A DETERMINANT APPROACH TO THE DESCRIPTION OF ARABIC VERB MORPHOLOGY
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The term “invariant” can be defined as a feature or a set of investigated features or system objects that remain unchanged during all transformations caused by the interaction of the initial system with the environment. A prototype is a reference representative of meaning, provided that the categories appear in the “best examples”, and the prototype approach may be inherent in human thinking in general. The concepts of an invariant and a prototype can be connected with each other for the purpose of using them in the description of grammatical phenomena using the concept of semantic determinant, which we define as the dominant attribute, quality, or property of grammatical meaning, which allows us to distinguish the basic contrast of grammatical forms.
By an invariant of grammatical meaning, we mean a certain characteristic of an object, based on which we can combine a certain number of grammatical forms within one taxonomic class, and by a prototype a certain value of a grammatical form that can be accepted as standard for a particular grammatical category.
An example is the alternation a ~ i / u that occurs in the Arabic, which obviously took place at the long stages of the development of the Afro-Asian macro-family, is found in many languages and can be associated with archaic features of the grammatical system of the language.
In particular, an opposition of the type fa‘ala / fuʻila will correspond to the basic semantic determinant of the accusative-nominative Arabic by transferring the category of pledge, while the corresponding invariant can be determined through the opposition of extroversion / introversion, and the prototype is the basic for the designation of the category of voice.
But if the opposition correlated with the same invariant cannot be correlated with the prototypes “standard” for the grammatical categories represented in modern Arabic, as, for example, in the case of the opposition faʻala / faʻila (faʻala / faʻula), we can assume that the corresponding prototypes took place at the previous stages of the development of the grammatical system and were determined by other semantic determinants.
Taking into account that these phenomena can be determined in the context of various subsystems of the language, their study within the same grammatical category can present certain difficulties, as in the case of the above vocal alternation. At the same time, the structured approach proposed by the author to the study of its grammatical meaning provides an opportunity to see the probable causes of the current state of its implementation in the modern language.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
ablaut alternation, Arabic, Arabic verb morphology, invariants and prototypes of grammatical meaning, semantic determinants
Адмони В. Г. Грамматический строй как система построения и общая теория грамматики. Ленинград, 1988.
Белова А. Г. Структура семитского корня и семитская морфологическая система // Вопросы языкознания, 1991, № 1.
Болдырев Н. Н. Инварианты и прототипы в системной и функциональной категоризации английского глагола // Проблемы функциональной грамматики: Семантическая инвариантность / вариантность. Санкт-Петербург, 2003.
Бондарко А. В. Инварианты и прототипы в системе функциональной грамматики // Проблемы функциональной грамматики: Семантическая инвариантность / вариативность. Санкт-Петербург, 2003.
Боярская Е. Л. Категоризация как базовая когнитивная процедура // Вестник Балтийского федерального университета им. И. Канта. Серия: филология, педагогика, психология. 2011, Вып. № 02.
Вежбицкая А. Прототипы и инварианты // Вежбицкая А. Язык. Культура. Познание / Пер. с англ., отв. ред. М. А. Кронгауз, вступ. ст. Е. В. Падучевой. Москва, 1996.
Гранде Б. М. Курс арабской грамматики в сравнительно-историческом освещении. Москва, 1988.
Гумбольдт Вильгельм фон. Избранные труды по языкознанию. Москва, 1984.
Дешериева Т. И. К проблеме соотношения глагольных категорий вида и времени // Вопросы языкознания, 1976, № 4.
Дьяконов И. М. Афразийские языки // Языки Азии и Африки. Т. 4, кн. 1. Семитские языки. Москва, 1991.
Захарьин Б. А. Типология языков Южной Азии. Москва, 1987.
Ивин A. A. Философия. Энциклопедический словарь. Москва, 2004.
Кибрик Е. А. Константы и переменные языка. Москва, 2003.
Климов Г. А. Типология языков активного строя. Москва, 1977.
Климов Г. А. Принципы контенсивной типологии. Москва, 1983.
Кондаков Н. И. Логический словарь-справочник. 2-е испр. и доп. изд. Москва, 1975.
Кубрякова Е. С. Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. Москва, 1997.
Мамедалиев В. М. оглы. Категории времени, лица и наклонения в современном арабском литературном языке: автореферат дис. … д-ра филол. наук. Тбилиси, 1974.
Мельников Г. П. Системная типология языков: Принципы. Методы. Модели. Москва, 2003.
Рыбаков М. А. Развитие представлений о типологическом сходстве языков: от многомерной классификации Э. Сепира до системной типологии Г. П. Мельникова // Валентинова О. И., Денисенко В. Н., Преображенский С. Ю., Рыбаков М. А. Системный взгляд как основа филологической мысли. Москва, 2016.
Философский энциклопедический словарь (ФЭС). Москва, 1983.
Старинин В. П. Структура семитского слова. Прерывистые морфемы. Москва, 1963.
Хамрай А. А. Прототипы и инварианты в парадигматике современного арабского литературного языка // Бюллетень Общества востоковедов РАН. Вып. 17: Труды межинститутской научной конференции “Востоковедные чтения 2008”: Москва, 8–10 октября 2008 г. Москва, 2010a.
Хамрай О. О. Обмеження структури арабської граматики. Київ, 2010b.
Церетели К. Г. Сирийский язык. Москва, 1979.
Шарандин А. Л. Инвариант и прототип: методологический статус, когнитивная природа, языковая специфика // ҚазҰУ хабаршысы. Филология сериясы, 2011, № 3(133).
Юдакин А. П. Лексико-грамматические закономерности эволюции активного причастия // Вопросы языкознания, 1982, № 2.
Юшманов Н. В. Грамматика литературного арабского языка. Москва, 1985.
Юшманов Н. В. Структура семитского корня // Избранные труды. Работы по общей фонетике, семитологии и арабской классической морфологии. Москва, 1998.
Aerts D., Broekaert J., Gabora L., Sozzo S. Generalizing Prototype Theory: A Formal Quantum Framework // Frontiers in Psychology. 2016. 7:418. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/artic-les/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00418/full (дата звернення: 10.03.2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00418
Albright A. Base-driven leveling in Yiddish verb paradigms // Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. Vol. 28, No. 3. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9107-z
Benjaballah S. The “negative preterite” in Kabyle Berber // Folia Linguistica. Vol. XXXIV, Issue 3–4, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2000.34.3-4.185
Comrie B. Tense. Cambridge University Press, 1985. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165815
Fox M. J. Prototype theory: An alternative concept theory for categorizing sex and gender? // Smiraglia Richard P. (Ed.). Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization. Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, 2011. https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v3i1.12799
Gеeraerts D. Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings. Berlin, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901
Grzega J. On using (and misusing) prototypes for explanations of lexical changes // Word. Vol. 54, No. 3. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2003.11432537
Guerssel M., Lowenstamm J. Ablaut in Classical Arabic measure I active verbal forms // Studies in Afroasiatic grammar / Lecarme J., J. Lowenstamm, U. Shlonsky (Eds). The Hague, 1996.
Hanson P. Are Contexts Semantic Determinants? // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Supplementary Volume VI: New Essays in Philosophy of Language. 1980. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1980.10715763
Jackendoff R. Patterns in the mind. Language and Human Nature. New York, 1994.
Jansen H. L. Was bedeutet die a: i-Opposition der arabishen, hebräischen und syrischen Qal-Formen? // Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Bd. XVI. 1952.
Perry John R. Exaptation from Arabic syntax to Persian lexical Morphology // On-line proceedings of the sixth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM6), Ithaca, 27–30 September 2007. Vol. 6. Patras, 2007.
Pulleyblank E. G. Close/open ablaut in Sino-Tibetan // Lingua. Vol. 14. 1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(65)90043-4
Quine W. O. Word and Object. New York, 1960.
Sapir E. A Study in phonetic symbolism // Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 12, Issue 3. 1929. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070931
Sweetser E. E. The definition of ‘lie’: An examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype // Cultural models in Language and thought. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn / D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds). Cambridge University Press, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.003
Teeple D. Intra-paradigmatic contrast in Arabic verbal morphology. Linguistics Research Center, Phonology at Santa Cruz, UCSC, 2007. Paper 2007-2. URL: https://escholarship.org/content/qt9342n2v6/qt9342n2v6.pdf?t=lnp01a (дата звернення: 10.03.2020).
REFERENCES
Admoni V. G. (1988), Grammaticheskiy stroy kak sistema postroyeniya i obshchaya teoriya grammatiki, Nauka, Leningrad. (In Russian).
Belova A. G. (1991), “Struktura semitskogo kornya i semitskaya morfologicheskaya sistema”, in Voprosy yazykoznaniya, No. 1, pp. 79–90. (In Russian).
Boldyrev N. N. (2003), “Invarianty i prototipy v sistemnoy i funktsional’noy kategorizatsii angliyskogo glagola”, in Problemy funktsional’noy grammatiki: Semanticheskaya invariantnost’ / variantnost’, Nauka, Saint Petersburg, pp. 54–74. (In Russian).
Bondarko A. V. (2003), “Invarianty i prototipy v sisteme funktsional’noy grammatiki”, in Problemy funktsional’noy grammatiki: Semanticheskaya invariantnost’ / variativnost’, Nauka, Saint Petersburg, pp. 5–36. (In Russian).
Boyarskaya E. L. (2011), “Kategorizatsiya kak bazovaya kognitivnaya protsedura”, in Vestnik Baltiyskogo federal’nogo universiteta im. I. Kanta, Seriya: filologiya, pedagogika, psikhologiya, Issue 02, pp. 18–28. (In Russian).
Vezhbitskaya A. (1996), “Prototipy i invarianty”, in Vezhbitskaya A., Yazyk. Kul’tura. Poznaniye, Transl. from English, M. A. Krongauz (Ed.), Preface by E. V. Paducheva, Russkiye slovari, Moscow, pp. 201–231. (In Russian).
Grande B. M. (1988), Kurs arabskoy grammatiki v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii, Izdatel’stvo vostochnoy literatury, Moscow. (In Russian).
Gumbol’dt Vil’gel’m fon (1984), Izbrannyye trudy po yazykoznaniyu, Progress, Moscow. (In Russian).
Desheriyeva T. I. (1976), “K probleme sootnosheniya glagol’nykh kategoriy vida i vremeni”, in Voprosy yazykoznaniya, No. 4, pp. 72–76. (In Russian).
D’yakonov I. M. (1991), “Afraziyskiye yazyki”, in Yazyki Azii i Afriki, Vol. 4, Book 1: Semitskiye yazyki, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 5–69. (In Russian).
Zakhar’in B. A. (1987), Tipologiya yazykov Yuuzhnoy Azii, LKI, Moscow. (In Russian).
Ivin A. A. (2004), Filosofiya. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’, Gardariki, Moscow. (In Russian).
Kibrik E. A. (2003), Konstanty i peremennyye yazyka, Aleteyya, Moscow (In Russian).
Klimov G. A. (1977), Tipologiya yazykov aktivnogo stroya, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).
Klimov G. A. (1983), Printsipy kontensivnoy tipologii, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).
Kondakov N. I. (1975), Logicheskiy slovar’-spravochnik, 2-nd ed., Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).
Kubryakova E. S. (1997), Chasti rechi s kognitivnoy tochki zreniya, Institut yazykoznaniya RAN, Moscow. (In Russian).
Mamedaliyev V. M. Ogly (1974), Kategorii vremeni, litsa i nakloneniya v sovremennom arabskom literaturnom yazyke, Avtoreferat dis. d-ra filol. nauk, Izd-vo Tbilisskogo un-ta, Tbilisi. (In Russian).
Mel’nikov G. P. (2003), Sistemnaya tipologiya yazykov: Printsipy. Metody. Modeli, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).
Rybakov M. A. (2016), “Razvitiye predstavleniy o tipologicheskom skhodstve yazykov: ot mnogomernoy klassifikatsii E. Sepira do sistemnoy tipologii G. P. Mel’nikova”, in Valentinova O. I., Denisenko V. N., Preobrazhenskiy S. Yu. and Rybakov M. A., Sistemnyy vzglyad kak osnova filologicheskoy mysli, Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury, Moscow, pp. 17–136. (In Russian).
Filosofskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ (1983), INFRAM, Moscow. (In Russian).
Starinin V. P. (1963), Struktura semitskogo slova. Preryvistyye morfemy, Izdatel’stvo vostochnoy literatury, Moscow. (In Russian).
Khamray A. A. (2010a), “Prototipy i invarianty v paradigmatike sovremennogo arabskogo literaturnogo yazyka”, in Byulleten’ Obshchestva vostokovedov RAN, Issue 17: Trudy mezhinstitutskoy nauchnoy konferentsii “Vostokovednyye chteniya” 2008, Moskva, 8–10 oktyabrya 2008 g., Moscow, pp. 212–237. (In Russian).
Khamray O. O. (2010b), Obmezhennya struktury arabs’koyi hramatyky, Kyiv. (In Ukrainian).
Tssereteli K. G. (1979), Siriyskiy yazyk, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).
Shharandin A. L. (2011), “Invariant i prototip: metodologicheskiy status, kognitivnaya priroda, yazykovaya spetsifika”, in QazUÝ Habarshysy. Fılologıa serıasy, No. 3 (133), pp. 3–10. (In Russian).
Yuudakin A. P. (1982), “Leksiko-grammaticheskiye zakonomernosti evolyutsii aktivnogo prichastiya”, in Voprosy yazykoznaniya, No. 2, pp. 59–67. (In Russian).
Yuushmanov N. V. (1985), Grammatika literaturnogo arabskogo yazyka, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).
Yuushmanov N. V. (1998), “Struktura semitskogo kornya”, in Izbrannyye trudy, Raboty po obshchey fonetike, semitologii i arabskoy klassicheskoy morfologii, Vostochnaya literatura, Moscow. (In Russian).
Aerts D., Broekaert J., Gabora L. and Sozzo S. (2016), “Generalizing Prototype Theory: A Formal Quantum Framework”, Frontiers in Psychology, 7:418, available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00418/full (accessed March 10, 2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00418
Albright A. (2010), “Base-driven leveling in Yiddish verb paradigms”, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 475–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9107-z
Benjaballah S. (2000), “The ‘negative preterite’ in Kabyle Berber”, in Folia Linguistica, Vol. XXXIV, Issue 3–4, pp. 185–223. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2000.34.3-4.185
Comrie Bernard (1985), Tense, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165815
Fox M. J. (2011), “Prototype theory: An alternative concept theory for categorizing sex and gender?”, in Smiraglia Richard P. (Ed.), Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3, Toronto, Canada, pp. 151–159. https://doi.org/10.7152/nasko.v3i1.12799
Gеeraerts D. (2006), Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901
Grzega J. (2003), “On using (and misusing) prototypes for explanations of lexical changes”, in Word, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2003.11432537
Guerssel M. and Lowenstamm J. (1996), “Ablaut in Classical Arabic measure I active verbal forms”, in Lecarme, J., J. Lowenstamm, U. Shlonsky (Eds), Studies in Afroasiatic grammar, HAG, The Hague, pp. 123–134.
Hanson P. (1980), “Are Contexts Semantic Determinants?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume VI: New Essays in Philosophy of Language, pp. 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1980.10715763
Jackendoff R. (1994), Patterns in the mind. Language and Human Nature, Basic Books, New York.
Jansen H. L. (1952), “Was bedeutet die a: i-Opposition der arabishen, hebräischen und syrischen Qal-Formen?”, in Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, Bd. XVI, pp. 365–370.
Perry John R. (2007), “Exaptation from Arabic syntax to Persian lexical Morphology”, On-line proceedings of the sixth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM6), Ithaca, 27–30 September 2007, Vol. 6, University of Patras, Patras, pp. 116–122.
Pulleyblank E. G. (1965), “Close/open ablaut in Sino-Tibetan”, in Lingua, Vol. 14, pp. 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(65)90043-4
Quine W.O. (1960), Word and Object, John Wily and Sons, New York.
Sapir E. (1929), “A study in phonetic symbolism”, in Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 12, Issue 3, pp. 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070931
Sweetser E. E. (1987), “The definition of ‘lie’: An examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype”, in D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds), Cultural models in language and thought, Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.003
Teeple D. (2007), Intra-paradigmatic contrast in Arabic verbal morphology, Linguistics Research Center, Phonology at Santa Cruz, UCSC, Paper 2007-2, available at: https://escholarship.org/content/qt9342n2v6/qt9342n2v6.pdf?t=lnp01a (accessed March 10, 2020).