SĪBAWAYHI’S OBSERVATIONS ON ASSIMILATORY PROCESSES AND
RE-SYLLABIFICATION
IN THE LIGHT OF OPTIMALITY THEORY*
The last seven chapters (chs. 565–71) of
Sībawayhi’s Kitāb 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 Sībawayhi’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
Sībawayhi’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 Sībawayhi’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 Sībawayhi’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 Sībawayhi’s observations are found in the last seven chapters
(chs. 565–71) of his Kitāb, all of which have the topic of ʾidġām “assimilation” (literally: “insertion”) as a common denominator.[3] After a description of the ḥurūf “letters” (“phonemes”) in chapter 565,[4] Sībawayhi 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 tafḫīm
(“velarization”) and tarqīq (“de-velarization”).[5] Sībawayhi’s term ʾidġām 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 Qurʾān. 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., yaqtulūna-nī → yaqtulūnnī “they (m.) kill me”.
Sībawayhi 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 Sībawayhi’s Kitāb, Carter (1973:146n) remarks that “[t]he Book itself is so descriptive as to
be useless as a prescriptive grammar.” Sībawayhi’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 ḥasan “good”, ʾaḥsan “better”, or simply ʿarabī “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 Sībawayhi’s Kitāb, 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.
Sībawayhi’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 maṣdar 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 maṣādir (sg. maṣdar “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 Sībawayhi assumes as theoretically desirable by far exceed the
limited sets of (underlying) forms with which traditional generative
morphophonology operates. According to Sībawayhi there occurred an array
of forms, maṣdar forms watd and watid are superior in terms of preserving
the linguistic input (especially with respect to the root consonants), the
assimilated maṣdar 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 maṣdar form of the verb wadda “to
love”, which is, of course, not related to watada.
The best (“optimal”) maṣdar 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 Sībawayhi’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 maṣdar forms watd/watid (in the Ḥijāz)
and wadd (with the Tamīm)[17] are not disallowed, even though they are
(were) regionally limited. The maṣdar 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 wāw (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” maṣdar form.
The following tableau summarizes the more
complex situation involving all of the four maṣdar 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 maṣdar 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 Sībawayhi’s Kitāb that can be aptly and directly recast in terms of Optimality
Theory. In chapter 567, for instance, Sībawayhi mentions that in the maṣdar
forms of the roots {q-n-y}, {k-n-y}, and {m-n-y}, qunya (or qinya),
kunya, and munya, the yāʾ may not be
progressively assimilated by the nūn, as this might lead to
confusion with maṣdar 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, Sībawayhi notes that partial
progressive assimilation with respect to velarization (ʾiṭbāq, literally: “covering [of the velum]”) of the middle root consonant dāl is
blocked in forms like /taṣdīr/ [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, Sībawayhi does allow for partial regressive
assimilation with respect to voicedness, i.e., /taṣdīr/ → [tazdīr]. Of course, one could also argue that in cases like /taṣdīr/
the (first) syllable is the domain of velarization (“emphasis”) and that therefore spreading of velarization is blocked beyond the ṣād
in the word. In any event, [tazdīr] 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 tazdīr |
|
|
* |
|
b. taṣdīr |
|
* |
|
|
c. taṣḍīr |
* ! |
* |
* |
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 Sībawayhi allows for assimilation and/or
other phonological mergers across word boundaries, and there are cases where he
discourages one from doing so. Most of Sībawayhi’s examples belong to
the [58] following five classes: (5a) imperative + accusative object;
(5b) genitive construct (ʾiḍāfa); (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 Kitāb:[25]
(5a) ibʿaṯ Salama “send Salama” → ibʿassalama
iḥfaẓ Salama “keep Salama” → iḥfassalama
ḫuḏ Ṣābir “take Ṣābir” → ḫuṣṣābir
(5b) yadu Dāwuda “the hand of David” → yaddāwuda
ismu Mūsā “the name of Mūsā” ↛ *ismmūsā
ṯawbu Bakr “the robe of Bakr” ↛ *ṯawbbakr
(5c) qaraʾa ʾabū-ka “your father recited” → ?qaraʾ(ʾ)abū-ka
jaʿala la-ka “he did for you” → ?jaʿalla-ka
(5d) masḥi-hī “his anointing” → masiḥḥi
maʿa-hum “with them” → maḥḥum
(5e) hal raʾayta “did you see” → harraʾayta
qad samiʿa “he had heard” → qassamiʿa
Let us regroup these examples according to their potential for
phonological merger (in Sībawayhi’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) ibʿaṯ Salama “send Salama (PN)” → ibʿassalama
iḥfaẓ Salama “keep Salama” → iḥfassalama
ḫuḏ Ṣābir “take Ṣābir (PN)” → ḫuṣṣābir
yadu Dāwuda “the hand of David” → yaddāwuda
masḥi-hī “his anointing” → masiḥḥi
maʿa-hum “with them” → maḥḥum [59]
hal raʾayta “did you see → harraʾayta
qad samiʿa “he had heard” → qassamiʿa
(6b) jaʿala la-ka “he did for you” → ?jaʿalla-ka
qaraʾa ʾabū-ka “your father recited” → ?qaraʾ(ʾ)abū-ka
(6c) ismu Mūsā “the name of Mūsā” ↛ *ismmūsā
ṯawbu Bakr “the robe of Bakr” ↛ *ṯawbbakr
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 masḥi-hī “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 maḥḥum
“with them”. The possible haplology in case (6b) can be
compared to the case of yadu Dāwuda → yaddāwuda. 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.
Sībawayhi’s explanations of ʾidġām 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
Kitāb that Sībawayhi also discusses what we nowadays would
call “starred” forms. For instance, Sībawayhi rules out the
following potential phonological merger: buyyina la-hum “it was explained to them” ↛ *buyyinna-hum.[26] By contrast, the phonological merger jaʿala la-ka “he did for you” → jaʿalla-ka is approved by Sībawayhi. 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 jaʿalla-ka |
|
|
|
|
jaʿala
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 Qurʾān, one finds the expected pattern of regressive assimilation in
the form yubayyilla-nā (< yubayyina la-nā) “so that he explain to us”.[28]
3.4. Assimilation and re-syllabification in forms V, VI, VII, and VIII
Sībawayhi 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-lā (t)tanājaw! “don’t whisper to each other”.[30] Sībawayhi also quotes assimilated [61] verbs of form
VII (standard inC1aC2aC3a) that are not part as such of the standard language, e.g., immaḥā
“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-lā tatanājaw! “don’t whisper to each other” → fa-lā
(t)tanājaw!
inmaḥā “he was effaced” → immaḥā
The situation in form VIII is far more complicated, as Sībawayhi
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) iqtatalū → qittalū
yaqtatilūna → {yaqattilūna,
yaqittilūna}
muqtatilūna → {muqattilūna, muqittilūna}
Note the ordering in the set brackets, which
indicates that people who say yaqattilūna will also say muqattilūna,
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 murtadifūna
→ muruddifūna “[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) iṣṭabara “he was patient” → iṣṣabara
iḍṭajara
“he was angry” → iḍḍajara
iẓṭalama “he suffered injustice” → iṭṭalama[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 Sībawayhi 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.
Sībawayhi’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) Sībawayhi’s
Kitāb
Carter, Michael,
Alexander Matveev, and Lutz Edzard. Internet site http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/HomePage/index.htm.
Derenbourg, Hartwig. Le livre de Sībawayhi. 2 vols. Paris, 1881–89; reprint Hildesheim, 1970.
Jahn, Gustav. Sībawaihis
Buch über die Grammatik übersetzt und erklärt. 2 vols. Berlin, 1895–1900; reprint Hildesheim, 1969.
Kitāb Sībawayhi. 2 vols. Būlāq, 1898–1900; reprint Baghdad, 1965.
Kitāb Sībawayhi. Ed. Muḥammad
ʿAbd
al-Salām Hārūn. 5 vols. Cairo, 1968–77; 2nd ed. Cairo, 1977.
5.2. Secondary sources
Bakalla, M. 1982. Ibn Jinnī, An Early Muslim
Phonetician: An Interpretative Study of His Life and Contributions to
Linguistics. London,
Taipei.
Bohas, G.
and J. Guillaume. 1984.
Étude des théories 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. Sībawayhi. 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. In Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau,
ed. A. Kaye, vol. 1:397–410.
———. 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 phonétique des Arabes d’après le Sirr Ṣināʿat al-Iʿrāb d’Ibn Ǧinnī. Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 108:74–105.
———. 1958b. Maǧhūra, mahmūsa: examen
critique. Mélanges de
l’Université Saint-Joseph 35:193–210.
———. 1971. Idghām. 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.
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.
Hooper, J. 1976. An Introduction to Natural
Generative Phonology. New
York.
Humbert, G. 1995. Les voies
de la transmission du Kitāb de Sībawayhi.
Inkelas, S. and D. Zec, 1995. Syntax-Phonology
Interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. J. Goldsmith, 535–49.
Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory.
Levin, A. 1994. Sībawayhi’s Attitude to the Spoken Language.
———. 1999. The First Book of Arabic Dialectology: Sībawayhi’s al-Kitāb.
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.
McCarthy, J. and
A. Prince. 1994. The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. Ms.,
———. 1995. Prosodic Morphology. In The
Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. J. Goldsmith, 318–66.
Murray, R. 1982. Consonant Developments in
Pāli. Folia Linguistica Historica 3:163–84.
Al-Nassir, A. 1993. Sībawaih the
Phonologist: A Critical Study of the Phonetic and Phonological Theory of
Sībawaih in His Treatise “Al-Kitāb.”
Odisho, E. 1988. Sībawayhi’s Dichotomy of Majhūra/Mahmūsa Revisited. Al-ʿArabiyya 21:81–91.
Prince, A. and P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality
Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms.,
Rabin, C. 1951. Ancient West-Arabian.
Schaade, A. 1911. Sībawaihi’s Lautlehre. Leiden.
Semaan, K. 1968. Linguistics in the Middle Ages: Phonetic Studies in Early Islam.
Steiner, R. 1977. The Case for
Fricative-Laterals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven.
Troupeau, G. 1958. Le
commentaire d’al-Sīrāfī sur
le chapitre 565 du Kitāb de Sībawayhi. Arabica 5:168–82.
———. 1976. Lexique-Index du Kitāb de
Sībawayhi. 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.
Versteegh, K. 1997. The Arabic Language.
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.
* This paper is based on a presentation at
the 20th Conference of the Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants in
[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 ʾidġām (or iddiġām) with the Arab grammarians. Sībawayhi in
this context also makes use of the terms ʾibdāl “replacement” and ʾiḫfāʾ “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), ʾalif/hamza, metathesis,
and assimilation in different contexts. Cf.
also Jahn (1969), vol. 2:550 (n. 15). The wealth of forms observed by
Sībawayhi has been the subject of a thorough study by Al-Nassir (1993), previously cited in this note. Cf. also the
meticulous study of Ibn Jinnī’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-Sīrāfī’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 Qurʾān include: tatamannawna “you (m. pl.) wish” → tamannawna (Q 3:143); yataḏakkarūna “they (m.) mention” → yaḏḏakkarūna (Q 6:126); yataṭayyarū “let them (m.) see a bad omen” → yaṭṭayyarū
(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 Sībawayhi 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 majhūra-mahmūsa controversy (cf., e.g., Fleisch 1958b and
Odisho 1988). The opposition majhūra “voiced” vs. mahmūs
“unvoiced” seems to be “disturbed” as the
letters (“phonemes”) represented by the graphemes <ṭ>,
<q> (and also <ʾ>) belong
to the majhūra class in Sībawayhi’s system (their modern pronunciation is unvoiced). For Sībawayhi, /ṭ/
is clearly [+voiced, +velarized], i.e., precisely the sound nowadays associated
with /ḍ/; /q/, which for Sībawayhi 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 Kitāb
this concerns mainly the phonemes /ṭ/, /ḍ/, and /ẓ/ (cf.
Steiner 1977 on the quality of /ḍ/). Also, some copyists seem not to have
understood the very point and substance of
the forms that Sībawayhi represents
as (graphically) compound forms and
thus have replaced them by (graphically) separated forms without the
relevant assimilation features.
[10] Cf. Hārūn
4:485;
http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas571.txt.htm (at 77). Sībawayhi also frequently uses the term al-luġa
al-ʿarabīya
al-qadīma al-jayyida, literally “good old Arabic”. Cf. Carter
1997a:526.
[11] Cf. Hārūn 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 Kitāb, 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. Hārūn
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 Tāj al-ʿArūs, however, lists all the forms under discussion
here. Sībawayhi parallelly discusses the plural forms ʿitdān and ʿiddān of the
singular ʿatūd “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 meleḵ.
[21] Cf. Hārūn 4:455; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas567.txt.htm (at
39).
[22] Cf. Hārūn 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 {ṣ-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.
Hārūn 4:472; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas568.txt.htm (at 60).
[27] Cf. Vennemann
1988:35 in reference to
[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. Hārūn 4:440; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas566.txt.htm
(at 12). Cf. also the forms fa-ddāraʾtum (< tadāraʾtum) “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-waṣl,
are formed according to an itC1aC2C2aC3a pattern.
[31] Cf. Hārūn 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 Sībawayhi’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. Hārūn 4:438; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas566.txt.htm (at 10).
[34] Cf. Hārūn 4:443–44; http://www.hf.uio.no/east/sibawayhi/Demo/bas566.txt.htm (at 17).
[35] Cf. also “classical” iddakara (/iḏ-t-akara/)
“he remembered”, ittaḫaḏa (/iʾ-t-aḫaḏa/) “he took on”, etc.
[36] Remember that
for Sībawayhi /ṭ/ is [+ voiced]. Voicedness
thus prevails in this form. The standard form is iẓẓalama,
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.