Arab and Arabic Linguistics: Traditional and New Theoretical Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers included address multiple aspects of classical and colloquial Arabic: phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicology and lexicography, but also semantics and pragmatics, as well as logic and argumentation. The title chosen by the editor, Manuela E.B. Giolfo, recalls that Arabic was the object of a rich indigenous tradition of linguistic analysis long before becoming, from the nineteenth century onwards, an object of modern Western linguistics. One of the book’s ambitions is to show that ‘Arab linguistics’ and ‘Arabic linguistics’ should not be strangers to each other, but rather complementary. \nTABLE OF CONTENTS: \nPierre Larcher, Foreword (in French), page v; \nAcknowledgements, page vii; \nManuela E.B. Giolfo, “‘Arab Linguistics’ and ‘Arabic Linguistics’: After a Quarter of a Century”, page 1; \nAlex Bellem, “Triads, Emphatics and Interdentals in Arabic Sound System Typology”, page 9; \nJoseph Dichy, “Al-Ḫalīl’s Conjecture: How the First Comprehensive Dictionary in History was Invented”, page 43; \nMichael G. Carter, “Typological Change in Colloquial Arabic Verb Patterns”, page 69; \nPierre Larcher, “Wa-ʼin p, lākin(na) q : un croisement de deux systèmes argumentatifs en arabe classique”, page 93; \nLutz E. Edzard, “Logic, Interrogation, and Negation: The Case of Classical Arabic”, page 107; \nManuela E.B. Giolfo, “A Modal Interpretation of the Arabic Apocopate: Morpho-Syntax and Semantics”, page 119; \nAziza Boucherit, “Les verbes de < parler > en arabe algérien : affinités formelles et sémantiques”, page 145; \nAlex Bellem and Janet C.E. Watson, “Backing and Glottalization in Three SWAP Language Varieties”, page 169. \nTABLE OF CONTENTS: \nPierre Larcher, Foreword (in French), page v; \nAcknowledgements, page vii; \nManuela E.B. Giolfo, “‘Arab Linguistics’ and ‘Arabic Linguistics’: After a Quarter of a Century”, page 1; \nAlex Bellem, “Triads, Emphatics and Interdentals in Arabic Sound System Typology”, page 9; \nJoseph Dichy, “Al-Ḫalīl’s Conjecture: How the First Comprehensive Dictionary in History was Invented”, page 43; \nMichael G. Carter, “Typological Change in Colloquial Arabic Verb Patterns”, page 69; \nPierre Larcher, “Wa-ʼin p, lākin(na) q : un croisement de deux systèmes argumentatifs en arabe classique”, page 93; \nLutz E. Edzard, “Logic, Interrogation, and Negation: The Case of Classical Arabic”, page 107; \nManuela E.B. Giolfo, “A Modal Interpretation of the Arabic Apocopate: Morpho-Syntax and Semantics”, page 119; \nAziza Boucherit, “Les verbes de < parler > en arabe algérien : affinités formelles et sémantiques”, page 145; \nAlex Bellem and Janet C.E. Watson, “Backing and Glottalization in Three SWAP Language Varieties”, page 169.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".