Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.760
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.109

CiteScore 2016: 0.58

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.370
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.921

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 247.00 / US$ 371.00 / GBP 185.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 49.00 / US$ 74.00 / GBP 37.00*
Print
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 247.00 / US$ 371.00 / GBP 185.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 247.00 / US$ 371.00 / GBP 185.00*
Print + Online
Institutional Subscription
€ [D] 296.00 / US$ 444.00 / GBP 223.00*
Individual Subscription
€ [D] 296.00 / US$ 444.00 / GBP 223.00*
*Prices in US$ apply to orders placed in the Americas only. Prices in GBP apply to orders placed in Great Britain only. Prices in € represent the retail prices valid in Germany (unless otherwise indicated). Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. RRP: Recommended Retail Price.
More options …
Ahead of print
Loading journal volume and issue information...

Grammatical construction of function words between old and modern written Arabic: A corpus-based analysis

Sultan Almujaiwel
Published Online: 2017-05-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0069

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

Abstract

This paper argues that Arabic function words (FWs) vary in usage between old and modern Arabic, thus prompting an experimental investigation into their changeability. This investigation is carried out by testing classical Arabic (CA) in Arabic heritage language (AHL) texts – those labeled as archistratum – and the modern standard Arabic (MSA) of Arabic newspaper texts (ANT), each group of which contains randomly collected 5 million (M) word texts. The linguistic theory of the grammar of Arabic FWs is explained through the differences between CA and MSA, despite Arabic FW changes and the unlearnability and/or unusability of some FW constructions between in these two eras of Arabic usage. The dispersion/distribution of the construction grammar (CxG) of FWs and the number (n) of word attractions/repulsions between the two distinct eras is explored using the very latest and most sophisticated Arabic corpus processing tools, and Sketch Engine’s SkeEn gramrels operators. The analysis of a 5 M word corpus from each era of Arabic serves to prove the non-existence of rigorous Arabic CxG. The approach in this study adopts a technique which, by contrasting AHL with ANT, relies on analyzing the frequency distributions of FWs, the co-occurrences of FWs in a span of 2n-grams collocational patterning, and some cases of FW usage changes in terms of lexical cognition (FW grammatical relationships). The results show that the frequencies of FWs, in addition to the case studies, are not the same, and this implies that FWs and their associations with the main part of speech class in a fusion language like Arabic have grammatically changed in MSA. Their constructional changes are neglected in Arabic grammar.

Keywords: construction grammar; Arabic function words; grammar patterns; n-grams; statistical corpus linguistics

References

  • Abdulaziz, Mohammad Ḥasan. 1998. Khaṣāᵓiṣ al-ᶜArabiyya al-Muᶜāṣirah: Maẓāhir Hadāthatihā fi al-Mufradāt wa al-Tarākīb [contemporary Arabic features: Arabic modernity aspects in vocabulary and structures]. Majallat al-Lisān al-ᶜarabī [Journal of Arabic Tongue] 45. 143–164.Google Scholar

  • Al-Mujaiwel, Sultan. 2016 Free/open KACSTAC and its processing tools: Lexical resources for Arabic lexicogrammatical microstructures based on collocational indicators. In Francisco Alonso Almeida, Ivalla Ortega Barrera, Elena Quintana Toledo & Margarita E. Sánchez Cuervo (eds.), Input a word, analyze the world: Selected approaches to corpus linguistics, 153–170. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Almujaiwel, Sultan & Abdulmohsen Al-Thubaity. 2016. Arabic corpus processing tools for corpus linguistics and language teaching. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on the Globalization of Second Language Acquisition and Teacher Education (SLATE), 103–108.Google Scholar

  • Al-Nasrawi, Al-Habib 2010 Al-Tawlid Al-Lughawi [language generativity]. Irbid (Jordan): Modern Book World.Google Scholar

  • Al-Thubaity, Abdulmohsen, Marwa Khan, Manal Al-Mazrua & Maram Al-Mousa. 2013. New language resources for Arabic: Corpus containing more than two million words and a corpus processing tool. The International Conference on Asian Language Processing in Urumqi, China, 17–19 August. Beijing: Chinese and Oriental Languages Information Processing Society.Google Scholar

  • Al-Thubaity, Abdulmohsen, Marwa Khan, Manal Al-Mazrua & Maram Al-Mousa. 2014. ACP Tools. http://sourceforge.net/projects/kacst-acptool/ (accessed 16 March 2017).

  • Arts, Jan. 1991. Intuition-based and observation-based grammars. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, 44–62. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Badawi, Elsaid. 1985. Educated spoken Arabic: A problem in teaching Arabic as a foreign language. In Kurt R. Jankowsky (ed.), Scientific and humanistic dimensions of language, 15–22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Badawi, Elsaid, Michael Carter & Adrian Gully. 2004. Modern written Arabic: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans, C. 2007. Construction grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics 11(3). 569–585.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans. C. 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In Graham Trousdale & Thomas Huffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Broccias, Cristiano. 2013. Cognitive grammar. In Graham Trousdale & Thomas Huffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 191–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 6th edn. Malden (Massachusetts): Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Dons, Ute. 2004. Descriptive adequacy of early modern English grammars. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Francis, Gill, Susan Hunston & Elizabeth Manning. 1996. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns, 1: Verbs. London: Collins.Google Scholar

  • Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940. American English grammar. New York: Appleton Century.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Construction at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Green, Spence & Christopher D. Manning. 2010. Better Arabic parsing: Baselines, evaluations and analysis. In Chu-Ren Huang & Dan Jurafsky (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Beijing International Convention Center, 394–402. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: A follow-up on Kilgarriff. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). 277–294.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Auilino Sánchez & Moisés Almela (eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: Selected approaches, 269–291. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Data in construction grammar. In Graham Trousdale & Thomas Huffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 93–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The role of quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: Corpus and experimental data on (relative) frequency and contingency of words and constructions. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuykens (eds.), Change of paradigms – New paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 311–325. Berlin: De Gruyter Mounton.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2009. Corpora and grammar. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, volume 2, 933–951. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Habash, Nizar. 2010. Introduction to Arabic natural language processing. USA: Morgan and Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Ḥasan, ᶜAabbās. 1973. Al-Naḥw al-Wāfī [the thorough grammar]. Cairo: Dār al-Maᶜārif.Google Scholar

  • Ḥassān, Tammām. 1994. Al-Lugha al-ᶜArabiyya: Maᶜnahā wa Mabnāhā [Arabic language: Its meaning and form]. Casa Blanca: Dār al-Thaqāfah.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hunston, Susan, Gill Francis & Elizabeth Manning. 1998. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. London: Collins.Google Scholar

  • Ibn, Mālik. 2011. Matin al-ᶜAlfiyya (Body of 1000). Beirut: Al-Maktaba al-Shaᶜbiyya. https://archive.org/details/waq37284 (accessed 18 March 2017).

  • Jakubicek, Miloš, Adam Kilgarriff, Diana McCarthy & Rychlý. Pavel 2010. Fast syntactic searching in very large corpora for many languages. In Ryo Otoguro, Kiyoshi Ishikawa, Hiroshi Umemoto, Kei Yoshimoto & Yasunari Harada (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 24). Tohoku University, 741–748, Tokyo: Waseda University.Google Scholar

  • Khoja, Shereen. 2001. APT: Arabic part-of-speech tagger. Paper presented in the Student Workshop at the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL). Pittsburg: Carnegie Mellon University. http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/mdh/arabic/NAACL.pdf (accessed 18 March 2017).

  • Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý & Vít Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on, Lexicography 1(1). 7–36.Google Scholar

  • Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz & David Tugwell. 2004. The Sketch Engine. Eleventh EURALEX, 6–8 July, Lorient (France).Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Louw, William E. 2010. Collocation as instrumentation for meaning: A scientific fact. In Willie Van Peer, Sonia Zyngier & Vander Viana (eds.), Literary education and digital learning: Methods and technologies, 79–101. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar

  • McEnery, Tony & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2006. Corpus linguistics and English reference grammars. In Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds.), The changing face of corpus linguistics, 337–354. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

  • Parkinson, Dilworth. 1991. Searching for modern fusHa: Real-life formal Arabic. Al-ᶜArabiyya 24. 31–64.Google Scholar

  • Piantadosi, Steven T. 2014. Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 12. 1112–1130.Google Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Rayson, Paul, Andrew Wilson & Geoffrey Leech. 2002. Grammatical word class variation within the British National Corpus sampler. In Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds.), New Frontiers of Corpus Research: Papers from the Twenty-First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Sydney 2000 (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 36), 295–306. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

  • Rychlý, Pavel. 2008. A lexicographer-friendly association score. In Petr Sojka & Aleš Horák (eds.), Recent advances in Slavonic natural language processing, 6–9. Brno (Czech Republic): Masaryk University.Google Scholar

  • Ryding, Karin, C. 2005. A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43.Google Scholar

  • Versteegh, Kees. 1997a. The Arabic tradition. In Sylvain Auroux, Ranko Bugarski, Lia Formigari, John E. Joseph, Hans-Josef Niederehe, Emilio Ridruejo, Rosane Rocher, Vivian Salmon & Kees Versteegh (eds.), The emergence of semantics in four linguistic traditions: Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic, 225–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Versteegh, Kees. 1997b. Landmarks in linguistic thought III: The Arabic linguistic tradition. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-12

Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0069.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in