Word

ISSN: 0043-7956 (Print) 2373-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rwrd20

The Vowels of Egyptian Arabic

William Cowan

To cite this article: William Cowan (1970) The Vowels of Egyptian Arabic, Word, 26:1, 94-100,
DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1970.11435584
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1970.11435584

Published online: 16 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2135

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwrd20
WILL/AM C O W A N - - - - - · - - - - - - -

The Vowels of Egyptian Arabic

All the recent statements concerning the vowels of Egyptian Arabic

that have come to my attention agree that the dialect has three short
vowels, /i a uf, and five long vowels, /i ea 6 u/. There is difference of opinion
as to the analysis of these long ';'Owels: Harrelll analyses them as a short
vowel plus a phoneme of length, fv :f; Lehn 2 analyses them as geminate
vowels, fvvf; Tomiche 3 analyses them as unitary phonemes, fvf. The only
analysis that seems to be in any way different is that of Birkeland, 4 which,
in effect, is the reverse of Harrell's. Birkeland recognizes five long vowels,
three of which may occur with a feature of shortness, and then only in
open, stressed, nonfinal syllables-which is the only position, according to
Birkeland, in which long and short vowels can contrast: fv/ for long vowels,
fvf for short.
In these more or less equivalent analyses, vowel quality is secondary to
length-that is, the first vowel in /miSi/ s 'he walked' is phonetically [r];
the first vowel of fbi: na/ 'in us', excluding length, is phonetically [i]. The
allophonic variation between [r] and [i] is conditioned by the presence of
the feature of length. The same is true of the first /u/ of fkutub/ 'books',
phonetically [u ], and the first /u/ of /su: fu/ 'see him! (masc. sing.)', phone-
tically [u], again excluding length. To a lesser extent this is also true of fa/:
the first vowel of fsaJna/ 'he saw us' has an allophone of fa/ that is a slightly
lowered and fronted mid-central vowel, [~v]; the first vowel of /sa: fu/
'they saw' is a low front vowel, [re]. Conversely, the allophone of /i/ that
occurs in final unstressed position is identical to the allophone that occurs
before length, as in [?inti] 'you (fern. sing.)', phonemically f?inti/; and the
I Richard S. Harrell, The Phonology of Colloquial Egyptian Arabic (New York, 1967),
p. 52.
2 Waiter Lehn, "Emphasis in Cairo Arabic," Language, XXXIX (1963), 31. Lehn also
mentions five short unstressed vowels, /i ea o uj, but does not elaborate; so, little can be
said about them here.
3 Nada Tomiche, Le parler arabe du Caire (Paris, 1964), p. 45.
4 Harris Birkeland, Growth and Structure of the Egyptian Arabic Dialect (Oslo, 1952),
p. 49.
5 In the examples quoted according to the traditional analysis, I follow Harrell's
vocalic notation.
94
 THE VOWELS OF EGYPTIAN ARABIC 95

allophone of fuf in this position is identical with its allophone before

length, as in [f?ntu] 'you all', phonemically f?intu/. The parallelism does
not extend to the final unstressed allophone of fa/, which is a mid-central
[~].The long vowels fe:f and fo:f have no corresponding short vowels; so
similar statements cannot be made about them.
An analysis that recognizes distinctive vowel length, either in terms of a
separate phoneme of length, geminate vowels, or unitary long vowel
phonemes, is adequate in Egyptian Arabic for slow, careful, or citation
speech, in spite of the imbalance of long fe :f and fo :f with no correspond-
ing short vowels. I do not believe, however, that it is adequate for normal
speech, for the simple reason that there does not seem to be any consistent
or organized use of vowel length in normal speech. It is true that there is a
tradition of distinctive vowel length in Arabic, a tradition within which I
believe the above-mentioned investigators to have done their investiga-
tions, 6 but this does not mean that this distinctive length actually occurs
when speakers of the dialect are using language for ordinary communi-
cative purposes.
The only investigator who gives any precise meaning to the words long
and short, and who presents any evidence other than impressionistic hear-
ing, is Abdalla. 7 He finds that the mean average durations for nonfinal
stressed long and short vowels in 200 short utterances recorded by four
different informants is 16 and 10 centiseconds, respectively. However, he
does not present very convincing evidence that what he was analysing
was ordinary conversation, in spite of his statement that the informants
were asked to make their recordings as natural-sounding as possible. The
informants were all educated speakers and were called upon to record
short, unrelated utterances in a studio setting. It is unlikely that such
speakers under such circumstances, even with the best of will and effort,
would avoid falsifying their speech-especially in the matter of vowel
length, where educational traditions weigh rather heavily upon the well-
schooled informant.
Furthermore, Abdalla was primarily concerned with intonation (where
there is no educational tradition to influence the informant), not vowel
length. Although there is no reason to doubt his figures, it must be kept in
mind that length was a secondary concern in his study, and he may very

6 According to Henri Fleisch, "La conception phonetique des arabes," Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft, CVIII (1958), 103, this tradition is not in-
digenous to the Arabic grammatical tradition and seems ultimately to be derived from
Latin grammar via Hebrew grammarians.
7 Albert Abdalla, An Instrumental Study of the Intonation of Egyptian Colloquial
Arabic (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1960), p. 20.
96 WILLIAM COWAN

well not have been concerned with the naturalness of such a feature to the
same extent that he was with the naturalness of the intonation patterns. In
short, we have yet to get a really precise instrumental analysis of vowel
length in normal Arabic speech.
It is my impressionistic observation that vowels in Egyptian Arabic
occur as slightly longer or shorter than a hypothetical median length.
However, all vowels exhibit this variation, which seems to be affected in
part by the allophonics of syllabic structure, voicing and stress, and in part
by affective or stylistic factors. I agree with other investigators that there
are eight vocalic contrasts, in normal speech as well as in citation speech.
In this article, though, I shall argue that the phonetic facts and the re-
actions of native speakers indic<?.te that these contrasts are better analysed
as eight simple vowels, /i I ea o u u ';};,s rather than as three short vowels
and five long ones. I shall also argue that some transcriptional and morpho-
phonemic difficulties are clarified by this analysis. This analysis is, in effect,
a modification and extension of the one presented by Birkeland, but with a
more realistic phonetic background and without the concepts of neutrali-
zation and concomitant shortness inherent in his statements.
I observe the following contrasts:

/i/: a high front unrounded vowel: [din] 'religion'

/I/: a lower high front unrounded vowel: [sit] 'lady'
jej: a mid front unrounded vowel: [den] 'debt'
fa/: a low vowel ranging from front [ce] in nonemphatic position: [?~l]
'he said', to back [a] in emphatic position: [~am] 'he fasted'
joj: a mid back rounded vowel: [y6m] 'day'
jvj: a lower high back rounded vowel: [Hub] 'love'
juj: a high back rounded vowel: [nur] 'light'
M: a mid-central unrounded vowel: [d;)m] 'blood'
All of these have slight allophanic modification in terms of environment
which need not be outlined here.9 In this analysis, the vowels /I';} vj corre-
spond to the traditional short vowels /i a uj, and the vowels /i e a o uj
correspond to the traditional long vowels ji: e: a: o: u:j. All the contrasts
signaled in the traditional analysis are preserved in the one proposed here.
There are, however, some basic differences between the systems in the

s A system much like this is described for Moroccan Arabic by Majed Sa'id, Spoken
Moroccan Arabic (Washington, D.C., 1955), and followed by Harrell in A Short Reference
Grammar of Moroccan Arabic (Washington, D.C., 1962). Such a system of simple vowels
will probably work for a number of other Arabic dialects.
9 My observations on the allophanic variation do not differ significantly from those of
Harrell.
 THE VOWELS OF EGYPTIAN ARABIC 97
distribution of various phonemes, which results in a different phonemic
representation for a number of items.
One ofthe basic operations of phonemic analysis is that once a maximum
number of contrasts have been established in a minimal position-in this
case, the position jcvcj-then segments that occur in other positions are
assigned to one or another of these contrasting entities on the basis of
phonetic similarity, unless there are other considerations, such as morpho-
phonemic utility, or balance of pattern, that dictate otherwise. Even then,
these considerations can be used only to assign a segment with a phonetic
shape other than those occurring in the minimal position. They cannot be
used to assign a segment with a phonetic shape similar or identical to a
basically contrasting entity to a different entity or to assign it now to one
basic entity, now to another. To do so may be a legitimate part oflinguistic
analysis, but it is not phonemic analysis.
On the basis of these considerations, when I hear an utterance with a
vowel whose quality is similar or identical to the vowel of [din], I represent
that vowel with the symbol /i/, reflecting my identification of the vowel
concerned with the vowel of [din]. I do the same with vowels similar to
the vowel of [nur], identifying them as examples of the phoneme juj, and
so forth. This operation is very elementary and would hardly be worth
mentioning except that apparently other Arabists do not use it. One of
the difficulties of the traditional analysis is that, having established basic
contrasts on the basis of distinctive vowel length, and having established
phoneme distribution on this basis also, linguists following it are re-
quired by their presuppositions to continue to observe features of length
even when length is not present, as is the case in normal speech.
This leads to the following two violations of the operation outlined
above: like-sounding segments are given differing phonemic interpreta-
tions, and different-sounding segments are given the same phonemic
interpretation in environments where allophanic variation is not pertinent.
In the following paragraphs I discuss some points where the traditional
analysis and the one proposed here differ.
According to the traditional analysis, the long vowels occur in final
position only under stress, with the exception of fo :j, which does not occur
in final position at all, as in the following examples: fgibi :/'bring (fern. sing.)
it!'; jgale :/ 'on him'; jrama :/ 'he threw it'; jsafU :/ 'they saw him'. The
vowels ji/ and juj, of the same quality as /i:j and ju:f but shorter, occur
here only unstressed, as in jgi: bi/ 'bring (fern. sing.)' and /sa: fu/'they saw'.
According to the analysis proposed here, seven of the eight vowels can
occur stressed in final position, as in jg1bi/ 'bring (fern. sing.) it!'; jgij 'he
came'; jgale/ 'on him'; jr.:Jmaj 'he threw it'; i?.:Jh6/ 'there it is'; js.:Jfuj 'they
98 WILLIAM COWAN

saw him'; /bidfJ/ 'with this'. In addition, the vowels /i :) u/ can occur
unstressed in final position: /gibi/ 'bring (fern. sing.)'; /rfJm:)/ 'he threw';
/safu/ 'they saw'. These conclusions are based on the observation that,
with the exception of stress, the final vowels of [gibi] and [g1bi] are identi-
cal, as are the final vowels of [srefu] and [s:)fu], and [rfJm:)] and [b1dfJ].
In the traditional analysis, long vowels occur only under stress and
followed by no or only one consonant. Therefore, no prestress vowel may
be long. However, there are a large number of verb forms in which a pre-
stress vowel is identical or nearly so with the long vowel /i :f. These are
forms of the third-person masculine and plural present-tense in which the
verb stem rather than the prefix receives the stress, and which are preceded
by a /b/ indicating indicative mood: [binrem] 'he sleeps', [bisUfu] 'they see'.
Subjunctive forms of these verbs occur without the /b/, and the prefix has
the shape [yr]: [ymrem] and [yrsUfu].
In the traditional analysis, the first syllable of the indicative forms is
represented as /biy/, apparently on the presupposition that a long vowel
cannot occur in this position, as well as on the belief that the /yI should be
retained to preserve the morphemic relation between the indicative and
subjunctive forms. Harrell specifically states that his jiy/ does not contrast
with his /i:/ and that the transcription /iy/ is adopted for purposes of a
neater statement of vowel distribution (i.e., putative vowel length is dis-
regarded even by one who asserts that it is phonemic). My observation is
that the first vowel of [binrem] and all forms like it is identical to the vowel
of [din], again except for stress, and I accordingly transcribe /bimim/.
Therefore, in the phonemic analysis proposed here, at least one vowel
corresponding to a long vowel of the traditional analysis does occur in
prestressed posi' 'on.
According to the traditional analysis, long vowels do not occur before
two consonants. When morphemic combinations would lead to such a
situation, the long vowels are replaced by short vowels according to the
following scheme: /i: e :/,...., /i/: /di :n/ 'religion', /de: n/ 'debt', but /dinkum/
'your (pl.) religion' or 'your (pl.) debt'; /a:/,...., /a/: /sa: f/ 'he saw', but /safni/
'he saw me'; fo: u:f,....,/u/: /d6:r/ '(a) turn', /du:r/ 'houses', but /durha/
'her turn' or 'her houses'. This is true in citation speech as well as, in part,
in normal speech. However, it is frequent that in normal speech the quality
of the vowels in the unsuffixed and suffixed forms is identical; that is, the
form for 'he saw me' can be either [srefni] or [sfJfni]; for 'your (pi.) debt' can
be either [denkum] or [dinkum].
Admittedly, the forms with the unshifted vowel are rare, but they do
occur, and the rules of transcription ought to permit an accurate recording
of them. The traditional analysis would either falsify length by transcribing
/de: nkum/ or falsify quality by transcribing /dinkum/. In the proposed
 THE VOWELS OF EGYPTIAN ARABIC 99
system, since there is no commitment to length, such a form can be repre-
sented as fdenkum/ or fdinkum/, as the case may be. The variants with the
unshifted vowel are observed by MitcheU,tO who states that in certain com-
binations his /i/ and fii/ have the same quality, as do his fuf and fuuf, thus
violating allophonic rules that he establishes earlier.
The morphophonemic alteration mentioned above, when it occurs, is
more readily apparent in an eight-vowel analysis than in a long-short
vowel analysis, where both length and quality vary in the relations fe :/,..., /i/
and fo :/"' fuf. In the system where only quality is pertinent, this morpho-
phonemic variation is between contiguous vowels, as illustrated in the
accompanying chart, where alternating vowels are bracketed:

It is my observation, as it is Birkeland's, that native speakers of Egyptian

Arabic respond to vowel quality rather than vowel length when asked to
make phonetic identifications. A vowel of the quality [i] is classified as 'the
same' as the vowel of [din], for example, whether it is said with e~aggerated
length, exaggerated shortness, or neither. Similarly, a vowel of the quality
[1] is identified as the same as the vowel of [sit] under similar conditions.
This seems to be true, too, of the remaining eight basic contrasts established
above, at least in stressed positions.
Morphophonemic alteration, morphemic identifications, and spelling
conventions known by speakers complicate phonemic identifications in
unstressed positions, but this is also true in the traditional analysis. Since
the pertinent consideration is length versus nonlength, a minimum position
contrast is sufficient.t 1 In any event, native speakers can hear the difference
between the first vowel of /kitab/ 'book' and the first vowel of /bimim/,
whatever terms they may use to express it.
An analysis of eight simple vowels for Egyptian Arabic, certainly more
adequate if not necessary for normal speech, can also handle all the details
10 T. F. Mitchell, An Introduction to Egyptian Colloquial Arabic (Oxford, 1956), p. 112.
11 The contrasts of the dialect could be represented by three vowel symbols: /i a u/ for
short vowels, /ii ia aa ua uu/ for long vowels. The advantage of this view is that, for the
morphophonemic alterations between long and short vowels, a general rule could be
established that the second of any two successive vowels is dropped when the condi-
tions for shortening obtain: /diin/, but /dinkum/; /dian/ [de:n], but /dinkum/; /saaf/,
but /safni/; /duar/ [d6:r], but dllrha/; /duur/, but /durha/.
100 WILLIAM COWAN

of citation speech as well, since length alone does not ever seem to be the
only factor in distinguishing vowels. Length, if present, can be assigned as
an allophanic feature of the vowels /i e a o uj. It might be argued that,
where the facts allow, an analysis that makes use of five vowel symbols, as
does Lehn's, or five vowel symbols plus a symbol for length, as does
Harrell's, is in some way more economical than an analysis that makes use
of eight vowel symbols. This would not be a very convincing argument in
view of the small number of symbols involved-five, six, or eight-and
any attempt to make it so would have an air of rather special pleading.
Here is a short text transcribed according to the proposed analysis: 12
[?Jss;}ngwi ?;}ng ?g<;Jetu sitt Isnin .. ddw;)?ti fi x;}mgs smin. ddw;)?ti ?Jlmgdans
Iss;)ngwi ?Jlbgnat biyrgmilu x;}mgs smin ze ?~~~ubyan bq::?;)bt. ?iHng g;)lg
?gyyamng kanum ?Jlbgnat biy1drisum sitt 1snin, 1ms x;)msg. fg ?JlHg?f?g
?J<;l?gl;)mng ?iHng bmnizbg. m;)sglgn ?gxuyg x;)lJg~ fix;)mgs smin Wix;)Hgs
mggayg fmMs Iss;)ng mgginnu huwwg ?;):?ygr minni.]
"I stayed in secondary school six years. Now it's five years. Now [in]
secondary schools the girls do five years just like the boys. In our day, the
girls nsed to study six years, not five. The fact is, we suffered by comparison.
For example, my brother finished in five years and finished with me the
same year even though he's younger than I."
Department of Linguistics
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912

12 I omit pitch, terminals, and other than primary stress. Spaces indicate word
boundaries.