Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AgrSP
Spec AgrS’
John
AgrS TP
Spec T’
T AgrOP
Spec
VP
Spec V'
V DP
10
Complementizer Phrase CP
Specifier C’
C complement
CP
Spec C’
who
C IP
Spec I’
t
I
met VP
Spec
t
V’
V
t NP
John
11
What did John write?
CP
Spec C’
what
C
did IP
Spec I’
John
I VP
write
Spec V’
t
V
NP
t
12
NP
Specifier N’
N Complement
It is noteworthy that some linguists, notably Brane (1982), Hadson
(1984), Reuland (1986), Abney (1987), Radford (1988), Fassi fehri
(1988), Ouhalla (1991), among others, argue that what have traditionally
been regarded as NPs are in fact projections of DPs and hence are
modifiers of the determiner phrases (henceforth DPs). Therefore a phrase
like the city is called DP and is represented structurally as in (7)
DP
D'
D NP the
N’
N city
Naturally, the NP is assigned case and theta role (semantic role) if it
stands as an argument. To see how this argument is assigned Case theta-
role let us consider Case and theta theory:
13
Chapter three
Theta theory
Theta theory (or the theory of thematic relations) has been around in the
literature of generative grammar since the 1960s (indeed it has
antecedents in the work of ancient grammarians). It is concerned with the
assignment of thematic roles (theta – roles) to arguments.
An argument is an NP which appears as a specifiers or a complement and
discharges some sort of referential function in a domain. Accordingly,
some NPs are arguments and some are not. Taking referential function as
criterial, arguments include nominal expressions, pronouns, lexical
anaphors, and empty categories resulting from movement, whereas non-
arguments include the expletives (it, there). From the perspective of
grammatical function, specifiers and complements are arguments but
adjuncts are not.
Chomsky (1981) maintains that if we take the referential perspective, it is
also necessary to distinguish between true arguments and quasi-
arguments, the latter being illustrated for English by the expletive it
occurring in ‘weather constructions.’ Justifying this distinction is the
observation that such tokens of it can control an empty PRO in a
subordinate clause and this syntactic relation appears to require some
notion of referential dependency, no matter how vague. We thus have a
situation where the pronoun can be one of three types as shown in (6):
6) a It is there (true argument)
b It is raining (quasi argument)
c It seems that the bus is approaching ( non-argument)
14
turning now to theta-roles themselves, they refer to the semantic relations
which arguments bear to predicates. A typical list of theta-roles, from
Amer (1996), appears in (7) below:
7)
a. Agent (or actor): John bought a book
b. patient: John wrote a letter.
c. Experiencer: John was shocked
d. Possessor: John gave Mary a book.
e. Theme : John gave Mary a book
f. Instrument: he shot the lion with a rifle
g. Locative: John parked the car in the garage.
h. Goal: John gave a book to Mary.
i. Source: John bought the gift from the shop.
In declarative clauses, the agent argument is usually an
external argument while the patient argument is internal.
Therefore, in a sentence like (8) the girl bears the theta-role
agent associated with the verbal predicate ate and the cat
bears theta-role theme.
8) The girl likes the cat
Agent patient
Of course, in passives, which will play an important part in later
discussion, the theme appears as external argument and the Agent, if
expressed at all, is demoted to the complement of a preposition.
Related to, but not identical to the above distinction between arguments
and non-arguments, is a contrast between theta and non-theta (theta-bar)
positions. A theta position is a syntactic position in which an argument
15
receives a theta role. It refers, at the level of D-structure, to an NP
position that is assigned a theta-role; for instance, a complement position
is always a theta-position, whereas a subject position may be a theta
position or a non theta position. This is illustrated below, where in (9a),
John is assigned the agent theta-role, whereas in (9b) there is not
assigned a theta-role at all.
9)
John bought a car
There is a man outside.
Note, however, that since subjects can contain arguments, the subject
position is an argument position. Thus, in (9b), there occupies an
argument position and a theta-bar position.
Further examples illustrating the difference between theta and theta-bar
positions appear in (10):
10) a Andrew kisses the baby
theta -position theta-position
Two. It seems that Andrew is happy
theta-bar position theta-position
In (10a), both the subject and object of kiss are theta-position, in (10b),
the subject of seems is in a theta-bar position, but the subject of the
predicate is happy is in a theta-position.
The theta-criterion is the basic principle of theta-theory. It ensures that an
argument is assigned a theta-role by virtue of the theta-position it
occupies at D-structure. This means that when Move- α applies, the
16
moved NP leaves a trace from which it inherits its theta-role. Technically,
the NP and its trace constitute a chain which has a unique theta-role. The
theta-criterion requires that every chain receive one and only one theta-
role and a consequence of this is that movement of this type can only be
to a theta-bar position. Otherwise, the movement chain would receive two
distinct theta-roles and the theta-criterion would be violated. For detailed
discussion, see Chomsky (1981, 1986a), Aoun (1981).
Case theory
Case theory is largely responsible for determining the distribution of NPs.
It requires that all lexical NPs (NPs that are phonetically realized) must
be marked for ‘abstract’ Case or they will fall victim of the Case Filter
(Chomsky and Lasnik, 1991).
11) * NP if it has a phonetic matrix but no Case.
Unlike theta-theory, case theory is standardly seen as operating
at S-structure and (11) requires that every lexical NP must be
assigned Case at this level of representation. On one construal,
the Case requirement follows from the theta-criterion “since
lexical NP must bear Case in order to be assigned a theta-role”
Stowell (1981: 112).
On this construal, Case assignment makes an NP visible for
theta-role assignment.
An uncontroversial remark is that languages differ in the number of overt
cases they involve. For instance , Latin has six overt cases, appearing on
nouns and adjectives, German has four cases appearing on determiners
and Arabic has three cases.
As far as English is concerned, it has three morphologically marked
cases: nominative, accusative and genitive. These cases are overt in the
17
personal pronoun paradigms and a typical summary of how Case
assignment functions is offered by Sells (1987:53):
- If inflection contains TNS, Nominative Case is assigned to the [NPS]
position
- A verb assigns accusative Case to [NP, VP]
- A preposition assigns Accusative or Oblique case to [NP, PP]
-Nouns and adjectives do not assign case
- Case is assigned under government with the exception of genitive
- Genitive case is assigned in the structure of [NP-X]
It is of importance that the subject of a finite clause is assigned
nominative case under government by INFL in VSO language
such as Modern Standard Arabic, and in a configuration of
spec-head agreement in SVO language like English.
Consider a finite clause in English such as (12):
12) he will play strongly
such a sentence has the following structure:
13) IP
NP I’
He
I VP
Will
Nominative Case
Play strongly
18
The NP subject he, is assigned Nominative Case because it is in spec-
head configuration with a finite INFL.
An example illustrating Nominative Case assigned under government is
drawn from the MSA VSO word order in (14a).
14) a katab-a zayd-un d-dars-a
wrote Zayd-nom the lesson –acc
‘Zayed wrote the lesson’
(14a) can be represented as in (14b)14b. I’
I VP
Katab-a
NP V’
Zayd-un
Nominative Case V NP
D-Dars
The subject Zayd in (14b) is assigned structural Nominative Case by the
inflected verb under government (cf. Chapter 2 for detailed discussion).
Regarding Accusative Case, we note that an NP is assigned this Case if
governed by a transitive verb; thus, the standard configuration under
which Accusative Case assignment takes place is as follows:
(15)
19
V’
V NP
Accusative Case
Putting the two models of Case assignment in (13) and (15) together,
Cases in (16a) are assigned as in (16b).
16) a John cashed the dog IP
NP1 I’
John
I VP
past
Nominative Case V NP2
Chased the dog
Accusative case
Turning now to prepositions, a prepositional complement NP is marked
Oblique Case (or Accusative). For example, consider the NP in (17a)
17) a I saw him in the pharmacy
the prepositional phrase in the pharmacy has the structure in (17b):
20
17) b
PP
P NP
In
The pharmacy
Oblique
Or accusative case
In English, as in many other natural languages, it has been suggested that
Case can only be assigned under strict adjacency this could explain the
ill-formedness of the following example:
18) * John read carefully the book.
It is of some interest that even if adjacency is important in English, this
claim does not appear to generalize to Arabic. For example, consider
(19):
Zayd-un qara?-a l-yawm-a kitaab-anZayd-nom read the – day-acc book-acc‘Zayd read a book today’
Switching attention to the direction of Case assignment, the examples
cited above clearly show that in English Accusative and Oblique Cases
are assigned to the right, while Nominative Case is assigned to the left.
Of course, not all grammatical categories are Case assigners. In English,
nouns, adjectives, the infinitive marker to and the passive participle
appear not to have Case to assign, as is illustrated in (20):
20.
21
a* the demolition the houseb* John is proud Maryc* John to be happy] please Mary sdd* It was demolished the house
the ill-formedness of the examples in (20) is due to violations of the Case
Filter; the house in (20a) is not assigned Case since it is preceded by the
N demolition, which is not a Case assignor. Similarly, Mary in (20b),
which is preceded by the adjective proud, John in (20c), which is
followed by the infinitive maker to and the house in (20d)_ which is
preceded by the passive participle, all fail to satisfy the Case Filter.
In contrast to the fairly traditional Case Theory I have just described, it is
noteworthy that Chomsky (1986a) adds N and A to the list of Case
assignors, and distinguishes two types of Case: structural case, and
inherent case. The former is assigned by virtue of a structural relation at
S-structure, while the latter is assigned by virtue of a thematic relation at
D-structure. We shall have more to say about this contrast in connection
with the treatment of DOCs.
Government
Setting aside the spec-head relation between a nominative subject and a
finite INFL in a SVO language, the previous section has assumed that
Case assignment can take place only when the Case assignor and the NP
to which it assigns Case bear a structural relation, one to another, known
as government. This relation has many definitions but one which will
serve to introduce the topic is:
21) α governs B if
a α c-commands B – andb every maximal projection dominating α dominates B.
22
this definition employs the structural relation c-command and this itself
can be defined in a number of ways. For our purposes here, the original
definition from Reinhart (1979) in (22) will suffice:
(22) α c-commands B – if the first branching node dominating α - also nominates B, and (a) α does not dominate B, (b) B does not dominate α
A more liberal notion of command, also extensively employed in
linguistic theory, is m-command. This can be defined as in (23):
23) α m-commands B – iffa. α does not dominate BB does not dominate αthe minimal maximal projection dominating α also dominates B
(21) above requires that a governor c-commands the category that it
governs and that intervening maximal projections such as CP and NP are
barriers to government. Consider then the structure in (24):
Y max
Y B max
B α max
α S
23
In this structure, α governs B, but B doesn’t govern α, nor does Y
govern into B. The reason, quite simply, is that introducing maximal
projections (α max. B max respectively) serves to block these candidates
for government.
Starting from the definition in (21), there are several particular types of
government, which at one time or another have been seen as having an
important theoretical role to play.
Head government
This notion is defined by Rizzi(199theta:6) as follows:
25. X head governs Y iffa. X= (A, N, P, V, AGR, T, etc.)b. X m-commands Yc. No barrier intervenesd. Relativized minimality is respected.
As ((25a) makes clear, only a zero level category can be a head governor,
and the remaining clauses of the definition are concerned with
establishing appropriate locality constraints on this type of government.
Antecedent government
Once more, we can turn to Rizzi (199theta:6) for a definition of this
notion
26) X antecedent governs Y iffa. X and Y are coindexedb. X c-commands Yc. No barrier intervenesd. Relativized minimality is respected.
As co-indexation is induced by movement, this structural relation plays
a fundamental role in structures involving movement. As X and Y in
(26a) are free to range over all categories, antecedent government is an
issue for all species of movement, including the major types of A-
24
movement, as in passive and raising structures, and A’-movement as in
Wh-movement, and head movement. Again (26b-d) constitute Rizzi’s
attempt to identify the appropriate locality constraints on this type of
government.
Proper government
Proper government has to do with the licensing of empty categories
resulting from movement, and it is often employed in a statement of the
empty category principle (ECP). A simple statement of ECP is:
27) A non-pronominal empty category must be properly governed.
In this context, proper government can be defined disjunctively in the
following terms:
28) α properly governs B, iffa. α head governs B, orb. α antecedent governs B.
The theoretical role of the ECP has been in explaining the differences in
extraction possibilities for objects on the one hand, and subjects and
adjuncts on the other. Consider the English examples in (29):
29) a who does John this that Bill saw b* who does John this that it saw Bill
In (29a), the trace is head governed by the verb and immediately satisfies
the ECP via condition (28a). in general, long distance movement is
legitimate from object position, as in (29a). in (29b), on the other hand,
the trace is not head governed and the structure requires antecedent
government are not satisfied and the structure is ill-formed. In general,
long distance movement from subject position is not legitimate.
Arabic is identical to English in this specific respect. Examples similar to
those in (29) are illustrated in (30):
25
30) a man ?9taqad-a zayd-un ?anna hid-an ra?a-t who thought zayd-nom that hind-acc saw who did zayd think that hind saw’
b* man ?9taqad-a zayd-un ?anna ra?a-t belaal-an who thought zayd-nom that saw belaal-acc.
Many complications follow from these initial observations and for a
comprehensive discussion within the theoretical framework assumed
here, the reader is referred to Rizzi (199theta).
Of course, there are other important notions appearing in the definitions
of this section, most obviously those of barrier (Chomsky, 1986b) and
relativized minimality (Rizzi, 199theta). Both of these contribute to the
idea that there are constraints on grammatical relations such that they
cannot obtain across an element of a particular type. The elegant idea of
Rizzi, which largely supersedes Chomsky’s framework, is that an
intervening head will block head government, an intervening A-position
will block antecedent government arising in the context of A-movement
and an intervening A’-position will block antecedent government arising
in the context of A’-movement. Again, many complex issues arise when
these matters are seriously pursued, but what we have here is sufficient
for this general introduction.
Binding theory
Binding theory is principally concerned with the way pronominal
elements and other types of nominal expressions relate to each other. It
deals with the distribution of over anaphors like the reflexive himself or
the reciprocal each other, overt pronouns like me, her, him, and over
referring expressions (R-expressions) like Mary, the boy, etc.
26
Binding theory contains three principles, each one dealing with one of
these types of expression:
a. An anaphor must be bound in a local domainb. A pronominal must be free in a local domain.c. An R-expression must be free everywhere.
As a structural notion, binding is defined in terms of c-command co-
indexation as follows (Chomsky 1986a: 164)
α binds B iff α c-commands B and is coindexed with B
if a nominal expression is not bound it is said to be free.
A major topic in Binding Theory has been that of how to define ‘local
domain’ and I will follow the standard assumption of classical GB that
the local domain for anaphors is the same as that for pronominals. (for an
alternative view, see Huang, 1982). A popular definition of this domain is
as an items governing category which is defined as follows:
31) B is the governing category for α iff B is the minimal category containing α , a governor of α , and a subject accessible to α .
Conditions A, B and C with ‘local domain’ understood in this way are
responsible for the grammatical patterns in (32):
32)
a. Mary entertained herself by reading an exciting story.b. Mary praised mec. She praised Johnd. Sally said that Mary is proud of herself.e. Mary said that Sally knows herf. He claimed that he knows John.
In (32a) herself is an anaphor. According to Principle A, it must be bound
by an antecedent in its governing category; the NP Mary is such an
antecedent. In (32b), the pronominal me must be free in it governing
category, i.e. it must not be bound by Mary; thus the sentence is only
27
grammatical on a contraindexing of Mary and me. In (32c) coindexing of
she and the R-expression John is excluded by principle C, which requires
that the R-expression must be free everywhere. In (32d) Mary must bind
the anaphor herself, since it is the only potential binder within the
appropriate governing category. Thus Sally cannot bind the anaphor
herself because it is outside this governing category. In (32e), on the other
hand, the pronominal her must be free in its governing category and this
requires that it is contraindexed with Sally. It can, however, be bound by
Mary or it may acquire its reference from some discourse antecedent.
Finally, in (32f), the R-expression John must not be bound by either of
the potential pronominal antecedents, since it must be free everywhere
according to principle C.
Turning to MSA, we see the general principles of binding illustrated in
(33), which parallels (32):
33a zayd-un salla nafsa-hu zayd-nom entertained himself zayd entertained himself
b hin-un salla-t-haa hind-nom entertained her ‘hind entertained her’
c hiya salla-t zayd-an she entertained zayd-acc ‘she entertained zayd’
d hind-un qaala-t ?nna fatima-ta faxuura-tun bi-nafs-I-haa hind-nom said that Fatima-acc know her ‘hind said that fatima knows her’
f huwa qaal-a ?anna-hu ya9rif-u zayd-an he-nom said that-he know zayd –acc ‘he said that he knows zayd’
28
Binding theory is extended to deal with aspects of the distribution of
various empty categories. Thus, the trace of A-movement is regarded as a
non-overt anaphor which must be bound locally; this provides one route
to constrain A-movement to a local operation. More importantly for our
subsequent purposes, the trace of A’-movement is viewed as a non-overt
R-expression, a variable, and as such principle C requires it to be free of
binding from an A-position. A well –known consequence of this is the
Strong Crossover phenomenon, as in the following examples:
34) a* who does he trust ti
b* who does he think Mary trusts ti
in these examples, ti is bound by he locally in (34a) and non-locally in
(34b) and the examples are ill-formed, i.e. (34a) cannot be interpreted as
(35a) and (34b) cannot be interpreted as (35b).
a. who is the X such that X trusts X
b. who is the X such that X thinks Mary trusts X
if tj is an R-expression in these structures, the correct facts follow.
Movement theory
The transformational component of earlier versions of transformational
grammar is connected with the principle of Move alpha in the version of
the theory we are adopting here. However, it remains necessary to
distinguish various types of Move alpha.
XP-movement
Movement of a maximal projection can only be from its base-position to
another XP position. For instance a Wh-NP can move from its base
generated position to [spec,CP] leaving a trace (an example of A’-
movement), and any NP can move from its base generated position to
another NP position under certain circumstances (A-movement). The
29
latter type of XP-movement is typically motivated by Case Theory and is
subject to such constraints as may be imposed by the ECP and the Theta
Criterion. We have already seen illustration of the former and the latter
will prevent what, in earlier frameworks were raising-to-object analyses
of, for example, order-constructions.
X-movement
Another major type of movement is often referred to as head movement.
It is stadnardly invoked in the form of verb movement with the verb
moving from its base position to the INFL position in VSO languages
like MSA as will be discussed in Chapter 2. The moved category adjoins
to the host category so that the combination of both elements forms a new
complex zero-level category (Alharbi, 199theta). Traditionally, which
blocks movement of a head over an intervening head position. Travis
(1984: 13) formulates the HMC as (36):
35) An X may only move to Y which properly governs it.
In recent GB works, it has been argued that the HMC should be
subsumed by the ECP (cf. Chomsky 1986b:71; Ouhalla 1988:341-7;
Baker 1988a:54) or under Relativized Minimality (Rizzi199theta) .
Bounding theory
Bounding theory provides a further alternative for specifying the locality
conditions on movement. Its central condition is Subjacency, which relies
on the notion of bounding node. In Chomsky (1973) Subjacency is
formulated as (37):
36) Subjacency Condition:
No constituent can be moved out of more than one bounding
node.
30
Bounding nodes have typically been described as NP and IP in English
and the working of (37) can be exhibited in (38)
38. [who [did [Mary have [the assumption [t that [John saw t]]]]]] CP IP NP CP IP *
It is assumed that the wh-phrase first moves to the intermediate [spec,
CP] position as shown in (38). However, its subsequent move to the
matrix [spec, CP] crossing NP and IP violates Subjacency. Of course,
there are cases of long distance movement in which a wh-item may make
a series of moves, each of which obeys the Subjacency Condition as in
(39)
[who [do [you [assume [t that [John saw t]]]]] CP IP CP IP
Throughout the 198thetas, the importance of Subjacency has been
reduced with the increasing focus on ECP, Minimality and Barriers.
However, its role in developing theory has been such that it remains part
of the technical apparatus necessary to understand the literature.
The final module which I wish to mention in this brief introduction is
Control theory.
Control Theory
Control Theory concerned with the empty category designated PRO.
From the point of view of Binding Theory, this can be seen as both
pronominal and anaphoric and it occurs in the subject position of
infinitivals and gerunds as in (40):
40)
One. the thief tried [PRO to escape] but the landlord captured him
Two. [PRO studying Italian] is difficult for me.
31
It is important to distinguish PRO from the pure pronominal pro which
appears as subject of finite clauses in pro-drop languages such as Arabic,
Italian, Spanish, Rumanian, Hebrew, and other (Borer, 1981). It has been
argued that the subject of what would be a non-finite clause in English is
always pro in Arabic and Souali (1992: 200) gives (41) as an example of
the sort of representation he favours.
41) he:wala zaydun [pro sira:?a ha:tihi l-kutub-I]tried-3.s. m Zayd-nom buying-acc these the books-gen‘Zayd tried to buy these books’
For detailed discussion of generalized Control Theory, extended to cases
of pro, see Li (1990), Huang (1989) and others.
With our theoretical assumptions in place, we shall now turn to a
preliminary description of MSA and PA.
32
Chapter four
Word Order in MSA
Traditionally, MSA is viewed as having two major sentence types,
nominal and verbal. The former starts with a noun, while the latter can
start with a verb. In what follows, we shall be concerned exclusively with
verbal sentences. At the outset, we should note that English has only one
major word order (SVO) whereas MSA, as observed by Homeidi (1986),
Mohammad (1989), Fassi Fehri (1993), and many others, allows a
number of word orders. To illustrate, consider the following simple
sentences:
1a katab-a l-walad-u d-dars-aWrote-3MS the boy-nom the lesson-acc‘The boy wrote the lesson’.
b* katab-uu l-awalaad-u d-dars-aWrote-3MP the boys-nom the lesson-acc‘The boys wrote the lesson’
c. katab-a l-awlaad-u d-dars-aWrote the-boys the lesson‘The boys wrote the lesson’
2a katab-a-t l-benet-u d-dars-aWrote-3FS the girl-nom the lesson-acc‘The girl wrote the lesson’
b* katab-n-a l-banaat-u d-dars-aWrote – 3FP the girls-nom the lesson-acc
c katab-a-t l-banaat-u d-dars-aWrote – 3FS the girls-nom the lesson-acc‘The girls wrote the lesson’
33
the examples in (1a) and (2a) exhibit VSO word order, and also display
‘weak agreement, which is based on gender only (cf.. Fassi Fehri, 1988a;
Mohammed, 1989, and others). Therefore (1b) and (2b) which exhibit
gender and number are not licit, and the singular verb forms in (1c) and
(2c) are required even with plural subjects. The paradigms in (1) and (2)
should be compared with those in (3) and (4):
3) a al-walad-u katab-a d-dars-aThe boy-nom Wrote-3MS the lesson-acc‘The boy wrote the lesson’.
b al-awlaad-u katab-uu d-dars-aThe boys-nom Wrote-3MP the lesson-acc‘The boys wrote the lesson’
c* al-awlaad-u katab-a d-dars-athe boys-nom Wrote-3MS the lesson-acc‘The boys wrote the lesson’
4a l-benet-u katab-a-t d-dars-aThe girls-nom Wrote-3FS the lesson-acc‘The girl wrote the lesson’
b l-banaat-u katab-n-a d-dars-aThe girls-nom Wrote – 3FP the lesson-acc‘The girls wrote the lesson’
c* l-banaat-u katab-a-t a-dars-aThe girls- nom Wrote – 3FS the lesson-acc‘The girls wrote the lesson’
These examples exhibit SVO word order with the verb displaying ‘rich’
agreement which involves person, number and gender. This SVO word
order has been seen by some as an instance of topicalisation in MSA.
Indeed, the Arabic traditional grammarians of Basra interpreted the
subject in SVO order as a topic (Sibawayhi, 8th century reported in Fassi
Fehri, 1993). On this construal, the verbal suffix is constructed as a clitic
34
3
and this view has been adopted by Bakir (1980), Fassi Fehri (1981),
Ayoub(1982), Murasugi (1992) and others. Linguists such as these view
subject in (3) and (4) as base generated in the sentence initial position
[ spec, CP]. However, this view can be questioned, by considering the
example in (5):
(5) ?z-zwaar-u HaDar-iiVisitors-nom arrived-3. M.pl.‘The visitors, they arrived. The visitors arrived’
As the translation suggest, this sentence is in fact structurally ambiguous,
and Fassi Fehri (1993) referring to similar data suggests that it can have a
topic reading or a subject reading. If this judgement is correct, then the
outline structures corresponding to the two readings might plausibly be
(6a) and (6b) respectively:
6a. CP (b)
C
In (6a), the subject occupies a position external to IP[spec, CP], and the
verbal suffix is construed as a clitic suffix, whereas in (6b) the subject is
located in [spec, IP] and the verbal suffix is construed as an agreement
suffix. Linguists adopting this view state that the subject in (6b) is moved
from its base generated position to the sentence initial position [spec, IP].
35
NP C
IP
NP?z-zewaar
HaDar-uu
IP
P
HaDar-uu
In what follows we adopt the view that the subject is located in [spec, IP]
in SVO order. We assume, along the lines proposed by McCawley
(1970), Kitagawa (1986), Speas (1986), Kuroda (1988), Koopman and
Sportiche (1991), and Fassi Fehri (1993), that the thematic subject is base
generated in VP internal position in both word orders. And that the VSO
order is derived by verb movement to I. The SVO order involves a further
raising of the subject to [spec, IP].
Under this analysis, the two sentences in 7. whould have the
representations in (8a) and (8b) respectively:
7)a katab-alawlad-u d-dars-awrote the boys-no, the lesson-acc‘ the boys wrote the lesoon’
b alawlad-u katab-u d-dars-athe boys-nom wrote the lesson-acc‘the boys wrote the lesson’
8)a IP
Spec I’
I VP
NP V’
V NP
t
36
b IP
Spec I’
I VP
NP V’
t
V NP
t
In addition to VSO and SVO orders, MSA also contains what we shall
refer to as Oacc-initial and Onom-initial word orders. These are
illustrated in (9) and (10) respectively:
9a.ad-dars-a, katab-a Zayd-un the lesson-acc wrote Zayd-nom the lesson, Zayd wrote’
b ad-dars-a, Zayd-un katab-a the lesson-acc Zayd-nom wrote the lesson, Zayd wrote
10aad-dars-u, katab-hu Zayd-un the lesson-nom wrote it Zayd-nom the lesson, Zayd wrote it’
b ad-dars-u, Zayd-un katab-hu the lesson-nom Zayd-nom wrote-it the lesson, Zayd wrote it’
37
5
It should be noted that in (10a,b), the object clitic is obligatory.
If a language displays a number of superficial word orders, it is natural to
ask which, if any, of these is basic and which are derived. There are at
least two proposals within the transformational framework, which have
argued that the underlying word order of MSA is SVO (Lewkowicz,
1971; Awawad, 1973). A majority of scholars, however, have maintained
that the underlying word order is VSO (see Bakir, 1980; Foster and
Hofling, 1987; Fassi Fehri, 1993 and many others).
In what follows, I will suppose that the VSO word order must be
considered as the canonical word order of MSA, since it is the order,
which is pragmatically found in neutral contexts. Here I offer a couple of
observations relevant to this claim.
First, this word order occurs in both root and embedded sentences.
Consider the following examples:
11)a katab-a zayd-un d-dars-awrote Zayd-nom the lesson-acc‘zayd wrote the lesson’
b ?uriid-u ?an yuqaabil-a Zayd-un Hind-anwant-I that meet Zayd-nom Hind-acc‘Iwant Zaydto meet Hind’
c* ?uriid-an Zayd-un yuqaabil-a hind-anWant-I that Zayd-nom meet Hind-acc
The observations in (11) provide prima facie evidence for VSO order
being the basic word order in MSA.
Secondly, consider object extraction as in (12) below. We find only the
order VS following the extracted object and we do not find SV. This is
further prima facie evidence for the V-initial word order being basic.
38
12a.maaDa katab-a Zayd-un What write Zayd-nom ‘What did Zayd-nom writeb maaDoa Zayd-un katab-a What Zayd-nom write
This asymmetry between VS and SV orders extends to embedded
questions as well. By way of illustration, consider the examples in (13):
13a. hal ta9lam maaoa katab-a Zayd-un?Q know-you what wrote Zayd-nom‘Do you know what Zayd-nom wrote
Again, after wh-embedded objects, in these examples we find only VS
and not SV order.
39
Chapter five Contrasts in the lexical system of English and MSA
possessive DPs / TPs
The main cases I am going to discuss here are represented in
examples (1) and (2), taken from ENG and MSA respectively:
(1) a . Here is [ Talal’s car ] b . [The enemy’s attack ] on the peaceful village was condemned by the government
(2) a . sami ’-tu ?ila [Hadiith Talaal ] albaariHa listened-I to speech talaal yesterday ‘I listened to Talal’s speech yesterday’
b . zaara-t [Qasra al-malik] fi al-madiina visited-she place the-king in the-city ‘she visited the king’s placein the city’
Two contrasts become evident from juxtaposing the above structures in
ENG and MSA. The first of these contrasts reflects a contrast in word-
order restrictions. From the above examples, we see that possessors
occupy a prenominal position in ENG, whereas they occupy postnominal
position in MSA. In other words, whereas ENG is a SN (subject + noun)
word- order language, MSA is a NS word-order language.
Two different mechanisms are at play in deriving the surface subjects
word-orders in (1) and (2) above. The two word-orders are derived via
the application of two types of movement. More particularly, the ENG
word-order in (1) is derived by the application of a SSM , whereas the
Arabic order in (2) is derived by apply a HHM.
___________________________________________________________SSM spec. to spec. movements HHM head to head movements
40
Under X-bar theory, possessors (in both ENG and MSA) are generated in
the same structural position underlyingly viz., the [spec. NP] position,
mainly for theta-marking purposes.
So, we can represent the underlying structure of the ENG example in (1b)
as in (3), and represent the structure of the MSA example in (2a) as in (4):
(3) DP
D’
D NP
DP N’
S’ N
Enemy
41
attack
(4) TP
T’
T NP
TP N’
AGR N
Talaal Hadiith
However, the possessive phrase enemy in (3) is later moved to the [spec.
DP] position in order to be case-marked by D to its left. This movement
can be explained in terms of the DCAP. According to one of the values of
this parameter, case in ENG is assigned rightward by lexical categories
and leftward by functional categories. This in turn means that the only
available position in which the possessive phrase enemy can receive case
from D is the [spec. DP] position. Consequently, this possessive DP is
raised to the [spec., DP] position, and as a result, we get a Specifier-to-
Specifier movement in ENG. This movement is from the [spec., NP ]
position into the [Spec., DP] position. As a result of this SSM, we have
the subject+noun word-order in (1). We can represent this movement in
schematic form in the following diagram:
42
5. DP
DP D’
D NP
enemy
DP N’
S’ N
attack
In MSA, on the other hand, no SSM is necessary. The directionality of case
assignments (DCAP) which specifies that in MSA, case is assigned
rightward uniformly by both lexical and functional categories
presupposes that possessive TP Talaal in
(4) can receive its case from T in the [Spec., NP] position. However, the
NS word- order is derived by HHM when the head N Haddith moves to T
in order to provide morphological support for T. this HHM can be
illustrated as follows:
43
CASE
(6) TP
T’
T NP
TP N’
AGR N
CASE t
Hadiith Talaal
HHM
The second contrast between ENG and MSA relating to their possessive
phrases can also be accounted for in terms of one of the parameters of
Case Theory Viz., the RCAP. More precisely, we assume that whereas in
ENG the range of case-assigners include such determiners as the ‘s
genitive case-assigner which assigns case to possessive DPs (see diagram
3 above), in MSA, by contrast, there is no such determinter and the
genitive case of possessors is assigned by an empty AGR in T (see figure
4 above).
At surface–structure ‘ the ENG.’s determiner is cliticised to the
possessive DP’ resulting in forms like the following :
(7) a . this is [Mary’s hat ]
b . [ The actor’s suicide ] shocked me .
In MSA by contrast’ the genitive case is realised morphologically by a
zero morpheme i , as is shown in the following examples :
44
(8) a . [ riHlat al-fariiq - i ] ?ila pariis trip the-team to paris ‘the team’s trip to paris’
b . zur-tu [ bayt nabiil-in al-jadiid] visited-I hourse Nabiil the-new ‘I visited nabil’s new house’
Complement DPs / TPsENG differs from MSA in that in MSA, a head N can be directly followed by a
complement TP at surface-structure, whereas a head N in ENG can not do so at
surface structure, as is illustrated by the following examples respectively:
(9)a. ?aQlaQa-ni [tadmiir al-madiina] annoyed-me destruction the city ‘the city’s destruction worried me’
b. ra?ai-tu [ suurit ziad al-jadiida ] saw-I picture Ziad the-new ‘ I saw Ziad’s new picture’
(10)a. [ * Imprisonment the actor ] was unexpected b. have you seen [*picture Mary with silver frame]The corresponding well-firmed structures to the ENG examples in (10)
are the following:
11.a. [The actor’s imprisonment ] was unexpectedb. Have you seen [ Mary’s picture with silver frame ? ]
Within the framework of X-bar syntax, the structures in (10) and (11)
above would essentially have the same underlying structure. For example,
given our arguments above, then a MSA noun phrase like (9a) would
have the following underlying structure:
45
(12) TP
T’
T NP
N’
AGR
N TP
tadmiir
al-madiina
Given that (i) complements are theta marked elements and (ii) that a head
N can only mark its sister complements, then the TP complement l-
madinna must originate as a sister of the head N in order to be theta-
marked by N in this position.
Similarly, following Chomsky (1970), the ENG noun phrase in (11a) are
well-formed at DS. Under the NP /DP- analysis of noun phrases, the
corresponding DS to the ENG noun phrse in (11a), for example, would
have the following schematic form:
46
(13) DP
D’
D NP
N’
e
N DP
Imprisonment Theta-marking
The actor
From the above diagram, we see that the complement DP the actor
originates as a DS direct object without of on a par with the direct object
of the verbal counterpart of the above nominalisation (i.e. ‘imprison the
actor’). It is generated as a sister of N in order to get its theta role from N
in this position.
However, what makes the structures in (9) and (11) differ at surface-
structure is ascribable to differences in movement rules between the two
languages. The MSA structures in (9) involve two different movements,
whereas their ENG counterparts in (11) involve one movement only.
To be less abstract, given the RCAP, which specifies that in MSA nouns
are not direct case-assigners, it follows that in (12), the complement TP
al-madiina ‘ the direct city’ has to be moved to a position in which it is
able to receive case. Furthermore, given the DCAP, which specifies that
in MSA case is assigned rightward by all categories, it follows that the
only available position for the TP al-madiina to receive case is the [Spec.,
NP] position where it will be case-marked by AGR in T under
government. This CSM of the complement al-madiina together with a
47
HHM of the head N tadmiir to the head T-position in order to provide
lexical supprot to T, will have as a result the derivation of the surface
MSA NO word order in (9/a). these CSM and HHM are represented in
the following diagram:
(14) TP
T’
T NP
AGE TP N’ Case
Tadmiir Al-madiina N TP
The RCAP also specifies that nouns in ENG are not direct case-assigners,
which means that in (13), the complement DP the actor is caseless and
thus violates the CFC. In order to avoid the violation of the CFC, this DP
is moved into a position in which it can receive case. Given the DCAP,
which specifies that case in ENG is assigned rightward by lexical
categories and leftward by functional categories, it follows that the only
available position for the complement DP the actor to be case-marked is
the [Spec., DP] position in which it will be assigned case by the genitive
‘s determiner to its left. Consequently, we have a CSM (complement-to-
specifier movement), which will derive the ON word-order in (11/a). We
can represent this movement in a schematic form as follows:
48
(15) DP
DP D’
The actor D NP
Case N’
S’ N DP
imprisonment
CSM
In sum, the MSA surface NO word-order in (9) is derived via the
application of two movements namely, a CSM and a HHM, whereas the
ENG ON word-order by the application of a CSM involved in the
derivation of the ENG structures in (11) is different from the CSM
responsible for the MSA forms in (9). In ENG, the CSM moves the
complement DP form its underlying position as a sister of N into the
[Spec., DP] position, whereas in MSA, the CSM moves the complement
TP / DP to the [Spec., NP] position. As was discussed above, this
difference in the CSM between the two languages is attributable to the
DCAP, and results in the difference in their word-ordering of
complement TPs / DPs.
My analysis of ENG and MSA complement DPs / TPs will also predict
an instance of +TR on part of the Palestinian learners of ENG. This
positive prediction is based on the grounds that nouns in both languages
49
can case-mark their complement DPs / TPs indirectly via a dummy
prepositions, compare respectively:
(16) a. [ the imprisonment of the actor ] was unexpected
b. This is [ a picture of Mary with silver frame ]
(17) a. ?aQlaQa-ni [ al-tadmiir al-‘aniif li-l-madiina]
worried-me the-destruction the-severe to-the-city
‘ the sever destruction of the city worried me’
b. ghassaan [ al-mudarrib al-jadiid li-fariiq ]
Ghassaan the-manager the-new to-the-team
‘Ghassaan is the new manager of the team’
The intervention of the dummy case-assingers of and li is obligatory
when the whole DP / TP is headed by an overt determiner. In (16/a), for
example, the overall noun phrase is headed by the definite article, as will
be seen from the following diagram:
(18) DP
D’
D NP
N’
the
N DP
Imprisonment the actor
Given that the is not itself a case-assigning determiner, it follows that, if
moved to the [Spec., DP] position, the complement DP the actor will be
50
unable to receive case and a result, it violates the CFC. In order to avoid
violating this condition, an of is inserted. The function of of is to assign
case directly to the complement phrase the actor, thus satisfying the CFC
on of insertion, see Chomsky, 1970).
In MSA likewise, the use of the dummy case-marker li, which
corresponds to of in ENG, becomes inevitable when the head T-position
of the matrix noun phrase is filled by the article. To take a concrete
example, I represent the underlying structure of the example in (17/a) as
in (19):
19.
TP
T’
T NP
N’
al
AP N’
Al-‘aniif N TP
Tadmiir al-madiina
In (19), the presence of the non-case-assigning determiner al will block
that of the case-assigning category AGR in this position. This in turn
blocks the CSM of the complement al-madiina, since any TP moved to
the [Spec., NP] position will be caseless thus violating the CFC. The
insertion of li which assigns case directly to the complement phrase al-
madiina will satisfy the relevant condition.
51
Adjectival Phrases
Within the framework of X-bar, Aps were analyzed (in both MSA
and ENG) as N-bar syntactic adjuncts, that is as elements which
recursively expand an N-bar into another N-bar.
A number of contrasts arise between MSA and ENG in relation to
this type of nominal modifier. The first of these contrasts stems
from a difference in word-order restrictions. An AP in MSA
follows the noun it modifies, whereas in ENG it occurs in
prenominal position in the majority of cases, cf. Respectively:
(20) y-a’mal Jamiil fi [ma’mal daXm ]
he-works Jamil in factory big
‘ Jamil works in a big factory’
(21) He built [ a nice villa ] beside the seaside
the respective structures of (20) and (21) are as depicted in (22)
and (23) below :
TP
T’
T NP
N’
[-def]
ma’mal AP N’
A’ N
DaXm
HHM
52
(23)
DP
D’
D NP
N’
a
AP N’
A’
A N’
Nice villa
Within the framework of X-bar syntax, we can interpret the above
disparity between ENG and MSA in the linear ordering of their
APs in terms of the Head-periphery principle, which is a universal
principle which accounts for the distribution of ‘heads’ in relation
to other constituents within phrases (see originally Stowell, 1981 in
Radford, 1988). The examples in (20) suggests that noun phrases in
MSA are head-first structures in which the head N precedes its
modifying APs. Further support for the claims that noun phrases in
MSA are head_first structures comes from the fact that the head N
also precedes other types of nominal modifiers such as complement
and possessive TPs/DPs and PPs.
The analysis of noun phrases in MSA as head-first constructions
harmonizes with other analyses of other phrases in MSA. Consider
for example the linear ordering of the heads of phrasal structures
such as APs and VPs in (24) and (25) respectively:
53
(24) kaana al-TaQs [ baarid jiddan ] albaariHawas the-weather cold very yesterday‘ the weather was very cold yesterday’(25) [ lam ya-takallam kathiiran ‘an al-mawDuu’ ]not he-spoke much about the-subject‘ he did not speak much about the subject’
As the examples in (24) and (25) show respectively, both the
head A barrid and the head V yatakallam are positioned before the
degree phrases modifying them. What these examples suggest, is
that MSA exhibits a maximal structural symmetry across phrasal
categories in so far as the relative distribution of their head
constituents is concerned.
On the other hand, the ENG examples in (21) suggest that noun
phrases in ENG are not head-first structures. In ENG, the
distribution of the head N in relation to its modifiers varies
considerably. Thus, whereas N precedes complement and adjunct
PPs, postposed genitive phrases and APs, it follows other
constituents like complement DPs, possessive DPs, some APs and
numerals.
Another contrast arises between MSA and ENG in relation to this
type of modifier. This contrast is related to the fact that APs in
MSA copy down grammatical features such as Number, Gender
and Definiteness from the modified head N, as is shown by the
following examples:
(26) talaal wa samiir [ awlaad azkiyaa?]
Talal and samir boys clevers
‘ Talal and samir are clever boys’
(27) [al-walad al-Tawiil ] huwa ?aX-i‘ the tall boy is my brother ’
54
By contrast, APs in ENG do not inflect for definiteness, number or
gender, hence the ungrammaticality of the following examples:
(28) a. Have you seen [ * the huge the skyscraper ] on TV ?
b. I like [ * reds flowes ]
Another contrast arises between MSA and ENG as a result of the
postulation that MSA is a head-first language whereas ENG is not
rigidly a head first language. In more concrete terms, given the
UDBC which requires premodifiers to be head-final constituents, it
follows that since APs in MSA are postnominal modifiers, it
follows that they can have their own complements in this position,
as is illustrated in the following sentences:
(29) a. Jamaal [ walad faXuur bi-?abii-h ]Jamal boyproud in father-his‘Jamal is a boy proud of his father’
b. ya-skun fi [ bayt mujaawir li-bayt-I ]he-lives in house next to-house-my‘He lives in a house next to mine’
By contrast, the fact that APs in ENG occur in prenominal position
entails that they cannot have a complement in this position, as the
ungrammaticality of the following examples shows:
(30) a. He made [ a similar to mine suggestion
b. He stayed in [ * the next to mineroom ]
The ungrammaticality of the ENG examples in (30) is due to the
fact that these sentences violate the UDBC. On the other hand,
55
there is no violation of this constraint in phrases containing
postnominal APs like the ones in (29) above.
The UDBC can be violated by extraposing the PP complement of
the AP into postnominal position as in:
(31) He made [a similar proposal to mine].
When extraposed, this PP is probably adjoined to whole DP as is
shown in figure (32) below:
32.
DP PP
D’ to
mine
D NP
N’
a AP N’
A’ N
A PP
Similar proposal
However, an important similarity can be identified here between
ENG and MSA. As was mentioned earlier, in the marked case,
there are instances in ENG in which an AP follows the noun it
modifies and therefore, it can be followed by its complement PP in
this position. The following are examples:
56
33.a. She bought [a dress similar to mine]
b. She is [a woman proud of her son]
Chapter six
The syntactic derivation of Double object construction in Arabic
the dative sentence has a DO and an IO, and that
the IO in Arabic is preceded by the preposition /i 'to' as appears in the
examples, of S
initial structures in (1) :
)1a) zayd-un ?a9Taa kitaab-an li-hind-in
Zayd-nom gave book-acc to-Hind-gen
'Zayd gave a book to Hind'
b? zayd-un ?a9Taa li-hind-in kitaab-an
Zayd-nom gave to-Hind-gen book-ace
c* zayd-un ?a9Taa li-hind-in
Zayd-nom gave to-Hind-gen
d?? zayd-un ?a9taa kitaab-an
Zayd-nom gave book-ace
57
e zayd-un ?a9taa hind-an kitaab-an
Zayd-nom gave Hind-ace book-ace
'Zayd gave Hind a book'
Based on (1), the general properties of datives can be immediately
established.
First, the dative construction exhibits a DO + pp complement structure as
appears in
the well-formed (1a). Secondly, sentences with the alternative PP+DO
structure. are
not fully accepted (1b). Third, the ill-formed sentence in (1c) shows that
the deletion of the DO is not tolerated and (44d) is marginal due to the
absence of the PO.
The well-formed sentence in (1e) represents the DOC where the IO
precedes the DO. .
To account for the derivation of datives and DOCs, I will suggest that the
former is derived from the latter. This proposal requires two assumptions.
The first is
that the IO is a PP in all positions, and that the prepositional head of the
PP is null in
DOCs, i.e., is not realized phonologically, if and only if the PP is
governed by a Case assigning verb. Second, the derivation of datives
relies on the lexical preposition preceding the IO and on Larson's notions
of V' -reanalysis and complex predicate' as will be illustrated in Section
5.5. To clarify how the DOC is derived, we first assume the partial D-
structure in
(2):
58
VP
PP V'
P• NP V NP
IO DO
Of course, this is incompatible with the word order of the DOC unless we
assume an empty verb position to the left of the pp (IO) at D-structure;
then we can derive the S- initial word order by movement. I therefore
propose (3) below as the D-structure representation of DOCs and datives,
and assume that the surface word order of DOCs is derived by the
movement of the verb to a position to the left of the IO which is base
generated as the head of a higher VP. Assuming also that the subject is
base generated in the specifier of the higher VP (c! Kitagawa, 1986;
Kuroda, 1988; Koopman and
Sportiche, 1988), (3) yields (4) following Verb raising (ultimately to I)
and subject
movement:
59
3.
IP
I"
I VP
NP V'
zayd
V• VP
PP V'
P• NP V NP
IO ?a9Ta DO
hind kitaab
60
4.
IP
NP I'
zayd
I
?a9Taa VP
NP V'
t
V VP
tj
PP V'
P• NP V NP
IO tj DO
hind kitaab
61
The D-structure of DOCs in (4 ) can be motivated in various ways. First,
the Theme is realized as an 'inner' DO lower in the tree. Plausibility for
this view can be. derived from the fact that this object has an intuitively
'closer' semantic and syntactic relation to the verb than does the IO in
both DOCs and datives, as is indicated by the observation that the latter
can be omitted in some cases (due, we suppose, to a lexical property of
specific verbs), but not the former. By way of illustration consider the
sentences in (5) and (6) below:
5a hal baa9-a zayd-un hind-an kitaab-an?
Q sold Zayd-nom Hind-ace book-ace
'DtdZayd sell Hind a book?'
b hal baa9-a zayd-un kitaab-an?
Q sold Zayd-nom book-ace
'Did Zayd sell a book?'
c* hal baa9-a zayd-un hind-an?
Q sold Zayd-nom Hind-ace
6a hal arsal-a zayd-un risaala-tan li-hind-in
Q sent Zayd-nom letter-ace to-Hind-gen
'Did Zayd send a letter to Hind?'
b hal arsal-a zayd-un risaala-tan
Q sent Zayd-nom letter-ace
'Did Zayd send a letter?'
c* hal arsal-a zayd-un li-hind-in
62
Q sent Zayd-nom to-Hind-gen
Due to the occurrence of the two objects, (5a) and (6a) are grammatical.
In 5b) and (6b) the sentences are grammatical even though the IO is
omitted, whereas 5c) and (6c) are deviant because of the deletion of the
DO.
Second, (5) clearly involves a claim that the IO as a pp appears in
specifier position and the DO appears as a complement. In this section we
shall see how this analysis enables us to produce a straightforward
account of how DOCs work.
Third, we assume that although there are two sorts of Case (structural and
inherent), these Cases are assigned in the same configuration. In (5), we
have a situation of a single Case assigner and two arguments which need
Case. These arguments are in different positions, therefore they cannot
both be in the right configuration. Consequently, it must be the case that
the verb can move so' that it appears in two different configurations, each
of which is appropriate for one of the arguments and it is the empty verb
position that creates this possibility. Of course, the IF contains another
head position which allows the verb to move in a further step to get tense
and agreement from INFL which assigns Nominative Case to the subject
under spec-head agreement. The subject moves from its base position to
the higher spec of IP to yield the S-initial word order and to be assigned
Nominative Case under spec-head agreement.
Case assignment
After outlining the derivation of the DOC, we move to investigate
precisely how Case is assigned to the two objects in this construction.
As noted, the S-structure of the DOC in (6) poses a problem for Case
theory in that there are two NPs which must receive Case in order to pass
63
the Case Filter. We suppose that verbs in MSA and Palestinian Arabic
(PA), however, can as in most languages only assignstructural Case to
one NP (Chomsky, 1981; Larson, 1988; Baker, 1988b; Ouhalla,
1994, among others). The obvious question is: what about the other NP?
The issue raised is of course identical to that of how the second NP in an
English DOC like (7) is assigned Case:
7. John gave Mary a book
According to the proposal of Chomsky (1980), some verbs can assign
another type of Case, Inherent Case, in addition to structural Case.
Extending this idea to Arabic ditransitive verbs will provide them with
enough Case assigning potential to ensure that their arguments satisfy the
Case Filter. Next, we have to consider the issue of which object receives
the structural Case, and which object has the Inherent Case in the DOC
and why. Before investigating this matter, it is crucial to note that
Inherent Case is assumed to differ from structural Case in one very
important respect. Following Baker (1988b) (also Chomsky 1986b;
Ottosson, 1991; Belletti, 1988), we suppose that the former is assigned
under government at D-structure, and the assigning head must theta mark
the relevant NP. By contrast, the latter is assigned under government at S-
structure, and there need not be any direct thematic relationship between
the assigning head and the NP. Modifying this, we might suppose that
structural Case can be assigned at S structure or at intermediate levels in a
derivation. We can then suggest that the verb, in its base generated
position assigns Inherent Accusative Case to the DO at D-structure.Then
it raises to the empty verb position, and discharges its structural Case in
the empty verb position to the IO via the empty preposition. Finally, it
raises to I to be inf1ected and then, following Koopman and Sportiche
64
(1991), Ouhalla (1991), among others, the external argument is assigned
structural Nominative Case from I under spec-head agreement.
The DO which is always base generated in the lower complement
position in ditransitive clauses of MSA and PA cannot be promoted under
passivization
If we suppose that Inherent Case is retained under grammatical processes,
we now have an account of this asymmetry.
Given this analysis, Case assignment to the subject and the two objects in
(8 a) can be structurally represented as in ( 8 b)
8a)zayd-un ?a9Taa hind-an kitaab-an
Zayd-nom gave Hind-acc book-acc
'Zayd gave Hind a book'
65
IP
NP I'
zayd
nom. Case
I
?a9Taa VP
NP V'
t
V VP
tj
structural Case PP V'
P• NP V NP
IO tj DO
hind kitaab
inherent Case
This schema indicates clearly how the analysis is consistent with some
common assumptions about Case assignment. First, the verb's structural
Case is assigned to the most adjacent' object hind, where 'adjacency' is
66
computed during the derivation or at S-structure. This leaves only
Inherent Case available which is assigned to the argument of the verb
kitaab at D-structure. Second, the structurally Case marked
intervenes between the Inherently Case marked NP and the verb.
Having formulated a proposal as to how arguments are assigned Case in
DOCs, we move next to consider theta role assignment
.Theta -role assignment
Ditransitive verbs have three theta-roles to assign. In this section we shall
consider how this process occurs. In pursuing this, echoing to some
extent Falk (1990). we shall assume a theta theory
based on (9)
9. Theme: assigned directly by the verb
Possessor: indirectly assigned via a higher
projection of the verb.
Goal: assigned directly by a governing preposition
Agent: assigned compositionally by verb + Theme + Possessor (or Goal)
We shall first see how (9) works in a completely mechanical fashion.
Then we shall look for some evidence for it.
According to the proposed theory, and in line with Falk (1990), the verb
in the lower position directly assigns Theme to the DO which is base
generated in the complement position and is canonically governed by this
verb. Diverging from Falk's proposal, the PO which is base generated as
part of the PP in [spec, VP] is assigned Possessor theta-role
compositionally via a higher projection (V') of the lower verb. This theta
role is directly assigned via the next highe\ projection (the lower V')
under sisterhood to the PP and then it is transmitted via the empty
preposition, which is not a theta-role assigner, to the IO. The process of
67
transmission through the null preposition entails that this theta-role is
assigned indirectly..
Theta-role assignment in datives
According to (9) above, in datives, the DO is assigned Theme theta-role
directly by the verb at D-structure, whereas the PO is assigned Goal
theta-role by the lexical preposition preceding it; unlike the null
preposition, the lexical preposition has an inherent theta-role to assign,
and the question of having the theta-role assigned compositionally does
not arise. We therefore maintain that, although the DOC and
dative construction have the same syntactic configuration at D-structure,
the choice of lexical versus empty preposition actually triggers a different
mode of theta-role assignment in the two cases; the theta-role of the
complement of the lexical PP must be licensed by a strategy different
from that licensing the IO in DOCs above and we assume this to be the
dative preposition li..
Datives in Hebrew
Hebrew offers no motivation for a productive relationship between DOCs
and dative constructions. According to Givon (1984)
there is no dative shifting via which an indirect (prepositional, object (IO)
may lose its semantic Case. Accordingly, only the DO can appear as a
bare accusative (cf also Belletti and Shlonsky, 1995). Consider (10) and
(11) :
. 10a . Zayd natan sefer la-hind
Zayd gave book to-Hind
68
'Zayd gave a book to Hind'
b zayd natan la-hind sefer
Zayd gave to-Hind book
'Zayd gave to Hind a book'
c* zayd natan hind sefer
Zayd gave Hind book'
11a. ha mone hesbiir it ha-oi9uur la talmiid
The teacher explained acc the-lesson to-the-pupil
b ha mone hesbiir la talmiid it ha-oi9uur
The teacher explained to the pupil acc the-lesson
c* ha mone hesbiir it ha-oi9uur talmiid
The teacher explained acc the lesson the pupil
As these examples show, Hebrew,. unlike Arabic, does not accept the
DOC, and this raises the question of why this language does not accept
this construction while Arabic does. This question has been answered in a
variety of ways in the literature. Larson (1988) connected the availability
of DOCs with P-stranding. His generalisation, following Kayne (1984), is
that languages which accept dative shift also accept P-standing, and not
vice versa. As Hebrew does not have either DOCs or P-stranding, it is
consistent with this generalisation. However, as we have seen, the
generalisation is directly contradicted by Arabic which in spite of
fallowing dative shift does not accept P-stranding. Obviously a
generalisation which is so blatantly falsified cannot form the basis for an
explanation.
69
Another attempt to deal with the same phenomena appears in Tremblay
(1990).
He claims that the possibility of having dative shift is directly related to
the possibility of having head-final NPs [NP N] languages which have
head-final NPs accept dative shift while languages which do not have
head-final NPs do not accept dative shift. Illustrative examples from
English and French are from Tremblay (1990: 552)
12a Jean gave Mary a book
b Mary's book
13a * J eanne a donne Marie un livre
b* Mane livre
Again, this correlation is confounded by Arabic and so can hardly be used
to explain the absence of DOCs in Hebrew. Although the two Semitic
Languages have head initial NPs, Arabic allows DOCs while Hebrew
does not. Possessive NPs in Arabic and Hebrew are exemplified in (14)
and (15)
14 kitaab-u hind-in
book-nom Hind-gen
'Hind's book'
15 sefer ha-saxkan
Book the actor
'The actor's book'
70
On the basis of the above, it is necessary to find another strategy to
account for the presence of DOCs in Arabic and English and their
absence in Hebrew and other languages. Patterning to the account
developed in this chapter, we might suggest that
Hebrew, French and other languages lack the option of an empty
preposition strategy for syntactically realising a Possessor argument. In
other words, having or not having an empty preposition strategy is
entirely equivalent to having or not having a DOC in a language. To the
extent that this is plausible, it has the consequence that the Hebrew
verb natan lacks the full semantic potential of English give and Arabic ?
a9Taa.
Dative and Double object constructions in English
Regarding the dative alternation, English has three categories of verbs
like those of Arabic investigated above. This immediately entails the
conclusion that the analysis developed for Arabic above can be applied to
English without significant modification. To remind the reader, many
verbs
display a productive relationship between DOCs and dative constructions.
Ditransitive
verbs generally have alternate forms with the IO in a pp as shown in (16-
17),
16a She gave him a book
b* She gave to him a book
c She gave a book to him
d * She gave a book him
17a John threw Mary the ball
71
b* John threw to Mary the ball
c John threw the ball to Mary
d* John threw the ball Mary
18a He paid her one pound
b* He paid to her one pound
c He paid one pound to her
d* He paid one pound her
As can be seen, the structure of the sentences above are identical in the
relevant. respects to their counterparts in Arabic, and this yields a
straightforward application of the analysis developed in this chapter.
However, the memberships of the three categories of verbs are not
identical across the two languages, and it is necessary to address these
differences before concluding this chapter.
Semantic constraints
It has been claimed that the range of verbs that participate in the DOC is
relatively narrow in Arabic, whereas English has a wide range of verbs
which appear in this construction. Thus, in comparing the English verbs
which participate in DOCs with their near synonyms in Arabic, we find a
lack of correspondence across the two languages. For convenience,
consider the English and Arabic verbs listed in (5) (6) and (7) below:
List 5): alternating verbs in English and Arabic
Alternating verbs
English Arabic
give pass ?a9Taa 'gave'
pay post ?9aar-a 'borrowed'
kick feed? saIl am-a 'handed'
72
trade? e-mail wahab-a 'granted'
promtse hand baa9-a 'sold'
Telephone buy nawal-a 'handed'
throw get manaH-a 'granted'
flick bring ?qraD-a 'borrowed'
lend radio ?hdaa 'gifted'
grant offer wa9ad-a 'promise'
assIgn sell
WIre serve
Teach satellite
tell send
toss make
loan telegraph
6)
verbs participating in only DOCs in English and Arabic
Verbs allowing only DOCs
English Arabic
cost kallaf-a 'cost'
ask sa?a/-a 'asked'
bet kasaa 'bought clothes for someone
save ? axbar-a 'told'
deny razaq-a'sustained'
charge kafa?-a'rewarded'
refuse da9aa 'named'
spare kanaa 'named'
fine waqaa 'avoided'
forgive
7)
73
verbs participating in only datives in English and Arabic
Verbs accepting only datives
English verbs Arabic verbs
donate &rraH-a 'explained'
contribute ?r&rd-a 'guided'
distribute qaddam-a 'offered'
say katab-a 'wrote'
push ?rsa/-a 'sent'
carry ?aHDar-a 'brought'
report wajjah-a'directed'
pull ram a 'kicked'
lift naqa/-a 'carried'
ease DabaH-a'slaughtered'
?abraq-a'telegramed'
tabara9-a 'donated'
?a9aad-a'returned'
zawwaj-a 'marry a female to male'
xaTab-a 'have a female engaged to male'
The lack of correspondence between the verbs appearing in the tables
above gives rise to the question of how is the variation between the two
languages to be accounted for?
Regarding this question, we propose that the variation between the two
languages in the number and identity of verbs which either alternate or do
not hinge on rather subtle semantic issues. Both languages have the null
preposition option, so the differences cannot be due to the major syntactic
choice. We propose, then, that some verbs allow the options of both
74
nulll1exical preposition (the alternating verbs). and others do not. This, in
turn, comes down to the lexical entry of verbs, with some verbs
allowing only the Goal or Possessor theta-role in one or other language.
That is, there are relatively slight differences in the meaning potentials of
cognate verbs in the two
languages, a not unexpected conclusion in the light of cross-linguistic
investigation. of semantic fields. This possibility for variation between
English and Arabic in the number of verbs which alternate, could, in
principle, be investigated in terms of a more structured set of semantic
classes These may include: possessional verbs whose Goal is an animate
(e.g., give), animate control verbs (e.g., pass), verbs with an informational
dimension with an animate Goal (e.g., tell), and positional verbs such as
throw (Gruber, 1992, Lefebvre, 1994). Following Lefebvre's account of
Fongbe in spirit, the counterpart verbs in Arabic might be limited to. the
possessional verbs (e.g., ?a9Taa) and verbs with an informational
dimension, (e.g., wa9ad-a) and this might account for the limited number
of verbs which either alternate or only accept DOCs in Arabic.
75
Part TwoIntroducing English Semantics
By
Charles W. Kreidler
1998
London
76
