A typology of the Arabic system of mood

1 Introduction

This article studies dialogic negotiation in Arabic in order to define the systemic organization of mood options and their mode of realization. The Arabic system of mood is the main resource for construing dialogic exchanges. An exchange in systemic functional grammar is about “giving or demanding” a commodity. This commodity can be either “goods-&-services” or “information”. Goods-&-services are exchanged through proposals (offers and commands). As to information, it is exchanged through propositions (statements and questions). The paradigmatic nuances that characterize each exchange type define the basic parameters of the semantic system of speech function ( Teruya et al. 2007). In general, goods-&-services are more “concrete” and exist independently of language. In offers and commands, language serves to facilitate the exchange of goods-&-services whereas information is more abstract and exists through language. In statements and questions, the commodity of exchange is constituted in language. The level of abstraction that characterizes information exchange may explain why children learn to exchange goods-&-services first but that is another issue beyond the scope of this paper (cf. Halliday [1984] for more about this point).

The system of mood in Arabic, like its counterpart in many other languages (cf. Geng 2022; Lai and Geng 2023; Li 2023; Matthiessen 2004; Teruya et al. 2007; Teruya 2017), operates at clause rank and is the core of the interpersonal metafunction. It covers the sum of grammatical resources for enacting the aforementioned exchanges. This study is based on a comprehensive, text-centered and meaning-oriented systemic functional approach where generalizations about a language system are defined in terms of the global dimensions of stratification, instantiation, and metafunction, and the local dimensions of axis and rank. This article will start with a brief literature review before analyzing a dialogic passage to highlight the interpersonal aspects of language in an actual dialogic exchange. Once these main aspects are highlighted then the next step is to look from below and examine the main elements responsible for carrying a dialogic exchange forward. Once the clause is looked at from below, the section after that will look at the clause from round about that is it will look at the system of mood and the different modes of its realization. The advantage of looking at the system from these angles is that one gets to also see how the interpersonal system interacts with the textual and experiential ones.

2 Research background

This article is an important contribution to the description of the system of mood in Arabic. In fact, most of the recent reference grammars of Modern Standard Arabic (cf. Cantarino 1974; Carter et al. 2004; Holes 2004; Ryding 2005) have not touched on this aspect of interpersonal exchange construed by the clause. One of the reasons maybe the fact that it is easier to follow main stream studies of Arabic and focus on common ground topics pertaining to structural aspects, such as clause structure, verbal classes, derivational patterns, connectives and conjunctions, prepositions etc. than explore notions that had been touched upon by early Arab grammarians and were quite unique to the Arab tradition and as such quite obscure and more challenging to explain and to develop.

Early Arab grammarians (e.g. Al-Jurjani n.d.;^[1] Al-Mubarrad 1994; Assabti 1986; Azzamakhshari 2004; Ibn Aqeel 1980; Al-Ansari n.d.; Ibn Jinni 1957; Ibn Malek 1968; Sibawayh 1988) who lived approximatively between the 8th and 14th century A.D. had talked about the most basic unit that should form the nucleus of an exchange of information, i.e. the smallest unit necessary to understand a sentence. Overall, they all seemed to agree that while in a verbal sentence (VSO), it is the Subject + the verb, in a nominal sentence (SVO or NN), it is the theme and the rheme.^[2] Sibawayh who lived in the 8th Century A.D. labelled these elements in his book ʾalkitāb which is considered by many as the first and ultimate source in traditional Arab grammar ʾalmusnad wa ʾalmusnad ʾilayhi (‘the predicate and that which the predicate is assigned to’). Around the 4th century of the Arab calendar, which corresponds to the 10th century AD, onward Arab grammarians in their discussions of the nucleus of the “sentence” started calling ʾannawāẗ ʾalʾisnādiyya (‘the predicating nucleus’) which forms the main part of the sentence ʾalʿumda (‘the Base’) and the rest of the sentence ʾalfaḍla (‘the Remainder/Residue’) (cf. Al-Istirbathi 1993; Al-Maliqi 2002; Al-Ukbari 1976; Assabti 1986; Assayyuti 1992; Ibn Assarraj 1985; Ibn Jinni 1957; Ibn Malek 1990; Ibn Yaaish n.d.).^[3] Some (e.g. Salman 2009) say that it is Ibn Jinni who first used the term Residue. Others (cf. Bu Abbas 2016) say that it is Al-Mubarrab who first used it and before him Ibn Al-Muthanna (died 825 AD) who used the word faḍlun to mean something extra, not necessary. Arab grammarians also discussed predication in what they called ʾaǧǧumla ʾaṭṭalabiyya (‘the requesting sentence’), which they divided to five or six types: negative and positive imperative, the interrogative, the vocative, offer and hope (cf. Al-Istirbathi 1993; Al-Maliqi 2002; Assayyuti 1992; Ibn Malek 1968). However, the main point here is not to argue about exactly who used these terms first or the extent to which the work of Arab grammarians differed from one another as this lays beyond the scope of this article (cf. Owens [1990] for more information about the topic. Although some of his views along with those of Versteegh [1993] would be strongly contested if presented to Arab scholars). The main point here is that although medieval Arab grammarians discussed many notions, which are fairly similar to those discussed by Halliday centuries later, their discussions appears to be quite fragmented at best as they had not fully set their discussions within a comprehensive theoretical paradigm similar to SFG, i.e. the exchange of goods-&-services. By keeping the terms “Base and Residue” (cf. Section 3 below), this article will not only pay homage at the unique work of Arab grammarians but also aim to show how their work could potentially have been developed and expanded.

mood systems and their modes of realization have been studied in Systemic Functional linguistics for over thirty years now (cf. Bardi 2008; Caffarel 1996; Caffarel et al. 2004; Teruya 2007; Teruya et al. 2007 to name a few). This article is an addition to these studies, it has analysed a variety of genres e.g. plays, novels, newspaper articles, movie scenes and one man shows. The data chosen is mainly from dialogic texts. The unit of the analysis is the clause both free and bound i.e. independent and dependent, since it is these main clauses that serve as the domain of mood as defined by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004). The article at rare occasions covers minor clauses too, just to highlight the potential of the Arabic language or compare it to English and other languages. Finally, regarding the glossing of the examples in Arabic, it is based on the Leipzig glossing rules as they are quite useful in clarifying the way the interpersonal mood realizations are construed in Arabic.^[4] The article will start immediately after this section with a general overview of the interpersonal structure of the clause in Arabic through the analysis of a verbal exchange in a dialogic text taken from a novel and then it will discuss the different types of Mood and their realizations in the sections after that.

3 The Arabic mood system: a dialogic sample

The following is an extract from a novel called A world without maps (Munif and Jabra 2004). All the extra details in the narrative which are used to dramatize the dialogic exchange have been removed for the sake of practicality. The exchange is a back and forth between two characters, it will be used to illustrate how Arabic construes mood options in a dialogic exchange.

The dialogic exchange above offers a comprehensive illustration of how Arabic congruently construes the declarative, interrogative and imperative. It contains different examples of speech functions, namely statement (e.g. Examples 4, 5, and 6), question (e.g. Examples 3, 7, and 8) and command (e.g. Examples 1 and 2). It sheds some light on the proto-typical elements in the clause that realize exchanges of information and goods-&-services. Generally speaking, in statements and questions, the declarative and interrogative structures of the clause include three elements that keep recurring and which form “the main block”. These elements are the Subject, “the Finite” and the Predicator. They are necessary for the realization of the statement, carrying the exchange forward and also giving the clause its negotiatory value. In the imperative clause only the Predicator is needed. However, since the Predicator is marked for Subject, this means that both are an integral part of construing the imperative.

The beginning of Example (2) shows the synthetic fusional nature of Arabic. It demonstrates how a clause can be just a single inflectional word denoting multiple syntactic/semantic features. In fact, just the very first word construes a clause by itself, it is made of a Predicator-(SBJ)-Complement ʾaẖaftanī (‘you scared me’). This characteristic is of particular importance and will come up later in the discussion about the Mood elements (cf. Section 4.2).

Another important point which will be discussed further in Section 5.1.2 is the role of intonation in construing the interrogative and the exclamative. In fact, the first segment in Example (15), which construes a polar interrogative and Example (12) which construes an exclamation are no different in terms of structure from Examples (10) or (11) which construe statements. Some of the clauses in both examples are elliptical but what they lack in words they make up for in intonation. Like in Spanish and French (cf. Teruya et al. 2007), the prototypical means of the realization of Mood types is intonation. The declarative is realized by a falling tone, the polar interrogative by a rising tone and so is the exclamative. Just for the sake of clarity, Example (12) construes mock surprise and disbelief not a typical exclamative. Saying that intonation is the prototypical means for prosodic expressions does not mean that it is the only means to construe these different Mood types. Like French (cf. Teruya et al. 2007), Arabic needs more than intonation at times to realize other types, for instance juncture prosody is essential in construing elemental interrogatives.

In regards to the clause as an interpersonal move, as mentioned above there is a block that is necessary in carrying the dialogic exchange forward. This block will be referred to as the Base or the Mood Base. This term is inspired by the work of classical Arabic grammarians, who state, as mentioned earlier (cf. Section 2), that each clause typically has a predicative nucleus which forms its backbone. This predicative nucleus is made of Subject or a Theme also called musnad ʾilayhi (‘attributed to’) and a verb/Rheme also called musnad (‘attribute or added to’). Both form what Arab grammarians called ʾalʿumda (‘the Base – the backbone’) of the clause. Everything else is called ʾalfaḍla ‘Residue’ (cf. Al-Istirbathi 1993; Al-Maliqi 2002; Al-Ukbari 1976; Assabti 1986; Assayyuti 1992; Ibn Assarraj 1985; Ibn Jinni 1957; Ibn Malek 1990; Ibn Yaaish n.d.). The extensive interpersonal structure of the Arabic clause typically consists of: [Negotiator] ^⋀ [Predicator 1-(SBJ)] ^⋀ [Subject] ^⋀ Predicator 2-(SBJ) ^⋀ [Complement] ^⋀ [Adjunct] as in Example (16).

Some of the terms which have been used in the description of other languages especially English will not be used in the description of Arabic. In fact, as Arabic is a different language from English, using the same terminology which is used in describing English will give a false impression that one is trying to force foreign concepts on a language that is inherently different. I am referring in particular to the ‘Finite’. In Arabic, the first verbal group exhibits characteristics that are different from those in other European languages (please cf. Caffarel’s description of French [1996]; Steiner and Teich’s description of German [2004]; the description of Spanish in Teruya et al. [2007] and Bardi’s description of Arabic [2008, 2022]). With the exception of kāna (and another handful of auxiliaries), the remaining verbal groups occurring in intial position, though instrumental in construing phase and modality, play a very limited role in construing time like their counter part say in French or Spanish. As to polarity, it is important to note that quite often it is either the first – Examples (17) and (20) – or the second verbal group – Examples (18) and (19) – that can be preceded by a negative particle (cf. Cantarino [1974: 108, 1975: 115]), unlike languages such as English for instance which mainly relies on the auxiliary/Finite to construe negation. The term Predicator is used in this description of Arabic instead because it is more neutral than Finite.

The second verbal group in a verbal group complex is a lexical verb that construes the event. Not the first though, which typically construes modality, phase and temporality. Both predicators in this sense complement each other. While the first is lacking in terms of construing the event, the second is lacking in terms of construing modality and phase. To differentiate between both in this article, the first will be called Predicator 1 and the second Predicator 2. The term Negotiator refers to negative as well as polar interrogative particles, that is any particle that has a role in construing polarity and the interrogative (c.f. Bardi [2008] for more information about the negative particles in Arabic and their role in construing polarity, temporal values, modality viz. propositions and proposals in general).

To conclude, through the examples above one can see how speech functions are realized by different mood options, namely statement by the declarative, command by the imperative, and asking for information by the interrogative. Even though a part of the terminology is inspired by the work of medieval Arab grammarians, most of the work on the interpersonal metafunction is based on Halliday’s work. The next section will look into the interpersonal structure of the clause more thoroughly.

4 The interpersonal structure of the Arabic clause: a look from below

There are three main elements in the interpersonal structure of the clause responsible for carrying the exchange forward. Each plays a major role in the realization of the indicative mood (i.e. the declarative, interrogative and exclamative). These are the Subject, Predicator 1/(Finite equivalent) and Predicator 2. They constitute the backbone of the clause, what is called the “Mood Base” in this description of Arabic. All the other elements which fall outside this block constitute the “Residue”. Each of these main elements will be dealt with briefly below.

5 Mood types and their realizations in Arabic

The system of mood grammaticalizes speech functions. In Arabic like in many other languages, (cf. Caffarel et al. 2004; Teruya et al. 2007), the primary contrast in this system is between ‘indicative’ and ‘imperative’ that is the exchange of information (proposition) and the exchange of goods-&-services (proposal). Within the ‘indicative’ clauses, the main systemic contrast is between giving information which is enacted by the ‘declarative and demanding information which is enacted by the ‘interrogative’. As discussed earlier, from below Arabic may seem not to differentiate between most of the mood types. The imperative and the indicative for instance may start with a verbal group. A thematically marked imperative may even start with a nominal group similar to an indicative SVO clause. The position of the Subject and the verb i.e. grammatical prosody, which is essential in a language like English is not that relevant in Arabic. The realizations of mood types in Arabic is mainly prosodic that is realized by phonological prosody i.e. intonation/pitch movement. There is also juncture prosody which consists of mood particles occurring initially at the boundary of the clause (cf. Matthiessen 1995: 464) which is quite important in construing the elemental interrogative type. The sections below will discuss and highlight the variation and relevance of the different mood type realizations (cf. Figure 1 for a general idea about different mood systems in Arabic).

Figure 1:

Primary mood systems in Arabic.

6 Conclusion

In Arabic, speech functions are realized by different mood options, namely statements by the declarative, commands by the imperative, and asking for information by the interrogative. Both the declarative and interrogative include three major elements necessary to carry forward the negotiation process. These are the Subject, auxiliary like verbal group (Predicator 1/Finite), and Predicator. The imperative, however, is slightly different from the declarative, although it too consists of a Predicator with a bound or infixed Subject marker. In Arabic, whether the clause is declarative or imperative, the Predicator bears the mark of the Subject, which varies in terms of number [viz. singular, dual, or plural] and gender [viz. masculine or feminine]). In terms of finiteness, the focus is modal rather than temporal or other when the clause typically enacts a strong demand for goods-&-services and not an exchange of information. Finally, prosody plays an important part in exchanges which are basically realizations of mood choices. It is through intonation i.e. tone (pitch contour), that in Arabic, one can tell the difference between a statement, a command or a question especially since inversion or (grammatical prosody) does not apply to Arabic where word order is similar both in the interrogative and declarative. In fact, as the structure of the declarative clause is either VSO or SVO, as discussed, it is prosody rather than word order that makes the difference between clause types. Matthiessen (2004) has frequently pointed out that grammatical prosody is an “exotic” feature, which is quite rare and that most languages construe these distinctions in speech functions differently.

To conclude, “the interpersonal system of mood of every languages [sic] has evolved together with and in the environment of, the experiential system of transitivity and the textual systems of theme and information. It interacts with both: the interpersonal structure of the clause is organised textually and it gives interpersonal value to the transitivity structure of the clause” (Teruya et al. 2007: 877). In Arabic, as demonstrated above, this interaction is manifested through the fact that interpersonal elements of the negotiatory type are placed in initial position and as such are assigned considerable information focus. Experientially, the interaction is manifested mainly in the way elemental questions are construed i.e. how question words conflates with transitivity roles (cf. Bardi 2008).