Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIX: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2015
Edited by Hamid Ouali
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 5] 2017
► pp. 129–150

Chapter 5
Some issues for an analysis of the templatic comparative in Arabic with a focus on the Egyptian dialect

 | Indiana University
The comparative in Arabic appears to be a quintessential case of templatic morphology. In most Arabic dialects, the comparative seems to be formed by taking the base adjective and matching it to the templatic shape aCCaC. For example, [kibi:r] ‘big’ has the comparative [akbar]. However, when the details of comparative formation are taken into consideration, various issues arise concerning morphology, syntax, semantics, and phonology. This paper identifies and discusses several of these issues regarding the Arabic comparative, with a primary focus on the Egyptian dialect. Among several novel observations, this study demonstrates that the Arabic comparative reflects a root-based process. This finding offers important support for the consonantal-root-based view of Arabic word formation and, consequently, argues against a strictly stem- or word-based view of Arabic morphology.
Keywords: Egyptian Arabic, comparative, allomorphy, root-based morphology, color terms
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The canonical templatic comparative
  • 3.Issues of agreement and word order
  • 4.Templatic allomorphy
  • 5.Gaps
  • 6.The comparative as a derivational process: Evidence from [R]-depharyngealization
  • 7.The comparative as a root-based word formation process
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.5.06dav
References (26)
References
Badawi, E. -S., & Hinds, M. (1986). A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Librairie Du Liban.Google Scholar
Bat-El, O. (2011). Semitic templates. In M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, v. 5 (pp. 2586–2608). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E. (1999). Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua, 108, 175–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. (2012). Universals in comparative morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broselow, E. (1976). The phonology of Egyptian Arabic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Davis, S., & Tsujimura, N. (2014). Non-concatenative derivation: Other processes. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology, (pp. 190–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, S. and Zawaydeh, B. (1999). A descriptive analysis of hypocoristics in colloquial Arabic. Language and Linguistics, 3, 83–98.Google Scholar
Downing, L. (2006). Canonical forms in prosodic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grano, T. (2012). Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30, 513–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1950). The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word, 6, 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. (2013). Understanding morphology (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hassanein, A., & Kamel, M. (1980). Yalla ndardish sawa. Cairo, Egypt: Arabic Language Unit, American University of Cairo.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Idrissi, A., Prunet, J. -F., & Béland, R. (2008). On the mental representation of Arabic roots. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 221–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2010). Color, context, and compositionality. Synthese, 174, 79–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehn, W., & Abboud, P. (1965). Beginning Cairo Arabic. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373–348.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., Kimper, W., & Mullin, K. (2012). Reduplication in harmonic serialism. Morphology, 22, 173–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 209–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Prosodic morphology. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology. (pp. 283–305). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McOmber, M. (1995). Morpheme edges and Arabic infixation. In M. Eid (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics VI. (pp. 173–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, R. (1997). Prosodic templates in a word based morphological analysis of Arabic. In M. Eid & R. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics X, (pp. 147–171). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. C. E. (2006). Arabic morphology: Diminutive verbs and diminutive nouns in San’ani Arabic. Morphology, 16, 189–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, W. (1896/1974). A grammar of the Arabic Language (3rd edition, 1974, impression). Beirut: Libraire du Liban.Google Scholar
Youssef, I. (2013). Place assimilation in Arabic: Contrasts, features, and constraints. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Souag, Lameen
2020. When is templatic morphology borrowed?. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Davis, Stuart
2019. Are there transfer effects in the Arabic comparative?. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXX [Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 7], ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Gadoua, Abdulhamid & Stuart Davis
2019. Diminutive formation in a Libyan dialect with some phonological implications. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXXI [Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 8], ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Grano, Thomas & Stuart Davis
2018. Universal markedness in gradable adjectives revisited. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36:1 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Patterns and Representation in Arabic Place Assimilation [Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 13], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.