Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 11:1 (2019) ► pp.1–42

go constructions in Modern Standard Arabic

A corpus-based study

| University of Bahrain
This paper investigates the constructional behaviour of three of the most frequent go verbs in Modern Standard Arabic: ḏahaba, maḍā, and rāḥa. These verbs are considered somewhat synonymous according to many classical and modern dictionaries of Arabic. Nevertheless, each verb has a distinctive profile manifested in its constructional behaviour, which explains why these verbs are not easily interchangeable in various contexts of use. In this paper, I will examine the prototypical uses of the three MSA go verbs based on corpus data (extracted from arabicorpus​.byu​.edu) by highlighting the lexico-syntactic frames they each associate with. This is achieved by annotating a large number of contextualized uses (per verb) for a variety of lexico-syntactic features. The data frame is subsequently probed with the help of Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (von Eye 1990; Gries 2004) as a means of highlighting recurring and significant patterns of variable co-occurrences. The quantitative analysis is followed by a qualitative analysis that further explores the lexico-syntactic frames that pertain to different aspects of a deictic motion event. The results obtained from both the quantitative and qualitative analyses highlight the idiosyncratic constructional properties that characterize the use of each verb in various physical and figurative motion event construals.
Keywords: go verbs, Arabic, corpus-based analysis, constructions, quantitative analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1 go verbs in MSA
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Corpus data
    • 2.2Constructing a data frame
  • 3.Quantitative analysis: HCFA
    • 3.1 verb x tense x aspect x morphological aspect and mood configurations
    • 3.2 verb x subject number x person x gender x semantic category configurations
    • 3.3 verb x subject semantic category x phrasal semantic category configurations
  • 4.Qualitative analysis
    • 4.1Deictic motion
      • 4.1.1Physical deictic motion
      • 4.1.2Non-physical deictic motion
    • 4.2Purposeful motion
    • 4.3Non-deictic motion
      • 4.3.1Travel / locomotion
      • 4.3.2Diverted motion / motion away from existence
    • 4.4Grammaticalized motion
  • 5.Summary
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 3 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00022.abd
References (50)
References
Abdulrahim, D. (2013). A corpus study of basic motion events in Modern Standard Arabic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. Available on [URL]
(2014). Annotating corpus data for a constructional analysis of motion verbs in Modern Standard Arabic. In Proceedings from The EMNLP 2014 Workshop on Arabic Natural Language Processing (ANLP 2014). (pp. 28–38). Doha, Qatar, October 25, 2014. DOI logo
(in press). Quantitative approaches to analyzing COME constructions in Modern Standard Arabic. In A. Hardie & T. McEnrey (Eds.), Arabic Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Biber, D. (1988). Variations across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botne, R. (2005). Cognitive schemas and motion verbs: Coming and going in Chindali (Eastern Bantu). Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1), 43–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Motion, time, and tense: On the grammaticalization of come and go to future markers in Bantu. Studies in African Linguistics, 35(2), 127–188.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, T., & Parkinson, D. (2010). A frequency dictionary of Arabic: Core vocabulary for learners. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. (1974). Normal states and evaluative viewpoints. Language, 60(2), 316–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Meola, C. (1994). ‘Kommen’ und ‘gehen’. eine kognitiv-linguistische untersuchung der polysemie deiktischer bewegungsverben. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
(2003). Non-deictic uses of the deictic motion verbs kommen and gehen in German. In F. Lenz (Ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person (pp. 41–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. S., & Gries, S. T. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering and comparing behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1966). Deictic categories in the semantics of ‘come’. Foundations of Language, 21, 219–227.Google Scholar
(1969). Types of lexical information. In F. Keifer (Ed.), Studies in syntax and semantics (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1970). Subjects, speakers and roles. Synthese, 211, 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1971). Toward a theory of deixis. The PCCLLU Papers, 3(4), 218–242.Google Scholar
(1972). How to know whether you are coming or going. Studies in Descriptive and Applied Linguistics, 51, 3–17.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In J. R. Firth, 1968, Selected papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959 (pp. 168–205). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. (1982). The past and the future: Are they coming or going? Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 322–334). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. (1977). A study of the comings and goings of the speakers of four languages: Spanish, Japanese, English, and Turkish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 61–94.Google Scholar
(1978). Towards a universal for deictic verbs of motion. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 31, 72–88.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (1997). The semantics of coming and going. Pragmatics, 7(2), 147–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2004). HCFA 3.2 – A Program for hierarchical configural frequency analysis for R for windows.Google Scholar
(2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run . In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Divjak, D. S. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal, 341, 121–150.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krauth, J., & Lienert, G. A. (1995). Die konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse (KFA) und ihre anwendung in Psychologie und medizin. Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlagsunion.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F. (1991). Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67(3), 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. (2000). Basic Verbs. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
(2004). Motivating the uses of basic verbs: Linguistic and extralinguistic considerations. In G. Radden, & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 193–218). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, J., & Lin, J. (2007). The purposefulness of going: A corpus-linguistic study. In J. Walinski, K. Kredens & S. Gozdz-Roszkowski (Eds.), Corpora and ICT in language studies (pp. 293–308). Lodz Studies in Language, Vol. 131. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Perrson, G. (1988). Homonymy, polysemy and heterosemy: The types of lexical ambiguity in English. Paper read at the Third International Symposium on Lexicography, University of Copenhagen: May 1–16, 1986. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (1996). Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 423–458). Berlin/NY: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauh, G. (1981). On coming and going in English and German. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 131, 53–68.Google Scholar
Ryding, K. C. (2005). A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinha, A. K. (1972). On the deictic use of ‘coming’ and ‘going’ in Hindi. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 351–358.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. S. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195–220). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Rodhe, A. (2004). The goal bias in the encoding of motion events. In G. Radden & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 249–268). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 181–238). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., Dirven, R., & Radden, G. (1999). Putting concepts together: Syntax. In R. Dirven & M. Verspoor (Eds.), Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics (pp. 79–105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
von Eye, A. (1990). Introduction to configural frequency analysis: The search for types and antitypes in cross-classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D. P., & Hill, D. (1995). When “go” means “come”: Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(2/3), 209–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Newman, John & Ying Zhang
2024. Mandarin posture verbs. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal DOI logo
Karin Ryding & David Wilmsen
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, DOI logo
Zaki, Mai, David Wilmsen & Dana Abdulrahim
2021. The Utility of Arabic Corpus Linguistics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics, ► pp. 473 ff. DOI logo
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.