The Syntax-Semantics Interface Of Copular Constructions: Evidence From Standard Arabic

Nasser Al-Horais

Abstract


This paper aims to provide additional supporting evidence for the Equative Approach by reducing the taxonomy of copular clauses into just two categories: predicational and equative. Data from copular structures in Standard Arabic are presented to bolster this approach. These data reveal that Standard Arabic features two distinct lexical copulas: (1) an inflected verbal copula, "kaana," and (2) a pro copula. A detailed examination of these two copular structures shows that the verbal copula is exclusively utilized in predicational clauses. In contrast, the pro copula is designated explicitly for equative clauses. This delineation indicates that the semantics of copular constructions cannot be adequately captured solely by the single-be analysis advocated by the Inverse Approach. Instead, an approach positing two copulas, one for prediction and one for equation, is deemed necessary, thereby advocating for the equivalent approach.

Keywords


Copular Clauses; Kaana; Predication; Equative Approach; Inverse Approach

Full Text:

PDF

References


Adger, D and G. Ramchand. (2003). Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 325-

359.

Alharbi, B. (2017). The Syntax of Copular Clauses in Arabic. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Al-Horais, N. (2021). On the Syntax of Zero Copular Constructions in Standard Arabic. KAU: Arts and Humanities Journal, 29, (7), (661–674).

Alsaeedi. M. (2015). The Rise of New Copulas in Arabic. MA Dissertation, Arizona State University.

Appleyard, D. (2007). Beja morphology, in: Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Morphologies of Asia

and Africa. Winona Lake (Indiana): Eisenbrauns, 447–480.

Bahloul, M. (1994). The Copula in Modern Standard Arabic. In Holes, C. & M. Eid (eds.)

Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics V. 209-29.

Broadwell, G. (2008). Turkish suspended affixation is lexical sharing. Proceeding of the

Lexical Functional Grammar 08 Conference, Miriam Butt and Tract Holloway King (eds.). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Carnie, A. (1997). Two types of non-verbal predication in Modern Irish. Canadian

Journal of Linguistics, 42(1-2), 57-73.

Chang, J-H. (2006). The Chinese copula SHI and Its Origin. Taiwan Journal of

Linguistics, (4),1, 131-156.

Clancy, S. J. (2010). The chain of being and having in Slavic. (Studies in Language

Companion Series 122). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Crass, J., Girma A. Demeke, R. Meyer and A. Wetter. (2005). Copula and Focus

Constructions in Selected Ethiopian Languages. University of Leipzig Papers on Africa: Languages and Literatures 25. Leipzig: Institut für Afrikanistik.

Crass, J. (2005). The copulas of K’abeena: Form, function and origin. Afrika und Übersee,

(86),1, 23-42.

Curnow, T. J. (2000). Towards a Cross-linguistic Typology of Copula Constructions. In

John Henderson (ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.

den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate

Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dey, L and M. Barbora. (2012). Copula Constructions in Assamese Sadri. In Hyslop, G.,

Morey, S., Post, M. (eds). North East Indian Linguistics, Volume 4. New Delhi: Cambridge University Pres. 353-370.

Dryer, M (1985). “Clause types”. In T. Shopen, (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic

Description. Volume 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Eid, M. (1983). The Copula Function of Pronouns. Lingua 59, 197-207.

Eid, M. (1991). Verbless Sentences in Arabic and Hebrew. In Comrie, B. & M. Eid (eds.)

Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III. Amesterdam: John Benjamins, 31-61.

Fassi Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Kluwer:

Dordrecht.

Gair, J. W. (1970). Colloquial Sinhalese Clause Structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Garland Press.

Geiger, W. (1938). A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language. Colombo: The Royal

Asiatic Society Ceylon BranchRoyal.

Geist, L. (2007). Predication and equation in copular sentences. Russian vs.

English. In: I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (eds.). Existence. Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer, 79–105.

Ginter, K. and Tarnói, L. (1991). Ungarisch für Ausländer. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.

Heggie, L. (1988). The Syntax of Copular Structures. Ph.D. dissertation, the University

of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Heller, D. (2005). Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of

specificational sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, the State University of New Jersey.

Heycock, C and A. Kroch. (1999). Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF

interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 365-397.

Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.

Klingvall, E. (2011). On non-copula tough constructions in Swedish. Working papers in

Scandinavian Syntax 88, 131-167.

Li, C.N. and S.A. Thompson. (1977). The causative in Wappo: a special case of doubling.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3, 175-181.

Mikkelsen, L. (2005). Copular Clauses: Specfication, Predication and Equation. John

Benjamins.

Mikkelsen L. (2011). Copular clauses. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and

Paul Portner (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, volume 2, 1805-1829. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Moro, A. (1997). The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press.

Partee, B. (1976). Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry

6, 203–300.

Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In: J.

Groenendijk, D. de Jong & M. Stokhof (eds.). Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifi ers. Dordrecht: Foris, 115–143.

Partee B. (1999). Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In: Dziwirek K et al

(eds). Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. Ann Arbor, MI, Michigan Slavic Publishers, pp 361–396.

Payne, T. (1997). Describing morphosyntax. A guide for field linguists. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Pereltsvaig, A. (2007). Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal

Relations. Springer.

Poornima, S. (2012). Hindi complex predicates at the syntax/semantics interface. Ph.D.

Thesis, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.

Roy, I. (2013). Nonverbal Predication, Oxford: OUP.

Sarage, J. (2014). The Zero Copula in Russian and Arabic Sentences as Compared with

English. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 2, (11), 119-126.

Selvanathan, N. (2016). Specificational Copular Clauses as Inverted Predications with a Semantics of Equation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 22, (1), 235-243.

Tayalati, F. & Danckaert, L. (2020). The syntax and semantics of Modern Standard Arabic resumptive tough-constructions. Folia Linguistica, 54 (1), 197-238.

Verheugd, E. (1990). Subject arguments and predicate nominals: a study of French copular sentences with two NPs. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Williams, E. (1983). Semantic versus syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6,

423-446.

Yoon, J. (2003). What the Korean copula reveals about the interaction of morphology and

syntax. In Patricia M. Clancy (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 11. CSLI, Stanford Linguistics Association, 34–49.

Zaring, L. (1996). Two "be" or not two "be": Identity, predication and the Welsh Copula.

Linguistics and Philosophy, 19, 103-142.

Ziadeh, J. and R. Bayly Winder. (1957). An Introduction to Modern Arabic. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Zólyomi, G. (2014). Copular Clauses and Focus Marking in Sumerian. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter Open.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18860/ijazarabi.v8i2.31782

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Nasser Al-Horais

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/