Generics Associating Construct State Phrases

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, MSA does not put restrictions on nominals used in generic sentences, particularly characterizing sentences, unless a nominal expression is grammatically indefinite. Therefore, one would intuitively expect to find generic sentences which use construct state phrases as arguments, provided that the CS phrases are definite in form. Consider the data in (54)41.

(54) a. ʕaamil-u l-matˤʕam-i y-astayqiðˤ-u mubakkiran worker-Nom the-restaurant-Gen 3-wake-Nom early

(The/A restaurant worker wakes up early)

b. ʔustaað-u l-ʤaamiʕat-i y-aħðˤaa bil-iħtiraam teacher-Nom the-university-Gen 3-enjoy with-the-respect (The/A professor is well respected)

c. t-uɣlaq-u bawwaabat-u l-madrasat-i fi l-ʕutˤali 3.f-close.Pass-Nom door-Nom the-school-Gen in the-holidays-Gen r-rasmiyy-a

the-official-f

(School doors close on official holidays)

41

The habitual reading of these sentences is irrelevant to this discussion. Both the episodic and lexically characterizing readings are investigated based on the semantic definiteness status of the CS subjects.

143

d. rabb-u l-ʔusrat-i masʔuul-u-n ʕan iħtiyaaʤaat-i ʔabnaaʔ-i-h head-Nom the-family-Gen responsible-Nom-N for needs-Gen children-Gen-his

(The/Head of the family is responsible for his children’s needs)

The NPs used in (54) as subject arguments are definite in form CS phrases. As the behavior of simple definite NPs used in sentences combining I-level predicates, or in habitual sentences, the sentences here are ambiguous between two interpretations: an episodic reading in which an accidental property or event is reported of a salient individual, and a generic interpretation. The sentence in (a), for instance, can be either interpreted existentially as reporting that there is a familiar or unique,

contextually salient restaurant worker who happens to wake up early at a specific time and location42, or it can receive a generic interpretation; in the sense that restaurant workers in general wake up early. The exact semantic status of the al-N member, and hence the maximal CS phrase, in terms of definiteness is decisive in determining which reading the sentence avails, generic or episodic. The context and other pragmatic tools play a crucial role in teasing apart the definiteness status of the CS. Similarly, (b) can be interpreted as ‘there exists a contextually prominent professor who is well respected’, or ‘professors in general are well respected’. The sentence in (c) does not use an I-level predicate; tuɣlaq ‘is closed’ is in fact an S-level predicate, but still this sentence can entertain a habitually generic interpretation that can be verbalized as follows: ‘situations of official holidays are such that school doors close in these situations’. It is worth mentioning that (c) can also receive an episodic interpretation with a semantically definite individual school.

Therefore, if we provide contexts that limit the denotation of CS phrases in (54) to semantically definite referents, the only interpretation the sentences express is episodic. However, providing contexts which limit the denotation of CS phrases to variable individuals; i.e., semantically indefinite referents, enforces a generic reading of the sentences in (54) as the only available reading. Put differently, sentences with grammatically definite CS and I-level predicates behave exactly like the sentences with simple grammatically definite nouns and I-level predicates discussed in (4.3). To see this, and to save ink, sentence (54.d) is repeated in (55.a) with a context limiting the denotation of

42

144

CS to a definite referent, and in (55.b) with a context enforcing a semantically indefinite denotation of CS.

(55) a. [A girl is arguing with her mother about buying new clothes. The mother told her not to argue with her, but talk to her father because]

rabb-u l-ʔusrat-i masʔuul-u-n ʕan iħtiyaaʤaat-i ʔabnaaʔ-i-h head-Nom the-family-Gen responsible-Nom-N for needs-Gen children-Gen-his

(The head of the family is responsible for his children’s needs)

b. [A teacher discussing with his senior students responsibilities of head of the family in the Arab world]

rabb-u l-ʔusrat-i masʔuul-u-n ʕan iħtiaaɮaat-i ʔabnaaʔ-i-h head-Nom the-family-Gen responsible-Nom-N for needs-Gen children-Gen-his

(Head of the family is responsible for his children’s needs)

As expected, (a) is a particular sentence reporting a random fact about a particular head of the family father known to both interlocutors from shared knowledge familiarity as being responsible for his children’s needs; no generalization is expressed. The sentence in (b), however, where the CS denotes a variable individual head of the family, avails a generic interpretation as the only available reading. It says that in the Arab world situation, head of families in general are responsible for their children’s needs. The latter is a characterizing sentence, but the former is a particular sentence. The crucial difference in both sentences is brought by the different semantic denotations entertained by the same CS in different contexts. The same rational holds for the other sentences in (54) and any similar sentences with the same structure.

However, unlike simple nominal expressions that promote only episodic readings when are grammatically indefinite, grammatically indefinite CS phrases can be used in characterizing sentences, as illustrated in the following sentences.

(56) a. kalb-u ħiraasat-i-n xayr-u-n min ʤihaaz-i ʔinðaar dog-Nom guard-Gen-N better-Nom-N than system-Gen alarm

(A guard dog is better than a security alarm system)

b. kalb-u sˤayd-i-n ʔfdˤal-u min bunduqiyyat-i sˤayd dog-Nom hunt-Gen-N better-Nom than gun-Gen-N hunt (A hunting dog is better than a hunting gun)

c. ʃaʤarat-u zaytuun-i-n t-utˤʕim-u ʔusrat-a-n kaamila tree-Nom olive-Gen-N 3.f-feed-Nom family-Acc-N whole

145 (An olive tree is enough to feed a whole family)

d. nuur-u misˤbaaħ-i-n y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulma light-Nom lamp-Gen-N 3-dispel-Nom the-darknes (The light of a lamp dispels the darkness)

e. t-udxil-u kalimat-u ħaqq-i-n al-ʤanna 3.f-enter-Nom word-Nom truth-Gen-N the-heaven (A word of truth leads to entering Heaven)

f. t-uɣnii ʃabakat-u sˤayyd-i-n ʕan qaarib 3.f-substitute net-Nom fishing-Gen-N for boat (A fishing net substitutes for a boat)

g. t-uħyii zaxxat-u matˤar-i-n l-ʔardˤ-a l-mayta 3.f-revive shower-Nom rain-Gen-N the-land-Acc the-dead (A shower of rain revives a dead land)

These examples are true characterizing sentences, though their subject arguments are grammatically indefinite CS phrases. Intriguingly, these sentences can only be interpreted as expressing generic readings, and existential interpretations seem to be completely unavailable. The sentence in (a), for example, expresses a generalization about guard dogs, stating that in general, a guard dog is better than a home security alarm system. The sentence does not have another interpretation where an existential guard dog referent is accidentally reported to be better than an alarm system; the property of being better than a security alarm is predicated to guard dogs in general. Similarly, (b) expresses a generalization about hunting dogs in general being better than hunting guns. In (c) a generalization is reported about olive trees in general, not an existential olive tree. (d) does not report a property of light of a certain lamp, it is about light of lamps in general. The rest of the sentences are generically interpreted in the same fashion.

It is worth mentioning that the position of the indefinite CS does not affect the interpretation of the sentence. Sentences (a-d) are SV(O), whereas sentences (f-g) are VS(O). What is puzzling is that in these sentences the generic reading is the only reading available; while their minimal

counterparts with definite CS phrases can have both generic and existential readings, as mentioned above. More precisely, I am comparing the sentences in (56) with their minimally counterparts with grammatically definite CS uttered out of the blue; i.e., with little explicit contextual support. In this

146

case, the latter are ambiguous between generic and non-generic readings depending on the semantic definiteness status of the grammatically definite CS subject. Sentences with grammatically indefinite CS, however, are not ambiguous, and only express a generic interpretation. This can be clearly shown by inserting a demonstrative pronoun like haaða ‘this’ or haaðihi ‘this.f’, which forces an existential reading of the sentence as the only reading possible. The demonstrative haaða ‘this’ seems

compatible with sentences incorporating grammatically definite CS phrases; in this case the generic reading is excluded, and the episodic reading with a contextually salient referent is promoted instead. However, haaða is incompatible with any of the sentences in (56). This becomes clear if we notice that these sentences can only be interpreted generically. The pair in (57) illustrates this point. (57) a. t-uɣnii ʃabakat-u sˤ-sˤayyd-i haaðihi ʕan qaarib

3.f-substitute net-Nom the-fishing-Gen this.f for boat (This fishing net substitutes for a boat)

b. *t-uɣnii ʃabakat-u sˤayyd-i-n haaðihi ʕan qaarib 3.f-substitute net-Nom fishing-Gen-N this.f for boat (This fishing net substitutes for a boat)

An interesting question relevant to the semantic status of indefinite in form CS compared to both indefinite simple nouns and definite CS is to be addressed here. More precisely, what semantic privilege does bare CS exhibit that renders it behaving differently from both bare simple nouns which relatively cannot be inserted in characterizing sentences, and definite in form CS phrases which render their sentences ambiguous between generic/nongeneric readings? If we examine the internal structure of bare CS, we can get a helpful insight. The essence of a CS is that it contains two nouns in which the last seems to indirectly modify the first head noun. This indirect modification cancels the existential interpretation that bare nouns entertain, and promotes an indefinite denotation of the noun in the real sense. The head noun becomes non-specific in the sense that it no longer denotes

individual(s) existentially. Modification of the noun in a grammatically indefinite CS renders it denoting a content-descriptive frame upon which a set of individuals to which this description applies is picked. Therefore, this noun no longer denotes existentially computed individual(s), as simple bare nouns do. In (56.a) kalb-u ħiraasat-i-n ‘a guard dog’ is not an existential dog; it is a dog with a

147

specific property. Similarly, ʃaʤarat-u zaytuun-i-n ‘olive tree’ is not an existentially calculated tree; it refers to any individual that satisfies the descriptive content of the CS. Modification in bare CS changes the semantics of the head noun from denoting existentially computed individuals in a specific situation to denoting a set of individuals or objects that satisfy the properties provided by the head noun and the complement in all relevant situations. This explains the difference in denotation between bare CS and simple bare nouns, and their asymmetrical behavior with regard to characterizing

sentences. It is noteworthy that unlike sentences combining grammatically simple indefinite subjects, sentences with indefinite in form CS subjects are incompatible with time adverbials which enforce an episodic reading of the sentence like al-ʔaan ‘now’, al-yawm ‘today’, haaðaa l-ʔusbuuʕ ‘this week’, or haaðihi l-ʔayyaam ‘these days’, which supports the claim that a bare CS does not denote an existential individual or individuals. Consider the examples below.

(58) a. y-alʕab-u walad-u-n fi ʃ-ʃaariʕ 3-play-Nom boy-Nom-N in the-street

(A boy is playing on the street)

b. y-alʕab-u walad-u-n fi ʃ-ʃaariʕ al-ʔaan 3-play-Nom boy-Nom-N in the-street the-now (A boy playing on the street now)

(59) a. nuur-u misˤbaaħ-i-n y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulma light-Nom lamp-Gen-N 3-dispel-Nom the-darkness

(The light of a lamp dispels the darkness)

b.* nuur-u misˤbaaħ-i-n y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulmat-a al-ʔaan light-Nom lamp-Gen-N 3-dispel-Nom the-darkness-Acc the-now

(A light of a lamp is dispelling the darkness now)

Both sentences in (58) are acceptable and interpretable since they express an existential reading, brought by the indefinite NP in (a), and the existential time adverbial al-ʔaan ‘now’ in (b). Both sentences express the same proposition that in a particular situation in the actual world, an

existentially computed boy individual is involved in an episodic playing event at a particular place and time. The pair in (59), however, is not congruent. While (a) is a characterizing sentence reporting a generalization about light of lamps in general as holding the property of dispelling darkness, the sentence in (b) is completely ungrammatical. Its ungrammaticality is due to the presence of al-ʔaan

148

‘now’ which forces an existential reading of the CS subject, and the sentence as a whole. As the indefinite CS nuur-u misˤbaaħ-i-n ‘a light of a lamp’ does not denote an existentially computed specific object, it is naturally incompatible with existential constructions like al-ʔaan ‘now’, hence the ungrammaticality of (59.b).

As for the asymmetry between definite and indefinite in form CS phrases, the indefinite CS, unlike its definite counterpart, avails only a generic reading of the sentence, contributed, in part, by the variable individual denoted by the indefinite in form and sense CS. The other episodic reading, which a sentence with a definite CS can also express when the grammatically definite CS is

semantically definite, is not available in sentences combining indefinite CS because an indefinite in form CS, as well as simple bare nouns, cannot be semantically definite in MSA. Indefinite CS is on par with semantically indefinite al-N, but not with semantically definite al-N. The semantically definite CS can be interpreted as denoting a particular, salient or unique individual. The indefinite CS, however, provides a descriptive frame upon which a set of individuals is picked. Therefore, as

expected sentences incorporating grammatically definite subjects CS phrases are compatible with existential time adverbials like al-ʔaan ‘now’, but their minimally contrasting sentences with grammatically indefinite CS phrases are not.

(60) a. nuur-u l-misˤbaaħ-i y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulma light-Nom the-lamp-Gen 3-dispel-Nom the-darkness

(The light of a/the lamp dispels the darkness)

a'.nuur-u l-misˤbaaħ-i y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulmat-a al-ʔaan light-Nom the-lamp-Gen 3-dispel-Nom the-darkness-Acc the-now

(The light of the lamp is dispelling the darkness now)

b. nuur-u misˤbaaħ-i-n y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulma light-Nom lamp-Gen-N 3-dispel-Nom the-darkness

(The light of a lamp dispels the darkness)

b'.* nuur-u misˤbaaħ-i-n y-ubaddid-u ðˤ-ðˤulmat-a al-ʔaan light-Nom lamp-Gen-N 3-dispel-Nom the-darkness-Acc the-now

(A light of a lamp is dispelling the darkness now)

The only difference in meaning between (a&a') is that (a') no longer avails a generic reading; it can only be interpreted existentially.This explains why sentences that incorporate the indefinite CS can

149

only express generic readings, and refrain from expressing existential readings similar to their minimally contrasting counterparts with definite CS phrases.