The Realization of the Uvular Stop [q] in Arabic

A Diachronic Phonetic and Phonological Study of the Uvular Stop [q] in Arabic
Author’s name: Taoufik GOUMA
Affiliation: University Paris 8
E-mail: Taoufik.gouma@etud.univ-paris8.fr
Among the different linguistic phenomena related to the study of Arabic linguistics and
particularly its phonology and phonetics, we find one related to the analysis of the uvular stop [q].
This phoneme attracted the attention of early Arab grammarians as well as many orientalists and
modern linguists for the different issues related to its evolution and treatment. We are going to
explore here two of these.
First of all we are going to give a diachronic analysis of this segment in early Classical Arabic
(CA henceforth) which is intended to determine its early phonetic realization. According to the
descriptions of some early Arab grammarians (such as Sibawayh and Ibn Jinni) the [q] of CA had
the phonetic value of [g]. Sibawayh for example describes it as majhuura (voiced) and as being
articulated in ‘aqsā llisan wama fawqahu mina lanak al alā’ (Al Kitāb, Vol 4, p. 433), i. e. as a
velar. Following Sibawayh, Ibn Jinni gives the same description when he says ‘wa mimā fawqa
dālika makhraju lqāf’ (Sir Senāat al Irāb, Vol 1, p. 278). Finally, Avicenna also describes it, in
his ‘’Rissāla’’, as a velar when he says that it is realized in the place of articulation of [x]. But,
when we look at the analysis of Ibn yaich (Sharal Mufassal, Vol 10, p. 124) we find that he
puts it in the same place of articulation as [k] and defines this place as lahāt, i. e. the uvula.
I show that these descriptions run counter to the phonetic features of [q] of fusa Arabic known in
modern linguistics, and in the traditional Quranic recitation, i. e. a voiceless uvular stop. Making
another analysis of the descriptions made by the Arab grammarians, I show that the reasons
behind this contradiction lie in our misunderstanding of the terms used by these last named, and
not in their non comprehension of the manner of articulation of this segment. As an example, what
Sibawayh calls ‘aqsā llisān’ is defined by Al Farāhidi as ‘aqsa lalq’ and by Al layth in ‘At
tahdīb’ as al lahāt, i. e. the uvula.
The second issue concerns the link that some linguists (Cantineau 1960, Jakobson 1957) made
between the [q] and the emphatics. This link was done on the basis of the place of articulation of
this segment which is uvular, and then guttural, which is not far from that of the secondary
articulation of the emphatics, i. e. the pharynx. I will give a phonetic and acoustic analysis of the
[q] through which I will show that this latter cannot be considered as an emphatic, and that the
feature it shares with the emphatics is only acoustic. This acoustic feature is what is called in
Arabic linguistics tafkhīm; a sort of grave resonance created by the shape of the oral cavity that is
larger as in the emphatics. This large configuration is due, at the same time, to the back of the
tongue which goes up to reach the uvula and to the front part of the tongue which goes down. If
[q] had the phonetic value of [g] then Arab grammarians would not have included it among the
mufaxxama, since [g] does not have this acoustic feature.

References.
- Al Nassir, A.A. 1993 ‘Sibawayh the Phonologist’ A critical study of the phonetic and phonological theory of
Sibawayh as presented in his treatise Al Kitaab. Kegan Paul International Ltd.
- Al Farāhīdi (1980) ‘Al ayn’, eds. Al Makhzumi et al. vols. I-IV, Baghdad.
- Az Zamakhshari (1999) ‘Al Mufassal fi sanat al irāb’, ed. Yaakoub. Beyrouth, Lebanon.
- Cantineau, J. (1960) ‘Cours de phonétique arabe’ P., Klincksieck, Paris.
- Cohen, D. (1988) ‘Les langues dans le monde ancien et moderne; les langues chamito-sémitiques’. Edition du
CNRS, Paris.
- Ibn Jinni (1954) ‘Sir Senāat al Irāb’, eds. Mustafa al Saqqa et al, Vol. 1. Cairo.
- Ibn Sīna (1981) ‘Rissāla fī asbāb udūth al urūf’, eds. Mohammad Hassan et al, Damascus.
- Jakobson, R. (1957) ‘Mufaxxama-the ‘Emphatic’ Phonemes in Arabic’, in E. Pulgram (e. d), Studies Presented
to Joshua Whatmough, Mouton, pp. 105-16.
- Moscati et al. (1981) ‘An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: phonology and
morphology’. Third printing, Otto Harrassowitz. Wiesbaden.
- Rabin, C. (1951) ‘Ancient Western Arabian’. London, Taylor’s Foreign Press’.
- Sibawayh. (1975) ‘Al Kitaab’ 4 vols. Ed. A.S.M. Harun, Cairo.