Article published In:
Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages: Online-First Articles

What can the stories of a frog tell us about motion event description in Gulf Pidgin Arabic?

| Emirates Schools Establishment
Motion event description has received little attention in contact linguistics as compared to other branches of linguistics. To address this gap, I provide an overview of the grammatical and lexical resources for the encoding of motion events in Gulf Pidgin Arabic (GPA). 10 GPA speakers narrated the story of a boy, his dog, and his missing pet frog. The results revealed: (a) the participants used a relatively large number of path verbs and a comprehensive number of spatial particles; (b) they showed an overwhelming aversion to the description of manner in boundary-crossing and caused motion situations; and (c) they engineered coercive constructions to deal with semantically complex situations. Taken together, the linguistic evidence suggests GPA is developing into a verb-framed language type. This study adds a significant methodological and empirical weight to the existing literature and has the potential to encourage intra- and inter-disciplinary comparative work on motion event description.
Keywords: Gulf, pidgin, Arabic, motion, event, manner, path
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Theoretical framework
    • 3.2Analytical framework
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Hypotheses
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Motion verbs
    • 4.2The distribution and frequency of spatial particles
    • 4.3The description of Boundary-crossing and manner of motion
    • 4.4The expression of caused motion
      • 4.4.1The xalli construction
    • 4.5Motion verbs and the expression of aspect
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The lexicalization of motion in GPA as compared to JA
    • 5.2Is GPA developing into a V-framed language?
  • 6.Conclusion, limitations, and guidance for future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.00122.lou
References (35)
References
Al Moaily, Mohammad. 2012. Language variation in Gulf Pidgin Arabic. Ph.D. Thesis. The School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics at Newcastle University.
Bakir, Murtadha J. 2010. Notes on the verbal system of Gulf Pidgin Arabic. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 25(2). 201–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baptista, Marlyse. 2005. New directions in pidgin and creole Studies. Annu. Rev. Anthropol 341, 33–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A., & Slobin, D. Isaac (eds.). 1994. Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bizri, Frida. 2009. The Middle East: Sinhala in contact with Arabic: The birth of a new pidgin in the Middle East. Annual review of South Asian languages and linguistics, 133–148. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, Teresa. 2010. Motion in Danish as a second language: Does the learner’s L1 make a difference? In ZhaoHong Han and Teresa Cadierno (eds.), Linguistic Relativity Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking, 1–33. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dana, Abdulrahim. 2013. A Corpus Study of Basic Motion Verbs in Modern Standard Arabic. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational templates. Mind and Language 281, 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott and Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. The use of picture stories in the investigation of crosslinguistic influence. TESOL Quarterly 421, 329–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Louhichi, I. 2015. The ‘motionisation’ of Verbs: A Contrastive Study of Thinking-for-speaking in English and Tunisian Arabic. PhD thesis, University of Sussex.
2018. The description of motion events in Tunisian Arabic: A thinking-for-speaking approach. Sino-US English Teaching 15 (7), 346–361Google Scholar
2019. Can advanced L2 speakers of English ‘unlearn’ their L1 thinking-for-speaking habits? International Journal of Language and Linguistics 6 (1), 1–12.Google Scholar
(2023). On the etymology and distribution of verb forms in Arabic-based pidgins: A usage-based approach. To appear in Journal of Pidgins and Creoles.Google Scholar
Klimenko, S. B. 2012. Motion Verbs in Tagalog, Ilokano, and Tuwali Ifugao. Master Thesis. University of The Philippines.
Manfredi, Stefano and Sara Petrollino. 2013. Juba Arabic. In S. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M. Haspelmath, and M. Huber (eds.), APICS, The Survey of pidgin and creole languages, vol III: Pidgins, creoles and mixed languages based on languages from Africa, Asia, Australia and the Americas, 54–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, Where Are You? New York: Dial Books.Google Scholar
Miller, C. (2002). The relevance of Arabic-based pidgin/creoles for Arabic linguistics. In Gerda Mansour & Madiha Doss (eds.), Al-lugha contributions to Arabic linguistics, 7–45. Cairo: Arab Research Centre.Google Scholar
Nakao, Shuichiro. (2014) “Grammaticalization of já ‘come’ and rúwa ‘go’ in Juba Arabic” in Hieda Osamu (ed.) Recent advances in Nilotic linguistics (Studies in Nilotic linguistics 8), 33–49. Tokyo: ILCAA.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B. 2003. Motion events and the lexicon: A case study of Hindi. Lingua 1131, 123–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Unn Gyda. 2008. Gulf pidgin Arabic’: Individual strategies or a structured variety? Oslo: University of Oslo, MA thesis.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1988. Pidgin and creole languages. London; New York: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1992. Language, education, and development: urban and rural Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. Isaac. 1996a. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 195–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1996b. From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2000. Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In Susanne Niemeier and René Dirven (eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity, 107–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. Isaac. 2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic diversity. In Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 157–192. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog. In Sven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 219–258. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. Isaac & Nini Hoiting. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles Fillmore, 487–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. (1990). Pidginization in Gulf Arabic: A first report. Anthropological Linguistics 321. 83–118.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Tim Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol iii: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 56–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 1995. A pidgin verbal system: The case of Juba Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics 37(4), 423–459. Retrieved June 10, 2021, from [URL]