Zarqa Journal for Research and Studies in Humanities...

Zarqa Journal for Research and Studies in Humanities Volume 18, No 2, 2018

372

دراسة مقارنة لألدوار المعنوية للخبر في اللغتين اإلنجليزية والعربية

الدكتور صالح محمد ناجي اللغة االنجليزية و وآدابها

جامعة الزرقاء[email protected]

الدكتور جميل محمد حسين بني عطا الللغة العربية وآدابها

جامعة الزرقاء[email protected]

ملخص:ت الدراسة إلى التشابه واالختالف بينهما في ذلك، حيث توصلنجليزية، لبيان أوجه هذه الدراسة أنواع المسند في الجملة باللغتين العربية واإل تبحث

د، وطبيعته، نأن أوجه التشابه واالختالف بينهما في ذلك، حيث توصلت الدراسة إلى أن أوجه التشابه بينهما أكثر من أوجه االختالف من حيث أنواع المسهت الدراسة رجعا إلى مصادر قديمه وحديثه ذات عالقة بالموضوع في كلتا اللغتين. وانتوتأثيره، ومتعلقاته. وقد تبنى الباحثان المنهج الوصفي التحليلي، و

بمجموعة من التوصيات.ية، الجملة الفعلية.أنواع المسند، الجملة البسيطة، نماذج الجملة، الجملة االسمالكلمات المفتاحية:

11/40/8412قبول البحث استالم البحث 2017/10/19

https://doi.org/10.12816/0054758

Contrastive Study for the Predicate Semantic Roles in Both English and Arabic Languages

385

Contrastive Study for the Predicate Semantic Roles

in Both English and Arabic Languages Dr. Saleh Mohd Naji

English Language Department -Faculty of Arts

Zarqa University

[email protected]

Dr. Jamil Mohd Bani Ata

Arabic Department-Faculty of Arts

Zarqa University

[email protected]

Abstract: This study investigates valency-zero, valency- one and valency- two for the aim of finding out the similarities

and the discrepancies between the predicates in both English and Arabic kernel sentences. It concludes that the

similarities are more than the differences between the predicates’ types, nature, and their influence on the number

and the role of the arguments in the English and Arabic sentences.

The researchers adopt the descriptive and the analytical strategy in their investigation. They refer to different

modern and old sources for this purpose. The study ends with some relevant recommendations. Keywords : Valency predicates, kernel sentence, sentence pattern, nominal sentence and verbal sentence .

1- Introduction: 1.1 The Importance of this study:

The importance of this study comes up along

with the wide spread interests of the interactions and

the translations among most cultures on earth. This

interest is clearly demonstrated inthousands of

newspapers and magazines in different languages in

the same country, different language institutions and

translation departments in most if not all universities

in the whole world.

Lack of real, deep understanding and the

problems which are caused by the misinterpretation of

the specifications of each language and how a

language functions in its lexical, grammatical, cultural

and social contexts are behind the different obstacles

faced by the people who are working in the field of

translation and the ones who are interested in foreign

cultures and foreign languages in general.

This issue depends on the fact that when people

communicate, they communicate with utterances,

each utterance represents a sentence, the

Meaning of the sentence depends on the meaning

of its constituent lexemes and the grammatical

meanings it contains. In addition to that, the conditions

which are necessary outside language for that sentence

to be true and to be understood adequately.

1.2. Contrastive Analysis:

It is worth mentioning in this respect that an

overall consideration of contrastive analysis is not

necessary, as it is not needed for the purpose of this

study. Accordingly a specific relevant definition will

be adopted by the researchers. It comes as follows:

“Contrastive analysis identifies a general

approach to the investigation of language, particularly

as carried on certain areas of applied linguistics, such

as foreign language teaching and translation. In a

contrastive analysis of two languages the points of

structural differences are identified and these then

are studied as areas of potential difficulties in foreign

language-learning”. [15]

1.3. The strategy of this study: As mentioned above this study adopts the sentence

predicate constituent in both languages, English and

Arabic as an area of investigation; to find out the

similarities and the differences which are demonstrated in

the functions of both languages, especially when they

are used in the field of teaching and learning

processes and in the from- to processes of translation in

English and Arabic.

To achieve this objective the study tends to identify

the basic components, only, of the kernel sentence in both

languages as an attempt to shed light on how far these

components are convergent or divergent. Secondly,

another attempt will be dealing with is the patterns of both

languages to find out the same above mentioned

objective.

2- What is meant by "Sentence" in Both Languages? 3- 2.1) The concept of sentence:

The sentence in Arabic "Al- Jumlah" in a general

definition is the collection of things after being scattered [8] . On the other hand the Arab grammarian like "Al-

Mubarrid"[7] , defines the sentence or al- jumlah as "an

action" or the "predicate and the subject", or "the doer of

the action", or "the noun" which is connected with the

predicate. These elements are called a sentence as long as

they are meaningful. Abu- Ali Al- Farisi[4] states that a

logical and meaningful combination of a noun, a verb and

a letter of meaning (conjunctions, prepositions… etc)

makes a speech or what is called a sentence.

Accordingly and as has been mentioned above, Arab

grammarians insist on the fact that the sentence is a

complete meaningful structure.

As for English language grammarians, they define

the sentence from syntactic and semantic perspectives.

Rodney Huddelston[17] defines the sentence as "the largest

Received 19/10/2017 Accepted 11/04/2018

https://doi.org/10.12816/0054758


384

stretch of language forming a syntactic construction".

This definition considers the sentence as a group of

constituents arranged together in a certain accepted

way.

If one refers to Bloomfield in Lyons [24]"a

sentence is an independent linguistic form, not

included by virtue of any grammatical description in

any larger linguistic unit" Lyons clarifies Bloomfield

definition by stating that the sentence is the Largest

Unit of grammatical description (Ibid). While Palmer

[28] defines "sentence" as a group of words connected

together with grammatical rules to express a whole

thought.

2.2: The Basic Constituents of a Simple Sentence In Both Languages It is essential for a sentence to be complete

meaningful structure. It should have two main

components or constituents. As one would say in

Arabic:أشرقت الشمس "Ashraqat AL-shamsu", "The sun

shone". In this sentence the action of shinning is

referring to the sun, i.e the verb "Ashraqa" is the

"predicate" and "AL-shamsu" is the subject. In Arabic

language "Al- Musnad" is (the predicate) and "Al-

Musnad Ilayh" is the subject. In the English sentence

"The sun shone",the sun is the subject and shone is the

predicate. One can conclude from the above analysis

that the components of the two sentences (English

sentence and Arabic sentence) are nearly the same,

except for the components positions, i.e at the initial

positions of the sentence or at the final positions of the

sentence.

Hereunder, there are many other examples which

will give more elaboration on the constituents of the

Arabic and English sentences: 1.0 We analyze a sentence ........................ نحلل جملة -1 1- Nuhallilu Jumlah 2.0. We analyzed a sentence ...................... حللنا جملة -2 .1. Hallalna Jumlah 3.0. We have analyzed a sentence ......... لقد حللنا جملة -3 .1. laqad Hallalna Jumlah 4.0. We will analyze a sentence.................. سنحلل جملة -4 4.1. Sanuhallilu Jumlah

As can be noticed from the above examples that

tens of transformations, (utterances) or sentences can

be produced by the manipulation of the basic

constituents and the grammatical rules in both

languages.

It is worth discussing the basic constituents of one of

the above example to shed light on the similarities and

the discrepancies among these constituents.

The basic components of the English language

sentence:

"We analyze a sentence":

-We" is the subject (Al- Musnad Ilayh).-analyze is the

predicate (Al- Musnad).-a sentence is the object (Al-

Maf9ul).

As for the Arabic sentence: "HallalnaJumlah "………..(حللنا جملة)-"Hallala" is

the predicate (Al- Musnad)-"Na" is the subject ( Al-

Musnad Ilayh).

"Na" is a connected pronoun. It is connected with the

verb, a case which is not available in English. Another

case which will be referred to later is the verbal sentence

i.e the sentence starts with a verb. This case,also is not

found in English language.

-Jumlah: is the object of the Arabic sentence, i.e

(Maf9ulun Bih).

The above analysis is mainly traditional and

structural. It shows that both sentences in English and

Arabic have nearly the same basic constituents except for

some specifications related to each language as the

ones mentioned above and the position of certain

constituents.

To make this issue clearer, the researchers refer to

the tree-technique in Transformational Generative

Grammar (TGG) to analyze the same above mentioned

sentences.

This analysis shows clearly the conclusion that the

researchers mentioned above that the basic simple

sentence in both languages have nearly the same

constituents i.e.:

Subject (musnad Ilayh) - Predicate (musnad) Object

(maf9ulun Bih)

It is worth clarifying the above mentioned

specifications in both languages. In Arabic there is a

specific issue which is “the subsumed pronoun” in the

predicate. This issue is completely absent in English. It is

impossible to cross out the pronoun “we” in the sentence

“we analyse a sentence”. While in Arabic this sentence

can be realized by two types of Arabic language

sentences. i.e.: Nahnu Nuhallilu Jumlatan. We analyze a

sentence.

(The Arabic sentence is complex)While its

equivalent sentence in English is simple.

It is possible to cross out the pronoun “Nahnu” from

the Arabic sentence because it is found, subsumed in the

predicate “Nuhalilu”. But it is impossible to cross out the

pronoun “we” in the English sentence. It becomes “no

sentence”, because one of its main pillars is absent.

4- sentence patterns in both languages

3.a)English Patterns: 3.a.1- subject + v.p. (intransitive)Sami disappeared.

3.a.2- subject + v.p.(verb link)+ subject complement. English

students are active.

3.a.3- subject + v.p. (mono-transitive)+ direct object. The

lecture bored me.

3.a.4- subject+ verb link+ adverb.My office is in this floor.

3.a.5- subject+ v.p. (di-transitive)+ indirect obj+ do.You gave

her the wrong medicine.

3.a.6- subject+ v.p. (complex transitive)+ do+ co. Mary made

her husband miserable.

3.a.7- subject+ v.p. (transitive) + od+ adverb.Jhon put the ball

in the basket.More lights will be shed on such issues later


383

on when they are encountered in the analysis of similar

sentences.

The analysis comes as follows:(a) We analyze a

sentence. S

We analyze a sentence

(subject) (predicate) (object)

(Musnad Ilayh) (Musnad) (Maf9ulun Bih)

(object)(subject)(predicate)

(Maf9ulun Bih)(Musnad Ilayh)(Musnad)

(b) The Arabic sentence: Nuhallilu Jumlah (نحلل جملة)

ج

NP NP VP

N Pro V

نحلل نحن جملة

(object) (subject) (predicate)

(Maf9ulunBih) (Musnad Ilayh) (Musnad) It is worth drawing the attention to the fact that

the verb phrase in these patterns is the central and the

pivotal elements in each sentence. Their influence or

what will be called later “the valency”, controls the

elements that follow it (student Grammar of spoken

and written English-42).

3.B- Arabic sentence Patterns: 3.B.1- Subject+ V. intransitive.-Al-

shamsuIkhtafat.1- الشمس اختفت Subject+ predicate

The sundisappeared Subject+ predicate It’s

worth nothing and drawing the attention to the

following points: 1- The Arabic sentence and its equivalent English

sentence are nominal sentences which means that

the initial element is a (noun) i.e “Al-shamsu” in

the Arabic sentence and “the sun” in the English

sentence.

2- The Arabic sentence is a complex sentence

because the predicate “Ikhtafat” is a subordinate

clause functioning as the predicate of the Arabic

sentence.

3- As for the English sentence, it is a simple

sentence.

4- In the Arabic sentence there is a subsumed

pronoun in the predicate “Ikhtafat” while it is not

available in the English sentence predicate

"disappeared".

In Arabic language this pattern can be realized by

different types of sentences, i.e the verbal sentence which

comes as follows:

IkhtafatAL-shams u.اختفت الشمس

(Predicatesubject المسند المسند إليه )

In Arabic as in English this sentence is "simple" but it's

impossible to have the same type in English. It's

equivalent in English will be: The sun disappeared,

because English sentences are always nominal.

3.B.2- subject + v. link+ subject complement

SameerunKana Tayaran .سمير كان طيارا (subject predicate)

Sameerwas a pilot (subject predicate )

This pattern is the nominal pattern and the Arabic

sentence is complex while its English equivalent is

simple.

There is another realization for this pattern in Arabic

with the verb at the beginning of the sentence, i.e: Kan

SameerunTayaran. .ًكان سمير طيارا (subject predicate)

Sameerunwas apilot. (subject predicate )

In this verbal type both sentences in Arabic and

English are simple sentences (see the clarification in

(3.B.1) above.

There is a third realization for this pattern, in which

the sentence has got no verbs.

SameerunTayarun. ( subject predicate )

Sameer is a pilot.

As it has been shown in this pattern that in Arabic

language there are three different types while in English

they have just one type.

3.B.3- subject+ v. transitive+ direct object

3.B.3.1-SalimunqadaAl-sayarata.(subject

predicate object)

3.B.3.2-Salimdrovethe car. ( subject predicate

object)

3.B.3.3- qada Salimun Al-syarata. 3.B.3.4- Salim

drove the car.

As noticed above, there are two types of sentences

in this pattern the nominal sentence and the verbal

sentence while there is only one type in English "the

nominal type".

But, it should be noticed, semantically speaking, that

in Arabic nominal type, the emphasis is on the doer of the

action while in the verbal type, the emphasis is on the

action itself.

Pattern "4" 3.B.4-: subject+ v. Intransitive+ adverb.

3.B.4.1: Maktabi yujadw fi Hatha Al- Tabaq.

مكتبي يوجد في هذا الطابق

.(Maktabi: subject)Yujadu Fi Hatha Al- Tabaq:

predicate (standard Arabic Tabaq) (Yujadu: verb)Fi

Hatha Al- Tabaq: adverb. Subordinate clauses indicating

adverbiality by the preposition of (Fi) This sentence is a

nominal Arabic sentence. It is a complex sentence

consisting of:

"maktabi" as a subject (Al- Musnad Ilayh) and

Yujadu Fi Hatha Al- Tabaq as "predicate" which is a

subordinate clause.

NP VP

NP V Pro

Det N


382

4.B.4.2- Yujadu Maktabi Fi Hatha Al- Tabaq.

.يوجد مكتبي في هذا الطابق

This pattern is verbal and it differs from the type in

3.B.4.1. which is nominal . In addition, this type is a

simple sentence, similar to its equivalent English type,

i.e:

My office is in this floor

3.B.4.3- Maktabi Fi Hatha Al- Tabaq.

.مكتبي في هذا الطابق = My office is in this floor

See the above clarification.

3.B.5- Pattern no.5 3.B.5.1- s+ vp. transitive+ object one+ object two. 3.B.5.1.1-= Al-tabeebu Yu9teeni Al- Dawa. .الطبيب يعطيني الدواء

= The doctor gives me the medicine. - Al-tabeebu=

subject- The doctor= subject.

- Yu9tee= predicate. - Gives= predicate. - Ni =

connected pronoun- 1stobject.

- Al- Dawa= 2nd object.- The medicine= 2ndobject. The similarity between the Arabic and English

patterns is very noticiple. Except for the type of the

Arabic pattern which is complex.

3.B.5.1.2-: yu9teeni Al-tabeebu Al-dawa?.

= The doctor gives me the medicine.

The Arabic and English patterns are different in their

structures. The Arabic pattern is verbal while the

English pattern is nominal as usual. According to the

type of the sentence, both patterns are simple

sentences.

3.B.6- Pattern 6: 3.B.6.1-:s+ vp. complex trans.+ object+ object

complement

اللجنة اختارت أحمد مدرسا.مركبة

Al- Lajnatu Ikhtarat Ahmad Mudarrisan.

= Complex Sentence

S + Vp. Complex. trans.+ O +Co

The committee chose Ahmad a teacher.

S + Vp. + O + Co

3.B.6.2- Ikhtarat Al- Lajnahtu Ahmad

Mudarisan. .(جملة بسيطة) -اختارت اللجنة أحمد مدرسا

- The committee chose Ahmad a teacher. "Simple

sentence".Both patterns in English and Arabic are

simple sentences. But, the difference is in the type of

thesentence, i.e, The Arabic sentence is verbal while

the English one is nominal as usual.

3.B.7- Pattern No. 7: 3.B.7.1-: S+ vp. trans.+ o.+ adverb. = AliWadha9a Al- KitabaFawqa Al-tawilah Svp.o adv.(Sub. Adv. Clause i.e Fawqa adverb and Al-tawilah genitive). Aliputthe bookon theعلي وضع الكتاب فوق الطاولة. )مركبة( table.( S. vp.o adv.)

The two patterns in English and in Arabic are

similar except for the factthatthe Arabic pattern is a

complex sentence while the English pattern is a simple

sentence.

= Another realization of this pattern comes as follows:

3.B.7.2- Wadha9a Aliyun Al- Kitaba Fawqa AL-tawilah .وضع علي الكتاب على الطاولة -Ali put the book on the table.

It's worth noting that the Arabic pattern is verbal but the

English one is nominal as usual, while both of them are

similar in the functions of all the components in both

patterns.

3.B.8Pattern No.8:

3.B.8.1- S+ Vp. Transitive+ O(1)+ O(2)+ O(3)

A9lamatأعلمت األم أوالدها الصالة واجبة )جملة بسيطة( =

Al-Ummu Awladaha AL-salata Wajibah

V + S + O(1) + O(2) +O(3)

-The mother told her children that praying is obligatory.

(complex sentence)

Another realization for this Arabic pattern comes as

followers:

3.B.8.2-Al-UmmuA9lamatAwladahaAL-

salataWajibah)األم أعلمت أوالدها الصالة واجبة)جملة مركبة S V

O(1) O(2) O(3)

-The mother told her children that praying is obligatory.

This pattern is found in Arabic language, but in English it

is treated as a complex sentence. The main difference in

this pattern is found in the verbal structure in Arabic while

in English and in both cases it is only one realization,

which is, the nominal pattern or sentence.Referring to the

above brief purposeful analysis of the constituents and the

patterns of the sentence in both English and Arabic

languages, the researchers would like to emphasize

certain outstanding discrepancies between the two

languages: First in the constituents and the patterns in

both languages there are many similarities with respect to

the noun phrases, verb phrases Etc. but the distribution

of these constituents is consistent in each language:In

English the arrangement of these constituents is stable

and static(to an extent of course) and the reference is clear

in case of any changes purposefully done by the writer or

the speaker. While in Arabic the positions of these

constituents are movable because of the different sentence

realizations, i.e Verbal and nominal sentences. It’s worth

mentioning in this respect that this issue is a strong factor

in Arabic language which indicates richness rather than

weakness.The other outstanding discrepancy in both

languages is the status of the pronouns in the sentences of

both languages: In English it is impossible to have a

subsumed pronoun or a connected pronoun; the pronoun

in the English sentence is always separate and isolated,

except in imperative sentences.

The third general discrepancy is in the transitivity of

verbs in both languages.In English the transitivity

extendsto two objects, a direct object, indirect object and

object complement, while in Arabic, it extends to three

objects as in the following example:A9lamatAl-ummu


381

AL-wladaha Al-salata wajibatan. Awladaha: First

object, AL-salata: second object, Wajibah: Third

object.

The fourth discripency is noticed in the fact that an

English language sentence should contain a verb.

While in Arabic a structure can be constructed of two

constituents: a subject and a predicate without a verb

as in the following example:

- Sameerun Tayaarun.Sameer is a pilot.

These differences are sufficient and enough for the

purpose of this study.

Valency: The Semantic Role of The Predicate In both English and Arabic Sentences: A) Introduction:

In the first part of this study the researchers tend

to identify the constituents and the patterns of the

Kernel sentence in both languages, English and

Arabic. This introduction is considered as an

infrastructure for the main topic in this study which is:

“Valency in Both languages”. It is worth nothing that

each sentence in both languages is a container of

information or action. This container might have

different shapes, different patterns and different

constituents for the same piece of information or

action, but with some differences in

meaning.Linguists have given this piece of

information or action the label proposition.

“propositions are not sentences and sentences are not

propositions”, propositions are abstract entities which

may be asserted or defined by making statements” [26].

Abdulqaher Al- Jurjani asserted this meaning

hundreds of years before Lyons when he says that

“meaning is the outcome of the harmony between the

semantic structures and syntactic structures in a

sentence”. [5]

It is worth mentioning in this respect the

definition of “the Kernel sentence”: A “Kernel

sentence” as the philosophers in the empiricist

tradition have thought of,is an elementary proposition

whose function is to describe states of some actual or

possible world”[26]. Similarly as Palmer [28] states that

a sentence is something that expresses a complete

thought.

On the other hand a proposition can be seen as

consisting of a predicate and various noun phrases

(referring expressions) each of which has a different

role[22].Arts and Arts clarifies these noun phrases from

a grammatical perspective as obligatorily

complements which are used to complete the meaning

of the predicate. Strictly speaking the term predicater

complement could be used with reference to all those

constituents that obligatorily complement the verb.As

discussed above the analysis of the English and Arabic

sentences is achieved through two main perspectives,

the first is the syntactic description of the constituents

of each sentence, i.e subjects predicate, object,

complement and adverbial. The second perspective is the

semantic description analysis which deals with the

proposition expressed in the sentence or the utterance.

To make the picture complete, and since this study deals

with both languages, English and Arabic, it is a must to

see the different opinions of Arab Grammarians with

respect to the sentence structure.

Arab grammarians consider the sentence as

“gathering of things” which means collecting and

gathering of things after their dispersion [18]. Abo- Ali Al-

Farisi states when he was talking about “nouns, verbs and

letters” that a sentence is found when there is harmony

among these elements”. (Al- Masail Al- Asskariat)

verified by Ali JAber Al- Mansouri [4].

Ali Ibn- Issa Al- Rummani is considered as the first

among grammarians who defines the Arabic sentence. He

states that the sentence is constructed from a subject and

a predicate, provisionally, it is meaningful [8]. As a

concluding word, these definitions show that the sentence

is a “meaningful structure” exactly the same conclusion

achieved by the English grammarians.

B) Predicate Semantic Roles

Valency RolesIn English and Arabic

Any simple (Kernel) sentence in both languages (English

and Arabic) should have one predicate. And if the

previously suggested definition of the proposition is

applied in this case, it can easily be generalized that any

proposition (Abstract meaning) should have one predicate

too. This predicate has the power to decide the different

“complements”,(i.e noun phrase, adjectival phrase etc,) in

the sentence. George Yule [31] clarifies this notion when

he states that instead of thinking of words as containers of

meaning, we can look at the “roles” they fulfil within the

situation described by a sentence. If the situation is a

simple event as in “The boy kicked the ball”, then the verb

describes an action “kick”. The noun phrases in the

sentence describe the roles of the entities such as people

and things involved in the action”. This example can be

applied on the Arabic language in the sentence:

“Al- waladu Rakala Al- kurata”“The boy kicked the ball”.

The verb “rakala” describes an action which is “Al-Rakl”.

The noun phrases (Al- waladu and Al-kurata) in the

sentence describe the roles of the entities i.e “Al-waladu”

and “Al- kurata”.

Kreidler (2006-66) enriches this notion of structural and semantic analysis when he states that every simple sentence i.e every proposition has one predicate and a varying number of referring expressions or arguments,

the meaning of a predicate is determined partly by how

many arguments it may have and what roles those

arguments have.Let’s clarify this notion with the

following examples from English and Arabic:

Inkasara Al-shubbaku. The window broke.

Inkasara Al-tabaqu. The plate broke.

Inkasarat Al-9sa. The stick broke.


380

In the above Arabic and English sentences, there is one

predicate and one noun phrase (argument) in each

sentence, but there are different events. In these

examples which deal with the Arabic verb (predicate)

“Inkasara” and the English verb (predicate) “broke”

that in English it’s possible to say “The rope broke”.

But it is impossible to be used in Arabic. This example

shows how verbs have their specific functions in their

own language environment despite wide similarities

between the functions in both languages.

Moreover the above mentioned example shows that

the referring expressions (arguments), syntactically

speaking, can be called “subjects”of these sentences

but Kreidler [22] emphasized the fact raised by many

modern grammarians and semanticists that this term

“subject” is too general for semantic analysis. In

semantics this role is called the “affected”. A referring

expression in the role of affected tells what undergoes

the action indicated by the verbs, what is changed or

affected by this action.

A.Jalabneh [19] depending on Chomsky and his

followers, has his own contribution on the semantic

(thematic) analysis of the English and Arabic

sentences. He states in the sentences:1.a Jhon hit

Mary. And1.b Mary was hit by Jhon.In 1.a the subject

“NP” Jhon is the agent as it is the entity which affects

the action. While the object NP “Mary” is the patient

it is the target of “hitting”.

On the other hand in 1.b the NP Mary is the

subject, still is the patient because it has the same

thematic relation with the predicate “was hit”. In 1.b

the NP “Jhon” is the object of the preposition “by” still

it bears the θ- role of agent. If the same θ theory is

applied on the sameθ translated sentences in Arabic,

the used strategy of analysis can be used with the same

procedures:

ميري ُضِربت ِمن قِبل جون -.ب1. يمير َضربجون -.أ1

The same thematic procedures can be applied on

those two sentences without any changes.It is worth

nothing and emphasizing here that many semanticists

and linguists, i.e Lyons, Yule, Kreidler and Palmer

refer to the previous explanation about the role of the

predicate in the English language sentence, they said

that different verbs (predicates, prepositions, and

adjectives can be identified with respect to the number

of arguments (referring expressions) that may occur

with them and the roles these arguments may have. An

account of the number of arguments that a predicate

has is called the valency of that predicate. “valency

theory is a description of the semantic potential of

predicates in terms of the number and types of

arguments which may occur with them”.[22]

C) Contrastive Study of the Predicate Valences in Both Languages 1- Valency Zero: "A Predicate without Arguments"

This valency is found in both languages, English and

Arabic. In English, there is the structure with expletive

(It):It is raining.In this sentence the verb (the predicate) is

"rain" and the NP or the subject is "It", but what does it

stand for? It doesn't stand for anything. Its main function

is to fill the space or the (slot) of the subject. It is a basic

rule in English Grammar that a sentence wouldn't be a

sentence without a subject. The subject (it) in the above

mentioned sentence refers to nothing in the proposition of

the sentence. This notion concludes the fact that this

sentence "It's raining" has no argument. Kreidler [22] labels

it as a zero- argument verb (predicate). In English there

are many other examples similar to the one cited above

and all of them are concentrating around weather verbs,

such as: It's snowing. It's thundering. etc.

In English there is another group of sentences which

are characterized with the same characteristics of the

structure mentioned in the group above, but the predicate

in these sentences is an "adjective" such as:

- It's rainy.- It's cloudy.- It's windy. etc.

As for the Arabic language, it is more appropriate to

refer to the same area, i.e (weather verbs) and to

investigate how the Arabic language deals with these

verbs (predicates).

In the sentence: "نها تمطرإ." "Innaha Tumter.”

It's translation in English is “It's raining”. The verb

"Tumter" in Arabic has its equivalent in English as "rain"

and it has the pronoun"هي""Hiya" as a subject "a feminine

pronoun to refer to nothing in Arabic. It refers to الدنيا"

"".تمطر Al-dunia Tumter" in Arabic i.e The nature or "the

world" is raining. Sometimes, some people would say:

" ."السماء تمطر "Al-sama?u Tumter". i.e The heaven is

raining.

These examples show that there is no "entity" in both

languages to be used in the place of the subject in such

structures.

The sametendency and procedures are applied to the

predicate when it is an adjective.As for example:

1- Al- Jawu mater. "الجو ماطر" It’s rainy.

2- Al- Jawu 9asef. عاصف""الجو It’s stormy.

In Arabic this subject which is "Al- Jawu" is not a real

"entity". It's vague and it has many other realizations,

similar to the examples with the "Verb" predicates.

Accordingly the same conclusion can be adopted here. It's

worth mentioning in this respect that the issue of the

subject i.e "Al- musnad Ilayh" in both languages will be

treated in detail in another study.

This analysis shows clearly that both languages English

and Arabic have nearly the same characteristics in this

valancy structure i.e "Valency Zero" which means that the

predicate in case of being a "verb" or an "adjective", it

does not have an argument, which means, it does not have

an "entity" in the place of the subject.


379

2. Valency One: The second valency structure is called "valency

one" which means that the "predicate" in this structure

has onlyone argument, i.e one "Noun Phrase".

Let's consider this valency structure in English first:

1) The bird is singing.2)

2) The boy is laughing.

In these two examples, we have the verbs (predicates)

Sing and Laugh and we have then subjects; the bird

and the boy. This type of verb (predicate) in English is

known as an "intransitive verb". This means that it has

no object. It means, also that there is only one "np", i.e

one argument in this sentence. According to semantic

terminology these predicates are called one argument

predicates or "valency one" .

After the identification of the structure of this

valency, let's identify the roles of the components of

this structure, i.e the role of the predicate and that of

the argument. The predicates "sing" and "laugh"

express actions. They show what the bird and the boy

do each in its structure. This means that these

predicates (verbs) are carried out by actors.

Accordingly semanticists have come to the conclusion

that the predicates of such examples are actions while

the arguments have the roles of actors.

Another type of predicates (verbs), are not

considered as actions, such as, die and fall in the

following examples:

1- The old man died.

2- 2- The plate fell.

Something happened to the arguments, or the subjects

in those two examples. The verbs or the predicates

come to show the influence of the events they carry in

both cases to their arguments. In the first example the

event of dying affects the argument (the old man) and

the event of falling affects the argument (the plate). It

is worth noting that in this type of predicates, the role

of the argument is “affected” and the nature of the

predicate is an “event”.

A third type in this category is when the predicate

is an “adjective”. For example:

- Ahmad is clever.

- The Dead Sea is not deep.

In these examples the “entities” which are mentioned

in the places of the subjects of these sentences are

identified and described by their predicates. The

predicates “clever” and “deep” don’t show any kind of

action to be referred to the subject. That’s why,

linguists such as Palmer, Yule, Lyons and Kreidler

called the roles ascribed to the components of this

structure as “theme and description”.Kreidler [22]

mentioned a fourth type in this category which

indicates that the argument is a theme and the

predicate is an identity as shown in the following

examples:

- Ahmad is a teacher. - Ali is a carpenter.

Now it’s time to consider the valency structure

“valency one” in Arabic language andto find out how

English and Arabic structures are similar or different with

respect to this valency.

The first Arabic type of this valency is a predicate

with one argument. The predicate as explained above is

an action. This action is supposed to be carried out by an

actor. This indicates that the argument’s role is an actor

and the predicate’s nature is an action. Let’s consider the

following examples in Arabic:

1- Al- taˀru Yugharrid. د.الطائر يغر -1 The bird is singing.

2- Al- waladu Yal9ab. .الولد يلعب -2 The boy is playing.

As it was followed in English language examples in

this type of structure, the same procedures will be

followed concerning the roles of the arguments in these

examples as well as the nature of the predicates.

The predicate “Yugharrid” “singing” and “Yal9ab”

“playing” in the above two examples are actions, i.e the

actions need actors to carry them out. Accordingly and as

concluded in the case of English language, similar

structures, the arguments’ roles, i.e Al- taˀru “the bird”

and Al- waladu “the boy” are actors and the nature of the

predicates are actions.

As in English language “valency one” structure, the

Arabic structure has the same characteristics, which

means, in this structure in Arabic language, there is only

one argument “the actor” and the predicate is an “action”.

In both cases (English and Arabic) the verbs (the

predicates) are labled as intransitive verbs, they don’t take

objects.

It is worth drawing the attention in this respect that

the Arabic sentence: Yugharrid Al-taˀru. “the bird is

singing” has the exact similar characteristics of the

English language as a simple sentence. While in the

Arabic sentence “Al- taˀru Yugharrid” the bird is singing”

the Arabic language sentence is a complex sentence

because the prediacate “Yugharrid” includes a pronoun

refers to “Al- taˀru” the bird.

Another point which deserves to be noted here that

the Arabic nominal sentence “Al- taˀru yugharrid” and the

verbal sentence “Yugharrid Al- taˀru”. They have one

equivalent sentence in English which is “the bird is

singing”.

The second typeof this structure is when the

predicate doesn’t carry any action, that is connected with

or related to the arguments. To facilitate this case, let’s

consider the following examples in Arabic:

1-Mata Al-rajul. The man died. .مات الرجل Ikhtafa Al-

Kitab.The book disappeared. اختفى الكتاب

In these Arabic examples something happened to the

“Al- rajul” subject (argument). The argument (Al- rajul)

i.e the subject has nothing to do with the action

of the predicate. And the same process is applied to

the argument (AL-Kitab) i.e the subject of the second

sentence. Both arguments come to show the influence of

the events on the arguments. This means that the event


378

“mata” in the first sentence and “ikhtafa” in the second

sentence influence the argument “AL-rajul” in the first

sentence and Al-kitab in the second sentence.

These two examples demonstrate the reality that

there are no differencesbetween the English and

Arabic structuresconcerning the roles of the arguments

and the nature of the predicates. The role of the

argumentis "affected" and the nature of the predicate

is an event.

A note should be mentioned with respect to the

Arabic language in this case that there is a deep

explanation for the relationship between the predicate

and the argument which indicates that there is a

mentalistic metaphoric process to explain this relation.

This process is not theconcern of this study.

The third type of this structure is when the

predicate is an “adjective”. The following sentences

will be used to clarify the components of this structure.

1-Al-waladu nashitun.Theboyis active.

.Al-Bahru 9amiqunالولد نشيط

The sea is deep. .البحر عميق

In these two examples the arguments are Al-

waladu “the boy” and Al-Bahru “the sea”. These

arguments are described by the two predicates:

nashitun “active” and 9amiqun “deep”. The arguments

in these two examples don’t exert any action to give

them the right to take an action predicate, accordingly

the predicates that come to clarify them are

descriptive, i.e their function is to clarify the status of

the argument. This condition of the subject or the

argument of each sentence of the above examples is a

“topic” of the sentence or as the semanticists call it

“the theme” of the sentence. This clarification shows

that the Arabic examples are similar to the English

ones mentioned above. Therefore, it can be concluded

that “the roles of the arguments in these examples are

themes and the nature of the predicates is descriptive

in both languages.

But it's worth noting that the predicate adjective

"nashitun" "active" in Arabic language sometimes

carries the action of the verb it has been derived from.

The fourth type in this valency is the one which has

an argument without exerting any action that could be

demonstrated in the predicate, instead, the predicate is

a "Np" functioning as an adjective and it is referred to

as an identity. As a result of that the valency structure

of the sentences of this type comes as follows:

1- Ahmad mudarrisun\\ Ahmad is a teacher.\\

.حمد مدرسأ -1

2- Ali najjarun.\\ Ali is a carpenter.\\

.علي نجار -2

The arguments "Ahmad" and "Ali" are labled as topics

or themes and the predicates "mudaris" and "najar" are

Np-predicates for these sentences.

It's worth noting in this case that Arabic

sentences have no verbs and the predicates in the two

sentences are Np.s i.e "mudarris" and "najjar" while in

English language sentence a verb should be available

which is the copular “to be” in both sentences.

There is another note to be mentioned here related to the

“Np” predicate which is in Arabic, the present participle

derived from the verb “darrasa” which is “mudarris”. In

Arabic this derivative has the same

function of its verb. But this issue is not tackled in this

study.

3- valency two Which means that the predicate of the sentence in

English has got two arguments, i.e that the transitive verb

or the predicate in such English language sentences or

structures has got two "Np.s”, two arguments: a subject

and a direct object. Semanticists give this structure the

label two-argument-predicate.

The very important issue in this structure (like the

previously discussed ones) is that the kind of the predicate

changes the roles of the arguments. These characteristics

are demonstrated in the elaboration of the following

examples:

1- Ahmad kicked the ball.2- Ahmad dug a hole.3- Ahmad

crossed the street.

If we consider the first example, it is clear that there is an

action which is found in the verb or the predicate

“kicked”. This action was done by an entity “the

argument Ahmad”.

The first entity or argument affects another entity which

is the second argument i.e the ball. Accordingly the first

argument “Ahmad” is the doer of the action, semanticists

gave it the label “agent”. The second argument “the ball”

received the action i.e “the affected”. The predicate is the

action.

The second example:

Ahmad dug a hole. It means that Ahmad is the doer

of the action. It’s the first argument. Its role is the agent

of the sentence. The second argument “a hole” is the

result of the action “digging” i.e the predicate of the

sentence which means the effect of the action.

As for the third example:

“Ahmad crossed the street”. The predicate indicates

an action. The nature of this action involves “movement”

this movement leads to a place. It does not have an

“affect” nor an effect like the first two examples. More

clarification is needed in this condition. As the first

argument the subject of the sentence has an action

predicate, but there is no effect of this action on the

second argument which is “the street” the direct object of

the sentence. The first argument “Ahmad” is just an actor

of the predicate “crossed”, which means that the role of

the first argument isanactorwhile the role of the second

argument is the location where the action takes place.

Therefore the label or the name or the role which is given

to this argument is “place”. [22]

This type of valency-two has another group of predicates

which influence the roles of the arguments of the sentence


377

they are found in. This type of valency is shown in the

following examples:

a.1.) The president’s speech surprised us.a.2.)

Ahmad’s words didn’t impresshis father.b.1.) Ahmad

loves his father.b.2.) Ahmad admires his friend.

The first two sentences of this group do not

express any action. They tell how one entity affect” or

fails to affect another entity. The predicates in these

sentences express an “Affect”, i.e the first argument

names the entity that affects, that has the affecting role

and the second argument names the entity that is

affected”[22]. This indicates that the subject of the first

sentence or, semantically speaking the first argument

is having the affecting role. The predicate in both

sentences is playing the “affect” “roles”.

There are no actions neither descriptions in these

predicates. The role of the second arguments in both

sentences: “us” and “his father” are affected.

There is something interesting in the second two

examples in the above mentioned group which shows

that they have the same roles of the first two sentences

but in a different arrangement. It’s worth mentioning

that the predicates of these two sentences are

expressing emotion. This means also that such kind of

predicates have an “asymmetric relationship” in

Palmer’s words. That is, there is only one way of

relationship between argument one and argument two.

This valency indicates that Ahmad loves his friend but

it is not known whether his friend loves him or not.

Therefore argument one is affected by the nature of the

predicate: Ahmad’s role is affected and argument two

which is “his friend “is the affecting element i.e the

affecting role.

As for the second sentence, Ahmad is affected,

the predicate is “affect” and the second argument “his

friend” is affecting.

In the following examples we have a different type of

valency two in which the predicates in this type are

adjectives with their prepositions:

Ahmad is afraid of the dog.Ahmad is aware of the

problem.

The grammatical justification for this structure is

that the adjective+ the preposition makes a

“compound adjective” which takes an object, or as

kreidler refers to as a “two-argument adjective”. This

issue needs some clarification when it is applied to the

Arabic language: 1.a. Ahmad yakhafu mena Al-

kalbi.1.b. Ahmad is afraid of the dog.

2.a. Ahmad kha?ifun mena Al- kalbi.2.b. Ahmad is

afraid of the dog.

In Arabic the first example indicates a permanent

characteristic in Ahmad. The second example

indicates “now” at present.i.e the influence is

demonstrated in the time of action.

The clarification of the roles of the components

of these sentences comes as follows.

Ahmad, the first argument in the first sentence has the role

of “affected” as it is affected by the nature of the

predicate (the verb in Arabic and the adjective in English)

, which takes the role of “affect” and the role of the second

argument is “affecting” i.e the dog “the affecting makes

Ahmad (the affected) “afraid” the affect. This explanation

is applied to the second example:

Ahmad (affected) is aware of (affect) the problem which

is affecting.

It’s worth drawing the attention that this “adjective”

predicate in both languages is treated here because the

researchersfind it more appropriate to be handled in this

part of the study.

The last type of the vallency-two is when the

predicate is neither action nor affecting. It is just a link

between argument one which is considered as “theme”

and argument-two which is functioning as an associate for

this theme. In this case the predicate is a “linking or a

relational predicate” asexplained by Kriedler.[22]

There are many types of relational predicates that are used

to create the link between the first argument and the

second one. The following examples and their

explanation shed light on the nature of the predicates and

the roles of the argument.

1. Ahmad is like his father.2. The book is for Ahmad.3.

Ahmad is with Hani.

In the first example the predicate is adjective “like” and it

is functioning as a link between argument one “Ahmad”

which functions (i.e its role) are the topic or the theme of

the sentence and argument two “his father” which

functions as an associate for argument one.

In the second example (in the above mentioned

group) the relationship between the two arguments: “the

book” and “Ahmad” is created by the predicate “for”.

This means that the predicate in this example is a

preposition functioning as a link between the two

arguments with the roles of “theme” and “associate”.

In the third example the predicate is the preposition

“with” and it creates the link between the two arguments

“Ahmad” (the theme) and “Hani” the associate. It’s worth

mentioning that when Arabic examples are treated in this

area there is another story.

There is another kind of prepositions which indicate

“positions in space” and they are considered as two-

argument predicates. This type is demonstrated in the

following examples:

1) The meeting will be on Friday. 2) The party will be at

six o’clock. 3) The match is after the party.

An Application of Valency-Two Rules On the Arabic Language Sentence Structure

As discussed in English valency- two, the predicate

in such structures governs two arguments: the first

argument with a role decided by the nature of the

predicate and the role of argument.

Hereunder, the examples from Arabic language and the

comments on them will demonstrate the similarities and


376

the differences between the two languages in valancy-

two. 1.a: Ahmad Rakala Al-kurata. أ. أحمد ركل الكرة -1. 1.a.1:

Ahmad kicked the ball.

1.b: Rakala Ahmad Al-kurata. .حمد الكرةأ ب. ركل -2 1.b.1:

Kicked Ahmad the ball. ()

1.b.2: Ahmad kicked the ball. ()

2.a: Ahmad hafara hufratan. .حمد حفر حفرةأ. أ 2.a.1: Ahmad dug

a hole.

2.b: Hafara Ahmad Hufratan. حمد حفرةأ. حفر أ-2 2.b.1: Dug

Ahmad a hole.()

2.b.2: Ahmad dug a hole. ()

3.a: Ahmad qata9a Al-shari9. حمد قطع الشارعأ. أ-3 3.a.1:

Ahmad crossed the street.

3.b: qata9a Ahmad Al-shari9. حمد الشارعقطع أ ب.-3. 3.b.1:

Crossed Ahmad the street. ()

3.b.2: Ahmad crossed the street. ()

In examples No.1.a above the Arabic sentence

structure is the same as that of the English sentence:

Ahmad kicked the ball.

The pattern is the same,

i.e subject+ verb Transitive+ od.

In the Arabic sentence the subject is Ahmad, the

transitive verb is “rakala” and the direct object Al-

maf9uulu bihi is Al- kurata. The verb is transitive and

it takes an object. This means that the English pattern

is similar to that of Arabic. Semantically speaking the

predicate “Rakala” is an action and this action needs a

doer of the action, i.e an entity to do the action, in the

above mentioned example it is “Ahmad” who takes the

role as agent.

So far, there is an agent which is “Ahmad” i.e the

entity who carried out the action and the action which

is done by the agent i.e “rakala”: “Ahmad Rakala...”

the meaning is still incomplete according to the

tendency in our example. i.e another argument is

needed to give the affected entity of the first argument

which is “Ahmad”, the agent of the Arabic sentence

“Ahmad Rakala Al-kurata”.Without hesitation, the

similarity of this structure in Arabic language is very

adequate like that of English language pattern.

But, and there is a big “But” that the verb

“rakala” in Arabic can function as transitive and

intransitive like the verb “eating” in English language.

This indicates that “Ahmad Rakala” and “Rakala

Ahmad” are complete meaningful sentences as the two

pillars of the Arabic language sentence, the subject and

the predicate are available.

Another important issue to be mentioned as a

specific characteristic of the Arabic language is the

arrangement of the components of the Arabic language

sentence. In Arabic there are two kinds of sentences

that realize the same meaning; nominal sentence and

verbal sentence. The nominal structure in Arabic is

nearly the same as that of English, i.e S+V+ ... But

with respect to the verbal structure of the Arabic

language sentence, it is a specific characteristic for

Arabic language and completely absent in English.

If the above English language valency- two rules are

applied on the second Arabic examples in this group,

which is:

2.a) Ahmad hafara hufratan. ة.أحمد حفر حفر -1 2.a.1)

Ahmad dug a hole.

2.b) Hafara Ahmad Hufratan. ة.أحمد حفر حفر -2 2.b.1)

Dug Ahmad a hole.()

2.b.2) Ahmad dug a hole.()

The result will be actually similar to that of example

one i.e in the Arabic sentence “Ahmad hafara hufratan.”

The predicate “hafara” is an action, this action needs an

entity to carry it out. This entity is represented in Ahmad

the agent of this action. This means that we have the agent

“Ahmad” and the action “hafara” i.e “Ahmad hafara...”

The meaning is still incomplete because the agent’s action

should produce an “effect” of the action which is

“hufratan” in this sentence.

The final outcome of this clarification comes as

follows: Ahmad is the “gent”, “hafara” is the action and

“hufratan” is the effect or the result of the whole process.

But, this study draws the attention of the reader to

the fact that some verbs in both languages

”Englishlanguage and Arabic language” are functioning

as transitive and intransitive at the same time. For

example: “Ahmad is eating”. Is a complete meaningful

sentence with the verb eat “intransitive” and the sentence

“Ahmad is eating an apple” is also a complete meaningful

sentence with the verb eat as “transitive”.

The same tendency can be applied to the Arabic

sentence “Ahmad yahfuru” which is considered as

complete meaningful sentence with the verb “yahfuru” as

“intransitive” and the sentence “Ahmad yahfuru

hufratan” is a complete meaningful sentencewith the verb

“yahfuru” as transitive.

The second issue to be considered here is as

mentioned above that the Arabic sentence can be realized

by nominal and verbal structures, while the English

language sentence has only one structure i.e the nominal

structure which is not the concern of this study for

the time being.

As for the third example wh ich comes as follows: 3.a. Ahmad qata9a Al-shari9. .أحمد قطع الشارع -1 3.a.1.

Ahmad crossed the street.

3.a.2. qata9a Ahmad Al-shari9.() حمد قطع أ -2

.الشارع 3.a.3. crossed Ahmad the street.()

This example shows as in the first two examples that

the English language sentence is realized by a nominal

structure, while the Arabic language sentence is realized

by two structures: a nominal structure and a verbal

structure.

Another issue can be noticed in this example is that

it has the same pattern as that of English pattern, i.e

subject+ verb transitive+ direct object (Maf9ulun Bihi). If

the consideration is given to the valency- two rules:

Ahmad is the doer of the action which is found in the

predicate “qata9a”. This action doesn’t involve an


375

“affect”or “effect” it involves movement. The

movement leads to a location i.e to a place. The place

is there and it is not the effect of the action and it is not

the result of the effort exerted by the doer of the action.

Accordingly this entity “Ahmad” is not agent it

is just an actor of the action and the second argument

“Al- shari9” is labled semantically as “place”. So

Argument No(1) which is Ahmad is an actor, “qata9a”

the predicate is an “action” and the second argument

“Al-shari9” is a place. This means that there is

identical similarity between English and Arabic

patterns with respect to vallency two rules.

As mentioned in English language valency two

types that there is another group of predicates which

strongly influence the roles of the arguments in the

sentences they are found in. This type is shown in the

following Arabic examples. 1.a.1- Khitabu Al- Raˀis Adhashana. ( خطاب الرئيس

.أدهشنا 1.a.2- The president’s speech surprised us ()

1.a.3-Adhashana Khitabu Al- Raˀis ()2- أدهشنا خطاب

(× )a.4- Surprised us Khitabu Al- Raˀis.1الرئيس

.b.1- Kalimatu Ahmad Atharat Fi Walidehi. ()

1.b.2- Ahmad’s words impressed his father. () كلمات -1.

أحمد أثرث في والده

1.b.3- Atharat Kalimatu Ahmad Fi Walidehi. () أثرت -2

.حمد في والدهكلمات أ

1.1.4- Impressed Ahmad’s words his father. (×)

1.c.1- Ahmad Yuhibbu Sadiqahu. () .أحمد يحب صديقه 1.c.2-

Ahmad loves his friend. ()

1.c.3- Yuhibbu Ahmad Sadiqahu. () .حمد صديقهيحب أ -2

1.c.4- Loves his friend Ahmad. (×)

1.d.1-Ahmad Yuqaddiru Iqbal.() . قبالإ أحمد يقدر -1 1.d.2-

Ahmad appreciates Iqbal. ()

1.d.3- Yuqaddiru Ahmad Iqbal. () .قبالإحمد أيقدر -2 1.d.4-

Appreciates Ahmad Iqbal. (×)

Referring to the first two examples in the above

mentioned groups of predicates, the examiner of these

predicates and sentences will notice that the English

Language sentence is always nominal while the

Arabic sentences have two realizations: nominal and

verbal.

In addition to this aspect, it will be noticed that

the predicates of the first two examplesi.e Adhasha

have no actions. They simply (أثر) and Athara (أدهش)

indicate the influence of the entity on an another one.

In the first example: Khitabu Al- Raˀis Adhashana

(The president speech astonished us). The first entity

of the first argument is Khitabu Al- Raˀis "(The

president speech) and the second entity is the

connected pronoun "Na" which is "Nahnu" (we) in the

accusative case in Arabic. The predicate "Adhasha"

"Surprised" shows how the first argument "Khitabu

Al- Raˀis" influences or affects the second argument

which is the connected pronoun "Na" (us). It is worth

noting that the nature of the predicate "adhasha" has

no action to be carried out by the first argument which

has the affecting role in this sentence and the predicate

itself has the "affect" role. The second argument "Na"

(us) has been affected by the first argument and the nature

of the predicate.

The same can be applied to the second sentence:

"Kalimatu Ahmad Atharat Fi Walidihi".

"Kalimatu Ahmad" is the first argument and it has the

affecting role, "Atharat" the predicate which is

characterized with the nature of having no action, but it

has only an "influence" or "affect role" that is carried from

the first argument to the second argument which is” his

father”. “His father” is the second argument and it has the

affected role.

The predicates in the second group of sentences which

have been mentioned above are described by Lyons [26]

and Palmer [30] as asymmetric verbs which meansthat they

have one way direction of influence. The first sentence in

this group: “Ahmad Yuhibbu Sadiqahu” Ahmad loves his

friend. It states that Ahmad "yuhibbu" loves his friend

"Sadiqahu" but it doesn't show or indicate the status of the

feeling of his friend "sadiqahu" towards Ahmad.

Moreover the predicates in these sentences do not carry

any action. They carry feelings, i.e the feeling of "Hub"

"love" and the feeling of "taqdeer" appreciation. These

feelings do not have a reversed opposite direction which

means and as usually noticed in verbs like "marry" that

the reversed influence of the first argument influences the

second argument with the help of the related nature of the

predicate.

In these two examples the predicate "yuhibbu" "loves"

and the predicate "yuqaddiru" "appreciate" the second

arguments have their influence or affect on the first

arguments. Accordingly Ahmad Yuhibbu Sadiqahu, the

second argument "Sadiqahu" has the affecting role and

Ahmad the first argument has the affected role. At the

same time the predicate "yuhibbu" “love” and

"yuqaddiru" “appreciate” in the second example have the

affect role.

The last type of Arabic predicates in this part will be

discussed under the same valency-two argument. The

predicates in this type are adjectives. It's worth

mentioning that this type has been discussed in this study

when the English language predicates as adjectives are

discussed before.

Conclusion: This study deals with the predicates in both languages,

English and Arabic with the aim of identifying the main

similarities and differences between the two languages.

It focuses on the predicates their types, nature and how

they influence the number of arguments in a sentence and

the roles of these arguments. To achieve this aim it goes

deep to the kernel sentence in both languages to identify

the basic components and patterns in these sentences.

The tangible results of this study come as follows:

1- The similarities between English and Arabic

sentence components and patterns are so high except

for some discrepancies related to the arrangement of

these components and the different realizations of


374

one proposition in the Arabic language, i.e.

Nominal and verbal sentences in Arabic.

2- With respect to the valences, this study shows

that both languages have nearly the same

characteristics of the valency- zero predicate, i.e.

when the verb is intransitive or the predicate is an

adjective. For example: it’s raining. "الدنيا تمطر. "

Al-dunia Tumter. It’s rainy. الجو ماطر .Al-jawu

mater.

3- As for valency- one the main difference is found

in the initial position of the Arabic predicate

which is impossible in the English sentence, as

mentioned above. For example:

Al-Taˀiru yugharidu. The bird is "الطائر يغرد"

singing. "يغرد الطائر" yugharidu Al-Taˀiru. the bird is

singing.

4- It has been shown that English and Arabic

languages have nearly the same characteristics of

the predicates of valency- two with respect to the

number of Arguments and the nature of these

predicates.

5- It’s worth nothing that, despite the wide number

of the types of predicates in this valency, but the

similarities are more than the differences.

Recommendations: 1- This study recommends the conduct of more

studies in contrastive analysis between Arabic

language and other languages. This tendency will

facilitate the work of translators and it will make

the process of learning and understanding a

second language easier and more achievable.

Such studies should shed lights on the similarities

and the differences among languages.

2- This study recommends studies dealing with

cultural backgrounds and their influence on the

concepts of languages.

3- This study recommends studies dealing with

major issues but in detailed tendencies to find out

problematic and hidden difficulties.

References 1- AArts F. and AArts J. (1982) English Syntactic

structure, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

2- Abdul-Latif, Mohammed Hamasah (2003), Bina’

Al-Jumlah Al-Arabieh, Dar Ghareeb, Cairo.

3- Azar B.s> (1989), Understanding and Using

English Grammar, printice Hall Regents Upper

Saddle River, New Jersy.

4- Al-Farisi, Abu Ali Al-Hassan Bin Ahmad (1932),

Al-Massa’il Al-Asskarieh Fi-Al-Nahu Al-Arabi,

Tahqeeq (Realization) Ali-Jaber Al-Mansouri,

Baghdad Press.

5- Al-Jurjani, Abdulqaher (1372 H) Dala’il Al-I9jaz,

Corrected by Al-sheikh Mohammed Abdu and

Mohammed Mahmoud Al-Turkeezi,

Arrangement and Commenting by Mohammed

Rasheed Redha, 5𝑡ℎEdition, Dar Al-Manar, Cairo.

6- Al-Khalidi, Kareem Husein Nasih (2002), Natharat

Fi Al-Jumlah Al-Arabieh, 1𝑠𝑡Edition, Dar Safa’ For

Al-Nashr Waltwzee9’, Amman.

7- Al-Mubarrid, Abu Al-Abbass Mohammed Ben

Yazeed (1994), Tahqeeq (Realization) Abdulkhaliq

Odhiamah, Ministry Of Al-Awqaaf, Higher Islamic

Council Affairs, Islamic Tradition Council, 1𝑠𝑡 Cairo.

8- Al-Rummani, Ali Ben Isa (extracted from) Al-

Huduud Fi Al-Nahu,Realization of Quasim Nasir,

Majallat Al-Mawrid, Ministry of Culture and Dar Al-

shu’uun Al-Thaqafieh Al-Ammah, Iraq, 1𝑠𝑡 No.

23𝑟𝑑pp.32-47.

9- Al-Samerra’I Fadhil Salim (2007), Al-Jumlah Al-

Arabieh, Ta’leefuha wa’qsamuha, 2𝑛𝑑Edition, Dar

Al-Fikr.

10- Al-Shaikh, Hussein Mansour (2009), Al-Juml;ah

Al-Arabieh Derasah Fi Mafhumiha wa taqsimatiha

Al-Nahwieh, 1𝑠𝑡 Edition, Al-Mu’assasah Al-

Arabieh For Al-Derasat walnashr, Bierut.

11- Al-Shawa, Ayman Abdul Raziq (2006), Mabadi’

Assassieh Fi Fahm Al Jumlah Al-Arabieh, Silsilat

Derasat Lughawieh, Dar Iqra’, Damascus.

12- Baker, M.J. (1989) Introduction To English

Transformational Syntax. Basra University.

13- Biber D. and others, (2004) Longman student

Grammar of spoken and written English.

14- Brown D.H. (2007) Principles of language

Learning and Teaching, Pearson Education, Inc.

15- Crystal D. (1985) A dictionary of linguistics and

phonetics, Basil Blackwell Ltd. London.

16- Halliday M.A.K. (1995) Cohesion in English

longman Group limited.

17- Huddleston, R. (1985) Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

18- Ibn Manthour, Abu Al-Fadhl Jamal Al-Deen

Mohammed Ben Mokarram, Dar Sader, Bierut.

19- Jalabneh, A, (2007) Thematic Relations In

Arabic and English Syntax: Chomsky, 1995

Minimalist Program, Middle East University For

Graduate Students, Dar Al-Hadathah For Al-Nashr

Waltwzee9’.

20- James C. (1992) contrastive Analysis, longman

Group limited.

21- Jindal D.V and pushpinder syal (2001)

Linguistics, Prentice, Hall of India. New Delhi.

22- Kreidler, Charles W.(1998), Introducing English

Semantics, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group,

London and New York.

23- Leech G.N. (1985) Meaning and the English

verb, longman Group Limited, longman House,

England.

24- Lyons, J. (1979) Intruduction to Theoretical

Linguistics, Cambridge University pressCambridge.

Zarqa Contrastive Study for the Predicate Semantic Roles in Both English and Arabic Languages

373

25- Lyons, J. (1985) Language and Linguistics,

Cambridge University pressCambridge.

26- Lyons, J (1985) semantics 1+2, Trinity Hall,

cambrige.

27- Muqattash L. and Kharma N. structure 2, Al-

Quds Open University Pub. Amman.

28- Palmer, F.R. (1981) semantics, Cambridge

University pressCambridge.

29- 29. Nahlah, Mahmoud Ahmed (1988), Madkhal

Ila Derasat Al-Jumlah Al-Arabieh, Dar Al-nahdhah

Al-Arabieh For Al-Teba’a Wa Al-Nashr, Beruit.

30- Palmer, F.R. (1987) The English Verb, longman

Linguistics library.

31- Yule, George (2010), Cambridge University

Press.

Zarqa Journal for Research and Studies in Humanities...

Documents

Transcript of Zarqa Journal for Research and Studies in Humanities...