Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2023 / Supremacy of suprasegmentals in Arabic phonology: Evidence from malapropisms

Supremacy of suprasegmentals in Arabic phonology: Evidence from malapropisms

Summary

The paper asks whether word-level prosody matters to Arabic speakers. Arabic stress is fully predictable and non-phonemic, and Eastern dialects lean toward syllable timing, so prosody might seem marginal. The authors test this with malapropisms: slips in which a speaker swaps the intended word for a phonologically similar but semantically unrelated one. They also include slips that produce non-words. Over three years they collected such slips from spontaneous Jordanian Arabic speech. They compared each target with its error on syllable count, primary stress position, rhythmic pattern, rime and initial segments, interpreting the results within Levelt's Modular Theory of speech production.

The strongest overlaps were metrical: errors preserved the target's stress placement, syllable count and rhythm. Rime and onset matched less often. Errors also never crossed part-of-speech lines. The authors argue that the mental lexicon is organised by syllabic and metrical form across language types, and that Arabic syllables are hierarchical, not flat. This matters because most slip research has relied on Indo-European data.

Key points

  • Data: spontaneous Jordanian Arabic malapropisms gathered over three years, including nonce-word outcomes, analysed in Levelt's (1989; 1999) modular production model.
  • The most preserved features are primary stress position, syllable count and word rhythmic pattern. Shared rime and initial segments are less consistent.
  • Unlike in other languages, the rime proved slightly more important than the word beginning. This partly departs from the "bathtub effect."
  • The importance of the rime contradicts the flat-syllable claim of Berg and Abd-El-Jawad (1996). The authors argue instead for a hierarchical onset–rime structure.
  • Target and error always shared a syntactic category. The results resemble findings for stress-timed languages and for Mandarin (Wan & Allassonnière-Tang, 2021).

Interesting ideas

  • I1. When a predictable feature like stress still constrains real errors, it is part of how words are stored, not just computed on the fly. Errors therefore expose representation better than correct output does. — For Mova (learn): Mova's own wrong parses and answers could be grouped by which properties they keep from the gold, revealing what its internal representation actually encodes.
  • I2. The lexicon may be indexed by several parallel keys: syllable count, stress, rhythm, onset, rime and word class. Retrieval would consult all of these sublists at once. — For Mova (tokens): unknown or misspelled words could be looked up through several such indexes at once, with candidates ranked by how many keys they match rather than by raw edit distance.
  • I3. Substitution errors never crossed part-of-speech boundaries, so category acts as a hard filter before form similarity applies. — For Mova (tokens): a word-repair step could first restrict candidates to the tagger's predicted POS, then score phonological or orthographic closeness, keeping each correction explainable.
  • I4. A monitor checks the output at each stage, and an error slips through when the wrong form is too similar to the right one to be noticed. — For Mova (back): generated text could be checked for words that closely resemble an intended word in shape but not in meaning, since these are exactly the errors a naive self-check misses.
  • I5. Galton's problem warns that conclusions drawn from one language family may falsely look universal, so the authors test the claims on a typologically different language. — For Mova (learn): evaluation should deliberately include text types unlike the training treebanks, so that rules which only look general on familiar data get exposed.

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

Topics: Part-of-speech tagging

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.1.gub

@article{guba2023supremacy,
  title = {{Supremacy of suprasegmentals in Arabic phonology: Evidence from malapropisms}},
  author = {Guba, Mohammed Nour Abu and Mashaqba, Bassil and Huneety, Anas and Alshdifat, Khalid},
  journal = {East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 10},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.1.gub},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.1.gub}
}

References

44 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abd-El-Jawad, H., & Abu-Salim, I. (1987). Slips of the tongue in Arabic and their theoretical implications. Language Sciences, 9(2), 145-171. find
  2. Supremacy of Suprasegmentals in Arabic Phonology: Evidence from Malapropisms East European Journal of Psycholinguistics. Volume 10, Number 1, 2023 find our card
  3. Abu Guba, M.N. (2018). Stress assignment in polysyllabic words in Levantine Arabic: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis. Lingua Posnaniensis, 60(2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo-2018-0009 ↗
  4. Abu Guba, M.N. (2021). Gemination within English loanwords in Ammani Arabic: An Optimality-theoretic analysis. Journal of Linguistics, 57(1), 3-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000183 ↗
  5. Abu Guba, M. N., Fareh, S., & Yagi, S. (2023). English and Arabic speech rhythms: A contrastive review. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 23(1), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.23.1.10 ↗
  6. Abu Guba, M. N., Mashaqba, B., & Huneety, A.. (2023). Polysyllabic shortening in Modern Standard Arabic. Journal of Semitic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgac030 ↗
  7. Abu Guba, M., Mashaqba, B., Jarbou, S., & Al-Haj Eid, O. (2023). Production of vowel reduction by Jordanian–Arabic speakers of English: an acoustic study. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 59(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2022-2011 ↗
  8. Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. (2nd ed). Blackwell. find
  9. Alderete, J. (2022). Cross-Linguistic trends in speech errors: An analysis of sub-lexical errors in Cantonese. Language and Speech, 66(1), 79-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211071045 ↗
  10. Al-Huneety, A., Mashaqba, B., Alhala, M. A., Abu Guba, M. N., & Al-Shdifat, K. G. (2023). Acquisition of stress in the speech of Ammani Arabic-speaking children. Ampersand, 10, 100094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2022.100094 ↗
  11. Berg, T., & Abd-El-Jawad, H. (1996). The unfolding of suprasegmental representations: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 32(2), 291-324. find
  12. Bock, J. K., & Huitema, J. (1999). Language production. In Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. (Eds.), Language processing (pp. 363-388). Psychology Press. find
  13. Boomer, D. S., & Laver, J. D. M. (1968). Slips of the tongue. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 3, 1-12. find
  14. Celce-Murcia, M, Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. (2010). Teaching pronunciation. Cambridge University Press. find
  15. Cutler, A. (1982). The reliability of speech error data. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Slips of the tongue and language production (pp.7-28). Mouton. find
  16. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321. find
  17. Dell, G. S., & Reich, P. A. (1980). Slips of the tongue: The facts and a stratificational model. Rice Institute Pamphlet – Rice University Studies, 66(2). find
  18. Dell, G. S., Nozari, N., & Oppenheim, G. M. (2014). Word production: Behavioral and computational considerations. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of language production (pp. 88-104). Oxford University Press. find
  19. Fay, D., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 505-520. find
  20. Frisch, S. A. (2006). Speech errors as evidence in phonology. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 11). (pp. 736-739). Elsevier. find
  21. Fromkin, V. A. (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. Mouton. find
  22. Fromkin, V. A. (2002). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 3-33). Routledge. find
  23. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams N. (2013). An introduction to language (10th Ed.). Cengage Learning. find
  24. Garrett, M. F. (2002). The analysis of sentence production. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 34-72). Routledge. find
  25. Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (pp.177-220). Academic Press. find
  26. Mohammed Nour Abu of Guba, Bassil Mashaqba, Anas 10, Huneety, Alshdifat East European Journal Psycholinguistics. Volume Number Khalid 1, 2023 find
  27. Ghazali, S., Hamdi, R., & Knis, K. (2007). Intonational and rhythmic patterns across the Arabic dialect continuum. In E. Benmamoun (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic linguistics (pp. 97-121). John Benjamins. find
  28. Harley, T. (2006). Speech errors: Psycholinguistic approach. Invited entry. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 11). (pp. 739-744). Elsevier. find
  29. Holes, C. (2004). Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Georgetown University Press. find
  30. Hotopf, W. (1980). Semantic similarity as a factor in whole-word slips of the tongue. In V. Fromkin (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand (pp.97-109). Academic Press. find
  31. Jaeger, J. (2005). Kids' slips: What young children's slips of the tongue reveal about language development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. find
  32. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Routledge. find
  33. Laubstein, A. S. (1987). Syllable structure: The speech error evidence. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 32, 339-363. find
  34. Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press. find
  35. Levelt, W. J. (1999). Language production: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. V. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83-122). Oxford University Press. find
  36. Mashaqba, B., & Huneety, A. (2018). Emergence of iambs in Eastern Arabic: Metrical iambicity dominating optimal nonfinality. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 15(3). 15-36. find
  37. Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45(1), 73–97. find
  38. Nooteboom, S. G. (1973). The tongue slips into patterns. In V. Fromkin (Ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 87-95). Mouton. find
  39. Safi-Stagni, S. (1990). Slips of the tongue in Arabic. In E. Mushira (Ed.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics. (Vol. I). John Benjamins. find
  40. Safi-Stagni, S. (1994). Arabic segmental errors and segmental phonology. In E. Mushira, V. Cantarino, & K. Walters (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics. (Vol. VI). (169-184). John Benjamins. find
  41. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2002). Speech errors as evidence for a serial ordering mechanism in sentence production. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 73-120). Routledge. find
  42. Wan, I. P., & Allassonnière-Tang, M. (2021). A corpus study of lexical speech errors in Mandarin. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 19(2), 87-120. find
  43. Watson, J. C. E. (2011). Word stress in Arabic. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. V. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 2990–3018). find
  44. Wiley-Blackwell Wells-Jensen, S. (2007). A cross-linguistic speech error investigation of functional complexity. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 36, 107–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9036-5 ↗

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/guba-2023-supremacy-suprasegmentals-arabic-phonology-evidence/