Principles & Parameters Theory - Towards A Contrastive Syntax of English and Arabic-Compressed [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

PRINCIPLES AND PARAMETERS THEORY: TOWARDS A CONTRASTIVE SYNTAX OF ENGLISH AND

ARABIC

Mohamed Khalil Ennassiri

2015

Titre de l'ouvrage:

Principles and Parameters

I'heory:

Towards contrastive syntax of English and Arabic a

Auteur: Mohamed Khalil Ennassiri

Mention d'édition: 1ere Editioon

Imprimeur: Imprimerie Al-Khalij Al Arabi 152 Av. Hassan II- Tétouan

Tél. 0539710225

N° du

dépôt légal: 2015M03719

ISBN: 978-9954-36-412-3

Snmemory ofa goodfpiend and eolleague, Shdernaggak sshir

TABLE O F CONTENTS

***

Foreword....

Preface

Vii

X

A list of phonetic symbols.

****. Xii

A list of abbreviations . .

Chapter 1: Basic Assumptions...

*e*****

1.1.Defining syntax

..|

1.2.The notion of sentence as the basic unit of syntax..

.

2

1.3.Grammaticalknowledge 1.4.Language and the problem of knowledge

1.5.Levels of representation

.. 13

1.6.Aspects of the lexicon...

.. 15

1.7.Modules of Principles and Parameters model

.. 21

Chapter 2: X-Bar Theory and Phrase Structure

.. 23

2.1.Inadequacies of phrase structure rules

23 25

2.2.Principles of X-bar theory.

2.3.Extending the X-bar format to other categories 24.A sketch 2.4.1 2.4.2

.33

of Arabic phrase structure

The Determiner Phrase in Arabic

The VP-shell hypothesis

2.5.Clausal Categories Exercises

39 ..39 .

.. 58 .

62

72

..

Chapter 3: Case Theory 3.1.Overt Case

vs.

abstract Case

32.Accusative Case in English

... 73

*****e**s***

73 75

3.3. Structural conditions on Case assignment in English ...

3.3.1

77 78

Adjacencyrequirement..

3.4.Nominative Case in English.... .

3.5.Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions. .

3.6.Case assignment in Arabic ....

81 82

84 90

Exercises.... Chapter 4: Theta Theory

91

4.1.Lexical entries and argument structure

.91 93

4.2.Types ofsemantic/thematic roles..

4.3.Grammatical functions: A-positions and A'-positions 4.4.Theta-positions vs. theta-bar positions .

Exercises

.99

.101 102

Chapter 5: Head Movement

104

5.1.Head movement in English.

105

5.2.Head

movement

in Arabic

.

108 .

.. 110 5.2.1. V-raising Vs. T-lowering.. I18 5.2.2. V-movement and Double Object Constructions... . 131

Exercises

132

Chapter 6: NP-Movement

... 132 138 140 142

6.1.Passive structures .

6.2.Raising constructions 6.3.Passivization and raising interaction 6.4.Raising

constructions

6.5.Topic structures:

in Arabic

A cartographic

... 151

approach .

164

Exercises

Chapter 7: Wh-Movement

7.1.Root

. 165

extraction in English and Arabic..166 Non-subject questions:

7.2.Root questions: Subject extraction in English and

rabic .. I76

7.3.Embedded questions 7.3.1. Non subject extraction English and Arabic. .

out

. . 178

of complement clauses in

184

.

7.3.2

Subject extraction out of complement clauses in

the That-trace Effect

English and

7.3.3. Subject extraction out of complement clauses8 i 6

Arabic 7.4.Standard Arabic vs. Moroccan Arabic: A microparametric

..190

variation?

197

7.5.Argument-adjunct asymmetry

200

Exercises

203

Chapter 8: Binding Theory

. .

***o204

8.1.The interpretation of overt nominal expressions in English ...205 8.1.1. Anaphors, pronominals and Binding Conditions... 205 .216 8.1.2. R-expressions and Binding Theory...

8.2.The distribution of overt DPs in Arabic.

219

8.2.1. The interpretation of anaphors and pronominals....219 225 8.2.2 The interpretation of r-expressions.. 228 Exercises **

.

.

Chapter 9: Control Theory ... 9.1.The distribution

********sce 2 ose2 s 9

229

of PRO in English

9.2.The nature of PRO... 9.3.Control structures in Arabic.. 9.3.1. PRO vs. pro 9,5.2. The structure of obiect control

.. 230 237 ..237

constructiond****255 243

Exercises

Bibliography

.

256

FOREWORD Noam Chomsky's Principles and Parameters Theory has generated

considerable interest, but the technical nature of his novel description of language has discouraged many linguists from investigating it in

any thorough way. Ennassiri's book was written to make it easier for

students

and

those

curious

about

Chomsky's

Principles

and

Parameters to understand this interesting linguistic theory. This introduction to Principles and Parameters Theory was

originally a set of courses taught by the author to undergraduate and graduate students of linguistics in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. It

serves as a background and further reading text for the syntax course.

It focuses on the structure and linguistic function of basic and embedded sentences, phrase structures, case assignment, argument

structure, semantic and thematic rules, head movement- particularly V-Movement- NP-Movement, Wh-Movement, nominal expressions, anaphors, and pronominals, raising and control, among other aspects

of Arabic and English syntax. It is primarily addressed to anglophone students, drawing on

their experience of English and Arabic.

It contains extensive

illustrations from both languages, with plenty of emphasis on the

syntactic similarities and differences between them. At the end of each chapter, there are exercises in which again English and Arabic figure. These exercises are meant to help students deepen their knowledge of the theory concerned in a comparat1ve perspective.

Though

this

in-depth

systematic

course

1s

book

ntended

to

a

One analysis of any

basic contains sutficent it language,

point for subsequent

not

material

structure to serve

or

the co

as

studies advanced language-specilic

individual

in

syntax

may be unfamiliar A number of technical expressions

reader, especially in the

Theory.

Parameters

sense

that

they

are

to tho

Principles

used in

and

However, Ennassiri defines these expressions

when necessary for the understanding of the underlying theory. He also illustrates his book with many linguistic examples from Arabic

English, and other languages.

This textbook grew out of Ennassiri's efforts to develop teaching

material

for

the

undergraduate

and

graduate

levels

Introduction to Syntax course that he has taught at Abdelmalek Essaadi University in Tetouan and at Dammam University in Saudi Arabia for over twenty years. He used earlier versions of this text for

several years; the final version was revised and expanded many times to

satisfy the

value in

needs of students, whose feedback has been of immense

shaping the present book.

I feel it is particularly well suited to general readers or who work in

disciplines philosophy, mathematics, an

interest

in

or

to

linguistics, such

as

computer science. All that

rigorous approaches

structure of natural

between

related

to

the analysis of the

languages. Ennassiri

linguistic analysis (centered

has tried on

the

to

os

psycno requ atical gramil

is

strike

a

developine

nce

of

a

contrastive analysis of the syntax of Arabic and English) and data-

oriented problem solving. In addition, he has tried to place the proposals presented here into historical and comparative perspectives. Grounded in linguistic research and argumentation, Principles and Parameters 7heory is written to help students and readers become

independent language analysts capable of critically evaluating claims about the language structure and meaning. Written in a clear style, it

guides its

readers

on

topics including

basic

assumptions about

Arabic

and English syntax, clause elements and patterns, how clauses may be combined into sentences, and how clauses and sentences are modified

in neutral language settings. The book avoids presenting the language as a set of arbitrary facts

by grounding

its conclusions in the

analytic generative

methods

that have characterized the best grammatical and linguistic practices for the last five decades. Although its perspectives

generative

grammar, specifically

goal is

provide

to

are

based

on

principles and parameters theory, its

its readers with

a

broad spectrum of fundamental

Each chapter contains a knowledge about English and Arabic syntax. numerous practical exercises. a list of readings, and of terms, glossary

Moha Ennaji, PhD

Professor of Linguistics International Consullant

Languages and for Institute Iniernational President and Co-founder of Culures (INLAC)

PREFACE

is This book svntas

course.

A

large

porton

have prepared lectures that I classes

on

course

intended as a

syntax and

of the material

and

ediate

herein is

bace

for several years

taught

contrastive

for

book

at

inguistics

the

in my

Faculty

Faculty of LetterS

Morocco, and the Letters in Tétouan,

on

of

and

Humanities in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Although the book is technical in nature, it does not necessarily require the reader to have a deep

knowledge

of formalism.

However,

some

background knowledge of syntax is required in order to appreciate the line of reasoning pursucd in it. The book has been designed primarily as a textbook for graduate and advanced

undergraduate students of syntax in Morocco, but it also targets a

wider

readership As the

in

the field of contrastive syntax.

title makes it clear, the aim of the book is twofold.

First, it attempts to

provide

formal

a

Arabic

description

phrase architecture, based on the parameters (P&P) model. Second, it attempts fixing a finite array of universal

Cxpressions

options (parameters)

principles yields in

English

Detter

graminars of these angages may be

two

rich

and

and Arabic.

compared with Chomshy's (1995:

and

and

English

and

principles-andto show ho

assoc1atcu

diverse

This will,

appreciation of the

typologically

of

extent to

*

linguisstic

hoperu which

tne

genetically unrelated

contrasted. This is im eeping 6) contention o) contention that"luneuose ditfereuces tha

and

typology

should be reducible

to

choice

of values of

paramelers.

The book consists of nine chapters. The first chapter is a

sort of general introduction to the book. The other chapters each deals with a component of Principles and Parameters Theory

and outlines its theoretical underpinnings. The sets of exercises at the end of each chapter are intended to allow the readers to

further deepen their appreciation of the theory in a more

practical perspective. A very special thank you goes to Professor Moha Ennaji for kindly agreeing to write a foreword to this book. Thank you words also go to my students, both at Abdelmalek Essaadi

University in Tétouan, Morocco, and King Faisal University in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, for their patience

over

the years in

dealing with a number of half-baked ideas concerning the syntax of Arabic. I very much compensate for their pursue further

hope

patience

explorations in

Mohamed Khalil Ennassiri

October, 2015 Tétouan, Morocco

that this version of the book will and

equip

them with

contrastive syntax.

a

tool to

SYMBOLS

PHONETIC

OF A LIST Consonants

glottal stop (¢) voiced-palato-alveolar fiicative (E) J

H

voiced

pharyngeal

fricative

()

voiceless uvular fricative () dh

voiced interdental fricative (5) voiced alveolar trill ()

sh

voiceless palato-alveolar fricative ( )

S

voiceless pharyngo-alveolar fricative ( )

D

voiced

T

voiceless

Dh

voiced

pharyngo-interdental

voiced

pharyngeal fricative (E)

R

pharyngo-dental stop (J)

pharyngo-dental stop (>) fricative

()

voiced uvular fricative (E)

voiceless uvular stop (3) voiceless laryngeal fricative

(^)

labio-velar semi-vowel (3) palatal semi-vowel ()

Other consonants are Double consonants represented represent

by stress.

conventional letters.

Vowels short. open vowel

long. open vowel short, close,

back, rounded vowel

long, close, back, rounded vowel i

short, close, front, unrounded vowel

i:

long, close, front, unrounded vowel

xii

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

OF A LIST

1-first person 2- second person

3= third person

A= Adjective Acc= accusative Case

AP Adjective Phrase Arb arbitrary reference

Det- Deteminer DP= Determiner Phrase

ECP Empty Category Principle EPP- Extended

Projection Principle

F-feminine Gen- genitive Case LF= Logical Form M= masculine

N= Noun

Nom= Nominative NP= Noun Phrase

P-plural P&P-

Principles and Parameters model PF-Phonetic Form

PLD- Primary Linguistic Data PP= Prepositional Phrase

RM- Relativized Minimality S- singular

Subj= subjunctive mood UG Universal Grammar V- Verb

VP= Verb Phrase A daslh is used to mark the morpheme boundaries if the morpheme is a prefix or a sufiix.

The P&P

approach

aims to reduce

descTiptive

statements

to

and language particular categories: language-invariant, staternents are principles (including The language-invariant on a par with a principle of UG): the the paramneters, each two

specifications of particular values of parameters. The notion ol construction, in the

language-particular

ones

are

traditional sense, effectively disappears; it is perhaps useful for descriptive taxonomy but has no theoretical status. [...1

The parametric options available appear to

be qujte

restricted. An assumption that seems not unrealistic is that

there is only one computational system that

forms

derivations from D-Structure to LF; at some point in the

derivation (S-Structure), the process branches to form PF by an independent phonological derivation. Options would then be restricted to two cases: (1) properties of the lexicon, or (2) the point in the derivation from D-Structure to LF at

which structures are mapped to PF.

-Noam Chomsky

The Minimalist

Program, pp. 25-26

I. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

This chapter will

discuss the

following topics

Defining syntax The notion of sentence as the basic unit of syntax

Grammatical knowledge The lexicon

Language and the problem of knowledge Levels of syntactic representation

1.1 Defining syntax Syntax

is

a

branch of

be combined to fom

assigns

an

Different in

a.

phrases

and

appropriate syntactic

Consider the

John

ate an

b. Pierre

a

that

phrases

structure to

languages impose specitic

sentences.

()

linguistics

specifies

to

form

how words

sentences.

all well-formed

restrictions

on

can

It also

sentences.

the order of words

following examples:

apple. (English SVO)

mangé

une

pomme.

(French SVO)

Pierre has eaten an apple

"Peter has eaten an apple.

(2)

Watshi ga hako

box

o

akemasu

(Japanese SOV)

open

and processes by which sentences Syntax is the study of the principles Structures. Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Constructed in particular languages."

are

box." "I open the

shtara:

zaydun

kita:ban

(Arabic/ VSO)

bought Zayd book

"Zayd has bought a

(4)

book."

Nahita ny mpianatra ny vehivavay. (Malagasy/ VOS) the student

saw

the woman

"The woman saw the student."

5)

Dieses Buch kaufte Karl gestern.

(German/OVS)

this book

bought Karl yesterday

"Charles

bought this book yesterday."

1.2 The notion of sentence The unit of

analysis

as

the basic unit of syntax

in syntax is the

sentence.

But what

is a

simplistically define a sentence as a s Sequence of words. However, not all strings of words form co Sentences. In this connection, consider the following examples.

ct

Sentence

There

We

can

different types of sentences in glish and crosslinguistically, of course is English and cro declarative, (id) is is (ib) exclamative: interrogative, is imperative and (ic) () are

(ia) below a.

He fed the cat.

b. Have you seen c.

d.

John? the table. What a day we had!

Put the milk

on

a. John frightened Paul.

(6)

b. Paul frightened John.

Frightened John Paul.

c.

(6a&b)

correct:

are

by contrast, (6c) is ungrammatical (1.c. (i.c. syntactically deviant, ill-formed, unsyntactic or ruled out) because it

doesn't conform

to

the

sentence is

meaning

of

of which it is

a

the

syntactic

composed

rules of English. It follows, then, that

computed from

and (more

the

meaning

of the words

importantly, perhaps)

from the

arrangement/ linearization of these words within the sentence. Even in

languages where the order of major constituents is comparatively freer, the merger of words is

not

wild. For the sake of

exposition,

consider the following examples in Arabic, a language that exhibits much word order freedom:

(7)

a.

shariba 1-?awla:du llabana

(VSs0)

drank the-children the-milk The children have drunk milk."

b. llabana shariba l-?awla:du (OVS) the-milk drank the-children It's milk that the children have drunk."

c. -7awla:du sharibu: llabana (SVO) the-children drank the-milk

By convention, an ungrammatical sentence is preceded by an asterisk (*).

have drunk milk." "The children llabana d. shariba

-?awla:du

(VOS)

drank the-milk the-children

have drunk It's the children who

milk."

1-Pawla:du llabna sharibu: (SOV)

e.

the-children the-milk drank

f.1labana1-Pawla:du sharibu: (OSV) the-milk the-children drank

(7e&f) are at best marginal in Arabic, even under a proposed

topicalization analysis. Consider now the following examplesn English and Arabic, respectively: (8)

a. Darkness frightens Jane. b. Jane

(9)

a.

frightens darkness.

EaDDa l-kalbu l-walada bit

the-dog

the-boy

"The dog bit the boy." b.

EaDDa l-waladu l-kalba bit the-boy the-dog

The

boy bit the dog."

Sentenees (8b) and (9b)

are

grammatical, i.e. they

are

syntactically well-formed, but they are not acceptable because they are not consonant with our

has

more to

conception

do with whether

with whether it is

a

of the world.

sentence is

Thus, grammaticality

'properly put together

than

meaningful or true.

1.3 Grammatical knowledge Native

speakers

of

a

language

L know the grammar of that

language. For example, they know- among other things- which sentences

English

are

grammatical

would be able

to

and which

are not.

tell you that

(6c)

Any native speaker

is bad in this

of

language

because in that particular arrangement, the words in it are not well-

formed.

Grammatical

knowledge

also

accounts for

structural

ambiguity, i.e. ambiguity due to syntactic structure. An ambiguous sentence is a sentence that has two meanings. Some sentences are ambiguous when they contain an ambiguous word. This is a case of

lexical ambiguiy. By contrast, some sentences are ambiguous without

containing any ambiguous words. This is a case of structural

ambiguity, e.g. (10a-b): (10)

a. [Old men and women] were watching the match. b. Jane hit the thief with the stick.

The bracketed subject NP in associated with two different

(10a)

has

two

different structures

interpretations, viz. (1 1a) and (1 lb):

P r i n c i p l e sa n d t

where the

(where women

[old

a.

(11)

men)

adject

di

old

and

does tus

quality women)

old [ menand

b.

womenJ

(where

both men and both men.

inlerprelations,

(10b)

Similarly.

has two

womCN are

name

old

(12a) and

dillerent

(126):

(12) (12)

Native

a.

the Jane used

the thief who hit Jane b.

speakers

sentences are

of

stick to hit

of

a

language

the thief.

was

holding the stick.

are also

each paraphrases of

able to

other. For

about the that (13a&b) have know Arabic

. determine that ttwo

instance, native speakere same

meaning. Similarly

know that (14a&b) of English speakers virtually all native

paraphrases of each other,

(13)

a.

la: ya-ru:qu li: not

appeals

"I don't like

to

even

though their forms

sama:E-u

me

1-mu:si:qa:

are

are

different:

SSa:khibat-i

loud-Gen listening-Nom the-music

listening to loud

music."

SSa:khibat-1 b. la: PastamtiEu bi-sama:E-i 1-mu:si:qa: not

I-enjoy with-listening-Gen

the-music loud-Gen

T don't enjoy listening to loud music."

(14)

a. The cook fried the fish. b. The fish

was

fried by the cook. to ability

Grammatical knowledge also accounts

counts

for

our n o w

knot

who

recognize grammatical relations in

a

Ce. sentence.

People

roo

English know

that

John has dilferent functions in (15a) and (15b),

viz.

object and subject, respectively: (15)

a. John is easy to please. (John functions as object, (cf. It is

easy (for anyone) to please John.)) b. John is eager to

please. (John functions

as

subject,

(cf.

John

strongly wants to please other people.))

1.4 Language and the problem of knowledge The question of how children learn their LI has intrigued

philosophers

cognitive children

and

linguists for time

immemorial. This is

abilities of young children seem

language in

to master

are

structures

the highly complex

stimulus with which poverty of the

(1986b) refers

to

this apparent paradox

they as

because the

quite limited, yet

short time span, normally five

a

so

or

normal

of their native

six years, despite the

presented. Chomsky

are

"Plato's

nativist Before the advent of Chomsky's

problem.

approach was

to

language

American

Bloomfield

sense

that

considered

accidental

holophrastic stages

objects in the View

language acquisition

sounds

produced

are m o r e

outside world

characterised

by

adults'

not

via their parents' acquisition

reactions

be

accidental

associated

reactions.

starts

from

reinforcement.

and

(1933). (1933).

in the

and child in the babbling the by

often than

that language is the idea

to

by

dominated

the linguistic arena fifties, the acquisition in known from Bloomfield best structuralism

with

specitic

Implicit in without

In the

this

and is

same

vein.

any (1957) rejected

explanation

Skinner

within the

organism.

Like Bloomfield,

in language acquisition However.

for language for language

acquisition ion from from Skinner (ibidh (ibid) accounted for

factors terms of outside

and/or c o n d :

in his review of Skinner's

ons.

Verbal Behaviour,

Chonnsky dismantled the Skinnerian approach to language acquisition.

pointing out that the assumptions

made

by Skinner with

d to such

regard

t.

vital terms as 'stimulus, 'response and reinforcement' were

were not

tenable. Cook and Newson (1996) argue that Chomsky's dismantline

ing

of the Skinnerian framework has remained his main

influence

on

psyehology. rather than his later work. Chomsky's alternative innate approach has come to be known as the Universal Grammar Theory of

language acquisition. The latter theory posits that children are bom with

built-in

faculty

for

language acquisition called Universal Grammar, or UG for short." Chomsky (1981), for instance, argues that UG is a system of principles and rules common to all human a

languages and available to all children prior to

experience. The formal features of UG are innate features of human beings; they belong to the characteristics of the species and have thus been programmed into the genetic equipment of the mind/ brain. This accounts for the rapidity With which children acquire the rules of their native language, no

matter how

complex they may be. Thus, Chomsky's innate hypotnesi explicitly takes language acquisition to start from within, not rom without as argued i by Skinner and others. "The of

arguments for Universal Grammar have by now become almost a mant preliminary ritual to be at hand." Jackendoff (1997:2). performed before plunging into tnE echn.

sort

Of course. UG alone is not

indeed the

this

were

one

and the

same

case, all

language.

enough

to

acquire a language,

human beings would end up

For the most part, the

for it

speaking

speech community

into which we are born decides for us the type of language we will end up using. That is, we seem to acquire whatever language is dominant in the environment into which we are thrust. Thus, according to the

Universal Grammar hypothesis, human beings must additionally be exposed to linguist input, i.e. primary linguistic data (PLD), in order

for them to eventually develop a particular language. Probably, UG interacts with experience acquired in a linguistic environment and serves as an interface between the input- characterised by PLD- and

the output, or what Chomsky calls a generative grammar. Chomsky

(2007) confirms this view, arguing that Evidently, development of language in the individual must involve three factors: (1) genetic endowment, which sets limits on the

attainable languages, thereby making language acquisition possible (2) external data, converted to the experience that selects one or another language within a narrow range, (3) principles not specific to

FL

Grammatical knowledge is therefore untaught; rather, evidence from the environment allows the child to create a core grammar, or So.

In addition to this core grammar, the child also acquires a large

number of lexical items (words), having each a lexical entry that specifies idiosyncratic information such as pronunciation, mcaning

The linguistic input/data is itself impoverished in respect to the bewildering

Complexity of syntactic structures. 9

Prnciples

und

P l u

with

This s q u a r e s

Chomel

nsky's (1982) view

restrictions.

andsyntactic that

a

large part

their properties.

For example,

occur in a that may not

verb which may or, a

alternatively,

following NP

clause.

etc.

of the

elements

the oresented data

occur

an

of da natter of determining from din. lexicon (mental tal dictionary) and

learning

of language

is a matter

learn

the child needs to

NP VP with a following

in

VP With two

a

NP and

a

PP;

NP

object;

following NP

that tell is verb

object, two folloWing

that cry

that

objects

.

that .

iS

verb

send is a

comnl..

lements

which ich

reauire

or an

NP and

This shows that children and L2 adult

a

requires either a

learners, for

thas

at

that

matter, continue to learn novel lexical items even after they have

reached a fully developed linguistic competence, referred to by Chomsky as a steady state, or S. To this effect, Jackendoff (1997:5) argues that: Chomsky's next question is, If linguistic knowledge consists of a mental grammar, how does the mental grammar get into the speaker's mind? Clearly a certain amount of environment is necessary, since

children

acquire mental grammars appropriate to their communities. However, the combinatorial principles of mental be

directly perceived

grammar cannot

in the

generalizations constructed OT the

environmental input: they

(unconsciously)

De

in response to percepu

input. Therefore the language learner must acquisition equipped with a capacity to

generalizations on the basis of

must

come to the task

construct

o

I-linguisu

E-linguistic input.

Grammatical knowledge estigated indirectly via may be vague native speaker investigated nu about intuitions, i.e. how native See below for more on

speakKCi

this.

the structures of their

language. Support

(1977). who remarks that *lt is

an

for this

from

Chomsky obvious and uncontroversial fact comes

that informant judgments and other data do not fall neatly into clear categories: syntactic, semantic, etc." Language investigators are therefore required to have

at

their

disposal

techniques to

extra

circumvent this shortcoming. Chomsky (1986), for example, argues: Linguistics as a discipline is characterised by attention to certain kinds of evidence that are, for the moment, readily accessible and informative: largely, the judgments of native speakers. Each such

judgment is, in fact, the result of an experiment, one that is poorly designed but rich in the evidence it provides. In practice, we tend to

operate on the assumption, or pretence, that these JudgmentS give us direct evidence

informant

as to the structure of the I-

language [F internalised language, i.e. language which the speaker has internalised], but, of course, this is only a tentative and inexact working hypothesis, and any skilled practitioner has at his or her

disposal

an

armoury of

techniques

to

for the

help compensate

errors

introduced.

develop

a

theory

of

language structure,

respect, Ouhalla (1999: [Their] linguist

investigating syntactic knowledge seek

in

Linguists engaged

syntactic theory.

one

of reconstruction, in the

tries to reconstruct, via the process of

that exists in the mind of native

the task of the

linguist is

to formulate a

model, of language, insofar are

attempts

those phenomena.

In this

7) states:

task is essentially

knowledge

general

or a

at

as

speakers.

theory,

that the

analysing data, In other words,

sometimes called

theories of natural

reconstructing the

sense

a

phenomena in

mechanisms

to

underlying

Principles and Paru

framework

ofsyntactio ntactic

The

such model,

(cf.

andreferences

Chomsky

man

and

a

most number of values, at

(1) theory of grammar a

of the innate

state

linguistic

finite

construed as

(So) of the language UG consists

array

two. As

across

is

(UG), which, as noted

is genetically endowed.

principles

invariant

The latter framework

Grammar

the initial characterisation of which

is one

(1986a) (198), (1982),

cited therein).

Universal theory of

heory

a). c1 (19865). (1988)

P r i n c i p l e s - a n d - P a r a m e t e r s

or

such, UG

IS

above, isa

facul.

having

with

a

f finite ite

characterised by hein.

ng

all natural languages, and

endowment. It

aho

of a cuct

parameters

a

(2)

follows, then, that it

a

theorv

must meet

two requirements, VIz. (1) it must be comprehensive enough to

provide

grammars of all natural

languages, and (2) it

must

be

constrained enough to allow children to construct a particular

grammar from the impoverished primary linguistic data to which they are exposed. These seemingly contradictory requirements can only be

reconciled if UG is a theory that has a set of basic (innate) principles but with a finite number of parameters which may be set one way or another v1a exposure to a particular language, thus accounting for

cross-linguistic variation. In other words, learning the grammar or a particular language reduces

according reaches a

to

to

fixing UG parameters for that anguag

PLD. When all the parameters

are

fixed, the mind/brai

final steady state for language, i.e. Ss. This is capturcu o

for See, example, Van Valin In

(2001) for a selection of other languages are theories of linguistic theory of So, and modeis. various this

sense, UG is the

1-(nternal) languages.

gramun

figure in (16), (cf. Cook & Newson (1996: 125). See also Ennassi

(2004).

(16)

LI Input

grammar (principles,

LI

principles

parameter settings,

UG

vocabulary)

parameters

1.5 Levels of representation The aim of

underlying a

number

Principles and

universal structure

common

to all

theory is

to reveal the

languages. It

consists of

been in the form of what has organized of components

literature referred to in the

upside

Parameters

down T

shape

as

as

T-Model, usually pictured

a

in (17):

D-structure

(17) (Move a) S-structure

(Move a)

PF

LF

Logical Form (meaning) Phonetic Form (sounds)

13

by

an

P

r

i

n

c

The

At

i

p

l

e

sa

four

cach

n

d

P

a

l

u

levels-

DS, SS,

LEd LFPF and

level

of

representation

operations.

DS is

computational

internal

lexical items.

onto

system

component,

by by

computational

lexicon and the

generated

lev:. by the projection of

Ä-bar accordance With

must contorm

to

selectional

Strictly speaking,

theoretic

tions. DS

and thematic nrn. a

IS

functions".

Representations

general

ems

condit.

then, DS

onto SS via the

mapped

one one

face' between the l. interfa

thematically relevant grammatical are

the next the

an

in the lexicon

representations

level

computatiional

of this system, each sentence has a distinct forma

mapped that is

from

the form form the

es of

representation of

rule "Move

at

a', the

sLthis

lattor

that places tho being an operational rule of the computational system burden of explanation on general principles rather than specific rules

encoding constructions', (cf. Safir (1985). For example, it will be seen below that NP-movement is passive and raising structures is

driven

by Case theory, and not by the early construction-specifie transformations of the Standard Theory. Viewed from this perspective Move

1.e. a

a

is

a

sort of

short hand notation for

meta-rule that relates

representations

syntactic component. This rule as

well

as

But see, for

computational operations,

at

the various levels of

tne

overgenerates, producing well-TOTmeu ill-formed structures. But the various principles orI the principi

msky (1995), minimised to example, where the com only twoChomsky computational system has been Conceptual necessity. LF levels: PF and LF. These by virtual is the levels are required level Conceptual required of Intentional system Tepresentation that with tne the interfaces with representation that interfacesith (CI), and the PF is the level of inte generative grammar, level of reprresentation that ammar, all PF, all ron version of system conditionserceptual system (cf.Chomsky (1995: 219)). (AP). In this ersion on AP versio yntactic syntactic representations hold at LF and0o

Articulatory-Perceptual

M.K. Ennassiri

Principles and Parameters interact to rule out representations whicn

violate the appropriate licensing conditions at each syntactic level.

Well-formedness conditions are thus conditions on representations, not on Move a itself, (cf. Ross (1967), Chomsky (1973), (1976),

(1977)). As for SS, it is an intermediate abstract level which contains

empty categories in turn

mapped

additional

of various

onto

types." Representations

at this level are

the two external interface 1levels of LF and PF processes, such

computational

as

via

Wh/Quantifier raising and

stylistic/scrambling rules, respectively. LF is a level of representation

where S-structures are associated with a logic0-semantic interpretation

(meaning),

and PF is

a

level of representation where they

are

associated with a phonological representation (sounds)." The objects of LF and PF

are

properties of

restricted to those

sentences that are

relevant for their meaning and sound, respectively.

1.6 Aspects of the lexicon The lexicon constitutes the

building

be conceived of lexicon of a particular language may

SS is "basically

mapping

a

derived

a

as an

level which is derived

as a

inventory result

ofa

and yields S-structure as output. takes D-structure as input process which which derives the to another mapping process serves as input

In turn, S-structure Logical Form (LF)." (Ouhalla The mapping

between

represented

(i) below:

()

level, that is

language. The

block of

as

(1991:21).

and syntax and syntax and phonology

PHONOLoGY

- SYNTAX

SEMANTICS

semantics may

be

Each lexical item tem phonolooic that specifies 1diosyncratic

lexical items of all the has

lexical entry

a

and semantic

available in that

information

properties

Fach

cal, syntactie

the general rules. As such,

lexical

language. e.

lexICOn is a

of each word

generative literature that

herwise predicted by

be otherwise

that cannot

in

the

specification of id:.

idioargued syncratinic

language. It has been been

the lexicon is the locus of parametrie

and hence of cross-linguistic variation.

We shall

see

choices

below some

aspects of this variation between English and Arabic. The levi Icon determines the thematic properties of those lexical items that funetio heads and their thematic and

as

model, lexical categories

are

+N]. Thus, [+V, -N]

a

is

argument structures.* In the

defined in terms of the features

verb, EV, +N]

is

a

noun,

P&p

[EV] and

[+V, +N]

is

an

adjective and [-V, -N] is a preposition. Besides lexical not as

categories,

there

are

other

categories which are

definable in terms of [+V] and (+N] features. These

are

referred to

functional/inflectional categories, whose class is a close class croSS-

linguistically.

These

NEG, COMP,

to

hypothesis

categories include DET, AGR, TENSE, ASP, cite but a few. Since Pollock (1989), the working

has been that each

one

of these

categories should allowed to head its own maximal projection, in with -bar agreement theoretic conditions. Clause structure has therefore become ore De

"The

selectional properties of lexical items determine the or semantie categories they take. the theta theta roles This is referred roles to mntic as category is realised as a S-(emantic) selection. certain syntactic Structural Realization category via the ruie Eaanonical (CSR), (cf. structural realization Chomsky (1986)). For example, anonical of the semantic the CSR of NP, and is NP, and category patient (=CSR proposition (=CSR (patie (proposition)) is

semantic

ple,

CP, etc.

the canonical

articulated than before, perhaps too articulated, (cf. latridou (1990),

Ackema & Neeleman (1992). Functional categories play a significant role in the P&P approach to syntax, as they are 'the flesh and blood of

grammar, (ef. Ouhalla (1991:1). Further, Chomsky (1988:2) points out that "if substantive elements (verbs, nouns, etc.) are drawn from

an invariant universal vocabulary, then only functional elements wil be parametrised."

The syntactic category to which a word belongs determines its

distribution, i.e. the saying

context in which it may occur. This amounts to

that words of

category X

are

interchangeable for those of

not

dismiss in

(17) category Y. For example, we may not replace the verb below by its corresponding noun dismissal, despite semantic affinity:

(18)

a.

I will dismiss the trouble maker.

b. I will dismissal the trouble maker.

Any native speaker of English knows that (186) is

English verb

sentence.

phrase depends

Instead of

to insert

So,

on

a

good

as an

certain verb under the node V in

whether this verb may

occur

a

under that node.

dismiss, any of the following verbs may be used: chase,

fire, criticize, blame,

arrest, watch,

they are all transitive verbs.

as

Speakers of English (whether complement

occur

in

a

complement and that give must

complements,

native

or

non-native) know the

of different types of verbs. For

structure

know that go cannot

NP

not

or,

VP in which there is occur

alternatively,

in

an

a

a

example, they following

VP in which there

NP and

a

PP. This is

are

NP two

part of

d Arabi

Principlesa n d Paramete).

knowledge is l e x i c a l kno lexical This This k

n

o

w

l

e

d

g

e

.

outlined o

lexical

verbs

their

the in the in

manner

manner

t

l

:

.

.

ncoded in the

below

those

entries

of

lexical

V. (19) a.g0 b.

V.--NP

dismiss:

NP- NPV [(--

v.

NP-

PP]

C.give

Similarly,

speakers

of Arabic know that qa:la

(that-clause),

and

Pinna-clause

following

following requires two a

PP. This type

entries of those

(20)

a.

a'.

of

NP

complements,

or,

encoded knowledge is

verbs,

(say)

rea

requires a zawwaa marry) alternativelu that

zawu

and in the

resneo:

e

lexical

too:

qa:la: V, [-- ?inna-clause] ka?i:ba-tun

qa:la ?inna ssama:?-a said-he that the-sky-Acc gloomy-Nom

He said that the sky is gloomy.

b. zawwaja:

V, [--- NP-NP]/ [--- NP-PP]

b. zawwaja zayd-un Eamr-an ?ibnat-a-hu married Zayd-Nom Amr-Acc daughter-Acc-his

"Zayd has given Amr his daughter

in

mariage.

Zawwaja zayd-un ?ibnat-a-hu li-¬amr-in married Zayd-Nom daughter-Acc-his to-Amr-Gen "Zayd married his daughter to Amr." C.

The

frames in (19a-c) and verbs and are thus

contained in them is

of

(20a&b) above identify subcategorie

called

subcategorization

frames.

called

subcategorization

information.

The informat1 We say

that

M.K. Ennassiri

a

verb subcategorizes

complements

are

lor

Selected

of that verb. Lexical

or

by

selects its

complement(s).

Which

particular verb is an arbitrary property properties of lexical items must be accurately a

reflected in all syntactic levels and can in no way be altered." This

requirement

is

stated

in

terms of

a

principle called

the

Projection

Principle.

(21)

The

Projection Principle

Representations at each syntactic level (i.e. DS, SS and LF) are projected

from

the

lexicon,

in

that

they observe

the

subcategorization properties of lexical items. It follows that representations that do not observe this condition are

excluded. In addition to the filter stated in (21), Chomsky (1981, 1982, & 1986) proposes the following principle, which he calls the Extended Projection Principle (EPP):

(22)

The Extended Projection Principle (EPP)* Clauses must have subject

By way of examples, (23)

a.

The

consider the

police arrested

b. The suspect

was

following expressions:

the suspect.

arrested t.

C. arrested the suspect.

There

syntactically thus three types of

are

categorial

information,

(2)

subcategorisation

information: (1) relevant lexical thematic information and (3)

but it is subject to to all languages, applies EPP that while I t has been assumed require an overt subject English, e.g. variation. Some languages,

information. parametric

others, e.g. Arabic, allow

a

null subject.

P r i n c i p l e s a n d P a r a m e t e .

maqa:lat-an

zayd-un katab-a w

(24)

r

o

t

e

-

3

M

S

Z

a

y

d

-

N

o

m

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

-

A

c

c

a.

article."

wrote

an

Zayd zayd-un

t?

katab-a ma:dha:

b. what wrote-3MS Zayd-Nom

Zayd "What did c .

P a w q a f - a

write?"

I - m u t t a h a m n - a

arrested-3MS the-suspect-Acc

"Arrested the suspect."

the (24a), and (23a) In kataba (write)-

has applied yet at

traces

D-structure, as no

this level. In (23b)

of the verbs

movement

from which the left in the respective position

have moved.

and

transformation

these lexical and (24b), however,

S-structure via satisfied at the level of

are

arrest

complement- are verbs Select a

that both i.e. the fact

of satisfied at the level

properties

lexical properties

the NP- and wh-

original

elements

all pass the Projection Therefore, (23a&b) and (24a&b)

In contrast, (20) Principle and the Extended projection Principle. is

violates EPP, correct

as

the sentence lacks

in Arabic,

allows the

a

subject. Notice

that

which

which is

a

null-subject language, 1.

subject of the clause to be dropped. However,

ntent is

its co

recovedrable from the verbal inflection. So unlike tnc

Projection

Principle, EPP may then be parametrisable with regard to the syntac level

at

which it must

apply

in

different

languages.

Ouhalla (1991:10) assumes that lexical categories and functional categories belong to two separate modules of the mind/brain. The former belong to a mental lexicon which exists

independently of UG, i.e. an independent module of the mind/brain

(the conceptual system); the latter belong to a grammatical lexicon, itself determined by UG, (see Ouhalla (ibid) and Tsimpli and Ouhalla (1990) for details and discussion). An interesting hypothesis advanced

by Ouhalla (1991: 201, among

languages

note

2) is that differences

can, in the final

in word order

analysis, be attributed

to the order

of functional categories which make up the verbal complex, (see Ennassiri

(1996)

and

(2014a) for examples from Arabic that

bear

on

this proposal).

Parameters model 1.7 Modules of Principles and

consists of the following The Principles-and-Parameters model these often themselves called sub-theories. Each of

separate modules, modules

vis-à-vis which natural is associated with parametersS

and contrasted. languages may be compared

(23)

a.

X-bar Theory

b. Case Theory c. Theta Theory d. Movement Theory

e. Binding Theory f. Control Theory 21

ud ru above All the may

affect

subsequent

sub-theories

diflerent

chapters,

levels oft syntactic we

shall address

assoCiated with

the paranmeters

ctic structur

operate on syntactic

vsis- ng DS,

analysis-

these these

cach one

SS

but

or

modules and

of them It

model adopted he the grammatical of the complexity the interaction of these modules result the of than not

will

theshey LF In the

investipate

be seen that

is more often

II. X-BAR THEORY AND PHRASE STRUCTURE

This chapter will discuss the following topics:

Inadequacies of traditional phrase structure rules

Principles of X-bar theory Analysing Arabic sentences

The Dcterminer Phrase (DP) hypothesis The VP-shell hypothesis

Clausal categories

Rules 2.1 Inadequacies of Phrase Structure

This

chapter

that is with how

deals with the

phrases and

Arabic. Recall in this

with the one

regard

carly stages of

structure

sentences

of phrases and sentences,

are

formed in

English and

associated that the Phrase Structure Rules

Transformational Grammar

the head level of representation above

recognize only

node, i.e. the phrasal level

structures: XP. This is illustrated in the following (1)

a.

b

NP

VP NP

(Det the

eat

story

an apple

technique and the labelled bracketing Both labelled tree diagrams and clauses. structure of phrases represent the

23

will be used to

Phin

Purameters iplesanad

Theory:

Towards a

Contrastive Svntes

d.

(AP

of

PP

PP fond Accordingly, the

English and : NP

on

of Mary structure associated with

the shelf

example (2)) is

given in (3

given

below (2)

John will

[vp finish

his homework

on

Saturday|

(3)

NP

Aux

VP

John

will

V

finish

NP

Det

PP

N

his homework The The

graph-theoretic

representation

in

(3)

provides

P

NP

on

Sat

a

visual

representation of the constituent structure of sentence (2), aand assumed to have been generated by the following pre-P&P rme

Structure rules (PS-rules):

(4)

a.

S

-

NP

Aux VP

V NP PP

b. VP

Det N

NP-

c.

P NP

d.PP

PS-rules such as (4a-d) were justified in a number of ways. One

in

arguments

of the

nature. If the same chunk of

distributional in

number of positions with the chunk is likely

subject,

to

be

a

same

constituent. For

rules

is

appear in

a

syntactic

language can

dependencies, then that

internal

example, in (3) NP

and prepositional

object

direct

of these

favour

object,

appears

but it has the

as

same

sentence. of the slot it fills within the irrespective internal one of the basic PS-rules enable us to explain More importantly, Within phrase viz. recursion/nesting.

structure

properties of structure

length

language,

human

syntax, it is possible

cross-linguistically

embedded

enables

to generate

us

generate

to

a

of infinite number

an

of indefinite

X to be category of type a finite rule of the same kind. Thus,

by allowing

inside another category

sentences

possible

sentence

16

structures

in human language.

Theory 2.2 Principles of X-Bar

There

are,

however, a

number

of problems

here.

First, the

internal hierarchy

between

i.e. there is sisters to flat, is VP as Structure of the c o n s t i t u e n t s appear rather, all verb; the those of such a s ne constituents PS-rules by right o n the is captured no

recursion

thin Phrase

Structure

Syntax,

where

(ia&b) below, arrows: and left side of the

VEn

category-

the

same

in

a.

SNP AUX

b.VPVS

VP

25

S

here-

occurs

both

Principles and

V.

Parameters

this

Second,

Theory:

tree

Towards a

Contrastive

English and Arabie

Syntax ofE.

three branch

branches, in

untypically involves

hypothesis, which reaui contravention of the binary branching

quires that

all branching nodes

are

binary branching,

only have two sub-nodes, not more.

1.e. a

branching

Third,

node.

can

it violates violates

the

endocentricity condition, which insists that phrases must be projected

from a head." To put

our

discussion

on a more

concrete

footing, consider the

following examples: (5)

John will finish the homework

on

Saturday and Mary will

do

So too.

(6)

John will finish the homework

on

Saturday

so on Sunday.

In

(5),

do

and

Mary

will do

substitutes for the entire VP, i.e. finish the homework on Saturday. In (6), however, do so substitutes for only part of the VP, i.e. finish the homework. It has been argued in the literature that so

substitution is structure-dependent, i.e. only constituents substituted for by an element. It seems, then, that in Substitutes for

can

be

(6) do

so

constituent that is somewhere between VP and V. This binary-branching intermediate projection is labelled V-bar, or V'.

The VP

now

a

has the

different levels

of

following layered structure, where there are three projection, viz. VP, V and V. V is the head

"i.e. for all PS-rules, the following

XP.X...

generalisation must hold:

M.K. E n n a s s i r i

node) and

inal

(terminal

nodes are

called

VP is the root

branches:

node, and the lines connecting the

VP

(7)

V

NP

PP

finish his homework on Saturday In the above

structure, the PP is detached from the head V, and the

close relationship between the verb and its object is expressed in terms of sisterhood.

Thus, X-bar theory is a model of phrase structure that consists of basic principles whose function is to constrain structural representations at different levels." These principles are stated in

terms of the following general schemata, (cf. Chomsky (1986b):

(8)

a.

XX" x*

[Head-Complement]

b. X"X" x

[Specifier-Head]

(where order is irrelevant, and * stands for any number of)

As Chomsky (1986: For a

91,

accordance

Dut see

3) has clearly stated:

X-bar system is determined by particular (core) language, the in of X-bar theory (head-first, etc.) the

TIXing the values of

18

fn.

parameters

them with whatever dependencies among

Kayne (1994) and Chomsky (1994),

deduce X-Theory from more basic principles.

where

an

are

determined

been made to attempt has

P

r

i

n

c

i

p

l

e

s

a

n

d

by UG, the

P

a

a

r

a

m

e

t

e

x

r

particular set

grammar

of

constitutes the

Engiishsh andand ro .

XL

component of

of L.

Stowell (1981) argues

following

choices

that the Ä-bar

well-formedness conditions, to

admissibility conditions

on

DS

schemata

in

which he

representations,

0jof English

refers as 'node

a term .

m he

McCawley (1968): (9)

8) impose the

attributes t

a. Every phrase is endocentric; b.

Specifiers appear atthe X level; subcategorized appear within X"

c.

The head

always appears adjacent to

nponents

boundary of X. d. The head term is one bar-level lower than the immediatelv dominating phrasal node; e.

Only maximal projections

may appear

within a phrase.

According to (8), and T-

each

combines with its

one

X category-

as

non-head

e.g. N, V, A, P,

tenms

NEG, AGR

complements to form an X'-level, which, In turn, forms a maximal projection, X", with its specifier. Therefore, the basic notions in this system are X" categories, i.e. heads, speciiers and the complements, latter being X" categories, i.e. maximal projec ons. 1

Chomsky (1986:4) points complements is determined byout that specifiers cifiers are are optional while the choicé of optional wn the Projection in I (21). Boeckx Principle given given ini( (2006:175) points out that () a.Minimal the OOWing ought to be recognize following relations A relations oug Projection (X minimal b.AMaximalprojection Projection isX)a lexical item selected from the lelexicor maximal ion is a further. projection syntactic object that that does not project any c.

Intermediate Projection (X')

These notions

accounting order

play a crucial role

for the

at each

languages.

licensing

phrase

of

level is

in X-bar

theory

as

they

are

involved

in

positions in phrase structure. The subject to parametric variation acrosS

some

The order chosen for

particular language depends on the assignment, thematic marking and government in a

directionality of Case this language. The noted cross-linguistic variation is assumed to be the result of fixing the head and specifier parameters stated in (10) and (11) below, (cf. Koopman (1984) (10)

The Head Parameter

(11)

a.

X» YP X

b.

X

(head-final) X YP (head-initial)

The Specifier Parameter a.

XP(YP)

b. XP

X'

X*

(specifier-initial) (YP)(specifier-final)

Arabic. initial

English, French and Spanish, for example, are all headlanguages, whereas Japanese-type languages are head-final

languages. This parameter determines the basic order of elements in sentences.

instance, is

a

(cf. I: 1-5). And Arabic, English, French and Italian, for

specifier-initial languages, while Bulgarian, for example, specifier-final language. X-bar structures are basically projections are

of heads selected from the lexicon. The basic relations

are

therefore

An intermediate projection is a syntactic object that is neither minimal nor

maximal Languages differ as to whether they realize their heads to the right or to the left of complements. Languages also differ with respect to the relative position of the

specifier. This indicates that there is no universal position for heads and specifiers.

Parameters Theory: Principles and

Specifier-head relation

Towards a

Contrastive rastive

Syntax of English

elation, (cf. Chomsky

and head-complement relation

(1992). To illustrate further the working of X-bar theorv. let

consider

the following example: The students will

(12)

and and A Ardhit

[vp all finish heir homework on

Saturday

The quantifier all occurs to the left of the verb inside the Vp

Its position is identified as a specifier position, (cf. the VP-intema

Hypothesis).4

subject

given

as

The structure assoCiated with the VP is thus below, where the floating quantifier all has been

(13)

stranded off the

subject the students which it quantifies:

(13)

VP

Spec all

V'

NP finish

According to this hypothesis, (1988), Fukui & Speas

Kuroda

others).

In

)

their homework

IT the

on Sat

thematic subject

(cf.

originates wi Koopman & Sportiche Sporticne (1991), of all and all and as

DS, the NP "the (1986) and students" appears moves to the Spec-TP in (i) below: leaving all in Spec-VP

Suosequently derived as

the

PP A

among

complem

position.

students;

Saturday)

Ir will lvp [ve all t v finish v finish their

(12)

thus be

*

homework) l

on

M.K. Ennassiri

Schematically, English VPs are fomed according to the following format: (14)

a. V

»

b. V

Spec V

V complement

Going back to the PP

on

Saturday, we can see that

it is detached from

the verb finish. This is so because the PP is not obligatory, i.e. it is not

subcategorized (referred

for

by

the verb.

to in the literature

by recursively expanding

as a

Rather, it is

adjunct)

an

optional

element

that has been added to the VP

V' into another V'. Thus, the VP all

finished their homework on Saturday now has the following hierarchical structure, where the node labelled with a question mark in

(13) is labelled instead with V': V''

(15) Spec

all

PP

NP

on Saturday

finished t h e i r homework

that a phrase Recall that a complement is its hence appears in that matter) selects and

a

31

verb

(or any other

subcategorization

lexical category

frame.

for

Principles

and

Parameters

Theory:

Towards a

homework

Contrastive

G.

Syntax of English

nes merges/ combines

NP their In (15), The and the PP adjunct form the lower V

on

with with the the

Saturday in

and Arabig

1

head V to

tss

turn merges with

another (higher) V'. Adjuncts are. to form the lower V' shown to be peripheral in X-bar system and part- optional

f

the most

E:

y, the

V finished their homework on Saturday merges with the subiet all to

form the maximal projection V7 VP, All that is needed is to add to the rules given in (14) the

adjunct rule (16):

(16) XX' ZP (adjunct)" A tree like the one given in (15) illustrates two different types of relations that are crucial for syntactic analysis: (1) hierarchy

relation defined in terms of dominance, and (2) ordering relation defined in terms of precedence. Another important node-relation is that of c-command.

Chomsky (1986a).

for

example.

defines this

relation as follows: (17)

a C-commands ß iff a does not dominate B and every y that

dominatesa dominates B. What

(17) means in fact is that

a

node

a

c-commands

and all the nodes

relation term.

homework),

and

dominated by B, i.e. its nieces, to use a So in (15), V (finished) c-commands NP

Spec c-commands V, command is symmetric, meaning that commands V (finished). "The following (i) (i)

(ii)

famiy (eu

V, NP and PP. The relaiou NP (their

terminology ensues

(10), (11) and (16): specifier is daughter offrom XP and sister to X. An adjunct is daughter of X' and A complement is daughter of X' sister to X A

its sister node p

and sister

to

X.

homework) aso

C

Summarizing,

then,

relations among elements.

X-bar

theory

expresses

hierarchical

For example, the relation that a

hcad

entertains with a complement is closer than that it entertains with an

adjunct. The schemata in (8a&b) predict that the specifier and complement of a given category are distinguished from those of other

categories. For example, N complements cannot be immediately

dominated by V, and vice versa. (8a&b) also exclude structures where a head category is immediately dominated by the projection of another category. For instance, the category V cannot be dominated by the

maximal projection NP, and similarly, N cannot be directly dominated by the maximal projection VP. X-bar theory, then, requires that a lexical head, or a functional head, for that matter, and its maximal projection belong to the same category. More important, still, is the

fact that in an X-bar structure the head always governs its complements, but not its specifier. It will be seen below that this

property plays a crucial role in Case assignment, both in English and

Arabic.

2.3 Extending the X-bar format to other categories

X-bar lexical

theory

categories

does not as

apply only

well. So, the schema

that given in (17) below:

(18)

to VPs but extends to other

a.N"

Spec N'

b. N'

N complement

c. N'

N' adjunct

underlying

NPs should be

and Parameters

Theory:

Towards

a

Contrastive

Principles

This is an

empirical

So, let us issue, though.

Syntax of Englishish and

considen

folowin

examples: satisfied even solution to the problem] The [NP

a.

(19)

solution to the probler

b.

[NP Mary's

c.

NP Students of linguistics

d.

[NP Students] hate exams.

from

was

body.

quite cleve

Essex] got good grade des.

The bracketed NPs in (19a-d) have the following respectivestructur (20)

N"

ab.

Spec N

Mary's the

C.

PP

N

solution to the

problem

N"

N

N

PP PP

students

from Essex

of linguistics

N"

d.

N

students It seems,

then, that NPs, too,

are

analyzable

in terms of X-bar

schemata in that they, too, have two internal levels of structure: an N"

which consists of N' and of the head N and

a

possible specifier, and an N' which consists

possible complements.

However, it has been argued in the generative literature that NPs are best analysed in terms of what has been referred to as the

Determiner Phrase (DP)

hypothesis, (cf. Abney (1987 ), Chomsky

(1995) and Fukui & Speas (1986), inter alia). This hypothesis proposes that a nominal expression is headed by a determiner that takes a noun phrase as its complement. *"What this implies in the case of bare noun expressions (i.e. noun expressions used without any

modifying determiner), Radford (1997:95) succinctly argues, "is that such nominals are DPs headed by a mull determiner."Accordingly,

(19a-d)

have the

following respective

alternative structures, irrelevant

details omitted:23

25

The head D

can

host either the possessive morpheme

both.

35

or

the determiner, but not

Contro..

Theory:

Towards a

P a r a m e t e r s

Principles

(21)

and

of

English and

DP

ab.

D

Spec

NP

D

Mary

the

C

ntrastiveSSyntax

N

PP

solution

to the problem

DP

D

NP

N

N

N

PP PP

students of linguistics

from Essex

hrg

d.

DP

D

NP

N*

N

students Adjective phrases (APs) and preposition phrases (PPs) are also

diagrammable in terms of X-bar format. Consider the following

examples: (22)

a. Jane is [ap Very fond d of birds] b. The candy shop is [Pp right around the corner]

In (22a),. fond is the head, the degree adverb very is the

specifier,

and the PP

associated with

of

birds is the

complement. The

structure

very fond of birds is thus given as in (23) below:

Within this assumption, the APs have recently been reinterpreted as DegPs. in (22a) is thus given as (i) below.. But structure associated with the bracketed AP we will not follow this analysis here.

)

beg very LaP fond [e of lor IN

birds]111

37

Parameters Principles and

Contrastive Syne

Syntax of English

Towards a

and

AP

(23)

DegP

A

Deg

A

very In

Theory:

PP

L--of birds

fond

(22b), around is the head word, right

is the

is the

specifier, and the corner

complement. The prepositional phrase right has the following structure: (24)

around the

corner

PP

Spec

right

P

around In

notation forsummary,

the

L

the corner

X-bar format ormat

discussed above important phrase structure discussed above constituent is constituents is projection ofa head andgeneralizations. generalizations. It imposes

a

providesa

a

i

invariant

that the

that

internal structure of

crosscategorially. gorial y. Taken interna part par

as part of Universal

Arah

this

Grammar,

contributes

constrained

towards

view of

explaining

the acquisition of syntactic structures.

2.4 A sketch of Arabic

the format of

rapidity

and

phrase

structure

uniformity

of the

phrase structure

2.4.1 The Determiner Phrase in Arabic In Arabic, too, all

their

phrases are formed in about the same way as English counterparts. To illustrate, consider the following

examples: (25)

a.

[al-kita:b-u] mufi:d-un the-book-Nom interesting-Nom

The book is b.

interesting."

[ha:dhihi l-madrasat-u] mashhu:rat-un this the-school-Nom famous-Nom

"This school is famous." c.

[qami:S-u l-walad-i] ja:hiz-un shirt-Nom the-boy-Gen ready-Nom

"The

boy's shirt is ready."

d. [baED-u tilka l-7afla:m-i] radi:?at-un

some-Nom those the-films-Gen bad-Nom Some of those films are bad."

Towards

a

ntras

LOHI

Ve dyntaax

htax of

Theory: P a r a m e t e r s

Principles

and

Under the

assumption

Kayne eg.,

(1994))

English anc English and and Ar. Arut

underlyingly similar, (c

are underlvin languages that all

and leaving

the attached to feature Case

r aside for

head

the moment

moment the

noun, the

s

bracketed

issue of the

NP in (25a (tree (tree diagram) diagram), where al.alND

ker phrase the folloWing have should the in English:27 definite article to the marker

corresponds

(26)

DP D

NP

kita:b-u The graph in (26) is isomorphic to that given for the English noun phrase in (21b) above, modulo, of course, the PP complement. In

(25b), the determiner al (the) is preceded by a demonstrative adjectve ha:dhihi (this), which agrees with the head noun in gender and

number. The demonstrative adjective is hooked under Spec-DP. (256)

thus has the

2

following tree diagram:

The definite article (a)! (the) is not it gets incorporated into lexical

nature.

syntactically.

the

c a i in

in

Arabic; rather, modified head noun, t is

MA. Ennassiri

DP

27)

Spec

D

ha:dhihi

D

NP

(a)-

N madrasal-u

In

demonstratives

however,

English,

articles

and

the other complementary distribution, i.e. if one appears, judgement: we see from the following grammaticality

may not,

as

('the/a) school b. (The/a) this school

(28)

This

a.

they are

This shows that and hence

they compete

(25c) in

an

literature as the

(1993),

Tollowed

by

In the

a

one

and the

for the

instance

construct

Mohammad

others). In this

ase.

in

are

state,

state

(cf.

Ouhalla

construction, a possessor

category, viz. D(eterminer),

position.

referred to in the of a special construction,

(2000),

construct

same

same

Benmamoun

(1988) and

possessed head

complement, constructions,

(2000), Fassi

Ritter

noun,

which is

the head

but

the

possessor/complement

41

among

qami:su (shirt),is assigned

Genitive

noun cannot

noun

determiner,

(1991),

Fehri

may.

take

This

a IS

Towardsa

Principles and

Parameters

by

illustrated

TheorY:

the following

Contrastive Syntax of

Contrastive

grammaticality

English und hr

2st between (29%&k

contrast .

and (29c&d):

(29)

al-qami:S-u

a.

al-walad-i

the-shirt-Nom the-boy-Gen

b. qami:S-un walad-in

shirt-Indefinite article/Nom boy-Gen C. qami:S-u walad-in

shirt-Nom boy-Gen "A boy's shirt" d. qami:S-u l-walad-i

shirt-Nom the-boy-Gen The boy's shirt" The question we should ask at this juncture is: what is the structure or

the bracketed DP in (25c)? The simplest assumption- and hence the

most desirable, both theoretically and empirically- is to posit that such

DPs

as

that in (25c) have the structure (30) below, where the constr

noun qami:S-u (shirt) moves from under N" and gets relocatcu uunder

D' for reasons to do

In (30), P more on

mainly with Genitive Case assignment

DP has a subject-like function, means something

this. The N to-D

that the

and N' is predicatea like 'the boy has a shirt'. See

movement

movement, (cf. verb movement 29

28/29

portrayed

above

O

Benman

is

ren

of Vt

n t o f V-to-T

The below). strikethrough (i.e. ent. squares with recent qami:S-u) stands for the copy py of the moved elem no movement to be developments in the generative enterp lementtoE

Thi

that

copying,

and the

new/highest

copy of the n

take

M.K. Ennassiri

DP

(30)

Spec

D Dgen

NP

qami:S-u

DP

N'

al-walad-i GamiS# It has been

be

preceded by

pointed

out

above that the construct

the determiner al

impossibility by

the fact that the

have hosted al is

already

Ritter

(1991)).

determiner

What this

are

in

noun

may not

(the). We can now account for this only position that would otherwise

filled

by the abstract Case assigner Dgen» (cf. implies in fact is that Dgen and the definite

complementary

distribution. This is indeed

corroborated by (29a), repeated for convenience as (31) below:

(31)

al-qami:S-u al-walad-i the-shirt-Nom the-boy-Gen In Moroccan Arabic (alias MA), however, the possessed noun

may be definite if it functions like the subject of the DP. In such cases,

the one that gets mapped onto PF. But nothing seems to be at stake here, apart

from terminology. 43

with the head D is filled

following data

a

possessive particle.

This is is illhust

from MA:

illustrated byby thethe

1-ktab d/dyal/ntaE drari

(32)

the-book of children

"the children's book"

We shall assume that (32) has the following structure:

DP

(33) DP

D'

1-ktab

D

NP

d(yal)/ntaE

drari

However, MA also has constructions quite akin to Arabic state structures, as we can see from the following bracketed

constuct

examples:

(34)

a.

ETat-u

[flu:s l-maSru:f

gave-she-him money the-expenses "She gave him b.

pocket money.

ma-tonsa-sh [ras 1-Hanut

Neg-forget-Neg head the-shop Don't forget (to add) c.

spices"

glas-na f [wast d-dar]

M.K. Ennassiri

sat-we in centre the-house

We sat in the lobby" In these constructions, too, the head noun- i.e. flu:s (money), ras

(head) and wast (centre)- may not be definite. Therefore, (34a), for example, will have the structure (35) below, which is parallel to (30): DP

(35) D

NP

flu:s

DP2

N

lmaSru:f

N

However, the

construct state in Arabic may still

be modified

by a quantifier. This is illustrated by the following example:

(36)

The

[kull-u buyu:t-i l-madi:nat-i] qadi:mat-un All-Nom houses-Gen

the-city-Gen

*All the houses in the

city are old."

structure

quantifier kullu and

D

associated with

(all) is assumed

thus Case-governs the

old-Nom

(36) is given in (37), to head a

construct

where the

quantifier phrase (i.e. QP)

(possessed)

noun

hooked under

Prneiples and

Parameters

Theory:

Towards

a

C o n t r a s t i v e Sur

itax of oJ English Syntax Engusn and and Argbi Arabiec

QP

(37)

DP

kull-u

D

NP

buyu:t-i DP

N'

-madi:nat-i N

buyu:t Further evidence in support of the claim that kullu (all) heads a QP

that dominates a DP may be gleaned from such examples as (25d). where the bracketed nominal expression consists of the head noun

Pafla:m (films) and three preceding elements, namely the determinet (the), the demonstrative adjective tilka (those) and the quanc too. (some). It is therefore plausible to assume that in (25d), quantifier ba£D-u merges with the DP tilka 1-Pafla:m-i to lo

baD-u the

maximal

projection, i.e. the QP ba&lD-u tilka 1-2afla:m-i. It woul follow that (25d) will have the structure (38) below:

then

M.K. Ennassiri

QP

(38)

Q

DP

ba&D-u

Spec

D

rilka

D

NP

N

N

Pafla:m-i The head

noun

may be further modified

illustrated in (39), where the

qami:S (shirt),

by

adjective phrase. This is adjective al-jadi:d (new) modifies an

witness the fact that it agrees with it in definiteness and, more crucially, in nominative Case:

(39)

as

yuejibu-ni: [gami:S-u Lwalad-i al-jadi:d-u appeals-me shirt-Nom the-boy-Gen the-new-Nom appeals I like the boy's new shirt."

The structure associated with is

30

(39)

is outlined in

(40) below, where AP

adjoined to D'.3

Alternatively, the AP al-jadi:d-u may be assumed to adjoin to DP*. But nothing

hinges on this at this stage.

47

Principles

and

Parameters

Theory:

Towards

a Contrastive Ive

Syntax of

Engish and

Aru

DP

(40)

D'

Spec

AP

D'

D

NP

qami:S-

DP

N'

-walad-i N

al-jadi:d-u

Let us now turn to the structure of AP, PP and VP in Arabic.

Consider first the folowing bracketed APs.

(41)

a.

walad-un

[dhakiy-un]

boy-indef-Nom clever-indef-Nom "A clever boy"

b. bint-un [dhakiyy-at-un]

girl-indef-Nom clever-F-indef-Nom "A clever gir" c. al-kita:b-a:ni [al-mufi:d-a:ni

the-book-dual the-useful-dual

M.K. Ennassiri

The two useful books"

(41a-c) indicate that

and agree with the

modify Case

and

such

adjectives come post-modified noun

(in)definiteness.

phenomena noun

in Arabic

Abstracting

after the in

they number, gender,

away from

for the moment, the internal structure of

as

(42)

(41a),

for

instance,

may be

a

noun

agreement

post-modified

diagrammed as follows:

DP

Spec

D' AP

D

D

NP N' 4

walad-un

dhakiyy-

But in Arabic, too, adjectives may in turn be modified, as the

following examples illustrate (43)

a. ?ana: [ap masru:r-un jiddan) I-yawma

happy-Nom very

today

31 The dual form of an adjective is made by adding (a:ni) or (ata:ni) to the base form

of the adjective. 49

"I am very happy today."

b. Pana: [apjiddu masru:r-in]

I

very

I-yawma

today

happy-Gen

I am very happy today." c. zayd-un [aP mu:la&-un bi-l-ba:diyyat-i]

Zayd-Nom keen-Nom with-the-countryside-Gen Zayd is keen on the countryside." d. imra?at-un

[aP jami:l-at-u l-wajh-i]

woman-Nom beautiful-F-Nom the-face-Gen "A woman with It has been

normally

pointed

come

a

out

beautiful face."

(Kremers (2005))

above that in

Arabic, adjectival modifiers

after the

adjective they modify. This is illustrated in (43a), (43c) and (43d). Sometimes, however, they may occur before the adjective. In (43b), for instance, the intensifier jiddu (very) premodifies masru:r (happy). We will assume here that

has

a

structure

along the lines of (44) below, where is

jiddan (very) adjoined to A':

example (43a) the degree advere

Prof.

Abderrahman Boudrae pointed out to me that (from so they do assume that

not

the examples such as reflect the

(43b) is derived usual from (43a)

Arabic Studies

(43b)

are

(pc) has Departtment)hic.

not very current in Arab and and order. Ne shall, therefore,

adjective-modifier via

head-to-head movement.shall

M.K. nuassiri

AP

44)

DegP

Deg

A

masru:run jiddan

(4 3b) is the paraphrase of (43a), but with the position of the adjective and the modifier reversed. Given the intriguing fact that the degree

adverb assigns Genitive Case to the adjectival head, we shall assume

that the

degree

word

jidd (very)

moves to a

higher functional

head

-

perhaps Gen- from where it would be able to c-command and hence

Case govern the adjective masru:r-in (happy). If these assumptions are on the right track. (43b) will be derived in the manner indicated in (45) below: GenP

(45)

Gen

AP

jiddu A A

masru:r

DegP Deg jiddt 51

In

(43c), the

prepositional phrase.

This

adjective fond takes

the

have the structure in

and Ara

adjective mu:la&un (keen) is is

PP

a

post-modif with (22a) English, whee (43c)

reminiscent of of (22a) imin

complement.

a

shoul

(46) below, which parallels that in

of course, the pre-adjective material:

therefore

(23), moduloreo,

AP

(46)

PP

A

mu:laE-un

P

DP

bi-

Det

NP

N

ba:diyyat-i The

referred

adjective phrase

to in

the literature

in

(43d)

is

an

instance of what has been

adjectival construct, (cf. (1993), Kremers (2005), Siloni (2002), among others).

Constructs in Arabic involve genitive complement

as

an

adjectival head

"which denotes

houn that

(n

the

adjective modifies

predicative

wIll assume

constructions)", is the

subject

Adjectival

construction wiun

property, part or qualniy f

(in attributive use) or is (cf. Al Sharifi & Sadler

here that (43d) has the

al-wajh (the face)

a

in

Fassi Fehri

(200 following internal strucu

of the

AP, and

ami:lat

a

the

cated of

where

(beautiful)

is

M.A. Ennassiri

predicated ot it. Subsequent movement of jami:lat (beautitul) to cten

will

eventually

(47)

result

in

the final surface order

exhibited in (45d).

GenP

Gen

AP

jami:lat

DP

-wajh-i

A

jetmitet

(47) is parallel to the structure of (29d) given in (30), wherefore it was

assumed that the possessor and the

predication relationship, (cf. Consider prepositional

(48)

a.

now

possessed nominals

the

following

bracketed

examples

bayt-i: qari:b-un [Pp mina 1-ja:mikat-il

My home

near-Nom from the-university-Gen

is

near

the university."

min taHt-i r-ruka:m-i] b. akhraj-u: 1-juththat-a [pp

33 But see, for example,

Kremers

a

fn. 28).

phrases in Arabic:

house-my

entertain

(2005) for a different analysis 53

of

got-they the-body-Acc

from underGen

ibble-en

the-rubble.r

from under the rubble. They got the body

inEaTaf-tu

c.

[Pp lamna.man ila: 1-yami:n-1

turned-I completely to the-right-Gen I turned completely to the right."

(48a) is a simple PP, consisting of a preposition and nd a prepositicms prepsitiona DP

complement. The

that of its

structure associated with

it 15

pretty much like

English counterpart, viz. (49):

(49)

PP

DP

D

mina

NP

ja:mieat-i In

(48b),

the

preposition

min

itself

(from) takes another

PP

consisting of the preposition taHt-i (under) complement r-ruka:mi (the rubble). The example

is thus

structure

given as (50):

complemeu and the DP and the

associated w

this

M.K. Ennassiri

PP

(50) P

PP

min

P

DP

taHt-i

D

NP

N

ruka:m-i

The prepositional phrase in (48c) is exactly the same as that in (22b), and so its structure should be identical to that in (24): PP

(51) Spec

tama:mnan

PP

P

DP

ila:

D

NP

yami:n-i

55

Englishn arand

7 0 W u .

Theory: Parameters

Principles and

Let

us now

the turn to

structure

following consider the

of VP

in in

Arabic. For the

Arot

Arah:

examples:

sake

ofexposition,

(52)

1-baHr-a

yu-Hibbu zayd-un

he-likes Zayd-Nom the-sea-Acc

sea." "Zayd likes the In (52). the verb yuHibbu (like) and its DP complement

a (the

a constituent by virtue of the fact thas the sea) do not seem to form subject Zayd intervenes between them. However, assuming the

widely-adopted VP-internal subject hypothesis, (52) has the follo ina ng structure, where the verb has vacated its initial position for reasons ns 34 that will become apparent below:"

We will argue below that the VSO order in Arabic is obtained by head-to-head movement. The verb moves out of the head V position in VP into the head T position in TP, forming the inflected VT (cf. Ennassiri (20146). In negative ntences such as (ia-c) below, the tense feature/ morphology is realized on the

negative particles lam, lan and la: (not). Mohammad (2000:fn. 19) argues that "lam carries past tense and places the verb in the places the verb in the subjunctive; la: carries what Arab grammarians have termed as

()

a.

not-past we-finish yet are

not

yet done."

b. lan

yu-sa:fir-a 7ab-i: not-future he-travel dad-my "My dad will not be

travelling."

C.

la: Pu-Hibbu S-Sayd-a not -like the-hunting-Acc

"I

don't like

hunting"

tense and

present tense and places the verb

nominative."

lam na-ntahi ba£du

"We

jussive; lan carries future

in

M.K. Ennassiri

VP

(53) yuliibb-u

DP

zayd-un

V

DP

ty

D

NP

N

baHr-a

(53) resembles in relevant respects the structure of the verb phrase in

English, where the verb and the complement do indeed form a constituent, i.e. a V', (cf. (15) above).

All in all, then, the simple notation of the X-bar schemata given in (8a&b) and (16) seem to cover all phrase structure in Arabic,

too, at least for the investigated data. More importantly, differences in

linearization between Arabic and English are also accounted for in

(a), for example, will have the derivation (ii) below:

(i)

lre lam, INeg t lv» pro lv na-ntahi baEdu]]]

In (i), movement is local in that the Neg head has moved into the head position in

the next higher phrase in the clause structure. Movement of the verb in such structures would be disallowed by virtue of the fact that the head position in the

immediately containing phrase is already filled with the negative particle lam. And movement of V to T would cross the intermediate Neg head, in violation of head movement constraint (HMC), (cf. Travis (1984)). We shall see below that this

constraint is reducible to the Empty Category Principle (ECP).

It thus becomes ofX-bar parameters.

terms

variation has

fact that the

English but

direct bearing

a

genitive possesor as a

syntactic

on

clear ar that that crOSS-linguistic

analysis.

functions as a

postnominal complement

For

example, the al

pronominal

to the possessed

ssed construct

head noun in Arabic has lead us to an approach where the head c-commands

its

complement

and

thus

assigns

it

the oo

noun

state/Gen Case.

2.4.2 The VP- Shell Hypothesis So far,

and Arabic,

we

have dealt with VPs like

respectively,

(54)

and

(55)

where the lexical verbs take

in English a

single

complement:

(54)

a.

The

police will open an investigation.

b.Panhayt-u kita:bat-a l-maqa:lat-i finished-I writing-Acc the-article-Gen "I finished

writing the article."

Such VPs have been

consider now the

(55)

a.

analysed in terms

of binary-branching nodes. But

following examples of ditransitive verbs:

[DP1The minister]

sent

[Dpz

message| b.

DPThe

minister]

ambassador].

sent

Ipp

an

the

ambassador] [DPs

urgent

irgent an ug

messagej [Pp *the

MK.

Ennassiri

DPi The

c.

new

salesman]

convinced [DP2

quite

few

a

our products|. customers] [cp to buy

,S6)3.

(56)

sallam-a DP1 -qa: id-uJ [DP2 I-junu:d-a] [DPs Tutab-a-hum -

jadi:dat-a].

gave-he the-chief-Nom the-soldiers-Acc grades-Acc-their the new-Acc

The chief gave the soldiers their b. sallam-a

[DPi l-qa:?id-u] [DP2

grades."

new

r-rutab-a

l-jadi:dat-a] PP li-l-

junu:d-i].

gave-he

the-chief-Nom

the-new-Acc to-the-

the-grades-Acc

soldiers-Gen

"The chief gave the

C.

new

grades to the soldiers."

PiqtaraH-a l-mushrif-u ba?D-a tta?di:la:t-i

suggested-he the-supervisor-Nom

Eala: T-Tulla:b-i

some-Acc the-modification-

Gen on-the-students-Gen

The

supervisor

suggested

Some

modifications

to

the

students. The above instances

of double-object

constructions

seem

to

be

virtue of the incompatible with the binary-branching hypothesis by 1act that the italicised verbs take three arguments,

45signed

internally,

Seemingly Pesis,

two

of which

constituent. A way i.e. within the V-bar

problematic data

according

to which

would

be

ditransitive

to

adopt the

out

are

of this

VP-shell

in (55a-c) verbs like those

and (50a-c) above coc m Iwo parts n

below, (ct.

the manne.

manner outln Larson (988) and Chonsky (1995), inter alia)

in

s7

(57) SUB

VP

IO

V

V

The traditional VP structure

which contain

higher

a

DO

of constructions

verb and two

such

as

(55a)

and (56a

complements, is

now

vP. The small v, which is referred to

contained within a

as a

light verb, carries

strong person and number features.

Apparently,

these strong features

trigger movement of the lexical/ lower verb to v. The complete derivation of the verbal superstructure of (56a), for example, is outlined as follows. First, the verb sallam-a (gave) is merged wtn ue

direct

object rutab-a-hum -jadi:dat-a "their

new

V-bar sallam-a rutab-a-hum 1-jadi:dat-a "gave This V-bar is then merged with the

soldiers" to form the

grades" their

to

fom

new

indirect object -junu.u subordinate VP structure, as shown ow: beio

tne

des

VP

(58)

Dp

1-junu:d

DP

V

sallam-a

rutab-a-hum I-jadi:da-ta

Notice that in (58) the indirect object

(DP")

functions

as

the

specifier

of VP, whereas the direct object (DP) functions as the complement of the V. The verb

(v).

resulting

VP is then

merged

It has been mentioned above

complement of the light that v carries strong/formal

as a

features, which fact causes the lexical verb sallam-a "gave" to raise to it, thus forming v'. The resulting v is eventually merged with the

subject -qa:?id-u "the chief" to form vP.

The complete verbal

architecture is therefore given as (59) below, where the lower V

substitutes for the

36

light verb, as shown by the dotted

35 The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis should now be interpreted as meaning that

of the outer P shell. to English examples such

the thematic subject appears as the specifier The

same

analysis is equally applicable

as

(55a).

PrincipIE3

P

(59)

DP

VP

-qa Pid-u

sallam-a DP DP

-junu:d-a saltem-a

rutab-a-hum.

The lexical verb sallam-a "gave" assigns Acc Case to DP, while the

light verb,

assigns

v,

Acc Case to indirect DP. This analysis

squares

in essence with Vergnaud's proposal that there should in principle be only one argument for each verb, (cf. Vergnaud's USC (1995) Fall

syntax class lectures). This proposal is captured by the following schema:

(60)

I verb >Iargument"

2.5 Clausal categories So

far,

we

have been able to extend X-bar schema

of

To

Underlying (60)

do

is the

given

this,

the

sentence

rule

pa clausal

structureto all phrasal categories, but can we also exten

categories?

hrase

in

give

Single Complement Hvpo thesis, (cf. Larson (708))

early

nsformational generative grammar (TGG) would have to of X-bar theoretic rules. But this

in terms

head,

a

specitier,

and

ansider again the (61):

us to

determine

a

conplement for S*. For ease of exposition, example given in (2), repeated for convenience as

[NP John) [aux will] [vp finish

(61)

requires

a

be recast

his

homework

on

Saturday]

Obviously, this tri-partite division is inconsistent with the

principles of

X-bar theory discussed above. We therefore need to reassign (61) an alternative structure which is consistent with X-bar theoretic principles. Notice that in (61), the main verb is preceded by a modal auxiliary, 1.e. will. However, not all sentences contain a modal auxiliary. We may equally have sentences such as (62a-b) below,

where the NP subject is apparently directly followed by a VP: (62)

a. My daughter likes Tom and Jerry. b. He published a new book on syntax.

But we still want to analyse a sentence in terms of NP, Aux, and VP

because although a modal auxiliary may be missing, its position, Aux, should be available and

simple past -ed. need

they

These

inflections end

38The sen entence

()

S

host tense elements such

These elements

bearer. In

hence

a

to

up on

early

are

work

inflectional on

TGG, it

the main verb via

rule assumed for clauses

was

NP AUX VP 63

simple present

as

given

as

an

(i)

morphemes, and

was

Affix

below:

-s

assumed that

Hopping Rule,

whose fiunction

verb. It

seems,

was

then, that

Aux, because it constituents

Sulixes

to lower these we

have found

is a zero level

of the

sentence are

a

and

head ad for the the

category.

plhrasal

reposition tho hem

in

on the

sentenee, i.e

n

The other twom main

nature, and henco

they

cannot serve as heads. We will therelore reter to Aux as TENSE

or would then be its complement and (T). for short. The following VP the DP subject would be its speeifier.

eventually have (63)

to

be reanalysed

as

The senlence rule would

u

(63) below:"

a. TP> Spee T°

b. T T VP Accordingly, the structure associated with (61) is now given in (64)

below:

Chomsky (1995) abandons the AGR node since it makes no semantic co to the

sentence. This squares with Culicover and s (z explanatory syntactic theory is one that the minimu necessary to mediate between phonology and imputes But see, Rizzi (1997, meaning." d 2004), who proposes a more articulated clause proliferation of functional stru "The most

Jackendoff'

categories in the left periphery.

ha ion hat

tructure

ure

thers thers,

toa

TP

(6-4)

T

DP

VP

John

V

DP

will

CJohn

PP

V

on Sat

DP

his homework

finish

In

a

clause

the

structure

object

is

like

(64), the in

expressed

object/complement the (thematic) subject

appears

difference between the

as a

sister of V and as a

appears

of

terms

subject

and

format;

the

daughter ofV,

while

X-bar

sister of V° and

daughter of V'

(VP). (64) is the stands on

its

variously

as root

Sentences we

own.

structure

a

simple clause, i.e.

a

such clauses In generative literature,

clauses,

have

of

matrix clauses

seen so

far

are

or

clause which are

referred to

main clauses. Most of the

for of this type. But it is possible

65

a

clause

simple

to

be

inside another inside another

embedded

clause.0ThThis is bracketed

below, where the (65a&b) in illustrated

the complements of

matrix

higher/

clas.

verbs

think think

s

occur as

and wonder,

respectively:

(65)

a. I think [that students should read more]

b. I wonder [whether he has arrived]

ore-P&P versions of Generative Grammar,

In

embedded clauses in (65a-b)

(66)

are

it was

suggested that the

generated by the following PS-rules:

a. SComp S b. SNP Aux VP

c. Comp +Q1

Therefore,

the

partial

(67) below: (67)

ve think [s

structure of

(65a),

for

example,

was

given

as

[coMP L-O1 that] [s students should read more]|l

It is easy to see

from (67) that S' is an exocentric projection, i.e. a projection not headed projectio, by a head of its own of S' is the category. Rather, tne i d sentence S, and its pecifier is COMP. However, * specifier argued above that heads of

not

phrasal categories.

be the head and the In X-bar 40

Cf. fn. 16.

structures

We may then n

must be zero-level cas zero-level categories,

rectify this by taking COMP to

rectify this by takins following Dwing sentence theoretic terms, thissentence (i.e. S) to be is

omplement

meea neans that C heads

a

functional

saIDerstructure

called

complementizer phrase (CP). The gjven in (66) should, therefore, be revised as (68) below:4

(68)

a

PS-rules

a. CPSpec C" b. C C TP

Consequently, the bracketed embedded clause in (65a) should now have the structure (69) below:2

CP

(69)

Spec

C Co

that

TP

L-

-

students should read more

1o In English, embedded CPs may be headed by a nul or overt

complementizer. By contrast, matrix clauses may not be preceded by for that matter. The impossibility of any other complementizer, in English root clauses in clearly indicated overt

that an

or

complementizer

by the following grammaticality judgements: 41 (63) and (68) reflect the working hypothesis that clause structure is basically divided into three domains: (1) the lexical domain, VP, TP and (3) the left periphery, CP. 42

We will see what goes into

Spec- CP when

67

we

(2) the

inflectional domain,

discuss wh-movement below.

(70)

That

a.

students

Whether

b.

In Arabic,

complementizer,

(71) (71)

a.

he has

however,

Pinna

that

as

should

more.

read

arrived.

clauses

root

the following

1-Pabra:r-a

lafi:

may be

d hby

preceded

an ov

data illustrate:43

naEi:m

the-righteous-Acc

in delight

will be in delight." Verily, the righteous

b. Pinna-hum ja:?-u: that-they.M arrived-they-M

"They have indeed

arrived."

c. Pinna-hunna saEi:d-a:t-un

that-they.F happy-PIF-Nom "They are indeed happy.

d. ?inna-hu ja:?-a faSl-u SSayf-i

that-clitic came-he season-Nom the-summer-Gen "The summer (season) has indeed arrived." But

independently of whether the complementizer ?inna 1s us root or embedded clauses, it must be immediately followed y (71 pro)nominal expression to which it assigns Accusative CasC; \ a-C).

In cases

where there is

no

Arabic is an archetypal example of a VSO

adiacent nominal exprco

language.

astic cli clitic appears after inna, as in (71d).44/45 Accordingly, the pleonastic

clauses given in (72a&b) below both have the canonical structure (73). a.

(72)

John will givea talk tomorrow.

b. inna 1-wazi:r-a qad ya-HDuru l-qimmat-a Radan

that the-minister-Acc may 3MS-attend the-summit-Acc tomorrow That) the minister may attend the summit tomorrow."

44

Ihe

following configuration embedded contexts:

()

ither in root is not allowed in Standard Arabic,

or

Pinna Ir V-S- XP] clitic is taken to be

45

(2014: 16/17), this invariant pleonastic n but nothing really hinges EXICalisation of the Case feature of Pinna, view at this stage. Ennassiri

69

a

spell

on

this

(73)

CP

Spee TP

T

DP

inna VP

T

John

-wazi:r-a

will

DP

qad

John

NP

V

pro DP

tomorrow

Radan 8Ive

yaHDur The clause structure

a talk

-qimmat-a

geometry outlined in (73) will be

adopted

following sections, both for English and Arabic. Such an allow

us to

nese two

attain

in the

analysis

unitary characterisation of the syntax oofclaus languages, and to posit that all clauses are CPs whic a

will

overt

hav

an

maV

seem, this diiference

or a

phoneticaly empty nas

complementizer. But slight

important consequences

contrastive analysis of English and Arabic.

71

for

a

as

it

syntactic

EXERCISES

Exercise 2.1:

Using the

X-bar model draw a

tree tree diaOr

diagram

for the

bracketed VPs:

[vp worked at the job

in the

attic]

(a)

John

(b)

He

(c)

He will vp Completely read the novel]

(d)

Paul [ve put the book on the shelf on Saturday]

(e)

ha:dha: al-falla:H-u [vp ya-zaEumu ?anna l-mazrakat-a tu-ntiju

[vr goes to the movies on Sunday]

the-farmer-Nom

pretend-3MS that the-farm-Acc 3FS-produce

fawa:kih-a jayyidat-an] fruit-Acc good-Acc "This farmer

Exercise 2.2:

bracketed NPs:

Using

pretends that the

farm

produces good fruits."

the X-bar model draw

a

tree

diagram

(a)

NP Your reply to my letter]

(b)

NP The loss of the ship] baffled everybody.

(c)

(d) (e)

was too

for

tne

late.

A tall, dark, ragged stranger] walked into my office. They remodelled [NP the shop on the corner|. INP The journalist who the policeman arrestedj

the company.

III. CASE THEORY

This chapter will discuss the

following topics:

Overt Case vs. abstract Case

Accusative Case in English Structural conditions on Case assignment in

English

Nominative Case in English Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions Case

assignment in Arabic

3.1 Overt Case vs. Abstract Case"" Case

Theory

is

one

of the modules/subtheories of

Principles

and Parameters theory which is concerned primarily with the distribution of overt noun phrases. In this sense, it is a filter that applies at S-structure. It is related to the traditional syntactic ideas of case, which saw the relationship between elements in a sentence as being shown by their morphology as well as by word order. Chomsky (1995: 110-111) characterizes this module thus: In

some

languages

(Sanskrit,

Latin,

Russian,

.),

case

IS

morphologically manifested, while in others, it has little (English,

French,.) or no (Chinese,..) overt realization. In line with our general approach, we assume that Case is always present abstractly. In Nominative/accusative languages, the subject of a finite clause is

46

involve. Latin, for Languages differ vis-à-vis the number of overt cases they example, has six overt cases, German has four, and Arabic has three, (see below).

Parameters P'rinciples and

Theory:

assigned nominative Case; Case:

VUsativ

a

Towards

the

object of

(...) and the object

Case (...). assigned oblique

lIVe.

Le

a

transitive

of a

The basic idea

tax oj yntax of Engish English aar

pre-

or

verh

postpositi

of Case theory

ore..

the investigation of the distribution of overt NPs. thoese

n

Jt of

with

morphological content.

For the sake

of exposition, consider the tollowing sentencesin E. lish

and Arabic:

(1)

a.

katab-a

zayd-un kita:b-an

wrote-he Zayd-Nom book-Acc

Zayd has written a

book."

b. Fred likes frogs. In

(la), the subject zaydun carries Nominative Case

-un

while the

object kita:ban (book) carries the Accusative (alias Objective) Case an."47 This isn't immediately obvious

from

a

sentence like (1b) in

English, where Fred and frogs aren't overtly inflected for the

Nominative/Accusative case distinction. However, if we replace Fred by an overtly Case-marked pronoun, we require the nominative fom

he,

not the

accusative form him; and conversely, if we replace frogs by an overtly Case-marked pronoun, we require the accusative orm them, not the nominative form 48

(2)

a.

Hel Him

likes

frogs.

41

Case is given 45 capital letter to show its The English technical use.

pronominal system: NOM ACC

we

me

GEN my

us

our

you

he she

it

they

you

him his

it

them

your

her

her itsj their

b.Fred likes them/ they. It can

easily

be

Arabic since

seen

this

however, Case

is

that Case is

morphologically represented in morphologically rich. In English,

language

is

abstract,

1.e. not

Following Chomsky (1986:74),

morphologically represented.

shall assume that Case "is assigned in a uniform way whether morphologically realized or not."

conceived,

So

we

the Case feature is

a

property of the Case assigning

element, and so the NP would receive it only through assignment, in a manner to be made precise below.4

3.2 Accusative Case in

English Consider the following English examples:

(3)

a. John heard the news. b. Paul wandered in theforest.

In (3a) the NP the news is assigned Accusative Case by the verb heard. In (3b), however, the NP the forest is assigned Accusative Case by the

preposition

in. It follows then that

transitive verbs and prepositions

are

Case assigners. A very important question to ask at this stage is how is Case assigned? To answer this question, consider the P-markers of (3a&b)

given in (4) and (5), respectively:

49

that Case is not so much pre-condition for theta-role assignment,

Joseph Aoun (1979)

category as

a

argues

75

independent grammatical (cf. Visibility Condition). an

TP

(4)

Spec

VP

John

+Tense V

DP

heard

the news ..

oACC PP

(5)

P

DP

in

the forest

ACE It seems

that the

syntactic relationship between the Case assigner and the Case marked NP is that of government, a structural relationsip that IS central for Case assignment as well as for other aspects or Orammar, (see below for more on this ). is defined ao " (6) Government below: (6)

Government a

governs Biff:

M.K. Ennassiri

. . The

a

is

a

zero-level category

a C-commands p

notion

of c-{onstituent)

command

is turn

defined as in (7):

(7) C-command (cf. Reinhart (1976) a c-commands B iff:

does not dominate Band Bdoes The first branching node

a

1.

dominate a dominating a also dominates f

11.

not

According to

clause (i) of the definition of government (6), the class of governors is restricted to X categories, i.e. heads. Thus, only V and P qualify as govenors in (4) and (5). In (4), V governs DP because (i) V is

a

head category, and (1i) V c-commands DP. The

same

relationship

holds between P and its DP complement in (5). By now, it should be

clear to the reader that government subsumes the relationship of sisterhood between heads and their complements.

3.3 Structural conditions on Case assignment in English

It should

perhaps

be

pointed

out at this

juncture

that there

are

inherent Case and (2) structural ()) Case-assignment: of types D-structure and is at the level of ase. The former type is assigned at S-structure latter type is assigned The theta-Imarking. connected to two

under

listed below: the Case assignment rules

See for example Woolford (2006:111-130).

77

Nominative

(8)

(8)

a.

marked NP is

b. NP

is marked

N P is marked

Accusative

if

by finit teTSI .

governed

if governed

Oblique/Accusative

is

if governed marked Genitive is NP d.

by V

governed by

D

by D

3.3.1 Adjacency requirement Consider now the

following example in English:

John makes frequently mistakes.

(9)

() suggests that English makes use of the condition of adjacency.

in

addition to government, in regulating Case assignment. This means that

a head category has to both govern and be adjacent to an NP to be able to assign it Case. But what about (10) below?

(10) John knocked repeatedly on the door. In

(10), the complement of the verb is a PP, i.e. a category that is not subject to the Case requirement. In this context, an adverb can intervene between the verb and its PP NPs an

complement, which fact shows

require a Case feature. This requirement

S-structure filter that has

literature as the Case

This

would mean

come to

is

interpretea

be known in the

Filter, (cf. Chomsky (1981)):

that ouy of

n

g

erative

that finite T gns Nominative Case to Spec-TP in English assigns Nominative

Case

to

>pE

(11)

The Case Filter

Every DP It

must be

assigned abstract Case32

is clear from this

definition that the Case Filter is restricted to NPs have which phonetic content, i.e. overt NPs. Null NPs such as PR0, and possibly others, are not subject to the condition expressed by the

Case Filter.

The Case Filter makes NP

occurs in a

an

interesting prediction, namely,

if

an

non-Case

position, it cannot exist as a lexical form in a phrase marker, (cf. Safir (2007) Syntax Notes, Rutgers University).

This

prediction

is indeed borne out,

as

the

following

set of

examples

illustrate: (12)

a.

It is not

possible [Mary to leave]

b. John tries

[himself to win]

The embedded subjects in (12a-b), i.e. Mary and himself, fail to meet the Case Filter given in (11) because the infinitive marker to is not a

Case marker in English. The embedded subjects cannot get Case from outside because possible is an adjective, and hence not a Case assigner

in English, and try is not an exceptional Case marking verb, (see

below). However, (12a-b) become grammatical infinitival subjects are deleted: (13)

if the overt embedded

a. It is not possible [PRO to leave]

52

.Unless here.

otherwise specified, the terms

NP and

DP will be used interchangeably

Principles and Pu

b.

tries [PRO John

to

win]

now

the latter PRO, the

filled with

being

an

are

The subject

positions not that does

category

empty is

probably

required by

Another,

no

to find should expect

get

on thic) for more this). more on

that prediction is

assOCiated

is

now

structures

Case-marked

if the

subiecte cts

of

somehow, then n we

Case

With

examples overt NPs in

borne out, given prediction is also

subject position

e Case-marked. Its presence

Case-marked

IX (see Chapter

less important,

can

infinitival clauses

EPP,

be to be ire to require

such as

like

(12a-b).

Thio

(14a-b), where the

prepositional by the prepositional

complementizerfor:

(14)

a.

It is not

possible [for [Mary to leave]]

b. We very much In both

hope [for [John to win]]]

(14a) and (14b), the

overt NPs

'Mary' and 'John'

are

licensed

by the prepositional complementizer for, which sits in C. It has been pointed out above that the Case Filter applies at Ss to filter out constructions where

overt

NPs

appear

in caseles

positions. However, we will see below that it is possible for an overt NP which does not

have Case at DS to

move to a

the

positiol

*

phrase

marker where it can be Case-marked. Passive structui and the aising constructions are two cases in point. In the former as 0Dject NP moves to the subiect position of the same clause, and atter case, the subject of the embedded infinitival clause moves to the n matrix subject position. We will see below se two wo ent

that these

movem

anerations apply

for no other reason than to

Filterstated in (11).

comply

with the Case

3.4 Nominative Case in English It has been

argued above

that Accusative Case is

assigned

to

an NP by a verb or preposition under government in terms of c-

command. It has also been alluded to the idea that the subject of a finite clause is assigned Nominative Case by finite T. However, this poses a problem for the definition of government given in (6) above. To see this, consider the structure of (l15) given in (16) below:

(15)

The postman left.

(16) TP DP the postman T

VP

[Tense NOM

V

V

left defined in terms of c-command, Obviously, if government is uniquely in (16), for although T is an X then T does not govern the subject NP

81

does not category, it

c-command

of government fact, the definition nominative Case assignment. of revising the definition

A

the DP

the postman Th

needs to

his being the

be

revised to aco.

doino oing ththis

posSible way of

C-command

used

the definis:

(17)

by

efinition of

in

government by making reference to maximal projections of branching nodes. So instead

is

er

c-command, m-commnand will be

than

used:

M-command

a m-commands ß iff:

a does not dominate ß and ßB does not dominate a The first dominating a also dominates

1.

maximal projection

11.

Under this revised definition, T

now

m-commands it. The first maximal

governs the

subject

B

NP because it

projection dominating T, i.e. TP,

does indeed dominate the NP the postman in the

subject position;

therefore, T assigns Nominative Case to the postman.

3.5

Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions It was seen

above that the

subject

from T.

NP receives

Nominative

case

However, this is not the case when the clause is intnuva Containing a non-finite verb. For the sake of exposition, consiaer

following examples (18)

a.

Bill

to

be

intelligent) believes [him to be intelligent Bill believes [he to be intelligent

b. Bill c.

believes [John

e.

he

d. John; is believed

[tt to be intelligent

Now, how come that the Case, not

embedded subject is assigned Accusative the usual Nominative Case? The heart of the

matter here is

that the

complement clause does not contain a tensed head; rather, T is marked as -Tense], and so it does not qualify as a Case assigner. that Remember only when T is marked [+Tense] can it Case mark the subject.

But then

given

receive a Case feature. such constructions to the

as

the Case Filter stated

In the GB

above, all NPs

must

literature, it has been assumed that in

(18a-c), the matrix verb assigns Accusative Case

subject of its clausal complement. This explains why (1 8a-b) are

grammatical while (18c) is ungrammatical. Verbs that assign Accusative Case to an NP that is not their internal argument are called

Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) verbs. The transitive nature of these verbs is shown independently by the fact that they can take an NP object, as shown in (19) below: (19)

Bill believes him/them.

ECM verbs such as believe are said to trigger CP-deletion as a lexical property. This means that their clausal complement can be canonically realized as either CP or TP, the choice being dependent on the context.

(18d)

shows that the matrix verb

can

no

longer assign

Accusative Case to the embedded subject, its being now passivized, and

hence

Cmbedded

more

adjective-like in

subject

nature. The

only

to to pass the Case filter is

83

way out for the

move

to the matrix

indeed be Cas it will indeed

where

empty matrix

subjeet

T. (see Chapter

assignment 3.6 Case

Arabic

Case-markec by

position,

VI for

in

more

on

this).

the

Arabic

Case has three major Case

These Accusative and Genitive.

forms, torms

suffixes: -u, - a

and

namely, are

Nominative, indicated

-i.

Nom

cated by the

Unlike English,

Un

vowel following respective where Case is only a property of NPs, these Case forms may appear at

the end of nouns and adjectives. We can already see here a locus of

syntactic variation

between the two

languages.

Consider the following example in Arabic:

(20) a. sha:had-a [Np /1-?awla:d-u] [Np 1-EarD-a] Eabra [Np n-na:fidhat-

watched-3MS the-children-Nom the-parade-Acc through the-

window-Gen "The children have watched the

53

We

ignore here the verbal jussive and negative words lam and lan

Case in dual and

(i)

parade through the window.

plural

(not),

NPs and

as

in

adjectives.

subjunctive Cases, assigned

(i) and (i),

lam ya-njaH zayd-un not succeed-Jussive Zayd-Nom

"Zayd has not (i)

succeeded."

lan yantaSer-a l-¬aduww-u not triumph-Subjunctive the-enemy-Nomm

"The enemy

shall not

triumph.

respectively,

Dy the of

and the To

There are three NPS

in

(20), and every one of them is Case by a different Case assigner.

Aifferent structural 10:fidhat-i (the window)

Thus,

is

assigned

a

the NP

n-

assigned Genitive Case by the Sabra (through), -larD-a preposition (the parade) is assigned Case by the verb sha:had-a (watch)- the latter being a transitive verb in Arabic- and the NP subject 1-?awla:d-u is assigned Nominative Case by T. Notice, however, that all these cases are assigned under government in terms

of strict

c-command.

The structure

as (21):

(21)

associated with (20)

is thus

given

TP

Spec

T VP

sha:had-a NP1

V

1-Pawla:d-u..

PP

V

****

NP3

NP2

1-EarD-a Eabra

n-na:fidhat-i

Once also that Arabic patterns with English with regard to the VP-

nternal Subject Hypothesis; it is underlyingly an SVO language, just

85

Tudic

verb

like English. However, in the S-structure the the verb sits sits under T reasons we

As

shall outline in detail in

pointed

adjectives

the

are

Chapter V.

out above, ArabiC

marked. This is illustrated

by

the

under T for

adjectives may also be

pieces

inflected with the

of data

given in (22), where

Case feature as

same

(aase-

the

d noun they modify. We will leave open the question of how precisel,

adjectives get associated with their Case features. Suffice it to indicate here that this

can

be done via

percolation

from the

modified head

noun.

(22) a. dakhal-a &alayna: rajul-un Rari:b-un

came-in-3MS upon-us man-Nom A

strange-Nom

stranger came upon us.

b.qara?t-u riwa:yat-an jami:lat-an read-IMS novel-Acc good-Acc "I have read c.

ka:na

a

good novel."

ya-qu:du bi-surEat-in kabi:rat-in

was-3MS 3MS-drive He

was

driving very fast."

Let us now

address instances of ECM

For the sake of illustration,

(23)

a.

with-speed-Gen big-Gen

Dhann-a zayd-un

constructions

consider the following pieces

in

ArabIC

of data:

[?anna Eamr-an naja-Haj believed-3MS Zayd-Nom that Amr-Acc succeeded-3M>

Zayd believed that Amr had succeeded." b.

Dhann-a

zayd-un [Eamr-an naja-Ha] believed-3MS Zayd-Nom Amr-Acc succeeded-3MS

Zayd believed (24)

a.

Amr to have succeeded."

Hasibt-u [?anna l-mushkilat-a Hulla-t]

thought-I that the-problem-Acc resolved-3FS "I

thought that the problem had been resolved."

b. Hasibt-u

[l-mushkilat-a Hulla-t]

thought-I the-problem-Acc resolved-3FS I

thought the problem to

have been resolved."

The

examples show that in Arabic, the verb Dhanna (believe) and Hasiba (think) select two types of sentential complements. The first type is introduced by the type is

a

complementizer Panna (that), and the second complementizerless complement clause, (cf. Ennassiri

(2014a)). Obviously, in both (23a) and (24a) the complementizer Panna (that) assigns Accusative Case to the DPs Eamr-an and 1mushkilat-a, which must be sitting in a non-Case marking position. According to traditional Arabic grammarians, this is a topic position where Nominative Case is of a

structural Case

normally assigned by default

assigner. So, given

that the DPs Eamr-an and /-

mushkilat-a follow the complementizer ?anna, the time

entire

being-

that

they

are

clausal complement is

base-generated a

CP, (but 87

in the absence

see

in

we

shall

[Spec,TP]

assume-

for

and that the

6.5 below for

a

different

analysis of topic structures).

On the other

hand, (23b)

and (24b) are

ana

instances of Exceptional Case Marking constructions, where

nere the

preverbal

DP in the embedded

clause is

assigned Case by

th.

verb. Culicover (1997:66) points out that ECM "allows t

the clause

associated with a verb like "believe to extend into another al

believe'governs not only within

the sense that

clause, in

its

own

clause

.

t

subject of the complement." In (236) and (24b), too, the matriv a governs the

preverbal

Accusative Case in

a

to

DP in the embedded

it. But here, too, the

preverbal

Case-marking position, for otherwise a

arise. So,

clause in

as

in

(23b)

(23a) and

and

(24a),

the

(24b) occupies

a

clause DP

Case filter

preverbal DP topic position,

and

assigns

cannot be sittino

violation would

in the

embedded

the latter

non-Case Case

the

being a

marking A-position. As the topic position is assigned Acc the by higher verb, it is tempting to conclude that the entire

clausal

complement is a

TP and not

a

indeed the case. We would like to

provide

CP. We shall assume that this is

analysis to ECM constructions in Arabic in terms ofL-marking à la Chomsky (1986b). So, we shall assume that in constructions such as (23b) and (24b), the matrix ECM

verb L-marks the

preverbal marking is defined as in (25): (25)

an

DP inside the

complement

clause. L

L-marking Where

head

a is a

of y

lexical category, that is

a

L-marks Biff ß agrees wimthe

0-governed by a.

(25)

ats

amounts

another

to

saying

category

specifically,

the

B.

that if

it also

matrix verbs in

inside the embedded

a

category

L-marks

a

L-marks

the

(23b)

(24b)

and

clauses because

imal categories or whicn these DPs enecifically still, the verbs Dhanna spe

(theta-governs)

specifier

of B. More L-mark the

preverbal

they L-mark the respective

m

are

the

specifiers. More

(believe) and Hasiba (think) Eamr-an and -mushkilat-a, govern respectively, through the TP nsnarent complement, and therefore assign Accusative Case to them.

54

B e, e

for

for example, Chomsky (1995)

Constructions. 89

a

different analysis

of ECM

EXERCISES

Exercise 3.1: context

of the

Explain

how the

sentences

theory of Case outlined

bclow are

excud cluded

in the

above.

(a) Bill smiled John. b) John to fail to attend the meeting.

(c) He believes to understand the explanation. (d) T hope they to succced.

(e) John was believed that is a liar.

(f) qa:1-a Pinna qa:bal-a Eamr-an? said-3MS that met-3MS Amr-Acc He said that

(he) met Amr?"

(g) John to like mathematics would

Exercise 3.2: Draw

model

a

tree

diagram

suprise me.

for (c) and

(f), using

the X-bar

IV. THETA THEORY This chapter will discuss the following topics:

Lexical entries and argument structure Types of semantic roles

A-positions vs. A-bar positions

Theta-positions Vs. theta-bar positions The Theta Criterion

In this

chapter, we look at the interaction of syntax and the lexicon via the Projection Principle and the aspects of meaning covered by Theta Theory. Anticipating somewhat, Theta Theory is Concerned

with the

assignment

of thematic

(theta/e-)

roles to

arguments in theta-positions. The assumption is that every lexical item

which selects one or more complements entertains a thematic relation with these complements."

4.1 Lexical entries and argument structure

Earlier,

we

saw

that the lexicon

was

the

place

where

information about individual words is stored, i.e. their pronunciation and

5

meaning, inter alia. But

as

well

as

providing phonological

and

on generative book- and other books "thematic" is abbreviated in this "thematic relations Word "thematic roles" or So (). theta by the Greek letter

dX dre

referred to

as

-relations "theta/e-roles" and "theta/e

91

Principles and.

information,

the

semantie whether

syntax,

word

for example

lexical entry particular the in

a

connection

with other

verb hate, which

can

deseribes

words

be used

ludes information abou

includes infor.

also

lexicon

is

a

Noun

how a word

and

a

Verb,

behaves

etc. In

ntactically

es..

Take for u. phrases. phrases. T'ake example the

such as in sentences

(1), but

not in

d

those

in (2a-c) (1)

My children

(2)

a.

hate noise.

My children

hate.

b. Hate noise. c.

My children hate

noise violence.

Our knowledge of the verb hate allows us to make these judgements.

We know for example that the act of hating requires one entity to

experience the feeling of hating and a second entity to be hated, i.e. the two entities involved in the act/situation that the verb hate denotes. The entities involved in an action are referred to as arguments, and the

elements which say something about these arguments are

predicates.

Predicates express

meaning

d

relationships between

arguments, for instance the meaning relationship between the predicate hute and the arguments

my

knowledge of the meaning of hate

is

It

takes two

structure. now

arguments. This aspect

children and noise. Part oi

dependent of

ng meaning

Knowing the argument structure of

many arguments

are

on

a

the

knowic

our

hat

argumen. is 1s called

Canc

predicate means

involved and their types

wing of

Arabic, for instance,

(narrate) requires the

know that in

three

(3) below the predicate Haka: intristic semantic arguments

entity doing the narrating,

narrated,

i.e.

i.e.

corresponding to

I-jaddat-u (granny), the entity being

Hika:yatan (a story), and the entity to whom the story told, i.e. aHfa:d-i-ha: (her grandchildren):56

is

Haka-t 1- jaddat-u

(3)

Hika:yat-an li-aHfa:d-i-ha: narrated-3FS granny-Nom story-Acc to-grandchildren-Gen-her "Granny told her grandchildren a story."

Each of the three entities has a different semantic role. These semantic roles are referred to as thematic roles

or

Theory

0-roles,

for short. Theta

is thus the module of the grammar that regulates the assignment of thematic roles, i.e. the names of the participant roles

associated with a predicate, to arguments. $7

4.2

Types of Semantic/Thematic Roles The doer of the action in

bears

a

7Theme 0-role, and the

(3)

is

Agent 6-role, the thing told individuals enjoying listening to the an

story bear a Beneficiary or Goal 6-role.

There is

no

agreement among

linguists as to how many 6-roles there are and their types, but they do

56

The

category

of V is divided into the

following subcategories

based

on

the

argument structure of each specific verb: i. Intransitive verbs: 1 argument (the subject) ii. Monotransitive verbs: 2 arguments (the subject & the object) verbs: 3 arguments (the subject, indirect object & direct $7

Ditransitive object)

onike lexical categories such as V, N and A, functional categories, e.g. C, T, NEG dnd AGR, do not have thematic grids. For instance T does not theta-mark its VP

complement.

agree

the

on

and thematie the notion of Theta Theory

case, we can

postulate

that the lexical

roles,3Thie This

entry for any

being

predicate

predio.

includes information about the 0-roles that its arguments bear

information is given in terms of a 0-grid. The lexical entry for the

verb

Haka: (narrate) in Arabic, for example, would thus be as in (4) belouw

ow,

where Theme and Beneliciary are the internal theta-roles, and Agent

is the external theta-role:

(4)

Haka: Agent, Theme. Beneficiary/Benefactive>

The external theta-role is determined

i.e.

compositionally.

by

Verbs like Haka:

the verb and its

complement,

(narrate) which take three

arguments are called three-place predicates, those like (1) which take two

arguments

called

are

ibtasama (smile)

wo-place predicates,

which take

and those like

argument are called one-place predicates. Arguments can also be propositions, that is, clauses. For one

the sake of exposition, consider the

following examples:

(5)

John decided that Bill should take

(6)

Dhann-a l-muttaham-u ?anna l-Hukm-a

over.

Rayru munSif-in

5 What's important here is not so much precisely what theta-role bears as merely the fact that it bears one. 59

a

given nomnd

The

distinction between internal and external theta-roles hierarchical structure, as in (i): ()

Ive NPeext lv

ibtasam-a TTefl-u

V

NPeiml

Smiled-3MS the-baby-Nom

"The baby smiled."

is

coded

in

syntdectic

thought-3MS the-culprit-Nom that The The two

culprit thought that the verdict was

verbs decide

arguments,

arguments

the-verdict-Acc not fair-Gen

in

English

one

of

and Dhanna

which is

in the sense that

a

they refer

world.

not

(think)

fair."

in Arabic each takes

proposition. Propositions to a state of

affairs

We have alluded above to the fact that the individual theta-roles is much less clear in some cases.

the terms

adopted

are

are

much less

the

major theta-roles

(7)

a.

(9)

Below,

we

a

definition of While

some

will content ourselves with

illustrating

recognized in the literature.

girl likes the toy. little girl (Experiencer), the toy (Theme)

b.

My mom prepared the dinner for the guests. My mom (Agent), the dinner (Patient), the guests (Benefactive)

a.

He left the

a.

car

in the garage.

a. Ahmad gave the book to Saad. b. Ahmad (Agent), the book (Theme), Saad (Goal)

(11)

a.

Mary stole the money from

the drawer.

b. Mary (Agent), the money (Theme), the drawer (Source) (12)

of

Theme, others

b. He (Agent), the car (Theme), the garage (Locative)

(10)

given

The little

b. The

(8)

so.

self-explanatory, e.g. Agent and

in

are

a. Zaynab opened the window with a na

95

b. Zaynab (Agen?), The

the

window

is generally patient theta-role

state,

and the theme

(7heme),

a

nail (lns.

nstrumental)

imply a imply a. changein change in lo

understood to

imply

theta-role to

a

location or

is not clear sometimes whether the t h . position. However, it -Tole involved should be characterized as patient or theme. For examnl. .it

is not clear whether the window in (12) should be characterized as

patient or theme. This is the reason why the term patient has ber

been

dropped, and the term 1heme refers to a change in position or state ar or

both. A crucial principle of Theta Theory is the Theta Criterion stated

in (13) below:

(13)

Theta Criterion (i) Each argument must be assigned a theta role.

(ii) Each theta role must be assigned to The

Theta Criterion

defined

an

argument.

bi-unique relationship between the number of arguments and the number o so

available theta roles. When Move-

a

expresses

a

applies, the moved element

inherits its

theta-role from the trace left at the extraction site. The moved element and its trace form a chain which has a unique theta role. So given the Theta Criterion ust stated in every

(13),

(13) may be violated

Ca

So either by DPs (or CPs). unassigned or e-roles unlicensea in a well-formed syntactic d. Cf. the Chain representation, both (i) and (ii) must De Condition in Chomsky (1986a) stated beloW: censed

The Chain Condition

ifC={,, O,) is a maximal chain, then a, its position, and a, its unique Case-marked occupies un position.

heta

and only one theta-role. The movement ement ccan only be to a one

implication

of

this is that theta-bar position; otherwise, the chain theta-roles,

ould

receive two in contravention 34 Different semantic criterion.0Differer roles are

would

sVntactic categories. syntactic categories5 The

Lackendoff To

a

argument

can

be

the

expressed

following

by different

quote from Culicover and clarifies this statement: syntactic category used to express a semantic

(2005:176-177)

great extent,

of the theta-

predicted from the Archi-objects (including objects, argument's ontological type. substances, and aggregates) are invariably expressed as NPs. Places and Paths are almost invariably as PPs. expressed Properties are expressed as APs,

NPs, and the occasional idiomatic PP (in luck,

predicate nominal

out

of sorts). Situations

(including Events) and Propositions are expressed as Ss or NPs (earthquake, concert). Thus when a verb takes a semantic argument of a particular ontological type, the category of the corresponding syntactic argument is fairly restricted on general grounds.

Some of the examples given above contain adjuncts, i.e. constituents which are not selected by the lexical verb, but which provide optional, extra information. In

(12), for example, the phrase "with a nail is an adjunct. It takes the form of a PP,

whose head, with, has a theta-grid of its own, being able to assign a theta-role (instrument) to its complement NP, a nail. 64

We have alluded above to the fact that 6-roles are represented in the thematic grid of verbs. The Theta Criterion (13) explicitly requires that these -roles be

expressed. However, the following example seems to challenge this requirement by virtue of the fact that the O-role (Patient) fails to be saturated:

()

Have you eaten yet?

argued here that there is indeed to which this -role is assigned. may be

Cf. Chapter 1, footnote 12.

an

implicit argument (something eaten)

Principles and Parameters

ues

argues

there that there

that

hould

in should in

(1995:61)

Chomsky Further,

representation

oj

structural

unifom

a

/Spec,

with

VP], VP)

O-roles:

principle .

thn thus,

he

agent is

patien o r patient theme or

withn

Iheme

associaled

npicall complement

The

to

V, amdso

on."

of assignment

roles to arguments thematic defined

the notion

of theta

theta-marking

is

below, where

contingernt

nt on

the

notion.

of

government

simply

assignment refers to the

of

a

theta-role

hu a

argument(s): predicate to its

14)

Theta-government

a

theta-governs

i) i) 11)

a a

a

ß iff:

zero-level category theta-marks B°0 and ß are sisters is

a

However, this scenario has

the

consider

following

repeatedly been challenged. To assumed

structure

for

see

double

why,

object

constructions, (cf. Chapter II (59):

66

Actually,

trace of B.

a

is said to

cupied byBora theta-mark B if a theta-marks the position occup

(15)

P

DP

VP

-qa: Pid-u

Sallam-a

DP

V

-junu:d-a

V

DP

Settam-a

'rutab-a-hum..

In (15), the indirect object 1-jumu:d-a (the soldiers) is theta-marked by the verb sallam-a (gave) even though it is not its sister. The noted

discrepancy is the result of the fact that the definition given in (14) is based on assumptions which have for the most part been abandoned by the P&P model. However, its intuitive content is still retained.

4.3 Grammatical Functions: A-Positions and A'-positions Grammatical functions adnd

object of the

andependent

sentence.

status;

COnIigurations in the

(GFs) refer

In P&P

theory, these

rather,

they

structure

of the

mmediately dominated by

dominated by V', i.e.

the

to notions such

are

99

as

particular

The GF subject

TP, and the GF

complement of the

subject

functions do not have

defined

sentence.

as

verb.

object

is the

is the NP

VP

b. (16)

TP

a.

V

(NP

NP) also The concept of object defined

as

obJect of

extends to the GF

the NP immediately

dominated

by P',

as

preposition

n,

in (17):

PP

(17)

p

NP

P

Here

again,

the NP is

sister to P. The definition of

a

grammatical

functions in terms of configurations proves to be crucial to several aspects of the theory. It has to be reminded here that we are talking

about the these GFs

D-structure positions of these GFs. We will can

below

thal

change their positions via the operation Move a.

Gts are in a

see

linked

clause structure in

with GFs. The

to

0-theorv, i.e. there

which

we

are a

set of NP

tions

ssociated typically find arguments ad»

specifier of TP, for example, CCurs, Similarly, the complements of verbs typical object positions.

is Wherc the subject

and

prepu

S are

A-positions (argument Collectively, these positions a

arguments

of

are referred to as

the s), as they positions), location for they are are the usual usuai as

a

predicate.

NP

positions

rguments are no

where aB

qenerated are

called

non-A-positions or A-bar positions symbolized as of example non-A-position is the specifier of CP.

A'-positions. An The distinction between

A- and

non-A-positions

is crucial to the

theory of movement, (see below).

4.4

0-positions and 0-bar positions Also relevant here is the concept of

defined

as

a

position

in

6-position, which may be

clause structure

a

to

assigned. Recall that 6-roles are only assigned important to be able to distinguish between positions. While all

opposite

is not

0-positions

true, for there

theta role. These

always

are

which to

0-role is

sisters. It's quite

6-positions and necessarily A-positions,

A-positions which receive subject positions. By way

are some

concern

a

Athe no

of

examples, consider the following sentences: (18)

In

a. It seems that the students have already left. b. There seems to be a fly in your soup.

(18a-b),

no

it and

there

are

indeed structural

6-roles and hence contribute nothing

subjects, to the

structures.""67

67

tt and there

are mere

place holders required by EPP. 101

but

they receive meaning of the

EXERCISES

Exercise 4.1: Discuss the argument in Arabic: the following examples 1-Pama.nat-a (a) Pinna: EaraDn-a:

ala:

structure

underlined verbs in

ofthe underlined

s-sama:wa:t-i wa

l-?arD-i wa

jiba:1-i that-we offered-1P the-trust-Acc on the-heavens-Gen

and the-earth-

Gen and the-mountains-Gen

"Truly, we did offer the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains.

(b) fa-lamma: ?a:saf-u:-na: ?intaqam-na: min-huum so-whenangered-3MP-us punished-1P from-them "So, when they angered us, we punished them."

(c) fa-lamma: qaD-a: zayd-un min-ha: walar-an zawwaj-na:-ka-ha: s0-when

accomplished-3MS Zayd-Nom from-her desire-Acc married

IP-you-her So, when Zayd had divorced her, we gave her to you in marriage

(d) wa-?amma: bi-niEmat-i Rabb-i-ka

faHaddith

and

with-grace-Gen lord-Gen-your proclaim-2MS And proclaim the grace of your lord." Exercise 4.2 Discuss the the verb Vero announce structure of of the The explain how the sentenceargument of in (c) is excluded in theory discussed in this the chapter. Why is (e) problematic

ana

The

context

(a Mary announced the news to John.

(b) Mary (c)

announced

Mary announced

it to John. it the news to

John.

(d) Mary announced to John that she would resign from her job.

(e) Mary announced it to John that she would resign from her job.

V. HEAD MOVEMENT

This chapter will Head

discuss the

following topics:

in English

movement

Arabic > Head movement in

Verb raising versus tense lowering

Verb movement and double object constructions in Arabic

The notion of movement in P&P theory refers to the fact that some categories move from one position to another in the phrase

marker, i.e. constituent structure tree. All the transformations in the

pre-GB theory have now been reduced to a single rule Move a, where is

a

a

variable which ranges

over

all

categories. Move

a can

be

simply

defined as in (1) below:

(1)

Move a Move any

category anywhere.

There is a sense in which we can say that (1) is unconstrained and 1s

likely

to

produce both grammatical and ungrammatical sentc Ices. Therefore, we need to impose certain conditions on Move a to po t

from

overgenerating. This means that Overgenerate in principle, but in Conditions/constraints on its output which excluding undesirable 68

representations.

we

allow Move

practice

we

to

impose

the effect of

will have tne

68 " Ea

"Each constraint

relation between

conforms to all

determines or licenses

two

s

small pieces.

a

A

small piece of linguistic struct aceptable overain i f itt

applicable constraints." linguistic str icover & Jackendoff Culico

005: 15)

5.1 Head Movement in English

e Consider (2)

a.

start by the

an

instance

To be

d,

viz. head movement.

Can you read this word?

Are you

parents visited you recently?

Does your boss pay

noticed

follows the

in

meeting?

coming?

d. Have your e.

Move

following yes-no question:

b. Will John attend the c.

of

(2a-d)

overtime?

is the fact that

subject, precedes

inversion. We have

seen

it here.

auxiliary, which normally This phenomenon is called

an

above that there

are

four levels of

representations: DS, SS, PF and LF. With regard to (2a), for instance, we can assume

that its DS

where the modal

(3)

can

representation is

that

given

in

(3b) below, is in its "normal" position after the subject.

a. You can read this word. b. LcP C-o lTP you [r can [vp read this word]]]"

Move a applies to (3b) and repositions can before the subject. Recall

that we have posited that the clause structure in English is the one

given in (4) below:

(4) 59

lcP Spec [c C [TP Spec [r T [v? Spec [v V ...]]

The+Q Q

the

it force of the clause, i.e. yields C indicates the interrogative has phoneticC content: Japanese, C.a e.g. languages, some In meaning. hannin da-tta ka?

feature

feature

a) stion

on

Taroo-ga

Taroo-Nom criminal be-past a

"Was Taroo a criminal?" 105

movement

We

can now

the

explain

i.e. T, head of TP,

to the head C

moves

the that both Notice CP.

Dositions.

Therefore, the

movement or

simply

extraction

movement

head

in

operation on

of the

(2a)

comnlen-

and the

operation

movement.

(2a) as

landine

follows. The

entizer phrase

ing sites

is

terme.

The SS represen

are

head

head-to-head

ntation is sho

where the original position in (5) below,

of can is

now flad

ed with the

trace of can. This follows from the trace theory of movement.

es

described in (6)." (5)

[cP 0 [c cani [Tp you IT ti lvPlv read [NP this word]11

(6)

Trace Theory Moved elements leave behind a trace of themselves in the

position from which they have been extracted." Notice also that the moved element is co-indexed with its trace. This convention is used to mark the binding relation between a trace and ts

antecedent. We ill see later the role of indexation in the theory or govemment. But for the time being, make it a habit to co-index a 70

we

shall assume

here (as is standardly that lexical verbs in English

recognised

and-

in the

PrinCipie model) Parameters in are base-generated leave this V anu g . perfective have position, at least in the overt ana syntax. verbs, e.8: e be, move to T" (and possibly Auxiliary progressive c) when finite. On the omove to C modals such as will, can, etc. may, are ase-generated in e-g. in in T but may interrogative structures and base-generated Du e structures like (i) below, expression is fronted. (See Chapter VIl for more on ever

hand,

h e negative

thiS).

71

Never again will I raise the issue with him. (cf. Ei

nassiri

Traces/empty

OCcupied by any categories audible and semantic properties. or

are

positions

visible

in

tituent constituent nevertheless material, but which which ne

(2014b:2

which

are

not

structures

synta

element

mov

and its trace. In

(2e), there is

feature hooked therein cannot by itself

tense

features are

ciich cases

morphological

as

this,

a

in

nature, and

form of do

so

Aux in T, but the

no

move to

they

need

C. Tense

a

bearer. In

inserted in T, (cf. Do-support), and subsequently, T to C applies in the manner sketched above. is

You may wonder at this stage why

moved elements

leave behind

an

we

need to

invisible trace. The

assume

answer

that

partlyy

follows from the Projection Principle, which requires that lexical structure be represented at every syntactic level, i.e. DS, SS and LF.

Notice also that T-to-C movement is a local operation. This follows from a principle called Head movement constraint (HMC), (cf. Travis

(1984), Chomsky ( 1995). Head Movement Constraint (HMC)

(7)

Movement of an

X

category

a

is restricted to

the position of a

head B that governs the maximal projection of a.

(7) informally

that

means

a

head

must

move

in the clause Commanding head position up

Working of (7),

(8) (9)

consider the

hoytall

the

structure.

To

next see

c-

the

following example:

How tall will John be?

[c will

to

(cf. Ouhalla (1999:284))

[Tp John [r tin lvp

be

taow tll J ]

eens***sssasrr ****

2

subsumed

i C may be (MLC) given below:

under Chomsky's

Minimal Link Condition there is K only if raise to target A Can

where

ß is closer to

K.

107

(1995: 296)

legitimate no

Minimal Link

operation

Condition

Move

B,

(9) is the

S-structure

is legitimate, sentence

cross

it does not

as

(8). Here, the move

associated with a

head position

however, moving be is ruled in. In (10) That is (10) violates HMC.

novement of wi l TL Therefore, t h e :/7

across s

will leads to

ungrammaticality.

(10)

How tall be John will?

(11)

cP how tall [c be [Tp John |r will lvp tbe thow tall ]]ii

5.2 Head Movement in Arabic

Consider now the following set of examples in Arabic: (12)

a.?akal-a zayd-un

tuffa:Hat-an

ate-3SM Zayd-Nom

apple-Acc

Zayd has eaten an apple b. nu-sha:hidu l-muba:ra:t-a

3PS-watching the-match-Acc We are watching the match." (12a-6) point out an important

difference between English and Arabl

namely that the former is an SVO language while the latter anguage, (see Ennassiri (1998), (2014a) Dearing

on

this

and

issue). Now,

analysis languages have that

(12a), for instance,

if

we

the same has the

(2014b)

assume that at

structure,

we

a

for

is

a

VsO

diSCUS

per level of

deep

will will have have to assun

following D-structure

TP

(13)

Spec T

VP

-a

Spec

pro

Zayd-un V

NP

Pakal

adopting

We

are

like

(13)?

tuffa:Hat-an

here the VP-internal

Subject Hypothesis, according to which the thematic subject originates in Spec-VP. The question one should ask here is: how is (12a) derived from an underlying structure The

answer to

this will be via

head-movement. The analysis

follows. The verb ?akal (eat) head-adjoins to T to support the formal tense features hooked therein. These stong features are affixal in nature and so require a lexical item/bearer to support them. This being the case, the S-structure of (12a) is given in (14) below: runs as

(14)

[TP pro [r ?akal-a [vp Zayd-un [y t, tuffa:hat-an]]]]

*****..

he moved verb that

leaves behind

a

verbal trace by convention. Notice

unlike English, which requires the

Arabic

does not require

position. This is

subjects

subject

to move to

to move from their

because Arabic is

basically

Spec-TP,

D-structure

V-initial

language, . a language where the subject can remain in the post-verbal so

a

POSItion without violating any grammatical rule. But then how is it

Sgned Case? With regard to English, we have assumed that the

hematic subject moves to Spec-TP to get its Nominative Case therein, 109

m-command. In Arahi head T under inflectional i.e. from the the subject under s t r i . Case governs strict T that forced to assume

bic, we are

this below).

command, (more

on

the V-initiality in

Arabic.

5.2.1 V-raising

vs.

This

proposed

analysis accontts for

T-lowering

We have looked above at the phenomenon

Arabic. We have hitherto assumed that

already have been adjoined

to T

to

of V-movement in

by S-structure,

the verb will

was inflect for tense. This was

in order to account for word order facts in this

proposed

language.

moves to T for Arabic, then, patterns with French, where the verb also the same reason. To illustrate this, consider the following examples:

(15)

a. Les enfants ont déjà mangé. b. Jean embrasse souvent Marie.

c. Jean souvent embrasse Marie.

(16)

)

a.

The children have

b.

John kisses often Mary.

c.

John

and

already eaten.

ofien kisses Mary.

(16) illustrate a

phenomenon dealt with in Pollock(196

Chomsky (1988), namely that

the tes with

the verb

amalgamates wiu inflection in different ways in French and English. language, this amalgamation is done through V-raising, w latter

language,

and

it is done via

W

e

r

i

n

g

.

H

o

w

T-lowering. HOw

e

v

e

r

,

tense

former

eas in the

C

h

o

m

s

k

y

1988:5) points

out

that it is not

so

much

V-raising vs. T-lowering that

A:fferentiates French and English as some other reauires verbs ontion in the

working

principle of UG which former language but which bars this latter, (cf. (156) vs. (166))." We will follow here the to raise in the

assumption that tense morphology is strong in French, weak in English. We will also assume that the verbal element languages

enters the

attached to

it.

but

in both

computation with the tense suffix already However, for checking purposes, the verbal head needs

up to T to eliminate the formal features hooked therein. The strength of T in French requires that V raise overtly, whereas the weakness of T in English restricts this movement to LF. This follows from an economy principle that favours covert/LF movement over

to move

overt ones. Put

differently,

when

to.

they have

overt movement

(15a), for example,

has

operations apply only the following derivation,

where the verbal head is now related to a higher position in the phrase marker. For surface structure purposes (e.g. word order), the higher

copy in the tree diagram is considered to be primary:

13

nave

indid E

in

assumed

(i)

adverbials here that the italicised

adjoins to V

manne

and order reflects V-to-T raising, verb-adverb below. Therefore, the Chomsky

(cf. Affix Hopping, adverb-verb order reflects T-to-V lowering,

()

in the

souvent/often I TP Spec IT° Ivp SUBJ [y

111

V OBJ]]]

(1957))

-

,

**************

-

s

-

.*ss.

*********

TP

(18)

T

DP

T

VP

have

DP

the children

les enfants

tont Tchildren AdvP

V

Ules enfants

already

I+Aux) VP

deja - - thave

V

tont V eaten

mangé ne movement of Aux to T depicted above is triggered by the same

reason as that of V to T, i.e. by the need to check/eliminate the strong

V-feature associated with T. Consider

(19)

now

the following examples in English:

a.

Bill likes

b.

Bill not likes Mary.

not

Mary.

C. Bill does not like Mary.

113

raised verb has main In (19a), the possibility is this but

across

in (20),

ungrammaticality

(20)

of the

outline

barred in English, hence the

sentence.

TP

T

DP

T

NegP

likes

Neg

VP

not

V

Bill

DP

Mary

ty

In

Neg in the manne manner

(195),the

tense inflection

adjoins

to the verb in

accordance winthe

analysis sketched above for English. But curiously enough, ( also out.

How then

apparent

can we

account for this

controversy'

apparent conro

ative

Obviously, the new factor in (196) is the presence or ead, not, which

Apparently,

prevents the verb from

in contexts of

inflecting n,

for

sentential negation, Engi

feature. Should this

language-speci

have

English must

recourse to an idiosyncratic Do-insertion mechanD" affixal tense

tens

-specific

device

upport t h

apply not

would remain stranded at the

affix

interpretation,

hout

There is here T hat

ECP

the

still

lowering

lowered

violation.

tnus

resulting

problem

a

with

to V results in an

T fails to

In fact, this

in

appropriate interface level

ungrammatical sentences 74

regard

to

examples

like

(16a),

improper chain- by dint of the fact

antecedent-govern its trace- and hence in is true for all lowering rules. The strategy

used by Chomsky (1988) to circumvent this ECP

violation is to

assume that the complex verbal element [v V+T] raises back to T at LF, whereupon the newly-created trace would be antecedentgoverned. But if this salvaging device works for English, why is (15c) in French not analysed in a similar fashion, i.e. in terms of lowering in the overt syntax and then raising at LF? Surely, the result would be the same as

be the

that reached

steps-

overt

raising of the verb. That

if this analysis would not

case

principle,

by

run

contrary

to the least effort

those which favours shorter derivations-

longer

over

ones-

those involving

more

would indeed

involving

steps. In the

fewer

case

at

the and subsequent raising of overt syntax the in hand, lowering of T involve two steps. would obviously LF at element complex verbal than the one which be longer would derivation Consequently, this

4 OtIce

duse

ra

that

sentences

negative adverbs are

assumed

ey lot not interfere with T

(i)

Bill

like like

(i)

below

never,

are

etc., barely, hoardly,

categories to be XP

lowering

never

unproblematic

liked Mary.

Cf. Vil (33).

115

in are

English. not

This is so

X categories do

they VP. Therefore, adjoined to

P

r

i

n

c

i

p

l

e

s

a

n

d

P

a

excluded

a

m

e

t

e

overt

only

involves

r

r

s

derivation is doubly

former derivatin. The of T.

raising

effort principle the least

by

It has been

English, which

mentioned

and ECP.

Tense above that

English

to T in present-day

of V

movement

in, say of wh-elements to Spec-CP

and Audrey Li (1993: 191),

Elizabethan movement

(21)

present-da n

LF. Notice V-raising until relegates fact

movement

Aoun

is weak ak in

English, however,

ofthe verb from V

(see

Tense

to T in

1S

that..

covert

reminiscent

Mandarin

of

F

Chinese.

(ce

below for more on

was

this).. In

strong, which fact triggers

examples such

as

(21) below:

a. Saw you my master? (Speed, Two Gentlemen of Verona, I.i) b. Speakest thou in sober meaning? (Orlando, As you Like lt,

V.ii) C.

Know you not the cause?

(Tranio, Taming of

IV.ii) The

(Radford (2003: 117)

derivation of

(2la),

where know moves in dl

results from

the Shrew,

movement

for a

example,

is thus shown in

Successive-cyclic fashion,

operations,

and where the

V-to-T-to-C movement:

(22) below i.e.

in

two

verb-initial oru

(22)

CP

Spec

C

TP Saw

DP

T

you

VP

Saw

DP

you

V'

V

DP

my master

(22) is identical in relevant aspects to the structure of French examples such as (15b) given in (17) above, modulo, of course, the movement of the

complex verbal element [r [V-T]]

to C.

Now, if checking is

ndeed contingent on raising processes, then we would have to

aSSume, as is natural, that in present-day English the verb obligatorily unaergoes a raising operation at LF in order to check, and hence

eliminate,

strong V-features associated with T. Otherwise, these

Catures would appear without interpretation at LF and eventually u s e the structure to crash. There is a sense, then, in which we can

117

Principle

say

T- o r the of V and

strength that the

languages

is

parametrization

responsible

generalization push this least reduced- at

in

variation is

properties in particular

yields

assumption

thereaf

movement

for

further can

lack

part-

languages.

the desired

and

assume

to the

Perhap

We

that croso

cross-linguistic e...

parametrization

of

ural

below that sln

we shall see

results with

in the three D.

an

regard to wh-questione in

Arabic.

5.2.2 Verb

movement

and Double

Object constructions in

Arabic Arabic has

which select two class of di-transitive verbs

a

and (2) objects: (1) an inner or indirect object This is illustrated by the following examples:

(23)

a.

an

outer or direct

l-qa:?id-u l-jundiyya-a wisa:m-an

manaH-a

gave-3SM the-leader-Nom

the-soldier-Acc medal-Acc

The leader gave the soldier a medal. b. sallamt-u

l-qa:Diyy-a l-eaqd-a

handed-1S the-judge-Acc the-contract-Acc "I handed the C.

judge the contract."

zawwaj-a l-sha:bb-a ?ibnat-a-hu

married-3SM

the-young man-Acc daughter- ACC

"He married the young This subsection is

basically a

man

his

summary of

daughter.

Ennassiri (2004)

is

object.

hove

direct

he

examples object

contained inside

(24)

a

iS

also have thematic "dative"

adjacent

to the

paraphrases

verb and the

where

indirect object is

PP.

a. manaH-a l-qa:?id-u wisa:m-an [pp li-l-jundiyy-il

gave-3SM the-leader-Nom medal-Acc to-the-soldier-Gen The leader gave b.

a

medal to the soldier."

sallamt-u l-eaqd-a [Pp

li-l-qa:D-i:]

handed-1S the-contract-Acc to-the-judge-Gen "I

handed the contract to the judge."

C.

zawwaj-a ?ibnat-a-hu [Pp li-l-sha:bb-i]

married-3SM daughter-Acc-his to-the-young man-Gen He married his An

daughter to the young man."

important question

arises here, viz. what is the constituent

structure of the VP in sentences such Two

(25)

as

those

given

in

(23)?

possibilities present themselves, namely (25) and (26): VP

Spec

V

NP1

NP2

119

A

priori,

VP

(26)

V

Spec

NP2

V

NP1

standard view according to which verbs such a the represents (25)

manaHagive', atTa: 'give', sallama "hand', zawwaja 'marry' are three-place predicates. Two of their arguments are assigned internally,

whereas the third argument is assigned externally. An obvious drawback of (25) is that it blatantly violates the Binary Branching

Hypothesis, (cf. Kayne (1984). As for (26), it presents problems of a different nature. To

see

what is at

stake, consider the following

example: (27)

arayt-u zaynab-a nafs-a-ha: showed-1S Zaynab-Acc self-Acc-her "I

If

(26)

showed were

constructions, given that the

Zaynab herself."

indeed the structure it would wrongly

with double associated with double predict (27) to be ug

indirect object would

not be in

object

ingrammatical

position

aposition to c-com

and

anaphor najasaha:

"nerseIT. In

fact, the

77

opposite picture would

arise.

Larson

(1988) adopts

a

different

the verb and the indirect

analysis, according to

which

object form a V at the level of D-structure. This V' is in turn predicted of the direct object. Under this analysis, the D-structure assOCiated With, say, (24a) would be given as (28)

below, irrelevant details omitted: VP

(28)

V

Spec

VP

NP

PP

Wisa:m

manaHaa t

1s

easy

cmatic dVe

77

to observe here that the

roles

are

li-1-jundiyyi

working hypothesis

that all internal

constituents of the head assigned to sister

been abandoned. This

may

seems

to

Branching be due to the Binary

See Chapter VIll for more on this. 121

u Arabic

PTlCpio

ead. itit has been been (1bid). Instead, Kayne (cf. Condition, literature that some

Lasnik

& (cf. Chomsky constructions,

internal thematic

Larson

transformationally from

roles

(1991). With

regard

regard to to

(ibid) argues that they dative constructions.

(1976),

and

double

double object

can

In this

be

derived

respect, Larsor

respect

Green (1974)

where it 1S assumed

between dative constructions

in the

assigned to non-sisters

are assioned

(1978), Dowty (1979), departs from Allerton (1981) and Oehrle

assumed

Hawkins

that the

relatine

object constructions is

transformational." Larson (1988) argues that the lexical rather than transformational approach to double object constructions is forced by

the

Uniformity of

Theta

Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), due

to

Baker (1988):

(29)

The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis Identical thematic relationships are represented by identical

structural relations between the items at the level of Ds.

"However, this correspondence is not sufficiently systematic to warrdn

analysis

reason

in which one alternant is transformationally derived from the other. The reason for for

this is that

there

are

exceptions

object sentences with

no

in both

f ind

directions, i.e. there

prepositional counterparts,

as in

()

are

case

prepositional sentences with no indirect object counterparts, DEt as in

(1995) for discussion): )

a.

b.

(ii)

a.

b.

Mary spared Bill the trouble.

"Mary spared the trouble to/for Mary spoke a few words to Bill. *Mary spoke Bill a few words

Bill.

o f

cee Colins

Collins

hiously, the relationship between dative constructions such as those (24a-c) will be lost under the lexicalist approach.

However, Larson

ihid)

makes

AID NP

has

a

a

number of provisos, chief of which is the idea that V. passive-like structure. Further, he assumes that

the

sttbiect thematic

role is not

suppressed

but

assigned

in

adjunct

an

configuration. This is expressed as (30) below:

(30)

Argument Demotion

If X is a theta-role assigned by Y', then X may be assigned (up to

optionality) to an adjunct of Y'

According

to this

derived in the

proposal,

following

the double

object counterpart

way. With the verb

now

of

(24a) is

is

theta-bar

object cannot get Case, and the specifier position reminiscent of Burzio's (1986) generalization is This position. Case from an object involve withdrawal of indirect

passive

the

passivized, a

that and

structures

suppression of

from a the thematic role

subject position.

Under the

realized as

an

the direct object is Demotion proposal, Argument theta-bar spec m o v e s to the object indirect adjunct of V'. The Finally, the object. direct the c-commands where it Case position, from order to assign in V-position higher empty 1Ower V moves to the in the to

These the indirect obiect.

D- and OOWing respective

technicalities

S-structure

are

summarized

representations

of (24a):

(31)

VP

Spec

V'

V

VP

NP

V'

NP

NP

wisa:m

manaHa 1-jundiyya

Reanalysis applies to (31) and recategorizes V as V. The latter rule is

triggered whenever V

has

a

thematic structure with

an

unsaturated

internal argument. The ultimate S-structure representation of (24a) 1s then

given as (32):

VP

(32)

Spec

V

VP

manaH-a; NP

V

1-jundiyyak V

NP WIsa:m-an

D0, 1t seems that Larson's (1988) analysis makes the right prediction wIth regard with regard

to

nbersome,

or

Arabic

as

well. Yet, this analysis is

costly, (cf. Chomsky

approach would be

COsty that we turn n

trig TOr

Obviously,a

is to this approach most welcome. It

below.

Ennassiri (2014b:53), it has been

object m o v e m e n t

the assumed Spec-head

language,

(1991) & (1992)).

somewhat

cast

in

the

argued

that there is

no real

in Arabic, and AGROP]) (to ISpec,

relation overt

mechanism

hence

is unavailable in

then this is correct, If syntax.

this

what

remains to be

established

is how double obiect

To do this, let derived in Arabic. shell

(33)

given below, (cf.

us first

can.

tions are

adopt Chomsky's msky's

(1995) VP

(10o

Chapter I):

vP

DP

VP

DP2

V

DP3

1-jundiyya V

manaHa

Notice that the above VP shell is

WIsa:man

similar

to the

ed

one

propose

by

arson's

Larson (1988). The only difference lies in the fact that under La

(bid) analysis, the lower V substitutes for an empty posi under

Chomsky's analysis, V adjoins to

v, the

latter being

verb

The

n g features. Th

that is present in the numeration and, hence, has strong v e r d

Object, then, enters into a checking relation directly w1tn p o s a l ,

or the

complex [, V [vI1. This analysis supports Vergua captured in II (60), repeated below in (34) for conve

t h a tt h e r e

principle,

should, in

be

only

one

argument

for each

verb, (cf.

Vergnaud's (1995) Fall class lectures, USC):

(34)

I argument

I verb

Under this proposal a verb such as manaHa (give) would count as three verbs or three atoms, to use Vergnaud's own words, represented

in clause structure in terms of the algorithm of chains. If this is correct, notions such as ditransitive and multitransitive verbs would

merely be used

conception, (23a),

as

taxonomic

descriptive

the derivation of double

example, is

for

or

outlined in

object

tems. Under this

constructions such

as

(35) below (irrelevant details

omitted):

79

the is obvious, that of the would validate the adoption

We have to assu me, assu

Var arat

nis

dnd

argument.

in the

(34) applies where structure in (35),

schema in

as

the lower (main/ lexical?)

verb, ,

have each

one

overt

the light

and only

one

Prnciples

TP (35) vP

DP

1-qa:?id

VP

V

DP2

DP3

1-jundiyya V

manaHa wisa:man

Case

In

(35),the indirect and direct objects are assigned structura

respectively.

by the

light verb,

v,

and the lower

verb, V, respoe

minimality assumptions, the light verb, v, will not be De

able to

Under

assign

a

Case to the outer

Case

object as

there is

a

potential, and

governor, namely V. If the analysis sketcncu

track, then it is easy

to see

Constructions sketched above

that the

n

derivao

is more

ecOno

in

here

a is

c

t

u

a

l

ther

on o b j e c t

ot

double

of

than

the

one

by Larson

propose

subject

matic thematic

(1988) in that it

to

move

nhological reasons. nrOvisos

are

pro

nrediction

higher

AbOve all,

no

required here. This

with regard

to

object

in

the

the verb and the

clause structure for

unnecessary movements or extra

analysis

examples

(36) for the indirect (inner)

requires only

such

as

also makes the right

(27), repeated below

as

will

always c-command the direct (outer) object. Hence, no violation of either Binding Condition A or C will arise.

(36)

?arayt-u zaynab-a nafs-a-ha: showed-1S Zaynab-Acc self-Acc-her

"Ishowed Zaynab herself." Notice also that the structure proposed for double object constructions

assigns the

in Arabic

terms of structural

differently prediction passivized

with

respect

a

predicts

different status in that

they

behave

syntactic phenomena. This

certain

to

correct

objects

which fact

position,

is, indeed, freely,

indirect and direct

be for whereas the indirect object may

object

the direct

may not,

(cf.

Ouhalla

(1994).

Consider the following examples: (37)

a.

l-kita:b-a

TTa:lib-u ?ueTiyya was-given the-student-Nom the-book-Acc

The student

was

given the book." 80

b.

PueTiyya

1-kita:b-u

was-given the-book-Nom the-student-Acc

Lit. "The book

80

TTa:lib-a

was

given the student.

has at best that (37b)

argues ldlla (1994) hence the question mark.

129

a

marginal

status

in

Standard

Arabic

The

same

conclusion

object may appear

extends

to (38a-b),

idiomatically

as a

where

clitic on

the the

onl

the indirect

verb, (cf. Ouhalla

verh

(ibid: 59):

(38)

a.

?asTayt-u-hu

1-kita:b-a

gave-1S-him the-book-Acc

book." "I gave him the

b. Pae Tayt-u-hu TTa:lib-a gave-1S-it the-student-Acc

Lit. "I gave it the student."

If both the indirect and direct objects had the same structural position, this distinction in grammaticality judgement would go unaccounted

for, as it would under an analysis like (39) below, where both objects occupy the Spec position of an AGRO.

(39)

AGRP

Spec

AGR

NP

AGR AGRPP

Spec AGR NP2

AGR°

VP

V

EXERCISES

1 : Exercise 5.1:

Draw trees for the

following sentences. Indicate what

onsformations- if any- have derived these trees.

(a)

We don't

usually eat after 7 pm.

(b)

We have

always liked country-life.

(c)

Jean n'aime pas la ville. Jean NEG like NEG the

"Jean does not like the

(d)

city

city.

lam ya-jaH zayd-un not 3MS-succeed Zayd-Nom

Zayd has not succeeded."

(e)

Veux-tu une pomme? want-you one apple

"Do you want

(

an

apple?"

Do you want a break? Have you

seen

this film before?

VI. NP MOVEMENT

This chapter will

following topics:

discuss the

Passive

structures

Raising

constructions

Passivization

and

raising interaction

Raising constructions in

Arabic

It has been seen above that Move a is a meta-rule which

subsumes all the movement operations in P&P theory. In addition. it is an an unconstrained

ungrammatical

rule

which

generates

sentences. This state

both

grammatical and

of affairs is of course undesirable.

Hence, its output is subject to various constraints. With regard to head movement, we saw that the output of this rule is constrained by the head movement constraint (HMC), which bans movement of a head

Over another head.

6.1 Passive structures In

lexical

Chapter II,

we

have

seen

that

syntactic strucurc

properties of heads of which they

chapter,

are

(1)

following pair of exanmples: a. The policeman killed the wild bear. b. The wild bear

was

killed.

this

projectio11 namely NP-

shall deal with another instance of Move d movement, which seems to superficially disturb this patc" with, consider the we

satisty

begin

We

seen above that the

have

entries to

project

onto all

Projection Principle requires lexical

syntactic

following lexical entry:

(2)

kill: V, [--- NP]

levels. So, the verb kill has the

shows that kill c-selects

an

NP and

s-selects

and Theme. (la) satisties the

contravene it. can now

is the

given

in

apparent violation

as

follows. The DS of (1b)

(3), where the verb kill is indeed followed by

NP:

(3)

Agent

Projection Principle, but (1b) seems to However, (1b) is a grammatical sentence in English. WWe

account for the

one

two 0-roles:

TP

Spec T

VP

was

Spec

V

DP

V

killed

bear the wild

133

an

C

Move

a

applies

to

(3)

and repositions the DP the wild

ho.

ear in Spec-

TP. In P&P theory, all movement operations must st be be motis.

motivated, ie, there must a trigger for each instance of Move a. In the case nand,

the trigger for movement relates to the Case Filter, which ich ren. requires

that

overt NPs be Case-marked. The empty position e in (3) satisfies #h e

EPP and provides a landing site for the object NP. The S-struchuwrs resulting from movement is then given in (4) below, where the moved

element leaves a co-indexed trace in its extraction site:

4)

TP

Spec

the wild bear;

T

VP

was

Spec

V

N

NP

killed

Passivization is thus an instance moves from an

of A-movement i A-position to another A-posiuo

that a

DP

nse

Therefore the

resulting chain

movemetnt

is called from

is

reauirement follows

a

an A

chain, i.e. (the wild bear, f). However, theta-position to a theta-bar position. This

from the Theta

Criterion, (see previous section).

Consider now the following example in Arabic: Pukil-at t-tuffa:Hat-u

(5)

eaten-3FS the-apple-Nom "The apple has been eaten." Prima facie, (5) seems to indicate that the passive morphology does

not trigger movement in Arabic, and so the object DP tuffa:Hat-u (the

apple)

may remain in situ. However, the

object

DP must

move

to a

position where it will be assigned Case. This is so because in Arabic, feature of the verb, and too, the passive morphology absorbs the Case so

is the latter is unable to Case-mark the following DP. This position

Spec-VP, where the

moved DP will be

from T under government. This is

perhaps

assigned the

Nominative Case

reason

why the subject

1-fa:Eil (substitute for the subject) the S-structure subject of passive

of passive structures is called na:?ib in

Arabic

grammar,

constructions

assumptions

does

are

although not

have

correct, then

(5)

any

agentive

is derived in the

(6) below:

135

function. manner

If these outlined in

TP

(6)

Spec VP

T

pro

Pukil-at; Spec

ttuffa:Hat-u, V

DP

********e*o**** So, it seems that the structure geometry of passive constructions in Arabic is similar- in relevant respects- to that of active constructions, both

constructions, T assigns Nom Case expression, (cf. Ennassiri (2014a)).

in

to a

following nomina

Or does it really? It may be argued here that Spec-VP is a

theta-position given

that thematic

cross-linguistically, and so the DP

subjects originate therein, pe aps ove ttuffa:Hat (the apple) cannot

there. This prohibition would follow from the fact that this movement

would result in violation would have two the moved

position. Pukilat

of the Theta Criterion

-roles, one associated with

DP, and

one

But recall that

(was eaten) is

an

the resulting

the head

with the trace left

effect of

as

, i.e. of tne

behind

the passive morpnei

to suppress its

rpheme

external -role

object

in

and

on

the verb t the

*

assign AcCusalve a s e to the following DP. These two twin assumptions tions make make it possible for the object DP to hility to

move to

thematised Spec-VP

posiion

nOsed above. Perhaps verb

enters

it

the

now

to

get Case from T, exactly as should be added at this juncture that the

derivation already inflected for the passive

the

but it still needs to raise to T to further inflect for the tense features hooked therein8

morphology,

English allows passives

with

no

NP-movement,

such

as

(7)

below, where the subject position is filled with the pleonastic element it. We

argued

in

Chapter

4 that

pleonastic

elements

are

required by

EPP (7)

It was thought [cp that the policeman killed the wild bear]

In Arabic, too, the empty small pro may be phonologically realised if

it comes immediately after the complementizers ?inna or Panna (that):

(8)

a. Pinna-hu ?ukil-at ttuffa:Ha-tu

that-it eaten-3FS the-apple-Nom "The apple has indeed been eaten." 1-¬aduww-u b. Hasibt-u ?anna-hu huzim-a

thought-I that-it defeated-3SM T

81

thought that the

enemy

It may be ned that ?ukil (was assume

?ukil: V, -

the-enemy-Nom

had been defeated."

the following eaten) has

DP]

-0-subject> 137

lexical entry:

Recall that clitic -hu is

we

a

have

assumed

phonetic

above

spell-out

complementizers

that the the pleonasti pleonastic

of the

Pinna and

Arabic

the

consider it as a convenient to where rescue

by a

82 Panna.

these

nominal

iated with

Perha Perhaps

salvaging device that

constructions

immediately followed

Case-feature

pronomin

it is

more

nmd

complementizers

st apply to are

not

expression.

6.2 Raising constructions

NP-movement is also involved in the following constructions, which are referred to in the literature as Raising Constructions on account of the fact that the subject of the embedded clause in raised to the subject position of the main clause.

9)

a. Paul seems to have a lot of syntax books. b. Jillian seems to have read the novel.

The gist of raising constructions is that the raised italicised DP has a

grammatical function in the matrix clause and a thematic role in

embedded clause. This is clearly indicated in the following resp

paraphrases of (9a) and (9b): (10)

a.

It seems that Paul has

b. It seems

a

lot of syntax boOK

that Jillian has read the novel.

inArabic, both ?inna and Panna are embedded clause introduce a root markel clause, (cf. II (71a-d).

can

Callowing

generalisations

will be

made with

regard to

(9) and

(10) a.

In English,

seem

does not

assign structural Case

to

a

complement as a lexical property. h. The

subject

of

seem

is not

a

6-position.

This is obvious in

(10a-b), where the subject positions are filled with the pleonastic pronominal it. seem is subcategorized as allowing insertion in a VP followed

C.

by a clausal complement. d. seem has one -role to assign (Proposition), which it assigns to its CP complement. Given property (a) above, the following example is ruled out:

(11) It

Paul

seems

that he has

a

lot of syntax books.

follows then that the DS phrase marker associated with, say,

the one

given in (12),

can serve as a

(12) F

to

is empty and hence

[TP Paul to like syntax books]

surface

as

nbedded subiect must A S e , Via

subject position

landing site for a moved element:

e seems

)

where the

(10a) is

a

move

NP-movement,

associated with (9a)

well-formed

structure

to the matrix

of course.

is given in (13):

in English,

subject position

SS Therefore, the

the

in search

architecture

TP

(13)

T

DP

VP

Pau

-Past]

V

TP

seems

DP

T

t,

T

VP

like syntax books

to

Raising predicates include verbs

such

as

seem

and appear

and

adjectives such as be likely and be certain.

(14)

a.

John is

likely to solve the problem.

b. John is certain to c.

6.3

John appears

to

win.

like the

place.

Passivization and raising interaction Lonsider now the following example. which illustra

interaction between passivization and raising (15) The cake seems to have been burnt.

the

Che DS representation associated with (15) is given in (16) beloW:

(16)

[TPI

e seems

[TP2

e

to have been

burnt the cakel

Notice that the clausal complement of seems in (16) is a passive

structure. It has been argued above that the DP object in passive structures must move to the subject position within the same clause

for it to be assigned Nominative case, (cf. (2). But in (16) even this position is a non-Case assigning position given that TP is an infinitival clause, where T is marked [-Tense]. Consequently, the DP the cake needs to move to a higher position to satisfy the Case requirements. The matrix subject position seems to be such a position.

It follows then that the SS associated with (15) is given in (17): (17)

ITP The cake; seems [TP2 ti to have been burnt t

(1)

(2) This results in the marked as

(18)

following chain,

where the intermediate trace is

.83

(the cakei, ti , ti)

The initial

properly governed by the intermediate trace, t', DP the is in turn properly governed by the moved

trace, , is

and the latter trace

Cake. In (17), then, NP-movement operates in two steps. The first step

an element takes up in chain indicates the history of movement, i.e. the path (landing site) is a chain link. The r e e as a result of Move a. Each targeted point site- constitutes the foot/tail dCe- which occupies the original position/extraction the landing site) constitutes the the moved element (sitting in

33

he

E

chain; and

head of the chain. 141

is motivated

by EPP,

and the second step

Because it operates in

a

1s

motivated

by Case tha.

ement has has stepwise fashion, NP-movement

eory. been

.

described in the literature as a local movement. The localitycondit was also observed by head-movement in Chapter V, whereexample which involved too long a movement were deemed ungrammatical,

(cf. V (11)).

6.4 Raising constructions in Arabic Consider now the following raising constructions in Arabic:

(19)

a. yabdu: Panna zaynab-a waSal-at seem-3MS that Zaynab- Acc arrived-3FS It seems that Zaynab has arrived."

b. yabdu: Panna l-mu&allima:t-i waSal-na

seem-3MS that the-school mistresses-Acc arrived-3FP It seems that the school mistresses have arrived."

c. yabdu: Panna l-junu:d-a ?intaSar-u:

seem-3MS that the-soldiers-Acc triumphed-3MP It

seems

that the soldiers have

triumphed."

d. Pinna-hu yabdu: Panna mu:sku: faqad-at ssayTarat-a tala: that-it seem-3MS that

Moscow lost-3FS the-control-Acc 0

-muwa:li:n-a la-ha: fi: ukra:nya: the-allies-Gen to-her in Ukraine

It seems that Moscow has lost control over its allics in Ukraine." The fact that the embedded complements in (19a-d) begin with the

complementizer ?anna (that) strengthens the case for taking yabdh

(seem) to c-sclect a CP in Arabic. Thus, the structurc associated with. say (19a). is given in (20) below, which features the movement of the

matrix verb, but not that of the embedded subject:

(20)

TP

DP

T

pro

T

VP

yabdu:;

V

CP

C

TP L

Panna

Zaynab-a waSal-at

AS mentioned above, the pleonastic empty pronomnal pro may have

pnonological

content

if c-commanded by the

complementizer

Pinna

(that). This seems to also work for seem-type verbs in Arabie

(cf

(19d).4

(21)

CP

TP

Pinna-hu DP

Upro

T

yabdu:

VP

CP

V

C

Panna To be noticed in

(19a-c)

TP

mu:sku: faqad-at...

is the fact that the verb yabdu:

(seem)

agrees with its third person singular empty pronominal subject in person, number and gender. This mimics the agreement exhibited

between the pleonastic it and seems in English, (cf. (10a-b)). On the other hand, the embedded complement clauses have their oWn

subject/topic; the latter agrees with the embedded verb in all

features. nis does

not

contradict the proposal that -hu is associated with ?inna (that).

a

ure spell-out of the Case Tea

M . K . E n n a s s i r i

Rtt

consider

now the

roilowng

more

interesting

examples

in

Arabic:

(22)

a.

vabdu: 1-Eumma:l-u munhamik-i:na fi:

Eamal-i-him

seem-3MS the-workers-Nom busy-Acc in work-Gen-their The workers

seem to be

busy with their work."

b. yabdu: zayd-un fi: maktab-i-hi

seem-3MS Zayd-Nom in office-Gen-his Zayd seems to be in his office." On the face of it, (22a-b) do not seem to exhibit any movement

operation. But a closer consideration of the structure associated with each of them reveals that there is indeed movement of 1-Eumma:l-u (the workers) in (22a) and Zayd in (22b). We will follow the analysis

proposed in Ennassiri (2014a), according complements such number and

as

are

AGRPs whose

head, AGR,

encodes

Accordingly, then, the

structure

below, (22a), for instance, is given in (23)

where the

gender

associated with

(22a-b)

to which small clausal

features.

indicesare identified, i.e. i =k:

PIIIl'

(23)

TP VP

T

[+Tense]

Spec

V

AGRP

yabdu:

Spec

AGR

1-Eumma:l-uk AGR

AP

A

munhamiki:na, Spec

PP

A

t

In

(23), the

overt

agreement between the

fi:Eamalihim

subject

an0

1

adjective predicate is the reflex of the relation holding between tne specifier and head of AGRP. The AP subject 1-&umma:-u the Workers) raises at hd

S-structure, targetting the complement AUn becoming its specifier. In this position, the NP 1-Eumnm Workers) should be accessible to governor, which

in this case is the

Case-marking

an

(the

outside

from

matrix verb yabau:

(seem). The

predicate

munhaniki:na

(busy) likewise

ical reasons, Viz. morphe

to

moves

support number and

features would otherwise surface without interface level of L . This is a

head movement

to

AGR for

gender features:

interpretation

conceptually supported by the

at

fact

is

essentially a process of syntactic affixation, (cf. Chomsky (1989), Chomsky and Lasnik (1991) and Ouhalla aat

(1991).

among others).

This is not the end of the story,

though,

for

Spec-AGRP is now

a non-Case marking position because yabdu: in Arabic, like seem in English, does not have the capacity to assign Case to a following nominal expression. It is not a theta-position, either, given that yabdu

only has one propositional thematic role, which seems to have already been assigned to the complement AGRP. If this is correct, then the

subject of the

embedded small clause should

move

to

Spec-VP,

where

it would be Case-marked by the matrix T. The verb yabdu: (seems) must also move to

this T to check its tense feature therein. Obviously,

for passive analysis is pretty much like that proposed Arabic in

structures in

associated with (22a) Section 6.1 above. The final structure

is therefore given in (24) below:

(24)

Hrabic

TP

T

VP

yabdu:; Spec

V

1-Eumma:1-uk V

AGRP

Spec

AGR'

tk

AGR

AP

munhamiki:naj Spec PP

fi:&amalihim

It has been argued above that in (19a-d), the verb yaD abdu:

seems) patterns with its English counterpart Complement. And as demonstrated in

in

a

selecu

Chapter IV,

are

Case

assigners in Arabic. Subject/topic is Case-governed by 19a-d). This being the case, we embedded

compleme Obviously, then, the e the

the

complementizer

would

subject/topic would

vield

an

predict

that

S

embedded

)in

anu ement ofthe

mo

mmatical structure.

ungrammatica

CP

This

prediction is indeed

born out, as the following grammaticality

judgements illustrate:

(25)

a.

zaynab-u; tabdu: ?anna t; waSal-at

Zaynab-Nom seem-3FS that arrived-3FS

Zaynab seems that has arrived."

b. -muEallima:t-u, tabdu:na ?anna t; waSal-na the-school mistresses-Nom seem-3FP that arrived-3FP The school mistresses seem that have arrived."

c. al-junu:d-ux yabdu:na ?anna t ?intaSar-u: the-soldiers-Nom seem-3MP that triumphed-3MP

The soldiers seem that they have triumphed." The

ungrammaticality of the above

structures

may be accounted for in

various ways. For example, it may be advanced that the resulting

features, in

chain has two different Case

contravention of the chain

Condition, which requires that every chain (a1,.., an)

exactly one

B-marked

Alternatively, it

Subject/topic Syntactic

may

and

exactly one

be argued that

violates the Last Resort

operations

CSut in an

position

may

Case-marked

to

of the embedded

principle,

which states that

apply only if the

the

inatrix

motivated; therefore, it cannot apply 149

position.

movement

derivation would otherwise

But here, ungrammatical representation.

embedded subject

must contain

subject/topic

movement

position

of the

is

not

Consider the relevant aspects to

following example

English, which ch is is

in

similar

e.

(25a):

John, seems that [Tp t; has left]

(26)

(26) is ruled

out in

English, being

a

Violation of

the Last

Reco

principle, too. Movement of John to the matrix Spec-TP position daas

not seem to be triggered by any grammatical principle. For examnle at the time of raising, John has already been assigned Nominative Case in its extraction site. It may be in

(26)

casts

is indeed

doubts

on

here

(27)

It seems

It seems,

moving

motivated by EPP. But the

this

by inserting illustrates:

proposal.

that [Tp John has

inserting

Consequently,

regard to Arabic sentences embedded

that movement of John

ungrammaticality of (26)

In fact EPP may be

it in the matrix

then, that

John.

proposed

Spec-TP,

as

the

(must be) satisfied

following example

left]

it is more

the former

economical

operation

in

English

wins out.

like those in

than

w1u

(25), movement tne of the movement of subject/topic has no raison d'être, device of either. The saivag lexicalising the empty category in the the embedded Subject/topic position may not embeuu apply This may be due here, as (28) below ates. to the illusua fact that the from results empty category inin (25a-c) movement (25a-C) operation, and not from And in Merger

operauo

general, traces of

moved

cross-linguistically, 85

(28)

elements

may not be

zaynab-u, tabdu: Panna-hu waSal-at

Zaynab-Nom seem-3FS that-3MS Zaynab seems that has arrived." 6.5

lexicalized, perhaps

Topic structures: Another type

has been

arrived-3FS

A

cartographic approach

of

movement

discussed extensively

operation,

called

in the

Topicalisation,

literature, (cf. (Andersson (1975); Davison (1979); Emonds (1970, 2004); Green (1976): Haegeman (1991, 2002a); Heycock (2002); Hooper & Thompson (1973); Maki etal (1999); and Rutherford (1970). This operation targets an element other than the subject and moves it to the left

peripheral position. (29)

a.

This is illustrated by the

This article, I will

following examples:

certainly read."

But see (30b). B6

I t has been argued in Arabic traditional grammar that in SV0 structures, the

Subject position is inherently topical. But we shall limit ourselves here to non

subject Topics. 87

that both

has the same argument structure as (i) below, in sa) E Event of reading, which involves two participants, viz.

()

of them consist

the article and .

will certainly read this article. word semantically neutral

However, retlects

and the basic, i.e. pragmatically marked; it is order for English more informationally is (29a) "chglish sentences, whereas the m a n n e r be linearized in in strings sentence a ed context requiring that the

indicated in (29a).

151

b. This manuscript, nobody

knows who wrote

it.

la-hu di:n-i (say) Allah-Acc 1S-worship (taithful-Ac to-him religion.m sincere devotion." "Say: It is God I serve, with my

(30)

a.

(qul) ?alla:h-a ?a-¬budu (mukhliS-an

(The Quran, Zumar: 14) b. (wa) 1-shuEara:?-u ya-tba&u-hum 1-Ra:wu:n (and) the-poets-Nom 3MS-follow-them the-seducers (And) the poets, it is those straying in evil who follow them."

(The Quran, Shuear?: 224) c. (wa) 1-Dha:lim-i:na ?akadd-a la-hum &adha:b-an ali:m-an

(and) the-wrongdoers-Acc prepared-3MS to-them torment-Acc extreme-Acc "But the wrongdoers, for them has He prepared a dire torment."

(The Quran, Insän: 31) In (29), the DP before the comma functions as the topic of the sentence, i.e. the thing about which the sentence is predicated; the part of the sentence following the comnma is the comment, i.e. what tne

Sentence says about the in

(30a) and

topic.

In much the

-shu&ara:?-u (poets)

the sentences after the commas

are

same way,

h) Palla:h-a (Alauy

in (30b) also function

topics.

as

and

predicated of these topics.

There is, however, a slight (but very significant) differeince

between the (a) and (b) exanmples in (29) and (30), as we can scc the

fact that in

to Occur

the former examples, the DP before the comma

in two

different positions:

position, where it picks

up

ms

ment

once

in

a

post-veroa

the thematic role Theme, e,

Scope-discourse" position, where

from

it serves

as

and and

the topic

tOp

i

once

o f the

in åa

clause.

ot

B y contrast

in

the latter

examples the DP set off by the

of the clause

serves

comma at the

only as the clause topic and the which "stands 'proxy' for it in the relevant position in the functions as the direct object, (ef. Quirk et al. 1985). (29b) (30b) have been referred to in the beginning

pronoun,

sentence"

literature as left-dislocation Lambrecht's (2001:1050) definition

constructions. This squares with af left-dislocation as "a sentence eonstituent

which could function

structure in which

as an

referential argument or adjunct within a a

Dredicate-argument structure occurs instead outside the boundaries of the clause

containing

the

predicate", Thus,

the structure of left-

dislocation is schematically represented as (31):

(31)

DP, ... (resumptive) pronoun, .. It remains to be seen of course, how this differenceis

accounted for in terms of the Principles and Parameters model adopted here. In Chomsky (1977) topies were introduced by the phrase structure rule in (32), which yields the structure in (33), where S is the 88 89

Comment:""/

See also Bresnan (1978). 39

in Comp gets

the wh-phrase wh-clause, where for the takes S' to be a also Rivero (1980) (see for (29a), below as shown

nomsky (ibid) Sequently deleted, same

analysis in Spanish):

()

ls

lTop this article]ls [whieh]

[sI willcertainly

153

read

twhichl

(32)

a. S " > T o p i c S

Comp S

b. S

90

S

(33)

S

Topic

S

Comp

In the standard Minimalist Programme, however, topicalisation involves adjunction to the category TP under CP. This yields the

following structure for topicalisation structures: CP (34)

Spec

C

TP

Topic

TP

In

tne

this subsection, topicalisation cartographic approach to clause

will be

structure,

90

Rule (32b) allows (i)

recursion, as in the

As for John, the

s

nalysed in

terms

of

zi as

ou

following exam mple: exampie prizel think they will give it to him.

(1997, 2001), Cinque (1997) proposes an

(1999 and references cited therein." analysis to the structure of CP

Rizzi

according to which formerly assumed a single projection CP- is split into discourse related functional projections. This analysis- referred i n the literature as tne the

CP domainmain- form

seve

cartOgraphic approach-

is

motivated by the

that several constituents may appear in C'. Crucial onroach isis the assumption that at least some approach at

topic,

considered

are now

important

to

this

functional notions,

e.g.

"quasi primitives

is the

working hypothesis fronted constituents 1s assumed to

of

that the

language."

hierarchical

Equally order of

be fixed

crosslinguistically. Accordingly, the split C displays the following hierarchy: 94

(35)

Force>

This

accounts

(Topic)> (Focus)>Fin9 for

the

appearance

of

elements

such

as

complementizers, topics, wh-phrases, focalised elements, etc. Accordingly, topicalised DPs, such as those in (29a) and (30a) have been assumed to be the result of a movement transformation which 91See,

for example, Rizzi (1997) for a discussion of why an impoverished structure constructions.

cannot be the right structure for topicalisation Ke(34) 92 & Parameters model artography is a research programme within thea Principles series of colloquia held in Italy daopted here. It emerged and gained its name in the publication of Belletti

ne

late 90's and became

widely

known

through

2004), Cinque (2002), and Rizzi (2004). 93

notion of structuralism, which takes the goes against American notions are Therefore, functional and constituency as fundamental.

DViOusly, this

ory

and constituency. are and Focus projections 9 7 ) posits that Topic

in terms of relations of category %ned 94

needed.

95.

This hierarchy will be

In Irani Iraqi Arabic.

this

activated

only

wh-elements cannot

when

precede

as adopted here for Arabic, this approach to for a critique of (2011) Bakir But see

language.

155

relocates

constituent to the leftmost position in

a

the

phrase marker adford (1988) Within this cono

Arabic

leaving a trace in the take-off site, (cf. Rivero (1980). Raa

and Haegemen (1991), among others).

onception, the S.

structure associated with (29a) and (30a) is given in (36) heln

(36) below

(36)

TopP

Top

Spec

This article;

Top

FocP

Pallah-a; Foc

s

aneensee..e..............as.......................... ...enanamuna******

TP

I will certainly read t

Pa-&budu t;

Support

for the

above structure for Arabic

example, where [Spec, (37)

comes

FocPl also contains a

al-wajbat-u kayfa Padadt-a-ha: The-meal-Nom how prepared-2MS-it "The meal,

how did you

prepare it?

from the foliowi

wh-phrase:

.We

assume,

for now, that

(37) has

the

below:

(38)

structure outlined

in

(38)

TopP

Spec

Top

al-wajbat-uj Top

FocP

Spec

Foc

kayfa

Foc

TP

Pa&dadt-a-ha,:

OOViOusly, (38) is hard assumed to

Pirases S

picalised

to reconcile with occur

DPs. We shall

where the locus of wh-

(34),

higher in clause

return to

structure than that of

(30c) below, but

for the time

being, let us address the case of (29a&b) and (30a&b). ne

derivation sketched

Din

(29a) and position by the

(30a) is

the

systematic

USea

in (36)

assumed

assumes

that the Topicalised

connected to to be

its

take-off

which "which sis

movement,

algorithm by

natural

of

syntactic

languages for

assigning

the two

kinds

und Arabic

ofinterpretive properties to an element. The element is meroed :.

position

in which it receives its

then it is moved

to

another

argumental status,

position

dedicated

to

a

a

thematic

rol.

particular scon

cope(2014:517-533). The trigger for thi movement operation is the same as that proposed for wh-movement (see Chapter VIl). To anticipate somewhat, just as it was assumed that a wh-phrase is attracted to [Spec, CP] by the [+wh] feature of C. so.

discourse property." (cf.

Rizzi

too, it will be assumed here that the

[Spec, TopP] by the Top movement

island

comes

Topicalised

DP is attracted to

head. Evidence that

from the

(29a) and (30a) involve following examples, which exhibit strong

effects, perhaps reducible

in the final

analysis

to an ECP

violation:

(39)

This booki, I accept the argument that John should read t,. b. This book;, I wonder who read t. a.

(Chomsky (1977: 91))

(40) a. al-Su:rat-a; la: ?u-Saddiqu 1-?isha:Eat-a ?anna zayd-an rasam-a t

the-painting-Acc painted-3MS

not

IMS-believe the-rumour-Acc that zayd-Ace

"The painting, I don't believe the b.

rumour

*

al-ba:b-a; tasa:?al-tu man kassar-a ti

the-door-Acc wonered-1S who broke-3MS The door, I wondered who broke."

that

Zayd painted."

nd (40a) (39a) and

violate

the

Complex

NP

Condition, and (39b) and Wh-Island Condition." The respective derivations of and (40a) (39b), are (40b) illustrated below: (39a), (40b) violate siolate the

a.

(41)

TopP [DPi

this

book;] Irpi I accept [DPa

the

TP2 I should read t;]]]

b. [TopP [DPi

argument [cP that

al-Su:rat-a;] [TPi la: ?u-Saddiqu [dPz 1-?isha:Eat-a

CP ?anna [TP2 zayd-an rasam-a t]]]] (42)

a.

TTopP [DP1 this booki] [TPi I wonder [cp who, [T2 l, read t]]]

b. TopP [DP1 al-ba:b-a;] [TPi tasa:?al-tu [cP man; [P2 4 kassar-a

The

structural

displacement

of

representations a

schematised

DP from its canonical

above

all

involve

(argumental) position

to a

sentence-initial position. In (41a&b), DP1 crosses DP2 and TP1, both

being bounding

nodes in

English

and Arabic. And in (42&b), DP1

moves across a wh-island.

With regard to (29b) and (30b), instances

96 A

they

have been

argued

to be

constructions, where the DP in of (Clitic) Left Dislocation

COmplex

noun

phrase is

one

with

a

head clause that modifies the as relative clauses, such

head noun.

noun

There

followed are

two

by

an embedded

types of

adnominal

such as (i). unominal and NP complements, (i) clau are English: assumed to be islands in the sense of Ross (196/

() (i)

[ce

(which/that/Ø)

lDe the

car

lop the

rumour

[ce that [Tp

[Tp the actor

bought ]]]

Lamborghini he bought a

Both

this position, and not preposed ed fron from within ISpec. TopP] is merged in the conmment" clause. A picce of evidence in favour of th..

the base-

ation between this

generation approach comes from the fact that the relation betu.

DP and the argumental pronominal copy/clitic iS not subject to icl.

island

constraints. This is illustrated by the following examples:

(43)

a.

This

book, I accept the argument that John should readit

b. This book, I wonder who read it.

(44)

a.

al-Su:rat-u, la: ?u-Saddiqu 1-?isha:Eat-a ?anna

rasam-a-ha:;

the-painting-Nom

not

Acc painted-3MS-it

The b.

zayd-an

1MS-believe the-rumour-Acc that

zavd.

painting, I don't believe the rumour that Zayd painted it."

al-ba:b-u; tasa: '?al-tu man kassar-a-hu

the-door-Acc wonered-1MS who broke-3MS "The door, I wondered who broke it." The

reason

they

are

respective are

the italicised DPs in

islands is that

cross over as

why

coindexed via

a

and

(44a&b)

seem to

they do not cross any islands in the first place

base-generated,

sentences. The

(43a&b)

i.e.

merged, left-dislocated

rule of semantic

in the left

periphery

DP and the

interpretation

(obligatory) anaphoric relation between them

of their

pronominal cop

that establishes

an

akin to that discussed

m

Chapter VII, (cf. Rivero (1980). Put differently, the left-dislocateu DP and the

pronominal copy refer to the same

individual/entity. Unuder

this

view,

DP in

the

pronominal

copy is treated

as a

[Spec, TopP].

bound variable by the

et 1uS return to (30C), repeated for convenience as (45)

(45) below:

1-Dha:lim-i:na Paadd-a la-hum Eadha:b-an ali:m-an (and) the-wrongdoers-Acc prepared-3MS to-them torment-Acc (wa)

extreme-Acc

But the

wrongdoers,

for them has He

prepared

a

dire

torment."

example is hard to explain in terms of the base-generation approach to Left-dislocation structures adopted here, for the DP I Dha:limi:na (wrongdoers) carries Acc Case, not the "default" Nom Case normally assigned to topics in Arabic."7° However, some Quran interpreters, e.g. al-Qurtubi:, take the left-dislocated DP in (45) to be This

Case-marked by a deleted verb akin to Eadhdhaba (torture) or the preposition li (to). This would then strengthen the case for taking leftdislocated DP to be base a0ove. above.

We

have

seen

generated above

at the

that

left

periphery,

as

argued

topicalisation may 0Ccur in

Combination with wh-questions, (cf. (37). This is so because the opicalised DP and the wh-phrase target different landing sites, viz. 97

This Case-

Signed by nSsigned

exemplified in (44a&b)- is assumed

Arab grammarians to be

an abstract notion of "topichood" (al-?ibtida:?).

In German, piece ofEdata left-dislocated

DPs also

carry

overt Accusative Case,

illustrates:

(i)

by

Den

Mann,

ich habe ihn gesehen. Ihe man-Acc I have him-Acc seen

as

the folowing

FTlcP

ly. However, structures However

respectively.

TopP] [Spec, where

the

and [Spec,

fronted

DP

FocP],

Case bears a

other

feature

99 This This

than

is illustr illustrated is

Iominative may

Nominati..

by the following

wh-questions.""

with c o - o c c u r

not

example: 100

(46)

al-wajbat-a

kayfa

?a&dadt-a-ha:"

The-meal-Acc h o w p r e p a r e d - 2 M S - i t

This empirical

for an explanation. observation calls

to take this impossibility

similar structures,

for that

mean

that the

dislocated

matter- and the wh-phrase

position." same Spec, FocPl

This is not

a

the DP normally in this type of structure,

wild

Here,

we

shall

DP in (46)-

and

compete for the

stipulation, given that

functions as a contrastive

in (29a) and (30b)) which usually focus, unlike topicalised DPs (like to the parties involved ina denote old information (known

conversation) about which something

example, repeated worship,

as

(47) below,

and not any of your

new

means

is predicated.

something like

(30a). for "It's Allah I

deities", where ?alla:h-a (Allah) is used

contrastively. (47) "

(qul) ?alla:h-a ?a-¬budu (mukhliS-an la-hu di:n-i)

Prof. Boudrae

(pc).

(46) is ill-formed, irrespective of whether the DP al-wajbata (the meal) isfronte

or whether

it is

base-generated

in its S-structure

coreferential pronominal clitic.

position and linked

101

to

Rizzi (1997) for examples bearing on the hypothesis that Wh-elements See Foci for

nd

the same structural compete position. sed This teams with Rizzi's (1997:285) definition that "The topic is a prepo ation" set off from the rest characteristically the clause "comma by of in previous and normally ls expressing old information, somehow available and salient sen discourse; the comment is a kind of complex predicate, an op predicated of the topic and new

element

sentence

introducing

information.

(eav

uSay:

Allah-Acc 1S-worship (faithful-Acc to-him It is God I serve, with my sincere

religion-mv m devotion."

(The Quran, Zumar: 14) e.her. she

the

Newson

et al.

(2006) argue

topic forms

an

following

sentence

eanstructions

such

that

intonational unit

as

(45)

also

in

structures such

by itself, with

has

its

own

have "the fronted

its

as

own

stress."

(44a&b)

stress, and

However,

element within the

same

izntonation unit as the rest of the clause and this element carries the

major stress of the sentence." A nice consequence of the proposed analysis- if correct- is that it provides a reasonable explanation of why Focus structures are

incompatible with wh-question operations. Thus, (47) should have the alternative structure shown in (48), and not the one given in (36)

above:

(48)

TopP

Top

FocP

Spec

Foc

Pallah-aj

Foc

TP

Pa-Ebudut; 163

Exercise 6.1: Discuss the movement operation(s) involved in each of

the following examples:

(a) John was believed to have been insulted. (b) The senator wants to be re-elected.

(c) In the box, she put her late husband's belongings.

(d) Sushi, John said Mary ate for lunch.

(e) I read an article yesterday which contained examples from Turkish.

(f)A theory

is

developed which distinguishes lexical categories

functional categories.

(g) Piyya:ka na-ebudu to-you we-worship You alone,

we

worship."

(h) Zayd-un man ta-Dhunnu ?anna-hu sa-ya-ltaqi:

Zayd-Nom who 2MS-think that-it will-3MS-meet

Zayd, who do you think

he will meet?"

Exercise 6.2: Draw the structures

associated with (a), (C) anu e).

from

VII. WH-MOVEMENT TLie chapter will discuss >

the

following topics: Root questions: non subject extraction in English and Arabic Root questions: subject extraction in English and Arabic Embedded questions: non subject extraction out of complement clauses in English and Arabic

Embedded questions: subject extraction out of complement clauses in English and Arabic

>That-trace Effect Parametrising the differences between English and Arabic

So far, we have seen two types of movement transformations. viz. Head movement and NP- movement. The former movement moves a head to another head position, and the latter movement moves

an

NP into

a

subject position.

We

can

thus define NP-

movement as follows:

(1)

NP-Movement3

Move NP to [Spec, TP] We have indicated in the previous chapter Ouuces

an

Ouonand

hcad occupies A-chain, where the

the other

OVement

is

trace(s)

Case-driven.

occupy a

caseless

In this chapter,

we

that a

NP-movement

nominative

posilion.

Case

Therelore,

shall discuss another constructions

103

l English.

derinition

works equally

and raising well for passive

165

in

Arabic transformation

that

a

moves

containing an interrogative word what/which/who(m)/ when/whV,

i.e.

wh-expression-

beginning

an

expression

with wh-, e.g.

wh-, e.g

This transfr

etc.- outside TP,

will be shown to exhibit properties which distinguish it from

NP

movement.

There

are

two

types

of

wh-questions: (1)

where the entire sentence is

direct

wh-questions. ns,

interrogative, and (2) indirect wh

questions, where the interrogative clause is embedded in a declarative e

sentence.

7.1 Root

questions: Non-subject extraction in English and Arabic

Consider the (2)

It is

following examples:

a.

LAP How expensive]

will it be?

b.

[ADVP How quickly]

can

c.

[Pp To whom]

d.

[DP Which article] will you read?

easy to

are

you

he run?

talking?

from (2a-d) that different types of constituents may o targeted by wh-movement, namely AP. ADVP, PP, and DP. NOUCE also that in each of the above is also examples, see

accompanied by another movement, viz. DOVe, the latter movement Whether [+Q]

different

moves

wh-movement

head movement.

elements

As

in T to

v

have

104

The

triggers T-to-C movement is a parameter that reveals the options languages may employ pai in question formation.

landing site of the wh-phrase tself is the specifier of CP. Thus, the Sr e aSsociated with, say (2d) is given as (3) below: ce

(3)

Ipe which article ji lc

will, [rP you t

read

t:]11

Unlike French, English does not use the in-situ strategy in whquestions, as the following data from both languages show:

a. It will be how expensive?

(4)

b. He can run how quickly? c. You are talking to whom?

d. You will read which article?

(5)

a.

Tu

as

fais

quoi?

you have done what

What have you done?" b. Tu es arrivé ici comment? you have arrived here how

"How did you arrive here?" ne

data in

sh?

(4a-d) begs the question why the

verb has to

move

to C in

enterprise We will follow the current trend in the generative

Sme

that

direct questions

are

Q(uestion)-feature

uestion)-feature which is hooked

exp CSSes the interrogative force

of the

167

projections of an

on

abstract

which the head C and

contains sentence. C also

a wil

Towards a

Contrastiv

Tow Theory:

SyntaxofoJ English English and

P a r a m e t e r s

Prnciples

Since

English

(1995)

Chomsky

in verb raising in wh-questions we overt vert will feats hat both feature are strong. A that

overt

has

feature.

in

assuming

follow move

in the

o v e r t syntax to

therefore

must

wh-phrase

foature

associated

head C of with the SHAGR

Spec-Head

(cither

auxiliary

an

movement

Let

(6) (6)

a.

check the wh-

the interrogative cla

TOr

short, and a

in

us now

or a form

anchored

root

o

dummy do)

therein.

1his

has to move

explains

use

verbal

configuration,

check the Q-feature to-C

Arab

and

under

al

element

un t o

to

the additionalIT.

questions in English.

address the

following data from Arabic:

[P li-man] ?a&ETayt-a 1-kita:b-a?

to-whom gave-2MS the-book-Acc

To whom have you given the book?*"

b.[DP ?ayy-a kita:b-in] nashart-a? which-Acc book-Gen published-2MS "Which book have you published?" c.

ADVP kayfa] faalt-a ha:dha:?

how did-2MS this

"How have

you

done this?"

(6a-c) involve overt movement of of PP, Like English, then, the

associated with an

DP and AdvP,

wh-phrase app empty category ry the marking thepo

respectivel

p p e a r s clause-initially position of the

and

is

variable

bound

by this

wh-phrase. 105 We can thus

predict that Arabic does strategy in the formation of not regular questions 106 diction is indeed born out wh-questions16 given the

-in-situ

Ise wh-

This

following grammaticality

judgements: l07 107

(7)

a&Tayt-a l-kita:b-a li-man?

a.

gave-2MS the-book-Acc to-whom You have given the book to whom?" b.

nashart-a ?ayy-a kita:b-in?

published-2MS which-Acc book-Gen You have published which book?" c.

faEalt-a ha:dha: kayfa?

did-2MS this how

You have done this how?"

105 Arabic has the following wh-words: man (who/whom), ma:dha: (what), ma:

(what), Payy (which), lima:dha: (why), Payna (where), mata: (when), kam (how uch/ how many) and kayfa (how). These words may function as heads of phrases or as specifiers:

Phrase specifier

Phrase head man (who) ma:dha: (what) ma: (what)

?ayy (which) kam

(how much/how many)

lima:dha:(why) ?ayna (where) mata: (when)

kayfa (how

106 The (7a-cl in-situ strategy meanstthat a wh-phrase has not visibly moved to Spec-CP. 107(7a-c)

correct

under analysis.

as echo-questions,

of course. 69

But this is

issue irrelevant to the

be ld be

would

(6b), Example

for

instance,

kita:b-in

as d e r i v e d as derived

book) ich book) (which

in n

mov moves

(8) beliOw, low, to

Pavy-a the

wh-phrase counterpart

in (2d):

its English

mimicking

(8)

Icr

le}; kita:b-in: lor2ay-a

An

intriguing phenomenon

of wh-questions in Arabic,

instances

where Spec-CP, thus

wh-element

moves

to its scope

[Te nashart-a ]l1

to be observed in

for that

position

(6a-c).

and

matter, is that whener

in the

overt

syntax, the

all

at

a

srfans

word order is always Operator-finite verb. We shall see below that the

adjacency relationship between the operator and the inflected verbal element is also required in embedded questions. Apparently, then,

Arabie resembles residual verb second languages, like English, for instance, which restricts the occurrence of V2 (read verb second)

phenomenon to interrogative sentences such as (2a-d), where the

auxiliary

verb is the second

constituent, and constructions where an adverbial has been extracted to the sentence-initial position such as (9)

below. 108

(9)

Never

again will

I raise the

(1998:51)

issue with him. (cf.

Ennassir

m

English, the adjacency of wh-operators and verbal elen results from T-to-C movement. In Arabic, however, the verbal element lands in T however, and does not not move by to S

up uf

For more

on this, see

Ennassiri (2014b).

C. This is

orroborated

the

following xample, where

between

the

auxiliary

complementizer ?in (if) and the

caPal-a-ni: 1-mudi:r.

(10)

the

?in ka:na

ka:na (was) occurs

subject.

ttala:mi:d-u yafham-u.na

asked-3MS-me he-principal-Nom if was the-students-Nom

asked-3MMS

understand- 3MP

The

principal

asked me if the

10) patterns with embedded nhrase moves

students

wh-questions

overtly to Spec-CP,

understood."

in

English,

where the wh-

but movement into C is

disallowed,

(10). complementizer ?in G to be directly followed by the verb, as in (10), also argues against the possibility that T has moved to C. But this leaves open the question of how the Q-feature of C is checked in Arabic wh-questions

(cf, gloss in

The fact that Arabic allows the

Such as (6a-c).109

It has been across

argued

in the literature that all

languages is restricted

to

syntactic

variation

non-substantive parts of the lexicon.

(ef. Ouhalla (1990), Chomsky (1995), among others). It is therefore plausible to assume that cross-linguistic variation like that observed between English and Arabic with regard verb movement to C may be

handled exclusively in terms of feature strength, and that there is no Padneterization of the above cn

computational system.

Recall that

we

have

and that the parametric differences between English

ascribed to the with regard to V-movement have been French More specifically, in C s In the feature strength of T.

differences 109

erhaps this is done via T-to-C movement at LF.

hoth

N-feature

the

Therefore, movement

so

French to

and

V-feature

with

with

DP m o v e m e n t exhibits overt

the T. In English,

the thematic

associated

N-feature on

subject (base-generated

in

T is

to

T are

Spec.T

strong.

equally strong and

eau.

Spec-VP) has to mo

-feature

as well. However, the V-feature o4 of T has Spec-TP in the overt syntax been assumed to be weak, thus delaying V-to-T movement as ate

LF. Now, following universal requirement on wh-questions, let uc

assume that the head C of a wh-clause in Arabic is also endowed with a wh-Operator feature and a Q-head feature. The wh-Operator feature

is equally strong, thus requiring a wh-phrase such as ?ayy-a kita:b-in (which book) to move to Spec-CP. But the Q-feature is weak;

therefore, relegating movement of T to C to LF, in accordance with Procrastinate, which minimizes the number of overt operations

necessary for convergence. The bottom line is that Cis not an attractor for the verbal element in Arabic. The empirical intent of the

strong/weak distinction, then, is to distinguish overt from covern movement. If this analysis is correct, then there is a sense in which we

say that

can

languages

not

only differ

with regard to the richness

of

their morphology, but also- and most importantly, perhaps- in ternissof

the

strength of grammatical features, (cf. Chomsky (1995). 1aving said that, though, there is indication that there 1s

Ovement into C in Arabic yes-no qucstions such as (11a-c) De (11)

a.

?a-tajru?u Eala: mugqa:TaEat-i:?

ow:

ert

O-particle-dare-2MS on interruption-me Do you dare interrupt me?"

Pa-Panta faalt-a ha:dha: bi-?a:lihat-i-na:? -part-you did-2MS this with-gods-Gen-our b.

"Are you the

c.

one

who did this to

our

gods?"

Pa-turi:du ?an taku:n-a saEi:d-an?

Q-part-want-2MS to-be happy-Acc "Do you want to be

happy?"

Since the interrogative particle ?a is not a separate morpheme in Arabic, it needs to attract a bearer to the C position. So, the questioned word has to move overtly to support this affix; otherwise, it would remain stranded, and the structure would eventually be ruled out. If this

analysis is correct, the

derived in the

10

manner

sentence in

(11a),

for

example, will be

110 outlined in (12) below:"

such of French examples

This is reminise IScent has moved to C via T: (i) Parles-tu Français?

as

(i)

below,

where

the main verb

CP

(12)

Spec TP

Co

op

VP

T

Pa-tajru?-u

Spec

pro

V

V

PP

Eala: muqa:TaEat-i:

In

(12), Spec-CP is occupied by

in yes-no

a

null Operator akin to the

one found

questions in English. The derivation depicted above

V-to-T-to-C movement, thus

involves

accounting for the linearization exhibitea

in (1la), i.e. the fact that the verb is incorporated to the right or n

question particle. But the examples given (1 la-c) have other variants where the

question (13)

a.

word is hal hal

(whether):

tajru?u Eala:

muqa:TaEat-i:?

whether darc-2MS

on

interruption-me

Do you dare interrupt me?"

b. hal Panta faEalt-a ha:dha:? whether you did-2MS this

Are you the

c.

one

who has done this?

hal turi:du ?an taku:n-a saEi:d-an?

-part-want-2MS to-be happy-Acc "Do you want to be

happy?"

The structure associated with, say,

(13a)

hal (whether) is assumed to occupy the

is

given

as

(14) below, where

Spec-CP position:

CP

(14)

Spec

C'

hal

Cp-o

TP

VP

T

tajru-u

Spèc

pro

PP

Eala: muqa:Ta&at-

175

Principles anai u e x t r a c t i o n

7.2. Root

questions:

that

wh-movement

complements

but at

has

indeed

Arabic

taken

(2a-d), it is fairl

place

as

elements

in their expected do not appear

of the

the left periphery/edge

questions,

in

examples given

and adjuncts

however,

and A

Subject

English From the see

in English

things

clause.

not so

are

In the case

clear

cut.

casy to

c

positio of subie

ject

For the sake of

the following examples: exposition, consider

(15)

a.

Who will

b. Who

paint the wal1?

painted the

wall?

In both examples, the subject does not seem to have moved anywhere.

But for the sake of generality, we will assume that who has indeed

moved to Spec-CP in a manner pretty much like that sketched in

(3)

The derivation of (15a) and (15b) are thus given as (16) and

(17), respectively: (16)

cP [DP who, [c

(17)

lcP [DP who [c- [r painted the t4 wall?]]]

will, ITe4 paint the wall?]]]

111

Butthere is independent evidence nis is

ilustrated by the visibly vacated the i)

following

that

subject wh-phrases do indeea example, where the embedded subject

embedded/complement clause:

Who, do you think

[ cP2 t, will

repair the car?

has

In both left

a

structures,

trace

the

wh-phrase has moved to

in Spec-TP, even

though

changed.

Consider

Arabic: (18)

now

the

Spec-CP

a position and the actual word order has not

following example of subject movement in

man katab-a Eala: 1-jida:r-i?

who wrote-3MS on the-wall-Gen Who has written on the wall?" It has been argued above that the underlying word order of Arabic is a

sVo. and that the superficial Vs0 order results from V-to-T

movement, (cf. 5.2). Accordingly, (18) has the derivation sketched in (19) below, where the subject man (who) moves from Spec-VP to

Spec-CP:

177

CP

(19)

Spec

TP

C-O

1nank

VP

katab-a

DP

tEala:1-jida:r-i In this view,

subject

extraction

closely

mimics

object extraction, (cf.

(8)).

7.3. Embedded questions In this subsection, we will be looking at the syntax of

embedded/indirect question CPs, i.e. questions that function as clausal complements to verbs such as wonder, ask, doubt, etc. To begin With, consider the

(20)

a.

following examples:

I wonder

b. He

[cp whether he will attend the meeting]**

doesn't know [cP which article he should read]

(20a) is an embedded

yes-no

question.

They asked me lcP Who won the prizel

Do you know lcP WHen tioward will

A

In

ad

the indirect questions

give his

next

lecture?

the

are

complements of the vOnder, remember, know, and asked, respectively. The matrix that embeds an indirect question may be declarative, as in

verbs w o n d e r

sentence

203 -c), or interrogative, as in (20d). Note that, like direct questions. indirect questions also require that the wh-phrase be moved to the Specifier position of the embedded clause. But unlike in direct questions, where an auxiliary or an agreeing form of "dummy do" is

hypothesized to occupy the Comp position, there is no T-to-C movement in indirect questions. Evidence for this comes from the

following grammaticality judgements:' (21)

a. I wonder whether will he attendthe meeting. read. b. He doesn't know which article should he

Do you know

d.

113 Titer

s

nat

C

Comp is dubbed the Doubly-filled

(28).

entizer. This is

illustrated

Woass ned wann dass I

his

next

lecture?]

it will be Filter. However,

CP] where both [Spec, Arabic allows constructions both a also allows Bavarian German

(cf.

S

[cp when will Howard give

and C

example from by the following

seen

contain overt

wh-phrase

and

Bayer (1984):

da Xavea kummt.

comes know not when that the Xavea

Tdon't know when Xavea is coming with associated

yfilled Comp

Filter

is

therefore

movement.

179

a

parameter

wh-

a

Therefore,

the

we

same as

assume

shall

that of

The respective

thus

are

indirect indirect

of course, direct question, except,

a

auxiliary inversion. (20a) and (20b)

ofan an that the structure

given

as

(22)

structures

and

[cr whether [e- C [ip he

question is for ject Cl.

assOciated with

say

(23), respectivelv: will attend the

meeting]|1

(22)

I wonder

(23)

He doesn't know [cp which article; le- C [Iphe should read t||

Consider now the following data from Arabic:

(24)

a. 7a-tadhakkaru [cekayfa kunt-u ?a-sbaHu] 1S-remember how was-1S 1S-swim I remember how I used to swim."

b.sa?al-a-ni:

[cpbi-man tazawwaj-at ibnat-u Eamm-i-hi]

asked-3MS-me with-whom married-3FS daughter-Nom uncleGen-his He asked

la: ?aHada

c.

no one

"No Unlike

in

and the

me

who his cousin had married."

ya-Erifu [cp lima: dha: nfaSal-a zzawja.n1

3MS-know why

one

separate-3MS the-couple knows why the couple got separated.

English,

the

adjacency relationship

verbal element is also required in

between

the

wn-p*

embedded quesuo

se

in

Lrabic,

cf.

Ennassiri

(201

This

is

ammaticality judgements:

25

corroborated by the

a?al-a-ni: [cp bi-man ?ibnat-u

a.

asked-3MS-me married-3FS

He asked

following

Camm-i-hi

with-whom daughter-Nomtazawwaj-at

uncle-Gen-his

me who his

cousin had married"

hla:?aHada ya-Erifu lcp lima:dha: zzawja:ni nfaSal-a: no one

No

3MS-knoW why the-couple separate-3MDual

one

knows why the

couple got separated."

It may be assumed that V-movement in such examples as (24a

c) above is driven by a principle on the scope of wh-operators, which

Rizzi (1991) calls the Wh-Criterion:

(26)

The Wh-Criterion A. A

Wh-Operator

must

be in

a

spec-head configuration

with

an X+WH].

B.

An

Xw

must

be in spec-head contiguration witn a

Operator.

According to this assumption, V bring the [+w The

feature to it.

partial derivation in (27):

must

move

Therefore.

head to clausal CP to the

(24b), for example,

will have

(27) CP

V

Spec C

sa?ala-n1

bi-manji

TP

C

tazawwaj-at;

T

Spec

?ibnat-u &Eamm-i-hik T

.......

VP

Spec

..

....

V V

....

Underlying this assumption is the idea that the input structure ror Move-a is

one

where the

subject occurs in the [Spec, TP] position. Further investigation, however, shows that this assumption docS make the right prediction, either conceptually or empirically. For one thing,this analysis cannot account for sentences such as (20) , where a

lexical

complementizer co-occurs with a

verbal eleme

PP

roblem

that there are three

here is

structural positions, eaala-ni:

(28)

man

asked-3MS-me

lladhi:

pre-TP elements,

but

specifier of CP and its head:

another,

it

only

two

xalaq-a ssama:?-a created-3MS the-sky-Acc

who that

asked me who created the sky." (cf. Ennassiri

He Eor

namely

the

predicts

that

structures such

(29)

as

are

(2014b:38) well-formed

contrary to fact:

ma:dha: katab-u: 1-?awla:d-u?

(29)

what wrote-3mp the-children-nom Now, if extraction is indeed from an underlying structure where the

subject

is under

account

for

terms

(29). Pre-theoretically, (29)

of which

C, can

only

host

a

Iues

wOuld

hoc,

wild and obviously

C l

be

Tollow

altered

from

nerefore plausible

venture an

must

undergo

nature

widespread assumption

linguistics that

d t e r , can

plausible

D-structure

derivation from

run contrary to a

Crative

no

might

one

the verbal element

in the

the ad

is

phi-features, or

no

in the

some

version

to assume

of the

course

any

to

and

Features may n in the changed e

checked

ourse

off

by

of the

derivation.

183

process of S-structure.

within

other

mainstream

1or

features,

114 This ban

derivation."

embedded

movement,

not be

analysis in

it of this analysis,

of the Projection

that in

a

Principle.

hence

Itl 1s

such

asS

questions

deleted.

114

way to

clausal CP head. would be ruled out because the feature [-plural]. This verbal element having the

Deing the case, then, Sngularization

simply

there

[Spec, TP],

may But they

Principles a n d Pu

climb limb

doesn't

further further

element

(24b).

the

verbal

than T, for this

at best. supertluous

would

be

operation

7.3.1 Non-subject

extraction

oul

complement

of

ol.

s

in

English and Arabic

7.1 and 7.2 above, In subsections matrix/root out

wh-questions. In

we dealt

this subsection, we

with

the

syntayX

discuss wh-extraas

of on

To begin with, consider the followit of complement clauses.

examples:

(30)

a. DP How many countries]i do you think (that) Phileas Fogg can

visit t, in 80 days?

b. [DP Which girl] did you say (that) Passepartout is likely to mary t?

(31)

a. DP Payya fusta:n-in]; ta-Dhunn-u ?anna zaynab-a sa-ta-shtar: t

which-Acc dress-Gen 2MS-think that Zaynab-Acc will-3FS-Duy

"Which dress do you think that b.PP liman]; tO-whom

ta-Etaqidu ?anna-hum sa-vuET-u:na l-ja:?1zal-* "

2MS-believe that-they will-give-3MP the-pre Acc

"To whom do you think We have

Zaynab will buy?

alluded above movement are local

they will give

the

prize?"

to ne and NP the fact that both head-movement

operations operations

head-mo

in in the tne sense

that they

operate

clically.Similarly, wh-movement also operates SuccessIvedespite surface structure

appearances.

cyclically

a)proceeds

and

(30a)

b)below, with the

3

(32ad

ih CP21- which

landing in

eventually

(32)

a.

functions

the

in

moved

The

derivation of

standard fashion shown

wh-phrases targeting

as an

escape hatch for [Spec, CP11.l5

IcPI how many countries; lc

do

first

wh-movement-

in

[Spec, before

lTPI you think [cPz t' [c

that

[TP2 Phileas Fogg can visit ti]]]

b. [CP1 ?ayya fusta:n-in; [TPi ta-Dhunn-u [cP2 tf [c ?anna [rTP2 zaynab-a sa-ta-shtari: t]]]] The traces of

the wh-phrases

thus legitimate since they pass

are

in (33) below, (cf. Empty Category Principle (ECP) defined

the

Rizzi

(1990)).116

ECP:

A nonpronominal

1) Properly head-governed

DE

and

(Formal Licensing)

when such Seen in 7.4 below that

an escape

hatch is

not availaole, W

ungrammatical sentences.

movement cross a CP results in

Chomsky A 0)

must be:

empty category

7 6 b a ) proposes

formulation

the following

honpronominal empty category

A

disjunctive

muSt

De

(emphasis addea

antecedent-governed

eta-governed, or

(ii)

0:7) defines government X a-go Y if there is Xa-governs

no

as

follows:

that: Z such

a-governor 9is

a

typical

of the ECP

potential

185

for Yand

(ii) Antecedent-governed or

theta

governed (Identification)ll8

7.3.2 Subject extraction out of embedded clauses in English

and the That-trace effect It has been argued in the literature that constructions that

exhibit the That-trace Effect are those where the subject has been extracted, (cf. Chomsky (1981), among others). So, the relevant substructure of (34) is given as (35):

(34) Who do you think that loves Mary?

ii) Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X.

The following definition of antecedent-government should suffice here:

(in)

X

antecedent-governs Y iff (a) X and Y are coindexed.

(b) Xc-commands Y. (c) There is no barrier between X and Y.

CP

(35)

Spec

C'

t

C

TP

that

Spec

T'

T

YP -

loves Mary

Notice that

no

comparable

extracted, which fact

are

Effect is

uniquely

violation arises when objects

may be taken to

related to

mean

or

adjuncts

that the That-trace

antecedent-government

of the

subject

trace, (cf. Chomsky (1981), (1986), Manzini (1992), among others) (36)

I19

a. What do you think that I gave him for his birthday? answered the b. How does your teacher believe that you have

question? in more recent

onic

term

to

Ostructions; it is

literature,

account

very

dCe

Effect

was

only

used

as a

of for the ungrammaticality

certain

some more

generat

reduced to often than not

notions. Chomsky (1986b),

119Th

that-trace effect is

for

the at the origin of

accounts

example,

(1979). ECP, (Chomsky

for

the

Pilp examples

of such ungrammaticality

effect

ed by

induced

is

as

above bv (34) above by

(34)

presence presence

the

a

IPI by the

comnl.

complementizer

of the root

Minimality

that, which

of the

g that that aa assuming

n

t

e

c

e

d

e

n

t

-

g

o

blocks

intermediate

trace in

v

e

r

n

m

e

n

traca

t

.

in [Spec,

He (ibid: 42) Spec, CPJ.

dee.

fines

Minimality as follows:

(37) In thestructure: a

is

a

barrier for

...

d

...y..0... B...

ß ify

is

a

projection, the immediate projection

distinet of o, a zero-level category

Examples such

as

(38)

below

are

from

B.

ruled in in

does complementizer is abstract; hence, it

English because the

not constitute a

Minimality

barrier:

(38)

Who do you think is the best candidate?

Rizzi (1990a) feels skeptical about Chomsky's analysis sketched above. In particular, he is not convinced that an overt Complementizer blocks antecedent-government whereas a null one

does not. So, for reasons to do mainly with the inadequacy of the

disjunctive formulation of the ECP à la Chomsky (1981), (1986a), (1986b) and Stowell (1981), Rizzi (ibid:29/71) proposes proposes the conjunctive definition of the ECP given in (33) above. This alternauive definition accounts

of

quite straightforwardly for the ill-formeanc

54). The contention here would be that the subject trace example fails to fulfill the principle of formal licensing by ** the it fact that is not canonically governed by the functioa

this e

of

, T.

The

principle

of

identification

theta-government,

qualify fo

too

who is

far

is not ana the

from the

removed

fulfilled either, potential

subject

as

T

fiotn in

trace under

More the

English

Relativized

(ibid) proposes to account for the ban on terms of the

in

not

antecedent-governor

Minimality.

Erther, Rizzi

does

agreement-in-Comp

subject

strategy.

specifically, he argues that in an example like (39) below, where

head of the lower

CP

1s

null, there is agreement between the wh-

phrase, or its trace, in [Spec, CP] and the null head:

(39) (39)

Who do you think loves Mary?

This process has the effect of turning an inadequate head, i.e. one

head-government, into

which is inert for proper

an

element

capable of

120

the of head-government on traces. Only in as it would be latter case is a subject trace licensed in [Spec, IP], that The gist of this analysis is C. head the properly head-governed by

fulfilling the requirement

1s not so

t

written

CCt.

much the fact that C is null

as an

AGR that

120

talicci

s e s the ed

saves structures

AGR is S0, transforming C into

Que->Qui Rule-

the fact that it

as

one

like (39) from

of the options

demonstrated

used instead

the usual

Agr) is

D. Qui penses-tu qui est un peintre?

(ib)

«

where

que

be

ECP

an

allowed

below,

complementizer

e qui (=queavoid ECP violation, (cf. Rizzi (1990)). (ia)-to ia)- oEssentially ) d. Qui penses-tu que est un peintre +

in

can

»

by

tne as

in

Minimality (RM) theory to properly head. Relativized (1990) Rizzi's traces. Accordingly, the license non-pronominal govern,

and hence

structure associated

with

(39) would be represented

Who do you think [c»t' ØAgr lip

(40)

The

reason

why

accounted for

by

t loves

that cannot be turned into

(400):

as

Mary]]

an

Agr

element

may be

inert for proper headthe fact that it is inherently

government for traces.

7.3.3 Consider

Subject extraction out of embedded

now

the

following example

in

clauses in Arabic

Arabic,

where

the

subject/topic has been extracted: (41)

man ta-tadhakkaru ?anna ?iltaq-a: 1-wazi:r-a? who 2MS-remember

that

met-3MS the-minister-Ace

Who do you remember that met the minister?" The SS representation of (41) is given as (42) below:

(42)

1-wazi:r-a]]ll man, ta-tadhakkaru [cp r' [c ?anna [Tp t; ?iltaq-a:

apparently banned

Movement of man (who) across ?anna (that) is ntizer

This ban may be accounted for by the fact that the compie

that) specifier

is not

position

appropriate head-governor for the trace ace of TP, just like its counterpart in

that

sepostulate

an

aasition in (41)?

subject

English. But could

extraction proceeds from aa postverbal

lo answer this

postverbal

question, consider first the proposed

for this sentence, with pro specitier position of TP instead:

alternative structure

(43)

in the

ICPI man ta-tadhakkaru lcr f'i le Panna [Tp wazi:r-a]]]

filling

the

?iltaq-a:

t; 1

now

pro

If (43) is indeed the S-structure associated with (41), then there would be a way of accounting for its ungrammaticality, namely in terms of

Relativized Minimality. The argument would go as follows: the A'specifier of TP, which is now filled by pro, would block antecedent government of t by t'; -the latter occupying the specifier position of the intermediate CP- and hence would induce an RM effect. But this

unexplained why (44), which features subject

wOuld leave

across an overt

4) (44)

extraction

clitic, i.e. -hu

man ta-tadhakkar-u ?anna-hu shtar-a: sayya:rat-an who remeber-2MS that-him

bought-3MS

a-car-Ace

Who do you remember bought a car?

nas

been clearly

demonstrated

above that the

Casc-asigning

Occurrence

complementiz

ranna

Uzer

phonologically empty s, in principle,

"

O

(that)

resists

(pro)nominal

account

for

wilh

a

immediate

in expression

examples

allows Arabic. This

in like (44)

two

ditferent,

but

related ways. One explanation is that subject extraction do.

does not

proceed from a postverbal position, but from the specifier (t.

position of TP. In such cases, however, -huu (him) is suffixed as an

enclitic onto the complementizer ?anna (that). In this case, (44) would

pattern with (45) below, where the clitic -ha

(her)

similarly

incorporates into the verbal element, (Ouhalla & Shlonsky (2002): (45)

min ?illi 1-7asad ?akal-ha mba:riH? who that the-lion ate-her yesterday Who did the lion eat

yesterday?"

Another explanation is that the extraction of man (who) in (44) does

indeed proceed from a postverbal position in the manner outlined in (43). Within this conception, the pro empty category in ISpec, TPJ turns

into

a

clitic

and

subsequently

incorporates

onto

the

complementizer ?anna (that). In the second case, it would be more plausible to take -hu to be a spell out of the phi-features of pro, specifically the Case feature. We shall assume this to be the case here noting at the same time that the issue is far from settled. Let us further call this strong- syntax-internal- Case feature a

functional feature to distinguish it from a lexical Case feature, i.e. one that is associated with a lexical head. Now, pushing this assumption to ts

extreme,

we

may conclude that in Arabic, and

perhaps

in

one

1anguages, too, a functional category that has a strong Case feature

associated with it must CIement. When

no

assign

this feature to

an

adjacent overt in

lexical nominal element is available, Arabic u

language-spe

salvaging device, viz.,

Case feature.

Tuever, the above and

analysis does not explain

Cubiect wh-movement

ontences,

or at best

lexicalizing

across ?inna

quesuOndoic Ones,

as

the

a.

functiona

why both subject

results in

(47) illustrate: 21

(46)

this

ungrammatical

examples

in (46) and

?ayya kita:b-in; qul-ta Pinna zaynab-a shtar-at ? which-Acc book-Gen said-2MS that

zaynab-Acc bought-3FS

Which book did you say that Zaynab had bought?" b.

Payya kita:b-in; qul-ta 2inna zaynab-a shtar-at-hu?

which-Acc book-Gen said-2MS that zaynab-Acc bought-3FS-it

Which book did 47)

you say that

Zaynab had bought it?"

a. man; qult-a ?inna ti za:r-a-kum?

who said-2MS that

visited-3MS-you

"Who did you say that had paid you a visit?"

b.man, qult-a ?inna-hu; za:r-a-kum? who said-2MS that visited-3MS-you

121

are provided by in (46a-b), (47a-b), and (48a-b) judgements aticality the Col grammar in lleague, Abderrahmane Boudraa, a professor of Arabic theoretical claims

The

Department O Arabic Studies, Faculty of ented herein these are entirely based Tremblay's (2006) idea "theories of

The Letters, Tetouan.

on

ogeneity ogeneity y among

differences

grammar

that

speakers in

share in this regard judegements. We absolute should not

to order to be able

193

account

assume

for (.)

idiolectal

Who did you that had paid you

(48)

a.

Payyu kita:b-in; qul-ta

?inna

a

visit?

zaynab-a qara?-at-hu:?

Which-Nom book-Gen said-2MS that zaynab-Acc read-3FS-it

Which book did you say that Zaynab had read it? b. Payya-1-u sayya:rat-in; qult-a Pinna zayd-an sa:far-a fi:ha: which-F-Nom car-Gen said-2MS that zayd-Acc travelled-3MS

in-it

Which car did you say that Zayd travelled in it?" Let us start with (46a), whose derivation is given in (49):

CP

(49)

C'

Spec layvakita:bin

TP1

C"

Spec VP

pro

Spec

qult-a

ICP2

pro

Spec

TP2

C

Pinna zaynab-a qara?-at 2

41S

ruled out,

2 , 1IS

head-governed

Cla-governs

re

notwithstanding

defined

t, seems to res of lexicalizing

it;

dZing

the

both

above. clauses

trace

verb

qara?at (read).

the trace passes

therefore,

in (33)

respect

by the

the first the fact that

Furthermore,

of ECP.

the

d s e n t e n c e

object position in the

either,

as

(46b)

195

of the

The latter verb

Empty Category

intermediate

trace,

that the strategy Notice also

illustrates.

grammatical sent

the

trace

does

not

a

yield

of

The impossibility

environment is extraction from this

the issue is

puzzling, to saythe least

of the related to the movement

But this

proposed barrier cannot

marked

by

the verb

be CP2

wh-phrase

across Dss

Perhaps a barrier.

a

by dint ofthe fact that

it

: sL-

it the theta.nel

qult-a (said),

which assigns

Abderrahmane

Boudraa, (p.c) has pointed out to

Proposition.

My colleague,

me that the complementizer ?inna (that) in Arabic has an inherent property that it does not allow wh-phrases to move across it.

On the

assumption that this is indeed the case, ?inna (that) somehow tums C into a blocking category in (46a-b). / * This should be intuitively true, at least on empirical grounds. Thus, CP2 would inherit barrierhood from C'. If this analysis is on the track track, the first empty category, t2, will not be antecedent-governed, in contravention

of ECP. This seems to team with Fukui's (2006) classification of barriers into strong barriers and weak barriers. According to this

classification, a maximal projection constitutes a barrier by default. But it ceases to be one if L-marked; otherwise, it remains a weak

4 Mark Baker (personal communication) has pointed out languages also bar extraction from CP, e.g. Slavic languages

to me

and some

dialects.

This presupposes

Chomsky (1986).

a

modification

of the

ther

d

man

9

à la

definition of "blocking categorY

t is argued in Wexler and Manzini (1987) that two lexical items in one and the

same

language

may select different values for

posal

a

given parameter

functional categories. In particular, extraction hilitieshus poo argued to depend largely on the type of Panna, compleme capturing the noted differences between whicn verbs, believe-type and SE

may be extended to Arabic may be

say-type verbs, which select Pinna.

Ssibilitie

in

tor

barrier. How

a

Apparently, the verb

qa:la

Standard

this

is

(say)

Arabic

vs.

a

what happens with

barrier

even

clausal

when L

Arabic, for otherwisecomplements of the noted would go unaccounted for.

in

of (46a-

ungrammaticali

4

strong barrier remains

Moroccan Arabic:

A

approach

Microparametric

Moroccan Arabic, however, both subject and non-subject whphrases are extractable across balli (that), as the following examples 125 In

illustrate:

(50)

a.

shku:n; qulti [cp balli ti ja]

who say-2S that arrived-3MS Who did you say had arrived?" a. LF: for which person x, you said

x

had arrived

b. shman

ktab; qulti [ce balli qraw tlamad ri] which book say-2S that read-3P the-pupils

"Which book did you say that the pupils had read?" 6. LF: which x, x abook, you said the pupils had read x

C. shman ktab; qulti [cp bolli qraw-ah; drari which book say-2S that read-3MP-it the-pupils had read? Which book did you say that the pupils C.L:

which x,

This variat auon

abook,

you

said the pupils had

and between Standard Arabic

back to wh

what

The compleme

x

Baker (2008)

entizer

balli in

terms

x

be Moroccan Arabic may

microparameters.

to Pinna MA corresponds

197

read

(that)

in SA.

Baker (ibid)

argues

that there

differences,

assume

are microparameters

i.e. differences

that

these

crosaccount for cross-dialectal

that account

between two related

microparameters

are

clear why (S0a-c) categories, it will become

Arabic, while their counterparts

further

associated are

are ruled out in

the (46a&b) & (47a)). More specifically,

dialects. If w e e. with

ruled in

in Morocos

Standard

clausal

lexical

Arabic,

complement

(ef

of the

verb qa:1 (say) will not constitute a strong barrier in the fomer

language.

126

Let us now consider (48a&b), which seem to diametrically

reject the analysis proposed above, appear in the

specitier position

for the

wh-phrases in both of them

of the matrix

clauses, whereas the

direct object and the genitive expression are substituted by a

pronominal

clitic. But if

we assume

that in

(48a&b)

wh-movement

targets the topic of the matrix clauses, and not an element from within the embedded clauses, if becomes lucid clear why (48a&b) are ruled in, while (46a&b) are not. This is further corroborated by the fact that the moved topics carry (default) Nominative Case. In view of what

has been said, the derivation of (48a), for example, would then proceed as in (51), where the trace of the moved wh-phrase sits in the

specifier position of TP1:27

126

Macroparameters, on the other hand, are associated with general princP Thatexplain natural language, e.g. the pro-drop parameter, the level at wu

movement operates (English we have

vs.

Japanese),

etc.

alluded in footnote 86 to the fact that traditional Arad B take the DP in SVO structures to be the inherent topic of the sentenc nat subject topics in Arabic do not need to be generated in [Spec, IOpr therein for them to be marked as g

topics.

n-

r

a

m

m

a

r

i

a

n

s

ved

u kita: IcPI Payyu

kita:bin [c

(51)

lrei t lr lr

a qara-at-hu]]]ll]

qult-a [vetlcz ?inna

zaynynab-

With regard to

(47ab), their status is a bit different from (46a&b).( (47a) resembles that of (41), repeated for convenience as (52): man;

(52)

ta-tadhakkar-u [cp ?anna t; ?iltaq-a:

who 2MS-remember

Who The

that

1-wazi:r-a?]

met-3MS the-minister-Acc

do you remember that had met the minister?"

ungrammaticality

of

(52) has been ascribed to the that-trace effect. the latter reducible to ECP, as we have seen above. The same

analysis applies it

type;

is

to

(47a).

neither

But

(47b)

poses

problem

a

of

a

different

completely

grammatical nor completely ungrammatical, hence the question mark. One way to account for it is in

terms of Pesetsky's

(1987) proposal that there

are

two

types of wh-

movement, namely D-linked- e.g. ?ayyu kita:bin (which book) in

(48a)

and non-D-linked wh-movement- e.g.

man

(who) in (476).

The

p e presupposes the existence of a specitic set of entities Ontained in discourse- e.g, books in (48a). Therefore. (48a) is asking

about

dcating/particularizing

Said that aynab Zayna not presuppo OC

had read. The second type,

similar set Uhe existence of a

etween the two ypes O

syntax-

which item of the set

pecially

at

is semantic

in

nature,

the level of

on

of entities

the other

of entities. but it has

you

hand. does

The

diference

in

repercussions

sentence

LF-as

well

as

on

QDIc

processing.

On this analysis, the questionable status of (47b) will he

set back to the fact that the pronominal clitic on the complementizer er

Pinna (that) refers back

to

wh-phrase

a

that is

non-D-linked

30

(nonspecific), namely man (who).

7.5. Argument-adjunct asymmetry

Argument-adjunct asymmetry has for many years been a

topical

issue in the

Principles and Parameters theory. To illustrate with

concrete examples, consider the following pieces of data:

(53)

a.

what does Paul wonder whether John will

b. 'ma:dha: ta-tasa:?alu hal shtar-a:

what 2MS-wonder whether

give to Mary?

zayd-un?

bought-3MS zayd-Nom

"What do you wonder whether Zayd bought?"

(54)

128

a.

how does Mary wonder whether John will fix the fan?

b.

kayfa ta-tasa:?alu hal arsal-a zayd-un l-milaff-a?

A similar

proposal is advanced by Enç (1991) for nominals in terms of specificity. Enç (ibid) points out that specific arguments bear an index on D which the

set of

individuals of which the have no such feature on D. If argument we

is

identifies

member. But non-specific arguments extend Enç's theory of nominals to D-linked wh-phrases such as wh-phrases, ?ayyu kita:bin (which book) and (which car) would be specific, hence the ?ayyatu sayya:ratin of **"

Notice that the

a

grammaticality

(48 a&b).

pronominal clitic on Pinna (that) in (48a&b) refers back to a w

phrase that is D-linked. *This analysis may not hold

the embedded clauses.

for

(46a&b) because wh-movement proceeds

trom

2MS-wonder whether sent-3MS zayd-Nom the-file-Acc How do you wonder whether Zayd sent the how

file?"

To

gain

some

understanding

of what is

orovided the derivations of (53a&b)

in

going

(55a&b),

in (56a&b):

(55)

a.

CPI what; does [TP1

give t to Mary?]]

amsi?]]] a.

here,

we

have

and those of (54a&tb)

Paul wonder jcP2 whether [rP2 John wil

b.CPI ma:dha:; [TP1 ta-tasa:?alu [cez (56)

on

hal

[TP2 shtara: zayd-un t

lCP how; does [TPI Mary wonder [cp2 whether [TP2 John will fix

the fan ?]]]] b. TCPi kayfa; [TPi ta-tasa:?alu [cez hal [rP2 arsal-a zayd-un l-

milaff-a t?]]] Obviously, (55a&b) and (56a&cb) all involve the movement of a whelement from an embedded interrogative clause across a filled comp position, thus failing the locality condition of Shortest Move (the

bounding conditions on overt movement). Yet, argument extraction in (55a&b) is degraded, but it is not strictly ungrammatitrecal. On the other hand, adjunct extraction in (56a&b) is strictly impossible.

Chomsky (1995: 90)

accounts

for

examples such as (55b) and (566)

terms of the following economy condition:

(57)

Minimize chain links

201

in

Towards a Principles and Parameters Theory:

Contrastive Syntax ax

of English English and

and

Arabic

He (ibid) argues that when a chain link 1s created by movement, the e

chain induces a subjacency violation if (57) 1s violated in its creation

If this violation survives at LF, the chain has an additional effect of an ECP violation. In (56a&b), the operators how and kayfa cannot govern

their respective traces across whether and hal, which are themselves operators, and hence potential governors for the traces left in the base-

position. Therefore, (56a&b) exhibit a subjacency effect as well as an additional ECP

violation, and

are

thus

strictly impossible

in English

and Arabic. (55a&b), on the other hand, the argument traces are

licensed by being properly head-government by the verbs give and shtara:

(buy), respectively. Therefore, (55a&b) exihibit only

subjacency violation and are thus less deviant than (56a&b).

a

ENERCISES

Evercise

1: Draw

a

tre

diagram for each of the following

indicatung what transformation(s)- if any- took place

(a)(pp The man (who/that/

examples.

you talked about] is my boss.

(b)[Dpal-walad-u lladhi: takallamt-a maEa-hu] dhakiyy-un.

What did you wonder lcP whether John gave to Mary? d) Who seems [rp to have been injured?|

Exercise 7.2: Explain the

ungramnmaticality

of the

following

examples.

(a) Dp al-walad-u lladhi: takallamt-a ma&a]

dhakiyy-un.

(6) What, did you suspect [Dp the claim [cp that John bought ti?]] C) CP

a)

What; did you wonder [CP2 who; John gave t; to ty?]|

What, did you forget [crz how, I fixed t, t'

Principles and Parameters Theory:

Contrastive

Towards a

Syntax of Englishh and Arabic .

VII. BINDING THEORY

This

chapter will

The

discuss the

following topics:

interpretation of overt anaphors

and

pronominals

in

English Principles A and B of Binding Theory The notion of accessible SUBJECT

Overt r-expressions in English and principle C of Binding

Theory Binding Theory and empty categories

of overt DPs in Arabic

The distribution

Chapter III dealt with the their Case

theory.

We

Case-marked. In as

combination with the

properties in saw

determined

distribution of NPs

that all overt NPs

in

occur

a

as

determined by

principles of Case

position where they

are

this chapter we will deal with the distribution of NPs

by

their referential properties in combination with the

principles of Binding theory.5

Binding Theory is possible

referential

semantic

theory that is

dependency relation between

of LF, i.e. with how

relationships

a

to

concerned with the

two DPs at the level

semantically interpret certain

structural

conditions that between different types of DPs. The

phrases that have to including tne reference, as dependence of properties semantic such do with 52). connection between a pronoun and its antecedent. (Chomsky (1988:

Binding Theory "is concerned with connections among "

noun

M K .E n n a s S s i r i

gOveI

istribution

the

of these DPs

thus

are

purely syntactic

in

nature

1 The interpretation of overt nominal expressions in English

8.11

11Anaphors, pronomimals and BindingConditions

Binding is a semantic relation because it involves reference, the dT being a relationship between an expression and the outside

rld. As far as their referential properties are conccrned, overt NPs anaphors, pronominals, and r(eferential)-

all into three categories:

The first

etoressions. mself himself,

type includes reflexive anaphors, such

themselves and

reciprocal anaphors, such

as

as

one

This class is characterized by the fact that its another and each other. intrinsic elements do not have

interpretation like , you,

on an

he,

us,

reference; rather, they depend for their

antecedent. The second

them,

etc. Unlike

independent reference. The third John, Mary and referring

.Binding is thus a

structural

anaphors, pronominals may have

class consists of names such

NPs such

as

Reciprocals and reflexives

+Anaphor, -Pronominal B.

Pronouns

FAnaphor, +Pronominal] C.

R-expressions

-Anaphor, -Pronominal]

Zayd.

of

two coreferential elements.

and of the features anaphor]

two values Chomsky (1982:78-83) uses the the following pronominal] to characterize overt DPs in

A.

as

the book and the students

relationship between

133

type comprises pronouns

manner:

Class Four. This category of NPs get their meaning through dite. ect (deictic) reference to a specific entity in the outside (extra-linguistic

stic)

world. The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When do we

use anaphors. pronouns, and r-expressions? The core facts relevant to

this issue are (1)

given in (1) below

a. John, likes himselfj. (himself must refer to John)

b. John, likes him.

(him cannot refer to John)

c. John, believes that Mary likes him,j. (him may refer to John or to someone else)

d. John; believes that Paul; likes himselfij. (himselfcannot refer to John) The above examples allow us to make the following statements

concerning the referential properties of anaphors and pronominals:

(2)

a. A reflexive must be coreferential with (refer back to) an element within its clause.

b. A pronoun cannot be coreferential (refer back to) an element within its clause, but may or may not refer back to an element

in the sentence.35

a reflexIVE Chomsky (1973) points out that in an environment which allows refer back to tne pronoun, e.g. (1a), a non-reflexive pronoun, or a full NP cannot antecedent, as in (1b).

We shall see below that some syntactic constraints apply if there is coreterene

M.n

reflexive anaphor, himse picks out its reference from the (1a) In which serves an antecedent for it." Coreference is NP,,John, the

subject

contraby co-indexation, and different reference, i.e. John binds is indicate by different indices. In (la), then,

catedhere indh indexation,

first principle of the Binding Theory can The vlf himse (3) as in

below:

3)Principle (3) An

The

(4) 4)

thus be defined

term

A of Binding

Theory (preliminary)

anaphor must be bound.

bind is itself defined as in

(4):

Binding: a binds ß iff (read if and only i) 1.

ac-commands B and a and B are co-indexed.

For further illustration of the notion of

binding,

consider the

structure of (la) given in (5):

136

NP from which an anaphor or pronoun draws its E anfecedent. The way we normally indicate that two NPs

mea

letter or number. Two NPs that share the i.e. coindexed- also share the same referent.

n index, usually a subscripted dexes/subscripts-

reference is called the are co-referential is by

TP

5)

NP

John,

T

VP

Spec

NP

V

likes

In

the

(5)

NP John-the binder/antecedent- and himself-

contained in the must

himselt,

same

clause. Clause

precede the anaphor; otherwise,

are

ensures

that the antecedent

sentence

would be ruled out,

(4i) the

the bindee-

c f(6).137

Himself likes John;,

(6)

(6) has the following S-structure:

137 A

pronoun may precede the element to which it refers. This is a

case or

cataphora (forward reference), as in (i) below:

(i)

Before he, died, our neighbour had donated his entire fortuneE

charity.

MK. Bnmlus.)

TP

NP

T

himself

T

P V

NP

likes

John

There is nothing in the above structure which c-commands and is

coindexed with himself. The potential antecedent of the reflexive anaphor does not c-command it. This contravenes (41), and, therefore,

(6) is ruled out. In addition, the reflexive and its antecedent, on which it is referentially dependent, must share phi-features of person, number, and gender. Failure to do so will result in ungrammaticality, too:

(8)

John; hurts herself

In this respect, Haegeman (1991: 1930 points out: The requirement that a reflexive and its antecedent agree with respect to their nominal features follows from the fact that the reflexive

nterpretation

on

depends

for its

share the antecedent, i.e. the reflexive and its antecedent

their referent. It would be rather odd to find that a reflexive has the property referent to a male malej, for instance, thus constraining the selection of the itself has the property Iy , and is co-indexed with an antecedent which

Principles and Parameters Theory: Towards a Contrastive Syntax of English and Are

malel. There would be a contradiction in the specification of the relevant referent. properties for the selcetion of the

Consider now the following examples:

(9)

a.

[TPi

the coach;

suspects Icp that [Tr2

Ihe

players, blame

each

other]l1 b. [TP the players, suspect [cp that [Tr2 lhe coach; blames each

other:]]] (9a) is

ruled in

given

that the reflexive

anaphor

each other is indeed

bound in TP2, in that it has an antecedent within TP2, with which it is co-indexed. Notice that the coach and the players are contra-indexed,

i.e. they carry different indices. This should be taken to mean that the coach and the players don't have the same referent. But (96) is ruled and bears the out, for although the NP the players c-commands

same

index as the anaphor, it cannot bind it because the anaphor each other

is too deeply embedded in the syntactic structure. In other words, condition (4i)- i.e. the fact that an anaphor must be c-commanded by

its antecedent- is not enough to determine the distribution of anaphors

in English. Therefore, we need a more precise definition of Binding Condition A, one that should precisely indicate the domain in which an anaphor must be bound. The grammaticality judgements in (9)

suggest that

an

anaphor

must

be bound within

can thus restate BCA as (10) below: 8

a

"local domain". We

M.K. E n n a s s i r i

Drinciple A of Binding Theory (revised)

(10)

An anaphor must be bound within its local domain'.

The

mmatical status of (9a) suggests that a local domain for

grammati

aphor binding in English ought to be the smallest clause/TP sontaining the anaphor. However, the example given in (11) below

h s that an anaphor may also be bound within a domain that is

smaller than (11)

a

clause, i.e.

DP

a

stories about each

IP the coach; heard [DP [the players

otherijll in (10), let Before further tightening of the definition The data in with the distribution of pronominals. pronouns

felic1tously

disallowed. This

being

occur

the case,

approximately be defined

(12)

in

as

environments

principle

(la-d)

where

us

show that

anaphors

B of Binding

deal

Theory

are

may

(12) below:

Principle B of Binding Theory

(preliminary)

free. A pronoun must be

examples: But consider now the following (13)

a.

[TPI the players;

suspect

[cP

that

[Tr2

the

coach;

themAl] 6.

TPI the coach;

them-a]J

suspects

[cP

that

[TP2

the players;

blames

blamne

c. [TP the coach, heard [Dr [the players']j

stories about

themll (13a-b) are identically constituted as (9a-b), except that they include

pronouns in the slot occupied by the anaphors in (9a-b). This indicates that there is a complementary distribution between anaphors and

pronouns, i.e. where anaphors may occur, pronouns may not, and vice versa. (13c) further illustrates that a pronoun may not be bound within

a DP that includes it. However, the data in (13a-b) show that a

pronoun may indeed be bound to an antecedent occurring outside its

minimal domain.Similarly, we can now restate principle B of

Binding Theory as follows: (14)

Principle B of Binding Theory (revised) A pronoun must be free in its 'local domain'.

The next

question

we

should address is what is

definition of the notion local domain'?

English, (cf. (9a-b) and (11)), domain for anaphors ought to

we

an

appropriate

Basing ourselves on data from

have concluded above that the local

be TP and DP.

However, the following

data casts doubt on this:

(15) 139

a.

John, considers [Tp himself to be the best

(13b), the pronominal them

candidate]

must be free in its local

domain, and this requires contraindexed with the players. However, it may be bound to an element outside its containing clause, as in (13a), or it may acquire its reference from Some discourse antecedent, (cf. index k it to be

in

(13a-c)).

Compare with (i), which is ruled out: (i)

John; considers [Tp him, to

be the best

candidate]

M.A. DlU

b,

Maryi drew [Dp

ECM

(15a)

is

lalhn

outside its

an

a

picture of herself1

construction,

where the

local domain, 1.. TP.

anaphor himself is

Similarly, hersel/

bound

to

is bound

to

1ar outside its local domain, i.e. DP. This suggests that principle A Rinding Theory should be sharpened to accommodate the apparent In the standard'

ontradiction in (15). theory, this category,

(16)

sharpening

as

in

is

done

Principles

and Parameters

by introducing the notion of governing

(16) below:

Principle A of Binding Theory (final) An anaphor must be bound in its governing category.

The notion governing category is itself defined as (17): minimal category Bis the governing category for a iff Bis the

(17)

containing

a

,

a

governor of a, and

(cf. Chomsky (1981: 211))

a141

(18)

SUBJECT accessible to

a

a. l,... 8...], where y and o bear the sameindex. b.

Bis accessible to

assignment to

a

a

iff a is in the c-command of Band

of the index of

141

ß would

not violate

in

(18a).

[Spec, TP] and [Spec,

sitting subject is understood here to be any term The P. This solves the puzzle between the grammaticality status of (ii) and (ii) below: NP

(i) ()

is awful. John, thinks that [De Paul's picture of himself] is awful. John, thinks that [pp this picture of himself]

of a subject inside between (i) and (iü) relates mainly to the presence domain where

alference t seems, then, that the definition an

anaphor

must be bound.

in

(16)

extends the local

(cf. Chomsky (1981: 212) calcgory, consider To illustrate the notion of governing

following

structure

of (15a) given

tho

e

in (19) below:

TP

(19)

NP

Joh

VP

TP considers

NP

himselfi

- --*

to be the best candidate

In (19), the governor of himself is the verb consider. The minimal domain containing himself, its governor and an accessible subject is

the matrix clause, TP'. Therefore, himself must be bound in this domain, which is indeed the case here. Following the working

hypothesis in the P&P framework, we shall assume that the notion of governing category also applies to pronouns. Thus, principle B of

Binding Theory is redefined as (20):

(20)

Principle B of Binding Theory (final) A

pronoun must be free in its

governing category.

M

.

K

To

.

E

n

n

a

S

S

i

r

how

see

i

(20) accommodates

examples

such

(13a), repeated

below

as (21). consider the structure of this example given in (22):

(21)

TPI

the players; suspect lcr that [r2 the coach, blames

them]] (22)

TP

T

NP

the players;

VP

T

CP

suspect

C

Spec

TP

C

the coach; blames them;

that

n

(22), the

governor

COntaining the

pronoun

Therefore, them uc

case

blames. The minimal domain of them is the verb

them, its

must

be free in

here. The fact that hem,

tha natter,

to may be bound

ate r y or select a O

an accessible governor and

or

this domain,

any other

an

and this is indeed

pronominal element,

for

governing clement outside its

the reference outside 215

subject is

an antecedent sentence from

that has already been introduced in the discourse is irrelevant

Binding Theory as

to

understood here.

8.1.2 R-expressions and Binding Theory Up to now, we have dealt with the distribution and interpretation of anaphors and pronominals in English from a bindingtheoretic perspective. But Binding Theory also characterizes the co-

indexing possibilities of R-expressions/names. Consider the following examples: 42

(23)

a. John, likes John. b.

He; likes Johni.

c.

John; thinks that Mary likes Johni.

d.

John; hates John;'s teacher.

e.

He; hates John,'s teacher.

These facts suggest the

(24)

An

following generalization:

R-expression bound").

Consider the

must

be free,

(where

free means "not

following example:

(23b) and (23e) may be filtered out by the following condition: i) Disjoint Reference Condition (DRC) A

pronoun X may not refer to the as) a nonpronominal NP Y if

same

thing as (have the same inde (Baker (2003), ed

X c-commands Y.

Aronoff & Rees-Miller (2003:276))

Te theyi say lcp that [Tp2 the coach blames the players,11

(25) shows that the notion of governing category defined above does

(25) nlay a role in the distribution of r-expressions. Therefore, principle

C of the Binding Theory, which regulates the distribution of reNDressions, ex

1s not

expected

to

make

reference to

this

notion.

Accordingly. principle C should be strengthened to (26) below:

(26)

Principle C of Binding Theory (final) An r-expression is free everywhere.

In Chomsky (1986a), the binding conditions discussed above are reformulated as licensing conditions on a governed element a in

the expression E with indexing I in the manner outlined in (27) below:

(27)

The

licensing conditions on govemed elements

For some b such that (1) or (ii), I is BT-compatible with (a. b):

i)

a

is an

r-expression and

(a) b is the domain of the operator if a

is

a

variable

or

(b) b= E otherwise,

(i)

a Is

an

Complete

anaphor

pronominal and b is the least

or

Complex (CFC) containing r for indexingj BT-compatible with (a, b).

Functional

which there is

an

Bl-compatibility is in turn defined as (28)

(28)

Tis BT-compatible with (a,

b)

if:

(a) a is an anaphor and is bound in

17

below:

b under I.

(b) a is

a

in pronominal and is free

(c)a is an r-expression

b

and is free in

under I.

b

underI.

As for the term Complete Functional Complex (CFC), it is the minimal XP where "all grammatical Junctions compatible with ite head are realized in it- the complement necessarily by the Projection Principle, and the subject, which is optional unless required to license

a predicate, by definition." (cf. Chomsky (1986a). Interstingly, Binding Theory is also relevant for the theory of movement, where the moved constituent, i.e. the antecedent, binds its

trace. To illustrate, consider the following examples: (29)

a. [TP John; was attacked t] b.

[cP What; [c will [Tp you do t:?]]]

In

(29a),.John A-binds

its trace

by virtue

of the fact that John

occupies an argument position, namely [Spec, TP]. Therefore, John and the trace

are

said to form

an

A-chain. From

a

binding-theoretic

perspective, the trace of A-movement- e.g. (29a)- is a non-overt anaphor, and hence subject to principle A of Binding Theory. This is indeed the case in (29a), where ; is bound by John; in TP, the latter being the governing category for the non-overt anaphor. In (29b), on

the other hand, the wh-trace

occupies [Spec, CP],

which is

an

A

position grammatical function is assigned to this position, (CI. Chapter IV: 4.3). Accordingly, the wh-phrase is said to A-bar bind ls trace (alias variable). As with A-movement, the and he wh-phrase u variable form an as no

A-bar chain. From

a

binding-theoretic perspecue

M.A

too,

the

trace

of A-bar

movement-

e.g.

(296)-

is

viewed

as a non-overt a therefore. prineiple C of Binding Thcory requires that it hinding from an A-positic This is indecd the

r-eNpresIon;

be free o f b i n d

casc

a h the trace is bound to Osition. It

P o s

dine

may then be

concluded

is used to reter

to

of a DP with

an

association

what, the latter sits in that for Binding

Theory

A-binding,

not

A-bar

binding,

in

(295),

an

A-bar

the term

i.e. to the

A-antecedent.

8.2 The distribution of overt DPs in Arabic 8.2.1 The interpretation ofanaphors andpronominals Consider now the following examples in Arabic:

(30)

a. zayd-un; jaraH-a nafs-a-hu;/k. (nafsahu must refer to Zayd) Zayd-Nom injured-3MS self-Acc-him

"Zayd injured himself." nafs-ab. ya-shtabihu zayd-un; fi: ?anna Eamr-ank ya-krahu hu-k (nafsahu cannot refer to Zayd)

that 3MS-suspect Zayd-Nom in

Zayd suspects that Amr C.

hates himself."

zayd-un; yu-Hibbu-huri/k.

refer to Zayd) Zayd-Nom 3MS-likc-him

Zayd likes him.

self-Acc-him Amr-Acc 3MS-hate

(the pronominal

clitic - u

cannot

d. qa:1-a 1-mutafarriju:na, ?inna lla:Eibi:nak ?ashEaru:-hum bi-1-malal-i. (the pronominal clitic hum may refer to -

mutafariju:na or to lla:&ibi: na)

to other discourse or world

entities, but

not

said-3MS the-spectators that the-players bored-them "The spectators said that the players bored them."

(30a) exhibits the linear SVO order. In Ennassiri (2014b), it is argued

that this order results from the operation Merge. i.e. the topic Zaydun

merges with T' to form a full TP. So to determine the distribution of anaphors in Arabic, consider the structure associated with (30a) given

below as (31):

(31)

TP

NP

Zaydun

T

VP NP

pro;

NP

jaraH-a

nafsahu;

In the above

structure, Zaydun c-commands nafsahu (himself) in that every XP that dominates Zaydun- i.e.the matrix TP- also dominates

nafsahu. Therefore, Zaydun must function as the antecedent anaphor. In (305), the anaphor nafsa-hu (hinmself) occurs

of tne in

n

embedded

principle A A

arinciple

clause,

of

the

and

so

the correct facts

Binding Theory.

43

To

follow naturally from

illustrate further, consider

the structure associated with (30b) given in (32):

(32)

TP T

VP

ya-shtabihu zayd-un; V

PP

binding domain for

P

CP

the anaphor

fi C

Tp2

anna Eamr-an, ya-krahu nafs-a-hu-k

In the above structure, the governing category for the anaphor nafsahu

(himself) is TP, and nafsahu is indeed bound to Eamr-an (Amr) Within this governing category. More crucially for our analysis here is

ne Tact that coreference between the anaphor nafsahu (himself) and yaun (Zayd) in the matrix clause is barred for the same reason asS

udt advanced for (96) in English, i.e. in terms of locality violation, 143

that the The matrix clause in in (30b) exhibits VSO order. Ennassiri (2014b) argues matrix of T is not strong d t y in Arabic is a function of the fact that the D-feature in the overt syntax. 5 attract the subject DP to a preverbal position

itself reducible

violation.

A Principle Binding to

So

given the

it may be concluded tha (30a&b), in grammaticality judgements in exactly the same way to both applies Theory principle A of Binding

English and Arabic.

Let

us turn

structure associated

(33)

now

to pronominals.

Consider in

this regard the

,144 below:** in (33) with (30c) given

TP

NP Zaydun;

VP

T

NP

NP

proi

juHibu

-hu*i/k

I n Ennassiri (2014b:97), it is argued that the topic in [Spec, TP] is Iinked to the null thematic

nticall

both depict the same individual. resembles (i) in English, where the reflexive anaphor, himself, is bound to PRO

subject, pro,

as

the subject position of the infinitival complement clause, and PRO refers back

John:

()

John, likes [Te PRO, to talk about himself]

clitic -hu (him) cannot refer to Zayd. This is C e in Arabie, too, pronouns and their antecedents cannot be ontained in the same domain as anaphors, (cf. (30a&b). This is Grther illustrated in (Jua), wnere the

In

(33), the pronominal

SO

antecedent-pronoun

relation

anaphors.

In this

the clause-mate condition posited for narticular case, there is a finite clause lates

litic pronoun -hum (them)

and its

boundary- TP- between the antecedent, -mutafarriju:na (the

spectators):

(34) TP VP

qa:la

binding

NP

domain for -hum (them)

CP

-mutafarriju:naj

TP2

C

Pinna lla:Eibi:nak ?ashEaru:-hum"w bi-l-malal-i

entertain 4) shows that in Arabic, too, pronouns

than Structural relation with their antecedents

is Observation holds for (35). whose structure

223

a wider

anaphors.

given

in

(36):

range of

The

same

IC

(35)

zawj-u, hind-in yu-dallilu |-hak/w

nafs-a-ha:h/ nafs-a-hu husband-Nom Hind-Gen 3MS-pamper her/ self-Acc-her/hiim

"Hind's husband pampers her/herself/himself." (36)

TP

(DP:)

T

Dgen

NP

zawju

DP

hind-ing

VP N' yu-dallilu

DP

N

pro

t

DP nafsa-ha:k nafsa-h

-ha:kw In

(36),

the reflexive

anaphor nafsaha: (herself) may not be bound to the encircled DP, although DP' does indeed c-command the anaphor. This is so because the gender feature of the potential antecedent, zawju hindin (Hind's husband) clashes with the gender feature of the anaphor. But recall that anaphors need a clause mate antecedent wiu Which it must share all o-features. The potential antecedent, hinain, Oes not C-command nafsaha:, either. The first branching noade

M . K .

E .

hindin, i.e.

the encircled

NP, does not dominate the

dominating

This means that nafsaha: is free in TP, in contravention

anaphor. This

A o fBinding

Theory.

principle

The sentence is ok with the clitie pronoun, -ha: (her), referring

SSessor inside the subject DP', i.e. the NP hindin, because the latte.

-ha:. NPdoes not c-command

Principle

B of Binding

Theory

is

therefore respected

8.2.2 The interpretation of r-expressions It has been seen above, subsection 8.1.2, that the interpretation

of r-expressions

in

English

Theory, which states that

the

case

a.

they

regulated by principle C of

be free

everywhere. Let us

of r-expressions in Arabic. For

the examples given in

(37)

is

(37)

ease

of

now

Binding address

illustration, consider

below:

zayd-un; ya-Htarimu zayd-an;

Zayd-Nom 3MS-respect Zayd-Acc

Zayd, respects Zayd;." b. pro/hiyya, tu-Hibbu zawj-a hind-inj she 3FS-likes husband-Acc Hind-Gen

"She; likes Hind's husband." 1-¬uzlat-a C.qa:1-a pro;/zayd-un; ?inna 1-?aHmaq-a; yu-Hibbu the-solitude-Acc Said-3MS Zayd-Nom that the-fool-Acc 3MS-like

Zayd said that the fool; likes solitude."

d. huwwa,/pro,

qa:1-a

?inna

zayd-an, yu-Hibbu 1-¬uzlat-a

3MS-like the-solitude-Acc he said-3MS that Zayd-Acc

"He, said that Zayd,

likes solitude."

The grammaticality judgements in names

and

(37a-c)

referring expressions do

indicate that Arabic proper

not

tolerate

referentially

a

for instance, the structure dependent interpretation. Consider, associated with

(37a) given in (38) below:

(38)

TP

minimal governing

categoryfor zayd-an

DP

VP

Zayd-un;

DP

ya-Htarimuk

pro;

In

(38),

the

topic

fact induces

(37b),

in

[Spec, TP]

Binding

DP

tk

zayd-an;

binds the proper name,

Condition C effects. The

which indicates that

(37c-d), the

V

an

r-expression

antecedent is outside the minimal clause

Binding Condition C

thing

which

holds for

must be pronoun free. ln

expressions, -?aHnaq-a and zayd-an. Yet, both a

same

zayd-an,

containing

the

r-

sentences instantiate

violation. So the restriction that

names ana

expressio

eferring

in

Arabic,

part

r-expressions

too. More

generally.

bound by names

have

to

still, the

be

and

pronouns holds

necessarily

free in this

principles of Binding Theory above are represented in all human languages and are thus Grammar.

language,

covered

1.e.

may not be

of Universal

EXERCISES

Exercise 8.1: Explain why (a-f) are ruled out in English (a) John; believes that himself, is the best candidate. (b) Jane; resents Bill's criticism of herself. (c) Mary; admires himselfi.

(d) He, thinks [that the fans admire Bill,] (e) T expect [themselves, to help the students] (f) She; expects [Mary, to do better] Exercise 8.2: Analyse the grammatical status of the following pairs of

sentences in Arabic from i.

a

binding-theoretic perspective:

'qa:1-a l-mutafarrij-u:na ?inna lla:8ib-i:na; a:dha-w ba£D-ahum; baED-an.

a.

said-3MSthe-spectators-Nom that the-players-Acc hurt-3MP Some-Acc-them-Acc The spectators; said that the players; hurt each other." b.

qa:1-a l-mutafarriju:na; Pinna lla:Eibi:na; a:dha-w ba£D-a-hum; baED-an.

said-3MS the-spectators-Nom that the-players-Acc hurt-3MP

some-Acc-them-Acc The spectators, said that the players; hurt each otheri." ii.

a.

zayd-un; ya-Etaqidu nafs-a-hu; dhakiyy-an Zayd-Nom 3MS-believe self-Acc-him clever-Ace

"Zayd belicves himself to be clever." b.

zayd-un; ya-Etaqidu ?anna nafs-a-hu, dhakiyy-un

Zayd-Nom 3MS-believe that self-Acc-him clever-Nom

Zayd believes that himself is clever."

IX. CONTROL THEORY Thischapter will

discuss the

following topics:

The distribution of PRO in English The nature of PRO Control structures in Arabic: PRO vs. pro

9.1 The distribution of PRO in English

In chapters VI and VII, two types of empty categories were discussed, namely NP-trace and wh-trace. The present chapter deals with the distribution and interpretation of a more intriguing empty category, i.e. PRO. The latter category may only appear in the subject

position of

infinitival cBauses in

English,

i.e. clauses where T is

characetrised as (-finite]. The data relevant for the distribution of PRO are given below:

(1)

a.

PRO likes syntax.

b. John likes PRO. C.

We have

already talked about

PRO.

d. We believe PRO to be the best candidate. in PRO may not appear that fact the is o noticed in (la-d) above Cas ldrked positions.4 In (la). for instance, PR0 sits in the subject

5 put But see Chomsk

that PRO is assigned proposal a for omsky and Lasnik (1993) "Efinitel* feature is licensed Dy

Lase, which only PRO Cn

can

bear. This Null

case

null

position of a finite clause, Spec, TP] in appears

terms

where finite T

of m-command,

object position,

in the

assigns Nominative

Caco

(ct. Chapter III). In (2b).

where Acc Case

is

to

PRO

normally assigned

inside a prepositional phrase. by the transitive verb. In (2c), it appears where the prepositional object normally gets Oblique/Accusative Case

from the preposition. And in (2d), it appears in an ECM construction.

where the embedded clausal complement is transparent for Case

marking by the

matrix transitive verb. From

a

Case-theoretic

point of

view, then, overt DPs and PRO seem to be in complementary 146

distribution, i.e. where the former may appear the latter may not."

9.2 The nature of PRO

Consider now the

(2)

a.

Mary wants [PRO to work hard]

b. John c.

following examples:

promised Mary [PRO to be on time]

John convinced Mary [PRO to leave the

room]

d. It is not easy [PR0 to adapt to the weather in Alaskaj On the face of it, (2a) resembles (3) below, where the embedded

clause is also infinitival in nature:

3)

Mary seems [to work hard]

(1a-d) would all be ok with an overt DP

replacing PRO.

syntactic

the

Dut

particular, (3) is

structures an

or

instance

(2a) and (3)

of NP

quite different.

are

movement, and

so

derivation given in (4), (cf. Chapter VI:

it has the

(4)

Mary; seems [Tp t;

In the

earlier days of generative grammar, constructions such

were

like

analysed (2a)

(1967).

were

work

in terms of

hard]

Subject-to-Subject Raising,

treated in terms of

In P&P

result of

to

such

as

(2a)

are

as

(3)

whereas those

Equi-NP Deletion, (cf.

theory, constructions

(obligatory)

In

Rosenbaum

treated

as

construal processes that relate PRO

the

to an

antecedent in the sentence. Within this theory, (2a) would have the Sstructure given in (5) below, where the matrix subject, Mary, controls

PRO, i.e. Mary and PRO refer to the same individual in the outside 147

world. This is indicated via

(5)

coindexing.

Mary; wants [PRO; to work hard] Chomsky (1982) argues that there is only one type of empty

category, but that its specific instantiation is functionally mplicit in this nerent

147

statement

determined.

is the idca that empty categories have

properties; rather, they derive whatever properties they

But see,

for example, Hornstein (1999, 2003); et al. (2010), where control structures

OOeCkx View, c

Hornstein and

are also

Polinsky

treated

no

have

(2010)

as movement.

derivation

have the below is assumed to the subsequently m o v e s to the lower VP and in merges (), where john an

example such

as

(i)

n TP1], targeting both [Spec, TP2] and [Spec, VP1]. matrixi[Spec, John tried

(ii)

to embarrass mary.

lTP1 John lvP1

teha tried

Jehn to [rpz sehn to lvp2

231

embarrass

Maryl]l

from the environment in which they occur. Following this proposal

empty categories are assigned a value for each of the binary features [+/-anaphor] and [+/-pronominal] by the mechanism of functional

determination stated below: The Functional Determination of Empty Categories

(6)

a. An empty category is a variable if it is in an A-position and

locally A"-bound. b. An empty category in an A-position that is not a variable is an anaphor.

c. An empty category that is not a variable is a pronominal if it is free or locally A-bound by an antecedent with an

independent thematic role. As stated in the previous chapter, this yields four different types of

empty categories with respect to the binding properties. Each of these

empty categories, except PRO, has a lexical counterpart:s a. [+anaphor, -pronominal] = lexical anaphors/ NP-trace

(7)

b.

[-anaphor, +pronominal]

pronouns/ (small) pro

=

c. +anaphor, +pronominal] = (big) PRO

d. [-anaphor, -pronominal] = R-expressions (names/ wh-trace) It is easy to see from (7c) that PRO is a hybrid category, in that it has

the features of both PRO

can

an

either be free

anaphor or

bound,

and as

pronominal. Like pronominals, (8a) and (8b) show, respectively a

However, Chomsky (1995: 41) takes English be

partial

overt

counterparts to

arbitrary PRO and its restriction

French on and German d to PRO in that they share "the modal interpretoO of

to

one,

subject position."

a.

(8)

John is too stubborn [PRO

to

talk tol

b. John decided [PRO to vote] Further, the th

antecedent of

PRO,

IT

any, has

aproperty which pronominals, but

harS PRO does not have anapho referentially dependent upon ananhor. PRO must be bound

an

an

not

independent theta-role

anaphors, have. But independent reference; rather,

another argument. So, by being in

like it is an

its

governing category; and by being Dronominal, it must be free in its governing category. From this, it follows that the distribution of PRO is regulated by principles A and B of the Binding Theory. Consequently, and as a result of the fact that no element can simultaneously satisfy these two conflicting

a

requirements,

PRO must be assumed to have

no

governing category;

thus, the PRO Theorem is derived:

9)

PRO Theorem PRO must be

ungoverned.

A number of properties of PRO follow from the PRO theorem stated in

(9). First,

PRO may not appear in the

subject position

of

inite clauses, as it would otherwise be governed in that position by ne

verbal inflection

Onrast, it may only

or

under spec-head agreement, (ct. (la).

appear

In

of infinitives and in the subject position So, the fact that cannot be assigned.

Case s a position where

149

PROs

Kayne (1991:679)

ome som

level Or of

deed

Ve

are governed

controlled that all proposal a that formulates other things, among means, representation. This of (9).

repres

a governing category,

in complete violation

at

PRO does

PRO has

no

lexical counterpart is

category could

never

Second,

the

accounted

for

by the fact that

thio

be assigned Case.

PRO

implies

Theoremn

that

status of a CP.

complement has the categorical

the

infinitival

Perhaps the latter

barrierhood from TP and thus prevents PRO from category inherits the matrix verb. With regard to the verb want in

being governed by

English, it might be argued that it must property- since

an

allow CP-deletion-

overt NP may appear in

lexical

as a

place of PRO. This is

illustrated by the following example:

(10)

Mary

wants

[Bill to

work

hard]

The CP-deletion mechanism in (10) would allow the embedded

subject, Bill, to receive

Case from the matrix verb,

exactly as

in ECM

constructions. But if that were the case, Chomsky (ibid) argues, the

following example would also be grammatical, contrary to fact:

(11)

John; was wanted [; to succeed]

The ungrammaticality of (11) may be taken to mean that want-type verbs do not

permit

CP-deletion

as a

marked

option. Consequently.

Chomsky (ibid) argues that the lexical NP in examples such as (10) receives its Case not so much from the matrix verb, since this option is now barred, as from the prepositional complementizer for. The latter

complementizer undergoes a rule of for-deletion, in the PF level, " instances where it With

Mary wants

occurs

in immediate postverbal

very much for Bill to work

hard).

positions, (compare

If this

why,

correct, wh is correct,

then,

:deed for is selected (11)?Ifindeed

is a

in

similar

(11),

derivation not possible for

the trace will be

governed

and

theECP wll eventually be satisfied. But it might be argued that for is no

araner

lation.1s0

violation.

governor, as a result, (T1) would be ruled out as an ECP In fact, Chomsky (1981:452) argues that the class of

ner governors

proper

categories

having

should be restricted the features

arenositions from the

prep

+N]

class of proper

to

lexical elements, i.e.

or

[+V].

thus

gOvernors. This,

to

excluding

however,

poses

problems for prepositions stranding in English, as the trace left behind would not be properly governed, in violation of the ECP. We shall not pursue this issue any further, but see Chomsky (1981: 492-493) for a proposal. The presence of PRO is required by the Projection Principle, which demands that the lexical and theta-marking properties of heads be represented categorically at each syntactic level. In (8b), for example, the verb vote has an external theta-role to assign, and

Unerefore, there must be

an

argument available to receive it. From this

perspective, then, the Projection Principle should be part of the aetinition of null pronouns, (cf. Gilligan (1987). The presence of RO is also motivated by the fact that it is syntactically active. This is Urared

in

(12), for instance, where

PRO acts

as a

binder for the

reflexive anaphor herself: 50 Th analysis may be extended to

below: D.

i)

Who, do you

want very

instances

of Comp-trace

succeed? much for t, to

235

such

as

(i)

(12)

Mary has decided [PRO to rely on herself] The PRO Theorem has been met with scepticism, however, as as

a number of linguists have argued that although the empty categorv

PRO has properties characteristic of both anaphors and pronominals, it never

shows up in

a

given

construction

having both properties

simultaneously, (cf. Koster (1984) and Manzini (1983), among others). If this is correct, then PRO must be governed, and hence has a governing category. As an anaphor, it will be A-bound in this governing category; and as a pronominal, it will be A-free in it. A more serious conceptual problem related to the PRO

Theorem is the assumption that in infinitival clauses in English, T does not govern PRO. Within the GB framework, government was

determined in terms of m-command, so that a head can govern its

specifier. The stipulation that T is not a governor when it is characeterised as [-finite] makes it more difficult to attempt to reduce govermment to a configurational notion- i.e. m-command in this case-

ratherthan to a contentful notion.Further, there are empirical data

from several languages that show that PRO is licensed via government.

A

case

in

point

is

Spanish,

where

a

lexical

complementizer governs PRO in the subject position of an infinitival

clause,

as we see

(13)

Maria no sabe

51.

nis

"would be

C-command

a

(2005: 129).

from

(13):

[c

si

[ip

PRO

comerlo]]

equivalent, for example,

constituent

Y only

to

postulating

that

a

constituent A T y al.

if Xhas a given lexical feature." (Cf. Hornste

Maria

not knows if to-eat-it

Maria does not know whether to eat it."

the PRO Theorem assumes control to be a property of e viz PRO. The one single category, prediction would be that a language A

h

lso

Arabic

as

lackS COntrol structures

as

it does not

have PRO

among

of its empty categories. This prediction is not born out, h a1oh. In the following subsection, it will be seen that the null suthiect of control complements in Arabic belongs to the type pro and is not a pronominal anaphor. So, to account for the referential Droperties of PRO, a new module has been introduced in the nentory

grammar,

namely Control Theory, which specifies the structural and lexical conditions under which the obligatory control occurs.

interpretation

9.3 Control structures in Arabic

9.3.1 PR0

vs.

pro

Let us now investigate, albeit briefly, the syntax of control

verbs

(14)

in

Arabic. To this end, consider the following examples:

3.

yu-ri:du

zayd-un [?an ta-Htarim-a zaynab-u nafs-a-ha:]|

MS-want zayd-Nom that 3FS-respect-subjunctive ZaynabNom self-Acc-her

Zayd wants Zaynab to respect herself" yuri:d-u zayd-un [?an ta-Htarim-a zaynab-u nats-a-huj

want-3MS M-Nom that 3FS-respect-subjunctive Zaynab-Nom self-Acc-him

Zayd wants Zaynab to respect himself." The above data suggest that the verb ?ara:da (want) in Arabic subcategorizes for a CP complement given the presence of the

complementizer ?an (that).It is thus reasonable to take the embedded TP

to

be the

governing category

for the reflexive

anaphors

nafsaha: (herself) and nafsahu (himself). The grammaticality of (14a) will be accounted for

bound by

Zaynbu

by the fact that nafsaha: (herself) will be

within this

governing category,

A-

thus

satisfying Binding Condition A. In the same vein, the ill-formedness of (14b) will be accounted for by the fact the reflexive nafsahu (himself) will lack

A-binder within the

an

same

embedded TP, in violation of

Binding Condition A. Consider

the

following examples, embedded subject is an empty pronominal: (15)

now

where

the

yu-ri:du zayd-un [?an [TP2 ya-shtar-ia bayt-an li-nafs-i-hi]] 3MS-want Zayd-Nom thatsubi 3MS-buy-Subj to-self-Gen-him Zayd wants to buy a house for himself." a.

b. Ha:wal-a

tried-3MS

zayd-un [?an [Tr2 ya-rta:H-a qali:lan

Zayd-Nom thatsubi 3MS-relax-Subj a

bit

I t has been argued above to the that the complementizer ?an must be verbal element for adjace eted subjunctive mood assignment. This may now be as meaning that the reinterp TP ion. complement of ?an does not project a specifier

poi

"Zayd tried to

relax

a

bit."

'vu-ri:du zayd-un |Pan lTpz ya-rta:H-a nafs-u-hu qali:lan|1 C.

3MS-want Zayd-Nom thatsubj 3MS-relax-Subj self-Nom-him a bit Zayd wants

himself to relax

a

bit."

Given that reflexive anaphors require a local antecedent, the reflexive nakihi (hinmself) in (15a) must be bound within the same clause, i.e. TP. Its binder is assumed to be "little" pro, which agrees with nafsihi

(himself) in all o-features, (cf. Ennassiri (2014a). This pronominal element is in turn controlled instance of

by the matrix subject, Zayd, as (15a) is an

obligatory subject control

construction.

With respect to obligatory subject control constructions-e.g.

(15a&b)- it has been

although the subject of the

observed that

finite

clausal complement is a pure pronominal, i.e. pro, it is obligatorily controlled In

by the

two respects.

matrix

First, it has

alternate with

cannot

subject. Here, little

an overt

an

DP.

pro resembles

independent Yet,

pro and PRO lies in the fact that the

a

'big'

PRO

theta-role. Second, it

crucial difference between

nature

of conindexation between is

antecedents

SC

and their respective empty pronominals for identification is required conindexation For PRO, this

tw0

Crent.

Tential

is coindexed with PRO unless purposes. In other words,

Aargument,

which

uires all O

or

it

cannot

violation be identified, in

uence conseque

of the principle

identified. In to be categories empty

obligatory other languages for that matter, of obligatory coreference,

itself a

a

English, and

a

is

a

coindexation

lexical property

of

control verbs. In Arabic, however, pro is already fully (p-) identified by the AGR features anchored onto the verb, (cf. Ennassiri (2014b)

Therefore, its coindexation is not so much forced by the Binding Theory as by an independent theory of interpretation/construal.

Rosenbaum (1967) proposed a principle he called the Minimal Distance

Principle (MDP)

for the controller of PRO in English. MDP states that the controller of PRO is the DP closest to

it.

to account

MDP works well for

(15a&b)

above and for

object-control constructions such as (16) below. However, this principle predicts that

pro in (17) should be controlled by 3amr-an, contrary to fact:

(16)

Paqnaë-a zayd-un; Eamr-an; [cP

tadkhi:n-i]l]

persuaded-3MS Zayd-Nom

from the-smoking-Gen

Pan

[Tp ya-qlaë-a pr0 ij

Amr-Acc that

an

al

3MS-give-up-Subj

Zayd persuaded Amr to give up smoking] (17)

waEad-a zayd-un, Eamr-an; [cp ?an [TP ya-qla&-a proj/j Ean altadkhi:n-i]

promised-3MS Zayd-Nom

from the-smoking-Gen

Amr-Acc that

Zayd promised Amr to give up now

3MS-give-up-Subj

smoking

We will return to the case of it is worthwhile to

promise-type verbs below, but for point out that subjunctive complements to the

In this context, the Minimal understood as the subject of Distance Principle would mean that the element the yarta:H-a closest to this clause. clause in (15b) is the element that is

counterpart of lara:da Obviative

Phenomenon,

(want)

in

Romance

languages exhibit the characterized by the fact that the subjects must obligatorily be disjoint in

which is

and the

matrix reference, (cf. Johnson (1983), Picallo (1985), Kempchinsky (1986), Dachette (1988), among others). This phenomenon is illustrated hu the following respective examples from French and A

embeddedan

Spanish:

(18) a.Je voudrais que je finisse I would like that I

cet

article.

finish-subjunctive this article

"Iwould like to finish this article" b. Je voudrais

qu'il finisse

I would like that he

son

article.

finish-subjunctive his article

"I would like him to finish his article" C. Il voudrais qu'il»ik finisse son article.

he would like that he finish-subjunctive his article "He would like him to finish his article" (cf. Rochette (1988) a . El maestro quiere que Arturo secalle/ calla. ne teacher wants that Arturo be quiet-subjunctive/ indicative

"The teacher wants Arturo to be quiet b. El maestro, quiere que pro«ia se calle. the

teacher

wants

that he be quiet

The teacher wants him to be quiet

Towards a Principles and Parameters Theory:

The French and

Spanish examples

examples given in (14a)

Arabic

(18)

contrast

and

syntax of English and

(19)

and (15a&b),

Obviative Phenomenon

examples the interesting

in

Contrastive

seems

may be accounted for

in

contrast

for in the latter be

to

with the

optional. This

terms of what may

be

dubbed a tense dependency relation between the matrix and the

subjunctive clauses in Romance languages. In these languages,

subjunctive clauses do not have an independent tense; rather, their tense is dependent on- i.e. anaphoric to- the matrix clause tense. This is based on the observation that the tense morphology of the matrix indicative verb determines the tense morphology of the embedded

subjunctive verb, (cf. Johnson (1984) and Picallo (1984), (1985). Under this

view, subjunctive complement clauses have their temporal

reference established

by

the tense of the matrix verb.

If this is correct,

the ungrammaticality of (18a), (18c) and (19b), where the embedded

subject

corefers

accounted for.

with the

matrix subject,

Being anaphoric

in

is

straightforwardly

nature, the embedded tense in these

examples must be bound by the matrix tense, where binding, again, means coindexing with a c-commanding antecedent. As a result of this

anaphoric/dependency relationship, the binding domain for the embedded

subject extends to the

matrix clause.* This means that the matrix clause is the local domain where the embedded

subject

must be

Condition 154

A way to

B. In

free, but

Arabic,

achieve

on

pronominal

it is not, in

the other

hand,

contravention it is the

of Binding

embedded clause,

this is to assume, for example, that the embedded TENSE, hence also matrix verb govern the embedded (1988) for a similar subject position, (see Rochette proposal).

the

rabic

M.K. E n u

nd not the

hich counts

matrix one.

local domain for the The latter is therefore frec in this

anominal subject/topic.

embedd

nd

domain. and

the examples

ruled in,

are

mpt at this stage an in-dep ourselves

as a

as

required.

We shall

not

analysis of this phenomenon,

merely describing it.

wit

ontenting

Summarising the above empirical observations, there is a sense .hich it can be said that control structures in Arabic concern

siniations where a DP in the matrix clause participates in the event

denoted by the

that denoted

matrix verb as well as

verb, by proxy

via

by

the embedded

phonologically-null pronominal, (cf. Boeckx

a

2006)). However, unlike PRO in English, which has its

idiosyncratic

distr1butional

pronominal- designated in pretty much the

subject

of null

subject

sentences

as

8- this null

the controllee- exhibits

the phonologically empty

in Arabic. It has therefore been

empty pronominal

instances pro. Where the two

Chapter

see

control literature

characteristics as

same

concluded that this

requirements-

own

of pro

element is

seem

an

instance of little

to differ is in terms of pro

identification in each instance.

9.3.2 The structure

In

8

this section

0bligatory

we

of object control

verbs the syntax of shall investigate

control. For

from W I n g respective data

(20)

John persuaded

constructions

Mary

to

the sake of

English and

rely on

243

illustration,

Arabic:

herself

which

consider

the

(21)

a. Paqnae-a zayd-un fa:Temat-a ?an tu-sallim-a nafs-a-ha:/'nafs-a

hu

persuaded-3MS Zayd-Nom Fatima-Acc thatsubij 3MF-surender

Subj self-Acc-her/ self-Acc-his

Zayd persuaded Fatima to surrender herself/himself. b. naSah-tu l-saji:n-a ?an ya-nshur-a mudhakkira:t-i-hi

advised-1S the-prisoner-Acc thatsubi 3MS-publish-Subj diariesAcc-his I advised the

The first

thing to

prisoner to publish his diaries."

notice about the matrix verbs in

(20) and (21a&b)

is

that they select two internal arguments, namely a DP and a CP. In the

LGB account, the first theta-role associated with the

theta-grid

of

these verbs goes to the object, whereas the second theta-role goes to

the clausal viz.

complement.

An

important question

stage,

what is the syntactic structure of obligatory object control

constructions in (20) and

(2la&b)?

A

priori,

two

themselves, (22) and (23), (cf. Ennassiri (2014a)):

(22)

arises at this

V

V

DP

CP

possibilities present

M.K. EnnaSsiri

(23)

V

CP

V

DP

V

A renresents the standard per Twa

is

English

in

of their

and

arguments

assigned externally.

View

?qnaea are

according

to

in Arabic are

which verbs such

as

three-place predicates.

assigned internally, whereas the third one

An obvious

drawback of (22) is that it violates

the Binary Branching Hypothesis discussed in 2.2 above. Further, the standard view is incompatible with the more recent assumption that all1

the arguments of a predicate- including the subject- are asigned internally. On the other hand, (23) is consistent with the Binary Branching Hypothesis, but it presents problems of a difierent nature. To see what it is at stake, let us consider first the case of persuade in

English. If (23) is

indeed the structure associated with

object control

be in a position to cComplements in English, the object NP would not command PRO Command Pure

in the infinitival CP, assuming

à la Reinhart

(1976). So, if obligatory

a

definition of

controlled PRO is

to Binding anaphor in English and is thus subject

NOster

lams

(1978, (1980),

Condition

a

A,

1986a), Manzini (1983)and (1981, Chomsky 1984), if we further adopt others), and among

many

Distance Cmbaum's (1970) Minimal

the DP under V

c-

would not

count as a

245

Principle repeated

controller

for

PRO.

in

(24),

Minimal Distance

(24)

Principle (MDP)

An infinitival complement of a predicate P selects as its

controller the minimal c-commanding noun in the functional

complex of P.

Worse.

perhaps,

is the

fact

that

under

(24),

the

minimal

c-

commanding noun for PRO would be the subject NP. All things being equal, then, (23) would predict that persuade is a subject control verb, contrary to fact.

With regard to Arabic examples, it has already been claimed that the empty category in the canonical subject position of the clausal

complement is a pure pronominal, i.e. pro. We have also adduced

empirical

data from Arabic to the effect that this null

element

does

not

identification. Could

pronominal

require a c-commanding antecedent for (23), then, represent the structure of obligatory

object control verbs such as ?aqnaea (persuade) or naSaHa (advise) Arabic? Now, if (24) is

a

property

of UG, the

answer

in

will have to be

negative, for although pro does not require a c-commanding antecedent for identificational purposes, the c-command relation is still needed for construal purposes. In other words, if there were no constraints on what must count as a controller for pro in Arabic, any DP in the matrix clause in (21a&b) would

the

embedded pro, contrary to fact.

were

be

qualify

as a

Recall that in section 2.5 above, double object

analysed

to

for

constructions VP-shell hypothesis. This analysis will object control constructions as as well. In

in terms of the

extended below

controller

articular, examples (20) ana as (20) nples such as d (2ia) (21a) above will be the llowing

(partial

have

(25)

underlying form:

argued to

VP

DPsubject

John

v

V

VP

Zayd-un DP

V

Mary

CP

fa:Temat-a persuade PRO to rely.. Paqnae-a Pan tusallim-a pro... The rom

S-structure associated with (20) and (21a) is (26), which results

NP-movement in English and v-movement in Arabic:

(26)

TP

Spec

VP

John

Paqnae-a; DPsubject V

VP

Wohn

Zayd-un DP

V

Mary

V

CP

ifa:Temat-a persuaded

PRO to rely.. Pan tu-sallim-a pro...

The above structure satisfies the

MDP, thus making prediction with regard to the controller of PRO and pro.

However, this analysis control verbs such

as

(27a&b).

structure for these sentences:

comes

To

see

short of

accounting

the

right

for subjeC

why, consider the assumea

a.

He promised his family to send enough money every month th.

7 )

b. wa3ad-a zayd-un zaynab-a ?an ya-HDur-a l-Hafl-a p r o m i s e d - 3 M S

Z-Nom thatsubj 3MS-attend-

the-party-Acc

7avd promised Zaynab to attend the party."

(28)

TP

Spec T

vP

He

waeada;

DPsubject V

tHe

VP

zayd-un

V

DP2

his family V

CP

zaynab-a

promised

PRO to send

Panya-HDur-a pro..

249

In (28), the potential (and in fact, the actual) controllers of PROb.and pro, do

not

minimally c-command

them. In

controller, he,

English, the controller

originates in [Spec, vP]. but moves to the spccifier of TP far Casetheoretic and EPP

reasons.

But

minimally c-command PRO,

as

even

there

prior to movement, he does not is a

closer,

more

local (potentiolh

controller for PRO sitting in [Spec, VP]J. So here, too, MDP would

predict object control akin to (20) above, contrary to fact. The sam

thing may be observed for Arabic, for the actual controller, i.e zavdun, fails to minimally c-command pro. Therefore, object control may be erroneously predicted. To render the MDP

capable of accommodating subject control

constructions, Hornstein (1999:34) advances an analysis in terms of which promise takes an indirect object introduced by the preposition to. However, this preposition "becomes null (perhaps by incorporating into the verb) in the course of the derivation." n verbs do indeed

fact,

with the following examples:

(29)

a.

He

occur

an

overt

c.

With this

thus be

preposition. This is illustrated by

promised to her that he would never leave

b. She vowed to him that she

She vowed to him to

proviso,

(30) below:

the

promise-type

her.

would protect his children.

protect his children.

alternative structure associated with (27a)

wil

M.K. EnnasSSir

(30)

TP

Spec

He

vP

DPsubjectv tHe

VP

promised P

PP

V

DP

V

his hisfamily t

CP

PROto send..

The new thing about (30) is that the blocking DP, i.e. his family, no

Onger c-commands PRO. The first branching node dominating this DP is PP, and, obviously, PP does not dominate PRO. Consequently, C

DP can now make the right prediction with regard to subject

control structures

should be pointed like (27a) in English. Perhaps it

251

out at this stage that the Case feature assigned by the verb promis

the DP his family is mediated by the null P. This is not a

to d

stipulation given that some e-roles have been assumed to be assigned indirectly to arguments. A case in point is (31) below, where the e

assignment of the second internal O-role has been assumed to he

mediated by the preposition on:

(31)

He put [er the book] [e2on the shelf] A number of other

languages

are

amenable to this

analysis.

French, for example, the verb promettre subcategorises for

a

In

PP and

CP complements:

(32)

Il

a

promis [pp à sa femme]

de

ne

plus jamais revenir à une

chose pareille. In

Arabic, too,

takes two

(33)

the verb waeada

complements, a

(promise) has another synonym which

PP and

taeahhad-a zayd-un

CP:

li-zaynab-a ?an ya-HDur-a l-Hafl-a

vowed-3MS Z-Nom to-Zaynab thatsun

party-Acc

3MS-come-Subj the-

"Zayd vowed to Zaynab to come to the

party."

For the sake of

generality,

Arabic

it is

patterns with promise in structure associated with, say in

a

(30), modulo, of course,

plausible to argue that waeada n English. More specifically, the S-

(27b),

is

identical

to

that of

(27a) given

subject movement to [Spec, TPJ:

(34) (

3

4

TP

)

T

VP

wa3ad-a

DP subject

VP

Zaud-un

t'i

PP

P

V'

DP

CP

V

Pan ya-HDur-a proj .

zaynab-a ti

Obviously,

the above discussion supports the

generative

linguistics

that natural

idea in

wide-spread

languages

are the

same

underlyingly. Needless to say, of course, that the analysis presented above is by no means definitive, as "the theory of control involves a mumber

of different factors:

structural

253

configurations,

intrinsic

Principles and Parameters Theory: Towards a Contrastive Syntax ofEnglish and Arabic

properties of verbs, other semantic and pragmatic considerations,"

(Chomsky, 1981, pp. 78-9).

E X E R C I S E S

Exercise 9.1: Explain the contrast in (a-c) below:

(a) It b)

seems

[John likes linguistics] to like

It seems [PRO

linguistics]

(c) John wants [Mary to take a course in Linguistics]

(d)John; wants [PRO, to take a course in linguistics

(6Tahn: pleaded with Mary; [PRO%; to take a course in linguistics

Exercise 9.2: Identify the controller of pro in the embedded clauses in

(a) and (b) below. What does that tell you about the syntax of 3araD-a in Arabic?

(a) 3araD-a zayd-un 3ala: zaynab-a [cr 2an yu-Sa:Hib-a-ha: ?ila:

ba:b-i proposed-3MS Zayd-Nom on Zaynab-Gen thatsubj 3MS-accompanySubj-her to the-gate-Gen Zayd proposed to Zaynab to accompany her to the gate. tu-sa:fir-a ma3a-hu] (6) 3araD-a zayd-un 3ala: zaynab-a [cp ?an proposed-3MS Zayd-Nom

on

Zaynab-Gen thatsubi 3FS-travel-Subj

with-him him." Layd proposed to Zaynab to travel with

5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, F. (1987) *Pronominal incorporation, Approaches to Hungarian, 2: 213-261.

Ackerman, F. and Ph. Lesourd (1997) *The lexical representation of

phrasal predicates, in A. Alsina, J. Bresnan and P. Sells (eds Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 67-106.

Ackerman, F. And G. Webelhuth (1998) A Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Adger,

D. and G.

Theory of Phrasal

Ramchand (2003) Predication and equation.

Linguistic Inquiry, 34: 325-359.

Akmajian, A., R. A. Demers, A. K. Farmer and R. M. Harnish (2001) Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Alexiadou, word

A. and E.

Anagnostopoulou (1998) Parametrizing AGR: order, V-movement and EPP-checking?, Natural

Language and Linguistic Inquiry, 16: 491-539. AI

Sharifi, B. and L. Sadler (2009) 'The adjectival construct in Arabic in Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09

conference, University of Cambridge, pp. 26-43.

Al-Shorafat, M. O. (2013) 'A Phase -Based Account of Wh-Questions in Standard Arabic', and Linguistics Literature Studies 1(4): 179-190.

Aoun, Aoun, Aoun,

J.

(1979) On Government, Case-marking Placement', ms., MIT.

and

Clitic

J. and D.

Sportiche (1983) On the formal theory government', The Linguistic Review, 2: 211-236.

of

J. and Y.

Audrey Li 'Wh-Elements LF?', Linguistic Inquiry,(1993) 24: 199-238.

in Situ:

Syntax

or

B enr Benmamoun

E. and E. and

(1998)

.

Irad. M.

'Minimality,

Reconstruction and ment', Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 569-591. little y' *On little " , MIT (1999)

PF J . Movement',Lins

d O u n ,

Working Papers in Linguistics,

3 3 : 1 - 2 5

Word Formation MA:MIT Press. 'ambridge

o f . M.

0TA (197

in

Generative Grammar

Aronof, M. & J. Rees-Miller (eds.) (2003) The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Authier, J .

M (1992) 'Iterated Cps

.

and

Linguistic lnquiry, 23: 329-336.

Embedded Topicalization',

Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function

Changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Baker, M. (1997) "Thematic roles and syntactic structure', in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elemnents of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73-137.

Baker. M. (2008) The Macroparameter in a Microparametrie World', in Biberauer, Theresa (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, pp. 351-373.

Baker, M. (2015) Case: Its Principles and Its

Parameters.

Cambridge

University Press. 'Passive Arguments Baker, M., K. Johnson and I. Roberts (1989) Raised', Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 219-251.

Baker,

M. and H. Kenneth (1990)

pronoun

Relativized

incorporation', Linguistic Inquiry,

minimality and

12:289-297.

Evidence from

hypothesis: DKIT, M. J. (2011) Against the Split-CP Ouali (eds.), Perspectives H. and E. rdqi Arabic', in Broselow, Benjamin Publishing On a b i c

Linguistics

XXII-XXII, John

Company Baltin, M and Contempoi

C. Collins (eds.) Syntactic Theory.

257

(2003) Blackwell:

Handbook of The Handbook of Oxford.

Principles and Parameters Theory: Towards a Contrastive Syntax of Enalich

lish and Arabic

Barie, M. (2007) Control and WH-infinitivals, in Dau. & in Davies Dubinsky (eds.), pp. 263-279. Linguistic Theory n

14, pp. 269-

304.

Bars, A. and H. Lasnik (1986) *A Note on Anaphora and n and Double Objects', Linguistic Inquiry, 7: 347-354.

Belletti, A. (2004) (ed.) Structures Syntactic Structures, Volume

and

Beyond.

3,. New York:

Press Belletti,

B. and L. Rizzi

Cartogranl. Oxford Univereof

(eds.) (1996) Parameters

Heads. Oxford: Oxford

Benmamoun,

The

University Press.

versity

and

Functional nal

E.

(1992) Functional and Inflectional Morpholoo. Problems of Projection, and Representation diss., University of Southern California, LA. Derivation, PhD Benmamoun, E. (2000) The feature structure of functional categories: a comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bittner,

M. and K. Hale

(1996) 'The Structural Determination of Case Agreement', Linguistic Inquiry, 27: 1-68. Bobaljik, J.D. (1995) Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal and

PhD diss., MIT.

inflection,

Boeckx, C. (2006) Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford: Ox ford University Press. Boeckx, C., N. Hornstein and J. Nunes (2010) Control as Movement. Cambridge: Borer,

Cambridge University Press.

H.

(1984) Parametric Syntar: Case Studies in Semitic ana Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Boakovi, Z. (1996), *Selection and the complements, Natural Languagecategorical status of infintival and Linguistic Theory 269-304.

78) 'A Realistic

Bresnan, J.

Halle. Joan

Hal d Theorr and.

Transformational Grammar', in Morris

Rresnan. and George

Psvchological Reality,

A.

Miller (cds.),

1 59.

Press.

1982) Control and

Bresnan..

(1982)

Inquirn: 13: 343-434.

Burzio.

986) Italian syntax: A

L.

Dordrecht: Reidel.

(1997) Cardinaletti., Haegeman (ed.), The Longman, pp. 33-64.

Subjects

A.

New

Linguistic

Cambridge, MA: MIT

Complementation'. Linguistic

Government-Binding Approach. and clause

structure',

L Comparative Syntax. London: in

Cardinaletti, A. and M. T. Guasti (1993) 'Negation in epistemic small clauses, Probus, 5: 39-61.

Chekili, F. (2004) The position of the Postverbal Subject and Agreement Asymmetries in Arabie', PhiN 27:35-46.

Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures.

The

Hague:

Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1977) On Wh-Movement', in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press.

Chomsky,

N.

(1981)

Lectures

on

and

Government

Binding.

Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Some Concepts and Consequences of the Press. Cambridge MA: MIT and Binding. Government of

Chomsky, N. (1982) Chomsky,

N. (1986a)

Barriers.

MIT Press. Cambridge, MA:

Cnomsky, N. (1986b) Knowledge

of Language:

lis Nature, Orign,

and Use. New York: Praeger. and N. (1988) Language

Problems

of

Knowledge: The

Press. MA: MIT Cambridge, Managua Lectures.

OSky,

Theory

Principles and Parameters Theory: Towards a Contrastive syntax of English ish and and

Arabic

Chomsky, N. (1991) 'Some notes on Economy of Derivation

and Representations', in R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parametore

in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 417.

454 Chomsky, N. (1994) 'Bare phrase structure', MlT occasional papers in

linguistics 5. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MT

Chomsky,

N.

(1995)

The Minimalist

Press.

Chomsky,

Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT

N.

(1998a) 'Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework"', MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15, MITWPL, Cambridge. MA.

Chomsky,

N.

(1998b)

*Some observations

on

grammar, in P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. economyM.in generative Hagstrom, and D. Pesetsky McGinnis, Is the Best Good (eds.), and Competition in Enough? Optimality Syntax. MA: Cambridge, MIT 115-27. Press,

Chomsky,

N.

(1999) Derivation by Phase', A

in M.

(2000) 'Minimalist Michaels and inquiries:

the

Kenneth Hale:

pp. 1-52.

Chomsky,

N.

Martin,

life

in

pp.

Kenstowicz (ed.), MA: MIT Press,

language. Cambridge,

D.

J.

framework',

in R.

(eds.), Step by step: minimalist syntax Uriagereka in honour Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89-155. of Howard Lasnik. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1977) 'Filters and Control', Inquiry, 8: 425-504. essays

Chomsky,

on

Linguistic

N., and H. Lasnik

Theory', in J. Jacobs, A. (1991) Principles and Parameters von (eds.), Syntax: An Stechow, and T. Vennemann International Research. Berlin, Handbook of Walter de 1995. Gruyter (reprinted inContemporary N. Chomsky

M.R. B n n a s s u I

G. (2002) (ed.) Cartography of

Functional Structure in DP Syntactic Structures, Volume and IP. Oxford University Press. 1. New

Cinque,

The

York:

Comrie,

B.

(1981)

Syntax and

Language Universals

morphology. Chicago Press.

Chicago

and

linguistic typology: University of

linois:

Culicover, licover, P. W.

(199) and Parameters. to Svntactic Theory, Principles New York: Oxford

An

Introduction

University Press.

ulicover, P. and R.

Jackendoff (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

navies, W. D. and S.

7he

Grammar of Raising and Syntactic Argumentation. Blackwell. (1986) *"Remarks on the 8-Criterion and Case', Linguistic

Control: Davis, L.

Dubinsky (2004)

A Course in

Inquiry, 17: 564-568.

Davis, L. (1987) Remarks on Government and Proper Government', Linguistic Inquiry, 18: 311-321. De

Vincenzi,

Enç,

M.

M. (1991) Syntactic parsing Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

strategies

in

Italian.

(1991) 'The Semantics of specificity', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 1-25.

Ennaji, M.. (1995) Pronouns vs. clitics', Revue de la Faculté des Letres et des Sciences Humaines, Fes.

Ennassiri, M. K. (2004) 'Differences between acquiring an LI and leaming an L2: Some implications for TEF/SL', Ofshoot V, 2:

3-38.

Cnnassiri, M. K. (2014a) The Syntax of Complement

Clauses in

Arabic. Tetouan: Al-Khalij Al-Arabi.

E M. K. (2014b) Issues nassiri,

Al-Arabi.

in Arabic

Syntax.

Tetouan: Al-Khali

Principles and Parameters Theory: Towards a Contrastive Syntax Of English and Arabie

abic

Fassi Fehri, A. (1993) Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and

Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Fassi Fehri, A. (1999) 'Arabic Modifying Adjectives and DP Structures', Studia Linguistica, 53(2): 105-154.

Freidin, R. (1983) X-bar Theory and the analysis of English

infinitivals', Linguistic Inquiry,

14: 713-722.

Freidin, R. (ed.) (1991) Principles and Parameters in Comparative

Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Freidin, R. (1992) Foundations of Generative Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Fukui, N. (2006) Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in in macroparameters. London/New York: Routledge.

Greenbaum, S. & R. Quirk (1990) A Student's Grammar of the

English Language. Longman. Greenberg, J. H. (1966) Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Haegeman,

L.

Haegeman,

L.

(1982) INFL, COMP and nominative case assignment in Flemish infinitivals', in P. Muysken and H. Riemsdijk (eds.), Feature projections. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 123-136.

(1991) Introduction

Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Haegeman,

L.

Longman.

(ed.) (1997)

to

government and binding theory.

The New

Comparative Syntax.

London:

Hendrick, R. (ed.) (2003) Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwel.

Higginbotham, remarks,

J. (1980a) Anaphora and GB: in J. T. Jensen

9:223-236.

some

preliminary

(ed.), Cahiers Linquistiques d'Otawa,

M K .E n a S S I N 7

(1977)

N Hornstein, N

'S and X

convention', Linguisticc Analysis,

3:137-176.

ornstein,

N.

1995) Logical Form. From GB

to

Blackwell.

Hornstein, NN. .

(1999) 'Movement

and

Minimalism. Oxford:

Control',

30:69-96.

nstein. N.

(2001)

Move! A

Minimalist

Oxford: Blakwell.

Linguistic Inquiry.

Approah

to

Construal,

Uarmstein. N. (2003) *On Control', in R. Hendrix (ed.), Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 6-81. Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot (1991) On the nature of lexical

govemment, in Freidin (ed.), pp.365-391.

Hornstein, N., J. Nunes & K.K. Grohmann (2005) Understanding

Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Homstein, N. and M. Polinsky (2010) (eds.) Movement Theory of

Control. John Benjamins' Publishing Company. Huang, C.-T. J. (1983) 'A note on the binding theory', Linguistic Inquiry, 14: 554-561 Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) On the distribution and reference of empty

pronouns', Linguistic Inquiry, 15:531-574. R. (1997) The Architecture Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackendoff,

of the Language Faculty.

in acobs, A. K. and P.S. Rosenbaum (1970) (eds.) Readings

Transformational Grammar. Waltham:

Ginn.

parameter. acggli, O. and K. Safir (eds.) (1989) The mull subject

Dordrecht: Kluwer. Onas, D. and J. Bobaliik (1996) 'Subject TP, Linguistic Inquiry, 27: 195-236.

positions

and the roles

or

Towards a Principles and Parameters Theory:

Kayne, R. (1981)

'ECP extensions',

Syntax ofEnglish and

Arabic

Linguistic Inquiry, 12:93-133.

R. (1984) Connectedness and Foris Publications.

Kayne,

Contrastive

Binary branching. Dordrecht

Kayne, R. (1994)The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Koopman, H.

(1983)

The Syntax of Verb.

Dordrecht:

Foris

Publications.

Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991) *The Position of Subjects', Lingua, 85: 211-258.

Kremers, J. (2005) Adjectival Constructs in Arabic', Linguistische berichte, 203:33 1-348.

Kurniawan, E. (2013) Sundanese complementation. PhD diss.,

diss.,

University of lowa.

Larson, R. (1988) On Double Object Construction', Linguistic Inquiry, 19: 335-391.

Lasnik, H. (2001) 'A note on the EPP*, Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 356362.

Lasnik,

H.

(2003)

'On the Extended

Modern Grammar, 31:1-23.

Lasnik,

Projection Principle', Studies in

H. and M.

Saito (1984) On the Nature of Proper Government', Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 235-289 (reprinted in

Lasnik 1990).

Lasnik,

H. and S. Saito

Application Lasnik,

H. and J.

(1992) Move Alpha: Conditions

and Output.

Cambridge, Uriagareka (1988) A

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lightfoot, D. (1991) How to Set Press.

on

its

MA: MIT Press.

Course

in GB

Syntax.

Parameters. Cambridge, MA:

MII

M . . ENIM

rdi, G. (1994) Reference and obard. Proper Names: A movement iin Syntax and Logical Form', of NLinguisticTheory Inquiry, 25

L o n g o

609-665.

(1996) A minimalist theory of PRO and control. University of Connecticut, Storrs. PhD diss.,

Martin,

May,

R.

R.

1985) Logical Form.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

(2009) Introducing English Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Mohammad, A. M. (1989) The Sentential Structure of of Arabic, PhD diss., University Southern

Meyer,

C.

California, LA.

Mohammad,

A.

M.

Word Order, in Standard and Agreement, and and Palestinian Arabic. John Philadelphia.

Pronominalization

Benjamins, Newson, M. HEFOP.

(2006)

Ouhalla,

J.

Ouhalla,

J.

(2000).

Basic

English Syntax

with Exercises.

Budapest:

(1988) The Syntax of Head Movement: A Study of Berber, PhD diss., University College, London. (1991) Functional Categories

London: Routledge.

and Parametric Variation.

Ouhalla, J. (1994) Verb Movement and Word Order in Arabic', in

Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot (eds.), Verb Movement.

Cambridge University Press.

Ouhalla, J. (1996) The Construct State in Berber'. Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar, ed. By Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm and Uri Shlonsky, 278-301. The Hague: Holland

Academic Graphics. J. (1999) Transformational Grammar: From Principles Parameters to Minimalism. London: Arnold.

Ouhalla,

nalla, J. and U. Shlonsky (2002) Themes in Arabic yntax. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

and

and Hebrew

Pesetsky, D. (1987) Wh-in-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding'. in Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. B. ter Meulen (Eds.),

The Representation of (Indefiniteness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pesestky, D. (2000) Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego (2004) 'Tense, Case, and the Nature of

Syntactie Categories' in Gueron, J. and J. Lecarme (eds.) The

Svntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pierce,

A.

(1992) Language Acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child language.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Pinker,

S.

(1994)

The

Language

Perennial Modern Classics.

Instinct. New

York,

NY:

Harper

Pollock,

J. Y. (1989) 'Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP', Linguistic 20: 365-424.

Inquiry,

Quirk, R.,

S.

Greenbaum,

Comprehensive

Longman.

G.

Leech, and J. Svartvik (1985) A Grammar of the English Language. London:

Radford, A. (1981) Transformational Symtax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radford,

A.

(1988)

Transformational

Grammar. A First Course.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. adford,

A.

(2004) English Syntax:

Cambridge University Press. adó,

An

Introduction. Cambridge:

J.

(1998) Processing Hungarian: The Role of Topic and Focus in Sentence Processing, PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

emsdijk, H. C. van and theory of grammar.

E. S.

Williams (1986) Introduction

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

to the

'NS

orders in modern Hebrew', in s). Proceedings of the North East

McDonough, J..

(1987) Plunkett, B. (eds.), i r .

vol.

17. pp. 521 5337.

Linguistic

Socien,

.1991) Rothsto

functional

categories in noun phrases', in S. (ed.). Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and wo

Licensing. Academic Press, California, pp. 7-62.

Rnen. M.L.

980) On

(1980)

ft-Dislocation

Linguistic Inquiry 11. 2:

Spani.

and

363-393.

Topicalization

in

(1990) Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Rizzi. L. (1990)

Press.

(1997) The fine structure of the left periphery',in Rizzi. L L. (1997) Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281-337.

Rzi. L. (2004) (ed.) The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

and the

Syntacticisation

of Scope-Discourse Semantics', in Reboul, A. (ed.) (2014) Mind,

Rizi, L. (2014)

'Syntactic Cartography

Values, and Metaphysics, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 517-533.

Edward Arnold. Roberts, I. (1986) Comparative Syntax. London:

Rosenbaum, P. (1967) The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. deletion in English Kosenbaum, P. (1970) 'A principle governing K. and P. S. A. sentential complementation', in Jacobs, Grammar, pp. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in Transformational

20-29 OSS,J.

R. (1967)

on

Constraints

variables

in syntax.

Doctoral

dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Sa ( 1 9 8 5 ) Syntactic

Chains.

Cambridge University Press.

267

Cambridge

and

New York:

C

Principles and

Parameters

Shlonsky, U. (1997) Arabic:

Theory:

Clause

o

n

t

r

a

s

i

u

v

Towards a

Structure

Order in Hebrew and Word Semitic

in An Essay

Comparative

Syntax. Oxford

New York. University Press, constructs

and

and

inalienable

constructions

*Adjectival Themes in Arabic Siloni, T. (2002) U. Shlonsky (eds.), and Ouhalla,J. in Holland: Kluwer. Dordrecht, Hebrew Syntar.

and

An Introduction to Word Theory: Morphological Spencer, A. (1991) Blackwell. Granmar. Oxford: Basil Structure

in Generative

in English and the Trochaic 'Topicalisation (2005) Speyer, in Linguistics, 10.2: Requirement"', U. PennWorking Papers A.

243-256.

(1984) INFL and the Configurationality of VSO Annual meeting of the Languages', Proceedings of the 14"

Sproat,

R.

North

East Linguistics Society,

pp. 418-431.

Stowell, T. (1982) "The tense of infinitives', Linguistic Inquiry, 13:561-569. Stowell, T. (1983) 'Subjects across categories', The Linguistic Review, 2:285-312.

Tremblay, A. (2006) Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgement tasks in linguistic theory,

Second Language Studies 24 (1) 129-167. Tsimpli, I.M. and J. Ouhalla (1990) 'Functional categories, UG and

Modularity'. Ms., University College and Queen Mary & Westfield College, London. Van

Valin,

R.

(2001)

An

Introduction

Cambridge University Press. Wahba, W. A. -B. (1991) LF Movement

to

Syntax. Cambridge:

in Iraqi Arabic', in C.-T.J. Huang and R. May (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 253-276.

A

Goy (ed.) Government and G.(995a)

lhath.

Program.

ford: Blackwell.

Binding Theory and the

finimalis

K-bar theory and Case theory', in G. lhuth. i Webelhuth (ed.) Government and Binding Theory and the (19956)

G.

Minimalis. Program.

Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 15-95.

d M.R. Manzini (1987) 'Parameters and Learnability in Binding', in Roeper, T. and E. Williams (eds.) Parameter

Hener.K. and

Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Hoolford E. (1991)

VP-Internal

Subjects

in

VSO

and

Nonconfigurational Languages, Linguistic Inquiry, 22: 503540. Woolford, E. (2006) Lexical case, Inherent case, and Argument Structure', Linguistic lnquiry 37: 111-130.