Cover not available

In:Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXX: Papers from the annual symposia on Arabic Linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016 and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017
Edited by Amel Khalfaoui and Matthew A. Tucker
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 7] 2019
► pp. 33–52

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Are there transfer effects in the Arabic comparative?

 | Indiana University
Published online: 8 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.7.03dav
A contentious issue in Arabic linguistics concerns whether Arabic morphology is root-based or stem-/word-based. In a root-based approach, derivation depends on the consonantal root, which is understood as constituting a morpheme. This contrasts with the stem-/word-based view where derivation is based on a stem/word that includes a vowel. The strongest evidence for the stem-/word-based approach comes from morphological processes like the plural and diminutive. Based on this, Ratcliffe (1998) makes the strong claim that all Arabic morphology is word-based. In this paper I argue that the Arabic templatic comparative is a root-based process since unlike the plural and diminutive it witnesses no transfer effects from a supposed base. I conclude that Arabic allows both word-based and root-based derivation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Arabic broken plural and transfer effects
  • 3.The Arabic comparative and the lack of transfer effects
    • 3.1The comparative template
    • 3.2Evidence against transfer effects in the Arabic comparative
    • 3.3Possible marginal instances of transfer effects in the comparative
      • 3.3.1The comparative of [gidiid] ‘new’/‘recent’
      • 3.3.2Comparatives of forms with four root consonants in southern Levantine Arabic
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (29)
References
Badawi, E.-S., & Hinds, M. 1986. A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Librairie Du Liban.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. 1996. The derivation of the imperative in Arabic. In M. Eid (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics IX (pp.151–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua 108, 175–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Verbal and nominal plurals and the syntax-morphology interface. In S. Davis & U. Soltan (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XXVII (pp.59–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. 2001. Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition 81, 65–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes 20, 207–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broselow, E. 1976. The phonology of Egyptian Arabic (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1985. The problem of transfer in nonlinear phonology. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 38–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, S. 2016. The Arabic comparative and the nature of templatic mapping in Arabic. In L. Körtvélyessy, P. Stekauer & S. Valera (Eds.), Word-Formation Across Languages (pp.73–90). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Some issues for an analysis of the templatic comparative in Arabic with a focus on the Egyptian dialect. In H. Ouali (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIX (pp.129–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, S., & Ueda, I. 2006. Prosodic vs. morphological mora augmentation. Lexicon Forum 2, 121–143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammond, M. 1988. Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 247–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hassanein, A., & Kamel M. 1980. Yalla ndardish sawa. Cairo, Egypt: Arabic Language Unit, American University of Cairo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Idrissi, A., Prunet, J.-F., & Béland, R. 2008. On the mental representation of Arabic roots. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 221–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehn, W., & Abboud, P. 1965. Beginning Cairo Arabic. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. 1979. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology (Doctoral dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–348.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–263.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 209–282. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prunet, J.-F., Beland, R., & Idrissi, A. 2000. The mental representation of Semitic words. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 609–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Morphology. In J. Owens (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics (pp.71–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shimron, J. 2002. Semitic languages: Are they really root-based? In J. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based morphology (pp.1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tewfik, L., & Harrell, R. 1957. Lessons in colloquial Egyptian Arabic. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Institute of Language and Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watson, J. C. E. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Arabic morphology: Diminutive verbs and diminutive nouns in San’ani Arabic. Morphology 16, 189–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Youssef, I. 2013. Place assimilation in Arabic: Contrasts, features, and constraints (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Elhija, Dua Abu & Stuart Davis
2025. Quadriliteral comparatives in Arabic. Arabic Linguistics DOI logo
Faust, Noam & Nicola Lampitelli
2023. Root and Pattern in Semitic – and Beyond. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue