Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXXII: Papers selected from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Tempe, Arizona, 2018
Edited by Elly van Gelderen
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 9] 2020
► pp. 109–134

The complementizer layer in Standard Arabic revisited

| King Saud University
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

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.

Keywords: left periphery, verum, complementizer agreement
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
Published online: 28 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.9.05alb
References
Aoun, J. E., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L.
(2010) The syntax of Arabic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakir, M.
(1980) Aspects of clause structure in Arabic. (Doctoral Dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Brody, M.
(1990) Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 201–225.Google Scholar
Büring, D.
(1997) On the meaning of topic and focus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J.
(2004) On having arguments and agreeing: Semantic EPP. York Papers in Linguistics Series, 2(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1986) Barriers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Some observations on economy in generative grammar. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (Eds.), Is the best good enough (pp. 115–127). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., D. Micheals & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P.
(1992) Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English. In D. Delfitto, M. Everaert, A. Evers & F. Stuurman (Eds.), OTS working papers: Going Romance and beyond (pp. 1–45). Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Fassi-Fehri, A.
(1993) Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and word order. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fintel, K. V., & Heim, I.
(2011) Lecture notes in intensional semantics. Ms.: MIT.Google Scholar
Franco, I.
(2012) Verbal stylistic fronting in Old Florentine. Ms.: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M.
(2007) Subjects, topics and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25(4), 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, D., Hartmann, K., & Matthewson, L.
(2017) Verum focus is verum, not focus.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L.
(2006) Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the left periphery. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture (pp. 27–52). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A.
(1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J.
(1987) Indefiniteness and predication. In: E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 43–70). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J.
(1969) Semantics for propositional attitudes. In J. W. Davis, D. J. Hockney & W. K. Wilson (Eds.), Philosophical logic (pp. 21–45). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N.
(1992) Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Infonnationsstruktur und Grammatik (pp. 112–141). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibn Maalik, M.
(1990) ʃaarħu ʔttashiil (volume 4). Beirut: Dar Al-kotob Al-ilmiyah.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(1995) Stage and individual level predicates. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–175). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
(2008) Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55 (3–4), 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K.
(2015) A course in phonetics. Connecticut, Stamford: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K.
(1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (3), 335–391.Google Scholar
Lohnstein, H., & Stommel, H.
(2009) Verum focus and phases. Linguistic Analysis, 35(1), 109–140.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S.
(2010) Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mohammad, M. A.
(2000) Word order, agreement, and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, G., & Sternefeld, W.
(1993) Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(3), 461–507.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, J.
(1998) Movement and derived predicates: Evidence from parasitic gaps. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 247–295.Google Scholar
Omar, M., Zahran, M., & Abdullatif, M.
(1994) Al-Nahw-u Al-Asaasijj-u ‘the basic syntax’ (4th Edition). Kuwait: Dar-u Al-Ssalaasil-i.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J.
(1994) Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 41–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) Remarks on focus in Standard Arabic. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4, 9–46.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. Y.
(1989) Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (3), 365–424.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque, L. Renzi, and G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2004) Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp. 223–251). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M.
(1985) Association with focus. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
(1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural language semantics, 1(1), 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, B.
(1940) An inquiry into meaning and truth. London: George Allen and Unwin LTD.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U.
(1998) Two structures for English restrictive relative clauses: The meaning of chains. (Doctoral dissertation). MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shima, E.
(2000) A preference for Move over Merge. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(2), 375–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U.
(1994) Agreement in comp. The Linguistic Review, 11(3–4), 351–376.Google Scholar
(2000) Remarks on the complementizer layer of Standard Arabic. In J. Lecarme, J. Lowenstamm & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the third conference on Afroasiatic languages (pp. 325–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H./Á., & Maling, J.
(2007) On null arguments. In M. C. Picci, & A. Pona (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa (pp. 167–180). Firenze: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á.
(2010) On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica, 64(2), 159–189.Google Scholar
(2011) Conditions on argument drop. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(2), 267–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á., & Maling, J.
(2008) Argument drop and the empty left edge condition (ELEC). Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 81, 1–27.Google Scholar
Soltan, U.
(2007) On agree and postcyclic merge in syntactic derivations: First conjunct agreement in Standard Arabic. In E. Benmamoun (Ed.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIX (pp. 191–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Stowell, T.
(1991) The alignment of arguments in adjective phrases. Syntax and Semantics, 25, 105–135.Google Scholar