[sabiha aydelott] diversity in language contrasti(bookos.org)

Diversity in Language

This page intentionally left blank

Diversity in LanguageContrastive Studies

in Arabic and EnglishTheoretical

and Applied Linguistics

Edited byZeinab M. IbrahimSabiha T. AydelottNagwa Kassabgy

The American University in Cairo PressCairo New York

The American University in Cairo PressCairo and New York

Copyright 2000 byThe American University in Cairo Press

113 Sharia Kasr el AimCairo, Egypt

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, withoutthe prior written permission of the American University in Cairo Press.

Dar el Kutub No. 17881/99ISBN 977 424 578 4

Printed in Egypt

Contents

Foreword vContributors viiA Note on Transliteration and Transcription ofArabic Words xiAbbreviations xiv

Arabic Language: Distinctive Features

1 El-Said BadawiAn Opinion on the Meanings of i'rab in Classical Arabic: TheState of the Nominal Sentence. Summary in English 1

2 Huda M. M. GhaliThe Syntax of Colloquial Egyptian Proverbs 5

3 Devin StewartUnderstanding the Quran in English: Notes on Translation,Form, and Prophetic Typology 31

Arabic and English: Comparative Studies

4 Nagwa Kassabgy and Mono Kamel HassanRelativization in English and Arabic: A Bidirectional Study 49

5 Mohammad Al-KhawaldaThe Expression of Futurity in the Arabic and English Languages 70

6 Jehan AllamA Sociolinguistic Study on the Use of Color Terminology inEgyptian Colloquial and Classical Arabic 77

iv Contents

7 Nancy G. Hottel-BurkhartThe Canons of Aristotelian Rhetoric: Their Place inContrastive Arabic-English Studies 93

Writing: Learning Style and Form

8 Maha El-SeidiMetadiscourse in English and Arabic Argumentative Writing:A Cross-Linguistic Study of Texts Written by American andEgyptian University Students 111

9 Cynthia May Sheikholeslami and Nabila el-Taher MakhloufThe Impact of Arabic on ESL Expository Writing 127

10 Loubna Abdel-Tawab YoussefTeaching "Form" in English Verse to Arabic Poetry Readers 147

Language Acquisition: Attitudes and Comprehension

11 Christopher W. HorgerDialectal Analysis of Freshman Writing Students' Attitudestoward American and British Dialects 162

12 Abdel-Hakeem KasemThe Acquisition of the English Copula by Native Speakers ofLebanese Arabic: A Developmental Perspective 179

13 Salwa A. KamelCategories of Comprehension in Argumentative Discourse:A Cross-Linguistic Study 193

Follows English section

ForewordThe need for creating a forum for an exchange of ideas and understand-ing in the fields of English and Arabic linguistics and teaching led to theFirst International Conference on Contrastive Rhetoric, held at theAmerican University in Cairo (AUC), in February of 1999. This bookincludes manuscripts based on some of the presentations made at thatconference as well as a number of papers by several other scholars. Theopinions and ideas expressed in the manuscripts do not necessarily reflectour own, but we believe that they will contribute toward opening the fieldfor further research.

The focus of the book, which has been loosely organized into four sec-tions, is on English and Arabic linguistics and teaching. The first sectionfocuses on the Arabic language: its philosophy of tense, syntax, and theteaching of the Quran; the focus of the second section is on comparativestudies; the third section looks at writing; and the focus of the fourth sec-tion is on language acquisition, especially in terms of learners' attitudesand comprehension.

We would like to thank all the authors who submitted manuscripts,including those whose papers are not part of this volume. We are partic-ularly honored to include the contribution of Dr. El-Said Badawi, a dis-tinguished scholar in the field of Arabic linguistics and sociolinguistics.Our thanks also go to those who willingly gave of their time to reviewthe various manuscripts and provide us with valuable insights. The edi-tors also appreciate the support received from Mr. Mark Linz, Ms.Pauline Wickham, and Mr. Neil Hewison of the American University inCairo Press.

Finally, we dedicate this volume to our families, friends, and col-leagues in the field. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to createa forum for an exchange of ideas, and we hope this volume will inspirefuture development in the fields of Arabic and English applied and theo-retical linguistics as well as sociolinguistics.

Zeinab M. Ibrahim,Sabiha T. Aydelnott,Nagwa Kassabgy, editors

This page intentionally left blank

ContributorsJehan Allam ("A Sociolinguistic Study on the Use of Color Terminologyin Egyptian Colloquial and Classical Arabic") is a senior Arabic languageteacher in the American University in Cairo (AUC). Her research interestsinclude issues related to teaching and sociolinguistics. She is currentlyinvolved in research on youngsters' effect on language.

Sabiha T. Aydelott (editor) teaches in the Freshmen Writing Program atAUC. She has a doctorate in education, with specialization in reading andwriting, from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She has taught inPakistan, Iran, Turkey, and the United States. Her research interests are inreading assessment, diagnosis and remediation, comparative studies, andreading and writing across the curriculum.

El-Said Badawi ("An Opinion on the Meanings of i'rab in ClassicalArabic: The State of the Nominal Sentence") is professor of Arabic lin-guistics at AUC. He is the Director of the Arabic Language Instituteand Codirector of the Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA). Hisbook, Levels of Contemporary Arabic, is a landmark in the field ofArabic linguistics.

Huda M. M. Ghaly ("The Syntax of Colloquial Egyptian Proverbs") is anassociate professor in the Department of English of the Faculty of Arts at' Ain Shams University in Cairo. She received her Ph.D. in theoretical lin-guistics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University ofLondon, in 1988. Her dissertation was titled A Syntactic Study of theNominal Piece and Its Temporals in dar'eyya Arabic Based on the Theoryof Government and Binding. She is the author of several articles that focuson linguistic issues.

Mona Kamel Hassan ("Relativization in English and Arabic: ABidirectional Study") is an Arabic language instructor in the ArabicLanguage Institute of the American University in Cairo and has done

viii Contributors

research in the area of pragmatics and cross-cultural communication. Sheholds an M.A. in teaching Arabic as a foreign language from AUC.

Christopher W. Horger ("Dialectal Analysis of Freshman WritingStudents' Attitudes toward American and British Dialects") teaches in theFreshmen Writing Program at AUC. His field of interest is rhetoric andcomposition theory; he is a recent graduate of the TEFL program at AUC.His paper in this collection grew out of a research project for a sociolin-guistics class.

Nancy Hottel-Burkhart ("The Canons of Aristotelian Rhetoric: TheirPlace in Contrastive Arabic-English Studies"), an assistant profesor inhumanities and social sciences at al-Akhawayn University in Ifrane,Morocco, teaches comparative rhetoric and orality/literacy in the M.A.program in applied humanities. Her Ph.D. in applied linguistics is from theUniversity of Texas at Austin. She has taught and researched second-lan-guage writing and rhetoric since 1974, including a stint at AUC in theM.A. TEFL Program from 1987-1991.

Zeinab M. Ibrahim (editor) is the Executive Director of the Center forArabic Study Abroad. She received her Ph.D. from GeorgetownUniversity. Her research is in the fields of sociolinguistics and compara-tive studies.

Salwa A. Kamel ("Categories of Comprehension in ArgumentativeDiscourse: A Cross-Linguistic Study") is a professor of linguistics in thedepartment of English at Cairo University. Her area of specialization issyntax, and her other interests include stylistics and translation. She is theeditor of Cairo Studies in English and The Symposium on ComparativeLiterature Proceedings.

Abdel-Hakeem Kasem ("The Acquisition of the English Copula byNative Speakers of Lebanese Arabic: A Developmental Perspective") isa lecturer in Arabic language and culture studies in the School ofAustralian and International Studies at Deakin University, Melbourne.He is the editor of the Journal of Arabic, Islamic and Middle EasternStudies (JAIMES), an academic, refereed journal published by theFaculty of Arts of Deakin University. Abdel-Hakeem is also currentlyworking toward his Ph.D. in applied linguistics at La Trobe Universityin Melbourne.

Contributors ix

Nagwa Kassabgy ("Relativization in English and Arabic: A Bidi-rection-al Study"; editor) received her M.S. in teaching English as a foreign lan-guage (TEFL) from the American University in Cairo and is an Englishlanguage instructor in the English Language Institute at AUC. She is alsoinvolved in teacher training and has done research on EFL vocabularyacquisition and teaching grammar. She is a founding member ofEGYPTESOL, an affiliate of the international organization of Teachers ofEnglish to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

Mohammed Al-Khwalda ("The Expression of Futurity in the Arabic andEnglish Languages") earned his M.A. in linguistics from the University ofJordan in 1990. He received his Ph.D., also in linguistics from EssexUniversity in England in 1997. Currently he is n assistant professor atMu'tah University in Amman, Jordan. His primary interests are syntax,tense, aspect, and temporal reference.

Nabila el-Taher Makhlouf ("The Impact of Arabic on ESL ExpositoryWriting") received her M.A. in English Literature from Brown Universityand her M.A. in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) from theAmerican University in Cairo. She has taught English at a variety of lev-els, from kindergarten, primary, and secondary school, as well as at 'AinShams University in Cairo. She is currently an instructor in the EnglishLanguage Institute at AUC.

Maha El-Seidi ("Metadiscourse in English and Arabic ArgumentativeWriting: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Texts Written by American andEgyptian University Students") received her M.A. and Ph.D. in linguisticsfrom Cairo University in 1996. Currently she is a lecturer in linguistics inthe department of English at Minufiya University in Minufiya, Egypt.

Cynthia May Sheikholeslami ("The Impact of Arabic on ESL ExpositoryWriting") received her M.A. in teaching English as a second language(MATESL) from the University of Washington. Currently she is aninstructor in the Intensive English Program of the English LanguageInstitute at AUC. She studied contrastive rhetoric with Ulla Connor at theTESOL Summer Institute in Bratislava.

Devin Stewart ("Understanding the Quran in English: Notes onTranslation, Form, and Prophetic Typology") received his Ph.D. in Arabicand Islamic studies from the University of Pennsylvania in 1991, andreceived the Malcolm Kerr Award for the best dissertation in Middle EastStudies in 1992. He is currently an associate professor of Arabic and

x Contributors

Islamic studies in the Middle East Studies Department at EmoryUniversity in Atlanta, Georgia, where he teaches courses in Arabic andIslamic studies. His published works include Islamic Legal Orthodoxy(1998), and articles on Shi'ite Islam, Islamic law, and Arabic dialectology.

Loubna Abdel-Tawab Youssef ("Teaching "Form" in English Verse toArabic Poetry Readers") received her Ph.D. from the department ofEnglish at Cairo University, and her M.A. from St. John's College in SantaFe, New Mexico. An assistant professor at Cairo University, she teachesEnglish literature and rhetoric, translates books for children and writesarticles on literary criticism, poetry, and travel writing. Currently she isteaching at AUC.

A Note on Transliterationand Transcription of Arabic Words

Because the papers in this volume encompass a broad swath of issuesdealing with Arabic linguistics, the editors have found it necessary toimplement two distinct systems for representing Arabic: one a more or lessstandard transliteration (in italic type), and the second a simplified,American phonemic transcription (marked by oblique slashes). The lattersystem has been used in particular in cases that involve the representationof Egyptian colloquial Arabic (ECA) and in papers that treat the languagefrom a phonemic perspective; in all other cases the former system oftransliteration has been used.

Symbols used in transliteration

Symbol Arabic equivalent' (ordinary apostrophe)bt

th

Jhkhddh

s

sh' (reversed apostrophe)

rz

gh

xii A Note on Transliteration and Transcription

Geminated consonants are shown double. Short vowels are represented bya, i, and M; long vowels by a, e, i, and u; diphthongs by ay, and aw. Ta-marbuta is indicated by either a or at, and a may also represent a final ya.

Symbols used in transcription

/Symbol/ Phonemic description/Arabic equivalent

' Voiceless glottal stop: f-b Voiced bilabial stop: Mt Voiceless alveolar stop: th or s Voiceless interdental fricative: j or g Voiced palato-alveolar fricative/voiced velar stop: H Voiceless pharyngeal fricative: Cx Voiceless velar fricative: Cd Voiced dento-alveolar stop: jdh or z Voiced interdental/dento-alveolar fricative: Jr Voiced alveolar flap: Jz Voiced dento-alveolar fricative: ->s Voiceles dento-alveolar fricative: o*sh Voiceless palato-alveolar fricative: o^S Velarized voiceless dento-alveolar fricative: o^D Velarized voiced dento-alveolar stop: o^T Velarized voiceless dento-alveolar stop: laDH or Z Velarized voiced interdental/dento-alveolar fricative:

A Note on Transliteration and Transcription xiii

9 Voiced pharyngeal fricative:gh Voiced velar fricative:f Voiceless labio-dental fricative: q Voiceless uvular stop:k Voiceless velar stop:1 Voiced dento-alveolar lateral:m Voiced bilabial nasal continuant:n Voiceless dento-alveolar nasal continuant:h Voiceless glottal fricative:w Voiced labio-velar semivowel:y Voiced palatal semivowel:

a Low front vowel:a: Low front long vowelu High back vowel:u: High back long voweli High front vowel:i: High front long vowel

Geminated consonants are shown doubled.

Abbreviationsadj., adjective, adjectivalAFL, Arabic as a foreign languageAH, after the hijra (emigration of Prophet Muhammad to Medina)AUC, American University in CairoBCE, before the common era (i.e., before birth of Christ)CA, classical ArabicCE, common era (i.e., from birth of Christ)cop., copulaECA, Egyptian colloquial ArabicEFL, English as a foreign languageELT, English language teacherESL, English as a second languageEoM, English-only movementFonF, focus on formL1, first languageL2, second languageMSA, modern standard ArabicMSJA, modern standard Jordanian ArabicNA, native ArabicNNA, nonnative ArabicNNS, nonnative speakernom., nominativeNP, noun or nominal phraseNS, native speakerQur., QuranRh., Aristotle's RhetoricUG, universal grammar

An Opinion on the Meanings of i'rabin Classical Arabic:

The State of the Nominal SentenceSummary in English

El-Said Badawi

The classification of Arabic sentences by classical Arab grammarians intonominal and verbal types on the basis of the one beginning with a nounand the other with a verb has recently been met with resistance by WesternArabists. They have argued that the semantic differences between a nom-inal sentence such as hamidun jalasa and a similar, but verbal sentence,jalasa hamidun, are so slight as to make such major structural differentia-tion between the two unjustifiable. For their part, Arab grammarians notonly made the distinction, but they went so far in their differentiationbetween the two types that they not only assigned them to separate class-es (i.e., nominal and verbal), but they also relegated different terms to eachof their two basic constituents: the mubtadi' and khabar (subject and pred-icate) in the case of the nominal sentence and fi'l and fa'il) in the case ofthe verbal sentence. This paper, which is a part of a larger, ongoingresearch project, argues that in fact there is ahitherto untreatedsuffi-cient structural and semantic basis for maintaining the distinction.

Semantic AnalysisSemantically, the argument is based on the fact that the contrast betweenthe nominal and verbal sentences is not merely, as Arab grammarians havemaintained, that the former denotes greater emphasis on the topic, butmainly that the verbal sentence denotes that a process or event is takingplace along a grammatically framed time axis, whereas the nominal sen-tence denotes a static conditionan absoluteness.

Since the elements of verbality and nominality (thanks to the deriva-tional system of Arabic) are present in varying measurements in each of

2 An Opinion on the Meanings of i'rab in Classical Arabic

the morphological derivatives of the language (e.g., verb, verbal noun,noun of instrument, active participle, concrete noun, etc.) and becausenouns (and indeed any of the other derivatives) are not limited to occur-ring in the initial position in the sentence or occurring in a certain num-ber, it follows that it would be a semantic oversimplification to classifyArabic sentences into just verbal and nominal sentences.

It is argued here, based on evidence of actual language usage, thatnominal sentences versus verbal ones express two structural extremities,each of which stands in semantic opposition to the other. Between thesetwo extreme boundary lines, there exist many sentence varieties, each ofwhich is differentiated from the rest according to the particular mixture ofverbal and nominal features that it exhibits.

These relations can be expressed schematically, as in Figure 1. Startingfrom the extreme nominal boundary (NB), all the sentence varieties canthus be arranged on a scale of gradually diminishing nominal features untilthey reach the verbal boundary line (VB), where maximum verbal featuresare present. The opposite is also true of the verbal boundary line.

Figure 1. Relation of nominal and verbal features in sentence varietiesof Arabic.

An Opinion on the Meanings of i'rab in Classical Arabic

Structural AnalysisStructurally, the paper points out the parallel and supporting features ofthe grammatical cases al-halat al-i'rabiya, not merely as regards theirmere grammatical values, but also (and for the first time, according to thebest of my knowledge) as regards the contribution they have been dis-covered to be making to the total semantic value of the sentence assketched above.

Because of the complexity of the total picture and because what is pre-sented here is only one part of a larger research project, we present hereonly the case of the nominal sentence, designated by Western Arabists asthe equational sentence, which consists of noun + noun.

Of the four cases (al-raf', al-nasb, al-jarr, and al-jazm), only al-rafand al-nasb operate within the two basic parts of the equational sen-tence. Examination of various occurrences of these sentence typesreveals that halat al-raf is associated with static, immovable, assured,and absolute value in the sentence, whereas the opposite is true of halatal-nasb.

The structural theme of noun + noun sentences is subjected to alter-ations by the association of one of three verbs/particles known as al-nawasikh. These are kana and its sisters, inna and its sisters, and zannaand its sisters. Each of these groups when associated with the noun + nounstructure bring with it semantic and grammatical changes, reflecting in itstotality a degree of absoluteness (or lack of it) commensurate with thetotality of these interrelated grammatical and semantic features.

The grammatical changes are the function of the computation of thetwo cases of al-raf and al-nasb over the two positions of the equationalsentences (i.e., subject + predicate). This computation yields four uniquestructure types as regards the distribution of the indicative and subjunctivecases. These are the following:

1) Pure nominal: noun (al-raf} + noun (al-raf)2) Kana and its sisters: noun (al-raf) + noun (al-nasb)3) 'Inna and its sisters: noun (al-nasb) + noun (al-raf)4) Zanna and its sisters: noun (al-nasb) + noun (subjunctive)

Semantically, the absoluteness of the equational sentence is graduallyeroded in a form parallel with the grammatical one above. Kana and its

4 An Opinion on the Meanings of i'rab in Classical Arabic

sisters bring in time qualification (with al-raf in first position); 'inna andits sisters question, in varying degrees, the association between subjectand predicate (with al-raf only in second position); and finally, zanna andits sisters, through varying degrees of doubt, question the plausibility ofthe sentence altogether (with no raf in either position).

Figure 2. Comparison of the nominal and verbal features of certainvarieties of Arabic sentences.

The Syntax ofColloquial Egyptian Proverbs

Huda M. M. GhalyIn the syntactic structure of the proverbs of Egyptian colloquial Arabic(ECA) as cited in Ahmad Taymur's book of Colloquial Proverbs (1986),there is always a phrasal or clausal category prior to the phrase with a finiteverb or predicate, or matrix IP. In accounting for this syntactic behaviorwithin the framework of the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995), thispaper will show that the word order pertaining to these declarative sen-tences is not really free, because it is motivated by syntactic and semanticconsiderations. Since the proverbial declarative sentence requires a certainelement of focus (i.e., information that is "new" and has the highest degreeof communicative dynamism, i.e., the rheme, as distinct from topic, ortheme), there is a strong feature in the complement (C; the head of the pre-IP position that determines whether the sentence is declarative or interrog-ative) of these declarative sentences. In other words, the presence of thisstrong feature in the C of these declarative sentences activates a rhetoricaloperation that necessitates the overt insertion of a base-generated phrasal orclausal category in that position. This, in turn, enables us to distinguish syn-tactically between these proverbial declarative sentences from declarativesentences of the same dialect that are not proverbial. The former sentencesalways have the structure of a complement phrase (CP; a declarative sen-tence that has an IP as a complement of its head and also a specifier to thathead), because it has a strong feature in its C, but the latter declarative sen-tences may have the structure of either a CP or an IP.

Theoretical Background and Reviewof Relevant Literature

Chomsky's Minimalist ProgramAccording to Chomsky's Minimalist Program (MP), operations of thecomputational system for human language (CHL) for constructing a sen-

6 The Syntax of Colloquial Egyptian Proverbs

tence recursively construct syntactic objects that are rearrangements ofproperties of the lexical items. The first operation of this computation,select, is a procedure that takes a lexical item from the numeration (N; theitems in the lexicon) and introduces it into the derivation (the set of opera-tions performed on the lexical items to produce the relevant structure). Thisprocess of derivation involves the operation merge, which takes a pair ofsyntactic objects and replaces them with a new combined syntactic object sothat it may be interpreted at the logical form (LF; the semantic componentof the string) interface. At some point in the computation to LF, there is anoperation spellout, which strips away elements that are not relevant to LF,i.e., those elements that belong to the phonological component (Chomsky,1995, p. 229). Whereas pre-spellout is overt (i.e., the constituents have overtphonetic form), the computation to LF after spellout is covert.

Since "there is no clear evidence that order plays a role at LF or in thecomputation from N to LF" (p. 335), it is assumed by Chomsky (1995)that ordering applies to the output of morphology, which assigns a linear(temporal, left-to-right) order to the elements (p. 334), all of which arewords or morphemes (X categories) though not necessarily lexical items(p. 335). Accordingly, he regards ordering as "surface effects" on inter-pretation, and he feels that they "seem to involve some additional level orlevels internal to the phonological component" that is "postmorphology,but prephonetic" (p. 220). In other words, "the distinction made in earlytransformational grammar between 'stylistic' rules and others" is stillmaintained by Chomsky (p. 324).

Furthermore, he maintains that the scrambled element (the word orphrase that has been reordered and moved further to the front of the clause)is "a kind of adjunct, external to the major syntactic structure, [and] associ-ated with an internal position that determines its semantic interpretation" (p.324). As a result, full reconstruction, which is the formation of operator-vari-able constructions driven by full interpretation (FI; LF plus phonetic form,PF) that leaves part of a trace intact at LF and deletes only its operator, isrestricted to the special case of an adjunct position (A') movement thatinvolves operators (p. 326). The reason is that "reconstruction in the A-chainsdoes not take place, so it appears" (p. 327). This in turn demonstrates that onstrictly minimalist assumptions the only possibilities for adjunction are wordformation and that the order assumed in the adjunction of a head to anotherhead "seems rather obscure and may have no general answer" (p. 340).

Chomsky still maintains that the CHL has move a (an operation thatallows movement of anything, e.g., a word or phrase, anywhere, providedthe movement is not prevented by other constraints). This is indicated bythe fact that the "output conditions reveal that items commonly appear'displaced' from the position in which the interpretation they receive is

The Syntax of Colloquial Egyptian Proverbs 7

otherwise represented at the LF interface" (p. 316). However, he now alsoholds the view that any displacement in language is basically reducible tomorphology-driven movement and that the problems related to variablephrase (XP) adjunction do not really belong to the minimalist framework.It follows that "the primary and perhaps only case is a-adjunction" (theprocess by which any word is adjoined to any other, larger word) "to X ,a a feature [i.e., features in words or morphemes] or (if the operation isovert) an X" (p. 323). The reason for this restriction on a-adjunction isthat this framework is concerned with last resort movement driven by fea-ture checking within the computation (p. 319).

However, it may be the case that by the strict merger of two elementsor by the raising of an element, forming a chain with both elements thenmerging (p. 322), there are two terms but only one LF role, since "each ofthese is a category that is visible at the interface, where it must receivesome interpretation, satisfying FI" (p. 322). But for Chomsky, such astructure is permissible only "if a is an adjunct that is deleted at LF, leav-ing just one term" (p. 322), such as when we have a case of "full recon-struction at LF, eliminating the adjunct entirely." Accordingly, the struc-ture "[YP XP [yp-t...]]] (i.e., a-adjunction) is only interpreted at the trace"(p. 323). In such a case, "scrambling [is] interpreted by reconstruction" (p.323), where the two-segment category, formed by adjunction, will beinterpreted as a word by morphology.

It follows then for Chomsky that "adverbials cannot be adjoined bymerge to phrases that are 0-related [i.e., arguments or predicates]" (p.330), because the adjunction of an adverbial to an XP that has a 6-role atLF to form the two-segment category [XP,XP], projecting from X, isbarred when an XP is an adjective phrase (AP) or verb phrase (VP) (p.329). This is why Chomsky believes that adverbs can "be 'base-adjoined'only to X or phrases headed by v (i.e., a verb form that has had affixesadjoined to it) or functional categories" (p. 330). He feels that apart fromthe fact that "adverbs seem to have no morphological properties thatrequire XP-adjunction," there is no empirical evidence that adverbs formchains by XP-adjunctions (p. 329). In other words, "an adverb in pre-IPposition cannot be interpreted as if raised from some lower position" (p.330) and "the problem of optional raising" of the adverb can be solved bythe Larsonian solution, in which a is incorporated without raising since it"appears in some higher position" (Chomsky, 1995, p. 331).

Unlike the "adjunction of YP to XP" (p. 323), which does not fit easilyinto this general approach, the notion of a strong feature (a feature that cantrigger movement) plays an important role in the Minimalist Program. Thestrong features are nonsubstantives that call for a category in their checkingdomains. In the lexicon, there are substantive elements such as nouns, verbs,


etc., with their idiosyncratic properties and some of the functional cate-gories, such as the "complementizer (C)" (p. 240). Other functional cate-gories that have semantic properties include tense (T) and determiner (D).

When the functional category C is questions (Q; for interrogative sen-tences), it is interpretable (i.e., it has semantic content at the level of LF), inwhich case it need not be checked unless it is strong. And when it is strong,it must be checked by merge or by move by substitution or adjunction beforespellout. If, on the other hand, a language has weak Q, it will remain in situat phonetic form (PF). In referring to the discourse properties of English,Chomsky (1995) says that there is a null variant of the declarative C that musthave been introduced covertly and must be weak since strength is motivatedonly by PF manifestation. However, despite the fact that "covert insertion ofstrong features is indeed barred," he still maintains that it "is not barred" ifthis "covert insertion of complementizers has an LF effect" (p. 294).

Other relevant literatureArguing against the assumption that word order in languages such asJapanese is strictly optional, Miyagawa (1997) provides evidence that itsapparently flexible word order of indirect object-direct object (IO-DO)and DO-IO is base-generated (i.e., a lexical analysis), rather than involv-ing optional VP-adjunction scrambling, since scrambling is a strictlyoptional movement operation. He also provides evidence that these twoword orders involve argument positions (A-positions; e.g., a subject posi-tion or that of the complement of a verb, adjective, or noun), since theyhave properties such as binding, which can take place only in an A-posi-tion. As for the IP adjunction in Japanese, Miyagawa says that it involvesA movement and PC movement. In the A movement, VP-internal materi-als such as the object appears to the left of the subject for case-agreementfeatures. But the A' movement is motivated by focus. Concentrating onthe PC movement, Miyagawa says that the accusative case, which isinflected for agreement (I), is licensed by the same functional category.Following Chomsky, Miyagawa assumes that languages like Japaneseallow multiple specifier positions for a single head. Accordingly, heassumes that the functional head Agro (that is, the head in which there isobject-verb agreement) incorporates in Agrs (that is, the head in whichthere is subject-verb agreement). Due to this fusion, we have a unitaryfunctional head that checks both the nominative subject, in the lower IP,and the accusative object, in the higher IP node creadted by adjunction,forming [IPObj-acc [IPSubj-nom...Agro-Agrs]].

The notions of focus and topic have an acknowledged status in UniversalGrammar (UG). Focus may be analyzed by analogy with quantifier phrasesin the sense that it operates a quantification, effecting a partition of the uni-


verse (May, 1985), and it can occur either in overt syntax or in LF.Accordingly, focus can be realized both fronted and in situ. Phonologically,a focus constituent has always been associated with a prominence-leadingaccent (Chomsky, 1971). On the other hand, a topic is deaccented and sep-arated from the sentence by an intonational break, i.e., in slow rates ofspeech speakers generally make a short pause between the topic and thephrase adjacent to it. As far as the syntactic analysis of the topic is con-cerned, Frascarelli (1997) maintains that there is no general agreementamong authors whether a topic is extracted by movement from its argument-position (Rochemont, 1989) or base-generated as an extrasentential con-stituent, coindexed with a predicate internal gap or clitic (Cinque, 1990).Frascarelli (1997) adds that one point that is generally agreed on makes acritical distinction between a topic and a focus: a topic in extraposed posi-tion is either an adjunct or a base-generated construction, while a focus isneither. Moreover, there can be only one focus while multiple topics areallowed. A focus cannot be resumed by a pronominal clitic, and cannot enterinto coreference relations. A focus can only bind a pronominal provided itc-commands it, because in this case it is a syntactic operator.

Another consideration from theoretical work that relates to the com-plementizers seen in proverbial declarative sentences in ECA has to dowith the so-called CP hypothesis. This theory assumes that finite subordi-nate clauses in English that lack an overt complementizer (that-less claus-es) should be analyzed as CPs with a null head, whether by adopting a ruleof "that deletion" or through the lexical insertion of a null C (a comple-mentizer on a word, rather than a phrasal level; Chomsky and Lasnik,1977). This hypothesis that finite subordinate clauses (with or withoutcomplementizers) share a common syntactic structure has been refuted byDoherty (1997), who has shown that there are significant differencesbetween that and that-less clauses with respect to adjunction possibilities.He has provided evidence from adverbial adjunction, analyzing finite sub-ordinate clauses in English without an overt C as finite IP complements,rather than as CPs with a null head.

Description of the DataThere are basically six types of proverbial declarative sentences in ECA.The first type has a CP that has an embedded IP that is introduced by asubordinator such as /'in/ or /ba9dima/ generated prior to the matrix IP.The second type has a CP that has an embedded IP that is introduced byan NP operator such as the relative pronominal /'illi/ or the interrogativepronominal /min/ generated prior to the matrix IP. The third type has an


CP that has an embedded IP that has an imperative verb generated prior tothe matrix IP. The fourth type consists of three subclasses of these prover-bial declarative sentences, but all have a CP with an NP that is generatedprior to the matrix IP. The first subclass has an NP that may have overtcase and it is also in an embedded IP generated prior to the matrix IP. Thesecond subclass of type four has an NP that is a nominal construct gener-ated prior to the matrix IP. The third subclass of type four has an NP witha strong pronominal form that does not have deictic function generatedprior to the matrix IP. The fifth type of these proverbial declarative sen-tences has a CP with an NP that is introduced by the vocative particle gen-erated prior to the matrix IP. The sixth type of these proverbial declarativesentences has a CP with a PP generated prior to the matrix IP.

Type 1: CP with an embedded IP introduced by a subordinatorThe first type of these proverbial declarative sentences has a CP with

an embedded IP that is introduced by a subordinator, such as /'in/ or/ba9dima/, generated prior to the matrix IP (see sentences and their respec-tive trees below). It should be noted that in these proposed syntactic con-figurations that have been designated in the light of the MinimalistProgram, the "Larsonian solution" has been used, i.e., the elements of theinternal domain (whether as arguments or not) appear in some higher posi-tion (Chomsky, 1995, p. 331). This is due to the fact that "there should beno adjunction to a 6-related phrase (a 0-role assigner or an argument, apredicate or the XP of which it is predicated)" (p. 323). These configura-tions have also made use of the simple transitive verb construction ofChomsky (1995) before tense (T) is added to form TP.

Introduced by /'in/:(1) /'in fa:tak il-mi:ri 'itmarragh fi Tura:buh/conditional + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + perfective verb + pron.

infl. (2rd per., masc., sing.) + def. art. + noun + pron. infl (2nd per., masc.,sing.) + imperative verb + prep. + noun + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.)

Lit., "If the governmental job leaves you behind, roll yourself in itsdust," meaning there is nothing better than a job in the public sector.

Introduced by /ba9dima/:(2) /ba9dima sha:b waddu: il-kutta:b/temporal + pron. + pron. infl. (3rd per., sing., masc.) + perfective verb

+ pron. infl. (3rd per., pi.) + perfective verb + pron. infl. (3rd per., sing.,masc.) + def. art. + noun + pron. infl. (pi.)

Lit., "After his hair became gray, they sent him to school," i.e., he hasbeen asked to do something that is inappropriate for him.


Type 2: CP with an embedded IP introduced by an NP operatorThe second type has a CP that has an embedded IP that is introduced

by an NP operator such as the relative pronominal /'illi/ or the interroga-tive pronominal /min/ generated prior to the matrix IP. This proverbialstructure is shown in the sentences and their respective trees below.

Introduced by the relative pronominal /'illi/(3) /'illi yistoro rabbu ma yifDaHu:sh maxlu:'/relative pron. + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + imperfective verb +

pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + noun + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.)+ negative particle + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + imperfective verb+ cont. of the negative particle + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + noun

Lit., "Whosoever God shelters, nobody can expose (him)."

Introduced by the interrogative pronominal /min/(4) /min tarak 'adi:mu ta:h/interrogative pron. + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + perfective

verb + noun + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + pron. infl. (3rd per.,masc., sing.) + perfective verb

Lit., "Whosoever leaves his old (friend) is lost."

Type 2: labeled tree diagramsWith /'illi/ (proverb 3)


Type 3: CP with an embedded IP that has an imperative verbThe third type has a CP that has an embedded IP that has an impera-

tive verb generated prior to the matrix IP. This is exemplified by the sen-tence and its tree below.

(5) /'imshi dughri yiHta:r 9aduwwak fi:k /pron. infl. (2nd per., masc., sing.) + imperative verb + adv. + pron. infl.

(3rd per., masc., sing.) + imperfective verb + noun + pron. infl. (2nd per.,masc., sing.) + prep. + pron. infl. (2nd per., masc., sing.)

Lit., "(If you) follow the straight path, your enemy will not know howto attack you."Type 3: labeled tree diagram


Type 4: CP with an NP operator :There are three basic subclasses of type four of these proverbial declar-

ative sentences. The first subclass is exemplified by sentence 6, in whichthere is a focused embedded CP that has itself a focused NP with overt case.The second subclass is exemplified by sentences 7-10, in which there arefocused NPs with different internal structures. The third subclass is exem-plified by sentences 11 and 12, in which the focused NPs have the internalstructure of strong pronominal forms that have lost their deictic force.

(6) /xayrin ti9mil sharran til'a /noun + genitive case + nunation + pron. infl. (2nd per., masc., sing.) +

imperfective verb + noun + accusative case + nunation + pron. infl. (2ndper., masc., sing.) + imperfective verb

Lit., "Good (being) done, evil returned." That is, instead of a rewardfor doing good, you get evil in return.

Type 4, subclass 1: labeled tree diagram (proverb 6)

(7) /xi:r 'ir-rigga:la yiba:n 9ashshabbah7noun + def. art. + noun + pron. infl. (masc., sing.) + pron. infl. (3rd

per., masc., sing.) + imperfective verb + prep + def. art. + nounLit, "When a woman's husband is rich, it is evident from her appearance."

(8) /di:l 'il-kalb 9umru ma yin9idil/noun + def. art. + noun + adv. + negative particle + pron. infl. (3rd per.,

masc., sing.) + imperfective verbLit., "The tail of the dog, it is never upright," that is, old habits die hard.

(9) /da waghak wala Dayyi 'il-'amar/dem. pron. (masc., sing) + noun + pron. infl (2nd per., masc., sing.) +


conj. + emphatic particle + noun + def. art. + nounLit., "This, your face and not the glitter of the moon (is its equal)."

This is a very cordial way of complimenting someone on his appearance.

(10) /dabbu:r wi zan 9ala xara:b 9ishshu/noun + conj. + pron. infl (3rd per., masc., sing.) + perfective verb +

prep. + noun + noun + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.)Lit., "A wasp, and it kept on buzzing to destroy its nest." That is, some

people harm themselves.

(11) /hiyya l-Hidda:ya tirammi kataki:t/strong pron. (3rd per., fern., sing.) + def. art. + noun + pron. infl. (fern.,

sing.) + pron. infl. (3rd per., fern., sing.) + imperfective verb + noun +pron. infl. (pi)

Lit, "She-the kite throws away chicks (that she has caught to eat)?!"That is, is it possible that the kite would throw away the chicks that shehas caught for herself?

Type 4, subclass 3: labeled tree diagram (proverb 11)

(12) /huwwa 1-kalb yi9ud widn 'axu:h/strong pron. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + def. art. + noun + pron. infl.

(masc., sing.) + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.) + imperfective verb +noun + noun + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.)

Lit., "He-the dog bites his nephew's ear?!" Is it possible that peoplewould really hurt others of their own race or kind?


Type 5: CP with an NP operator introduced by a vocative particleThe fifth type of these proverbial declarative sentences has a CP that has

an NP that is introduced by the vocative particle generated prior to the matrixIP. Several examples are given below as well as a tree diagramming this type.

(13) /ya 'arD 'insha:'i wi-bla9i:ni/vocative particle + noun + imperative verb + pron. infl (2nd per., fern.,

sing.) + conj. + imperative verb + pron. infl (2nd per., fern., sing.) + pron.infl (1st per., sing.)

Lit, "You earth, crack up and swallow me." That is, I was so ashamedthat I wished I could hide anywhere even it meant my being devoured bythe earth.

Type 5: labeled tree diagram (proverb 13)

(14) /ya 'arD ma 9ali:ki 'illa-na/vocative particle + noun + negative particle + prep. + pron. infl. (2nd

per., fern., sing.) + prep. + strong pron. (1st per., sing.)Lit., "You earth, no one is on you but myself." A description of an arro-

gant and conceited person.

(15) /ya baxt min 'idir wi-9ifi/vocative particle + noun + interrogative pron. + pron. infl. (3rd per.,


masc., sing.) + perfective verb + conj. + pron. infl. (3rd per., masc., sing.)+ perfective verb

Lit., "Oh lucky one, who has the ability to punish his wrongdoer, andyet he forgives."

(16) /ya 'alb yakata:kit ya ma fi:k w-inta sa:kit/vocative particle + noun + vocative particle + noun + vocative particle

+ relative pronoun + prep. + pron. infl. (2nd per., masc., sing.) + conj. +strong pron. (2nd per., masc., sing.) + active participial predicate

Lit., "Oh heart, oh poor young chick, oh what is in you, and you aresilent?" That is, my poor little heart is overcome with sadness.

(17) /ya ma taHt 'is-sawa:hi dawa:hi/vocative particle + relative pronominal + prep. + def. art. + noun +

noun + pron. infl. (pi.)Lit., "Oh whatever is underneath this inadvertence, [you are] mis-

deeds," said of anyone whose behavior in reality is different from itsappearance.Type 6: CP with an NP operator introduced by a preposition

The sixth type of these proverbial declarative sentences has a CP thathas a PP generated prior to the matrix IP. This type of proverbial structureis demonstrated by the sentences and their respective trees below.

NP introduced by /bi:n/(18) /bi:n 'il-ba:yi9 wi-shsha:ri yiftaH 'allah/prep. + def. art. + noun + conj. + def. art. + noun + pron. infl. (3rd per.,

masc., sing.) + imperfective verb + def. art. + nounLit., "Between the seller and the buyer, God is the Provider." God may

provide for the seller and the buyer if they do not agree with one anotherto conclude the transaction.

NP introduced by /9ala/(19) /9ala lisaini wa-la tinsa:ni/prep. + noun + pron. infl. (1st per., sing) + conj. + negative particle +

pron. infl. (2nd per., sing., masc.) + imperfective verb + pron. infl. (1stper., sing.)

Lit., "On my tongue, and do not forget me," that is, do not forget meas I have not forgotten you.

NP introduced by /ba9d/(20) /ba9d il-9i:d ma yinfitilshi 1-kaHk/temporal particle + def. art. + noun + negative particle + pron. infl.


(3rd per., sing., masc.) + imperfective verb + def. art. + nounLit., "After the feast, the cookies are not made," that is, there is a time

for everything.

NP introduced by /fi:/(21) /fi:ha l('a)xfi:ha/prep + pron. infl. (3rd per., sing., fern.) + emphatic particle + pron. infl.

(1st per., sing.) + imperfective verb + pron. infl. (3rd per., sing., fern.)Lit., "(I am) in it (else) I will dispose of it," i.e., if I am not part of it,

I will put an end to it.

NP introduced by /zayy/(22) /zayy 'il-magazi:b kulli sa:9a f(i) Ha:l/prep. + def. art. + noun + pron. infl. (pi.) + universal quantifier + noun

+ pron. infl. (fern., sing.) + prep. + nounLit., "As with crazy people, each hour [they are] in a different condi-

tion," i.e., he is very moody like a lunatic.

(23) /zayy 'il-marakbeyya ma yiftikiru:sh rabbina 'ilia wa't 'il-ghara'/prep. + def. art. + noun + pron. infl. (pi.) + negative particle + pron.

infl. (3rd per., masc., pi.) + imperfective verb + discontinous negative par-ticle + noun + pron. infl. (1st per., pi.) + prep. + noun + def. art. + noun

Lit., "As with the sailors, they remember God only at the time ofdrowning."

Type 6: labeled tree diagramWith /bi:n/ (proverb 18)


Analysis of Each Proverbial StructureType 1. If strength is motivated only by phonetic form (PF) manifestation(Chomsky, 1995), then it may be said that the strength of the C of thematrix CPs in sentences of type 1 is overtly manifested by the base-gen-


eration of the embedded CPs as the focused element. These embedded CPsare adjunct CPs: in the tree of proverb 1, the embedded CP is an adverbial ofcondition, which is introduced by the conditioner /'in/, and in tree of sentence2, the embedded CP is an adverbial of time, which is introduced by the tem-poral /ba9dima/. I have adopted the view that these embedded CPs are "base-adjoined" (Chomsky, 1995, p. 330) in the C of these matrix CPs due to thestrong feature in the C of these matrix CPs. This is because adjunction ofmaximal projections headed by a word category (e.g., YP and XP, where Yand X represent variables) does not "fit easily into this general approach." (p.323). Moreover, "adverbials cannot be adjoined by merge" to phrases that are0-related, i.e., those phrases that play a semantic role either as an argumentor a predicate (p. 330). Stated another way, this strong feature in the C ofthese matrix CPs is eliminated by having the focused element (i.e., theembedded CPs) base-generated in its checking domain, rather than by overtmovement. Furthermore, the lexical analysis has been assumed here becausethere is no specific categorial feature involved in this operation.

Type 2. As with the sentences of type 1, the strength of the C of the matrixCPs in the second type is overtly manifested by embedded CPs that areassumed to be base-generated in the C of their matrix CPs due to the strongfeature in their C. But the embedded CPs in sentences of type 2, unlikethose of type 1, have coreferential small pros (a small pro is a covert pro-noun that is the subject or object of a finite clause) within their matrix CPs,and this reminds us of Chomsky's (1995) assumption that in some lan-guages "arguments [are] attached as adjuncts associated with internal ele-ments" (p. 324). Accordingly, in sentence 3, this embedded CP is the inter-nal argument of the matrix verb /yifDaHu:/; this is indicated by the factthat it has a coreferential object small pro in its matrix CP. In sentence 4the embedded CP generated in its C has a coreferential subject small proin its matrix CP, making it the external argument of the matrix verb /ta:h/.This is demonstrated by the respective trees of sentences 3 and 4.

The difference between the embedded CP like that in type 2, as repre-sented in sentence 3, and that in type 1, as represented in sentence 1 aris-es from the fact that the focused CPs in the sentences of the latter type areadjuncts, whereas those of the former are arguments. When the focusedCPs are adjuncts, they are not associated with internal elements withintheir major syntactic structures, i.e., the embedded CPs do not have coref-erential small pros in their matrix CPs. But when the focused CP is anargument, it does require an internal element within its major syntacticstructure for its semantic interpretation. We may, accordingly, assume thatthe focused embedded CPs in proverbs like sentence 3 must be base-gen-erated in an A-position in the C of their matrix CPs; whereas the focused


embedded CPs in proverbs like sentence 1 must be base-generated in anApposition in the C of their matrix CPs.

Another basic difference between the embedded CPs of type 2 and thoseof type 1 is that the former's embedded CPs are introduced by pronominals:a relative pronominal in sentence 3 (i.e., /'illi/) and an interrogative pronom-inal in sentence 4 (i.e., /mm/). As the relative pronominal (i.e., /'illi/) has A-properties such as binding (i.e., in sentence 3 it binds the object small pro2in its major syntactic structure), this demonstrates that in ECA there is alsoan A-position in the C of these embedded CPs. In sentence 4, it is the wholeembedded CP that is the external argument of the matrix verb, as indicatedby its subject small pro within the matrix CP. In either case, the pronominalin the embedded CP, whether it is relative or interrogative, functions as anoperator in relation to the embedded IP it heads; accordingly, it may beregarded as the focused NP within these embedded CPs.

In sentence 3 we have the noun /rabbu/, which also has A-propertiessuch as binding. It binds the subject small pro in its major syntactic struc-ture. But the noun /rabbu/ is a topic NP, rather than a focused NP in thisembedded CP. This assumption is built on two premises: (1) this NP doesnot function as an operator in relation to the embedded IP it heads; and (2)it displays a different syntactic behavior from that characterizing focusedNPs. Concentrating on the distinct syntactic behavior of the topic NP, wenotice that it displays a flexibility of the movement that is not available tothe focused NP. It has been extraposed from its pre-IP position, where it isassumed to be base-generated, to a post-IP position. Not being part of thefocused element, this topic NP has been moved to the post-IP position.This movement of the topic NP /rabbu/ may be described as "notbelonging] at all within [this] framework of principles" (Chomsky, 1995,p. 333) since it is a stylistic variation, which is not applicable to thefocused NP. And in trying to account for this syntactic behavior of the topicNP without an overt complementizer, as distinct from the focused argu-ment, within the framework of the Minimalist Program, we could maintainthat this type of NP is base-generated as a multiple specifier of I, alongwith the subject small pro. Since both specifiers (i.e., the topic NP and thesubject small pro) are checked by a single head (i.e., I or T), they may beregarded as multiple specifiers.3 This indicates that the A-position for thebase-generation of a topic NP is distinct from that A-position in which afocused argument is base-generated be it a CP or an NP. Accordingly, it isonly the topic NP that may extraposed, producing a stylistic variation.

Type 3. The IP generated in the C of type 3 is similar to the embedded CPsof type 1 in that they are adjuncts, rather than arguments. Their status asadjuncts is indicated by the fact that they do not have coreferential small


pros, within their matrix CPs. However, the basic difference between bothtypes of proverbial sentences is that in those of type 3 the focused catego-ry is an IP, rather than a CP, and that the strong feature found in the C ofthis type of proverbial structure is given overt manifestation by the oblig-atory presence of the imperative verb form in the embedded IP, rather thanthe imperfective or the perfective verb forms. In other words, the strengthof the C of the matrix CP in type 3 proverbs is overtly manifested by therequirement that this embedded IP have an imperative verb only.

Type 4. The fourth type of these proverbial declarative sentences in thisvariety of Arabic is characterized by their having an NP generated in theirC as illustrated by sentences 6-12; and this in turn provides us with moreevidence that there is an A-position in the C of these declarative sentencesfor the focused argument be it an CP or an NP. The strong feature in the Cof this type of the ECA proverbs is overtly manifested in different ways,leading to their subclassification into different subtypes.

The first subtype is exemplified by sentence 6. This subtype is com-posed of an embedded CP that itself has a focused NP, but one that hasovert case manifested on its nouns. The second subtype is exemplified bysentences 7-10. These sentences have focused NPs that may be internallycomposed of nominal constructs, as in sentences 7 and 8, or complex NPstructures, as in sentences 9 and 10. The third subtype is exemplified bysentences 11 and 12, in which the focused NP has the internal structure ofa strong pronominal form that has lost its deictic force.

Analyzing sentence 6 first, we find that there are overt case markersand the overt indefinite marker (i.e., the nunation) in the nouns /xayrin/and /sharran/, both features of which are marked phenomena because thereare no overt case markers nor an overt indefinite marker associated withnouns in ECA. The vowel /i/ in the noun /xayrin/ is the overt case markerof the genitive and the vowel /a/ in the noun /sharran/ is the overt casemarker of the accusative with the final /n/ after the overt case markers inboth nouns being the nunation marker. It is the presence of the overt casemarker carried by the noun /xayrin/ and the fact that it is genitive thatenables us to maintain that this noun is base-generated in a complemen-tizer A-position, rather than in an A-position within the IP. Despite the factthat both nouns in 6 (i.e., /xayrin/ and /sharran/) are the internal argumentsof their respective verbs (i.e., /ti9mil/ and /til'a/), it is only the former nounthat has genitive case, indicating that it differs in its base-generation fromthe noun /sharran/ and providing us with evidence that these two nounscannot be base-generated in the same A-position.

The noun /xayrin/ acquires its genitive case as a specifier to the head C(the spec-head relation) of the matrix CP. It is to be noted that /xayrin/ is


generated in the focused CP, which is itself base-generated in the C of thematrix CP. The noun /sharran/, on the other hand, acquires its accusativecase marker by being in a spec-head relation to the V of the matrix CP. Notbeing part of the focused category, the noun /sharran/ in sentence 6 hasbeen extraposed to a position before its verb (i.e., /til'a/) as the result of"surface effects" mentioned above. This extraposition is a kind of stylisticvariation that makes the word order in the matrix CP apparently similar tothat found in the focused CP, making the proverb more harmonious.

Sentence 6 also demonstrates that when the scrambled element is anargument whose semantic interpretation is determined by its overt casemarker, there is no need for it to be associated with an internal elementwithin the major syntactic structure. This is probably why the NP with thenoun /xayrin/ does not have a coreferential small pro within its major syn-tactic structure, nor does the NP with the noun /sharran/ have a coreferen-tial small pro within its major syntactic structure. In other words, the pres-ence of the overt case marker alleviates the need for an internal elementwithin the major syntactic structure of each of these nouns.

Sentences 7-10 differ from sentence 6 in that it is only the latter sentencethat has overt case markers. However, it may be said that the strength in theC of the former sentences, which are also proverbial declarative sentences,is nonetheless given PF manifestation. In sentences 7 and 8, there is a nom-inal construct base-generated in these sentences' Cs; in 8 there is also theadverbial particle /9umru / and the negative particle /ma/, both of which pro-vide further evidence that this nominal construct must be in a position exter-nal to the major syntactic structure. In sentence 9, the strength of its C isindicated by the emphatic particle /la/, the demonstrative pronominal /da/,and the conjunction /wa/, all of which are generated in order to focus thenoun /waghak/. In other words, the demonstrative pronominal in this sen-tence does not have a deictic function nor does the conjunction have a coor-dinating function. Similarly, in sentence 10, the presence of the conjunction/wi/, which has lost its coordinating function, focuses the noun /dabbu:r/.

It is to be noted that since the NPs generated in the C of sentences 7-10do not have overt case markers they have coreferential small pros withintheir major syntactic structures. It is only in sentence 9 that there is nointernal element that determines the semantic interpretation of the NP thatis base-generated in its C. This is because sentence 9 is a nominal sen-tence, in which case it is not possible to have a subject small pro. The nom-inal predicate, unlike the verbal predicate in Arabic, does not have inflec-tions heavy enough for the local determination of a subject small pro A

In sentence 11, the strong feature of its C is basically indicated by thebase-generation of the strong personal pronominal (i.e., /hiyya/) in its C.Having lost its deictic force, this strong personal pronominal simply


recasts the whole sentence so that it rhetorically questions the possibilityof a kite ever letting go of its prey. This strong personal pronominal isbase-generated prior to another noun that is also assumed to be base-gen-erated in a pre-IP position: it is /l-Hidda:ya/. As with the tree of sentence3, sentence 11 likewise provides evidence that in ECA there is not only anA-position in C for the base-generation of these focused NPs but alsoanother A-position in a pre-IP position for the the base-generation of atopic NP without an overt complementizer. But this NP may be regardedas a multiple specifier, along with the subject small pro since both speci-fiers are checked by a single head (i.e., I). As for the focused NP, it ischecked by a distinct head from that which checks the subject small pro.It is checked by a declarative C with a strong feature; and it has an opera-torlike function.

Despite the distinctness of these two pre-IP base-generated NPs insentence 11, they nonetheless constitute one NP in relation to theremainder of the sentence, and this is indicated by the agreement in gen-der and number between them (i.e. the pronominal /hiyya/ and the noun/l-Hidda:ya/). As both of them represent the contrastive element in thissentence, together they constitute the focused element since there can beonly one focus (Frascarelli, 1997), forming one phonological unit asso-ciated with a prominence-leading accent (Chomsky, 1971). Both NPstogether rhetorically ask whether the proposition within its major syn-tactic structure is true, i.e., they constitute a syntactic operator analyzedby analogy with quantifier phrases, effecting a partition of the universe(May, 1985).

Type 5. In sentences of type 5 (13-17), the strong feature in their C isgiven PF manifestation by the base-generation of a focused NP that isintroduced by a vocative particle. As the vocative NP in ECA does nothave an overt case marker, it is likewise associated with an internal ele-ment that determines its semantic interpretation within the major syntac-tic structure. In sentence 13 (as shown by its tree) these internal elementsare the coreferential subject small pros in both CPs, while in sentence 14,the vocative NP is the internal argument of the preposition /9ali:ki/ in theunderlying nominal sentence /'ana 9ali:ki/ ("I am on you"), in which thereis a prepositional predicate and an object small pro.

Sentence 14 illustrates an important characteristic of this type ofproverbial declarative sentence: the fronting of the prepositional predicate,placing it next to the vocative NP and changing the assumed underlyingstructure /'ana 9ali:ki/ ("I am on you") to /ma 9ali:ki 'illa-na/ ("Not on youexcept me"). This fronting emphasizes that predicate, and by addressingthe internal argument of the prepositional predicate and making it the


vocative NP (i.e., /ya 'arD/,"Oh, you Earth"), the emphatic effect is evengreater. In other words, with the base-generation of this focused element(i.e., the vocative NP) in the C of this type of the nominal sentence (i.e.,with a prepositional predicate), the fronting of the prepositional predicateis obligatory. But this obligatory fronting of the prepositional predicate,which takes place in the nominal sentence with a vocative NP base-gener-ated in its C, can only be regarded as falling within the domain of the rulesthat have been referred to by Chomsky (1995) as the "surface effects" (p.220). This is because this fronting is contingent only on the presence of avocative NP in a sentence with a prepositional predicate, and not on thepresence of a strong feature in a nonsubstantive category. This obligatoryfronting of the prepositional predicate in the nominal sentence with avocative NP base-generated in its C is found not only in sentence 14 butalso in sentence 17, in which /taHt 'issawa:hi/ is fronted due to the gener-ation of the vocative NP (i.e., /ya ma:/).

Another important characteristic of these proverbial sentences thathave a vocative NP is demonstrated by sentences 15 and 16: it is the recur-siveness of the focused element. Looking first at sentence 15 as an exam-ple, if we assume that this sentence is derived from the underlying struc-ture /'illi 'idir wi 9afa baxtu kwayyis/ ("whoever has the ability to punishand yet forgives has good luck"), then the vocative NP (i.e., /ya baxt/)refers to the one who is in possession of this good fortune because he hasthe above qualities. The other focused element in this sentence is the com-pound verbal clauses (i.e., /min 'idir wi 9ifi/), which describes the qualifi-cations of the one who is in possession of this good fortune.

Sentence 16 provides us with further evidence of this recursivenessof the focused element in ECA. It has three focused elements: the firstvocative element is the NP (i.e., /ya 'alb/), which describes the objectshe is addressing. Being the first vocative, it is base-generated prior tothe other vocatives in this sentence's C. The second vocative NP, whichis /yakata:kit/, is base-generated adjacent to the first vocative NP,describing the heart as a little chick. This provides an even more focal-izing effect to the first vocative NP. The third vocative element is a nom-inal clause (i.e., /ya ma fi:k/), which describes the second vocative NPas full despite of its small size. In other words, the first vocative address-es the heart, the second describes the size of that heart, and the thirdvocative states the full capacity of that heart with the conjunction /wi-/,focalizing these focused elements. It is to be noted that the propositionin this sentence's major syntactic structure is not deleted: it is /intasa:kit/ ("you [masc. sing.] are quiet and tolerant"), while in sentence 15the proposition in its major syntactic structure is deleted. The proposi-tion in the major syntactic structure of sentence 16 is not deleted because


it is emphasized, as shown by its having the strong pronominal form(i.e., /inta/) as the subject NP. In other words, the meaning of this sen-tence would not be complete had the proposition in its major syntacticstructure been deleted.

Type 6. The prepositional phrases (PPs) in sentences of type 6 should alsobe regarded as being base-generated in the C of their sentences becauseadverbs do not form chains by XP-adjunction and because the adjunctionof an adverbial to an XP that has a 6-role is barred when an XP is an adjec-tival phrase or a verbal phrase (see above, "Theoretical background andreview of relevant literature"). The PPs in these sentences are also similarto the embedded CPs in sentences of type 1 in that they are focused ele-ments that are adjuncts, and this is indicated by the fact that they do nothave coreferential small pros within their major syntactic structures.Accordingly, these PPs are generated in an A'-position in their C. As withthe adjunct CPs in type 1 sentences, these PPs of type 6 have been regard-ed as adjunct operators that are base-generated in the specifier position ofCP when they modify that IP (Rizzi, 1990).

It is to be noted that the topic NP (i.e., /'alla:h/) in sentence 18 and itstree is not part of the focused element, and this is probably why it hasundergone a "surface effect" rule, moving it from its base-generated pre-IP position to a post-IP position. That the topic NP (i.e., the noun /'alla:h/)has been moved from a pre-IP position is indicated by the fact that it isassigned an external thematic role and nominative case, rather than accu-sative case by the verb adjacent to it. Being a topic NP with no overt com-plementizer, it has been regarded as the multiple specifier of the I head,along with the subject small pro. Moreover, the lack of coindexationbetween the topic NP and the focused element in sentence 18 indicates thatthey do not constitute one unit, which is the focus in this sentence.6

ConclusionIn this study, it has been assumed that the proverbial declarative sentencein EGA is syntactically distinct from the nonproverbial declarative sen-tence. The former declarative sentence requires an obligatory focusedelement in a pre-IP position as a rhetorical device. This pre-IP positionhas been regarded as a position in C because the focused element func-tions as a syntactic operator as regards the IP it heads. It follows that thenonproverbial declarative sentence that does not have an overt head withan overt complementizer in EGA may be regarded as having an IP struc-ture, rather than a CP, because it has a weak feature in its C, rather thana strong feature. In other words, the nonproverbial declarative sentence


that does not have an overt head with an overt complementizer in ECAdoes not require an obligatory focused element in a pre-IP position as arhetorical device. It is in this respect that we may say that there are twotypes of declarative sentences in ECA: one for the nonproverbial declar-ative sentence that does not have an overt head with an overt comple-mentizer, and another for the proverbial declarative sentence. It is theformer type of declarative sentence that supports Chomsky's (1995)belief that there is a null variant of the declarative C and that this nullvariant of the declarative C is introduced covertly because it has a weakfeature. In other words, the notion that there are strong and weak featuresnot only distinguishes between interrogative sentences and declarativesentences in English but also between the different types of declarativesentences in ECA.

The focused elements in these proverbial declarative sentences havebeen divided into focused arguments and focused adjuncts. The focusedarguments (be they CPs or NPs) are associated with internal positionswithin their major syntactic structures that determine their semantic inter-pretation. As for the focused adjuncts (be they PPs, IPs, or CPs), these arenot associated with internal positions within their major syntactic struc-tures for the determination of their semantic interpretations. Accordingly,the focused arguments are base-generated in an A-position, while thefocused adjuncts are base-generated in an A'-position. But both positions(i.e., the A-position for focused arguments and the A'-position for focusedadjuncts) are external to the major syntactic structure, i.e., in C. This notonly highlights the importance of this pre-IP position in the syntactic con-figuration of these proverbial declarative sentences in ECA, but also thedistinction between arguments and adjuncts.

The difference in the syntactic behavior between the focused NP andthe topic NP also warrants the assumption that they are base-generated indifferent A-positions in the pre-IP position. Accordingly, the topic NPwithout an overt complementizer has been regarded as a multiple speci-fier of the head I or T, allowing it to be extraposed (i.e., it has the abilityto subsume to rules at the phonological component, leading to its extra-position from its base-generated position, and in turn display some flexi-bility in the word order of these proverbial declarative sentences). Thisdistinctness of the focused NP and the topic NP is also indicated by thefact that each type of NP is assigned a different case, providing furtherevidence that they must be base-generated in two different A-positions.Being the specifier of C, the focused NP is assigned genitive case, ratherthan nominative case, and this is overtly manifested when there is anovert case marker carried by the focused NP. As for the topic NP that doesnot have an overt complementizer, it is assigned the nominative case


because it is the multiple specifier of I or T of Chomsky (1995). Thus, itis only when the declarative C is strong that it has the capacity to assigna distinct case to the NP it holds a spec-head relation with, i.e., it assignsgenitive case to the focused element and not nominative case.

The lexical type of analysis assumed for these focused elements is inkeeping with Chomsky's (1995) assumption that 9-role assignment is theproperty of the base. It has enabled us to differentiate between the domainin which the focused argument is assigned a 0-role and that in which thetopic NP is assigned a 0-role. Being in a spec-head relation with its C inits base-generated position, the focused argument be it a CP or an NP isassigned a 0-role by its head. Likewise, the topic NP without an overtcomplementizer is assigned a 0-role by its T because it is base-generatedas its multiple specifier. Finally, the lexical type of analysis has beenmaintained in this study of the proverbial declarative sentences becausethe word order of these focused elements is not really free: these prover-bial declarative sentences do not involve strictly optional movementoperations since the focused element must be in pre-IP position, unlikethe topic NP.

Notes1 As adverbials of time such as /ba9dima/) incorporate a relative

pronominal (indicated by the boldface part of this temporal), it seemsmore exacting to refer to them as "temporals" rather than as simplyadverbs. For a more detailed discussion of the temporals in one of theArabic dialects, see Ghaly (1988).

2 Shigeru Miyagawa (1997) has stated that binding can take place onlyin an A-position.

3 Shigeru Miyagawa (1997) states in accordance with Chomsky (1995)that specifiers count as multiple specifiers if and only if elements inthese specifiers are checked by the same head.

4 Sentence 8 is a nominal sentence, which has been defined as sentencewith a nonverbal predicate. This includes sentences with nominal pred-icates, with adjectival predicates, or prepositional predicates. SeeGhaly (1988 ) for a discussion of the nominal sentences in one of thedialects of Arabic.

5 The feminine form of the third person, singular pronoun is used herebecause the use of this proverbial sentence is found mostly in femalespeech. But this is a separate study that would be interesting to pursue.

6 Cf. sentence 11 in which both the topic NP (i.e., /l-Hidda:ya/) and thefocused element (i.e., the strong personal pronominal, /hiyya/) consti-tute one unit that is the focus in that sentence.


ReferencesAuthier, J.-M. 1992. Iterated CPs and embedded topicalization. Linguistic

inquiry, 23:329-336.Badawi, al-Said Muhammad. 1973. Mustawayat al-'arabiya al-mu'asira

fi-misr. Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif.Badawi, S. M., and Hinds, M. 1986. A dictionary of Egyptian Arabic:

Arabic-English. Beirut: Libraire du Liban.Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function chang-

ing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Baker, M. 1995. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Burton, S., and Grimshaw, J. 1992. Coordination and VP-internal subjects.

Linguistic inquiry, 23:305-313.Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic inter-

pretation. In D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobovitz (eds.), Semantics:an interdisciplinary reader, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 183-216.

. 1982a. Lectures on government and binding: the Pisa lec-tures. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris Publications.

. 1982b. Some concepts and consequences of the theory ofgovernment and binding, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

. 1986a. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and itsuse. New York: Praeger.

. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Press.

. 1989. Some notes on economy of derivation and representa-tion. In I. Laka and A. Mahajan (eds.), Functional heads and clausestructure: MIT. working papers in linguistics, 10:43-75.

. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Press.

and H. Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic inquiry,8:425-504.

Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A'-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Cowan, D. 1982. Modern literary Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press,.Doherty, C. 1997. Clauses without complementizers: finite IP-comple-

mentation in English. The linguistic review, 14:197-220.Emonds, J. 1980. Word order in generative grammar. Journal of linguistic

research, 1:33-54.Frascarelli, M. 1997. The phonology of focus and topic in Italian. The lin-

guistic review, 14:221-248.Greenberg, J.1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference


to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universalsof language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

May, R. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Miyagawa, S. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic inquiry,,

28:1-25.Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure

of IP. Linguistic inquiry, 20:365-424.Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rochemont, M. S.1989. Topic islands and the subjacency parameters.

Canadian journal of linguistics, 34:145-170.Takahashi, D. 1997. Move-F and null operator movement. The linguistic

review, 14:181-196.

Understanding the Quran in English:Notes on Translation, Form, and Prophetic Typology

Devin J. StewartAll too often the traditional dictum that the Quran cannot be translated, inrecognition of its inimitable eloquence and doctrinal status as God's eter-nal speech and the primary miracle of the Prophet Muhammad's mission,is not attended by any explanation why this might be the case, or what ele-ments one might miss when reading a translation. Such explanationswould in fact help further an understanding of the Quranic text, yet therepeated moratorium not only hinders an informed awareness of Islam andits scripture among non-Muslims, but also runs the risk of alienating non-Arab Muslims from their sacred text. Teaching the Quran in English trans-lation to American students, both Muslims and non-Muslims, I have strug-gled with the problems associated with producing and reading an Englishrendition of the Quran. I have found, overall, that they reside less in diffi-cult grammatical constructions or recherche vocabulary than in issues ofform, genre, and rhetoric. The following remarks touch on some repre-sentative problems of translation and examine prophetic typology, a cru-cial rhetorical strategy in the Quran.

The "Genre" of the Quranand the Problem of Accurate Translation

It is widely agreed that the Quran is a beautiful text. 'Umar 'ibn al-Khattab, later the second Caliph, vehemently opposed the Prophet's earlypreaching in Mecca but was so moved upon hearing Td Ha (sura 20) recit-ed that he converted on the spot. What is it that makes the Quran so beau-tiful and that renders any translation a pale shadow of the original? Rhymeand rhythm are certainly the most outstanding elements lost in translation.Doctrinal restrictionsthe idea that the Quran is miraculous and thereforeshould not be likened to human literary artifactsoften discourageMuslims from saying this directly, but the Quran is a profoundly artistic

32 Understanding the Quran in English

and indeed poetic text. Comparison with poetry or with the statements ofpre-Islamic soothsayers is explicitly denied in the Quran itself, and thus itis generally seen as heretical to call the Quran poetry or claim that it con-tains poetry.1 Nevertheless, a very large percentage (roughly 85%) of theverses in the Quran rhyme; a somewhat smaller proportion of the textexhibits rhyming, rhythmically parallel phrases, sometimes continuingthroughout entire suras. Sura 55, The Beneficent, for example, contains 78verses all rhyming in -an/-am that fall into groups of rhythmically paral-lel cola. The Arabic text of the opening verses shows the strong rhyme andrhythmical pattern, among the main reasons this sura is renowned as espe-cially beautiful:

al-rahman'allama al-qur'ankhalaqa al-insan'allamahu al-bayanal-shamsu wa-al-qamaru bi-husbanwa-al-najmu wa-al-shajaru yasjudan... (55:1-6)

This and other suras closely follow the compositional patterns ofsaj'a type of writing in Arabic generally translated as "rhymed prose"or "rhymed and rhythmical prose." Though traditional Muslim exegeteshave often, but by no means always, shied away from doing so, it is fairto label large sections of the Quran saj'.2 In recognition of this type ofcomposition's poetic nature, one might even go so far as to define saj' asaccent poetry, where word accents determine the number of feet or beatsper line, distinguishing it from the quantitative poetry of the classical qasidatradition, where more strict combinations of short and long syllables makeup each foot or beat.3 This and a number of other features having to dowith verbal form are lost in translation, but nonetheless, the student of theQuran who knows no Arabic may develop a good understanding of manyfeatures of the Quran by concentrating on aspects that are less dependenton linguistic form.

Many problems one faces in translating the Quran or in approachingit in translation have to do with expectations, and expectations areshaped largely by genre. The Quran is a sacred text and is approached onthose terms not only by devout Muslims but also by non-Muslims and,perhaps surprisingly, even by atheists. One effect this has on translatorsis to make them use what they believe to be high, sacred, and oftenarchaic language. Pickthall's translationthe translation I use for classand one of the best available, though a number of others are in print4often uses an archaic English vaguely reminiscent of the King James

Understanding the Quran in English 33

translation of the Bible, with the archaic distinction between singular andplural second person pronouns (thou, thine, thee vs. you, your, ye) andverb forms (thou thinkest, etc.), the regular use of the preposition "unto"for "to," and other similar features. This serves to impart to the text asomewhat more holy ring, but at the same time removes it from ordinary,contemporary language and renders comprehension slightly more diffi-cult for the average student.

Translators of sacred texts tend to stick more closely to the originalthan translators of other types of composition. This phenomenon is ofcourse not limited to the Quran but is clear in such texts as the Septuagint,the Latin Vulgate, and the genre of sharhJudaeo-Arabic translations orrenditions of Biblical texts. This tendency is so strong in some cases as toresult in translations where every word in the original is represented by acorresponding word in the target language; the original syntax is repro-duced in the target language at the expense of an idiomatic rendering. Oneneed only peruse Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate, for example, to seehow awkward and how unpoetic the results of such methods may be.Pickthall's rendition of the Quran shows many examples of this types oftranslation. One glaring example is his translation of the Arabic particle'inna, which he renders regularly "lo!" This is simply a bad translation,because "lo!" indicates surprise whereas 'inna indicates emphasis, evenleaving aside the fact that "lo!" occurs very rarely in contemporaryEnglish and never in every third sentence. 'Inna generally lends a slightemphasis to the sentence it introduces: The question then becomes how torepresent this emphasis idiomatically in English. In many cases, it seemsbest left untranslated.

Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of theScripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. Theyare the worst of created beings.(And) lo! those who believe and do good works are thebest of created beings. (98:6-7)

This could better be translated as follows:

Those who disbelieve....Those who believe....

The latter translation is a more accurate rendering of the Arabic andadequately brings out the intended contrast between the two groups men-tioned. In other contexts, one might use italics, exclamation points,"truly," "verily," or "indeed" to convey emphasis.


Lo! man is an ingrate unto his Lord (100:6) Man is indeed ungrateful to his Lord!Lo! it is thy insulter (and not thou) who is without posterity. (108:3) Your insulter is the one without progeny!

The particle wa- ("and") presents similar problems in translationbecause of differences between Arabic and English style. In Arabic, aseries is listed as A and B and C, whereas idiomatic English requires A, B,and C. Pickthall and others, however, striving to stick as close to the orig-inal text as possible, usually preserve the extra "ands" in lists.

...[We] cause the grain to grow thereinAnd grapes and green fodderAnd olive-trees and palm-treesAnd garden-closes of thick foliageAnd fruits and grasses:Provisions for you and your cattle. (80:27-32)

Only the last "and" here would appear in an idiomatic English rendi-tion. In addition, wa- is often used in Arabic to begin a sentence, indicat-ing that the previous topic has ended and marking the beginning of a newtopic. This type of wa- in particular should be left untranslated, butPickthall and other translators often leave it in.

And how many a community revolted against the ordinanceof its Lord and His messengers... (65:8) How many a community...

This feature is so common in the Quran that in the second sura, forexample, the longest in the Quran, 91 out of 286 verses, or just under onethird, begin with "And" in Pickthall's translation. Many of these "ands" donot belong in an idiomatic rendering.

The verb qala ("to say") presents similar problems, although again itsmeaning is apparent in a general way. While rendered regularly in trans-lations as "say," the verb qala clearly means also "ask," "answer, respond,reply," or "command, order," depending on context, since it may be fol-lowed by a question, response, or imperative. Just as one might describe aconversational exchange in colloquial English using the verb "go" ("Hegoes..., so she goes...then he goes..."), the verb qala serves as an all-pur-pose speech introducer. Translating the verb with a more specific termaccording to context would improve the flow of the text and increasecomprehension on the part of the reader.

Understanding the Quran in English 35

When he said unto his father and his folk: What is it that yeworship? (37:85) When he asked his father and his people: What do youworship?

And they say: When (will) this promise (be fulfilled), if yeare truthful?Say: The knowledge is with Allah only, and I am but a plainwarner. (67:25-26)They ask: When...?Answer:...

More difficult to render and more disconcerting to the average reader arethe uses of the command qul ("say") to introduce various passages in theQuran that do not represent a human conversational exchange but rather thetransmission of revelation to the Prophet. This occurs, among many otherpassages, in the last three suras in the Quran (112-114), which are clearlymeant to be repeated or recited as prayers. The command "say" seems tooperate here as an equivalent of quotation marks, setting off a particularlyimportant passage the Prophet has been commanded to repeat. In order toconvey this idea one might add in parentheses "Say (O Muhammad)" asPickthall does on occasion elsewhere in his translation, but not in thesesuras. The functional sense behind the term, however, might be representedby stating, "Repeat (after Me):...." or "Recite (the following):...."

Form and ContentIf a less slavish translation of elements like those discussed above helps thereader of the Quranic text in English understand the relationship of sentencesto one another within a passage or follow the flow of the text more easily,knowledge of the context of entire passages often proves crucial for an under-standing of the text. Two elements are especially relevant here: immediatecontext of the revelation and the genre to which the passage belongs. Contexthas been treated extensively in the Islamic tradition, often in general exege-ses but more particularly in works designated asbab al-nuzul ("the occasionsof revelation"), the most famous of which are those of al-Wahidi al-Nisaburi(d. 468 AH/1075 CE) and Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH/1505 CE).Translations often present brief notes at the beginning of suras that explainsomething about the original context, drawing on material from the asbab al-nuzul. The amount and specificity of the information provided varies andoften leaves something to be desired. Pickthall explains in the short intro-


duction to sura 108, Abundance, "The disbelievers used to taunt the Prophetwith the fact that he had no son, and therefore none to uphold his religionafter him." The introduction to sura 111, Palm Fibre, reads in part,

It is the only passage in the whole Qur'an where an oppo-nent of the Prophet is denounced by name

[sabiha aydelott] diversity in language contrasti(bookos.org)

Documents