Inflectional Change Patterns in Arabic

Open access

Abstract

Most approaches to inflectional morphology propose a single-default representation. This research on Jordanian Arabic offers an analysis having more than one default inflection. This is accomplished by showing that unlike previous morphological accounts like the single-mechanism model, dual-mechanism model, and the schema model (cf. Pinker, 1990; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986; and Bybee, 1985), the current research relies upon the ‘openness’ mechanism to define defaultness. Openness is thus defined as the ability of the inflectional process to accept new forms into a language. The corpus used in this research contains diminutives, verbal nouns, derivatives, and loan words used in JA. Other defining factors are modified in this research, such as regularity (rule-based mechanism) and productivity (type frequency). The findings of this research indicate that there are two possible defaults in Jordanian Arabic ordered in terms of openness: the sound feminine plural and the iambic broken plural. The findings have the implication that a language’s grammar can have a multi-default system.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ababneh J. & Prokosch E. (1997). Ottoman loanwords in Jordanian Arabic. GrazerLinguistische Studien 48 1-6.

  • Bauer L. (2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Berent I. Pinker S. & Shimron J. (1999). Default nominal inflection in Hebrew: Evidence for mental variables. Cognition 72 (1) 1-44.

  • Berko J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14 150-177.

  • Boudelaa S. & Gaskell M.G. (2002). A re-examination of the default system for Arabic plurals. Language and Cognitive Processes 17 (3) 321-343.

  • Butros A.J. (1963). English Loanwords in the Colloquial Arabic of Palestine (1917-1948) and Jordan (1948-1962). PhD Dissertation. Columbia University New York.

  • Bybee J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Bybee J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and CognitiveProcesses 10 (5) 425-455.

  • Bybee J. (1999). Use impacts morphological representation. Behavioural and BrainSciences 22 (6) 1016-1017.

  • Bybee J. & Moder C. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59 (2) 251-270.

  • Cowper E. (2003). Tense mood and aspect: A feature-geometric approach. Retrieved from: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cowper/Cowper.TMA2003.pdf Chomsky N. & Halle M. (1991). The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Clahsen H. Rothweiler M. Woest A. & Marcus G.F. (1992). Regular and irregular Inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 45 225-255.

  • Clahsen H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multi-disciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 991-1060.

  • Clahsen H. Eisenbeiss S. & Sonnenstuhl I. (1997). Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words. Theoretical Linguistics 23 201-249.

  • Daugherty K. & Seidenberg M. (1992). Rules or connections? The past tense revisited. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the CognitiveScience Society (pp. 259-264). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • El-Yasin M.K. (1985). Basic word order in classical Arabic and Jordanian Arabic. Lingua 65 (1-2) 107-122.

  • Farghal M. & Al-Khatib M. (1999). English borrowings in Jordanian Arabic: Distributins functions and attitudes. Grazer Linguistische Studien 52 1-18.

  • Fodor J. & Pylyshyn Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition 28 3-71.

  • Hammond M. (1988). Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Natural Languagesand Linguistic Theory 6 274-270.

  • Halle M. & Marantz A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Hare M. & Elman J. (1995). Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56 61-98.

  • Holes C. (1995). Modern Arabic. London: Longman.

  • Kim J.K. Pinker S. Prince A. & Prasada S. (1991). Why no mere mortal has ever flown out to center field. Cognitive Science 15 173-218.

  • Kim J. Marcus G.F. Pinker S. Hollander M. & Coppola M. (1994). Sensitivity of children’s inflection to grammatical structure. Journal of Child Language 21 (1) 173-209.

  • Kiparsky P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93-106). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

  • Kiparsky P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.) The Structure of Phonological Representations. Part 1 (pp. 131-175). Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Khouloughli D.-E. (1992). Basic Lexicon of Modern Standard Arabic. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • Laaha S. Ravid D. Korecky-Kroll K. Laaha G. & Dressler W.U. (2006). Early noun plurals in German: Regularity productivity or default? Journal of ChildLanguage 33 (2) 271-302.

  • Levi M.M. (1971). The Plural of the Noun in Modern Standard Arabic. PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI.

  • Marcus G.F. (1998a). Can connectionism save constructivism? Cognition 66 153-182.

  • Marcus G.F. (1998b). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology 37 (3) 243-282.

  • Marcus G.F. Pinker S. Ullman M. Hollander M. Rosen T.J. & Xu F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society forResearch in Child Development 57 (4) 1-182.

  • Marcus G.F Brinkmann U. Clahsen H. Wiese R. & Pinker S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29 (3) 189-256.

  • McCarthy J. & Prince A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8 209-283.

  • MacWhinney B. & Leinbach J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: Revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40 121-157.

  • Plunkett K. & Marchman V. (1993). From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48 21-69.

  • Plunkett K. & Nakisa C.R. (1997). A connectionist model of the Arabic plural system. Language and Cognitive Processes 12 (5-6) 807-836.

  • Prasada S. & Pinker S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8 (1) 1-56.

  • Ratcliffe R.R. (1998). The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and ComparativeSemitic: Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-Concatenative Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Ravid D. & Farah R. (1999). Learning about noun plurals in early Palestinian Arabic. First Language 19 187-206.

  • Rumelhart D.E. McClelland J.L. (1986). On learning the past tense of English verbs. In D.E. Rumelhart J.L. McClelland & The PDP Research Group (Eds.) Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Vol. 2 (pp. 216-271). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Say T. & Clahsen H. (2002). Words rules and stems in the Italian mental lexicon. In S. Nooteboom F. Weerman & F. Wijnen (Eds.) Storage and Computationin the Language Faculty (pp. 93-129). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Spiro S. (1895). An Arabic English Vocabulary of the Colloquial Arabic of Egypt. London: Bernard Quaritch.

  • Suleiman S.M. (1985). Jordanian Arabic between Diglossia and Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Wehr H. (1976). Arabic-English Dictionary: The Hans Wehr Dictionary of ModernWritten Arabic. Ed. by J.M. Cowan. New York: Spoken Language Services.

  • Wright W. (1995). A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Zwicky A. (1986). The general case: Basic form versus default form. Proceedingsof the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 12 305-314.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.118
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.410

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 170 80 3
PDF Downloads 107 55 0