|
|
 E-mail this message to a friend
|
|
Title:
|
A Comparative Morphological Study of Standard Arabic and Cairene Arabic with an Analysis of Phonological Alternations
|
|
Author:
|
Hassan Gadalla
|
|
Email:
|
click here to access email
|
|
Homepage:
|
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~hgadalla/
|
|
Degree Awarded:
|
Assiut University
, Department of English
|
|
Degree Date:
|
1999
|
|
Linguistic Subfield(s):
|
Morphology
Phonology
|
|
Subject Language(s):
|
Arabic, Standard
Arabic, Egyptian Spoken
|
|
Director(s):
|
Rolf Noyer
Mohamed Radwan
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
|
|
The main objective of this dissertation is to compare the morphological aspects of Standard Arabic (SA) and Cairene Arabic (CrA). It is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides a phonological outline of SA and CrA. It also analyses the morphological basics and the morphosyntactic preliminaries of the
two varieties. Chapter Two is devoted to the morphology of triradical and quadriradical verbs. In addition, the inflection of verbs for aspect/mood and voice and a treatment of verbal affixes and verb derivation are provided. Chapter Three deals with the morphology of primary and deverbal nouns. Moreover, the divergence between definite and indefinite nouns and the inflection of nouns for case, gender and number are explained. The formation of the diminutive is then illustrated. Chapter Four handles the morphology of adjectival stems. Then, the difference between definite and indefinite adjectives and the inflection of adjectives for case, gender, number and degree are analyzed. Furthermore, participial forms and relational adjectives are discussed. Chapter Five is related to the morphology of closed-list classes, including pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, as well as interrogative and responsive particles. Finally, negative and possessive particles are exhibited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Updated: 28-Nov-2009
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
