Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXXI: Papers from the annual symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Norman, Oklahoma, 2017
Edited by Amel Khalfaoui and Youssef A. Haddad
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 8] 2019
► pp. 181–204

Generic expressions in Tunisian Arabic

Beyond the definite article al-

Previous analyses of generic expressions in Arabic have focused on definite singular and plural DPs headed with the definite article al- (Fehri, 2004; Al-Malki et al., 2014). This study introduces an additional type of generic reference expressed with the Tunisian Arabic (TA) demonstrative hāk. Based on an analysis of naturally occurring discourse, this study shows that the felicity of this generic demonstrative is subject to a number of constraints. First, the generic demonstrative hāk always occurs with a plural count or singular non-count noun and a restrictive modifier in order to denote a familiar (i.e., in memory) kind set. Second, the evoked kind set must be a relatively subordinate and atypical (i.e., less central) kind set in accordance with Rosch (1978) and Lakoff’s (1987) principles of categorization.
Keywords: generic demonstratives, pragmatics, Arabic, cognitive linguistics, categorization, prototype theory, discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Generic expressions in Arabic: An overview
  • 3.Previous work on generic demonstratives
  • 4.The current study: Generics expressed with the demonstrative hāk
    • The demonstrative hāk: Morphosyntactic and cognitive status features
    • Methodology
    • General constraints
    • Category variability
    • Level of categorization
    • Prototypicality
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.8.08kha
References (17)
References
Al-Malki, E. A., Majiid, N. A., & Omar, N. A. M. (2014). Generic reference, Arabic and Malay: A cross linguistic typology and comparison. English Language Teaching, 7(11), 15–27.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Ward, G. (1995). Generic demonstratives. In J. Ahlers, L. Bilmes, J. S. Guenter, B. A. Kaiser, & J. Namkung (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 32–43). Berkeley CA.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2006). Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 633–656). USA/UK/Australia: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New Jersey/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fehri, A. F. (2004). Nominal classes, reference, and functional parameters, with particular reference to Arabic. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4, 41–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Zacharski, R., & Hedberg, N. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69 (2), 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Bassene, M., Gordon, B., Humnick, L., & Khalfaoui, A. (2010). Testing predictions of the Givenness Hierarchy framework: A crosslinguistic investigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1770–1785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khalfaoui, A. (2007). A cognitive approach to analyzing demonstratives in Tunisian Arabic. In M. Mughazy (Ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics (Vol. XX, pp. 170–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maclaran, R. (1980). On two asymmetrical uses of the demonstrative determiners in English. Linguistics, 18 (9–10), 803–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeil, K., & Faiza, M. (2012). Tunisian Arabic Corpus 2012. Retrieved from [URL]
OH, S.Y. (2001). A focus-based study of English demonstrative reference: with special reference to the genre of written advertisements. Journal of English Linguistics, 29 (2), 124–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In W. C. Mann, & S. A. Thomson (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund raising text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication & cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zaki, M. (2007). A procedural account of demonstratives in English and Arabic: A corpus-based study. In Proceedings of Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (pp. 159–163). Lagos, Portugal: Centro de Linguistica da Universidade de Porto.Google Scholar