The Arabic Language

Further reading
There is a whole range of grammars of Classical Arabic in the Western philo-
logical tradition, although a complete, modern reference grammar of the 
Classical language is still sorely missed. A classic is Howell (1883–1911); it is on 
this grammar that Caspari (1887; this is the fifth edition, revised by A. Müller) is 
based, which in its turn formed the basis for the best available grammar, Wright 
(1859–62), usually consulted in the revised third edition by Robertson Smith and 
de Goeje (1896–8, numerous re-editions). In French, the standard grammar is 
Blachère and Gaudefroy-Demombynes (1952). Shorter (teaching) grammars are 
in German, such as Brockelmann, revised by Fleischhammer (1965), and in French 
by Blachère (1961); the most recent grammar of this type is Fischer (1972). A 
sketch of the Classical language is given in Beeston (1968), Fleisch (1968), Denz 
(1982), Fischer (1997) and Retsö (2011). An excellent analysis of the morphology 
and phonology is in Watson (2002).
For grammatical descriptions and coursebooks of Modern Standard Arabic, 
see Chapter 12, pp. 239f. For grammatical descriptions and coursebooks of Arabic 
dialects, see Chapter 11, pp. 217–20.
The lexicon of Classical Arabic still remains to a large extent unexplored. For 
detailed information, research depends on the indigenous Arabic dictionaries (see 
Chapter 7), in particular the 
Lisān al-ʿarab
by Ibn Manẓūr (d. 711/1311). The begin-
nings of modern lexicography in the Middle East are described by Sawaie (1987, 
1990). The Western Orientalist dictionaries of the Classical Arabic language that 
were written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were superseded by 
Lane (1863–93); his dictionary included all the available information from the 
Arabic sources, but remained incomplete (up to the letter 
qāf
). Dozy (1881) was 
intended as a supplement, with special emphasis on the vocabulary of the North 
African and Andalusian sources. In 1957, the 
Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft

---

104
The Arabic Language
began to work on a new dictionary of the Classical Arabic language (
WKAS
), 
starting with the letter 
kāf
; in the meantime, this dictionary has reached the letter 
mīm
(on the 
WKAS
, see Gätje 1985). In France, Blachère, Chouémi and Denizeau 
(1964–) started their large Arabic–English–French dictionary with the letter 
ʾalif
; 
this dictionary does not seem to have gone past three volumes. The lexicon of 
the 
Ḥadīṯ
literature may be studied with the help of the index that was started 
by Wensinck (
Concordances
). An older dictionary of the Qurʾānic lexicon is the 
outdated Penrice (1873); two new dictionaries have appeared in the meantime, 
a smaller one by Ambros and Prochazka (2004), and a larger one by Badawi and 
Abdel Haleem (2008). Of the smaller dictionaries of the Classical language, Hava’s 
(1964) Arabic–English dictionary deserves to be mentioned.
Dictionaries of Modern Standard Arabic are mentioned in Chapter 12, those of 
the dialects in Chapter 11.
For the phoneme inventory of Classical Arabic, Cantineau (1960) is still one of 
the best historical studies. Fleisch’s 
Traité de philologie arabe
in two volumes (1961, 
1979) analyses the morphological structure of the language, with observations 
about its Semitic cognates and the indigenous system of grammar. Older litera
-
ture on Arabic phonetics includes Gairdner (1925), and Al-Ani (1970). Detailed 
treatment of the phonology of Classical Arabic is in Roman (1983). A practical 
detailed guide to pronunciation is Mitchell (1990), which is based on the Egyptian 
realisation of 
fuṣḥā
.
Within a general linguistic framework phonetic and phonological studies of 
Arabic, in particular of the Arabic dialects, abound, starting with Brame (1970); 
a very good survey is in Watson (2002). The application of auto-segmental 
phonology to Arabic is largely the work of McCarthy (1985); for a summary see 
McCarthy (2008). On the Obligatory Contour Principle, see Rosenthall (2006, 2008). 
The incompatibility of phonemes within Semitic roots is analysed by Greenberg 
(1950), with comprehensive tables of all existing verbal roots in Arabic; redefini-
tion in terms of the Obligatory Contour Principle and Optimality Theory is in 
Frisch 
et al
. (2004).
On emphasis, see Watson (2002: 268–86) and Bellem (2007). On emphasis spread, 
see the discussion in Davis (1995), Watson (1999) and Al Khatib (2008). There is 
an extensive literature on the nature of Arabic 
ḍād
, see, for example, Cantineau 
(1960: 54–6), Steiner (1977); Roman (1983: I, 162–206); Versteegh (1999); on the 
realisation of /ḍ/ and /ḏ̣/ in modern dialects, see Al Wer (2004). On the pronun-
ciation of the 
qāf
and the split between /q/ and /g/, see Blanc (1969).
The classic work about apophony (ablaut) in the Semitic languages is Kuryłowicz 
(1972); a more recent application to Moroccan Arabic is by Heath (1987); see 
also Guerssel and Lowenstamm (1996). On the stem-based approach of Arabic 
morphology, see Gafos (2002, 2003).
On the reconstruction of stress in Classical Arabic, see the older studies by 
Birkeland (1954) and Janssens (1972). For a survey of the literature on stress, see 

---

The Structure of Arabic 
105
Kager (2009); for stress in the modern dialects, with a comparison of Cairene and 
Ṣanʿānī Arabic, see Watson (2002: 79–121). Kenstowicz (1994) is a general intro-
duction to generative phonology, with many examples from Arabic. Angoujard 
(1990) discusses the metrical structure of Arabic. Broselow (1992) examines the 
rules for epenthesis and syncope across dialects.
A survey of theories about biradicalism can be found in Zaborski (1991b, 2006b); 
on weak roots in Semitic and in Arabic, see Voigt (1988), and Chekayri and Scheer 
(2003). Ehret (1989) analyses a large number of triconsonantal roots in terms of a 
combination of biconsonantal roots with root determinatives. Bohas’ (1993, 1995, 
1997) theory about the structure of the Arabic lexicon has been mentioned in the 
text.
Specifically on the broken plurals two important articles were published by 
McCarthy and Prince (1990 a, b); monograph treatment is in Ratcliffe (1998).
The literature on the Arabic verbal system is extensive. For the older discus
-
sion, see, for example, Aartun (1963), Corriente (1971a), Fleisch (1979: 169–206) 
and Nebes (1982). Larcher (2012) is a survey of the verbal system of Classical 
Arabic, including the aspectual values of the verbal forms (2012: 133–62). On the 
distribution of the three perfect forms,