In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XII ed. by Elabbas Benmamoun
  • Alan S. Kaye
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XII. Ed. by Elabbas Benmamoun. (Current issues in linguistic theory 190.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. Pp. vii, 204.

These are the published proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium on Arabic linguistics (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, March 1998). The volume contains nine essays in four areas: syntax and morphosyntax, computational linguistics, phonology and historical linguistics, and sociolinguistics. In keeping with my own interests and specialization, I comment only on the essays from the last two sections.

Bushra Adnan Zawaydeh and Stuart Davis’s ‘Hypocoristic formation in Ammani-Jordanian Arabic’ (113–39) adds considerably to our knowledge of the significance of hypocoristic formation for phonological theory in general and for Arabic and Semitic linguistics in particular. Research is cited which describes several exceptional features of hypocorisms, e.g. English [ær] is permitted as hypocorism for Larry, despite a phonological constraint against word-final [ær] (115). The Arabic hypocorisms discussed have elusive properties as well. Consider [ħammuud(e)], which is the hypocorism of three different names (all from the same triconsonantal root): [muħammad], [ʔaħmad], and [ħaamed] (117). Although not mentioned, I suspect even a fourth possibility, [End Page 848] viz., the common masculine proper name [maħmuud]. The fact that several names share the same hypocorism is a general characteristic of the dialect reported on since the names [saliim] and [salmaan] take the hypocorism [salluum(e)]. The hypocorisms [larruun(e)] and [nažžuul(e)] offer proof that the notion of the Semitic triconsonantal root is still ‘alive and kicking’, despite claims over the past few years to the contrary, since the former is the loanword ‘Lauren’ and the latter ‘Angela’. The authors deem this an ‘output root’, and disguised speech forms further corroborate the utilitarian value of root triconsonantality (136).

David Testen’s ‘On ʔinna, ʔanna, et alia’ (141–60) is a detailed comparative-historical analysis of two Classical Arabic particles with solid cognate evidence from other Semitic languages. The author painstakingly points out the relationship between /ʔ/ and /h/ in the various languages, such as Arabic /ʔinna/ ‘indeed’ and Hebrew /hinne(h)/ ‘here is’. These cognates have, in fact, been noted by others before Testen (see L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in veteris testamenti libros, 238. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1957). Although we do not know if the Hebrew /h/ or the Arabic /ʔ/ best represents Proto- Semitic, I cannot agree with T that Proto-Semitic had no initial consonant (148). Most of this article can already be found in the author’s Parallels in Semitic linguistics: The development of Arabic la- and related Semitic particles (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), which is based on his PhD dissertation (University of Chicago, 1995). Testen’s thorough knowledge of the Semitic languages and the research reported about them is evident in this erudite essay.

Jamil Daher’s ‘(θ) and (ð) as ternary and binary variables in Damascene Arabic’ (163–82) is an interesting sociolinguistic study of the phonological variation one encounters in Damascus Arabic. For example, one may hear the word ‘snow’ pronounced as [θalj]∼[salj] ∼ [talj]. Similar variation is encountered with [ð], [z], and [d]. Based on 37 interviews with native speakers, the author concludes that the occurrence of interdentals (the acrolectic pronunciation of Modern Standard and Classical Arabic) is directly related to the professions of the speaker ‘entail[ ing] much use of the written language’ (180). As one might have expected, the interdentals are used more by men than women (since the former are apparently involved more with Modern Written Arabic). Daher reported on a high school graduate who used interdentals, but of course one need not possess a university degree to be educated, confirming one of the writer’s principles: ‘but advanced education alone does not account for the observed use of the Standard variants’ (180).

Dilworth B. Parkinson and Zeinab Ibrahim’s ‘Testing lexical differences in regional standard Arabics’ (183–202) is a fascinating study related to the latter author’s unpublished PhD dissertation, Egyptian and Lebanese written modern standard Arabic: Are they one and the same? (Georgetown University...

pdf

Share