An Alternative Semantic Analysis of the Particle ʃikil in Jordanian Arabic

Abstract

This paper revisits the semantics of the marker ʃikil in Jordanian Arabic (henceforth, JA) which has been analyzed as indirect evidential in previous literature (Al-Malahmeh 2013; Jarrah & Alshamari 2017, and others). The paper argues that ʃikil is a propositional-level rather than an illocutionary-level operator and therefore ʃikil is amenable to a modal analysis. The paper also provides evidence that epistemic modality system in JA can be finer-grained in terms of the propositions construed in the modal base as either logical reasoning-based or observable evidence-based. Such intriguing feature has been overlooked in possible world semantics (Kratzer 1991, 2012) but slightly reformed in the modal analysis advocated for ʃikil in this paper where the modal base is argued to construe a presupposition restricting the propositions in the modal base to observable evidence only. Cross-linguistically, the findings of the current paper lend further support to the unfolding literature that asserts the affinity and the heterogeneity of evidentiality and epistemic modality. At the same time, it poses serious challenge to the seminal works in evidentiality such as those of Aikhenvald (2004) and De-Haan (1999, 2004) who claimed that evidentiality is a homogenous category.

The vowel system of Qatari Arabic: Evidence for peripheral/non-peripheral distinction between long and short vowels

“…Speakers in Cluster 2 showed the pattern in which short /a/ is also fronted, but short /i/ and /u/ are close to each other. These patterns are not unique to QA as they are found in many eastern Arabic dialects of Levant, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Johnstone 1967, Alghamdi 1998, Jongman et al 2011, Saadah 2011, Almbark 2012, Kalaldeh 2018, Fathi & Qassim 2020. Finally, speakers in Cluster 3 revealed the pattern with maximal centralization of all short vowels.…”

“…Alghamdi (1998) reported 0.41-0.45 ratios for Egyptian and Saudi Arabic vowels. This ratio was found to be 0.42 in MSA produced by Jordanian speakers (Kalaldeh 2018), 0.42 in Palestinian Arabic (Saadah 2011), and 0.50 in Syrian Arabic (Almbark 2012). Bukshaisha (1985) reported that the ratio averaged at 0.47 in Qatari Arabic.…”

“…Saadah (2011), who investigated the vowel system of Palestinian Arabic, found that short /i/ and /u/ are lowered from the positions for /i˘/ and /u˘/ to the positions of [I] and [U]. A more advanced stage in the development of this vowel system has been found in Syrian Arabic (Almbark 2012) and Jordanian Arabic (Jongman et al 2011, Kalaldeh 2018, with centralization of all short vowels. High vowels /i u/ are lowered and low /a/ is raised toward more central positions in the vowel space, as shown in Figure 2D.…”

“…As F1 is inversely related to vowel height and F2 is inversely related to vowel backness, studies that find qualitative differences between long and short vowels report higher F1/lower F2 values for front vowels, and higher F1/higher F2 values for back vowels when they move toward the center of the vowels space (e.g. Bukshaisha 1985, Alghamdi 1998, Saadah 2011, Almbark 2012, Kalaldeh 2018 for Arabic dialects; Hillenbrand et al 1995, Clopper, Pisoni & de Jong 2005, Labov et al 2005 for English; Aronow, McHugh & Molnar 2017, Mokari et al 2017, Hemmatnia, Ghazanfari & Nourbakhsh 2019 for Persian, among many others).…”

“…Although some studies of vowel articulation use 'placeless' glottal context in order to minimize the effect of flanking consonants and obtain 'pure' vowel qualities (e.g. Clopper et al 2005, Kalaldeh 2018), adding contextual variation in the data (see e.g. Hillenbrand et al 2001) can be, in fact, beneficial as it can provide insights about directions of potential changes in the vowel system.…”