Arabic - A Linguistic Introduction

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314HTL.3D i [12] 24.10.
2013 9:30AM
Arabic
This lively introduction to the linguistics of Arabic provides students with a
concise overview of the languages 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 specic 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.
kari n c. rydi ng 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 [12] 24.10.2013 9:30AM
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4457415/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314TTL.3D iii [33] 23.10.2013 2:31PM
Arabic
A Linguistic Introduction
KARI N C. RYDI NG
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4465676/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314IMP.3D iv [44] 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 Universitys 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 [56] 24.10.2013 9:26AM
Contents
Preface page vii
Acknowledgments ix
Abbreviations and symbols used in this book xi
1 Arabic linguistics: overview and history 1
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 inectional 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 141
B Arabic transcription/transliteration/romanization 145
C Arabic nominal declensions 149
Glossary of technical terms 157
References 167
Index 181
v
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314TOC.3D vi [56] 24.10.2013 9:26AM
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314PRF.3D vii [78] 24.10.2013 9:33AM
Preface
Despite widening international interest in Arabic language and culture,
fewresources 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 eld.
For teaching courses on Arabic linguistics, I have used books and articles by all
the above-mentioned authors. In particular, I have found that Batesons Arabic
Language Handbook, Beestons The Arabic Language Today, and Stetkevychs
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. Versteeghs 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 specic
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 linguis-
tic 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 [78] 24.10.2013 9:33AM
In 2005, I published AReference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic based on
a corpus of data from contemporary Arabic newspapers and other types of expos-
itory 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 elds of humanities and social sciences. Teaching
practical knowledge of Arabic relies on the sophistication and depth of under-
standing that teachers bring to their classes understanding not only the rules of
language structure, but the theoretical underpinnings of the language, its intellec-
tual and scholarly heritage, and the ways in which its grammatical system can be
elegantly and efciently 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 nd shortcomings and gaps in this overview, and I assume total responsibility
for any errors or deciencies. I hope that this book will constitute a useful rst 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.
viii Preface
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314ACK.3D ix [910] 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 nalizing 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 [910] 25.10.2013 9:38AM
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314LOA.3D xi [1112] 24.10.2013 9:37AM
Abbreviations and symbols used in this book
Additional abbreviations used specically in syntactic theory are listed at
greater length in Chapter 9.
acc. accusative
adj. adjective
adv. adverb
AP active participle
C any consonant (phonology); complement, complementizer
(syntax)
dat. dative
def. denite
du. dual
EALL Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics
ESA educated spoken Arabic
f./fem. feminine
fut. future
gen. genitive
IC immediate constituent
imp. imperfect
indef. indenite
indic. indicative
m./masc. masculine
MSA Modern Standard Arabic
N noun
no. number
nom. nominative
NP noun phrase
O object
pl. plural
PP passive participle
pron. pronoun
xi
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314LOA.3D xii [1112] 24.10.2013 9:37AM
S subject; sentence
sing. singular
subj. subject; subjunctive
UG universal grammar
V any short vowel (phonology); verb (syntax)
vd voiced
vls voiceless
VN verbal noun
VP verb phrase
VV any long vowel
WFR 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
small caps indicate morphemic structure
xii Abbreviations and symbols
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C01.3D 1 [112] 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 howlanguages work, then these functions must be
based on clearly documented empirical observations. This kind of activity sepa-
rates linguistics from anecdotal, philosophical, impressionistic, or speculative
observations about language that may come from anyone anywhere. Linguistics
can be dened as follows.
(1) Linguistics is the study of language as a system of human communica-
tion (Richards and Schmidt 2010: 343).
(2) 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 lan-
guage each viewed as an integrated system together with explanation
of why each language is the way it is, allied to the further scientic
pursuits of prediction and evaluation (Dixon 2010: 1).
(3) For the beginning linguist, saying that linguistics is a science can be
interpreted as implying careful observation of the relevant real-world
phenomena, classication of those phenomena, and the search for useful
patterns in the phenomena observed and classied. 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).
(4) Linguists believe that their eld is a science because they share
the goals of scientic inquiry, which is objective (or more properly
intersubjectively accessible) understanding (Aronoff and Rees-Miller
2001: xiv).
(5) 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
is the way it is, allied to the further scientic pursuits of prediction and
evaluation (Dixon 2010a: 1).
The eld of linguistics is therefore seen as a scientic 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 morphol-
ogy and syntax often interact, a core component of grammar is morphosyntax.
One denition 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 linguists 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 empiri-
cally as possible.
2. Linguistics and Arabic
Arabic linguistics is a vast eld combining study of the Arabic language
with the analytical disciplines that constitute the eld 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
2 Arabic linguistics: overview and history
traditions, its complex morphology, and its current broad diversity of registers,
informs linguistic theory. Many linguistic approaches to Arabic language anal-
ysis have been applied over the past fty years both within the Arab world and
from the point of view of western scholars. These approaches and their discipli-
nary 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 subeld in sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, and computational
linguistics as well as theoretical and applied linguistics. Both traditional and new
genres of Arabic writing are nowbeing examined within postmodern frameworks
of literary theory and linguistic analysis. Media Arabic studies is a new and
rapidly growing eld; 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 subelds. 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
eld, and discourse analysis in sociolinguistics. When these perspectives and
theories are applied to Arabic, the ndings can be revealing, satisfying, or puz-
zling, but generally lead toward greater understanding of how languages work,
how they resemble each other, and how they differ. The eld 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 subeld of linguistics history of linguistics examines linguistic histor-
iography, the development of language analysis over time, and the evolution of
grammatical theory in different cultures.
The phonological, morphological, and syntactic structures of Arabic reect 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 elds of linguistics. For example, the particularly well-dened
and elaborated verb system and its derivations reect 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
Linguistics and Arabic 3
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 eld 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 struc-
ture and growth over time).
5
2.1.1. Background
The nineteenth century witnessed a shift in perspective away from dia-
chronic 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 rst 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 Saussures distinction
between langue and parole).
6
It was language-as-a-system that early twentieth-
century structural linguists such as Jespersen, Sapir, and Bloomeld 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 Chomskys 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 Chomskys 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
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
dened 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-rst, debate and conceptual
developments in theoretical linguistics have ourished, 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 Dixons 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/gener-
ative 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 RGis useful in analyzing Arabic syntax and semantics,
Linguistics and Arabic 5
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 decomposi-
tion (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 analyt-
ical, 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 identied 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
specic model being developed or an argument being made. The other is
more focused on analyzing linguistic data and discovering principles under-
lying 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: 1213)
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 (nowamounting 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
signicantly improved the understanding of vernacular Arabic grammatical struc-
tures through the results of persistent and painstaking eldwork. The subdiscipline
of Arabic dialectology has produced extensive and valuable descriptive studies of
colloquial Arabic in numerous regions in the Arab world and sponsored confer-
ences 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 fr Arabische Linguistik regularly provide a range of articles
on Arabic linguistics, examining both standard and spoken Arabic variants. Brills
recent publication of the ve-volume Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics (20062009)has provided a much-needed reference work for research-
ers in Arabic linguistics.
3. The Arabic grammatical tradition
Every scientic discipline has a chronologically earliest paradigm, in
other words, there is a denite point in time when a eld achieves scientic
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 linguis-
tic 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 Quran 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 pro-
posed that the rise of linguistic analysis in any society is based on two factors: rst,
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 Quran 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 discipli-
nary activity in early Islam. The earliest Arabic grammarians used not only the
Quran 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 Quran and of the old poetic tradition became distanced from everyday
spoken vernaculars, and the need for literacy in the written language became more
The Arabic grammatical tradition 7
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: rst, 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 denitive
written version of the Quran during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph (644
656) had come the need to dene 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 rst hundred years of
Islam, and a great thirst for systematized knowledge pervaded the Muslimworld 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 ourish and
formprinciples 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 Al-
Khalil ibn Ahmad (Kitaab al-Ayn), 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 back-
ground against which disciplinary progress could be initiated, taxonomies could be
compiled, terminology could be rened, 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,
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, espe-
cially as regards modern standard Arabic (al-fuaa). This book deals with levels
of linguistic analysis beginning with the sound system (phonology), progressing
through morphology (derivational and inectional), 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) Some denitions of linguistics are given at the beginning of this chapter.
Do they all agree? Do you know of others? Look up two more denitions
of linguistics and see how they compare.
(2) How does linguistics differ from the traditional eld of philology? How
does it differ from the study of grammar?
(3) The terms diachronic and synchronic linguistics make a key distinc-
tion in how the study of language structure is approached. Discuss this
difference and its implications for Arabic.
(4) A further key distinction is between Chomskys use of the terms com-
petence and performance. Howdo these terms relate to each other, and
what do they imply for the study of Arabic linguistics?
(5) 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 Students Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bohas, Georges, Jean-Patrick Guillaume, and Djamal Eddine Kouloughli. 1990. The Arabic
Linguistic Tradition. London and New York: Routledge.
Aims of this book 9
Carter, M. C. 1972. Les origines de la grammaire arabe. Revue des tudes Islamiques.
40: 6997.
1973. An Arab grammarian of the eighth century, A.D. A contribution to the history of
linguistics. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 146157.
1981. Arab Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1985. When did the Arabic word naw rst come to denote grammar? Language &
Communication 5(4): 265272.
Eid, Mushira. 1990. Arabic linguistics: The current scene. In Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Mushira Eid, 337. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. Myths about Arabic. Georgetown University Monograph Series
on Languages and Linguistics 12, 7582. 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, 3951. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Owens, Jonathan. 1997. The Arabic grammatical tradition. In The Semitic Languages, ed.
Robert Hetzron, 4658. London: Routledge.
2006. A Linguistic History of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2013b. History. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. J. Owens, 451471.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rets, Jan. 2013. What is Arabic? In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed.
J. Owens, 433450. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talmon, Rafael. 1985. Who was the rst Arab grammarian? A new approach to an old
problem. ZAL 15: 128145.
Versteegh, C. H. M. (Kees). 1978. The Arabic terminology of syntactic position. Arabica
25(3): 261281.
1980. The origin of the term qiys in Arabic grammar. Zeitschrift fr Arabische
Linguistik 4: 730.
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 morpho-
syntactic if it both occurs in a morphological paradigm and marks syntactic function; for
example a system of case afxes (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.
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 (18571913) is considered the founder of modern structural linguistics,
mainly by virtue of his Course in General Linguistics, given at the University of Geneva
(19071911), 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 Saussures intellectual biography and his theory of language.
7. van Valin in his article, Functional linguistics (2001: 325327) 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 civiliss, dtenteurs de cultures suprieures la leur, les Arabes
prirent conscience de la ncessit de faire la conqute de leur propre langage par la
rexion sur ses structures, an de dcouvrir toutes les richesses et mieux saisir toutes
les signications du texte sacr (Belguedj 1973: 169).
11. The Quran 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.
Aims of this book 11
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314C02.3D 13 [1322] 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 howthey 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
signicant sounds of a language. In order to establish a sounds 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 conven-
tionally written between two forward slashes, e.g., /k/.
In Arabic, one can also come up with signicant minimal pairs that establish
meaning differences between sounds (phonemes). Some of the most commonly
used examples are:
13
(1) kalb dog / qalb heart (both /k/ and /q/ are voiceless stops; the differ-
ence is in point of articulation: /k/ is velar and the /q/ uvular.)
(2) sayf sword/ ayf summer (both /s/ and // are voiceless alveolar
fricatives, but the // has an added feature, velarization, that makes it a
distinctive, separate phoneme.)
(3) tiin g / iin clay (both /t/ and // are voiceless alveolar stops, but // has
the added feature of velarization.)
In the above example, the sounds /k/ and /q/ are established as phonemes, as well as
/s/ and //, and /t/ and //. 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 nd 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 // 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 // ) 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/, //, /d/, //, /k/, /q/, //,
thirteen fricatives: /f/, /th/, /dh/, /Z/, /s/, //, /z/, /sh/, /x/, /gh/, //, //, / h/, one
14 Arabic phonology
affricate: /j /, two nasals; /m/ and /n/, one lateral: /l/, one ap: /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 airow is blocked completely),
affricates (where the airowis blocked and then released into a fricative), fricatives
(where the airow is restricted but allowed through), and resonants (consonant
sounds where the air ows 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 () voiceless glottal stop
baa (b) voiced bilabial stop
Labial
Stops
Voiceless
Voiced
Affricates
Voiceless
Voiced
Fricatives
Nasals
Laterals
Flaps
Semivowels
(approximants)
w
m
b
t T
d
s sh
gh
x H h
c
c
z
n
l
r
y
S
j
k q
D
f th
dh Z
Voiceless
Voiced
Labio-
dental Interdental Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Pharyngeal Glottal
Figure 1 Phonemic chart of MSA consonants
Source: Ryding 2005
Phonemics 15
taa (t) voiceless alveolar stop
thaa (th) voiceless interdental fricative
jiim (j) 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
aa () voiceless pharyngeal fricative
xaa (x/ kh) voiceless velar fricative; also described as a uvular fricative
daal (d) voiced alveolar stop
dhaal (dh) voiced interdental fricative: // or /dh/ pronounced like the /th/ in
there
raa (r) voiced alveolar ap or trill
7
zayn or zaay
(z)
voiced alveolar fricative
siin (s) voiceless alveolar fricative
shiin (sh) voiceless palatal fricative
aad () voiceless velarized alveolar fricative: /s/ pronounced with a
retracted tongue root
aad () voiced velarized alveolar stop: /d/ pronounced with a retracted
tongue root
aa () voiceless velarized alveolar stop: /t/ pronounced with a retracted
tongue root
Zaa (Z) 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
ayn () voiced pharyngeal fricative
ghayn (gh) voiced velar fricative; also described as a uvular fricative
faa (f) voiceless labiodental fricative
qaaf (q) voiceless uvular stop
kaaf (k) voiceless velar stop
laam (l) 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/)
miim (m) voiced biblabial continuant
nuun (n) voiced nasal continuant
haa (h) voiceless glottal fricative
waaw (w) or
(uu):
bilabial semivowel: /w/ as in wind or long vowel /uu/
pronounced like the oo in boot
yaa (y) or
(ii):
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
16 Arabic phonology
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 // 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 al-
qa) and weak or epenthetic hamza (hamzat al-wal).
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 (, , ) 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),
Front Central Back
high i/ii u/uu
mid
low a/aa
Figure 2 Phonemic chart of MSA vowels
Phonemic processes 17
as in darasa he studied darrasa he taught). Each of these processes contrib-
utes 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 rst person pronoun
sufx: instead of *an-ii away fromme; about me the formis annii; 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 con-
textual 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 denite
article to the rst sound of a word beginning with a sun letter (arf shamsi), e.g.,
al-nuur is pronounced an-nuur; al-salaam is pronounced as-salaam. The pro-
cesses of assimilation are discussed more extensively in the following chapter.
3. Allophones
An allophone is a contextually caused pronunciation variant of a pho-
neme. 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 pre-
vocalically 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 il
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 speakers regional spoken
18 Arabic phonology
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 taa marbuut
a
The special form of taa which can be written as word-nal (taa
marbuua) shows contextual variation as well, but it is unclear if this is truly
allophonic. In pause form, if a word spelled with nal taa marbuua is the rst part
of an iaafa, or construct phrase, then the taa 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/ (i l-madiinah in
the city; madiinah kabiirah a big city). Because of its word-nal position, the /h/
is sometimes difcult to hear at all, and it sounds as though the word ends with the
vowel /a/. There are also optional pronunciations of taa marbuua 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
inuence of adjacent consonants, but also on regional variations in pronuncia-
tion.
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, qi, i, nif
for /a/: hal, sakan, qatal, aff, tafaal
for /aa/: islaam, waadii, aalib, bayaat
for /ii/ : diin, iin, tamshii
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 phar-
yngeal area for the pronunciation of the consonant, causes backing of the
vowel.
16
Postvocalic raa also has a backing effect on /aa/ e.g., naar re,
Allophones 19
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.
(1) 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?
(2) 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 aal condition and xaal maternal uncle, or axar more danger-
ous and axar green.
(3) 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, 593603. Leiden: Brill.
Bauer, Laurie. 2007. The Linguistics Students Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Especially 127136 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, 180212. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ferguson, Charles. 1956. The emphatic l in Arabic. Language 32: 486552.
Gordon, Cyrus. 1970. The accidental invention of the phonemic alphabet. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 29:3: 193197.
Ladefoged, Peter. 1997. Linguistic phonetic descriptions. In The Handbook of Phonetic
Sciences, eds. William J. Hardcastle and John Laver, 589618. Oxford: Blackwell.
Laver, John. 2001, 2003. Linguistic phonetics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds.
Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 150179. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mitchell, T. F. 1990. Pronouncing Arabic. vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
20 Arabic phonology
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
[bol]; I myself pronounce the word kitten as [kin] and the word satin as [saen] 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 ice house, not a nice
house. Parrish, in his classic book on English pronunciation, Reading Aloud, color-
fully refers to this as a glottal attack (1932: 160161). 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 retroex 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 classied 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: 1719 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 MSAvariants do not include the /y/ variant of vernac-
ular 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.
Allophones 21
15. See Davis 2009: 636637 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.
22 Arabic phonology
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 bounda-
ries).
1
Phonotactic rules inuence Arabic word structure in derivational and inec-
tional 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 inectional morphology. The study of mor-
phological 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 dened 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 non-
phonemic; 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 inuence of a previously articu-
lated sound on following sound, i.e., A B, A inuences B. The most prevalent
23
examples of this result from the inxed /t/ of Form VIII verbs: the iftaala form,
changing the nature of the inxed taa to a pronunciation closer to that of the rst
phoneme of the lexical root. It usually involves an orthographical change as well
as a change in sound.
1.1.1. Partial assimilation of inxed taa (spelling variant)
iadama t to collide, clash
izdaada t d to increase
izdawaja t d to be double, to pair
1.1.2. Full assimilation of inxed taa to preceding consonant (shadda in
spelling)
ialaa t to view, be informed
iZZalama t Z to suffer injustice
iththaara t th to be avenged
iddaaa t d to allege, claim
iddaghama t d to be assimilated
1.1.3. Reciprocal (or mutual) assimilation (inxed taa and preceding
consonant both change to a different consonant)
iddakara t + dh dd to remember
iddaxara t + dh dd to accumulate, preserve
1.1.4. 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 ifaal pattern assimilates the waawand lengthens into a long vowel /ii/.
This assimilation and lengthening is reected in spelling as well as pronunciation.
*iwdaah iidaah clarication
*iwqaa iiqaa rhythm
1.1.5. Assimilation of initial hamza in Form IV verbal noun
Because of a phonological rule that prohibits the sequence [ + V + ]
(hamza vowel hamza), the hamza of FormIVhamza-initial verbs is assimilated
to the kasra of the ifaal pattern.
3
*imaan iimaan faith
*idhaan iidhaan proclamation
24 Arabic phonotactics and morphophonology
1.1.6. 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
sufx /-h/. That is, the sufxes -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.
*i maktab-i-hu i maktab-i-hi in his ofce
*i maktab-i-hum i maktab-i-him in their (m.) ofce
*al-salaam-u alay-hu al-salaam-u alay-hi peace be upon him
Note that this kind of assimilation occurs only with third person pronoun
sufxes and is therefore conditioned by grammatical rules. In other contexts,
such as when the /haa/ forms a part of the lexical root, it does not occur, e.g.
tawjiih-u-naa our guidance
mutanizzih-uuna walkers, promenaders
1.2. Regressive assimilation
Regressive assimilation results from the inuence 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 denite article (al-) to the
sound of the rst phoneme in a word; it also occurs with certain types of Form IV
and Form VIII verbs.
1.2.1. Assimilation of laam to rst 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 denite article
remains in the spelling of such words, but that the rst sound in the word is doubled
in pronunciation and spelled with shadda.
*al-daftar ad-daftar the notebook
*al-shams ash-shams the sun
*al-raabi ar-raabi the fourth
1.2.2. 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 inxed taa of Form
Assimilation (iddighaam/idghaam) 25
VIII. This is a case of total assimilation and spelling change. The waaw disappears
in orthography as well as in pronunciation.
*iwtaala ittaala to contact
*iwtaada ittaada to be united
1.2.3. Assimilation of afxed nuun of Form VII
FormVII verbs whose initial consonant is miimmay optionally assimilate
the nuun of the form VII pattern (infaala). They may be spelled either way.
inmaaa/ immaaa to be erased
inmaaqa/ immaaqa to be destroyed
1.2.4. 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 from which
an + maa ammaa about which
1.3. Partial assimilation in pronunciation but not spelling (feature spread)
Avelarized consonant occurring anywhere in a word may lead to assimi-
lated 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:
awt voice
saw 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-nal. 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
optional phonetic feature that does not affect word meaning.
8
For example, differ-
ent native speakers may pronounce the following words with a greater or lesser
degree of emphasis spread:
ixlaa sincerity
niZaam system
abaa morning
alabaat demands
2. 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 accord-
ing to the rules as set out below.
2.1.1. The vowel /u/ (amma) or /uu/ (waaw)
This may be inserted to ease pronunciation after the occurrence of
sufxed past tense second person masculine plural marker -tum. If -tumis followed
by a noun with the denite article, the short vowel /u/ is inserted
hal katab-tum-u l-maqaaal-a? Have you (m. pl.) written the article?
When the -tum sufx is followed by a sufxed pronoun object, then the long
vowel /uu/ is inserted between the inectional sufx -tum and the object pronoun:
hal katab-tum-uu-hu? Have you (m. pl.) written it?
mataa raay-tum-uu-hum? When did you (m. pl.) see them (m.)?
2.1.2. The vowel /a/ (fata)
This is inserted as a helping vowel in one case: after the word min from
Vowel insertion: epenthesis 27
hiya min-a l-yaman-i. She is from Yemen.
min-a sh-sharq-i ilaa l-gharb-i from the east to the west
2.1.3. The vowel /i/
This is inserted in all other instances
man-i l-munassiq-u? Who is the coordinator?
saal-at-i s-suaal-a. She asked the question.
2.2. Initial clusters: vowel prosthesis
The procedure of prosthesis refers to adding a vowel to a word,
usually through prexing. Because there is an Arabic phonological rule prohib-
iting utterance-initial or syllable-initial consonant clusters (i.e., two or more
consonants), Arabic allows the addition of a vowel prex 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-wal) 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 alif 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 denite
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
VIIX verbal nouns, imperatives, and past tense verbs (vowel /i/) (e.g., inikaas
reection, istanbaa to discover; to invent, istami! listen!); (4) with Form I
imperatives (vowel /u/ if verb stem vowel is /u/; otherwise, /i/) (e.g., uktub!
write!, ifta! 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 afaal al-mithaal in Arabic) may be
deleted in the present tense (e.g., waqaf-a / ya-qif-u to stand; waa-a/ya-a-u
to put).
12
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 marr-a he passed by (compare: marar-tu I passed by)
*radad-uu radd-uu they replied (compare: radad-tum 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:
C
1
VC
2
VC
3
V ! C
1
VC
2
C
3
V=C
2
C
3
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 inectional morphology. This is a sub-
rule 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: *abab-a aabb-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
*abb-a.)
Form X: *na-stadid-u nastaidd-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-stadd-u.)
In the elative form of adjectives derived from geminate lexical roots, this rule
also applies:
Vowel shift (qalb) 29
*ajdad-u ajadd-u newer
*aqlal-u aqall-u fewer
And in certain plural patterns of nouns and adjectives fromgeminate lexical roots:
*abibaa aTibbaa doctors
*azizaa aizzaa dear (pl.)
A formalization of this rule might read:
V
1
C
1
C
2
V
2
C
3
V
3
! V
1
C
1
V
2
C
2
C
3
V
3
=C
2
C
3
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 inec-
tional 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.
(1) 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.
(2) 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 utterance-
initial, medial and nal positions. Consider pause form as well as full-
form pronunciation.
(3) 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 ve
examples of these combinations or combination restrictions. Can you
produce a formal rule or rules for the structure of these combinations?
(4) 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
rules written in this chapter? Write a rule for the assimilation of /u/ to /i/
when it occurs in a third person pronoun sufx (1.1.6.).
Further reading
Bakalla, Muhammad Hasan. 2009. Tafxm. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 421424. Leiden: Brill.
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press (especially sections on afxes and bases, pp. 146156).
2007. The Linguistics Students Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (For
explanation of general linguistic material and especially 95103 on notational
conventions.)
Broselow, Ellen. 2008. Phonology. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Frisch, Stefan A. 2008. Phonotactics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (especially pages 1934 on phonology).
Zemnek, Petr. 2006. Assimilation. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 204206. 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 xed (hamzat al-qa), not when
the rst hamza is weak (hamzat al-wal). Thus, sequences such as the Form VIII verbal
noun itilaaf agreement; coalition are permitted.
4. The sounds represented by the sun letters (uruuf shamsiyya) include dentals, sibi-
lants, and liquids (Zemnek 2006: 204). These include t, th, d, dh, r, z, s, sh, , , , Z, l, n.
5. The emphatic consonant inuences 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 (Zemnek 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).
Vowel shift (qalb) 31
9. The inserted sound itself is described as anaptyctic or excrescent.
10. As my very rst 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 stemvowel is fata in both past and present tenses, and verbs
whose past tense stem vowel is fata and present stem vowel is kasra. Other forms of
assimilated verb roots do not allow semivowel deletion. See Ryding (2005: 460461)
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.)
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 com-
posed, divided, and distributed. Syllable structure is also a subdivision of the
study of phonotactics, or the rules of sound distribution, the specic 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 pronunci-
ation of the segment, adding a dimension of complexity to the syllable itself.
MSA has explicit structural restrictions on syllables, as well as predictable rule-
based 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 estab-
lished 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 (3639), Mitchell 1990 (1921), and
McCarus and Rammuny (1974: 78, 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 post-
vocalic 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 nal 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
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-formpronunciation and one for pause-
form pronunciation.
2.1. For full-form pronunciation
The rst 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 (consonantshort vowel) or CVV (conso-
nantlong 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) CV (consonant plus short vowel)
weak or light syllable
/wa/ /li/ /fa/ /mu/
(2) CVV (consonant plus long vowel)
strong or heavy syllable
/maa/ /tii/ /Duu/
(3) 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 thanks
mu-qab-bi-laa-tun appetizers
dha-ha-bun gold
af-la-tun party
faa-zuu they (m. pl.) won
yu-dar-ri-saa-ni they (two, m.) are teaching
nak-tu-bu we are writing
na-ja-naa we succeeded
ta-waq-qa-at she expected
34 Arabic syllable structure and stress
(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 dry
xaa-un special, private
maad-da-tun substance, material
2.2. Pause-form pronunciation
In addition to the syllabic sequences listed above, pause-form (omit-
ting nal short vowels) phonotactic rules allow for a word-nal syllable to be
either CVVC or CVCC. These syllables are considered superstrong or
superheavy.
(5) CVVC (consonantlong vowelconsonant): superstrong
/-liin #/ /-riim # / /-suun #/ /-maan # /
6
(6) CVCC (consonantshort vowelconsonantconsonant): superstrong
/-rast # / /-rudd # / /-milt # /
Examples include:
ya-ta-qi-duun they believe
nu-ibb we like, we love
a-milt I carried
mu-raa-si-liin reporters
ma-li-ka-taan two queens
mab-niyy built
3. 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 V C
0=1=2
where the [parentheses] enclose a potential increment of vowel length and
zero indicates the non-occurrence of a nal consonant in the structure of a
syllable. If C
0
occurs, then the syllable is open; otherwise it is closed (20).
Formalization of syllable structure 35
This rule tidily covers a range of lexical stress constraints. Other more
specic rules follow.
4. Lexical stress
Stress is a prosodic or suprasegmental (non-linear) feature of pronuncia-
tion 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 non-
phonemic; 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 weight-
sensitive: nal 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 systemof Arabic stress and I will unpack
it as follows.
4.1. Basic rules of lexical stress
9
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
inection markers, there are three basic stress constraints.
(1) Stress does not fall on a nal syllable. In a word of two syllables, it
therefore falls on the rst, no matter whether that rst syllable is strong or
weak:
at-taa until
qab-la before
hu-naa here
hi-ya she
na-nu we
(2) Stress is assigned to the second syllable from the end (the penult) if it is a
strong/heavy syllable:
hu-naa-ka there
yad-ru-suu-na they are studying
mu-ta-aw-wi-ii-na volunteers
sa-i-na-taa-ni two ships
qa-ra-tum you (m. pl.) read
(3) 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 different
da-ra-sat she studied
ma-dii-na-tun city
mad-ra-sa-tun school
ta-kal-la-muu they (m.) spoke
uy-yi-na he was appointed
4.1.2. Pause form
An additional stress rule applies in pause-form pronunciation (where
desinential inection is omitted): that stress falls on the nal syllable if it is
CVVC or CVCC.
ka-riim Karim (mans name)
fa-naa-jiin cups
tar-jamt I translated
ruk-kaab riders
na-saan sleepy
mus-ta-iqq worthy, entitled
yu-aa-wi-luun they (m.) try
4.1.3. 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 sufxes 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
Lexical stress 37
still apply; it is the length or pronunciation style of a word that conditions the
application of those rules. For example:
word form gloss
(1) ti-jaa-ra pause form commerce, trade
ti-jaa-ra-tun full form commerce, trade
ti-jaa-ra-tu-naa sufxed pronoun our commerce, our trade
(2) mu-aa-a-ra pause form lecture
mu-aa-a-ra-tun full form lecture
mu-aa-a-ra-tu-haa sufxed pronoun her lecture
(3) jaa-mi-a pause form university
jaa-mi-a-tun full form university
jaa-mi-a-tu-hum sufxed pronoun their (m.) university
jaa-mi-a-tu-hun-na sufxed pronoun their (f.) university
(4) mad-ra-sa pause form school
mad-ra-sa-tun full form school
mad-ra-sa-tu-haa sufxed pronoun her school
(5) a-ma-la full form he carried
a-ma-la-hum sufxed pronoun he carried them (m.)
(6) raa-qab-naa full form we observed
raa-qab-naa-hum sufxed pronoun we observed them (m.)
(1) Select twenty Arabic words at random from a newspaper and put them
into phonological transliteration. Then assign the syllable boundaries
within each word.
(2) After having done the rst exercise, note where stress falls in each word,
according to full-form pronunciation and then according to pause-form
pronunciation.
(3) Write a brief introduction to syllables and stress for a group of students
studying rst-year Arabic, and provide them with examples from the
textbook they would be using.
(4) 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:
CVV f g CV f g
CVC= f g CVV f g #
CVC f g
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.
(5) How would you compare the role of stress placement in English to the
role of stress placement in Arabic? Are they equally important? If some-
one pronounces Arabic using mistaken stress placement, is it still under-
standable 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, 387389. Leiden: Brill.
Mitchell, T. F. 19901993. Pronouncing Arabic. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press (especially
1990, vol. I, 1921).
Ryding, Karin. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (especially 3640).
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: 1920).
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.
Lexical stress 39
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 denitely at the center of discourse, and single words are
the rst language elements that infants normally acquire. But seemingly simple
questions such as what is a word? have been surprisingly difcult 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/inectional markers.
One denition 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 empiri-
cal nor rigorous. Another denition 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 difcult 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 ofce consisting of the
41
lexical root morpheme { k-t-b} write and the grammatical pattern morpheme
specifying place, { ma __ __ a __ }).
1
A morpheme, then, can be dened
as a minimum unit of form endowed with an independent meaning.
2
Another
denition 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 the-
ories 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 descrip-
tive 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 transformationalgenerative
linguistics, morphology is not a separate level, but functions within the gen-
erative component of the grammar as well as within the lexical component. In
generative morphology (Aronoff 1992a: 2), morphology is seen as autono-
mous, 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 lan-
guage (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 mor-
phology and phonology) and how can they be identied? For Arabic in partic-
ular these are important theoretical questions, and ones whose answers may be
revealing for the eld of morphology and morphological analysis inasmuch as
Arabic represents a mixture of non-concatenative and concatenative morpho-
logical processes.
42 Introduction to Arabic morphology
4. Derivation and inection
Morphology is traditionally seen as composed of two subelds: deriva-
tion and inection.
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 (inectional morphology).
6
Certain scholars, such as Aronoff,
consider morphology to be an autonomous component of the grammar.
7
For others,
derivation and inection 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). Inection 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 inection differ from each other in that derivation creates word
stems that are protected or buffered from the effects of grammatical operations,
whereas inection affects words by marking them for particular grammatical
categories (e.g., case and mood; in Arabic, iraab). 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 inectional sufx (for example, i 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 inected forms in the lexicon along with derivational word for-
mation rules (Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis, SLH) or in some syntactic or phono-
logical component (Weak Lexicalist Hypothesis, WLH).
(Baedecker and Caramazza 1989: 109)
10
For Arabic these morphological distinctions form an interesting eld 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 denable within inection: the syntactically relevant
categories of number and gender [e.g., agreement] relating more closely to
Derivation and inection 43
semantic and lexical specications 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 Perlmutters
split morphology hypothesis because it posits an even farther distance between
derivation and desinential inection; furthermore, it lends support to the contin-
uum concept proposed by Bybee because of the differentiations and distinctions
of categories within the inectional component of morphology, some categories
(e.g., number) being more closely bound to semantics and some (e.g., case) to
syntax. (Ryding 1993: 177178)
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 signicant 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 inuence of this eld
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 eld of theoretical
morphology. Five of the most important ones for Arabic are listed here:
(1) 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).
(2) 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 afxation and internal modication (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).
(3) Word-and-paradigm model: a theoretical model of inection that takes
the lexeme and its paradigmof cells as the starting point for the analysis of
inectional 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 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).
(4) 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.
(5) LexemeMorpheme Base Morphology (LMBM): is a theory of mor-
phology 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 reects a
rather long-standing distinction between lexical and grammatical mor-
phemes, although some theories of morphology consider all morphemes,
whether lexical or bound, to be of essentially the same nature: meaning-
bearing minimal forms.
6. Morphophonology and morphosyntax
In Arabic (as in many other languages) it is often the case that morphol-
ogy overlaps or interfaces with phonology e.g., through application of phono-
logical 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 inec-
tional 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 allomor-
phy, or stem variance, resulting from phonological rules that apply as a result of
morphological processes such as inection 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 infor-
mation.
11
Sometimes these morphemes are relatively easy to identify and sort out,
and sometimes not. Aknowledge 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.
Morphophonology and morphosyntax 45
7. Analytical procedures
Morphological analysis usually entails three basic steps:
(1) reducing word components to the smallest units of meaning
(decomposition);
12
(2) studying and categorizing recurrent elements of word structure; and
(3) seeking generalizations that lead to efcient, economical, and elegant
explanations of word formation.
13
7.1. Noun decomposition
In an Arabic word such as maktab-un, an ofce, one can nd at least
four overt morphemes, realized by particular morphs:
(1) the lexical root {k-t-b} write
(2) the noun-of-place lexical pattern {ma __ __a __}
(3) the nominative case-marker sufx { -u }
(4) the indenite marker sufx {-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 words essential feature matrix and play key
roles in agreement structures. For example, in order to say a new ofce, maktab-
un jadiid-un, one needs to know that the modier must be masculine, singular,
indenite, 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 inectional: number, gender, case, and deniteness.
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) the lexical root {k-t-b} write
(2) the verb stem pattern { __ __ u __}, which also marks
(3) the present tense and active voice
(4) the person and gender inectional prex { ya- } (third person masculine)
(5) the mood-marking and number-marking inectional sufx 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 inectional.
8. Words, morphemes, boundaries
Arabic word structure falls into several categories and subcategories. To
dene 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 inectional afxes. Because of the nature of
Arabic pronouns, some words (nouns and verbs) can be extended to include sufx
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, inects it
for tense, voice, subject, person, number, and mood and adds a pronoun object
sufx, it may yield a complete one-word predication:
ya-stamil-uuna-haa. They are using it.
sa-na-ntaxib-u-hum. We will elect them.
Word boundaries in Arabic are exible, but obey specic grammatical and ortho-
graphical 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. s arf and nah w
arf is the indigenous term used to refer to most of the morphology of
Arabic, derivational (above the root level), inectional categories such as gender,
number, and person, and sufxal inection on the past tense verb, and morpho-
phonological change. In relation to language, the science of tariif is usually
called ilm al-arf. Both indicate a change in the form of words, and both are used
indiscriminately to designate the science of morphology (kesson 2009: 119).
Neither arf nor tariif cover the inectional categories of case and mood (desi-
nence), however. Desinential inection is normally considered a morphosyntactic
category classied under the rubric of naw, or syntax.
s arf and nah w 47
10. Other forms of lexical expansion
Although Arabic vocabulary resources are solidly anchored in the root/
pattern systemof 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 pro-
cesses 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
Avital requirement for all scientic 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.
afx: 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 prexes,
circumxes, inxes, and sufxes. Another denition states that an
afx 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 var-
iation of the indenite 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 denite 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
case-markers such as -u, -i and -a). Arabic abounds in bound
morphemes.
circumx: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added
at both ends of a word (i.e., prex and sufx 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 combina-
tion 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 inectional.
free morpheme: can function independently as a word (e.g., Arabic min
from).
inx: 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.
inectional morphology: the study of word variation in context (e.g.,
number, gender, case, deniteness, tense, voice, and person are some
categories of inectional morphology). Inections 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 denition 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
uninected, 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 words syntactic
category (sometimes called lexical category), its grammatical func-
tions 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 portman-
teau morph) (Bauer 2003: 334).
Morphological terminology 49
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: 334335). Some theories of
morphology crucially distinguish between lexical and grammatical
morphemes (e.g., lexememorpheme 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 mor-
phology and phonology.
morphosyntax: the study of the interface between morphology and
syntax.
non-concatenative morphology: morphology that makes use of other
processes than afxation 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 mor-
phemes and the pattern morphemes are discontinuous and are com-
bined through interlinking rather than linear afxation.
paradigm: A set of forms, corresponding to some subset (dened 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 inectable (murab) noun paradigm would look like
this, showing both case and deniteness within six cells:
Word-stem; najm- tower
Case Denite Indenite
nominative najm-u najm-u-n
genitive najm-i najm-i-n
accusative najm-a 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 pho-
nemes (radicals), which either alone or in combination with one to
three derivational afxes, interlocks with a root to form a stem, and
which generally has grammatical meaning.
20
portmanteau morph: incorporates two (or more) meanings in one mor-
pheme, such as the dual sufx in Arabic:
-aani = number (dual) and case (nominative)
-ayni = number (dual) and case (accusative/genitive)
prex: 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 ve phonemes, typically three con-
sonants in a certain order, which interlocks with a pattern to form a
stemand which has lexical meaning. In this book, usually referred to as
a lexical root. Aronoff denes 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 inectional
afxes. A lexeme may have more than one stem.
stem allomorphy: the variation of a stem resulting from interaction with
inectional or derivational morphology.
sufx: 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.
(1) Morphological analysis. Analyze the following Arabic words into their
minimal morphological components by identifying the morphs (realiza-
tions) of those categories. Separate the inectional morphemes from
derivational morphemes. How many do you come up with? Are there
any that are difcult to identify?
(a) jaamiatun university
(b) sayuTaalibuuna they (m.) will demand
(c) ilayhimaa to the two of them
(d) muaamiihinna their (f.) lawyers
(e) taaaluu come!
(f) naam yes
(g) muidun benecial
(h) zilzaalun earthquake
(i) al-muxtabaru the laboratory
(j) nataaddathu we are speaking
(k) tamtaddu it extends, spreads out
(l) tastadidna you (f. pl.) are preparing
(2) Arabic morphology is said to be essentially non-concatenative. However,
it also has concatenative (linear) processes of afxation, especially in
inectional systems (for example, the sufxation of sound plural mor-
phemes, e.g., muhandis-uuna). What would be some other types of linear
or concatenative morphology in Arabic?
(3) Discuss the concepts of derivational and inectional morphology as they
apply to Arabic. Are the boundaries between the two clear and distinctive,
or do they ever blur? Does the Arabic term arf cover both derivational
and inectional morphology? If you are unsure, nd an Arabic denition
of arf and compare it to the concepts of derivational and inectional
morphology.
(4) List ve free and ve bound morphemes in Arabic.
(5) Aportmanteau morph realizes more than one morpheme, as noted above.
Make a list of four other examples of portmanteau morphs in Arabic.
(6) In note 13, I quoted as follows: In science, elegance aligns with preci-
sion, concision, and ingenious simplicity: an elegant solution is the one
that maps the most efcient route through complex terrain (Sword 2012:
165). Do you think that this denition of elegance applies in general, or
just to sciences such as linguistics?
Further reading
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,
Ratcliffe, Robert. 2013. Morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed.
J. Owens, 7191. 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., 173179. 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.
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 (specically, 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 inter-
face phenomena. The third tack is to admit that there are linguistically interesting
phenomena in morphology (such as afx order or stem allomorphy), but to claim that
these are reducible to principles of other models, e.g., syntax and phonology, respec-
tively: reductionism (in the form of classical generative, SPE-type approach to allo-
morphy, 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: 811812). 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 identiable 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
afxation, 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 inection are not kinds of
morphology but rather uses of morphology: inection 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 inectional 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 inection and word
formation is not always related to its content in a simple one-to-one fashion (Booij
1996: 812).
8. Perlmutters split morphology hypothesis proposes that derivational morphology is
much more tightly bound to the lexicon, or the lexical end of the spectrum, than is
inectional 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 inexional extremes (1987: 4). Baedecker and Caramazza argue that inec-
tional 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
inection) 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: 226227 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).
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
denition 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
efcient 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 feminine-
marking 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 newto linguistic analysis. In fact, tense and aspect seem to
be interwoven in Arabic verbs. See Ryding (2005: 5152).
16. Bound pronouns are considered clitics, words/morphemes that are bound to other words
and do not stand on their own. Asimple clitic differs fromother 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 mor-
phological terminology.
18. Cruse makes a distinction between lexemes and lexical units, especially as these
terms are used in lexical semantics (1986: 4950).
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 denition.
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 nd expression within a language.
Sometimes the process of derivation changes a words 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., adxala 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 der-
ivation 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 pat-
terns) has been of substantial interest to morphological theory in general.
3
Derivational morphology can be expressed in terms of Word Formation Rules
(WFRs). Abasic 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. AWFR 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 inectional markers
(Aronoff 1976: 2). That is, derivation applies to word-stem formation, creating a
lexical unit. Inectional markers are subsequently added to word stems when
words are used in context. Derivation in other words is prior to inection.
Or, as Aronoff remarks, Lexeme formation intrinsically feeds inection
(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
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 rst 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 modications
to create paronyms that cover the entire range of Arabic syntactic categories. This
process of analogical modeling and building lexical resources through the applica-
tion of analogous patterns and processes is a foundational feature of Semitic linguis-
tics.
6
In this regard, one of the key accomplishments of traditional Arabic grammar
was the ability to express any potential word-stemby tting a grammatical pattern or
template into a specic model root: { f--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., faiil or tafaul). The use of the root f--l
as the prime exemplar for Arabic words is a powerful symbolic formalization that
provides a model of anymorphological template or wordpattern (Ryding2005: 436).
7
3. The Arabic verb system and its derivations
Verbs are the quintessential example of the systematicity of Arabic deriva-
tional 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
56 Derivational morphology: the root/pattern system
intercalcated vowels and consonants in a xed order, which have grammatical
meaning.
8
Moreover, within the verb derivation system, the various prepatterned
Forms of the verb (awzaan), or verb stem templates, convey a certain amount of
semantic informationsuch as intensity, association, or reexivity. Eachtriliteral lexical
root in Arabic can potentially produce tento fteen verb Forms, and eachverb Formin
turn produces participles (active and passive) and a verbal noun (madar).
A practice of referring to these awzaan, 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: 123164; Bauer 2003: 216217; Booij 2005, 2007: 61; Durand
1990: 258259; Spencer 1991: 17 and 1994: 816). In this book I will refer to these
elements using the Arabic terms (wazn/awzaan) or the established technical
English term Form (capitalized) along with the reference numbers used in
western scholarship and noted by roman numerals (IXV). The British usage of
the termmeasure 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 conformto certain stemtemplates 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 falala). 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 (IX).
11
In addition, there are ve extended but
relatively rare verb-stem templates (XIXV), taking the number of possible Forms
up to fteen. There are also four verb-stem templates for quadriliteral verbs (QI
QIV). Thus the complete verbal system of Arabic consists of nineteen stem
The Arabic verb system and its derivations 57
templates. A particular Form or wazn (or binyan) has been dened as a function
that maps a root onto a corresponding set of templates. The result of this mapping is
a stem that undergoes inectional morphology (Aronoff 1994: 138). I would add
that the particular Arabic verb stem created by this process also undergoes deriva-
tional morphology in that it produces a specic verbal noun (madar), an active
participle (ism faail), and (for transitive verbs) a passive participle (ism mafuul),
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/seman-
tic 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), reexive action (Forms Vand VIII), resultative (Forms VII and VIII), acquis-
ition of a trait (Form IX), requestative or estimative (Form X).
12
These categories
do not exhaust the possibilities of semantic modication 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, Grard Lecomte:
Si lon met part la forme drive IX, qui est nettement en marge du systme, et la
forme VII, commune tout le domaine smitique et de constitution claire, on peut
expliquer comme suit la formation des autres formes drives: 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 prxation dun t-, qui leur
confre une valeur rchie-passive. Le principe est appliqu sans altration dans
les formes drives Vet VI. Dans la forme drive VIII, on observe une mtathse
immdiatement perceptible. La forme drive X est issue non de la forme drive
IV prxe hamza, mais dune forme drive IV prxe s- qui a exist dans
dautres langues smitiques (ex. assyrien tardif). (1968: 34)
If one sets aside derived Form IX, which is clearly marginal to the system, and
FormVII 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 prexing of a /t-/, which confers on them a reexive
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.
The derived Form X issues not from derived Form IV with the prex hamza, but
from a derived Form IV prexed 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
Active
Participle
Verbal
Noun
Present
Tense
Past
Tense Form
I
II
Unpredictable
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Passive
Participle
Figure 3 Arabic verb forms
Source: Copyright 2005 of Georgetown University Press. Arabic verb
forms. From Formal Spoken Arabic: Basic course with MP3 les, 2nd
edn, Karin C. Ryding and David J. Mehall, 263. Reprinted with
permission (www.press.georgetown.edu)
The Arabic verb system and its derivations 59
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 roots 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., <k-m-l> complete vs. <m-l-k> possess, <k-l-m> speak).
17
Each set is
uniquely identied by its members and by the particular sequence of those mem-
bers. 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 aa and ayn
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 Amad (d.791), in the introduction to his
multi-volume dictionary, Kitaab al-ayn, 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 co-
occurrence preferences as well as co-occurrence restrictions in both Arabic and
Hebrew lexical roots (2001: 80111).
It is the nature of the stem interacting with the inectional systems of Arabic that
lead to a wide variance in stem allomorphy that is, the modications to a word
stem that occur as a result of inectional 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-;
-rudd-; -rdud-). For this reason, knowing possible root-types is essential to pre-
dicting 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 var-
iants, 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 yaa 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--l}, {b--l}, {f--l}, {-l-w}, {-l-},
{-l-b}, and many others).
20
Some biliteral roots persist to this day, in very common words, almost always
nouns:
umm mother
ab father
yad hand
fam/fuu mouth
ax brother
(i)sm name
(i)bn son
4.2. Triliteral root (al-l al-thulaathiyy)
It is with the use of triliteral lexical roots that the Arabic verbal
system has ourished 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 inectional 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 irregu-
larities in the forms belonging to the paradigm of a given verb can be
characterized in terms of the phonological peculiarities of certain root con-
sonants. . . Once the nature and position of the weak consonant is given, the
properties of the verb paradigm follow automatically (1994: 190191). It is
therefore useful to quantify the triliteral root-types in order to classify their
Arabic lexical roots and root types 61
paradigm variations. The various forms of Arabic lexical root weakness
involve gemination, hamza, waaw, and yaa as phonemes in various positions
within the root.
21
4.2.1. Strong/regular root (saalim)
Three different consonants, none of which are waaw, yaa, or hamza:
write k-t-b
fasten; knot -q-d
lift up r-f-
4.2.2. Geminate root (muDaaf)
Two consonants, the second of which is geminate, or doubled:
reply r-d-d
happy; secret s-r-r
solve -l-l
4.2.3. 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 nal
position.
(1) hamza-initial
eat -k-l
take -x-dh
sorry -s-f
(2) hamza-medial
ask s--l
mend l--m
be pessimistic sh--m
(3) hamza-nal
read q-r-
begin b-d-
hide x-b-
4.2.4. Assimilated root (al-l al-mithaal)
Assimilated roots are ones which start with waaw or yaa:
nd w-j-d
arise y-q-Z
put w--
4.2.5. Hollow root (al-l al-ajwaf)
Hollow roots have weakness in the middle, in the medial radical, in the
form of either waaw or yaa:
sell b-y-
say q-w-l
sleep n-w-m
4.2.6. Defective root (al-l al-naaqis)
Defective roots have weakness in the third radical, the nal radical:
appear b-d-w
invite d--w
throw r-m-y
4.3. Arabic quadriliteral root types: (al-l al-rubaaiyy)
Arabic quadriliteral roots are of ve types: sound, reduplicated, com-
pound (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: raa, laam, nuun, or waaw.
22
translate t-r-j-m
adorn z-r-q-sh
overturn d-h-w-r
4.3.2. Reduplicated quadriliterals
Reduplicated quadriliterals consist of a repeated CVC pattern. These
verbs are usually onomatopoeic, reecting a sound or repeated movement.
23
Arabic lexical roots and root types 63
neigh h-m-h-m
utter r-f-r-f
shake z-l-z-l
4.3.3. Compound (blended) quadriliterals
Compound quadriliterals are the result of blending elements of two tri-
literal roots into one, such as
jalmada to be petried (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:
amdala, to say al-amd-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 to telephone
falsafa philosophize
4.4. 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 violet
sharanj chess
5. Derivational afxes in Arabic (zaaida/zawaaid: 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
phonemes in order to create patterns or templates into which root lexemes t, and by
means of which word stems are created and/or inected. This subset of sounds are
called zawaaid augments in Arabic (singular zaaida), and are usually referred to
as formatives in technical English terms, that is, they participate systematically in
word formation. One morphologist denes formative as serving to formwords: said
chiey of exional and derivative sufxes or prexes (Aronoff 1994: 2). The set of
items used in Arabic derivational morphology overlaps with the set used in inec-
tional morphology.
24
In this chapter derivational afxes and their uses are described;
in the following chapter, inectional afxes will be described.
25
5.1. Arabic derivational formatives
In Arabic, formatives may be used in prexes, sufxes, inxes or even
circumxes, and in derivational morphology they work as components or sub-
components of pattern formation. For example, the prex 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 mufil (e.g., mumkin possible, or mushrif super-
vising) or muftaal (e.g., muntada alternative, or mutaram 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 afxes. (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 afxes, on the other hand, have received less attention, and certainly
less systematic analysis. The consonantal derivational afxes used in Arabic are
seven: hamza, taa, miim, nuun, siin, yaa, and waaw. These thirteen formatives (six
vowels and seven consonants) constitute the phonemic inventory for pattern-
formation in Arabic. (Note that this set of derivational afxes is not identical with
inectional afxes, 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.
Derivational consonant formatives 65
I cite the phoneme and give examples of its use in three positions: word-initial,
word-medial, and word-nal. 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 inectional morphology (for example,
the occurrence of hamza as part of the plural inection in patterns such as qabaail
or jaraaid, or its use marking the rst person singular inection of an imperfective
verb, e.g., a-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 afal), e.g.
alana/ilaan to announce/announcement
aqaama/iqaama to establish/establishment
akmala/ikmaal to complete/completion
(b) In the creation of nouns using the patterns ufuul and ufuula:
usbuu week
usluub style
uruua dissertation
(c) In the pattern-formation of the names of colors and physical characteristics:
amar red
azraq blue
ashqar blond
amaa blind
6.1.2. Word-medial hamza
Medial hamza is used in the derivation of the active participle of Form I
hollow verbs:
kaain being
raaid pioneer
zaair visiting, visitor
6.1.3. Word-nal hamza
(1) hamza occurs as a component of verbal noun patterns for defective verbs:
binaa building
ilghaa elimination
inqiaa expiration
intihaa end
istiftaa referendum
(2) hamza also occurs in nal position in some singular noun patterns, e.g.
araa desert
thulathaa Tuesday
6.2. taa
The formative taa is used widely in the creation of Arabic word-stems/
lexemes, and is the only marker of the reexive (Larcher 2009: 642).
6.2.1. Word-intitial taa
Word-initial taa is used to form the following stem classes:
(1) Verb Forms Vand VI, and their verbal nouns:
tamarrada/tamarrud to rebel/rebellion
tanaffasa/tanaffus to breathe/breathing
taaawana/taaawun to cooperate/cooperation
takaafaa/takaafu to be equal/equivalence
(2) the verbal nouns of Form II:
takraar repetition
tartiib arrangement
takwiin creation
(3) the Form II quadriliteral verb and verbal noun
tadahwara/tadahwur to tumble/tumbling
tabalwara/tabalwur to crystallize/crystallization
6.2.2. Word-medial taa
(1) Taa is inserted after the rst root consonant in the verb pattern for Form
VIII, its verbal nouns, and its participles:
istamaa/istimaa to listen/ listening
mustami/mustama listener/ listened-to, heard
iktasaba/iktisaab to earn/earning
muktasib/mutktasab earning/earned, attained
(2) Taa 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-nal taa
As a word-nal derivational element, taa is not used with verbs. Used
with nouns, it most often takes the form of taa marbuua. Many noun patterns
contain the taa marbuua formative as part of their lexical formation. This is, of
course, distinct from its use as an inectional gender marker, i.e., marking a
modier as feminine (e.g., maZuuZa (t) fortunate, lucky.). In the translitera-
tion used here, the taa marbuua is noted in parentheses, as it is not normally
pronounced in pause form. Some examples include:
(1) Form IVand form X hollow verbal nouns:
idhaaa (t) broadcasting
istifaada (t) benet
(2) Form III verbal nouns:
musaaada (t) help, assistance
muaawala (t) attempt
(3) Forms I and II verbal nouns of defective verbs:
dawa (t) invitation
tarbiya (t) education, upbringing
(4) Some verbal nouns of assimilated verbs:
thiqa (t) trust, condence
ifa (t) characteristic; adjective
(5) A number of basic noun formations, for example:
janna (t) garden
kra (t) thought, idea
alaaqa (t) relationship
(6) As a marker of singularity on unit nouns and instance nouns:
mawza (t) a banana
raqa (t) a dance
(7) As a derivational sufx on nouns of instrument:
26
fattaaa (t) opener
thallaaja (t) freezer
(8) As a derivational sufx on nouns of place and participles:
maktab ofce/maktaba(t) library
jaami mosque/jaamia(t) university
(9) And as part of the derivational sufx -iyya (t) used to refer to concepts:
qawmiyya (t) nationalism
furuusiyya (t) horsemanship
nujuumiyya (t) stardom
huwiyya (t) identity
This listing of the derivational uses of taa marbuua 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 amma, fata, or kasrah as a prex:
(1) In participles of derived forms of the verb /mu-/:
muntada alternative, choice (PP VIII)
muslim Muslim (AP IV)
mustamar colony (PP X)
(2) In the verbal noun of Form III verbs /mu-/:
muaaara lecture
musaaada help, assistance
mubaadara initiative
(3) With the passive participle (PP) of Form I verbs /ma-/:
mawuu subject, topic
manduua alternative, choice
mawjuud found; present
(4) With nouns of place /ma-/:
malab playground
markaz center
maxraj exit
(5) With the miimi madar, a verbal noun of Form I that starts with miim
/ma-/:
marifa knowledge
maiir destiny
manan meaning
(6) With nouns of instrument /mi-/:
miftaa key
miSad elevator
mimsaa cleaning cloth; (board) eraser
6.4. nuun
Nuun is used as a derivational formative in several ways, as set out below.
(1) As a prex marking Form VII verbs and their derivatives. In the past
tense, the word stem result of this prexation process is -nfaal-, unpro-
nounceable because of the resultant initial consonant cluster. An epen-
thetic short vowel /i/ is therefore prexed, preceded by hamzat al-wal
when necessary.
(i)nfajara to explode
(i)nbasaa to be content, glad
(i)ndamaja be absorbed; incorporated
(2) (Much more rarely) as an inx in the extended Forms XIV (ifanlala) and
XV (ifanlaa) of the verb:
isankaka to be dark (Form XIV)
israndaa to conquer, vanquish (Form XV)
(3) And as an inx in the Form III quadriliteral verb (ifanlala):
27
ibranshaqa to bloom, ourish
(4) In word-nal position, nuun is a component of the nominal derivational
sufx -aan on deverbal nouns such as:
qdaan loss
ghufraan forgiveness
fayaaan ood
(5) And as a component of derived adjectives of the form falaan:
28
faraan glad, happy
kaslaan lazy
nasaan sleepy
(6) Apossible sixth instance of nuun as part of a derivational sufx could be its
use in deriving adverbials from nouns and adjectives through use of the
inectional accusative indenite nunation sufx, -an. Although nunation is
not normally considered a derivational sufx, I propose that this increas-
ingly standardized process is one way to see the manner in which inec-
tional 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.
abadan never
ayaanan sometimes
mulaqan absolutely
aban of course, naturally
6.5. /-st-/
The /-st-/ formative is used as a prex for Form X verbs and their
derivatives. Because this formative is a consonant cluster, an epenthetic /i/ is
prexed to the past-tense stem and to the verbal noun to ease pronunciation.
(i)stawrada to import
(i)stankara to disdain, detest
(i)stithmaar investment
6.6. yaa
The formative yaa is used extensively in Arabic derivational morphol-
ogy. 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 yafuul:
yarbuu jerboa
yaxuur chlorophyll
yanbuu spring, source, well
(2) Word medially, yaa surfaces as a consonant in a number of noun
and adjective patterns, such as in verbal nouns of derived forms of
hollow roots and in the derivation of diminutive nouns, adjectives,
and adverbs:
ixtiyaar choice (VN VIII)
inqiyaad compliance, submission (VN VII)
buayra lake
qubayla shortly before
(3) But by far the greatest use of consonantal yaa in standard Arabic is
as a word-nal derivational formative for the process of conversion
from one syntactic category to another {-iyy}.
29
It is used extensively
(with shadda) as a sufx to convert nouns to relative adjectives (al-
nisba).
30
tuunisiyy Tunisian
yuunaaniyy Greek
sharqiyy eastern
taariixiyy historical
qamariyy lunar
burtuqaaliyy orange
(4) In addition to its important role in the nisba sufx creating adjectives, the
formative yaa is also a component of the derivational sufx {-iyya}
(along with taa marbuua), creating abstract nouns from a range of other
form classes:
31
ahammiyya importance
kammiyya quantity
masuuliyya responsibility
afaliyya priority
6.7. waaw
The formative waaw, like yaa, 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 inectional sufxes:
sanawiyy annual
axawiyy fraternal
yadawiyy manual
axawaani two brothers
sanawaat years
Waaw is also used, much more rarely, in the derivation of two extended verb-
stem templates:
(1) Form XII verbs on the pattern of ifawala:
idawdaba to become convex; humpbacked
(2) And doubled, in the derivation of Form XIII verbs, on the pattern of
ifawwala:
ixrawwaa to last long
6.8. Gemination
In addition to these derivational phoneme formatives, a derivational
process is also used in Arabic: gemination/doubling. It does not occur in word-
initial position, but it occurs frequently in medial position, and to some extent in
nal 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 to arrange
qaddara to appreciate
ajjala to delay
Form V:
taawwaa to volunteer
tamannaa to wish
tanabbaa to predict
(b) In the derivation of nouns and adjectives of intensity or profession
through doubling of the medial radical:
nashshaafa dryer
jarraa surgeon
baqqaal grocer
qadduus most holy
(2) In stem-nal position:
(a) In the Form IX verb, through doubling of the nal radical:
ixarra to turn green
imarra to become red
(b) In the Form XI verb based on the pattern ifaalla:
ismaarra to be dark brown
ifaarra to turn temporarily yellow
(c) In the Form XIV verb, based on the pattern ifanlala. In this pattern, a
vowel is inserted between the doubled nal consonants.
isankaka to be dark
(d) In the Form IV quadriliteral verb, on the pattern of ifalalla:
32
imaanna to be calm, reassured
iqshaarra to shudder
7. 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 afxes in
Arabic/Semitic, focusing more on consonantvowel (CV) prosody (in terms of
tiers, melodies, prosodic templates, stem prosody).
33
In producing a comprehen-
sive 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 pattern-
formation resources. For a more complete description of Arabic form classes, their
types, and their morphology, see Ryding (2005).
(1) 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?
(2) Word-formation rules (WFRs) are key components of Arabic derivational
morphology. List ve 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.
(3) Read the articles Stem (Gafos) and Root (Zemnek) (see Further
reading) in the Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol. IV,
and write a two-page summary of the most important points.
(4) Read the 1950 article by Greenberg and compare it to the work of
Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad, as published by Sara (1991). Write a ve-page
paper discussing and comparing their insights.
Further reading
Aronoff, Mark. 1992. Stems in Latin verbal morphology. In Morphology Now,
ed. Mark Aronoff, 532. 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, 338344. Leiden: Brill.
Greenberg, Joseph. 1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 162181.
Larcher, Pierre. 2009. Verb. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. iv,
ed. Kees Versteegh, 638645. Leiden: Brill.
Sara, Solomon. 1991. Al-Khalil, the rst Arab phonologist. International Journal of Islamic
and Arabic Studies 8(1): 157.
Stetkevych, Jaroslav. 1970, 2006. The Modern Arabic Literary Language. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press. Especially ch. 1, on qiyaas.
Zemnek, Petr. 2009. Root. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. iv,
Notes
1. Derivational afxes produce new lexical units (Cruse 1986: 77).
2. But note, for example, that the derivational sufx {-iyya} may be used even with
pronouns and particles, e.g., huwiyya, identity from huwa he; kammiyya quantity
from kam how much? or kayyya 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 afxes (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 afal)
imperfective stem as u-aktib instead of u-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 Qiys as a linguistic concept and as method germinated and
dened itself in the relatively short span of time between Abd al-Lh Ibn Ab Isq (died
A.H. 117) and al-Khalil ibn Amad (died A.H. 175) (1970: 2). He also observes that
Summary 75
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 nd 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: 747) 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 seven-
teenth 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 IVand II
both occur, there is always a difference of meaning between the two (Larcher 2009:
642). Note that the resultative FormVII may be interpreted as unaccusative in some
respects. See Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995: 3378 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: 429605).
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-akbar, 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-Khalils analysis of Arabic
root phonology and phonotactics, see Sara (1991). Interestingly and unfortunately,
Greenberg seems to have been unaware of Al-Khalils 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
(hollow, defective, or assimilated), 8 percent are geminate, 4 percent are hamzated, and
10 percent quadriliteral.
22. 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: 599605).
23. See Prochzka (1993) for a discussion of reduplicated quadriliteral roots.
24. Morphology can be put to either derivational or inectional ends, and the same
morphology can sometimes serve both (Aronoff 1994: 127).
25. Arabic uses a traditional mnemonic device that contains all the morphological compo-
nents of word structure in the form of an invented word: saaltumuuniihaa, you asked
me it. See Ryding (2005: 48).
26. See Ryding (2005: 8789) for more examples of this usage.
27. 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 nal radical and the Form III quadriliteral showing
four different root consonants.
28. Note that this -aan sufx is not the same as the dual sufx, -aani, which is inectional.
29. Note that although this sufx 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
yaa: {-iyy}.
30. But see Kouloughli (2007) for a different interpretation of the yaa of nisba, which he
considers inectional, rather than derivational.
31. For more extensive examples see Ryding (2005: 9092).
32. See Ryding on extended forms of the triliteral verb and on extended forms of the
quadriliteral verb (2005: 596605).
33. See McCarthy (1982) McCarthy and Prince (1990a, 1990b).
Summary 77
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 con-
sists 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 sufxation 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 i,in, at; ilaa, to, towards; wa- and;
fa- so, and then;, min from; negation markers lam and lan; kay in order that;
anna that; lakinna but.
79
2.2. Pronouns
A second solid-stem subset consists of Arabic pronouns, including per-
sonal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and relative pronouns. These categories
do not t into the standard root-and-pattern system, although they show denite
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; faqa
only, haakadhaa thus, aythu 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 mor-
phemes (some of them may take broken plurals, however, if the singular stem
reects a typical Arabic noun pattern, such as bank/bunuuk and lm/aaam).
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: sufxation,
compounding, blending, acronyms, and semantic shift
3.1. Sufxation: {-iyy } and {-iyya}
The yaa of nisba {-iyy}, which creates relative adjectives, and the
nominalizing sufx {-iyya} which creates abstract nouns, are both highly produc-
tive derivational sufxes in Arabic. The yaa of nisba may be attached to nouns of
all types (even compound nouns and noun phrases) in order to convert them into
modiers.
3
maghribiyy Moroccan
januubiyy southern
aaliyy current
duwaliyy international
laa-nihaaiyy never-ending
sharq awsaiyy Middle Eastern
80 Non-root/pattern morphology and the Arabic lexicon
The feminine nisba sufx {-iyya} derives abstract nouns from a range of stems,
including singular and plural nouns, adjectives, particles, and pronouns:
amaliyya operation
nujuumyya stardom
diibluumaasiyya diplomacy
urriyya freedom
akthariyya majority
mawuuiyya objectivity
kayyya quality
huwiyya identity
Note that the fact that this particular derivational afx may be applied subse-
quent to inections for pluralization or comparativeness contravenes the general
morphological principle that words inected for number usually do not feed word
formation, and that inection is peripheral to derivation (Booij 1996: 814). This
fact makes the {-iyya} sufxation 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, snowake, football, handyman, update, hand-me-downs, and
so forth. In English compounding may also apply to modiers, such as: would-be,
middle-of-the-road, glow-in-the-dark. In Arabic, compounding is of several types:
iaafa-based, negation-based, and phrase-based.
4
In Arabic the process is usually
known as tarkiib:
3.2.1. One-word compounds
(1) From iaafa structures:
rasmaal capital
araal petition
qaaimaqaam district ofcial
(2) From negation structures:
laa-markaziyya decentralization
laa-faqaariyy invertebrate
laa-adriyya skepticism, agnosticism
laa-qaanuuniyy illegal
(3) From common phrases:
maa-jaraa course of events
yaa-nasiib lottery
Lexical expansion through morphological processes 81
(4) From coordinated noun phrases:
barmaaiyy amphibian
(5) From adverbials plus the indenite pronoun, maa:
qabl-a-maa before; prior to + verb
ayth-u-maa wherever
3.2.2. Two-word compounds
Nounnoun phrases: iaafa
Frequently used two-word compounds, although orthographically sepa-
rate 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 rst noun (al-
muaaf ). However, when this concept is used with a possessive pronoun, that
pronoun is sufxed to the end of the expression: jawaaz safar-ii my passport,
treating the iaafa as a morphological unit and stem for possessive purposes.
Other examples include:
rawat afaal kindergarten
radd l reaction
rajul amaal businessman/men
suu tafaahum misunderstanding
Certain verbal nouns used as the rst term of an iaafa, have acquired
lexicalizing functions: adam used as a negativizing prex, and iaada as a prex
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 specic 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.
adam wujuud non-existence
adam istiqraar instability
adam al-iniyaaz neutrality, non-alignment
iaadat far-i l-uquubaat-i re-imposition of sanctions
iaadat tayiin-i l-waziir-i reappointment of the minister
Adjectival compounds
Loan translations of complex adjectives may occur through the medium
of the adjective iaafa (iaafa ghayr aqiiqiyya):
mutaaddid al-araaf multilateral
mutaaddid al-jinsiyyaat multinational
aalii al-mustawaa high-level
Regularized negative adjectival compounds
Loan translations of modiers expressed in negative terms are often
expressed with the prexation of the term ghayr non; other than to an adjective
or participle:
al-Zuruuf ghayr al-munaasiba the inappropriate conditions
uuubaat-un ghayr-u mutawaqqaat-in unexpected difculties
asab-a arqaam-in ghayr-i rasmiyyat-in according to unofcial gures
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,
rawat-u afaal-in wa-zuhuur-in (?) *garden of children (kindergarten) and
owers. 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 rst component.
3.3.1. Fusing of word components
al-fawq-waaqi iyya the supernatural
faw-awtiyy supersonic
qab-milaadiyy before Christ (bc)
maa-qab-taariixiyy prehistoric
mimmaa from which
3.3.2. 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 to say bi-sm-i llaah-i
Hawqala to pronounce the formula: laa Hawl-a wa-laa quwwat-a illaa bi-
llaah-i
fanqala to say fa-na-quul-u. . .
3.4. 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
Lexical expansion through morphological processes 83
into Arabic in two ways, either as spelled-out words or as phrases denoting the
foreign letters (or numbers):
yuuniskuu UNESCO
uubik OPEC
sii aay iih CIA
am aay sitta MI-6
3.5. 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.
qaaimaqaam administrative ofcer
araal petition
3.5.2. Meaning
Meaning or semantic opacity is another criterion for determining the unity
of a compound. The meaning of the compound may be non-compositional (opa-
que). That is, the separate parts combine to constitute a meaning that is not
determinable from their individual meanings, e.g., rasmaal capital.
3.5.3. Distributional
Distributional evidence can be used to determine if the sequence is
considered a lexical unit (e.g., placement of denite article, demonstrative pro-
nouns, -iyya, pluralization):
Placement of denite article
A compound may take the denite article:
al-laa-wujuud the non-existence
al-rasmaaliyya the capitalism
al-ayd al-laa-qaanuuniyy illegal hunting
Pluralization
A compound may pluralize as though it were one word, either by means
of a plural sufx at the end of the phrase or by means of a broken plural based on
analogy with similar singular structures:
maajaray-aat courses of events
araal-aat petitions
rasaamiil (forms of) capital
barmaaiyy-aat amphibians
Derivational afx
Acompound may take a derivational afx, such as the yaa of nisba or the
{-iyya} sufx denoting an abstract entity:
rasmaaliyy capitalist
rasmaaliyya capitalism
Pronouns
A compound may take a pronoun sufx
maa-adriyyat-ii my skepticism
jawaaz safar-ii my passport
4. 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:
taliziyuun television
intirnat internet
buuliis police
duktuur doctor
bank bank
Lexical expansion through borrowing 85
4.1.2. Adjectives
Sometimes an adjective is borrowed without change; other times the
sufx -iyy replaces the adjectival sufx in the donor language:
biij beige
muuf mauve
iliktruuniyy electronic
muusiiqiyy musical
4.1.3. Verbs
These borrowings are less common and need to be tted creatively into an
Arabic verb-stem template, usually through quadriliteral Form I, or Form II and
Form V triliteral stem templates.
5
talfana to telephone
talvaza to televize
balshafa to Bolshevize
taamraka to be Americanized
4.2. Loan translation (calque)
These are words or expressions whose individual components are trans-
lated literally into Arabic:
kiis hawaa airbag
laa-markaziyya decentralization
naad-in layliyy nightclub
al-wujuudiyya existentialism
5. Lexical expansion through semantic shift
Sometimes a traditional Arabic word acquires a new, additional meaning,
such as:
haatif invisible caller telephone
shabka net network
dharra speck, mote atom
6. 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 ques-
tions 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 inected word
stems.
(1) How would you express in Arabic our passports? or their business-
men? 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.
(2) The creation of new abstract nouns using the {-iyya} sufx seems to
apply to all sorts of form classes or syntactic categories. Take a section of
an Arabic newspaper or a book chapter and nd 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 (ve-page) paper.
(3) 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 i-hi undesirable
adam taqdiir disrespect
al-rabii al-arabiyy the Arab spring
ammaa about which
maaward rosewater
laa-silkiyy wireless
al-sharq al-awsa 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 tekauer, eds., 491511. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Summary 87
Hijazi, Mahmoud Fahmi. 1978. Al-lugha l-arabiyya abr al-quruun. Especially pp. 61118
for examples of ishtiqaaq, tarkiib, and naHt.
Kossman, Maarten. 2013. Borrowing. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed.
Jonathan Owens, 349368. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle and Pavel tekauer. 2009. Introduction: Status and denition of com-
pounding. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and
Pavel tekauer, eds., 318. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (especially pp. 9092 and 254275).
Notes
1. Although most borrowed nouns are pluralized using the sound feminine plural sufx
/-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 ofcial)/karaadilah; fuldir folder/falaadir; lla villa/
lal. In the case of such broken plurals, one might claim that the stems, although
borrowed, are not actually solid, but permeable to inection.
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:
261269, 272273).
4. The iaafa 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 exible 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 (quadri-
literal verb or Form II verb).
8
Arabic inectional morphology
1. Introduction to inection
Inectional morphology examines the nature and processes of
word-change within syntactic structures. It examines inectional paradigms
(conjugations, declensions) and the types of inectional change realized on
words-in-use. That is, it examines the range of inectional 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 syntag-
matic 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 lling a particular syntactic role bears a paradigm mark determined both
by the words 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 inects for the genitive
case in different ways:
i dimashq-a
in Damascus
i l-madrasat-i
at the school
i l-mustashfaa
at the hospital
Every noun falls into a particular inectional class or declension, which
allows or restricts its ability to exhibit the full range of inectional distinctions.
There are eight noun declensions in Arabic. See Appendix C for these
declensions.
89
2. Arabic inection
Compared to English, words in Arabic are highly inected.
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 inectional), and ya-ktub-u showing eight
(six of which were inectional). Western linguistics recognizes inectional
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 (awaamil).
The difference between categories of number, gender, person and tense, on one
hand, and case and mood on the other, are clear and signicant. 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 deter-
mined 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 inection as inherent (semantic, extralinguis-
tic) and contextual (syntactically determined). Contextual inection is the kind
of inection that is determined by the syntactic structure: agreement for person,
gender/noun class and number, case-marking. Inherent inection is the kind of
inection 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 reect each others 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 inect for masculine singular agree-
ment (e.g., aar-a kariim-un Karim came).
2
Agreement categories in Arabic
90 Arabic inectional morphology
include: gender, number, deniteness, and case for nouns and adjectives, and
inection for gender, number, and person for verbs and pronouns.
3.2. Government (amal)
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 identies the governing element as the aamil
operator, governor, regent (plural: awaamil). The aamil is typically a verb,
preposition, or particle that requires its governed object to inect 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 aamil 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 aamil manawiyy, an
abstract operator (as opposed to the overt aamil, the aamil lafZiyy). Inectional
categories determined by governing elements include only case and mood, both
of which are classied under the Arabic technical term iraab, or desinential
inection.
3
When speaking about Arabic grammar, most people who study and teach
Arabic are referring to the principle of governance or amal; but agreement or
muaabaqa is equally signicant and far more salient because it is usually overtly
marked, whereas government is marked only by desinential or word-nal inec-
tion, often in the form of short vowels, which are invisible in ordinary running
written text.
4
4. Arabic inectional categories
Inection 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 inections apply at the same
time, such as tense, person, voice, mood, gender, and number for verbs, or
deniteness, case, number, and gender for nouns. Certain of these categories are
inherent and others contextual (determined by syntax through rules of agreement or
Arabic inectional categories 91
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: rst, 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. Deniteness: determiners (inherent/contextual)
Properties: denite and indenite
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 inectional 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 reect plurality. If the noun
is plural and non-human (e.g., inanimate objects, animals, abstractions), agreement
is deected to feminine singular.
5. Inection in Arabic: denitions and examples
As noted above, Arabic has syntactically relevant (or inherent) inec-
tional 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. Inectional 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 specic declensions that show case and
deniteness, whereas verbs fall into conjugations. Verb conjugations in Arabic
are extraordinarily regular and predictable; complexities arise, however, when
the inectional markers of conjugations encounter weak or defective lexical
roots, with resulting stem allomorphy. Inectional markers in Arabic may take
the form of prexes, sufxes, inxes, or circumxes (also referred to as trans-
xes [Bauer 2003: 3031]). Larcher maintains that the Arabic verb fascinates
linguists because the regularity of its inection contrasts so starkly with the
complexities of its derivation and stem variation.
5
5.1. Verbs
These conjugate, showing six morphological distinctions: tense, per-
son, 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 reects 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 dened (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 Soltans syntactically prominent with the
concept of semantically prominent, inasmuch as it is not so much the grammat-
ical structures at play in the differences between tense and aspect interpretation as it
is the meaning of such structures and utterance context.
Inection in Arabic: denitions and examples 93
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 deniteness. They also
inect for number and (in some instances) gender. Most Arabic nouns have
Active
From I Sound root: AP: PP: VN: to do; to make
Perfect
Indicative Subjunctive Imperative Jussive
Imperfect Imperfect Imperfect Imperfect Imperfect Perfect
Active Active Active Active Passive Passive
Figure 4 A typical verb conjugation in all moods of the verb
Source: From Ryding (2005)
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, inect to indicate biological gender.
7
5.3. Adjectives
Adjectives also decline, showing the same range of case distinctions as
nouns. they also inect for number and gender. In addition, they inect for
comparative and superlative.
5.4. Participles (deverbal adjectives)
These inect 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 (anaa, anta, anti, huwa, hiya, antu-
maa, humaa, nanu, antum, antunna, hum, hunna) show inection for number,
gender, and person.
8
The sufx personal pronouns (-ii/-nii, -ka, -ki, -hu, -haa,
-kumaa, -humaa, -naa, -kum, -kunna, -hum, -hunna) realize either possessive func-
tion (when sufxed to nouns) or object function (when sufxed to verbs).
5.5.2. Demonstrative
Demonstrative pronouns (haadaa, this; dhaalika that and their variants)
in Arabic inect for number, gender, case (in the dual), and deixis (distance-relation).
5.5.3. Relative
Relative pronouns inect for number, gender, and case (in the dual). They
also exhibit differences in deniteness, with one set (alladhii who, which and its
variants) marked for deniteness (the initial al-) and others, i.e., maa (what,
whatever) and man (who, whoever) serving as indenite relative pronouns.
Adjectives and pronouns are referential rather than denotational in function.
Therefore they agree with nouns and reect their inectional categories.
Inection in Arabic: denitions and examples 95
5.6. Locative adverbs (of time and space)
These may inect for case under specic conditions:
(1) When the adverb is not followed by an object noun, it is inected with
amma:
xaraj-tu min tat-u I emerged from below.
(2) When the adverb is preceded by a preposition, it inects with kasra:
xaraj-tu min tat-i l-shajar-i. I emerged from under the tree.
(3) When the locative adverb is followed by a noun in the genitive or a
pronoun, it inects with fata:
kutub-ii tat-a l-shajar-i. My books are under the tree.
kutub-ii tat-a-hu. My books are under it.
6. Case, case relations, case theory
As a manifestation of particular importance in linguistic theory, case-
marking, 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 iraab), 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 Fillmores 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, Beneciary, Object) for sentence constituents that identify their relation-
ships within the predication.
9
Cases, their relationships, their meanings, and their
theoretical status thus occupy central ground in linguistic theory, but, as yet,
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 inectional 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 deniteness inectional realizations
for nouns, adjectives, and participles. Standard Arabic has eight nom-
inal declensions: triptote (three-way inection), dual, sound feminine
plural, sound masculine plural, diptote (two-way inection), defective,
uninectable (for case, but showing deniteness), and invariable.
12
In
Arabic, therefore, inection for number (dual, plural) can shift a noun
into a different inectional class (Ryding 2005: 168).
defective: refers to Arabic lexical roots whose nal radical is either
waaw or yaa.
desinential inection: word-nal inection. Arabic case (on substan-
tives) and mood (on verbs) are marked at the end of a word. This sort of
inection is called desinential inection (desinence = termination,
ending, sufx). Case and mood inections in particular are determined
by the role of the word in context, in a sentence. These roles are
affected by governing words, or operators awaamil which can
be in the form of particular lexical items (such as an + 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 inections when indenite: /-u/ for nominative and /-a/ for
genitive and accusative. Diptotes do not take nunation. When they are
denite, they inect regularly, as triptotes.
Key terms for Arabic inectional morphology 97
exponent: in morphology, the formatives or features that realize inec-
tional 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 inectional and agreement properties (Richards
14
Arabic has two genders: masculine and
feminine.
grammatical word: Aronoff denes a grammatical word as a lexeme
in a particular syntactic context, where it [is] provided with morpho-
syntactic features (like case and number) and with the morphophono-
logical 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 inections.
inectional class: a form class dened by the nature of its inectional
paradigm. For example, a verb would be dened by the fact that it takes
verb inections (conjugations); a noun would be dened by the fact
that it inects for noun distinctions (declensions showing case and
deniteness). That is, the type of paradigm that the word ts into
determines its inectional class.
number: A grammatical category used for the analysis of word-
classes displaying such contrasts as singular, plural, dual . . . and
paucal (few) (Crystal 1997: 265). Arabic displays all these number
variants.
paradigm: a fully inected model of an example of a form class.
Carstairs-McCarthy makes a distinction between the concept of para-
digm in general (which he labels paradigm
1
) and a specic paradigm
for a given language (which he labels paradigm
2
), as follows:
Paradigm
1
: the set of combinations of morphosyntactic properties or
features (or the set of cells) realized by inected forms of words (or
lexemes) in a given word-class (or major category or lexeme-class) in a
given language; Paradigm
2
: the set of inectional realizations
expressing a paradigm
1
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 inectional properties of a
form-class into tabular form, each box (or cell) in the table represent-
ing one of the properties by means of its particular exponents. For
example, Arabic nouns have three cases (nominative, genitive, and
accusative) and two forms of deniteness (denite and indenite).
Therefore each noun paradigm has six cells:
Inectional paradigm for bayt house
Denite Indenite
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 inectional
paradigm, but Arabic noun inection 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 inections. Stem allomorph: a
variant or alternant of the base or stem form of a word, conditioned by
the nature of an afx. For example, a doubled or geminate Form I past-
tense verb has two forms, depending on whether the inectional sufx
starts with a vowel or a consonant. Taking the verb radda, to return; to
reply for example, if the sufx starts with a vowel, then it is sufxed to
the form radd- (e.g., radd-at, she replied); if the sufx starts with a
consonant, it is afxed to the form radad- (e.g., radad-naa we
replied). Stem allomorphy characterizes many Arabic verbs and
their derivatives, caused by the intersection of inectional afxes
with phonological rules.
stemclass: a particular class of words that exhibits similarity in formand
which falls into a particular inectional class (such as verbs in Semitic
languages).
triptote: an Arabic noun or adjective that shows inectional distinctions
for all three cases: nominative, genitive and accusative (murab).
7. Arabic inectional afxes: (zaaida/ zawaaid) augments'
Certain consonant phonemes are used as exponents in the marking of
inectional properties. Some phonemes (like taa) have a wide range of func-
tions; others have more limited marking functions. These consonants are not
normally used alone, but along with vowels as components of inectional
patterns or templates. These inectional afxes are in many cases the same
consonant phonemes as used for derivational morphology, but have different
functions and different meanings when used as inectional markers. Note that
vowels are prevented by phonological rules from occurring alone as word-initial
prexes.
Arabic inectional afxes 99
7.1. hamza
7.1.1. Word-initial hamza
This is used inectionally as follows:
(1) In the rst person present tense verb, e.g., a-ktub-u I write; u-ibb-u
I like; a-stamil-u I use.
(2) In certain plural patterns, e.g., ashjaar trees; aqlaam pencils;
adiqaa friends.
(3) In elative (comparative and superlative) inections, e.g., akbar big-
ger; ahamm more important.
7.1.2. Word-medial inectional hamza
This occurs in some noun/adjective plural patterns, such as faaail: e.g.,
qabaail, jaraaid.
7.1.3. Word-nal inectional hamza
This occurs in noun plurals of the type afilaa and fualaa e.g.,
wuzaraa ministers; adiqaa friends.
It also occurs in color adjectives inected for feminine gender, e.g., Hamraa
red f.
7.2. taa
taa as an inectional afx occurs as follows:
7.2.1. Word-initial taa
This occurs in the second and third person prexes 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-nal taa
This occurs frequently as a component of gender and number inections:
(1) In the form of taa marbuua, as the feminine gender inection
on adjectives and certain nouns, e.g., aghiira(t) small f.; abiiba(t)
doctor f.
(2) In the sound feminine plural sufx {-aat}, e.g., intixaab-aat elections;
majall-aat magazines.
(3) In the feminine singular third person past tense verb sufx -at, e.g.,
katab-at she wrote, takallam-at she spoke.
(4) In the rst and second person singular past tense sufxes: {- tu}, {-ta},
{-ti}, e.g., katab-tu I wrote; katab-ta you m. wrote; katab-ti you f.
wrote.
(5) In the second person dual past tense sufx {-tumaa}, e.g., katab-tumaa
you two (m. and f.) wrote.
(6) In the third person feminine dual past tense sufx {-ataa}, e.g., katab-
ataa they two f. wrote.
(7) In the second person plural past tense sufxes {-tum}, {-tunna}, e.g.,
katab-tum you m. pl. wrote; katab-tunna you f. pl. wrote.
7.3. laam
Although laam is not an afx, it is a clitic in the form of the prexed
denite article {-l-} which attaches to nouns and adjectives. It therefore functions
as an inectional marker of deniteness.
7.4. miim
As an inectional afx, miim only occurs in past tense sufxes, as a
component of the past tense second person dual sufx, {-tumaa} and the second
person masculine plural sufx, {-tum}, e.g., katab-tumaa you two wrote; and
katab-tum you m. pl. wrote.
7.5. nuun
Inectional nuun occurs word-initially and in word-nal position
(1) As a prex for the rst person plural in the present tense/imperfect:
{na-} or {nu-}: na-ktub-u we write; nu-rattib-u we arrange.
(2) In word-nal position, nuun forms a part of several sufxes:
(a) Past tense/perfect verb sufx {-naa}: katab-naa we wrote.
(b) On nouns and adjectives, the sufx {-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 sufx {-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 sufx /{-iina}, but this sufx has different distribution and
meanings. For nouns and adjectives, it indicates the oblique
(non-nominative) case of the sound masculine plural inection, e.g.
mudarris-iina the teachers m.; kathiir-iina many m. As a verb
sufx, {-iina} is used to mark the second person feminine singular:
ta-ktub-iina you f. write.
(e) On verbs, the sufx {-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 sufx {-aani} alter-
nates 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
inection 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 inectional morpheme {sa-} is prexed 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. yaa
Inectional consonantal yaa occurs:
(1) As the third person masculine prex 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; yu-
rattib-aani they two arrange; yu-rattib-uuna they (m.) arrange and yu-
ratttib-na they (f.) arrange.
(2) As a component of the nominal dual oblique (genitive/accusative) sufx
{-ayni}, e.g., kitaab-ayni, two books.
15
Inectional long-vowel yaa occurs:
(1) In nouns as part of the sound masculine plural oblique (genitive/accusa-
tive) sufx {-iina}, e.g., mudarris-iina teachers m. gen./acc.
(2) In verbs as a component of the present tense/imperfect second person
feminine singular sufx, e.g., ta-ktub-iina you f. write.
7.8 waaw
Consonantal waawis used as an inectional component in noun plurals of
the fawaail type, e.g., awaamil, shawaari.
Vocalic waaw is used inectionally as follows:
(1) As a component of the sound masculine plural nominal sufx /-uuna/ ,
e.g., mutarjim-uuna translators.
(2) As a verb sufx, 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.
(3) As the marker of the third person masculine plural on past tense verbs
{-uu}, e.g., katab-uu they wrote.
(1) Fill out the following chart, noting which inectional distinctions apply to
which form classes. What sort of patterns do they make? What conclu-
sions can you derive about the nature of Arabic inection?
Inectional distinctions in Arabic:
verb noun adjective participle pronoun adverb
tense
person
voice
mood
gender
number
case
def./indef.
compar.
deixis
humanness
(2) Indicate the inectional categories in the following words:
aljazaairu
satataaddathuuna
alladhayni
antumaa
yatakallamna
(3) Choose ten more Arabic words (of all lexical classes) from a short Arabic
text, and analyze their inectional afxes. Compare your list with your
classmates. Is there anything that you disagree about?
(4) Within those ten words and their inectional morphemes, break down the
meanings of the afx morpheme components, e.g., for the sufx {-uuna},
which part of the sufx indicates case? Which part indicates plural?
Which part indicates human? Can other Arabic inectional morphemes
be analyzed this way? What are the minimal meaningful components of
Arabic inectional afxes?
(5) In section 7 of this chapter (inectional afxes), the most common
inectional uses of phonemes have been listed. Can you think of others?
Further reading
Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2006. Case roles. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kouloughli, Djamel Eddine. 2007. Inection. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. II, ed. Kees Versteegh, 345354. Leiden: Brill.
LeTourneau, Mark S. 2006. Case theory. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 347353. Leiden: Brill.
Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Morphology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff
and Janie Rees-Miller, 213237. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stump, Gregory. 1998. Inection. In The Handbook of Morphology, eds. Andrew Spencer
and Arnold M. Zwicky, 1343. Oxford: Blackwell.
Notes
1. English [is] a language poor in inection (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-naw al-waai, denes
aamil 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
alaa l-kalimat-i fa-yu-aththir-u i $aaxir-i-haa bi-l-raf -i aw-i l-nab-i, aw-i l-
jarr-i aw-i l-jazm-i) (Hasan 1987: 441).
4.
Arabic theory posits a distinction between syntactically-governed inection and other
types of inection. . . within the domain of inectional theory, Arabic does not distin-
guish 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 inection is realized on a noun or on a verb
is irrelevant. What is important is the nature of the inectional marker itself, as
determined by the governing element . . . The fact that the sufx markers for most
forms of nominative and indicative are syncretised into one ending, -u, and that the same
applies for the accusative/subjunctive sufx, -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
inectional exponents and adducing a unied classication based on their phonological
identity. In fact, in medieval Arabic grammatical theory the term for imperfect indica-
tive verb is muaari, literally, resembling, or resembler because, it was said, the
imperfect indicative resembled nouns in its ability to inect, or change the vowel
termination. This is due to the fact that the imperfect formof 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: 176177)
5. Thanks to the simplicity of its inection and the complexity of its derivation and
morphophonology, the Arabic verb continues to fascinate Western scholars of Arabic
(Larcher 2009: 645).
6. See Ryding (2005: 439440) for discussion of this point.
7. See Appendix C for the eight nominal and adjectival declensions.
8. Except that there is no rst person dual, or gender marking on the rst person.
9. 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 under-
specied (Butt 2006: 11).
10. 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: 1820). Hjelmslev notes
that in languages that have fewcases (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 prpositions, la signication dun
cas est trs abstraite par rapport celle dune prposition (1935 1972: 41).
11. It does contain one article on a Semitic language, Amharic. See Amberber (2009).
12. For full illustrations of these eight declensions see Ryding (2005: 182204).
13. The features which identify a morphosyntactic property may be referred to as its
exponents (Matthews 1974: 144) (emphasis in original).
14. The classication of nouns into different genders is quite an intriguing phenomenon
because of its strong arbitrariness (Booij 2007: 129).
15. 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.
9
Syntactic analysis and Arabic
1. The study of syntax
Benmamoun provides a denition 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 howwords combine to form phrases and sentences, and the depend-
encies 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 descrip-
tion 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 rst 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 inection)
separately from the syntactic slots or functions that they ll 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: amal 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 naw.
The scope of naw includes both the analysis of combinatorial sequences of words
in context and the effect of syntactic regulations on the inection of words. The two
key components of traditional Arabic syntactic analysis are the functions of
107
government (amal) and agreement (muaabaqa), as discussed and dened in
Chapter 7. The rules of government (amal) require that words in context obey
the requirements of syntactic operators (awaamil) through the processes of
desinential (word-nal) inection. Rules of agreement and anaphora require that
modiers, 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., inection for number and gender) and grammatical
(e.g., inection for case). The classic work in English on modern Arabic syntax is
Cantarinos 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 struc-
ture, conceptual structures that operate to produce language.
108 Syntactic analysis and Arabic
The most important point of [Chomskys] 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
reected in the acquisition and use of language that provides the central questions
of the eld. (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 Chomskys famous
example, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. As one linguist observes, syntax
works (i.e., makes sentences seem right, somehow) independently of any reason-
able 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 renements 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 post-
Minimalist 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 difcult for those outside this disciplinary subeld to read and
comprehend its writings in all their detail and theoretical ramications.
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
Syntactic theory 109
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 tree-
diagrams (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 partic-
ipants 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 inectional 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 ll a core
argument slot (Dixon 2010a: 98).
12
The key analogy made here is chemical,
comparing the predicate to an atom surrounded by a specic 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
eld 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
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, Beneciary/Recipient),
or refers to them with semantically neutral labels such as X or Y.
15
By decom-
posing 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 grammat-
ical 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 Beneciary, whereas Goldberg and others use recip-
ient. 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 lan-
guage with the genitive as the third separately marked case in inectional
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- prexed 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
Topics and approaches in Arabic syntax 111
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: 391392)
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: 399400).
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 ne-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
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)
Beneciary: in case theory, the person or entity that receives the benet
of the action. See also Recipient.
C: constituent (in IC analysis)/complement or complementizer in gen-
erative syntax
categorical specication: 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
specied by the verb (Crystal 1997: 75)
complementizer: a subordinating conjunction that joins clauses (such as
that or whether in English; or such as inna 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: inection (also, INFL.): the category (in generative syntax) INFL
contains all verbal inection, including tense, person, and number, as
well as agreement features (AGR.). Inection is actually considered
the head of a sentence (IP) because it controls the inectional 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
Syntactic terminology 113
prepositional phrase. Immediate constituents are usually reducible to
ultimate constituents
IP: inection 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 Beneciary): person [or entity] that benets from the
action expressed in the predicate (Haegeman 1994: 50)
S: sentence; subject (in discussions of word order, e.g., SVO)
Spec: specier (e.g., article, demonstrative pronoun, quantier for an
NP; a qualier for a VP)
SVAA: subjectverb 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
(1) The Arabic term naw is often used as the equivalent of the term
syntax. Look up a denition of naw and see what it covers explicitly
in Arabic, and compare it to the English term, syntax.
(2) 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?
(3) Some approaches to syntax consider it a system of sentence structure
independent of meaning (e.g., Chomskys Colorless green ideas sleep
furiously). Sibawayhi in chapter 6 (baab al-istiqaama min al-kalaam
wa-l-iaala) (Chapter on correctness and deviation in speech) of his
eighth-century work Al-Kitaab, gives the example sawfa ashrab-u
maa-a l-bar-i ams-i (I shall drink sea-water yesterday), calling it
al-muaal al-kadhib (impossible and false) (1991: 26). Discuss
Sibawayhis example and compare it with Chomskys. How are they
different?
(4) Read the entire chapter 6 of Al-Kitaab (it is only about one page long),
translate it into English, and discuss Sibawayhis categorization of sen-
tences. What are his criteria for correctness? How does he distinguish
between form, meaning, and distribution of constituents?
(5) Read the EALL article Syntax by Benmamoun and prepare a discussion
of one of the ve 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,
Benmamoun, Elabbas and Lina Choueiri, 2013. The syntax of Arabic from a generative
perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed Jonathan Owens,
115164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds.
Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 188. NewYork: 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.
Maalej, Zouhair. 2009. Valency. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Sibawayhi, Abu Bishr Amr bn Uthman bin Qanbar. 1991. Kitaab Siibawayhi, ed. Abd
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 nal, 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 Chomskys distinction between performance and
competence. Competence is the internal, conscious or unconscious abstract model of
language in the speaker/hearers 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 short-
lived; how linguist X denes 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 isnt always
possible to tell exactly what a termis being used to refer to sometimes writers fail to say
exactly what they mean by some term that gures 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).
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: 4260);
for a discussion of theta roles in Arabic see LeTourneau (2009).
11. Le verbe est au centre du nud verbal. . . Il est donc le rgissant de toute la phrase
verbale (Tesnire 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 specication as to their argument
structure, that is, a specication 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 verbs meaning is represented using
members of a xed 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 nd this
role for inection 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 morpho-
syntax, especially in Arabic, the privileged nature of inection 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 inection.
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).
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 ll 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-uurat-u this picture or
al-bayt-u l-abya-u the white house). Clauses (or sentences) involve a predi-
cation of some kind (for example, haadhihi hiya l-uurat-u This is the picture, or
al-bayt-u abya-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 rst discuss agreement-based phrase structure and then government-
based phrase structure.
2. Agreement-based phrase structures
Phrases consist of headsand 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
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 usayn-un King Hussein
i l-waqt-i nafs-i-hi at the same time
al-umm-u maryam-u Mother Mariam
4
2.1.2. N + N (+N): Nouns in coordination
Nouns in coordination are linked by the coordinating conjunctions wa-
and or am or, or aw or. Syntactically, they behave as a coordinated group,
lling a single syntactic slot, such as Agent, Object, or Beneciary. Each member
of the coordinated group carries the same case-marking. Unlike nouns in apposi-
tion, 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-raiis-u aw-i -l-waziir-u the president or the minister
al-thalab-u wa-l-ghuraab-u the fox and the crow
kariim-un wa-rashiid-un wa-qaasim-un adar-uu l-mutamar-a.
Karim, Rashid, and Qasim attended (3 pl.) the conference.
2.1.3. N+adj. (+adj.)
Arabic nounadjective phrases require multiple agreement: in case, def-
initeness, gender, and number.
al-hilaal-u l-xaSiib-u the Fertile Crescent
the-crescent (m.)-nom. the-fertile m. nom.
marduud-u-n iijaabiyy-u-n a positive yield
yield (m.)-nom.-indef. positive-(m.)-nom. -indef.
madiinat-u-n faransiyyat-u-n kabiirat-u-n a big French city
city (f.)-nom.-indef. french-f -nom.-indef. big-f.-nom.-indef.
2.1.3.1. Deected agreement The term deected agreement refers to
the Arabic use of feminine singular agreement with non-human nouns in the plural:
5
i l-awaam-i l-axiirat-i in recent years
in the-years-gen. the-recent-f.-gen.
al-dhiaab-u l-ramaadiyyat-u the gray wolves
the-wolves-nom. the-gray-f.-nom.
120 Arabic syntax I: phrase structure
2.1.4. Agreement in DPs: Arabic determiner phrases
6
Determiners may be of various types in Arabic: articles, personal pro-
nouns, or demonstrative pronouns. The denite 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
deniteness, the semantics of demonstratives require that the noun be denite.
7
haadhaa l-maam-u this restaurant
this-m. the-restaurant (m.)-nom.
haadhaani l-miftaa-aani these two keys
these-two-m. the-two-keys-m.-nom.
uulaaika l-baaith-uuna those researchers
those the-researchers-m.-nom.
3. Government-based phrase structures
In some cases, phrases exhibit internal governing; that is, one part of the
phrase governs another and causes it to inect for a particular case, usually
genitive. The two main categories in this respect are prepositional phrases and
the genitive construct phrase, or iaafa.
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
sufx form.
preposition plus noun
i l-jaamiat-i at the university
at the-university-gen.
semi-preposition plus noun
8
bad-a l-aat-i after the party
after-acc. the-party-gen.
preposition plus pronoun
min-haa from her
from-her
Government-based phrase structures 121
semi-preposition plus pronoun
fawq-a-naa above us
above-acc.-us
3.2. N + N genitive construct, idaafa
The iaafa, variously translated as the genitive construct, or annex-
ation 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 abii my fathers ofce), to identity
(madiinat-u baghdaad-a the city of Baghdad), to determination/quantication
(kull-u l-mudarris-iina all the teachers), to measurement (nif-u njaan-in half a
cup), to composition (timthaal-u dhahab-in a statue of gold), to contents
(njaan-u qahwat-in a cup of coffee), and even to activities (e.g., wuuul-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 rst term (al-muaaf ) governs the second (al-muaaf ilay-hi)
in the genitive case.
9
The rst term, as head of the construction, takes the case
required by its syntactic function. Thus the two terms are tied together in a close-
knit construction. Other morphosyntactic restrictions apply:
(1) The rst term may carry neither the denite article, nor nunation; that is, it
is unmarked for deniteness.
(2) The second termdenes the rst through its deniteness or indeniteness.
That is, it may be denite (by virtue of the denite article, or by virtue of
its being a proper noun) or indenite, marked typically by nunation.
The two terms in this way impose mutual restrictions: the rst termcarries the case-
marker of syntactic function; the second term carries the deniteness 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 (nif-u haadhaa l-njaan-i half of this cup). Any modiers must
follow the entire iaafa structure (maktab-u abii l-jadiid-u my fathers new
ofce). Overlapping relations may occur when a complex relationship among
items needs to be expressed, such as wuuul-u malikat-i l-urdun-i, the arrival of
the queen of Jordan. In such a case, all terms but the rst are in the genitive case;
all but the last are unmarked for deniteness.
10
lawn-u l-baab-i the color of the door
color-nom. the-door-gen.
zuamaa-u qabaail-a leaders of tribes
leaders-nom. tribes-indef.-gen.
kull-u l-banaat-i all the girls
all-nom. the-girls-gen.
kiis-u fustuq-i-n a bag of nuts
bag-nom. nuts-gen.-indef.
One aspect of construct structure which has been of interest to linguists is the
ability of the rst 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-raiis-i l-aaimat-a
before-acc. leaving-gen. the-president-gen. the capital-acc.
before the presidents leaving the capital
This kind of iaafa 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 identication
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 ofce is from Yemen. Where in her ofce describes
the subject of the sentence. Or a PP may function as an adverbial expression as in
We were reading in her ofce, where in her ofce 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.
(1) Discuss the difference between phrases and clauses and give ve exam-
ples of each in Arabic.
(2) Examine the nouns-in-apposition examples listed above. Why are none
indenite? Can indenite appositions occur?
Summary 123
(3) Demonstrative pronouns in English include this, that, these, and
those. They are said to indicate deixis. Look up a denition of deixis
and discuss how Arabic handles this feature.
(4) The semantic relations between the parts of the genitive construct are
many and complex. How many can nd examples of and list?
Further reading
Badawi, El-Said, Michael G. Carter, and Adrian Gully. 2004. Modern Written Arabic: A
comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge (especially on annexation structures
130143).
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, 245262.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hoyt, Frederick. 2008. Noun phrase. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
Prochzka, Stephan. 2008. Prepositions. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. III, Kees Versteegh, ed., 699703. Leiden: Brill.
Ryding, Karin and Kees Versteegh, 2007. Iaafa. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
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 identies it by means of a form of tamyiiz, or accusative of specication,
e.g., nanu l-arab-a, We, the Arabs.
4. For a more extensive analysis of the apposition structure in Arabic see Ryding (2005:
224227).
5. See Belnap and Shabaneh (1992) for the use of the term deected, 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: 386392).
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: 267271) for discussion of genitive-marking in NP-internal
possessives.
10. For more detailed examples of iaafa structures see Ryding (2005: 205224). For a
historical overview and analysis see Ryding and Versteegh (2007: 294298). See also
Badawi, Carter, and Gully on annexation (2004: 130143). 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.
Summary 125
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 i l-mabax-i The book is in the kitchen), adjectives (al-bayt-u
kabiir-un The house is big), or nouns (haaulaai ullaab-un These are stu-
dents).
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 rst
word in the sentence (noun or verb jumla ismiyya/ jumla liyya, noun-
sentence/ 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-mubtada) 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
aamil 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 argu-
ments, as indirect and external to the VP. It is said that the verb theta-marks a
127
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 aaa 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
predicates required arguments and denes 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 argu-
ment 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 Fillmores case grammar (Fillmore 1968 and 1977),
the different arguments are distinguished according to thematic role labels such as
Agent, Patient, and Beneciary. As Haspelmath notes, Fillmores inten-
tion 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 identi-
cation 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 verbs
semantic core structure using the term lexical semantic template (1995: 24). In
128 Arabic syntax II: clause structure
their 1998 article on morphology and lexical semantics, Levin and Rappaport
Hovav distinguish between the lexical syntactic representation, often called argu-
ment 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: 288289)
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 (Verb-
Subject-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, reecting 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 inuenced 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: 731734).
According to Soltan
the study of clause structure and word order has gured 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 subject-
verb agreement asymmetry (SVAA). Agreement rules normally require that verbs
Verbal sentences/verbal clauses 129
reect 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 i l-maktabat-i
the-girls nom. studied 3f.pl. in the-library-gen.
The girls studied in the library.
al-bint-aani daras-ataa i l-maktabat-i.
the-two-girls nom. studied 3f.du. in the-library gen.
The two girls studied in the library.
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 i l-maktabat-i
studied 3f. sing. the-girls-nom. in the-library-gen.
The girls studied in the library.
daras-at al-bint-aani i l-maktabat-i
studied 3f. sing. the-two-girls-nom. in the-library-gen.
The two girls studied in the library.
This agreement restriction applies solely to human subjects, because only
human plurals are reected 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 akal-at al-samakat-a
the-hawks-nom. ate 3f. sing. the-sh-acc.
The hawks ate the sh.
akal-at al-Suquur-u al-samakat-a
ate 3f. sing. the-hawks-nom. the-sh-acc.
The hawks ate the sh.
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 Chekilis analysis of word-order issues
he notes that Arabic raises the question of howto 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
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 spec-
ulates 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 sec-
ond 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 con-
structions 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 construc-
tions, such as topicalized constructions and relative clauses (2009: 718). In
recent articles, Soltan (2010 and 2011) addresses issues of scope and question-
formation 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.
Particularly important to this analysis is the study of Arabic verbal awzaan, 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 case-
role 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 morphologyof Arabic verbs whereinlexical root informationinterrelates
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 modications. . . Modern Standard
Arabic lexical items remain largely transparent in terms of their lexical structure
and syntactic argument requirements. When derivational or syntactic modica-
tions yield ditransitive constructions, it is often possible to discover semantic
reasons for particular syntactic constraints (Ryding 2011: 283284). 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 com-
position 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 seman-
tics 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 mor-
phology. Here are some categories of ditransitives in Arabic:
(1) The dative-alternation construction where the beneciary argument shifts place,
with preposition deletion, often based on the notion of giving.
(2) Causative constructions where a valency-changing derivation modies the lexical
root, e.g.
Form IV aara to bring (Cause-to-come)
Form IV aama to feed (Cause-to-taste)
11
(3) Verbs of permission or denial, e.g.
manaa to forbid
manaa to grant
(4) Verbs of perception and cognition (afaal qalbiyya), e.g.
adda to consider, deem
itabara to consider, deem
wajada to nd, deem
(5) Verbs of transformation (afaal al-taHwiil), e.g.
ayyara to convert
ittaxadha take, adopt (as)
jaala to make
ayyana to appoint
tawwaja to crown
12
(Ryding 2011: 286287)
For example, in the predication of giving, the option is to use either double
accusative, or the prepositional dative structure, li-with Beneciary noun, shifted
to the second object position, a procedure that is referred to as dative shift or
dative movement:
atay-tu l-bint-a l-kitaab-a
i-gave the-girl-acc the book-acc.
I gave the girl the book.
atay-tu l-kitaab-a li-l-bint-i
i-gave the-book-acc to-the-girl-gen
I gave the book to the girl.
With the predicate for buying, however, the ditransitive structure is not
possible in Arabic (although it is in English):
ishtaray-tu l-kitaab-a li-l-bint-i
i-bought the-book-acc. for-the-girl-gen.
I bought the book for the girl.
But not:
*ishtaray-tu l-bint-a l-kitaab-a
i-bought the-girl-acc. the-book-acc.
I bought the girl the book.
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).
2.5. Complement clauses in Arabic
Complement clauses are predications which are subordinated within
another sentence. In Maria Perssons work on object complements in standard
Arabic, she denes 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 afx)
signalling that the preceding or following clause is a complement (2002: 13). In
Arabic this would include inna and her sisters as well as an-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 denition of complement clause:
A complement clause is a type of clause which lls an argument slot in the
structure of another clause (370). Dixons analysis of the grammatical structure
of clauses sets three dening 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: 397398).
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 Belnaps research on Arabic complementation
structures (1986) focused on the use and distribution of an, inna, anna, and
verbal noun complements in a corpus of about 17,000 words, classifying them
according to Givns (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
distinguishes among the complementizers (and the structures they govern) accord-
ing to the meaning of the matrix verb. These complementizers in Arabic, the
sisters of inna, 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 inna is required:
qaal-uu inna l-siyaasiyy-iina ya-staxdim-uuna
said-they m. that the-politicians m. they-use-m.
mualaaat-in diiniyyat-an
terminologies-acc. religious-acc.
They said that politicians use religious terms.
After verbs of reporting or relaying factual information, the particle anna is
used as complementizer:
adrak-a anna-hu nasiy-a l-kalimat-a
he-realized that-he he-forgot the-word-acc
He realized that he forgot the word.
After a matrix verb indicating an attitude or feeling toward the action in the
complement clause, the complementizer an is used, with subjunctive marking on
the verb:
tu-riid-u an ta-rif-a maadhaa
she-wants-indic that she-know-subj what
sa-ya-nii 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 comple-
ment 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-dened semantic elds, and . . . each class of CTPs
is, to a remarkable extent, associated with specic 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
Verbless predications 135
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 conated 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
specic 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 express-
ing quality, quantity, location, identity, and other states of being in the present tense
indicative. The two parts of the sentence, the subject (al-mubtada) and the
predicate (al-xabar) form a balanced predication. The subject of such sentences
is usually denite. If the predicate is a modier, it agrees with the subject in number
and gender, but is indenite. 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-ariiq-u awiil-u-n
the-road-nom. [is] long-m.-sing.-nom. -indef.
The road is long.
uxt-u-haa ustaadhat-u-n
sister-nom.-her [is] a-professor-f.-nom.-indef.
Her sister is a professor.
ax-uu-naa musaar-u-n
brother-nom.-our [is] traveling-m.-sing.- indef.
Our brother is traveling.
al-zuwwaar-u i l-maktab-i
the-visitors-nom. [are] in the-ofce-gen.
The visitors are in the ofce.
la-naa l-qudrat-u
to-us [is] the-ability-nom.
We have the ability.
3.2. 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 denite.
haadhaa l-makaan-u
this-m. sing. the-place-nom.
this place
haadhaa huwa l-makaan-u
this-m. sing. he [is] the-place-nom.
This is the place.
haaulaai l-masuul-uuna
these the-ofcials-nom
these ofcials
haaulaai hum-u l-masuul-uuna
14
these they-masc. [are] the-ofcials-nom.
These are the ofcials.
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 eld 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?
Summary 137
(2) Subordination or complementation is a complex topic in standard
Arabic. Aside from inna and her sisters, list any other kinds of com-
plementizers and their effect on the embedded clause. Be sure to cite
examples.
(3) Equational or verbless sentences may or may not have a copula mor-
pheme. Find ve examples of each and discuss them.
(4) What kind of insight can valence theory provide for Arabic syntax
or morphosyntax? Prepare a two-page paper discussing valence theory
and Arabic.
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 compara-
tive 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
Ryding, Karin C. 2011. Arabic datives, ditransitives, and the preposition li-. In In the
Shadow of Arabic: Festschrift for Ramzi Baalbaki, ed. Bilal Orfali, 283298. Leiden:
Brill.
Soltan, Osama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an
Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Agreement Systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 239264.
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 classication have been signicant factors in Arabic theoretical syntax.
Hoyt, for example, reviews the implications of two denitions 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 inected verbs come rst, 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 rst, 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: 7172) (emphasis in
original).
4. For more on case roles and theta roles in Arabic, see LeTourneau (2006, 2009).
5. See for example, Aoun, Benmamoun, and Choueiri (2010); Chekili (2009: 523524);
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: 7395) 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 Mcelaru (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: 176179) for further description.
13. The term copula morpheme is taken from Eid (1991).
14. The /-u/ sufx on hum they in this sentence is a helping vowel, not an inectional
vowel.
15. For more extensive discussion of copular sentences in Arabic, see Ryding (2005:
5963); and especially Badawi, Carter, and Gully (2004: 307344). Bahloul (2006)
provides an excellent summary of copular structures in standard Arabic.
Summary 139
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4458965/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314APX01.3D 141 [141144] 23.10.2013
5:37PM
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 elds of
linguistics: applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, and computational linguistics, as
they relate to Arabic.
1. APPLI ED LI NGUI STI CS AND ARABI C
The core of applied linguistics is the connection between theory and
practice. The eld 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, prociency 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 (Elkhafai 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 devel-
oped into theories of discourse continua, interpersonal discourse pragmatics,
and many more ne-grained analyses. This topic can raise resistance among
141
5:37PM
some native speakers, who perceive the Arabic language as a unied whole
and who consider the study of spoken variants trivial, divisive, and distract-
ing. 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 learn-
ers. Recent articles by Choueiri (2009), Ryding (2006a, 2006b, 2008, 2009),
and Younes (2009) deal explicitly with this issue. This area of study is inter-
woven 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. SOCI OLI NGUI STI CS AND ARABI C
Sociolinguistics, the study of language use in social contexts, has
emerged as one of the central elds 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 t 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
142 Appendix A
5:37PM
media and in relatively formal contexts, such as university lectures, classroom
discussions, conferences, and ofcial 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 prag-
matics of language use.
2
3. COMPUTATI ONAL LI NGUI STI CS AND ARABI C
Computational linguistics refers to the use of computers in the analysis of
language, in data collection, and in machine translation. Arabic language computa-
tional 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 eld 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 nd 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 over-
viewof 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 computa-
tional linguistics research in Arabic.
3
Fields of linguistics and Arabic 143
5:37PM
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 fuaamiyya.
3. For a critical overview of contemporary Arabic lexicography, see Buckwalter and
Paokinton (2013).
144 Appendix A
9:18AM
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, scientic 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 non-
roman 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 translitera-
tion. I have long relied on Charles Fergusons denitions of these processes, and
reproduce them here.
TRANSCRI PTI ON
(Transcription = phonemic conversion: e.g., abd-u n-naair)
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
9:18AM
transcription systems may be used to represent the spoken sounds, and the tran-
scription symbols might be Arabic, or phonetic, or romanized, depending on the
reasons and audiences for the transcription.
TRANSLI TERATI ON
(Transliteration = graphemic conversion, e.g., abd-u l-naair)
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 termis 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 wala) 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 knowwhat 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 themand takes themas 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 translitera-
tion.
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) When transliterating or transcribing, think in terms of mathematical
precision.
(2) Transliterated terms from a foreign language should be in italics.
(3) 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.
(4) When you choose a particular system, you need to stick with it. You must
be consistent.
146 Appendix B
9:18AM
(5) 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 conso-
nants 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.
Arabic transcription/transliteration/romanization 147
9:18AM
11:27AM
Appendix C: Arabic nominal declensions
Modern Standard Arabic nouns and adjectives fall into eight declen-
sions.
1
These categories of inection 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 inections for the sufx
declensions of dual, sound feminine plural and sound masculine plural. Three-
way inection 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 denite and
indenite inection, and sometimes not (for example, the declensions for the
dual and for the sound masculine plural do not exhibit distinctions in
deniteness).
2
Arabic nominal declensions:
Three-way inection
(1) three-way inection (triptote)
Two-way inection
(2) dual
(3) sound feminine plural
(4) sound masculine plural
(5) diptote
(6) defective
One-way inection
(7) indeclinable (for case, but marking deniteness), and
(8) invariable
149
11:27AM
1. THREE- WAY I NFLECTI ON: TRI PTOTE ( MURAB)
1. 1. si ngular masculi ne noun
saddle sarj
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-sarj-u sarj-u-n
Genitive: al-sarj-i sarj-i-n
Accusative: al-sarj-a sarj-a-n
1. 2. plural noun
saddles suruuj
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-suruuj-u suruuj-u-n
Genitive: al-suruuj-i suruuj-i-n
Accusative: al-suruuj-a suruuj-a-n
1. 3. femi ni ne si ngular noun
ship saina
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-sainat-u sainat-u-n
Genitive: al-sainat-i sainat-i-n
Accusative: al-sainat-a sainat-a-n
1. 4. plural noun
ships sufun
Denite Indenite
Nominative al-sufun-u sufun-u-n
Genitive: al-sufun-i sufun-i-n
Accusative: al-sufun-a sufun-a-n
150 Appendix C
11:27AM
1. 5. masculi ne si ngular adj ecti ve
big kabiir
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-kabiir-u kabiir-u-n
Genitive: al-kabiir-i kabiir-i-n
Accusative: al-kabiir-a kabiir-a-n
1. 6. broken plural adj ecti ve
big kibaar
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-kibaar-u kibaar-u-n
Genitive: al-kibaar-i kibaar-i-n
Accusative: al-kibaar-a kibaar-a-n
2. TWO- WAY I NFLECTI ON
2. 1. declensi on two: the dual
2.1.1. Masculine dual noun
two saddles sarj-aani
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-sarj-aani sarj-aani
Genitive: al-sarj-ayni sarj-ayni
Accusative: al-sarj-ayni sarj-ayni
2.1.2. Feminine dual noun
two cities madiinat-aani
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-madiinat-aani madiinat-aani
Genitive: al-madiinat-ayni madiinat-ayni
Accusative: al-madiinat-ayni madiinat-ayni
Arabic nominal declensions 151
11:27AM
2.1.3. Masculine dual adjective
big kabiir-aani
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-kabiir-aani kabiir-aani
Genitive: al-kabiir-ayni kabiir-ayni
Accusative: al-kabiir-ayni kabiir-ayni
2.1.4. Feminine dual adjective
big kabiirat-aani
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-kabiirat-aani kabiirat-aani
Genitive: al-kabiirat-ayni kabiirat-ayni
Accusative: al-kabiirat-ayni kabiirat-ayni
2. 2. declensi on three: the sound masculi ne plural
2.2.1. Sound masculine plural noun
assistants musaaid-uuna
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-musaaid-uuna musaaid-uuna
Genitive: al-musaaid-iina musaaid-iina
Accusative: al-musaaid-iina musaaid-iina
2.2.2. Sound masculine plural adjective
many kathiir-uuna
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-kathiir-uuna kathiir-uuna
Genitive: al-kathiir-iina kathiir-iina
Accusative: al-kathiir-iina kathiir-iina
152 Appendix C
11:27AM
2. 3. declensi on four: the sound femi ni ne plural
2. 3.1. Sound feminine plural noun
differences ixtilaaf-aat
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-ixtilaaf-aat-u ixtilaaf-aat-u-n
Genitive: al-ixtilaaf-aat-i ixtilaaf-aat-i-n
Accusative: al-ixtilaaf-aat-i ixtilaaf-aat-i-n
2.3.2. Sound feminine plural adjective
Tunisian tuunisiyy-aat
Denite Indenite
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. declensi on ve: di ptote
2.4.1. Singular diptote noun
desert Saraa$
Denite Indenite
Nominative al-araa-u araa-u
Genitive al-araa-i araa-a
Accusative al-araa-a araa-a
2.4.2. Plural diptote noun
leaders zuamaa
Denite Indenite
Nominative al-zuamaa-u zuamaa-u
Genitive al-zuamaa-i zuamaa-a
Accusative al-zuamaa-a zuamaa-a
11:27AM
2.4.3. Singular masculine adjective
blue azraq
Denite Indenite
Nominative al-azraq-u azraq-u
Genitive al-azraq-i azraq-a
Accusative al-azraq-a azraq-a
2.4.4. Singular feminine adjective
blue zarqaa
Denite Indenite
Nominative al-zarqaa-u zarqaa-u
Genitive al-zarqaa-i zarqaa-a
Accusative al-zarqaa-a zarqaa-a
2.4.5. Plural diptote adjective
foreign ajaanib
Denite Indenite
Nominative al-ajaanib-u ajaanib-u
Genitive al-ajaanib-i ajaanib-a
Accusative al-ajaanib-a ajaanib-a
2. 5. declensi on si x: defecti ve
2.5.1. Singular defective noun
lawyer muaamin
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-muaamii muaamin
Genitive: al-muaamii muaamin
Accusative: al-muaamiy-a muaamiy-an
154 Appendix C
11:27AM
2.5.2. Diptote defective plural
cafs maqaahin
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-maqaahii maqaahin
Genitive: al-maqaahii maqaahin
Accusative: al-maqaahiy-a maqaahiy-a
3. ONE- WAY I NFLECTI ON
3. 1. declensi on seven: i ndecli nable nouns
3.1.1. Singular indeclinable noun
level mustawan
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-mustawaa mustawan
Genitive: al-mustawaa mustawan
Accusative: al-mustawaa mustawan
3. 2. declensi on ei ght: i nvari able
3.2.1. Invariable noun
anniversary dhikraa
Denite Indenite
Nominative: al-dhikraa dhikraa
Genitive: al-dhikraa dhikraa
Accusative: al-dhikraa dhikraa
Notes
1. For detailed description of these declensions see Ryding (2005: 182204).
2. This may be at least partially due to the fact that in both inections, the nal consonant is
inectional nuun (-aani and -uuna).
11:27AM
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314GSY.3D 157 [157166] 25.10.2013 8:11AM
Glossary of technical linguistic terms
In this basic glossary I have dened some items myself, but more often I
have used denitions 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.
afx: 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 prexes,
circumxes, inxes and sufxes. Another denition states that an
afx 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
identied 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 var-
iation of the indenite 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 denite 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
aux.: auxiliary verb; kaan is used as an auxiliary verb in Arabic (e.g.,
kaan-at ta-drus-u, she was studying).
Beneciary: in case theory, the person or entity that receives the benet
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 specication: labeling of lexical or syntactic categories
(e.g., noun, verb, adjective, preposition).
circumx: a letter or sound, or group of letters or sounds which is added
at both ends of a word (i.e., prex and sufx together), and which
changes the meaning or function of the word. A circumx is a
discontinuous afx which surrounds the base with which it occurs
(Bauer 2003: 325326). In Arabic, the present tense inectional mor-
phemes surround the present-tense stem; e.g., ta-drus-na you f. pl.
study consists of the prex ta-, the stem -drus-, and the sufx -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 innitive.
clause: An expression that contains (minimally) a subject and a predi-
cate (Fagan 2009: 283).
clitic: A clitic is an obligatorily bound morph which is intermediate
between an afx 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
specied 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).
158 Glossary of technical linguistic terms
complementizer: a subordinating conjunction that joins clauses (such as
that or whether in English; or such as inna 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 combina-
tion of elements into a linear sequence.
conjugation: A class of verbs that show the same pattern of inection
(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 inectional
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 reect different
degrees of a property.
derivational morphology: the creation of lexical items, word stems.
determiner: A functional category that serves as the specier of noun
phrase (Fagan 2009: 284). The denite 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 dis-
tinguished 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 pronun-
ciation and facilitate transition from one sound to the next; in Arabic,
usually a vowel sound.
equational: in Arabic, referring to sentences without an overt formof 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).
Glossary of technical linguistic terms 159
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 specied in precise and abstract ways so as to be concise, max-
imally applicable, and elegant.
formative: any element entering into word formation, either derivational
or inectional.
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 words 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).
inx: 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.
inectional morphology: the study of word variation in context (e.g.,
number, gender, case, deniteness, tense, voice, and person are some
categories of inectional morphology). Inections are applied to word
stems.
instrumental: in case theory, the case of the inanimate force or object
causally involved in the action or state identied 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 concaten-
ated morphemes (Booij 2005, 2007: 315).
item-and-process (IP) morphology: a model of morphological struc-
ture in which each complex word is the output of one or more morpho-
logical processes such as afxation and internal modication (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 vocabu-
lary word, a member of a major lexical category: noun (N), verb (V)
or adjective/adverb (A) (Aronoff 1992b: 13). Another denition 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 lan-
guage (Cruse 1986: 49).
1
Aronoff states, a lexeme, at least in its
extrasyntactic state, is uninected, both abstractly and concretely
(1994: 11).
Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM): Is a theory of mor-
phology 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 words syntactic
category (sometimes called lexical category), its grammatical func-
tions and patterning, and its meaning/s.
locative: in case theory, The case which identies the location or spatial
orientation of the state or action identied by the verb (Butt 2006: 30).
manner of articulation: refers to the kind of articulatory process used
in a sounds 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 inec-
tion (Fagan 2009: 288). In Arabic, the moods of the verbs are indica-
tive, 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 portman-
teau 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: 334335). 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, espe-
cially in terms of morphemes and morphological processes.
morphophonology: the study of the interaction/interface between mor-
phology and phonology.
morphosyntax: the study of the interface between morphology and
syntax.
non-concatenative morphology: morphology that makes use of other
processes than afxation 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 afxation.
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
identied by the verb is identied by the semantic interpretation of
the verb itself; conceivably the concept should be limited to things
which are affected by the action or state identied by the verb (Butt
2006: 30).
paradigm: A set of forms, corresponding to some subset (dened 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 inectable (murab) noun paradigm would look like
this, showing both case and deniteness within six cells:
Word-stem xanjar dagger
Case denite indenite
Nominative al-xanjar-u xanjar-u-n
Genitive al-xanjar-i xanjar-i-n
Accusative al-xanjar-a xanjar-a-n
paronymy: The relationship between one word and another belonging
to a different syntactic category and produced from the rst 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 pho-
nemes (radicals), which either alone or in combination with one to
three derivational afxes, interlocks with a root to form a stem, and
which generally has grammatical meaning.
person: A morphosyntactic category that identies the participants in a
situation. A typical distinction is among rst 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, classication 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
phonotactics: is the study of sound distribution patterns and distribution
restrictions within words.
portmanteau morph: incorporates two (or more) meanings in one mor-
pheme, such as the dual sufx in Arabic:
-aani = number (dual) and case (nominative)
-ayni = number (dual) and case (accusative/genitive)
prex: 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
beneciary.
root (Arabic): a root is a relatively invariable discontinuous bound
morpheme, represented by two to ve phonemes, typically three con-
sonants in a certain order, which interlocks with a pattern to form a
stemand which has lexical meaning. In this book, usually referred to as
a lexical root. Aronoff denes 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 inectional
afxes. A lexeme may have more than one stem.
stem allomorphy: the variation of a stem resulting from interaction with
inectional or derivational morphology.
sufx: 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 sys-
temto 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 rst part of a sentence.
word-and-paradigm morphology: a theoretical model of inection
that takes the lexeme and its paradigm of cells as the starting point
for the analysis of inectional systems (Booij 2005, 2007: 324).
Word-and-paradigm is an approach to morphology which gives the-
oretical 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 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: 4950).
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4464129/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314RFA.3D 167 [167180] 25.10.2013
12:15PM
References
Abdel Haleem, Muhammad. 2009. Quran. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Abdo, Daud A. 1969. On Stress and Arabic Phonology: Agenerative approach. Beirut: Khayats.
Abdo, Daud and Salwa N. Hilu. 1968. Arabic Writing and Sound Systems (Awaat
al-arabiyya wa-uruuf-u-haa). Beirut: Ras Beirut Bookshop.
Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2006. Case roles. In Encylopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kess Versteegh, 343347. Leiden: Brill.
AIDA: Association Internationale de Dialectologie Arabe. Website: www.aida.or.at
kesson, 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. arf. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV,
Kees Versteegh, ed., 118122. Leiden: Brill.
Al-Ani, Salman H. 1970. An acoustical and physiological investigation of the Arabic //.
Actes du Xe congrs international des linguistes. Bucharest: ditions de lacadmie de
la rpublique 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, 137153. Columbus,
OH: Greydon Press.
2008. Phonetics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III, ed.
Kees Versteegh, 593603. 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 post-
September 11 era. ADFL Bulletin 37 (2/3): 3946.
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.
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, 312332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
167
12:15PM
2009. Differential case marking of arguments in Amharic. The Oxford Handbook of Case,
Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, eds. 742755. 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, 121135. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Inection. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond
and Michael Noonan, 2343. 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.
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, 532.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and inectional 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: Naw and arf. In The Oxford
Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 92114. 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 Scientic and Humanistic Dimensions of Language, ed. Kurt
R. Jankowsky, 1522. 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 inection
and derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 108116.
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.
Bakalla, Muhammad Hasan. 2009. Tafxm. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Barkat, Melissa. 2009. Vowel backing. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
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.
168 References
12:15PM
Bateson, Mary Catherine. 1967, 2003. Arabic Language Handbook. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
University Press.
2007. The Linguistics Students Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Beard, Robert and Mark Volpe. 2005. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. In Handbook
of Word-Formation, eds. Pavol tekauer, and Rochelle Lieber, 189205. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Beeston, A. F. L. 1970, 2006. The Arabic Language Today. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Belguedj, M. S. 1973. La dmarche des premiers grammariens arabes dans le domaine de la
syntaxe. Arabica; 168185.
Belnap, Kirk. 1986. Complementation in Modern Standard Arabic: A corpus-based
approach. Unpublished masters thesis, Brigham Young University.
1999. A new perspective on the history of Arabic variation in marking agreement with
plural heads. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 169185.
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, 4146. 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, 245262. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A compara-
tive study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2006. Construct state. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. I, ed.
2009. Syntax. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed.
Kees Versteegh, 391402. 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,
115164. 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.
Bloomeld, Leonard. 1933, 1984. Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bohas, Georges. 1997. Matrices, tymons, Racines: lments dune thorie 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 conce-
rnant lhomonymie dans le lexique de larabe. In Grammar as a Window onto Arabic
Humanism, eds. Lutz Edzard and Janet Watson, 130154. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
2007. The explanation of homonymy in the lexicon of Arabic. In Approaches to Arabic
Linguistics, eds. Everhard Ditters and Harald Motzki, 255289. Leiden: Brill.
References 169
12:15PM
Booij, Geert. 1996. Review of Lexeme-morpheme base morphology by Robert Beard.
Language 72(4): 812815.
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 tekauer, eds., 491511. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Brame, Michael K. 1971. Stress in Arabic and generative phonology. Foundations
of Language 7: 556591.
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,
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, 119138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Buckwalter, Timand 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
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.
2009b. Case in lexical-functional grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds.
Andrej Malchukov, and Andrew Spencer, 5971. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Theoretical Morphology, eds.
Michael Hammond, and Michael Noonan, 119141. New York: Academic Press.
Cantarino, Vicente. 197476. The Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose. 3 vols. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inexion. London: Croom Helm.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1988. Nonconcatenative inection and paradigm economy.
In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 7177. New
York: Academic Press.
1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge.
1994. Inection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70(4): 737788.
2005. Basic terminology. In Handbook of Word-Formation, eds. Pavol tekauer and
Rochelle Lieber, 523. Dordrecht: Springer.
Carter, M. C. 1972. Les origines de la grammaire arabe. Revue des tudes Islamiques. 40:
6997.
1973. An Arab grammarian of the eighth century, A.D. A contribution to the history
of linguistics. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 14657.
1981. Arab Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1985. When did the Arabic word naw rst come to denote grammar? in Language &
Communication 5(4): 265272.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
170 References
12:15PM
Chekili, Ferid. 2009. Transformational grammar. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
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, 184221. 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, 89156.
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: 3548.
Choueiri, Lina. 2009. WH-movement. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Cohn, Abigail. 2001. Phonology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and
Janie Rees-Miller, 180212. 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., 238264. 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.
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, 149162. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
2009. Velarization. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed.
Ditters, Everhard. 2006. Computational linguistics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language
and Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 455465. Leiden: Brill.
2013. Issues in Arabic computational linguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic
Linguistics, ed. Jonathan Owens, 312240. 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.
References 171
12:15PM
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: 109202.
Eid, Mushira. 1990. Arabic linguistics: The current scene. In Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics, vol. I. ed. Mushira Eid, 337. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins.
1991. Verbless sentences in Arabic and Hebrew. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III,
eds. Bernard Comrie and Mushira Eid, 3161. 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.
Elkhafai, Hussein. 2005a. Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language
classroom. Modern Language Journal 89(2): 206220.
2005b. The effect of prelistening activities on listening comprehension in Arabic learners.
Foreign Language Annals 38(4): 505513.
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, 249274. 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: 48652.
1959a. Diglossia. Word 15: 325340.
1959b. The Arabic koin. Language 35: 616630.
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, 275285.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds.
Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 188. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
1976. Foreword to Essentials of Grammar by Domenico Parisi and Francesco Antinucci,
ixx. New York: Academic Press.
1977. The case for case reopened. In Grammatical Relations, eds. Peter Cole and Jerrold
M. Saddock. 5981. New York: Academic Press.
172 References
12:15PM
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, 187219.
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 dun historique de la grammaire arabe. Arabica, 4: 122
1961, 1979. Trait de philologie arabe I et II. 2 vols. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique 1961
(vol. I); Beirut: Dr al-Machreq 1979 (vol. II).
Frisch, Stefan A. 2008. Phonotactics. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics,
vol. III, ed. Kees Versteegh, 624628.. Leiden: Brill.
Gafos, Adamantios I. 2009. Stem. In Encyclopedia of Arabic language and Linguistics, vol.
IV, ed. Kees Versteegh, 338344. Leiden: Brill.
Gairdner, W. H. T. 1925. The Phonetics of Arabic. London: Oxford University Press.
Givn, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in
Language 4(3): 333377.
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): 19397.
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: 162181.
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, 257298. 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,
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, 6990. New
York: Academic Press.
Hardcastle, William J. and John Laver, eds. 1997. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences,
589618. Oxford: Blackwell.
References 173
12:15PM
Hary, Benjamin. 1996. The importance of the language continuumin Arabic multiglossia. In
Understanding Arabic, ed. Alaa Elgibali. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Hasan, Abbas. 1987. Al-naw al-waai. (A complete grammar). 4 vols. Cairo: Daar
al-maaarif.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. The Oxford Handbook of Case, ed. by
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-arabiyya abr al-quruun (The Arabic Language
across the Centuries). Cairo: Daar al-thaqaafa li-l-abaaa wa-l-nashr.
Hjelmslev, Louis. [1935], 1972. La Catgorie des Cas. (The Category of Case). Munich:
Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Holes, Clive. 2004. rev. edn. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties.
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,
2009a. Verb phrase. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed.
2009b. Verbal clause. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed.
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 Monville-
Burston. 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,
Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. New York: Saint Martins Press.
Kaye, Alan S. and Judith Rosenhouse. 1997. Arabic dialects and Maltese. In The Semitic
Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron, 263311. Oxford: Routledge.
Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. 19701977. Kitb al-ayn (The Book of Ayn). 7 vol. Eds.
M. Makhzoumi and I. Samarri. Baghdad: Dar al-rashid li-l-nashr.
Kouloughli, Djamel Eddine. 2007. Inection. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Kossman, Maarten. 2013. Borrowing. In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed.
Ladefoged, Peter. 1997. Linguistic phonetic descriptions. In The Handbook of Phonetic
Sciences, eds. William J. Hardcastle and John Laver, 589618. Oxford: Blackwell.
174 References
12:15PM
Larcher, Pierre. 1998. La linguistique arabe dhier demain: tendences nouvelles de la
recherche. Arabica 45(3): 409429.
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, 185212. 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, 150179. Oxford: Blackwell.
LeComte, Gerard. 1968. Grammaire de larabe. 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, 3240. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 1996. Review of Combinatorial Morphology by John T. Stonham.
Language 72(1): 130132.
2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol tekauer, eds. 2009a. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding.
2009b. Introduction: Status and denition of compounding. In The Oxford Handbook of
Compounding, Rochelle Lieber and Pavel tekauer, eds., 318. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
LeTourneau, Mark. 2006. Case theory. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Kees Versteegh, 347353. Leiden: Brill.
2009. Theta roles. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport-Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
1998. Morphology and lexical semantics. In The Handbook of Morphology, ed. by
Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 248271. 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, 624627. 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.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince. 1990a. Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology.
In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. II, eds. Mushira Eid and John McCarthy,
154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1990b. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 8(2): 209284.
Majdi, Basim. 1990. Word order and proper government in classical Arabic. In Perspectives
on Arabic Linguistics, vol. I, ed. Mushira Eid, 127153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
References 175
12:15PM
Majdi, Basim and Millicent Winston. 1993. Gemination and antigemination in Iraqi. In
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. V, eds. Mushira Eid and Clive Holes,
Makhzoumi, M. 1960. Al-Khall ibn Amad: aml-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:
Mcelaru, Adrian. 2006. Causative. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
vol. I, Kees Versteegh, ed., 355360. 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.
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. 19901993. 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, 95126.
Moore, John. 1990. Doubled verbs in modern standard Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics, vol. II, eds. Mushira Eid and John McCarthy, 5593. 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, 97103. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Al-Nadm, Muammad ibn Isq. 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: Classication 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,
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.
1997. The Arabic grammatical tradition. In The Semitic Languages, ed. Robert Hetzron,
4658. 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, 451471.
176 References
12:15PM
Parisi, Domenico and Francesco Antinucci. 1976. Essentials of Grammar. New York:
Academic Press.
Parkinson, Dilworth. 1991. Searching for modern fusha: Real-life formal Arabic. Al-
Arabiyya 24: 3164.
2003. Verbal features in oral fua performances in Cairo. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 163: 2741.
Parrish, Wayland Maxeld. 1932. Reading Aloud: A technique in the interpretation
of literature. New York: Thomas Nelson.
Percival, W. Keith. 1976. The applicability of Kuhns paradigms to the history of linguistics.
Language 52: 28594.
Perlmutter, David. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis. In Theoretical Morphology,
eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 79100. New York: Academic Press.
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics. 19902011. 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,
115. 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, 261275. Oxford:
Prochzka, Stephan. 1993. Some remarks on the semantic function of the redupli-
cated quadriliteral verb. The Arabist: Budapest studies in Arabic 67: Part I:
97103.
2008. Prepositions. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. III,
Kees Versteegh, ed., 699703. Leiden: Brill.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. A rst 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.
Reichmuth, Philipp. 2009. Transcription. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Rets, Jan. 2013. What is Arabic? In The Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ed.
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. Fumiyya. Alternating style in Egyptian prose. Zeitschrift
fr Arabische Linguistik. 38: 6887;
References 177
12:15PM
Ryding, Karin C. 1991. Prociency despite diglossia: A new approach for Arabic. Modern
Language Journal 75(2): 212218.
1993. Case/mood syncretismin Arabic grammatical theory: Evidence for the split morphol-
ogy 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, 173179. 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 21
st
Century, ed. Kassem Wahba, Zeinab Taha, and
Liz England, 1320. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2006b. Educated Arabic. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, ed.
Kees Versteegh, vol. I: 666671. Leiden: Brill.
2007. Forum on Language Policy and the Politics of Language. ADFL Bulletin, 38
(12): 6162.
2008. New Alignments, New Discourses, Profession 2008, 214218.
2009. Educated spoken Arabic: A exible Spoken Standard. In NECTFL Review 64:
spring/summer 2009, 4952.
2010a. Media Arabic as a regional standard. In Arabic and the Media, ed.
Reem Bassiouney, 219228. Leiden: Brill.
2010b. Postmodern models for Arabic: Answering old questions in new ways. ADFL
Bulletin 41(2): 6971.
2011. Arabic datives, ditransitives, and the preposition li. In In the Shadow of Arabic:
Festschrift for Ramzi Baalbaki, ed. Bilal Orfali, 283298. 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.
Ryding, Karin and Kees Versteegh, 2007. IDaafa. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and
Ryding-Lentzner, Karin. 1977. Semantic and syntactic aspects of Arabic prepositions.
Dissertation, Georgetown University.
1981. Semantic motivation for Arabic dative-movement. Al-Arabiyya 14: 1923.
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 rst Arab phonologist. International Journal of Islamic
and Arabic Studies 8(1): 157.
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 reexes in Arabic dialects. In Investigating Arabic: Linguistic, pedagog-
ical and literary studies in honor of Ernest N. McCarus, eds. Raji M. Rammuny and
Dilworth B. Parkinson, 1539. Columbus, OH: Greydon Press.
Schramm, Gene M. 1962. An outline of classical Arabic verb structure. Language 38
(4): 360375.
178 References
12:15PM
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., 131150.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic. Oxford:
Shopen, Timothy, ed. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. 2nd ed, vol. III,
Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sibawayhi, Abu Bishr Amr bn Uthman 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: 357368.
Soltan, Osama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an
Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Agreement Systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 239264.
2007. On the individual-property contrast in free state possessive nominals in Egyptian
Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. XX, ed. Mustafa Mughazy, 7186.
2009. Agree in the functional domain: Evidence from the morphosyntax of positive and
negative imperatives in standard Arabic. In Proceedings of the 39
th
Annual Conference
on African Linguistics, eds. Akinloye Ojo and Lioba Moshi, 8699. 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, 99114.
2011. On issues of Arabic syntax: an essay in syntactic argumentation. Review article of
The Syntax of Arabic by Aoun, Banmamoun and Choueiri. Brills Annual of Afroasiatic
Languages and Linguistics 3: 236280.
2012. Morphosyntactic effects of NPI-licensing in Cairene Egyptian Arabic: The puzzle
of - disappearance resolved. In Proceedings of the 29
th
West Coast Conference on
formal Linguistics, eds. Jaehoon Choi et al., 241249. 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): 811817.
2001. Morphology. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds. Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-
Miller, 213237. Oxford: Blackwell.
2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, eds.
Spencer, Andrewand Arnold M. Zwicky, eds. 1998. The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford:
Blackwell.
tekauer, 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.
References 179
12:15PM
Stump, Gregory T. 1998. Inection. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer and
Arnold M. Zwicky, eds. 1343. Oxford: Blackwell.
Suleiman, Yasir. 2003. The Arabic Language and National Identity: A study in ideology.
2004. AWar of Words: Language and conict 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
University Press.
Talmon, Rafael. 1982. Nahwiyyn in Sbawayhis kitb. ZAL 8: 1238.
1985. Who was the rst Arab grammarian? A new approach to an old problem. ZAL 15:
128145.
Tesnire, Lucien. 1959. lments de Syntaxe Structurale. Paris: Klincksieck
Van Valin, Robert D., 2001. Functional linguistics. In The Handbook of Linguistics, eds.
Mark Aronaoff and Janie Rees-Miller, 319336. Oxford: Blackwell
Versteegh, C. H. M.(Kees). 1978. The Arabic terminology of syntactic position. Arabica
25(3): 26181.
1980b. The origin of the term qiys in Arabic grammar. Zeitschrift fr Arabische
Linguistik 4: 730.
1997. The Arabic Language. New York: Columbia University Press.
ed. 20062009. 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 21
st
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 21
st
Century, eds. Kassem Wahba,
Zeinab Taha and Liz England, 139156. 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, 119145. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
2009. The case for integration in the Arabic-as-a-foreign-language classroom. NECTFL,
Review 64: 5967.
Zemnek, Petr. 2006. Assimilation. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics,
2009. Root. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. IV, ed.
180 References
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4466921/WORKINGFOLDER//9781107023314IND.3D 181 [181188] 26.10.2013 10:14AM
Index
aamil (pl. awaamil) 90, 91, 108, 127
lafziyy 91
manawiyy 91
accusative (see case, accusative)
acoustic phonetics 13
acronyms 83
adjective 83, 95, 127
adjective iaafa 82
adjective phrase 123
adverbs 79, 80
locative 96
afx 48, 157
derivational 64ff.
inectional 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
deected 93, 120
allomorph 48, 157
allophone 13, 18ff., 157
amal (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, denite 121
aux 113, 158
awzaan (sing. wazn) (see also verb, Forms) 56,
57, 132
base (morphological) 56
basic linguistic theory (BLT) 23:12, 110
Beneciary (case role) 111, 113, 120, 128, 133, 158
binyan 57, 158
181
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
denition 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 specication 113, 158
cell (paradigm) 93, 98, 99
Chomsky, Noam 43, 108, 109, 114ff.
circumx 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.
deniteness 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 inection 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
182 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
ap 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
fuaa 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 iaafa) 122
glottal stop 17
government (amal) 43, 91, 110, 112
grammar 2ff., 5, 91
case 110, 112, 128
denition 2
descriptive/prescriptive 2, 4
generative 5, 108, 109, 110ff., 127
relational 5
grammatical categories 90
grammatical word 89, 97, 98
adhf deletion 28ff.
hamza (glottal stop) 17
as derivational afx 66ff.
as inectional afx 100ff.
elidable (weak) 17, 28
xed (strong) 17, 66ff.
head 113, 119, 160
human plural 130
humanness 92
Ibn Jinni 8
iaafa 165:2ff , 82, 121, 122ff.
indenite marker 46
indeclinable (nominal declension) 149, 155
indenite marker 46
indicative 127, 135
indirect object 111
inx 49, 65, 93, 160
immediate constituent (IC) 108
INFL. 113
inection 43
contextual 90, 91
desinential 37, 47, 97, 98, 108
inherent 90, 91
inectional afxes (see afx, inectional)
inectional categories 91ff.
inectional class 98
inectional morphology (see morphology,
inectional)
inna and her sisters 134, 135
Instrument (case role) 131, 160
invariable noun (declension) 149, 155
IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) 147
iraab (desinential inection) 91, 96
ishtiqaaq 57
liyya 127
ismiyya 127, 136
Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad 29:9, 8,
23, 60
Al-Kitaab 8
Kitaab al-ayn 8, 60
laam as deniteness marker 101
lateral 15
lexeme 41, 45, 49, 55, 160
lexical category 114, 161
lexicalconceptual structure 129
lexical expansion 159:2
lexical root (see also root, lexical) 47, 112
lexicalsemantic template 129
lexical semantics 129
lexicalist hypothesis 43
lexicography 8, 141
lexicon 161
Index 183
linguistics
and grammar 2
applied 34, 57, 141ff.
Arabic 2, 6
as science 1
cognitive 3
computational 3, 143ff.
denitions 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
madar (see also verbal noun) 57
matrix verbs 134, 135
measure 57
miim as afx 69ff., 101
minimal pair 13
modality 136, 161
model root (f--l) 56
mood 98:17, 90, 92, 93, 136, 137, 161
morpheme 49, 161
morp 45, 45ff.
bound 42, 48, 158
denition 42, 49, 161
discontinuous 55
free 42, 49, 160
morphological models
item and arrangement 44, 160
item and process 44, 160
lexememorpheme 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
denition 49, 162
derivational 6, 43, 49, 55, 159
discontinuous 49, 159
generative 42
inectional 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
mubtada 127, 136
muaaf 82, 122
muaaf ilay-hi 122
muaabaqa 91, 107, 108
nat 83
naw 47, 107
nasal 15
negation 112
nisba 72, 81
noun decomposition 46ff.
nounadjective 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 afx 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
184 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
predicateargument structure 110, 112, 128
predicate calculus 110
predicate decomposition 112
predication analysis 112
prex 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
sufx 47
prosodic morphology 33
prosody 74
qalb shift 29ff.
qiyaas analogy 56
Quran 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.
denition 50
model 56
as ordered set 60
quadriliteral 57, 63, 83
acronymic 64
borrowed 64
compound 64
reduplicated 63
sound 63
quinquiliteral 64
triliteral 57, 61ff., 63
defective 63
geminate 62
hamzated 62
hollow 63
strong 62
rootpattern system 48, 55, 79
arf 47
and tariif 47
semantic shift 86
semantics 109, 112
semi-prepositions 121
Semitic 44, 51, 56, 57, 65, 74
semivowels 15
Sibawayhi 8, 23
siin as afx 102
sociolinguistics 3, 142ff.
sound feminine plural 149, 153ff.
sound masculine plural 102, 103, 149, 152
-st- as afx 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
subjectverb agreement 128
subjectverb asymmetry (see SVAA)
sufx 51, 65, 93, 164
superlative 95
suprasegmentals 36
SVAA (subjectverb asymmetry) 114, 129, 130,
131
syllable structure 33, 33ff.
and stress 33
coda 33
constraints 34
formalization 35
Index 185
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
denition 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
taa as afx 67ff., 100ff.
taa marbuua 19ff., 68
tafxiim/tafkhiim backing 19
templates 56, 57, 99
tense 46, 90, 92, 93
and aspect 93
compound 94
terminology
inectional 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.
transx 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 (awzaan) 56, 57, 132
formula-based 83
intensive 58
intransitive 59
reciprocal 58
reexive 6:9
repeated action 58
requestative 58
resultative 58
stem 58
transitive 122:5
system 56
templates 57, 59
verbal noun (madar) 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 (VerbSubject) order 112
waaw as afx 73ff., 103ff.
WFR (word formation rule) 51, 55, 164
WH- constructions 131
WH- movement 131, 164
WH-word 114
word
boundaries 47ff.
denition 41
formation 42, 74
186 Index
grammatical 41, 97, 98
order 6, 128, 129, 130
structure 41
word-and-paradigm model
of morphology 44, 164
yaa as afx 72ff., 102ff.
yaa of nisba 72, 80ff.
zawaaid (sing. zaaida) 65, 99
(afx/augment)
Index 187

Arabic - A Linguistic Introduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arabic - A Linguistic Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/4460944/WORKINGFOLDER/RARA/9781107023314HTL.3D i [12] 24.10.

You might also like