Bedouin, Village and Urban Arabic: An Ecolinguistic Study 9004096272, 9789004096271

Citation preview

BEDOUIN, VILLAGE, AND URBAN ARABIC

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY

J.H. HOSPERS AND C.H.M. VERSTEEGH

XVIII

BEDOUIN, VILLAGE, AND URBAN ARABIC

BEDOUIN, VILLAGE AND URBAN ARABIC AN ECOLINGUISTIC STUDY

BY

F.j. CADORA

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KÖLN 1992

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanenee and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Couneil on Library Resourees.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cadora, F. J. Bedouin, village, and urban Arabie: an eeolinguistie study / by Frederie J. Cadora. p. em.-(Studies in Semitie languages and linguisties, ISSN 0081-8461; 18) Includes bibliographie al referenees and index. ISBN 9004096272 (alk. paper) I. Arabie language-Dialeets. 2. Arabie language-Variation. 3 .. Bedouins-Languages. 4. Bedouins-Sedentarisation. 5. Urban dialeets-Arab countries. 6. Urban eeology-Arab countries. 7. Arabie language-Soeial aspeets. I. Tide. 11. Series. PJ6709.C33 1992 492'.77-de20

ISSN 0081-8461 ISBN 90 04 09627 2

© Copyright 1992 by

E.J.

BrilI, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or trans la ted in al!Y form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or al!Y other means without written permission from the publisher. Authori::;ation to photocopy items Jor internal or personal use is gran ted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fies are paid direct!J to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, SALEM MA 01970, USA. Fees are subjeet 10 change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

92-10032 CIP

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements................................................................. Foreword ............................................................................... Abbrevia tions............................. .. .......................... .. .............

IX XI XIV

1. Linguistic Change and Ecolinguistics.................................. 1.1 Introduction ............................................................... 1.2 Actuation of Linguistic Change................................... 1.2.1 Linguistic Geography ...................................... 1.2.2 Sociolinguistic Factors .................. ................ ... 1.2.3 Cognitive Functions ......................................... 1.2.4 Articulatory and Auditory Constraints............. 1.3 Implementation of Linguistic Change.......................... 1.4 Old Arabic Dialects and Ecolinguistic Variation......... 1.4.1 Stress and Syllable Structure ........................... 1.4.2 Vowel Elision.................................................. 1.4.3 Glottal Syllabic Closure.................................. 1.4.4 Glottal Deletion and Assimilation................... 1.4.5 Pausalization.................................................. 1.4.6 Vowel Assimilation ........................................ 1.4.7 Ablaut ............................................................ 1.4.8 Affrication...................................................... 1.4.9 Contraction ........... .............. ............ ......... ....... 1.4.10 SOmeConclusions............................................. 1.5 New Arabic Varieties and Lexical Diffusion...............

1 1 2 2 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 19 21 27 28 29 30 32

2. Development of Ecolinguistic Variation............................. 2.1 Ecolinguistic Rules ..................................................... 2.2 Some Phonological Features ............ ........... ....... ......... 2.2.1 Despirantization............................................. 2.2.2 Deaffrication.................................................. 2.2.3 Laryngealization ............................................ 2.2.4 Vowel Lowering and Backing........................... 2.2.5 De-epenthesis.................................................

36 36 37 37 38 39 42 44

VI

CONTENTS 2.2.6 Stress.............................................................. 2.3 Some Morphological Features..................................... 2.3.1 Pronouns.......................................................... 2.3.2 Perfect Conjugation.......................................... 2.3.2.1 The Verb Ikataba/.................. ........... 2.3.2.2 The Verb Isaribal .............................. 2.3.2.3 The Verb Ibaqiyal ............................. 2.3.2.4 The Verb I qara 'Ja I .............................. 2.3.2.5 The Doubled Verb................................ 2.3.3 Imperfect Conjugation...................................... 2.3.3.1 The Verb lkataba, yaktubu/............... 2.3.3.2 The Verb Ibaqiya, yabqä/................... 2.3.3.3 The Verb /qara'Ja, yaqra'Ju/ ............... 2.3.3.4 The Glottal-Initial Verb ..................... 2.3.4 Negation and Vowel Length ............................

3. Ecolinguistic Compatibility .............................................. 3.1 Non-contrastive Compatibility.................................. 3.2 Contrastive Compatibility......................................... 3.3 Conjunctive Compatability......................................... 3.4 Sets of Compatible Items............................................ 3.4.1 Nouns.............................................................. 3.4.2 Verbs .............................................................. 3.4.3 Adjectives....................................................... 3.4.4 Particles, Adverbs, etc..................................... 3.5 Compatibility Correlation Indices: An Interpretation.

4. Ecolinguistic Rules, Lexieal Diffusion, and Historical Recapitulation ................................................ 4.1 Introduction . ......... ........... ................. ......... ...... ....... ... 4.2 Selection and Varia tion .......................... ................... 4.3 Ecolinguistic Diffusion of Deflected Agreement........... 4.3.1 Introduction and Some Historieal Developments 4.3.2 Prosodie Conditioning ....................... ............... 4.3.3 Synchronie Analyses........................................ 4.3.3.1 Adjectives........................................... 4.3.3.2 Verbs .................................................. 4.3.3.3 Pronouns..... ............... ........... ....... ........ 4.4 Lexical Conditioning.................................................. 4.5 Conclusion..................................................................

45 45 45 47

48

49 51

54 57 61

61 63

66 68 70 79 79 82 82 83 83 93

98

100

104

109 109

111 115 115 122 126 127 129 130 131 135

CONTENTS

VII

Appendices............................................................................

Appendix A .................................................................... Appendix B................................................................ ..... Appendix C..................................................................... Appendix D ....................................................... .............

141 143 145 147 149

Bibliography......................................................................... Index.....................................................................................

153 163

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the College of Humanities of The Ohio State University for awarding me Special Research Assignments to complete the preparation of this manuscript. I would like to express my appreciation to Brian Joseph, William S-Y. Wang, and William Young for their critical reviews of the expanded draft, and to Emest McCarus, Alan Kaye, David Stampe, and other readers whose criticisms of an earlier version have led to improvements both in content and style. The data were obtained in aseries of recorded interviews and informal conversations with informants who were brought up in Ramallah, Palestine. This project would not have been realized without the generous time contributed by my field informants-Julia and :>Asma Bäti};l, Qahabiyye AI-Bajjäliyye, Yäsmin Cadoura, Nicola Hanna, eisa Kassis, Nadia Michael, Bulos and Salwa Rukab, Yilsif Saläme, and Najla B. SäUm. I want to thank Sandy Welch for her invaluable assistance in research, editing, and word processing. The greatest debt, however, is to my wife for her encouragement and patience. I am, of course, solely responsible for any shortcomings in this monograph which has undergone some major revisions during the last several years. . Frederic J. Cadora The Ohio State University

FOREWORD

BRIAN D. JOSEPH, THE OHIO srATE UNIVERSITY

Arabic speech communities exist in several distinct social units, ranging from tribai and subtribai bedouin groups traditionally associated with desert life to urban families in various socioeconomic classes. Cutting across these differences of sodal organization are divisions based on physieal environment and sodocultural adaptation to it: sedentary versus nonsedentary (nomadic) -a faetor first recognized by Anis (1952) and later used by AI-Jundi (1965)-and rural versus urban. Together, these faetors yield a three-way division of (sedentary) urban, sedentary rural, and (rural (nonsedentary» nomadic bedouin groups. This tripartite distinction therefore comprises both sodal and cultural differenees among the various groups of Arab speakers and so is not definable in purely social, cultural, or even geographie terms. To characterize the relevanee of these overall environmental factors for the linguistic developments in these speech eommunities, Frederic Cadora here introduces the notion of "eeolinguistics," i.e., the study of the linguistic eorrelates of developments related to the overall environmental differences among groups of speakers. Cadora's proposal to relate linguistie differenees to faetors that are "ecological," in a broad eonstrual of the term, differs from various less compelling putatively explanatory uses to which physical environment has been put by other Arabists; Anis (1952) and Al-Jundi (1965), for instance, attempted-unsueeessfully, as Cadora points out (p. 8)-to explain the apparent rapid tempo of bedouin speech and various truncating changes it seems to have occasioned by reference to the demands of the intense desert environment in which this group lived. By contrast, an "ecolinguistie" account, for Cadora, is a sober appeal to eorrelations between the complex of social, cultural, and geographie faetors on the one hand and the linguistie usage of the groups influenced by these faetors on the other.

XII

FOREWORD

Bedouin usage in general shows several innovations away from earlier Arabic patterns, among which are affrication of k.to ~ vowel elision (syncope), and glide deletion, to name just a few. Sedentary usage, on the other hand, did not share in many of these innovations and therefore in this regard is conservative. With the sedantarization and urbanization of certain bedouin groups, there has been contact between bedouin speakers and sedentary rural and urban speakers, a contact situation which has led to the incorporation of ruralite and urbanite factors into the newly sedentarized speakers' usage. The mechanism which Cadora uses to describe and account for these features is that of adaptive rules, in the sense of Andersen 1973, which, given that they map between the dialects of the different ecolinguistically defined groups, Cadora refers to as "ecolinguistic rules." In this case, the ecolinguistic adaptive rules map from bedouin usage to sedentary usage and thus, inasamuch as bedouin speech is generally characterized by a number of innovations, the ecolinguistic rules are often the reverse of the historical changes which gave rise to the dialect differences in the first place. For example, Cadora posits an ecolinguistic rule of Deaffrication to map from bedouin ~ to urban ls, whereby newly sedantarized bedouin speakers assimilate their speech patterns to those of urbanite speakers. Different rates of application for this and other ecolinguistic rules are found for different age groups, reflecting differing rates of assimilation of bedouin speech to urban patterns. Such ecolinguistic rules, therefore, demonstrate how different synchrony and diachrony can be-diachronically an affrication change created the bedouin ~ - urban k correspondence but synchronically a deaffrication rule now accounts for the correspondence, given the respective ecolinguistic niches occupied by bedouin and urban speakers. Urbanization as a process, therefore, transforms originally geographic dialect differences into socially determined dialects, Le., sociolects. In asense, what is described here for the urbanization-and more generally, the sedentarization-of bedouin Arabs reflects a process that has been going on for a long time within the greater Arab community and elsewhere around the world. Even though large urban centers are more a construct of the modern world than of previous times, it is still possible to find examples from earlier periods of the effects of urbanization; for instance, the occurrence in ancient times within the city of Rome of various

FOREWORD

XIII

putative "rural Latin" features such as the loss of word-final! or ~ and their apparent evaluation as nonstandard within Rome seems to have been the result of the urbanization of rural speakers of Latin (see Joseph and Wallace 1991 for references and some discussion). Presumably, wherever and whenever large commercial centers attracted inhabitants, urbanization could and did occur, with its attendant linguistic consequences. One main contribution, therefore, of this examination of neosedentary Arabic usage lies in its being a study of language and dialect contact as a vehicle for linguistic change. Moreover, Labov's Uniformatarian Principle, which licenses the use of the principles and mechanisms of language change that emerge from the examination of on-going change in the present to explain and understand changes in the past, means that the glimpse of ecolinguistically-induced change in the modem Arab world afforded by this study provides a basis for understanding what the social and ecological situation confronting Arabic speakers must have been in earlier times. REFERENCES Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. LAngwge 49: 765-93. }oseph, Brian D. and Rex E. Wallace. 1991. Is Faliscan a Local Latin Patois? Dillchronic/l 8(2):159-186.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ace. adj. f./fem.

gen.

inter. m./masc. nom. prep.

pI. s.

suff. AL

BLS BSOAS IJSL JAOS JSS PIASH ZAL ZDMG

ZDPV

Accusative Adjective Feminine Genitive Interrogative Masculine Nominative Preposition Plural Singular Suffix

Anthropological Linguistics Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. London University International Journal of the Sociology of Language Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Semitic Studies Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

CHAPTERONE

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS1

1.lINTRODUCTION

Adaptive linguistic change2 has traditionally been related to a number of major, often intersecting extraneous factors, among them geographie space, stratification, sodal networks, gender, ethnidty, and age (Downes 1984: 152). Ecological development with its linguistic correlates has, however, also played a role in such linguistic change. As a culture area the Arab world has bad for more than a millenium three different ecological structuresnomadic (bedouin) and sedentary (rural and urban)-with parallel linguistic systems. The development of one structure into another is attributed to contactual phenomena which are often facilitated by migrations involving the settlement of bedouin groups near or in rural or urban areas, or the settlement of rural segments near or in urban centers. Passage from one to another of the ecological structures has given rise to identifiable transitional stages: Bedouin - > Bedouin-Rural - > Rural->

Rural-Urban - > Urban

The linguistic adaptation made by communities undergoing ecological change produces stages and transitions directly comparable to those in the ecological domain:

Section 1.1 is parUy derived from Cadora (1970: 10; 1989: 264-284). A fundamental distinction between evolutive change and adaptive change has been made by Andersen. The former is characterized ·as intemally motivated change, as change in a linguistic system entirely explainable in terms of that system itself,' and the latter, as "change in a linguistic system explainable only with reference to factors extraneous to that linguistic system, whether linguistic (e.g. language contact) or non-linguistic (e.g. the introduction of labrets)" (1972: 12). 1

2

2

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

Bedouinite -> Bedouinite-Ruralite -> Ruralite -> Ruralite-Urbanite -> Urbanite

The development of a sociolinguistic dichotomy in Old Arabic dialects evidenced in nomadic and sedentary communities as early as the pre-Islamic period is demonstrated in the first chapter. In the succeeding chapters, the linguistic correlates of transitional stages of urbanization of a contemporary rural community are examined. The analysis provides a description of the variable or optional rules developed and utilized by the ruralite speakers of this community in their gradual adaptation to the urbanite speech of an adjacent prestigious urban center. The extraneous factor in such adaptive change is the Jerusalem urbanite Arabic variety3 with which the ruralite speakers of Ramallah came into closer contact as communication improved in the twentieth century. This kind of induced change which has led to linguistic convergence in the varieties of Ramallah Palestinian fits into Andersen's definition of adaptive change. Also according to Andersen, such innovation is both goal-oriented and purposeful (1973: 780, 789). In this study the adaptive rules used to transform, for example, ruralite forms into urbanite ones are identified as ecolinguistic rules; the linguistic change which develops in concomitance with ecological transitional change is termed ecolinguistic change; and the study of the linguistic correlates of such ecological development is called ecolinguistics.4 1.2 AcruATION OF LINGUISTIC CHANGE

1.2.1 Linguistic Geography Society in pre- and early post-Islamic Arabia was not isolated from the world around it. 5 Nor were bedouin tribes in this society

3 Variety' is a term proposed by Weinreich, to replace 'dialed' for "the [latter] concept does not seem to fit into narrowly structurallinguistics because it is endowed with spatial or temporal attributes which do not properly belong to a linguistic system as such" (Weinreich 1954: 389). • It is evident that "human interaction in relation to speech variation, especially taken in the context of being part of the process of urbanization in human change, may prove to be an untapped gold mine of sociolinguistic understanding and of theoretical insights in language sciences" (Sibata 1978-79: 337). 5 In support of this view, refer to WoU 1951.

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

3

separated from each other and from regional agricultural oases and commercial centers. Gradual and spontaneous sedentarization had led to tribaI truncation and the formation of village and urban settlements. 6 Dynamic and functional interrelationships had developed among bedouins, villagers, and city dwellers throughout the Arabian Peninsula. "The nature of bedouin relations with settled society fluctuates as the urban centers expand and contract their horders of control" (Aswad 1970: 58). IntertribaI contacts were facilitated by participation in wars, trade caravans, religious pilgrimages, seasonal markets, as well as by forging alliances, federations, and marriages without any geographie constraints. Therefore, tribaI boundaries, both geographie and ecologieal, were tenuous and subject to repeated permutation. Ecological segmentation of some tribes into bedouin and sedentary parts initiated a process of acculturation whieh led to linguistic differentiation. Consequently, boundaries of lingtiistie usage were not always in consonance with those of geography. At the beginning of the twentieth century Sarauw was the first Western scholar to speak of a dialectal east-west c1eavage in Old Arabie dialects in terms of dialect geography. Vollers also assumed the existence of this linguistie division but in terms of sodal geography-the east, predominantly bedouin and the west, urban? This setup, of course, coinddes respectively with the diehotomy between the Tamimi and l;Iijäzi groups of dialects established by the medieval philologists.s Anis (1952), in a critieal study of the phonetic differences among these Old Arabie dialects, de-emphasized the role of geography. He argued in terms of two societies whieh contrasted with each other, both socially and culturally (30-1). The first is sedentary which inc1uded Mecca, Medina, the cities of Greater Yemen, Al-l;Iira, and the Ghassanid regions. The second is bedouin which comprised all of the migratory bedouin tribes. Anis eited a host of

6 " •••• Most of its lthe city'sl inhabitants originated among bedouins dwelling in the country lthe desertl and villages of the vicinity." Selections from Ibn Khaldun's The muqaddimah: An introduction to his tory. Vol. 1 (trans. by Franz Rosenthal) in Sweet (1970: 11). 7 Refer to Rabin (1951: 1) for a discussion of these linguistic divisions as developed by Sarauw and Vollers. 8 This study is not concerned with the relationship of these dialects to the origins and development of Oassical Arabic. An excellent critical treatment of this question is found in Zwetfler (1978: 97-188).

4

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

phonetic features in support of his thesis of a bedouin-sedentary linguistic dichotomy (particularly pp. 80-126). Furtherrnore, Anis discovered in the bedouin dialects greater diversity and a stronger tendency to change and innovate than in the urban dialects (76-80). Tribes or parts of tribes that roamed near or settled around or in sedentary regions also had linguistic features which differed from those of other bedouin tribes. Rabin (1951), who recognized the significance of this sociolinguistic development and its implications, nonetheless adopted the linguistic dichotomy of his predecessors and conducted, in terms of modern linguistic geography, a detailed study of the Western Old Arabic dialects. Consequently, the results of his erudite research provided, admittedly, only occasional bundles of isoglosses and maps which are "merely schematic indications" of linguistic boundaries (15-16).9 Further confirmation of the fact that the boundaries of this cleavage were blurred and constantly shifting is Rabin's postulation of a group of dialects "which were possibly really mixed" as transitional between the Eastern and Western dialects (3). In essence, Rabin's important observations that a tribe does not always constitute a linguistic unit and when it does, it is not always stationary-Ied hirn to consider some of his conclusions to be tentative and subject to correction (12-16). Linguistic geography alone, therefore, is hardly suffident for an explanation of the heterogeneity of these dialects, for there are several interrelated sociolinguistic, cognitive, articulatory, and auditory factors which engender, with varying degrees of influence, linguistic change.

1.2.2

Sociolinguistic Facfors 10

Attribution of linguistic usage must take into account both the structural and ecological divisions of a tribe. Each tribe is made up of many subtribes whose dialects differ from that of the mother tribe. More importantly, so me tribes also have bedouin and

9 Rabin deemed the philologists' customary reference to large and not rigorously defined regions as unsatisfactory for linguistic geography research (15). 10 "Unguistic and sodal factors are closely interrelated in the development of language change. Explanations which are confined to one or the other, no matter how well-constructed, will fall to account for the rich body of regularities observed in empirical studies of human behavior" (Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog 1968: 188).

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

5

sedentary sections whose dialects differ as a result of dialect contact and mixture. With reference to this crucial sociolinguistic phenomenon, AI-JundI, in a detailed study of these dialects (1965: 32-7, 43, 54), rejected all earlier geographie divisions (Eastern vs. Western), tribaI cover terms (TamImI vs. I:IijäzI), and regional references (I:Iijäz vs. Nejd or Yemen), for such criteria did not designate definite geographie limits or borders anyway,l1 nor did they produce an accurate description of the linguistic situation. Furthermore, putting the emphasis on the I:IijäzI, TamImI, and YemenI groups is to ignore about half of the dialects. Many statistically reliable da ta are available on these other dialects. 12 AI-JundI also correct1y maintained that there are not only similarities between the so-called 'Eastern' and 'Western' dialects but there are also differences among the dialects within each group, not to mention differences within each tribe, whether it be Eastern or Western (36-53). Therefore, AI-JundI maintained that a valid analysis of these dialects can be done only in terms of ecological divisions and cited linguistie data in support of his thesis. 13

11 Upon the fragmentation of a tribe, for one reason or another, these geographie, tribaI, and regional divisons gradually became blurred, if not meaningless. "For example, when war erupted among the RabiCa, they were dispersed into Nejd, I;Iijäz, and the fringes of Tuhäma ....Continuous war led to further fragmentation into sections which settled in Yamäma, Bahrain, and rural areas of Iraq.... Another example is that of Qays which is located in the middle of the Peninsula ... with sections of the tribe living in the I;Iijäz and Nejd" (Al-Jundi: 34-5). "Even the tribe of Qurayi had some sections living in the desert and some in settled communities- towns and farm villages" (65). The medieval philologists themselves were guilty of attributing linguistie usage to an entire tribe, rather than to some of its subtribes (for which data were often made available by other philologists) or to its bedouin and sedentary sections (wherein linguistie features differed) (61-2). 12 "The medieval philologists, especially Sibawayhi, were also guilty of igI!oring other dialects for a variety of reasons" (Al-Jundi:35). 13 For example, both Irufqal and Irifqal are attributed to the bedouin tribe of Qays. However, Qays is a big eonfederation which spreads to the northwestem part of the Arabian Peninsula adjoining the I;Iijäzi area. The ~rifqal form is used by the sedentary sedions of the tribe like Hawäzin, Fazära, and Gutqän; the/rufqal form, by the bedouin sedions like c A~än camped in the deserts of Nejd. The bedouin tribe of Kalb uses liiwä41 and Iqinyänl in contrast with Tamim's /suwä4/ and Iqunyänl because they resided in areas near the city of Medina and the borders of Syria, a region which the sedentary I;Iijäzis frequented in their eommercial aetivities; the KalbI area is mere1y a natural extension of I;Iijäzi territory. Qur:länic readers from Küfa followed the bedouin usage because Tamimi tribes were located in or frequented Küfan domains in large numbers. A Qur:länic reader from the tribe of Sulaym used lil in 11yyan/; his tribe had lived in both Khaybar and Yathrib and I;Iijäzi domains

6

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

1.2.3 Cognitive Functions Both Anis (1952: 31-2) and Al-Jundi (273-7) recognized not only the influence of cognitive functions on the development of linguistic change but also the different effects of such functions in the two ecological settings. Two aspects of language acquisition, 'imperfect leaming' and 'ambiguous projection' play an important role in the development of linguistic innovation. The first is "due to the fact the child does not leam agrammar directly but must recreate it for hirnself on the basis of a necessarily limited and fragmentary experience with speech. It is in no way surprising that the grammar should change in the process of transmission across generations of speakers" (Kiparsky 1965: 1.4). The second refers to the assumption that "the data available to the child are processed, and in maturation the speaker eventually arrives at his grammar ... [However,] different speakers may go different ways in accounting for the data. The difference in projecting from data to grammar is due to any number of largely .. . accidental factors: the degree to wh ich the speaker is exposed in his early years to lexical information ..., individual talent in relating words, IQ, language awareness, and so on" (King 1977: 3, 5). In a highly mobile bedouin society in pre-Islamic and early Islamic society children were frequently separated from parents and were denied their constant attention and control. UnIike their urban peers who lived in a more stable sodal setting, they grew up almost isolated from their fathers who were preoccupied seasonally in distant grazing, travel, or war for long periods of time. More often than not, they probably intemalized and processed the language data of the mother who hailed from another section of the tribe or from a different tribe. Women apparently played a major role in the mechanism of linguistic change, essentially more in furthering rather than in initiating such a change. "[W]omen talk to young children more than men do, and have a more direct influence during the years when children are forming linguistic mIes with the greatest speed and efficiency. It seems likely that the rate of advance and direction of linguistic change owes a great deal to the special

along their trade routes. These examples of Qur:länic readings provide evidence for the bedouin-sedentary dichotomy, for many readers' bedouin or sedentary backgrounds correlate with their usage of /u/ and fit, respectively (Al-Jundi: 184-7).

LINGUISfIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

7

sensitivity of women to the whole process ... Women use[d] more of the new linguistic forms than men did ... show[ed] more shifting" (Labov 1972: 301-3).

1.2.4

Articulatory and Auditory Constraints

Articulatory explanations of change, however, cannot be limited to the effects of sociolinguistic variables and cognitive functions. "There are, of course, physical differences between the vocal tracts of men and women to be taken into account" (Labov: 303).1 4 Even if this cannot be demonstrated to be relevant, ehen and Wang maintain that the processes of linguistic change are "phonetically actuated, and that their relative schedule or timing is determined by inherent (and therefore universal) constraints on the human articulatory and auditory apparatus" (Chen and Wang 1975: 256). Furthermore, linguistic change is not only restricted but also directional. "The constraints on a linguistic change prevent unfit innovations [i.e., those that prevent communication between innovating and conservative dialects] from gaining acceptance and becoming permanent changes" (Kiparsky: 1.33-34). Both AnIs (1952: 56, 89-101) and AI-JundI (67, 168), following the practice of the medieval Arab philologists, attributed the cause of innovative change in bedouin Arabic largely to the principle of 'least effort'. According to AnIs, by resorting to a facile, intense, and speedy manner of articulation demanded by their environment, bedouins abbreviated (truncated) their utterances (120-6). Unlike slow and deliberate sedentary speech, rapid and plosive bedouin rendition led to the loss and assimilation of sounds.1 5 Rabin agreed that there was a difference of tempo (probably illusory) or rhythm between bedouin and sedentary speech, but he maintained that "it is apparently the stress, not the speed of the utterance, that causes the phenomena of assimilation and elision" (122, n. 11). This is further confirmed by Janssens, who asserted that "after the shortening of words, which was brought about by the stress, the movement became quicker" (1972: 32). So, the quick pronunciation is made possible by

14 "[Child language] leaming takes place primarily at an age when the leamer's biological equipment is very different from that of the adult models...change in its shape and structure.. .is occurring at a dramatically fast pace... this generational discontinuity must play an important role in language evolution" (Wang 1982: 516-17). 15 Por further insights into the role that articulatory and linguistic constraints play in determining the direction of sound change. refer to Harris 1985.

8

LlNGUISfIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISfICS

the abbreviation of the words, it is not the cause of it. The relevance, if not the validity, of the principle of least effort is questionable, since, if operative in both environments-bedouin and sedentary-it should yield at least similar linguistic changes. If assimilation is an example of ease of articulation, King asks, "why have not all of the languages assimilated to the utmost" (1969: 189). "Many linguistic changes show every sign of being an increase in effort, not a decrease ... Tensing, raising, and gliding rules ... suggest a strong motivating force behind sound change, one that is almost the opposite of the economy or least effort argument" (Labov: 323). Consequently, notions of simplicity and economy cannot alone account for the development of innovation in bedouin Arabic. 1.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF LINGUISTIC CHANGE

Once a particular linguistic change is initiated by sociolinguistic, cognitive and/or physiological events, how is it implemented and transmitted? Chen and Wang maintain that "a phonological rule gradually extends its scope of operation to a larger and larger portion of the lexicon until all relevant lexical items have been transformed by the process. A phonological innovation may turn out to be ultimately regular, i.e., to affect all relevant lexical items, given the time to complete its course. But more often than not linguists have thought a phonological rule peters out toward the end of its life, or is thwarted by another rule competing for the same lexemes" (256). This concept of 'lexical diffusion'16 which is adopted in this study accounts for the implementation of linguistic change, not only in the grammar of the individual speaker, but also in most instances of expansion from one speaker to another, and from one ecological community to another.

16 "Sound change does not operate on the lexicon en bloc and instantaneously or according to a uniform schedule: rather, it spreads itself gradually across the lexicon, and operates on words or groups thereof one after another ... this gradual spread of phonological change from morpheme to morpheme has become known under the name of lexical diffusion" (Chen 1977: 212-13). Refer also to Wang (1969); Hockett (1965); Prokosch (1939); Sturtevant (1917). Andersen also appears to use the same notion: "In diachronie terms, this means that even though 'grammar change is abrupt'-or, more accurately, structurally different consecutive grammars are discrete-A-rules [adaptive rules] ensure continuity in usage by permitting structural innovations to be refleeted only gradually in the speech of the community" (1973: 782).

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUI5TIC5

9

1.4 OLD ARABIC DIALECfS AND ECOLINGUI5TIC VARIATION Aß early as the 7th century there coexisted synthetic (~Cräb) and analytic (!)]Cräb-less) dialects as a result of an earlier dialect split, after wbich some dialects developed more quickly and some less so. The first type genera ted most features of what became the Arabic literary koine and then Classical Arabic, while the other abutted upon the spoken Arabic of later periods. The removal of synthetic features in spoken Arabic had gone through a diversified process, whose speed depended on the circumstances of every community and period. The urban dialects of Northern Arabic began to be characterized by analytic forms subsequent to Nabatean colonization and Arab-Aramaean contact in trade settlements in North Arabia and the Syrian desert and southern Iraq. The spread of analytic features was accomplished much sooner in the cities than in the bedouin area and after the Arab-Islamic conquest, substratum influences accelerated rather than initiated tbis process (Corriente 1971: 23-29; 1973: 157-159). Some of these synthetic features, especially high gender-number markedness, have survived more commonly and expectedly in contemporary bedouin and rural dialects. Abrief examination of such concomitant sociolinguistic developments in Old Arabic dialects provides some insights into this linguistic change which is analyzed as change in the rule system of the language. The data cited in tbis section are largely derived from SIbawayhI's AI-Kitäb, Volumes 3 and 4 (henceforth K3 and K4), and provide a few representative examples of the earliest (8th century A.D.) fairly reliable textual evidence for and linguistic judgments about the elements of some spoken bedouin (B) and sedentary (5) dialects. Whether the textual evidence in this source reflects the judgements of native speakers is difficult to establish; i.e., extrinsic information is needed to substantiate a given hypo thesis. Lack of consistency in the data of the philological works and Qur~änic readings has also led to different interpretations. Dialectal vowel alternation (muCäqaba) of the /u/ and /i, a/ vowels

10

LINGUISfIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISfICS

in same nominal fonns, for bedouin and sedentary usage respectively, serves as a representative example.1 7 The following data illustrate this alternation (AI-Jundi 1965: 183-8, 191-2, 195; Rabin 1952: 100-102; AnIs 1952: 84; Sälil) 1962: 79, 96): Bedouin

Gloss

mi~l)af

mu~l)af

qinya ric;iwän zaC m farja tamra

qunya ruc;iwän ZtEm furja tumra

"codex" "flocks" "goodwill" "claim" "pressure" "fruit"

Sedentary

This alternation thesis was adopted by AnIs (1952) and AI-JundI (1965). AI-MuUalabI (1978: 140-2), however, cites contradictory data: S/mutraf, l)ujj, !arb, katral in contrast with B/mitraf, l)ijj, sirb, kitral "shawl, pilgrimage, drink, abundance," argues for a bedouin tendency towards Ii/, and dismisses the above data as cases of phonological assimilation. 18 Against AI-JundI's (1965: 314-18) related Iyl and Iw/ alternation in B/~iyäm, l)ayt, Cazaytl versus S/~wäm, l)awt, Cazawt/ "fast, wall, to console," AI-Muttalabi (1978: 136-7) cites B/q~ya, danya, qalayt/ versus S/qu~wa, dunwä, qalawt/ "farthest, world, to fry," respectively. Insights into problems of analysis, particularly when the underlying representations are often indeterminate in the textual data, are sometimes provided in the Middle and New Arabic dialects. The obvious difficulty is the lack of access to complete data essential for determining the correctness of a given analysis. Therefore, the linguistic claims made here about the nature of some

17 Sociolinguistically, bedouin speech is characterized in some of the medieval philological sources as one of "roughness" (xaiilna), in contrast with the "mildness" (riqqa) of sedentary speech. a. Gelb's concept of synesthesis as applied to Prot~ Akkadian: "Since the markers of case are identified with the markers of gender, it may be possible to assume some synesthetic recognition, in the language-culture patterns of the Semites, of the force of the vowel y as strong, dominant, and masculine, and of the vowels! and i as weak, dependent, and feminine" (Gelb 1969: 121). 18 It is quite possible that such an assimilation rule (/i, al ~ lul) started in CVC(C)- syllables with labials (and liquids) and then spread to ones with nonemphatic sibilants; lai did not change if this syllable contained an emphatic.

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

11

phonological and morphological differences and change are, of course, putative, subject to verification as new data from other primary sources and dialects are co11ated and analyzed.

1.4.1 Stress and Syllable Structure The concept of stress was not direct1y known to the medieval Arab philologists and, therefore, information on it is rather limited. Nonetheless, reasonable inferences can be made with the help of comparative evidence and internal reconstruction. Earlier research on the position of the stress in Old Arabic involved the application of the comparative method to groups of New Arabic dialects (cf. fleisch 1961; Janssens 1972; Blau 1972). AI-MuUalabi (1978) in a recent detailed description of the bedouin dialect(s) of Tamlm attempted to locate the stress on the basis of internal reconstruction. He discusses several linguistic features that are characteristic of Tamimi Arabic, one of wh ich is the development of a c10sed sy11able at the beginning of a word. 19 This was actualized by several phonological processes, one of which is vowelloss. "Vowel loss is commonly associated with the development of an innovative stress system or with a change in the position of the stress" (Jeffers and Lehiste 1979: 10). The increased articulatory force or glottal tension placed on the vowel of the first sy11able disrupts the flow of the breath stream which is necessary for the production of the following vowel. This suggests that an earlier fluctuating stress, which continued as a non-expiratory stress in sedentary dialects, had already been attracted to closed syllabies. However, in the bedouin dialects this stress beg an to settle on initial syllabIes, triggering whenever possible, sy11abic c10sure for its domain almost

19 The closure of initial syllables was produced in some words by a change in the morphological form. According to SIbawayhl (1ratun (CVC-CV-CVC) yu:>minüna (CVC-CV-CVC)

"weH" (n.)

räS\Dl

(CV-CVC) süratun (CV-CV-CVC) yüminüna (CV -CV-CV -CV)

"head" "chapter" "They believe"

This particular usa ge of the hamza is one of the very few conservative characteristics of the bedouin dialects. It is not unreasonable to assume that the localization of the stress on the first syHable had contributed to the c10sure of this syHable and, concomitantly, to the retention of the glottal stop.

23 In spite of his recognition of the influence of stress on syllable structure, AI-MuttalabI (1978: 238) still attributes this elision, following the practice of the philologists, to phonotactic rules: 'The successive occurrence of two Iils or lu/s and either vowel following the other is deemed heavy" (cl. also Al-JundI 1965: 177-8). 24 The stressed vowel preceding the elided high vowel in the two examples is copied as an anaptyctic vowel before the last consonant. In contrast, when the conjunctions Iwal and Ifal are prefixed to third person singular pronouns, their vowels are stressed, triggering the loss of the following vowel: S/wa+huwal ~ B/wähwa/ Hand he" and S/fa+hiyal ~ B/fahyal Hand she."

14

LINGUISfIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISfICS

Its retention at the beginning of the second syllable of some words also maintained the syllabic closure of the initial syllable, the domain of the stress. Examine the following examples (AI-Jundi 1965: 251, 256): Sedentary

Bedouin

Gloss

yasal

yas:Jal

"He asks"

(CV-CVC)

(CVC-cvC)

yara

yar:Ja

(CV-CV)

(CVC-CV)

"He sees"

Abdo (1977: 46-54), in a pioneering article, had already suggested that the ~lif lai, when used in derivational and inflectional processes, originally had an PI in its underlying structure: Ifacalal (~- faXala). Examine each one of the following two examples, its underlying representation or structure (US), and the suggested general phonological rules for its derivation (AI-MuUalabI 1978: 86, 160): Sedentary

Bedouin

Gloss

:Ji1;unarra (Form XI) dabbatun

:Jil;lma:Jarra da:Jabbatun

"to become red" "a beast of burden"

USPi+l;una=»raral

Sedentary

Bedouin

Stress Placement Vowel Metathesis Glottal Deletion Stress Placement Coalescence

:Ji +I:tma :)arra :)i+I:tmaarra :Ji +I:tmaarra :Ji+l:t~rra

:Ji+I:tma:Jrara :Ji+I:tma:Jarra :Ji+I:tma:Jarra

The rule of Stress Placement puts the stress on the first syllable of the word ( + marker = word boundary and the Pi-I prefix is a cluster breaker). When only the second of two identical consonants is flanked by vowels, the intervening vowel, if short, metathesizes with the first consonant. As a consequence, a new closed syllable

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

15

with the glottal stop is formed and the stress shifts accordingly.25 The Glottal Deletion role deletes the intervocalic glide and the role of Coalescence merges a sequence of two identical vowels into a long one. A general role of Vowel Assimilation is also required: US/da~bibatunl

Sedentary

Stress Placement Vowel Metathesis Vowel Assimilation Glottal Deletion Stress Placement Coalescence

da1bbatun da:>abbatun daabbatun daabbatun däbbatun

1.4.4

Bedouin da:>bibatun da:>ibbatun da:>abbatun da:>abbatun

Glottal Deletion and Assimilation

When the stress began to be attracted to long syllabies, the hamza had already been lost in the sedentary dialects. The following examples suggested by Shähin (1966: 109-12) illustrate the sedentary-bedouin dichotomy that had begun to develop in the phonetic environment of some stressed syllabIes: Sedentary

Bedouin

Gloss

xatiyyatun maqniwwatun

xatf:>atun maqJi1:>atun

"sinn "read"

In the bedouin forms the glottal stop follows the long syllable which is stressed, while in the sedentary forms the equivalent syllable was rendered long by the stress through a rule of Gemination: iy->yy/V-V

and

uw->ww!V-V

As was suggested previously, the application of the rule of Glottal Deletion to the intervocalic P / triggers a rule of Coalescence when the vowels are identical; however, when the 2S For the cyclic application oE rules, reIer to Brame 1974. The order of the Stress rules reflects a historieal development: the stress (Stress Placement) began to stab1lize in the bedouin dlalects but continued to fluctuate in the sedentary ones. Por a discussion oE other rules, also refer to Abdo 1977.

16

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

vowels are not identical, a Gliding rule is required. The type of glide inserted depends on the phonetic environment: :l_> yl

v-v

and

[+hi]

[-rd1

:l_> wl V - V [+hi] [+rd1

The following rules, therefore, are suggested for the derivation of the above words: Sedentary Glottal Deletion Gliding Stress Placement Gemination Bedouin

Stress Placement Coalescence

US/xatii'atunl

US/maqruu'atuni

xatiiatun xatiiyatun xatiiyatun xatiyyatun

maqruuatun maqruuwatun maqruuwatun maqruwwatun

US/xatU:'atunl

US/maqruu'atuni

xatiPatun xatf:latun

maqruu:latun maqrii:latun

It is evident that the development of the Iwl and Iyl is not the result of glide substitution or assimilation but simply one of Gliding and Gemination rules26 (cf. Shähin 1966: 109-10). Furthermore, whereas the Glottal Deletion rule triggered the Gliding rule, it was the Stress Placement rule which gave rise to the rule of Gemination. In Semitic languages "sometimes consonant-doubling (gemination) takes the place of vowel-Iengthening and so restores the closed syllable with short vowel: e.g. Akk. xittu for xitu sin ... There are also some cases of consonant-doubling without any parallel vowellengthening, especially in Aramaic: e.g. Syr. "qali11ittle qallil ... " (Moscati 1964: 65). The following data (Shähin 1966: 153) and derivational rules should also make equally evident that the disappearance of the I' I is the result of glottal assimilation to the preceding consonant or 26 Chomsky and Halle (1968: 3(3) group 1", h, w, y / as glides and Anis (1952: 99100) dtes the following examples to suggest this relationship among them: S/wicä' /, B/'3jci'/i S/hazza/i Bpazza/i and S/yammamu/, Bpammamu/. In Palestinian Arabic the name "David" is pronounced variously: / da '00/, / dawüd/, and / dahüd/ .

17

LINGUISfIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

vowel. The Glottal Deletion rule is blocked when applied to a nonintervocalic P I (-C~ - or -V:JC-); the pre-glottal C and V are subjected to a rule oE Glottal Assimilation (a similar analysis is given by Anderson and Chene 1979): :J - i > Cl/et -V Sedentary

and C' llay'unl

Glottal Deletion Glottal Assimilation sayyun Stress Placement sayyun Coalescence Bedouin Stress Placement

:J - i > V1/V1 -

C

V'C c' c' Ijuz'unI lrid'unl Ira'sunl ju7zun

jUzzun

riddun riddun

raasun raasun ~SlD\

Ilay:Junl

Ijuz'un!

lrid'unl Ira'sunl

say'un "thing"

jUz1n "part"

rid'un ra'sun "support" "head"

It is no wonder that in reEerence to the retention and use oE the hamza, speakers oE bedouin dialects were dubbed by the philologists :Jahlu I-hamz ("hamza users") (Anis 1971: 99-100). Thus, the articulation oE the hamza must have constituted part oE the linguistic competence oE the bedouins; however, exaggerated or hypercorrective use oE it by them was often reported. But such usage

would normally be expected of speakers who have lost this competence; that is, in their attempt to use the hamza, they would utter it in words which do not receive the hamza, usually words which already include three consonant radicals. It is the sedentaries who are expected to make such hypercorrections (S/nabPI "prophet") in their use oE the literary koine (Sallüm 1986: 128). Therefore, such an alleged use oE the hamza by bedouin speakers must have a different motivation. Examine the following examples (AI-Muttalabi 1978: 85-86; Sallüm 1986: 127-128):

18

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS Sedentary

Bedouin

Gloss

cälamun (CV-eV-CVC) 4ällIna (CVC-eV-CV) Säbbatun (CVC-eV-eVC)

ca~lamun

"world"

(CVC-eV-eVC) 4a~1(i)lIna

(CVC-CV-eV-CV) b:lb(i)batun (CVC-CV -eV -CV)

"the misguided" "youth"

If one accepts Abdo's thesis that the P / belongs to the underlying structure of these representative words, then the surface structure of the bedouin forms has retained the P / . The following rules apply in the derivation of the first two examples: US~ a~lamunl

Sedentary

c,Plamun

Stress Placement Glottal Deletion Glottal Assimilation Stress Placement Coalescence

caalamun caalamun calamun

US/4a'liliinal

Sedentary

Stress Placement Vowel Metathesis Vowel Assimilation Glottal Deletion Stress Placement Coalescence

Bedouin

Bedouin 4a~liliina

4a~illiina

4a~i1liina

Qa~alliina

Q-a ~alliina

4aalliina 4a all iina 4ällfna

4a~alliina

4a~allfna

The above rules also apply to US/!a~ibatun/ . The so-called underlying hamza in the word /ca~lamun/ closed the initial syllable, the domain of the stress. It is possible that the glottal closure and subglottal pressure and release in the articulation of the hamza was auditorily associated with "the increases in subglottal pressure ... correlated with variations in stress" (Ladefoged 1971: 23). Anis reports that "in spite of the widespread use of the technical term =tlhlu I-hamz, At-IaqafI, one of the early philologists, employed the term =tlhlu n-nabr (stress users) to describe the above

LINGUISI1C CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

19

phenomenon which he had observed in the speech of TamimI bedouins ... This type of glottal c10sure was produced not only in words with the alleged original hamza but also in those with i, u, and a" (1971: 99-1(0). This may suggest that the hamza may have served as a cue for the stress which was attracted to the long syl1able (c1osed or with a long vowel) nearest the end of the word. Examine the following examples (Anis 1971: 1(0): S/milärun/, B/mi:>lärun/ "saw (n.)" and S/1starü/, BpiStar1i/ "they boughl" The I:> / in these examples may represent an innovative development; however, under the influence of sedentary dialects the gradual diffusion of Glottal Deletion and Assimilation rules, glottal insertion was dying out in bedouin dialects. Compare Aeisch's detailed treatment of the hamza in Arabic (1961: 98-138) and Moscati's, in Semitic (1964: 61-62).

1.4.5

Pausalization

When inflectional final vowels were elided after the localization of the stress, final open syllables became c10sed in pausal positions.27 When pause was used, words with final open syllables ended up c1osed. The glottal P / and laryngeal /h/ glides were used respectively in bedouin and sedentary dialects for such syllabic closure. Examine the following examples (K4: 176-179; Anis 1971: 97-8): Classical

rajul+u/in rajul+an I)ublä qü1+i qü1+ä qü1+ü ya4ribu+hä

iß

+ä iß

+i +ä

+ü +hä

Sedentary iß

+ä+h +h +h +h +h

Bedouin +ß

+ä+:> +:) +:) +:> +:) +:)

Gloss

"man (nom./ gen.)" "man (ace.)" "pregnant" "Say! (f.s.)" "Say! (d.)" "Say! (m.pl.)" "He hits her"

71 In order Eor the stress to retain its expiratory heaviness or strength, probably in its early stage oE development, the open short syllables were reduced in number (or subjected to closure): S/yastatiCu/ (CVC-CV-CV-CV), B/yastiCu/ (CVC-CV-CV); S/!litnatäni/ (CVC-CV-CV-CV), B/tintäni/ (CVC-CV-CV); and S/madlnun/ (CV-CVCVC), B/madynnun/ (CVC-CV-CVC) (Al-Muttalabi 1978: 208-9).

20

LINGUISTIC CHANGE AND ECOLINGUISTICS

The following l;Iijäzi (sedentary) examples (Anis 1971: 97-8) confirm the use of this type of pausalization: /huwa+h/ "he" (attested in Modem Literary Arabic)i /hiya+h/ "she"i /lima+h/ "whY"i /kitäb+iya+h/ "my book"i and /bPixwat+iya+h/ "with my brothers." The poetic forms Pantumü+=> / "you (m.pl.)" and /humü+=>/ "they (m.)" (Wright 1962: 25) must be attributed to bedouin usage of pausalization. 28 According to Sibawayhi, when words end with a root-consonant P /, the following inflectional vowel metathesizes with the /=> / in some bedouin dialects (K4: 1778; Sallüm 1986: 128-129):

28 For Oassleal Arable Ilil "no," Palestinlan Arabie, for example, has both Ila'/-/li'l and llih/-/lah/. SIbawayhI, however, refers to the following as bedouin pausal and eontextual forms respectively: lhi!!ihl and Ihi~yl "thls (m.s.)." The natural glide closure for 1I1 and Il/ may be Iy /; however, since this may

lead to mere lengthening, a palatalized /j/ may have been used to serve this function. Consider the following data (1

u

LA

Gloss

/kalb/

/kalb/ /rukba/ /samak/

"dog" "knee" "fish"

/rukhe/ /samak/

-> ->

39

The second Deaffrication rule renders the affricate / j / into its fricative equivalent/Z/, requiring a change of only one feature (cl. Kaye 1972):

-cnt

+CIlS

[

~!.

]

->

[ +cnt ]

+VOl

Consider the following rule and the examples which demonstrate this development:

I

/Z/s

U

LA

Gloss

-i>

/~abal/ /sa~ara/

-i>

/daraZ/

/jabal/ /Sajara/ /daraj/

"mountain" "tree" "stairs"

-i>

Laryngealization

This phonological rule produces a unique change which involves only one feature:

5 The affricate Ijl appears in BR and other bedouinite and ruralite varieties: 1. "Mountain": OHKQ/jabal/, Ax/jibal/; 2. "Tree": O/~ijreh/, H/~gareh/, Ax/bjre/, KQ/bjara/, Dz/~ijara/; and 3. "Stairs": O/rgäd/, H/daragYI, AxKQDz/daraj/. The fricative usually occurs in the urbanite varieties: 1. C/gabal/,10Br/!aba1/, Aljaba1/; 2 C/bgara/, ID/b!ara/, Albjara/, Br/bua/; and 3. C/darag/, ID/dard/, A ldaraj/, Br/daraf./.

40

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISfIC VARIATION

+ens

-ant -cor -voi -str -lyn

->

[+lynJ

It is quite possible that the loss of the glottal stop, particularly in final and medial positions, accounts for this directional shift from the velar /k/ to the glottal P / position. Hyman discusses a similar development in Chinese (1975: 168). Of course, the change from /~/ to /k/ may have also contributed to a 'drag chain' effect (cl. King 1969b). In order to avoid the transformation of the /k/ in the morphological suffix, the following rule and demonstrative examples are suggested: (EC 4) Laryngealization:

BR

/kaUbl /miJCaka/ /l;lalak/

-i>

-i> -i>

/k /

-i>

/

'J /

(except -

+ak#)6

u

LA

Gloss

/'Jalb/ lmalca'Ja/ /l;lala'J /

Iqalbl /milCaqa/ /}:lalaq/

"heart" "spoon" "to shave"

However, the pronominal suffix as the rule indicates does not change: BR/kIf }:läl+ak/ -> U/~If }:läl+ak/ (LA/kayf }:lälu+kal> "Howare you?" The interesting aspect of this development is that the underlying sound of /k/ is an uvular stop with the feature [+rhz]. The feature [rhz] is rhizo-lingual which refers to the tensing of the tongue root

6 The voice1ess and voiced velar stops /k, g/ occur in BR, other ruralite, and bedouinite varieties. Consider the following examples: 1. "Heart": 0/ galb /, HK/galb/, Ax/galub/, Q/kalb/, Dz/galb/. The Druze dialects, both ruralite and urbanite, use the uvular stop /q/ (Blane 1953). 2. "Spoon": O/maICagah/, H/milCageh/, Ax/xilüge/, K/milCagah/, Q/xaiüka/, Dz/xilüqa/; and 3. shave": HK/l;utlag/, Q/l;utlak/. Whereas, the glottal stop is usually found in the urbanite varieties: qADBrpalb/, /macla'a/, and /1)ala'/.

""0

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

41

(Brame 1970: 15). A reflex of this feature surfaces in the feminine singular marker when it is suffixed to words with a final Ikl in BR. The feminine singular suffix leI (-10, -bk) alternates with laI, which stands for two other allomorphs [re] (+10, -bk) and [a] (+10, +bk), according to the following rule: (BRU 1) Feminine Singular Suffix: V

e I C- #1 f.s. suff. { [-rhz] } [-Iyn]

-~

[+10]

Two rules are collapsed in the above rulei compare the representative data which produce each: (1)

V -~ e

~~]

[ : I~+al

ICatIk+al

lfigg+al

lbalät+al (2)

C- #

[ - rhz ]

"vacation" "old" "silver" "a tile"

V -~ e

10 ] [ _+bk

Ifäkh+a/. Imnil;\+al IwärF+a1 lfärg+al

I

I

C-

lmidras+el Icbir+el Il;\ägg+el lsabat+el

"school" "big" "sharp" "basket"

lkarim+el Ifallin+el lricb+el lsamac+el

"generous" "a cork" "knee" "a fish"

#

[-Iyn]

"fruit" "good" "spacious" "empty"

This unexpected occurrence of laI after Ikl (-rhz and -Iyn) as in Iwarak+al "a leaf," Il;\alak+al "link" (in a ehain), and lmiJCakal "spoon" suggests the above rule was applied to all consonants before the rules that ehanged Iql to Ikl (Abdo 1969: 24-5). This rule presents two other related problems. First is the oeeurrenee of laI after lxI and Ig/, both of which also have the features (-rhz and -Iyn). The solution is the same as the preceding one, for there is clear evidence onee again that the underlying sounds of lxI and Igl

42

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISfIC VARIATION

also had the feature (+rhz)? Second is the occurrence of laI in feminine singular adjectives of color as in Isöd+al "black." This I -al differs from the common feminine singular suffix, which has for an underlying representation l-ä':JI instead of I-at/. Here again, it is a question of rule ordering, for this rule was applied to the feminine singular marker before at least three other rules:

Glottal Deletion Vowel Reduction Monophthongization

2.2.4

Isawd+ä'l sawd+ä sawd+a söd+a

Vowel Lowering and Backing

In a number of morphological classes and isolated lexical items, the vowel Ii/ is replaced by laI with one feature change:

(EC 5) Vowel Lowering-Backing:

+syl ] [ +hi -bk -> [+10]8 -10

7 This is corroborated by SIbawayhi's statement that 'emphatic' (+rhz) sounds as weil as Iq, x, gl prevent 'imll14 (vowel raising-fronting) when they appear, for example, before the vowel in question (1

~

-+

U/häd(a)/ (LA/häda/) U/hadäk/ (LA!hadäka/)

"this" "that"

11 Some ruralite varieties do not apply a rule of Epenthesis (Driver 1925: 51). The BR variety epenthesizes final clusters as the following rule and the examples derived from underlying representations show:

(BR 1)

Epenthesis-a:'

(1) ~atab+t (2) &tab+n

-+ ~

"

-+ &tcibit &tabin

i / C-

CII

"I, you (m.s.) wrote" "They (f.) wrote"

The dustering of two final consonants-except when the combination is any C + /m/, /n/, at: /r/- is widespread in the U variety: 1. "Bed": U/taxt/, BR/taxit/; 2, "Sun": U/iams/, UR/iamis/; and 3. "Dream": U/l)ilim/, BR/l)ilim/,

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

45

BR

U

LA

GJoss

/taxit/ /fatabit/ /ma+fatabiS/ /1;ülim/

/taxt/ /katabt/ /ma+katabs/ /l)i1im/

/taxt/ /katabtu/ /ma+kataba/ /l)ilm/

"bed" "I wrote" "He did not write" "dream"

2.2.6

Stress

The following Stress rule, which was developed by Brame (1973: 15, 20) for Palestinian Arabic, applies to both BR and U (refer also to Abdo 1969 and Brame 1970; 1974): (BRU 2) Stress: V - >

[+ stress]/ -

Co «VC)VCl) #

Examine the following examples:12

BR

u

Gloss

/fatabti/ /fatabit/

/katcibti! /katabt/

''You (f.) wrote" "I wrote"

2.3 SOME MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES

2.3.1

Pronouns

The loss of gender markedness in the second and third person plural as weIl as some morphological adjusbnents in the pronominal system characterize the change from BR to U forms (cl. Driver 1925: 26-8):

12 However, in BR to produce correct forms, the Stress rule must be applied to underlying representations before the rule of Epenthesis as the following examples demonstrate: I~atab+tl

(BRU 2) (BR 1)

Stress Epenthesis-a

~atabt /~atabit/

"I. you (m.s.) wrote"

l~atab+nI ~atabn /~atabin/ "They (f.) wrote"

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

46 BR

U

LA

Gloss

!>ana 1nit/1nte !>inti hüte/hü hite/hi !>i1;lna !>intu !>intin hinne !>ihin

!>ana !>int/1nte !>inti huwwe hiyye !>il;ma !>intu !>intu humme humme

!>ana !>anta !>anti huwa hiya

"I" "you (m.s.)" "you (f.s.)" "he" "she" "wen "you (m.pl.)" "you (f.pl.)" "they (m.)" "they (f.)"

~nu

!>antum !>antunna hum hunna

The second and third person feminine plural forms merge with the masculine ones in the U dialect. 13 Only the older generation of grandparents retain the /1hin, !>intin/ BR forms. The second person masculine singular BR forms requires the De-epenthesis (EC 7) rule, whereas the third person masculine and feminine BR forms involve two new rules: (EC 8) Glide Substitution:14 t

->

{:} [ V-V] /

-bk

V -V

/ Pronouns

+bk

(EC 9) Glide Gemination:

{

13

~

}

->

{

~

}

/

[~= ]

/ Proroum

Most bedouin dialects have retained this gender distinction (Blane 1970: 130):

:Jintuw/:Jintin "you" (m. &: f.pI.) and hum/hun "they" (m. &: f.pI.). My data on Omani

Arabie reveal gender differentiation in the first person singular and plural forms: ~nlZ/~ni and ni};ltl/ni1;lin, ni};ltln (d. Cadora 1977: 7). 14 The hüte/hlte BR forms appear to be related to the Akkadian oblique forms: Gelb's interpretation of the Itl as a historical glide inserted between two vowels further conflrms that the Iwl and Iyl were likewise glides of varying dialectal usage (1969: 65, 85-7). Similar forms IMwatul "he" and Ihiyatil "she" appeared regularly in Ugaritie (Harris 1939: 53).

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLlNGUISfIC VARIAnON

47

The pronominal subject and object suffixes also reflect similar loss of synthetic features:

BR

U

LA

Gloss

ti i, ni ti ak/ae tii ie/ci

ti i, ni ti ak tii ik/ki

tui I, nI ta; ak tii ik a; hu ati hä

"li rne, rny" "you; your (rn.s.)" "YOUi your (f.s.)" "he; hirn, his" "shei her" "wei us, our" "you; your (rn.pl.)" "YOUi your (f.pl.)" "theYi thern, their (rn.)" "they; thern, their (f.)"

eie ati ha naina tui cin tini ein Ui hirn/hin ni hin

e;o ati ha naina tuikun Ui hun

näinä

tum;ku tunnai kunna üihum na;hunna

The shift frorn the BR to the U forms requires not only rules of Deaffrication-a (EC 2) and Vowel Backing-a (EC 6) but also deletion of the feminine plural suffixes leading to a rnerger of the masculine and feminine forms in the second and third person plurals (MF23P Merger): (EC 10) MF23P Merger:

+ein ] [ +tu +kun ] / +ti~ All rnorphological classes [ +hm +hun

+n

2.3.2

+u

Perfeet Conjugation

The subject suffixes of the second and third person feminine plural forms are deleted, and phonological adjustments are also made.1 5

15 The generalization of pausal forms in the historieal development of Old Arabk dialects leading to the formation of later dialects is a well-known phenomenon (cl. Versteegh: 17-34). The verb, as suggested by the literary form. (which are similar to Old Arabie), has lost an final short vowels except in I-til to maintain gender distinction, shortened an final long vowels end consonants (i.e., doubled consonants). The U dialect drops the I-nI in an forms; the BR dialect de1etes

48

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINCUISTIC VARIATION

2.3.2.1 The Verb /kataba/

Consider the following conjugation of the 'regular' verb type lkatabal "to write": BR

U

LA

Gloss

eatabit eatabit eatabti eatab eatbat eat4bna eat4btu eat4btin eatabu eatabin

katabt katabt katabti katab katbat katabna katabtu katabtu kcitabu kcitabu

katabtu katabta katabti kataba katabat katabnä katabtum katabtunna katabü katabna

"I wrote" "You (m.s.) wrote" "You (f.s.) wrote" "He wrote" "She wrote" "We wrote" "You (m.pl.) wrote" "You (f.pl.) wrote" "They (m.) wrote" "They (f.) wrote"

The BR forms must undergo the following rules to be rendered into U forms: Deaffrication-a (EC 2), De-epenthesis (EC 7), and MF23P Merger (EC 10). Examine the following representative derivations: "You (moS.) wrote"

BR/eatabi+tI

(EC 10) (EC 2) (EC 7)

kata.bi+t U/katabtl

MF23P Merger Deaffrica tion-a De-epenthesis

"She wrote"

BR/eatb+atl

(EC 10) (EC 2) (EC 7)

U/kcitbatl

MF23P Merger Deaffrica tion-a De-epenthesis

the I-nI when it is preceded by a long vowel, as in the imperfect conjugation. The change of I-tunl to I-tin I is found in many rural and bedouin dialects (d. Blanc 1970: 130; Abboud 1979: 468).

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

"You

(BR 13)

Epenthesis-b:

->

(BR 14)

Affrication:

ll1

k

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Syncope Epenthesis-b Affrication

"You (m.pl.) write" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BRU 4) (BR 13) (BR 14)

{

~

i/C - C ~

}

{

/ (except -

Ib!)aktibl

"I write" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BRU 4) (BR 13) (BR 14)

->

ll1

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Syncope Epenthesis-b Affrication

b!)ciktib baktib bactib Ibtiktib+ul btiktib+u btiktbu btikitbu bticitbu

-

~

n}

}

+ ak#)

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

"They (i.pl.) write" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BRU 4) (BR 13) (BR 14)

63

lbiktib+nI

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Syncope Epenthesis-b Affrication

biktibn biktibin bi~hbin

Consider the application of the following rules for the derivation of U forms from a representative BR form: "You (i.pl.) write" (EC 10) (EC 2)

BRlbU+~tibi+nI

MF23P Merger Deaffrication-a

bti~itbu

U Ibb1citbul

2.3.3.2 The Verb Ibaqiya, yabqäl However, the shift in the forms of the defective verb Ibaqiya, yabqäl "to remain" is subjected to some new rules as the following conjugation demonstrates: BR

U

bcibka btibka btibkay bibka btibka bnibka btibkaw btibUn bibkaw bibk~n

b~u

LA

Gloss

bab~a

~abqä

"I remain"

btib~a

tabqä tabqina yabqä tabqä nabqä tabquna tabquna yabquna yabqina

btib:li bib~a

btib:la bnib~a btib~u

bbb:lu bib~u

"You (m.s.) remain" "You (f.s.) remain" "He remains" "She remains" "We remain" "You (m.pl.) remain" "You (f.pl.) remain" "They (m.) remain" "They (f.) remain"

The BR forms are derived from underlying representations in the above conjugation by the application of the following rules to appropriate examples:

64

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

"I remain" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 4) (BR 5) (BR 6) (BR 3)

Ib~abqayl

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Monophthongization Glide Deletion Qiding Derhizo-lingualization

"You (f.s.) remain" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 4) (BR 5) (BR 6) (BR 3)

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Monophthongization Glide Deletion Gliding Derhizo-lingualization

"They (m.) remain" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 4) (BR 5) (BR 6) (BR 3)

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Monophthongization Glide Deletion Gliding Derhizo-lingualization

"They (f.) remain" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 4) (BR 5) (BR 6) (BR 3)

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Monophthongiza tion Glide Deletion Gliding Derhizo-lingualization

b~abqay

babqay babqa babka Ibtibqay+il btibqayi btibqai btibqay btibkay Ibyibqay+ul byibqayu bibqau bibqaw bibkaw lbibqay+nJ bibqayn bibqGn bibkGn

To generate all of the above U fonns, several rules are needed:

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISfIC VARIATION

(EC 15) Degliding:

65

{~} -> { ~ } / a-#

(EC 16) Assimilation:

a

(EC 17) Vowel Reduction:

-~ vv

{

-~

~

} / - { u } /Verb

V/-#

Consider the application of the above rules to representative BR forms: "You (m.s.) remain" (EC 10) (EC 15) (EC 16) (EC 17) (EC4)

MF23P Merger Degliding Assimilation Vowel Reduction Laryngealiza tion

"You (m.pl.) remain" (EC 10) (EC 15) (EC 16) (EC 17) (EC4)

MF23P Merger Degliding Assimilation Vowel Reduction Laryngealiza tion

"They

remain"

(f.)

(EC 10) (EC 15) (EC 16) (EC 17) (EC4)

MF23P Merger Degliding Assimilation Vowel Reduction Laryngealiza tion

BRlbU+bka+yl bti+bka+i btibki+i btibki U/bbb:>i/ BRlbt1+bka+wl bti+bka+u bbbku+u btibku U/bbb:>U/ BRlbi+bk!+n/ bibka+w bibka+u bibku+u bibku U/bib:>u/

66

DEVELOPMENf OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

2.3.3.3 The Verb Iqara~, yaqra~1 Tbe following imperfect conjugation of the glottal-final verb /qara!)a, yaqra!)u/ utilizes the same rules to convert the BR into U fonns: BR

U

LA

Gloss

bakra btikra btikray bfkra btikra bnfkra btikraw btikr6n bfkraw bikr6n

ba!)ra btPra bit:>ri bPra bti:>ra bnPra bti:>ru bti:>ru bi:>ru bi:>ru

:)aqra:)u taqra:>u taqra:>ina yaqra:>u taqra:>u naqra:>u taqra:)üna taqra:>na yaqra:>üna yaqra:)na

"I read" "You (m.s.) read" "You (f.s.) read" "He reads" "She read" "We read" "YOll (m.pl.) read" "You (f.p!.) read" "They (m.) read" "They (f.) read"

The BR fonns are derived from underlying representations in the above conjugation by the application of the following rules to appropriate examples:

(BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 8) (BR 4) (BR 5) (BR 6) (BR 3)

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Glide Insertion-a Monophthongization Glide Deletion Gliding Derhizo-lingualization

Ib !)aqra!)1

Ibtiqra'+iI

b:>aqra:> bciqra

btiqra:>+i btiqra+i btiqray+i

bcikra "I read"

btiqrai btiqray btikray "You (1.5) read"

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

67

Ibyiqra'+ul Ibiqra'+nl (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 8) (BR 4) (BR 5) (BR 6) (BR 3)

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Glide Insertion-a Monophthongization Glide Deletion Gliding Derhizo-lingualization

byiqra'+u byiqra+u byiqray+u biqrau biqraw bikraw "They (m.) read"

biqra'+n biqra+n biqray+n biqr6n bikr6n "They (f.) read"

Examine the following derivational rules for representative BR forms: "You (m.s.) read" (EC 10) (EC 15) (EC 16) (EC 17) (EC4)

MF23P Merger Degliding Assimilation Vowel Reduction Laryngealiza tion

"You (m.pI.) read" (EC 10) (EC 15) (EC 16) (EC 17) (EC4)

MF23P Merger Degliding Assimilation Vowel Reduction Laryngealiza tion

"They (f.) read" (EC 10) (EC 15) (EC 16) (EC 17) (EC4)

MF23P Merger Degliding Assimilation Vowel Reduction Laryngealiza tion

BR/bti+kra+yl btikrai btikrii btikri U/bb~ri/

BR/bU+kra+wl btikrau btikruu btikru U/bb~ru/

BRlbi+kri!+nl bikraw bikrau bikruu bikru U/bPru/

68

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUlSIlC VARIATION

2.3.3.4 The Glottal-Initial Verb The irnperfect conjugation of the glottal-initial verb, as the following paradigrn of the verb Pakala, ya:lkulul "to eat" indicates, requires an additional rule:

BR

U

LA

Gloss

b~il

b4kul bt4kul bt4kli by4kul bt4kul bn4kul bt4klu bt4klu by4klu by4kJu

:läkulu ta:lkulu ta:lkulina ya:lkulu ta:lkulu na:lkulu ta:lkulüna ta:lkulna ya:lkulüna ya:lkulna

"I eat" "You (rn.s.) eat" "You (f.s.) eat" "He eats" "She eats" "We eat" "You (rn.pI.) eat" "You (f.pI.) eat" "They (rn.) eat" "They (f.) eat"

bt6fil bt6fli bOfil

bt6fil bn~il bt~lu bt~ilin

böflu böfilin

This verb type calls for a Glide Insertion rule due to the deletion of the glottal stop which reduces the stern to two consonants. The defective, glottal-initial, and geminate verb types sirnilarly required a glide to introduce a third stern consonant into the stern. The kind of glide which is inserted in the position of the missing or deleted consonant depends on the phonetic features of the stern vowel: (BR 15)

Glide Insertion-c: "

-~

w I +- CVC+I Irnperfect [+rd] verb stern

The final Fronting rule is also needed to change the lul to Ii/ after If/: (BR 16)

Vowel Fronting:

u

-~

iI

c-

The BR forms are derived frorn underlying representations in the above conjugation by the application of the following rules to appropriate exarnples:

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIAnON

"I eat" (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 15) (BRU 4) (BR 13) (BR 4) (BR 14) (BR 16)

Ib~a+~kuII

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Glide Insertion-c Syncope Epenthesis-b Monophthongization Affrication Vowel Fronting

"You (f.s.) eaf' (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 15) (BRU 4) (BR 13) (BR 4) (BR 14) (BR 16)

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Glide Insertion-c Syncope Epenthesis-b Monophthongization Affrication Vowel Fronting

"You (f.pI.) eaf' (BRU 2) (BR 12) (BR 15) (BRU 4) (BR 13) (BR 4) (BR 14) (BR 16)

69

Stress Glottal Deletion-b Glide Insertion-c Syncope Epenthesis-b Monophthongization Affrication Vowel Fronting

b:la+:lkul bci+kul bawkul b6kul b6~u1

b6CiI Ibta+'kul+il bta+~kul+i

bta+kul+i btawkuli btawkli bt6kli bt6C1i

Ibta+'kuI+nI btat'kul+n bta+kul+n btawkuln btawkulin btökulin btöMlin btö~üin

It is quite evident that the Vowel Raising (taltala) rule (common

laI of the imperfect verb prefix to Ii/ after Iy, t, nl but not PI) applies very late; otherwise, the diphthong would not have developed. It also suggests strongly that the original vowel of the prefix is laI as Abboud relates in his analysis of NejdI Arabic (1979: 490). to most dialects, which changes the

70

DEVELOPMENf OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

(EC 18) Vowel Backing-b:

-~

(EC 19) Vowel Fronting-Lowering:

u/VC-C/Verbstem-vowe1 (5

-~

ä / Glottal-initial verbstem

Consider the following derivations of U from BR forms: BR/by6~ill

(EC 10) (EC 2) (EC 18) (EC 19)

Ibt6~{linl

MF23P Merger bt~lu Deaffrication-a bt6k1u by6kil Vowel Backing-b by6kul Vowel Fronting-Lowering U/byakul/ /bt.4k1u/ ''He eats" ''You (f.pI.) eat"

2.3.4 Negation and Vowel Length 16 The negation of a verb that ends in a short vowel requires in both varieties the lengthening of such a vowel before the / -si suffix part of the negative marker /ma+ ... +s/: BRU/~allam+u/

"They (m.) learned" BRU / tl;lammal+na/ "We endured" BRU/fatal)+ti! "You (f.s.) opened"

-~ -~

-~

/ma+tcallam+ii+s/ "They (m.) did not learn" /ma+tl)ammal+nä+s/ "We did not endure" /ma+fatal)ti+s/ "You (f.s.) did not open"

16 All final short vowels in both BR and U forms are lengthened when a suffix such as I-hai Hit (f.sg.)" is added:

BR/karal U/~I

-+ -+

lkarähal l1rlhal

"He read it"

Furthermore, any long vowel preceding the lengthened vowel is shortened:

-+ -+

lkarenähal l1'inähal

"We read it"

U/~nal

BR/kmtil U/1'Itil

-+ -+

IkaretIhal l1'itIhal

"You (f.sg.) read it"

BRfk,arenal

DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLINGUISfIC VARIAnON

71

Furthermore, if a pronominal object suffix is introduced between the pronominal subject suffix and the I -sI suffix, then it is the vowel of the pronominal object which is lengthenedP The following data demonstrate that the short vowel is lengthened only when followed by a single word-boundary: BRU/t "They (m.) leamed it (f.)"

/ma+tcallam+u+M+s/ "They (m.) did not leam it (f.)"

BRU/t1)ammal +na+ha/ -> 'We endured her"

/ma+tl)ammal+na+M+s/ "We did not endure her"

-> BRU/fatal)+tf+ha/ "You (f.s.) opened it (f.)"

/ma+fatal)+ti+h'+s/ "You (f.s.) did not open it (f.)"

BRU/starena/ -> /starenä+ha/ -> /ma+starena+hä+s/ "We bought" "We bought it (f.)" "We did not buy it (f.)" However, the third person masculine singular pronominal object

(BR/-e/j U 1-01> in this context behaves differently in the

bedouinite-ruralite and urbanite varieties. This is the only object suffix which is made up of a single vowel. Consider the following examples: BR/fatal)+e/ - > /ma+fatal)+e+s/ - > /ma+fatal)+f+ssi/ U/fatal)+o/ - > /ma+fatal)+6+s/ "He opened it (m.)" "He did not open it (m.)" The U form has the vocalic object pronoun 1-01 lengthened and concomitantly stressed when the I-s/ is suffixed. However, the

17 Such vowe1lengthening also oa:urs in both varieties before the demonstrative /-k/ element and the preposition /-1-/, as the following examples show:

BR/hi4(a)/ and /ha~ä+k/ U/häda/ and /hadä+k/

"this" and "that" (m.s.)

BR!hän(a)/ and /hanä+k/ U!hCIn(a)/ and /honä+k/

"here" and "there"

BR/~tabna/ and /C!atabnä+l+e/ U/katabna/ and /katabni +1+0/

"We wrote" and "We wrote to him"

72

DEVELOPMENf OF ECOLINGUISTIC VARIATION

/ -eI of the BR form is not lengthened, as expected; instead the /-1./ suffix is geminated and the preceding short vowel is consequently stressed. The /e/[-hi] is often changed to /i/[+hi] due to assimilation to the adjacent /1./[+hi] (Chomsky and Halle: 176-7). A more convincing attribution of this change is to a Vowel Harmony rule that applies to an earlier /si - si/ form of the negative suffix. The suffix is derived through a telescoping process (Cadora 1974: 61-2) from /!ay'/ "thing": Ihy"Jl

Monophthongization Final Glottal Deletion Vowel Raising after /s/[+hi] Reduction of Final Long Vowel Deletion of Final Short Vowel /ma+katab+'f.ay'/ -~ "He did not write a thing"

se'

se SI

si 5

/ma+katab+1.(I)/

The occurrence of words with / -si/ is not uncommon: BR/biddiUi/, U/bidd6s/ "He doesn't want," BR/fiUi/, U/fih&/ "There isn't," and Egyptian/huwwa ma byicrafsi yi'ra/ "He doesn't know how to read" (cf. Awwad 1987: 115). The use of / -si/ in the following BR example suggests the meaning of "thing" or "anything" (BR/('Ji)si/): /baka h61 yirl)am, ma yaCt6Ui; willi maCiss ma~ri su yaCtf/ "He used to be greatly compassionate; they would not give him anything (i.e., for his services); for the one who doesn't have any money, what is he to give him?" This suggests that after / -si/ ( ->

/lak6/ /la:Jt1/

"They (m.) found it (m.)"

BR/ma+lak+aw+eh+l/ - > U/ma+la'+u+Oh+l/ ->

/malak6lSi/ /mala'uh6s/

"They (m.) did not find it (m.)"

This difference appears with other pronominal objects: BR/ma+lak+aw+ha+s/ -> U/ma+la'+u+ha+l/ ->

/malakohts/ /mala'uMs/

"They (m.) did not find it (f.)"

In sum, the ecolinguistic rules described in this chapter are, by definition, adaptive and variable (or minor) and do uItimately develop into major rules as linguistic diffusion accelerates concomitantly with the speed of urbanization in the community. The younger urbanizing ruralite Ramallah speakers in extended family households of two or more generations, therefore, apply these ecolinguistic rules and produce alternate forms which by selection eventually become normative in their speech.

OlAPTER THREE

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY An analysis of the lexical relationships between the BR and U varieties reveals differences unequivocally attributable to the introduction of largely Jerusalem Arabic urbanite lexical items. These items gradually replace the indigenous BR ones which clearly have affinities to those of bedouinite and ruralite varieties in other parts of the Arab world. Ecolinguistic compatibility assesses the extent of substitution of urbanite forms for bedouinite-ruralite ones by means of the phonological adjustment of BR forms and/or by their replacement with U forms. The concept of compatibility as applied to the study of language varieties and its relationship to synonymity, cognation, synchrony, and intelligibility are discussed in detail in Cadora 1966; therefore, the folowing brief definition suffices for the construction and analysis of compatibility sets in this section: Compatibility is a synchronie dialectologieal concept that operates at the lexieal level. It assesses the degree of lexieal relationship that exists between two or more varieties of a given language at a given time irrespective of geography; that is, it "analyzes the 'synchronie consequences' of... partial differences within a framework of partial similarity" (Weinreich 1954: 395, 399). (Cadora 1966: 310) 3.1 NON-CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

When the BR and U equivalent forms in a set of two lexical items are cognates, compatibility is non-contrastive. Non-contrastive compatibility requires phonological adjustment of the BR forms by the application of ecolinguistic phonological rules, a representative list of which appears in Appendix D. For example, since compatibility is non-contrastive in the set, "Mouth": BR/ tim/, U/tum/; the BR form is transformed into a U form by the application of two rules-(EC 1) Despirantization and (EC 6) Vowel Backing.

80

ECOLINGUISfIC COMPATIBILITY

Examine the following additional representative examples of ecolinguistic rules:

1 (4)

2 (1)

3

4

5 (4)

6 (2, 3)

BK

U

LA

Gloss

tkIl

f'Il

taqIl

"heavy"

gahab

dahab

gahab

"gold"

garab

arab

arab

"He hit"

fäs

käs

ka's

"glass (cup)"

'a~tar

'aktar

'aktar

"more"

di~

dik

dik

"rooster"

jär

ur

jär

"neighbor"

'ajaw

'a!u

jä:>u

"They came"

jäj

ü!

dajäj

"chickens"

kalam

'alam

qalam

"pencH"

burtkän

bunPän

burtuqäl

"oranges"

l)alak

l)ala'

l)alaq

"earrings"

ti!)t

ta!)t

ta!)ta

"under"

mitra!)

matra!)

matra!)

"place (spot)"

1zrak

'azra'

'azraq

"blue"

~ill

kull

kull

"all"

jimCa

jwrfa

jwrfa

"week"

fill+e

kull+o

kullu+hu

"all of it"

81

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

hän

hOn

hunä

"here"

~tabit

katabt

katabtu

"I wrote"

kalib

'alb

qalb

"heart"

ma+fatabis

+katabs

mä+katab

"He did not write"

hüte

huwwe

huwa

"he"

hite

hiyye

hiya

"she"

lal;U:l.ämfin

+kun

+u+kunna

"your butcher"

lal)1:lämhin

+hun

+u+hum

"their butcher"

t'=allam+in

+U

+na

"They learned"

11

sirbit

sirbat

bribat

"She drank"

12, 14 (4)

baket

b'it

baqitu

"I remained"

baka

bPi

baqiya

"He remained"

13 (4, 12) karu

'iryu

qara~

"They read"

15, 16, 17 btibkay (10,4)

btib'i

tabqina

"You (f.s.) remain"

18,19 (10,2)

byäkul

ya'kul

"He eats"

7 (2, 4)

8,9

10 (7)

böfil

20,21, ma+fatal.Uss +fatal)6s mä+fatal)ahu "He did not 22,23,24 open it (m.s.)"

82

ECOLINGUISI'IC COMPATI BI LITY

Furthermore, when the BR and U equivalent fonns in a set of two or more non-contrastive lexical items are identical, compatibility is duplicative and, therefore, does not require the application of ecolinguistic rules. Examine the following three sets of examples: 1. "Butcher": BR, U/lal)1)am/, LA/lal)1)am/; 2. "Tea": BR, U/'t.äy/, LA/My/; 3. "Why": BR, U/le't./, LA/limäga/. 3.2 CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY When the BR and U equivalent forms in a set of two or more lexical items are non-cognates, compatibility is contrastive. Contrastive compatibility requires lexical replacement. For example, since compatibility is contrastive in the following sets of two and three lexical items: (1) "To don: BR/sawwa/, U/Cimil/; and (2) "Coffee Pot": U /bri:J /, BR/ dOle/ and /bakraj/, the U form gradually replaces the BR forms. However, in (2) before such a lexical replacement occurs, a new transitional non-contrastive BR form /brik/ is derived from the U form /brP / which coexists with or supersedes the older BR forms. 1 When the contrastive BR fonns gradually disappear, the non-contrastive BR form is phonologically readjusted by the application of the rule of (EC 4) Laryngealization. 3.3 CONJUNCfIVE COMPATlBILITY When the BR and U equivalent fonns in a set of three or more lexical items inc1ude both contrastive and non-contrastive items, compatibility is conjunctive and requires lexical replacement and, if the non-contrastive forms are not duplicative, phonological adjustment. For example, since compatibility is conjunctive in the set, "Knife": U/sikkine/, BR/siffine/ and /xu~/, initially, the contrastive form BR/xu~/ is gradually replaced by the noncontrastive form BR/siffine/ which is eventually transformed into the conjunctive U form /sikkine/ by the application of one rule: (EC 3) Deaffrication-b. Contrastive and conjunctive compatibility can be quantitatively measured by the application of a diagnostic list of 100 lexical items developed to highlight maximal (phonological and) lexical

This is a transitional phonological rule of Delaryngealization.

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

83

differences. 2 The compatible sets which this analytical list generates are listed below for analysis. The English gloss entry is followed by BR, U, and LA sets of compatible items; the following three lines-a, b, and c-represent bedouinite, ruralite, and urbanite compatible sets, respectively, each of which includes lexical equivalents from three different varieties. The 100 compatible sets are examined to determine (1) the number of items not shared by the BR and U varieties, and those shared by the BR and U varieties and each of the other nine varieties, and (2) the average percentage that BR and U share with each of the three groups of varieties and Literary Arabic. These computations are tabulated in the form of correlation indices. An overall general assessment of these indices reveals the relative ecolinguistic status of the BR and U varieties and their relationships to other bedouinite, ruralite, and urbanite varieties. The validity of such an analysis depends on how rigorous the analyticallist is and how representative the nine varieties are. 3.4 SETS OF COMPATIBLE ITEMS

3.4.1 Nouns 1. "Ashes":

BR/safan/; U/sakan/; LA/ramäd/

a.

O/nunäd/;H/nunäd/;Ax/nnäd,safan/

b.

Dz KQ/satan/

c.

J/sakan/; D/~we/; Br/rm~/

2. "Ashtray":

BR/rOCatte/; U/mtakke/; LA/minfa9a/

a.

O/taffäye/; H/~n qutiif/; Ax/naffägeh/

b.

Dz/naffä9a/; K/makatte/; Q/mfatte/

c.

Jlmtakke/; D/~l;lin sigära/; Br/manif9a/

2 A modified version oE the diagnostic list (Cadora 1969: 35-61) is used in this analysis.

84

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

3. "Basket":

BR/sabate, kuffe, saUe/; U/saUe/; LA/saUa/ a.

O/zambil/; H/guffa/; Ax/salle, zbil/

b.

Dz/sabat, salle/; K/salla, guffa, zambil/i Q/salle, sabate, zambil/

c.

JDBr/salle/

4. "BeIt":

BR/kSät, ser/; Ut'~t, ser/i LA/l:Uzäm/ a.

O/l;lizäm, ser/; HAx/lp.ärn/

b.

Oz/mil;lzam/i K/l;lzäm, güt/; Q/kSät, ser/

c.

JD/~Sät/;Br/zürunär/

5. "Blanket":

BR/l;uäml; U/l;uäm/; LA/l;lirärn/

a.

0/ sleymud/; HAx/battäniyye/

b.

DzKQ/battäniyye/

c.

J/l;tram/; D/l;träm, baUäniyye/; Br/l;trem!

6. "Bottle":

BR/kazäze, kannlne/; Ut'annlne/i LA/zujäja, qinnlna/ a.

0/garSe, gariira/; H/slSah/; Ax/botoIl

b.

Oz/barniyye/; K/ginnine/; Q/kinnine/

c.

Jt'anninel; Dt'annine, ~zäze/; Brt'annine/

7. "Breakfast":

BR/flur/; U/flur/; LA/futur/

a.

O/~biil;l/i H/tuliigri~/i Ax/riyiig/

b.

DzK/fatur/i Q/1flur/

c.

J/flur/; D/kasr ~fra, futur/; Br/tirwPa/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

8. "Bread":

85

BR/xubiz, ces/; U/xubiz/; LA/xubz/ a.

OH/xubiz/;Ax/xubuz,cese/

b.

DzQ/xubiz/;K/xubz/

c.

JD/xubiz/; Br/xibiz/

9. "Broom":

BR/micinse, mkaSSe/; U/mukunse/; LA/miknasa/ a.

O/maknasa/; H/migmämeh, magasSeh/; Ax/mukinseh/

b.

Dz/maknasa/; K/maknase, magassel; Q/micinse/

c.

J/mukunse/; D/mikinse, m:>aSse/; BR/mikinse/

10. "Butcher":

BR/lal)1:läm/; U/lal)1:läm/; LA/lal)1:läm, jazzär, q~b/

a.

O/dabbä1;l/;HAx/g~b/

c.

Dz/qa~b/;

c.

JDBr /lal)1:läm /

11. "Cabbage": a.

KQ/lal)1:läm/

BR/malfüf/; U/malfüf/; LA/malfüf/ O/kö~s/;

malfüf/

H/krumb/; Ax/laxaneh, lahaneh,

b.

DzKQ/malfüf/

c.

JBr/malfüf/; D/malfüf, yaxana/

12. "Cat":

BR/bisse/; U/bisse/; LA/qiUa/ a.

O/hirrah, bissa/; H/bisseh/; Ax/bassüne/

86

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

b.

DzQ/bisse/; K/bisse, qitta/

c.

J/bisse/; D/1tta/i Br/bsayne/

13. "Cantaloupes": BR/!immim/i U/Wnmäm/i LA/Wnmäm/

a.

OHAx/battix/

b.

Dz/battix/; KQ/!immäm/

c.

J/!immäm/i Dt)ä'ün, battix 'qfar/j Br/f.arrtrrem/

14. "Cemetery":

BR/mikbara/j U/ma'bara/i LA/maqbara/

a.

O/magbara/j H/magbareh/j Ax/mugbare/

b.

Dz/maqbara/; K/magbara/; Q/mikbara, jabbäne/

c. 15. "Clothes":

J/ma'bara/; D/turbe, ma~ra/; Br/ma'abra,

turbe/

BR/hdüm, 'awäci/; UPawäci/; LA/tiyäb, maläbis/

a.

O/maläbis/jH/1hdüm/;Ax/hudüm/

b.

Dz/hudüm/; K/tiyäb, maläbis/i Q/tyäb/

c.

JD('awäci/i Br/~b/

16. "Coffee Pot":

BR/dOle, bakraj/; U/brP /; LA('ibriq/

a.

OAx/dalle/; H/dalleh/

b.

DzKQ/ dalle/

c.

J/bri'/j D/dOle/i Br/bakrd/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY 17. "Cold":

BR/zakrne/i U/raiil;l./; LA/rail;l, zukäm/ a.

O/zukäm/i H/~dme/i Ax/na'S'k!/

b.

Dz/zukma/; K/zakrre/; Q/raiil;l/

c.

JDBr / raiil;l/

18. "Collar":

BR/yäka, kabbe/; UPabbe/; LA/tawq, yäqa/ a.

O/regbah/; H/tOg/; Ax/qOle, yäqa/

b.

Dz/qabba/;K/gabba/;Q/~k,kabbe/

c.

JDBrPabbe/

19. "Cork":

BR/falline/; U/fallIne/; LA/sidäda/ a.

O/gatä~/;

b.

Dz/ sdäde/; KQ/ fallIne/

c.

Jlfalline/; D/fannlne, gata/; Br/saddäde, fallIne/

20. "Dog":

BR/~lb/;

H/sdadeh/; Ax/tabadiir/

U/kalb/; LA/kalb/

a.

O/kalib/; H/c!alb/; Ax/c!alib/

b.

DzKQ/c!alb/

c.

JD/kalb/; Br/kalib/

21. "Ear":

BR/gän/;U/dän/;LA/~ugn/

a.

OPigin/; H/1gin/; Ax/gän/

b.

DzPagan/; KPigin/; Q/gän/

c.

J/dän/;D/~adan/;Br/dayne/

87

88

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

22. "Earrings":

BR/l;lalak/i U/l;lala:> /i LA/qurt/

a.

O/kräbö, xu11luh/ i H/xazäri/i Ax/~äci, l;lalag/

b.

DzQ/Piräci/i K/l;lalag/

c.

JDBr/l}.ala:>/

23. "Glass": (material)

BR/kazäZ/i UPazäz/i LA/zujäj/

a.

O/z;.jl; H/gizäzI;Ax/jäm/

b.

Dz/qzäz/iK/gazaz/;Q/kazäz/

c.

J/:>azäz/i D/:>zäz/i Br/:>zez/

24. "Grandfather": BR/sid/i U/sid/i LA/jadd/ a.

O/jidd/i H/gaddl; Ax/jadd/

b.

Dz K/jidd/i Q/sid, jidd/

c.

J/sId/;D/udd/;Br/~idd/

25. "Hand":

BRPid/i Upid/; LA/yad/

a.

D/yadd, :>id/; H/yidd/; AxPid/

b.

DzK/:>id/ i QPM/

c.

JDBrpid/

26. "Hospital": a.

BR/mistaSfa/i U/~bit:är/i LA/mustaSfa/ O/mustasfa/i H/~il}.l}.iyye/i Ax/mustasfe, :>ajjaxäne :>i~bitäl/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY b.

Dz/mustasfa/; K/mistasfa/; Q/~bitar, mistasfa/

c.

J/~bitär/;

89

DBr/mistasfa/

BR/där/; U/~t/; LA/där, bayt/

27. "House": a.

O/där/; H/1)ös/; Ax/~t, 1)ös/

b.

Dz!bet/; K/där/; Q/bet, där/

c.

JDBr/bet/

28. "Jam":

BR/tatli/; U/tatli/; LA/murabba/ a.

O/jäm/; H/gäm/; Ax/mrabba, tatli/

b.

Dz/mrabba/; K/macgüt/; Q/tatli/

c.

Jltatli/; D/maccud, mrabba/; Br/mrabba/

29. "Knife":

BR/xu~,

siccine/; U/sikkine/; LA/sikkin/

a.

O/safrah/; H/xiddämeh, xu~/; Ax/siccine/

b.

Bz/siccin/; K/xu~ah/; Q/xu~, siccin/

c.

JDBr/sikkin(e)/ BR/lamun (1)ämig) /; U/lamun/; LA/laymun/

30. "Lemon": a.

O/lim 1)ämig/; HAx/laymun/

b.

Dz/leymun/; K/lemun/; Q/1)ämig/

c.

J/iamun/; D/leymun/; Br/1)ämuc;i/ BR/salatif/; U/Sfäf/; LA/sifäh/

31. "Lips": a.

O/baräsim/; H/barätim/; Ax/safäyif, barätim/

90

ECOLINGUISfIC COMPATIBILITY

b.

DzK/barätim/; Q/!fäf/

c.

J/!fäf/; D/äafäyif, barätim/; Br/!fef/

32. "Matches":

BR/fal)l,l.äte, fibrIte/; U/kibrIte/; LA/cidän,

tiqäb/

a.

D/äaxt/; H/fibrit(e)/; Ax/fibrite, äaxxäta/

b.

Dz/äaxxäta/; K/äal)l,l.äta/; Q/fibrIte fal)l,l.ä te /

c.

JBr /kibrIte/; D/kabrIte/

33. "Mosquito":

BR/hisihse/; U/nämüse/; LA/nämüsa/

a.

O/bacügeh/; H/garü~/; Ax/bagge/

b.

Dz/bargaäe/; K/baCügah/; Q/hisihse/

c.

Jlnamüse/; D/bargaäe/; Br/barigäe/

34. "Mouth":

BR/tim/; U/tum/; LA/farn/ a.

O/lltum/; HPufum/; Ax/l)alig/

b.

Dz/1tim/; K/tum/;Q/tim/

c.

J/tum/; D/tarn/; Br/tim/

35. "Nose":

BR/xaSim, munxär /; U/munxär/; LAPanf/ a.

D/nuxrah/; H/xaSm/; Ax/xaSim/

b.

DzK/xa!im/; Q/munxär/

c.

J/munxär/;D/~r,~anl/;Br/nnb1xär/

36. "Pitcher": (water)

BR/brik/; U/brP /; LAPibriq/ a.

o /kinn/; HPibrig/; Ax/äarbe, ~lal:Uyye/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY b.

DZ/!i1äl;tiyye/; K/iäf/; Q/zir, ~brik, iäff

c.

JBr/bri:J /; D/1bri:J /

37. "Pharmacy":

BR/~y4aliyye/; LA/~yfilaliyye/

U/farmaliyye/;

a.

OAx/ ~y4aliyye/; H/~y4aliyya/

b.

DzK/ ~y4aliyye/; Q/ farmaliyye/

c.

JBr/farmaliyye/;

38. "Porter":

D/~yfilaliyye/

BR/cattäl/; U/cattäl/i LA/l)amrnäl, byyal/ a.

OHAx/l)ammäl/

b.

Dz/l)ammäl/; KQ/c attäl/

c.

J/cattäl/; D/cattäl, l)amrnäl/i Br/catt!l/

39. "Rag":

BR/lrita/i U/xir:Ja/ i LA/xirqa/ a.

O/xirgeh/i H/xiree/; Ax/xurge/

b.

Dz/xirqa/i K/mixraga/i Q/lrita/

c.

J/ xir:Ja/ i D/ xar:Ja/ i Br/lartüta/

40. "Rain":

BR/matar/; U/sita/; LA/silä:J/ a.

DAx/matar/; H/mutar/

b.

DzQ/matar/; K/stä:J /

c.

J!sita/; D/matar/; Br/site/

41. "Room":

BR/loga/; U!:JOfila/i LA/gurfa/ a.

O/ma1;l~ara/; H/};ligreh/i Ax/};lujra, ~t/

91

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATI BI LITY

92 b.

DzQ/~oqa/;K/~oqah/

c.

JPä4a/; D/~4a/; BrPaweJa/ BR/ smäne, di~~n/; U/ dukkän/; LA/l;länüt dukkän/

42. "Shop":

a.

O/~/;H/dDlAn/;Ax/dukkän/

b.

~/dukkän/;K/cH~~än/;Q/duC~an/

c.

J/dukkän/;D/dakkän,~n/;Br/d~n/

43. "Socks:"

BR/jarabin/; U/kalsät/; LA/jawärib/ a.

OPijräbät/; H/Sarräb/; Ax/jwärib/

b.

~/ränät/; K/msüd/; Q/~ijräbät/

c.

JBr/kalsät/; D/~räbät/ BR/xaSüka, milcaka/; U/macla~a/; LA/miJCaqa/

44. "Spoon":

a.

O/maclagah/;H/miJCageh/; Ax/xäsüge/

b.

DZ/xäsüga/;K/miJCagah/iQ/xaSüka/

c.

JDBr /macla~a/

45. "Table";

BR/mede/; U/täwle/; LA/mä1da/ a.

OAx/rrez/; H/ma~h, täwleh/

b.

Dz/ma~/; K/täwleh/; Q/täwle/

c.

J/täwlal; DBr/täwle/

46. "Tea":

BR/säy/;U/Säy/;LA/säy/ a.

O/sähiy/; H/sähi/; Ax/~äy/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY b.

Dz/äy/;KQ/Säy/

c.

JDBr/Säy/

47. "Throat":

BR/l;\alik/; U/l;\ali' /; LA/l;\alq/ a.

OH/l;\alg/; Ax/l)anjür/

b.

Dz/zalcüm/; K/l;\alg/; Q/l;\alik/

c.

JD /l;\ale' /; Br / zaIC üm/

48. "Thing":

BRPiSi/; U/'JiSi/; LA/by' / a.

~/Seyy/;Ax/si/

b.

Dz/si!; KQPisi!

c.

J!1Si!; DBr/si/

49. "Tomatoes":

BR/bandüra/; U/bandüra/; LA/tarnätim/

a.

D/tarnätim/; H/birdagän/; Ax/tarnäte/

b.

Dz/banadöra/;K/bandörah/;Q/bandüra/

c.

J/bandöra/; D/banadöra/; Br/benadüra/

SO. "Woman":

BR/mara, 1;lurme/; U/sit/; LApimra:)a/ a.

O/1;lurmeh, mareh/; H/mareh/; Ax/mara, mrayye/

b.

DzKQ/mara/

c.

JDBr /mara, sit/

3.4.2 Verbs 51. "Ask":

BR/sayal/; U/sa'al/; LA/sa'al/ a.

OAx/sa'al/; H/nabd/

93

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

94

b.

DzIa11; Q/sa!>a1, sacal/

c.

JDBr/sa!>al/ BR/dir, Um/; U/bada/; LA/bada!> /

52. "Begin": a.

O/bada, sabbar/; H/bida/; Ax/bide/

b.

Dz/bada/; IittallaC , :>itwäjah/

c.

JDBr / ttallaC /

64. "Pass";

BR/t/; LA/marr/ a.

O/marr/; H/fät/; Ax/:>itcadda/

b.

Dz/rnarr/i K/t /

65. "Scream":

BR/~yyal;l,

zacak/; U/sarrax/

LA/~l;l,

~rax,zac aq/

a.

OAx/~yyal;l/i H/~l;l/

b.

DzKQ/ ~yyal;l/

c.

J/ sarrax/; D/c ayyat, ~rax/ i Br/c ayyat/

66. "Send";

BR/wadda/; U/ bacat/i LA/bacat, :>arsa1! a.

OHParsa1!i Ax/ dazz/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY b.

Dz/bacat/; KQ/wadda/

c.

JDBr/baCat/

67. "Sit":

97

BR/kacad/; UtJaCad/; LA/jalas/ a.

O/jalas, gaCad/; H/jalas/; Ax/gaCad/

b.

Dz/qaCad/; K/gaCad/; Q/kacad/

c.

JDBrPacad/

68. "Speak":

BR/txarraf, l;lafa/; U/l;laka/; LA/l;laka, takallam/ a.

O/haga/; H/l;lata/; Ax/l;li~e/

b.

Dz/l;la~a/;

c.

JD/l;laka/; Br/l;liki/

69. "Spit":

KQ/ txarraf, l;la~a/

BR/ tafal, bazak/; U/baza:> /; LA/ tafal, basaq/ a.

0/ tafal/; HAx/ tHal/

b.

DzK/tafal/; Q/tafal, bazak/

c.

JDBr /baza:> / BR/salal;l/; U/Salal;l/; LA/xalac /

70. "Take off": (clothes) a.

OAx/nazac /i H/fusax/

b.

Dz/rama/; KQ/Salal;l/

c.

JDBr /Salal;l/

71. "Throw":

BR/rama, l;lagaf/; U/zaU/i LA/rama/ a.

O/rama/; H/jidac /; Ax/rirne/

98

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

b.

Dz/laqah/; KQ/rama, I;taQcif!

c.

JBr/rama, zatt/; D/zatt, lal;taA/

72. "Tie":

BR/cakad/; U/rabat/; LA/rabat, caqad/ a.

OfC~b/;HAx/rubat/

b.

Dz/caqad/; K/cagad, rabat/; Q/cakad, rabat/

c.

JDBr/rabat/

73. "Turn": BR/lawwad/; U/dawwar/; LA/där/ (change direction) a. O/där,laff/; H/laff/; Ax/där/ b.

Dz/där/; KQ/där,lawwad/

c.

Jldawwar/; D/baram, där/; Br/lafatl

74. "Weigh":

BR/fayyal/; U/wazzan/; LA/wazan/ a.

O/wazan, kil/; H/wizan/; Ax/wizan, cayyar/

b.

Dz/zän/; K/wazzan, fäll; Q/warran, fayyal/

c.

J/wazzan/; D/zän/; Br/mn!

3.4.3 Adjectives 75. "Cold": BR/silQC /; U/bard/; LA/bard/ a.

OHAx/bard/

b.

DzK/bard/; Q/bard, silQC /

c.

JDBr /bard/

76. "Coward": a.

BR/xawwIf/; U/bbän/; LA/jabän! O/fazzäc /; HAx/xawwäf/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

77. "Dark": (of colors)

b.

Dz/xäyis/; KQ/xawwif/

c.

J/bbänl; D/bbän, xawwif/; Br/xawwif/ BR,'Citim/i U/gämi=> /i LA/qätim/

a.

O,'Cätiml; H/gämig/i Ax/gämij/

b.

Dz/gämiq/; K/gämigl; Q/citim/

c.

JDBr/ gämi=> /

78. "Deaf":

BRpitra!/; UPatra!/i LAPatras, =>~am/ a.

O/fltgaC /i HPafltgah/; AxPatra!, :latram/

b.

Dz/:latras/i KPatram/i Q/1tras/

c.

JDBr patras/

79. "Dry":

BR/näsif/; U/näsif/; LA/näSif, jäf/ a.

OH/näsif/i Ax/yäbis/

b.

Dz/yäbis/i K/näsif, jäf/i Q/näsif/

c.

JD/näsif/; Br/nesif/

80. "DulI": (knife)

BR/mtallame/; U/misIDäQye/; LA/tälim/ a.

O/matIUl/i H/mindatrah/i Ax/camye/

b.

DzK/m!allama/; Q/mtallame/

c.

J/misIDäQye/; D/mtallme/; Br/mu!l)ädde/

81. "Fun":

BR/malän/i U/malyän/; LA/mal:län/ a.

OH/malyän/i Ax/mabiis/

99

100

ECOLINGUISfIC COMPATIBILITY b.

Oz/matlän/;K/~yän/;QV~än/

c.

JO /malyän/; Br/milyen/

82. "Red":

BR/1};unar/; Upal;tmar/; LAPal;tmar/ a.

OPi1;tmar/;H/1;uunar1; AxPal;tmar/

b.

DzKPaJ:unar/; Q/11;lmar/

c.

JOBr ('a1;lmar /

83. "Sick":

BR/1mrig/; U/cayyän/; LA/f'l'miQ./ a.

O/f'l'mig/; H/wagcän/; Ax/rnsaxxim/

b.

Oz/wafän/; K/f'l'mig, cayyan/; Q/mrig/

c.

J/cayyän/; 0/f'l'miQ./; Br/Q.cif/

3.4.4 Particles, Adverbs, ete. 84. "Also": BRPuxra,famän/;U/kamän/;LAPayq.an/

a.

OPayQ.an, 1Jxra/; H/kamän/; Ax/bargu/

b.

Oz/nnOb/;K/kamän/;QV1naa,~rumän/

c.

JD/kamän/;Br/karnen/ BR/1;lad, janb/; U/hnb/; LA/l)igä:>, bijänib/

85. "Beside": a.

O/bijänib, janb/; H/twäl/; Ax/~/

b.

Oz/1;lad/; K/fa1;lad/; Q/cajanb, fi1;lad/

c.

JD/hnb/;Br/hnb,1;lad/

86. "Early":

BR/badri, baccir/; U/bakkir/; LA/bäkiran/ a.

O/badri/; H/mzaddim/; Ax/minwakit/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY b.

Oz/ba~~Ir /; K/bakklr /; Q/badri, ba~~Ir/

c.

JOBr /bakklr /

87. "Here";

BR/hän/;U/hOn/;LA/hUßä/ a.

O/hina/; H/hna=> /; Ax/hnä/

b.

~/hnä/;K/häna/;Q/hän/

c.

JOBr/hön/

88. "How";

BR/~If/; U/kIf/;

LA/kayf/

a.

O/kef/; H/~ef/; Ax/slön/

b.

~/slon/; K/ ~ef/; Q/ ~If/

c.

JOBr/kIf/

89. "How much";

BR/kaddes/;U/:)addes/;LA/kam/

a.

OAx/kam/; H/~am/

b.

Oz/bes/; K/gidd~/; Q/kaddes, ba~am/

c.

JD/=>addes/; BrPaddays/

90. "Uke" (prep.): BR/zayy, mitU/; U/mitU/; LA/mitla/ a.

O/zayy, mitil, kama/; HAx/miU/

b.

OzK/mitil/; Q/zayy, mitil/

c.

JCBr/mitil/

91. "Much";

BR/hOl, ~tir /; U/ktIr/; LA/kaUr / a.

O/jamm/; H/~atIr /; Ax/hwäye/

101

102

ECOLINGUISfIC COMPATIBILITY

b.

Dz/bMl/; KQ/ ctir/

c.

JDBr /ktir /

92. "Now":

BR/ba~et/i

U/halla!), hal!)et!i LApaI!)än/

a.

0/ ga11;tln/ i H/ba11;tln/ i Ax/hassil

b.

Dz/hassac /; K/Il;tln/i Q/halket, balla, bassa/

c.

JDBr /halla!) /

93. "Straight": (ahead) . a.

BR/tawwäli/i U/ dugn/; LA/!)jlal'amäm/ OjCalatül/; H/ciddäm/; Ax/gubal, juddäm/

b.

Dz/dugri/iK/dugn/iQ/dugn,dOz/

c.

J/dugn/i D/dagn/i Br/dign/

94. "There is not": BR/mafi, mafi!!/i U/mafiU/i LA/la yuwjad/ a.

OH/mäfi/iAx/maku/

b.

Dz/mäbI/iK/mäfi/iQ/mäfiU/

c.

J/maftSS/i D/mäfi/i Br/mafi/

95. "Tomorrow":

BR/mbocra/i U/bukra/; LA/gadan/

a.

O/gudweh/iH/bä~ir/iAx/bä~ir/

b.

Dz/bukra/i K/bukrah/ i Q/bu~ra/

c.

JDBr /bulqa/

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY %. "What":

103

BR/sü/; U/~/; LA/mä, mägaJ3 a.

OH/su/; Ax/'§,inu/

b.

Dz/skün/;K/~uh/;Q/sü/

c.

JPes/; DBr/sü/

97. "When" : (inter.)

BR/~nta/i U/~~mta/i

LA/matä/

a.

O/mtä/; H/mita/i Ax/yarnte/

b.

Dz/~nta/; KP~mta/; Q/w~nta/

c.

JD/~~mta/; Brp~mtin/

98. "Who":

BRPanü, ~anüte/; U/uün/; LA/man/ a.

OH/uün/;Ax/minu/

b.

Dz/minuwa/; K-Q/uün/

c.

JDBr/min/

99. "Why":

BR/lei/; U/I~s/; LA/Iimäga/ a.

OHAx/les/

b.

Dz/lis/; KQ/I~/

c.

JDBr/les/

3 The BR/lül and U I~I items are telescoped forms which developed diachronically as a result of reducöon and haplology bom a group of juxtaposed and fused words all of which appear singly in Old (and Cassical) Arabie:. The telesc:opie: oonstruc:t· Pay iay'l is postulated to ac:c:ount for the development of theU/~1 form through the reduc:tion of the diphthong (/e/~ 1 ay /) and the deletion of the final segment I-ay' I. Some telesc:oped variants have the initial segment I'ay 1 deleted, especlally when a pronoun is juxtaposed in the oonstruc:t • Pay iay' kin huwwel (Cadora 1974: ~). For a definition of telesc:oping and analysis of other teleec:oped words in the list (items 39, 92. 97, 98, and 99), reEer to Cadora 1974: 59-72.

104

ECOLINGUlSfIC COMPATI BI LITY

100. "Yesterday": BR/mberil)/; U/mbäril;l/; LAPams, =>albäril;la/ (day-night> a. OPams-=>i1bäril;l/; HPams/; AxParnis:>:ilbärl;la / b.

Dz/lbäril)/; KPams-mbäril)/; Q/mberil)/

c.

JD/mbäril); Br/mberil)/

3.5 COMPATIBILITY CORRELATION INDICES: AN INTERPRETATION" The phonological relationships between the BR variety and (1) the U variety, (2) the representative bedouinite (0, H, Ax); ruralite (Dz, K, Q); and urbanite 0, D, Br) varieties, and (3) Literary Arabic are presented on the following correlation indices of contrastive and conjunctive compatibility percentages: BRI: Contrastive Compatibility Index U 31

0 58

H 59

Ax

58

Dz 45

K 22

Q

12

J 28

D 30

Br 33

LA 50

Br 23

LA 23

BRII. Conjunctive CompatibUity Index U 22

0 13

H 13

Ax

19

Dz 18

K 26

Q

30

J 25

D 29

The first index is based on correlations of total differences regardless of the number of lexical equivalents (for example, BR/matar/ vs. U/sita/ and BR/döle, bakraj/ vs. U/brP/ are both contrastive sets); the second index, however, covers partial differences (for example, BR/mkaSSe, mifinse/ vs. U/mukunse/ and BR/kal;ll;l/ vs. U/scal, =>al;ll;l/ are both conjunctive sets which include non-contrastive and contrastive items). Since the two indices include differences, complete and partial ones, they are combined in

4 Refer to (Cadora 1979: 61-9) and Weinreich (1954: 397-9) for this use of correlation indices.

105

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

the assessment of compatibility. Therefore, an analysis of ecolinguistic compatibility is to be made on the basis of a combination of contrastive and conjunctive compatible sets of lexical items. Such adefinition requires the construction of the following complex index: DRIll. Complex Compatibility Index U

53

o

H

~

n

71

K

~

"

~

~

Q

G

J 53

0

59

Br

LA

56

73

Furthermore, percentage averages of each of the three ecolinguistic groups of varieties mayaIso be tabulated, indexed, and scaled: DRIV. Complex Compatibility Average Index U

53

Ruralite

Urbanite

Bedouinite

LA

51

56

73

73

It is evident from the above index that BR has lower complex compatibility with the rural varieties than with any of the other varieties. This relationship mayaIso be represented on a continuum scale that orders the percentages of complex compatibility, given in Index BRIlI, from the lowest to the highest percentage: DRV. Complex Compatibility Scaled Index Q

42

K

48

u

53

J 53

Br

56

o

59

Dz

o

H

~

71

72

~

"

An examination of the above scaled index confirms the ecolinguistic status of the BR variety: its bedouinite and ruralite features have been reduced to marginal and transitional phases respectively as a result of gradual urban influence. As expected, BR has lower complex compatibility with J than with any of the other urbanite varieties. The following similarly-constructed indices for the U variety reveal its phonolexical relationships with the other varieties:

106

ECOLINGUISfIC COMPATIBILITY UI. Contrastive Compatibility Index

BR

32

H

0

62

61

Dz

Ax

57

K

49

31

Q

21

J

2

D

19

Br

LA

Br

LA

Br 28

LA

18

55

UII. Conjunctive Compatibllity Index

BR

21

7

Dz

Ax

H

0

16

2

K

4

13

Q

23

J

3

D

13

10

20

UIII. Complex Compatibility Index

BR

53

0

H

68

64

Dz

Ax 73

53

K

Q

44

44

J 5

D

32

55

UIV. Complex Compatibility Average Index BR

53

Urbanite

22

Ruralite

Bedouinite 68

47

LA

55

An examination of the UIV Scale clearly demonstrates the significantly high affinity that the U variety has with the urbanite varieties. The BRIV and UIV indices also reveal that the U variety has a lower complex compatibility with Literary Arabic than does the BR variety due to the contactual factors discussed earlier in the study. The following index further corroborates this ecolinguistic status of the U variety: both of its ruralite and bedouinite features are now essentially marginal as a result of the overwhelming urban influence of Jerusalem Arabic, with which it shares the lowest contrastive compatibility:

uv. Complex Compatibility Scaled Index J

5

Br

28

D

32

Q 44

K

44

BR

53

Dz

53

H 64

0 68

Ax 73

The extent of urbanite lexical diffusion may be measured by the following computation:

107

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

(1) Subtract each number on the BRIV and UIV indices from the total of 100 lexical items on the analyticallist to determine shared percentage of lexical items and total them for each variety: Index

Bedouinite

BRIV UIV

27

22

Kuralite

Urbanite

Total

49

44 78

120 153

53

(2) Divide each number by the total to determine the percentage of lexical items shared with each ecological group: Bedouinite BR U

22%

14%

Kuralite 41% 35%

Urbanite

37% 51%

The proportion of rural features is, as expected, six percent higher for the BR variety; the bedouinite features are eight percent higher, while the urbanite features are fourteen percent less than the proportions for the U variety. Furthermore, when the BR and U percentages are added and averaged to show the lexical diversity of the bivarietal speaker (BRU), the following results are obtained:

BRU

Bedouinite

Kuralite

Urbanite

18%

38%

44%

This demonstrates tentatively that the BRU variety is obviously in a transitional stage of diffusional change. On the basis of the analytical list used, the BRU variety is mid-way in its progression

towards a completely urbanite system, since 56% of its vocabulary remains non-urbanite, i.e., partially bedouinite (18%) and partially ruralite (38%). The word-by-word acquisition includes both conjunctive and contrastive lexical items. The rate of diffusion is dependent on the speed of urbanization which gradually eliminates, after aperiod of transitional lexical alternation, items that no longer serve the functional needs of an urbanizing family or community (see section 4.2). Since the lexical items on the

108

ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY

analytieal list are largely high frequency words, identifying fast and slow changing words in the process of diffusion has not been considered. However, an examination of the spread of urbanite words in tenns of parts of speech suggests that nouns are the quiekest to diffuse, followed by adverbs and interrogatives, adjectives, and then verbs. For a more reliable quantitative analysis, a much larger body of lexieal data would be required.

CHAPTER FOUR

ECOLINGUISTIC RULES, LEXICAL DIFFUSION, AND HISTORICAL RECAPITULATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Throughout the long history of the Arabic language, transitional stages of ecological development in the Arab world have generated parallel processes of linguistic innovation in Arabic dialects. The notion "ecolinguistic" is introduced in this study to identify such a sociolinguistic change. It is also combined with the notion "compatibility" (as defined and applied in Cadora 1979) to form a more rigorous concept of ecolinguistic compatibility (see chapter 3). This analytical concept, however, is further reinforced with the notion of lexical diffusion which "predicts that during the change period there will be certain alternations best represented by the operation of variable rules" (Wang 1977: 266). This conceptual integration is essential for a valid explanation of the range of interplay between ecological and linguistic factors in the process of change. A higher level of proficiency is achieved upon leaming how and when (1) to replace contrastive lexical items with non-contrastive ones and (2) to apply ecolinguistic rules for the transformation of non-contrastive items. The rate of acquisition depends on the various strategies and pacing employed by the individual speaker. Wang maintains that "[lJexical diffusion can explain not only the internal developments of languages, but also developments caused by language contacts ... Speakers of languages having different phonologies must accomodate the accepted language in a manner wh ich is phonetically abrupt but lexically gradual. The formulation of general principles for such 'accomodations' is as challenging as the study of changes internally motivated in languages, if not more so" (Hashimoto 1981: 190). Wang (1987) describes the mechanism of lexical diffusion as none in which a change affects a few words at a time. Cumulatively through time,

110

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

the change diffuses across the entire lexieon. Three stages may be discerned in the process of diffusion: lagger words, whieh have not yet ehanged (the unchanged or u-stage); words that exhibit alternative pronunciations (the variation or v-stage); and the leader words, which have changed (the changed or c-stage):

Wt W2 W3 W,

c

v

u Wl

W2-ID W3-ID

Wi

In the ehart above, showing lexical diffusion operating on four words, W1 is the lagger, W2 and W3 are undergoing variation, and W4 is aleader that has completed the change. A large body of evidence confinns this scenario in a dozen or so,languages" (248). In the following representative examples, the u-, v-, and c-stages represent not only the BR, BRU, and U varieties, respectively, but also the three generations living in the single extended family household. 1 This means linguistic history is being made in the household, a history which reflects the three stages of development, including an intermediate one. Cf course, when the three stages are eonsidered separately, they represent synchronie varieties; however, collectively they capture a diachronie picture of lexical diffusion. Examine the stages of diffusion suggested in the following examples: Phonological Diffusion Wt W2 W3 W,

u baka

v si~~ine

-

c ~ikkin~

~äs-käs

~i11

- kuli

gloss "to remain" "knife" "glass" "all "

"One of the central cancerns of sodolinguistics has been the study of linguistic

changes In progress-es opposed to the dialectologist's Interest In changes that have already taken place" (Trudgill1982: 239).

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

111

Morphological Diffusion

Wt W2 W3

c

v

u

- kull+e siIrF+in - simC+u smF+tin -_slJliC+!lt -

~ill+e

~-

gloss "all of + it" "They (f.- m.) heard" ~_o~l.) (f.- _11\.) heard"

Lexical Diffusion /, whereas the BR/f/ was changed to BRU/k/ . Furthermore, the rule of Vowel Fronting is applied later than the others, as the following example demonstrates: BR /~ru yi(g)l)a(f)u cal~h(i)n/ BRU /~ru yi(tJ)~a(k)u calAh(i)n/ "They started laughing at them" The BR /g/ and /f/ changed to BRU /4/ and /k/, respectively, whereas the BR/-hin/ was not transformed into BRU/-hon/. Furthermore, /f/ becomes /k/, but /e/ does not change to /0/. This occurs even in the same word: BR /(k)arete (f)ilI(e)/ BRU /(k)ar~te (k)uU(e)/ "I read all of it" It is expected that the application of the ecolinguistic Deaffrication rule (/~I -:> Ik/) would be concomitantly followed by the Laryngealization rule (/kl -:> P /) to engender parallel lexical diffusion. In fact, the latter rule 'drags' laggingly behind:

BR /fata1).t li(f)täb u badet =>a(k)ra Ei/ BRU /fatal).t li(k)tib u bed~t ~a(k)ra Eil "I opened the book and started reading it" Wang (1982) believes that lexical diffusion reflects the interaction of variation and selection and that there are random cultural forces of selection which "include the social dynamies of groups, the eontaet of people in migrations, ete., which also signifieantly influenee language evolution" (514-515). The above ecolinguistic rule selection, therefore, is motivated by

114

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

sociolinguistic considerations, for the I~I (= Ulk/) is perceived to be the most manifest characteristic of BR speech, while I-:J I (= BR/k/), of U speech. The BR speaker, however, anxious to shift to the U variety in particular social contexts without appearing infelicitous or pseudo-urban, applies the first but not the second rule. The BR speaker has intemalized into his grammar adaptive rules, some of which inverse or mirror evolutive changes that have occurred in the history of the Arabic language. The inversing rule of Deaffrication reverts the I~/, the most telling feature of rural speech, to Ikl and interacts with the mirroring rule of Laryngealization (/kl -~ /':>1>.3 Examine the following derivations: BR/~If1

Al. Oeaffrica tion Al. Laryngealiza tion

BI . Laryngealization B2. Oeaffrica tion

U/klfl

rt/-:Jifl

BR/kill

UPäl/ Upäl/

Ikifl "how"

"He said"

The above interaction of rules in A which requires that Oeaffrication be applied before Laryngealization produces unacceptable forms such as rt/~If/; whereas, the order of rules in B produces the correet forms. This is an interesting phenomenon since Deaffrication and Laryngealization, as ecolinguistic rules, generate both evolutive and adaptive change. The mirroring rules-which include, for example, Oespirantization, Laryngealization, Oeepenthesis, and loss of second and third person feminine plural verb forms-became operative early in the history of the Arabic language mostly in sedentary varieties outside the Arabian Peninsula. Consequently, many bedouin varieties escaped this linguistic diffusion for centuries until the processes of ruralization and urbanization began to make a greater impact on the ecological structure of Arab society and to engender concomitant change in the linguistic structure of bedouinite and ruralite varieties.

3

See Kenstowicz and Kisgeberth (1979: 291-327) on ruIe interaction.

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

115

4.3 ECOLINGUISTIC DIFFUSION OF DEFLECfED AGREEMENT

4.3.1

Introduction and Some Historical Developments

Deflected agreement which requires the use of feminine singular forms with certain types of plural nouns presents an important contrastive ecolinguistic development in the SR and U varieties. The diffusion of this morphosyntactic feature cannot be analyzed without some detailed discussion of its historical origins and development. "The two basic OA [Old Arabic] constraints on the kinds of plural nouns taking deflected agreement were non-human vs. human referents and broken vs. sound plurals ... The two basic NA [New Arabic1 constraints are non-human vs. human and simple plurality vs. distributive/enumerative plural" (Ferguson 1989: 1112). Non-human and other inanimate plurals [-hu+pI) are generally treated as feminine singular [+f+sg] in almost all concord relationships in Modem Standard Arabic.4 However, in Old Arabic dialects and early Classical Arabic, the use of the plural [+pI), masculine [+m] or feminine [+f], form was very common. "In preIslamic poetry, it is virtually a universal rule that adjectives ... show plural forms when referring to pluralities; instances such as albIQu [-hu+pl) l~wärimu [+pI) "the trenchant swords" and Shanfara's sanäsinu [-hu+pl] qu~lun [+pI) "fleshless vertebrae" could be multiplied hundreds of times over. The use of the feminine singular [I-at/] concord with 'irrational' [-hu+pl) substances is a neologism in Arabic which only gradually won its way to becoming the norm" (Beeston 1975: 65-66). Plural agreement is also evidenced in Arabic prose of the same period, for example, in orations by AI-Bakri /rimäl:l.Una tiwäl/ "Our lances [-hu+pI) are long [+pl)," and Pacmäruna qi~r/ "Our lives [-hu+pl] are short [+pI)" and by AI-cÄmirI Pal-jibälu l-rawäsil "the unshakable [+pl) mountains [-hu+pl)"S and lal-nujümu l-zawähirl "the luminous stars" (Xalif 1983: 588, 590). Feminine singular I -atl concord appears to have been an archaic feature which was revived

4 Comrie, for example, maintains that ..... a number of languages use singular verbs in agreement with plural phrases that are low in animacy, but plural agreement when the noun 15 of high animacy ... " (1981: 183). 5 Mayy Ziidah uses the same plural construction in a translation of a French short story in the 1900s (SaCd 1983: 854).

116

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

and perpetuated in the literary language to serve the requirements of rhyme and metrical schemes in pre-Islamic poetry and (sajC) prose.6 According to Speiser, in early Semitic, different sterns were used to designate male and female and the suffix / -at! did not exist as a marker of feminine gender until a relatively late, though still prehistoric, period.7 As evidenced in Arabic, this derivational suffix produced, for example, abstract nouns /l:lasan+at/ "goodness," and /~uxuww+at/ "brotherhood"; collectives /kafar+at/ "unbelievers," and pixw+at/ "brothers (and sisters)"; and singulatives /baqar+at! "a cow" (/ and /l).akim+üna/ "wise men" and both /~1).är+ä/ and /~l).raw+ät/ "deserts" in Classical Arabic may be seen, in spite of the appearance of the -ii(na)/-ät gender suffixes, as reflecting this historical development and confirming the perpetuation of South Semitic broken plurals rather than representing plurals of abundance and paucity, respectively (cf. Fleisch 1961: 296; Anis 1966: 138-39). Unlike the rest of the Semitic languages, in Arabic these masculine and feminine plural suffixes diffused gradually, however, in competition with, but never replacing, the broken plural system. Furthermore, according to Anis, the arguments advanced by the medieval grammarians regarding the differentiated use of the plurals of paucity, of abundance, and of plural-no matter how ingenious~o not support their claims, since in their Iiterature the expected type of plural is often not used. He dtes AI-Xansä:>'s critique of I;Iassän Ibn Iäbit's poetry as a representative example of such cases of contradictory usage (Anis 1966: 138-39). In the critique, perhaps of dubious origin, promulgated in Al-MaCärif and Al-;)AgänI to demonstrate her excellent and erudite status among poets, she claims that Pal-jifän/ "scabbards" and /suyüfl "swords" should have been used instead of Pal-jafan+ät/ and Pasyäf! since the former, as (alleged) plurals of abundance, would refer to a number greater than ten. Hence, usage of the latter has diminished rather than augmented the poet's boasting or glory. Of equal interest is the use of feminine plural verbs with the above-mentioned non-human plural nouns in the same line of poetry: /yalmac+na/ "shine" and

ECOLINCUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

119

Iyaqtur+nal "drip" (with blood), respectively (AI-YasiicI 1896: 23-

24).1t>

In Christian Arabic the I -ätl suffix is sometimes added to nonhuman and human plurals which end in I -a(t) I without changing the meaning: Pamtic+al - > Pamtic+ätl "things" and Pa~1:tib+al - > Pa~1:tib+ätl "friends" (Blau 1966: 229). This type of plural formation has been termed 'the plural of a plural'i however, it is probably a reanalysis of the words as feminine singulars, due to the presence of the l-a(t)1 suffix, which paved the way for pluralization with I -ät/, the feminine plural suffix. AI-Sämarrä:>i (1961: 91) reports that I-at! suffixes in plural words were read as I -ätl by technical Qur:>änic readers in the following two verses (Ali 1977): I ... ka:>annah jimäl+at+un ~ufr+unl (LXXVII 133) "... as if there were ([a] string of) yellow camels ([m]arching swiftly)."

I ... wa:>alqühu Ei gayäb+ati I-jubbi .. ./ (XlIII 0) "... throw him down [t]o the bottom [i.e., depths] of the weil ..... It is interesting that the Qur:>änic spelling of these two words also does not use the grapheme of the I -at! ( ö- ), but rather that of the

Itl in I -ät! (~-) (Le., without I -ä/, the :Jali{>. This probably constitutes a transitional graphemic reanalysis in the diffusive direction of representing I -ätl as the feminine plural suffix. After the differentiation of gender, and the rise and spread (and complete diffusion in East and North-Western Semitic) of sound plurals (the suffixal system), broken plurals11 with the suffixes I-at/, l-ä:>/, and I-äl (also as I-ay/), which account for almost half of the patterns, continued to express the collective and abstractoften independent of gender. The notion of a collective group

10 This and similar later examples of Mayy Ziidah's usage was brought to my attention by Professor Joseph Zeidan. 11 To express this kind of plurality it is assumed that an " ...increase in the sound volume of the word (especially in the stem, for example, lengthening of vowels and/or consonants) is corresponded by a quantitative increase in the concept" (Murtonen 1964: 38, 62).

120

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEX:ICAL DIFFUSION

preceded that of the plural in Semitic.12 Therefore, these suffixes -which subsequently began to serve as markers of the feminine singular-represented the old singular collectives, a connotation of which continued in the later phenomenon of collective plurals (Murtonen 1964: 1-5,22-60). Hence, the plurals of /dalIl/ "a guide (m.)" are: /~adill +ä ~ / (generally or always restricted to rational beings [+hu», Padill+at/ (generally restricted to things [-hu], but properlya plural of paueity), and /dalä11+e/ which also served, in addition to /dalil+ät/, as the plural of /dalIl+at/ "a guide (f.)" (Lane: 901). According to al-Sämarrä~i (1961: 80-81), variation in gender assignment of broken plurals as evidenced in Qur~änic Arabic suggests the beginning or continuation of an 'ambigendrous' stage in the development of the broken plural system of Old Arabic dialects of the period.t 3 He eites, for example, the following data to demonstrate this ambiguity (Ali 1977): / ... wa yunAPu l-sa1;täb+a l-tiqäl+e/ (XXIII/12) "... it is He [w]ho does raise up [t]he clouds [-hu+pl] heavy [+pl] [w]ith (fertilising) rain!"

U Acoording to Gray (1934), "lt)he collective singular readily deveIops into a psychological plural, a phenomenon particularly frequent in South Semitie (North and South Arablic), Ethliopic» as the so-called 'broken plural', which is treated grammatically as a feminine singular ... and normally takes its verb in the feminine singular (unless referring to distinctly male beings), not in any form of the plural. As matter of fact, the 'broken plural' is not, in origin, a plural at all, but is really a collective singular ... In Arabie and Ethiopic the 'broken plural' is developed to such degree that it usurps in great measure the true plural of distribution. In other words, the original coneept of a eollective singular has here tended increasingly to disappear, its primary connotation being replaced by a pluralistie and distributive force" (51-53). 13 The broken plural noun Pal-qura/ "villages" has feminine plural concord in Islamic Middle Arabic (Hopkins 1984: 146) and masculine plural anaphorie agreement in Christian Middle Arabie (Knutsson 1974: 157) as the following two examples demonstrate, respectively:

U fi zamäninä/ L:.L.j ~ .!"ö-JI .....o.....J1 'The yellow [+f+sgJ newspapers [-hu+pl] of our time"

17

In Oassical and Uterary Arabic, the feminine singular agreement rule

diffused fully in smaller classes of words and gradually across larger morphological

dasses as in pronouns, demonstratives, verbs with broken plural subjects, verbs with sound plural subjects, adjectives with broken plural subjects, and adjectives with sound plural subjects (Belnap and Shabaneh, forthcoming).

124

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

/tutliqu gurbäna l-l:mriifi l-sud/ ,).,..JI "free the crows of black [+pl) letters [-hu+pl)"

..J~I ,,~

.:;1J.:J

Beeston (1975) points out that "[tJhe appearance of plural colouradjectives referring to irrationalia in MSA [Modern Standard Arabic] simply demonstrates that this particular class of adjective has proved more resistant than others to the change" (66). ~IS' ~~I ~.J

".,aJ.:I

.::0

lALl JI.,..JI

.:r

~I ~I

e!.u"

/warawä:>ihu l-cusbi l-xabili mina l-sawäqi l-muglim+äti tatf u Calä wajhi l-hadiqati ka l-nabIgi/ "The odour of rank grass from dark [+f+pI] brooks [-hu+pI] floats like wine over the face of the garden." A cursory look at some of Mayy Ziädah's prose writings, for example, reveals the use of feminine plural verbs and adjectives in constructions like /talätu sanaw+ät [-hu+pl) maQay+na [+f+pl/ and /sanaw+ät [-hu+pI] talät marar+na [+f+pI]/ "Three years have passed" and /lahaj+äti+ha [-hu+pIJ l-muxtalif+ät [+f+pI]/ Hits diverse dialects" and /wa+kullu+hä xataw+ät [-hu+pl] ~lil:l+ät [+f+pl]/ "and they are all valid steps" (Sacd 1983: 459-60,589). In one segment of her memoirs she uses /säc+ät [-hu+pl] tawil+ät [+f+pI]/ "long hours" as against /suhiir [-hu+pI] mutaqallib+a [+f+sgJ/ "capricious months" (Jabr n.d.: 192-3) and /suhur [-hu+pIJ qalä:>il [+plJ/ "a few months," Pacwäm [-hu+pl] cadid+a [+f+sgJ/ "many years" (Ziädah 1930: 1) and /marr+ät [-hu+pI] katIr+ät [+f+pI]/ "many times" (Ziädah 1919: 13). Compare these two costructions in a letter composed in 1920 to the editor of Al-Hiläl: Pacwäm [-hu+pI] tawila [+f+sgJ/ "long years" and /al-sanaw+ät [-hu+pI] l-qalä11 [+pI]/ "the few years" (AI-KuzbarI 1982: 197). Elsewhere she uses in the same article /sumus [-hu+pl] manJC+a [+f+sgJ/ "inaccessible suns" and /sumus [-hu+pl] mutajallid+ät l+f+pl) "frozen suns" (Ziädah 1920: 483), and in another /säc+ät [-hu+pI] :>uxr+ä [+f+sgJ katIr+ät [+f+pIJ/ "many other hours" and pal-säc+ät [-hu+pl) l-nafIsa l+f+sgJ/ "the precious hours" (Ziädah 1919: 133). To suggest that Ziädah's use of /+ät/ forms is stylistic or idiosyncratic, especially for the purpose of assonance, requires further investigation. However, to claim that such usage is for the purpose of signifying a number less than ten is again contradicted by

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

125

the following constructions: t'al-quriin [-hu+pl] l-xäliy+ät [+f+pl]/ "the previous centuries" and /'al-l;1awäs [-hu+pl] l-gähir+a [+f+sg1l "the external senses" since the "senses" referred to here are five in numberj i.e., less than ten, and would require the use of /gähir+ät/.1 8 The commendable research conducted by Hopkins (1984) on papyri of mainly the first three Islamic centuries which represent early Middle Arabic reveals a similar [+f+pl] usage: ';I~I I::" ~..Jb ~}

.:.I::'!r-

~ ~U ~I JI

"and where are all his mirac1es [-hu+pl) about which [+m+pl) our fathers told us [about them] [+m+pl)"

Historically it makes sense for /-ät/-suffixed forms to be used with nouns that refer to a number of ten or less, since their origin goes back to a collective or small group representation. 4.3.3 Synchronie Analyses Descriptions of some of the synchronie facts resulting from these historical developments appear to be motivated more by pedagogical convenience than by rigorous conceptualization. Mitchell (1973) asserts that "Clearly, differences of plural concord are not in parallel with corresponding distinctions in the singular" (37). He points out that a noun like Pami~/ "shirt" is described by scholars of Arabie as masculine in the singular but feminine in the plural /~m~n/ "shirts" [-hu+pl). "In fact, since wisxa ["dirty" = +f+sg] in ~umSaan wisxa ["dirty shirts"] is the same form as that appearing in singular patterns elsewhere, we could go oddly further and say that CA [Cairo Arabic] ~amiiS is masculine in the singular but feminine sinrlar in the plural, the absurdity of which is at once apparent" (37).1 Mitchell proposes that it is less confusing to refer to adjectival forms as c1asses 1, 2, or 3 in accordance with the following table than to speak of them as singular and plural, masculine and feminine and that categories of number must be given priority in drawing up rules of concord for CA (38): 1

kibir wisix tu1yäni

2

kibira wisxa tulyäniyya

3

kubär wisxin taläyna

Instead of establishing such new abstract classes which eliminate reference to gender, it would be more natural to reintroduce the historical impersonal gender discussed earlier. In

19 Professor Brian Joseph relates that there are languages in which nouns show different gender ooncord patterns in singular as opposed to plural Ce.g., Albanian).

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

127

the singular, the impersonal gender, if it ever existed, has disappeared completely. The masculine or feminine gender of the singular is determined by inflectional or overriding semantic features. Therefore, whenever the impersonal-henceforth nonpersonal [-mf] or neuter [+n)-gender is used, it refers only to the plural number. Furthermore, one cannot say that a given word is singular, dual (not to be treated in this study), or plural without assigning it a gender feature and vice versa. Examine the following matrix: (+m]

(+f]

(+mt]

(-Kg]

-0

-a

rare

(+pl]

-in

-ät

-0

(+n] or (-mt]

-a

Since a gender or a number feature cannot stand alone, an adjective, for example, is assigned a composite category of gender and number features, such as [+msg), [+fsg), [+mpl], [+fpl], and [+mfpl). Since the valence sign applies to all the features inside the brackets, the composite category of gender and number for the nonpersonal or neuter can be formed in either of two ways: [+npl] or [-mfsg). The number features, [+pl] and [-sg) in both ways are, however, redundant, since [+n) and [-mf] can only refer to a nonsingular number. Furthermore, since the [-hu) animacy feature cannot refer to a singular number, the following composite category of anirnacy [-hu) and number features is also posited: [-husg). Again, the feature [-sg) is redundant in [-husg], since [-hu) can only refer to a non-singular number. Nonetheless, the composite categories [-mfsgJ and [-husg) are selected and retained in order to facilitate paradigmatie symmetry and (as will be seen later) synchronie analyses with feasible reference to historical developments.

4.3.3.1 Adjectives The following dasses of gender and number composite categories are here proposed for two representative adjectives "dirty" and "smalI, " respectively, in the BR and U varieties of Ramallah Arabie:

128

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

[+msg1

[+&g]

[+mpU

[+fpIl

wisix+llJ

wisx+a

wisx+in

wisx+ät

zgir+0

zgir+e

[+mfpU

[-mfsg]

wisx+a zgär+0

zgir+e

Since the suffixes I -al and I -el are allomorphs of I -al (see BRU 1, pp. 41-42), then the composite categories l+fsg1 and l-mfsg1 have one identical marker I -al. The laI also represents the suffix of adjectives of color such as Il)amr+al (LA/l)amrä:>j) "red" and I sOd+al (LAI sawdä:> j) "black" (see p. 42). It is possible to represent the inflectional suffixes of this paradigm in the following manner:

[+msg1

-e

[+&g]

-a

20

[+mpU

-in

[+fpIl -ät

[+mfpU

[-mfsg]

-f2J

-a

The general distribution of agreement patterns suggests that nonhuman plurals l-husg1 associated with U often trigger non-personal l-mfsg1 concordi whereas, those related to BR usually require strict number but equivocal gender agreement l+mpI], l +fpI], or l +mfpI]. Therefore, the tendency toward l-mfsg1 concord is more prevalent in the U variety. Consider the following examples: BR/wen iller+ät ilbäky+ät/ "Where is the remaining l+fpI] money l-husg1?"

U/tcallmnäha fil madrase hal :>aAcär+f2J il:>adim+el "We leamed them in school, these old l-mfsg1 poems l-husg1" BR/Cindi~+ät~umur+01

"I have red l+mfpI] bangles l-husg1"

:aJ Hopldns dtes examples hom Middle Arabic wherein "Adjectives which by the very sense they convey can reier only to female need not receive the feminine ending" (1984: 141):

~.fo I~.J"'"

.u '.JI-

"a she-ass (I-a(t)/) of his, black (I-al) and near to giving birth (I-fJ/)" Uterary Arabic ll.timil+81 l+fsg] "pregnant" can be explained in the same way. Conversely, there are many mascuIine nouns that have the suffix l-a(t)/, such as Itigiy+a(t)1 "tyrant" (lbrahim 1973: 40, 79).

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

129

U/Cindi maSäkil+0 ktir+e/ "I have many [-mfsg) problems [-husg)" The use of demonstrative adjectives provides additional corroborative evidence: ni~tib ~il1 hal :>agäni+0 ha40I/ 'We must write all of these [+mfpl] songs [-husg)"

BR/l;ulkk

U/äafilhon daxalu hadik libyi1t+0/ "'They saw them enter those [-mfsg) houses [-husg)" 4.3.3.2 Verbs The adjective c1asses of gender and number composite categories proposed above can also be applied to verbs with parallel inflectional suffixes. Examine the following paradigm of the verb /wi~il/ "to arrive":

[+msg1

[+fsg]

[+mpl]

[+fpl]

[+mfpl]

[-mfsg]

wi~il+0

wi~l+at

wi~l+u

wi~l+in

wi~l+u

wisl+at

-0

-at

-u

-(i)n

-u

~Vt21

The distribution of ver~subject agreement patterns is rather similar to that of the noun-adjective. The [+mfpl] category reflects the merger of [+mpl] and [+fpl] in U as demonstrated by the MF23P rule (see p. 47). Consider the following representative examples: BR/~il1 ilganam+0 fakas+in/ "All of the goats [-husg) ran away [+fpl)"

21 This means that the plural conjugation of the verb would include the following thlrd (person) forms (V stands for / -al - / -i/):

BR

U

~u

wiiJlu wiiJlu wiiJI+at

wiiJlin wiiJl+it

IA

waplü waplna wapl+at

Gloss

'They (m.) arrived" "They (f.) arrived" 'They (n.) arrived"

130

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

U/1Payyäm+0 marr+at bisurCa/ "The days [-husg1 went by [-mfsg1 SO quickly" BR/dur+in lil;\jär+0 h~ u h~/ The stones [-husg1 moved [+fpl] this (way) and that (way)" U/där+u lil;\jär+0 yinhäl+u calena/ "The stones [-husg1 started [+mfpl] to fall [+mfpl1 on us" 4.3.3.3 Pronouns

The following classes of gender and number composite categories are here suggested for the third (person) pronominal object suffixes. Examine the following paradigm of the verb /simic / "to hear": [+msg1

[+fs81

[+mpl]

siJnC+e/o

simic+ha

simic+him

simc-e (BR)

simic-ha (BR)

simic-him (BR)

simc-o (U)

simic-ha (U)

[+fpl]

[+mfpl]

[-mfs81

simic+hin

simic+hin

simic+ha

simic-hin (BR)

simic-hin (BR)

simic-ha (BR)

simic -hon (U)

simiC-ha (U)

In U the [+mpl1 and [+fpl1 categories had merged into /-hon/ [+mfpl]. Furthermore, the occurrence of BR/-him/ [+mpl] is so rare that it can be seen as having merged with /-hin/ [+fpl1 into /-hin/ [+mfpl]. It is interesting that, unlike other mergers in the Arabic language, it is the feminine plural suffix which was generalized. Pronouns also adhere to concord patterns similar to those of adjectives and verbs, as the following examples suggest: BR/Iganam+0 wen bitnayymi1+hin/ "The goats [-husg1, where do you keep them [+mfpl] ovemight?"

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

131

U/lWn räJ;\U I ganam+e...binna nbiC+ha/ "Where did the goats [-husg) go? We want to seil them [-mfsg)" BR/lwasäyid+0 baku y}:l.uUu fi+hin tibin/ "The cushions [-husg), they used to stuff them [+mfpl] with straw" U/limxadd+ät känu y}:l.uUu fi+ha ,üf! "The pillows [-husg), they used to stuff them [-mfsg) with wool" The variation in non-human plural concord relationships suggests readily that contact with the U variety motivated the introduction of a variable or (minor)22 [-mfsg) ecolinguistic rule to convert BR forms into U forms. Examples from three major classes of words (adjectives, verbs, and pronouns) were presented in the preceding sections to demonstrate the rule's spread across the lexicon of the BR speaker. The rule initiated the gradual diffusion of the [-mfsg) category in the U lexicon-replicating its historical implementation and spread in pre-Islamic Old Arabic poetry (Beeston 1975: 65-66).23 4.4 LEXICAL CONDITIONING

Versteegh reports that plural concord ismore prevalent in modem dialects that are not susceptible to the influence of Classical Arabic (1984: 104). This susceptibility to decreolization was already detected, for example, in the Spanish Arabic (SpAr) of the ninth and tenth centuries; prior to this interference of Classical Arabic, concord followed natural agreement like some Old Arabic dialects (Corriente 1977: 130): SpAr/umür+0+u al~jCäb+0/ SpAr/al-,uxür al-tiqäl+0/

"his difficult [+mfpI] matters [-husg)" "the heavy [+mfpl] rocks [-husg)"

The use of the term 'minor' is redundant, since all ecolinguistie rules are minor. Belnap and Shabaneh provided in an unpublished meritoriously pioneering paper (which was presented at the 1989 Arabic Linguistie Society Meeting) some statistical evidence for the lexical diffusion of this minor /variable rule through successive stages of Uterary Arabie (from pre-Islamie poetry, 'A1-Qur~n, Maqämit, Ibn Xaldün, Taha Hussein, and to the modem press) until it became a major rule in Modem Uterary Arabic CBelnap and Shabaneh, forthcoming). 22 23

132

ECOLINGUISflCS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

SpAr/ruqäq+e l;l.uluww+a/ SpAr/ dukir+at al-mudun+e/

"sweet [-mfsg) waffles [-husg)" "[T)he towns [-husg) were mentioned [-mfsg)"

Early Middle Arabic also reveals a similar, but mixed, usage evidenced in papyri and on coins of mainly the first three Islamic centuries (Hopkins 1984: 141,145):

t,·1 '.J~

~I... I L •• 'J-

I::I!.. .1...lU~ ~ I u

~

"four mithqal [+mfpl) dinars [-husg), freshly minted [+mfpl), excellent [+mfpl) and of tull weight [-mfsg)" Similar examples are cited for Christian Arabie by Blau (1967: 286-7):

.,:, L...~I

u-i='~ I

"the spirits [-husg) confined [+fpl)"

..1lA-J1 ~l..}1

"least [+mfpl) commandments [-husg)"

"sharp [-mfsg) stones [-husg)"

Ö~~ ö..1~

~I ~I !.,A~I "the weak [-mfsg) and beggarly [-mfsg) desires [-husg) In the early sections of their excellent article on Jordanian Arabic, Owens and Bani-Yasin report that educated speakers use more feminine singular [-mfsg) (SA [Standard Arabie» type agreement, while the less educated use the plural type (1987: 714). This obviously coincides with the BR/U diehotomy since urbanite speakers have been more educated than ruralite speakers. Examine the following supporting examples:

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

133

BR/wen rul:l+in hal ~ri+0/ "Where did the money [-husg1 go [+fpl]?" u/wen räl;l+at hal cad+ät/ "Where did the customs [-husg1 go [-mfsg1?" BR/wen ligrag+0 illi gall+!n macäk/ "Where are the things [-husg1 that stayed [+fpl) with you?" u/wen ligrä4+0 illi 4all+at macak/ "Where are the things [-husg1 that stayed [-mfsg1 with you?" BR/wen il kura+0 lli bik+in, yaCni 11i ma thaddam+n+is/ "Where are the villages [-husg1 that remained [+fpl), i.e., the ones that were not demolished [+fpl]?" u/wen il 'ura+011i bPy+at, yacni lli ma thaddam+ü+s/ 24 "Where are the villages [-husg1 that remained [-mfsg1, i.e., the ones that were not demolished [+mfpl1?" Upon closer examination of their data, Owens and Bani-Yasin discovered that the patterns of agreement were lexically conditioned: "Lexical items associated with SA [Standard Arabic1 trigger f. sg. [-mfsg1 agreement; those with Col [colloquial1 trigger f. pI. [+fpl)" (719). In the phrase /masaqät ~cba/ "Difficult [+fsg1 academic courses [-husg]," the meaning of the head noun /masaqät/ and the / q/ are semantic and phonological attributes respectively of SA; whereas, in j:>il-Ierät ilbägyätl "The remaining [+fpl] dinars [-husg]," the head noun /lerät/ is associated with Col." The classification schema used to distinguish the above two lexical types (SA and Col) includes phonological, morphological, and semantic attributes (720). Such attributes, of course, are found in the BR and U forms of their respective users. BR and U speakers use different phonological (jk/ vs. j:>/), morphological (jmixzan/ vs.

2. The U verb /ma thaddamDS/, however, remains in the plural. This may reflect a transitional stage. Barlow and Ferguson report variation in agreement in Syrian Arabic which suggests a change in progress::>füni l+msg), or ~üni l+pl), or ~!itni l+fsg) mabtib l -mfsgl) "Some letters came to me = I received some letters"

(1988: 16).

134

ECOLINGUISTICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

/maxzan/), and semantic-Iexical (/gawitj vs. /gami'/) features as demonstrated in the following examples: BR/lakena sabf ~c+ät mit'axxr+ät fil mixzan ilgawItj "We found seven measures [-husg1 unaccounted for [+fpl) in the deep storehouse" U/la 'ena sabf ~c +ät miS ma1)süb+e fil maxzan ilgami' / "We found seven measures [-husg1 unaccounted for [-mfsg1 in the deep storehouse" This concord correlation, according to Owens and Bani-Yasin, cuts across plural types, so that agreement of sound (/ -ät/) or broken plurals (/ -e/) is dependent on the lexical item with which they are associated. SA sound feminine plural nouns trigger only feminine singular [-mfsg1 agreement: /mal;tall+ät tijäriyy+i (=[-e»/ "Commercial establishments"; however, in Col they trigger feminine plural [+fpl): /'issayär+ät igrag+in/ "The cars get stuck." "The two rules correlate to a high degree with other SA/Col attributes" (725). Broken plurals in theory can take either feminine singular [-mfsg1 or feminine plural [+fpI1 agreement in both SA and Col: SAPal-'ayyäm+e facal+at/ or SAPal 'ayyäm+e facal+na/ "The days did" and, Col/il-baramil makaffinnis/ "The barrels didn't suffice," vs. ColPil 'ayyäm illi marrat Caleyya/ "the days which I've seen" (718, 720, 711, 712). Similar instances are found in data by a representative of the middle generation (BRU): BRU/bidde yismac ha~ ~ilm+ät iJCutkiyy+e/ "He wants to hear the old [-mfsg1 words [-husg1" BRU/banu dür+e wäsC +a (or /wäsC+ät/)/ "They built spacious [-mfsg or +fpl) houses [-husg1" BRU/wen räl).+at ilcäd+ät ilkadim+e lli bikina nistaCmil+ha/ "Where did [-mfsg1 the old [-mfsg1 customs [-husg1 which we used to practice (them) [-mfsg1 go [-mfsg1?" BRU/wen rul).+in ilma~äri+e/ (Broken plural) "Where did the money [-husg1 go [+fpl]?"

ECOLINGUISfICS AND LEXICAL DIFFUSION

135

but:

BR/wen rul;t+in hal cirnar+ät/(Sound plural) "Where did the buildings [-husgJ go [+fpl]?" This variation in concord is probably attributed to the fact that the broken plural was originally a collective : BR/I~ri+9 nälq+a/ "The money [-husgJ is short [-mfsgJ"

BR/wen rul;t+in ilma~ri+9/ 'Where did the money [-husgJ go [+fplJ?" The use of the feminine singular in pronominal forms is frequent even in the BR variety" BR/wen räl;t+u Iganam+9, binbiC+ha/ "Where did the sheep [-husgJ go [+mfpIJ, we will seil them [-mfsgJ" Beeston (1975) suggests that feminine singular concord "made its first appearance in the domain of the pronouns (already Shanfara has kiCäbun dal;tähä läcibun fa-hya muttalun "dice cast by a player and lying outspread" with singular pronouns [-mfsgl but plural [+mfpIJ adjective), and then spread to other domains" (66). 4.5 CONCLUSION

As a culture area, the Arab world has had different ecological structures-nomadic VI CiCi

BR 12.

Glottal Deletion-b :>

BR 13.

BR 15.

} -

-~

i/C -

C {

Affrication k - ' > C I(except -

~}

~

}

+ ak#)

Glide Insertion-c o -~ w I + CVC+ I Imperfect verb stern [+rd]

BR 16.

{

V Ci Ci 1 3

Epenthesis-b o

BR 14.

-~ 01 { ~

-~

{V~ C;

Vowel Fronting u -~ i/c -

~}

147

APPENDIX C

RULES FOR BOTH THE BEDOUIN-RURALITE AND URBANITE V ARIETIES (BRU) BRU 1.

Feminine Singular Suffix V -'> e / e # / f. s. suff.

[-lyn]

[-rhz]

{

[+10]

}

BRU 2.

Stress V -'> [+ stress] / -

BRU 3.

Assimilation a -'> i/ -

oe

Sync~_,>

_

BRU

4.

[ BRU 5.

flJ /

Co «ve)ve1) #

cve

+hi ] -stress

/h/ -Deletion h -'>

flJ

excePt/{

~

V}

BRU 6.

Vowel Lengthening V -'> V/ - + (V) e (V) # / Pronominal Suffix

BRU 7.

Vowel Assimilation

{~}-,>{~}/{~}+- {~} alg

BRU 8.

/h/ -Assimilation h -'> 5 / - +si

alg

148

APPENDIX C

BRU 9.

Metathesis oh -~ ho 1+ -

BRU 10.

Vowel Hannony

+C(V)# 1 Pronominal suffix

e-~i/-si

BRU 11.

Ii/ -Deletion i

-~ 0/+5 (s) -

#

149

APPENDIX 0

RULES FOR ECOLINGUISTIC COMPATIBILITY (EC) EC 1.

Despirantization

EC 2.

Deaffrication-a

EC 3.

Deaffrication-b Ijl -> IZ/

EC 4.

Laryngealization Ik/ -> PI (except -

EC 5.

It,g,g/-> It,d,41

Itl-> /kl

+ak#)

Vowel Lowering-Backing +syl ] [ +hi -bk -> [+10] -10

EC 6.

Vowel Backing-a [

EC 7.

+syl ]

~bh~

->

+bk [+hi ] I Proroum

Oe-epenthesis ->e/C -C# [ except when ] +son & +ant

i

EC 8.

-V] [V ~b~

Glide Substitution t -> { : } /

V

+bk

/ Prorouro

150 EC 9.

APPENDIX 0

Glide Gemination

{~}-~{ EC 10.

yy } / [ :- - - ] / Pro1'lOU1\S u- - -

ww

MF23P Merger +ein +tin ] [ +kun +tu ] [ +:~n +~un / All morphological classes

EC 11.

EC 12.

Dissimilation i -~ a/ + Vowel Raising

[~ EC 13.

EC 14.

t#/Verb

-~

]

~

[

] / C-

Glide Insertion 121 -~ Y / CVC(V) Sync~pe

/ _

C(+) -

+ / Verb

CV

1-~12I

+hi ] -stress

[ EC 15.

Degliding {

EC 16.

-~

}

{

~

} /a-#

Assimilation a

EC 17.

~

-~

{

~

} / -

Vowel Reduction W-~V/-#

{

~

} /Verb

{ :

} / Verb

151

APPENDIX 0

EC 18.

Vowel Backing-b i -> u/VC - CI Verb stern-vowel

EC 19.

Vowel Fronting-Lowering ö - > ä I Glottal-initial verb stern

EC 20.

Vowel Backing-c e - > 01 - +88#

EC 21.

Iho I -Insertion

e-~ ho / {!}+-ss

EC 22.

Geminate Cornpression 88 - > 8 IV-#

EC 23.

Vowel Lengthening V ->V/-+ss#

EC 24.

Stress V - > [+stress]1 -

Co «VC)VCl)

#

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abboud, Peter. 1964. The syntax of Najdi Arabic. Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, Austin. - - . 1979. The verb in northern Najdi Arabic. BSOAS 42: 467-499. Abdel-Jawad,. Hassan. 1986. The emergence of an urban dialect in the Jordanian urban centers. IJSL 61:53-64. Abdo, Daud. 1969. Stress and Arabic phonology Ph.D. diss., University of lllinois. - - . 1977. Alifät am hamzät? AI-CArllbiyya 10:46-54. Abu-Haidar, Farida. 1979. A study of the spaken Arllbic of BllSkinfil. Leiden: Brill. Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. LIlngwzge 49: 765-93. - - . 1972. Dipthongization. LIlngU/Zge 48: 11-50. Anderson, S. and B. Chene. 1979. Compensatory lengthening. LIlngU/Zge 55: 505-535. Al-Ani, Salman. 1970. Arllbic phonology. The Hague: Mouton. Anis, Ibrähim. 1952. Al-Lahajät al-cArabiyya. Cairo: MatbaCat Lahajät al-Bayän al-cArabi. - - . 1966. Min !bsrär al-luga. Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo al-Mi~riyya. - - . 1971. Al-Aswat al-lugawiyya. Cairo: Maktabat al-Anglo al-Mi~riyya. Aswad,. Barbara. 1970. ''Sodal and ecological aspects in the foundation of Islam." In Peoples and cultures of the Middle EllSt,Volurne 1, edited by Louise Sweet, 5373. Garden City: The Natural History Press. Awwad,. Muhammad. 1987. Free and bound pronouns as verbs in rural Palestinian colloquial Arabic. ZAL 16:108-118. Barlow, Michael and Charles Ferguson, eds. 1988. Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Beeston, A.F.L. 1975. Some features of Modern Standard Arabic. ISS 20:62-68. Belnap, Kirk and Osama Shabaneh. Forthcoming. "Variable agreement with nonhuman controllers in Oassical and Modern Standard Arabic." To appear in Perspectives on Arabic linguistics IV: Papers from the fourth annual symposium on Arabic /inguistics, edited by Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid, and John McCarthy, n.pp. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bergsträsser, G. 1915. Sprachatlas von Syrien und Palästina. ZDPV 38:169-222. Blanc, Haim. 1953. Studies in north Palestinian Arabic: Linguistic inquiries amonq the Druzes of western Galilee and Mt. urrnel. Oriental Notes and Studies 4. Jerusalem: The Israel Oriental Society. - - . 1964. Communal dialects in Baghdad. Harvard Middle Eastern Monograph Series. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. - - . 1970. The Arabic dialect of the Negev bedouins. PIASH 4:112-150. Blau, Joshua. 1966-67. Agrammar of Christian Arabic. (1966: Fase. I; 1967: Fascs. 11 and I1I). Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste. - -. 1972. Middle and old Arabic material for the history of stress in Arabic. BSOAS 35:476-484. Bloch, Ariel. 1967. The vowels of the imperfect preformatives in the old dialects of Arabic. ZDMG 117:22-29. Bohas, G., J.P. GuiIlaume, and D.E. Kouloughli. 1990. The Arabie linguistic tradition. London: Routledge.

156

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brame, Michael. 1970. Arabic phonology: Implications for phonological theory and historical Semitie. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. - - . 1973. "On stress assignment in two Arabie dialects." In Festschrift for M. Halle, 14-25. Np. - - . 1974. The eyde in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry. 5:39-60. Broselow, Ellen, Mushira Eid, and John MeCarthy. Fortheoming. Perspectives on Arabic /inguistics IV: Papers [rom the fourth annual symposium on Arabic linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cadora, Frederie J. 1966. The eoneept of eompatibility in the study of language varieties. Word 22:310-317. - - . 1970. Some linguistie eoneomitants of eontaetual factors of urbanization. AL 12:10-19. - - . 1974. Some features of the development of telescoped words in Arabic dialects. An-Nashra 7(2): 59-72. - -. 1977. The use of some synthetic and lexical features in dialeetal Arabie: A sociolinguistie analysis. AI-CArabiyya 10:5-13. - - . 1979. Interdialectal lexical compatibi/ity in Arabic: An analytical study of the lexical relationships among the major Syro-Lebanese varieties. Leiden: Brill. - - . 1989. Linguistie change and the bedouin-sedentary dichotomy in Old Arabic dialects. AL 31:264-284. Cantineau, Jean. 1939. Remarques sur les parlers des sedentaires syro-libanopalestiniens. BLS 40:80-88. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and William S.-Y. Wang. 1986. Spatial distance and lexical replacement. Language 62:3S-55. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound patterns of English. New York: Harper Row. Chan, Marjorie. 1983. Lexical diffusion and two Chinese ease studies reanalyzed. Acta Orientalia 44:117-152. Chen, Mathew. 1977. "The time dimension: Contribution toward a theory of sound change." In The lexicon in phonological change, edited by William S-Y. Wang, 197-251. The Hague: Mouton. Chen, Mathewand William Wang. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51:255-281. Comrie, Bemard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Cooper, Robert, ed. 1982. Language spread: Studies in diffusion and social change. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Corriente, Federico C. 1971-2. On the functional yield of some synthetie deviees in Arabic and Semitie morphology. lewish Quarterly Review, N.S. 62(1): 20-50. - - . 1973-4. Again on the functional yield of some synthetie devices in Arabic and Semitie morphology. lewish Quarterly Review, N.S. 64:154-163. - - . 1975. Marginalia on Arabic diglossia and evidence thereof in the Kitab AI-Agani. ISS 20:38-61. - - . 1977. A grammatical sketch of the Spanish Arabic dialect bundle. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura. Downes, William. 1984. Language and society. London: Fontana. Driver, G. R. 1925. A grammar of the colloquial Arabic of Syria and Palestine. London: Probsthain. Erwin, Wallace. 1963. A short reference grammar of Iraqi Arabic. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Ferguson, Charles. 1989. Grammatical agreement in Oassical Arabic and the Modern Dialects. AI-CArabiyya 22:5-17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1959. Die demonstratiTien Bildungen der neuarabischen Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton. - - and Otto Jastrow. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowi tz. Fleisch, Henri. 1961. TraiU de philologie Arabe. Vol. 1. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique. Fück, Johann. 1955. CA ra b iya: Recherches sur l'histoire de la langue et du style arabe. Translated by Oaude Denizeau. Paris: Didier. Gamble, Geoffrey. 1977. "Nootkan glottalized resonants in Nitinat: A case of lexical diffusion." In The lexicon in phonological change, edited by William S-Y. Wang, 266-78. The Hague: Mouton. Garbell, Irene. 1958. Remarks on the historical phonology of an eastern Mediterranean Arabic dialect. Word. 14:303-337. Gelb, Ignace. 1969. Sequential reconstruetion of Proto-Akkadian. Chicago: The . University of Chicago Press. Al-Gitäni, Jamal. 1980. !lAwriiq Slbb c AS mungu 7ulf cäm. Beirut: Dä r al-Maslra. Gray, Louis H. 1934. lntroduction to Semitic comparatiTit linguistics . New York: Columbia University Press. Harris, John. 1985. Phonological Tlariation and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Zellig S. 1939. DeTielopment of the Canaanite dialects. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Hashimoto, Mantaro. 1981. Review of The lexicon in phonological chllnge, by William Wang. Lllngullge 57(1): 183-91. Hock, Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical Iinguistics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hockett, Charles. 1965. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Langullge. 41:185-205. Hoenigswald, Henry M. and Linda F. Wiener, eds. 1987. Biologiclll metllphor Ilnd clildistic classificlltion: An interdisciplinllry perspectiTie. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Holes, Clive. 1983. Bahraini dialects: Sectarian differences and the sedentary /nomadic split. ZAL 10:7-38. - -. 1986. The soda I motivation for phonological covergence in three Arabic dialects. IJSL. 61:33-52 Hopkins, Simon. 1984. Studies in the grllmmllr of ellrly Arabic. London Oriental Series, vol. 37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hsieh, Hsin-l. 1977. HA new method of dialeet subgrouping." In The lexieon in phonological change, edited by William S-Y. Wang, 159-196. The Hague: Moult:n

Hyman, Larry. 1975. Phonology: Theory and Ilnillysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Ibrahim, Muhammad H. 1973. Grllmmatical gender: lts origins Ilnd deTielopment. The Hague: Mouton. Ingham, Bruce. 1973. Urban and rural Arabic in Khuzistan. BSOAS 36:533-553. - -. 1976. Regional and socia! factors in the dialect geography of southem Iraq and Khuzistan. BSOAS 39:62-82. Jabr, Jamil. n.d. MIlYY Ziadah: FI mugakkarAtihä. Beirut: Kitäb al-~ahr. Janssens, Gerard. 1972. Stress in Arabic and word structure in the modern Arllbic dialects . Orientalia Gandensia 5. Louvain: Peeters. Jastrow, Otto. 1984. Zur Phonologie und Phonetik des $an 'än is ehe n Entwicklungsprozesse in der Arabischen Republik Jemen. Wiesbaden: Ludwig R. Verlag. Jayyusi, Salma Khadra. 1977. Trends and moTitments in modern Arllbic poetry. Volume two. Leiden: Brill.

158

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jeffers, Robert and Ilse Lehiste. 1979. Principles and methods of historieal linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Johnson, Lawrence. 1976. A note of change index for language. lAnglUlge in Society 5:165-72. Johnstone, T. M. 1967. Eastem Arabian dialect stIldies. London: Oxford University Press. AI-JundI, A}:unad A. 1965. Al-Lahajät al-cArabiyya fi al-Turät Ph.D. diss, Cairo University. Kautzsch E.. 1910. Gesenills' Hebrew Grammar. Revised by A. E. Crowley. Oxford: Oarendon Press Kaye, Alan S. 1972. Arabie /'}jjm/: A synchronie and diachronie study. Lingllistics 79:31-72. King, Robert. 1969a. Historieal lingllistics and generative grammar. Englewood Oiffs: Prentiee Hall. - - . 1969b. Push chains and drag chains. Glossa3:3-21. - - . 1977. Competing generalizations and linguistic change. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Oub. Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological change. Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Knutsson, Bengt. 1974. StIldies in the text and langllage of three Syriac-Arabic vers ions of the Book of Judaicum with special reference to the Middle Arabic elements. Leiden:E. J. Brill. Kurytowicz, Jerzy. 1973. Studies in Semitic grammar and metrics. London: Curzon Press. AI-Kuzbari, Salma. 1982. Mayy Ziädah wa-=bcliimu ca~ihii. Beirut: Nawfal. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chieago: The University of Chieago Press. Lane, Edward W. 1984. Arabic-English lexicon. Reprint of the 1863 edition. Cambridge: Islamie Texts Society Trust. Lehmann, Winfred and Yakov Malkiel, eds. 1968. Directions for historieal linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mitehell, T.F. 1973. Aspects of concord revisited, with special referenee to Sindhi and Cairene Arabie. Archi'Dllm Lingllisticum, New Series 4:27-50. Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. "Agreement." In Unir;ersals of hllman langlUlge, edited by Joseph H. Greenberg, 4:331-374. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Moscati, Sabatino. 1964. An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Murtonen, A. 1964. Broken plurals: Origin and development of the system. Leiden: Brill. AI-Muttalabi, G. F. 1978. Lahjiit tamim wa-=b#lrllhil fi al-CArabiyya al-muwa~.Qada. Baghdad: Där al-l;Iurriyya. Owens, Jonathan and Raslan Bani-Yasin. 1987. The lexical basis of variation in Jordanian Arabie. Linguistics 25:705-38. Prochazka, Theodore. 1987. Remarks on the spoken Arabic of Zabld. ZAL 17:58-68. Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A comparative German grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistie Society of America. Qaddüra, YÜsif. 1954. Tärix madinat Riimallah. New York: Al-Huda. Qafisheh, Hamdi. 1977. A short reference grammar of Gulf Arabic. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press. Rabin, C. 1951. Ancient West Arabian. London: Taylor's Foreign Press. Rouchdy, Aleya. 1980. Languages in eontact: Arabie-Nubian. AL 22:334-344. Rosenhouse, Judith. 1984. The Bedouin Arabic dialects. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

SaCd, Färüq. 1983. Baqilt min 1;IIUlHq Mlzyy. Third edition. Beirut: Där aPAfäq aI-Jadida. ~li}:\, Sub}:\I. 1962. Dirasat fi fiqh 1ll-1ugrz. Beirut: Al-Maktab aPAhliyya. SallÜID, Däwüd. 1986. Dirilsilt 1ll-1ahjilt lll- cllrllbiYYIl Ill-qlldlmll. Beirut: CÄlam aI-Kutub. Al-Sämarräl, Ibrahim. 1961. Dirilsät fI 1ll-1ugrz. Baghdad: MatbaCat aI-c An i. AI-Sämurrä~, Mahdi. 1974. AI-Mlljilz fI Ill-Billilgrz lll- cArllbiYYIl. Hama: Där al-Dacwa. Saporta, Sol. 1965. Ordered ruIes, dialect differences, and historical processes. LtmgUilge 41:218-244. Shähln, cAbd aI-SabÜf. 1966. AI-Qiril=it Ill-Qur=iniYYIl. Cairo: Där al-Qalam. Sibata, Takesi. 1978-79. Urbanization and linguistic variations. Lllngullge Sciences 1(1): 325-327. SIbawayhi, Abü Bisr. 1966-77. Al-Kitäb. 5 vois. Edited by A. M. Härün. Cairo: Där aI-QaIam. Sturtevant, Edgar. 1917. Linguistic c1!lmge. Chicago: University Press. Sweet. Louise, ed. 1970. Peoples Ilnd cultures of the Middle EIlst. Volume 1: Depth and Diversity. Garden City: The Natural History Press. The Holy Qur=in. 1977. Translated with commentary by Abdullah Yusuf All. n.p.: American Trust Publications. The KorIln Interpreted. 1955. Translated by Arthur J. Arberry. New York: Macmillan. Trudgill, Peter. 1982. The contribution of sociolinguistics to diaiectology. LilngUilge Sciences 4(2): 237-250. Versteegh, Kees. 1984. PidginiZiltion Ilnd creoliZiltion: The cllse of Arabic. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in Iinguistic theory; v. 33. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wang, William S-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45:9-25. - - , ed. 1977. The lexicon in phonologiclll chllnge. The Hague: Mouton. - - . 1979. Language change: A Iexical perspective. Annuill Review of Anthropology 8:353-71. - - . 1982. Variation and selection in language change. Bulletin of the Institute of History Ilnd philology, AC4ldemill SiniC4l 53(3): 495-519. - - . 1987. "Representing language relationships." In Biologiclll metaphor Ilnd cilldististic classification: An interdisciplinllry perspectiTle, edited by Henry M. Hoenigswald and Unda F. Wiener, 245-256. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. - - . 1990. Theoretical issues in studying Chinese dialects. Journill of the Chinese Tellchers Associlltion 25(1): 1-34. Weinreich, Uriel. 1954. Is structural dialectology possible? Word 10: 388-[4oo?]. - - , William Labov, and Marvin Herzog. 1968. "Empirical foundations for a theory of language change." In Directions for historical linguistics, edited by W. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel, 95-188. Austin: University of Texas Press. Wise, Hilary. 1972. Concord in spoken Egyptian Arabic. ArchiTium Linguisticum 3 (New Series): 7-17. Wolf, Erie. 1951. The social organization of Mecca and the origins of Islam. Southwestern Journill of Anthropology 7:239-56. Wright, William. 1962. A grllmmllr of the Arllbic IIlngullge. 3rd ed. Rev. by W. R. Smith and M. J. de Goeje. 2 voIs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Reprint of the 1896-98 edition. First ed.: Vol. 1,1859; Vol. 11, 1862). XalIf, YÜsif. 1983. AI-Rawil!ljc min Ill-!)AdIlb IlI-CArllbI. Part One: Al-cA~r al-JähilI. Cairo: Där al-Kutub.

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AI-YasUCI, Louis, comp. and ed. 1896. !:IAnisu aI-julasiP fi Slr,{l dIwiin aI-XilnsiP. Beirut: The Catholic Press. Ziadeh, Farhat. 1986. Prosody and the initial formation of Oassical Arabic. lAOS 106(2): 333-38. Ziädah, Mayy. 1918. !:IAP:aql wal-qalb. Al-Muqtataf 53(4) (October): 345-351. - . 1919. !:IAl-dumUC. Al-Muqtatr.zf55(1) (July): 9-13. - - . 1919. !:IAI-baCt al-catId. Al-Muqtaftlf 55(2) (August): 129-133. - - . 1920. Yawm al-mawtä. Al-Muqtataf 57(6) (December): 483-487. - - . 1930. !:IAl-wataniyyün aPiStiräkiyyun aPAlmän yuqätiCüna riwäyat !:IArik Märiyya Dimärk. APAhriim, Monday, December 8 :1. Zwettler, Michael. 1978. The oral tradition of classicaI Arabic poetry: Its character and implications. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

INDEX

INDEX I -al stern,28 /a-/ prefix, 28 active participle, 27 adaptation; gradual, 2; linguistie, 1 adjective(s), 43, 98, 108, 137; of color, 42, 43, 124, 128; of defect, 43; plural, 121; singular, 121 adjustment(s); morphological. 45; phonological, 47, 79, 82,136 adverb(s), 101, 108 affrication, 28, 62, 63, 69 Afro-Asiatie, 30 agreement, 128, 129, 131, 133; Deflected. 115, 138; feminine plural, 123, 134; feminine singular, 123, 132, 134; gender, 128; patterns, 133; plural, 115, 134 Akkadian, 16, 118 alternation; vowe1 (muCj!'1aba), 9, 10 animaey, 127 Arab-Aramaean contact, 9 Arab-Islamie eonquest, 9 Arabic, 137; Baskinta, 59; Cairo, 126; OIristian, 119; OIristian Middle Arabic, 125; Oassical, 9, 13, 116, 117,118,126,131; colloquiaL 133; dialectal, 138; early Oassical, 115; Early Middle, 132; Egyptian, 138; Jerusalem, 2, 33, 79, 106; Jordanlan, 132; Uterary, 33, 83, 104, 106; literary koine, 9; Middle, 117, 125; Modem Uterary, 20; Modern Standard, 115; NejdI, 70; new varieties, 32, 115; northern, 9; Old, 3, 4, 9, 13, 115, 120, 121, 131; Palestinian, 32,45; Qur'inic, 121; Ramallah, 32, 127; southem, 30; Spanish,131;spoken,9;Standard, 132,133; TamlmI, 11; YemenI, 73, 74 Aramaean,31 Aramaie, 16, 30 articulation, 7, 8, 17, 18 assimilation, 7, 8, 12, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 49, SO, 65, 67, 72, 74; Assimilation-a, 49; progressive, 23 assonance, 122, 123, 124

attributes; morphological, 133; phonological, 133; semantie, 133 backing,23 bedouin, 3, 32 bedouinite,33,79,104 bedouinite-ruralite, 37, 71, 79,136 borrowing, 34, 136 boundaries; linguistie, 3, 4; tribai, 3 boundary; morpheme, 24 case,21 category: composite, 127, 129, 130; neuter plural. 131; number, 126 change(s), 34; acceleration, 33; adaptive, 2, 114; agent, 33; BR to U, 45,53; cause, 33; diffusion(al), 107, 110; directional, 7; domain, 36; ecolinguistie, 136; ecological, 1, 2; effect, 33; evolutive, 114; feature, 37, 38,39, 40, 42, 43; fricatives to stops, 38; gradual, 31, 33; grammar, 6; historical, 139; implementation, 8; induced. 2; innovative, 7; intermediate, 61; internal, 109; language, 33; lexical, 32, 33; linguistie, 1, 2,4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 30, 32, 33, 34, 112, 139; major, 33; minute, 33; morphological, 32; period of, 34, 37, 109, 135; permanent, 7; phonologieaL 31, 32, 34; resistanee, 124; restricted, 7; rule system, 9; social, 34; sociolinguistic. 109, 135; sound, 8, 34; spontaneous, 32; tendeney, 4; transitional stage, 2, 108; transmission, 8, 33; understanding, 33 OIristian Middle Arabic, 125 c1asses; morphological, 42 Oassical Arabie, 9, 13, 116, 117, 118, 125, 126, 131 c1eavage; dialectal, 3; linguistic, 4 cognates,35,79,136 cognation,79 collective(s), 117, 119 compatibility, 79, 104, 105, 109; complex, 105, 106, 111, 112, 136;

164

INDEX

conjunetive, 82, 104,105,106,111; contrastive, 82, 104, 105, 106; duplieative, 82; ecolinguistie, 79, 105, 109,135, 136; non-eontrastive, 79, 82, 111 eompetenee; linguistie, 17,34 eoneord, 115, 125; adjective, 130; feminine singular, 115, 135; neuter, 128; plural 126, 131, 134; pronoun, 130; 135; rules, 126; variation, 135; verb, 130 eonditioning; lexical, 131; prosodie, 122 conjugation; doubled verb, 57; imperfect, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68; perfect, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54 eonsonant(s), 24, 41; deleted, 68; doubling (gemination), 16, 58; final 21; first, 14; identieal, 14, 29; intervening, 22, 23, 24, 25; lengthened, 121; medial, 27; missing, 68; radicals, 17; second, 14, 29; semi-, 25; stem, 68; third stem, 68 constraint(s); articuIatory, 7; auditory, 7; universal, 7 contact; cuItural 32 context(s); sodal, 35, 114, 136; synchronic,37 contraction, 29 convergence, 2 correlates; linguistic, 1,2, 136 eorrelation; compatibility indices, 104 De-epenthesis, 44, 46, 48, 50, 114 Deaffrication, 38, 39, 63, 112, 114; Deaffrication-a, 38, 47, 48, 49, 70; Deaffrication-b, 39, 82 Degliding, 65, 67 Deletion, 72 Derhizo-lingualization, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58,59,60,64,66,67 derivation, 14 Despirantization, 37, 38, 79, 114 deve!opment(s); contrastive, 115; ecolinguistic, 115; ecological, 1, 2, 109, 111, 135, 137; education, 32; historical, 138; innovative, 19; innovative stress, 11; internaI, 33, 109; new words, 21; of innovation, 8; phonological, 38; sodolinguistie, 4, 9; variable rules, 37 dialect(s), 5, 74; analytic C:'IC'räb-Iess), 9; Arabic, 109, 135; Bahrä:>, 28; bedouin, 4, 9,11,12,13,17,19,20,21; bedouinite, 31; eonservative, 7, 31; Eastem, 4, 5; l;Iä yiI, 28;

heterogeneity, 4; l;Iijäzi, 3; innovating, 7; Kalbi, 28; Middle Arabic, 10; modem, 131; Nejdi, 28; New Arabic, 10, 11; North Arabic, 30; northern Arabie, 9; Old Arabic, 2, 3, 9, 11,31,115,120, 121, 131, 135; rural, 9; sedentary,9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19; South Arabic, 30; synthetic (~C'räb), 9; Tamimi,3, 11; transitional, 4; tribe, 4; urban, 4; Western, 4, 5; Western Old Arabic,4 dichotomy; linguistic, 4 differences; lexical, 83; morphological, 11; phonetic, 3; phonological, 10, 82 differentiation; functional, 112, 136; gen der, 119; linguistic, 3 diffusion: aeceleration, 78, 137; lexical, 8,32,33,34,35,53,106, 109,110, 111, 112, 113, 13135, 137; linguistie, 78, 114; neuter plural, 131; process, 108, 110, 137; rapid, 35; rate, 107, 137; sodal, 112; sound plural 119; suffix, 118; suffixal plural, 123 diphthong, 70 Dissimilation, 50, 51, 61 domain; ecological, 1; linguistie, 1 early Islamie period, 21 ecolinguistie(s),2, 109, 135, 136; change, 2; rules, 2, 37, 38, 137; variation, 36, 137 ecology, 3, 5,6, 8,32 Egypt, 138 elision, 7; vowel, 13 environment; assimilation, 25; ecological, 31; phonetic, 15, 16; sodal, 35,137 Epenthesis, 50; Epenthesis-b, 62, 63, 69 equivalents; lexical, 83, 104 Ethiopic, 30, 31 ethnicity, 1 evolution; broken plural, 122; language, 113, 123, 138 faetors; articuIatory, 4; auditory, .4; cognitive, 4; cuItural, 32; ecological, 109, 136; linguistic, 109, 136; sodal, 32; sociolinguistic, 4 feature(s); analytic, 9; animacy, 127; archaic, 115; bedouin, 105; bedouinite, 106,107; change, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43; composite category, 127; gender, 127; inflectional, 127; linguistic, 4, 11, 30, 33; loss, 47; morphological, 45, 133;

INDEX morphosyntactic, 115; number, 127; phonetic, 4, 68; phonological, 37, 133; rural, 107; ruralite, 105, 106; semantic, 127, 133; spread, 9; synthetic, 9, 47; urbanite, 107 Final Fronting, 69 Final Glottal Deletion, 72 form(s); I -atl -suffixed, 126; adjectival, 126; alternate, 37, 78; analytic, 9; bedouin, 111; bedouinite-ruralite (BR), 3746,48,49,50,51,55,62,63,65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 77, 79, 82, 136; BR to U, 45,47,54,61,66,70,76,131;broken plural, 121, 122; co-existence, 34, 136; conjunctive, 82; contrastive, 82; duplicative, 112; feminine plural, 46, 47; feminine singular, 115; identical, 82; innovative, 137; invariable, 35; linguistic, 7; merger, 47; new, 34; nominal, 10; non-contrastive, 82, 112; normative, 78; old, 34, 35, 136, 137; older, 112; permanent, 35; plural, 77, 115, 118; pronominal, 135; representative, 52; rurallte, 2, 136; sedentary, 12; singular, 75, 116; suffixal, 43; underlying, 74; urbanite (U), 2, 34, 37, 48, SO, 63, 64, 72,74,79,82; variant plural, 122 free variants, 54 fronting, 23 functions;cognitive,6,7 geminate, 57, 73; Geminate Compression, 77 gemination,74 gender, 1, 117, 119, 126, 127, 129, 130; ambiguity, 120; assignment, 120; common, 121; composite category, 127, 129,130; differentiation, 119; feminine, 116, 127; impersonal, 126, 127;markedness,45,116;masculine, 127; neuter, 127; non-personal, 127; opposition, 117; Semitic, 116; suffixes, 118 generation(s),6, 78, 110; middle, 36, 37, 53, 134, 137; new, 32; old, 36, 46, 53, 137, 139; three, 112; young, 33, 34, 36, 53,137,139 geography, 3, 5; dialect, 3; linguistic, 2, 4; soda). 3; space, 1 Ghassanid regions, 3 glide(s), 19,52,53,55,56, 57,58,59,60, 64, 66, 67, 68, 74; Glide Deletion, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 66, 67; Glide Gemination, 46; Glide Insertion,

165

54, 57, 61; Glide Insertion-a, 55, 56, 57, 58,59,60,66,67; Glide Insertion-b, 57; Glide Insertion-c, 68, 69; intervocalic, 15; substitution, 16,46 glottal assimilation, 16 glottal closure, 18 Glottal Deletion, 42; Glottal Deletiona, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60; Glottal Deletion-b,62, 63, 64, 66,67,69 glottal pause, 21 glottal stop (hamza), 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 30, 31, 40, 57; deletion of, 68; final, 40; medial, 40; underlying, 18 glottal tension, 11 grammar, 8; acquisition, 6; change, 6; childhood, 6; transmission, 6 Ih/-Assimilation, 75, 76 Ih/-Deletion, 73,75,76 Iho- I Insertion, 77 hamza, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21; underlying, 18 Hebrew,30 Hijäzi, 5, 20 historica1 continuants, 123 hypercorrections,17 li/-Deletion, 75, 76

I i- I prefix, 28 I-il stem, 28

imitation, 34 impersonal, 117 inanimate, 117 indices; correlation, 104 inflection, 14 ll1fluences;urban, 112 information; lexical, 6 innovation(s), 7; appearance of, 34, 136; bedouin, 8; goal-oriented, 2; linguistic. 6,31,109, 135; phonological, 8, 35; pronunciation, 34; purposeful, 2; spread, 139; unfit, 7 in telligibility, 79 interrogatives, 108, 137 intertribai contacts, 3 intervocalic glide, 15 Iraq, 9 Islamic society, 6 isoglosses, 4 Jerusalem, 2, 32, 33, 106 koine, 9, 17 lagger words, 110

166

INDEX

language; transmittal. 33 Laryngeallzation,39,4O,54,61,65,6~

82,114 laryngeals, 23 leader words, 110 least effort, 8 lexemes, 8 lexical alternation, 107, 137 lexical diffusion, 33 lexical diversity, 107 linguistic competenoe, 17 linguistic judgments, 9 linguistic systems, I, 135 linguistic trai ts, 33 literary koine, 17 l+mfpll adjectives; plural, 135 marker(s); feminine singular, 41, 42, 120; gender,9;negative,72;ntunber,9 Mecca,3 Medina,3 merger,47 Metathesis, 14,20,29,58,59,60,75,76 meter, 123 MF23P Merger, 47, 48, 49, SO, 51, 63, 65, 67,70 Middle Arabie. 117, 125 Monophthongization, 42, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56,57,58,59,60,64,66,67,69,72 morpheme; reanalysis, 73 morphology, 23, 28, 32, 37, 40, 42, 45, 47, 133,136 Nabatean, 9 Najrän,3O negation; verb, 70 negative; marker, 69, 71; suffix, 53, 72, 76; verb, 70, 72 Nejd, 5, 70 neuter, 127 New Arabic, 32, 115 non-alternation, 28 non-Arabs,31 non-cognates, 82 non-human, 115, 117, 119, 128, 131 non-personal, 127 non-poetry, 122 North Arabia, 9 noun(s), 43, 83, 1~, 137; abstract, 116; oollective, 116, 117; instrument 43; personal, 117; place, 43; plural, 115 number, 127, 129, 130; non-singular, 127; singular, 127 object(s); pronominal, 47, 71, 72, 74, 78

Old Arabie. 3, 4. 9, 13, 115, 120, 121, 131 Palestinian, 45 parents, 6, 33, 36, 137 particle(s), 100 pausallzation,19,20 Persian,31 pharyngeals, 23 phonology, 8, 11,25,32,34,35,37,38,39, 47,79,82,104,105,109,133 plurales); adjectives, 121, 135; ambigendrous, 120; and gender, 127; broken, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 134, 135, 136, 138; broken vs. sound, 115; oollective, 120; oonoord, 126, 131, 134; feminine, 46, 47, 118, 119,121, 125, 126, 134; formation, 118, 119; gender markedness, 45; htunan, 117,119; impersonal, 117; in Semitic, 120; inanimate, 115, 125; internal, 138; masculine, 46, 77, 118; merger, 47; neuter, 131;non-htunan, 117, 119, 128, 131; nouns, 122; numerals, 117; of a plural, 119; of abundance, 118; of paucity, 118, 120; of rational beings, 120; of things, 120; selected, 123; sound, 119, 134; suffix(es),43, 119, 123; unselected, 123; variation, 121 poetry, 13, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 123, 131 prefix(es), 14; imperfect verb, 27; verb, 69; vowel, 70 pressure(s); sociolinguistic, 34, 35; structural, 34 pronoun(s), 46; singular, 135 prose, 115, 116, 124 Qur'in,9, 119, 120, 122, 123, 138 radical; final, 58; middle, 27; third, 57 Ramallah, 2, 32, 78 readjustment; phonological, 82 reanalysis; graphemic, 119 reduced diphthong, 58 Reduction, 72 relationships; lexical, 79; phonolexical, 105; phonological, 104 replacement; lexical, 82 representation(s); underlying, 10, 14,42, 49, 51, 52, 55, 57, 62, 63, 66, 137 rhizo-lingual, 41 rule(s); adaptive, 2, 78, 114, 136, 137; Affrication, 112, 113; application, 34, 35, 136; assimilation, 19, 21; BR, 52; Coalescence, 15; collapsed, 41;

INDEX competing, 8; Contraction, 30; Oeepenthesis, 44, 45, SO; Deaffrication, 39, 47, 112, 113, 114; Deletion, 24; derivational, 16, 61, 66; Despirantization,79; Dissimilation, SO; ecolinguistie, 34, 37,38,78,79,80,82,109,112,113, 114, 132, 136, 137; Final Fronting, 69; Geminate auster Simplifieation, 30; Gemination, 15, 16; Glide Insertion, 57, 68; gUding, 8, 16, 27; Glottal Assimilation, 17; Glottal Deletion, 15,16,17,19,27; inverse, 114; Laryngealization, 82, 112, 113, 114; linguistie, 6; major, 35, 78, 137; Metathesis, 24; MF23P Merger, SO, 61; minor, 34,35,77, 131; mirroring, 114; new, 63; optional, 2; ordering, 42; phonological, 8, 14,27,37,39,79,82, 112; Raising, 8; Raising and Fronting, 25; Replacement, 139; Stress, 12,27,45; Stress Placement, 14, 16; surface structure, 57; system, 9; variable, 2, 31, 34, 36, 37, 53, 78, 109, 131, 137; Vowel Assimilation, 15; Vowe1 Backing, 43, 44, 47, 79; Vowe1 Deletion, 29; Vowe1 Fronting. 24, 113; Vowe1 Harmony, 72; Vowe1 Metathesis, 29; Vowe1 Raising (t/Zlt/ZI/Z), 69 ruralite, 33, 34, 37, 79,132,136 ruralization, 32, 33 sedentary, 75 segmentation; ecological, 3 Semitie, 16, 19, 21, 117, 118, 138; early, 116; East, 119; North-Westem, 119; plurals, 120; South, 118 simplicity, 8 singular, 127; 3rd person, 75; adjective(s), 121; Akkadian, 118; as reanalyms, 119;collective, 120, 135; collective nouns, 116; feminine, 41, 42SO, 115, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 132, 134,135; gender determination, 127;masculine,43,46,71,75,121,126; neuter, 127; pronoun(s), 121, 135 sodal context(s), 33, 35, 37, 114, 137 sound(s); assimilation, 7; lass, 7 stage(s); diachronie, 137; intermediate, 53, 61; non-differentiating, 122; transitional, 1,2,36,109,135,136 stress, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,18,22,45,49, SO, 52. 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62. 63, 64, 66, 67,69,71,72,73,75,76,77; cue, 19;

167

expiratory, 12,31; fluctuating, 11; localization, 19; non-expiratory, 11; placement, 22; shifts, 15 structure; ecological, 1, 114; linguistie, 31,114; nomadie, 1; phonological, 12; sedentary, 1, 135; surface, 18, 57, 59; underlying, 14,18,73 subglottal pressure, 18 subject; pronominal. 47, 71, 74 substratum influences, 9 suffix(es); l-il, 116, 119, 128; l-a(t)/, 119; l-i'/, 119; I-at.!, 116; I-ät/, 116, 117,119; I-aw/, 77; I-ay/, 119; l-el, 128; 1-fJ.(na)/, 117, 118; I-!o/, 53, 70, 71; laI, 128; Ik/, 40; IM - !oll, 72; color adjectives, 128; derivational, 116; feminine, 116; feminine plural, 47; feminine singular, 25, 28, 41, 42,50; gender, 118; inflectional, 128, 129; masculine singular, 24; morphological, 40; negative, 52, 53, 71, 72, 76; object, 46, 71, 130; plural, 43, 118,119,123; pronominal, 23, 41, 46, 58, 73, 74, 130; pronominal oblique, 28; singular, 41,42; subject. 47, 71; system, 119; verb, 129; vocalie, 60 syllable(s); closed. 11,14, 16, 19; closed in pausal, 19; dosure, 13; initial, 11, 12. 13, 14, 18; long, 15, 19; open, 19; stressed. 15 symmetry, 127 synchronie context, 37 synchrony, 79 Syncope, 49, SO, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61,62. 63, 69 synonymity, 79 Syriae, 16 system; linguistie, 34, 136; phonolexical, 111, 136; pronominal, 45

t/Zlt/ZI/Z, 69 Tamimi.5

telescoping,72

tempo,7

tribal cover terms, 5 underlying representations, 10, 14,42, 49, 51,55, 58,62. 63, 66, 68, 137 ur~3,4,9,32,36

urbanite, 33, 34, 37, 71, 79, 104, 132, 136 urbanization, 32 usage;linguisti~3,4

uwlar stop, 40 uvulars,23

168

INDEX

variables; sociolinguistic, 7 variation; ecolinguistic, 13, 34, 36, 137, 139 verb(s),27, 93, 108, 137; defective, 21, 57, 58, 59, 63, 68, 77; doubled. 57, 58; feminine plural, 118; forms, 114; frequency, 53; geminate, 58, 59, 68; glottal-final, 54, 57, 61, 66; glottalinitial, 68; hollow, 27; imperfect, 28, 61, 66, 69; indicative, 30; jussive, 30; negated, 72; negation, 70; perfect, 28, 47,48,51,54,58;regtUa~47

verbal noun, 27 vowel(s); added, 121; alternation, 10, 28; assimilation, 21, 23, 75, 76; Vowe1 Backing, 43, 80; Vowe1 Backing-a, 43; Vowel Backing-a, 47; Vowe1 Backingb, 70; Vowe1 Backing-c, 76, 77; Vowel Deletion, 30; elided, 12, 19,21,22; elongating, 122; epenthetic, 44; final, 19,24; front,43; Vowe1 Fronting, 24, 69; Vowe1 Fronting and Raising, 22; Vowel Fronting-Lowering, 70; frontopen, 74; Vowe1 Harmony, 75, 76; height, 23; identical, 15; imperfect prefix, 27; imperfect stern, 28; inflectional, 20; intervening, 14, 29; Vowel Lengthening, 16, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77,117; long, 15, 19,25; loss, 11; Vowe1 Lowering-Backing, 42; Vowe1 Metathesis, 30; non-identical, 16; original, 70; perfect, 47; Vowel Raising, 25, 53, 54, 61, 69,72; Vowe1 Reduction, 41, 60, 65, 67; Vowe1 Reduction-a, 58; sequence, 74; short, 16, 70, 71; single, 71; stern, 68; stressed, 13; unstressed (anaptyctic), 12, 13 Yemen(i), 3, 5, 30, 73, 74