The Conceptualization of the Comitative Preposition maʿa ‘with’ in Jordanian Arabic from a Cognitive Semantics Perspective

Authors

  • Adnan Mjali Falah Mbaideen

    Faculty of Art/Language Centre, Mutah University, Al-Karak 61710, Jordan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i4.8754
Received: 15 February 2025 | Revised: 14 March 2025 | Accepted: 1 April 2025 | Published Online: 12 April 2025

Abstract

The present study investigates the semantics of the comitative preposition maʿa ‘with’ in Jordanian Arabic (JA). It aims to examine how the preposition has the potentiality to denote a primary comitative sense in addition to other secondary comitative ones as a means of coding particular semantic thematic roles of the accompanee and the companion with reference to the main verb. Adopting a Cognitive Semantics approach, the study strives to pinpoint the polysemous nature of the preposition from a holistic constructional perspective. The researcher applies a qualitative research method for the analysis of the data taken from spoken JA. Forty examples were collected and categorized based on Arab linguists’ categorization of comitative constructions. The study limits itself to analyzing how the conception of linguistic expressions and the world around us leads to the multifunctional nature of the comitative relator maʿa. It is found that maʿa is semantically used as a preposition to encode a (non) physical comitative relation between its two arguments. The results show that such a relation, in some secondary comitative constructions, does not necessitate that the two arguments share the same activity, and unity of time is not emphasized. The findings emphasize that it is our cognition of the context that determines the degree of the principality of the two arguments. Arabic Non-native speakers are becoming more interested in learning its vernacular dialects; consequently, focusing on comitative constructions will help them speak more fluently and gain a deeper understanding of the society culture they live in.

Keywords:

Cognitive Semantics; Comitative Constructions; Jordanian Arabic; Polysemy; Semantic Thematic Roles

References

[1] Mansour, M.A., 2011. The Syntax and Cognitive Semantics of Comitative Constructions in English and Arabic. Arab Journal for the Humanities. 29(115), 185–216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34120/ajh.v29i115.2251

[2] Abu Al-Makarim, A., 2007. Al-Jumlah Al-Fi'liyyah, 1st ed. Al-Mukhtaar Establishment: Kuwait.

[3] Stolz, T.S., Cornelia–Urdze, A., 2009. Varieties of comitative. In: Malchukov, A., Spencer, A. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. pp. 601–608.

[4] Ibn Manẓūr, 1994. Lisān Al-ʿarab, 3rd ed. Dar Sadir: Beirut, Lebanon.

[5] Al-Samiraī, F., 2000. Maʿanī al-Naḥu. Dar al-Fikr for Publishing and Distribution: Amman, Jordan.

[6] Al-Suyūṭī, J., 1998. Al-Muzʹhir fī ʻulūm al-lughah wa-anwāʻhā. In: Mansur, F.A. (ed.). Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah: Beirut, Lebanon.

[7] Al-Mubarred, A., 1994. al-Muqtaḍab. Wizārat al-Awqāf al-Miṣrīyah: Cairo, Egypt.

[8] Al-Zubaidī, M.M., 2001. Taj al-Arus min jawahir al Qamus. In: Hijazi, M. (ed.). Ministry of Media: Kuwait.

[9] Modhaffer, M., Sivaramakrishna, C.V., 2017. Distribution of Simple Prepositions in Modern Standard Arabic. Language in India. 17(9), 68–78.

[10] Sibawayh, A., 1988. Al-Kitab, 3rd ed. In: Harūn, A. (ed.). Dar al-Kutub al-ʿilmeyah: Beirut, Lebanon.

[11] Al-Naḥḥas, A., 2001. I’rab Al-Quran, 1st ed. Dar al-Kutub al-Imeah: Beirut, Lebanon.

[12] Ali, A.Y., 1934. The Holy Qur’an: translation and commentary. The Holy Quran Publishing House: Cairo, Egypt.

[13] Badawi, E., Carter, M.G., Gully, A., 2004. Modern Written Arabic: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge: London, UK.

[14] Buckley, R., 2004. Modern Literary Arabic: A Reference Grammar: ʿArabīyah al-fuṣḥa al-ḥadīthah: marjiʿ fī al-naḥw al-ʿArabī. Librarie du Liban Publishers: Beirut, Lebanon.

[15] Ryding, K.C., 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[16] Holes, C., 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA.

[17] Esseesy, M., 2010. Grammaticalization of Arabic prepositions and subordinators: A corpus-based study. Brill: Leiden, Netherlands.

[18] Al-Rasheedi, E.S., 2019. Possessive constructions in Najdi Arabic [PhD Thesis]. Newcastle University: Newcastle, UK.

[19] Stassen, L., 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[20] Rapoport, T., 2014. Central coincidence: The preposition with. Faits de Langues. 44(1), 159–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-044-01-900000016

[21] Kidd, E., Cameron-Faulkner, T., 2008. The acquisition of the multiple senses of with. Linguistics. 46(1), 33–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.002

[22] Seiler, H., 1974. The principle of concomitance: instrumental, comitative, and collective. Foundations of language. 12(2), 215–247.

[23] Svenonius, P., 2007. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In: Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T., Spathas, G. (eds.). Argument structure. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 63–103.

[24] Croft, W., 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.

[25] Taylor, J., 2006. Cognitive Semantics. In: Brown, K. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier: Oxford, UK. pp. 569–582.

[26] Croft, W., 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[27] Evans, V., 2007. Glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, UK.

[28] Fillmore, C., 1977. The case for case reopened. In: Cole, P., Sadock, J.M. (eds.). Grammatical relations. Brill: Leiden, the Netherlands. pp. 59–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368866_005

[29] Croft, W., 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics. 4(4), 335–370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.4.335

[30] Evans, V., Green, M., 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Routledge: London, UK.

[31] Peate, J., 2012. A construction grammar approach to spatial prepositions in modern standard Arabic [PhD Thesis]. University of Salford: Salford, UK.

[32] Langacker, R.W., 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford university press: Stanford, CA, USA.

[33] Lemmens, M., 2015. Cognitive semantics. In: Riemer, N. (ed.). The Routledge handbook of semantics, 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 90–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685533

[34] Langacker, R.W., 1991. Cognitive linguistics research. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany.

[35] Sokolovل, J., 2019. On Comitative Constructions in Slovak. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 16(3), 1–15.

[36] Stolz, T., Stroh, C., Urdze, A., et al., 2006. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany.

[37] Arkhipov, A., 2009. Comitative as a cross-linguistically valid category. In: Epps, P., Arkhipov, A. (eds.). New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany. pp. 223–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219067.4.223

[38] Wierzbicka, A., 2017. The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal-typological perspective. In: Tomasello, M. (ed.). The new psychology of language. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 113–153.

[39] Al-ʿOtaibī, Y., 2022. Causative Constructions in Modern Standard Arabic. International Journal of English Linguistics. 12(3), 46–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v12n3p46

[40] Wechsler, S., 1997. Prepositional phrases from the twilight zone. Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 20(2), 127–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258650000408X

[41] Kurniasih, N., 2009. Benefactive verbs in double object construction (DOC) in English sentences. Jurnal Sosioteknologi. 8(16), 575–586.

[42] Kemmerer, D., 2005. The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia. 43(5), 797–806.

[43] Himmelmann, N.P., Schultze-Berndt, E.F., 2005. Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts. In: Himmelmann, N.P., Schultze-Berndt, E.F. (eds.). Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. pp. 1–67.

[44] Johnson, M., 1987. The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA. pp. 233.

[45] Lakoff, G., 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.

[46] Bratianu, C., 2018. Knowledge Metaphors. Organizational Knowledge Dynamics: Managing Knowledge Creation, Acquisition, Sharing, and Transformation. IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA.

[47] Mueller, C.M., 2016. A Semantic Account of the English Preposition FOR Based on a Cognitive Linguistics Framework. The Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities. 53, 1–24.

Downloads

How to Cite

Mbaideen, A. M. F. (2025). The Conceptualization of the Comitative Preposition maʿa ‘with’ in Jordanian Arabic from a Cognitive Semantics Perspective. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(4), 640–651. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i4.8754

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 4 (April 2025): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Adnan Mjali Falah Mbaideen

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.