S´IBAWAYHI’S
OBSERVATIONS ON ASSIMILATORY PROCESSES
AND
RE-SYLLABIFICATION
IN THE
LIGHT OF OPTIMALITY THEORY*
Bonn
The last seven chapters (chs. 565–71) of
S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab contain many phonetic and phonological observations that
can be conveniently recast in terms of theories
of linguistic preference and natural generative phonology (Hooper 1976),
notably in terms of the approach of Vennemann (1983, 1988). Optimality Theory
(Prince and Smolensky 1993) offers a formal means to capture the “constraint
ranking” that is implicit in S³bawayhi’s rejection of disallowed forms and evaluation of parallelly occurring and
competing forms (“candidates”). The relevant phenomena under
investigation in this paper are mainly assimilatory
processes but also re-syllabification and haplological syllable
ellipsis.
1.
Introduction
There has evolved quite a tradition of
drawing lines of comparison between the theories in the “classical” linguistic
literature and their modern counterparts.
Carter (1973) has shown that S³bawayhi’s binary syntactic nomenclature
may well be considered a spiritual forerunner of modern transformational
grammatical theory, or rather constituent analysis. In this paper I attempt to
show that S³bawayhi’s observations on phonetics and phonology may likewise be
considered a forerunner of theories of linguistic preference, the most recent
and widespread being Optimality Theory as developed by [49]
Prince and
Smolensky (1993). The “spiritual” relationship between S³bawayhi’s
observations and modern theoretical approaches will be demonstrated with
special focus on the central tenets of Optimality Theory,[1] but also with reference to
other approaches of linguistic naturalness, one prominent example being
Vennemann’s theory of Preference Laws for Syllable Structure (1983, 1988).[2]
Most of S³bawayhi’s observations are found in
the last seven chapters (chs. 565–71) of his Kit¢ab, all of which have
the topic of éid¯g¢am “assimilation” (literally: “insertion”) as a common
denominator.[3] After a description of the
hur¢uf “letters” (“phonemes”) in chapter 565,[4] S³bawayhi sets out to
investigate various assimilation phenomena, both word-internally and across
word boundaries. These assimilation phenomena operate on both the segmental
and the suprasegmental level. The latter relates especially to the spreading of
velarization (“emphasis”, A[dvanced] T[ongue] R[oot]), the corresponding
Arabic terms being taf›h³m (“velarization”) and tarq³q
(“de-velarization”).[5] S³bawayhi’s term éid¯g¢am
covers both what we would call partial or total assimilation and what we would
call haplological syllable ellipsis. While some of the forms quoted by him
appear to be valuable traces [50] of old
Arabic dialects,[6] some
phonologically reduced forms have also become part of the standard language, so that it is not surprising to
find them even in the Quré¢an. Usually such forms involve the imperfect form
(second person) of form V[7] or a suffix pronoun of the
first person sg. or pl. attached to an imperfect form ending in -na,
e.g., yaqtul¢una-n³ --> yaqtul¢unn³ “they (m.) kill me”.
S³bawayhi is not explicitly concerned with
linguistic diachrony.[8] However, many of the
forms cited by him may reasonably be assumed to reflect a linguistic stage that
is the result of various “remedial” strategies in language development as
opposed to older more “classical” forms associated with the literary koine
of the Arab poets.[9]
As is well known, language can be described
in either descriptive or prescriptive [51]
terms.
Regarding the approach in S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab, Carter (1973:146n) remarks
that “[t]he Book itself is so descriptive as to be useless as a
prescriptive grammar.” S³bawayhi’s radically descriptive approach to grammar lends
itself especially well to Optimality Theory, as he often lists simultaneously
occurring forms—sometimes associated with the speech of different tribes—which
he then indeed ranks with value judgments such as hasan “good”, éahsan
“better”, or simply ôarab³ “Arabic” (e.g., in the
very last sentence of chapter 571),[10] according to certain
parameters. Here is a basic quotation applying to phonetics and phonology from
the end of chapter 565 of S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab, in the translation of
Carter (1973:148): “I have described the letters of the alphabet [i.e., the
phonemes] for you in terms of these qualities simply so that you might know
what is good and permissible and what is not good and permissible
to assimilate.”[11]
In Optimality Theory, the set of forms that
may reasonably be assumed to be potential surface forms is often referred to as
the “richness of the base”. In this paper I will use the same term in reference
to the availability of simultaneously occurring forms, some of which may be
true alternatives and some of which may be
regional variants. In the framework of Optimality Theory, the
co-occurring forms, or rather the forms that are subject to linguistic
evaluation, are called “candidates”.
One other central
concept in Optimality Theory and elsewhere in linguistic theory is
markedness.[12]
Broadly speaking, “marked” refers to unusual, rarer, and/or harder to pronounce
forms, whereas “unmarked” refers to natural, more frequent, and/or easier to
pronounce forms. The latter state is often called “well-formedness”. On the
segmental level, for example, velarized stops are considered “marked”, whereas
plain (non-velarized) stops are considered “unmarked”. On the suprasegmental
level, for example, the universally “unmarked” syllable structure is CV: onset,
nucleus, and no coda; other syllable structures (CVC, CVCC, CCVCC, etc.) are
then considered “marked”. And even within one and the same syllable type, there
may be more or less marked specimens of different [52]
quality, depending on the internal structure of syllable onset and
syllable coda.
2.
Optimality Theory
2.1. Basic concepts of Optimality Theory
Optimality Theory, which
always aims at singling out one “optimal” form, has the potential to evaluate
at least the following morphophonological parameters (cf. McCarthy and Prince
1994:2): (i) segmental harmony (unmarkedness, itself consisting of various
dimensions, some conflicting); (ii) syllabic harmony (having an onset, lacking
a coda); (iii) faithfulness (identity between input and output); (iv)
alignment (coincidence of edges of morphological and phonological
constituents); (v) metrical parsing (satisfying constraints on exhaustivity
and alignment of metrical feet); (vi) template satisfaction (meeting shape or
constituency requirements imposed on the reduplicated string); (vii) exactness
of copying relation; and (viii) identity between the reduplicated string and
the base to which it is attached.
While the references to
segmental harmony and syllabic harmony are quite straightforward and
unproblematic, the reference to faithfulness is interesting insofar as the
concept of “underlying representation” (i.e., the “input”), which Optimality
Theory purports to discard, is reintroduced, so to speak, via the backdoor. In
this paper I will mostly consider the first three of the listed parameters.[13]
It is important to note that usually not all
of these parameters can be optimized in any given form. The principle underlying
this circumstance is often called the “fallacy of perfection”.[14] For instance, words that
are entirely made up of CV syllables—this being the “optimal” syllable
structure—may be lengthy or otherwise clumsy to pronounce.
2.2. Basic tenets of Optimality Theory
One can narrow down Optimality Theory to five
basic tenets (cf. McCarthy and Prince 1994:3): (i) universality: U[niversal]
G[rammar] provides a set {Con} of constraints that are universal and
universally present in [53] all grammars; (ii) violability: constraints
are violable; but violation is minimal;
(iii) ranking: the constraints of {Con} are ranked on a language-particular
basis, the notion of minimal violation is defined in terms of this ranking, a
grammar is a ranking of the constraint set; (iv) inclusiveness: the constraint
hierarchy evaluates a set of candidate analyses that are admitted by very
general considerations of structural well-formedness; (v) parallelism: best
satisfaction of the constraint hierarchy is computed over the whole hierarchy
and the whole candidate set. There is no serial derivation. McCarthy and Prince
(1994:4–5) conclude:
The construction of a grammar in Optimality Theory is essentially
a matter of determining the proper ranking of the set of constraints {Con}, and
to that end the constraint tableau is a useful calculational device. A
typical constraint tableau, showing the domination of constraint B by constraint
A, is the following:
(1) Constraint
Tableau, A >> B,
/ink/ --> k-cand1
Candidates |
A |
B |
F k-cand1 |
|
* |
k-cand2 |
* ! |
|
In this tableau, it is assumed that, given the input /ink/,
the generator Gen supplies at least the candidates k-cand1
and k-cand2. Constraints A and B disagree on these two candidates, and
since the A-obeying k-cand1 is optimal, constraint A must dominate
constraint B. In this and other tableaux, constraints are shown in domination
order and violation-marks are indicated by “*”. The optimal candidate is
called out by F, and fatal constraint violations are
signaled by “!”. Below these fatal violations, cells are shaded to indicate
their irrelevance to determining the outcome of the comparison at hand.
Preservation of faithfulness and preservation
of markedness are the two basic competing constraints at the heart of
Optimality Theory. Then there are many other
language-specific constraints that determine the morphophonological
“fine-tuning” in the language under observation. Note that while constraints are
supposed to be universal, their ordering is usually language-specific.
Vennemann’s theory of “Preference Laws for Syllable Structure” can well be
considered a theoretical (even though less technical) forerunner of Optimality
Theory. The concept of the constraints on certain parameters in Optimality
Theory corresponds more or less to the concept of [54]
the preference
laws in Vennemann’s theory.[15] These preference laws
pertain to
different parameters of syllable structure, a domain that Vennemann and others
consider crucial for the production of an “optimal” phonological
output.
S³bawayhi’s ranking
of forms can, of course, only be compared cum grano salis
to the “computation” of the optimal form by means of the constraint ranking in
Optimality Theory.
3. Examples
of the application of Optimality Theory
3.1.
Different maâdar forms of {w-t-d} “to pin”
Let us now consider an example of concurring
(morphophonological and semantic) strategies and their resolution in an
Optimality Theory based model. The different maâ¢adir (sg. maâdar “infinitive”) of the verb watada “to pin” aptly demonstrate the
usefulness of Optimality Theory for the issues under consideration.[16] The
“richness of the base”, to which allusion was made already above, is very apparent
here; the variety of attested forms and the array of forms which S³bawayhi
assumes as theoretically desirable by far exceed the limited sets of
(underlying) forms with which traditional generative morphophonology operates.
According to S³bawayhi there occurred an array of forms, ranging from watd/watid
(in the ®Hij¢az) and wadd (with the Tam³m) to tida. While the maâdar forms
watd and watid are superior in terms of preserving the linguistic
input (especially with respect to the root consonants), the assimilated maâdar form wadd
is superior in terms of linguistic “naturalness”, i.e., it is easier to
pronounce and hence phonologically “unmarked”. The latter form has the disadvantage,
though, of being identical with the maâdar form of the verb wadda
“to love”, which is, of course, not related to watada. The best
(“optimal”) maâdar form is clearly tida, which meets the
criteria of both faithfulness to the linguistic input (with respect to the
second and third root consonants) and “naturalness”. Such conflicting
tendencies and strategies to resolve them are at the heart of the concerns of
Optimality Theory. [55]
Let us now move to a
more technical recasting of S³bawayhi’s observations in terms of Optimality
Theory. Before we begin, a number of observations are in order. Let us recall
that Optimality Theory is in principle designed to single out the “optimal”
surviving candidate and to throw out the rest of the candidates. In contrast to
the standard application of Optimality Theory, the maâdar forms watd/watid
(in the
®Hij¢az) and wadd (with the Tam³m)[17] are
not disallowed, even though they are (were) regionally limited. The maâdar
form tida has the advantage of best preserving the root structure {w-t-d}
in its (acoustic) output form, even though the first root consonant C1 (= w)
is lost. But in the case of verbs primae w¢aw (C1 = w)
in Arabic, the clear articulatory preservation of the last two consonants
appears to be crucial for an easy recognition of the form. This observation
can be technically rephrased to the extent that the output has to match the
input with respect to C2 and C3.
Hence this is our dominating constraint in this context, and wadd is
clearly the worst candidate. Incidentally, watd is probably
just as bad, as the surface pronunciation is almost certainly bound to
be [watt].[18] The
next constraint
operating in our example is the circumstance that syllable codas with
increasing sonority are universally disfavored
for clear articulatory reasons.[19] Such
syllable codas are almost “crying” for an epenthetic vowel. The form watid
may be considered the result of such an epenthetic process.[20] Finally,
there is the universal tendency to reduce the number of syllables with weak
onsets. Let us first consider a tableau that simply demonstrates the mutually
opposing forces (“constraints”) of faithfulness between input and output on the
one hand and phonological naturalness (unmarkedness) on the other (the opposing
“candidates” here are watd and wadd):
(2) Constraint
Tableau, Ident-IO-Root >> *Incr-Son-Cod
Candidates |
Ident-IO-Root |
*Incr-Son-Cod |
F watd |
|
* |
wadd |
* ! |
|
[56] The
tableau illustrates that no one of the two candidates watd and wadd
is “perfect”. Assuming, however, that preserving the root consonants is more
important than having an easy-to-pronounce syllable coda, technically speaking
that Ident-IO-Root dominates *Incr-Son-Cod, the candidate watd
emerges as the better and hence “optimal” maâdar form.
The following tableau
summarizes the more complex situation involving all of the four maâdar
forms:
(3) Constraint
Tableau, Ident-IO-C2-C3
>> *Incr-Son-Cod >>
*Weak-Ons
Candidates |
Ident-IO-C2-C3 |
*Incr-Son-Cod |
*Weak-Ons |
a. F tida |
|
|
|
b. watid |
|
|
* |
c. watd |
|
* |
* |
d. wadd |
* ! |
|
|
This tableau clearly
illustrates the ranking of the three constraints—here one might also call them “tendencies”—that
are operational in determining the “quality” of the different maâdar forms. Note that the form wadd is marked
with an exclamation mark that signals the “deadly”
violation of the constraint Ident-IO-C2-C3. The forms watd and watid incur violation
marks as well, but those are not as “deadly”, so to speak.
There occur at least
two additional passages in chapters 565–71 of S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab that can be aptly and directly recast in terms of
Optimality Theory. In chapter 567, for instance, S³bawayhi mentions that in
the maâdar forms of the roots {q-n-y}, {k-n-y}, and {m-n-y}, qunya
(or qinya), kunya, and munya, the y¢aé may not be
progressively assimilated by the n¢un, as this might lead to confusion
with maâdar forms of verbs mediae geminatae (C2 = C3).[21] The second case is
addressed in the following section.
3.2. Suprasegmental assimilation
At the beginning of chapter 569, S³bawayhi
notes that partial progressive assimilation with respect to velarization (éiçtb¢aq,
literally: “covering [of the velum]”) of the middle root consonant d¢al
is blocked in forms like /taâd³r/ [57] for the sake of
preservation of the root.[22] Such partial progressive
assimilation may occur, however, in cases where the consonant in question
represents an infix (typically the -t-infix of form VIII). However,
S³bawayhi does allow for partial regressive assimilation with respect to
voicedness, i.e., /taâd³r/ --> [tazd³r]. Of course, one could also argue that
in cases like /taâd³r/ the (first) syllable is the domain of velarization
(“emphasis”) and that therefore spreading of velarization is blocked beyond
the â¢ad in the word. In any event, [tazd³r] is clearly the most
harmonic and “well-formed” output.[23] Technically speaking, this
means that in this case the constraint that the syllable is the domain of
ATR-spreading dominates the constraint of harmony with respect to voicedness, and
the constraint of harmony with respect to voicedness in turn dominates the constraint of faithfulness to the root,
as long as no confusion with other
roots arises. Consider the following
tableau:
(4) Constraint
Tableau, [Syll]-ATR >> Harm-Voice-C1-C2
>> Ident-IO-C1-C2
Candidates |
[Syll]-ATR |
Harm-Voice-C1-C2 |
Ident-IO-C1-C2 |
a. F tazd³r |
|
|
* |
b. taâd³r |
|
* |
|
c. taâd³r |
* ! |
* |
* |
Again, the tableau illustrates the ranking of
constraints that operate in determining the quality of the “candidates” under
discussion.
Let us now have a closer look at two sets of
cases, first, assimilation across word
boundaries, and second, assimilation and re-syllabification in forms V
and VIII.
3.3. Assimilation across word boundaries
There are cases where S³bawayhi allows for
assimilation and/or other phonological mergers across word boundaries, and
there are cases where he discourages one from doing so. Most of S³bawayhi’s
examples belong to the [58] following five classes: (5a) imperative +
accusative object; (5b) genitive construct (éid¢afa); (5c) finite verb + subject noun or pronominal
suffix governed by a preposition; (5d) nouns or prepositions with a
pronominal suffix; and (5e) particles + finite verb. These examples show that
there is a strong case in Arabic for theories of the syntax-phonology
interface.[24] Here are a few relevant
examples from the last seven chapters of the Kit¢ab:[25]
(5a) ibôaàt
Salama “send Salama” --> ibôassalama
ihfaz Salama “keep Salama” --> ihfassalama
›huŒd S¢abir “take S¢abir” --> ›huââ¢abir
(5b) yadu
D¢awuda “the hand of David” --> yadd¢awuda
ismu M¢us¢a “the name of M¢us¢a” -/-> *ismm¢us¢a
àtawbu Bakr “the robe of Bakr” -/-> *àtawbbakr
(5c) qaraéa
éab¢u-ka “your father recited” --> ?qaraé(é)ab¢u-ka
jaôala la-ka “he did for you” --> ?jaôalla-ka
(5d) mashi-h³
“his anointing” --> masihhi
maôa-hum “with them” --> mahhum [59]
(5e) hal
raéayta “did you see” --> harraéayta
qad samiôa “he had heard” --> qassamiôa
Let us regroup these examples according to their
potential for phonological merger (in S³bawayhi’s eyes). First consider those
cases where such mergers are classified as desirable (6a). Then consider those
cases where such mergers are possible †a la limite but not really called
for (6b). And finally consider thoses cases where phonological merger is
discouraged if not disallowed (6c). Here are the regrouped examples:
(6a) ibôaàt
Salama “send Salama (PN)” --> ibôassalama
ihfaz Salama “keep Salama” --> ihfassalama
›huŒd S¢abir “take S¢abir (PN)” --> ›huââ¢abir
yadu D¢awuda “the hand of David” --> yadd¢awuda
mashi-h³ “his anointing” --> masihhi
maôa-hum “with them” --> mahhum
hal raéayta “did you see --> harraéayta
qad samiôa “he had heard” --> qassamiôa
(6b) jaôala
la-ka “he did for you” --> ?jaôalla-ka
qaraéa éab¢u-ka “your father recited” --> ?qaraé(é)ab¢u-ka
(6c) ismu
M¢us¢a “the name of M¢us¢a” -/-> *ismm¢us¢a
àtawbu Bakr “the robe of Bakr” -/-> *àtawbbakr
Cases (6a) to (6c) can be most conveniently analyzed
in terms of preference laws for syllable structure. In case (6a) all of the
first constituents end in a single consonant or in a CV syllable preceded by a
vowel, except for the more complicated case mashi-h³ “his anointing”.
Thus there is no difficulty in achieving the desired phonological mergers, be
it by means of regressive assimilation, elision of a vowel, or the true
phonetic merger as apparent in mahhum “with them”. The possible
haplology in case (6b) can be compared to the case of yadu D¢awuda
--> yadd¢awuda. In case (6c) such a phonological merger, especially
the elision of the last vowel in the first constituent is not possible, as such
an elision would yield an impossible syllable structure, or rather three adjacent
consonants (a disallowed sequence/consonant cluster in Arabic). This is so
because the last CV syllable of the first constituent is preceded by a CVC
syllable.
S³bawayhi’s explanations of éid¯g¢am
are rather complicated and not always consistent, especially as he has no
concept of the syllable at all. It is, however, a fascinating feature in the Kit¢ab
that S³bawayhi also discusses what we nowadays would call “starred” forms. For
instance, S³bawayhi rules out the following potential phonological merger: buyyina
la-hum “it was explained to them” -/-> *buyyinna-hum.[26] By contrast, the
phonological merger jaôala la-ka “he
did for you” --> jaôalla-ka is approved by S³bawayhi. Now, while the
syllable structure would allow for the phonological merger in both cases, it
is clear that in the merger buyyina la-hum “it was explained to them” --> *buyyinna-hum the information about the
preposition would be lost. So again we are looking at the conflicting forces,
i.e., conflicting constraints, of phonological naturalness and well-formedness on the one hand, and faithfulness to the
linguistic input on the other hand, and Optimality Theory provides an ideal way
to represent this formally. Here are [60]
the representative tableaux:
(7) Constraint
Tableau, Ident-IO-Prep >> Ident-IO-Root
>> *CiV-CiV
Candidates |
Ident-IO-Prep |
Ident-IO-Root |
*CiV-CiV |
F jaôalla-ka |
|
|
|
jaôala la-ka |
|
|
* ! |
(8) Constraint
Tableau, Ident-IO-Prep >> *Ident-IO-Root >> *CV-CV
Candidates |
Ident-IO-Prep |
Ident-IO-Root |
*CV-CV |
F buyyina
la-hum |
|
|
* |
buyyinna-hum |
* ! |
|
|
It is noteworthy that *buyyinna-hum
also runs counter to the strength assimilation law (“If Consonantal Strength is
assimilated in a syllable contact, the Consonantal Strength of the stronger
speech sound decreases.”[27]), as the nasal n
has a slightly higher consonantal strength on the sonority scale than the
lateral liquid l. In the Quré¢an, one finds the expected pattern of
regressive assimilation in the form yubayyilla-n¢a (< yubayyina
la-n¢a) “so that he explain to us”.[28]
3.4. Assimilation and re-syllabification in
forms V, VI, VII, and VIII
S³bawayhi quotes a number of alternative
forms of the standard diatheses V, VI, VII, and VIII, all of which feature
assimilation and re-syllabification.[29] The situation in forms V
and VI is relatively straightforward. What often
occurs is the already mentioned syllable ellipsis in cases like fa-l¢a
(t)tan¢ajaw! “don’t whisper to each other”.[30] S³bawayhi also quotes assimilated [61]
verbs of form
VII (standard inC1aC2aC3a) that are not part as such of the standard
language, e.g., immah¢a “he was effaced”.[31] In the quoted examples of
forms VI and VII the dominating constraint is faithfulness to the input of the
root consonants. This constraint is in turn dominated by the constraint of a
well-formed syllable structure; still, the assimilated element of the
diathetic prefix is recognizable as such. Here are derivations of the non-standard
examples of forms V, VI and VII:
(9a) tatamannawna “you (m. pl.)
wish” --> tamannawna
fa-l¢a tatan¢ajaw! “don’t whisper to each
other” --> fa-l¢a
(t)tan¢ajaw!
inmah¢a “he was effaced” --> immah¢a
The situation in form VIII is far more
complicated, as S³bawayhi cites an array of forms that by far exceeds the
well-known cases of partial and total assimilation that may occur in form VIII.[32] Here is an overview of the
non-standard output forms (m. pl. of perfect, imperfect, and participle) of the
verb {q-t-l} “to kill” in form VIII (“to kill each other”) that normally do not
undergo any assimilatory change:[33]
(9b) iqtatal¢u --> qittal¢u
yaqtatil¢una --> {yaqattil¢una,
yaqittil¢una}
muqtatil¢una --> {muqattil¢una,
muqittil¢una}
Note the ordering in the set brackets, which
indicates that people who say yaqattil¢una will also say muqattil¢una,
and so on. Interestingly, these forms amount to an assimilation of the infixes
(-t-) to the middle radical, as is also obvious in the participle murtadif¢una
--> muruddif¢una “[they (m.) are] directly following”, which
furthermore features vowel harmony with respect to u.[34]
Again, the driving force or constraint behind these forms appears to be the wish
to avoid a sequence of equal syllables. As in the previous examples, next [62]
comes the faithfulness to the input of the root consonants. As a result,
the underlying form of the diathesis (VIII) is quite opaque in these cases.
Forms with total phonological merger (progressive, regressive, or “reciprocal”
assimilation, i.e., “compromise” on a phonetically intermediate consonant) arise in the case of verbs whose
first radical is a voiced and/or velarized sibilant or a voiced and/or
velarized alveolar stop:[35]
(9c) iâçtabara
“he was patient” --> iââabara
idçtajara
“he was angry” --> iddajara
izçtalama
“he suffered injustice” --> içtçtalama[36]
Again, the cited examples constitute an interesting case for the
competing constraints of input-output faithfulness on the one hand, and
phonological well-formedness on the other hand. Here is a tableau for the
different cited participles of {q-t-l} of form VIII:
(10) Constraint
Tableau, *CiV-CiV
>> Harm-Vowel >>
Ident-IO-Diath
Candidates |
*CiV-CiV |
Harm-Vowel |
Ident-IO-Diath |
a. F muqittil |
|
|
* |
b. muqattil |
|
* |
|
c. muqtatil |
* ! |
* |
* |
As happened already, the avoidance of a
sequence of equal syllables appears to be the dominating constraint in the production
of the dialectal surface forms of these participles. A point which S³bawayhi
does not raise in this context is the possible confusion of the non-standard
participles of form VIII (muC1taC2iC3) with regular participles of form II (muC1aC2C2iC3). It is quite likely that the avoidance of
such a confusion is the very rationale behind the “compensatory” effect of
vowel harmony in forms like muruddif and muqittil.[37] [63]
4.
Summary
The central idea of Optimality Theory is that
surface forms of language reflect resolutions of conflicts between competing
constraints. A surface form is “optimal” if it incurs the least serious
violations of a set of constraints, taking into account their hierarchical
ranking. Languages differ in the ranking of constraints, and any violations
must be minimal. S³bawayhi’s presentation and discussion of contemporary Arabic
data, in phonetics, phonology, and elsewhere, is in harmony with these
principles. It illustrates and supports an explanatory approach to Arabic
morphophonology in terms of naturalness and preference theory in general, and
of Optimality Theory in particular.
5. References
5.1. Editions, translations, and e-editions of
(parts of) S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab
Carter,
Michael, Alexander Matveev, and Lutz Edzard. Internet site http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/HomePage/index.htm.
Derenbourg, Hartwig. Le livre de S³bawayhi. 2 vols. Paris, 1881–89;
reprint Hildesheim, 1970.
Jahn, Gustav. S³bawaihis Buch ¦uber die Grammatik ¦ubersetzt und
erkl¦art. 2 vols. Berlin, 1895–1900; reprint Hildesheim, 1969.
Kit¢ab S³bawayhi. 2 vols. B¢ul¢aq, 1898–1900; reprint Baghdad, 1965.
Kit¢ab S³bawayhi. Ed. Muhammad ôAbd al-Sal¢am H¢ar¢un. 5
vols. Cairo, 1968–77; 2nd
ed. Cairo, 1977.
5.2. Secondary sources
Bakalla, M. 1982. Ibn Jinn³, An Early Muslim Phonetician: An
Interpretative Study of His Life and Contributions to Linguistics. London,
Taipei.
Bohas, G. and J. Guillaume. 1984. ƒEtude des th‚eories des grammairiens arabes. Vol. I. Morphologie et
phonologie. Damascus.
Bravmann, M. 1934. Materialien und Untersuchungen zu den Phonetischen
Lehren der Araber. G¦ottingen.
Carter, M. 1973. An Arab Grammarian of the Eighth Century A.D., Journal
of the American Oriental Society 93:146–57.
———. 1997a. S³bawayhi. In The Encyclopaedia of Islam (new
edition), 9:524–31.
———. 1997b. The Platonic Edition: Some
Consequences of Computer Editing for Text-Based Scholarship in Arabic Grammar.
Manuscripta Orientalia 3, no. 4:54–58.
Edzard, L. 1991. Semitic Phonology and Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. [64]
In Semitic
Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, ed. A. Kaye, vol. 1:397–410. Wiesbaden.
———. 1998. Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: An Alternative Model
of Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics. Wiesbaden.
Fischer, W. 1982. Das Altarabische in islamischer ˜Uberlieferung. In Grundri× der arabischen Philologie. Band 1: Sprachwissenschaft, ed. W. Fischer, 37–50.
Wiesbaden.
Fleisch, H. 1958a. La conception phon‚etique des
Arabes d’apr†es le Sirr Sin¢aôat al-Iôr¢ab
d’Ibn …Ginn³. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl¦andischen Gesellschaft
108:74–105.
———. 1958b. Ma„gh¢ura, mahm¢usa: examen critique. M‚elanges de l’Universit‚e
Saint-Joseph 35:193–210.
———. 1971. Idgh¢am. In The
Encyclopaedia of Islam (new edition), 3:1013–14.
Hary, B. 1992. Multiglossia in Judeo-Arabic: With an Edition,
Translation, and Grammatical Study of the Cairene Purim Scroll. Leiden.
Hoberman, R. 1989. Parameters of Emphasis: Autosegmental Analyses of Pharyngealization in
Four Languages. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages 2, no. 1:73–97.
———. 1995. Current Issues in Semitic Phonology. In The Handbook of
Phonological Theory, ed. J. Goldsmith, 839–47. Cambridge, Mass.
Hooper, J. 1976. An Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New
York.
Humbert, G. 1995. Les voies de la transmission du Kit¢ab de
S³bawayhi. Leiden, New York, Cologne.
Inkelas, S. and D. Zec, 1995. Syntax-Phonology Interface. In The
Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. J. Goldsmith, 535–49. Cambridge, Mass.
Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge.
Levin, A. 1994. S³bawayhi’s Attitude to the Spoken Language. Jerusalem
Studies in Arabic and Islam 17:204–43.
———. 1999. The First Book of Arabic Dialectology: S³bawayhi’s al-Kit¢ab.
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 23:208–20.
McCarthy, J. 1991. Guttural Phonology. In Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics III. Papers from the Third Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics,
ed. B. Comrie and M. Eid, 63–92. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
McCarthy, J. and A. Prince. 1994. The
Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality
in Prosodic Morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and
Rutgers University. Rutgers Optimality Archive #ROA-13-0594, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.
———. 1995. Prosodic Morphology. In The
Handbook of Phonological [65] Theory, ed. J. Goldsmith, 318–66.
Cambridge, Mass.
Murray, R. 1982. Consonant Developments in P¢ali. Folia Linguistica Historica
3:163–84.
Al-Nassir, A. 1993. S³bawaih the Phonologist: A Critical Study of the Phonetic and
Phonological Theory of S³bawaih in His Treatise “Al-Kit¢ab.” London.
Odisho, E. 1988. S³bawayhi’s Dichotomy of Majh¢ura/Mahm¢usa Revisited. Al-ôArabiyya
21:81–91.
Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction
in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado,
Boulder.
Rabin, C. 1951. Ancient West-Arabian. London.
Schaade, A. 1911. S³bawaihi’s Lautlehre. Leiden.
Semaan, K. 1968. Linguistics in the Middle Ages: Phonetic Studies in Early Islam. Leiden.
Steiner, R. 1977. The Case for
Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven.
Troupeau, G. 1958. Le commentaire d’al-S³r¢af³ sur le chapitre 565 du Kit¢ab
de S³bawayhi. Arabica 5:168–82.
———. 1976. Lexique-Index du Kit¢ab de S³bawayhi. Paris.
Ungnad, A. 1932 (2nd ed.). Syrische Grammatik. Munich.
Vennemann, T. 1983. Causality in Language Change: Theories of Linguistic Preference As a
Basis for Linguistic Explanations. Folia Linguistica Historica 6:5–26.
———. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation
of Sound Change. Berlin.
Versteegh, K. 1997. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh.
Zawaydeh, B. 1997. On an Optimality-Theoretic Account of Epenthesis and
Syncope in Arabic Dialects. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics X. Papers
from the Tenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, ed. M. Eid and R.
Ratcliffe, 191–213. Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
* This paper is based on a presentation at the 20th Conference of the Union
Europ‚eenne des Arabisants et Islamisants in Budapest (September 14,
2000). The author wishes to thank the Alexander von Humboldt foundation and the
University of Oslo for support of this
research and is grateful to Michael G. Carter and Theo Vennemann for useful comments. Quotations of
S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab in this paper follow the H¢ar¢un edition and
the Internet site by M. Carter, A. Matveev, and L. Edzard: http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/HomePage/index.htm
(numbers in brackets refer to the 77 segments of chs. 565–71 in the
“Base Text” as well as the reproduced printed versions and manuscripts of the
text). On the history of the text and the various problems of editing
S³bawayhi’s Kit¢ab, cf. Humbert 1995 and Carter 1997b. Quotations in
this paper such as Q x:y refer to é¢aya y of s¢ura x in the
Quré¢an.
[1] Comments on Optimality Theory in this paper follow for the most part the general orientation of
McCarthy and Prince 1994 and Kager 1999. To date this theory has
witnessed quite a number of interesting applications to Arabic, especially modern
Arabic dialects. Cf., for instance, Zawaydeh 1997 on epenthesis and syncope.
[2] An application of this theory to Semitic phonology
in general was attempted in Edzard 1991.
[3] Cf. Fleisch 1971
on the use of the term éid¯g¢am (or iddi¯g¢am) with the Arab grammarians. S³bawayhi in
this context also makes use of the terms éibd¢al “replacement” and éi›hf¢aé
“concealing”. Cf. Al-Nassir 1993:56–58. As with later Arab grammarians, more
material on phonological issues is found in chapters on weak verbs and nouns,
verbs mediae or tertiae geminatae (C2 = C3 or doubled C3 ), éalif/hamza,
metathesis, and assimilation in different contexts.
Cf. also Jahn (1969), vol. 2:550 (n. 15). The wealth of forms observed by S³bawayhi
has been the subject of a thorough study by Al-Nassir (1993), previously cited in this note. Cf. also the meticulous
study of Ibn Jinn³’s treatment of Arabic phonetics and phonology that was
carried out by Bakalla (1982), not to forget historical forerunners like
Schaade (1911), Bravmann (1934), Fleisch (1958a), and Semaan (1968), among
others.
[4] Cf. Troupeau’s (1958) analysis of al-S³r¢af³’s
commentary on chapter 565.
[5] On the issue of
suprasegmental assimilation (ATR-spreading) in Semitic, cf. Hoberman
1989 and 1995, with further references.
[6] On this question cf. Levin 1994 and
1999.
[7] Examples in the Quré¢an include: tatamannawna “you (m. pl.) wish”
--> tamannawna
(Q 3:143); yataŒdakkar¢una “they
(m.) mention” --> yaŒdŒdakkar¢una (Q 6:126); yataçtayyar¢u
“let them (m.) see a bad omen” --> yaçtçtayyar¢u (Q 7:131); tatanazzalu
“come(s) down”, being the predicate of a non-human subject noun in the plural
--> tanazzalu (Q 97:4).
[8] A useful discussion of the
psychological reality of “underlying” forms is found in Bohas and Guillaume
1984, vol. 1. Cf. also Versteegh 1997:86.
[9] For a
summarizing discussion of the issues of diglossia and polyglossia, cf.
Hary 1992:29–47. In the case of Arabic and other Semitic languages, not only
the perceived surface forms but also the orthography itself reveals an
intrinsic ranking of constraints. It is important to note that many of the
forms adduced by S³bawayhi are spoken forms
that are not necessarily acceptable as such in writing. It is, however,
not always clear how forms are to be pronounced, and even the very phonetic
quality of certain consonants constitutes a problem. This problem is, for
instance, at the core of the majh¢ura-mahm¢usa controversy (cf., e.g.,
Fleisch 1958b and Odisho 1988). The opposition majh¢ura “voiced” vs. mahm¢us
“unvoiced” seems to be “disturbed” as the letters (“phonemes”) represented by
the graphemes <çt>, <q> (and also <é>) belong to the majh¢ura
class in S³bawayhi’s system (their modern pronunciation is unvoiced). For
S³bawayhi, /çt/ is clearly [+voiced, +velarized], i.e., precisely the sound
nowadays associated with /d/; /q/, which for S³bawayhi was the sound nowadays
associated with /g/, is likewise [+voiced]. Another problem is the amount of
differences in the extant manuscripts and editions. In the last seven chapters
of the Kit¢ab this concerns mainly the phonemes /çt/, /d/, and /z/
(cf. Steiner 1977 on the quality of /d/). Also, some copyists seem not to have
understood the very point and substance of
the forms that S³bawayhi represents
as (graphically) compound forms and
thus have replaced them by (graphically) separated forms without the
relevant assimilation features.
[10] Cf. H¢ar¢un
4:485; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas571.txt.htm (at 77). S³bawayhi also frequently uses
the term al-lu¯ga al-ôarab³ya al-qad³ma al-jayyida, literally “good old
Arabic”. Cf. Carter 1997a:526.
[11] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:436; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas565.txt.htm (at 7).
[12] On the notion of “markedness” in Optimality
Theory, cf. McCarthy and Prince 1994:1.
[13] Alignment (iv)
is an especially interesting topic in Semitic linguistics in general and
in Arabic linguistics in particular, and much literature has been devoted to the issue of the discontinuous structure of root
morphemes and their morphophonological
interaction with different vocalic patterns. Items (v) to (viii) play
almost no role in the last seven chapters of the Kit¢ab, even though
reduplication of strings does occur in Arabic, especially in quadriliteral
roots. In the Ethio-Semitic languages, reduplication is an even more prominent
feature.
[14] Cf. also Vennemann 1988:1–2.
[15] For a list of these preference laws, which pertain
to both the internal structure of and the contact between syllables, cf.
Vennemann 1988:11.
[16] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:474; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas568.txt.htm (at 63). The root {w-t-d} is only attested in form II in
modern times, but two (verbal) nouns are quoted, e.g., in Wehr’s dictionary: watad
and watid “peg”. The classical dictionary T¢aj al-ôAr¢us, however,
lists all the forms under discussion here. S³bawayhi parallelly discusses the
plural forms ôitd¢an and ôidd¢an of the singular ôat¢ud
“one-year-old goat”.
[17] On this dichotomy cf. Rabin 1951:1–5.
[18] There is, however, no Arabic root *{w-t-t} with which
this output form could possibly be confused.
[19] Cf. also Vennemann 1988:21–27.
[20] One may also think of Arabic malik “king”,
corresponding to a “Proto-Semitic” *malk, which, by way of “segolation”,
surfaces also as Hebrew meleŒk.
[21] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:455;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas567.txt.htm (at 39).
[22] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:477–78;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas569.txt.htm (at 66).
[23] Note that in
Syriac Aramaic the Semitic root {â-d-q}
“to be faithful” surfaces also graphically as {z-d-q}: zdeq “he
was faithful”. Cf. also Jahn [1895–1900] 1969, vol. 2:546 (n. 5).
[24] Cf. Inkelas and Zec 1995.
[25] These examples appear passim at different
places in chapters 565–71, depending on the
place of articulation of the assimilated consonant. Cf. also Al-Nassir
1993:56–80.
[26] Cf.
H¢ar¢un 4:472;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas568.txt.htm (at 60).
[27] Cf. Vennemann 1988:35 in reference to Murray’s
(1982:171, 182–82) Progressive Assimilation Law.
[28] Q 2:68–70 (3 times).
Cf. also Ungnad 1932:67 on the development of the Syriac Aramaic root
{n-t-n} “to give” to {n-t-l} under the influence of the enclitic preposition l
governed by this verb.
[29] Cf. also Fischer
1982:38–39, 44 and Edzard 1998:158–59, regarding the old attestation of
these forms.
[30] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:440; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas566.txt.htm
(at 12). Cf. also the forms fa-dd¢araétum (< tad¢araétum) “and you (m. pl.) contended”
(Q 2:72) and izzayyanat (< tazayyanat) “she decorated herself”
(Q 10:24). These latter forms, both of which exhibit a hamzat al-waâl,
are formed according to an itC1aC2C2aC3a pattern.
[31] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:455;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas567.txt.htm (at 39).
[32] Another interesting point here is the internal
logical structuring of S³bawayhi’s description: there are many statements to
the effect that people who say X will also say Y, X referring to a finite
verbal form and Y to a participle.
[33] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:438;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas566.txt.htm (at 10).
[34] Cf. H¢ar¢un 4:443–44;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas566.txt.htm (at 17).
[35] Cf. also “classical” iddakara
(/iŒd-t-akara/) “he remembered”, itta›haŒda (/ié-t-a›haŒda/) “he took
on”, etc.
[36] Remember that for S³bawayhi /çt/ is [+ voiced]. Voicedness thus prevails in this form. The
standard form is izzalama, though.
[37] Compensatory effects, e.g., phonological drag
chains and push chains, are a quite normal phenomenon from the perspective of a
linguistic model that views language change as a teleological process,
as is the case in Optimality Theory.