CC BY
46
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
РАЗДЕЛ II. ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА
Ahmed Alduais
DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2018-4-2-0-4
AN OVERVIEW OF THE TYPOLOGY OF THE MORPHOLOGICAL
FEATURES OF THE ARABIC LANGUAGE BASED ON WALS DATABASE
Institute of International & Comparative Education Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (BNU), Beijing,
P R. China Tel: 00-86-132-600-80-166 E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. The study of the typology of languages seems to be approaching languages at a micro level. For instance and with reference to the WALS database, the study of the typology of morphological features of Arabic results into ending up with examining Arabic [languages] other than the Arabic Language. This is clearly indicated according to the conducted studies on some Arabic language varieties which have some of these morphological features that are not observable in the other varieties of the Arabic language. Is this a plus for the Arabic language or is it a minus feature that could result into weakening the linguistic features of Arabic? Diversity among languages is a normal linguistic phenomena but is it so in the case of the typology of languages? Does this exist in similar contexts like British English, North American English, Australian English, etc.? While answering these questions goes beyond this paper, we explored ten morphological features of the typology of languages with a summary for the Arabic language(s) that will hopefully lead to a further study examining such raised questions.
Key words: typology of languages; Arabic language; WALS database; morphological features.
An overview of the typology of the morphological features of the Arabic Language based on WALS database Introduction
Several studies have been conducted on the typology of morphology with an attempt to classify languages using certain features. We reviewed a number of these studies based on The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (hereafter WALS) database (http://wals.info/) and we limited our discussion to the morphological features: fusion and exponence of inflectional formatives, verb inflectional synthesis, locus of marking in the clause, possessive noun phrases and whole-language typology, prefixing vs.
Suffixing in inflectional morphology, reduplication, case syncretism, syncretism in verbal person/number marking, and concluding with the characteristics of Arabic among these reviewed morphological features.
Three steps were followed to present the extracted data from WALS database. First, the morphological feature in briefly introduced. Second, the values of the morphological features are presented, the number of representing language for each value and then the percentage of these languages among the total included languages for each morphological feature. Each table is also followed by a line graph displaying the
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
distribution of these languages among the values of each morphological feature.
Fusion of Selected Inflectional Formatives
Bickel and Nichols (2013) emphasise on the varying views resulting from the classical view in regard to the typology of morphology
in regard to phonological fusion. Having started in 19th century, it views languages in terms of four aspects as illustrated below in (table 1). Based on this typology, a number of different variables could be further investigated, namely: phonological fusion, formatives exponence and flexivity.
Table 1
Phonological fusion types based on WALS database
Chinese
isolating
agglutinative
fusional
Turkish
introflexive
Fusion which has three types refers to 'the degree to which grammatical markers (called formatives in the following) are phonologically connected to a host word or
Types and characteristics o
stem' (ibid). The following tables show the three types with the characteristics and an example language for each.
Table 2
n based on WALS database
Type Characteristics Sample language
Isolating full-fledged phonological words of their own Fijian
Concatenative phonologically bound Turkish
Nonlinear: not realized by direct modification of their host
- ablaut tense is marked by complete affix-plus-stem pattern Modern Hebrew
- tonal most tense-aspect opposition are expressed by tone Kisi (Atlantic; Guinea)
The authors examined the typology of languages based on two values (tense-like and tense-aspect mood for such languages in case-like). terms of the below given values including 165
Table 3
Tense-aspect mood feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Exclusively concatenative 125 76% English, Turkish
Exclusively isolating 16 1G% Hausa, Indonesian
Exclusively tonal 3 2% Kisi, Lango
Tonal/isolating 1 G% Yoruba
Tonal/concatenative 2 1% Nandi, Swahili
Ablaut/ concatenative 5 3% Arabic (Egyptian), Hebrew
Isolating/concatenative 13 8% Mandarin, Thai
Total 165 1GG%
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
с
о
с
си
CU GC
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
125
13
Fig. 1. Distribution of 165 languages for tense-aspect mood feature
The data indicates that the highest percentages of the included languages lies within the exclusively concatenative value followed by exclusively isolating languages and isolating/ concatenative languages. It could be also noticed that in the last three types: tonal, ablaut, and isolating are features accompanied with concatenative. By this means, concatenative stands as a prominent feature in terms of phonological fusion in the morphological typology of languages.
Exponence of Selected Inflectional Formatives
According to Bickel and Nichols (2013) exponence is a morphological typological
feature referring to 'the number of categories that cumulate into a single formative' that could be either monoexponential or polyexponential. Both of these types can be linked with any other fusion types. Besides, exponence is totally morphology-based feature. That is, 'it is independent of the phonological connection between host and formative'.
Using the values (tense-like and aspectlike), the authors examined 162 languages in terms of case exponence. It should be noted that in this part tense-aspect-mode was referred to one category.
Table 4
Case exponence feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Monoexponential case 71 44% Turkish, Japanese
Case + number 8 5% Finish, Russian
Case + referentiality 6 4% Tagalog, Paiwan
Case + TAM (tense-aspect-mood) 2 1% Lugbara, Kayardild
No case 75 46% Arabic (Egyptian), English
Total 162 100%
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
80
70
с 60
о
a +J 50
с e 40
(Л
e 30
Q.
e 20
DC
10
0
71
75
J?
У
с?
ef
Jtf
d?
Value
Fig. 2. Distribution of 162 languages for case exponence feature
With reference to the above data, it the other values are very low and represent a could be seen that the highest percentage of few languages compared to the two major languages is for (no case) followed by values: (monoexponential) and (no case). (monoexponential case). The percentages of
Table 5
Tense-aspect-mode (TAM) exponence feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
monoexponential TAM 127 79% Turkish, English
TAM+agreement 19 12% French, Spanish
TAM+agreement+diathesis 4 2.5% Arabic (Egyptian), Hebrew (Modern)
TAM+agreement+construct 1 1% Lango
TAM+polarity 5 3% Maasai, Koyra
no TAM 4 2.5% Sango, Bororo
| Total 160 100%
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Fig. 3. Distribution of 160 languages for tense aspect mode exponence feature
This table which represents the tense-aspect-mode (TAM) exponence shows that the major value is that of monoexponential TAM. The difference between this value and the others is highly significant where the highest one among the others is (TAM+agreement) with only 12% and the lowest is (TAM+ agreement_ construct) with only less than 1%.
It could be concluded within this feature that certain values are shared by a certain number of languages that could be linked historically or in terms of family languages—indicating the possibility of historical relationships among such languages.
Inflectional Synthesis of the Verb
Synthesis reflects the situation when some words are added or suffixes are attached to the words to indicate features like tense, voice, agreement, etc. (Bickel & Nichols, 2013). Yet, synthesis can have two forms. The former occurs when the attachment is a suffix (English: play-ed) and the latter occurs when the attachment is a word (English: will play). The first one is referred to synthetic inflection and the second one is referred to analytic
inflection (ibid). While the synthetic one is purely morphological, the analytic one is syntactic.
Generally, synthesis is independent of fusion i.e. phonological effect. The authors surveyed inflectional synthesis in terms of '.. .agreement, tense/aspect/mood,
evidentials/miratives, status (realis, irrealis, etc.), polarity (negation), illocution (interrogative, declarative, imperative), and voice (including Austronesian-style verb orientation), ... argument NPs in the case of agreement, sequence of tense rules in the case of tense, cross-clausal anaphora in the case of voice, etc.)' (ibid).
Category per word (cpw) was used to measure synthesis in terms of more and less synthetic items—maximally inflected verb form. For instance, (English: play-ed) for the past tense is more synthetic than the future (English: will-paly). This results into English verb form having cpw=2 degree. With reference to the presented results below, the author emphasise on the sufficiency of such data as an indicator for the worldwide distribution of the degree of synthesis.
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Table 6
Category per word synthesis feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
0-1 category per word 5 3% Mandarin, Sango
2-3 categories per word 24 17% English, German
4-5 categories per word 52 36% French, Spanish
6-7 categories per word 31 21% Arabic (Egyptian), Turkish
8-9 categories per word 24 17% Georgian, Lai
10-11 categories per word 7 5% Abkhaz, Imonda
12-13 categories per word 2 1% Koasati, Wichita
Total 145 100%
Q.
CU GC
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
52
С
J>
J
.л
J
J*
N° Value
Fig. 4. Distribution of 145 languages for category per word synthesis feature
The table indicates clearly that the degree of synthesis among languages could vary from 0-13 with 4-5 cpw as the major category among the investigated number of languages. In other words, languages on the basis of such presented data could be divided into languages with high synthesis degree and those with less synthesis degree. Yet, a zero or weak degree of synthesis might be possible within the first category.
Locus of Marking in the Clause Nichols and Bickel (2013) presented locus in terms of three aspects: locus of
marking in the clause, locus of marking in possessive noun phrases and locus of marking in whole-language typology. Each will be presented separately.
Generally speaking, locus reflects 'overt morphosyntactic marking reflecting the syntactic relations within the phrase' (ibid). It could be the head of a phrase (head-marked), not in the head (dependent-marked), in both positions (double-marked), or on none of the positions (no marking). The given table below shows the distribution of 236 languages on the basis of such features.
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Table 7
Locus of marking in clause feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
P is head-marked 71 30% Fijian, Swahili
P is dependent-marked 63 26.5% English, Turkish
P is double-marked 58 24.5% Persian, Spanish
P has no marking 42 18% Arabic (Egyptian), French
Other types 2 1% Malakmalak, Yagua
Total 236 100%
140
CD -Q
E
D С
(Л CU dg CD D dg с
(В
120 100 80 60 40 20
71
63
58
/
/ X JON
11У
Value
0
Fig. 5. Distribution of 236 languages for locus of marking in the clause feature
Among the five features, it could be clearly seen that (head-marking) is the major feature with 30% followed with (dependent-marking) over 26% and (double-marking) over 24%. The minor features are (other types) with only 1% and (no marking) 18%. Languages seems to be generally majored with a certain feature, that is, marking on the head, on another position or using both. An exemplar-based survey of marking types was used to reach the four types of locus marking: head-marking, dependent-marking, double-marking and no/zero marking.
Locus of Marking in Possessive Noun Phrases
In the earlier section, locus marking in the clause was introduced; in this section, locus in the possessive noun phrase is presented. Similar to locus marking in the clause having four types, here also there are four types where in the possessor is head-marked, dependent-marked, double-marked, not marked, or none of these features (other cases). These types are illustrated below.
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Table 8
Locus of marking in possessive noun phrases feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Possessor is head-marked 78 33% Fijian, Persian
Possessor is dependent-marked 98 41.5% English, French
Possessor is double-marked 22 9% Greek (Moder), Turkish
Possessor has no marking 32 13.5% Arabic (Egyptian), Indonesian
Other types 6 2.5% Malagasy, Nakkara
Total 236 100%
Fig. 6. Distribution of 236 languages for locus of marking in possessive noun phrases feature
Among 236 languages, this data shows the distribution of locus marking in the noun phrase. The major type is (dependent-marking) with a percentage over 41% followed by (head-marking) with the percentage of 33%. The difference between these two types and the other types is clearly significant where in the highest percentage for the other types is less than 14% (no marking) followed by (double-marking) with the percentage of 9%. The lowest percentage is less 3% for the other types of locus marking in the phrase where the other rules of morphosyntactic marking are applicable.
In comparison between locus marking in the clause and locus marking in the noun phrase, we can find some differences in terms of major and minor among these features. For instance, while head-marking is the major
type in the case of locus marking in the clause, dependent-marking is instead the major type in the case of locus marking in the noun phrase. In both types of locus, (other cases) is the minor type of locus marking with an insignificant different in favour of the locus marking in the noun phrase about 3%, compared to exactly 1% in the case of the former.
Finally, it should be noted that the authors have used an exemplar-based survey to reach the above given distribution and/or classification of languages in terms of locus of marking in the noun phrase. This method is generally yet basically used on counting on the most typological features (default) of a certain language for the investigated area i.e. noun phrase, the least typological patterns.
Locus of Marking: Whole-language Typology
In the earlier two sections of locus; locus of marking in the clause and locus of marking in the noun phrase were introduced, in this
section locus of marking in the whole language typology is examined. The table below illustrates the distribution of 236 languages in terms of this feature.
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Table 9.
Locus of marking in whole-language typology feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Consistently head-marking 47 20% Abkhaz, Fijian
Consistently dependent-marking 46 19.5% English, German
Consistently double-marking 16 7% Greek (Modern), Hua
Consistently zero-marking 6 2.5% Indonesian, Vietnamese
Inconsistent marking or other type 121 51% Arabic, Turkish
Total 236 100%
a. e
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
47
W
/
N?-
o0<>
é3
e->
121
o°
fO^
Value
Fig. 7. Distribution of 236 languages for locus of marking in whole-language typology feature
Five types of locus in the whole-language typology are used in this section: consistently head-marking, consistently dependent marking, consistently double-marking, consistently zero-marking or inconsistent marking/other types. Over half of the included languages lie within the inconsistent marking/ other type. The other half of the include languages are distributed among the other four types with over yet nearly equal
majority for both (consistently head marking) and (consistently dependent-marking) with about 20% for each.
Prefixing vs. Suffixing in Inflectional Morphology
In this section the author investigated the typology of a number of languages in terms affixation. In order to achieve this, Dryer (2013) set out a number of inflectional affixes which are shown below.
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Table 10
Inflectional affix forms
1) case affixes on nouns
2) pronominal subject affixes on verbs
3) tense-aspect affixes on verbs
4) plural affixes on nouns
5) pronominal possessive affixes on nouns
6) definite or indefinite affixes on nouns
7) pronominal object affixes on verbs
8) negative affixes on verbs
9) interrogative affixes on verbs
10) adverbial subordinator affixes on verbs
The next step was assigning languages a prefixing index and a suffixing index. This assignment works by summing the total value of given points for each of the above given affixational values. A language is given one point for the availability of each value, one
point and half if the a language has both the prefix and the suffix feature with no dominance for each, and two points for the three first values which were considered as vital
ones.
Table 11
Affixation feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Little or no inflectional morphology 141 14.5% Fijian, Hausa
Predominantly suffixing 406 42% Arabic (Modern Standard, Turkish
Moderate preference for suffixing 123 12.5% Arabic (Gulf), Persian
Approximately equal amounts of suffixing and prefixing 147 15% Arabic (Iraqi), Irish
Moderate preference for prefixing 94 9% Amo, Swahili
Predominantly prefixing 58 б% Akan, Birom
Total 9б9 1GG%
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
a.
cu cc
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
'v
406
Jp
Ж
л-'
J?
■сГ
F
л°
58
. №
(Я-&
S
Value
Jp
Fig. 8. Distribution of 969 languages for affixation feature
Indexing of affixation value based on WALS database
Table 12
Feature Prefixing index Suffixing index
Little or no inflectional morphology < 2*
Predominantly suffixing >80
Moderate preference for suffixing >60
Approximately equal amounts of suffixing and prefixing <60* >40
Moderate preference for prefixing >60 and <80*
Predominantly prefixing >80
*Refers to affixing index which represents both prefixing and suffixing index
It could be seen from the above data that the over majority of languages from among 969 are (predominantly suffixing) with the percentage 42%. The least type is with that feature of (predominantly prefixing) which has only 58 languages representing only 6%. This last point raises the question why suffixes are more frequent than prefixes!
Reduplication
Republication as 'a widely used morphological device among a number of languages' referring to 'the repetition of
Reduplication feature
phonological material within a word for semantic or grammatical purposes' (Rubino, 2013).
Reduplication can have three forms: full reduplication, productive full and partial reduplication, or no productive reduplication. Full reduplication is 'is the repetition of an entire word, word stem (root with one or more affixes), or root' (ibid). In comparison, partial reduplication is that which can occur 'in a variety of forms, from simple consonant gemination or vowel lengthening to a nearly complete copy of a base' (ibid).
Table 13
based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Productive full and partial reduplication 278 75.5% Arabic (Syrian), Turkish
Full reduplication only 35 9.5% Fijian, Japanese
No productive reduplication 55 15% English, French
Total 368 100%
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
300 278
0 -
Productive full and Full reduplication No productive partial reduplication only reduplication
Value
Fig. 9. Distribution of 368 languages for reduplication feature
368 languages were examined in terms of reduplication with three values as shown above in the table. The over majority of languages are those with productive full and partial reduplication. They represent over 75%. The least type of reduplication is (full reduplication only) representing less than 10%.
According to Rubino (2013), the phonological nature of reduplication can vary among languages. That is to say, 'reduplicative morphemes can be characterized by number of phonemes included in the copy, C, CV, CVC, V, CVCV, etc.; the number of syllables to be reduplicated; or the number of repeated morae' (ibid).
Similarly, reduplicative constructions can
be either simple, complex, or automatic. The first one is 'in which the reduplicant matches the base from which it is copied without phoneme changes or additions'. Dissimilar to this is the complex construction which 'involves reduplication with some different phonological material, such as a vowel or consonant change or addition, or morpheme order reversal' (ibid). Comparatively, automatic reduplication 'is [that] which is obligatory in combination with another affix, and which does not add meaning to the overall construction; the affix and reduplicated matter together are monomorphemic' (ibid). Lastly, reduplication has a number of functions which could be briefly presented as follows:
Table 14
functions
Reduplicative morpheme Function
CVC- distributive prefix for nouns with number Limitation
With verbs (and adjectives) number (plurality, distribution, collectivity),
distribution of an argument, tense, aspect (continued or repeated occurrence; completion; inchoativity), attenuation, intensity, transitivity (valence, object defocusing), or reciprocity With nouns denoting concepts such as number (see 1),
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
case, distributivity, indefiniteness,
reciprocity, size (diminutive or
augmentative), and associative qualities
With numbers expressing various categories including
collectives, distributives, multiplicatives,
and limitatives
Derivationally altering word class
Case Syncretism
According to Baerman and Brown (2013) case syncretism is realised 'when a single inflected form corresponds to two or more case functions'. Four values are used:
Case syncretism feature
inflectional case marking is absent, inflectional case marking is syncretic for cases only, inflectional marking is syncretic for core and non-core cases and inflectional case marking is never syncretic.
Table 15
d on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
Inflectional case marking is absent or minimal 123 62% Arabic (Egyptian), Japanese
Inflectional case marking is syncretic for core cases only 18 9% English, Fijian
Inflectional case marking is syncretic for core and non-core cases 22 11% French, German
Inflectional case marking is never syncretic 35 18% Turkish, Hausa
Total 198 1GG%
l4O
l2O
n lOO о
123
с
e
p e
CC
sO
SO
4O
2O
35
absent or syncretic for syncretic for never syncretic minimal core cases only core and non-
core cases
Value
O
Fig. 10. Distribution of 198 languages for case syncretism feature
Over than half of the included number of languages have the value (inflectional case marking is absent or minimal) representing 62%. The minor value is for (inflectional case
marking is syncretic for core cases only) representing less than 10%. In general, case marking syncretism is found only in 40 languages with less than half of them having
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
this feature for only core cases. Thus, the above data raises a number of questions listed below:
1. With reference to case semantics, if two or more functions can be explained in the same form, do they share some element(s) of meaning?
2. In the case of core case syncretism, distinction between higher intimacy arguments (accusative form) and lower intimacy arguments (ergative form); and
3. In the case of non-core case syncretism, cross-linguistic regularities: is it a mat-
Syncretism in verbal person/number
ter of language-specific morphological or phonological idiosyncrasies or a matter of general principles?
Syncretism in Verbal Person/Number Marking
Baerman and Brown (2013) present 'syncretism in the inflectional marking of subject person in verbs'. Three values were used: no subject person/ number marking, subject person/ number marking is syncretic and subject person/ number marking is never syncretic.
Table 16
marking feature based on WALS database
Value No. (%) Sample language(s)
No subject person/number marking 57 29% Hausa, Fijian
Subject person/number marking is syncretic 60 30% Arabic (Egyptian), English
Subject person/number marking is never syncretic 81 41% Turkish, Russian
Total 198 100%
90 80 70
с
° 60
81
50 40
с
e
(Л
e
<u 30
DC
20 10 0
57
60
No subject person/number marking
Subject person/number marking is syncretic
Value
Subject person/number marking is never syncretic
Fig. 11. Distribution of 198 languages for syncretism in verbal person/number marking feature
The examined data represents 198 languages where in the value (subject person/number marking is never syncretic) is the major one with the percentage 41%. The other two values are close with a minor difference of 1% in favour of the (subject person/number marking is syncretic). Syncretism has some common patterns including: number and scope (as limited or
systematic). The reached results in regard to subject person syncretism led the researcher to inquire the possibility of morpho-semantic relationship in terms of the following theoretical implications and assumptions:
1. Identity of form indicates identity of function [+ discourse participant] and [- speaker];
2. the syncretic form could be construed
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
as unspecified for person;
3. The syncretic form actually "belongs" to one of its component values; and
4. Syncretism could be the result of purely fortuitous homophony.
Features of Arabic
The Arabic Language is introduced on WALS as a Semitic language and the official language of 22 countries which are the official members of the Arab League per say. These countries in Alphabetical orders are: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordon, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Each of
these countries has its own dialect when it comes to daily communication. However, when it comes to writing and media or say the official use of language, a unified language is used, namely referred to Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). The communication among Arabs is highly successful. Needless to say that the differences among dialects includes all linguistics levels: phonological, lexical, structural and pragmatic levels. In terms of sociolinguistics, the further the distance is, the more differences will be among the dialects of Arabic. This is of course in addition to the effect of media in terms of dominance where in Egyptian Arabic, Syrian Arabic seem to stand as the major ones.
Table 17
Morphological features and assigned values for the Arabic language(s) based
on WALS database
No. Typological area Feature Arabic
1 Fusion of Selected Inflectional Formatives Ablaut/concatenative EA*
2 Exponence of Selected Inflectional No case EA
Formatives TAM+ agreement+ diathesis EA
3 Inflectional Synthesis of the Verb 6-7 categories per word EA
4 Locus of Marking in the Clause P has no marking EA
5 Locus of Marking in Possessive Noun Phrases Possessor has no marking EA
6 Locus of Marking: Whole-language Typology Inconsistent marking or other type EA
7 Zero marking of A and B arguments No zero marking EA
8 Prefixing vs. Suffixing in Predominantly suffixing MSA*
Inflectional Morphology Moderate preference for suffixing GA*
Approximately equal amounts of suffixing and prefixing IA*
Weakly suffixing EA +GA+ MA*+ SA*
9 Reduplication Productive full and partial reduplication EA+ SA
10 Case Syncretism Inflectional case marking is absent or minimal EA
11 Syncretism in Verbal Person/Number Marking Subject person/number marking is syncretic EA
*EA: Egyptian Arabic, MSA: Modern Standard Arabic, GA: Gulf Arabic, IA: Iraqi Arabic, MA: Moroccan Arabic, SA: Syrian Arabic
The above table presents the 11 morphological features of Arabic according to WALS database. With reference to our introductory part, we can clearly notice that the representation of the varieties of Arabic is more than that of the Standard Arabic or even the Modern Standard Arabic. Egyptian Arabic is the major represented language in regard to these presented features in the WALS database. In one way or another, this does not mean the absence of these features in the other varieties of Arabic. There are two possible explanations for this result. First of all, it could be a sociolinguistic one moving towards social biasness (i.e. sociolinguistic biasness in the case of an insider researcher and intellectual/psychological biasness in the case of an outsider researcher) for one variety of the Arabic over the others. In other words, the researcher who conducted the studies on the Egyptian Arabic [preferred] presenting the diversity and power of the Egyptian Arabic instead of examining the Standard Arabic or the Modern Standard Arabic. And this also applies to the studies which examined Gulf Arabic, Moroccan Arabic and Syrian Arabic. Second, it could be attributed to the point that this area is under researched and the researchers [chose] to examine their own variety or the one they are familiar with— probably assuming that the spoken language is more effective than the written and formal spoken Arabic (i.e. referring to both Standard Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic).
Conclusions
The presented typological features of languages in WALS database seem to move the direction of the study of typology from the macro level to the micro level. It was clear that not only the Arabic language was presented, but Arabic languages, instead. This evidenced flexibility of the morphology of Arabic is a plus; however, a further evidence is needed for the reason(s) leading to this diversity especially when realising that the original spoken Arabic was the Standard Arabic when referring to the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods.
Информация о конфликте интересов: авторы не имеют конфликтов интересов для декларации.
Information of conflict of interests: authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.
References
1. Baerman, M. and Brown, D. (2013), Case Syncretism, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/28 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
2. Baerman, M. and Brown, D. (2013), Syncretism in Verbal Person/Number Marking, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/29 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
3. Bickel, B. and Nichols, J. (2013), Expo-nence of Selected Inflectional Formatives, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/21 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
4. Bickel, B. and Nichols, J. (2013), Fusion of Selected Inflectional Formatives, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/20 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
5. Bickel, B. and Nichols, J. (2013), Inflectional Synthesis of the Verb, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/22 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
6. Dryer, M. S. (2013), Suffixing in Inflectional Morphology,The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http ://wals.info/chapter/26 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
7. Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). (2013), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info (Accessed May 1, 2016).
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
Ahmed Alduais. An Overview of the Typology of the Morphological Features of the Arabic Language Based on WALS Database // Research Result.
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Vol.4, №2,2018
8. Nichols, J. and Bickel, B. (2013), Locus of Marking in Possessive Noun Phrases, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/24 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
9. Nichols, J. and Bickel, B. (2013), Locus of Marking in the Clause, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/23 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
10.Nichols, J. and Bickel, B. (2013), Locus of Marking: Whole-language Typology, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/25 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
11. Rubino, C. (2013), Reduplication, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology [Online], available at: http://wals.info/chapter/27 (Accessed April 3, 2016).
Ahmed Alduais, Institute of International & Comparative Education, Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (BNU).
