Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2021 / On the treatment of super-heavy syllables in Arabic Dialects: an Optimality Theoretic approach to historical typology

On the treatment of super-heavy syllables in Arabic Dialects: an Optimality Theoretic approach to historical typology

Summary

The paper asks why Arabic dialects handle word-internal "potential super-heavy" syllables (CVVC, CVCC, CVCː rhymes, which would need three moras where two is the limit) in different ways. Some dialects insert a vowel, some shorten the vowel, and some keep the form but leave the third slot weightless. Bokhari analyses six varieties (Hijazi, Egyptian, Emirati, Kuwaiti, Algerian, Palestinian) in Optimality Theory. One shared set of universal, independently motivated constraints is used for all of them, so the grammars differ only in how those constraints are ranked. The author then applies Cho's (1998) historical OT, where every change either creates or removes a single pairwise ranking, and counts the reranking steps that separate the grammars. The result is a set of nested innovations drawn as a wave diagram. In the abstract, these step counts stand in for the linguistic-difference metric in Wichmann et al.'s (2010) homeland method, which points to the Hijaz area as the dialects' homeland. The study shows that constraint ranking can serve as a measurable distance for historical typology.

Key points

  • Constraints used include *σμμμ (no trimoraic syllables), DEP-V (no inserted vowels), MAX-μV (keep vowel moras), WBP (weight-by-position) and *CCC (no three-consonant sequences).
  • Kuwaiti, Algerian and Palestinian are conservative and keep all such forms faithful, because DEP-V and MAX-μV are undominated and *σμμμ outranks WBP.
  • Emirati breaks up only three-consonant clusters (/bint-na/) because *CCC outranks DEP-V.
  • Hijazi also inserts a vowel in /naːr-na/ because WBP and *σμμμ dominate DEP-V. Egyptian differs only in ranking DEP-V above MAX-μV, so it shortens instead and gives [nar.na].
  • The wave diagram has three circles: the first covers Emirati, Hijazi and Egyptian; the second covers Hijazi and Egyptian; the third covers Egyptian alone. The conclusion lists the homeland application as future work.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. All varieties share one fixed inventory of soft constraints, and variation is expressed purely as a different priority order, which keeps the analyses directly comparable. — For Mova (tree): UD dialect conversion could be modelled as one shared set of attachment and labelling preferences with a per-treebank ordering, so each conversion difference is an explicit, inspectable reranking.
  • I2. The distance between two grammars is counted in atomic operations (add a ranking or remove one), so a full reversal costs two steps rather than one. — For Mova (learn): self-induced repair rule sets or parser configurations could be compared by the number of atomic priority edits between them, giving an explainable "how far apart" metric across model versions.
  • I3. To test whether a constraint really drives a grammar, it is demoted or dropped and the winners are checked for change; *CCC turns out to be inert in Hijazi but essential in Emirati. — For Mova (learn): rules in the frames or repair layers could be ablated one at a time as a negative control, keeping only those whose removal changes outputs.
  • I4. In the wave diagram, the conservative dialects are not grouped together, because merely lacking innovations is not evidence of a relationship. — For Mova (learn): when clustering witness parsers or error profiles, only shared deviations should count as similarity, not shared default behaviour.
  • I5. A rich structural distance (reranking steps) is swapped into an existing quantitative method (homeland estimation) in place of a crude difference score. — For Mova (world): knowledge-graph comparisons, such as between versions of a text's world, could plug structured edit counts into standard clustering methods instead of overlap scores.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.2218/pihph.6.2021.6668

@inproceedings{bokhari2021treatment,
  title = {{On the treatment of super-heavy syllables in Arabic Dialects: an Optimality Theoretic approach to historical typology}},
  author = {Bokhari, Hassan},
  booktitle = {Papers in Historical Phonology 6},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.2218/pihph.6.2021.6668},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2218/pihph.6.2021.6668}
}

References

26 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abu-Mansour, Mahasen. 1991. Epenthesis in Makkan Arabic: Unsyllabified consonants vs. degenerate syllables. In Comrie, Bernard and Mushira Eid (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics: papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, vol. III, 137–154. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. find
  2. Al-Mohanna, Faisal. 2008. Positional syllable maximality: Syllabification in Hejazi. ROA 993. find
  3. Alahmari, Musa. 2018. An Optimality-Theoretic analysis of some aspects of the phonology and morphology in a southwestern Saudi Arabian Arabic dialect. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Bloomington dissertation. find
  4. Alqahtani, Mufteh. 2014. Syllable structure and related processes in Optimality Theory: An examination of Najdi Arabic. Newcastle: Newcastle University thesis. find
  5. Bamakhramah, Majdi A. 2009. Syllable structure in Arabic varieties with a focus on superheavy syllables. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Bloomington dissertation. find
  6. Bassiouney, Reem. 2009. Arabic sociolinguistics: Topics in diglossia, gender, identity, and politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
  7. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2006. Phonological change in optimality theory. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 9, 497–505. Oxford: Elsevier. find
  8. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2020. The initiation and incrementation of sound change: Community-oriented momentum-sensitive learning. Glossa 5(1): article 121. 1–32. find
  9. Broselow, Ellen J. 1976. The phonology of Egyptian Arabic. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation. find
  10. Cho, Young-Mee Yu. 1998. Language change as reranking of constraints. In Hogg, Richard M. and Linda van Bergen (eds), Germanic linguistics volume 2: Selected papers from the 12 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  11. Davis, Stuart. 2011. Quantity. In Goldsmith, John, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., 545–562. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. find
  12. Davis, Stuart. 2017. Geminates and weight manipulating phonology in Chuukese (Trukese). In Haruo Kubozono (ed.), The phonetics and phonology of geminate consonants, vol. 2, 230–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  13. Hassan Bokhari Farwaneh, Samira. 2009. Towards a typology of Arabic dialects: The role of final consonantality. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 9. 82–109. find
  14. Gruber-Miller, Ann M. 1990. Loss of nominal case endings in the modern Arabic dialects: evidence from Palestinian Christian middle Arabic texts. In Mushira Eid (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, 235–253, vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  15. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. find
  16. Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
  17. Holt, D. Eric. 2015. Historical sound change in optimality theory: Achievements and challenges. In Honeybone, Patrick and Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 546– 562. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  18. Kabrah, Rawiah. 2014. Stress assignment in Makkan Arabic: A stratal-OT analysis. In Benmamoun, Elabbas and Enam Al-Wer (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XXIV-XXV: Papers from the Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics, 21–62. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. find
  19. Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  20. Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3). 291–306. find
  21. Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Féry, Caroline and van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 147–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  22. Millar, Robert McColl. 2007. Trask’s historical linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Hodder Education. find
  23. Ohala, John. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, Chicago Linguistics Society. 178–203. find
  24. Ohala, John. 2012. The listener as a source of sound change: An update. In Solé, Maria-Josep and Daniel Recasens (eds.). The initiation of sound change: perception, production, and social factors. 21–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. find
  25. Rees, Daniel. 2008. Towards Proto-Persian: An optimality theoretic historical reconstruction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University dissertation. find
  26. Wichmann, Søren, André Müller & Viveka Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the world’s languages: A quantitative approach. Diachronica 27(2). 247–276. A historical OT typology of internal super-heavy syllables in Arabic Dialects Zenner, Eline, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2014. A usage-based onomasiological approach. Diachronica 31(1). 74–105. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/bokhari-2021-treatment-super-heavy-syllables-arabic/