PRON IN ARABIC COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS

Lina Choueiri

American University of Beirut

lc01@aub.edu.lb

SSCCSL | Nantes Université | September 2025

​

I. Introduction

(1) a. Predicational Lebanese Arabic

l-bornayṭa ∅/keen-it/*hiyye meškle/ħəlwe/b-l-beet

the-hat.fs ∅/was-fs/*she problem/nice/in-the-house

‘The hat is/was a problem/nice/at home.’

b. Equational

Amal Clooney ^?*∅/keen-it/hiyye Amal Alamuddin

Amal Clooney ^?*∅/was-fs/she Amal Alamuddin

‘Amal Clooney is/was Amal Alamuddin.’

• Variation in the distribution of the verbal copula keen ‘be’ (KN), the ‘pronominal copula’ huwwe/hiyye/hinne (PRON), and the null copula ∅.

Goals of the talk

• Is PRON in (1b) a copula in (some varieties of) Arabic? What contribution does it make to the syntax of copular constructions?

Definition: A copula is an element needed to define a predication structure

(María J. Arche et al. 2019, p.6)

• Do KN and PRON correlate with structural differences?

1. Characteristics of KN and PRON
1. KN, as auxiliary, is compatible with verbal predicates, unlike PRON.

(2) a. (keen-it) ʕam tidrus Lebanese Arabic

was-3fs asp. study

‘She is(was) studying.’

b. daras-it b-l-beet

studied-3fs in-the-house

‘She studied at home.’

(3) a. ma ħada (*huwwe) ʕam yirkuḍ c. ma ħada huwwe l-meškle

neg. someone (*he) asp. run neg. someone he the-problem

‘No one is running.’ ‘No one is the problem.’

b. ma ħada keen ʕam yirkuḍ d.* ma ħada šəft-o mbeereħ

neg. someone was asp. run neg. someone saw.1s-3ms yesterday

‘No one was running.’ ‘(Lit.) No one, I saw him yesterday.’

B. KN shows person agreement; PRON agrees only in number and gender.

(4) a. inta huwwa/*inta il-mudarris Egyptian Arabic

you.ms he/*you.ms the-teacher

‘You are the teacher.’

b. ana huwwa/*ana il-mudarris

I he/*I the-teacher

‘I am the teacher.’

(5) a. inta kunt/*kaan il-muškila

you.ms was.2ms/*was the-problem.fs

‘You were the problem.’

b. il-ṭalaba kaan*(-u) il-muškila

the-students was*(-3p) the-problem.fs

‘The students were the problem.’

C.PRON is limited to equational sentences.

When the predicate nominal in an equational sentence is referential, the sentence is called equative. Equative sentences typically express identity relations.

​

(6) a. Amal Clooney hiyye Amal Alamuddin/hayde l-muħaamiyye Lebanese Arabic

Amal Clooney she Amal Alamuddin/this.fs the-lawyer.fs

‘Amal Clooney is Amal Alamuddin/this lawyer.’

b. l-meškle hiyye t-tleemiz

the-problem.fs she the-students.p

‘The problem is the students.’

c. haydole hinne l-meškle

these.p them the-problem

‘These are the problem.’

D. PRON always occurs between the subject and the predicate.

(7) a. (keen-it) Alya (keen-it) l-meškle Lebanese Arabic

(was-fs) Alya (was-fs) the-problem

‘Alya was the problem.’

b. (*hiyye) Alya (hiyye) l-meškle

(*she) Alya (she) the-problem

‘Alya is the problem.’

​

III. Previous accounts

A. PRON as exponent of subject agreement in T (e.g. Doron 1983, 1986; Eid 1983, 1991; Ouhalla 2013). This view does not provide a full account for the characteristics in II (A-D).

B. PRON as ‘identity predicate’ (Eid 1991)

As identity predicate, PRON_ID is obligatory, as shown by the contrast between (8) and (9), and it always agrees with its sister DP.

8. a. il-beet beet-ak Egyptian Arabic

the-house house-yours

‘You are welcome in the house.’ (Lit. ‘The house is your house.’)

b. beet-i beet-ak

house-my house-yours

‘You are welcome in my house.’ (Lit. ‘My house is your house.’)

9. a. il-beet da huwwa beet-ak

the-house this he house-yours

‘This house is your house.’

b. beet-i huwwa beet-ak

house-my he house-yours

‘My house is your house.’

​

10. PRON is lexically ambiguous:

a. [_TP [_DP subject] T_[AGR] [_DP PRON_ID [_DP predicate]]]

b. [_TP [_DP subject] PRON_[AGR] [_DP predicate]]]

• PRON_ID is not obligatory in all equatives.

(11) a. hayde l-mara Samia Lebanese Arabic

this the-woman Samia

‘This woman is Samia.’

b. il-ziriiba di beet-ak Egyptian Arabic

the-sty.fs this.fs house.ms-your

‘This sty is your house!’

​

• Generally, PRON does not agree with its sister DP in equatives.

(12) a. ha-z-zriibe hiyye/*huwwe bayt-ak Lebanese Arabic

this-the-sty.fs she/*he house.ms-your

‘This sty is your house.’

b. il-ziriiba di hiyya/*huwwa beet-ak Egyptian Arabic

the-sty.fs this.fs she/*he house.ms-your

‘This sty is your house.’

IV. Structure and derivation of equational sentences

• Is PRON a copula in Egyptian and Lebanese Arabic? No, if we define a copula as an element needed to define a predication structure.
• What is PRON’s contribution to copular constructions?

​

(13) a. Mona hiyye l-mhandse b. l-mhandse hiyye Mona

Mona she the-engineer.fs the-engineer.fs she Mona

‘Mona is the engineer.’ ‘The engineer is Mona.’

(14) a. miin hiyye Mona? -- OK with (13a)

# with (13b)

b. miin hiyye l-mhandse? -- OK with (13b)

# with (13a)

​

• Post-PRON nominal is interpreted as new information; Pre-PRON nominal cannot be interpreted as new information.

(19) a.* inta huwwe l-meškle Lebanese Arabic

you.ms he the-problem.fs

‘You are the problem.’

b. l-meškle hiyye inta

the-problem.fs she you.ms

‘The problem is you.’

(20) a.* inta huwwa il-muškila Egyptian Arabic

you.ms he the-problem.fs

‘You are the problem.’

b. il-muškila hiyya inta

the-problem.fs she you.ms

‘The problem is you.’

(21) a. * … [_FocP inta PRON [_PredP inta [_Pred’ Pred_∅ DP ]]]

b. … [_FocP il-muškila PRON [_PredP inta [_Pred’ Pred_∅ il-muškila ]]]

​

(22) a.* inta hiyye l-meškle Lebanese Arabic

you.ms she the-problem.fs

‘You are the problem.’

b. šu hiyye l-meškle?

what she the-problem.fs

‘What is the problem?’

(23) inta hiyya il-muškila Egyptian Arabic

you.ms she the-problem.fs

‘You are the problem.’

​

24. a. [_CP šu [_TP PRON [_FocP l-meškle PRON [_PredP šu [_Pred’ Pred_∅ l-meškle ]]]]

b. [_FocP [_PredP inta [_Pred’ Pred_∅ il-muškila ] [_TP PRON [_FocP il-muškila PRON [_PredP inta [_Pred’ Pred_∅ il-muškila ]]]]

• Do KN and PRON correlate with structural differences?

(25) a. (keen-it) Alya (keen-it) l-meškle (=7) Lebanese Arabic

(was-fs) Alya (was-fs) the-problem

‘Alya was the problem.’

b. (*hiyye) Alya (hiyye) l-meškle

(*she) Alya (she) the-problem

‘Alya is the problem.’

​

(27) a. yimkin ma ykun ħada huwwe l-meškle Lebanese Arabic

be.possible Neg be.imp. someone he the-problem

‘It is possible that no one is the problem.’

b. yimkin ma ħada ykun huwwe l-meškle

be.possible Neg someone be.imp. he the-problem

‘It is possible that no one is the problem.’

(28) a. [_NegP ma [_TP [_T’ ykun_uϕ [_FocP ħada [_Foc’ huwwe [_PredP ħada [_Pred’ ∅ [_DP l-meškle]]]]]]]]

b. [_NegP ma [_TP ħada [_T’ ykun_{uϕ; EPP} [_FocP ħada [_Foc’ huwwe [_PredP ħada [_Pred’ ∅ [_DP l-meškle]]]]]]]]

Selected References

Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand. 2003. Predication and Equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 325-359.

Arche, María J. (ed.) et al. 2019. The Grammar of Copulas Across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burukina, Irina & Borise, Lena & den Dikken, Marcel. 2024. A ‘big DP’ analysis of Russian copular constructions with èto. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9(1). pp. 1–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9440

Carnie, Andrew. 1995. Non-verbal predicates and head movement. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

Benmamoun, Elabbas, et al. 2014. Variations on the same theme: Sentential negation and the negative

copula in Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIV-XXV, ed. by S. Farwaneh and H. Ouali,

121-138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118: 261-295.

Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and Linkers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Doron, Edit. 1983. Verbless predicates in Hebrew. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Doron, Edit. 1986. The pronominal ‘copula’ as agreement clitic. Syntax and Semantics 19: 313-332.

Eguren, Luis. 2012. Predication markers in Basque. In Noun phrases and nominalization in Basque:

Syntax and semantics, ed. by U. Etxeberria, R. Etxepay, M. Uribe-Etxebarria, 243-266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Eid, Mushira. 1983. The copula function of pronouns. Lingua 59: 197-207.

Eid, Mushira. 1991. Verbless sentences in Arabic and Hebrew. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III, ed.

by B. Comrie and M. Eid, 31-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Franco, Ludovico, M. Rita Manzini, and Leonardo M. Savoia. 2015. Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic

Review 32(2): 277-332.

Heycock, Caroline, and Anthony Kroch. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface

level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365-97.

Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland.

Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ouhalla, Jamal. 2013. Agreement Unified: Arabic. In Diagnosing syntax, ed. L. Cheng and N. Corver, 314-

333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Philip, Joy Naomi. 2012. Subordinating and coordinating linkers. Doctoral Dissertation, University

College, London.

Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.