Abstract
Pain Constructions (PCs) constitute a class of experiential constructions expressing situations that involve unpleasant physical experiences (e.g. headache, burning eyes, dizziness, etc.). Previous cross-linguistic comparisons have shown that, though languages do not have dedicated morphosyntactic structures for encoding pain, there are certain constructions that are more likely to express physical experiences. Based on original data elicited by means of a situational questionnaire, this paper aims at analyzing the semantic and syntactic properties of PCs in modern Arabic dialects and to make typological generalizations about their cross-dialect variation. Benefiting from insights from both linguistic typology and contact linguistics, the study eventually shows that, despite considerable lexicosemantic and morphosyntactic variation, PCs in Arabic can be reduced to two main syntactic types: locational and inverse constructions.
Acknowledgments
This study would not have been possible without the crucial collaboration of Fabio Gasparini (Freie Universität Berlin) and Michael Spagnol (University of Malta) who kindly provided me with data about Dhofari Arabic and Maltese respectively. I would like to thank Mourad Alaoui, Nasim Alamin, Suat Instanbullu (SeDyL – INALCO), and Rola Skaf (LACITO – INALCO) for having accepted to participate in the study as consultants. Lastly, a special thank goes to Christopher Lucas (SOAS) and Bruno Herin (INALCO) for their useful comments on this paper. Any mistakes, or mistaken conclusions, remain mine alone.
References
Ameka, Felix. 1990. The grammatical packaging of experiencers in Ewe: A study in the semantics of syntax. Australian Journal of Linguistics 10(2). 139–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609008599440.Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2021. The grammar of well-being: How to talk about illness and health in an amazonian society. Cadernos de Linguistica 2(1). 1–33.10.25189/2675-4916.2021.v2.n1.id322Search in Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte & Bernd Kortmann. 2002. Typology and dialectology: A programmatic sketch. In Jan Berns & Jaap van Maarle (eds.), Present day dialectology: Problems and findings, 159–172. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110904765.159Search in Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2004. Dialectology and typology – an integrative perspective. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a crosslinguistic perspective, 11–45. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Bonch-Osmolovskaya, Anastasia, Ekaterina V. Rakhlina & Tatiana Reznikova. 2007. Conceptualization of pain: A database for lexical typology. In Peter Bosch, David Gabelaia & Jérôme Lang (eds.), Logic, language, and computation, 110–123. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-00665-4_10Search in Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1998. Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In Jack Feuillet (ed.), Actance et valence dans les langues d’Europe, 259–294. Berlin, New York: De Gryuter.10.1515/9783110804485.259Search in Google Scholar
Chamoreau, Claudine. 2012. Dialectology, typology, diachrony and contact linguistics. A multi-layered perspective in Purepecha. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 65(1). 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2012.0002.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2013. Existential predication in a typological perspective. In Paper presented at the 46th meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Split, 18–21 September 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2015. Existential predication and trans-possessive constructions. In Paper presented at the conference La prédication existentielle dans les langues naturelles: Valeurs et repérages, structures et modalités, INALCO (Paris) April 10–11, 2015.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky James (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_5Search in Google Scholar
Dahlgren, Sven-Olof. 1998. Word order in Arabic. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Search in Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 2006. On grammatical agreement and verbal-initial sentences. In PierGiorgio Borbone, Alessandro Mengozzi & Mauro Tosco (eds.), Linguistic and Oriental studies in honour of Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti, 329–336. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Search in Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2010. The relation between focus and theticity in the Tuu family. In Ines Fiedler & Anne Schwarz (eds.), The expression of information structure: A documentation of its diversity across Africa, 69–93. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.91.03gulSearch in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1998. On the grammar of pain. Functions of Language 5(1). 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.02hal.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, 53–83. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.46.04hasSearch in Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581908Search in Google Scholar
Kiessling, Roland. 2002. Wille, Initiierung und Kontrolle – zur Morphosemantik von Experiensverben im Südkuschitischen. In Theda Schuman, Mechthild Reh, Roland Kiessling & Ludwig Gerhardt (eds.), Aktuelle Forschungen zu afrikanischen Sprachen, 171–192. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. Aboutness as a cognitive category: The thetic-categorical distinction revised. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society – 1987, 366–381.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1800Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects. An analysis of the merging of S and O in Sentence-Focus Constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24. 611–682. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.3.06lam.Search in Google Scholar
Lascaratou, Chryssoula. 2007. The language of pain. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/celcr.9Search in Google Scholar
Manfredi, Stefano. 2010. A grammatical description of Kordofanian Baggara Arabic. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Manfredi, Stefano. 2017. Arabi Juba: Un pidgin-créole du Soudan du Sud. Leuven-la-Neuve: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar
Manfredi, Stefano. 2020. Contact and calquing. In Christopher Lucas & Stefano Manfredi (eds.), Arabic and contact-induced change, 625–641. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2000. A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 4. 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.307.Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne M. & the APiCS Consortium. 2013. Experiencer constructions with ‘headache. In Susanne Maria Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://apics-online.info/parameters/66.chapter.html.Search in Google Scholar
Naïm, Samia. 2017. L’expression des émotions en arabe: Variation intra et interdialectale. In Nicole Tersis & Pascal Boyeldieu (eds.), Le language de l’émotion: Variations linguistiques et culturelles, 461–480. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar
Owens, Jonathan, Robin Dodsworth & Trent Rockwood. 2009. Subject-verb order in spoken Arabic: Morpholexical and event-based factors. Language Variation and Change 21(1). 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394509000027.Search in Google Scholar
Reznikova, Tatiana, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Anastasia Bonch-Osmolovskaya. 2012. Towards a typology of pain predicates. Linguistics 50(3). 421–465. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0015.Search in Google Scholar
Richardson, Grace. 2012. Pain expression in different cultures: A qualitative study of the analysis for the cues of pain in different cultures. Vaasa: Novia University of Applied Sciences BA dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–580. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511.Search in Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1995. Theticity and VS order: A case study. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 48(1/2). 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1995.48.12.3.Search in Google Scholar
Stessen, Leon. 2013. Predicative possession. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: MPA. http://wals.info/chapter/117 (accessed 10 April 2021).10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00206-6Search in Google Scholar
Schott, Geoffrey D. 2004. Communicating the experience of pain: The role of analogy. Pain – Journal of the International Association for the Study of Pain 108. 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.01.037.Search in Google Scholar
Ulrich, Miorita. 1988. Thetisch vs. kategorisch und Informationsstruktur. In Jörn Albrecht, Harald Thun & Jens Lüdtke (eds.), Energeia und Ergon: Sprachliche Variation – Sprachgeschichte – Sprachtypologie, 387–399. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston