and more commonplace and conventionalized in the broadcast

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4458965/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX01.3D 5:37PM

143

[141–144] 23.10.2013

Fields of linguistics and Arabic

143

media and in relatively formal contexts, such as university lectures, classroom discussions, conferences, and official receptions, for example.1 Progress of research in Arabic sociolinguistics is key to understanding how spoken and written Arabic are calibrated in actual discourse situations, and in forming the foundation for unearthing the inherent regularities in ordinary spoken Arabic discourse. Particularly in relationship to code-mixing, sociolinguistic research has begun to document the contextualized practices of Arabic speakers and the cultural pragmatics of language use.2

3.

C O M P U TAT I O N A L L I N G U I S T I C S A N D A R A B I C

Computational linguistics refers to the use of computers in the analysis of language, in data collection, and in machine translation. Arabic language computational resources have developed slowly compared with other languages, but there has been accelerated progress in the past few years. One of the most important contributions of the growing field of Arabic computational linguistics has been the compilation of authentic corpora for linguistic analysis such as frequency counts and occurrences of lexical collocations. The Arabic corpus project at Brigham Young University (BYU) currently provides a key source for researchers needing to examine language in context. According to the BYU digital humanities website, “ArabiCorpus is a free, untagged, 30-million-word corpus with a user-friendly interface. Maintained by Dil Parkinson, professor of Arabic, this corpus allows users to find larger structures and grammatical patterns through frequency analysis, regular expression searching, and other advanced interface features. The ArabiCorpus is a highly regarded tool for both researchers and advanced Arabic students, and can be found at http://arabicorpus.byu.edu” (Brigham Young University, 2013). Other uses of corpora include syntactic and morphological parsing and compilation of lexicons. With the advent of reliable computational resources, searching various corpora for particular structures and usages has been rendered far easier and Arabic linguistics researchers can now process considerably more data than before. Most of the corpora are in MSA, but the development of spoken Arabic corpora is also well underway. Ditters (2006 and 2013) provides an overview of Arabic computational linguistics, including an extensive bibliography. The recent publication of A Frequency Dictionary of Arabic by Tim Buckwalter and Dilworth Parkinson lists the most frequent 5,000 words based on “a corpus of 30 million words of which 10 percent was made up of spontaneous (unscripted) speech data . . . [and] the remaining 90 percent of the corpus came from written sources” (2011: 3). This new and important resource will undoubtedly improve the targeting of key vocabulary in the development of Arabic language teaching materials and in classroom interaction, and is just one of the results of computational linguistics research in Arabic.3

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4458965/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX01.3D 5:37PM

144

144

[141–144] 23.10.2013

Appendix A

Notes 1. See Mejdell (2006), for a close study of code-mixing in Egypt, as well as Bassiouney (2006). See Eid (2007) for a stylistic analysis of hybrid Arabic used in the media. See also Al-wer (2013) for a cogent current overview of Arabic sociolinguistics, and Suleiman (2013) for an astute analysis of diglossia and Arabic folk linguistics. 2. See Rosenbaum 2008 for a lively discussion of what is termed “fuşħaamiyya.” 3. For a critical overview of contemporary Arabic lexicography, see Buckwalter and Paokinton (2013).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX02.3D 9:18AM

145

[145–148] 25.10.2013

Appendix B: Arabic transcription/transliteration/ romanization The process of changing Arabic script into a romanized (or latinized) equivalent would seem to be a straightforward or even trivial one, but it is not. Because it requires complete accuracy, “scientific transcription” is a painstaking effort demanding high levels of phonological and morphological knowledge, and transliteration errors and inconsistencies tend to creep into even the best-edited publications. For a number of reasons, romanization (conversion from a nonroman alphabet to a roman one) from Arabic can be problematic, especially because of the invisibility of short vowels in Arabic script, which are crucial to accurate pronunciation. Other common areas of romanization problems include the misrepresentation of gemination, short versus long vowel notation, representation of epenthetic vowels, morpheme boundaries (if noted), case-marking, and word boundaries. Traditionally, a distinction is drawn between transcription and transliteration. I have long relied on Charles Ferguson’s definitions of these processes, and reproduce them here. TRANSCRIPTION

(Transcription = phonemic conversion: e.g., ʕabd-u n-naaşir) Transcription: The written representation of a language by symbols or spellings other than those of the standard orthography of the language. If the language is normally unwritten, any writing system devised is called a transcription unless it becomes the accepted orthography. If a transcription is based exclusively on the sounds of the language, it is called a phonetic transcription. One important variety of phonetic transcription is the phonemic transcription in which each symbol consistently represents one phoneme . . . of the language being written. Transcriptions which are only partially phonetic (or phonemic) are also used for various reasons; they are usually based in part on grammatical or semantic considerations. (Ferguson 1962: 10)

Transcription, therefore, is primarily a way of representing language as it is spoken. For spoken languages that are normally not written down, such as Arabic dialects, 145

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX02.3D 9:18AM

146

146

[145–148] 25.10.2013

Appendix B

transcription systems may be used to represent the spoken sounds, and the transcription symbols might be Arabic, or phonetic, or romanized, depending on the reasons and audiences for the transcription. T R A N S L I T E R AT I O N

(Transliteration = graphemic conversion, e.g., ʕabd-u l-naaşir) Transliteration: The systematic use of the symbols of one writing system to represent those of another, the ideal being a one-to-one correspondence so that something written by means of the transliteration can be converted to the original orthography and vice versa without ambiguity. The term is most often used to refer to systems of using the Roman alphabet to represent various oriental alphabets. (Ferguson 1962: 10)

Thus transliteration would be the writing of romanized script equivalent to written Arabic script, representing all orthographic elements. The primary problem here is that Arabic script has both “shallow” and “deep” orthographies, i.e., it differs in how it “portrays sound-to-symbol relationships” (Everson 2011: 260). Script that includes all short vowels and diacritics (such as shadda and waşla) is termed “shallow” – that is, easier to read, and is therefore used in teaching Arabic-speaking children how to read. Script that is “deep” lacks these features, assuming that adult readers readily know what they are. The fact that short vowels and diacritics are not represented in deep script does not mean that they do not exist; standard Arabic orthographic convention simply omits them and takes them as understood. This is a conceptual and cognitive processing problem for learners of Arabic as a foreign language, and it also impacts the rendering of written Arabic into full transliteration.1 Short vowels and diacritics are invisible in normal Arabic script, but are of course pronounced if the written text is read out loud. Therefore, for Arabic, a hybrid system of transliteration/transcription – one that takes into account pronunciation as well as orthography – has become the norm for western publications that need to use transliterated Arabic. GENERAL RULES

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

When transliterating or transcribing, think in terms of mathematical precision. Transliterated terms from a foreign language should be in italics. Every constituent of an Arabic word must be transliterated. This includes short vowels, contrasts in vowel length, and the existence of geminate consonants; these are all phonemic distinctions in Arabic and must be indicated. When you choose a particular system, you need to stick with it. You must be consistent.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX02.3D 9:18AM

147

[145–148] 25.10.2013

Arabic transcription/transliteration/romanization

(5)

147

Widely used and accepted transliteration systems include those of the Library of Congress (LC), the Board of Geographic Names (BGN), and the Encyclopedia of Islam (EI). The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) provides a standard for transcription and transliteration of consonants and vowels. A complete chart of the IPA system can be found in Laver (2001: 179).

Note 1. See Ryding (2013) on issues in teaching reading in Arabic as a foreign language.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX02.3D 9:18AM

148

[145–148] 25.10.2013

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

149

[149–156] 25.10.2013

Appendix C: Arabic nominal declensions

Modern Standard Arabic nouns and adjectives fall into eight declensions.1 These categories of inflection are not usually treated separately as declensions in textbooks and grammars of Arabic, but I have found that this often leads to confusion for Arabic learners. I have therefore distinguished among all forms of nominal declension, including inflections for the suffix declensions of dual, sound feminine plural and sound masculine plural. Threeway inflection nominals (triptotes) are traditionally considered the base category because they exhibit three distinctive case-markings for nominative, genitive, and accusative. All other categories have fewer case distinctions: some two, some only one. Moreover, sometimes there is a distinction between definite and indefinite inflection, and sometimes not (for example, the declensions for the dual and for the sound masculine plural do not exhibit distinctions in definiteness).2 Arabic nominal declensions: Three-way inflection (1) three-way inflection (‘triptote’) Two-way inflection (2) dual (3) sound feminine plural (4) sound masculine plural (5) diptote (6) defective One-way inflection (7) indeclinable (for case, but marking definiteness), and (8) invariable

149

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

150

[149–156] 25.10.2013

150

Appendix C

1.

T H R E E - WAY I N F L E C T I O N : T R I P TO T E ( M U ʕ R A B )

1.1.

singular masculine noun ‘saddle’

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

1.2.

Definite

Indefinite

al-sarj-u al-sarj-i al-sarj-a

sarj-u-n sarj-i-n sarj-a-n

plural noun ‘saddles’

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

1.3.

suruuj

Definite

Indefinite

al-suruuj-u al-suruuj-i al-suruuj-a

suruuj-u-n suruuj-i-n suruuj-a-n

feminine singular noun ‘ship’

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

1.4.

sarj

safiina

Definite

Indefinite

al-safiinat-u al-safiinat-i al-safiinat-a

safiinat-u-n safiinat-i-n safiinat-a-n

plural noun

Nominative Genitive: Accusative:

‘ships’

sufun

Definite

Indefinite

al-sufun-u al-sufun-i al-sufun-a

sufun-u-n sufun-i-n sufun-a-n

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

151

[149–156] 25.10.2013

Arabic nominal declensions 1.5.

masculine singular adjective

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

1.6.

‘big’

kabiir

Definite

Indefinite

al-kabiir-u al-kabiir-i al-kabiir-a

kabiir-u-n kabiir-i-n kabiir-a-n

broken plural adjective

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘big’

kibaar

Definite

Indefinite

al-kibaar-u al-kibaar-i al-kibaar-a

kibaar-u-n kibaar-i-n kibaar-a-n

2.

T W O - WAY I N F L E C T I O N

2.1.

declension two:the dual

2.1.1.

Masculine dual noun

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

2.1.2.

‘two saddles’

sarj-aani

Definite

Indefinite

al-sarj-aani al-sarj-ayni al-sarj-ayni

sarj-aani sarj-ayni sarj-ayni

Feminine dual noun

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘two cities’

madiinat-aani

Definite

Indefinite

al-madiinat-aani al-madiinat-ayni al-madiinat-ayni

madiinat-aani madiinat-ayni madiinat-ayni

151

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

152

[149–156] 25.10.2013

152

Appendix C

2.1.3.

Masculine dual adjective

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

2.1.4.

‘big’

kabiir-aani

Definite

Indefinite

al-kabiir-aani al-kabiir-ayni al-kabiir-ayni

kabiir-aani kabiir-ayni kabiir-ayni

Feminine dual adjective

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘big’

kabiirat-aani

Definite

Indefinite

al-kabiirat-aani al-kabiirat-ayni al-kabiirat-ayni

kabiirat-aani kabiirat-ayni kabiirat-ayni

2.2.

declension three: the sound masculine plural

2.2.1.

Sound masculine plural noun ‘assistants’

musaaʕid-uuna

Definite

Indefinite

Nominative: al-musaaʕid-uuna musaaʕid-uuna Genitive: al-musaaʕid-iina musaaʕid-iina Accusative: al-musaaʕid-iina musaaʕid-iina

2.2.2.

Sound masculine plural adjective

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘many’

kathiir-uuna

Definite

Indefinite

al-kathiir-uuna al-kathiir-iina al-kathiir-iina

kathiir-uuna kathiir-iina kathiir-iina

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

153

[149–156] 25.10.2013

Arabic nominal declensions 2.3.

declension four: the sound feminine plural

2. 3.1.

Sound feminine plural noun

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

2.3.2.

‘differences’

ixtilaaf-aat

Definite

Indefinite

al-ixtilaaf-aat-u al-ixtilaaf-aat-i al-ixtilaaf-aat-i

ixtilaaf-aat-u-n ixtilaaf-aat-i-n ixtilaaf-aat-i-n

Sound feminine plural adjective ‘Tunisian’

tuunisiyy-aat

Definite

Indefinite

Nominative: al-tuunisiyy-aat-u tuunisiyy-aat-u-n Genitive: al-tuunisiyy-aat-i tuunisiyy-aat-i-n Accusative: al-tuunisiyy-aat-i tuunisiyy-aat-i-n

2.4.

d e c l e n s i o n fi v e : d i p t o t e

2.4.1.

Singular diptote noun

Nominative Genitive Accusative

2.4.2.

‘desert’

Saħraa$

Definite

Indefinite

al-şaħraaʔ-u al-şaħraaʔ-i al-şaħraaʔ-a

şaħraaʔ-u şaħraaʔ-a şaħraaʔ-a

Plural diptote noun

Nominative Genitive Accusative

‘leaders’

zuʕamaaʔ

Definite

Indefinite

al-zuʕamaaʔ-u al-zuʕamaaʔ-i al-zuʕamaaʔ-a

zuʕamaaʔ-u zuʕamaaʔ-a zuʕamaaʔ-a

153

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

154

[149–156] 25.10.2013

154

Appendix C

2.4.3.

Singular masculine adjective

Nominative Genitive Accusative

2.4.4.

ʔazraq

Definite

Indefinite

al-ʔazraq-u al-ʔazraq-i al-ʔazraq-a

ʔazraq-u ʔazraq-a ʔazraq-a

Singular feminine adjective

Nominative Genitive Accusative

2.4.5.

‘blue’

‘blue’

zarqaaʔ

Definite

Indefinite

al-zarqaaʔ-u al-zarqaaʔ-i al-zarqaaʔ-a

zarqaaʔ-u zarqaaʔ-a zarqaaʔ-a

Plural diptote adjective

Nominative Genitive Accusative

‘foreign’

ʔajaanib

Definite

Indefinite

al-ʔajaanib-u al-ʔajaanib-i al-ʔajaanib-a

ʔajaanib-u ʔajaanib-a ʔajaanib-a

2. 5.

declension six: defective

2.5.1.

Singular defective noun

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘lawyer’

muħaamin

Definite

Indefinite

al-muħaamii al-muħaamii al-muħaamiy-a

muħaamin muħaamin muħaamiy-an

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

155

[149–156] 25.10.2013

Arabic nominal declensions 2.5.2.

155

Diptote defective plural

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘cafés’

maqaahin

Definite

Indefinite

al-maqaahii al-maqaahii al-maqaahiy-a

maqaahin maqaahin maqaahiy-a

3.

O N E - WAY I N F L E C T I O N

3.1.

declension seven: indeclinable nouns

3.1.1.

Singular indeclinable noun

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘level’

mustawan

Definite

Indefinite

al-mustawaa al-mustawaa al-mustawaa

mustawan mustawan mustawan

3.2.

declension eight:invariable

3.2.1.

Invariable noun

Nominative: Genitive: Accusative:

‘anniversary’

dhikraa

Definite

Indefinite

al-dhikraa al-dhikraa al-dhikraa

dhikraa dhikraa dhikraa

Notes 1. For detailed description of these declensions see Ryding (2005: 182–204). 2. This may be at least partially due to the fact that in both inflections, the final consonant is inflectional nuun (-aani and -uuna).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX03.3D 11:27AM

156

[149–156] 25.10.2013

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

157 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms In this basic glossary I have defined some items myself, but more often I have used definitions taken from contemporary studies and reference works on linguistics, as noted. Also note the morphology glossary in Chapter 5 and the list of syntactic terms in Chapter 9. affix: “A letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds (= a morpheme), which is added to a word, and which changes the meaning or function of the word” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 17). This includes prefixes, circumfixes, infixes and suffixes. Another definition states that “an affix is a grammatical element, belonging to a closed set, which can only function as a component of a word” (Cruse 1986: 77). Agent: in theta theory, “the one who intentionally initiates the action expressed by the predicate” (Haegeman 1994: 49). Also, in case theory “the case of the typically animate perceived instigator of the action identified by the verb” (Butt: 2006: 30). allomorph: a variant of a morpheme that does not alter its basic identity or function, e.g., different forms for the English plural morpheme such as: books, dogs, houses, oxen, children, sheep; or the contextual variation of the indefinite article a/an that depends on the initial sound of the following word. In Arabic also, the plural morpheme takes on various shapes: sound feminine plural (-aat), sound masculine plural (-uuna/-iina), and the many variations of broken or internal plurals. The laam of the definite article (al-) has a wide range of allomorphic shapes because of the fact that “sun letters” assimilate it, and change its realization (e.g., al-dhahab ‘gold’ is pronounced adh-dhahab). allophone: an allophone is a contextually determined pronunciation variant of a phoneme. assimilation: a change or spread of phonetic feature values (such as voicing or velarization) that makes segments more similar, or even identical.

157

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

158

158 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

aux.: auxiliary verb; kaan is used as an auxiliary verb in Arabic (e.g., kaan-at ta-drus-u, ‘she was studying’). Beneficiary: in case theory, the person or entity that receives the benefit of the action. See also recipient. binyan: “A binyan (plural binyanim) is a verbal paradigm in a Semitic language, involving root-and-pattern morphology” (Bauer 2003: 325). In Arabic, binyan corresponds to wazn, or “Form” of the verb. blend: “A blend is a new lexeme formed from parts of two or more other lexemes” (Bauer 2003: 325). bound morpheme: a grammatical formative that cannot occur on its own as a word (e.g., in English word parts such as -ish, -ment, un-, -ly, -s, -ed). In Arabic, a lexical root (jidhr) such as {k-t-b} or {d-r-s}, a word pattern or template such as {ma__ __ a __ } for noun of place, or case-markers such as -u, -i and -a). Arabic abounds in bound morphemes. case: “Case is a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads” (Blake 1994: 1). categorical specification: labeling of lexical or syntactic categories (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, preposition). circumfix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added at both ends of a word (i.e., prefix and suffix together), and which changes the meaning or function of the word. “A circumfix is a discontinuous affix which surrounds the base with which it occurs” (Bauer 2003: 325–326). In Arabic, the present tense inflectional morphemes “surround” the present-tense stem; e.g., ta-drus-na ‘you f. pl. study’ consists of the prefix ta-, the stem -drus-, and the suffix -na. citation form: the basic word stem listed in a dictionary, glossary, or word list. For Arabic verbs, it is the third person masculine singular past tense; for English it is the infinitive. clause: “An expression that contains (minimally) a subject and a predicate” (Fagan 2009: 283). clitic: “A clitic is an obligatorily bound morph which is intermediate between an affix and a word” (Bauer 2003: 326). complement: object or object-clause; “a term used in the analysis of grammatical function, to refer to a major constituent of sentence or clause structure, traditionally associated with ‘completing’ the action specified by the verb” (Crystal 1997b: 75) complementary distribution: “If two elements never occur in the same contexts, but, instead, divide up some set of contexts between them, they are said to be in complementary distribution” (Bauer 2003: 329).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

159 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

159

complementizer: a subordinating conjunction that joins clauses (such as that or whether in English; or such as ʔinna and her sisters in Arabic), creating an embedded sentence or complement. compound: “A lexeme formed by adjoining two or more lexemes” (Fagan 2009: 283). concatenative morphology: the formation of words through combination of elements into a linear sequence. conjugation: “A class of verbs that show the same pattern of inflection” (Booij 2005, 2007: 310). copula: a word that links a sentential subject to a complement. Often a form of the verb ‘to be,’ but in Arabic, may also take the form of a personal pronoun. declension: “A class of nouns or adjectives with the same inflectional pattern” (Booij 2005, 2007: 311). degree: “The morphological marking on adjectives of different degrees of presence of a property” (Booij 2005, 2007: 311). The positive, comparative, and superlative forms of adjectives reflect different degrees of a property. derivational morphology: the creation of lexical items, word stems. determiner: “A functional category that serves as the specifier of noun phrase” (Fagan 2009: 284). The definite article and demonstrative pronouns are two types of determiners in Arabic. discontinuous morphology: splitting one morpheme by insertion of another unit, such as the interlocking of grammatical patterns and lexical roots in Arabic. distinctive feature: in phonology, “a particular characteristic which distinguished one distinctive sound unit of a language (see phoneme) from another or one group of sounds from another” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 179). epenthesis: insertion of a sound into a sequence in order to ease pronunciation and facilitate transition from one sound to the next; in Arabic, usually a vowel sound. equational: in Arabic, referring to sentences without an overt form of the verb ‘to be.’ experiencer: in case theory, refers “to an entity or person affected by the action or state expressed by the verb” (Crystal 1997b: 143); “the thematic role of the entity that feels or perceives something” (Fagan 2009: 285). form class: “A set of forms displaying similar or identical grammatical features” (Crystal 1997b: 155).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

160

160 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

formalization: “It ought to be possible, in any formalization, for a linguistic analysis to be formally interpreted in logical or mathematical terms, and a calculus developed” (Crystal 1997b: 156). That is, rules are specified in precise and abstract ways so as to be concise, maximally applicable, and elegant. formative: any element entering into word formation, either derivational or inflectional. free morpheme: can function independently as a word (e.g., Arabic min ‘from’). free variation: in phonology, refers to the optional “substitutability of one sound for another in a given environment, with no consequent change in the word’s meaning” (Crystal 1997b: 158). head: the main or central part of a phrase; the head of an NP is a noun, the head of a PP is a preposition, etc. “Most constructions can be described in terms of an obligatory member (the head) and an optional mem ber (the dependent)” (Blake 1994: 201). infix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds, which is added inside a word or morpheme, and which changes its meaning or function. inflectional morphology: the study of word variation in context (e.g., number, gender, case, definiteness, tense, voice, and person are some categories of inflectional morphology). Inflections are applied to word stems. instrumental: in case theory, “the case of the inanimate force or object causally involved in the action or state identified by the verb” (Butt 2006: 30). item and arrangement (IA) morphology: a “model of morphological structure in which a complex word consists of a sequence of concatenated morphemes” (Booij 2005, 2007: 315). item-and-process (IP) morphology: a “model of morphological structure in which each complex word is the output of one or more morphological processes such as affixation and internal modification” (Booij 2005, 2007: 315). It “sets up one underlying form for alternating allomorphs and derives the surface forms by applying feature-changing rules to the underlying form” (Bybee 1988: 119). lexeme: “A lexeme is a (potential or actual) decontextualized vocabulary word, a member of a major lexical category: noun (N), verb (V) or adjective/adverb (A)” (Aronoff 1992b: 13). Another definition is “the abstract unit that stands for the common properties of all the

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

161 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

161

forms of a word” (Booij 2005, 2007: 316). Cruse refers to lexemes as “the items listed in the lexicon, or ‘ideal dictionary,’ of a language” (Cruse 1986: 49).1 Aronoff states, “a lexeme, at least in its extrasyntactic state, is uninflected, both abstractly and concretely” (1994: 11). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM): “Is a theory of morphology which claims that lexical morphemes, called Lexemes, and grammatical morphemes, Morphemes, are radically different linguistic phenomena” (Beard and Volpe 2005: 189) (emphasis in original). Essentially, lexemes are word-stems of the major syntactic categories (nouns, verbs, adjectives), whereas grammatical morphemes such as tense, person, plural, and so forth, are non-lexical. lexical category: the form class of a particular word, e.g., noun (n), verb (v), adjective (a), preposition (p). Lexical Phonology and Morphology (LPM): a theory of the interaction of morphology and phonology, especially as pertaining to issues of cyclicity and sequencing of morphophonological processes. lexicon: essentially, the set of all words and idioms known to a native speaker of a language, including information on a word’s syntactic category (sometimes called “lexical category”), its grammatical functions and patterning, and its meaning/s. locative: in case theory, “The case which identifies the location or spatial orientation of the state or action identified by the verb” (Butt 2006: 30). manner of articulation: refers to “the kind of articulatory process used in a sound’s production” (Crystal 1997b: 232). modality: “A semantic category that involves the expression of different attitudes towards or degrees of commitment to a proposition” (Fagan 2009: 288), such as hoping, wishing, liking, believing, commanding. mood/mode/: “Modality distinctions that are marked by verbal inflection” (Fagan 2009: 288). In Arabic, the moods of the verbs are indicative, subjunctive, jussive, and imperative. morph: “A morph is a constituent element of a word-form. It is the realization of a morpheme (or sometimes more than one, see portmanteau morph)” (Bauer 2003: 334). morpheme: a minimum unit of form having an independent lexical or grammatical meaning. “The morpheme is an abstract unit realized . . . by morphs, or . . . allomorphs” (Bauer 2003: 334–335). Some theories of morphology crucially distinguish between lexical and grammatical morphemes (e.g., lexeme-morpheme base morphology).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

162

162 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

morphology: the study of word-structure and word-formation, especially in terms of morphemes and morphological processes. morphophonology: the study of the interaction/interface between morphology and phonology. morphosyntax: the study of the interface between morphology and syntax. non-concatenative morphology: “morphology that makes use of other processes than affixation or compounding to create new words or word forms” (Booij 2005, 2007: 318). The root/pattern morphology of Arabic is an example of non-concatenative morphology because the root morphemes and the pattern morphemes are discontinuous and are combined through interlinking rather than linear affixation. objective: in case theory: “the semantically most neutral case, the case of the thing representable by a noun whose role in the action or state identified by the verb is identified by the semantic interpretation of the verb itself; conceivably the concept should be limited to things which are affected by the action or state identified by the verb” (Butt 2006: 30). paradigm: “A set of forms, corresponding to some subset (defined in terms of a particular morphological category) of the grammatical words from a single lexeme. Paradigms are frequently presented in tabular form” (Bauer 2003: 337). For example, in Arabic, the possible forms of a word can be listed in a table consisting of “cells” that constitute the range of word-form options possible in the language. For example, a triptote or fully inflectable (muʕrab) noun paradigm would look like this, showing both case and definiteness within six cells: Word-stem Case Nominative Genitive Accusative

xanjar ‘dagger’ definite indefinite al-xanjar-u xanjar-u-n al-xanjar-i xanjar-i-n al-xanjar-a xanjar-a-n

paronymy: “The relationship between one word and another belonging to a different syntactic category and produced from the first by some process of derivation” (Cruse 1986: 130). patient: “Semantic role of the participant of an action that undergoes that action” (Booij 2005, 2007: 319). pattern (Arabic): a pattern is a bound and in many cases, discontinuous morpheme consisting of one or more vowels and slots for root phonemes (radicals), which either alone or in combination with one to

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

163 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

163

three derivational affixes, interlocks with a root to form a stem, and which generally has grammatical meaning. person: “A morphosyntactic category that identifies the participants in a situation. A typical distinction is among first person (the speaker or a group including the speaker), second person (the person or persons addressed), and third person (anyone else)” (Fagan 2009: 289). phoneme: a minimal distinctive unit in the sound system of a language. phonemics/ phonemic analysis: the study of the sound system of a language. phonetics: “The science which studies the characteristics of human sound-making, especially those sounds used in speech, and provides methods for their description, classification and transcription” (Crystal 1997b: 289). phonology: a general term that includes phonemics and phonetics. The “establishment and description of the distinctive sound units of a languages (phonemes) by means of distinctive features” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 435). phonotactics: is the study of sound distribution patterns and distribution restrictions within words. portmanteau morph: incorporates two (or more) meanings in one morpheme, such as the dual suffix in Arabic: -aani = number (dual) and case (nominative) -ayni = number (dual) and case (accusative/genitive) prefix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added to the beginning of a word, and which changes the meaning or function of the word. recipient: in case theory, “the semantic role for the participant in an event that receives something” (Booij 2005, 2007: 320). See also beneficiary. root (Arabic): a root is a relatively invariable discontinuous bound morpheme, represented by two to five phonemes, typically three consonants in a certain order, which interlocks with a pattern to form a stem and which has lexical meaning. In this book, usually referred to as a “lexical root.” Aronoff defines a root in more vivid terms: “A root is what is left when all the morphological structure has been wrung out of a form. This is the sense of the term in Semitic grammar” (1992b: 15). stem or word stem: the base or bare form of a word without inflectional affixes. A lexeme may have more than one stem.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

164

164 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

stem allomorphy: the variation of a stem resulting from interaction with inflectional or derivational morphology. suffix: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added to the end of a word, and which changes the meaning or function of the word. syntactic category: “The syntactic category to which a word belongs determines its distribution, that is, in what contexts it can occur” (Haegeman 1994: 36). syntax: “Syntax concerns the ways in which words combine to form sentences and the rules which govern the formation of sentences, making some sentences possible and others not possible within a particular language” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 579). thematic role: “The semantic role of a participant in an event” (Booij 2005, 2007: 323). See also theta theory. theta theory: in government-binding theory, “the component of the grammar that regulates the assignment of thematic roles is called theta theory” (Haegeman 1994: 49) (“theta” is shorthand for “theme”). transcription: “The written representation of a language by symbols or spellings other than those of the standard orthography of the language” (Ferguson 1962: 10). transliteration: “the systematic use of the symbols of one writing system to represent those of another, ideally one-to-one correspondence so it can be converted to original (Ferguson 1962: 10). universal grammar (UG): “A theory which claims to account for the grammatical competence of every adult no matter what language he or she speaks” (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 617). valence/valency: refers to the number and nature of semantic roles (arguments) that are associated with the meaning of a particular predicate. WFR: word formation rule. A rule that applies in derivational morphology. wh-movement: the movement of an interrogative word (e.g., who, when, why) to the first part of a sentence. word-and-paradigm morphology: a “theoretical model of inflection that takes the lexeme and its paradigm of cells as the starting point for the analysis of inflectional systems” (Booij 2005, 2007: 324). “Word-and-paradigm is an approach to morphology which gives theoretical centrality to the notion of the paradigm and which derives the word-forms representing lexemes by a complex series of ordered rules

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

165 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

Glossary of technical linguistic terms

165

which do not assume that the word-form will be easily analyzable into morphs or that each morph will realize a single morpheme. It is also known as a-morphous morphology” (Bauer 2003: 344).

Note 1. Cruse makes a distinction between lexemes and “lexical units,” especially as these terms are used in lexical semantics (1986: 49–50).

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D

166 [157–166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

167

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References Abdel Haleem, Muhammad. 2009. Qur’an. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 21–31. Leiden: Brill. Abdo, Daud A. 1969. On Stress and Arabic Phonology: A generative approach. Beirut: Khayats. Abdo, Daud and Salwa N. Hilu. 1968. Arabic Writing and Sound Systems (Aşwaat al-ʕarabiyya wa-ħuruuf-u-haa). Beirut: Ras Beirut Bookshop. Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2006. Case roles. In Encylopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kess Versteegh, 343–347. Leiden: Brill. AIDA: Association Internationale de Dialectologie Arabe. Website: www.aida.or.at Åkesson, Joyce. 2001. Arabic Morphology and Phonology. Leiden: Brill 2009a. The Complexity of the Irregular Verbal and Nominal Forms and the Phonological Changes in Arabic. Lund: Pallas Athena. 2009b. Şarf. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, Kees Versteegh, ed., 118–122. Leiden: Brill. Al-Ani, Salman H. 1970. An acoustical and physiological investigation of the Arabic /‫ﻉ‬/. Actes du Xe congrès international des linguistes. Bucharest: Éditions de l’académie de la république socialiste de Roumanie. 1993. The treatise of Ibn Sina: An original contribution to Arabic phonetics. In Investigating Arabic: Linguistic, pedagogical and literary studies in honor of Ernest N. McCarus, eds. Raji M. Rammuny and Dilworth B. Parkinson, 137–153. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press. 2008. Phonetics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 593–603. Leiden: Brill. Al-Batal, Mahmoud, ed. 1995a. The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. 1995b. Issues in the teaching of the productive skills in Arabic. In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, ed. Mahmoud Al-Batal. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. 2006. Facing the crisis: Teaching and learning Arabic in the United States in the postSeptember 11 era. ADFL Bulletin 37 (2/3): 39–46. Alhawary, Mohammad T. 2009. Arabic Second Language Acquisition of Morphosyntax. New Haven, CT: Yale. Al-Wer, Enam. 2013. Sociolinguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 241–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amberber, Mengistu. 2000. Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, eds. R. M. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aichenvald, 312–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 167

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

168

168

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

2009. Differential case marking of arguments in Amharic. The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, eds. 742–755. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, John M. 2006. Modern Grammars of Case: A retrospective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009. Case in localist case grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 121–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Inflection. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 23–43. New York: Academic Press. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aoun, Joseph E., Elabbas Benmamoun and Lina Choueiri. 2010. The Syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ed. 1992a. Morphology Now. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1992b. Stems in Latin verbal morphology. In Morphology Now, ed. Mark Aronoff, 5–32. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark and Janie Rees-Miller, eds. 2001. The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Baalbaki, Ramzi. 2013. Arabic linguistic tradition I: Naħw and şarf. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 92–114. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachra, Bernard M. 2001. The Phonological Structure of the Verbal Roots in Arabic and Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. Badawi, El-Said. 1985. Educated spoken Arabic: A problem in teaching Arabic as a foreign language. In Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language, ed. Kurt R. Jankowsky, 15–22. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Badawi, El-Said, Michael G. Carter, and Adrian Gully. 2004. Modern Written Arabic: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Badecker, William and Alfonso Caramazza. 1989. Lexical distinction between inflection and derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 108–116. Bahloul, Maher. 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Taxis, Aspect, Tense and Modality in Standard Arabic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics. 2006. Copula. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 506–511. Leiden: Brill. Bakalla, Muhammad Hasan. 2009. Tafxīm. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 421–424. Leiden: Brill. Barkat, Melissa. 2009. Vowel backing. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 669–674. Leiden: Brill. Bassiouney, Reem. 2006. Functions of Code-Switching in Egypt. Leiden: Brill. 2009. Arabic Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ed. 2010. Arabic and the Media. Leiden: Brill. Bassiouney, Reem and E. Graham Katz, eds. 2010. Arabic Language and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

169

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

169

Bateson, Mary Catherine. 1967, 2003. Arabic Language Handbook. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 2007. The Linguistics Student’s Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press Beard, Robert and Mark Volpe. 2005. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. In Handbook of Word-Formation, eds. Pavol Štekauer, and Rochelle Lieber, 189–205. Dordrecht: Springer. Beeston, A. F. L. 1970, 2006. The Arabic Language Today. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Belguedj, M. S. 1973. La démarche des premiers grammariens arabes dans le domaine de la syntaxe. Arabica; 168–185. Belnap, Kirk. 1986. Complementation in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based approach. Unpublished master’s thesis, Brigham Young University. 1999. A new perspective on the history of Arabic variation in marking agreement with plural heads. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 169–185. 2000. Methodological pitfalls in investigating grammatical agreement variation and the history of Arabic. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference of AIDA, Association Internationale de Dialectolgie Arabe, 41–46. Malta: n.p. Belnap, R. Kirk and Osama Shabaneh. 1992. Variable agreement and nonhuman plurals in classical Arabic and modern standard Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV, eds. Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid, and John McCarthy, 245–262. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2006. Construct state. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 477–482. Leiden: Brill. 2009. Syntax. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 391–402. Leiden: Brill Benmamoun, Elabbas and Lina Choueiri. 2013. The syntax of Arabic from a generative perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 115–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Birkeland, Harris. 1954. Stress Patterns in Arabic. Avhandlinger utgitt av det norke videnskaps-akademi i Oslo II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse. No. 3. Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwad. Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933, 1984. Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bohas, Georges. 1997. Matrices, Étymons, Racines: Éléments d’une théorie lexicologique du vocabulaire arabe. Leuven: Peeters. Bohas, Georges, Jean-Patrick Guillaume, and Djamal Eddine Kouloughli. 1990. The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. London and New York: Routledge. Bohas, Georges and Abderrahim Saguer. 2006. Sur un point de vue heuristique concernant l’homonymie dans le lexique de l’arabe. In Grammar as a Window onto Arabic Humanism, eds. Lutz Edzard and Janet Watson, 130–154. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2007. The explanation of homonymy in the lexicon of Arabic. In Approaches to Arabic Linguistics, eds. Everhard Ditters and Harald Motzki, 255–289. Leiden: Brill.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

170

170

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

Booij, Geert. 1996. Review of Lexeme-morpheme base morphology by Robert Beard. Language 72(4): 812–815. 2005, 2007. The Grammar of Words: An introduction to morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. 2009. Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and Pavel Štekauer, eds., 491–511. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brame, Michael K. 1971. Stress in Arabic and generative phonology. Foundations of Language 7: 556–591. Brigham Young University. 2013. Website: Digital Humanities at Brigham Young University. At digitalhumanities.byu.edu/project/arabicorpus/. Broselow, Ellen. 2008. Phonology. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 607–615. Leiden: Brill. Broselow, Ellen, Marie Huffman, Su-i Chen, and Ruohmei Hsieh. 1995. The timing structure of CVVC syllables. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VII, ed. Mushira Eid, 119–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Buckwalter, Tim and Dilworth B. Parkinson. 2011. A Frequency Dictionary of Arabic: Core vocabulary for learners. London: Routledge. Buckwalter, Tim and Dilworth B. Parkinson. 2013. Modern lexicography. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 539–560. Oxford: Oxford University Press Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009a. Modern approaches to case: An overview. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 27–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009b. Case in lexical-functional grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds. Andrej Malchukov, and Andrew Spencer, 59–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond, and Michael Noonan, 119–141. New York: Academic Press. Cantarino, Vicente. 1974–76. The Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose. 3 vols. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1988. Nonconcatenative inflection and paradigm economy. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 71–77. New York: Academic Press. 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70(4): 737–788. 2005. Basic terminology. In Handbook of Word-Formation, eds. Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber, 5–23. Dordrecht: Springer. Carter, M. C. 1972. Les origines de la grammaire arabe. Revue des Études Islamiques. 40: 69–97. 1973. An Arab grammarian of the eighth century, A.D. A contribution to the history of linguistics. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 146–57. 1981. Arab Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1985. “When did the Arabic word naħw first come to denote grammar?” in Language & Communication 5(4): 265–272. Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

171

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

171

Chekili, Ferid. 2009. Transformational grammar. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 520–528. Leiden: Brill. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, eds. R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. 1974. Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. New York: Routledge. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Chouairi, Raja. 2009. Arabic to where? Some problems that ail the Arabic teaching industry. NECTFL Review 64: 35–48. Choueiri, Lina. 2009. WH-movement. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 718–722. Leiden: Brill. Cohn, Abigail. 2001. Phonology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 180–212. Oxford: Blackwell. Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. The lexicon. In The Handbook of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, eds., 238–264. Oxford: Blackwell. Crystal, David. 1997a. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997b. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Culler, Jonathan. 1976, 1986. Ferdinand de Saussure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Dahlgren, Sven-Olof. 1998. Word Order in Arabic. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. 2009. Word order. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 725–736. Leiden: Brill. Danesi, Marcel and Andrea Rocci. 2009. Global Linguistics: An Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Danks, Warwick. 2011. The Arabic Verb: Form and meaning in the vowel-lengthening patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Davis, Stuart. 1993. Arabic pharyngealization and phonological features. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. V, eds. Mushira Eid and Clive Holes, 149–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2009. Velarization. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 636–638. Leiden: Brill. Ditters, Everhard. 2006. Computational linguistics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 455–465. Leiden: Brill. 2013. Issues in Arabic computational linguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 312–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ditters, Everhard and Harald Motzki, eds. 2007. Approaches to Arabic Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. Dixon, R. M. W. 2010a. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume I: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

172

172

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

2010b. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume II: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dunne, Michele Durocher. 2003. Democracy in Contemporary Egyptian Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Durand, Jacques. 1990. Generative and Non-linear Phonology. London: Longman. Edzard, Lutz and Janet Watson, eds. 2006. Grammar as a Window onto Arabic Humanism. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ehret, Christopher. 1989. The origin of third consonants in Semitic roots: An internal reconstruction (applied to Arabic). Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 3: 109–202. Eid, Mushira. 1990. Arabic linguistics: The current scene. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. I. ed. Mushira Eid, 3–37. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 1991. Verbless sentences in Arabic and Hebrew. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III, eds. Bernard Comrie and Mushira Eid, 31–61. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 2007. Arabic on the media: Hybridity and styles. In Approaches to Arabic Linguistics, eds. Everhard Ditters and Harald Motzki. Leiden: Brill. Elgibali, Alaa, ed. 1996. Understanding Arabic: Essays in contemporary linguistics in honor of El-Said Badawi. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. ed. 2005. Investigating Arabic: Current parameters in analysis and learning. Leiden: Brill. Elkhafaifi, Hussein. 2005a. Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. Modern Language Journal 89(2): 206–220. 2005b. The effect of prelistening activities on listening comprehension in Arabic learners. Foreign Language Annals 38(4): 505–513. Everson, Michael E. 2011. Best practices in teaching logographic and non-Roman writing systems to L2 learners. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31: Topics in second language pedagogy, 249–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fagan, Sarah M. B. 2009. German: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ferguson, Charles. 1956. The emphatic el in Arabic. Language 32: 486–52. 1959a. Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340. 1959b. The Arabic koinè. Language 35: 616–630. 1962. Glossary of Terms Related to Languages of the Middle East. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 1992. Principles and parameters in language and society. In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, ed. James E. Alatis, 275–285. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. 1976. Foreword to Essentials of Grammar by Domenico Parisi and Francesco Antinucci, ix–x. New York: Academic Press. 1977. The case for case reopened. In Grammatical Relations, eds. Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Saddock. 59–81. New York: Academic Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

173

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

173

Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1992. Arabic. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. I. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic. 3rd rev. edn, trans. Jonathan Rogers. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. 1997. Classical Arabic. In The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron, 187–219. London: Routledge. 2002. A Grammar of Classical Arabic. 3rd rev. edn, trans. Jonathan Rogers. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Fleisch, Henri. 1957. Esquisse d’un historique de la grammaire arabe. Arabica, 4: 1–22 1961, 1979. Traité de philologie arabe I et II. 2 vols. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique 1961 (vol. I); Beirut: Dâr al-Machreq 1979 (vol. II). Frisch, Stefan A. 2008. Phonotactics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 624–628.. Leiden: Brill. Gafos, Adamantios I. 2009. Stem. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 338–344. Leiden: Brill. Gairdner, W. H. T. 1925. The Phonetics of Arabic. London: Oxford University Press. Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3): 333–377. Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Cyrus. 1970. The accidental invention of the phonemic alphabet. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29(3): 193–97. Gray, Louis. 1934. Introduction to Semitic Comparative Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press. Green, Georgia and Jerry L. Morgan.1996. Practical Guide to Syntactic Analysis. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications. Greenberg, Joseph. 1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 162–181. Gruber, Jeffrey S. [1965]1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 2001. Thematic relations in syntax. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 257–298. Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Haeri, Niloofar. 2003. Sacred Language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of culture and politics in Egypt. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 2006. Culture and language. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 527–536. Leiden: Brill. Hall, Christopher J. 2005. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics: Breaking the language spell. London: Continuum. Hammond, Michael and Michael Noonan. 1988. Morphology in the generative paradigm. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Hammond, Michael and Michael Noonan, 69–90. New York: Academic Press. Hardcastle, William J. and John Laver, eds. 1997. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, 589–618. Oxford: Blackwell.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

174

174

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

Hary, Benjamin. 1996. The importance of the language continuum in Arabic multiglossia. In Understanding Arabic, ed. Alaa Elgibali. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Hasan, Abbas. 1987. Al-naħw al-waafii. (A complete grammar). 4 vols. Cairo: Daar al-maʕaarif. Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. by Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 505–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hetzron, Robert, ed. 1997a. The Semitic Languages. Oxford: Routledge. 1997b. Preface. The Semitic Languages. Oxford: Routledge. Hijazi, Mahmoud Fahmi. 1978. Al-lugha l-ʕarabiyya ʕabr al-quruun (The Arabic Language across the Centuries). Cairo: Daar al-thaqaafa li-l-ŧabaaʕa wa-l-nashr. Hjelmslev, Louis. [1935], 1972. La Catégorie des Cas. (‘The Category of Case’). Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Holes, Clive. 2004. rev. edn. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Howell, Mortimer Sloper. 1986 (repr.). A Grammar of the Classical Arabic Language. 4 vols. in 7. New Delhi: Gian Publishing. Hoyt, Frederick. 2008. Noun phrase. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 428–434. Leiden: Brill. 2009a. Verb phrase. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 646–652. Leiden: Brill. 2009b. Verbal clause. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 653–659. Leiden: Brill. Hymes, Dell, ed. 1974. Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Jackendoff, Ray. S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jakobson, Roman. 1990. On Language. Eds. Linda R. Waugh and Monique MonvilleBurston. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1949. Language; Its Nature, Development, and Origin. New York: Macmillan. Jesry, Maher. 2009. Syllable structure. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 387–389. Leiden: Brill. Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. New York: Saint Martin’s Press. Kaye, Alan S. and Judith Rosenhouse. 1997. Arabic dialects and Maltese. In The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron, 263–311. Oxford: Routledge. Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. 1970–1977. Kitāb al-ʻayn (The Book of ʻAyn’). 7 vol. Eds. M. Makhzoumi and I. Samarrā’i. Baghdad: Dar al-rashid li-l-nashr. Kouloughli, Djamel Eddine. 2007. Inflection. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. II, ed. Kees Versteegh, 345–354. Leiden: Brill. Kossman, Maarten. 2013. Borrowing. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 349–368. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladefoged, Peter. 1997. Linguistic phonetic descriptions. In The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences, eds. William J. Hardcastle and John Laver, 589–618. Oxford: Blackwell.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

175

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

175

Larcher, Pierre. 1998. La linguistique arabe d’hier à demain: tendences nouvelles de la recherche. Arabica 45(3): 409–429. 2009. verb. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed Kees versteegh, 638-645. Leiden: Brill. 2013. Arabic linguistic tradition II: Pragmatics. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 185–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laver, John. 2001. Linguistic phonetics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 150–179. Oxford: Blackwell. LeComte, Gerard. 1968. Grammaire de l’arabe. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Lehn, Walter and William R. Slager. 1983. A contrastive study of Egyptian Arabic and American English: The segmental phonemes. In Second Language Learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects, eds. Betty Wallace Robinett and Jacquelyn Schachter, 32–40. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lieber, Rochelle. 1996. Review of Combinatorial Morphology by John T. Stonham. Language 72(1): 130–132. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer, eds. 2009a. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009b. Introduction: Status and definition of compounding. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and Pavel Štekauer, eds., 3–18. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LeTourneau, Mark. 2006. Case theory. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 347–353. Leiden: Brill. 2009. Theta roles. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 487–494. Leiden: Brill. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport-Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics. In The Handbook of Morphology, ed. by Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 248–271. Oxford: Blackwell. Linguist List. 2012. Announcement: Interdisciplinary workshop on the grammatical word. October 26. Issue 23.4467. Maalej, Zouhair. 2009. Valency. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 624–627. Leiden: Brill. McCarthy, John. 1982. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 2008. Morphology. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 297–307. Leiden: Brill. McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1990a. Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. II, eds. Mushira Eid and John McCarthy, 1–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1990b. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8(2): 209–284. Majdi, Basim. 1990. Word order and proper government in classical Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Mushira Eid, 127–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

176

176

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

Majdi, Basim and Millicent Winston. 1993. Gemination and antigemination in Iraqi. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. V, eds. Mushira Eid and Clive Holes, 163–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Makhzoumi, M. 1960. Al-Khalīl ibn Aħmad: aʕmāl-u-hu wa manhaj-u-hu al-zahraa (Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad: His works and his method). Baghdad: Maktabat al-zahaa’. Malchukov, Andrej and Andrew Spencer, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Măcelaru, Adrian. 2006. Causative. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, Kees Versteegh, ed., 355–360. Leiden: Brill. Mejdell, Gunvor. 2006. Mixed Styles in Spoken Arabic in Egypt. Leiden: Brill. Matthews, P. H. 1974. Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word-structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarus, Ernest and Raji Rammuny. 1974. “Programmed Course in Modern Literary Arabic Phonology and Script.” Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Department of Near Eastern Studies. Mejdell, Gunvor. 2006. Mixed Styles in Spoken Arabic in Egypt: Somewhere between order and chaos. Leiden: Brill. Mitchell, T. F. 1990–1993. Pronouncing Arabic. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Mohammad, M. A. 1990. The problem of subject-verb agreement in Arabic: Towards a solution. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Mushira Eid, 95–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moore, John. 1990. Doubled verbs in modern standard Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. II, eds. Mushira Eid and John McCarthy, 55–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moscati, Sabatino.1969. An Introduction to Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz. Mrayati, M. 1987. Statistical studies of Arabic language roots. In Applied Arabic Linguistics and Signal and Information Processing, ed. Raymond Descout, 97–103. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Al-Nadīm, Muħammad ibn Isħāq. 1950. Fihrist (Index). 2 vols. Ed. and trans. Bayard Dodge. New York: Columbia University Press. Nydell, Margaret K. (Margaret Kleffner Omar). 1967. The verbal roots of modern written Arabic: Classification and analysis. Master thesis, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1997. Genitive subjects and the VSO order. In Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, eds. T. Alan Hall and Artemis Alexiadou, 197–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Owens, Jonathan. 1988. The Foundations of Grammar: An introduction to medieval Arabic grammatical theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1990. Early Arabic Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity and standardization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1997. The Arabic grammatical tradition. In The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron, 46–58. Oxford: Routledge. 2006. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013a, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013b, History. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. J. Owens, 451–471. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

177

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

177

Parisi, Domenico and Francesco Antinucci. 1976. Essentials of Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Parkinson, Dilworth. 1991. Searching for modern fusha: Real-life formal Arabic. AlArabiyya 24: 31–64. 2003. Verbal features in oral fuşħa performances in Cairo. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 163: 27–41. Parrish, Wayland Maxfield. 1932. Reading Aloud: A technique in the interpretation of literature. New York: Thomas Nelson. Percival, W. Keith. 1976. The applicability of Kuhn’s paradigms to the history of linguistics. Language 52: 285–94. Perlmutter, David. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 79–100. New York: Academic Press. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics. 1990–2011. Vol. I-XXI. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Persson, Maria. 2002. Sentential Object Complements in Modern Standard Arabic. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wikesell. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1992. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, University of Ottawa, vol.I., ed. Amy J. Schaefer, 1–15. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Primus, Beatrice. 2009. Case, grammatical relations, and semantic roles. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 261–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Procházka, Stephan. 1993. Some remarks on the semantic function of the reduplicated quadriliteral verb. The Arabist: Budapest studies in Arabic 6–7: Part I: 97–103. 2008. Prepositions. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, Kees Versteegh, ed., 699–703. Leiden: Brill. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rammuny, Raji M. and Dilworth B. Parkinson, eds. 1993. Investigating Arabic: Linguistic, pedagogical and literary studies in honor of Ernest N. McCarus. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press. Ratcliffe, Robert. 2013. Morphology, In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 71–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reichmuth, Philipp. 2009. Transcription. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 515–520. Leiden: Brill. Retsö, Jan. 2013. What is Arabic? In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 433–450. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, Jack C. and Richard Schmidt. [1985] 2010. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Harlow, UK: Longman. Robinett, Betty Wallace and Jacquelyn Schachter, eds. 1983. Second Language Learning: Contrastive analysis, error analysis, and related aspects. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Rosenbaum, Gabriel M. 2000. Fuşħāmiyya. Alternating style in Egyptian prose. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik. 38: 68–87;

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

178

178

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

Ryding, Karin C. 1991. Proficiency despite diglossia: A new approach for Arabic. Modern Language Journal 75(2): 212–218. 1993. Case/mood syncretism in Arabic grammatical theory: Evidence for the split morphology hypothesis and the continuum hypothesis. In Investigating Arabic: Linguistic, pedagogical and literary studies in honor of Ernest N. McCarus, eds. Raji M. Rammuny and Dilworth B. Parkinson, 173–179. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2006a. Teaching Arabic in the United States. In A Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, ed. Kassem Wahba, Zeinab Taha, and Liz England, 13–20. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2006b. Educated Arabic. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed. Kees Versteegh, vol. I: 666–671. Leiden: Brill. 2007. Forum on Language Policy and the Politics of Language. ADFL Bulletin, 38 (1–2): 61–62. 2008. New Alignments, New Discourses, Profession 2008, 214–218. 2009. Educated spoken Arabic: A flexible Spoken Standard. In NECTFL Review 64: spring/summer 2009, 49–52. 2010a. Media Arabic as a regional standard. In Arabic and the Media, ed. Reem Bassiouney, 219–228. Leiden: Brill. 2010b. Postmodern models for Arabic: Answering old questions in new ways. ADFL Bulletin 41(2): 69–71. 2011. Arabic datives, ditransitives, and the preposition li–. In In the Shadow of Arabic: Festschrift for Ramzi Baalbaki, ed. Bilal Orfali, 283–298. Leiden: Brill. 2013a. Arabic second language acquisition. In Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013b Teaching and Learning Arabic as a Foreign Languate: A guide for teachers. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ryding, Karin and Kees Versteegh, 2007. IDaafa. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. II, ed. Kees Versteegh, 294–298. Leiden: Brill. Ryding-Lentzner, Karin. 1977. Semantic and syntactic aspects of Arabic prepositions. Dissertation, Georgetown University. 1981. Semantic motivation for Arabic dative-movement. Al-Arabiyya 14: 19–23. Sampson, Geoffrey, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds. 2009. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sapir, Edward. 1921, 1949. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace & World. Sara, Solomon. 1991. Al-Khalil, the first Arab phonologist. International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies 8(1): 1–57. de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1972 (Payot, Paris). 1983 copyright English translation. 2009 [1986]. Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye with Albert Riedlinger. Trans. and ed. Roy Harris. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Sawaie, Mohammed. 1993. Sociolinguistic factors and historical linguistic change: The case of /q/ and its reflexes in Arabic dialects. In Investigating Arabic: Linguistic, pedagogical and literary studies in honor of Ernest N. McCarus, eds. Raji M. Rammuny and Dilworth B. Parkinson, 15–39. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press. Schramm, Gene M. 1962. An outline of classical Arabic verb structure. Language 38 (4): 360–375.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

179

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

179

Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Semaan, Khalil. 1968. Linguistics in the Middle Ages: Phonetic studies in early Islam. Leiden: Brill. Shahin, Kimary N. 1996. Accessing pharyngeal place in Palestinian Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. IX, eds. Mushira Eid and Dilworth Parkinson., 131–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shopen, Timothy, ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 2nd ed, vol. III, Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sibawayhi, Abu Bishr ʻAmr bn ʻUthman bin Qanbar. 1991. Kitaab Siibawayhi, ed. Abd al-Salam Muhammad Harun. Beirut: Daar al-jiil. Smeaton, B. Hunter. 1956. Some problems in the description of Arabic. Word 12: 357–368. Soltan, Osama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Agreement Systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 239–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2007. On the individual-property contrast in free state possessive nominals in Egyptian Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. XX, ed. Mustafa Mughazy, 71–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2009. Agree in the functional domain: Evidence from the morphosyntax of positive and negative imperatives in standard Arabic. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, eds. Akinloye Ojo and Lioba Moshi, 86–99. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 2010. On licensing wh-scope: wh-questions in Egyptian Arabic revisited. In Arabic Language and Linguistics, eds. Reem Bassiouney, E. Graham Katz, 99–114. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 2011. On issues of Arabic syntax: an essay in syntactic argumentation. Review article of The Syntax of Arabic by Aoun, Banmamoun and Choueiri. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 3: 236–280. 2012. Morphosyntactic effects of NPI-licensing in Cairene Egyptian Arabic: The puzzle of -š disappearance resolved. In Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on formal Linguistics, eds. Jaehoon Choi et al., 241–249. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. 1994. Review of Morphology by Itself by Mark Aronoff. Language 70(4): 811–817. 2001. Morphology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie ReesMiller, 213–237. Oxford: Blackwell. 2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 185–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spencer, Andrew and Arnold M. Zwicky, eds. 1998. The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. Štekauer, Pavol and Rochelle Lieber, eds. 2005. Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer. Stetkevych, Jaroslav. 1970, 2006. The Modern Arabic Literary Language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 12:15PM

180

180

[167–180] 25.10.2013

References

Stump, Gregory T. 1998. Inflection. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, eds. 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell. Suleiman, Yasir. 2003. The Arabic Language and National Identity: A study in ideology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 2004. A War of Words: Language and conflict in the Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. Arabic, Self, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sword, Helen. 2012. Stylish Academic Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2013. Arabic folk linguistics: Between mother tongue and native language. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 264–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Talmon, Rafael. 1982. Nahwiyyûn in Sîbawayhi’s kitâb. ZAL 8: 12–38. 1985. Who was the first Arab grammarian? A new approach to an old problem. ZAL 15: 128–145. Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck Van Valin, Robert D., 2001. Functional linguistics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronaoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 319–336. Oxford: Blackwell Versteegh, C. H. M.(Kees). 1978. The Arabic terminology of syntactic position. Arabica 25(3): 261–81. 1980b. The origin of the term ‘qiyās’ in Arabic grammar. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 4: 7–30. 1997. The Arabic Language. New York: Columbia University Press. ed. 2006–2009. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill. Wahba, Kassem, Zeinab Taha, and Liz England, eds., 2006. A Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wahba, Kassem. 2006. Arabic language use and the educated language user. In A Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, eds. Kassem Wahba, Zeinab Taha and Liz England, 139–156. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wright, Elizabeth K. 2000. Sound and meaning in medieval Arabic linguistic theory. Dissertation, Georgetown University. Younes, Munther. 1993. Emphasis spread in two Arabic dialects. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, vol. V, eds. Mushira Eid and Clive Holes, 119–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2009. The case for integration in the Arabic-as-a-foreign-language classroom. NECTFL, Review 64: 59–67. Zemánek, Petr. 2006. Assimilation. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 204–206. Leiden: Brill. 2009. Root. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 93–100. Leiden: Brill.

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

181 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index

ʕaamil (pl. ʕawaamil) 90, 91, 108, 127 lafziyy 91 maʕnawiyy 91 accusative (see case, accusative) acoustic phonetics 13 acronyms 83 adjective 83, 95, 127 adjective iđaafa 82 adjective phrase 123 adverbs 79, 80 locative 96 affix 48, 157 derivational 64ff. inflectional 99ff. affricate 15 Agent (case role) 111, 113, 120, 128, 131, 157 agreement 43, 90ff., 110, 112, 113, 119, 128 asymmetry 248:2 categories 90 default 131 deflected 93, 120 allomorph 48, 157 allophone 13, 18ff., 157 ʕamal (syntactic government) 107, 108 analogical modeling 56 analogy (qiyaas) 56 annexation structure 122 antepenult 36, 37 apposition 119ff. Arabic and Semitic 3 as a foreign language viii classical 3, 6, 142

corpora 3 grammarians 7 grammatical tradition 7ff. media 3 modern standard (MSA) vii, 6, 14, 142 registers 3, 4, 142 ArabiCorpus 143, 298:18 argument structure 128 arguments (syntactic) 60, 110, 111, 128 articulation 15 articulatory phonetics 13 aspect and tense 92, 93 assimilation 18, 23, 157 across word boundaries 26 at a distance 25 full 24 hamza 24 laam 18, 25, 59:1 nuun 26 partial 24, 26 progressive 23 reciprocal 24 regressive 25 waaw 24, 25 article, definite 121 aux 113, 158 ʔawzaan (sing. wazn) (see also verb, Forms) 56, 57, 132 base (morphological) 56 basic linguistic theory (BLT) 23:12 , 110 Beneficiary (case role) 111, 113, 120, 128, 133, 158 binyan 57, 158

181

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

182

182 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index

blend, blending 110:10, 83, 158 borrowing 48, 55, 85, 85ff., 85 bound morpheme (see morpheme, bound) C (constituent) 113 calque 82, 86 case 90, 92, 94, 96ff., 97, 158 accusative 71, 123, 127, 128, 133, 135 definition 97 frames 111 genitive 89, 111, 121, 122, 123 grammar 110, 128 markers 46 marking 96, 149 nominative 111, 127 relations 96, 110 roles 112, 132 theory 96, 110, 131, 132 categorical specification 113, 158 cell (paradigm) 93, 98, 99 Chomsky, Noam 43, 108, 109, 114ff. circumfix 49, 65, 93, 158 citation form 49, 158 clause 158 clitic 158 code-mixing 142, 143 coining 110:10 , 142, 143 collocations 143 comparative 95 comparison 92 competence and performance 4 complement 113, 129, 158 clauses 134 complementary distribution 158 complementizer 113, 134, 135, 321: compounding/compounds 110:10, 81ff., 159 adjectival 82 criteria 84 diagnostics 84 distributional evidence 84 meaning 84 negative adjectival 83 one-word 81ff. orthography 84 two-word 82ff. concatenative morphology 49, 159 concord 90 conjugation 93, 159 consonant clusters 27, 34 initial 28 medial 27ff.

consonant phonemes 15ff. consonants co-occurrence restrictions 60 homorganic 60 construction grammar 110, 112 continuants 16 contractions 83 contrastive distribution 13 coordinating conjunctions 120 coordination 120ff. copula 159 copula morpheme 136 copula pronoun 136, 137 copular constructions 112, 127 corpus/corpora 3, 143, 143ff. CP (complementizer phrase) 113 dative 111, 113, 128, 132, 133 alternation 132 movement/shift 133 prepositional 133 declension 89, 93, 97, 305:1 decomposition lexical 6 morphological 46 noun 46ff. predicate 6 verb 46ff. deep structure 108 defective (root) 97 defective noun (declension) 149, 154ff. definiteness 92, 94 degree 159 deixis 92, 95 demonstrative pronouns (see pronoun, demonstrative) derivation 90:8, 55 derivational morphology 43, 55ff., 159 de Saussure, Ferdinand 4 desinence 47, 5:13 desinential inflection 47, 97, 98, 108 determiner 92, 113, 159 determiner phrases 121 diachronic analysis 4 dialectology 6 diglossia 141 diptote 97, 149, 153ff. discontinuous morphology 49, 55, 159 discourse 3 distinctive feature 14, 55, 159 ditransitive 59, 111, 132, 133

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

183 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index double-object construction 132 DP (determiner phrase) 113 dual 102, 149, 151ff. emphasis 19, 26 spread (see also velarization) 19, 26 epenthesis 27, 145, 159 equational sentence 127, 135, 136, 159 etymology 57 derivational 57 Experiencer (case role) 131, 159 exponent 98, 99 Fillmore, Charles 128 feature spread 26 flap 15 form class 107, 159 formal notation 29 formalization 30, 56, 160 formatives 49, 65, 65ff., 160 Forms of the verb 56, 57 formula-based verbs 83 free morpheme (see morpheme, free) free variation 160 fricative 14, 15 function words 79 fuşħaa 9 fusional language type 45 future tense 102 gemination 13, 73ff. gender 46, 90, 92, 93, 94, 98, 130 generative grammar (see grammar, generative) genitive case (see case, genitive) genitive construct (see also iđaafa) 122 glottal stop 17 government (ʕamal) 43, 91, 110, 112 grammar 2ff., 5, 91 case 110, 112, 128 definition 2 descriptive/prescriptive 2, 4 generative 5, 108, 109, 110ff., 127 relational 5 grammatical categories 90 grammatical word 89, 97, 98 ħadhf ‘deletion’ 28ff. hamza (glottal stop) 17 as derivational affix 66ff. as inflectional affix 100ff.

elidable (weak) 17, 28 fixed (strong) 17, 66ff. head 113, 119, 160 human plural 130 humanness 92 Ibn Jinni 8 iđaafa 165:2ff , 82, 121, 122ff. indefinite marker 46 indeclinable (nominal declension) 149, 155 indefinite marker 46 indicative 127, 135 indirect object 111 infix 49, 65, 93, 160 immediate constituent (IC) 108 INFL. 113 inflection 43 contextual 90, 91 desinential 37, 47, 97, 98, 108 inherent 90, 91 inflectional affixes (see affix, inflectional) inflectional categories 91ff. inflectional class 98 inflectional morphology (see morphology, inflectional) ʔinna and her sisters 134, 135 Instrument (case role) 131, 160 invariable noun (declension) 149, 155 IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) 147 ʔiʕraab (desinential inflection) 91, 96 ishtiqaaq 57 fiʕliyya 127 ismiyya 127, 136 Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad 29:9, 8, 23, 60 Al-Kitaab 8 Kitaab al-ʕayn 8, 60 laam as definiteness marker 101 lateral 15 lexeme 41, 45, 49, 55, 160 lexical category 114, 161 lexical–conceptual structure 129 lexical expansion 159:2 lexical root (see also root, lexical) 47, 112 lexical–semantic template 129 lexical semantics 129 lexicalist hypothesis 43 lexicography 8, 141 lexicon 161

183

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

184

184 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index

linguistics and grammar 2 applied 3–4, 57, 141ff. Arabic 2, 6 as science 1 cognitive 3 computational 3, 143ff. definitions 1 descriptive/prescriptive 2 history of 3 sociolinguistics 3, 142ff. structural 4, 5, 108 theoretical 3, 4ff., 5, 6 loan translation 82, 86 loanwords 80 Locative (case role) 131, 161 manner of articulation 14, 15, 161 maşdar (see also verbal noun) 57 matrix verbs 134, 135 measure 57 miim as affix 69ff., 101 minimal pair 13 modality 136, 161 model root (f-ʕ-l) 56 mood 98:17, 90, 92, 93, 136, 137, 161 morpheme 49, 161 morp 45, 45ff. bound 42, 48, 158 definition 42, 49, 161 discontinuous 55 free 42, 49, 160 morphological models item and arrangement 44, 160 item and process 44, 160 lexeme–morpheme base 45, 161 lexical phonology and morphology 45, 161 word and paradigm 44 morphological properties 91 morphology 41ff., 109, 162 analytical procedures 46 autonomous 42, 43 autosegmental 57 boundaries 42, 45 center, at the 42 concatenative 42, 49, 159 definition 49, 162 derivational 6, 43, 49, 55, 159 discontinuous 49, 159 generative 42 inflectional 49, 65, 89ff., 160

interfaces 44 key role 44 location 42 non-concatenative 42, 50, 162 prosodic 33 split 44 templatic 57 terminology 48ff. morphophonemics 23 morphophonology 23, 30, 45, 50, 162 morphosyntax 45, 50, 90ff., 162 mubtadaʔ 127, 136 muđaaf 82, 122 muđaaf ilay-hi 122 muŧaabaqa 91, 107, 108 naħt 83 naħw 47, 107 nasal 15 negation 112 nisba 72, 81 noun decomposition 46ff. noun–adjective phrase 231:5 noun phrase (NP) 114, 119ff. nouns 127 apposition 119 coordination 120 declensions 149ff. paradigm 50ff. number 46, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 130 nunation (tanwiin) 71, 101, 122 nuun as affix 70ff., 101ff. Object/Objective (case role) 110, 111, 114, 120, 128, 131, 162 Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) 60 orthography 8, 56, 146 deep 146 shallow 146 paradigm 50, 61, 89, 98, 99, 162 paronym 56 paronymy 56, 162 participle 58, 65, 69, 95 active 58, 95 passive 58, 95 Patient (case role) 111, 114, 128, 162 pattern (morphological) 46, 47, 50, 56, 57, 99, 162 penult 36, 37 person 46, 90, 92, 93, 163

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

185 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index philology 4 comparative 4 phoneme 13, 163 feature matrix 14ff. inventory 14 phonemic chart 15 phonemic processes 17ff. gemination 17 vowel lengthening 17 phonemics 13ff., 163 phonetics 163 acoustic 13 articulatory 13 phonology 36:2, 163 phonotactics 23, 163 point of articulation 14, 15 portmanteau morph 50, 163 predicate 110 predicate–argument structure 110, 112, 128 predicate calculus 110 predicate decomposition 112 predication analysis 112 prefix 50, 65, 93, 163 prepositional phrases 89, 121, 127, 136 pronouns 80, 95, 127 copula 136, 137 demonstrative 95, 121, 122 personal 95 relative 95 suffix 47 prosodic morphology 33 prosody 74 qalb ‘shift’ 29ff. qiyaas ‘analogy’ 56 Qur’an 7 Recipient (case role) 111, 114, 131, 163 register 142 resonants 15 retracted tongue root (RTR) 16 role, semantic 60, 111 romanization 145ff. root, lexical 46, 56, 60ff., 163 biliteral 61ff. definition 50 model 56 as ordered set 60 quadriliteral 57, 63, 83 acronymic 64 borrowed 64

185

compound 64 reduplicated 63 sound 63 quinquiliteral 64 triliteral 57, 61ff., 63 defective 63 geminate 62 hamzated 62 hollow 63 strong 62 root–pattern system 48, 55, 79 şarf 47 and taşriif 47 semantic shift 86 semantics 109, 112 semi-prepositions 121 Semitic 44, 51, 56, 57, 65, 74 semivowels 15 Sibawayhi 8, 23 siin as affix 102 sociolinguistics 3, 142ff. sound feminine plural 149, 153ff. sound masculine plural 102, 103, 149, 152 -st- as affix 71 stem 51, 99, 163 allomorphy 45, 51, 60, 93, 99, 164 class 99 solid 79ff. stop 14, 15 stress 33 full-form pronunciation 34ff., 36ff. lexical 36ff. pause-form pronunciation 35, 37 placement 33 rules 36ff. shift 37 stricture 15 subject 111 subject–verb agreement 128 subject–verb asymmetry (see SVAA) suffix 51, 65, 93, 164 superlative 95 suprasegmentals 36 SVAA (subject–verb asymmetry) 114, 129, 130, 131 syllable structure 33, 33ff. and stress 33 coda 33 constraints 34 formalization 35

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

186

186 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index

syllable structure (cont.) margins 33 nucleus 33 onset 33 types 34ff. synchronic analysis 4 syntactic categories 114, 164 syntax 4, 107ff., 164 autonomous 109 centrality of 4, 109 definition 107, 164 generative 4ff., 5ff., 108, 108ff., 109, 130 Government and Binding Theory 109, 128 Minimalist Program 109, 111, 128 Principles and Parameters Theory 109, 111 Standard Theory 109 technical terms 112ff. synthetic language type 45 taaʔ as affix 67ff., 100ff. taaʔ marbuuŧa 19ff., 68 tafxiim/tafkhiim “backing” 19 templates 56, 57, 99 tense 46, 90, 92, 93 and aspect 93 compound 94 terminology inflectional morphology 97ff. morphological 48 syntactic 112ff. thematic roles (theta roles) 96, 127, 132, 164 Theme 111, 114 theta-marking 127 compositional 128 direct 127 theta-theory 164 transcription 145, 145ff. transfix 93 transliteration 145ff., 146ff., 164 triptote 99, 150ff. ultimate constituents 114 universal grammar (UG) 110, 114, 137, 333:169:8, 17, 11:20 , G11 universals 5 uvular 16 valence/valency 59, 110, 111, 112, 128, 164 theory 110 variation theory 3 velarization 19, 26

verb associative 58 causative 58, 132 chart 122:19 decomposition 46ff. derivation 56 ditransitive 59, 132, 133 estimative 58 Forms (ʔawzaan) 56, 57, 132 formula-based 83 intensive 58 intransitive 59 reciprocal 58 reflexive 6:9 repeated action 58 requestative 58 resultative 58 stem 58 transitive 122:5 system 56 templates 57, 59 verbal noun (maşdar) 57, 58, 69, 82, 123 verbless predications 135ff. verbs 127 of permission or denial 132 of perception and cognition 133 of transformation 133 vernacular 3, 6, 142 voice 46, 90, 92, 93 voicing 13 vowel/s 17ff. chart 17 deletion 23, 28, 29 harmony 25 helping 27 insertion 27ff. length 17 prosthesis 28 shift 23, 29 VP (verb phrase) 114 VS (Verb–Subject) order 112 waaw as affix 73ff., 103ff. WFR (word formation rule) 51, 55, 164 WH- constructions 131 WH- movement 131, 164 WH-word 114 word boundaries 47ff. definition 41 formation 42, 74

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

187 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM

Index grammatical 41, 97, 98 order 6, 128, 129, 130 structure 41 word-and-paradigm model of morphology 44, 164

yaaʔ as affix 72ff., 102ff. yaaʔ of nisba 72, 80ff. zawaaʔid (sing. zaaʔida) 65, 99 (‘affix/augment’)

187

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D

188 [181–188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM