Abstract
This chapter examines nonconcatenative morphology of Arabic with a particular focus on its templatic nature. While much of the past research on Arabic templatic morphology has centered on the verbal system, our discussion largely takes up the nonverbal templatic morphology of Arabic including the comparative, nouns of profession, and the diminutive. In developing formal analyses of these constructions we specifically address the question of how the prosodic templates that characterize Arabic morphology are incorporated into the schema of CxM. We also briefly touch upon the implication that the construction analysis might have on two (opposing) approaches to Arabic morphology, root-based vs. word-based, given that some templatic constructions in Arabic seem to require the consonantal root as its base. The goal of this chapter, then, is not only to make known the fuller extent of Arabic templatic morphology (i.e. beyond the verbal system), but also to show advantages of approaching these prosodic issues in construction terms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Individual variation on the acceptability of some two-syllable forms has been noted by Carstairs-McCarthy (1998).
- 2.
Ten of these classes are common (Forms 1–10), but contemporary dialects keep only a subset of them.
- 3.
See Doron (2003) for detailed discussion on the semantics of this class.
- 4.
Under this view, the CCVC does constitute a phonological word in those dialects that allow for initial consonant clusters.
- 5.
- 6.
Whether the hypocoristic pattern illustrated in (11) supports the morphological status of the consonantal root has been the subject of a debate within the literature on Arabic linguistics with various positions taken. For more details, see, in particular, Davis and Zawaydeh (2001), Idrissi et al. (2008), and Ratcliffe (2013).
- 7.
Phonetically, the comparative usually begins with an initial glottal stop, but since this results from a low-level process of epenthesis, we will not indicate it in our transcription or discussion.
- 8.
- 9.
For a more comprehensive discussion, see Davis (2017).
- 10.
The choice for a triliteral root to map onto the aCCaC template and for a biliteral one onto the aCaCC template is determined by the interface module between morphology and phonology in a way consistent with Booij’s (2010a: 8–9, 239–241) discussion of this module. That is, in the interface module, an assigned word feature (here the feature [comparative]) triggers the application of specific phonological processes unique for words with that feature. Such processes are not general ones in the phonology. We discuss the role of this interface module further at the end of Sect. 4.3.1 on the diminutive. The issue of the formal status of root consonants is discussed at the end of this section.
- 11.
Grano and Davis (2018) discuss the typological implications of the comparative in Arabic since it instantiates a language that has a morphological comparative that is not based on a corresponding positive form.
- 12.
Lahrouchi (2010: 259), in comparing the nature of the consonantal root in Classical Arabic with Tashlhiyt Berber, refers to the root as an abstract morpheme in Arabic but as a surface-true morpheme in Tashlhiyt Berber. This is because in Berber, which allows for vowelless words, the consonantal root can comprise an unaffixed word form, as in the example [nkr] ‘stand up (aorist)’. Nonetheless, we would suggest that in Berber, just as in Arabic, the root consonants can also be considered a label of a family of lexemes.
- 13.
The notion that a consonantal root is akin to a label for a family of lexemes as we have posited is different from the suggestion in Ryding (2005) that an Arabic consonantal root can be thought of as representing a semantic field. Moreover, we believe our view is consistent with that of Bybee (2001: 32), who considers schemas to be formed at many different levels of generality where schemas are generalizations over numerous instances of usage. The Arabic consonantal root then can be understood as a type of schema within the model developed by Bybee (2001).
- 14.
We suggest that this association of the second root consonant to the final slot of the template with biliteral roots reflects autosegmental principles of phonology, as discussed, for example, by McCarthy (1986).
- 15.
We offer a construction morphology analysis of the diminutive, but because of the complexities of the broken plural, a detailed account will be left for future research.
- 16.
- 17.
When necessary, a high front vowel is added between the last two consonants of the diminutive word form (e.g. 25e–l) for phonotactic reason; the added high vowel may be long if the final vowel of the noun base is long.
- 18.
That the final glide does not delete in this word reflects that the /y/ is part of the diminutive template and not a root consonant. See the discussion of (17) where a final root glide of the comparative undergoes deletion after a vowel.
- 19.
It is worth noting that a broken plural as in (27) can never serve as a base for a diminutive. We do not think this is accidental. That is, because the broken plural reflects a word-based templatic construction, it cannot be unified with another word-based templatic construction.
- 20.
Arabic also has a suffixal plural referred to as the “sound” plural in traditional studies on Arabic. The suffix marks the plural for certain noun classes and for most borrowed words.
- 21.
References
Badawi, E.-S., and M. Hinds. 1986. A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Librairie Du Liban.
Benmamoun, E. 1999. Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua 108: 175–201.
———. 2016. Verbal and nominal plurals and the syntax-morphology interface. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XXVII, ed. S. Davis and U. Soltan, 59–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Booij, G. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In Morphology and its demarcations, ed. W.U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. Pfeiffer, and F. Rainer, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. 2007. Construction morphology and the lexicon. In Selected proceedings of the 5th décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, ed. F. Montermini, G. Boyé, and N. Hathout, 34–44. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
———. 2009a. Constructions and lexical units: An analysis of Dutch numerals. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 19: 1–14.
———. 2009b. Compounding and construction morphology. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2010a. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2010b. Construction morphology. Language and Linguistic Compass 3 (1): 1–13.
———. 2013. Morphology in CxG. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. Th. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boudelaaa, S., and W. Marslen-Wilson. 2001. Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition 81: 65–92.
Boudelaa, S., and W. Marslen-Wilson. 2005. Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes 20: 207–260.
Broselow, E. 1976. The phonology of Egyptian Arabic. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts.
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1998. Phonological constraints on morphological rules. In The handbook of morphology, ed. A. Spencer and A. Zwicky, 144–148. Oxford: Blackwell.
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, S. 2016. The Arabic comparative and the nature of templatic mapping in Arabic. In Word-formation across languages, ed. L. Körtvélyessy, P. Štekauer, and S. Valera, 73–90. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
———. 2017. Some issues for an analysis of the templatic comparative in Arabic with a focus on the Egyptian dialect. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XXIX, ed. H. Ouali. 129–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davis, S., and N. Tsujimura. 2014. Non-concatenative derivation: Other processes. In The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology, ed. R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 190–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, S., and B. Zawaydeh. 1999. A descriptive analysis of hypocoristics in colloquial Arabic. Language and Linguistics 3: 83–98.
———. 2001. Arabic hypocoristics and the status of the consonantal root. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 512–520.
Doron, E. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11: 1–67.
Ferguson, Ch., and M. Ali. 1961. Damascus Arabic. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Grano, Th., and S. Davis 2018. Universal markedness in gradable adjectives revisited: The morpho-semantics of the positive form in Arabic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (36):131–147.
Haspelmath, M., and A. Sims. 2013. Understanding morphology. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Heath, J. 1987. Ablaut and ambiguity: Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Idrissi, A., J.-F. Prunet, and R. Béland. 2008. On the mental representation of Arabic roots. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 221–259.
Inkelas, S., and Ch. Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamel, M., and A. Hassanein. 1980. Yalla ndardish sawa. Cairo: Arabic Language Unit, American University in Cairo.
Lahrouchi, M. 2010. On the internal structure of Tashlhiyt Berber triconsonantal roots. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 255–285.
McCarthy, J. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation. MIT.
———. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373–418.
———. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 207–263.
———. 1993. Templatic form in prosodic morphology. Proceedings of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America 3: 187–218.
McCarthy, J., and A. Prince. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plurals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–282.
Michaelis, L., and K. Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language functions: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72: 215–247.
Ratcliffe, R. 1997. Prosodic templates in a word based morphological analysis of Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics X, ed. M. Eid and R. Ratcliffe, 147–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. 1998. The “broken” plural problem in Arabic and comparative Semitic: Allomorphy and analogy in non-concatenative morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. 2004. Sonority-based parsing at the margins of Arabic morphology. Al-Arabiyya 37: 53–75.
———. 2013. Morphology. In The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics, ed. J. Owens, 71–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ryding, K. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ussishkin, A. 2000. The emergence of fixed prosody. PhD dissertation. University of California Santa Cruz.
Watson, J. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2006. Arabic morphology: Diminutive verbs and diminutive nouns in San’ani Arabic. Morphology 16: 189–204.
Wehr, H. 1976. In Arabic-English dictionary, ed. J.M. Cowan. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services.
Youssef, I. 2013. Place assimilation in Arabic: Contrasts, features, and constraints. Ph.D dissertation. University of Tromsø.
Zawaydeh, B., and S. Davis. 1999. Hypocoristic formation in Ammani-Jordanian Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XII, ed. E. Benmamoun, 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Adam Albright, William Croft, and Sara Sowers-Wills for valuable discussion on various aspects of this chapter. We also thank the editor Geert Booij and an anonymous reviewer for their input.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davis, S., Tsujimura, N. (2018). Arabic Nonconcatenative Morphology in Construction Morphology. In: Booij, G. (eds) The Construction of Words. Studies in Morphology, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74393-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74394-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)