Semitic Languages in Contact 2015
DOI: 10.1163/9789004300156_012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Change in Urban Palestinian Arabic Induced by Contact with Modern Hebrew

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(11 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A major question for future research is whether what appears to be simultaneous patterns of lowering and backing of the feminine gender marker occurs alongside numerous other changes taking place in the dialect. Other sociolinguistic work in Gaza City (Cotter 2016, Cotter andHoresh 2015) has identified at least one other feature, the voiceless uvular stop /q/, with variable realizations that have been stratified along sociolinguistic lines. Additional research could uncover other areas of sociolinguistic interest that may suggest numerous changes taking place simultaneously as a result of the profound degrees of dialect contact happening in Gaza City.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A major question for future research is whether what appears to be simultaneous patterns of lowering and backing of the feminine gender marker occurs alongside numerous other changes taking place in the dialect. Other sociolinguistic work in Gaza City (Cotter 2016, Cotter andHoresh 2015) has identified at least one other feature, the voiceless uvular stop /q/, with variable realizations that have been stratified along sociolinguistic lines. Additional research could uncover other areas of sociolinguistic interest that may suggest numerous changes taking place simultaneously as a result of the profound degrees of dialect contact happening in Gaza City.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the sample of Palestinian speakers reported by Horesh (), the non‐pharyngeal forms were overall more common (61%). However, unlike Hebrew, in which (ʕ) is generally deleted, in PA full deletion was not the most preferred non‐pharyngeal form (20%), and all speakers did use [ʕ] to some extent.…”
Section: Social and Linguistic Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Unlike /ħ/, (ʕ) in PA is a variable. Horesh () identified five different variants of (ʕ): pharyngeal ([baʕdeːn] “later”), glottal ([baʔdeːn]), compensatory lengthening ([baːdeːn]), syllabic vocalization ([ba.a.deːn]) and full deletion ([ba∅den]).…”
Section: Social and Linguistic Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations