scholarly journals Stress Assignment in N+N Combinations in Arabic

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh
Keyword(s):  
Word Boundary ◽  
Secondary Stress ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Jordanian Arabic ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Stress Assignment ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Physics Teacher ◽  
Default Position ◽  
Modern Standard

The validity of stress as a criterion to distinguish between compounds and phrases has been investigated in many languages, including English (see e.g. Lieber 2005: 376; Booij 2012: 84). However, the possibility of using stress as a criterion in this way has not been investigated for Arabic. Siloni (1997: 21) claims that in N+N combinations in Semitic languages, stress always falls on the second element. However, the results of a study using PRAAT reveal that, in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Jordanian Arabic (JA), stress plays no role in distinguishing between various N+N combinations, i.e. compounds and phrases, e.g.ˈmuʕallim lfiizyaaʔ ‘the physics teacher’ vs.ˈbayt lwalad ‘the boy’s house’, respectively. Analysis shows that the default position of stress in N+N combinations in MSA and JA is on the first element. There is only one systematic exception, which is phonetically conditioned: in N+N combinations with assimilated geminates on the word boundary, a secondary stress or perhaps double stress is assigned. 

scholarly journals A Linguistic History of Iraqi Arabic (Mesopotamian Arabic)

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 1371-1380
Author(s):  
Saja Albuarabi
Keyword(s):  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Full Agreement ◽  
Important Data ◽  
Linguistic Feature ◽  
Semitic Languages ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Linguistic History ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Modern Standard

The objective of this work is to investigate the linguistic structure of Iraqi Arabic or what is known as Mesopotamian Arabic. The paper presents an overview of some of the fundamental analyses of Iraqi Arabic - Mesopotamian Arabic. This article is concentrated on the most important parts of the language which are the phonological, morphological, and syntactical features. The paper not only examines the linguistic feature of Iraqi Arabic but it also, discusses how Iraqi Arabic dialect is different from Modern Standard Arabic with data that are not considered before and with certain new theoretical proposals. The researcher analysis the three dialects, which are Baghdadi, Southern, and Maslawi dialect and provides an important data for each dialect. Unlike Modern Standard Arabic, Iraqi Arabic went through many changes. Phonologically, Iraqi Arabic has more consonants than Modern Standard Arabic, and a few additional long vowels. Many sounds have been replaced with different sounds. In addition, the words in Iraqi Arabic does not end with vowels. Therefore, words end with consonants rather than vowels in Iraqi Arabic. Morphologically, Iraqi Arabic is different from Modern Standard Arabic in the present progressive tense. In Iraqi Arabic, the tenses are formed by adding a prefix to the conjugated stem of the verb, which cannot be found in Modern Standard Arabic. Syntactically, Iraqi Arabic differs from Modern Standard Arabic in two ways: first, there is no case marking; Iraqi Arabic does not show overt cases as it is found in Modern Standard Arabic. Second, Iraqi Arabic lacks agreement. Iraqi Arabic does not always follow the structure of verb-subject order as found in Modern Standard Arabic. The verb usually has full agreement with the subject in both orders, subject-verb, and verb-subject. Finally, Iraqi Arabic has an interesting feature which is head movement that cannot be found in Modern Standard Arabic as Soltan argues. This is can be shown in the following example: [The student seems that ____ he read the book.] Among the other issues that the author discusses in this study is the history of Iraqi Arabic. In addition to the features of Iraqi Arabic and the effects of other languages, such as Turkish and Semitic languages on Iraqi dialects.

Record your Agree: A case study of the Arabic complementizerʔinn

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARWAN JARRAH
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Interface Condition ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Jordanian Arabic ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Complementary Distribution ◽  
Case Marking ◽  
Lebanese Arabic ◽  
Modern Standard

This research investigates the morpho-syntactic behaviour of the Arabic complementizerʔinnin a range of Arabic varieties (Modern Standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic, and Lebanese Arabic). It essentially argues that this complementizershares(notdonatesorkeeps,paceOuali 2008, 2011) its unvalued$\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-features with its complement$\text{T}^{0}$, something that makesʔinnand$\text{T}^{0}$separate agreeing heads. An inflectional suffix attached toʔinnis treated as a PF reflex (i.e. an overt morphological realization) of valuation ofʔinn’s unvalued$\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-features or lack thereof. This research also argues that the occurrence of such an inflectional suffix is ruled by the postulatedAgree Chain Record, an interface condition that demands an Agree relation to have a PF reflex, called aRecord(i.e. an overt Case marking on the goal or, if not, a$\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-affix on the probe). This way, we account for the complementary distribution of overt Case and$\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-Agree in Arabic. We also show how a host of other phenomena, including word order agreement asymmetries in Modern Standard Arabic and lack of such asymmetries in Arabic vernaculars, fares well with this view.

Dear Mubarak , Irhal means Imshi : Analyzing the Relationship Between Arabic Regional D ialects and Modern Standard Arabic

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gretchen McCulloch
Keyword(s):  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Jordanian Arabic ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Regional Dialects ◽  
Arabic Speaking ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Political Realities ◽  
Modern Standard

In most Arabic-speaking nations, almost everyone speaks two distinct but related dialects, an informal dialect unique to a particular region such as Egyptian or Jordanian Arabic, and a more formal variety found across the Arabic-speaking world, known as Modern Standard Arabic. This common dialect is maintained despite pressure from the regional dialects in large part because of the prestige that Classical or Koranic Arabic has among Muslims, in addition to the practical benefits of being able to communicate across regional boundaries. However, this continued bidialectism also has interesting linguistic implications, in terms of how the use of one dialect or another can reflect social and political realities both through history and in the modern world. For example, one sign in the recent Egyptian protests read “irhal means imshi,” (roughly, “go away” means “beat it”), pretending to translate between the two dialects to reinforce the protester’s message to Mubarak. This presentation draws from a variety of sources, including recent Middle Eastern politics and theories of structural and historical linguistics to examine how regional dialects of Arabic and the standard interact with each other.

scholarly journals Phonetic-Form constraints in Arabic coordination

2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-42
Author(s):  
Marwan Jarrah ◽  
Imran Alrashdan ◽  
Ekab Al-Shawashreh ◽  
Malek J. Zuraikat
Keyword(s):  
Direct Consequence ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Free Form ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Jordanian Arabic ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Preceding Word ◽  
Modern Standard

Abstract This paper explores the use of bound forms in coordination constructions and ʔijjā and ʔijja in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Jordanian Arabic (JA), respectively. Using the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2005) as a theoretical framework, the paper proposes that the use of bound forms in such constructions is ruled by a Phonetic-Form constraint that prohibits cliticization of a bound form onto another bound form, i.e. the combination of two bound forms does not result in a free form; hence it is blocked. The paper demonstrates that the use of ʔijjā and ʔijja in MSA and JA, respectively, is a direct consequence of this constraint, so that ʔijjā/ʔijja is a Phonetic-Form object used to serve as a lexical host of bound forms (cf. Fassi Fehri 1993). The use of ʔijjā/ʔijja is also shown to be prosodically ruled; it is prosodically dependent so that ʔijjā/ ʔijja should be a member of the prosodic unit which also includes the preceding word.

The effects of motivation on processing instruction in the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic gender agreement

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-82
Author(s):  
Ayah Farhat ◽  
Alessandro Benati
Keyword(s):  
Academic Motivation ◽  
Processing Instruction ◽  
Gender Agreement ◽  
Modern Standard Arabic ◽  
Language Background ◽  
Standard Arabic ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Modern Standard

The present study investigates the effects of motivation and processing instruction on the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic gender agreement. The role of individual differences (e.g. age, gender, aptitude, language background and working memory) on the positive effects generated by processing instruction has been investigated in the last few years. However, no previous research has been conducted to measure the possible effects of motivation on L2 learners exposed to processing instruction. In addition, a reasonable question to be addressed within the processing instruction research framework is whether its positive effects can be generalised to the acquisition of Modern Standard Arabic. The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) and the Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) motivation questionnaires were used to capture different variables that influence motivation in order to create the two different groups (high and low motivated). In this experimental study, forty-one native English school-age learners (aged 8–11) were assigned to two groups: ‘the high motivated group’ (n = 29): and the ‘low motivated group’ (n = 12). Both groups received processing instruction, which lasted for three hours. Sentence-level interpretation and production tasks were used in a pre-test and post-test design to measure instructional effects. The learners were required to fill in gaps in both written and spoken mode for the activities. The study also included a delayed post-test administered to the two groups four weeks later. The results indicated that both groups improved equally from pre-test to post-test in all assessment measures and they both retained the positive effects of the training in the delayed posttests. Processing instruction was proved to be the main factor for the improvement in performance regardless of the learner’s level of motivation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document