= 1 Morphology in general Morphology, or word structur or parts of words, stich as affixes of various sorts. Meaningful components and _ subcomponents at the word level are referred to as morphemes.’ Arabic morphol- ogy is different from English in some very basic respects but it is highly system- atic. In fact, Arabic and the Semitic languages have had substantial influence on the development of certain key concepts in theoretical morphology. Theories of word structure, or morphology, usually focus on two essential issues: how words are formed (derivational or lexical morphology) and how they interact with syntax (inflectional morphology, e.g., marking for categories such as gender, number, case, tense). Arab grammarians, starting in the late eighth and early ninth centuries AD, developed sophisticated analyses of Arabic morphology that differ from modern Western theories, but interrelate with them in interest- ing ways.‘ Because this reference grammar is intended primarily for the use of Western readers, it is organized along the lines of traditional Western categories, with inclusion of the Arabic terminology. Derivational or lexical morphology has to do with principles governing word formation (such as analysis of the English words “truthful” or “untruthfulness” * Lohmann 1972, 318. » Aronoff (1976, 7) gives this general definition of morphemes: “the units into which words are ‘analyzed and out of which they are composed.” This definition is adequate as a start, although ‘Aronoff notes that itis problematic in certain ways for morphological theory. For a general introduction to traditional morphology a good place to begin is Matthews 1974. He writes: “the morpheme is established as the single minimal or primitive unit of grammar, the ultimate basis for our entire description of the primary articulation of language. Words, phrases, etc., are all seen as larger, complex or non-primitive units which are built up from morphemes in successive stages” (1974, 78). For further developments in morphological theory see Aronoff 1976 and 1994, Anderson 1992, and Spencer 1991. “It may thus well be that all Western linguistic morphology is directly rooted in the Semitic ‘grammatical tradition” (Aronoff 1994, 3) 4 For discussion of how Arabic morphological categories interrelate with Western theories, see Ryding 1993. See also discussions in Aronoff 1994, esp. 123-64 and Anderson 1992, 57-58; Monteil (1960, 105-223) has an excellent overview of MSA morphological issues. 44derived from the base word “true”)5 Inflectional morphology describes how ‘words vary or inflect in order to express grammatical contrasts or categories, such as singular/plural or past/present tense. Derivation, since it is the process of cre- ating words or lexical units, is considered procedurally prior to inflection, which subsequently acts upon the word stem and modifies it, if necessary, for use in con- text (by affixing [s] in English for plural, for example, or /-ed/ for past tense). These are two fundamental categories, therefore, in approaching language structure. However, the boundaries between derivation and inflection are not as clear-cut in ‘Arabic as they are in English because Arabic morphology works on different principles, and because Arabic morphological theory views elements of word structure and sentence structure from a different perspective.® Readers who are consulting this reference grammar for answers to specific questions may want to skip over the morphological theory and consult the para- digms (inflectional charts), and the book is designed to allow them to do so. How- ever, those who are studying Arabic with goals of understanding the processes and categories of Arabic language structure will find that descriptions of the ‘morphological structure are helpful not only in understanding the theoretical framework of Arabic, but also in organizing their knowledge in order to serve as a foundation for higher levels of achievement and proficiency. Moreover, without a sound grasp of Arabic morphological principles, learners will be unable to make use of Arabic dictionaries. 2 Derivation: the Arabic root-pattern system _ Arabic morphology exhibits rigorous and elegant logic. It differs from that of _ English or other Indo-European languages because it is to a large extent based on discontinuous morphemes. It consists primarily of a system of consonant roots which interlock with patterns of vowels (and sometimes certain other conso- nants) to form words, or word stems. This type of operation is not unknown in English. If one looks at the consonant sequence s-ng, one knows that its’ meaning * tn the word “untruthfulness,” for example, there are four morphemes: un, truth, ful, and ness, Three of these morphemes ae bound, Le, they cannot occur on heen and one (uh __* The two major categories of grammatical analysis i Arabic are Sarf jue and naw gas. which _ « eoften translated as morphology and syntax, respectively. However, the Boundary between Hen isnot the same boundary as in Western grammatical theory. The category of Sarf covers many _ so drivatonal morphology eg. the ten forms ofthe verb) and some inflectional morpho} E Heed (eg., the past tense paradigm); but it does not include the study of case and mood. A further «Stegory of Arabic grammatical ana shigag is often translated a ‘tymology but aca deals more with Arabi dervational morphology Is etymology (he study of word origins an development) inthe sense that it deals extensively with the cretion of words from the lexical Too system but notin the Western diachronic sense that examine the evolution of eal es ir meanings over time and through different, though related stages of language evolution.46 A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic has to do with vocal music. By inserting different vowels into the vowel slot between the /s-/ and the /ng/ several different English words can be formed: sing (w) sang (v) sung (v) song (n.) All of these items are words, or stems that can have suffixes such as “sing-ing,” “songs,” “sing's,” “song's,” “sing-er,” or prefixes, such as “un-sung.” As a compan ison, the consonant sequence s-ng corresponds roughly to the concept of an Arabic consonantal root, whereas the vowels and affixes would correspond approxi- mately to the Arabic concept of pattern. The procedure of differentiating mean. ing by means of word-internal vowel change is known technically as “ablaut” or “introflection,” defined as a word-internal change that signals a grammatical change. Other examples in English include: man|men, foot/feet, mouse|mice, know/knew, sink/sank/sunk. In English, the change usually involves just one vowel; however, in Arabic, it can involve several, for example: he wrote katab-a (v.) us he corresponded kaataba(v.) Cals it was written kutibva (v.) os book kitaab(n.) LS books, kutub (n.) eas writer: (adj. writing kaatib(n.) ls writers kuttaab(n.) GS write! (2 m.s.) uktub! (v.) ast These words, or stems, can have inflectional suffixes such as katab-at ‘she wrote,’ or kutub-an ‘books’ (accusative case), The root or three-consonant ordered sequence k+-b has to do with “writing,” and most words in the Arabic language that have to do with writing are derived from that root, through modifying pat- terns of vowels (and sometimes also adding certain consonants). This is a typically Semitic morphological system, In Arabic, this root-pattern process has evolved extensively and very productively in order to cover a vast array of meanings associated with each semantic field (such as “writing”), A few more examples: office; desk maktab (n.) SS offices; desks makaatib(n.) 31S