An attempt to apply the method

Beedham (2005:163-164) conveniently summarises his method in six distinct phases. I will briefly restate each of these and use this framework to comment upon how my own research detailed in the forthcoming chapters follows this methodology or to what extent it departs from it.

1.2.2.1 Phase 1: choose a formal construction

Beedham specifies that the researcher should choose a construction which has a sufficiently large number of lexical exceptions. Moreover, for purposes of comparison, he requires study of the chosen construction in two or more languages in which the researcher is fluent. The concept of fluency in Modern Standard Arabic is somewhat nebulous in itself (see further discussion in section 2.2.1.2), but I will assume sufficient competency in the language to have the required degree of intuitive insight. However, my fluency in English and in other European languages will be of very little assistance in the present research, since my chosen construction is morphological and thus language-specific, or at least peculiarly Semitic. Whilst I have some familiarity with Hebrew, and pan-Semitic comparison does provide some insight into the nature of the Arabic verbal system in general (as evidenced in Chapters 3 and 4), the specific vowel

lengthening verb patterns of Arabic which become the focus of my study from Chapter 5 onwards have no well-attested cognates in Hebrew. Thus, if I were to follow the requirements of Beedham's methodology rigidly, I would conclude that since no cross-linguistic element to the study is possible, it is not suitable for application of the method.

However, it is my contention that while the benefits of insights from other languages may be seen in Beedham's own work, it is not a fundamental underlying principle that the method must be applied simultaneously in more than one language. I will therefore work here with Arabic alone. I will, however, delay singling out one particular morphological pattern as suitable for analysis until I have surveyed the verbal system as a whole.

1.2.2.2 Phase 2: identify the problems, anomalies, contradictions, etc.

From the outset, I have in mind the confusing, often anomalous semantics of the Arabic verbal patterns. This, in general terms, becomes the focus of Chapter 4. However, having in mind the morphological complexities of the verbal system, and conscious of the methodological principle of proceeding from form to meaning, I am led first to comprehensively survey all verbs in the language according to their derivational patterns and the interactions between those patterns (Chapter 2), and to attempt to gain a better understanding of the morphological system (Chapter 3) which gives rise to verbal forms. Having established the formal basis for the verb patterns, in Chapter 4 I explore the semantic issues involved in characterising the various verbal patterns, surveying the problems, anomalies, etc. in the system as a whole before tackling the form-meaning

relationship for a specific verb pattern (in fact, for two related patterns) in the next phase.

1.2.2.3 Phase 3: identify the unexplained lexical exceptions

In order to do this, I must formulate the thesis I wish to challenge. In Chapter 5, I collect dictionary data for all verbs occurring in the vowel lengthening patterns, as Beedham recommends, and establish that the dominant pattern III meaning is mutual (or implicitly reciprocal) and, similarly, that pattern VI most often has explicit reciprocal meaning. Thus in terms of Beedham's method, the thesis to be examined is that the vowel lengthening patterns give rise to mutual or reciprocal meaning. Although no grammarian would claim this to be a prescriptive rule, many identify it as the most characteristic tendency of these patterns and it thus clearly merits closer scrutiny.

Note that I am proceeding from regularity of form to irregularity of meaning directly, unlike Beedham's applications, in which the lexical exceptions display irregular formal properties in morphology or syntax. However, since up to one third of all verbs in the patterns concerned do not fit the thesis, even when both morphologically related patterns occur together, rather than proceeding to examine the substantial set of exceptions more closely, I conclude that the underlying basis of the thesis is flawed and turn to a different property in search of consistent meaning.

In Chapter 6 the focus turns to the syntactic behaviour of the set of verbs in question and especially the derivational meaning of the prefix which distinguishes pattern VI from pattern III. The thesis is now that the ta- prefix is detransitivising. However, even an approach to detransitivisation on the basis of numerical valency is

found to be inadequate to explain the antithetical set which constitutes 40% of the verbs.3

.

1.2.2.4 Phase 4: identify the properties of the exceptions

This phase concentrates on identifying formal properties, though Beedham recognises that it may also be helpful to study the semantic properties of the exceptions. Concerning detransitivisation, I intuitively observe in the course of compiling the data in Chapter 6 that ta- prefixation often causes a verbal argument to change from being a direct object to an indirect object and that this phenomenon is common amongst the exceptions. Although I do not formally compile a list of exceptions at this stage, I have identified a property which allows me to theorise.

1.2.2.5 Phase 5: what might lead to the exceptions?

At this point, I depart significantly from Beedham: instead of concentrating now on the exceptions themselves, I use what I have discovered about them to inform my view of transitivity. Whereas Beedham looks at the set of exceptions and asks why they are anomalous, I return to look at the entire population and ask how I can reformulate the thesis to bring the exceptions into line and dispense with the anomaly. In this case, I develop a hierarchical model of transitivity, which redefines what we mean by detransitivisation in Arabic. In some respects, my departure from Beedham's methodology is not that great: I have arrived at the same point as he does by a different route and have succeeded in reformulating a grammatical rule to eliminate (most)

3 In Chapter 6 I will use the term 'numerical valency' to indicate the simple number of verbal arguments contrasted with 'hierarchical valency' which takes account of the nature of those arguments.

unexplained exceptions.

1.2.2.6 Phase 6: the semantic phase

Beedham now asks whether the meaning corresponding with the formal characteristic which has been identified in the exceptions is applicable to the construction as a whole. Although I have found a solution to the detransitivising prefix which is applicable to the whole set of verbs I am interested in, this new view of transitivity proves to be of no benefit in understanding the vowel lengthening component of their morphology. I am no closer to discovering its meaning and must therefore reassess the methodology.