The complementizer layer in Standard Arabic revisited
This paper revisits three issues related to the complementizer
layer (CP) in Standard Arabic. We reexamine them against the backdrop of Shlonsky’s 2000 analysis, and put forward a
new proposal couched in Rizzi’s 1997
split-CP hypothesis. First, we examine the apparent distributional and interpretive
differences between ʔinna and ʔanna, and
subsequently argue that the former is a lexical verum operator that projects a
VerumP in the middle of the split-CP field, whereas ʔanna is an
indicative force head. Second, the current work presents another view on the
elements analyzed as agreement clitics by Shlonsky (2000). We argue that they are not for agreement but rather are
expletive or resumptive pronouns. Evidence that they are not agreement derives
primarily from contexts where they appear in coordinated structures with overt DPs.
We then investigate extraction patterns for questions and focus in matrix clauses as
well as embedded clauses and propose that the preverbal subject DP in SVO is
externally merged in SpecTopP in the split CP while it binds a null
pro in SpecvP. This analysis captures the ban on
extraction across the subject in SVO in that it shows that this DP is already higher
in the structural hierarchy than the positions dedicated for focus and
wh-questions.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The left periphery in SA
- 2.1Complementizer distribution
- 3.Complementizer agreement (CA)
- 3.1Shlonsky’s account
- 3.2What is it that follows ʔanna and ʔinna?
- 3.3Possible account
- 3.4Proposal
- 3.4.1Basic assumptions
- 3.4.2Complementizer + pronominal
- 3.4.2.1Null referential pronouns
- 3.4.2.2Anaphoric pronouns
- 3.4.2.3Non-referential pronouns (expletives)
- 4.Extraction patterns
- 4.1Ban on extraction across the preverbal DP in SVO
- 4.2Proposal
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References