Linguistics Today)

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology. and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see

http:!!benjam ins.com!cataloglla

General Editors VVerneri\braharn University ofVienna I

Elly van Gelderen Arizona State University

University of Munich

Advisory Editorial Board Josef Bayer University of Konstanz

Christer Platzack

Cedric Boeckx I CREA/Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Ian Roberts Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque University of Venice

Lisa deMena Travis McGill University

Liliane Haegem.an University of Ghent

StenVikner University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider University of Salzburg

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart University of Groningen

University of Lund

Terje Lohndal University of Maryland

Volume 182 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

by Abdelk.ader Fassi Fehri

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar Abdelkader Fassi Fehri KAICAL, Ryad & Mohammed V University, Rabat

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam I Philadelphia

The paper used In this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar I Abdelkader Fassi Fehri. p. em. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Toda~ ISSN 0166-o829; v.l.!l2)

Includes bibliographical references and index.. 1. Arabic language--Grammar. I. Title. PJ6w6.F348

2012

492.7'5--de23 ISBN 978

90 272 5565 5 (Hb; alk. paper)

ISBN 978

90 272 7496 o (Eb)

© 2012- John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co.· P.O. Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam ·The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· P.O. Box 27519 ·Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • usA

For Heroes ofArab Revolutions

Table of contents

Foreword

XV

Provenance of chapters PART 1.

XIX

Temporality, aspect, voice, and event structure

1

CHAPTER 1

Tense/Aspect interaction and variation 1. Past, Perfect, Perfective 5 1.1 The Past/Perfect ambiguity 5 1.2 Temporal and modal qad 7 1.3 One or two projections ofT 9 1.4 Perfective 9 2. Present, Imperfect, Imperfective 10 3· Imperfect and SOT 13 4- Perfectivity 16 4-1 ST as Perfective 16 PT as Imperfective? 20 4-2 4-3 From Tense to Aspect 22 The Tense/ Aspect language typology revisited 4-4 5· Conclusion 25

3

24

CHAPTER 2

Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality Issues 28 1.1 Problem 1: Semitic morpho-syntax 28 1.2 Problem 2: Transitivity theory 29 2. Number Theory 31 2.1 Ingredients of Num theory 31 2.2 Verbal plurality and distributed Num 32 2.3 Distributed plurality 33 2.4 Causative complexity; verbalization, and distributivity 33 2.5 Two sources of transitivity 35 2.6 Parallel plural morphology 36 Summary 40 2.7 3· Cross-linguistic evidence 41 1.

27

vm Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar Causatives, transitives, and event quantification 41 3.1.1 Causativization and transitivization 42 3.1.2 Multiple behaviour 43 3.1.3 Event quantification 44 3.2 Moravcsik:'s resistant cases 45 Conceptual motivations and competing analyses 46 4.1 Little v: Verbalizer or transitivizer? 46 42 Aspect 47 43 Voice 50 43.1 Anti-transitive reflexives 51 43.2 Reflexive causatives .52 43·3 Agentive and "expositive" causatives 53 43·4 "Requestive" causatives 53 43·5 Ergative Num and intensive forms 54 44 Further empirical motivations 55 44.1 Ergative and unergative Num in event plurality and transitivity 55 44.2 Adicity, (in)transitive alternations, and multiple uses Num theory and Num heights 57 5.1 Sg and Pl Merge 57 5.2 Language variation 57 Summary and conclusion 58 3.1

4·

5·

6.

55

CHAPTER 3

Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns 1. Analysis, voice, and temporality 65 1.1 The problem 65 Nominal auxiliaries 66 1.2 1.3 S/0 Agr split and auxiliary selection 67 Temp auxiliaries 69 1.4 1.5 Voice 71 1.5.1 Arabic and anaphoric Agr 71 1.5.2 Latin and split Agr 72 1.5.3 Modern Greek 74 Albanian 75 1.5.4 1.5.5 Moroccan Arabic 76 2. Formal complexity and categorization 79 2.1 Further analytic and synthetic questions 8o 2.1.1 Pass and additional complexity 8o

61

Table of contents

Two finite Agrs So 2.1.3 Ancient Greek as fully synthetic 81 2.2 Reanalysis as the source of analytic pass or perfect 2.3 A splitting analysis (of Temp and Agr categories) Peculiarities and structural heights 85 3.1 Imperfective passive 85 3.2 Verbal and adjectival voices 86 3·3 Multiple functions across heights 89 Summary and conclusion 91 2.1.2

3·

4·

82 83

4 Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs 1. Salient properties of the Arabic TR system 94 1.1 Polyfunctionality ofTI Asp forms 94 1.2 The PresPerf split: Synthesis and analysis 95 1.3 The Past split: Simple Past Pfv and complex Past Impfv 2. The Perfect/Past ambiguity 99 2.1 Aspects and Tenses 100 2.2 Positional "deictic" adverbs 103 2.3 Perf and modal qad 104 2.4 Adverbs and simple vs. complex tenses 106 2.5 Durational adverbs 107 3· Temporal adverbs and kinds of Perfect 110 3.1 Positional mundu uo 3.1.1 Imperfective tenses 110 3.1.2 Perfective tenses 111 3.1.3 PresPerf tense 112 3.2 Durational mundu 113 3·3 Perf of Res and Post-state 113 4· Summary and conclusion 115 4.1 T/Asp morphology 115 42 T/Asp adverbs or particles 116 43 Conclusion n6 CHAPTER

PART 11.

93

96

DP, np, bareness, and count/mass structures

5 The grammar of count and mass 1. Toward a wider count grammar 1.1 Ways of 'numeralizing' CHAPTER

121 122 124

IX

x

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Partitive numeral 124 Predicative numeral 125 1.1.3 Numeral verbs 125 1.1.4 Numeral adverbs 125 1.2 Ways of count quantifying 125 1.2.1 Count quantifier bi4r in a construct state 125 1.2.2 Predicative count quantifier 126 The count/measure ambiguity of kam 126 1.2.3 1.2.4 More partitives 127 1.3 Events selecting count nouns 127 General nouns 128 2.1 General atomicity 129 2.2 Singulative atomicity 130 General nouns and general Number 130 2.3 2.4 Counting and numeralizing 132 The general noun is not plural 132 2.5 2.6 The general noun is not mass 134 The general noun is not a group 134 2.7 Collective varieties 134 3.1 What 'counts' in the grammar of collectives 134 Syntactic groups 136 3.2 Masses 138 41 Mass as atomless 138 42 Mass is cumulative, and non-divisive 140 43 Mass as distinct from plural 141 44 Plural of mass is productive 142 Count/mass architecture, features, and functional categories 144 5-1 Count and mass syntax 146 5.2 Interpreting plural and singular inflections 147 Summary and conclusion 151 1.1.1 1.1.2

2.

3·

4

5·

6.

CHAPTER 6

Synthesis in Arabic DPs 1. Setting the stage for synthesis 154 1.1 Synthetic ingredients 154 1.2 Synthetic 'articles' 156 1.3 Quantifiers 158 1.4 Numerals 158 1.5 Demonstratives 159 1.6 Indefinites in Arabic dialects

153

160

Table of contents 2.

3·

4

DP architecture 162 2.1 Adjective modification 163 2.1.1 The NA Order 163 2.1.2 MIO 164 2.1.3 Adjectival classes and non-intersectives DA extensions 167 2.1.4 2.2 Mirror image alternations 168 Synthetic indefinites 169 2.3 Core properties and types of synthetic possession 171 3.1 How real is Definiteness spreading? 172 3.2 Possessor placement 174 Two classes of synthetic possessives 175 3·3 Characterizing the variation 176

165

CHAPTER7

Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 1. Overt D contrasts and genericity 181 1.1 Definite, generic, and mass 181 1.2 Predicates and anaphors 183 1.2.1 Kind Level Predicates 183 Stage Level Predicates 183 1.2.2 1.2.3 Individual Level Predicates 184 Kind anaphora 185 1.2.4 1.3 Plural as 'plural of the singular' 186 Scope 186 1.3.1 1.3.2 Opacity 186 Telicity 187 1.3.3 2. Arabic BNs are indefinites 187 2.1 Arabic BNs as indefinites? 188 2.2 GenP and N-to -Gen 190 2.3 Arabic/Romance distinctions and the Numeral Parameter 191 2.3.1 Varieties of bareness 193 2.3.2 The Numeral Parameter 196 3· Further discussion 197 3.1 Gen contexts 197 Modification and D-binding 198 3.2 Modalized contexts 198 3·3 3·4 Definite and indefinite generics 200 4 BNsandPNs 200

179

XI

xn Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 5· 6.

Mass specification Conclusion 204

CHAPTER

202

8

Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 1. Indefinites 207 1.1 N moves over indefinite quantifier 208 1.2 N movement to indefinite D 210 1.3 Adjective movement and movement over adjectives 211 1.4 Semitic overt indetermination 212 2. Definites 213 3· Double (in)determination in Semitic 216 3.1 Definites and indefinites are not complementary 218 3.2 Searching for minimal (in)definite pairs 220 3·3 PN s are not indefinite 221 4· Bare determination 223 4-1 Individuating and non-individuating vocatives 223 4-2 'Unique' superlatives 226 5· Account and summary 228 5-1 The computational history of determination 228 5.2 Two features in computation 230 PART III.

205

Clausal structure, silent pronouns, and Agree

CHAPTER 9 Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretability of inflection CP anchoring, double access tenses, and logophors 236 1. 1.1 Person double access 237 1.2 Time double access 238 Arabic as a DAR language 238 1.3 Double access and Mood 240 1.4 Root and logophoric Cs 242 1.5 2. Finiteness 243 2.1 Subject properties 244 2.1.1 Cases of subjects 245 2.1.2 Positions of subjects 246 Subject agreement 246 2.1.3 Expletive subjects 246 2.1.4 2.2 Truncated structures 247 2.2.1 Raising 247

235

Table of contents xm

Auxiliary (complex tense) structures 2.2.3 ECM 249 2.2.4 Control 249 The structure of Tense 250 3.1 Tense on T and Person 250 Synthetic and analytic temporality 251 3.2 3·3 V movement 253 Summary and conclusion 256 2.2.2

3·

4-

248

CHAPTER 10

Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 1. The referential/non-referential correlation 258 2. Impersonals/indefinites 261 2.1 Arabic 261 Comparison with French, Finnish, Irish, and Italian 2.2 2.3 The human feature 266 3· Referential pro 268 3.1 A topic approach 268 A Probe-Goal implementation 271 3.2 4- 'Passive, 'impersonal: 'indefinite' 273 5· Expletives and EPP 2']6 5.1 Arabic expletives 277 5.2 Pronouns and EPP 281 5·3 Finnish 283 6. Some consequences 284 6.1 Variation around Person 284 6.2 Topicality and Person 286 6.3 A new approach to Voice 288

257

264

CHAPTER 11

Plural verbs and Agree Introduction 291 Nominal Number 292 2.1 Where is number? 295 Non-human plurality 299 2.2 2.3 Lexical collectives 299 2.4 Syntactic collectives 301 2.5 Plurals of plurals and similar matters 305 3· Verb plurality 309 3.1 Pluractional morphology 311 3.2 Collective and distributive plural 313 1. 2.

291

XIV

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Semantic Pl in SVO 314 Kinds of plural agreement: Collective and non-collective Reciprocity 318 4.1 Lexical reciprocals and symmetric events 318 4-2 Morphological reciprocals 320 4-3 Syntactic reciprocals 324 Summary and conclusion 326 3·3 3·4

4·

5·

317

References

329

Index

349

Foreword This book is based on a collection of recently published contributions by the author in the last decade (suitably revised and annotated with additional new references), complemented with new unpublished work (Chapters 5 & 9), or to appear (Chapter 11). The whole material has been appropriately restructured in three parts. Part I deals with essential issues in temporality, aspectuality; and actionality. Part II examines various aspects of nominal architecture, including (but not limited to) distinctions in count/mass expressions, bareness, (in)definiteness, or other determination parameters involving N-to-D Move or Agree. Part III is dedicated to investigating time/space anchoring in clauses (or CPs), anaphors, pronominals, and the interpretability of inflectional features. Although there is now a rather flourishing and valuable modern linguistic literature on the various themes and issues of Arabic grammar, the key features of the analyses proposed, as well as the nature of the parameters involved are, to my knowledge, both new and appealing. First, the profound study of plurality (and pluractionality) of verbs in Arabic (Chapters 2 & 11), including the interpretability of Number on the verbal category, is rather unprecedented in the literature. Second, the discovery that Arabic bare nouns behave like true indefinites in English or Romance (Chapter 7), coupled with the discovery that Arabic postnominal adjectives are in a strict mirror image order of their Germanic counterparts (in analytic contexts) provide even more important new keys of the Arabic (or Semitic) nominal architecture than the traditionally studied construct state (reanalyzed here in terms of macro-parametric synthesis; Chapter 6). Third, the traditional count/mass dichotomy is re-examined in light of the role played by general, collective, or singulative DPs, and replaced by a more adequate binary feature system ([±atomic] and[± singulative]; Chapter 5). Fourth, the synthetic nature of temporal and voice categories (Chapter 3) and determiner categories (Chapter 6) is given a formal characterization. Finally. a Past/Perfect/Perfective ambiguity is established and solved in the contexts of (potentially ambiguous) collocating temporal adverbs, or the role played by CP in temporal anchoring, DAR (double access reading), or SOT (sequence of tense), Arabic being argued to be a DAR language. These key features and issues in the grammar of Arabic are treated in light of the most recent developments of generative theory, building on comparative and parametric approaches to language variation, minimalist design of gram-

XVI

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

mar, and computational efficiency (cf. in particular Chomsky (1995, 2008), and Kayne (2000, 2005)). The semantic/formal nature of parameters is amply investigated, chiefly in connection with the Longobardi (1994, 2001)/Chierchia (1998) debate, as well as the more general debate on whether there are macro-parameters (Baker (2008) or parameter schemata (Longobardi (2005), Guardiano & Longobardi (2003)) that cannot be fully reduced to micro-parametric variation (as in Kayne (2005)). The cartographic methodology is also explored (cf. Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999) in particular), and typological results discussed and integrated (e.g. Greenberg (1972, 1991), Aikhenvald (2001), WALS (Haspelmath et al. 2005), etc.). One peculiarity and persistent state of the art in approaching the structure of Arabic is that three rather separate methodological and conceptual trends coexist, although they hardly converge, or communicate the results of their investigations: (a) a remote Arabist tradition, which is rich and valuable with regard to traditional grammatical thought (see e.g. Sibawayhi (8th century), Astarabaadii (12th century)), but cannot replace (or be transposed as such) in modern analysis or theory; (b) a western Orientalist (and/or semiticist) tradition, which makes use of distinct notions and terms, although it builds (critically) on the Arabist lines of thought and data (see e.g. Brockelman (1913), Wright (1974), Blachere & Gaudefroy-Demombynes (1939), Blau (1972), or more recently Retso (1997), Owens (2000), Versteegh (2001), Badawi, Carter & Gully (2004), or Ryding (2005)), and (c) modern linguistic theory applied to Arabic (for very recent applications, see e.g. Bahloul (2008), Bardeas (2009), Aoun, Benmamoun & Choueri (2010), etc.). The texts of the Encyclopedia of Arabic Languages and Linguistics edited by Kees Versteegh and others is an illustration of this state of affairs, since they gather together these three noncommunicating traditions. The present book attempts to bridge gaps between these traditions, taking into account important results reached in the various frameworks. The language described is basically Standard Arabic, although dialect (or colloquial) varieties are also brought in, in addition to Hebrew, for the sake of describing and identifying micro-variation. For more general comparison (or macro-variation) various other languages are used (typically Germanic and Romance). Standard Arabic is the language of more than 350 million speakers around the globe (including 22 Arab states in which it is the main or unique official language), more than 60 million internet users, and more than 30 million social network users. It is also the media language of the most influential TV channels in the Arab World, the most read language of the newspapers or magazines, etc. Huge electronic corpora in Standard Arabic are then now available to check grammatical judgements, a tool which developed so rapidly and quantitatively only in the last decade, and now provides more modern and reliable data.

Foreword xvu By putting these new contributions together (with new considerations of

theory and data), the book is expected to have a wide and substantial audience among students, researchers, and teachers of Arabic, Semitic, comparative, typological. or theoretical linguistics. Following the path of its predecessor, Issues in the structure of Arabic Clauses and Words, published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1993, it is hoped that it will become one of the popular references in the field.

Provenance of chapters Chapter 1, Tense/aspect interaction and variation, appeared in The Synta.:"<: of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecame (eds), 235-257, 2004. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chapter 2, Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality, appeared in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar 5, Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Schlonsky (eds), 131-185,2003. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chapter 3, Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in Voice and Temporal Patterns, appeared inA~mmetry in Grammar 2, Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), 95-128. 2003. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chapter 4, Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs, appeared in Perfoct Explomtions, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds). 2003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chapter 6, Synthesis in Arabic DPs, appeared in Relative Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 25, Jan Retso & Janet Watson (eds), 153-180, 2009. Oxford: OUP. Chapter 7, Bare, generic, mass, and referential Arabic DPs, appeared in Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. In Honor of]oseph Emonds, Simin Karimi, Vida Samian & Wendy Wilkins (eds), 40-65, 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chapter 8, Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia, appeared in Proceedings of NACAL 35, Charles Haberl (ed.), 149-182, 2007. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Chapter 10, Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice, appeared in Brill's Annual ofAfroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1: 1-38, 2009. Chapter 11, Plural verbs and Agree, is to appear in Nominal and Verbal plurality, Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr & Brenda Laca (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

xx Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Thanks to the publishers for having granted me permission to reproduce this material. Chapter 5, The grammar of count and mass, appears here for the first time, and is based on two invited talks: Kinds of Number (and Gender). International Workshop on Nominal systems across languages. Barcelona: UAB, 2009; & Ways of counting and numbering. Workshop on nominal and verbal Plumlity, 2009. Paris: CNRS & Univ. of Paris VIII. Chapter 9, Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretability of inflection, appears here for the first time, and is based on two talks. Finite time inflection and double access construal. Invited talk. Postgraduate Conference at the Univ. ofNewcastle, 2007. & Talk delivered at NACAL 36, 2008. Chicago.

PART I

Temporality, aspect, voice, and event structure

CHAPTER 1

Tense/Aspect interaction and variation*

Temporal and aspectual relations and differences in their grammaticalization across languages can be traced back to detectable morpho-syntactic properties. Past. Perfect, and Perfective (and their negative/neutral counterparts) will be taken as the core grammatical components building the temporal/aspectual systems. In the context of Semitic, there is an old-recent debate on whether the expression of grammatical Tense is lacking, which would then make Semitic an "aspect language': 1 There is also a debate on whether among "Tense languages~ only languages like Slavic or Greek are "truly'' aspectual, in the sense that Aspect is grammatically expressed only in those languages. 2 The ambiguity of morphological expression of some temporal or aspectual categories in some languages, in addition to its total absence in others (in tenseless and/or aspectless languages), is sufficient to stress that the descriptive program of the temporal/aspectual variation is basically morphological (or morpho-syntactic), and that semantically temporal or aspectual cross-linguistic generalities have to be built in general syntax. 3 Furthermore, in addition to Past, Perfect, and Perfective interactions, there is also the contribution of actional (Dowty/Vendler) classes of predicates (the so-called

*

This Chapter is based on Fassi Fehri (2000/2004).

The idea has been initiated by the German philologists Caspari (1848/1859) and Reckendorf (1895), the former being later translated (and modified) in Wright (1858/1971). Later developments along a similar line include a huge list of references, among which see Meillet (1910) and Cohen (1924). More recently, Cohen (1989) has defended the "pure aspect" view of Semitic verbal morphology. On the opposite side, Kurylowicz (1972 & 1973) in particular denies the existence of aspect (or perfective) as a grammaticalized category in Semitic (typically Arabic and Hebrew). 1.

1.

On a partial review of references on the matter, see e.g. Szemerenyi (1965).

3· It is an empirical question whether the lack of some temporal words is correlated with the lack of their meaning altogether, or whether its absence can be compensated through default (morphosyntactic) correlations.

4

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

"lexical aspect"), and their properties (such as telicity), in determining temporal interpretation. 4 Arabic is typically characterized by the ambiguous use of the same finite verbal form for Past or Perfect (or non-Past, Imperfect) to express Anteriority (or non-Anteriority) of Reference Time (= RT) with respect to either Utterance Time (UT) or Event Time(= ET). Perfectivity (or imperfectivity), on the other hand, is not morphologically expressed, being either correlated with Past or Perfect T (or non-Past, Imperfect). The latter interacts with telicity (or more gererally actionality), but does not depend on it. For concreteness sake, I assume a neo -Reichenbachian model of tenses, conceived as expressing relations between times, with two syntactic TP projections headed by predicative Ts, to account for Perfect tenses. Each T defines a temporal ordering relation between two temporal arguments: Tl orders UT with respect toRT (and/or ET), and T2 orders RT and ET. Tl is usually qualified as "deictic" or "absolute" (Past, Present, or Future), and T2 as "relative" (Perfect/Imperfect or Anterior/non-Anterior). 5 As for Perfectivity (= Pfv), it is conceived as an expression of completeness, boundedness or culmination of events or situations (which cannot be further extended). In contrast, Imperfective events do allow completion or addition of an end. Following Giorgi & Pianesi (2001; = GP henceforth), I will take the semantic correlate of Perfectivity to be terminativity. Put in a tree, the core configurational structure ofT and Asp is roughly as follows: (1)

T1 (±Past)

~

T2 (± Perf/ Ant)

~

Asp (± Pfv/Term)

~

VP (±Telic)

Within this background, I provide a new description of the essential ingredients of the Arabic aspectuo-temporal system, within a cross-linguistic perspective. The latter focuses on the following questions:

4· Note that Mood and Modality, which also interact with temporal interpretation, will not be dealt with here (see e.g. Fassi Fehri (1990, 1993, 1996) on this interaction in Arabic, as well as Chapter4). 5· On this model, see Zagona (1990), Hornstein (1990), Fassi Fehri (1990), Giorgi & Pianesi (1991), Stowell (1993), and Gueron (1995), among others.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

a. b.

the Past/Perfect ambiguity; the dependency of Perfective on Past or Perfect, and the dependency of the Imperfective on the Present; c. the existence of a dependent Imperfect in Arabic, with past interpretation arising from contextual distribution, typically in sequence of tense (SOT); d. the role played by synthesis and analysis in determining complementary values of aspectuo-temporal chains.6

To the extent that Asp can be separated from T, the picture that emerges is that Arabic is more of a "tense language': than an "aspect language". 7 This typology, once redefined, can be used to differentiate languages in which (a covert) Perfective is a feature associated with an expressed Past T from languages in which (a covert) Past is inferred from an expressed Perfective (depending on whether the association is oriented from up to bottom, or from bottom up). A third type briefly discussed is Slavic, where both T and Asp are morphologically expressed.

1.

Past, Perfect, Perfective

Verbal morphology exhibits two contrasting finite forms characterized by Person placement (as a suffix for Past, and prefix for non-Past), internal vocalic changes of the verb stem, and (suffixed) Mood marking in the present (and its absence in the Past). These forms contribute to mark Mood, Tense, and Aspect interactions. For convenience sake, I limit the discussion to the latter two categories, and designate the two contrasting forms as suffixed Tense (= ST), and prefixed Tense (= PT), taking into account only Person Placement. 1.1

The Past/Perfect ambiguity

ST expresses Past in neutral (non-dependent, non-embedded) context, as evidenced by its co-occurrence with appropriate deictic adverbs: 8

6. On a detailed description of synthetic/analytic variation, see Fassi Fehri (2001a, and Chapter 3). On temporal chains, see Gueron & Hoekstra (1988) and Fassi Fehri (1990). 7. This view is very dose to that of Kurylowicz (ibid), and differs radically from the aspectualist view defended in many works on Arabic and Chamito-Semitic, as in e.g. Cohen ( 1989). 8. According to Wright (1898), III, (1 ), ST here is equivalent to English Past, Greek Aorist, or German Imperfect. But as will be shown, this description is incorrect.

5

6

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(2)

a.

katab-a r-risaa.la.t-a

zamsi

(*gad-an)

wrote-3 the-letter-Ace yesterday ("tomorrow) He wrote the letter yesterday.

b.

jaraa zamsi

(*gad-an)

ran yesterday (*tomorrow) He ran yesterday. ST expresses also Perfect (= Present Perfect) in neutral (non-dependent, nonembedded) context. The adverbial test also applies here, similar to what happens in English: 9 (3)

a.

katab-a r-risaa.la.t-a l:.zaan-a, qablu (*gad-an) wrote-3 the-letter-ac now before (*tomorrow) He has written the letter now, before (*tomorrow).

b.

jaraa l:.zaan-a, qablu (*gad-an) ran now before (*tomorrow) He has run now, before (*tomorrow).

(4)

John has written the letter (just) now, before (*tomorrow).

In both (2) and (3), ST serves to locate ET prior toRT, or liT, without relying on contextual information. In the Semitist literature, ST has often been designated as Perfect, "Accompli" (a French term), or Perfective, and treated as Aspect. However, ST in this context can be reasonably construed as denoting ordering temporal relations, or time reference (whether "absolute" or "relative").10 Given its collocation with time reference adverbials, it is hard to see how ST can be conceived as marking primarily Aspect (perfectivity or non-durativity), given that the latter is not sensitive to such adverbial contrasts (typically past and future). 11

9· Wright (ibid) equates the Arabic Perfect with that of English, German, or Greek. This is also incorrect, as we will see. to. Higginbotham (2000b), among others, regards "speech time" or UT as a special case ofRT.

n. The ambiguity of ST in (2) and (3) has a synthetic analogue in Portuguese (i), and an analytic counterpart in French "passe compose"' (ii): (i)

Comi as quatro. I ate/have eaten at four.

(ii)

a. b.

Jean a mange la pomme hier. Jean a mange la pomme en ce moment.

See GP (1997) for an analysis of the Portuguese form as T2 (which parallels the Latin Perfect form), and for a treatment based on T2 of the French "passe compose~ see Gueron (1995).

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

ST can also be the embedded member of other perfect tenses (i.e. Past Perfect or Future Perfect), typically when a copular auxiliary is overtly realized. These uses confirm the T nature of the Perfect ST: (5)

kaan-a (qad) katab-a r-risaalat-a lammaa daxal-tu had already wrote-3 the-letter-Ace when entered-! He had (already) written the letter when I entered.

(6)

sa-yakuunu (qad) kata.b-a r-risaa.la.t-a gadan FUT-is already wrote-3 the-letter-Ace tomorrow He will have (already) written the letter.

In (5), the writing event (which occurs in the past) is prior/anterior to the entering (which occurs also in the past). This indicates that two "shifting" tenses are involved in the matrix clause (a past of the past, or a past perfect). The two anteriority relations do not follow if the thematic verb is interpreted as expressing Aspect only (i.e. perfective). They do not obtain in e.g. (7), where the thematic verb, although read as Past perfective, is not able to express the same temporal orderings: (7)

katab-a r-risaalat-a lammaa daxal-tu wrote the-letter-Ace when entered-! He wrote the letter when I entered.

In (7), both verbs can be construed as Past, but the entering is understood as prior/ anterior to the writing. As for (6), although the action occurs in the future (which is posterior toUT), the time adverbial is interpreted as a bound prior to which the completion of the writing must occur (hence the anterior future interpretation, a complex time reference).

1.2

Temporal and modal qad

Let the two temporal interpretations be attributed to Tl (for Past) and T2 (for Perfect). If we state that ST expresses either T1 or T2, then a significant progress is made in identifying the nature of the ST alternations. The ambiguous use of ST is not to be qualified as "temporal" vs. "aspectual~ In both cases, temporal Anteriority is associated with ST. The variation arises only from the nature of the time arguments that ST orders (UT and RT, or RT and ET). Other temporal components in the clause (such as adverb level type) or the context may play a coercive role, which leads to finer time reference, or disambiguation.

7

8

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

The particle qad is typically acknowledged in traditional literature as favoring the Perfect reading. It is usually interpreted as meaning "already" (i.e. precedence as in (5) and (6)), or "just" (immediate precedence), as in (8): (8)

qad Zataa just came He has just come.

But note that in (8), qad is ambiguous in a way that it cannot be in (5). It can mean "indeed~ or "in fact~ to stress the factual certainty of the event, and the sentence is translated as "He has come indeed" or "He did come". In the latter case, it serves a modal function. Interestingly enough, qad in this interpretation can co-occur with past time adverbials. It is then interpreted only as a modal and it looses the possibility of being temporal, as the interpretation of (9) illustrates: (9)

qad zataa zamsi indeed came yesterday He did come yesterday (*he has just come yesterday).

In these contexts, qad appears to be higher than T1, and inserted under Mod (Modal). This behavior is confirmed by its possible occurrence in front of the auxiliary of a complex tense: (10)

qad kaana y-u~llii indeed was 3- pray He was indeed praying.

If all perfects exhibit a structure with two (hierarchized) TPs, where a high auxiliary supports Tl. and a lower thematic verb supports T2, then the duality of ST in Arabic may find its source in the emptiness of the present copula in Arabic. The double tensed (auxiliary) structure, with an empty auxiliary in Tl, and the thematic verb in T2, is diagrammed in (11): T1

(11)

~

0

T2

~

kataba

VP

Such an analysis of the Present Perfect is in consonance with other perfects being doubly headed structures. The overt periphrastic character of Past or Future

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

Perfects and Passive Pluperfects provide clear support for the double T analysis, given that both Ts are temporally specified. 12 1.3

One or two projections ofT

As seen in the examples above, Arabic exhibits an important peculiar property: it makes no morphologica.l distinction between Agrl and Agr2, and no morphological distinction between T1 and T2. 13 Since both the auxiliary V and the thematic V carry the same finite morphology, based on Person placement essentially, but also on Agr (Number and Gender), the morphology cannot be taken as discriminatory as far as the Tlff2 distinction is concerned. 14 Furthemore, although the syntheticity of the Present Perfect makes it identical in form to the Past, the interpretations of the two tenses are difierent. In order to distinguish Perfect from Past, we propose that the latter projects only one T, whereas the Perfect projects two Ts. This morpho syntactic difference is supposed to account for temporal divergences and time adverb co-occurrences.15 1.4

Perfective

Up till now, I have established the (primary) temporal nature of ST. But I have not dealt with its aspectual character, namely when it expresses perfectivity, and how the two facets of this nature can be connected. These questions will be examined

For more on the interpretation of qad, see Dahl & Talmoudi (1979). The Arabic verbal copula, when unspedfied temporally, surfaces as null. The pronominal copula "huwa" (he) can appear as an overt expression of Agr in verbless sentences, when needed, indicating the existence of a dear-cut distinction with the verbal copula. The visibility of the latter has nothing to do with Agr specification, but only with temporal specification (see Fassi Fehri (1990, 1991/1993)). Since Present Perfect is synthetic, it is reasonable to think that T2 merges with T 1, when T 1 is null In analytic Perfects, however, T 1 (and Agr or phi features) must be visible (cf. Fassi Fehri (2001) for detail, as well as Chapter 3). 12.

Agr1 and Agr2 have been used in the pre-minimalist representations as projections of the phi features of subject and object, respectively. In current analyses, they can be dispensed with, and replaced by nominal features on vN and T, along the lines proposed in Chomsky (1995).

13.

Note that the two Agr must be anaphoric, due to conditions on chains, which preclude the repetition of identical heads in the same chain, as argued in Fassi Fehri (1990 & 1996).

14.

I see no reason to favour a sole T2 interpretation of the form over a complex T one. The situation of T here is exactly parallel to that of time adverbs or particles like qad, which can have di1ferent interpretations depending on the level of structure at which they are inserted However, the question arises more seriously with the ambiguity of analytic present perfects, typically when interpreted as Past. See e.g. Gueron (1995) and GP (1997) for plausible though different analyses.

15.

9

10

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

in the next sections by using various tests. For the moment, I will only mention that ST as a simple Past can be interpreted only perfectively, and so is ST as Perfect. This statement is true regardless of the actional class of the verb. For example, the accomplishment (2a) cannot be uttered if the writing of the letter is not already finished, and the letter completed. Likewise, the activity (2b) is terminated, and cannot be further extended. Furthermore, the perfectivity is also true of the Perfect in (3).

Present, Imperfect, Imperfective

2.

In Western traditional grammars, PT is usually named "Imperfect': and commonly thought of as expressing "no idea of time"; it denotes "an act which takes place at all time~ 16 However, contrary to this view, PT, like ST, can express Tense. It is associated with Present in neutral (non-dependent, non-embedded) contexts, regardless of whether the verbal predicate is stative, or non -stative: (12)

y-abnii d-daar-a l-1aan-a (*1amsi) 3-build the-house-Ace now (*yesterday) He is building the house now.

(13)

y-ajrii l-1aan-a (*1amsi) 3-run now (*yesterday) He is running now.

(14)

y-arrifu l-jawaab-a l-1aan-a (*wnsi) 3-know the-answer-Ace now (*yesterday) He knows the answer now.

The construction (12) is an accomplishment, (13) an activity, and (14) a state. Constructions (12) and (13) mean "He is involved presently in the act of building or running': Furthermore, there is no culmination of that act, which indicates that the Present is also imperfective. As for (14), it means roughly that "a certain state holds of the subject at the present moment': The Present interpretation of (12) and (13) cannot be obtained for English; "John runs" or "John eats" are normally construed as habitual or reports. English can form an actual present only from statives ("knows': "loves': etc.). This difterence in the interaction between actional properties of eventualities and the availability of actual Present reading recalls the well-known difference between English, on the one hand, and Romance and

Cf. Wright (ibid, p. 18). For the Arabic grammatical tradition, on the contrary, PT is basically non-Past, being Present or Future (see e.g. Sibawayhi (8th century)).

16.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

other Germanic languages, on the other hand. In the latter languages, accomplishments and activities do form actual Present, but in English, they do not, unless progressive morphology is used. Arabic is on a par with French or German, rather than English, in this respect The interaction mentioned might serve as a base for postulating that only languages which allow Present interpretation of nonstatives (typically accomplishments and activities) have Present T. Moreover, it is the Present meaning which requires the latter eventualities to be imperfective (i.e. with no telos or culmination reached)P GP (1991) suggest that the variation between English and Romance/Germanic can be implemented through a difference in X -bar structure height (X0 for English, but X1 for Romance/Germanic). They argue that simultaneous reading for nonstatives require duration (or more precisely imperfectivity). It is the languages exhibiting this interaction that have Present Tin their morphological inventory, while English has Present as lexical, and only progressive -ing is morphological. 18 The lexical/morphological contrast can be observed or tested with complements of perceptual reports: (15)

a. b.

John saw Mary eat an apple John saw Mary eating an apple.

In the (a) construction, where the verb is bare, only a perfective reading is possible, whereas (b) is interpreted only as a progressive. In Arabic, the situation is similar to that of English (15b) in that the complement sentence in (16), which contains a (morphologically null) Present, is interpreted only as simultaneous imperfective: (16)

razay-tu r-rajul-a y-azkulu t-tuffaat~at-a saw- I the man 3-eat the-apple-Ace I saw the man eating the apple (*eat the apple).

The impossibility of perfective interpretation with the Present of these classes (cf GP (1991, 1995), Gueron (1995)) is attributed by GP (1997) to the Punctuality Constraint, as stated in (i), and the interpretive principle (ii), once the notion of punctuality is appropriately defined:

17.

(i) (ii)

A closed event cannot be simultaneous with a punctual event. (p. 163) The anchoring event is punctual. (p. 160)

The speech event is one case of anchoring events. Punctual has to be durational with activities and accomplishments to make Present possible with these classes. GP follow Kamp in defining an event as punctual "iff it is not temporally partitioned by other events" (p. 159). In other words, Present can be an interval, not necessarily a moment, as in Gueron (ibid). 18.

See Gueron (ibid) for a similar view.

11

11

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Note that in Romance/Germanic, infinitive verbs are used in such contexts. and the interpretation is ambiguous between (lSa) and (15b). 19 The fact that PT cannot be ambiguous in (16) suggests that it behaves (with regard to relevant properties) like a progressive in English (although it has no progressive morphology as far as we can tell). Arabic also differs from Romance/Germanic in another important respect. Factual present of achievements is possible in Arabic, but not in those languages: (17)

y-ablugu r-rajul-u l-qimma.t-a l-'laan-a 3-reach the-man-NOM the-top-Ace now The man is reaching the top now.

The construction (17) is interpreted as imperfective, like a progressive form in Romance or Germanic; but unlike the present form in the latter languages, it has no performative (or perfective) interpretation: (18)

John reaches the top.

(19)

Gianni trova un libra.

Thus the Arabic Present is strongly associated with imperfectivity, compared to that of Romance/Germanic. As a corollary, it is insensitive to actionality. 20 In addition to being Present, PT is also interpreted as Imperfect (associated with non-anteriority), typically when used with past auxiliary in complex tenses,

19.

This is e.g. the case in Italian (i), from GP (1997,p. 165), which is ambiguous:

Ho vista Gianni mangiare una mela I saw Gianni eat-INF an apple. For the English progressive, see Higginbotham (2004). (i)

10. Jacqueline Gueron (p.c.) pointed out to me that achievements in the Present are normally interpreted as perform.ative in a number oflanguages. On the other hand, GP (1997) claim that achievements are inherently perfective in all languages, and hence can form no actual Present. Contrastively, Arabic achievements can form actual Present, but it is normally ST which is used for performatives. This difference in behavior is correlated with (in)sensitivity of the Present to actionality. It also indicates that Arabic Present is correlated with Imperfective, but Romance/Germanic Present inherits imperfectivity only through (a particular) actionality. The existence of Present progressive achievements even in Romance/Germanic (GP (ibid), pp. 172 & 177) appears to be truly problematic for the hypothesis of inherent perfectivity. To solve this problem, GP resort to a notion of"continuity': which is associated (according to them) with the progressive, and is not incompatible with perfectivity (imperfectivity not being a prerequisite of continuity). A more convincing analysis. it seems to me, has to abandon the inherent perfectivity hypothesis, and postulate that the progressive is a case of a morphologically marked imperfective, while other cases of imperfectives in Romance/Germanic are only induced from actionality (in interaction with Present T).

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

to express roughly what Greek or Latin Imperfect expresses, or English past progressive: (20)

kaana y-aktubu r-risaalat-a was 3-write the-letter-Ace He was writing the letter.

The same is true with Future or Habitual Imperfect: (21)

yakuunu y-aktubu r-rasaaZil-a

fli l-raJiyy-i

is 3-write the-letters-Ace in the-evening He will be (is usually) writing letters in the evening. Observe that Imperfects here are periphrastic, like their Perfect counterparts. Other properties of PT as Imperfect will become clear when dealing with dependent tenses. PT is often misinterpreted as (primarily) Imperfective (cf. Comrie (1976)). Wright (ibiti) takes it to express only duration. Here, I maintain the Imperfect/Imperfective distinction, not only for the sake of making precise the right notion involved, but also for knowing whether PT is the neuter-negative (non-Past/Imperfect) counterpart of the positive Past/Perfect. or whether it grammaticalizes imperfectivity, as against perfectivity. a position that I will reject. Recall that Perfect denotes anteriority, an ordering before relation.21 Imperfect is non-ante1"im·, usually simultaneous, expressing a within relation. 22 I can then conclude that the Arabic Present is morphologically (or morphosyntactically) expressed, although it interacts interestingly with Imperfective. PT also expresses Imperfect, which is distinct from Imperfective. This morphology turns out then to be one of "tense" (Present or Imperfect), rather than "aspect': Imperfective can be associated with these tenses, and we will return to further clarifications on this interaction, after examining other specific contexts in which PT is used as Imperfect.

3·

Imperfect and SOT

In addition to its use as Present or non-Anterior/Simultaneous in complex tenses, PT has other specific uses, which can be contextually dependent on a Past tense. It does not form a complex tense with the latter, but has roughly the interpretation which a French "Imparfait" or Italian Imperfect has, i.e. the interpretation of

21. I leave aside here the notion of the "relevance" of the reference or evaluation time (or simultaneity meaning), which can be used e.g. to distinguish pluperfect from past of the past. 11.

I leave aside the after/posterior relation for the moment.

13

14

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Past hnperfect. That interpretation can be determined by anaphoricity with an immediately dominating Past tense, or it can be contextually conditioned by other temporal elements. The following construction with an adjunct clause is an example of an hnperfect use: (22)

jalasa y-a.Srabu l-xamra sat 3-drink the-wine-Aec He sat, drinking wine.

In the adjunct clause, only the PT can be used, and it expresses "Present-underPast reading': The use of the Perfect here is impossible, thus indicating that it cannot be referentially dependent or anaphoricP Likewise, in complement clauses, the simultaneity with the past is solely acceptable if the hnperfect is used (i.e. no SOT effect is possible, just like the situation in Japanese or Hebrew):24 (23)

qaal-a l-ii 1inna-hu y-aktub-u r-risaalat-a said-3 to-me that-him 3-write the-letter-Ace He said to me that he was writing the letter.

The use of the Past/Perfect does not yield that interpretation: (24)

qaa.l-a l-ii zinna-hu katab-a. r-risaalat-a. said-3 to-me that-him wrote-3 the-letter-Ace He said to me that he wrote the letter.

In (24), there is no overlapping of the writing and the saying, as in (23). The writing is rather anterior to the saying (with a shifted past reading). This situation is in contrast with the SOT behavior in complement clauses in English, where the embedded verb can be interpreted as anaphoric (or simultaneous, with the meaning "Mary is ill"):25

23.

For anaphoricity of Present/Imperfect, see Fassi Felui ( 1990 & 1993).

24. Cf. Ogihara (1995) and Abush (1997), among others. Cf. also Higginbotham's (2000a) analysis of SOT, based on anaphoridty.

25.

The Arabic stative counterpart to (25) read as anaphoric is (i), where no copula surlaces: (i)

qaal-a 1-ii

1inna-hu mariicf-u11

said-3 to-me that-him sick-NoM He said to me that he is sick. When the past copula is used, no "present-under-past" reading is possible: (ii)

qaal-a I-Ii

1inna-hu kaan-a mariitf-an

said-3 to-me that-him was-3 sick-Ace He said to me that he (was) was sick.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

(25)

John said Mary was ill.

GP (1995) compare languages which possess Imperfect (like Italian) with languages that do not (e.g. German or English). They observe that Italian Imperfect is a dependent anaphoric tense, which denotes Present-under-Past tense, the Past being provided normally by the matrix verb. Moreover, the (simple) Past cannot be used in this language as dependent, and in embedded contexts, only Imperfect can be used with a SOT effect. 26 In contrast, languages like German use Past (ambiguously) as dependent or non-dependent, the latter being neutral with respect to perfectivity. It can be read either way, as simultaneous (imperfective) or non -simultaneous (perfective): (26)

Hans sagte, da.B Marie einen Apfel aB a. b.

Hans said that Mary was eating an apple. Hans said that Mary ate an apple.

In (a), the simultaneous reading is available, and the Past is interpreted as Imperfective. In the (b) reading, the Past is Perfective and the simultaneous interpretation is excluded. Thus (simple) Past is necessarily Perfective in Italian, but not so in German. The conclusion then is that if a language has an Imperfect Past, as opposed to a simple Past, the latter cannot be used as dependent in embedded contexts. On the other hand, the Imperfect is dependent and used to denote simultaneity. In languages in which the Past is unspecified, it can be used as dependent/ simultaneous. Arabic is close to Italian in this respect. Past (which is also Perfect) is perfective and non-dependent, contrary to Imperfect, as illustrated above. Furthermore, Past Imperfect interpretation can be provided by the context: (27)

li-maa t-aqtutuluuna zanbiyaaza

l-laah-i

min qabl-u

why you-kill-PL.M. prophets-Ace Allah-GEN before Why were you killing the prop bets of Allah before? (28)

baynamaa n-nabiyy-u

y-u~aUii

ziti

zaqbala

ruqba.t-u

while the-prophet prays then appeared Oqbah-NOM While the prophet was praying, Oqbah showed up. In these examples, the subordinate clause acts as a temporal adverbial forcing the shifting of the Imperfect in the matrix clause to a past interpretation (through a "hidden" past auxiliary, just like what happens in embedded dependent contexts). Such sorts of examples have been used thoroughly by the "aspectualists" to show that PT can express all tenses, from which they conclude that it is devoid ofTense.

16.

Compare their examples (17) and (2l),p. 349.

15

16

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

But these distributions can be taken as evidence to the contrary, namely that PT is an Imperfect Tense (denoting simultaneity, possibly with Past). If the contrary was true, i.e. if PT were "purely aspectual then it is hard to see how the Presentunder-Past interpretation can ariseP

Perfectivity

4· 4.1

ST as Perfective

We have seen that Arabic Past and Perfect are not anaphoric, and do not allow simultaneous imperfective reading in SOT (cf. (24) above). Consequently, Past and Perfect ST are associated (or correlated) with Perfective. The correlation between Perfective and Past or Perfect obtains normally in languages that distinguish Imperfect from simple Past (i.e. Italian, and somewhat differently Arabic, as opposed to German). Furthermore, like Perfect, Perfective is not compatible with simultaneous interpretation. Present and Imperfect, however, are usually associated with Imperfective (ct~ the interpretations of e.g. (16), (22), and (23)). But unlike what happens in Russian (or Slavic), Arabic Perfectivity is not marked by two distinct verbal conjugations (or two distinct lexemes), opposed in the same tense, as illustrated by e.g. the following Russian minimal pair, contrasting the imperfective and the perfective in the preterite: (29)

a. b.

ya pisal ya napisal

This pair is rendered only approximatively by English I was writing and I have written or French Jecrivais and Jai ecrit. The latter pairs, contrary to the Russian ones, are rather oppositions of Perfect/Imperfect (Anterior/Simultaneous), although Aspect may be associated with them. Likewise, Perfectivity in Arabic is a feature of a specific Tense, rather than a grammaticalized (derivational) morpheme (or a lexicalized opposition) differentiating the same tense. Arabic has only one Past/Perfect synthetic form, which is also perfective/terminative (see (2) and (3) above). It contrasts minimally with the Imperfect, which is either a complex tense (with an expressed past auxiliary, as in (20)), or occurs in an appropriate context (with a "hidden" past interpretation), as in e.g. (23), (27), or (28). But as clarified above, Arabic Imperfect is not necessarily a Past (contrary to what is found with Italian Imperfect, or French "Imparfait"). Only the analytic

17. See e.g. Hisle (1990), Zaborski (2002), and in particular Fassi Fehri (1990, 1993) for various kinds of arguments leading to this conclusion.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

Past Imperfect is. Moreover, Imperfect is (normally) imperfective and (roughly) equivalent to both Italian Imperfect or English Past Progressive. Consider e.g. (2b) expressing a past activity (repeated here as (30a) for convenience), and its analytic Past Imperfect counterpart, given in (30b ): (30)

a.

jaraa r-rajul-u ran the-man-NOM The man ran.

b.

kaana r-rajul-u

y-a;m

was the-man-NOM 3-run The man was running. c.

[ ... ] wa maa zaala y-ajrii and still 3-run and he is still running.

The event in (30a), which is completed or terminated, cannot be further extended, contrary to that in (30b ), which is non-terminated and can be extended. Hence the sequence in (30c) can be used after (30b ), but it leads to ungrammaticality after (30a). In fact, the combination of (30a) and (30c) is acceptable only if two events are involved, one terminated to make the first clause true, and one non-terminated and ongoing at liT, to make the second sequence possible. 28• 29 The Perfective nature of ST is corroborated by its use in so-called "performative" sentences, as instantiated by the following examples: (31)

jur-tu hungered- I I am hungry (literally: I hungered).

GP (2001), who analyze quite similar contrasts in Italian, reach a similar conclusion. Italian simple Past and Perfect are perfective, and they contrast with Past Imperfect, which is imperfective. The former tenses cannot be extended (unless the interpretation is different, as indicated). See e.g. the contrasts in their (22) and (23). 18.

Simple ST being perfective, it cannot be equated with German Imperfect or even English Past (as claimed by Wright (II I, 1). Comrie (1976) correctly analyzes Wright's example which appears to be non-terninative (= (i) here) as Past perfective: 29.

(i)

jalas-uu ralaa 1-baab- i sat-3.PL on the-door-GEN They sat down at/on the door.

The natural interpretation of (i) is that the event cannot be further extended here (with the proviso made above with respect to (30a) ).

17

18

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (32)

bir-tu. sold-I I sell (literally: I have sold).

Sentences like these (with appropriate contexts and presuppositions) express merely reaching a terminating point (the state of "being hungry': the decision of "selling"), rather than any past action. In English or French, they are normally translatable by a Present (which should be construed as terminative). In Arabic, the use ofST focuses on their perfectivity, although reference time (a sort of resultative Perfect very close in these cases to a stative present) may be playing a less direct (or "metaphoric") role. Observe that the perfective/terminative nature of ST vs. the imperfective/non-terminative nature of PT should come as a natural consequence of the Western philologist or Semitist view, which takes the nature of the opposition to be aspectual (whatever the terms used: Perfect/Imperfect, Imperfective/Perfective, or Accomplished/Unaccom plished). 30•31 But note that Kurylowicz (1972) denies the existence of verbal aspect as a (discrete) grammatical category in Semitic, and he takes the perfective/ imperfective meaning to be a tertiary function (in his terms) of the ST/PT opposition, its primary function being preterite/non-preterite (or past/present), and its secondary function anterior/simultaneous (or perfectum/infectum; p. 83). Since Tense and Aspect are non -separable from a semantic point of view, he claims that Aspect is "... a non-distinctive feature of tense forms in every language. The present tense referring to the moment of speaking is by itself imperfective or linear, the preterite or the future are by themselves perfective or punctual" (p. 79). He then observes that it would be an elementaty error to treat equally the tertiary temporal/aspectual system of Western Semitic (cf e.g. Akkadian) and the binary system found in Arabic and Hebrew. In the latter case, Aspect must be subordinate to Anteriority (a tense notion), the primary content of the sole opposition (p. 80). Arabic Perfect and Imperfect function primarily as Preterite/ Present, when related to the moment of speaking, and secondarily as Anterior/ non-Anterior when related to another tense. Thus Kurylowicz's view represents an undeniable significant progress in the adequate description of the Arabic and

Even Wright (1971, III, p. 21 ), who awkwardly attributes to ST the meaning of German Imperfect, correctly states later on that" to express the imperfect of Greek or Latin languages, kaana is frequently prefixed to the imperfect':

30.

Recall that Present is not normally used in performatives in Arabic, due to its general imperfective nature, which then makes it a grammatically mlllked form for Aspect (the value of which depends on that ofT), compared to Romance or Germanic, in which Aspect is only inherited from Actionality, and is somehow more "lexical': as already explained above.

31.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation 19

Hebrew system, and it comes close to ours (and in part to that of traditional Arabic grammarians) when it denies the grammaticalization of Aspect as the primary content of the verbal inflectional opposition. It favours Tense instead, and organizes the aspectuo-temporal system around three "functions: with their dependencies and correlations. 32 But divergences between Kurylowicz's system and ours, although less crucial than those with the "aspectualists~ are still of important significance for more precise description, as well as for conceptual foundations and empirical consequences. 33 Likewise, Comrie (1976, pp. 78-82) also defines a mixed (or combined) Tense/ Aspect interpretation of Arabic verbal inflection, but does not take issue with the predominance of Tense or Aspect, nor with the question of how the system is descriptively organized. Comrie correctly observes that when the rest of the sentence contains no overt specification of time reference (e.g. no temporal adverbs), ST (named Perfective) has perfective and past meanings (as in (i) in Footnote 29, taken from Wright (ibid)), while PT (named Imperfective) is interpreted with imperfective and present meaning (as in (33), also taken from Wright (ibid)): (33)

llaa.hu.

y-arlamu bi-maa

t-armal-uu.na.

Allah-u 3-know about-what 2-do-PL.M. Allah knows what you are doing. The contrast between these two constructions can be used to favor neither the sole tense nor the sole aspect distinction. The system appears to be mixed. First, the use of PT as future does not necessarily imply imperfective meaning, but could well

The primacy of Tense in his view is assessed at different places, despite the fact that he some times talks about a system with no Tense and no Aspect, only a binary oppositioiL Anteriority (or time reference) is temporal, and it is needed for Kurylowicz (1973, p. 114) to assess that "... whereas the existence of tense does not entail that of aspect, the latter presupposes that of tense~ the dependency of aspect vis-a- vis tense in Arabic, the inherent nature of aspect as non -distinctive feature of Tense in every language, and the systematic imperfectivity of present and perfectivity of past and future. All these statements are almost true (as rough descriptions), but regrettably questionable, when faced with precision, as will become dear.

32.

Clearly, Kurylowicz's (ibid) claims either make wrong or no predictions about variation in the aspectual/temporal expression in languages, and how it is organized 0 n the other hand, the general "primacy" of tense over aspect that he adopts is not empirically motivated It is lan-

33·

guage specific, as explained below. Furthermore, even if it turned out to be true of Arabic, no motivation for such orientation is provided Similar criticisms carry over to Zaborski's (2002) work, who adopts Kurylowicz's views entirely.

20

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

correspond to a Slavonic perfective, as illustrated by the following sentence (found also in Wright (ibid)): (34)

fa-llaah-u y-a~kum-u bayna-hum yawm-a l-qiyyaamat-i and-Allah 3-judge between-them day-Ace the-resurrection-GEN And God will judge them on the day of resurrection.

Given that the day of resurrection takes place some time in the future, RT is future. Butthe day of resurrection functions as a telos of the event, which suggests thatthe sentence is terminative (and/or "perfective"). PT then ends up being both terminative or non-terminative in our terms, and hence the ST/PT opposition cannot be purely aspective. Similarly, ST is not always denoting past time reference, but could express future RT, as in the often quoted sentence (35): (35)

z-ajiizu-ka zicjaa ~marr-a. l-busr-u I-come-you when redden-ed the-unripe date I will come to you when the unripe date ripens.

Thus although the embedded verb carries ST, the ripening is understood as occurring in the future. What ST then denotes is "relative" (anterior) RT, since the ripening is prior to my coming. Comrie then establishes the combined nature of the opposition, but does not go any further. However, his contribution is a step forward, when compared to the "pure aspect" view (initiated by Caspari & Reckendorf; cf. Footnote 1). 4.2

PT as Imperfective?

I have established earlier that ST (being either Past or Perfect) is correlatively Perfective, and hence terminative. The question now is whether PT (being Imperfect and Imperfective) is necessarily non-terminative, or it can be also terminative (or "perfective"). Consider first PT in analytic Past Imperfect/Imperfective. The latter is typically non-terminative, regardless of the actional properties of predicates. This is true of accomplishments as well as achievements: (36)

ka.ana 1'-rajul-u y-~ilu zilaa l-qimma.t-i lammaa. was the-man-NOM 3-arrive to the-top-NOM when zatlaq-a ~aaruux-an launched-3 missile-Ace The man was reaching the top when he launched a missile.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation (37)

ka.ana 1'-rajul-u was

y-aqtaru l-maa.sajat-a

the-man-NOM 3-cross

rann-a

lammaa

the-distance-Ace when

l-ii

appeared-3 to-me The man was crossing the distance when he appeared to me. In both cases, the action in the matrix clause is not terminated, whereas that in the embedded one is. The analytic Past Imperfective behaves then like the English or Italian progressive with regard to its interpretation. In contrast, PT in simple Imperfect/Imperfective interpretation is not so committed to non-terminativity, but can be terminative as well. This value depends on the actional properties of the predicate (which include telicity and durativity). but also on the Tense of the Imperfect. The telic/atelic distinction is clearly observable in opposing (38) to (39), all of which are finished or terminated events: (38)

a.

qata.ra r-rajul-u

l-ma.saafat-a.

.fii saara.t-in (*saarat-an)

crossed the-man-NOM the-distance-Ace in hour-GEN (*hour-Ace) The man crossed the distance in an hour (*for an hour).

b.

wa.fala r-rajul-u

zilaa. l-qimmat-i

.fii saarat-in (""saa.rat-an)

arrived the-man-NOM to the-top-GEN in hour-GEN (*hour-Ace) The man reached the top in an hour (*for an hour). (39)

a.

jaraa sa.arat-an ("fii saarat-in) ran-3 hour-Ace (*in hour-GEN) He ran for an hour (*in an hour).

b.

sarlb-a

l-xamr-a

saarat-an ("fii saarat-in)

drank-3 the-wine-Ace hour-Ace (*in hour-GEN) He drank wine for an hour (*in an hour). The first set of clauses is telic, in the sense that a certain goal or endpoint, the telos, has been reached, or that the event culminates at the telos. The distance has to be entirely covered, the top reached, etc. The ongoing of the event cannot be continued any further, e.g. by adding a clause like "and he is still .. .':The second set of clauses is atelic, in that although the event is finished, it does not culminate at any endpoint or goal. It is conceivable that it might be continued. In- X vs.for-X adverbials yield felicitous testing results for identifying tetic and atelic sentences, respectively. With simple Imperfect clauses, however, telicity cannot be (directly) tested by using the in-XIfor-X adverbial opposition. In clauses with Present tense interpretation (normally ambiguous between actual (or progressive) and habitual

21

:u Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar readings), the use of the adverbial removes the actual reading, making available only the habitual interpretation: (40)

a.

y-aqtaru r-rajul-u

l-masaafat-a

fii saarat-in

3-cross the-man-NOM the-distance-Ace in hour-GEN The man crosses the distance in an hour. b.

y-~ilu

r-rajul-u lilaa l-qimmat-i fii saarat-in 3-arrive the-man-NOM to the-top-GEN in hour-GEN The man reaches the top in an hour.

With these telic predicates, the use of in-X adverbs is only possible when the interpretation is habitual or non-actual. Actual Present is not compatible with those adverbs. But note now that with Imperfect Future, the in-X test is completely felicitous: (41)

y-aqtaru r-rajul-u

l-masaafat-a

gad-an

fii saarat-in

3-cross the-man-NOM the-distance-Ace tomorrow in hour-GEN The man will cross the distance tomorrow in an hour. The same result obtains with achievements. The common behaviour of Future and Past/Perfect vis-a-vis the in-X test, as opposed to that of the Present, indicates that the difference is due to the value of Perfectivity; associated with Tense: Past/Perfect and Future are perfective, whereas Present is imperfective. With actual tenses, the in-X/for-X opposition then applies not to test telicity (as commonly thought), but to test a combination ofperfectivity and telicity. 34 4·3

From Tense to Aspect

Granted that the PT/ST opposition expresses a mixed combination ofT and Asp, and having indicated that Asp is merely associated with T (rather than being the value of the mentioned opposition), I would like to corroborate this view by showing how the system is oriented, from top (Tense) to bottom (Aspect), rather

34· Various authors arrive through various routes to a similar conclusion (see e.g. Bertinetto (2001), and Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou & Izvorski (2001)). GP (2001) claim that the telic/ atelic distinction does not apply to imperfective predicates, and that the perfective/imperfective distinction is privative, in the sense that only perlectives are associated with the (positive aspectual) value of terminativity, whereas imperfectives are left unspecified. My analysis of the Arabic Imperfect suggests that the postulated privative nature is not established, since only the dearly imperlective factual Present cannot be terminative, as far as I can tell, even when telic. As for the simple Imperfect interpreted contextually as Past, it has been shown that it can be interpreted as simultaneous, and hence imperlective.

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation 23

than the other way round. The opposite orientation appears to be true in e.g. Western African languages, as will be explained. In Arabic analytic aspect/tenses, both Perfective and Imperfective can be dominated by either Past or non-Past of the auxiliary kaana "be" (see e.g. the (5)/(6) contrast for Perfective, and (20)/(21) for Imperfective). Hence no Aspect/ Tense correlation is predictible. In the synthetic aspect/tenses, however, simple Past is always perfective, Future can be perfective, and Present is imperfective (as shown in e.g. (38), (41), and (12) respectively). The imperfective, on the other hand, can be associated with Imperfect Past, as in (37), Present, as in (12), or nonbounded Future, as in (42): (42)

sa-y-ajrii FUT-3-run

He will run. Contrary to (41) above, (42) is neither terminative nor culminative (or telic). It is imperfective. These contrasts suggest that no Aspect can determine (a specified) Tense, since perfective can be Past or Future, and imperfective can be associated with Present, Past, or Future. But a (specified) Tense can determine Aspect (simple Past is perfective, actual Present is imperfective, etc.). The conclusion then is that in Arabic Aspect correlates with Tense, but not vice versa. Assuming that these categories project separately, as indicated above, the system can be said to be oriented from top to bottom. Comrie (1976, pp. 82-84) observes that in a number of Western African languages, including Yoruba and Igbo, there are no specific markers of Tense, although there are markers of Aspect. Thus non-stative verbs have the prefix marker n in Yoruba and na in Igbo if they have imperfective meaning, whereas perfectives have no morphology (statives have only imperfective meaning, with no marker). But sentences with these forms are non-ambiguous with regard to time reference (in the absence of any contextual indication): perfectives are interpreted as referring to Past, and imperfectives to Present: (43)

a. b.

Yoruba: 6wa Igbo: 6 byara. He came.

(44)

a. b.

Yoruba: 6 n sise Igbo: 6 na am 6ru He is working; he works.

Thus in these languages, Aspect is marked overtly, and time reference is a "secondary consequence" of the aspectual mar king (except in contexts where overt time reference adverbs like "yesterday" are used, in which case the imperfective

24 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

refers to the past). Clearly then, although these sentences are morphologically "tenseless~ Tense is not absent from their interpretation. It is presumably projected as null Tense, and interpreted by association with imperfectivity or actionality (i.e. ingredients from the bottom of the structure). Contrastively. Arabic can be thought of as morphologically "aspectless~ but Asp values are associated with specific values of Ts. 4·4 The Tense/ Aspect language typology revisited I have observed that there are two types oflanguages which regard to the lack of either Tense or Aspect marking: the Arabic type (call it A-type), and the Western African type (call it W-type). A third type like Russian, (or more generally Slavic), appears to mark both categories (call itS-type). But as amply explained in the article, the first two types do express both categories of time reference (or tense) and aspect, like the third type, except that they differ in how they do it morphologically. In the A-type, the aspectual value is (normally) associated with specific time reference marked on the verb, and in the W-type, time reference is associated with aspect marking. Leaving aside other factors that play an important role like markedness (in the past/non-pastor the perfective/imperfective distinctions), finiteness, and actionality (vs. perfectivity), a rough picture of the typology can be given at this point, assuming that all languages instantiate the same syntactic partitioning (as exhibited in (1) above), and only morphology makes differences, in addition to morphosyntactic derivations. In the A-type, T has a specified value (Past or Perf), and the value of the Perfv feature is inherited by T. Assuming that V moves to T, then the displacement is motivated by V checking of its features against those of "rich" T (i.e. through a sort of attraction). In theW-type, Perfv (induced from actionality) is only compatible with Past. If T is null, then it is V which carries the relevant value of features which percolate to "poor" T, to make it interpretable (assuming that there are universal default Asp, Actionality, and T correlations (as proposed e.g. by Kurylowicz (1972)). The Imperfective in the W-type, which is morphologically marked, can be associated with Present through the same mechanism of movement, except that other overt expression of time reference (like past time adverbs) may prevent interpreting imperfective as Present (i.e. blocks aspect values from percolating up, by blocking movement). The Imperfective in the A-type appears to exhibit a similar default behaviour. However, Asp has no morphological mark. Since PT can be both imperfective and perfective, it must be that it is Tense, in fact Present T, which imposes imperfectivity, rather than the other way round. Language type distinctions can be based on the grammaticallymarked members of the pairs (Perfv, Perf, Past), or their semantically marked positive counterparts (when Actionality operates). Many details of the analysis

Chapter l. Tense/Aspect interaction and variation

remain to be worked out, but it is clear that if the T/Asp language typology is to be properly defined, the A-type would qualify as aT language, while theW-type would represent an Asp language, the S-type being marked for both T and Asp. 35

5·

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have examined how Aspect and time reference (or T) correlate in languages, and typically in Arabic. I have rejected the quite spread view among Western philologists that Arabic is an "aspect" language in the sense that the PT/ST opposition does not express reference time. The result turned out to be the contrary, in that the opposition has been shown to have no primary aspect content, compared toW-type or S-type languages. A more principled description of how the system of aspectuo-temporal relations and correlations is organized has been provided, based on the morpho syntactic typology proposed. Many questions obviously remain, but they would presumably be addressed more adequately if the "tense" dominant view of Arabic aspectuo-temporal morphology is adopted, being clearly understood that no language seems to lack the essential semantic notions associated with T and Asp. 36

35· In work in progress, I develop an analysis of Tense/Aspect marking distributions which is parallel to Number/Classifier marking distributions. See Fassi Fehri (2011). 36. In this description, I have neglected the active participle because it does not play a central role in the temporal system, being carrying no Tense morphology. See e.g. Fassi Fehri (1993), Hisle (1990), and Shlonsky (1997) on a quite convergent view of this matter.

15

CHAPTER 2

Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality* Two essential problems are addressed in this chapter. The fist one is desc1·iptive; it consists in the appropriate characterization of the variable behavior of Arabic morpho-syntactic conjugation forms (or Semitic binyanim). The second one is theoretical; it concerns the appropriate theory of transitivity or causativity (or more generally complexity oflexico-syntactic diathesis). I argue that the two problems can be dealt with adequately only through the introduction of Numbe1· (Num) as a feature category of verbs, and the configurations in which it is found, in parallel to nominal Num. Various singular (= Sg) or plural (= Pl) Num configurations would then lead to various syntactic distributions and alternations. Furthermore, the collective/distributive dichotomy of Num is shown to play an important role in determining configurational and semantico-aspectual differences associated with complex predicates. Arabic (as well as Semitic) provides a clear morphological evidence for general nominal/verbal Num marking. The morphology used in nominal forms to express Pl is essentially the same as that used in verbal forms. If Num is generalized (or orthogonal) to categories, then Num theory can serve as the basis for providing a unifying treatment of (a) the 'intensive' (or repetitive) and the 'causative' (or transitive) alternations (of e.g. the second form; FII), and (b) the verbalization (or 'inchoativization') and the transitivization (or causativization) properties (of e.g. FIV). Further properties of other forms (e.g. Fill, FVI, and FX) are analyzed along similar lines. The general Num theory of event/argument complexities receives strong support from alternative uses and complex polysemies of causative reduplicating morphemes across various languages. Significant consequences and predictions oflanguage variation are then naturally accounted for.

*

Part of this work has been presented at the UQAM Asymmetry Project, Montreal December 1999, the 5th Conference of Afro-asiatic languages, Univ. of Paris VII, June 2000, and during my visit to the Department of Linguistics at MIT in September 2000. I would like to thank the audiences there, and especially Anna Maria Di Sciullo, Ken Hale, Alec Marantz, Noam Chomsky, Richie Kayne, Marie-Therese VInet, and Driss Seghrouchni for helpul remarks and discussions. An early and extended version of this work appeared in Fassi Fehri (200 1a).

:18

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Num theory is implemented in the Minimalist framework (as defined in e.g. Chomsky (1995 & 1998)), coupled with Distributed Morphology (cf. Halle & Marantz (1993), and subsequent work). It builds on significant ideas advanced in the literature with regard to verbal Num marking and reduplication uses (typically Kulikov (1993 & 1999), Greenberg (1991), Dolinina (1999), Moravcsik (1978a &b), and the many references cited there), as well as ideas proposed in the context of VP shell structure (Larson 1988), L-syntax composition (Hale & Keyser (1993, 1998 & 1999), little v (Chomsky, ibid), and recent work on word and category formation (Marantz (1997 & 2001), and other work along similar lines). As far as implementation is concerned, it is proposed that Num is a (potential) functional projection of verbs, and that its realization involves either a single Merge (collective), or a plural Merge (distributive).

1.

1.1

Issues Problem 1: Semitic morpho-syntax

The correspondence between morphologically complex Arabic forms (or Semitic binyanim) and their syntactico-semantic properties, alternations, and uses has until now resisted any systematic and/or unifying treatment How can we candle two of the traditionally acknowledged properties of e.g. so-called Form II(= FII) and Form IV(= FIV), stated in (a) and (b)? a.

First, FIV (which involves glottal prefixation) in (1) and FII (which involves second consonant gemination) in (3) appear as the transitivized forms of Form I (= FI) in (2) and (4), respectively: (1)

1-axraja

r-rajul-u

l-walad-a

caus-wentout the-man-NOM the-child-Ace The man made the child go out (2)

xaraja

l-walad-u

went.out the-child-NOM The child went out. (3)

ra,4qama

l-'lamr-a

made-important the-matter-Ace He made (took) the matter (as) important. (4)

ra4uma

l-'lamr-u

became-important the-matter-NOM The matter became important.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

b.

Second, FII and FIV are used in (5) and (6), without inducing any adicity increase: (5)

a.

kassara

l-walad-u

l-kazs-a

broke.intens. the-child-NOM the-glass-Ace The child broke the glass into pieces. b.

jawwala

r-rajul-u

took.walks.intens. the-man- NOM The man took a lot of walks. (6)

a.

kasara l-walad-u

l-kazs-a

broke the-child-NOM the-glass-Ace The child broke the glass. b.

jaala

r-rajul-u

took.walks the-man-NOM The man took walks. (7)

a.

z-aftata

r-rajul-u

come.escaped the-man-NOM The man came to escape.

b. falata

r-rajul-u

escaped the-man- NOM The man escaped. In this use, morphology is rather associated with 'intensive' or 'repetitive' meanings, as in (5), or 'inchoative~ as in (7), i.e. with interpretations which are traditionally thought of as aspectual in nature. Moreover, the transitive (a) and the aspectual (b) uses (or alternations) are normally taken to be non-related, and hence no unifying treatment of them has been proposed. 1 1.2

Problem 2: Transitivity theory

What is the source of transitivity? Does it arise from a VP shell structure (Larson 1988), the projection of little v (Chomsky 1995), or the projection of Voice (Kratzer 1996)? Chomsky (1995, 1998), relying on work by Larson (ibid) and Hale & Keyser (1993; passim) proposed that transitivity arises through a v functional head, which is external to the projection of VP. and which: (a) licenses a second Merge, introduces an external argument (in its Spec), and (b) forms a Case (or

t. In addition to these two characteristics, variable meanings and uses of these forms are documented (for details on the matter, see e.g. Fassi Fehri (1996a & 2001b)).

29

30

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Agree) relation with an object.2 Further work has shown that (c) v has a verbalizing property(combineswitha root R to form a verb) and (d) vhasvarious semantic flavors (agentive, causative, process, stative). 3 Consider the (b) and (d) properties. Unergative vhas the (b) property only if it is transitive, but not if it is intransitive. As for (d), it is not a (semantic) definition of v, since nothing unifies these various semantic flavors. Then what about (a) and (c)? If vPs and their nP nominalizing counterparts have the same internal functional structure, then (c) cannot be of strictly categorical (morpho-syntactic) nature. It has to be replaced by some 'lexico-aspectual' type feature (let it be ev for eventuality), to be able to account for the parallel functional structure of nominalizations, as in (8): 4 (8)

ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i l-masruur-a criticizing-NOM the man-gen the project-Ace The man's criticizing the project.

Assume that ev licenses an argument (arg) in its Spec. Then arg is "internal" in unaccusatives, and "external" in transitives and unergatives. The internal or external positioning of arg is semantically motivated (ct~ e.g. Kratzer (1996)). Ev can be merged with an internal argument (let it be evl), and assigns it an internal theta role. In the case of transitives, a second ev (let it be ev2) is merged with the external argument, and assigns it an external theta role. If so, then transitivity is derived through the occurrence of two evs, one of each licensing one of the two arguments. In other terms, the bivalent (or complex) argument structure of transitives is (bidirectionally) correlated with the bivalent/complex structure of evs. The bidirectionally ofcomplexity between args/Specs and evs/Heads is questionable, however. For

2. These two properties form the so-called Burzio's (1986) generalization. Chomsky (1995, pp. 315-6) claims that "... if a verb has several internal arguments, then we have to postulate a Larsonian shell [... ],where vis a light verb to which V overtly raiseS:: He then adds that "If intransitive (unergative) verbs are hidden transitives, as Hale & Keyser(= HK) suggest, then only unaccusatives lacking agents would be simple VP structures. [ ... ] The external role is a property of the 1'-VP configuration, and a specifier bearing this role is therefore a necessary part of the configuration; a transitive verb assigns an external theta-role by definition': But note that HK's analysis is located at the L-syntax, a level which deals with lexical complexity and diathesis, but not necessarily with Case.

3· See in particular Marantz (1997, 1999, 2001), Alexiadou (2000), Harley (1999), Arad (1999), and Embick (2000), among others. 4· I take a neutral position with respect to the category label of nominalizations. Another option is an early introduction of v, which is later nominalized (a position adopted e.g. by Marantz ( 1997), and criticized by Alexiadou (2000) ).

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

example, unergatives might be taken to be headed by dyadic evs, although they merge only with one ev-Spec. 5 Likewise, anti-causative predicates might be analyzed as merging with only an internal Spec, although they are headed by dyadic evs. If true, then the projection of an extra syntactic functional layer (via ev2) does not force transitivity. Furthermore, if v has the category forming property (c), then it is not clear how (a) and the latter property combine. In other words, we are in need of a connection between the category forming property and the complexity property. I take these two problems (the lack of direct correlation between ev and arg complexity and the lack of correlation between category and complexity forming) to undermine seriously the external v theory of transitivity. 6

2.

2.1

Number Theory Ingredients of Num theory

Any theory of transitivity must be able to take into account the following properties: (i) the complex nature of arg/Spec structure (in transitives), (ii) the (potential) complex nature of evs/Hs, (iii) possible relations between complex Specs and complex Heads, with no necessary bidirectionality, and (iv) relations between the use of ev/v as category forming, and its use as complex predicate forming. I claim that complexity relations described in (i)-(iv) can be captured by Number Theory(= Num T). Num Tis based on the following hypotheses: (a) Num (with a Pl value) is the source of complexity; (b) Num is a property ofH/ev or Spec/arg (or both, hence "distributed plurality, with potential multiple Specs); (c) Pl Num when applied to H or Spec can be realized as single or multiple Hs or Specs, depending on whether it is collective or distributive; (d) various cases of complexity are instances of various Num configurations; (e) Voice may affect complexity, but is not the crucial factor in determining it.

5· I interpret Kratzer's proposal in this sense, since the source of e-theta role for the external arg necessarily involves internal binding into the lower V (via what she calls "event identification"). 6. The objections raised against (the external) little vas a source of transitivity carry over to the VP shell theory (proposed by Larson (1988) and the VoiceP (advanced by Kratzer (1996, 2004) ), if they are construed as structural sources of transitives. Voice (applied to L-syntax, to determine the "lexical" internal/external diathesis, or to S-syntax in Hale & Keyser's (1993 & 1997) sense can be viewed as the source of hierarchical organization of arguments (= HOA), which refiects argument complexity only indirectly, at different heights of functional structure (cf. infra subsection 4.3 for discussion).

31

32

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

2.2

Verbal plurality and distributed Num

Arabic FII is acknowledged to have the characteristics of event plurality. Medieval Arabic grammarians associate it with the essential meanings of taktiir "multiplicity" and mubaalagah "exaggeration (i.e. augmentative). Western philologists translate these two meanings as "intensive" and "extensive': respectively. Greenberg (1991) has shown that this form (as well as the Semitic piel) has the basic characteristics of verbal plurality, as originally stated by e.g. Swadesh (1946). The latter essentially consist in: 7 (a) reduplication (although partial as in second consonant gemination), (b) temporal1-epetition (or repetitive action), (c) plura.l action on/by many. and (d) natural ergativity (i.e. action on many with transitives, and action by many with intransitives).The two first characteristics are easily observed in the so-called intensive or repetitive FII, illustrated in (5) above. Action on plural objects is illustrated by the following constrasts: (9)

a.

jarra.l;la.

l-junuud-a

wounded.intens the- soldiers- Ace He wounded many (of) the soldiers. b.

jarral;la r-rajul-a wounded.intens the-man- Ace He inflicted many wounds (to) the man.

The difference between the two constructions is that (a) has, in addition to the repetitive/intensive reading, an interpretation which (b) does not have, namely the interpretation of distributed action on many objects. This interpretation of the so-called intensive is sufficiently documented for Standard Arabic, Arabic dialects, and other Afro-Asiatic languages (as reported e.g. in Greenberg ibid).8 Let us take the property (b) to be an instance of Pl Num on verbs (or evs, following in essentials the Arabic tradition and Greenberg), marked here by reduplication. The question then is how this property relates to property (c), i.e. to

7·

Greenberg(1991) takes (c) and (d), which I have given as distinct, to be the same property.

Also, I do not discuss here another characteristic of plurality, namely "spatial dispersion': 8. Action by many (or plurality of subjects) is not so documented. Greenberg (ibid) provides, after Caspari/Wright (1858/1971 ), the following contrast:

(i)

baraka

1-jamal-u

kneeled the-camel-NoM The camel kneeled. (ii)

barraka

n-naram-u

kneeled. intens the-drove-NOM The (whole) drove (of camels) kneeled.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality 33

plurality of action on (or by) many? A natural way to relate the two properties is to take advantage of their configurational positioning: temporal repetition arises from Num operating on ev/H, and action on/by many from Num operating on args/Specs. In other words, Pl Num applies to the H/Spec domain, and can be a property of either of H/ev or Spec/arg (or both). I will use the expression dL¢ributed Number to designate the placement ofNum in the second instance, and nondistributed in the first instance. 2.3

Distributed plurality

Greenberg takes properties (b) and (c) (as well as the ergative character of verbal Num, stated in (d)) to follow from the distributive nature of Num, marked prominently by gemination. "[If ... ] the expression of distributive plurality in the verb has as its original sound symbolic meaning "temporal repetition~ then the transition to the meaning "plural object" is not so difficult': He then adds that if one does something repeatedly " it is highly likely to be action on separate objects, hence to involve a distributive plural': (p. 584). 9 I will argue, however, that the cases described (informally) by Greenberg cannot be taken as prototypes of (strong) distributives. To do so, I keep as separate for the moment the distributed Num question and the natural ergativity question. In repetitive events, I take H Pl to be non-distributive, in the sense that the Pl ev is realized by a single H. I also take actions on many or by many to be instances of weak distributivity applied to Specs (or args), since I assume that Pl interpretation can obtain in a Sg Spec. In this view, the distributed Pl in H or Spec in the cases examined above is not taken as (strongly) distributive. If so, I will have to look for cases where strong distributivity applies to H and/or Spec. 2.4

Causative complexity, verbalization, and distributivity

As shown above, the introduction of glottal prefixation (in FIV) may or may not result in transitvization. This variation depends on the nature of the root R to which this form applies. If R is non-verbal, then the form "verbalizes" it (without

9· Greenberg then goes on explaining why (d) holds: "'f one or more agents act on a plurality of things, the action on plural objects is almost certain to be viewed distributively as separate action on a number of distinct objects. On the other hand, separate agents can only carry out the same act on a particular plurality of objects by a concerted action, thus collectively. For an intransitive verb, there is no object toward which action is being directed, each subject will in the usual case be acting independently" (pp. 583-4). It is worth noting that Greenberg keeps the causative meaning separate from the intensive, hence postulating no connection between the two.

34 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

adicity increase), but if R is already "verbal': then the outcome is transitivized. The question then is how these two properties can be related, although they have not been so treated. The verbalizing property of the glottal prefix [1] is supported by its ability to create "verbs" from non-verbal Rs, thus forming denominal intransitives, as in (10): (10)

1-anbata l-f:w.ql-u inch-planted the-field-NOM The field became with plants (started having plants).

Likewise, the same prefix verbalizes Rs which can be thought as adjectival, or prepositional, as illustrated by (11) and (12), respectively: (11)

1-axbata-t l-mar1at-u inch-toughed-f the-woman-NOM The woman became tough.

(12)

1-a.rbar-a r-rajul-u inch-spring-ed the-man-NOM The man came to be in spring.

The transitivizing property is illustrated by (1) above, compared to (2). In this case, the outcome is necessarily transitive. Why is that so, and how is transitivization forced? It is reasonable to think that transitives like (1) have both complex heads and complex Specs. The complex His morphologically realized as [1- V], where [1] is taken as another discrete instance of ev (or V/v). In other words, [1] can be taken as reduplicating ev/V, and hence pluralizing it. Spec complexity is instantiated by the existence of two args, an indication of another form of "reduplication" or plurality. Suppose then that the complexity arises from the reduplicating plurality in both cases. Since the complex His not composed of identical evs, and the complex Spec is not either, I take plurality to be of "distributive" character in both cases (with distributive complex Hs and distributive complex Specs). Thus the application of glottal prefixation to already formed verbs results in creating a reduplicated verb configuration, which is read as distributive (by virtue of having two discrete morphemes for the two verbs, although they form a single complex H). Likewise, the realization of discrete Specs in transitives is an indication of the distributive character of Spec Num. If this is true, then [1] prefixation is read off as reduplication of ev/Y, although it is not a straightforward mark of reduplication. However, despite the fact that [1] prefixation results in plurality, it cannot be interpreted as "intensive': e.g. as denoting temporal repetition. This follows automatically if [1] is taken to be (necessarily) interpreted as distributive, due to its "discrete" nature. In contrast, gemination morphology of FII is not so interpreted. FII is normally

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

interpreted as "intensive" because reduplication reads naturally as collective. The reason that (Sb) has no extra argument, compared to (6b), can be attributed to the fact that reduplication marks collective plurality of the event. Collective plurality of evs is interpreted as complex H (read collectively. hence "intensitivityj, without necessarily inducing complexity of Spec. The core meanings of FIV and FII, acknowledged in the traditional literature, are then derived, namely that FIV has a transitivizing property, and FII an "intensive" property (see Fassi Fehri (1996a & 2001b) for detail, as well as Larcher (1996) for FIV). But as also acknowledged in the literature, matters are more complex, because FII can also be a transitivizer. This is the subject of the next subsection. 2.5

Two sources of transitivity

There are cases in which FII results in transitivization when applied to verbal Rs, as exemplified by (3) above, compared to ( 4). Likewise, there is an alternate to FII in (Sb ), which can be transitive, as (13) illustrates: (13)

jawwala

r-rajul-a

took.walks.intens the-man-Aec He made the man take walks.

If reduplication is a mark of verbal plurality. how can it be the source of both the intensive (Sb) and the causative (13)? To show how the readings can be related, I need to establish: (a) how FII can behave like a transitive FIV, and (b) how FII can be intensive, whereas FIV cannot. FII is a plural form. When Pl is read collectively on H, intensive results. If Pl on FII is read distributively (on Spec), just like what happens with FIV, then transitivity is yielded in the same way. In other words, Pl can be read ambiguously with FII. The distributive/collective ambiguity of Pl in FII recalls the ambiguity found in the interpretation of universal nominal quantification described in Fassi Fehri (1999); see also Chapter 11 of this volume. There, it is shown that under specific structural conditions the universal quantifier kull can be ambiguously interpreted, as illustrated in the following examples: (14)

zakala kull-u

r-rijaal-i

dajaajat-an

ate

all-NOM the-men-GEN chicken-Ace All the men ate a chicken.

(15)

zakala kull-u

rajul-ayn-i

dajaajat-an

ate all-NOM man-dual-GEN chicken-Ace Every two men ate a chicken. The quantifier in (15) can be strongly distributive in the sense that there should be more than one chicken, and each two men ate one. It is rather collective in (14), in

35

36

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

that there could be only one chicken eaten by all the men (or only weakly distributive, in the sense that the existence of more than one chicken is not required by the interpretation). The transitivizing property of FIT is hardly questionable. Arabic dialects have simplified their conjugation form system by doing without FIV, hence transferring its functions to FII, which has become the unique form for expressing both intensive and causative meanings. The ambiguity of FII and its transitivizing property in Standard Arabic come then as no surprise. 10 The question to be addressed now is why FIV cannot be intensive. In order to answer this question, we need first to examine more closely some details of the verbal morphology of plurality. 2.6

Parallel plural morphology

Up till now, I have established a parallel between nominal and verbal quantification for the distributive/collective distinction. It would be a welcome step to reinforce this parallelism by examining other features/properties of plurality. In fact, other parallels can be, and have been (at least partly) acknowledged in the literature. I will point to some (presumably) non-accidental similarities here, leaving aside the details for further research. Typically, glottal prefixation and gemination (whether consonantal and vocalic) play a role in nominal and adjectival plurality, which is parallel to its role in plural verbs. Consider first glottal prefixation. There is a class of so-called broken plurals which denotes small sets (from three to ten normally), named jumuur 1-qillah "paucity plurals" by traditional grammarians, and which has the essential common property of being headed by the glottal prefix: (16)

a.

~ayn "eye" --71a~n; 4i1b

b.

yawm "day" --71ayyam; zaman "time" --71azmaan; ~inab "raisin" --71amaab; tiql "heaviness" --71a!qaal; burj "tower" --7?abraaj; ~unuq "neck" --71a~aq

c.

~imaad "support" --71a~midah; ta~aam "food" --71at~imah; ragnf"flat loaf of bread, roll" --71argifah; burj "tower" --7 ?abrijah; ~amuud "column" --71a~idah

"wolf" --71a4_1ub;

to. In Fassi Fehri (1996b & 200 1b), it is argued that transitive FII selects a stative (adjective or noun) as an internal complement, whereas FIV selects a non-stative, and that FII induces a change of state of the complement, but FIV does not. When FII selects non -statives, it is interpreted as "coercive': Le. implying the use of energy or force by the causer, against the will of the internal agent. Fwthermore, the subject of the internal verb controls the action with FIV, but not with FII.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality 37

I take the prefix [1] in (16) to be the essential morphological segment for marking plurality. Vowels of the singular are not transferred to the plural in any significant sense. For example, vocalic change is not regularly "apophonic': 11 Whenever vocality is relevant, it has to do with lenghtening/geminating the vowel. It is then clear that the unifying feature of these forms is glottal prefixation, a morphology which parallels that of the "verbal" plural causative found in FIV. Consider now gemination and/or lengthening. Consonantal gemination is involved in the so-called "forms of exaggeration'' ($iyag al-mubaalagah) by Arabic grammarians. The latter designate the subject of the event which repeats "exaggeratedly" the action, as in the following examples: (17)

a.

?akkaal "a big eater': sarraab "a big drinker': k.addaab "a big liar': nawwam "a big sleeper': sikkiir "a big drinker (of alcohol)".

b

sakuur "very gratefur, waduud "very friendl~ kasuul "very lazy, jahuul "very ignorant'; waluud "giving birth to many children, fertile~ saruub "big drinker'; 1akuul "big eater'; samiis "big listener': qadiir "very apt'; saliim "big knower': sariib "big drink.e~

The translation with a quantity adjective (or adverb) is a mere approximation. I take the gemination to express an "intensitivity~ applied to an adjectival subject. 12 Vowel gemination (or lengthening) appears also as an essential building segment of a class of broken plurals: (18)

a.

qi1b "wolf"~ 4i1aab; jabal "mountain"~ jibaal; rum~"lance" ~ rimaal}.; rajul ~ rijaal

b.

qayd "constraint" ~ quyuud; jisr "bridge" ~ jusuur; namir "tiger" ~ numuur; burj "tower" ~ buruuj

These plurals are taken to be less marked, compared to paucity plurals. They are interpreted as "plurals of abundance" when contrasted with the latter, otherwise

n. For various relevant versions of apophony paths and their motivation, see Kurylowicz (1973), and Guerssel & Lowenstamm (1996), among others.

u. It is worth noting that these subject forms cannot be "'derived" from the verb, in the traditional sense of derivation, since the corresponding intensive verbs do not exist to my knowledge (cf e.g. *sakkara r-rajul-u"'the man drank a lot': *?akkala r-rajul-u "'the man ate a lot"). Cf. Fassi Fehri (2001a) for detail as well as analysis of forms making use of vocalic gemination, and yielding eventually doublets or triplets.

38

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar they are just plurals, with no mere specification. They can also be contrasted with "plurals of plurals" (munta.haa 1-jumuur), exemplified in (19): 13 (19)

a.

qawl "saying'--+ ?aqwaal--+ ?aqawiil

b.

jamal "camel" --+ jimaal --+ jamaa?il

c.

kuttaab "Koranic school" --+ kataatiib; jumhuur "public" --+ jamaahiir; diiwaan "cabinet" --+ dawaawiin

Nominal vowel gemination has a verbal counterpart in Fill. The latter, according to traditional grammarians, express the meaning of"participation" (mu5aarakah): (20)

a.

maaJaa-hu walked.PART.-him He walked with him (or: he shared walking with him).

b.

saa.baqa-hu raced.PART-him He raced him.

c.

saaraba-hu drank.PART.-him He drank with him.

What "participation" means in this case is the fact that both participants are interpreted as actors of the action. But although the event is the same (e.g. "the race"), it has plural participants. The plurality of participants (the "nominal" part of the verb meaning) appears then to be distributed on Pl Specs. FVI, the reciprocal form, plays the role of unifying the two participants: (21)

t-asaa.baqa zayd-un

wa.-ramr-un

rec-raced Zayd-NOM and-Amr-NOM Zayd and Amr raced each other. But consider the following pair: (22)

saabaqa zayd-un

ramr-an

raced Zayd-NOM Amr-Acc Zayd raced Amr. (23)

saabaqa ramr-un

Zayd-an

raced Amr-NOM Zayd-Acc Zayd raced Amr.

13.

These plurals involve double gemination of the vowel, or a double pluralization process

(with various forms, arguably related to a much simpler plural form). But the important idea is that these forms are semantically "intensive" plurals, hence involving "double" plurality.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality 39 Although the interpretation of both (22) and (23) appears to involve reciprocal action, this is not to be confused with the reciprocal. In Fill, the subject is more active than the object, and the two sentences are not equivalent. In the reciprocal FVI in (21), both participants are understood as "subjects" of the "same" event. I take these subjects to have "fissioned" into subject and object positions with Fill, and licensed in Pl Spec positions. Vowel gemination, read as a functional Pl head, is satisfied through Pl Specs in this case. If so, then the question is why this Pl cannot be read as intensive, and why Fill is interpreted as only distributive. 1his situation recalls that found with FIV. Interestingly enough, FIV and Fill can be, and in fact have been, related morphologically. McCarthy and Prince (1990), adopting Levy's (1971) view, propose that the two forms be related through a local metathesis of the open vowel in the first syllable. The relatedness view can also be implemented morpho-syntactically. If the two forms are both marked as Pl. realized by a long vowel [aa], then the latter fissions in FIV (in the sense of Fassi Fehri ( 1996b ); see also Chapter 12), i.e. it has two segment heads, instead of one. In other words, FIV has more structure than Fill, with one extra head up. The two segments of the Pl head in FIV then license "discrete" evs, whereas the Pl head in Fill licenses only one head, hence the "participation" meaning. FIV has no participation meaning, because the two participants are args of different evs. Put simply, Fill has only a distributive Spec, but no distributive H, but FIV has both. Then what about difierences between FII and Fill? Recall that FII can be intensive or transitive, its transitivity being interpreted as distributive Spec, and its intensitivity as collective H. The question then is why Fill cannot be intensive (intransitive), just like FII. One possibility is to take its distributivity to be encoded "lexically~ much like what happens with quantifiers each and all in English.14 But there is no evidence for such lexical/vocabulary encoding. Another possibility is to explore a difference in marking Pl in Fill (and FIV) on the one hand, and FII, on the other hand. FII geminates the second syllable of the word for encoding Pl; Fill (and its derived "daughter" FIV) encodes Pl gemination on the first syllable. In the nominal system, Pl is only encoded in the second syllable. Suppose then that Pl is normally encoded on the second syllable and, as suggested earlier, verbal plurality in FII is encoded on consonants, whereas nominal plurality is encoded on vowels.IS When plurality is encoded on a single segment

14· See e.g. Beghelli & Stowell (1997) for such a lexical approach. 15. As I explained earlier, the consonant/vowel gemination contrast cannot be taken as a distinctive category feature. For example, finite verbs of FII and their participles have geminated consonants (as in haddada"to threaten': muhaddld, muhaddad), but in action nominalizations the gemination is vocalic (tahdlid "threatening").

40

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

H in the second syllable, we get the collective/intensive interpretation. Now the fact that Pl is found in the first syllable in Fill is somehow unexpected. This "displacement" might be in fact an indication that movement has occurred internally, thus creating a two-segment head, which then licenses two Specs (or a distributive Spec), hence the transitivity. The absence of the intensive reading appears then to be correlated with this displacement, much like what happens with transitive FII and FIV. If FII, Fill, and FIV are morpho-syntactically related, then if Fill derives from FII via one step movement inside the consonantal stem, FIV derives from Fill by peripherical movement, outside the consonantal stem. This further step and splitting movement, coupled with presumably more structure (and height), is what is behind double distributivity found in FIV, which excludes both the intensive/collective meaning (by virtue of fissioning like Fill in a first step), and the participation meaning (by virtue of fissioning in a second step to the periphery). 16 2.7

Summary

I have shown that FII gemination expresses multiple or repetitive action, interpreted as ev Pl. Pl of action can also be interpreted as operating on multiple individuals, hence the arg multiplicity. Thus the plurality/multiplicity, which is encoded on the verb, can (ambiguously) apply to evs or to args. Fill gemination expresses plurality of participants. But participants are not treated as "equal': Pl is partitioned, hence the transitivity. In the reciprocal FVI, the participants are assembled, hence the intransitivity, even though the ev is Pl. Glottal prefixation in FIV, analyzed as a fissioned vocalic gemination, also expresses partitioned plurality of participants, hence the transitivity. FII may also express plurality of participants, and it becomes transitive through partitioned plurality (alternating with assembled plurality in the repetitive). FII then contrasts with FIV in this respect, since the latter cannot be an assembled plural. If the inchoative FIV is conceived as a distributive Pl over evs, and the causative as a distributive over args (as well as evs), then the alternating semantics of FIV is limited to distributivityvariation. Complexity of H can be separated from complexity of Spec, and H distributivity separated from Spec distributivityY

It is possible to view the reciprocal participation meaning in Fill coupled with its obligatory transitivity as arising from a sort of (a fissioned) cumulative Pl, which licenses two Specs, but not two events (e.g. in the race case, the race has to be one and the same).

16.

There are no doubt other sources of transitivity (or intransitivity) which I do not address here. For example, apophonic [a] is used to form denominal transitive verbs (compare l;!azlna "to be sad" with l;!azana "to put sadeness into someone"), iambic reduplication to create "attenuation" forms of verbs like 5am5ama "to sniff something': compared with samma "to smell

17.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality 3·

Cross-linguistic evidence

Up till now, I have provided reasons to think that the Arabic verb system makes significant uses of plural quantification, which not only parallels that of nominal quantification, but enables us to derive the intensity of verbs, the complexity of ev/arg structure, and to account for alternating behaviors of verbal Num morphology. It would be a welcome step to see how this system carries over to other languages. As a matter of fact, a number of convincing descriptive studies have already established the correspondence between reduplication morphology and (a) causative (or transitive) formation, (b) verbal plurality (or more generally event quantification), and (c) variable behaviours and meanings of the same form. For example, Moravcsik (1978a) has focused typically on the (b) relation, investigating various forms of reduplication and"... the meanings of increased quantity, intensity, diminution, and attenuation which are concepts capable of pulling together many superficially disparate uses of reduplication constructions ...': Similarly, Greenberg (1991) has especially highlighted the relevance of the (b) correlation with respect to Semitic intensive forms. The two studies have in common that they do not have an answer to the question of how properties (a) and (b) are connected. Other compelling work, however, provides rather strong empirical evidence for correlating (a) to (c) properties, typically outlining the role of reduplication (or other morphologies) in causative and transitive formation, and its extensional use for expressing various (b) meanings (cf. in particular Kulikov (1993 & 1999), Dolinina (1999), and the many references cited there)). In 3.1, I first examine some of the relevant data and analyses which provide motivation for this direction of research, and in 3.2. I discuss some of Moravscik's resistant cases to her view of reduplication, which in fact add further support to the correlation of (a) to (c) properties. 3.1

Causatives, transitives, and event quantification

Cross-lingustically, morphological reduplication (in particular) is used to form not only plural verbs (interpreted as repetitive, expressing multiple actions or

something': xanna "to speak through the nose or to nazalize': xan:tana "'to speak through the nose or to nazalize repeatedly': xa5xa5a "'to make rustle or rattle': gargara "'to gargle': etc. 1n these reduplicating forms, each part can be analyzed as a small part of the event, and ev seen as "fissioned" or partitioned over pieces of the root. The fissioning ev can be thought as a sort of paucity plural, in that the whole ev is made of"'small" or"paucal" (parts of) evs (cf. Fassi Fehri (200lb) for detail).

41

42

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

participants, distributivity, etc.), but also single causatives or transitives, double causatives, in addition to exhibiting multiple behaviour.

Causativization and transitivization Causative or double causative formation through reduplication is well-documented in the literature. The following constructions are brought up by Kulik.ov (1993) from various sources:

3.1.1

(24)

a.

wanu "to die"

b. wanu-chi "to kill" c.

wanu-chi-chi "to cause to kill"

(25)

a. b. c.

rupit(a) "to work" rupita-pt(u) "to cause to work" rupita-ptu-pt(u) "to ask to work"

(26)

a. b. c.

ut' "to sleep" ut'-k' "to make to sleep" ut'-k' -ek' "to cause to make to sleep"

In Huallaga Quechua (24) (taken from Weber (1989)), the causative morpheme "chi" forms a transitive causative in (24b) and, when reduplicated, a double causative in (24c). In Mansi Vogul (25) (quoted from Robandeeva (1973)), the morpheme "pt" marks the causative in (25b), and is reduplicated to mark double causation in (25c), with a "requestive" meaning. Finally. in Hunsib Daghestan (26) (taken from Isakov (1986)), the causative morpheme "k:" in (26b) reduplicates to form the double causative in (26c). 18 This data provides clear evidence that reduplication is involved in causative formation. When a morpheme is used to causativize a verb, then its reduplication forms a double causative. Reduplication is not of the root. but of the external morpheme. The latter (as described in these studies) does not originate from an intensive or quantificational source. Moravcsik (1978a) also lists (partial) reduplication as a source of transitive formation (a case that she takes as resistant to her view). The following illustrating Sundanese pair is brought up from Robins (1959): (27)

a. b.

narerewas "to frighten" rewas "to be afraid"

Here, the reduplication is root-based, as in Arabic. Root-based and morphemebased reduplications are then used for transitivization or causativization.

t8. See Kulikov (1993) for these references.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

Multiple behaviour

3.1.2

Intimate relationships between causative and "aspectual" meanings of morphemes have been repeatedly noticed in typological studies, and various polysemies observed. 19 In Turkish, either causative or intensive/iterative interpretation of a given form can be acceptable in precisely the same context. Thus double causative morphemes may refer either to double causation, or to intensive/iterative causation:20 (28)

miidiir-e mektu.b-u ac-ti'r-t-ti'-m. director-OAT letter-ACC open-CAUS-CAUS-PAST-lSG a. b.

I had someone make the director open the letter. I made the director open the letter forcefully.

In Yukaghir, the verbal suffix t expresses cumulatively both causative and distributive meanings (Maslova (1993)): (29)

a. b.

sel'ge-t "to break several distinct things" joy@-t "to open (tr.) several times"

Similarly in Aleut, the causative dgu instantiates the cumulation of causative and distributive meanings (Golovko (1993); see (32) below). In Bouma Fijian, the prefix vaa forms causatives with some verbs and intensives with others:21 (30)

a. b.

vuli(-ca) "learn, study" va'a-vuli( -ca) "teach"

(31)

a.

mate"die"

b. va'a-mate-a "kill" Further polysemies are provided by Kulikov (1993), who observes that in e.g. Tuvan, the double causative can function as iterative of the first causative. The author further notes that in some cases "... the boundary between iteratives to causatives and plural causatives is rather vague': In Aleut, there are two causative morphemes: t, which denotes causation, as in (32b ), and dgu, which is used with plural causees, as in (32c): (32)

a.

igluqa-r qaka-ku-r hide-SG dry-NON.FUT-3SG The hide is dry.

19.

See the many references cited in Kulikov (1999), including Nedjalkov (1966).

20.

Cf. Zimmer (197 6), quoted after Kulikov (ibid).

21.

Cf. Dixon (1988), quoted after Kulikov (Ibid)

43

44 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

b.

ayagar

igluqa-r qaka-t-i-ku-r

woman-SG hide-SG dry-CAUS-Epenth-NON.FUT-3SG The woman is making/makes the hide dry. c.

ayagar

igluqa-s qaka-dgu-ku-r

woman-SG hide-PL dry-CAUS-NON.FUT-3SG The woman is making/makes the hides dry. But Golovko (1993) argues that dgu "... renders not the plurality of the causee but rather the plurality of the caused events, thus expessing causativity and distributivity at the same time~

Event quantifica.tion

3.1.3

Reduplication is used to form distributive verbs, as documented in various languages. Dolinina (1999) illustrates this by (33) from Classical Nahuatl (quoted after Suarez (1989)), (34) from Cree (after Harden (1934)), and (35) from Moses Columbian (after Kinkade (1977)): (33)

(te t.tla)-maka --+ (te t.tla)-ma?-maka to give sb.sth to give sth to each person

(34)

makiw --+ mu-makiv he gives he gives distributively

(35)

lx lx leq-laqsitsG/RedupVDist-Activity NON-SG/ Agent Each has a position in which to sit.

In Evenki (48), a suffix encodes the multiplicity oflocations:-22 (36)

loko --+ loko-t hang (smth) hang (separately (and in different places))

Similar phenomena occur in Aleut, Eskimo, Turkish, Armenian, Japanese, Indonesian, etc. 23 Likewise, Moltman (1997) observes that the same morphology may be used for iterative (collective) or distributive verbs. Thus in Copanaila Zoque, the idea of repetition is marked by a non-differentiated iterative-distributive prefix. which can have both readings: (37)

min-gezt-u He came again/ he also came.

22.

Cf Nedjalkov (1989), quoted in Dolinina (Ibid).

13.

Dolinina (ibid).

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

But in Classical Nahuatl, event plurality, marked by reduplication, expresses (only) iteration:24 (38)

wi.tek wiz-wi.tek to hit to hit repeatedly

In Tepetotula Chinantec, a specialized affix marks repetition in time: 25 (39)

3.2

ki-ka-znauz za haz REP-PAST-seek.TR.ANIM.3 3SG animal She/he repeatedly hunted the animal.

Moravcsik's resistant cases

Moravcsik (1978a) examines what she calls derivational uses of reduplication, and she observes that there is a"... large and indeed disparate set of examples of derivational meanings that cannot be seen 1·elated [my underlining; FF] to any of the non-derivational meaning categories surveyed ...". But the list of resistant cases she establishes is precisely the sort of data which can be used to support our Num theory of adicity (i.e. they come as "good news"). Transitivization and intrantivization uses are typically among the cases which Moravcsik takes as resistant to her more or less quantificational picture (see the Sundanese example in (27) above). But if transitivity is a form of abstract reduplication, as I have shown, these morpho-syntactic alternations represent exactly the kind of verbal behaviour that we expect. As a matter of fact, Arabic counterparts of these pairs are related through glottal prefixation, taken as an abstract form of verbal plural reduplication, as argued earlier: (40) (41)

1-atZa.~a

"to frighten someone" afraid"

fazi~ "to be

In the same direction, and also of great interest, the author mentions, after Harrisson (1973) and Christaller (1875), respectively, that in Mokilese and in Tiwi, intransitives are derived from transitives, as illustrated by the following contrasting pairs: (42)

a. b.

koskos "cut (intr)" kos "cut (tr.)"

(43)

a. b.

didi "eat (intr.)" di "eat (tr.)"

24·

Ct: Suarez (1983), quoted after Dolinina (ibid).

25.

Ct: Westley (1991), quoted after Dolinina (ibid).

45

46

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Such a direction of derivation is also found in Arabic.26 Furthermore, the more general phenomenon of morphologically marking the intransitive with respect to the transitive is not that surprising cross-linguistically. What is important here is that we have substantial evidence from other languages that reduplication is used for marking (in)transitive alternations, whatever the direction of the derivation is. This is exactly the kind of data that we expect, once complex (in)transitives are taken as Pl evs. 27

4·

Conceptual motivations and competing analyses

As observed above, Num is a cross-categorial quantificational semantic category (or feature), which holds for events and objects. Being orthogonal to categories (or types), it enables us to account for event/argument complexity in causatives/transitives, multiplicity of events or objects, well-acknowledged interactions, as well as alternative (or cumulative) uses of argument and event quantificational morphemes (seen traditionally as aspectual). Consequently, Num eliminates potential competitors which cannot account for these properties. Some of these competitors are investigated in this section. 4.1

Little v: Verbalizer or transitivizer?

Consider again little v, taken as a source of transitivity (in e.g. Chomsky (1995 & 1998)). The latter is construed as a transitive head only by stipulation: the stipulation that there is a bidirectional relation between ev and arg complexities. Given this hi-directionality, it is not clear how to capture structural difierences between e.g. unergatives and transitives, or anti-causatives and causatives. Moreover, differences between objective cases (accusative and partitive) are not naturally captured. Finally, if vis a transitive head, it is not clear how it can be equally taken as category forming (or a verbalizer). Nothing in the v theory of transitivity predicts this correlation. In Hale & Keyser (1999), transitivization and verbalization are distinct operations. Transitives arise from two different structural sources: (a) a complement source (e.g. to calve, from "have a calf~ to cake, from "make a cake': to laugh, from "do a laugh"), which allows no intransitive alternant, and (b) a spec!fier source,

This happens. for example, when FIV is used as a resultative intransitive, alternating with a simple transitive Fl. Ct: Fassi Fehri (2001b) for illustratioiL

:16.

27. Other resistant cases to Moravcsick's view are analyzed in Fassi Fehri (2001b) along similar lines.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality 47 which is optionally internalized, hence the (in)transitive alternation. According to Hale & Keyser, unaccusatives force the projection of a Spec, and it is this property which permits transitivization (p. 55). Unergatives or transitives, by contrast, do not project (internal) Spec. Differences between the two constructions with respect to transitivization are then related to differences in specifier or complement branching. Transitivization results from embedding a verbal projection as the complement of another verb (p. 53). Unaccusative verbs alternate because both the inner head and the outer head are verbs, and the intransitive is simply the inner projection unmerged with another verb (p. 57). Furthermore, V (or v) is category forming of both unergatives and unaccusatives. In Harley (1995), eventiveness in inchoatives and causatives is introduced by v (Become and Cause, respectively), not the root. The complement of the vP, a rootP, is a predicative structure denoting a state, the end result of the change of state introduced by the v head. But Harley (1999), building on Hale & Keyser's work. adopts the view that roots may also denote things or events, in addition to properties. 28 Likewise, Embick (2000) argues that vis a verbalizer (with e.g. -ize, -en as spell outs), which forces an eventive interpretation. The absence of attachment of v implies the absence of eventive interpretation, hence the structure of pure statives (which are simple states, with no implication of prior event). As for Aspect, it attaches either to Root, or above v. We see then that these authors (among others) posit a verbalizing property of v, but there has been no natural proposal to relate this property to transitivization (via e.g. reduplication or other morphology). Harley's and Embick's "flavoured" views are essentially diacritical, and do not differ radically from Marantz's previously analyzed proposal. In my view, the first vis a verbalizer, and the upper vis a reduplicator, which can then transitivize the structure under appropriate conditions (but not necessarily, as in e.g. iteratives).

42

Aspect

Traditionally, noun quantification and event quantification have been regarded as belonging to different domains of grammar: Num (as an a temporal quantification) is associated with the former, and Aspect (as temporal quantification) is associated with the latter. But as correctly observed by Dolinina (1999), in the case of event

28. Harley (1999) proposes an underspecified view of v, in which vis detennined contextually via a taxonomy of verbal environments: (i)

a. b. c. d.

v + State, no Spec v + State, Spec v + Thing, Spec v + Event, Spec

=Become =Cause =Make =Do.

48

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

plurality, quantification is more abstract than Aspect, because event plurality can be triggered by repetition on the axis of time (and thus be related to Aspect), but also by plurality of activities of the participants, and hence lies in other dimensions than Aspect. Distributive constructions, for example, obligatorily contain a component of quantification, but only in a few of them it is due to repetition in time (and hence Aspect). Distributivity then belongs to the (general) cluster of quantifier categories, and not to the temporal cluster. Semantics of distributivity, its typological encoding, and the oppositions it deals with are broader than Aspect. Distributivity is a category with a dual nominaVevent nature, combining the meanings of nominal Pl and event PF9 In observing causative/iterative or intensive polysemies and interdependencies, many authors have identified the latter meaning as "aspectual" (see e.g. Nejdjalkov (1966), Comrie (1985c), Li (1991), Kulikov (1993), among others). The latter author traces the polysemy (or what he calls "causative split") back to intensivity, taking it as the essential component of causation. This is so because, as he puts it "causing someone to do something implies channeling extra force from outside into the situation. The meaning "more forcefullY: "more eftectively" may be thus the common semantic denominator shared by causativity [... ] and intensitivity, iterativity, etc. [... ] It is for that reason that these aspectual meanings can become associated with causativity and, in a sense, appear as its side eftects" (p. 26). But the identification of iterativity or intensivity with Aspect (instead of e.g. Num and Manner), and the mechanical association of causation with Force are questionable. Thus there are Arabic causative doublets, which are precisely distinguished by implying or not implying Force: FII (when causative) cumulates intensity, while FIV does not:

29. Dolinina observes that there have been renewed attempts to unify the area of affiliation of quantification, with some linguists regarding nominal quantification as aspectual (Rijkhoff (1991), Verkuyl (1993)), and others arguing that event quantification belongs to the cluster of quantificational categories (Dressler (1968), Xrakovskij (1989)). But as she puts it, the question is not to choose only Num or only Aspect, but to see which of these features is the "dominant" component. Likewise, Moltmann (1997, pp. 56-57) argues that the ev argument in distributives is a group ev, rather than a single ev, just like what is required in repetitive evs. In the latter case, the ev is a group, but unlike the distributive, it consists of single evs that all have the same participant. If the members of an ev group stand in the relation denoted by the verb to parts of a participant group, the result is not repetitive, but rather distributive. Crosslinguistic evidence supports the assimilation of repetitive and distributive readings: a verb whose ev argument is a group ev is marked with a special distributive morphology, regardless of whether this group event contributes a repetitive or a distributive interpretation.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

(44)

1-axraj-tu l-walad-a CAUS-go.out-PAST.! the-child-ACC I made the child go out

(45)

xannj-tu l-walad-a go.out-gem-PAST.I the-child-Ace I made the child go out (by force; against his will).

Note, however, that the distinction is made only when FII is cumulative. Most instances ofFII are not, and they express either intensive or causative, but not both (see e.g. (5) and (15) above). Note also that in the causative/intensive complementary distribution, the choice between FIV and FII is fairly fixed, FIV being causative, and FII intensive/iterative/distributive. The following contrasts illustrates this fixed meaning opposition: (46)

qattar-a l-walad-u l-lal;Jm-a cutgem-PAST the-child-NOM the-meat-Ace The child cut the meat into pieces.

(47)

1-aqtar-a r-rajul-u l-walad-a l-labm-a CAUS-CUt-PAST the-man-NOM the-child-ACC the-meat-ACC The man made the child cut the meat.

Clearly then, FII is essentially intensive, and FIV causative. FII can also be causative, or cumulative, but FIV is not cumulative. Consequently, no unified account of the two causative forms can be provided through an intensitivity source (seen as Force/ Aspect). Hopper & Thomson (1980) take as an essential evidence for the correlation between transitivity and tense/aspect well-known oppositions found in the Finnish case system, between accusative or partitive objects (the latter contrast correlating with the aspectual perfective/imperfective opposition). Clauses with partitive objects are shown to be less transitive than those with accusative ones. Likewise, in "split ergative" systems (such as Hindi/Urdu, Australian, and Ameridian languages), the ergative construction is limited to perfective and preterite environments, whereas its absolutive counterpart is confined to imperfective or non-preterite (Dixon (1994)). In a similar vein, Kulikov (1999) examines how in Vedic (and Ancient Greek), the transitive-causative constructions are mostly employed with the present, whereas perfect constructions are typically intransitive. But this connection has to do with another ingredient of transitivity, that is Case, and typically accusative or ergative Case.30 While I agree that Tense/Aspect

30. I follow Hopper & Thompson (ibid) in taking transitivity as a complex set of features, rather a simple binary opposition, but these ingredients distribute over heights, and are not "a continuum': as they put it.

49

50

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(typically Perfective) and Accusative Case, for example, are interdependent, I deny a direct connection between Aspect and the argument complexity component involved in transitives or causatives. More crucially, I deny any clear direct connection between intensity and iterativity (seen as aspectual) and transitivity. Summarizing, the fact that verbal Num encodes plurality of actions, or plurality of arguments operating these actions is not accidental. It is rather motivated by semantic considerations. The semantic duality of repetitive/distributive morphemes requires a much broader category than Aspect, and transitivity/causativity requires complex functional ingredients in which Num is playing a major role, yielding common derivational sources and intricate, although principled, polysemies. 31 4·3

Voice

Voice distinguishes (a) active (agentive or unergative) predicates from non-active (ergative or middle) ones, or (b) passive (eventive or stative) verbs from nonpassive ones. Voice can thus be seen as operating hierarchical organization of arguments(= HOA) with respect to predicates, rather than taking care of argument complexity. 32 Other theories of Voice have treated argument complexity, HOA, and even specific properties of external arguments under Voice.33 In my theory, complexity, stated in terms of Num, is the source of (in) transitivity. H and Spec complexities being dissociated, distributive complex Specs turn out to be a typical configuration for transitivity. Cases of HOA, however, are best accounted for via Voice, but not Num. Functional heads expressing Voice (diathesis or HOA) occur at two different heights: (a) a low position, which can be found lower than morphosyntactic categorization (v, n, a, p), and which enables us basically to distinguish arguments of internal ev or external ev (call the internal positioning ergative diathesis, and the external positioning unergative diathesis); (b) a high position, which

The connection between Num and Aspect has been repeatedly noted in the literature. But as far as I can tell, no precise analysis of the connection has been proposed. Holisky (1985), for example, argues that it is the verb Aspect, rather than Num (plurality), which is relevant for determing the (im)perfectivity of the root in the Aorist in Tsova-Thsh, contra Guagua (1962) and Schiefner (1859), who go for the opposite, i.e. Nwn. However, what Holisky shows in fact is that what makes the difference is not the single/plural dichotomy, but rather the distributive/ non-distributive distinction, in my sense. Cf. Fassi Fehri (2001a) for detail.

31.

For various recent views of Voice, and how it connects to transitivity, see, among others, Kratzer (1996),Jelinek (1998), Borer (1998), Embick (1998, 2000), Fassi Fehri (1988b), and also Benveniste (1950).

32.

33· According to Embick (1998) "... voice morphology makes reference to a particular spectfier

of vP (the external argument), as well as the properties of that specifier':

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

is projected higher than morpho-syntactic category formation, and which organizes arguments with respect to Case, in particular Accusative Case in the Accusative/Nominative Case systems, and Ergative in the Absolutive/Ergative languages. Low voice applies at L-syntax. while high voice applies at S-syntax. The latter distinguishes e.g. active accusatives from passive non-accusatives. 34 43.1

Anti-transitive rejlexi1'es

FI transitives may have two anti-transitive counterparts (or sorts of reflexives) which correspond to different interpretations, and which should be taken as doublyheaded, although they are monadic with respect to their args/Specs. This is the case of the transitive verb gasal "to wash" with its two detransitivized forms in the following pair: (48)

n-gasala l-makaan-u ref-washed the-place-NOM The place has been washed.

(49)

g-t-asala r-rajul-u ref-washed the-man-NOM The man washed himself.

The two morphologies ([n] and [t]) apply only to transitive roots, and they indicate the "directionality" of derivation: the intransitive is the morphologically marked form. This formal complexity is coupled with complexity of interpretation, yielding a reflexive interpretation in (49), and an "affected" anti-causative in (48). Various tests (control structures, agent-oriented adverbs, passivization) show that (49) is agentive, and (48) is not. Given these properties, both constructions have to be analyzed as having PI distributive Hs (as is the case with normal transitives), but they only have a Sg arg/Spec. The difference between them has then to do with HOA: the subject of (65) is internal (or ergative), that in (49) external (or unergative). 35 Then what about implementation of the difference? I would like

34· The double distinction in Voice systems is not new. Benveniste (1950) proposes two dichotomies: (a) active/middle and (b) active/passive. Burzio's (1981) generalization (associating unergativity and accusativity) reflects the duality of the system. Moreover, Moravcsik (1978b) has established the ntixed nature of languages with respect to ergative/accusative patterns. Various instances of event/argument structure organization can be treated as low voice distinctions, and they have to be kept separate from arg complexity, treated as arising from Num specification. 35· Many other doublets point to the same analysis: n-fatal;a "to open (by itself)" ft-ataha "to open something to his benefit': n-sawaa "to get roasted': S-t-awaa "to roast something to his benefit': n-!agala "to get occupied': s-t-agala "to occupy oneself': etc.

51

52

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar to introduce a syntactic (and lexeme-based) approach of the latter. Suppose that the detransitivizing morpheme is expressing an (internal) ev, and it can be placed either internal to the stem, or external to it. When internal to the stem, the subject of the entire stem c-commands immediately a segment of the stem which includes (or c-commands) the (internalized) affix [t]. Consequently, the external unergative subject is a subject of the complex ev, dominated by the unergative (or active) ev. The active reflexive interpretation then results from the fact that there is a unique subject of both evs, in which the higher ev and its subject are active. On the other hand, when the (internal) affix is placed externally, the "internal" subject has to be "externalizecF, presumably to "match" the ergative [n], and the unergative subject is not realized (presumably because it can only be external), hence the "passive" anti-causative interpretation. Note that this process of derivation recalls in part the internal/external distinction between FII and FIV. A similar case of distributed ev/arg complexity can be raised with the benefactive FVIII, compared to the transitive FL as in the following pair:

(SO)

qa(.a.ra l-la.f;lm-a cut the-meat-Ace He cut the meat

(51)

q-t-a-tara l-lal;tm-a cutref the-meat-Ace He cut the meat to his benefit

In (51), the number of args is not increased syntactically, although it is understood that the verb has an extra theta slot. I assume that the verbal H here is three-way complex, although the Spec configuration is only double. 4.3.2 Rejlexi11e causati11es FX is usually agreed to be the reflexive of the causative FIV. Reflexivization comes in two forms: (a) as pure reflexives, i.e. in (52), or (b) as benefactives, i.e. in (53):

(52)

(53)

a.

salima "to be sane"-+ 1-aslama-hu "to deliver it (sane)" -+ st-aslama "to deliver himself; to surrender"

b.

1-ayqaqa-hu "to wake him up"

a.

xaraja "to go out"-+ 1-axraja-hu "to make him go out" -+ st-axraja-hu "to make it go out for one's self; to extract"

b.

~aqara "to be

c.

kataba "to write"-+ 1-aktaba-hu "to make him write" -+ st-aktaba-hu "to make him write for his benefit"

-+ st-ayqa(Ja "to wake (one's self) up

present" -+ 1-aJW.ara-hu "to make it present" -+ st-a1}4ara-hu "to make it present for one's self"

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

I take the difference between the structure associated with those forms and those in (48)-(51) above to be that FX is not only morphologically more complex. but it is also structurally more complex. Unergatives transitivize e.g. through FIV, but not through FI, and hence have FX as anti-causatives. 43·3 Agentive and "'expositive" causatives Consider the following pair of FIV causatives: (54)

1-abar-tu

zayd-a.n

l-faras-a

CAUS-sold-I Zayd-Acc the-horse-Ace I made Zayd sell the horse. (55)

1-abar-tu

l-faras-a

cAus-sold-I the-horse-Ace I made the horse to sell (to be sold). The two sentences differ in interpretation. In (54), the horse has been sold, but in (55), it may or may not have been. It is only "exposed" for selling, traditional grammarians say. In (54), the agent of selling is realized, and the object is an object of an "unergative/active" internal verb. In (55), the object is an "ergative" subject of a middle/passive verb. This difterence in interpretation cannot follow from complexity captured through Num. First, there is no ergative (active) verb "sell" in Arabic, and the only way to express the middle is via Passive morphology. Second, the agent of"self' can be omitted, but not its theme. If the (internal) verbal root is dyadic in both cases, then the "expositive" (55) might be taken as instantiating a sort oflow passive Voice. 36 43·4 "Requestive" causatives In FX causatives examined above, the reflexive or benefactive is also the causer. But this is not the interpretation of so-called requestive causatives (talabiyyah), instantiated in the following pair: (56)

st-ajham-tu-hu CAUS .REF-understood-I- him I asked him to explain to me (make me understand).

(57)

st-axbar-tu-hu CAUS.REF-informed-I-him I asked him to inform me.

;36.

Cf. Fassi Fehri (2001 b) for illustration.

53

54

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar In these constructions, the interpretation is (unexpectedly) not: "I made him understand/inform to my benefit~ but rather something like "I made him make me understand/ be informed': What is the source of this interpretation? One possibility is to take these constructions to be instances of double causatives. In this case, the subject (or causer) of the first (higher) Cause is object of the second (embedded) Cause, and the object of the first Cause is subject of the second Cause. By contrast. in (41) above, the subject of the (unique) Cause is the beneficiary; and the object of the Cause is the subject of the event How can we then reverse this ordering? 1his reversal recalls the double use ofFIV: (a) as expressing agentive causativization, and (b) as the result or effect of the caused event on the object FX here appears to be a combination of both structures. But note that the difference between the two structures of FIV is a difference in Voice, rather than a difference in Num of args. 4·3·5 Ergative Num and intensi11e forms Consider again the intensive Num on verbal and non-verbal forms, as well as the restrictions on its distribution and interpretation. The forms to consider here are verbs and participles (the latter being treated normally as adjectival). Pl Num is distributed according to the ergative parameter. It applies to objects of transitive verbs and subjects of intransitives, and to their participles in the same way: (58)

zayd-un

muqaftir-un

l-laf:tm-a

Zayd-NOM cutting.intens.-NOM the-meat-Ace Zayd is cutting (cutter of) the meat into pieces. (59)

l-laf:rm-u

mu.qa(ta.r-un

the-meat-NOM cutting-NOM The meat is cut into pieces. It cannot apply to subjects of transitives: (60) cannot mean that many people or various groups of people cut the meat: (60)

qattara

n-naas-u

l-laf:rm-a

cutintens. the-people-NOM the-meat-Ace The people cut the meat into pieces. Likewise, the intensive is formed from non -stative intransitive s which are ergative, but not from unergatives: (61)

a.

jawwala

r-rajul-u

took.walks.intens the-man-NOM The man took a lot of walks.

r-rajul-u. b. *sakka.ra drank.intens the-man-NOM Intended to mean: The man got drunk.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

c.

*raqqa~a

1'-rajul-u.

danced.intens the-man-NOM The man danced intensively. These observations suggest that verbal Nb (when intensive or collective) is in fact ergative.37 44

Further empirical motivations

44.1 Ergative and unergative Num in event plurality and transitivity In addition to natural ergativity ofNum observed in the case of intensives, transitive/intransitive alternations also exhibit such a natural ergativity (see e.g. English and Arabic "laugh"/4a~aka (in (71) below), which do not transitivize, compared to Engish "open" or Arabic hamam "pour out': which do). If transitives arise from realization of Pl Num, then the efiects of natural ergativity in the two instances (intensives and transitives) are unified. But English does not have a morpheme for intensives (or repetitive evs). The prediction then is that in English, Pl Num can only be distributive (on the assumption that transitives use distributive Num), an option provided by UG syntax in terms of Pl Merge (of Specs). In other words, I assume that syntactic or analytic Pl Num (which is used in English) is universal, whereas synthetic Pl Num (used in the Arabic intensive) is language specific. Furthermore, synthetic Num when used in L-syntax is subject to natural ergativity, but it is free inS-syntax. hence the following contrast:

(62) *I laughed John. (63) I made John laugh. Morphological causatives do not observe the Ergativity condition, as amply documented in the literature (see e.g. Japanese and Arabic), thus paralleling S-syntactic (or analytic) causatives, not L-syntactic ones. This does not necessarily imply that they are hi-clausal. Differences can be captured in terms of structure heights, typically height of Num placement.

44.2 Adicity, (in)transiti11e alternations, and multiple uses If a dyadic predicate is treated as Pl (distributive), then it is expected to have two different realizations, depending on whether Num is analytic, or synthetic. Reflexives

37· Contrary to what happens with participles, exaggeration augmentative forms can be unergative intensive adjectives, as in ?akkaal, raqqaa$, sikkiir. For their derivational source, see Fassi Fehri (200lb).

55

56

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar and reciprocals instantiate the analytic/synthetic variation cross-linguistically. Reflexives are syntactically dyadic in English, but they are dyadic or monadic in Arabic, depending on roots: (64)

The man washed himself.

(65)

a. g-t-asala r-rajul-u b. *gasala r-rajul-u nafsa-hu

(66)

a.

wabbaxa r-rajul-u nafta-hu The man blamed himself.

b. *ta-wabbaxa r-rajul-u ref-blamed the-man The man blamed himselt~ Reflexives can be seen as arising from a distributive (plural) event, with one (and the same) argument, which can be partitioned in syntax, but unified in morphology. With reciprocals, similar (though not identical) phenomena and contrasts arise: (67)

a.

haddada

n-naas-u

barcj-u-hum barcj-an

threatened the-people-NOM some-NOM The people threatened each other.

some-Ace

b. *ta-haddada n-naas-u (68)

a.

ta-"/:laabba n-naas-u rec-loved the-people-NOM The people loved each other.

barcj-u-hum ba.rt}an b. */:laabba n-naas-u loved the-people-NOM some-NOM some-Ace (69)

a.

~aarar-a

n-naas-u

bart}u-hum bart:}-an

fought the-people-NOM some-NOM The people fought each other. b.

t-~ara.ra

some-Ace

n-naas-u

rec-fought the-people-NOM The people fought each other. Here both the event and the argument are plural (distributive), but the latter can be partitioned in syntax, or assembled through morphology. The morphology often unifies various constructions which may have different structures, but share adicity building properties. For example, Moroccan Arabic has the same morphology for reflexives, reciprocals, and passives. The same is true of Romance. This state-of-affairs is expected if the morphology is associated with an assembling plural. Likewise, causatives alternate with passives in Japanese/Korean, and with inchoatives or (resultative) anti-causatives in Arabic, again a manifestation of partitioning or assembling plurality.

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality 57

Num theory and Num heights

5·

5.1

Sg and Pl Merge

Suppose that the source of verbal plurality is a functional head Num, which is an extended projection of verbs (or eventive Rs). Then plural Num can be morphologically realized on the head, and it is interpreted as repetitive. It can also be interpreted as the same action operated on many objects (when plurality is distributed over arg/Spec, rather than H/ev). Second, Pl Num can be morphologically realized on H, but Pl interpretation is induced through multiple Specs. Pl is then read off somehow cumulatively, through additioning Sg Specs, as in transitive FII or FIV. Third, there are cases where H is not overtly realized, although transitivity is visible through multiple Specs. This is the case of alternant doublets (cf. e.g. in Fassi Fehri (1996a)), exemplified by the following contrasting pair: (70)

a.

hama.ra

d-damr-u.

poured.out the-tears-NOM Tears poured out b.

hamara

d-damr-a

poured.out the-tears-Ace He poured out tears. Finally, there are cases of (in)transitivization, which appear to be "lexicalized~ in the sense that no alternation appears to be possible. Leaving the morphology aside, I take the four instances of plurality to be subsumable under two subcases of Merge: (a) Sg Merge (with "intensive" Nb ), and (b) Pl Merge (with transitives or causatives). Let us then see how languages make use of the two options. 5.2

Language variation

Arabic, English, and Japanese (and presumably quite many- if not all-languages) make use of the (b) option to form transitives. They differ, however, in that Arabic and Japanese can transitivize unergatives, but English cannot. This difierence can be attributed to the "richness" of morphology. Compare the following Arabic pair with the English (62) and (63) above: 38 (71) *tjal:ra.ka

r-raju.l-u

l-walad-a

laughed the-man-NOM the-child-Ace The man laughed the child.

Richie Kayne (p.c.) informed me that The doctor coughed John is not that bad, in which case there is a more complex story to be said about English. For more on causativity, see Lidz (1999), Pylkldtnen (1999), Ramchand (2003), among others.

j8.

58

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (72)

r-raju.l-u

1-a4/:laka

l-walad-a.

CAUS.laughed the-man-NOM the-child-Ace The man made the child laugh. I take the rich morphology (implemented in S-syntax) to allow more structure than does the poor (or lexical) one, hence the difference between English and Arabic, and in fact between Arabic (71) and (72). That means that Num is Ergative (= ENum) in English intransitive "open" and the Arabic (70a). I assume that the latter is projected at the first root level. Complex roots can be formed through Unergative Num (= UNum) in transitives (as in Arabic (70b)), or unergatives (as in English or Arabic "laugh"). UNum is a kind ofPl Nb, which I assume to be typically distributive (applying to H, as in unergatives, or to Spec, as in transitives). UNum is projected higher in the structure of the L-root, as represented (informally) in (73): vP

(73)

~

John

v+UNum

~

the door

v

I

opened The "rich" morphology, on the other hand, which allows the transitive/causative of unergatives, is nothing else but functional Num. The structure of (72) can then be roughly formulated as (74): vP

(74)

~

man

vP+Pl

~

child

vUNum

~

laugh

v

6. Summary and conclusion In this Chapter, I have argued that verbal Num plays a central role in characterizing transitive or causative constructions, seen as instances of (distributive) Pl configurations, generated through Pl Merge. Thus when a Pl morpheme occurs on verbal Hs, it can be interpreted collectively (as an iterative or intensive ev), or distributively (as a distributive action operated on distributive args). This ambiguity of verbal Pl recalls that found in the nominal plural quantification, which

Chapter 2. Transitivity, causativity, and verbal plurality

suggests that Num is orthogonal to verbal and nominal categories. IfNum is generalized to verbs, and extended to transitivization, then there is no need to appeal to a conceptually distinct category (such as Aspect, Voice, or v) to account for verbal complexity and quantification. The choice of competitors turned out to be both empirically and conceptually deficient Arabic is an instance of languages in which Pl morphology in verbs and nouns is essentially uniform: it is based on vocalic or consonantic gemination. Verbal reduplication is used ambiguously for the iterative (or intensive) and the causative meanings. Fissioning or partitioning reduplication is a typical mechanism which derives causatives, or in the case of iambic reduplicating roots, "attenuative" or "paucar partitioned event forms. Reduplication as a mark of verbal plurality is amply documented in various languages. Furthermore, its exclusive or ambiguous use is a matter of cross-linguistic variation. The correlation of uses is expected under my general Num theory, but not under Aspect, v; or Voice. The latter categories play various specific roles in functional structures, but their roles (although interacting with transitivity and Num) have to be kept separate. Typically, Voice as a functional head encoding hierarchical organization of arguments, is different from Num, which accounts for ev/arg complexities. Likewise, Aspect and Tense exhibit interdependencies with Case, but they interact with ev/arg complexities only indirectly.

59

CHAPTER3

Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns*

Among the issues that any linguistic theory has to deal with are the principles and limitations on the asymmetrical mappings between sound and meaning in terms of words and phrases, and typically how grammatical functions (or functional categories; GFs henceforth) arising in lexical or syntactic derivations are mapped into morpho-phonological segments or sequences. Lexeme-based morphology (cf. Beard (1995)) was primarily designed to account for a number of these asymmetrical mappings through the Separation Hypothesis. 1 Distributed Morphology (cf. Halle & Marantz (1993)) has refined the picture to include even more complex relationships between lexica-syntactic structure, morphology, and actual

*

This article is dedicated to the memory of Ken Hale, a great linguist, a great man, and a great friend. For useful discussions, I would like to thank Alec Marantz, Morris Halle, Jim Higginbotham, Anna Maria Di Sciullo, Sabine Iatridou, Sylvain Bromberger, and for help with the Ancient Greek data, Donca Steriade. I also thank the audiences at the Semitic Conference at USC (May 2001) and the Asymmetry Conference at UQAM (May 2001), as well as an anonymous reviewer of the Proceedings for helpful remarks. The usual disclaimers apply. LBM theory is claimed to have arisen in order to solve the problems of a wmber of asymmetric mappings of sound and meaning (at the morphological level), which cannot be solved in morpheme-based grammars (= MBG). The latter take morphemes to be signs. Among those problems are the following: 1.

i.

ii. iii. iv.

Matthews (1972)'s"cuniUlative exponence': i.e. the fact that a single form expresses multiple GFs simultaneously (e.g. Latin verbal-o expressing: l.s.pres.ind.); M's "extended exponence': with multiple forms expressing a single GF (English "be" + -lng making the progressive); Multiple functionality (English -ingwith v, n, a GFs) Multiple expression of a single GF (English -ity, -ness, -ce marlting deadjectival transposition).

To these asymmetries, null and empty morphologies should be added. The Separation Hypothesis amounts to separate the terminal elements in syntax from their phonological realization. For detail, see Beard (ibid), as well as Beard (2001). See also Anderson (1992) for general discussion.

6:1

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

vocabulary. 2 But many questions remain to be solved. For example, even though the traditional classification of languages into isolating, agglutinative, or fusional is presumably not directed to focalize on the existence of purely discrete types, the relevance of these classifying properties has not received notable attention. 3 Thus the one-to-one mapping found in isolating (or agglutinative) Ls, as opposed to the many-to-one mapping found in fusional (or cumulative) Ls, is commonly treated as if it were of no empirical (or theoretical) significance. If a (relatively) isolating-agglutinating-fusional continuum is true of most (if not all) languages, then the question that arises is: which natural principles and constraints operate in the organization of the continuum? Best studied traditional mapping relationships have been usually confined to the domain of morphological words (be they roots, stems, simple or complex words), with a one-to-many mappings (when a single function is associated with multiple discrete expressions, or "synonyms"), or with a many-to-one mapping (when multiple discrete functions share only a single expression (which is "polysemous" or "homonymous"). But clearly, the mapping contrasts are not to be found only within word structure, but do distribute simultaneously and naturally on phrase structure, with Ls varying as to whether they use multiple (discrete) words to express GF complexity, or they use only a single word for such expression. I will call the first type of expression analytic, and the second, synthetic. 4 For

2.

DM combines insights of both LBM and MBG. In DM,

syntactic features and phonological features form separate sets, affixes are lexical items, which combine with lexemes or other affixes to form complex words, iii. vocabulary items compete for insertion into syntactic nodes, and iv. morphological structure is a separate component of the grammar.

i. ii.

Later development of DM has modified some of these assumptions, namely (iv). For detail, see in particular recent work by Marantz (2000), among others. 3· Comrie (1985a), for example, is rather pessimistic about the utility of these typologies, typically for the purpose of correlating with other non-morphological properties of L, when he writes: "Although morphological typology does serve the useful purpose of presenting an overview of the morphological structure type of a language, it remains unclear whether it can be considered a significant typological parameter [... ] in the sense of correlating with other parameters outside morphology [my underlining; FF]." (p. 52) 4· These morphological types have been proposed originally by Friedrich von Shlegel (1808), August Wilhem von Shlegel (1818 ), as well as Wilhem von Humboldt. See Bussman (1996) for definitions as well as references.

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

example, the various components of a Mood-Tense-Aspect-Voice-Verb chain can be grouped around a single thematic verb (properly inflected), or they may distribute also on one (or more than one) extra auxiliary verb. It is the characterization of this kind of variation that this Chapter will be devoted to. Most (if not all) languages resort to various mixtures of the synthetic and analytic strategies, but the choices are not free. Evidence will be provided, in fact, for the following claims: a.

options of analysis or synthesis are disjunctive, in the sense that no language makes use of both strategies to express the same GFs (and/or meanings). The following disjunctive "global" asymmetric constraint appears to limit the set of possible morphological or formal objects available in any language; call it

Formal Disjunctivity: 5 (1)

Fonnal Disjunctivity For any formal relation R, established between x andy in a language L, where x andy are morphemes or words expressing GFs, R in Lis either synthetic or analytic.

b.

the choice available in (1) is not L-free, in the sense that it is correlated with other morphologically and/or syntactically detectable properties of L. the level of analysis (or word split) in L complies with the hierarchical organization of GFs (assumed to be aUG property; cf. e.g. Cinque (1999)), and it operates from bottom to top, so that when a split occurs at the level of GF1, all GFs that GF 1 dominates occur in the word where the latter is found.

5· I use "formal" as a cover term for both morphological and syntactic relations, which deal with form, as opposed to mealling or semantics. FD parallels similar asymmetric constraints proposed namely by Di Sciullo (for recent instances, see Di Sciullo (1999) ). Apparent counterexamples to (1) appear to be numerous at first sight, but at a closer examination, the disjunctivit:y will hopefully be confirmed. For example, during discussion at UQAM, Jean-Yves Pollock has raised the case of the French future pair Je vais dormir and]e dormirai as equivalent, and Denis Bouchard has not objected to the judgment. Edwin Williams has put forth the case of periphrastic and synthetic comparative adjectives like much more clever and cleverer, which appear to be problematic at first sight. Presumably, there are subtle differences between these pairs that I will not go into here. Another very discussed case in the literature is the difference between "lexical': "morphological': and "periphrastic" causative doublets or triplets. My guess is that the problem of these apparent counterexamples can be solved in a major part through height of attachment of the GF in the structure, from which differences in meanings result. Furthermore, L may be at some intermediate stage of change where doublets appear to be equivalent, before the change is stabilized.

63

64

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

d. Formal Compb:"ity (= FC), based on Temp(oral) and Agr (eement) complexity essentially, plays various roles in creating verbal analysis in the same L, or across Ls. Analysis occurs only in Ls that exhibit an AgrS/ AgrO split. e. Voice belongs to the class of Temp GFs, which can be dominated by a Temp (verbal) projection, or by a (nominal) Agr projection. f. Nominal Agr may be used in Ls to form complex tenses, and the nominal or temporal content of verbal auxiliaries provides variation in the analytic/ synthetic continuum.6 g. Choices made by L become peculiarities of L, in the sense that they create limitations or exclusivities on what can be expressed in L through grammatical combinations. In compliance with (1 ), the article investigates the limitations and constraints on analysis or synthesis through examining the patterns of variation in the expression of Voice and Temporality found in a number of Ls, compared typically with Arabic. It is shown that analysis finds its source in the specific degrees of FC, arising typically in the Temp and Agr systems, and leading to appropriate Splits (in Temp or Agr chains). Voice may also be playing a role in increasing FC (and hence triggering analysis), depending on whether it belongs to finite or non-finite chains. In Section 1, analytic/synthetic patterns of expression of Perfect Tense and Passive voice in a number ofLs are examined and contrasted with their Arabic counterparts. It is then argued that the contrasts in the Perfect expression can be attributed to an Agr Split (into Agrl and Agr2), which is or is not available for L. The latter variation depends on the nomina.l nature of the auxiliary (in the analytic type), or its verba-temporal nature (in the synthetic type). On the other hand, analytic complex tenses are shown to originate from a Temp Split, due to Temp complexity (interacting with Agr complexity). The same is shown to be true of Voice expression, once it is admitted that Pass(ive) belongs to the Temp chain, and it can be either (immediately) dominated by a nominal Agr (i.e. a non-finite participle Agr2), or by a verba-temporal projection (with no availability of Agr2, and no split in the Temp chain). In Section 2, a more precise content is given to the sources of FC, which triggers analysis. Some peculiarities of Ls are then addressed, including those of analytic Pass Perf in Classical Latin, which provide support for the view that Voice increases Temp complexity. Likewise, the analytic character of complex tenses in Arabic (as opposed to synthesis in Passive and Present Perfect) is contrasted to that of the synthetic Ancient Greek, by taking into account the peculiarities of Arabic

6.

On the role of nominality in forming complex tenses, see Fassi Fehri (1996a).

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

verbal inflection. The latter constantly bears Pers finite morphology, and it does not instantiate Agr2. The section also addresses the proposal of deflexion as a direct source of analysis (through reanalysis), and rejects it as a potential explanation. The Splitting analytic theory is defended instead. In Section 3, further peculiarities of Ls are investigated, including e.g. the existence of imperfective Pass in Arabic, and its absence in French. The latter are related to other peculiarities in the Temp systems of the two Ls. The dear-cut division in Arabic between verbal and adjectival voice expressions is also examined and compared to the ambiguous categorization of English Pass participles. It is proposed that various attachment Heights of the same form can be used to express multiple GFs, without resorting to multiple morphologies.

1.

1.1

Analysis, voice, and temporality The problem

Consider the following Voice contrasts between Arabic, English, and French, respectively: (2)

qutila r-rajul-u killed.PASS.PAST the-man-NOM a. The man was killed. b. The man has been killed.

(3)

a. b.

(4)

I.:homme a etetue.

The man was killed. The man has been killed.

In (2), there is only a single verb, which expresses Pass, ambiguously, either in the Past or the Present Perfect tenses (P in the gloss marks Past or Perfect). The internal vowels of the verbal stem u-i mark the passive, and alternate apophonicallywith the active (marked as a-a. in (5) below, for example). The a. vowel suffix on the verb marks Past or Perfect. Thus Voice and Tense (and/or Aspect) are fused in a single synthetic verbal form (although in distinct positions). This form of expression dearly differs from that found in English or French. In English (3), two distinct analytic passive constructions are needed for each Tense. In French (4), the passive expression is also analytic, and it makes use of two auxiliaries, although this form of passe compose translates ambiguously either the English Past (3a) or the Perfect (3b ). There are no other means to express these tense and voice combinations in the three languages, hence providing an instantiation of the disjunction stated in (1).

65

66

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Note that a similar contrast is found with active present Perfect:7 (5)

kataba

r-risaalat-a

l-zaan-a (*gad-an)

(has) written the-letter-Ace now He has written the letter now.

(*tomorrow)

(6)

John has written the letter now ("yesterday).

(7)

Jean a mange la pomme en ce moment (*hier).

Observe again that the active Present Perfect in Arabic is synthetic, while its expression requires an auxiliary in both English and French. Why is then such a difference? Why can't Arabic make use of a verbal auxiliary in the Present Perfect, and why is the Passive expression confined within the finite verb (like active Voice is), in contrast to English and French, which must resort to periphrastic verbality, in which the auxiliary carries Tense and Agr (finite) features, and the thematic verb Voice features?

1.2

Nominal auxiliaries

The absence of the auxiliary with the Arabic present Perfect recalls the absence of the present verbal copula in so-called nominal sentences. Note that in English and French, its presence is obligatory: (8)

r-rajul-u. (""y-akuun-u) fii d-daa.r-i The man (is)

in the house.

7. I leave for the moment the contrasts in the past tenses. which are more complex, and do not distribute in the same way. 1hus French contrasts with both Arabic and English in requiring an auxiliary for the expression of its simple past: (i) (ii)

Jean a mange la pomme hier.

kataba r-risaalat-a

1amsi

wrote the-letter-Ace yesterday He wrote the letter yesterday. (iii)

John wrote the letter yesterday.

French has also a synthetic imperfect past (the "imparfait"), which is comparable to the (analytic) past progressive in English: (iv)

Jean mangeait la pomme hier. John was eating the apple

yesterday.

I return to some of these contrasts in Section 2.

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

(9)

The man *(is) in the house

(10)

rhomme *(est) ala maison.

These sentences have exactly the same (present tense) interpretation, although the Arabic one must be verbless, whereas its English or French counterparts must contain a copular verb. Since it is normally agreed that English and French have no overt temporal morphology in the present, it is reasonable to think that the overt realization of the copula in this case is simply motivated by the necessity to make visible the subject AgrS features. 8 The finite auxiliary here is then basically of nominal (subject agreement) origin.9 In Arabic, nominal (subject agreement) features are not sufficient to make the verbal auxiliary overt, hence the existence of only verbless present finite sentences (the so-called nominal sentences in the grammatical tradition). 10 But the overt/covert realization of the nominal copula in French/English (or more generally Romance/Germanic) does not in itself directly explain why an auxiliary is needed to mark finite phi-features of the subject in English or French Perfects or Voices, if we take copular sentences to be structurally distinct from auxiliary ones. I will show that in fact the two instances are not distinct, in spite of auxiliary selection differences. 1.3

S/0 Agr split and auxiliary selection

Consider again the sentences in (6) and (7). Following early work by Richie Kayne, I assume that the participle there is carrying Part(iciple) (or O(bject)) Agr, and the auxiliary S(ubject) Agr. 11 These two (distinct) Agrs can be made visible when the 0 raises higher than V, as in (11), where the clitic les (for pommes), triggers

8. 0 n the absence of present Tense morphology (in English), see in particular Kayne (2000, Chapter 10, originally published in 1989), and En~ (1991, 1987). For a different view, see Fassi Fehri (1991/1993) and Gueron (1995), among others. 9· I assume that copula and auxiliary"be" do not differ significantly as regards the conditions on their "visibility': The copular sentence presumably differs from the non-copular one in that the latter contains "be" plus a temporal thematic participle. The auxiliary qualifies as nominal because it carries only features of the (finite) SubjectAgr (=Agr1), T1 being null. I assume that participles are dominated by a nominal and/or adjectival (non-finite) Agr (= Agr2), although they may be also headed by a null abstract Aspect or T head (= T2, needed for appropriate interpretation). Participles may then be taken as "weakly" temporal, because they lack overt temporal marks in all contexts, apart from Voice. See Section 3 below.

to. For the conditions on the realization of null, pronominal, or verbal copulas in Arabic, see Fassi Fehri (1993) in particular.

u. Ct: Kayne 2000, Chapter 2 (originally published in 1985).

67

68

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Number and Gender Agr on the participle, and the auxiliary agrees with the high subject: (11)

Je les

ai

mangees.

I them have.lsG eaten-PL.F I have eaten them (f). Note that the S/0 Agr distinction or split correlates with another distinction or split in the auxiliary system, namely, the avoir/have vs ~tre/be split. One feature of this split is that in the be configuration, the subject agrees with both the auxiliary and the participle, but in the have configuration, it agrees only with the auxiliary, as in the following minimal pair: (12)

Les tasses sont casstes. The cups are broken (F.PL)

(13)

Les tasses ont

casse

(*cassees).

The cups have broken (*F.PL). In both cases, the cups are understood as "logical" Os, but what matters is that the agreement chain breaks with a.voir, but not with etreP The S/0 agreement split (coupled with the auxiliary split) is subject to parametric variation. In Ls with a unique copula/auxiliary "be" (the majority, it seems), the agreement chain does not break, even in complex tenses. Consider the following Arabic examples, which illustrate the uniformity of the Agr chain: (14)

kaana-t l-banaat-u

(qad)

katab-na

r-risaalat-a

was-F the-girls-NOM (already) wrote-F.PL the-letter-Ace The girls had (already) written the letter. (15)

kaana-t r-risaalat-u

(qad)

kutiba-t

was-F the-letter-NOM (already) wrote.PASS-F The letter had been (already) written. In this pair, the auxiliary is invariably "be" with the active and passive past perfects alike. At the same time, both the auxiliary and the thematic verb agree with the same structural subject. Fassi Fehri (1993) argues that this configuration obtains through anaphoric agreement (and/or anaphoric T for other purposes). At any rate, in both copular and auxiliary sentences, "be" is used, and there is no S/0 Agr split. There is only an Agr chain (which includes two AgrSs for the thematic

12.

On the analysis of "have" as be+P/D, see Kayne (2000, Chapter 7, originally published

in 1993), relying on previous work by Szabolcsi, Freeze, and Benveniste (see the references

cited there).

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns 69 and auxiliary verbs, or for the auxiliary and the participle or adjective). The Agr chain is uniform, and controlled by anaphoric subjects. One can then conclude that there is no AgrO in Arabic, and the absence of this split is correlated with the absence of auxiliary splitP If this reasoning is correct, then we have another source for analysis, in addition to the nominality of the copular/auxiliary. The S/0 Agr split causes a verbal split (in terms of the auxiliary and the thematic verb), in order to support separately the two Agrs (in tact Agr1 and Agr2). Interestingly enough, the Latin data shows that it is the combination of the two properties (nominal Agr and Agr1/ Agr2 complexity) which triggers analysis. Before presenting this case, I will first examine how Temp complexity can yield analytic expressions, through what I call Temp auxiliaries. 1.4

Temp auxiliaries

We have seen that the overt realization of the auxiliary in sentences like (8), denoting a state which holds at the present, is not allowed by the grammar. But a version of (8), with the present form of the auxiliary, is possible, provided a different temporal interpretation from the actual present is induced. For example, (16) can express a future state (the equivalent of"The man will be in the house"), or a habitual state (e.g. in the context "The man is usually in the house after 4 oelock"): 14 (16)

r-rajul-u. y-akuun-u the-man-NOM is a. b.

fii d-daa.r-i

(gadan; bard-a. 1'-ra.birat-i)

in the-house-GEN (tomorrow; after four)

The man will be in the house tomorrow. The man is (usually) in the house after four.

Thus temporal/aspectual specifications like these appear to be marked (compared to the unmarked simple present), and thus force the auxiliary to become overt, to support these temporal features (cf Fassi Fehri (1993)). That specified temporality is behind the use of the verbal auxiliary is further supported by its obligatory

In fact, Participle Agr may coincide with AgrO, as in (11 ), but not necessarily. Kayne was originally dealing with Participle Agr, but Chomsky ( 1995) generalizes AgrO to include it. See Siloni ( 1997) for evidence that AgrO is absent in Hebrew participles. As for the uniformity of the Agr chain with "be~ but not "have': a similar conclusion has been reached by Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou, & Izvorski (200 1) for e.g. Bulgarian, based on a personal observation made to them by Peter Svenonius. For these reasons, preference will be given to the use of (finite) Agr1 vs. non-finite (participle) Agr2, instead of AgrS and AgrO, although they are sometimes used interchangeably.

13.

Interestingly enough, Marantz (p.c.) observes that these are the essential readings that obtain with thematic verbs in the present in English (but not with the copula).

14.

70 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

occurrence with specified complex tenses, be they perfects or imperfects, active or passive. Thus (17) and (18) illustrate the case of Past Perfect and Future Perfect, respectively: (17)

ka.ana qad

kataba 1'-risaa.la.t-a

lammaa daxal-tu

l-qaarat-a

was already wrote the-letter-ac when entered-I the room-Ace He had already written the letter when I entered the room. (18)

sa-yakuunu qad

kataba r-risaalat-a

gadan

FUT-is already wrote the-letter-ac tomorrow He will have already written the letter tomorrow. Note that the occurrence of the modal future prefix sa- in (17) is not necessary to force the appearance of the auxiliary; only the future meaning is, as noted earlier. Analytic complex tense constructions are not limited to past or future Perfects. They extend to Imperfects. The construction (19) illustrates the case of Past Imperfect, whereas (20) instantiates either a Habitual Imperfect or a Future Imperfect: 15 (19)

kaana y-aktubu r-risaalat-a was 3-write the-letter-Ace He was writing the letter.

(20)

yakuunu y-aktubu r-rasaaZil-a is a. b.

3-write

fli l-rasiyy-i

(gadan)

the-letters-Ace in the-evening (tomorrow)

He is usually writing the letters in the evening. He will be writing the letters tomorrow.

These contrasts indicate that (isolating) verbal auxiliaries are clearly playing a role in the realization of complex temporality (provided it is marked). Complex temporality then leads to analysis, and Temp GFs are split on two finite verbs, both of which carrying T marks (i.e. typically prefixing or suffixing Person morphology, for Imperfect and Perfect, respectively), in addition to finite Agrl. Temp auxiliaries are widely spread among Ls, to express T splits (caused by Temp complexity). They are not only found in Germanic/ Romance type Ls, which exhibit the Agrl/ Agr2 split, but also in Ls like Arabic (or Semitic), which do not instantiate the latter split. It is worth noting that the T/ Agr splits can also be contrasted in the domain of Voice, to account for the different sources of the synthetic/analytic options. 16

15.

See in particular Fassi Fehri (1993) for detail.

t6. These splits obtain via fissioning (or delinking) mechanisms in syntax, along the lines proposed in Fassi Fehri (1996b, 2000).

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

1.5

Voice

In this section, I will argue that Voice is also sensitive to the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of Temp (verbal) split or Agr (nominal) split in L. Despite the influential paper of Baker, Johnson and Roberts ( 1989; BJR), where the Pass morpheme was treated as an argument (Case absorber) affix generated under I, early parallel work on the matter (see especially Fassi Fehri (1988b) for Arabic, Tsimpli (1989) for Modern Greek, and Rivero (1990) for Albanian and Modern Greek) has argued that Pass is a head of aspectual nature, which interacts and clusters with other GFs in the verba-temporal chain (see also Ouhalla (1991) for motivation of the headedness and verbality of Pass, as well as penetrating criticisms of BJR's analysis). Later work on the matter has acknowledged the existence of Voice as a verbal head projection (see e.g. Kratzer (1996), to be ordered among the components of the aspectuo-temporal-modal chain (see e.g. Cinque (1999)). More recently, Embick (2000 a & b) also assumes the aspectual character of the Pass morpheme, and he resorts to Height of Attachment to derive the various (aspectual) interpretations of the passive participle (eventive, stative, etc.). I will not repeat here the arguments for the nature of Voice as temporal, but rely on the many references pointing to this direction. If Voice is verba-temporal, then it is natural that it selects (or dominates) only VPs (see e.g. Bresnan (1982), Rivero (1990), Ouhalla (1991), Levin and Rapaport (1986)), be modified by adverbs (of Manner; cf. Cinque (1999)), interacts with other aspects (Beedham (1982), Fassi Fehri (1988b)), and for our purposes, yields synthesis or analysis, depending on other components of the M/T/Asp/Vo/V chain (M for Mood, Vo for Voice). The two triggering factors exploited earlier in active Voice will be equally exploited here, namely Temp and Agr splits. 1.5.1 Arabic and anaphoric Agr Consider first Arabic, a simple case. Here Voice in complex tense constructions does not behave differently from that of simple tense cases. For example, in the Passive Past Perfect and the Passive Future Perfect. illustrated in (20) and (21), respectively, Pass occurs on the embedded thematic verb, which is both temporal and finite (compare with (2) above):

(21)

kaana-t r-risaalat-u (qad) kutiba-t was-F the-letter-NOM (already) wrote.PASS-F The letter had been (already) written.

(22)

t-akuunu r-risaalat-u (qad) kutiba-t F-is the-letter-NOM (already) wrote.PASS-F The letter will be (already) written.

71

72

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Thus Pass is still synthetically temporal, and the complexity of tenses has no impact on its nature, its position, or the rise of analysis. Note also that the two finite Agrs are identical or anaphoric. 1.5.2

Latin and split Agr

Classical Latin shares synthetic properties with Arabic in the active verbal system, but differs from it in that analytic auxiliaries arise in the former from complexity created by Passive voice, interacting with tense. Thus, like Arabic, Latin uses no auxiliary in the Present Perfect. The latter is synthetic, as can be seen in (23): (23)

lau.da.-vi-t praise-PERF- he

He has praised. This synthesis contrasts with the Romance analysis in this case (see e.g. French (7) above, or Italian ha Iodato). Likewise, the past perfect in Latin is also synthetic, although it incorporates a past tense form of the auxiliary esse (contrary to the present): 17 (24)

lau.da.-v-er-am praise-PERF.be-PAST- I

I had praised. Giorgi and Pianesi (1991; = GP), on whose data I am relying, argue that Latin differs from Italian in that it has verba.[ active Perfect (or T2, without Agr2), contrary to the latter in which the Perfect (T2 and Agr2) is adjectival. Consequently, T2 in Latin, which does not need a specific Agr2, can be compatible with Agrl. Furthermore, no auxiliary is needed to realize finite features. In the Past Perfect, the auxiliary must appear for temporal reasons, but T2 and T1 are associated with Agrl (in the absence of Agr2), hence the synthesis. However, the Latin Passive Perfect behaves difterently from the active Perfect in that it is periphrastic: (25)

la.uda-tus

sum

praise-PART.M.SG.NOM be.PRES.lSG

I have been praised. According to GP (ibid), the contrast with the active is in fact expected, given that the needed past or passive participle is adjectival, hence carrying its own Agr (or

Morris Halle (p.c) has informed me that the analysis of-er-as auxiliary "be" is disputable. For discussion, see GP (1997).

17.

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

Agr2). Consequently, the overtness of the auxiliary esse becomes necessary, to support (finite) Agrl and Tl. Our interpretation of the Latin data differs from that ofGP's. The fact that the auxiliary used in Latin past perfect is "be': and that it "shares" with the thematic verb the same Agr (or Agrl) is an indication that Latin uses no Agrl/Agr2 split to construct its active Perfect. The auxiliary ("be,) can be omitted with the present, but not with complex marked perfects. But although the auxiliary is realized in e.g. Past Perfect, Temp complexity is not sufficient to yield analysis. The emergence of an Agr split (into a non-finite participle Agr2 and a finite Agrl) typically in the Pass Perfect case calls then for an explanation. If the Pass Perfect participle contributes Voice and Aspect, and assuming that present Tis empty (as in verbless or present Perfect sentences), then the only information which the auxiliary contributes is AgrS (or Agrl), and typically the Pers feature. But the present auxiliary, as we have seen earlier, does not (usually) occur only to support Agrl, as seen with the active Perfect. It must then be that something special is going on with Pass Perfect. Suppose that the latter form is temporally complex, with a sufficient complexity so as to disallow the occurrence ofT on it. Then the Pass Perfect complex (with no finite T) will surface with non-finite Agr or Agr2 (i.e. with Num and Gr features, and without Pers, which is licensed only with finite T). Since a noncopular sentence requires a T/Pers association to be finite, an independent auxiliary is needed in this case. I think then that the analysis is dictated by the degree of (Temp) complexity allowed on the thematic verb, and that the explanation has nothing to do with the participle being verbal or adjectival, as in GP. The Pass participle is normally treated as verbal, typically when it is eventive and (implicitly) agentive. The synthesis/analysis has to do with whether Agr dominates a finite or non-finite Temp, a choice which is or isn't available, depending on the degree of complexity allowed by L. Thus Latin is forced to use analysis (and Agr split) in the Pass Perfect, but not with Active Perfect, assuming that the former is (temporally) much more complex than the latter. Support for this view comes from the fact that the Pass Imperfect in Latin is also synthetic, presumably because the Imperfect is not marked, and it does not reach the degree of complexity of the Pass Perfect. But unlike what happens with Latin, Arabic Pass Perfect is synthetic. This difference can be attributed to a difference in the nature of the Pass configuration: the latter is (completely) temporal in Arabic (in the sense that it is dominated by other temporal elements, including T) and, as such, allows more complexity than Latin does. Consequently, Latin resorts to a non-finite Agr (Agr2), to dominate the lower temporal complex allowed, and the remaining Temp GFs, associated with finite Agrl, have to find support on the auxiliary. In contrast, the Arabic Agr being the highest in the tree, after all temporal heads are placed, the Arabic synthetic passive (2) ends up having basically the same form (and internal structure) as the

73

74

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

synthetic Latin perfect (23). Note that such an analysis corroborates the view that Voice is part of the Temp chain, and contributes to its complexity. It does not rely on a categorization view of Voice, to derive the differences, a view which is clearly unsupported by the distinct behavior of Latin Imperfect and Perfect Pass. The following example illustrates the synthetic nature of the Latin Pass Imperfect: 18• 19 (26)

laud-aa-ba-tur praise-TH.PAST-PASS- 3SG

He/she was being praised.

Modern Greek

1.5.3

Modern Greek(= MG) patterns like Arabic in being synthetic with simple Tense/ Voice combinations. Thus the Aorist Definite Past Passive in (27) is synthetic, with an internal th affix indicating Pass, and an external one indicating T, Asp, and Agr:2° (27)

Ta paidia

plUthikan

ap6 ton Gianni

the children were-washed by

the John

MG differs from Arabic, however, in that its active Present Perfect (in addition to other perfects) is analytic, as in (28):21 (28)

e:w

yrtipsi

I have written Likewise, Passive is analytic with compound tenses: (29)

Ta paidia eXozm pltUhei ap6 ton Gianni the children have been-washed by the John

As proposed by Rivero (ibid), thin (29) occurs on the main V with the same role, and the auxiliary eXoun fails to reflect Voice. Assuming a hierarchical structure

This example is taken from Embick (2000a), but the glosses are mine. As the author explains. Pass arises below T/Agr, but must readjust to be placed in T/Agr. If Imp Asp is realized as zero, Past realized by -baa, and the ending realizes a mixture of Pass and Agr, then the glosses give an approximate segmentation.

18.

Note that the fact that Agr2/T2 is adjectival in GP and that it dominates Voice does not question its internal aspectuo-temporal nature, just as the dominance of finite temporal Voice by Agr in the complex Arabic tenses does not question its temporality. I return below to the role played by Height in determining language variation in Voice.

19.

The same is true of the present passive, which I omit here. The examples are taken from Rivero (1990), except when signaled otherwise.

20.

11.

This example is taken from Joseph & Philippaki-Warburton (1987).

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

T>Asp>Voi>V, she argues that Voice is always an affix head immediately above VP. In simple tenses, Pass attaches to V, and the complex to Asp, then to T. But in perfect tenses, Asp is the stem eX- "have~ rather than an affix. The aspectual Aux raises (separately) toT (and Agr), and the V to Pass (only). However, Rivero does not provide an explanation for the split In my view, these facts can be interpreted as follows. Pass is (totally) verba-temporal in simple tenses because no complexity arises there, in terms ofT or Agr, combined with Voice. The existence of an analytic Present Perfect is a diagnostic indicating that MG exhibits the Agr split (and/or complexity) even with actives. As for complex tenses. MG is not different from Arabic in being analytic. Furthermore, the Pass affix in MG behaves like the Arabic one in that it does not play any role in analysis, unlike what happens e.g. in Latin. 1.5.4

Albanian

As described by Rivero (ibid), Albanian represents an original case of variation in Pass morpho-syntax, and typically how it interacts with structural complexity. The Pass morpheme appears to be mobile, and it occurs as an affix, a clitic, or part of Aux, depending on contexts. The first two cases are synthetic, in that Pass is part of the thematic V compound, while the last case is analytic, appearing on the auxiliary. Consider first the simple past passive (or non-active; Nact) in (30): (30)

La.-he-sh-a wash-Nact- Past-1 SG I was washed.

The internal structure of this construction is (essentially) similar to that of MG (27), except that no Aspect projection can be justified in this case. Pass is adjacent to (or dominates) V, and is dominated by T. This is an instance of affixal Pass. Second, when internal Mood such as the Optative (for wishes) is used, it occupies the position of Voice, and Pass is displaced to a ditic position, as in (31): (31)

U la-fsh-a Nact wash-OptPres-1s. May I be washed.

Third, Perfect tenses indicate Voice in the auxiliary, regardless of Mood. Thus the auxiliary is kam "have" in the active Future Perfect (32), and jam "have been" in the passive (33): (32)

Dote kam

liire

have.Pres.1sG washed I will have washed (something).

FUT

75

76

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(33)

Dote jam liire have+been.PRES.lSG washed I will have been washed.

FUT

In order to account for the mobility of Pass, Rivero proposes that the Albanian thematic verb be restricted to carrying three affixes only. In the affix case, the three are: Vo, T, and Agr, in this order, simple Albanian verbs normally lacking aspectual distinctions (except the Aorist Definite Past, which behaves like Mood, and leads to ditic Pass; see her example (13)). In the ditic case, she assumes that Mood, Aspect, and Voice are generated under the same node dominating VP. When Mood or Aspect are realized, Voice is not part of the three affixes, and it is raised to a ditic position. As for the fusion with Aux. Rivero explains that that operation makes it adjacent to V, the essential requirement. 22 It is clear then that the interpretation of the facts about synthesis and analysis in Albanian can be understood first in terms of complexity. The facts are essentially like those ofMG: synthesis with simple tenses, and analysis with compound perfect tenses. The existence of a Present Perfect points to the existence of an Agr split, which is reinforced by temporal complexity. The mobility of Pass, typically when it fuses with Aux, if correct, opens up an original option for the expression of Voice, also based on complexity. But Voice is not behind analysis. Yet the fusion of Voi, Asp. and T provides further support for the hypothesis that Voice belongs to the aspectuo-temporal chain, rather than the nominal (Agr) chain. 1.5.5

Moroccan Arabic

I will use Moroccan Arabic(= MA) as a prototypical example of spoken Arabic dialects to examine Pass voice and M-T-Asp interactions in terms of microvariation. The MA Temp chain, despite appearances, is very similar to that in SA, except that MA, like other Arabic dialects, has lost its apophonic marking of Pass, due to an extensive loss of stem vowels. Consequently, the morphemes [n-] or [t-] (or their combination [nt-, tn-], depending on regional or individual micro-variation), which were used to express inchoative, reflexive, or reciprocal meanings (through a kind of detransitivization), were extended in MA (and other dialects) to express also Pass (or medio-passive). So the difference in mophological expression between the inchoative (34) and the passive (35) in SA turns out to be expressed by the same [t-] prefix in MA (36):

11. Rivero does not explain, however, why Pass does not stay as an affix on the thematic V, like in MG. It seems to me that the absence of this option is dictated by the necessity for Pass to interact with Asp. Similar interactions are found in Arabic, which led me to label the projection Vasp (for Voice and Asp) in Fassi Fehri (1988b).

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

(34)

ta.-kassar-a

l-kazs-u.

inch-broke.intens-3.s .M. the-glass-NOM The glass broke into pieces (came to break). (35)

kussir-a

l-kazs-u

broke.intens.Pass-3.s.M. the-glass-NOM The glass was broken into pieces (by someone). (36)

t-herres

l-kaas

inch-broke.3.s.M. the-glass-NOM a. b.

The glass was broken. The glass came to break.

0 ne essential difference between the two members of the SA pair is that no implicit agent is inferred in (34), but there must be one in (35). But in (36), the difference is neutralized, and in fact, the (b) interpretation appears to be the most natural one, unless an extra PP-like by-phrase is added. Also, the morphology does not lead to a different conjugation, and appears to behave like the active SA morphology. But before going further with the non-active verb, let us see how its inflectional morphology is built. MA does not differ essentially from SA in this respect. Consider the following two pairs of verbal constructions. the first one being active indicative, and the second one being non-active indicative: (37)

kteb-t

l-ebra

wrote- I the letter a. b. (38)

I wrote the letter. I have written the letter.

ta.-y-ketb-u.

l-ebra.

IND-3-write-PL the letter a. b.

They are writing the letter. They write the letter.

As in SA, the past in (37) is marked by a (continuous) suffix indicating Pers, Num, and Gr ([- t] there). The form expresses also the Present Perfect, without auxiliary use, while Past and Future Perfects resort to auxiliaries. In the present (38), tense is expressed by a discontinuous affix, with a prefixing Pers, and a suffixing Num and Gr, as in SA. The form is also ambiguous between a progressive reading and a habitual reading, among other potential meanings. The first prefix [t-] there expresses indicative (or realis) Mood, as opposed to subjunctive or jussive (or more generally irrealis), marked by its absence. The [t-] position can also be occupied by the prefix [ga.-] (a short form of gaadi), which I take to be a modal for future. This is a further similarity with SA, which puts modal affixes like the future

77

78

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

[sa-] in this position. Note that [t-] cannot be analyzed as progressive (or durative) Asp marker, since it can appear with stative verbs:23 (39)

ta-n-rn;( IND-1-know I know.

(40)

ta-y-kuun hna IND-3-is here He is usually here.

Clearly, neither (39) nor (40) have progressive reading. In (41), without [t-], the interpretation is hypothetical (irrealis): (41)

y-kuun hna 3-is here He might be here.

The [t-] prefixed form is then expressing a marked realis Mood, conditioning the actual or habitual present, whereas the bare prefixed form expresses a non-real present.24 Consider now the passive case: (42)

t-ebreq

l-xubz inch-burned the-bread

a. b. c. (43)

The bread was burned. The bread has been burned. The bread has burned.

ta-y-t-ebreq l-xubz IND-3-PASS-burn the bread a. b. c.

The bread is burned. The bread burns. The bread is burning.

Leaving the details of ambiguities aside, the order of prefixing morphemes in (43) is the following: M-T-Voi-V, with a Pass prefix being the closest to V, and lower than T/Asp, an ordering also found in SA. I assume tentatively that in the reflexive/reciprocal/inchoative interpretations, [t-] is prefixed to the root

23. Benmamoun (2000b) mistakenly analyzes this prefix as Asp progressive, despite evidence to the contrary. For an analysis dose to mine, see Brustad (2000).

14. The bare prefixed form can also be used in embedded contexts, with an anaphoric Realis mood.

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

(before category labeling), as in SA, and in the media-passive case prefixed to the stem (after category labeling). This difference in attachment height mirrors the clearly overt morphological distinction found in SA, where the first class of affixes (which are consonantal) attach to the root (to form a complex root), while the vocalic passive infix contributes to category stem formation. At any rate, the passive affix is found over V, and below T and M, in theM-T(Asp)-Voi-V chain. Itis therefore part of a non-split temporal chain, and hence synthetic.

2.

Formal complexity and categorization

In the previous section, I have argued that analysis results from two types of splits: A. A nominal (Agr) split, found typically in Ls that have either (a) an analytic Present Perfect (Romance or Germanic), or (b) an analytic Pass Perfect (Classical Latin) or (c) both (Germanic or Romance). B. A tempora.l (verbal) split, found in Ls like Arabic (SA and Arabic dialects) which (a) do not have an analytic active Present Perfect nor (b) an analytic Pass Perfect. They do exhibit analysis, however, in complex tenses (in e.g. Past or Future Perfect tenses). C. Voice (Pass) has been argued to be part of the Temp chain, and it triggers analysis by interacting with Temp complexity (e.g. in Latin). The source or cause of analysis assumed here can be called Formal Complexity (= FC), that is complexity in morpho-syntactic expression of GFs, and typically formal Temp complexity, conjoined with properties of (formal) Agr. FC makes predictions about the kind of analytic types to be found in Ls, to the exclusion of others, and the nature of limitations to be expected on choices, such as e.g. the Formal Disjunctivity stated in (1) above. Other approaches provided in the literature (including those based on Cognitive complexity or pattern change) do not make the right predictions.25 Before returning to this issue in subsection 2.3, I first address further relevant questions that remain to be answered.

See e.g. Heine (1993). My purpose here is to give appropriate motivation for the type of FC I am dealing with, as well as the structural mechanisms available for analysis. Cognitive factors may be playing a role in changes, but it is not clear how a cognitive approach would predict the right formal available changes in Ls, to the exclusion of others. 15.

79

so Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 2.1 2.1.1

Further analytic. and synthetic questions

Pass and additional complexity

Why there seem to be no Ls that exhibit only the Aa property, without exhibiting the Ab property (i.e. Ls which would be the reverse of Classical Latin)? The premium answer seems to be that Pass adds an extra level of complexity to the active Present Perfect. So if the active is already analytic, its passive counterpart should also be so (but the reverse is not true). The added complexity of Pass appears to be natural if Pass is marked, compared to the active, and it adds extra temporal specification (two-degree specification here). But if Pass is temporal, as I have argued, why should it trigger analysis in Classical Latin Pass Present Perfect (26), but not in active Past Perfect (25), the two cases appearing to exhibit the same degree of complexity? Various answers are possible here, all of which would lead to add an extra factor that would either make (26) much more complex than (25), i.e. 3-level complex, or make the extra factor contributing to increase general complexity. I will adopt tentatively the former solution.26 Then the T-chain would be associated with one (finite) Agr in (25), but two Agrs in (26). In Ls that exhibit the have/be split in auxiliaries, the Pass non-Pass distinction is usually correlated with auxiliary selection. In actives, the auxiliary (have) carries the Agr of the external subject (or Agrl), whereas the perfect participle is carrying an (abstract) Agr2, which is disjoint from Agrl (and does not agree with it). With the Pass (Perfect), however, Agr2 must be anaphoric with Agrl (and the auxiliary used is be). But given the relevant complexity in Classical Latin, and also the fact that there is only a single auxiliary (be), the only way to deal with Pass!femp complexity is to introduce a distinct Agr (or Agr2) for the passive participle subject (the underlying object of the thematic verb), which cannot be directly associated with Agrl (normally linked to the finite active subject). Moreover, anaphoricity between Agrl and Agr2 is established, given that the auxiliary is be, and the subject of the participle is also the subject of the finite (auxiliary) verb. 2.1.2

Two finite A~

If Arabic present Perfect is synthetic, why can't its past Perfect be, as in Latin? I would claim that Arabic does not behave like Latin in this case presumably because of the conjunction of two factors. First, Arabic has no distinction (in its

16. If the present Petfect is analyzed on a par with other petfects as a temporal complex, as I will assume, then Pass Perfect is of 3-level complexity. I disregard here the possibility of taking the source of analysis in Pass Petfect to be, for example, the avoidance of Agr mismatches, because this does not apply to Pass Imperfect.

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

inflectional inventory) between finite and non-finite verbal morphology (such as participial or infinitive). All temporal verbs are finite (as exemplified above), and deverbal adjectives have a different morphology, as we will see below. In order to form a complex tense, Arabic resorts only to the tensed auxiliary "be" (kaana), and to a finite verb which carries the same Agr form, the latter being anaphoric to the upper Agr. In other words, Agrl and Agr2, which enter in the formation of complex tenses in this language are identical. Second, Agr morphology is hardly dissociable from T because it is essentially the positioning of the Agr morpheme on the verb (as prefix or suffix) which indicates past/non-past (Tl) or perfect/ imperfect (T2); for detail, see Chapter 1. 2.1.3

Ancient Greek as .fu.lly synthetic

Are there Ls which are completely synthetic, in the sense that they exhibit no Agr split, and no Temporal split? Ancient Greek(= AG), as described by Ackema ( 1999), appears to provide an instance of such a language. Consider present active forms, where the Perfect inflection and the T/Agr inflection are all affixed to the thematic verb luo "loosen": (44)

Sg 1. Ieluka 2. Ielukas 3. leluke

Pl lelukamen Ielukate lelilkaasi

In the conjugation of e.g. lelukamen, Perfect morphology consists of reduplicating the stem (of the non-passive voice), joined by a k- suffix; T and Agr then follow. The active Perfect behaves essentially like simple active tenses, except for the (internal) introduction of Perfect morphology in adjacency with the verbal stem. The paradigm for the perfect passive remains synthetic, although three (instead of two positions) are filled, with Pass (or the media-passive) generated in a position higher than Perfect, and adjacent to I (or T/Agr)?-7 (45)

Sg 1. lelumai 2. lelusai

3. lelutai

Pl lelumetha Ielusthe leluntai

17. In fact,Ackema argues that Pass inAG is higher than I; see his structures (135) and (137) for simple and perfect passives respectively (pp. 149-150). I leave the question of ordering Pass and I aside since it does not bear on the question I am addressing here.

81

82

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

If this is correct, then the double complexity induced both by Pass and Perfect in AG does not lead to a split (of Agr or Temp).

2.2

Reanalysis as the source of analytic pass or perfect

A number of studies agree that a reanalysis took place in Germanic and Romance to yield periphrastic perfect passives, and then generalized to perfect actives (and non-perfects as wel1)28 • Ackema (ibid, among others) argues that dejlexion (or the loss of inflectional endings), as well as the number of mismatches and ambiguous mappings between the number of affix positions in morpho-syntax and the number of morphonological affixes showing up on the verb make parsing opaque, and hence yields to analysis (through reanalysis). Taking synthesis to be a parameter in terms of the number of positions that a verb takes (with a maximum of three, Spec, Camp, and Adjunct), he then postulates a possible decrease in synthesis, with the Spec being the last position to undergo analysis. Deflexion is then taken to be the cause of a reanalysis of an already existing construction in the language. The target in the periphrastic passive case is a copular structure, consisting of the copula be and the deverbal adjectival passive. The (reanalyzed) adjective as participle is a true adjective by standard tests. Thus in victus est, the original meaning is that the subject is in a conquered state. When the construction was reanalyzed as perfect passive, the new meaning became "it has been conquered by someone': The new passive does not have a distinction perfect inflection (like synthetic perfects have), the new auxiliary be being construed as inherently perfect, with the completion of the action (expressed by the adjective's verbal base) implied. The original structure is not lost, and a structural ambiguity is introduced in the syntax. If deflexion persists, then only one position is left on the verb. Consequently, after the passive becomes analytic, synthetic forms of the non-perfect passive and active perfects start disappearing, and the same deverbal adjective construction is used, with a usual combination with have for the present perfect. Moreover, the reanalysis introducing the periphrastic verbal structures also introduces the present day ambiguity between the latter and their adjective ancestors. One claimed advantage of the analysis/reanalysis proposed is that in Germanic and Romance, Pass and Perfect participles are predicted to be identical in form (as well as their deverbal adjective counterparts), whereas synthetic Pass and Perfect have different forms. The author rightly criticizes alternative approaches like that of Ouhalla (ibid) or GP (ibid), based on categorial parametrization of Perfect or Pass. For example, GP analyze T2 as verbal in the active, and adjectival

18.

See the references cited in Ackem.a (ibid).

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

in the passive, contrary to the evidence that Pass can be verbal as well. The same objection applies to Ouhalla's nominal feature of Pass in analytic cases. Furthermore, these analyses (which Ackema terms "head movement analyses"), do not predict any relation between richnesss of inflection and the synthetic/periphrastic distinction. In sum, the analysis proposed establishes a direct link between deflexion and replacement of synthesis by periphrasis. In the criticized structural analyses, the distinction is characterized via the category of GFs, but it is unclear why there should be a relation between deflexion and the categorial feature change in Pass, Asp. or T. Embick (2000a) also adopts a head movement approach to the synthetic/ analytic distinction in Latin Perfect. Given a unified structure for both cases and a list of GFs, including v; Asp (under which he places Perf or Imperf), Pass (which has no determinate position), and T, he then simply stipulates the condition (46) to prevent synthetic Pass Perf (=his (29)): (46)

[Perf] Asp does not move to Twhen [Pass] is present.

But this stipulated statement can hardly be used to predict the analytic types available across Ls, or account for how the variation arises. For example, (46) does not apply to Classical Greek, and we do not know why. On the other hand, one could change Perf with Imperf and obtain an analytic type which does not exist, or change passive with non-passive, to make an equally wrong prediction. 2.3

A splitting analysis (of Temp and Agr categories)

Although valuable on certain points and criticisms, Ackema's analysis suffers from a number of drawbacks. Assuming that the analysis/reanalysis proposed accounts correctly for the patterns it deals with in essentially Romance, Germanic, Latin, and Greek, (a) it is also based on a ca.tegory change explanation, (b) it is limited to a single type ofLswhere the same path is used to move from synthesis to analysis, without covering a wide range of distinct crosslinguistic paths, (c) it does not take care of peculiarities in Ls that make a simple formulation of the Synthesis Parameter workable in terms of the hierarchy and number of the (argument or adjunct) affixes visible on the verb, and (d) it does not address the question of how predicate affixes, inchoatives, causatives, reflexives, or modal affixes (to cite few caces) fit into the picture. For example, deflexion cannot explain why English developed an analytic present imperfective, whereas French does not, hence the contrast in (47): (47)

a. b.

Jeanmange. John is eating.

83

84 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

The same is true of English Past progressive, as opposed to the synthetic French "imparfait': The lack of analytic imperfective in French is also found in the passive patterns, as we will see. Likewise, deflexion can hardly be behind the replacement of punctual simple past in French "passe simple" with an analytic ambiguous "passe compose~ serving also as general past. The reanalysis simply stipulates a category change, independently of the other morpho-syntactic properties of Ls. If deflexion were sufficient for reanalysis, then we expect MA (in which apophonic Pass morphology was lost, due to a general loss of internal stem vowels) to resort to a reanalysis of the adjectival passive construction along similar lines. The reanalysis has simply extended the use of the [t-] inchoative affix to Pass, keeping verbal Pass and adjectival Pass separate. Finally, it is not clear why Ls like Classical Latin do not undergo a reanalysis like Italian in the active perfect. Keeping these objections in mind, we can now go back to the link I have established between morpho-syntactic complexity and morphonological realization. Limitations on the mappings are language specific, just as the resort to analysis is. I do not pretend that FC leads automatically to analysis, but I assume that peculiarities of the language aside, it does. For example, Voice occurs as verbal or adjectival in a number ofLs, but the variation is whether it occurs in finite or non-finite (participial) verbs. The option is then whether Voice is dominated by aT/Asp head associated with a finite Agr (or Agrl), or whether it is dominated by a non-finite T2/Agr2. The former option is found in synthetic passives, and the latter in analytic ones. Assuming then the role of complexity in leading to splitting (or fissioning) in syntax, let us designate the analysis by what we take to be its key feature, and call it the Splitting Analysis, and let us restate its parameters (with respect to Agr-T-Vo complex chains) as follows: ( 48)

Splitting Analysis a. Split Agr into finite Agrl and non-finite Agr2 if Aux is of nominal nature. b. Split the T chain into Tl and T2 if Aux is verbal. c. Split a finite Agr/T chain into a finite Agr/Tl and non-finite Agr/1'2 (and attach Pass to non-finite Agr/1'2).

These split operations take into account the peculiarities of Ls, as we have seen, with the absence of the present copula in Arabic and Latin (the negative instance of (48a)), the non-separability ofT and Agr in SA (a case of (48b)), as well as the high level of analysis in Germanic and Romance (a case of (48c)). In the next section, I address some further interactions between L peculiarities and these splits, as well as the role played by Height of Attachment of the Temp or Agr affix

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns in deriving differences inside a single L, or across Ls, instead of attributing them to the nature of categorization.

Peculiarities and structural heights

3· 3.1

Imperfective passive

Arabic imperfective passives exhibit significant properties, and like their active counterparts, undergo no limitations on their formation or meaning. This is not the case for example in French, in which there is no such passives. On the other hand, English does have such imperfectives, although not with exactly the same distribution of meanings. Thus Arabic forms both past and present passive imperfectives, as exemplified by (49) and (50), respectively: (49)

kaa.na l-xi(.aa.b-u y-uktabu was the-speech-NoM 3-write.PASS The speech was being written.

(50)

yakuunu l-xitaab-u y-uktabu is the-speech-NoM 3-write.PASS a. b.

The speech will be being written. The speech is usually written (at four).

Consider now how the past or future progressive passives are expressed in French. French has no grammatical way to express these meanings, and must resort to lexical periphrasis, as illustrated by (51) and (52), respectively: (51)

Le discours etait en train d'~tre ecrit

(52)

Le discours sera en train d'@tre ecrit.

This lack of grammatical parallelism between French and SA can be traced back to the fact that French (a) lacks a progressive participle (which can enter a compound Temp chain, as in English), and (b) lacks the possibility of combining two finite verbs, the lower of which can be interpreted as imperfective/progressive (a possibility available in SA). Let us turn then to English. The English translation of SA (49) is acceptable without using the expression "in the process of': Then there is no significant difference with SA, except that the embedded passive is a synthetic verb in SA, but an analytic participle in English. With regard to (50), the use of the expression "in the process of' appears to make the acceptability easier, but the sentence is

85

86

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

nonetheless acceptable. Now, acceptability apart, the two sentences do not share the same meanings.29 SA (SO) can only mean a future passive progressive. But a real present imperfective passive interpretation is available in English: (53)

The speech is being written (now).

Likewise, SA (SO) is ambiguously habitual, but its English present counterpart is not. These peculiarities recall the temporal conditions under which the present of the auxiliary and/or copula may be overtly realized in SA, English, or French. Moreover, non-available interpretations are attributable to the limitations arising from the absence of the imperfective passive (in the French morphological inventory), or the limitations on non-finite (past participle) Passive interpretations (in English and French). The availability of finite verbal Voice and finite imperfective in SA appear to allow more combinations. 3.2

Verbal and adjectival voices

Another striking difference between Arabic, English, and French is how Voice combines with verbs or adjectives to express e.g. Passive, and how the eventive/ stative reading split in passives is captured in their various grammars. Recall that in the early literature on English passives (and Ls of similar type like Romance), the debate was first centered around the catego1y of the passive participle. Thus the eventive agentive interpretation of (54), for example, given in (54a), was attributed to the verbality of the participle (the verb undergoing no category change there), while its stative non-agentive interpretation, given in (54b), was supposed to follow from its adjectival nature, derived through a category-changing operation (cf. in particular Wasow (1977) and Bresnan (1982); cf. also Levin & Rapaport (1986)): 30 (54)

The glass was broken. a. Someone broke the glass. b. The glass was in a state ofhavingbeen broken.

But as argued e.g. by Embick (2000b ), relying on a comparison ofEnglish, Chichewa and Creek passive expression, category is not the deciding factor. For example, there is no direct correlation between the syntax/semantics of stativization

29.

Thanks to Ken Hale and John Lumsden for these judgments.

30. Another issue was whether the derivation is lexically or syntactically driven, a distinc-

tion that Borer (1998), among others, have argued to be dispensible.

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

and the surfacing category31• It must then be that it is the distinct syntacticosemantic properties of the aspectual category heading the participle which make the difference. Thus Embick resorts to Height of Attachment of the aspectual head to derive the difference (in lines with Kratzer (1996) and Marantz (2000), among others). With statives, Asp is directly attached to the Root, and with eventives, it dominates small v. If there is no v, then no event interpretation is available. In sum, Embick appeals to structure heights to derive the ambiguous behaviour of an otherwise identical participial passive affix. 32 But note that Arabic does not exhibit ambiguities in Voice expression, similar to those found in English or Romance. This is so because Arabic resorts to distinct divisions in Voice expressions. The essential dichotomy used here can be identified as finite Voice, found with temporal verbs, and non-finite Voice, found with a temporal adjectives. To get directly to the distinguished flavour of the picture, observe that the two passive interpretations in (54) are expressed by two distinct constructions, (55) and (56), respectively: (55)

kusir-a

l-kazs-u

broke.PASS.-past.3 the-glass-NOM The glass was broken. (56)

l-kazs-u

kaana maksuur-an

the-glass-NOM was broken-Ace The glass was broken. Here, there is no room for ambiguity. In (55), the passive vocalic morphology is internal to the stem of the finite verb, which is marked forT and Agr, and which is both agentive and eventive (with the implicit agent, assessed by standard tests, like agent oriented adverbs and control structures). But in (56), the passive has adjectival pattern morphology, it receives Case, and whatever Agr adjectives receive. Moreover, it is stative, like any other adjectives. Clearly then, the passive in (55) is

31.

The essential facts are the following:

i.

In English, eventive and stative passives both surface as participles (with identical suffixes). In Chichewa, both eventive and stative can be just as verbal as anything else. In Creek, stative is as verbal as anything else.

ii. ill.

See also Embick (2000a) for similar arguments based on Latin. He also argues for the necessity of using Selection for appropriate characterization, a question that I will not address here.

32.

87

88 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

dominated byv and T (among other functional projections), but the one in (56) is dominated by A (or a small a), and whatever stative aspectual or functional heads are found in the structure of adjectival phrases (cf. Fassi Fehri (1988b, 1993) for detailed proposals). Then if Pass (or Voice) is a functional head (as proposed e.g. in Fassi Fehri (1988b) and Kratzer (1996)), then Pass dominates v, and is dominated in turn by Asp and T, when it is verbal. A close examination of deverbal SA passive and active adjectives suggests further refinements (cf. Fassi Fehri (1993) for detail). Consider the active and passive adjectives exemplified in (57) and (58), respectively: (57)

r-rajul-u maani"/:J-un l-hadiyyat-a (gad-an, *zamsi) the-man-NOM giving-NoM the-gift-Ace (tomorrow, *yesterday) The man is giving the gift (tomorrow, *yesterday).

(58)

r-rajul-u mamnuub-un 1-hadiyyat-a (gad-an, *Zamsi) the-man-NOM given-NOM the-gift-Ace (tomorrow, *yesterday) The man is given the gift.

In both sentences, the adjective is (internally) eventive, assigns accusative Case to its object, and the event is temporally interpreted as taking place either in the present, or the future, as shown by the adverbial tests. But T is not overtly realized. These properties appear to mirror those of progressive and passive participles in English, auxiliary realization aside: (59)

The man is giving the gift.

(60)

The man is given the gift.

The question that arises then is the following: what is the difference between the translation of (59) or (60) by active or passive (internally eventive) adjectives such as those in (57) or (58), and its translation by finite verbs (in the present form), as illustrated by the following pair: (61)

r-rajul-u

y-amnal:Ju l-hadiyyat-a (gad-an, *zamsi)

the-man-NOM 3-give the-gift-Ace (tomorrow, *yesterday) The man is giving the gift (tomorrow, *yesterday). (62)

r-rajul-u

y-u-mnabu l-hadiyyat-a (gad-an, *zamsi)

the-man-NOM 3-PAss-give the-gift-Ace (tomorrow, *yesterday) The man is given the gift (tomorrow, *yesterday). It appears at first glance that the two constructions are equivalent, but upon closer examination, they are not. One striking difference between the two cases is that only verbs, but not adjectives, take part in complex tense formation, as shown by the following contrasting pair brought up in Fassi Fehri (ibiti):

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns 89 (63)

ka.ana 1'-rajul-u.

y-ajlisu. rindamaa. daxal-tu l-qaa.rat-a

was the-man-NOM 3-sit when entered-! the-room-Aee The man was (in the process of) sitting when I entered the room. (64)

ka.ana 1'-rajul-u.

ja.alis-a.n

rindamaa. daxal-tu l-qaa.rat-a

was the-man-NOM sitting-Ace when entered-! the-room-Ace The man was sitting when I entered the room. As observed there, the sentence (63) is ambiguous in a way that (64) is not. In the latter, the adjective is stative, and when I entered, the man was already (in the state ofbeing) sitting. But (63) can have a reading in which he has not reached that state yet, i.e. a progressive reading. Clearly then the adjectives in embedded contexts are necessarily stative, whereas verbs are not. Likewise, the verbal passive (62) is progressive, whereas the adjectival (58) is not. These contrasts indicate that there is a clear separation in Arabic between finite verbs and (deverbal) active or passive adjectives. The former are temporal, whereas the latter are not Furthermore, the fact that those adjectives do not take part in complex tense combinations indicates clearly that they cannot count as verbal participles, i.e. they possess no "mixed" or variable behaviour category (paralleling that of English or Romance), which would enable them to alternate between a category which does take part in the temporal system (i.e. participles dominated by Perfect or T2) and a category which does take part in it (i.e. stative adjectives). 33 3·3

Multiple functions across heights

It is widely spread property of Ls that a morphological form is often ambiguously used to express different GFs, or the same GF at difierent levels of structure. As I have amply argued elsewhere (see Fassi Fehri (1993), and 1996b/2000, in particular), verbal morphology encodes not only Tense, Mood, and Aspect ( = MTA there), but also Voice and Agr. These functional traits (or categories) are organized hierarchically, according to (65), leaving Agr aside: (65)

Mood> Tl > T2 >Aspect> Voice

Tl stands for the Past/non-Past distinction, T2 for the Perfect/Imperfect, Aspect for Perfective/Imperfective. Unlike the Present/Imperfect prefixed form, which

33· This distinction appears to be clear-cut in the case of passive adjectives, but not in the case of active adjectives. For example, (58) embedded under kaana is solely interpreted as a stative complement of the copula, whereas (57) may have a compound tense interpretation, similar to that in (60 ). But in Modem Standard Arabic, the dominant tendency is to use finite verbs for complex Ts.

90

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar marks Mood, the Past/Perfect suffixed form does not. However, this form does have modal uses, in wishes, or hypothetical situations, as illustrated by the following sentence: (66)

ra1;tima-ka

l-laah-u

blessed-you Allah-NOM May Allah bless you! These ambiguous uses of suffixed temporal morphology can be accounted for via either movement or appropriate placement of the same synthetic word under the relevant category. The following gives a rough sketch of how multi-functionality can be implemented (I use the word kataba "wrote" as an instance for representing this ambiguity): (67)

MoodP/Irrealis kataba

~

Tl/Past kataba

~

T2/Perf kataba

~

Aspect/Pfv kataba

The lower part of the tree, which is irrelevant for the point, is the following: (68)

VoiP

~

Voi

vP

~

v

VP

~

V

NP

As for Voice contrasts, they can be represented in the same way. Three cases are to be represented here: (a) the completely stative adjectival passive, which can be instantiated by (54), the (internally) eventive adjectival passive in (58), although with no implicit agent, and the eventive agentive verbal passive in (53). Following the lines of Marantz (2000) and Embick (2000b) in particular, these voice contrasts can be represented roughly as follows (R for Root): (69)

aP/AspP

~

VoiP

~

RP

~

R

NP

Chapter 3. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns

(70)

aP/AspP

~

VoiP

~

vP

~

NP

v

(71)

TP

~

VoiP

~

vP

~

NP

vP

~

v

NP

These structures are given for the sake of illustration. In the totally stative (69), Vo is heading RootP (before category formation), and the category (with its aspectual properties) dominates Vo. In the partly eventive (70), Vo dominates an unaccusative vP, with an internal argument only. The small v makes it eventive, but no Agent can be implied. The Asp/ap converts it to an adjective externally. In the verbal eventive and agentive (71), the vP is transitive, dominated by Voi, but the latter is dominated by TP. which makes the verb finite.

4·

Summary and conclusion

In this article, I have shown how temporal and Voice expressions in a number of Ls distribute with respect to the synthetic/analytic continuum, and what kinds of limitations and constraints operate across Ls, and inside a particular L, taking into account its peculiarities. Formal Complexity has been argued to be behind changes from synthetic to analytic expression, once a degree level of complexity is reached in the Temp chain. Appropriate predictions are then made about potential analytic types to be found. The Splitting Analysis operates on Temp chains, as well as on Agrs, to create two separate, though anaphoric chains. Variation splits have been argued to depend on the nominal or temporal nature of the auxiliary features in L, the existence (or non-existence) of non-finite (temporal) Agr in L, and the ability ofVoi or Pass to be (or not be) dominated by a Temp or an Agr projection (see the parameters in (48)). Finally, Formal Disjunctivity has been proposed to limit the choices in Ls to either synthetic or analytic expression of GF in L, but not both, hence making the choices typically asymmetrical.

91

CHAPTER4

Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs* Languages use grammaticalized temporal inflections (Tp), auxiliaries (Aux), and temporal adverbials (Adv) to express various kinds of temporal reference (TR). The descriptive program of language specific or cross-linguistic temporalities appears then to be to identify which ingredients ofTR grammar and meaning are contributed by the various Tp, Aux, or Adv expressions, or their combinations. Common Tp categories which contribute to (and organize) linguistic TR include Tenses (T), Aspects (Asp), and Aktionsarten (Akt), which project as functional categories in scopal hierarchical syntactic structures. It is largely acknowledged in the literature that Tp categories are ambiguous, or underspecified with respect to TR (see Chapter 1). Moreover, their distinct or identical forms may lead to distinct interpretations within the same language, or across languages. Likewise, temporal Adv can be equally ambiguous in the same language, and they may also produce distinct temporal meanings across languages. The main aim of this chapter is to investigate more closely the salient properties of the Arabic Perfect, and those of temporal Adv that collocate with, or coerce its interpretation. First, various kinds of Perfect (Perf) documented and studied in other languages need to be examined here, to see whether they are instantiated in Arabic, or whether they exhibit common or distinct properties. Second, Perfect interacts significantly with Past and Perfective (Pfv), as already investigated in Chapter 1, exhibiting various TR ambiguities, which need to be properly re-characterized once the disambiguation role of collocation Adv is taken into account. My approach to general semantic and morphological questions is based on the assumption that there are natural (or canonical) mappings between temporal/ aspectual forms and their semantic interpretations. Forms are productively ambiguous, but they are associated with abstract syntactic and selective properties, which then provide room for language specific differentiations. The latter are captured properly only when the semantics involved is made precise, to allow

*

This Chapter has its source in Fassi Fehri (2003c). It elaborates on previous worl<: of mine (cf. Fassi Fehri (2000c), as well as (1993)). It is particularly infiuenced by Arnim von Stechow's (2002; = AvS) work on the semantics of the Perfect and typically the German seit.

94 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

accurate comparative work. Elaborating on the results reached in Chapter 1, my grammatical description of TR relations, expressions, and distributions will assume a hierarchical architecture in which Perf is generated higher than Asp (which is basically[± Pfv]), as some 'relative' T, or T2. The latter is lower than the 'deictic' or 'absolute' T1 (denoting Past, Present, or Future), as in the following core temporal architecture: (1)

T1 (±Past)

~

T2 (±Perf)

~

Asp(± Pfv)

~

VP (±Tel)

In Section 1, I recapitulate first some salient properties of Tp inflections, then provide rough semantic characterizations of aspects and tenses. In Section 2, I examine the contribution of deictic, modal, and durative Adv in coercing these interpretations. In Section 3, I turn in particular to investigating the various meanings of mundu, and the kinds of Perf found in Arabic, as well as their interactions. In Section 4, I provide a summary of the results found with respect to interpretations of Tp inflections, Adv, and particles, and conclude with general remarks about the advantages of this dual and interactive description ofTR.

1.

Salient properties of the Arabic TR system

Various salient properties of the Arabic TR system have been addressed in Chapters 1 & 3, and they are worth recalling here. They include the polyfunctionality of the tense/aspect forms, the synthetic/analytic splits, the Past/Perf ambiguity, as well as some properties of durational Adv. 1.1

Polyfunctionality ofT I Asp forms

The T/Asp system is dominated by the polyfunctionality of its temporal forms. First, recall that a temporally inflected verb serves either as a temporally finite verb, or as a 'participle'. In other words, the form of expression of T1 (and Agr1) and T2 (and Agr2) is identical, and the morphology is not discriminatory as far as the Tl/T2 distinction is concerned. This uniformity is exemplified in the two following pairs of constructions. The first pair contrasts the two basic simple tenses available in the system: Past and Present (or non-Past), which express semantic PAST and PRESENT, respectively:

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs

(2)

ka.tab-a r-risaalat-a wrote-3 the-letter-Ace He wrote the letter.

(3)

y-aktu.b-u

r-risaalat-a

3-write-IND the-letter-Ace He is writing the letter. The second pair contains the same forms embedded under auxiliaries, and functioning as Perf and Imperf participles: (4)

ka.an-a katab-a r-risaa.la.t-a was-3 wrote-3 the-letter-Ace He had written the letter.

(5)

kaan-a y-aktub-u

r-risaalat-a

was-3 3-write-IND the-letter-Ace He was writing the letter. Second, the duality between Past/Present and Perfect/Imperfect is further complicated by the fact that these forms can express a Perfective/Imperfective opposition. For example, Past in (2) is interpreted as PFV, and Present in (3) or (5) as IPFV. To be neutral and for ease of comprehension, I will designate the two forms as Past/ Pres and Perf/Imperf interchangeably and depending on contexts. I will also refer to their varied semantics by capital letters, when necessary. Clearly, the terminological dispute about morphological forms is meaningless in the absence of precise and clear-cut semantic associations. 1.2

The PresPerf split: Synthesis and analysis

A second characteristic feature of the Arabic TIAsp system is the synthetic!analytic split of its PresPerf forms. The synthetic form (which is homophonous with that of the Past) is limited to PRES interpretation, which will be detailed in this chapter. It is exemplified in (6), which can also have a Past interpretation: (6)

jaraa ran He has run.

Analytic forms, however, in which the Pres auxiliary kaana 'be' is overtly realized, do not have PRES interpretation. They normally express a futurate Perf ( = FUTPERF), as in (7), and they collocate with future time adverbs: (7)

1-akuunu zanhay-tu r-risaalat-a

gadan

l-am finished-! the-letter-Ace tomorrow-Ace I will have finished the letter tomorrow.

95

96 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

In other words, the "tense" forms can also function as "aspect" forms. They can also express "iterative" reading, as in (8): (8)

bi-haadaa y-akuunu l-fariiq-u with-this

xams-a

3-is

qad

sajjala

the-team-NOM already scored

marraat-in

five-ACC times-GEN With this, the team has already scored five times. This situation is partly comparable to that of Portuguese, where the PresPerf is expressed by a simple form (which is also ambiguous with the Past), as in (9), but the analytic form expresses only a habitual Perfect, as in (10): 1 (9)

Comi ate I have eaten.

(10)

Agora ja tem comido now I have eaten Now I have taken the habit to eat.

It is unlike the situation in Germanic or Romance, where the PresPerf, in addition to the Past and further meanings, is expressed by an analytic Perf. In German, for example, the PresPerf cooccur with Past, Pres, and Fut adverbs (cf. Musan (2001, 2003)): (11)

Hans ist

gestern

um zehn weggegangen

Hans is/has yesterday at (12)

Hans ist

ten

left.

jetz weggega.ngen

Hans is/has now left. (13)

Hans ist

morgen

um zehn weggegangen.

Hans is/has tomorrow at

ten

left.

As we will see, this split is not without consequences for dividing lines of interpretations and/or ambiguities, as well as crosslinguistic characterizations. 1.3

The Past split: Simple Past Pfv and complex Past Impfv

A third important feature of the T/Asp system is that it exhibits also an aspectual split with respect to the form of expression of aspectual values for Past. Simple Past is associated with Perfective, whereas Past Imperfective must be expressed by two

See Giorgi & Pianesi (1997) as well as Schmitt (2001) for di1ferent analyses of the Portuguese Perf.

t.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs

separate finite forms: the auxiliary in the Past, and the thematic verb in the form of the Pres. The two contrasting forms exhibiting the split are given in (14) and (15), respectively: (14)

za.nhaa. r-risaalat-a. finished the-letter-Ace He finished the letter.

(15)

kaana y-unhii r-risaalat-a was 3-finish the-letter-Ace He was finishing the letter.

The letter is finished in (14), but not in (15). This split is partly comparable to that of English simple Past and Past Progressive. It contrasts with the double synthetic nature of this opposition found in e.g. French ("passe simple" vs. "imparfait") or Italian ("passato remoto" vs. "imperfetto"). There are various ways to assess the perfective nature of the simple Past. One argument comes from the behaviour of the Past in SOT contexts. In complement clauses, the simultaneity with the past is solely acceptable if the Present/Imperfect form is used (i.e. no SOT efiect is possible, just like the situation in Japanese or Hebrew):2 (16)

qaal-a l-ii 1inna-hu y-aktub-u r-risaalat-a said-3 to-me that-him 3-write the-letter-Ace He said to me that he was writing the letter.

The use of the Past/Perfect does not yield that interpretation: (17)

qaal-a l-ii 1inna-hu katab-a r-risaalat-a said-3 to-me that-him wrote-3 the-letter-Ace He said to me that he wrote the letter.

In (17), there is no overlapping of the writing and the saying, unlike the situation in (16). The writing is rather anterior to the saying (with a shifted Past reading). This situation is in contrast with SOT behaviour in complement clauses in English, where the embedded verb can be interpreted as anaphoric (or simultaneous, with the meaning "Mary is ill"): 3

2. Cf. Ogihara (1995) and Abush (1997), among others. Cf. also Higginbotham's (2000a) analysis of SOT, based on anaphoridty.

3·

The Arabic stative counterpart to ( 18) read as anaphoric is (i), where no copula surfaces: (i)

qaal-a 1-ii

1inna-hu marii{j-un

said-3 to-me that-him sick-NoM He said to me that he is sick.

97

98

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(18)

John said Mary was ill.

Giorgi & Pianesi (1995) compare languages which possess Imperfect (like Italian) with languages that do not (e.g. German or English). They observe that Italian Imperfect is a dependent anaphoric tense, which denotes Present-under-Past tense, the Past being provided normally by the matrix verb. Moreover, the (simple) Past cannot be used in this language as dependent. In embedded contexts, only Imperfect can be used, with a SOT effect. 4 In contrast, languages like German use Past (ambiguously) as dependent or non-dependent, the latter being neutral with respect to perfectivity. It can be read either way, as simultaneous (Imperfective) or non -simultaneous (Perfective): (19)

Hans sagte, dap Marie einen Apfel ap. a. Hans said that Mary was eating an apple. b. Hans said that Mary ate an apple.

In (a), the simultaneous reading is available, and Past is interpreted as Imperfective. In (b), Past is Perfective, and the simultaneous interpretation is excluded. Thus (simple) Past is necessarily Perfective in Italian, but not so in German. The conclusion then is that if a language has an Imperfect Past, as opposed to a simple Past, the latter cannot be used as dependent in embedded contexts. On the other hand, the Imperfect is dependent and used to denote simultaneity. In languages in which the Past is unspecified, it can be used as dependent/simultaneous. Arabic is close to Italian in this respect. Past is Perfective and non-dependent, contrary to Imperfect, as illustrated above. A second argument comes from the availability of continuous readings. Consider e.g. (6), expressing a Past activity (repeated here as (20) for convenience), and its Past Imperfective counterpart, given in (21): (20)

jaraa ran He ran.

(21)

kaana r-rajul-u

y-aJm

was the-man-NOM 3-run The man was running.

When the past copula is used, no "present -under-past" reading is possible: (ii)

qaal-a 1-11

?inna-hu

kaan-a mari/4-an

said-3 to-me that-him was-3 He said to me that he was sick. 4·

sick-Ace

Compare their examples (17) and (2l),p. 349.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs

In (20), the event is completed or terminated. It cannot be further extended. This is in contrast with (21), which is non-terminated and can be extended. Hence the sequence in (22) can be used after (21), but it leads to ungrammaticalityafter (20): (22)

[ ... ] wa. maa zaa.la. y-ajrii and still 3-run and he is still running.

In fact, the combination of (20) and (22) can be acceptable, but only if two events are involved, one terminated to make the first clause true, and one non-terminated and ongoing at liT, to make the second sequence possible. 5

2.

The Perfect/Past ambiguity

A significant property of the system consists in a genuine Perfect/Past ambiguity of the temporally suffixed form. As already observed, the temporally suffixing morphology in Arabic can express either PRESPERF or PAST meanings. Thus (2) or (6) above are ambiguous between what I represent in a very sketchy way as (23) and (24), using a simplified Reichenbachian representation of time: (23)

ET, RT < UT

(24)

ET < RT, UT

In the first representation, the Perf form is expressing PAST tense, and in the second PERFECT "aspect': The representation in (23) raises no significant problem. That in (24) is more disputable. I will ignore the potential objections for the moment, and focuse only on the fact that PAST specifies a reference time (RT) which is prior to the utterance time (UT), while PERFECT does not. To the extent that an anteriority component is involved in the PERF interpretation, that anteriority should involve other argument times than UT. This subsection provides grounds for assessing that the Past/PresPerf ambiguity represented here is genuine, rather than thinking of it as an ambiguity arising within the PresPerf semantic configuration itself, the interpretation differences being associated with the various temporal adverb specifications. My task is then basically to provide arguments establishing that, in various constructions that contain the

5· Giorgi & Pianesi (2001), who analyze quite similar contrasts in Italian, reach a similar conclusioiL Italian simple Past and Perfect are Perfective, and they contrast with Past Imperfect, which is Imperfective. The former tenses cannot be extended (unless the interpretation is different, as indicated). See e.g. the contrasts in their examples (22) and (23); see also Chapter 1 for more detail.

99

100

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Perf form, RT cannot be (~) UT, but what is involved is rather RT < UT, which is basically what PAST expresses. But before going on providing such arguments, I will sketch, for concreteness, a reasonable view of what Tenses and Aspects are, although I will not address the details of the new developments of Tense and Aspect theories, the points to be made being neutral with respect to any viable version of them. 6 2.1

Aspects and Tenses

As stated above, Reichenbachian (1947) terminology will be used. The time denoted by a semantic tense is called reference time (= RT). Aktionsarten are located in time by means of a relation that connects RT to an event time or event state (= ET), instantiating the aktionsart This relation can be called an ASPECT relation, after Klein (1994). RT may INCLUDE g) ET in the "Perfective': RT may be INCLUDED(~) in ET in the "Imperfective~ or RT may follow ET, being POST (>)in the "Perfect'? Asp relations, viewed as "temporalisers~ can be defined, after Arnim von Stechow (2002b; = AvS), as follows: 8 (25)

ASPECTS a. b. c.

II PERFECTNE II= A.PA.t3e.t;;;2 't (e) & P (e), P of type (v,t) II IMPERFECTIVE II =A.PA.t3e.t ~ 't (e) & P (e) II PERFECT II =A.PA.t3e.t > 't (e) & P (e)

6. If we follow e.g. Klein (1994, 1999), then Perf is treated as Asp, on a par with Pfv, although Perf is normally higher in structure than Pfv, as in English John has been eating an apple. In other theories, it is treated as "relative tense" in the sense of Comrie (1985), or T2 (ct: e.g. Giorgi & Pianesi (1997) ). In such a case, two Rs can be postulated, R1 and R2, as proposed explicitly in Cinque (1999), following an approach initiated by Sten V!kner (1985). The two Rs approach has various advantages, among which is the fact that it makes room for the representation of the future perfect of the past (as in He would have worked). That approach is implicitly adopted here, although details will not be addressed. I will only place Perf here as higher than Pfv (the genuine Asp). Cf. Cinque (ibid) for cross-linguistic motivation, as well as Chapter 1. 7· Klein's (1994) aspectual relations can be simplified as follows: RT (=his TT, or Topic Time) is a subinterval ofET, or is (properly) induded in it; RT contains ET; RT follows ET; RT precedes ET. 8. e is an event or a state; 't(e) is the time of e, i.e. the interval from the beginning of e till the end of e; v is the type of events, i that of states.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs

Elaborated definitions for TENSES are also provided by AvS (ibid), in line with Partee's (1973) reference tense theory, and Heim's (1994) proposal that tenses be viewed as restrictors of temporal variables: 9 (26)

TENSES are symbols of type i which bear time variables as indices. Let c be the context of the utterance, with tc the speech time, g is a variable assignment, then a. b. c.

II NOW II g,c is the speech time conceived as a point II PASTj II g,c is defined only if g(j) precedes the speech time tc. If defined, II PASTj II g,• = g(j). II FUTRj II g,c is defined only if g(j) follows the speech time tc. If defined, II FUTRj II g,c = g(j).

These definitions (or simplified versions of them) will be adopted here, except for Perf, which needs further elaboration in order to account for its various meanings, but also its (usually) higher position in the tree architecture, compared to Pfv/Ipfv (which I take to be the core Asp opposition), in conformity with (1). As an illustration of the PAST/PERFECT contrast, consider (27). The latter can be interpreted as PAST, or PRESPERF, hence giving rise to the two LF forms (28) and (29), respectively: (27)

sakan-a barliin-a lived-3 a. b.

Berlin-Ace

He lived in Berlin. He has lived in Berlin.

(28)

1P[PAST AsPP [ PFV yp[He live in Berlin]]]

(29)

1P[NOW PERPP[be AsPP[ VP[He live in Berlin]]]]

The representation (29) reflects the overall architecture of the system, in which PerfP (or T2) is higher than PfvP (or AspP). I have introduced "be" as a head of PerfP, although it is not realized. It could be that this introduction is not necessary, and the "participle" licenses both PERF and PRES. 10 If we follow AvS (ibid,

9· Simple definitions are provided e.g. by Klein (1994): (i) (ii) (iii)

PAST: (some subinterval of) RT is BEFORE UT; FUTURE: RT is AFTER UT; PRESENT: RT is SIMULTANEOUS TO, or CONTAINS UT.

Note that the "participle" of the thematic verb may be taken as the source for licensing PRES, PERF, and even PFV when the PresPerf is interpreted as such. This observation is based on the fact that the sole auxiliary "be" is not selective, and has presumably no "Perf content':

10.

101

102

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Footnote 16, p. 10), then PERF here is an existential quantifier that introduces a time/event prior to RT. Its interpretation is as in (30): 11 (30)

3t t
Note that the construction (27) can also have an extended-now (XN) interpretation, in fact a natural one. Consider the following variants of (27): (27')

a.

sakan-a barliin-a

mundu 1990

lived-3 Berlin-Ace since 1990 He has lived in Berlin since 1990. b.

sakan-a barliin-a

xams-a

marraat-in mundu 1990.

lived-3 Berlin-Ace five-Ace times-GEN since He has lived in Berlin five times since 1990.

1990

Like English since, mundu can introduce a time span through oc, its complement, i.e. a position in time given by a date or some other temporal description. Mundu oc modifies the XN introduced by Perf, and it indicates that oc is the left boundary (LB) ofXN. The construction (27b) is best analyzed as an XN-Perf, in this case an Existential Perf (E-Perf). The quantificational adverb xams-a marraat-in has to be confined within XN. The meaning of the £-Perfect can be represented as follows: (31)

3tXN (t, NOW) & LB (1990, t) & 35t' ~tHe live in Berlin at t'.

NOW is the meaning of the semantic PRES, the speech time conceived as a moment. XN (t',t) means that tis a final subinterval oft'. LB (1990, t') means that 1990 is LB oft'. The construction (27a) can be interpreted as a Universal Perf (U-Perf). The U-reading can be formulated as follows: 12

unlike what has been proposed for "have': See Wunderlich (1997) for a quite illuminating discussion on the contributions of auxiliaries and participles to temporal meanings, depending on cross-linguistic lexical differences.

u. AvS claims that this is the simplest analysis, going back at least to Prior (1967). Cf. the reference there. For further discussion, see Paslawska & von Stechow (2003). For the U/E distinction of Perfects, see McCawley (1971), McCoard (1978), Dowty ( 1979), M ittwoch ( 1988), Vlach ( 1993), among others. Iatridou, Anagnostopoulo, & Izvorski (2001) provide formulations of the two readings and their paraphrases which, if applied to this example, read as follows: 12.

U-reading (i)

a. b.

There is a time span (Perl tsp) whose LB is in 1990 and whose RB is UT, and throughout that tsp He lives in Berlin. 3i (LB = 1990) & RB = Now & \tt E i (Ev (t))).

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs 103

(32) 2.2

3tXN (t, NOW) & LB (1990, t) &"i:lt' ~tHe live in Berlin at t'.

Positional "deictic" adverbs

To disambiguate PRESPERF and PAST meanings, positional deictic adverbs can be used. The contrast is provided in (33) and (34), where past and present adverbials are used. Note that the temporal morphology is not compatible with future adverbs: (33)

katab-a r-risaalat-a

zamsi

(*gad-an)

wrote-3 the-letter-Ace yesterday (*tomorrow) He wrote the letter yesterday. (34)

ka.tab-a r-risaalat-a l-zaan-a (*gad-an) wrote-3 the-letter-ac now (*tomorrow) He has written the letter now (*tomorrow).

The positional adverb diagnostic suggests that the adverb is taken to modify RT. It has been used for English successfully, at least since Jespersen (1924). But this test appears to be disputable, once the behaviour of PresPerf in other languages is taken into account Consider the following pair of German examples (=(13a) and (14) ofLobner's (2002)): (35)

Karla ist gestern

hier eingezogen.

is yesterday here move.in.PART Karla (has) moved in here yesterday. (36)

Jetzt, wo

Ka.rla gestern

hier eingezogen

ist,

now where Karla yesterday here move.in.PART is brauchen wir einen Schliissel furs Klo. need we a key for the toilet Now that Karla has moved in here yesterday, we need a key for the toilet The first construction is ambiguous between a Past reading and a PresPerfect reading. But the Perfekt can have only a PRESPERF reading in (36), although it combines with a past adverbial. This suggests that the adverb is modifying the aspect phrase or some lower phrase, the VP (denoting ET). Thus the combinability

B-reading (ii)

a. b.

There is a tsp (Perftsp) whose LB is in 1990 and whose RB is UT, and in that tsp is an ev of his living in Berlin. :3i (LB = 1990) & RB = Now & ::It E i (Ev (t))).

On further refinements, as well as a characterization of English "since': see Von Fintel & Iatridou (2002).

104

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

of Perf with past and non-past time adverbials cannot count as an argument in favour of the ambiguity of the Perf, at least in the German type languages (see Klein (1999) and Musan (2001), among others, for arguments). If a similar reasoning were to extend to Arabic, then we have to look for other diagnostics to establish the existence of a genuine PAST interpretation. 2.3

Perf and modal qad

The particle qad (meaning "already': i.e. precedence, or "just': immediate precedence) is typically acknowledged in traditional literature to be collocating with Perf readings (see Chapter 1, subsection 1.2, on which I elaborate here). For example, qad can occur immediately before the "participle" of a complex Perfect tense, as in (37): (37)

kaan-a qad

katab-a r-risaalat-a

was already wrote-3 the-letter-Ace He had already written the letter.

It can also occur in front of a simple tensed verb, interpreted as PresPerf. Thus in (38), qad can have one of the two precedence readings: (38)

w~ala

qad

already/just arrived a.

b.

He has already arrived. He has just arrived.

But in (38), qad can be further ambiguous in a way that it cannot be in (37). It can mean "indeed': or "in fact~ to stress the factual certainty of the event, and the sentence is translated as "He indeed came" or "He did come': In the latter case, it serves as a modal. Modals are projected higher than Tense (or T1). Unsurprisingly then, when qad serves as a modal it takes T1 projections as its complement, namely Past projections, cooccurring with past time adverbials, as illustrated in (39): (39)

qad

w~al-a

zamsi

indeed arrived-3 yesterday He did arrive yesterday. Likewise, it takes also Present projections, as in (40), but the interpretation is that of "possibility" or "probability': rather than certainty: (40)

qad

y-~il-u

l-zaan-a

may 3-arrive now He may arrive now.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs The T1 nature of the complement of qad is further corroborated by its occurrence in front of the auxiliary of a complex tense: (41)

qad

kaan-a

y-~aUii

indeed was 3-pray He was indeed praying. The question now is the following: why can't the complement of modal qad in (39) be taken as Perf (or T2), instead of Past (or T1)? In other words, what motivates restricting the selection of modal qad to T1? The answer is straightforward. Consider the following minimal pair of constructions: (42)

ka.an-a qad

wa~a.l-a

was-3 already arrived-3 He had already arrived. (43)

qad

kaan-a

w~al-a

Indeed was- 3 arrived- 3 He had indeed arrived. Both constructions are typically non-ambiguous. In (42), qad is only a Perfect Level specifier, and in (43) a Modal specifier. This absence of ambiguity is due to the fact that qad is unambiguously positioned, with respect to T1 (Past), or T2 (Perf). In (38), the ambiguity arises due to ambiguity placement. Note that no such ambiguity arises in (41), and (39) has at least one reading in which it is a modal structure like (41), which implies that Past, rather than PresPerf is involved there. Note in passing also that if modal (39) were to be interpreted as Pres, then two problems arise. First, we predict wrongly that the interpretation is "possibility~ rather than certainty. Second, qad would be selecting an empty auxiliary (or copula), which it normally does not, as shown by the ungrammaticality of(44): (44)

*qad r-rajul-u musaa.fir-un may the-man travelling-NoM Intended to mean: The man may be traveling.

In this case, the realization of the copula in the Pres form is obligatory ( Cf. Fassi Fehri (1993) for detail). The particle Perf qad has a partly similar German counterpart. Schon, a case of RT or Perf level specification,can be used with Past or with Perfek.t. With the former, the interpretation is normally that the action only started, or it is imperfective, but with the latter it is ambiguous. It has a PresPerf meaning, with the action understood as completed, or it may have an interpretation similar to that

105

106

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar of Past imperfective. The examples (45) are from Musan (2001. p. 363), and (46) is from Lohner (2002, pp. 386-7):13 (45)

a.

Er hat schon

gegessen.

He has already eaten(= He finished his meal). b.

Er af3 schon He ate already (= He was already eating).

(46)

Sie hat schon

gefruhstuckt.

she has already have breakfast a. b.

She has already had breakfast (Present Pertect) She was already having breakfast. (Past Irnpertective)

Likewise, qad interpretation differs depending on the temporal entity it collocates with. When it means "already': it is a Perf detector. When it is a modal, it collocates with Tl, meaning "indeed" with Past, and "possible" or "probable" with Pres. 14 Thus qad is uniformly a modal when it is higher than T, and a Perf (or Asp) specifier otherwise. Its interpretation is then a true diagnostic for helping us determining whether the Perf form is to be interpreted as PAST or PERF. 2.4

Adverbs and simple vs. complex tenses

Positional adverbs are known to be ambiguous with complex tenses (typically Perf tenses), because their structure allows for two positions that the adverb can specify. 15 For example, this ambiguity is found in (47), where the letter could have been finished at four, or before four: (47)

ka.ana qad

1anhaa r-risaalat-a

fi.i r-raa.bira.t-i

was already finished the-letter-Ace at the-four-GEN He had already finished the letter at four. Surprisingly, however, this ambiguity is not found with PresPerf, be it analytic, as in (48), or synthetic, as in (49):

Musan attributes her examples to Wolfgang Klein (p.c.). Her analysis of the PresPerf differs obviously from LBbner's (2002), who argues that the tense semantics of the latter is not uniformly PRES (Perf), but can be PAST (non-Pert) as well

13.

14.

See Fassi Fehri (1993) for detaiL

The two positions are normally taken to be ET or RT, but they could be two RTs, as pointed out in Footnote 9 above. I will assume the latter approach, which takes into account the "tense" dimension of Perf. 15.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs (48)

1-akuunu. 1anhay-tu r-risaalat-a

ga.da.n

fi.i r-raa.bira.t-i

I-am finished-! the-letter-Ace tomorrow-Ace at the-four-GEN I will have finished the letter tomorrow at four. (49)

za.nhaa. r-risaalat-a.

(l-zaan-a, 1amsi) fi.i r-raabirat-i

finished the-letter-Ace (now, yesterday) at the-four-GEN He (has) finished the letter (now, yesterday) at four. In (48), the adverb specifies only RT, i.e. the tense carried by the auxiliary. In (49), read as PRESPERF, with a Now adverb, the same is true. The problem arises with (49), when collocating with a past adverb. If(49) is read as PRESPERF in this case, then the past adverbial has to be interpreted as specifying ET, contrary to what happens with other PresPerfs. If (49) is read as PAST, no such a problem arises, because then the temporal Adv would be modifying (uniformly) RT. Since the minimal hypothesis is to assume a uniform RT specification, I will assume that this is the case, unless evidence is provided for the contrary. But note that if the tense were PresPerf, then the (covert) auxiliary/copula denoting PRES would have to be modified by the positional.fii phrase. But such a possibility is independently excluded, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the following PRES sentence: (SO)

r-rajul-u.

marii4-un ("fii r-raabira.t-i)

the-man-NOM sick-NOM (*at four) The man is sick (*at four). Zero-Pres then appears to be not an option with a past adverbial, which suggests in turn that the tense involved can only be PAST. If that is true, then positional temporal adverbs play a role in T/A disambiguization, contrary to the conclusion reached in subsection 2.2, although not directly. 16 2.5

Durational adverbs

Indefinite temporal nominals can function as durational adverbials. They are either complements of mundu "since~ or they take (what looks like) an accusative case. Call them mundu-d and Ace-d, d for durative. The two phrases do not distribute in the same way with tenses and aspects they occur with, nor do they specify them in the same way.

Note that the ambiguity problem appears to be solved differently in languages having a general analytic Perf, such as German or French. Musan (2001), for example, who discusses similar facts in German, acknowledges an asymmetrical behaviour of adverbs with PresPerf: Pres and Fut Advs target RT, whereas Past Advs target only ET. But this limitation of the Past Adv to ET is not motivated in view of the data discussed by L5bner (2002), on the one hand, and the RT level of Past Advs occurring with PAST, on the other hand.

16.

107

108

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Semantic PRES and PRESPERF are compatible with mundu followed by an indefinite complement: (51)

y-aktubu r-risaa.la.t-a

mu.ndu xams-i

saaraa.t-in (l-zaana)

3-write the-letter-Ace since five-GEN hours He is writing the letter since/for five hours (now). (52)

katab-a r-risaa.la.ta

(now)

mu.ndu xams-i saaraa.t-in (l-zaana)

wrote-3 the-letter-Ace since five hours He has written the letter since five hours (now).

(now)

But PAST does not combine with such adverbs: (53)

..kata.b-a. r-risaa.la.t-a l-baa.ri1;tat-a. mundu. xamsi saaraat-in wrote-3 the-letter-Ace yesterday since five hours

The advervial mundu-d introduces an interval that reaches up to RT. But RT has to be UT, basically NOW. If the adverb has RT,UT as its RB, then its meaning is not compatible with that of Past (which is RT
saafara

r-rajul-u

l-baari1;tata xams-a saaraat-in

travelled the-man-NOM yesterday five The man travelled yesterday five hours.

17.

hours

Constructions like (i) are also interpreted as PresPerf: (i)

qul-tu haadaa mundu zaman-in tawiil-in said-1 this since time-GI!N long-GEN I have said this a long time ago.

Note that PAST is compatible with mundu taking definite complements, but these cases are analyzed differently, as positional adverbs, which introduce a time span located somewhere in the past. See subsection 3.1 below.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs

But PRES cannot combine with Ace-d: (55)

*y-azkulu r-rajul-u 3-eat

(l-zaan-a) xams-a

the-man-NOM (now)

saaraat-in

five-Ace hours-GEN

The latter sentence is possible only with a habitual meaning ("The man has the habit now to eat for five hours"). The same contrast holds with statives: (56)

za.msi

ka.an-a r-rajul-u

marii4-an xams-a saa.raat-in

yesterday was-3 the-man-NOM sick-Ace Yesterday, the man was sick for five hours . (57)

..r-rajul-u

ma.rii4-un xamsat-a. zayyam-in

the-man-NOM sick-NOM five (58)

five-Ace hours-GEN

..r-rajul-u

musa.afir-un

days

xamsat-a zayyam-in

the-man-NOM travelling-NOM five

days

The latter construction is possible as a futurate, not PRES. The contrast between PAST and PRESPERF is easier to detect with statives: (59)

zamsi

kaan-a r-rajul-u

yesterday was-3

jaalis-an,

f:w.ziin-an

the-man-NOM sitting-Ace sad-Ace

xams-a saaraat-in five

hours

Yesterday, the man was sitting, sad for five hours. (60)

""kaa.n-a r-rajul-u was-3

jaalis-a.n,

f:raziin-a.n l-zaa.na xamsa saaraat-in

the-man-NOM sitting-Ace sad-Ace

now

five

hours

These contrasts suggest that there is a genuine TENSE ambiguity of the Past/Perf form. The latter can be PASTor PRES. IfAcc-d is a quantizing adverb, then PAST is compatible with it, since it is also PFV. Simple PRES cannot combine with it because it is IPFV. As for stative PRESPERF, it behaves like PRES in that it is also IPFV (and atelic). 18

Comparable facts in Italian have been reported to me by Fabrizio Arozio. Per adverbials are only compatible with Passato Remoto (PAST PFV), but not with Pres or Imperf Ace-d is then like Per. The incompatibility of PAST and mundu-d also resembles in part the behaviour of Italian da: da can occur with Pres and Imperf, but not with Passato Remoto. Ct: also Giorgi & Pianesi (200 1) for relevant discussion. Note that the PresPerf behaviour with Ace-d depends onAktionsart. See below subsection 3.1.3.

18.

109

no Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Temporal adverbs and kinds of Perfect

3· 3.1

Positional mundu

We have seen that mundu which takes an indefinite complement is interpreted as durational in the sense defined. Furthermore, mundu-d is incompatible with Past. On the other hand, mundu can take a definite complement. It then introduces not a length or duration, but rather a date or a time span, which is the left boundary of an extended-now (XN) interval. I will call it positiona.l mundu (following the terminological use of Musan and AvS, among others), and refers to it as mundu-t. Unlike mundu-d, mundu-t appears to be compatible with all tenses. But in analyzing the various interactions of mundu-t with tense/aspect phrases, the PresPerf appears to be specified in typical ways that make this adverbial a diagnostic test for distinguishing it from other tenses, typically PAST. These interactions also show the role played by Aktionsart and Telicity. 3.1.1

Imperfective tenses

Consider first the case of atelic imperfective tenses, in their Pres and Past versions, exemplified in the following pair of constructions: (61)

1-ajrii mundu r-raabirat-i I-run since four I am running since/from four.

(62)

kun-tu "l-ajrii mundu r-raa.bira.t-i was-I 1-run since four I was running since/from four.

In (61), mundu-t provides LB of RT, P is homogeneous, and RB is not expressed, nor presupposed. The same is true of (62), although LB is situated in the Past. As for telic imperfectives, the interpretive situation does not appear to be different. Consider e.g. the Present in ( 63):

(63)

1-aktubu r-risaalat-a

mundu r-raabirat-i

I-write the-letter-Ace since four I am writing the letter since/from four. Like in (61), the LB of RT is specified by mundu-t in (63), P is homogeneous, and RB is not expressed, nor presupposed. In sum, with imperfective temporal predicates, mundu-t specifies uniformly LB (of RT), and RB is not asserted, nor presupposed. Let us then call it Ipfv-mundu-t, and specify its meaning as follows:

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs

(64)

Ipfv-mundu-t

II Ipfv-mundu-t II (t) homogeneous. 19 3.1.2

= A.PA.t'.:Jt"[XN (t",t') & LB (t,t") & P (t'')], Pis

Perfective tenses

Consider now perfectives. Let us start with simple Past telics, the achievement (65), or the accomplishment (66): (65)

waja.d-tu l-f:aall-a.

l-baari"/:la.t-a mundu r-raabirat-i

found-! the-solution-Ace yesterday since I found the solution yesterday since four. (66)

katab-tu r-risaalat-a

four

l-baarif:tat-a mundu r-raabirat-i

wrote-! the-letter-Ace yesterday since I wrote the letter yesterday since four.

four-GEN

In both (65) and (66), mundu-t is interpreted as specifying the RB of the Asp phrase, the point at which the event E culminates (in a telic perfective situation). The solution is found by four, and the letter terminated by four. LB is not expressed, but it is presupposed, and "pushed" backwards into the Past, so that the preparatory phase (including LB) takes place before four, although it has to be located within yesterday. The interpretive situation is not different (in relevant respects) for simple Past atelics, exemplified in (67): (67)

zakal-tu l-baarif:aat-a mundu r-raabira.t-i ate-I yesterday since I ate yesterday since tour.

four

In ( 67), mundu-t modifies also the RB of the Aspect phrase, Pis non -homogeneous, and LB is not expressed, although it is presupposed. It has to be some time in the Past, included in yesterday. Even in (67), the eating has to take place at an interval which ends up at four, and the eating has been taking place before four. Complex perfectives behave in the same way as simplex ones. For example, the complex form (68) behaves in the same way as its simplex counterpart (66) in the relevant respects, namely the fact that the interpretation involves also RB specification: (68)

kun-tu qad

ka.tab-tu r-risaalat-a.

l-baari/:aat-a mzmdu 1'-ra.abirat-i

was-I already wrote-! the-letter-Ace yesterday I had already written the letter yesterday since four.

since

tour

P is homogeneous if it has the subinterval property, i.e. for anyt and t', if t' is a subinterval oft and Pis true oft, then Pis true oft' as well.

19.

111

111

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar These contrasts indicate that perfective tenses differ in their interaction with mundu-t, compared to imperfective tenses. With the former, mundu-t adverb uniformly specify the RB of the AspP, its terminating point, while with the latter they specify its LB. Call the adverbial Pfv-mundu-t, and let us specify its meaning as follows: (69)

Pfv-mundu-t II Pfv-mundu-t II (t) =A.PA.t'3t"[XN (t",t') &RB (t,t'') &P (t")], Pis non-homogeneous.

PresPerf tense Consider now the PresPerf interpretation of (66) above, and (70):

3.1.3

(70)

jaray-tu mundu r-raabirat-i ran-I since four I have run since tour.

Both sentences can be read as either Ipfv or Pfv. In the first case, mundu-t specifies only the LB of the event, the starting point of writing the letter (and the writing is not finished), or the beginning of the running (which is not over). Perf then behaves like other imperfectives in that temporal P must be homogeneous. To obtain the perfective interpretation, however, the specification of the RB boundary is necessary. It is specified by the nearest point in the past to Now. So the perfect aspect extends to Now, or it is an XN, but it must be bounded (and Pis non-homogeneous). But in both Perf interpretations, mundu-t specifies the LB of the AspP. This contrasts significantly with the simple Past, in which only RB is specified. On this base, mundu-t specification can serve as a diagnostic test for distinguishing PAST from PRESPERF. Note that there is a case in which mundu-t modifies the RB of a Perfect situation, namely when it modifies the post-state (introduced by the Perf). Consider the following sentence: (71)

jur-tu mundu r-raabirat-i was.hungry- I since four I have become/been hungry since four.

This sentence can have two interpretations: (a) I started being hungry since four, and I am still hungry now (XN interpretation), or (b) I am hungry since tour, or I am in the post-state of being hungry since four. In the first case, mundu-t specifies the LB of the event, and in the second case, it modifies the RB of the poststate. But this interpretation is not relevant for the contrast with the Past, since the latter is not interpreted as denoting a post-state. I return to this case in the next two subsections.

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs 113 3.2

Durational mundu

As observed above, durative mundu can co-occur with Ipfv and Perf tenses. but it cannot do so with simple Past. Consider again the following contrasts: (72)

maryam-u t-anta4iru zaynab-a mundu saarat-ayni Miryam 3F-wait Zaynab since hour-dual.GEN Miryam is waiting for Zaynab for two hours.

(73)

kaan-at maryam-u t-anta4iru zaynab-a mundu saaratayni was-3F Miryam 3F-wait Zaynab since two hours Miryam was waiting for Zaynab for two hours.

(74)

maryam-u nta4ara-t zaynab-a mundu saaratayni Miryam waited-3F Zaynab since two hours Miryam has waited for Zaynab for two hours.

(75)

•ma.ryam-u nta4ara.-t zaynab-a l-baaril;ta.t-a mundu saaratayni Miryam waited-3F Zaynab yesterday since two hours

The sentences (72) and (73) show that Pres and Past Ipfvs can occur with durationa! mundu. The latter then indicates that the event is positioned two hours to the left of some point of reference, but its RB is not specified. By contrast, the adverbial cannot occur with Past, which is Pfv, and hence non-homogeneous. Consider now the following perfect sentence: (76)

maryam-u kataba-t r-risaa.la.t-a mundu saa.ratayni Miryam wrote-3F the-letter-Ace since two hours Miryam has written the letter since two hours.

Why is (76) good even under a Pfv reading? The interpretation can be that the adverbial is modifying a poststate, in which case the sentence would behave like any stative sentence with respect to this modification. Then what about eventive or PresPerf reading? The latter interpretation is also possible, with mundu-d specifying the LB of the duration, and NOW its RB, i.e. RT would be the RB. That possibility is not open to Past, due to the fact that its RT is located before Now, and hence cannot at the same time abut Now. The semantics of the adverbial is then roughly as follows: (77)

3·3

Durative mundu II mundu-dll (d)= A.PA.t3t'[XN (t',t) & lt'l = d & P (t')), Pis homogeneous.

Perf of Res and Post-state

Resultative meaning of Arabic Perfect can be distinguished from that of PERF or PAST. Comrie (1976, p.56) claims that "In the perfect of result, a present state is

114 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

reported as being the result of some past situation [ ... ] In an answer to a question Is John here yet?, a perfectly reasonable reply would be Yes, he has a.n·ived, but not les, he arrived". To that question, two potential answers in Arabic are the following: (78)

na.ram

wa~a.l-a

yes arrived-3 Yes, he has arrived. (79)

laa bal

gaadar-a

no in fact left- 3 No, he has in fact left.

a

As Fleisch (1974) put it: "ce n'est plus seulement !'accompli, faction conduite son terme, mais faction finie qui laisse quelque chose de realise: un resultat': This "result" may or may not be what Parsons (1990) calls resultant state. It can be expressed through adjectival phrases, but I will limit my investigation to verbal phrases, which are clearly in the Perf form. The latter are normally translated by Pres forms in English or French: (80)

jur-tu became.hungry-I (literally: "I hunger-ed") I am hungry/J'ai faim.

(81)

~adaq-ta

were.right-you (literally: "You right-ed") You are right/Tu as raison. These sentences can obviously have Past or PresPerf readings, but the relevant reading we are interested in is the resultative one. One way to get the latter reading is to think of the predicate as describing a kind of achievement, where the subject reaches the state of being hungry or being right. Then the perfect phrase describes that state achieved. This could be a Post-state. Resultatives can also be produced by passive perfect forms, such as (82), or by anti-causative forms, such as (83): (82)

junna He got crazy.

(83)

n-kasara.

l-ka.zs-u

REF- broke the-glass- NOM The glass got broken.

For has been argued to modify a result state associated with a change of state predicate. If Ace-d is the counterpart of for, then we expect it to serve as a discriminating diagnostic for distinguishing predicates that have an accessible

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs 115

resultant state from those that do not. The contrast is illustrated by the following pair of examples: (84)

fatal;r.-tu

l-baab-a

saaratayni

opened-I the-door-Ace two hours I have opened the door for two hours. (85)

sallam-tu

r-risaalat-a

(*saaratayni)

delivered-I the-letter-Ace (*two hours) Note that mundu-d is not discriminatory in this respect: (86)

fatal;r.-tu

1-baab-a

mumiu saaratayni

opened-I the-door-Ace since two hours I have opened the door since two hours. (87)

sallam-tu

r-risaalat-a

mundu saaratayni

delivered-I the-letter-Ace since two hours I have delivered the letter since two hours. I postulate that Ace-d modifies a Perf of Res in the sense of Parsons (1990), while mundu-d modifies a post-state.

4·

Summary and conclusion

I am now in a position to be able to summarize: (a) what T I Asp verbal morphology contributes (ambiguously) to temporal meanings, (b) what contributions are made by adverb spefications, and finally (c) how the combinations of the two ingredients lead to disambiguation ofTI Asp morphology or T I Asp adverbials. 4.1

T/Asp morphology

The picture that emerges from what has been discussed so far is as follows:

IPFV

PRFS

PAST

FUT

Pres

Past Imperf

Pres

PFV

(Reporter's) Pres

Past

Pres

XNPERF

Past

Past Perf

Pres Perf

PERF

Perf

Past Perf

Pres Perf

RES

Perf

Past Perf

Pres Perf

The following clarifications are in order. First, I have used Past/Pres, and Perf/ Imperf to designate the same T/Asp morphology, in order to be neutral with

116

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

respect to its interpretation, and also to facilitate the interpretation of the table for the Indo-European reader. The use of only one pair of them would obscure the picture. Second, designations with two separate terms (e.g. Pres Perf) refer to analytic forms; the others are simple or synthetic. Finally. I have omitted habituals, iteratives, generics, etc. from this table, which does not pretend to be exhaustive.

TI Asp adverbs or particles

4.2

Consider first the particle qad. As observed above, it can be a Perf detector (or a Perfect level specifier;= PerfL), or a Tense detector, when it is a modal level (ML). The opposition addressed here is between PresPerf and Past: PAST

qad

PERF

PerfL ML

+

Consider now mundu. Mundu-t and mundu-d will be treated separately.

a.

Mundu-t

As was clarified above, the main distinctive feature of mundu-t is whether it spedfies RB or LB of RT or of the Perfect construction (PerfL; An stands here for analytic or complex forms, and Sy for synthetic or simple forms): Mun-t

PRES

PAST

PERF

IPFV

LB

An:LB

LB

LB

PFV

RB

Sy:RB

RB

LB&RB

b.

RFS RB/PL

Mundu-d

Mun-d

PRES

IPFV

PAST

PERF

POST-S

+ +

IPFV

4·3

XNPERF

Conclusion

We have seen how the form of the simple Past expresses not only PAST, but also various meanings of PresPerf, including PRESPERF, XNPERF, POSTSTATE or RESPERF, but not FUTPERF. On the other hand, analytic PresPerf expresses FUTPERF (among other meanings, which I have not fully investigated here), but

Chapter 4. Arabic Perfect and temporal adverbs 117 not PRESPERF. Temporal adverbs and particles have been shown to be just as ambiguous as T/ Asp morphology, but they are T/ Asp dependent, and hence can be disambiguated depending on the temporal context I have examined the distribution and interpretation behaviour of qad, which is ambiguously PerfL or ML, but which becomes unambiguous in appropriate syntactic configurations. Likewise, a durationallpositional distinction has been postulated to account for the behaviour of mundu. Mundu-t turns out to behave differently, depending on whether it collocates with PFV or IPFV tenses. With the former, it specifies the RB of the time span it introduces, but with the latter it specifies its LB. Furthermore, PAST and PRESPERF collocating with this adverbial are clearly distinguishable. On the other hand, mundu-d excludes Perfective tenses, and hence PAST, which is associated with PFV. But Imperfective PRESPERF collocates with the latter adverb, just as PRES does. Finally, Ace-d adverbs have been shown to be combinable with PAST, but not PRES or Imperfective PRESPERF, and they serve as a diagnostic for identifying change of state predicates having a resultant state. It is expected that this dual description ofT/Asp morphology and temporal adverb specifications will prove to be more promising for capturing how languages express TR, compared to a single dimension description.

PART II

DP, np, bareness, and count/mass structures

CHAPTER

5

The grammar of count and mass* A rather spread view in the literature is that the core syntax of a count np involves the following most salient properties: a. b. c. d.

a numeral property: a count np can be (directly) modified by a numeral; a number property: it supports grammatical number (singular, plural; dual or trial in languages that have one or both distinctions); a count determiner property: it can be selected by a count determiner/ quantifier (such as 'everY, 'each: 'several~ 'many: 'few'). a classifier property: it is constructed with a (covert/overt) classifier in the presence of a numeral modifier.

Conversely, a np which does not exhibit these properties is taken to be mass. Clearly, however, these properties apply only to a narrow subclass of countable nouns. Moreover, it is not true that the lack of these properties implies the existence of mass nps, and they cannot exhaust the syntax of all count nouns. As a matter of fact, there are various other ways to count nouns, despite the fact that the latter resist direct numeral modification, grammatical numbering, count determination, or classifier marking. It is of a particular interest that Arabic makes extensive use of a particular class of countable nouns, which I term general nouns. They have none of the (a)-( d) distributions, yet they can be constructed with numerals or count quantifiers in various contructions.

*

This Chapter is based on the elaboration of the texts of two invited talks: (i)

"Kinds of Number (and Gender)': delivered at the International Workshop on

(ii)

Nominal systems across languages. Barcelona: UAB. September 2009; "Ways of counting and numbering': delivered at the Workslwp on nominal and verbal Plurality. November 2009. Paris: CNRS & Univ. of Paris VIII.

I would like to thank Maria Teresa Espinal, Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr, and Brenda Laca for the organization of these two events, as wellt he audiences there for helpful remarks and suggestions.

112

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

General nouns, misleadingly treated as either 'mass' or 'collective' in the literature (cf. Krifka (1995), Chierchia (1998), Borer (2005), Greenberg (1972), among others), clearly belong to the atomic domain, and their interpretation covers the whole atomic join semi-lattice. As such, they difter semantically from both singulars and plurals, which are confined to the lower or the upper parts of the atomic join semi-lattice, and from core mass, which belongs to an atomless (Link (1983, 1998), or vague domain (Chierchia (2010)). As regards morpho-syntax. general nouns support no Number and no Classifier marking, hence no general Number or general Classifier can be argued to be associated with their general countability interpretation. Moreover, counting through a numeral modifier inside DP is only compatible with atomic individuals, groups (Landmann (1996)), or 'cohesive collections' (Kratzer (2008)), while counting through numerals which are external to DPs is compatible with any value of atomicity ([ +] or singular, [-] or plural, and [0] or general). General nouns play an important role in three distinct types of languages: (a) Number marking languages such as English, (b) Classifier marking languages such as Mandarin, and (c) languages lacking both Number and Classifier marking such as Tagalog. Arabic provides the case for a mixed type, in which Number, noun Classifier, and general countability play a role. Besides, the alleged elasticity of the count/mass distinction is discussed and questioned, in view of evidence to the contrary. Likewise, the complexity of the notion 'count' is established, in view of the separability of its two components, atomicity and measurement. My proposals are implemented in a minimalist grammar, along the lines of Chomsky (1995, 2008), making use of Probe-Goal Agree relations and interpretable/uninterpretable feature valuation. Generality, otherwise known to play a significant role in establishing a general Person for pronoun varieties (e.g. in generic impersonals; Nevins (2007), Cabredo-Hofherr (2006), Fassi Fehri (2009a), D'Alessandro (2009)), or neutral Number (Sauerland (2003), Rullman & You (2006)) can be successfully extended to countables. Atomicity, a feature of countables, projects an atomP, and defines three values ([ + atom], [- atom], and [0 atom]). Plural inflection is not always treated as a head (with a sum interpretation), but can also function as an adjunct, which measure a vague quantity, or as a degree expression in double plurals (Wiltschko (2008), Doetjes (2008), Fassi Fehri (2009b & c), Watanabe (2010)).

1.

Toward a wider count grammar

A count noun is often described as having the (a)-(d) properties listed above. The numeral, number, and determiner properties are illustrated by the following contrasting pairs, respectively:

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 123 (1)

a.

There are twenty chairs in the room.

b. *There are twenty oils on the floor. (2)

a.

b. c. d. (3)

a.

There is a chair in the room. *There is a furniture in the room. There are chairs in the room. *There are furnitures in the room. Every chair is man made.

b. *Every furniture is man made. c. d.

There are several chairs in the room. ..There are several furnitures in the room.

These three properties are complemented by a fourth, a classifier property. Chierchia (1998a) views it as the obligatoriness of a classifier or a measure phrase to combine with numerals, as instantiated in (4): (4)

a. b.

three grains of rice two kilos of rice

Rothstein (2007) observes that count nouns do not normally occur with classifiers, while mass nouns do: (5)

a. b. c. d.

*three pieces of chair three pieces of furniture three buckets of mud ..three muds.

But as will become clear, the ban against the occurrence of mass in such contexts is not an absolute syntactic exclusion, but rather a ban against a particular reading of such nouns, i.e. a ban against reading them as atomic, discrete or integral entities, something we already know from examining their part-whole features. Other readings are possible, however. For example, they can be read as 'taxonomic'. One confusion in the literature then is to equate count with atomic. Second, there are more than two ways of expressing atomistic combinations of wholes and parts in nominal phrases. In fact. even more classes can be devised once we take into account the distinction between collective and non-collective plurals, or the distinction between group and single individuals. Various atoms or non-atoms are found in the lexicon or in syntax, with various functions and configurations, construing wholes or (minimal) parts. Number, Numeral Quantifier, and Classifier properties converge in some cases, but diverge in others, given that they are difierent categories after all.

114 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Ways of 'numeralizing'

1.1

There are various ways to use numerals to count entities denoted by nouns. As a reflection of the (a) property, the use of a numeral modifier inside the DP is only compatible with a count noun, and it excludes a mass noun (in the relevant reading), as the following contrast shows: (6)

a.

staray-tu riSriina kitaab-an bought-! twenty book-Ace I bought twenty books.

b.

•staray-tu risriina zayt-a.n bought-! twenty oil-Ace

Note that (6b) is not syntactically excluded. The star means simply that it can't be interpreted as counting oils as individuals, just as we count books. But the construction is fine if it is 'taxonomic: that is counting twenty kinds of oil. This contrast in interpretation aside, there is another important contrast to be taken into account in Arabic. It is the contrast between the behavior of so-called singulative nouns and general nouns from which they derive (often misleadingly termed 'collective'): (7)

a.

staray-tu riSriina. baqa.r-a.t-an bought-! twenty cow-unit-Ace I bought twenty cows.

b.

*staray-tu. risriina. baqa.r-a.n bought- I twenty cow-Ace (cattle)

As illustrated here, the modifying numeral is only compatible with the noun which bears an explicit mark of'units' or atoms, the singulative affix [-at]. It is not compatible with the general bare noun (which normally denotes a kind). It is then tempting to treat this general noun as a mass noun, but this would be inadequate. As we will see, the general noun is compatible with numerals in a number of other contexts, although the mass noun is not. 1.1.1

Partitive numera.l

By using a partitive construction, it is possible to count general nouns, but not pure mass nouns. Thus (8) has basically the same interpretation as (7a), although (Bb) is excluded: (8)

a.

staray-tu xams-an mina l-baqar-i bought-! five-Ace of I bought five cows.

the-cattle

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass

b.

"Jtaray-tu. xams-an mina z-zayt-i bought-! five-Acc of the-oil-GEN

Predicative numeral

1.1.2

Likewise, a numeral can be predicated of a general noun, but not of a mass noun: (9)

a.

b.

s-samak-u fisruuna the-fish-NOM twenty-NOM The fish is twenty (units offish). *z-zayt-u fisruuna the-oil-nom twenty- NOM

Numeral verbs

1.1.3

A numeral verb, which incorportates a numeral in its root, is compatible with a general noun, but not a mass: (10)

zarbar-a l-batt-u

fii l-birkat-i

four-ed the-duck-NOM (kind) in the lak.e-GEN Ducks became four in the lake. 1.1.4 Numera.l adver·bs Adverbs formed from numerals can also be constructed with general nouns. The interpretation is then that they count the individuals, rather than the kind:

(11)

mazzaq-tu l-waraq-a

tulaa!-a

wa

rubaar-a

torn-I the-sheet (by) three-Ace and (by) four-Ace I torn up sheets (of paper) by three and four. 1.2

Ways of count quantifying

Like numerals, some count quantifiers select only singulative nouns, and exclude general nouns in some constructions. Yet in other count quantifying constructions, general nouns are accepted, although mass nouns are still ruled out. 1.2.1

Count quantifier biq~ in a construct state

The count quantifier bir;lr 'few' can be constructed only with singulative nouns in a construct state. Both the general noun and the mass noun are excluded in this context: (12)

a.

staray-tu bi4r-a

samak-aat-in

bought-! feW-ACC fish-unit.PL-GEN I bought few fish (units offish). b.

*staray-tu bi4r-a samak-in few-ACC fish-GEN (kind)

115

12.6

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar c.

*staray-tu. bi4r-a. zayt-in few-ACC oil-GEN (kind)

Predicative count quantifier But note that bit# is not incompatible with the general noun in other constructions. For example, it can be used as a predicative count quantifier (or vague numeral), as in (13):

1.2.2

(13)

s-samak-u bi4rat-a ra5ar-a the-fish-NOM few-ACC ten-ACC The fish is a few (more than) ten.

But note that mass is totally excluded in such a context: (14)

..z-zayt-u bi4rat-a. rasa.r-a. the-oil-NOM few-ACC ten-ACC

Ihe count/mea..~re ambiguity ofkam The quantifier kam can be interpreted as 'how many' (the count reading) or 'how much' (the measure reading), depending on whether it applies to a singulative noun, as in (15), or a mass noun, as in (16):

1.2.3

(15)

kam dajaaj-at-an staray-ta? how (many) chicken-unit-Ace bought-you How many chicken have you bought?

(16)

kam zayt-an staray-ta how oil-GEN bought-you How much oil have you bought?

The non-ambiguous interpretation of each construction presumably results from coercing the interpretation of the quantifier in accordance with the properties of the head noun. Consequently; the only felicitous answers to these questions involve either a counting (numeral) phrase, or a measure phrase, as in (17) and (18), respectively: (17)

staray-tu riSriina bought- I twenty I bought twenty.

(18)

staray-tu ritl-an bought-! pound-Ace I bought a pound.

How does the general noun behave in this respect? The tendency is to use the general noun with a partitive kam, which is semantically equivalent: (19)

kam mina d-dajaaj-i staray-ta? how of the-chicken-GEN bought-you How many chicken have you bought?

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass

Here the general noun interpretation can be count, and the felicitous answer (17) as well. Note again that such an answer is not available to a mass noun construction, such as (20): (20)

kam mitta z-zayt-i

staray-ta

how of the-oil-GEN bought-you How much oil have you bought? The answer to such a question is a measure phrase, rather than a counting phrase, as in (18) above. 1 1.2.4 More partitives 'Numerous' or 'number' can be used with both singulative and general nouns, but not mass: (21)

a.

l-radiid-u

mina s-samak-aat-i

the-numerous-NOM of the-fish-unit-PL-GEN a substantial number offish (units) b.

l-radiid-u

mina s-sama.k-i

the-numerous-NOM of the-fish-GEN (kind) a substantial number offish (units)

*l- radiid-u mina z-zayt-i of

the-oil-GEN

Likewise, complex vague partitive numerals constructed with nayyifcan be headed by a general (or singulative) noun, but not by a mass noun: (22)

a.

zaif-un

wa nayyif-un

mina s-samak-i

thousand-NOM and more-NOM of A thousand and more of fish

b.

*zaif-un

wa. nayyif-un

mina. z-zayt-i

thousand-NOM and more-NOM of 1.3

the-fish-GEN (kind)

the-oil-GEN

Events selecting count nouns

Events selecting count nouns (such as radda 'count') can be constructed with general nouns, counting or distinguishing separate units that general nouns denote. But this is not so with mass nouns: (23)

a.

rada.dt-u s-sama.k-a. counted-I the-fish-Ace (kind) I counted the fish.

For more on the relevance of count/mass for Arabic and Hebrew quantification, see Gil (1996).

1.

127

12.8 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

b. (24)

*radadt-u z-z-ayt-a the-oil-ACC

fannq-tu s-samak-a separated-I the-fish-Ace (kind) I separated the fish. b. 1arraq-tu z-z-ayt-a (in the intended meaning) separated-I the-oil-Ace a.

Summarizing, general nouns like samak, although excluded in contexts of direct numeral modification, or count quantification inside DP, on a par with core mass nouns like zayt, can only be misleadingly treated as mass. This is so because, as shown, they differ significantly from pure mass nouns in that they can be counted in various ways, and they are compatible with count quantifiers or numerals in other contexts. The treatment of this mixed behavior requires a refinement of the grammar of countability, which will include notably a proper characterization of general countability or atomicity. This is the task I pursue in the next section.2

2.

General nouns

As I have shown above, general nouns, although not exhibiting the (a)-(d) properties described above, are compatible with numerals or count quantifiers in a number of other contexts. I focalize here on their interpretation, which belongs, I claim, to the atomic (rather than the mass) domain. Moreover, I make precise some specifics of their distribution in count (rather than mass) syntax.

1. The count/mass dichotomy has been widely endorsed in the various linguistic, philosophical, cognitive, or psychological literature, although with various contents. It is reasonable to think by now that the distinction between object and substance nouns is pre-grammatical (texico-conceptual, or non -parametric), based on the evidence that even nouns lacking count syntax, in languages like Japanese, Chinese, or Blackfoot (among others), do individuate essentially like nouns in English, in terms of number or volume quantity (see e.g. Inagaki & Barner (2009), and Wiltschko (2009), respectively). Second, it is unlikely to think that mass nPs are formed by default, thanks to the absence of count syntax, since they can be derivationally more complex than their individuated sources (see the general/mass pairs in (35) below). Third, the fact that 'collective'nouns like cattle or furniture have been often mis-analyzed as (prototypical) mass has not only added to the confusion, but disfavored an appropriate treatment of these nouns at the 'intersection' of mass and count nouns (Wiese (2009)), or more precisely as the general 'neutral' term, which overrides positive and negative values (Greenberg (1991), Corbett (2000), Rullmann &You (2006)).

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 129

2.1

General atomicity

Semantically, general atomicity/countability characterizes the content/interpretation of general nouns. To see how, consider an atomic join semi-lattice, as in (25): (25)

a.

{a, b, c} {a, b} {a, c} {a, b}

b.

i. {a, b} ~{a, b, c} ii. a~ {a, b} iii. aub = {a,b}

abc

I take the interpretation of a (strong) plural to be (26), that of a singular nP to be (27), and that of a general noun to be that of (28):

(27)

singular samak-at

~ (28)

general samak

We can see that the interpretation of the general noun extends to both the singular and the plural (and eventually the dual) parts of the lattice. Thus while the single or plural value of atomicity/countability is specific, that of the general is not. 3

3· I concur here with Rullmann & You (2006), as well as Zabbal (2002), in taking the denotation of the general noun to be the complete atomic join semi-lattice.

130

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 2.2

Singulative atomicity

The singulative atomic derivation forms an atomic nominal unit from the general or collective form. The atomicization/unitarization obtains through affixation of -at to non-human nouns, or -iiliy to human nouns: (29)

samak fish (general, kind)

(30)

--> samak-at fish-Cl 'unit of fish'

rarab

--> rarab-ii

Arab (general, kind) ~rabs' --> Arab-Cl 'an Arab'

It is striking that the whole (the general) and the parts (the units) share the same identity. Their denotation is made of the same discrete entities, which can be named either by a positively atomic or a generally atomic nominal. 2.3

General nouns and general Number

Arabic general nouns, although atomic (or countable), are unmarked for both Number and Classifier. Unlike morphologically expressed general Number, which comes in the form of a plural, and which also denotes general atomicity (extending to one or more entities), general nPs have no marking of Number. Compare the English general (or weak) plural in (31), with the Arabic general nP in (32): (31)

Do you have children?

( 32)

hal la-ka

tuffaal;r.-un?

Q to-you apple-NOM Do you have (one or more) apples?

In the two cases, the interpretation of the nPs/DPs is presumably associated with (28), yet their morpho-syntax may or may not be the same. If Number projects as NumP in the case of English, with Num possibly associated with a general (or zero) value of atomicity; then it may or not be the case that a similar functional structure can be postulated for Arabic general nouns. Second, Arabic general nouns also lack another morphological marking, which is also frequently associated with atomicity/countability; it is lacking classifier marking. A species of classifier marking in Arabic is the singulative affixation (which derives atomic singularities from general forms). It is striking that Arabic singulative forms and classifier phrases in a language like Mandarin behave in a similar way, in that they do not allow a general (or weak) reading of the classifier: (33)

hal la-ka

tuffaal;r.-at-un?

Q to-you apple-unit-NOM Do you have an apple?

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass

(34)

zu.otian

wo mai le ben shu yesterday I buy ASP Cl book Yesterday, I bought a book.

As far as I can tell Arabic (33) has only a singularity or unit interpretation, and no general interpretation of the nP is available. Likewise, Mandarin (34) is equally restricted to talk about a single book, rather than 'one or more'. How can the general noun be thought of as classifier neutral (or general), just as it is Number neutral? Although the linguistic literature has produced some substantial work on Number neutrality, there has been no similar work (as far as I can tell) on classifier neutrality. Let us then investigate what classifier neutrality can be. If Number neutrality is the unspecified (zero) value which overrides both singularities and pluralities (the two specified, or± values), then what are the two specified classifier values that classifier neutrality can override? To understand what is neutral in general nouns with respect to classification, consider two derivative specific operations. Recall first the singulative!unitcn·ization derivation, which forms atomic singulative units from atomically unspecified forms, through a unitarization operation (as in (29) above). Second, there is an operation of massification which also operates on general nouns, converting a general noun to a mass (or substance) noun, as in the following examples from Moroccan: (35)

a. b.

gnem 'sheep'~ genm-i; sheep-Cl, "sheep-meat, mutton" bger 'cow, cattle' ~ begr-i; cow-Cl, "cow-meat, beef"

It is striking that these Moroccan general nouns are normally associated only with objects (i.e. units of sheep or cattle), and they cannot be associated with substances (or pure mass). In order to obtain the mass counterpart of these nouns, a mass classifier must be added to the base general form. The general noun then appears to stand 'at the middle' between 'pure' atoms or units (derived through the atomization suffix) and pure 'masS, which is also derived (through the massification suffix). Because they are derived, the atomic and mass forms can be taken to be marked (or specific), while the general form is non-derived or neutral. The neutrality of the general form can be schematized as follows: (36)

begr-a; cow-unit Cl (+atomization)~ bger; cow (general)~ begr-i; cow-substance Cl (+ massification)

It appears then to be the case that morpho-syntactically, general nPs not only lack Number marking, but they also lack Classifier marking. Semantically. general nouns have an underdetermined cardinality, and their atomicity is unspecified, since they are neither singular nor plural, or[± atom]. However, their unspecified (or zero) atomicity does not make them mass, as demonstrated by the existence of a massification operation which takes the general form as its input.

131

132 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Rullman & You (2006) assume that Mandarin bare nouns like those in (37) have general (unspecified) Number, and their denotation is as (28): (37)

zuotian wo mai le shu yesterday I buy ASP book Yesterday, I bought one or more books.

They argue that general Number is not ambiguous between a singular and a plural reading, but rather unambiguous with a single meaning which can be paraphrased by means of a circumlocution such as 'one or more bookS. But although they claim that general Number cannot be equated with absence of Number or Number marking (p. 8), they do not establish that bare nouns in Mandarin do indeed have (general) Number in syntax. In fact, due to lack of evidence, their cases are best treated as similar to Arabic general nouns in (32), rather than cases of general Number. Generality of nouns and generality of Number, although hardly distinguishable in terms of semantics, may or may not motivate the same syntax (see below for more detail). 4 2.4

Counting and numeralizing

Counting in general can involve any value of atomicization, as we have have seen. But counting is often used in the literature in a narrow sense; i.e. it is limited to the use of numeral modifiers inside DP, and it appears to be restricted to the [+value]. Neutral is excluded in this case. As for sum plurals (specified as[- atom]), they cannot be interpreted as such with modifying numerals. The numeral (normally) applies to a 'singular: or a [+atomic] entity, as clearly illustrated by Armenian or Turkish, in which only the singular is used. 5 As for plurals, they are semantically interpreted as 'singular: and the plural is a formal agreement marker (with the numeral) rather than a semantic marker. Eventually, numeral modifiers inside DP can also count 'cohesive collections' (Kratzer (2008)), or groups formed through plural inflection, which are then seen as atoms (Landman (1996); see also Chapter 11 for detail). 2.5

The general noun is not plural

It is not (a grammatical) plural, although (a) it is often perceived as a plural (recall e.g. the meaning of samak, baqar, etc.), (b) it behaves like a semantic (or a notional)

4·

The non-ambiguity of general nwnber is corroborated by traditional ambiguity tests (p. 6).

5· E.g. Borer (2005, p. 95) attributes the following example of Armenian to Michelle Ziegler, in which 'hovanoc' has no plural marking: i.

yergu hovanoc

uni-m

two wnbrella have-lsG I have two wnbrellas.

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 133 plural in that it occurs with predicates requiring plural objects or discrete instances as complements: (23')

radadtu

s-samak-a

fa-wajad-tu

riSriina

counted-! the-fish-Ace then-found-I twenty I counted the fish, and found twenty. (24)

s-samaku

yazkulu. ba.r4-u-hu

ba.r4-an

the-fish-NOM eats some-NOM-his some-Ace The fish eats each other. But note that there is no morpho-syntactic derivation which relates the singular form to the general one, and this is why the general form is denied to be derivative from the singular (i.e. it can't be a 'plural of the singular'). Constrast the direction of the derivation in (38), from the singular to the plural, with that of (39), from the general to the singular: (38)

(39)

a.

qary-at

~

quraa;

"village"

~

"villages"

b. gu1j-at

~

guraf

"room"

~

"rooms"

a.

samak

~

samak-at;

"fish"

~

"fish-unit"

b. samak-at

*~

samak

"fish-unit" * ~ "fish" Note that the general-single pair may even be derivationally unrelated, as illustrated in (40): (40)

a. b.

rakb

~af:rb

'one or more riders'

'one or more companions'

raakib

~aai:Jib

'rider'

'companion'

As observed also before, the general noun is not directly countable through a numeral, although the plural, or the unit singular is: (41)

a.

*radad-tu riSriina samak-an counted-!

b.

twenty fish-Ace

radad-tu riSriina samak-at-an counted-! twenty fish-unit-Ace I counted twenty units of fish.

(42)

a.

•-radad-tu [a.laat-(at)-aa samak-in counted-! three-Ace

b.

fish-GEN

radad-tu talaat-aa samak-aat-in counted-! three-Ace fish-unitPL-GEN I counted three units of fish.

134 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

2.6

The general noun is not mass

General nouns have often been misleadingly treated as mass in the literature (see e.g. Krifka (1995), Chierchia (1998), Borer (2005)). General nouns belong to the atomic domain, whereas mass nouns belong to an atomless or vague domain. Mass nouns do not occur in the (relevant) contexts in which general count nouns occur, and they do not undergo the singulative derivation. Moreover, core mass has no discrete instance if it is a substance like 'oil'. Fake object-involving mass like 'furniture' has integral instances more like groups, but these instances are not accessed by the grammar. As a consequence, they do not undergo any singulative derivation, and they can be objects of multiple instance predicates like 'count: 'distinguisll, etc. See below, subsection 3.1. 2.7

The general noun is not a group

It does not have the interpretation of a group in the sense above (pace Ojeda 1993). Group may access semantically their discrete members (which form part of their semantics), but they have no singulative property; e.g. 'committee' does not name just one member of the committee. The members of the committee cannot be accessed directly either, say by a predicate like 'distinguish'. You can 'distinguish the members of a committee. but cannot 'distinguish a committee, hence accessing its members (or parts)

3·

Collective varieties

Nouns like samak 'fish' or dajaaj 'chick.eti, examined in the previous sections, have been thought of as 'nouns of genus' (jins) in Arabic traditional grammars (cf. Sibawayhi, 8th century [1938], Astarabadi, 12th century [1979]), because they name kinds (Fassi Fehri (2004)), or as 'collectives' in Western grammars (Wright (1971), Greenberg (1971)). But the term collective is confusing, because it is used to cover various classes of nouns, which exhibit importantly distinct semantic and syntactic properties. Below, I propose to keep apart groups, which are atomic, general nouns, which are atomistic (or generally atomic), and non-atomic (fake mass) collectives like 'furniture' or 'clothing, which conceptually and perceptually have objectinvolving interpretation, but grammatically involve no relevant objects, instances, or singularities. 3.1

What 'counts' in the grammar of collectives

Counting can be described as the determination of 'discrete' or 'discontinuous' quantity. The contrast of discrete and continuous quantity is not directly

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 135

ontological, but rather grammatical. As often pointed out, the non-ontological nature of the distinction is striking in view of 'doublets'. For example, 'clotheS, 'boots: 'shoes: are count, but their cognate collectives 'clothing; 'footwear: are non-count (Chierchia (1998 a&b )). And although 'clothing' represents continuous quantity and 'clothes' discrete quantity, to say that there is clothing here or there appears equivalent to say that there are clothes here or there. In terms of grammar, however, there are at least three varieties of collectives, in view of their behavior with respect to the count/non-count distinction. Consider first a class of (directly) countable collectives, which are better termed groups, exemplified in (43): (43)

jtamara-t l-firqat-u met-F the-team-man The team met

Among the most salient properties of these groups, I list the following: 6 a.

They are atomic, and can be constructed (directly) with a numeral modifier (inside a DP): (44)

jtamara-t talaat-u

.firaq-in

met-F three-NOM teams-gem Three teams met

b.

In terms of Number, they are grammatically singular, and they undergo cardinal (or sum) pluralization, like other singularities: (45)

jtamara-t .firqat-un,

.firaq-un

met-F team-man, teams-NOM A team met; (some) teams met c.

Groups behave unambiguously with reciprocal verbs, illustrating their atomic nature; compare the only collective interpretation of (46a) to the (possible) distributive interpretation of (46b), in addition to the non-felicitous reciprocity in (46c): (46)

6.

a. b. c.

those furnitures are leaning against each other. those pieces of furniture are leaning against each other. "that furniture is leaning against each other.

For more on properties of Arabic groups, see Fassi Fehri (2002, 2004).

136 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar d.

Groups contrast with general nouns in that they do not have the singulative property, that is, they do not access grammatically or derivationally their parts or singularities, as is indicated by the ill-formedness of the following derivation: (47)

"fariiq-at-un team-unit-NOM Intended to mean 'alone member of a team~

e.

Groups like those discussed here, which can be termed 'lexical groupS, have only formal/conventional gender, which is arbitrarily variable (as masculine or feminine). Thus firqat 'team: lajnah 'committee' are feminine groups, whereas fariiq 'team, group' is masculine. In this respect, they contrast with 'syntactic groups' (discussed below, and in Chapter 11), which exhibit only a semantic/collective gender, uniformly marked as feminine/collective (see below, examples (48) and (49)).

Consider now a second class of collectives, that of what we have termed general nouns. As seen above, a. b. c.

they are countable, but only indirectly; they denote one or more discrete atomic entities; they have the singulative property; that is, they can be derivationally related to their atomic singularities, or concrete instantiations.

The third important class of so-called collectives, unlike the previous two, is clearly non-count or non-atomic. It includes nouns like furnitun~. footwear, clothing (or their Arabic counterparts) whose denotation involves discrete objects. The semantic discreteness of those objects is not disputable, because although furniture is associated with units of furniture (chairs, tables, etc.), these units are not divisible into smaller units (i.e.legs of chair, etc). The three classes discussed are then either (a) atomic groups, (b) atomistic general nouns, or (c) non-atomic (atomless or mass) collectives like furniture. They are all seen as somehow internally plural, since their denotations involve (one or) more than one discrete object. But whatever makes them plural/collective (in the intended sense) is somehow lexical, rather than grammatical or syntactic. In contrast to these lexical collectives or plurals, there is evidence for the existence of a fourth class of collectives, which can be reasonably taken as formed in the syntax. Call them syntactic groups. 3.2

Syntactic groups

To assess the syntactic nature of the group formation, consider the following subject verb agreement contrast:

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 137 (48)

a.

ljalaasifat-u

y-aqu.ul-uu-na haa4aa

the-philosophers 3-say-PL-IND Philosophers say this. b.

ljalaasifat-u

this

t-aquul-u haa4aa

the-philosophers 3F-say Philosophers say this.

this

In (48a), the verb agrees with the broken plural of'philosophers' in (plural) number and (masculine) gender, and the interpretation can be a SUM of individuals, taken distributively. cumulatively, or collectively. In (48b ), on the other hand, the verb appears to carry what looks like a feminine singular agreement marker. This semantic gender is, in fact, a collective marker, which coerces the interpretation of the sentence to be limited to the collective reading, and the plural DP to function as a collective subject. As a matter of fact, a similar behavior can be observed with non-pluralized forms ofDP collectives, such as naas: (49)

a.

n-naas-u

t-~allii

li-rabb-i-haa

the-people-NOM 3F-pray for-god-GEN-her People pray for their God.

b.

n-naas-u

y-u~all-uu-na

li-rabb-i-him

the-people-NOM 3-pray-PL-IND for-god-GEN-their People pray for their God. In these constructions, the nominal naas controls either the collective or the plural marker on the verb, and should be coerced accordingly. There is nothing lexical concerning its plural/collective nature, unlike i.e. fariiq above, which is lexically constrained. If we follow Landman (1996), there is a one-one function from a sum to an atom, which forms a group. as follows: (50)

tis a one-one function from SUM into ATOM such that a. Vd E SUM-IND; t(d) E GROUP b. \fd E IND; t(d) = d (d the type of individuals, IND singular individual, SUM the set of sums of individuals).

Group formation is supposed to take into account the collective interpretation of the plural in a sentence like the following: (51)

The boys (as a group) carried the piano up stairs.

I propose to extend group formation to account for the contrasts examined (see Chapter 11, and Section 6 below).

138 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

It is striking that syntactic groups exhibit ambiguity with reciprocals, unlike lexical groups, as illustrated by the following contrasts: (52)

a. b.

The boys, as a group, carried the piano upstairs. The boys and the girls meet (but not in the same room).

Likewise, syntactic groups, being normally plural, do not undergo (further) pluralization; thus the morphological plural of naaas found in (53a) is not interpretable as plural of the collective naas, but rather as a non-syntactic (or lexical) plural almost synonymous with its base: (53)

a.

jtamara zunaas-un hunaa met people.PL-NOM here Some people met here.

b.

jtamara naas-un hunaa met people-NOM here Some people met here.

To recapitulate, syntactic groups have the following salient properties, which set them apart from the previous three classes of collectives: a. b. c. d.

they control a uniformly collective ('feminine') marker; they are formed from an already plural nomina~ they exhibit ambiguity with reciprocals; they do not undergo further pluralization.

4·

Masses

Mass is often taken to be just as non-count in the narrow sense, that is basically as incompatible with the (a)-( d) properties above. But I have provided reasons for taking general nouns as count, i.e. part of the atomic domain, more like singulars and plurals rather than mass, although they resist the (a)-( d) properties. In contrast, (substance) mass does not belong to the atomistic domain (pace Chierchia (ibid)). It is rather atomless, as in Link (1983, 1998). In 4.1, I compare mass and plurals, and provide reasons for not taking mass as atomistic. In 4.2, I investigate the properties of the plural of masses, as well as those of the plural of plural of count nouns, or the plural of general nouns. In 4.3, I provide a grammar architecture which takes these differences into account. 4.1

Mass as atomless

Link (1983, 1998) takes the domain of mass to be homomorphic with that of individuals, except that it is not atomic. They are defined on a domain (D), constituted

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 139

by "the set of all individual portions of matter in the model': Plurals, on the other hand, are atomistic, and defined on a domain (E) of individuals. In Chierchia ( 1998b), however, mass and count belong to the same domain, which is atomistic. 7 Taldng object mass nouns like furniture to be a prototype of mass, and substance mass like water to be analogously treated, he claims that what differentiates mass from count is that mass comes out of the lexicon as already pluralized, hence " [ ... ] a mass noun like furniture will be true in an undifferentiated manner of singular pieces of furniture, as well as pluralities there of (p. 347)': The lexicalized plurality of mass is represented as in (45): 8 (54)

a.

{a, b, c} [{a, b} {a, c} {a, b}] 'furniture' abc

b. c.

{a, b, c}: 'pieces of furniture' a, b, c: 'chair, table, etc:

7. Chierchia's (1998b, pp. 347-8) main argwnent in favor of a single (atomistic) domain for both mass and count nouns is one of economy, since the structure revealed by plurals suffices to account for the properties of mass nouns. To quote: "Why hypothesize two different domains when all that is needed to account for mass nouns can be found in the familiar atomic domain of count objects? The intuition that a mass noun like furniture means something subtly but deeply different from a count counterpart like pieces offurniture is an optical illusion, a gestalt effect due to the different groupings of their denotations': 8. According to Chierchia's (ibid):" The extension of nouns like water is analogous to the one of nouns like furniture, the only difference being that what counts as a minimal portion of water is somewhat vague and may vary from context to context': Moreover; mass nouns are quite literally the neutralization of the singular/plural distinction This view of mass recalls that of Gillon (1992). The standard properties of mass nouns are then accounted for as follows. The impossibility of pluralizing mass nouns is claimed to follow immediately from the fact that they are already pluraL They come out of the lexicon dosed under the group forming operation and pluralizing them makes no sense. PL as defined will yield the empty set if applied to a mass noun extension. Direct counting with a mass noun (Le. the ungrammaticality of phrases like three furniture) is impossible because for counting we need to individuate a level at which to count (as noted by Kratzer (1989)), and for natural language this has to be a set of atoms. But a mass noun, unlike count ones, does not correspond to a set of atoms. Hence it doesn't provide a suitable counting criterion. That is why to count a mass noun we need a classifier phrase (like piece of) or a measure phrase (like tons of). Classifier phrases map mass noun denotations into sets of atoms. Measure phrases can be thought of as functions from objects into numbers (see e.g. Krilka (1989), Higginbotham (1994), Chierchia (1998a & b)). Note that more recently, Chierchia (2010) treats core mass like water as basically "vague': a notion which comes dose, although not identical, to atomless.

·u:

140

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

A mass noun then "denotes the closure under U of a set of atoms': Consequently, they can't be pluralized because they are already inherently plural (p. 70). 9 But there are a number of reasons to question Chierchia's view on both conceptual and empirical grounds. In particular, I will question the following claims: (a) mass is atomistic, (b) object mass (like 'furniture') and substance mass (like 'oil') are structured alike, and (c) masses cannot be pluralized. With respect to the object/substance distinction, it is striking that language acquisition experiments related to quantity judgments tend to indicate that the measurement of objects is distinct from the measurement of substances, suggesting a perceptual/cognitive distinction of atomistic and atomless 'masses' (Barner & Snedeker (2005), Rothstein (2007)). Second, cross-linguistic variation also supports the distinction. According to Tsoulas (2007), Greek instantiates only substance mass, no object mass. 1hird, and more importantly, mass cannot be seen as atomistic and neutralizing the singular/plural distinction, like a general noun, as revealed by their distinct behavior with respect to counting (see the constrasts (23) and (24) above). 4.2

Mass is cumulative, and non-divisive

One of the most unifying properties of mass and plural is cumulative reference, as well as the lack of divisive reference. Divisive reference, a property of count nouns, is explained in Quine (1960, p. 91) as follows: "[ ... ] to learn a full-fledged general term like 'apple~ it is not enough to learn 'how much of what goes on counts as apple': 'we must learn how much counts as an apple, and how much as another. Such terms possess built-in modes ... of dividing

9· Chierchia (ibid) points out that mass nouns are known to have a lot in common with plurals. The way this is generally captured is by assuming that next to a count domain there is a second domain homomorphic to the former, which, however, is not required to be atomic (see on this e.g. Link (1983) or Landman (1991)). Mass nouns take their denotation from the latter non-atomic domain But Chierchia believes that the similarity between mass nouns and plurals is best captured in a different way: mass nouns, unlike count ones, come out of the lexicon already pluralized. Furthermore, a mass noun like furniture will be true in an undifferentiated manner of singular pieces of furniture, as well as of pluralities thereof. He then adds that "... the impossibility of pluralizing mass ... follows immediately from the fact that they are already plural. They come out from the lexicon dosed under the group formation operation 'u: "-''assigns to the predicate counterpart of a kind a mass denotation [... ] This means that in a NP [+arg, -pred] language, all nouns are going to be, in some sense, mass. [... ] Plural marking will be absent since with every noun being mass, the function Pl will have no argument for which it is defined" (p. 353).

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 141 their reference'. In contrast, so-called 'mass terms' do not divide their reference. "There is no learning of 'how much counts as some water and how much counts as some more'. This is 'the semantical property of referring cumulatively' - 'any sum of parts which are water is water'; there is 'no built-in reference-division' (no-RD); Laycock (2004), p. 3

The semantically distinct categories of nouns to which the no-RD criterion applies identically are non-count and plural nouns. Thus " although we learn 'how much counts as an apple, and how much as another: there is no learning of 'how much counts as some apples, and how much as more apples'. While the singular 'apple' applies to just one apple at a time, 'apples' sets no limits on what count as apples': With respect to Quine's cumulativity; any sum of parts each of which is an apple will not be another apple, but any sum of parts which are apples will simply be more apples (Laycock (2004), pp. 3-4). 4·3

Mass as distinct from plural

But despite their common behavior with respect to cumulative (and divisive reference), there are significant mass/plural distinctions. For example, it is normally thought that plurals denote aggregates of atomic individuals, and mass nouns don't Jackendoff (1991) notes in this respect that plurals are aggregates of discrete entities, which have [+ internal structure], unlike mass. Likewise, Chierchia (1998a: 59-60) states that a plural" must map a set of atoms into the set of pluralities constituted by those atoms': Moreover, Moltmann (1997) observes that mass. unlike plural, does not express whole properties of individuals. Further distinguishing properties of mass and plural have been pointed out. For example, reciprocity is felicitous with the plural, but not with the mass object (Chierchia (1998a, p. 86)): (55)

Those pieces of furniture are leaning against each other.

(56)

*That furniture is leaning against each other.

Likewise, some predicates select the plural, but not its mass counterpart (Moltmann 1997, p. 87): (57)

a. b.

John cannot distinguish the rice grains ..John cannot distinguish the rice.

(see also Acquaviva (2007) for more on these tests). Note further that some quantifiers selecting an atomistic plural do not apply to a singular mass, although they apply to a plural mass. Thus the grouping quantifier

141

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

jamiir 'all-together' applies, for example, to plurals of individual objects, or to plurals of masses, but crucially not to singular masses: 10 (58)

jamiir-u

r-rijaal-i

all-together-NOM the men-GEN the men altogether (59)

jamiir-u

l-miyyaah-i

all-together the waters the waters altogether (60)

':jamiir-u

l-maaz-i

all-together the water That singular and plural forms of masses behave differently recalls the distinct behavior of singular and plural generics (Chierchia 2005), kinds (Dayal (1992); Espinal & McNally (2007)), or groups (Magri 2003). 11 4·4

Plural of mass is productive

Mass plurals are productively available, contrary to Chierchia's expectations. Their properties are worth investigating, especially because they share some interpretive properties with plurals of plurals, or plurals of general nouns. In all these cases, the plural is interpretable, although neither as a 'divider: nor as a multiplier (increasing cardinality, meaning 'many' or 'more-than-one' individuals). It is rather either 'taxonomic' (i.e. extending to a sum of different kinds of a non-discrete quantity), or as plural of 'abundance' (i.e. a modifier of an amount of a non-discrete

In fact, it applies equally to collectives of individuals like naas 'people: or to general terms like samak 'fish: hence singling out only the singular mass:

10.

(i)

jamiir-u

n-naas-i

all-together the people (ii)

jamiir-u

s-samak-i

all-together the fish (iii)

*jamiir-u

l-maa1-i

all-together the water

u. All these cases can be seen as 'non-count' (for their dual reference nature, see Ojeda (2005), Lasersohn (2008); for a global discussion, see Krllka (2008)). This suggests that plurals of masses behave like other plurals after all, and singular mass behaves in some sense like other singulars. Schaden (2010) argues that in low German dialects, there is an indefinite determiner that applies to singulars and mass, to the exclusion of pluraL

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 143

quantity), etc. Consequently, Plural inflection on masses is clearly interpretable, and it would be both empirically and conceptually inadequate to ban pluralization of masses. Likewise, it is equally inadequate to assume that this ban recalls the ban on double pluralization, since double plurals are found in various languages, including Arabic (see Acquaviva (2008), Corbett (2000)). Recall two important facts, already investigated in Part I, Chapter 5. First, mass nouns can undergo pluralization productively; like general nouns, and other plurals (which then form double plurals). The following examples illustrate: (61)

maaz ~ miyyaah 'Water; a lot of water; (different) kinds of water"

(62)

a. b.

(63)

a.

Sta "rain"~" sta.w-at "a lot ofrain"; teij "snow" ~ tluj-aat "a lot of snow" qawl ~ zaqwaal ~ zaqawiil "saying" ~"sayings"

(64)

(Morrocan Arabic)

~"many-many/a

lot of (different) sayings"

i. ii.

"many-many sayings; a lot/big amount of sayings" "kinds-of-sayings"

a. b.

xayl ~ xuyuul samak ~ ?asmaak

('intensive')

"horses; a lot of horses; kinds of horses" "fish; a lot of fish; kinds of fish"

Note that a double plural can denote a sum of cohesive collections: (65)

a.

rajul ~ rijaal ~ rijaal-aat "man"~ "men"~

b. farq

"(dedicated) collections of men"

~ furuuq ~ furuuq-aa.t

"difference"~ "differences"~

"(dedicated) collections of differences;

a lot of differences" Note that in none of these cases can the plural be thought as a divider in Quine's or Borer's sense, nor as a mere formal agreement marker. It is rather a modifier of the mass nP, interpreted as increasing the amount of the substance, basically like 'a lot'; alternatively; itis a plural of collections.U

Note first that it is not the case that: "Stems which are marked as plural [... ] become count by definition': as Borer (2005, p. 109) put it. Second, the fact that plural morphology on nouns with numerals is just a matter of (formal) agreement, as originally pointed out by Kri1ka, is not applicable here, e.g. to (65) or (66). The latter observation is attributed to Krifka by Chierchia (1998a), taking into account the grammaticality of sentences like (i):

12.

(i)

The average Italian family buys 0.5 cars (/*car) per year.

144 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Second, masses, general nouns, and plurals can be counted and numbered by a dual: (66)

a.

rijaal-aan men-dual; "two collections/kinds of men"

b.

jimaal-aan camels-dual; "two collections/kinds of camels"

c.

1;aamaam-aan pigeons-dua~

"two collections/kinds of pigeons"

These multiple applications of Number to masses and count nouns renders the claim of a unique Number application totally inadequate. Moreover, they question seriously Borer's view, according to which Plural/Number inflection is dedicated to a divider function. 13

5·

Count/mass architecture, features, and functional categories

The ingredients of syntax that I need to implement now, based on what I have established so far (and taking also into account the results reached in Chapter 5) are the following. First, count and mass noun phrases are syntactically and semantically distinct: count noun phrases project (and are headed by) a functional projection FP, call it ClP (Classifier phrase), whereas mass noun phrases (normally) lack this projection. 14 The complexity of count terms is basically treated by two features,

Some forms of plurals are also semantically bleached, so that no semantic composition based on the singular is possible, as illustrated by the following Moroccan examples:

13.

(i)

a.

Iyali nights = "very cold winter"

b.

~maylm

"very hot summer" rwa5er holidays = "holiday" rwak-aat= "a lot of holidays" =

(ii)

a. b.

There are various more or less equivalents to ClP in the literature: DivP (for divide phrase, Borer (2005)), AtomP (Watanabe (2006)), CountP (Borer & Ouwayda (2010)), etc. I have chosen ClP because its label may cover various features (compared to AtomP, DivP, or SingP, which are more specific, as we have seen). ClP is also more general than CountP, because classifiers can be sortal or mensural (Aikhenvald (2001), Grinevald (2004), Gil (2005)), although what is intended here applies only to sortals (see also Cheng & Sybesma (1999)). An even 14.

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 145

which are three way valued: [atom(ic)] and [sing(ulative)]. Atomicity is the relevant information for interpreting singular ( [+atom]), plural ([-atom]), and neutral/general terms ([0 atom]). Singulativity, although less familiar in the literature, is in a parallel and subtle way equally relevant to the interpretation of another triad of terms: singulative ([+sing]), 'plurative' or collective ([-sing]), and neutral ([0 sing). 15 There is a grammatical inflectional process which derives singular singulatives from neutral ones. In the other direction, a plurative/collective operation (driven most often by a broken plural inflection) derives collectives ([-sing]) from general terms ([0 sing]). Plural inflection can then be ambiguously interpretable as a collective (group or a collection), or as a (semantic) sum plural. It is not true that the inflection here can solely be seen as a 'divider, i.e. forming (directly) count plurals. Assuming that the plurative inflection also marks an individualizing operation, then the individuation comes through grouping (or assembling), rather dividing. The outcome is a (syntactic) group/collective, which can undergo further (sum) pluralization (like any other group). If so, then we establish that the Arabic count/Cl system (as well as the number system) can be seen as intersecting a singular/neutral/plural distinction and a singulative/neutral!plurative distinction, which are both relevant for describing individuality.16•17

more abstract view would see the relevant category as been (nominal) Aspect (see e.g. Rijkhoff (1991, 2002), and more recently Wiltschko (2009)). Pending further elaboration, I will use ClP as a label for the syntactic category containing the feature complex which provides bases for the count varieties. and which interacts chiefly with Number and Numeral projections. 15. Dimmendaal (2000) can be presumably credited for the original use of the term plurative in the intended sense.

Note that general terms. as pointed out above, turn out to be neutral in terms of both [sing] and [atom] values. although they have often been misleadingly treated as collectives. But general terms are not (syntactically formed) groups, pace Ojeda (2005). Generality, otherwise known to play an important role in establishing a general Person for pronoun varieties or general Number, can be successfully extended to countables.

16.

That two features, rather than one, are relevant for countability interpretation, is widely accepted in the literature in various forms. See e.g. Rothstein (2007), Watanabe (2006, 2010), Jackendoff (1991), or Harbour (2007), who uses the feature [augmented], in addition to atomicity, as well as the motivation and interpretation of redundancy. Likewise, Rijkhoff (1991, 294) uses 'shape'(= boundednes) and 'structure'(= dividable), and takes 'set nouns' to be both bounded or shaped, but their structure is ambiguous. In Fijian, for example, you do not get more sets. but rather the number of individuals that makes up the set (p. 297). The notion "set noun" comes in fact close to my notion of general noun. Hence 17.

146 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Second, plural inflection, heads a NumP (number phrase), which may attach to both count and mass noun phrases. 18 When Number forms sums, it heads a NumberP which projects over ClP. When it qualifies amounts, it is a modifier adjunct, not a head. Furthermore, in order to take into account the distinct behavior of plural terms formed from either (lexically) singular or (derived) singulative terms, two functional projections, rather than just one, are needed for determining the atomization of count plurals: ClP and NumP. 19 5.1

Count and mass syntax

Consider how the system previously discussed, and based on two three-valued features, and two functional projections, can be implemented. First, count phrases project ClP, whereas mass phrases (normally) don't. The two structures proposed for the constructions (67) and (68) are (69) and (70), respectively: (67)

garas-tu sajar-at-an planted-! tree-unit-Ace I planted a tree.

(68)

bir-tu. zayt-an sold-1 oil-ACC I sold some oil.

(69)

[DP [NumP

[+atom] [rn> [0 -at [+atom, +Sing] [NPsajar]]]]

In these structures, the features [sing] and [atom] are involved and projected in the count structure, but not in the mass structure. Moreover (as also amply

"A set noun may be aspectually disambiguated by means of an individual or a collective aspect marker, which indicates whether the set consists of [only] one or more individuals': (p. 298) Individual and collective aspect marl<:ers then tend to be confused with singular/plural number markers. In a direct construction with a cardinal rn.1meral, nominal aspect marl<:ers do not [tend] to occur. The rn.1meral merely counts the number of individuals, and the noun designates a single set. Adding an individual or a collective aspect marker is basically redundant. Instead of NumP, Borer (2005) proposes a more or less equivalent #P (quantity phrase) projection. For the sake of space, I will not elaborate on the relevance of the difference here.

18.

In other terms, a cognitively based count/mass distinction may be at play at a rootP level in all languages.

19.

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 147

investigated in Chapter 11), NumP heads the projection of count nouns. but it is placed as a modifier adjunct with mass.20 Second, I assume that a general term, involved in a contruction like that in (71), has a structure similar to that of a count (rather than mass) noun, in being carrying the [atom] and [sing] features, although with zero values. Such features are found under Cl and/or Num projections. as simplified in (72), the structure of (71); compare with the previous (69) and (70)): (71)

garas-tu sajar-an planted-! tree-ACC I planted (some) trees.

(72)

lop INumP [ap b [0 atom, 0sing]

[NP sajar]]]]

The syntactic projection of the general Cl!Num (rather than its absence) is motivated by the previous syntactic and semantic considerations developed above. Note, finally, that other differences in syntax and interpretation of plurals (and singulars) are based on available feature valuations, as we will see in the next subsection. 5.2

Interpreting plural and singular inflections

A singular like rajul "(a) man" is different from a singular like samak-at "(a) fish': While both singulars are (golbally) interpreted as atomic (with a cardinality= 1), the first one is not marked for singulativity (being non-derived from a neutral/ general base), while the second one is. The two singulars then differ in how their singularity is structured, one being more specified than the other. The following structures provide a way to represent this difference, in terms offeatures, assuming that singulativity is absent in the first case, and a silent classifier is behind its atomicity (further higher projections, including DR are omitted here): (73) [NumP [+atom] [aP lei [+atom] [NP rajuij] (74) [NumP [+atom]

lm [0 -at [+atom, +Sing]

[NPsamak)])

20. Recall that a plural of mass, like miyyaah 'waters: in intensive (amount increaser) interpretation has basically the following structure, where NumP is a modifier adjunct, of the nP:

(i)

ClP

~

NumP

nP Pl='alot' ~

miyyaah

148 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Consider now the following derivational contrasts, which represent various singular and plural differences: (75)

sajar

7

sajar-at

tree tree-unit trees; a tree (76)

sajar-at

7

sajar-aat

tree-unit tree-unilPL a tree; (many) trees (77)

sajar

7

zasjaar

tree tree.PL many trees; kinds of trees The first operation derives a singular singulative form from a general one, the second derives a plural singulative form from a singular singulative, and the third a broken plural form from a general form. How can we account for the syntax and the semantics of these forms in relevant constructions? Assuming Chomsky's system of interpretability of features, according to which a feature may be semantic/ interpretable, or formal/uniterpretable, varieties of pluralities and singularities arise from various combinatory interpretations of [atom] and [sing] features, at ClP and/or NumP projections. The general term (75) and (77) is zero valued for atomicity (being neither singular nor plural). By a similar logic, it is zero valued for singulativity (being neither singulative nor collective). But both the singular and the plural in (76) appear to be marked positively ([+Sing]) for singulativity (and interpreted as such), although they differ in being [+atom] and [-atom], respectively. As for the [-sing] or collective interpretation, it is one of the possible interpretations of the (broken) plural inflection in (77) (as already explained above (see also Chapter 11, Section 2), and it is reasonable to think that the collective interpretation is arising in the ClP (rather than in the NumP), as the negative counterpart of the singulative [-at] form. One appealing evidence that the plural here is a classifier, rather Number, comes from its behavior in direct numeral constructions. Recall that the general term is excluded in low numeral constructions (from 3 to 10), and a plural is required, hence the following contrasts: (78)

a.

*ga.ras-tu. talaa[-a.(-ta)

sajar-in

planted-! three-ACC(-F) tree-GEN b.

garas-tu talaat-aa sajar-aat-in planted-! three-Ace tree-unit.PL-GEN I planted three trees.

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass 149 c.

garas-tu taiaat-a

zaSja.ar-in

planted-! three-Ace tree.PL-GEN I planted three trees. In this context, a plural agreement with the numeral (whether broken, as in (78c), or sound, as in (78b)) is required. By contrast, (78a) is ill-formed, due to lack in number agreement.21 There is another important agreement property of direct numeral constructions: the numeral agreement with the noun in Gender. The numeral then has two forms: if the following noun is masculine, then the numeral carries an [-at] suffix (a mark of feminine); when the noun is feminine, the numeral carries (privatively) no such a mark. Moreover, as is also known, what is relevant for this gender agreement is the gender of the singular noun, rather than its plural. We cannot tell this from (78b), where both the singular and the plural of the noun are feminine, and the numeral has a privative form. But this is clearly detectable in (79), where the numeral agrees with the singular (masculine) dog, whereas the verb agrees with the feminine plural dogs: (79)

nabab-at JalaaJ-at-u

kilaab-in (*JalaaJ-u)

barked-F three-F-NOM dogs-GEN (*three-NOM) Three dogs barked. What is striking here is that, as far as numeral gender agreement is concerned, the broken plural in (78c) is treated as having a 'feminine' singular, rather than masculine singular. It is basically treated like (78b ), which has a feminine (singulative) singular. In other terms, the broken plural is treated as if it were plural of sajar-at, rather than sajar. Moreover, in terms of counting, the only interpretation associated with this construction is entirely equivalent to that associated with the plural singulative in (78b ), namely counting the units of trees, rather than counting the kinds oftrees. But another option of gender numeral agreement is available for the broken plural which is not avaible for a sound plural like that in (78b ): the numeral may bear the formal feminine suffix, as in (80): (80)

garas-tu taiaat-a

zaSjaar-in

planted- I three-F- ACC tree.PL-GEN I planted three kinds of trees.

11. Sum plurals (specified as [-atom]) cannot be interpreted as such with modifying numerals. The latter requires normally a singular or general (atomic) entity to apply to, as appears to be the case in Armenian or Turkish (see Borer (2005) and Doetjes (2008) for illustration) Numeral modifiers inside DP can also count cohesive collections, or groups formed through plural inflection. which are also taken as atoms, as illustrated above (see also Chapter 11).

150

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Observe, however, that in this case, the only interpretation available is that of counting of kinds, rather than units of trees, basically counting saja.r, rather than sajar-at. The two distinct interpretations of broken plurals then depend on the gender of the numeral, which reflects the nature of the singular we are counting, be it [+ sing], or [0 sing]. When the noun pluralizes, it may be (ambiguously) a plural of units, or a plural of kinds, with different values for the [sing] feature. The plural inflection in this case is not really associated with a dividing operation per se, as witnessed by the fact that the properties of the singular bases as regards classification are preserved. There is, therefore, no support for the claim that the plural (in all cases) is associated with a classifying (singulative) process, which enables the denoted set to become appropriately dividable or individuated for the sake of individual counting. In other terms, there is no evidence that the broken plural here functions as an appropriate divider, as has been argued by Borer (2005) for the English plural. Note that at the Number level, the [atom] feature is uninterpretable with the Numeral the plural being a mere formal agreement marker. Note that one can add that there is no prolem for direct counting with the general noun. It is just a problem of number agreement in specific numeral constructions which require a plural and the general noun is not a plural. Thus the general noun can be constructed in direct count contexts, although it counts kinds, rather than units, as illustrated by the following contrast: (81)

a.

mizat-u sajar-in hundred-NOM tree-GEN A hundred of kinds of trees

b.

mizat-u sajar-at-in hundred-NOM tree-unit-GEN A hundred of (units) of trees

There is then reason to suspect that it is a silent classifier [-at], rather than a plural inflection, which is behind the singulative interpretation in (78c). If the plural inflection is not a manifestation of the positive [+Sing] value, like [-at] in (68), can it manifest another value of singulativity, namely the negative [-sing] value, basically associated with a collective (or group) interpretation? In other words, can the plural inflection be associated with a plurative (rather than a singulative) classification? A plausible candidate for this case of classification is when the broken plural is interpreted as a group, and behaves accordingly (see Chapter 11, and Section 3 above). Like a lexical group in (82), or a morphological singulative (in 78b) above, a pluralization of the morphologically formed collective is possible, as illustrated above by (53a) and (66). Recall that one diagnostic for collective interpretation of the plural is when it

Chapter 5. The grammar of count and mass triggers a 'feminine singular' agreement, in tact a collective agreement, as in the following construction: (82)

rabbara-t r-rijaal-u ran mawaaqif-i-haa expressed-F the-men-NOM about opinions-GEN-her Men expressed their opinions.

The plural is taken to be group, and like lexical groups, it can be directly counted as a collection by a numeral as illustrated by the following examples: (83)

hunaaka rijaal-aani fli l-fJizb-i there men-dual in the-party-GEN There are two collections of men in the party.

(84)

hunaaka rijaal-aat-un xtalafa-t there men-PL.F-NOM disagreed-F There are men (of various opinions) who disagreed.

We see then, that contra Borer & Oudaya (2010), it is not the case that broken (non-singulative) plural is (exclusively) a divide/count plural, whereas the sound (singulative) plural is a mere formal (agreement) plural (with a hidden) cardinal. Both plurals can in fact function as semantic (or cardinal) plurals, or as formal agreement markers. Furthermore, both (semantic) plurals are not necessarily in complementary distribution with dividers or counters Gust as singular and divider are not in complementary distribution). One essential (semantico-syntactic) difference between the two plurals is that they don't apply to the same singular base (chiefly in regard to atomicity and singulativity values). One base is neutral, and hence allows application of the plural to a non -singulative base, via a plurative derivation (which derives a collective). The plurative can then form a collection, which can undergo further pluralization. But the broken plural inflection is functionally ambiguous, in that (a) it behaves like any count unit plural, when it allows direct unit counting, without the help of any overt classifier (hence being potentially analyzable as a divider; although a hidden classifier is needed to motivate numeral gender agreement, as I have pointed above), or (b) itis a taxonomic multiplier, or kind counter (in addition to other meanings like 'intensive' (amount increaser), etc. which are the focus of Chapter 11, Section 2. By contrast, the singulative plural is not ambiguous. It is only a multiplier of count units.

6. Summary and conclusion The count/non-count distinction (or even the more confusing count/mass) is inadequate to draw the more deeply motivated and appropriate divisions of nominals

151

152

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

in terms of their part-whole interpretations, and their distinct grammatical behavior. At least two features are relevant for characterizing the various distributions and interpretations: atomic and singulative, and two projection levels (ClP and NumP). On the surface of it, so-called classifier languages. like Mandarin Chinese, appear to project only ClP, so-called number languages, like English, only NumP, Arabic being a mixed type projecting both, and Tagalog (or Blackfoot) a fourth type, projecting none in the grammar, yet exhibiting an individuation/ non-individuation (universal) distinction at a lexica-cognitive level. But more scrutinicizing analyses are still needed to reach any serious general typology conclusions.22 However, the partial results gained in this study tend to indicate that core syntax provides more perspicuous clues for interpretations and distributions of traditional count/mass than available reductionist algebraic semantic models.

For illustration, see Wiltschko (2009) for Blackfoot, and Doetjes (2008) and Chierchia (2010) for Tagalog.

11.

CHAPTER6

Synthesis in Arabic DPs*

In informal literature on Semitic, it is often claimed that the structure of nominal expressions in Old Arabic (and typically possession) is uniformly synthetic, whereas extensive analytic possession is a property of the most innovative New Arabic (i.e. modern dialects). 1 In this contribution, I would like to argue that despite appearances, nominal synthesis is in fact a wide spread characteristic of Arabic (and Semitic) varieties, including those at the scale edge (e.g. Moroccan Arabic), and that it consists in a number of correlated ingredients, which are not exhausted by synthetic possession. Consequently, synthesis turns out to be a shared macro-parametric characteristic of Arabic and Semitic, and the analytic variation discussed in the traditional literature is rather micro-parametric, with various scales and ranges. A structural derivation of these properties. based on a quasi-universal architecture of the nominal/determiner domain, is proposed. Properties of Arabic synthetic possessives (or construct states) are contrasted with those of English genitives. New forms of construct states in typically analytic varieties such as Moroccan Arabic, including demonstrative constructs and numeral compounds, are investigated. Finally, a mixed theory of parametric variation is proposed.

* The material contained in this Chapter was presented as a Leverlhume Lecture in the postgraduate program of the University of Newcastle in March 2008, and the workshop on Relative Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic that I co-organized with Jan Rets5 & Janet Watson in April 2008. It appeared in Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 25, Jan Rets5 & Janet Watson (eds), 153-180. 2009. I would like to thank the audiences there, and typically Anders Holmberg, Jan Rets5, and Janet Watson for the invitations and the fruitful discussions around the theme. t. For the synthetic character of Classical Arabic, see e.g. Blau (1972, 1977), Owens (1998), Versteegh (200 1), among others, and for a critical discussion Corriente (1971 ). The prominence of synthesis does not obviously exclude the presence of analytic patterns. For example, the presence of an analytic genitive in Old Arabic, with the use of the preposition li on the possessor, is hardly disputed in traditional grammar or the recent literature (see e.g. Owens (1998)), despite the widely spread view that the introduction of the analytic genitive is a dialectal innovation (see e.g. Ek.sell Harning (1980) ).

154 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

1.

Setting the stage for synthesis

In this section, I identify salient manifestations of nominal synthesis, including (but not limited to) possessive synthesis, which will prove to be instrumental in characterizing a common core of nominal properties in Arabic and Semitic. 1.1

a.

Synthetic ingredients The article and the noun are merged or fused in one word: (1)

a.

1-kitaab-u the book

b.

kitaab-u-n a book

In the first case, the article is a definite prefix, and in the second case it is sort of nominal!indefini te suffix.2 b.

There is a form of merger of the head noun and the possessor, which appears to be strictly adjacent. The N has no article and the possessor carries genitive case (although the latter is not overt in dialectal Arabic;= DA). The (in)definite value needed appears to be inherited from that of the possessor: (2)

kitaab-u

l-walad-i

book-NOM the-boy-GEN the boy's book Synthetic possessives like (2) are often termed construct states(= CS). CS properties extend to quantifiers, numerals, superlatives, partitives, or any other modifiers or determiners found pre-nominally: (3)

kuU-u

l-zawlaad-i

all-NOM the-boys-GEN all the boys

1. More precisely, [-n] is not taken to be contributing semantic indefiniteness by itself: as argued in Fassi Fehri (1993), where it is proposed that it is a Poss (possessive) head. Owens (1998:216), who observes that its use is common to many Arabic dialects, analyses [-n] as a nominal linker, which marks an adnominal relationship between an indefinite noun and a modifier. In subsection 2.3 below, I propose that the indefinite D (determiner) is silent, and that N-to-D movement is associated with indefinite interpretation. For these reasons, [-n] is used in the glosses, and 'indefinite' is avoided. See Footnote 7 below for more discussion and references.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 155

(4)

ta.laatat-u za.wlaad-i-n three-NOM boys-GEN-N three boys

(5)

1g_l;lsan-u.

lugawiyy-i-n

best-NOM linguist-GEN-N the best linguist (6)

kabiir-u btiraam-i-n big-NOM respect-GEN-N a big respect

Whenever a quantifier, a numeral, a superlative, etc. precedes the head noun, they are found in a CS configuration. d.

Finally, the placement of the adjective with respect to the Possessor is an important property of the CS configuration. Thus, the synthetic N-Poss-A (nounpossessor-adjective) order is alternating with an analytic N-A-Poss order: (7)

kitaab-u

l-raqqaad-i

s-sahiir-u

book-NOM al-Aqqaad-GEN the-famous-NOM al-Aqqaad's famous book (8)

l-hujuum-u

l-waf:tSiyy-u

li-1amiriikaa ralaa l-riraaq-i

the-attack-NOM the-savage-NOM of-America America's savage attack of Iraq

on

Iraq-GEN

In (7), the adjective is placed after the possessor, but the adjective precedes the possessor in (8). In the rest of the section, I will show that these ingredients are part of the core of nominal synthesis in Arabic varieties. I claim that this synthetic core, although having obvious prosodic or morphological PF properties (as amply demonstrated by e.g. Siloni (2001), and somewhat differently by Benmamoun (2000a), along the lines of Borer (1996, 1999)), points nonetheless to the peculiarities of a characteristic syntactico-semantic DP type, most notably found in Semitic. The most salient PF (phonological form) part is phrased in (9), and the essentials of the syntax/semantics part is stated in (10) and (11): 3 (9) (10)

A DP is synthetic ifN is pronounced in D. DP [ D-N [

kitaab-u]

FP [DP [

l-walad-i]

np

[-Pass-[e] N-[e]]]]

3· PF = Phonological Form is the component of the grammar dealing with phonological properties, and LF (Logical Form) with semantics. DP = Determiner Phrase, FP is any functional phrase. Note that in (10), both the head noun and the possessor have moved (higher) from their original positions.

156

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

( 11)

A nominal expression is an argument only if it is introduced by a category D.4

The discussion of the so-called synthetic/analytic innovation in the Arabist literature has centred essentially on the (b) property, and no significant attention has been paid to the correlated (a), (c), and (d) properties, as if they were not relevant for synthesis characterization. Once these ingredients are taken into account, the variation in (b) can only be construed as micro-parametric, given that all Arabic (and presumably Semitic) varieties are essentially synthetic, if synthesis is a sort of macro-parameter, diagnosed by the properties mentioned. Clearly, an approach integrating these properties has the advantage of taking into account the fact that these properties correlate, rather than being merely accidentai.S 1.2

Synthetic 'articles'

In Standard Arabic(= SA), the article is manifested as a prefix [l-] when the common noun is definite singular. As for the suffix [-n], it normally shows up on an indefinite singular noun, as if it were an indefinite article: (12)

a.

jaaza l-walad-u came the-boy-NoM The boy came.

b.

jaa.za walad-u-n came boy-NOM A boy came.

But plural common nouns may be bare when indefinite, or marked with a prefix and a suffix when definite: (13)

a.

zur-tu

madaaris-a hunaa

visited-! schools-Ace here I visited some schools here.

4· The formulation in (11) is based on early insights by Stowell (1991), Szabolcsi (1994), and Longobardi (1994). Longobardi (2005, 2006) argues for a more accurate version of (11 ), which he phrases as follows: (i)

Individuals are denoted in D (N-to-D chain/CHAIN i1f reference to individuals).

But although (i) may be the appropriate formulation, I will not elaborate on it here. See Fassi Fehri (2006) for discussion. 5· Note that Hebrew DPs as described by e.g. Ritter (1991 ), Borer (1996, 1999), Danon (200 1), Siloni (2001 ), Sichel (2002), and Shlonsky (2004) exhibit the same core, micro-variation aside.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 157

b. jaaza l-muslim-u.u-na. came the-muslim-PL.NOM-N The moslems came. In Moroccan Arabic (= MA), the article is prefixed on the definite singular, the indefinite is bare, and the definite plural may carry both [1-] and [ -n], the latter being clearly no indefinite article: (14)

a.

l-weld the-boy

b.

weld

c.

l-wedn-ii-n

(a) boy the-ear-PL-N the ears Proper names in SA reduplicate the affixing properties found with common names, although [1-] and [ -n] make no clear semantic contribution to the determiner interpretation and hence behave like expletive determiners: 6 (15)

a.

jaaza yaziid-u came Yazid-NOM Yazidcame.

b.

jaa.za l-zazraq-u. came the-blue-NOM Al-Azraq came.

jaaza mubammad-u-n came Muhammad-NOM-N Muhammad came.

d.

l-qarawiyy-ii-na jaamirat-u-n

qadiimat-u-n

the-Qarawiyyin university-NOM-n old-NOM-N Al-Qarawiyyin is an old university. In (lSa), the PN is totally bare (with no 1- and no -n affixes), in (lSb) it has a prefixed article, in (15c) it has a suffix -n (like common indefinites), and in (15d) it carries the two markings at the same time.

6.

Fassi Fehri (2006) proposes that [-n] in these cases is a marker of non-individuation.

158 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 1.3

Quantifiers

Quantifiers are normally placed pre-nominally in SA, and they head a CS configuration, in which the quantifier carries a structural case, and the noun is a complement carrying a genitive case: (16)

kull-u

l-falaasifat-i

y-a.qu.ul-uu-na haa4aa

all-NOM the-philosophers-GEN 3-say-PL-IND All philosophers say this. (17)

bart} u

ljalaasifat- i

y-aquul-uu-na haa4aa

some-NOM the-philosophers-GEN 3- say-PL-IND Some philosophers say this. (18)

kull-u

this

this

rajul-i-n

every-NOM man-GEN-N everyman In MA, quantifiers occur also pre-nominally in a CS configuration, although there are no visible morphological cases on any member of the construct: (19)

jmiir

n-naas

all the people (20)

bar4 n-naas some the-people some people

(21)

si

rajel ja.

Some man came. 1.4

Numerals

Numerals in SA behave like quantifiers in heading a CS configuration: (22)

talaat-u

nisaaz-i-n

three-NOM women-GEN-N three women (23)

zarbaru

mizat-i

rajul-i-n

four-NOM hundred-GEN man-GEN-N four hundred men In MA, CS properties of numerals are manifested by their pre-nominal placement, and also their morphological adjustment in this position: (24)

xamsmyat

rajel

five hundred men

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 159

(25)

telt 1jaal three men

In (25), the numeral telt is a reduced form compared to tlata, the free form, and in (24), in contrast, xamsmyat is a lengthened form compared to the free form xamsmya. In post-nominal position, the quantifier and the numeral in SA are in a free state, and they agree in case with the head noun: (26)

r-rijaal-u t-talaatat-u kuU-u-hum the-men-NOM the- three-NOM all-NOM-them All three men

Moreover, the numeral agrees in Definiteness with the head noun, and a pronominal affix must attach to the quantifier. 1.5

Demonstratives

In MA, demonstratives normally occur pre-nominally in a reduced form: (27)

had l-weld this the-boy this boy

(28)

had "/:&med this Hmed

(29)

had bent

j-jiran

this daughter the-neighbours this neighbours daughter When the demonstrative occurs post-nominally, it is used in the full form (see Benmamoun (2000b )): (30)

bent

;-;tran

hadi

daughter the-neighbours this this neighbours daughter (31)

had l-weld

hada

this the-boy this this boy here Thus MA has developed a form of the demonstrative which is a CS form, compared to the full free state form. In SA, no such a contrast is found (note that the demonstrative is excluded in pre-nominal position with proper names): (32)

haa4-aani

l-walad-aa-ni

this-dual.NOM the-boy-dual.NOM-N these two boys

160

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (33)

"ha.atjaa zayd-u-n this

(34)

Zayd-NOM-N

zayd-u-n

haatja.a

Zayd-NOM-N this this Zayd (35)

*haa4aa bayt-u this

(36)

r-rajul-i

house-NOM the-man-GEN

bayt-u

r-rajul-i

haa(jaa

house-NOM the-man-GEN this this man's house Similar facts are found in Tunisian Arabic. Khalfaoui (2006) provides contrasting CS/free state demonstrative pairs such as the following: (37)

a.

ha-t-tawla this-the-table this table

b.

t-(a.wla

hadi

the- table this 'this table' (38)

a.

hak l-mra that the-woman that woman

b.

l-mra

hadika

the-woman there that woman 1.6

Indefinites in Arabic dialects

Indefinites in DA are expressed through various forms. The most common are bare nouns, as in MA: (39)

ja

weld

came boy Some boy came But nunation is used in a number of dialects, including Najdi (examples from Ingham 1994; his gloss of [-n] as indefinite, not mine):

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs (40)

a.

jaa-na.

wild-in

harbiyy-in

tuv.'il

came-us boy-indef harbi-indef tall There came to us a tall Harbi boy. b.

absan

iiggit-in iifta-ha

the best flat ( 41)

I have seen

hint t_eex-in the daughter of a sheikh

Holes (2004) reports comparable data in Bahrain Arabic dialects: (42)

takallam, wallah goolat-i-n Say something for goodness sake!

(43)

kill-i-n u ka.rame-h Everyone (will contribute) according to his generosity.

(44)

marr-i-n l;talu, marr-i-n murr Sometimes sweet, sometimes bitter.

But although the exact conditions under which nunation is used, as well as its precise nature, are still poorly understood, it is clearly not an indefinite determiner, although its occurrence might be conditioned by indefiniteness. The latter is marked by bareness in DA, and presumably SA as welF

7· My previous analysis of tanwiin as marking no indefiniteness has been criticized by Kouloughli (2001). He maintains that tanwfn is an indefinite determiner, running afoul of the whole argumentation on the topic. Clearly, his analysis cannot extend to DA, in which indefiniteness is expressed only by bareness, and nunation occurs only in limited conditioned contexts of indefiniteness. See Choueri (2005) for discussion of the inadequacy of the determiner thesis, and Fassi Fehri (2006c) for its refutation. The list of references on the topic is too long to cite in full. See e.g. Brockelmann (1910), Kurylowicz (1950, 1973), Pellat (1951), Moscati (1964), Greenberg (1968), and for a case view, Roman (2001). According to Holes (2004), nunation is found with four types of structures in DA: unmodified nouns, nouns with some form of (adjectival) modification, nouns functioning as adverbial adjuncts, and nouns in certain compound conjunctions. I take nunation to be comparatively equivalent to Ezafe in Persian (as described e.g. by Larson & Yamakido (2008)), or in Hawrami (see Holmberg and Odden (2003)), where EZ!IZ are best analyzed as case markers or nominal linkers.

161

161

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

In MA. the quantifier indefinites:8

si

is often used with bare nouns to express 'some'

(45)

sri-t *(si) zit bought-! some oil I bought some oil.

(46)

sri-t z-zit bought-! the-oil I bought (the) oil.

(47)

ja si weld (*l-weld) came some boy Some (non-identified) boy came.

Summarizing, common nouns and proper names which occur in argument positions are DPs either headed by an article/determiner which is fused with the noun, or by a bare noun which is a member of a synthetic possessive (or a CS). In the next section, I examine more characteristics of Arabic/Semitic DPs, and contrast synthetic and analytic configurations.

2.

DP architecture

In this section, I investigate the syntax and interpretation of adjectives and other modifiers and determiners in analytic and synthetic contexts, as well as the generalizations regulating their placement I also examine how indefinites are interpreted and structured.

Another form of indefinites, normally interpreted as specific, involves the use of wahed 'one' followed by the definite article 1-:

8.

(i)

ja

wahed l-weld

("Weld)

came one the-boy One (individual) boy came. (ii)

ja-w

wahed l-wlad

came-PL one the-boys Some (individual) boys came. For an analysis of such a double determination, see Fassi Fehri (2006).

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 163

2.1

Adjective modification

2.1.1

The NA Order

One repeated syntactic observation of traditional Arabic grammars is that adjectives follow the noun they modify (0-$-~ifat-u tatbaru l-maw~ufa). The description has been carried over in recent work without necessarily paying attention to its refinements and ramifications, or its typological and theoretical significance. The following examples illustrate the post-nominal statement established in (51): ( 48)

l-kitaab-u

~-~agur-u

l-zaxqar-u

the-book-NOM the-green-NOM the little green book. (49)

(50)

saay-u-n

~iiniyy-u-n

the-little-NOM

zaxqar-u

jayyid-u-n

tea-NOM-N Chinese-NOM-N green-NOM an excellent green Chinese tea

excellent-NOM-N

1-alrab-u bi-l-kurat-i

l-jamiilat-i

l-kabiirat-i

I-play with-the-ball-GEN the-big-GEN the-beautiful-GEN I play with the beautiful big ball (51)

NA generalization Adjectives must surface in post- N positions (in the relevant cases).

But the constructions in (48-50) contain a serialization of adjectives that raise important questions. In English, Italian, French, or Greek, pre-nominal adjectives observe a quasi-universal hierarchical ordering (see Hetzron (1978), among others) as exemplified in (52-54), which is subject to the hierarchies given in (55): (52)

a. b.

a beautiful big red chinese ball (Sproat and Shih (1988)) a good big fat tast clever old white cat (Dixon (1982))

(53)

I

suoi

due a.ltri

bei

grandi qua.dri

tondi grigi

the his/her two other good big pictures round gray his/her two other good big round gray pictures. (Cinque (1994), Crisma (1996)) (54)

un joli gros ballon (rond) rouge a beautiful big (round) red ball.

(55)

Canonical object denoting ordering a. b. c.

quality> size> shape> colour> provenance value > dimension > physical property > speed > human propensity > age> colour possessive > cardinal > ordinal > quality > size > shape > colour > nation

164 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Note thatin Celtic (Welsh), adjectives occur only post-nominally butthe serialization is identical to that of Germanic or Romance: (56)

y

cwpan mawr gwyrdd Sieineaidd

The cup big green the big green Chinese cup. 2.1.2

Chinese (Rouveret (1994))

MIO

What is typical of Arabic is that the serialization, although conforming to (55), is found in a mirror image order (MIO), as stated in (57): (57)

MIO generalization: Post-nominal APs are found in MIO with regard to their pre-nominal counterparts. N>A3>A2>Al

Observe that the same statement applies to event nominals: (58)

Event nominal AP ordering speaker oriented > subject oriented > manner, theme

(59)

l-huju.um-u. l-zamiriikiyy-u l-waf:zSiyy-u l-baUid-u

l-mu1;ttama.l-u

the-attack the-American the-savage the-stupid the-probable the probable stupid savage American attack (60)

l-intiqaad-u

l-zamiriikiyy-u.

the criticism- NOM the-American- NOM

l-sadiid-u

li-l-muqaawamat-i

the-violent- NOM of-the-resistance the violent American criticism of the resistance The next question to ask is what kind of adjectives are found in this order. My answer was (and still is) that these adjectives are attributive. That was my discovery in a number of papers (see Fassi Fehri (1997 -9); see also Amiri (2008)). Sproat & Shih (1990) who first described Arabic serialization claimed that post-nominal APs have no fixed order, and they constitute an instance of what they call 'indirect' modification (the equivalent of predicative or reduced relatives). I argued that the order is not free, but observe cognitive hierarchies as well as semantic scope construal. In fact, each semantic type has its own generative source. In Cinque's (1994) original proposal, attributives are merged as specifiers, whereas predicatives (which are argued to be reduced relatives) are generated as complements.9

9· Shlonsky (2004) extended my generalizations to Hebrew and some other Arabic dialects, despite e.g. Glinert's (1989) free order judgments. See Sichel (2002) for discussion of various generalizations and analyses.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 165

2.1.3

Adjectival classes and non-intersectives

Traditionally, adjectives are distinguished into two classes: attributives and predicatives (see Bolinger (1967), Kamp (1975), Siegel (1976), Sproat & Shih (1988), Hetzron (1988), and Cinque (1994), among others). Attributive adjectives appear as noun modifiers inside the DP, while predicative adjectives are those that are likely to occur in e.g. copular constructions. Most attributive adjectives have predicative uses (contrast (61a) and (61b )): (61)

a. b.

a happy person Sue is happy.

The class of predicative APs contains adjectives of size, quality, shape, colour, and nationality. The class of non-predicative APs contains nominal/relational adjectives (polar· bear, atomic scientist), manner adjectives (poor liar·), temporal, emotive and modals, i.e. all adjectives that are related to adverbs (e.g. 62b ): (62)

a.

l-qaatil-u

l-mazruum-u

the- killer-NOM the-alleged-NOM the alleged killer

b. l-mudiir-u

s-saa.biq-u

the-director-NOM the-former-NOM the former director (63)

a.

*l-qaatil-u

mazruum-un

the-killer-NOM alleged-NOM the killer is alleged

b. *l-mudiir-u

saabiq-u-n

the-director-NOM former- NOM .. The director is former (64)

a.

the alleged murderer

b. the former president

(65)

c. d.

le pretendu assassin !'ancien directeur

a.

*The murderer is alleged

b. .. Le directeur est ancien (66)

a.

*The president former

b. *r assassin pretendu Semantically, the most operative distinction is that between the intersective and non-intersective property of the modifiers (see Fassi Fehri (2007c)). The denotation of an intersective adjective and a noun corresponds to the intersection of

166 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

the individuals denoted by the noun and those denoted by the adjective. Shape, colour, and nationality adjectives are normally [+intersective]: (67)

a.

haa4aa kitaa.b-u.-n zaxcjar-u This is a green book

b.

haa4aa. kita.ab-u-n wa haa.cjaa. zaxtja.r-u This is a book. and this is green.

On the other hand, nominal/relational adjectives, manner adjectives, temporal, emotive and modals, i.e. all adjectives that are related to adverbs, are [-in tersective]: (68)

a.

fulaa.n-un mudiir-un

saa.biq-un

X director-NOM former-NOM X is a former director. b.

fulaan-un mudiir-un

saabiq-an

X director-NOM former-Ace X was formerly a director. c.

..fo.laan-un mudiir-u.n wa fu/aa.n-un saa.biq-un X is director, and X is former.

In English, as in other languages, several adjectives are ambiguous between the two interpretations (see (69) and Larson (1995) for discussion): (69)

a.

Olga is a beautiful dancer.

b. Olga is a dancer and Olga is beautiful (intersective) c.

Olga is beautiful as a dancer/Olga dances beautifully. (non-intersective)

Non-intersectives can be paraphrased adverbially. Moreover, they do not have predicative uses. In syntax, the two types of adjectives have been claimed to have different generative sources (they are not transformationally related; see e.g. Sproat & Shih (1988), Cinque (1994)). The 'attributive' vs. 'predicative' distinction among DP-internal APs correlates broadly with the distinction between prenominal and postnominal APs in English: (70)

a. b.

a very kind person (attributive) a person kind to her neighbours (predicative)

But this is not so in Arabic. Since the placement is not relevant, only the following statements qualify the two classes of adjectives: (71)

Attributives a. b.

are subject to ordering restrictions permit non-intersective (as well as intersective) modification.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 167

(72)

Predicatives a. are not subject to ordering restrictions b. do not permit non-intersective interpretation.

DA extensions The NA and MIO generalization has been extended to other Arabic varieties in Fassi Fehri (1998b). Constructions (73-75) illustrate word order and serialization in Syrian Arabic: 2.1.4

(73)

el-zadab el-rarabi l-qadiim the-literature the-Arabic the-old the old Arabic literature

(74)

hawa smali qawi wind northern strong a strong northern wind

(75)

l-maraahed el-relmiyye l-zajnabiyye l-emhemme the-institutes the-scientific the-foreign the-important the important foreign scientific institutes

Likewise, the following pair from Egyptian Arabic conforms to the same patterns: (76)

a.

el-baab el-zaxc!ar el-~ogayyar the-door the-green the-little the little green door

b.

baab zax4ar ~ogayyar door green little a little green door

Similar distributions are also found in MA: (77)

a.

l-ketaab l-ex4er Ngiir the-book the-green the-little the little green book

b.

ketaab ex4er ~giir book green little a little green book

Observe, finally, that the placement of adjectives is subject to semantic scope (independently of the intersective/non-intersective distinction), as illustrated by the following contrasting pairs (from SA, Syrian, and English, respectively): (78)

a.

l-kilaab-u l-baytjaaz-u $-~agiirat-u the-dogs-NOM the-white-NOM the-small-NoM the small white dogs

168 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

b.

l-kila.ab- u

l-baytja.az-u

Nagiirat-u

the-dogs-NOM the- small-NOM the-white-NOM the white small dogs (79)

a.

mensa1aat

raskariyye

~inaariyye

Installations military industrial industrial military installations b.

mensa1aat

~inaariyye

raskariyye

installations industrial military military industrial installations (80)

2.2

a. b.

small brown dogs brown small dogs

Mirror image alternations

In previous work (Fassi Fehri 1997-9), I showed that the various constituents in DP observe the following order: 10 (81)

Q > Dem > Ord >Card> A> N

Such an order is in fact the order of synthesis in DP. The order of analysis is a mirror image of the former, as stated in (82): (82)

N >A> Card> Ord > Dem > Q

Example (83) observes an analytic mirror image order (MIO), whereas (84) observes a (partially) synthetic order: (83)

l-kutu.b-u

l1ara.nsiyyat-u

l-xamsat-u

l-zu.ulaa.

the-books-NOM the-French-NOM the-five-NOM the-first the first five French books (84)

zuula.a xamsat-i kutub-i-n

faransiyyat-i-n

first five-GEN books-GEN-N French-GEN-N the first five French books Likewise, superlative adjectives occur normally in a CS configuration, as in (85), but they can also appear post-nominally, as in (86): (85)

1arla.a

jabal-i-n

1ifriqii

highest mountain-GEN-N Mrican the highest African mountain

10.

Q = quantifier, Dem = demonstrative, Ord = ordinal, Card = cardinaL

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 169

(86)

l-jabal-u.

l-zifriqiyy-u

l-zarlaa

the-mountain -NOM the-African-NOM the-highest the highest African mountain In the latter context, they manifest a formal definiteness agreement (as well as a case agreement) with the head noun. In Fassi Fehri (2006), I attributed these alternations to N/NP movement, or more precisely a 'roll up' movement in the sense of Cinque (1996, 2003). Assuming a general DP architecture (87), the roll up movement is stated in (88): 11 (87)

DP > AGRP (PossP) > nP > AP* > NP

(88)

Roll up Move

When N moves, it 'rolls up' A in its movementP 2.3

Synthetic indefinites

Consider possible interpretations of a noun bearing the tanwtn: (89)

wajad-uu

juJtat-a-1t

fii n-nahr-i

(specific)

found-they body-Acc-N in the-river-GEN They found a body in the river. (90)

baqara.t-u.-n t-unfis-u

qaryat-a.n

(generic)

COW-NOM-N F-live-IND village-ACC A cow (may) make a village alive (91)

lam 1-ara rajul-a-n

bard-u

(non-specific)

neg 1-see man-Acc-N after-NOM I did not see any man afterwards. (92)

l;Jadar-tu

janaazat-a

rajul-i-n

(kind)

attended-! funeral-Ace man-GEN-N I attended a man's funeral. (93)

staray-tu ritl-a

ra.sal-i-n

(mass)

bought-! pound-Ace honey-GEN-N I bought a pound of honey. How does the indefinite interpretation obtain in (89-93), or in the following pair:

u. AGRP ofAP. 12.

=

agreement phrase, PossP

=

possessive phrase, *indicates an indefinite number

For a NP, rather than anN, roll up move in Hebrew, see Shlonsky (2004) a.Itll Sichel (2002).

170

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(94)

a.

kalb-u-n

y-anbaf:r-u.

dog-NOM-N 3-bark-IND A dog is barking b.

kilaab-u-n

t-anbaf:r-u

dogs-NOM-N F- bark-IND Some dogs are barking

It is striking that the plural noun in (94b) cannot have a bare noun interpretation, similar to the English 'Dogs are barking'. This is an important conclusion I reached in various papers, notably Fassi Fehri (2002, 2004, 2006a-c). It is shown there that Arabic bare nouns are quantificational. rather than weak indefinites. Various properties correlate with this status, including the fact that they can take wide scope: (95)

lam z-aqraz kitaa.b-a.-n

Neg > 3 or > 3 Neg

not 1-read book-Acc-N I did not read a book The quantifier on the indefinite noun is then silent, or 'synthetic'. As a matter of fact, Hebrew and Aramaic exhibit various patterns of grammaticalization of'one' as an indefinite article, as in (96):13 (96)

a.

l:wor zef:raad

(Biblical Hebrew)

hole one a hole b.

zeben l;uu.laa

(Biblical Aramaic)

stone one a stone c.

is-xad

(street Hebrew)

man-one a specific man But no such a pattern in found in SA or MA. The 'a indefinite does not show up in either variety. Note that the article is post-nominal, and never pre-nominal, suggesting that it still has an adjective behaviour. This contrasts with e.g. the behaviour of indefinite 'some~ The latter is pre-nominal in MA, but only postnominal in SA: (97)

jaaza rajul-u-n

maa

came man-NOM-N some Some man came

13.

Examples (96a & b) are from Rubin (2005),and (96c) from Givon (1981).

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 171

(98)

ja rajel (*rajel si) si came some man Some man came

In Fassi Fehri (2006), I proposed that the indefinite Dis silent. and that N-to-D movement is associated with indefinite interpretation. Moreover, the quantifier has acquired a head status in SA, although not in DA. This change in status can be stated as follows: (99)

3·

Spec~

H

Core properties and types of synthetic possession

In this section, I investigate and clarify the reality of some known properties of synthetic possessives (or CS) such as bareness of the head member, and definiteness inheritance from the possessor to the possessee, and some less known properties such as the placement of the two members of the CS in a DP configuration. In both SA and DA, the head noun of the CS is bare, as exemplified by (100) from SA, and (101) from MA: (100)

muslim-uu l-madiinat-i muslim-PL the-city-GEN the moslems of the city

(101)

wedn-i-ya ear-PL-me my ears

But note that this complementarity is not universal, as illustrated by Italian (102) and Modern Greek (103): 14 (102)

la mia casa the my house my house

Haspelmath (1999) takes the article-poss complementarity to be an economic way to achieve definiteness without the article in languages with a 'younger' article (than the possessor). 'The speakers' preference for economical utterances become part of the grammatical conventions through diachronic change: the article-possessor complementarity arises diachronically when a new definite article is grammaticalized in a language, but does not spread all the way to possessed NPs: The complementarity competes with motivation of explicitness. Some modifiers (demonstratives, superlatives) make a definite interpretation very likely or necessary (1999:239). But such an informal explanation needs obviously motivation and elaboratioiL

14.

172

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (103)

3.1

to spiti tu patera the house the father.GEN the father's house

How real is Definiteness spreading?

In the analytic case, four possible combinations are available for interpretation, and no spreading of (in)definiteness is observed. In the synthetic case, the traditional view is that there is a rather obligatory spreading, which yields only two possible interpretations, namely [+Def] or [-Def], supposedly inherited from the feature value of the Possessor. But spreading of feature values from the Possessor to the whole DP which contains it appears rather paradoxical in view of various forms of evidence that point to the contrary. First, in predication, quantification and questions, the percolation of the Possessor feature yields undesired results. Second, the Arabic Possessor behaves unlike the English one, and is best treated as Comp(ement), rather than Spec of D. In predication, a CS behaves more like an indefinite than a definite or a strong DP. For example, a CS, like an indefinite, occurs as a predicate, without requiring any pronominal copula: (104)

haa4aa rajul-u-n this man-NOM-N This is a man

(105)

haa4ihi qi~~at-u n-nabiyy-i this story-NOM the-prophet-GEN This is the prophet's story.

(106)

haa4aa *(huwa) l-mudiir-u this he the-director This is the director

(107)

hacjihi *(hiya) kull-u q4~at-i-n this she every-NOM story-GEN-N This is every story

(108)

haa4aa *(huwa) l-zazra.q-u this he the-Azraq This is the Azraq

Moreover, unlike definite phrases (and like indefinites), it functions as a (postposed) subject of existential clauses: (109)

fii d-daar-i ramm-u-ka In the-house-GEN uncle-NOM-your Your uncle is in the house.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 173

( 110)

"fi

d-daar-i

r- raju.l-u

in the-house-GEN the-man-NOM It also infers no uniqueness, unlike definites: (111)

haa4aa zax-ii

wa.-haatjaa zax-ii

this brother-mine and-this brother-mine This is my brother and this is my brother. Similar behaviour is observed in auxiliary structures: ( 112)

kaana-t d-daar-u

daar-ii

was-P the-house- NOM house-mine The house was my house. (113)

ka.ana zax-ii

""(huwa) l-zaazir-a.

was

brother-mine he My brother was the visitor.

the-visitor-Ace

The percolation thesis faces also the problem of the absence of percolation when it comes to quantification: (114)

haa4ihi l;Jujjat-u

kull-i

taagiyat-i-n

this argument-NOM every-GEN tyrant-GEN-N This is the argument of every tyrant. (115)

*haa4ihi kull-u this

(116)

l;Jujjat-i

taagiyat-i-n

every-NoM argument-GEN tyrant-GEN-N

haa4ihi l;Jukuumat-u

zayy-i

ztilaafi-n

this government-NOM any-GEN coalition-GEN-N This is the government of any tyrant (117)

"ha.atjihi zayy -u this

l;lukuumat-i

ztilaaf-i-n

any-NOM government-GEN coalition-GEN-N

Likewise, there is no wh feature percolation: (118)

zayy-a

~uura.t-i

rajul-i-n

ra.zay-ta

which-Ace picture-GEN man-GEN-N saw-you Which picture of a man did you see? (119)

~uurat-a

zayy-i

rajul-i-n

razay-ta

picture-Ace which-GEN man-GEN-N saw-you A picture of which man did you see? These properties are in clear contrast with those of English. In English, the syntactico-semantic properties of a possessed DP are inherited from its

174 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Spec, not from its Camp (including the Def feature, the Wh feature, etc. see Baker (2006)): (120)

3.2

a. b. c.

Which marl's picture did you see? Which picture of a man did you see? A picture of which man did you see?

(ambiguous) (not ambiguous) (not ambiguous)

Possessor placement

Two positions of the Possessor with respect to AP are found, depending on whether it is analytic, or synthetic. The synthetic/analytic choice does not correlate with the semantically motivated inalienable/alienable distinction. Both cases are found in SA: (121)

l-kitaab-u s-sahiir-u li-l-raqqaad-i the-book-NOM the-famous-NOM of-al-Aqqad-GEN the famous book of al-Aqqad

(122)

l-zuxt-u l-kabiir-at-u li-jaar-ii the-sister-NOM the-big-fs-NOM of-neighbour-mine my neighbour's old sister

(123)

l-yad-u l-yusraa li-A1;tmad-a. the-hand-NOM the-left of-Ahmad-OBL Ahmad's left hand

(124)

*l-kitaab-u (l-kabiir-u) l-ii the-book-NoM (the-big-NoM) of-mine *the big book of mine

The following MA construction illustrates a contrast with the previous SA one: ( 125)

l-ktaab dyal-ii the-book of-mine the book of mine

Note that the intersective/non-intersective distinction does not influence the analytic choice: 15 (126)

l-mudiir-u s-saabiq-u li-l-maktab-i the-director-NOM the-former- NOM of-the-office-GEN the former director of the office

15. For attempts to qualify semantically the synthetic/analytic alternations, see Eksell Harning (1980) and Nairn (2008) for SA, and Sultan (2006) for Egyptian.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 175

(127)

mu.dii1'-U

l-maktab-i

s-saa.biq-u

director-NOM the-office-GEN the-former- NOM the former director of the office The Arabic synthetic Possessor differs significantly in terms of interpretation from the English one. For example, a mass/count or animacy constraint has been shown to be relevant for the English genitive (see e.g. Alexiadou (2005)): ( 128)

*the rice's grains

(129)

a. b.

?the chair's colour the colour of the chair

But this constraint does not hold for the Arabic Possessor: (130)

fJubuub-u

l-qam"/:J-i

grains-NOM the-wheat-GEN the grains of wheat (131)

lawn-u

S-Sarr-i

colour-NOM the hair-GEN the colour of the hair Thus the semantics supports the idea that the Arabic Possessor is not as high in the structure as is the English synthetic Possessor. The structural difference can be stated as follows: ( 132)

3·3

The Possessor is Spec of D in English, and Comp of D in Arabic.

Two classes of synthetic possessives

But both English and Arabic can be argued to have two distinct synthetic possessives. They exhibit both distributional and semantic difierences. Consider serialization of genitives in Arabic. Some series of genitives do not appear to give rise to structural ambiguity: (133)

kitaab-u

bn-i

zamiir-i

l-yaman-i

book-NoM son-GEN prince-GEN the-Yemen-GEN the book of the son of the prince of Yemen That is the degree of embedding reflects quite directly the positioning of the possessor with respect to the possessee. In these structures, each Possessor can be interpreted roughly as an individual, or a referring entity. Other series, however, exhibit an ambiguity in their interpretation: (134)

xaatam-u tjahab-i

A"/:Jmad-a

ring-NOM gold-GEN Ahmad-GEN the ring of gold of Ahmad

176

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (135)

!a.wb-u

/:lariir-i

s-sayyid-a.t-i

tissue-NOM silk.-GEN the-lady-GEN the tissue of silk of the lady (136)

mu.dii1'-U

maal-i

s-sarikat-i

director-NOM finance-GEN the-company-GEN a. b. (137)

the finance director of the company the director of the money of the company

mu;rtm-u

/:larb-i

l-firaaq-i

criminal-NOM war-GEN the- Iraq-GEN a. b.

the war criminal of Iraq the criminal of the war of Iraq

The ambiguity is structurally represented through bracketing in the following configurations: (138)

[xaatam-u [tjahab-i zAbmad-a]]

(139)

[[xaatam-u. tjahab-z1 zAbmad-a.]

In the sentences above, the possessor is interpreted as a kind, a mass, or a property. There is enough evidence to think that the individual is in Comp or Spec of D, whereas the other possessor is lower, in Comp or Spec of n. The output structure is then roughly as follows: 16

(140)

DP[D,[xaatam -u [tjahab-t1j] AGRP/PossP[zAbmad-a]i [np [e]iNP [e]j]]]]

The structure before movement is as in (141):

(141)

4·

dPD AGRP[AGR [nP/PossP[zAbma.d NP[xaa.tam np[4ahab]]]]]

Characterizing the variation

In the previous sections, I have argued that a number of properties appear to form a complex core of nominal synthesis. Given the fact that analytic forms of genitives

Big NP (with capital letters) represents the lexical structure of the nominal phrase, whereas small nP is a functional projection of nP headed by n, a functional head. The parallel in the verbal domain is vP and VP. See Chomsky (1995) for motivation of the lexical/functional distinction, as well as the introduction of the notatioiL The general architecture of the noun phrase has been mostly influenced first by Abney (1987). See also Larson & Yamakido (2008) for an original view of possession, Heycock & Zamparelli (2005) for more daboration on DP structure, as well as Ouhalla (1998/2009) for a different source of possessives.

16.

Chapter 6. Synthesis in Arabic DPs 177

are equally found in both DA and SA (although not along the same scale or range), we are in need of a theoretical apparatus which can appropriately characterize the variation observed. Two essential views of parametrization have emerged in the literature. According to Kayne's (2005) Micro-parametric view, grammars of languages vary with respect to values associated with every functional category, in conformity with the following statement: (142)

Every functional element made available by UG is associated with some syntactic parameter.

This view of variation is rather recent, compared to the most successful older tradition of parametrization. The latter is macro-parametric, and it has been advertised mainly through the Pro-drop Parameter (see e.g. Jaegli and Safir (1989) for an overview, as well as Ouhalla (1991) and Baker (1996)). Macro-parameters have been recently revived by Baker (2008a), who argues that they should also be available to UG: ( 143)

Some parameters within the statements of the general principles shape natural language syntax (Pro-drop, Polysynthesis, etc.).

I concur here with Baker's view, and assume a mixed view in which micro-parameters are available to account for micro-variation, and macro-parameters available for macro-variation. Given this framework, I assume that the following statements are needed to characterize DP forms in Arabic/Semitic: (144)

DP synthesis is macro-parametric.

(145)

Analytic variation is micro-parametric.

In their recent work, Guardiano & Longobardi (2003) propose a list of microparameters (about 50), the values of which turn out to be interdependent. I claim that at least the four properties listed in subsection 1.1 are related, and they should be found in most, if not any Arabic or Semitic DP. Further research is needed to characterize precise conditions under which analytic and synthetic uses alternate.

CHAPTER?

Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs*

Recent research in generative grammar has focused on the details and intricacies of the internal nominal architecture. What is the nature ofheads, specifiers, and modifiers/adjuncts, their hierarchical organization, how many of them are projected in which language/construction, and what roles are played by the lexical or computational processes in exhibiting and characterizing both macro-variational and micro-variational typologies. Typically; the question of whether (and how) the covert/overt nature of the computational process designated as N -to-D movement (or more generally N-to-F movement, where F is a functional head) can account for (degrees of) bareness of nominal expressions will be thoroughly investigated. 1

*

This contribution is an instance of the extensive worl<: that has been produced following the original lead of Joseph Emonds's X-to-F movement, proposed first to derive a VSO structure from an underlying SVO, and generalized afterwards to NSO, and other similar configurations. As one of my best teachers of Generative Grammar in Paris, as a colleague, a friend, and an invited Lecturer to conferences and seminars in Morocco, he always striked me as a scholar of a non -common type, creative in linguistics, critical of the sociology of the field, and opponent to any compromise with ideology of obedience and dependence. He deserves much more in his Festschrift than just this modest contribution. The present work is an updated version of Fassi Fehri (2002, 2003a, 2004), based on previous worl<: of mine, typically Fassi Fehri (1999). Parts of it have been presented at the Worl<:shop on Comparative Semantics/Syntax, organized at the Univ. of Trieste (October 2002), the 7th and 8th LSM meetings (Rabat, June 2002 and June 2003), the MIT Ling-lunch (September 2002), and the NYU lecture program (August 2003). I would like to thank the audiences there, and acknowledge helpful discussions with Pino Longobardi, Richie Kayne, Carmen Sorin, Paola Crism.a, Denis Delfino, Alec Marantz, Morris Halle, and Nadia AmirL The usual disclaimers apply. On the general programme of macro- and micro-variation in languages, characterized both in terms of the functional lexicon and the overt/covert nature of computational movement, various architectures are found in Chomsky (1995, 1999, 200 1), Emonds (1985, 2000), Holmberg & Sandstr6m (1996), Kayne (2000, 2003), Hale & Keyser (2002), Halle & Marantz ( 1993), and Cinque ( 1999 ), among others. The seminal lead of X-to-F movement is due to Emonds (1978, 1980), and it has produced a wide literature on N-to-D movement, based on the original work of Abney ( 1987). See Longobardi (200 1a) for extensive references on the matter, including Semitic references. 1.

18o Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Furthermore, the important syntax/semantic mapping question is also addressed: to what extent do postulated syntactic configurations mirror (or map onto) NP/ DP semantic types, e.g. referential or quantificational nominal terms or predicates, and more specifically bare noun/proper name correlations(= BNs and PNs henceforth)?2 It is the purpose of this contribution to shed light on some of these issues with regard to Arabic in particular (a poorly described language in this respect), but within a much broader cross-linguistic comparative study; which includes Romance and English. A computational process ofN-to-Gen movement is proposed, to account for the distribution of Arabic indefinite generic distribution. Moreover, two parameters are shown to be involved in accounting for variation between Arabic, Romance, and English: the Indefinite Gen(eric) Pammeter and the Bare Numeral Pammeter. The Chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1, I introduce the basic referential contrasts which arise through the overt expression of the definite determiner vs. its absence in BNs. I also examine essential properties of Arabic BNs, including the lack of genericity; a property which they share with Romance BNs, but not English ones. In Section 2, I establish that Arabic BNs behave like indefinites (in e.g. Romance and English). I then discuss various types ofbareness found in Arabic and Romance, and motivate N -to-Gen movement, the Indefinite Gen Parameter, and the Bare Numeral Parameter, thereby accounting for various properties of distinct indefinite generics, as well as the functional ambiguity of Arabic BNs. In Section 3, further issues of Gen contexts (including modal contexts), binding operators in DP or S, as well as definite and indefinite characteristics are addressed. In Section 4, the BN/PN correlation is discussed. Finally, the mass specification associated with the definite D is investigated in Section 5, in relation with the mass/plural correlation. It is shown that the latter does hold for Arabic and Romance. This work presupposes the following (partial) nominal architecture: 3

2.

The correlation issue has been particularly raised by Longobardi ( 1994, 1996, 2001 ).

3· Dem is Demonstrative, D Determiner (article), Nmr Numeral, Num Number, Cl Classifier, and n the functional head of nominals (cf. in particular Fassi Fehri (2003b) for motivation, based on previous proposals in Fassi Fehri (1993, 1999). Other abbreviations used are: f (feminine), ind (indicative), subj (subjunctive), I (individual), dl (dual), pl (plural). Q here is for 'internal' (usually unexpressed) Q such as Existential and Generic. I leave aside here the position of quantifiers such as overt kull "all" or bar4 "some': which appear higher than Dem at the surface.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs

(1)

DemP

~

Dem

DP

~

D

QP

~

Q

NmrP

~

Nmr

NumP

~

Num

ClP

~

Cl

np

It also assumes a uniform mapping DP hypothesis, as expressed in (2):4 (2)

1.

1.1

Nmax projections in argument positions are (necessarily) DPs.

Overt D contrasts and genericity Definite, generic, and mass

Arabic NP/DP interpretations as generic (Gen) or (only) existential (Ex) depend on whether they express overtly the definite determiner or article D, or whether they lack such an overt expression of D. The contrast is illustrated in (3) and (4), respectively: (3)

a.

al-kalb-u

y-anbal:&-u

the-dog-NOM 3-bark-IND The dog barks. b.

al-kilaab-u

t-a.nbal;t-u

the-dogs-NOM 3f-bark-IND Dogs bark.

4· See Szabolcsi (1987), Stowell (1991),and Longobardi (2001). Dobrovie-Sorin (2002 a& b) has questioned the mapping uniformity, proposing instead two alternating statements: (i) (ii)

Nmax projections (containing Spec N) can occur in argument positions (although lacking Ds). DPs and NPs occuning in argument positions receive ditferent semantic interpretations (are of different semantic types).

Cf. also Bouchard (2003). I am adopting (2) for concreteness sake, leaving aside its disputed status for future research.

181

182

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(4)

a.

kalb-u-n

y-a.nbah-u

dog-NOM-N 3-bark-IND A dog is barking.

b.

kilaab-u-n

t-anbah-u

dogs-NOM-N f-bark-IND Some dogs are barking. In (3), the Gen reading is available (in addition to the Ex one). In (4), Ex is the only reading available, and Gen is not. Note that the contrasts are not affected by Number. Let us mark the first case tentatively as [+D, +Def], to mean that there is a definite D which is overt, and the second as [em. 0Def], to mean that the nominal expression is determinerless (or bare) and non-definite (or indefinite). A parallel [aD, aDef] contrast obtains with respect to the mass/count distinction. It is illustrated in (5) and (6): 5 (5)

staray-tu z-zayt-a bought-! the-oil-Ace I bought (the) oil.

(6)

staray-tu zayt-a-n bought-! oil-ACC-N I bought an oil.

The object reads naturally as mass (generic) in (5), and as count (existential) in (6). A first descriptive statement of relevant judgments is then the following: 6 (7)

a.

[+D, +Def] NPs can be Gen or Mass (in addition to Ex);

b.

[0D, 0Def] NPs can be only Ex (neither Gen nor Mass).

This first description has to be made more accurate by checking first whether [0D, 0Def] NPs are (morphologically) determinerles (or bare) in Arabic, in the sense that they carry no indefinite article, even when interpreted as indefinite. Second, the part of the statement concerning interpretation (namely Ex and Gen) has to be true in all contexts ofBNs or indefinites. In Fassi Fehri (1993), the former statement is argued to be true. That is, even the suffix [ -n] (named tanwiin by traditional grammar), found in non-definites (4) and (6), cannot be analyzed as a (morphological) indefinite D (as it is often thought of), although the constructions are

5· In fact, the contrast between (5) and (6) is between a generic mass reading in the latter (which does not involve any individuation or counting), and a structure which counts the 'sort' of mass (in the relevant reading), as we will see. 6. In Arabic, Definite is unifying mass and count generics. In English, bare (indef) is doing so (in addition to def). One can say that Def is kind-denoting in the (a) case, and object-denoting in the (b) case. The mass characterization is not felicitous, however, as we will see in Section 5.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 183 interpreted as indefinite (cf. subsection 2.3 and also Ayoub (1996) for motivation). As for the Ex statement, it is not true of all Arabic BNs. In fact, Arabic BNs such as those in (4) appear to be (potentially) generic in independently quantificational contexts (much like those described in Romance, as in e.g. Longobardi (2001a, 2001b), although the descriptive picture of Arabic is not entirely identical to that of Romance, but is rather different in some significant respects. I will first present randomly how Arabic concurs with Romance in regard to indefinites and BNs, and then examine how they differ. It will turn out that Arabic BNs exhibit a behaviour which makes them closer to Romance and English indefinites, than to true BNs, being not readily interpretable as Gen. However, they share characteristics of Romance plural BNs, which are interpretable as indefinite generics, even when they are singular. The fact that Arabic bare singulars behave more like Romance bare plurals than Romance singular indefinites point to a variation that needs to be accounted for, but it also raises questions about 'natural' classes (or 'flavours') ofbareness in natural languages.

Predicates and anaphors

1.2

To show that Arabic BNs are not readily interpretable as Gen, unlike English BNs, and that they behave more like Romance indefinite BNs, I first look into a set of traditional properties of predicates which give normally rise to the Gen reading in English, but do not so in Arabic (or Romance). The latter includes: (a) kind level (b) stage level and (c) individual level predicates. Second, I examine kind anaphor binding, which is also characterizing Gen. 1.2.1

Kind Level Predicates

Kind Level Predicates(= KLP) apply only collectively to a kind (but not singularly to the objects which realize a kind; cf. Carlson (1977, 1980, 1991). In Arabic, no Gen reading is possible with KLP, only Ex is: (8)

fiyalat-u-n bayqaa1-u. nqara4a-t elephants-NOM-N white-NOM became.extinct-f Some white elephants became extinct.

This situation recalls that ofltalian. Thus Longobardi (2001b) states that neither Gen nor Ex are possible (non-taxonomic) readings ofltalian BNs (cf. his examples (13), p. 343). 1.2.2

Stage Le11e/ Predicates

Among the stage level predicates ( = SLP) to consider are: (a) episodic sentences, (b) cha.ractet·izing Ss, and (c) episodic with generalizing adverbs, as illustrated in (9) to (11), respectively:

184 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (9)

fiyalat-u-n

bayqaa1-u 1a1aara-t

1ifjaab-a

n-naas-i

elephants-NOM-N white-NOM attracted-f admiration-Ace the-people-GEN Some white elephants have attracted the admiration of people. (10)

fiyalat-u-n

bay4a.a1-u t-u!iir-u 1irjaab-a. n-naas-i elephants-NOM-N white-NOM f-attract admiration-Ace the-people-GEN White elephants attract the admiration of people.

(11)

.fiyalat-u-n

bay4aa1-u t-u!iir-u daa1im-an

elephants-NOM-N white-NOM f-attract always

1irjaab-a

n-na.as-i

admiration-Ace the-people-GEN White elephants always attract the admiration of people. In (9), only the Ex reading is available. A Gen reading of the subject BN of SLP is possible, but it appears to depend on the presence of a DP-external operator of generality, such as the habitual verbal aspect of the characterizing meaning in (10), or a quantificational adverb in (11). Subjects seem to acquire genericity through generalization from an indefinite series of single events, as pointed out by Longobardi (2001b)? 1.2.3

Individual Level Predicates

Individual Level Predicates(= ILPs) are supposed to be always characterizing by their lexical meaning. Their subjects should be Gen, and only Gen. But contrary to Italian (12b), from Longobardi (2001b), Arabic (12a) is ill-formed, and in cases where the sentence is grammatical, only Ex is possible: (12)

a.

?? kilaab-u f:tiraasat-in daatu l:tajm-in kabiir-in dogs-NOM watching-GEN of size-GEN big-GEN

1aktar-u faariliyyat-in more

efficiency-GEN

Watch dogs of big size are more efficenl b.

Gatti da guardia di grosse dimensioni sono piu efficieni Watch dogs of large size are more efficient.

This limitation can be explained by the fact that Arabic copularless sentences such as (12a) are not habitual (cf. Fassi Fehri (1993)). Consequently, it cannot be true that genericity in these cases is a direct product of a lexical property of ILP, as suggested by Chierchia (1995). The introduction of a habitual tense through the copula appears then to be necessary to license genericity even with ILP:

7.

See his (6a-c) examples, p. 340, for similar contrasts in Italian.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 185

(13)

kilaa.b-u.-n

daatu

l;lajm-in kabiir-in

t-akuun-u

dogs-NOM-N

of

size-GEN big-GEN

f-are

zaklar-a jaariliyyat-in of-more etficiency-ge Dogs of big size are (usually) more efficient. As also observed for Italian, there is a split ofiLP in Arabic: (14)

a.

kilaab-u

f:tiraasat-in

daatu f:tajm-in kabiir-in

dogs-NOM watching-GEN of

size-GEN big-GEN

t-akuun-u muxiifat-an 3-are threatening-Ace Watch dogs of big size are threatening.

b.

?? kilaab-u l;liraasat-in daatu f:tajm-in kabiir-in dogs-NOM watching-GEN of size-GEN big-GEN

t-akuun-u sawdaaz-a 3-are black-Ace Watch dogs of big size are black. Longobardi (2001b: 342) suggests that class (a) is more 'eventive' than class (b), which is more 'stative: and that only the imperfective aspect associated with eventive Aktionsart would count as 'habitual'. An explicit adverb of generality restores full acceptability of Gen in examples (b). It is then likely that factors licensing Gen of BNs with SLP and ILP are just the same (i.e. a habitual operator or an adverb of generality), and nothing about the type distinction of predicates is relevant. 1.2.4

Kind anaphora

English BNs provide anaphoric ambiguities in sentences like (15), where the anaphor can refer to species or kind (a K-anaphor), or to individuals distributively (an I-anaphor): ( 15)

Cats think highly of themselves.

But Arabic BNs do not manifest a K-anaphor reading: (16)

qita-t-u-n

~iiniyya-t-u.-n

ta.-ta.baahaa. da.aziman bi-naft-i-haa

cats-NOM-N Chinese-f-NoM-N f-praise Chinese cats always praise themselves.

always

with-self-GEN-her

The only available reading here is I-anaphoric. However, a K-anaphor is possible with definite plurals: (17)

al-qitat-u

~-~iiniya-t-u

ta-tabaahaa daaziman

the -cats-NOM-N the-Chinese-f-NOM f-praise

bi-nafs-i-haa with-self-GEN-her Chinese cats always praise themselves.

always

186

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Plural as 'plural of the singular'

1.3

Carlson (1977a, 1977b) showed convincingly that plural English BNs have no quantificational properties. They name kinds. On the other hand, singular indefinites do have quantificational properties. As a consequence, the plural form cannot be taken as 'plural of the singular'. But Arabic bare plurals behave (in essential ways) like Arabic bare singulars with respect to the relevant contrasts. Therefore, the former can be taken as 'plural of the singular: typically with respect to: (a) scope (b) opacity, and (c) telicity. 1.3.1

Scope

With regard to narrow/wide scope properties, Arabic does not exhibit any significant difference between singular and plural (or even dual): (18)

lam z-aqraz kitaab-an (wa qaraz-tu kitaab-an) not I-read book-Ace (and read- I book-Ace) I did not read a book (and I read a book). Neg> 3 or 3 > Neg

(19)

lam zaqraz kutub-an (wa qaraz-tu ku.tub-an) books-Ace Neg> 3 or 3 >Neg I did not read (many) books (and I read many books).

(20)

kull-u

rajul-in

zakala samak-at-an V > 3 or 3 > V

every-NOM man-GEN ate Every man ate a fish. (21)

fish- unit-ACC

kull-u rajul-in zakala samak-aat-in (samakat-ay-ni) every man ate fish-unit.PL-Acc (fish-unit.dl-Acc) Every man ate many (two) fish. V > 3 or 3 > V

In all these constructions, the singular and the plural behave like the dual in (21). They all have either narrow or wide scope over Negation or the universal quantifier. As such, BNs in Arabic can be taken as quantifiers (Qs), which are equivalent to overt indefinites in English or Romance. Let us call them covert indefinites. English and Romance do not have any singular covert indefinites, although English seems to have plural covert indefinites, which are 'weak' (and cannot take wide scope). 8 On the other hand, Romance does also have plural covert indefinites, but only under very restricted conditions. 1.3.2

Opacity

Opacity predicates do not distinguish between the varieties of Number on Arabic BNs either. Thus any Number is compatible with double scope taking:

8.

Ct: Carlson (2003).

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 187

(22)

1-uriid-u

zan z-ata.zawwaj-a mrazat-a.n want> 3 or 3 >want

I-want-IND that I-marry-SUBJ I want to marry a woman. (23)

1-uriid-u

1an 1-ata.zawwaj-a mra.1at-ayni

I-want-IND that I-marry-suBJ I want to marry two women. (24)

1-uriid-u

woman-Ace

1an 1-aqra1-a

woman-dl.Acc want> 3 or 3 >want

kutub-an want> 3 or 3 >want

I-want-IND that I-read-SUBJ books-Ace I want to read books. The scope properties suggest that both singular and plural BNs are indefinite. Plural does not differ from Singular in this respect.

Telicity

1.3.3

The English bare plural is usually taken to be incompatible with telic predicates, but the singular indefinite is compatible with the latter. But in Arabic such contrasts cannot be based on Number. Therefore, any Number is compatible with e.g. a telicfii-XP (in-XP) adverbial: (25)

1akala samakat-an

fii saarat-in

ate fish-unit-Ace in hour-GEN He ate a fish in an hour. (26)

1a.kala samakaat-in fii saarat-in (laa samaka.tayn) fish-unit. PL-ACC (not fish-unit.dl-ACC) He ate (many) individual fish in an hour (not two individual fish).

2.

Arabic BNs are indefinites

Let us recapitulate the essential properties of Arabic BNs, compared to those of Romance or English BNs. Recall that Arabic BNs distribute essentially like those of Italian, in that their interpretation is subject to contextual conditions, being namely (a) Ex with stage level predicates, and (b) Gen with habitual aspect or generality adverbs. Gen BNs are impossible (a) with KLPs, (b) with episodic SLPs, and (c) with class (b) ofiLPs, contrary to English Gen BNs. The statements in (27) summarizes the first set of these properties: 9

9· The behaviour of object BNs parallels that of subject BNs. With episodic Ps, object BNs are not ambiguous; they read normally as Ex: (i)

staJ.naa

sayyidaat-1-n

musinnaat-in

excluded ladies-Acc-n old-Acc-n He excluded (sm) old ladies.

188 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(27)

a. b. c.

BN's Gen (or Ex) interpretation is contextually determined inS, not internal to DP; BNs do not denote kinds with KLPs; BNs do not allow K anaphora.

These properties contrast significantly with those of English BNs (or Arabic/ Romance definite generics), as captured by the following characteristics: (28)

a. b. c.

they are not bound contextually within S; they can be subjects of true KLPs; they can be antecedents ofK anaphors.

Their interpretation resembles that of singular count definite generics, rather than that of indefinite Gen. Property (a) suggests that we have to do with DP internal genericity (not sentential genericity), (b)-(c) that these nominals are kind-denoting, not object-denoting expressions. 2.1

Arabic BNs as indefinites?

The properties examined earlier mirror those of English or Romance overt indefinites (and likewise those of Romance BNs). They can then be captured (tentatively) by the following descriptive statement:

In a characterizing environment, an object BN can read as Gen: (ii)

qaanuun-u-n raadil-u-n lan yastatniya min };!aqq-1 t-trl$Wiit-i 1illaa law-NoM-N fair-NOM-N not exclude from right the-voting but 1ajaanib-a gayr-a qaaflniina fureigbnors-Acc non residents A fair law will exclude from the right to vote only non-resident foreigners.

Some Ps which express a permanent property of the complement (ILP with respect to Comp) allow Gen, and disfavour Ex: (iii)

a.

b.

y-uflibb-u burtuqaal-an t-ajrii miyaah-u-hu 3-like orange-Ace f-fl.ood waters-NoM-his He likes very juicy oranges. y-uflibb-u nisaa1-an 4aamir-aat-in 3-like women-Ace slim-PLF-Acc He likes slim women.

Finally, KLP with respect to Comp disallow (normally) Gen BN: (iv)

*kta5afa r-rajul-u };!aasuub-an discovered the-man computer-Ace The man discovered a computer.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 189

(29)

Arabic BNs are always quantificationa.l indefinites, with variables bound byExor Gen.

A variable is introduced in the LF representation of argumental Arabic BNs, and is (unselectively) bound by an operator found in the clause (ala Heim 1982). Of the two a priori available strategies to attain Gen reading (quantificational generalization over objects of a certain kind, or denotation of that kind), Arabic BNs resort only to quantification. They are not reje1-ential (or kind names). 10 To corroborate the behaviour of Arabic BNs as indefinites, let us consider as an illustration the case of BNs occurring e.g. with episodic predicates and frequency adverbs: 11 (30)

fiyalat-u-n

bay4aa1-u t-utiir-u daa1im-an

elephants-NOM-N white-NOM f-attract always

1irjaab-a

n-naas-i

admiration-Ace the-people-GEN White elephants always attract the admiration of the people. (31)

Elefanti di colori bianco hanno creato sempre!spesso in passato grande curiosita. White-colored elephants often raised a lot of curiosity in the past.

In both Arabic and Italian, the modification of the head N and the occurrence of the generalizing adverb appear to be obligatory. As observed above, both (4a) and ( 4b) are not interpretable as Gen. Likewise, when BNs are constructed with either a modifier or an adverb, the outcome does not yield a Gen reading. The following Arabic examples illustrate this state of the matter: 12 (32)

kalb-u-n

~agur-u-n

y-a.nbah-u

dog-NOM-N little-NOM-N 3-bark A little dog is barking. (33)

?? kalb-u-n qallamaa y-anbaf:t-u dog-NoM-N rarely 3-bark A dog rarely barks.

This situation is resumed when both conditions are met, even for the bare singular in Arabic, as illustrated by (34):

to. For similar properties of Romance BNs, cf. Longobardi (200 1b). u.

The example (31) is from Longobardi (2001b); see his (6c).

A similar distribution appears to be true of Italian BNs as well; cf. Delfino (2002), Longobardi (2001b); Dobrovie-Sorin & Laca (2003) for Romance.

12.

190

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(34)

ka.lb-u.-n

~agiir-u-n

qalla.maa y-anba"l;t-u

dog-NOM-N little-NOM-N rarely A little dog rarely barks.

3-bark

Similar requirements do not apparently hold in the indefinite domain in Romance and English, typically with overt singulars. Consider the following contrast: (35)

A dog barks.

(36)

Un chien aboie.

This pair of constructions can be interpreted as (a taxonomic) Gen. But note that the BNs just discussed cannot. This difference is only apparent, however. In the following pair, the Gen reading is not available: (37)

A dog is tired.

(38)

Un chien blesse aboie.

To resume the relevant interpretation, a frequency adverb is required: ( 39)

A dog is rarely tired.

( 40)

Un chien blesse aboie rarement.

2.2

GenP and N-to-Gen

To account for the above contrasts, Dobrovie-Sorin (2002b) proposed that the LF structure of (35) is (35'), rather than (35"): 13 (35')

Ge~

(xis a dog) [Habt [x barks at t]

(35")

Ge~

(xis a dog) [x barks]

Alternatively, a syntactic mapping can be postulated, as in (34'), the structure of (34):

-----------

(34')

IP

~

DP

I~

GenP

vp

AdvP

~I~

Gen

np

qallamaa

I~

kalb AP

I

~agur

NP

DP

I

e

VP

I

y-anbal).

I

e

These representations involve quantification over individuals and over times, based on original insights ofHeim (1982, 1991). C£ also Lewis (1975) on the role of adverbs in quantification.

13.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs

In this structure, I have introduced a GenP projection, which I assume to be headed by a in English or un in French (when read as Gen). In Arabic, no head Gen is phonetically realized, but I assume it is syntactically realized, since N moves to Gen (past the adjective phrase), inside the DP, to create an appropriate configuration for 'internal' (DP) genericity. On the other hand, the whole DP moves outside the vp domain, a move necessary for 'external' (sentential) genericity, in line with Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis. The small np introduced here parallels the small vp, and both contain internal modifiers, AP or AdverbP, respectively. If this approach is correct, then the variation observed in the domain of the generic phrase parallels that found in the domain of the determiner phrase. In the latter, when Dis not overtly realized, N moves to D. N -to-Gen movement appears therefore as the correlate of N-to-D movement. It can be stated (informally) as follows: (41)

N-to-Gen movement Move N to GEN to create an appropriate configuration for Gen interpretation.

N-to-Gen movement does for Arabic basically what the realization of a does for English. This variation (typically in the singular case) can be attributed to the following (tentative) paradigm: (42)

Indefinite Gen Parameter Indefinite Genis either (a) realized (as a functional head) or (b) N moves to Gen.

As is well-known, a similar computational process (overt N-to-D movement) is used in Arabic to yield (in)definite interpretation in the construct state cases (when Dis not phonetically overt; cf. e.g. Fassi Fehri 1993 & Longobardi 2001a). 2.3

Arabic/Romance distinctions and the Numeral Parameter

As already observed, Arabic expresses no (perceivable) morphological distinction between 'bare' and 'indefinite' NPs. Longobardi (2001b), among others, has argued that the two classes of phrases behave semantically alike in Romance (and like English overt indefinites). The question is then (a) whether this judgment can be straightforwardly extended to Arabic, in the sense that we are dealing with determinerless BNs or (covert) indefinites without any significance for interpretation, or (b) whether a distinction in interpretation is found, which may be correlated with a structural difference. In fact, there is a distinct significance, since (a) determinerless Arabic nouns do behave in some contexts like bare NPs in Romance (and unlike overt indefinites), and (b) they behave like overt indefinites in Romance (and unlike bare Ns) in others. If so, then we have to refine the picture given above.

191

191

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Consider again the constructions (35) and (36) above, in comparison to Arabic (4a), repeated here as (43) for convenience: (35)

A dog barks.

( 36)

Un chien aboie.

(43)

kalb-u-n

y-anbaf:t-u

dog-NOM-N 3-bark A dog is barking. Two questions must be addressed here. First, the overt singular indefinite in Romance (35) and (36) cannot be replaced by a BN. But Arabic (43) is a BN, which is read as Ex. If so, then the similarity with Romance or English overt indefinites can be re-established, provided we assume that (null) D can be singular.14 But taken from the view of BNs, we can also say that an Arabic BN, independently of its Number value, can be indefinite, normally a 'weak' indefinite, contrary to what happens in Romance and English. In other words, we are led to explore the possibility that the very similar behaviour of BNs and overt indefinites finds its source in one and the same structure, let it be (tentatively) a DP, valued as [0D, 0Def]. This account for distributional similarities and interpretations of Romance BNs and overt definites, and also for their uniformity in Arabic. Second, Romance indefinite examples can be read as Gen, but Arabic BNs cannot. Recall that the interpretation is not restored by using an adverb of generality, as observed in (33), nor by a modifier, as in (32). Gen is resumed only by modification associated with an appropriate adverb of generality, as in (34). These properties concur with that of Romance BNs, which cannot be interpreted as Gen. in the absence of appropriate contexts, involving modification, frequency adverbs, and appropriate predication. Arabic BNs in these respects are then closer to Romance BNs than to overt indefinites. Hence we face a dilemma for establishing the parallelism with Romance, given that the Ex reading is available for the singular BN (43). Indeed, a (weak) indefinite is present there, and the question is why such singular bare indefinites do not exist in Romance or English. The answers to these questions may certainly shed light on the nature of variation involved, and the set of parameters needed to characterize it. Before suggesting a

Although indefiniteness can be thought of as signaled by the presence of the suffix [-n], called tanwiin by traditional grammarians (see Wright (1898)), this is not so (see subsection 2.3 for motivation). In Fassi Fehri (1993), tanwiin is analyzed as a Poss marker, rather than an indefinite article.

14.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 193

solution, we elaborate first on the notion 'bare. examining Arabic 'peculiarities' in this context. 15

Varieties of bareness

2.3.1

Arabic (in its standard variety) exhibits three morphologically distinct nominal forms, which are relevant to the determiner/determinerless issue of common Ns, and which occur in argument positions: (a) Ns bearing a prefixed article [1- ], marking definiteness (b) Ns bearing a suffixed [-n], which usually contribute indefiniteness, but do not arguably carry an overt indefinite article. (c) Ns bearing no prefix and no suffix.

15. Two extra Arabic 'peculiarities' are worth mentioning in this context. First, verbless Ss (which are translated as copular Ss in Romance) appear to have no room for Gen; cf. the contrast (12)-(13) above. There are, however, copularless Ssthat are fine: (i)

ka1b-u

biraasat-in

yaq/4-un

xayr-un

min

dog-NOM watching-GEN vigilant-NOM better-NOM than

f:aaaris-in

gaaftl-in

keeper-GEN careless-GEN A vigilant watch -dog is better than a careless keeper. These contrasts cannot be attributed to the degree of'eventiveness' advocated above. Further research is needed, however, to identify appropriate properties. Second, another peculiarity arises with SVNS order alternations. The SV order exhibits Gen interpretation somewhat directly, but VS does not: (ii)

a1-ka1b-u

y-anbab-u

the-dog-NOM 3-bari<:-IND The dog balks; is barking. (iii)

y-anbab-u 1-ka1b-u 3-barl.<: the-dog The dog is barking.

This is not to say that VS can never provide Gen reading, but it needs extra specification, as in (iv): (iv)

y-anbab-u

1-ka1b-u findamaa y-ajuur-u

3-barl.<:-IND the-dog when 3-hunger-IND The dog barl<:s when he is hungry. The contrast appears at first sight to support Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis if the Subject is higher in SV than in VS (as argued in Fassi Fehri (1993); c£ Footnote 18 for a formulation of Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis). The extra material might be interpreted as providing the general or habitual interpretation.

194 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar To distinguish the latter class of Ns, I will call them 'pure-bare' Ns, when necessary. Class (b) will be called 'pseudo-bare' Ns. But the two classes will be taken non-distinctively as 'bare' (in the absence of indefiniteness morphological marking). The postulation of a general class of BNs, associating (b) and (c), can be supported by various considerations. First, pure-bare Ns are interchangeable with pseudo-bare Ns in relevant contexts of indefiniteness, as illustrated in (44):

(44)

a.

samir-tu za5yaaz-a

kaJiira.t-a-n

heard-! things-Ace many-Acc-N I heard many things. b.

samir-tu

~awt-a-n

heard-1 sound-Acc-N I heard a sound. In (44a), the object carries no [-n], although it does in (44b), without triggering any relevant difference in meaning. Second, proper names(= PNs) can (quite idiosyncratically) be bare or pseudobare, without affecting their definite property:

(45)

a.

jaa.z-a. zai;Jmad-u (*zal;tmad-u-n) came Ahmad-NOM Ahmad came.

b.

jaaza mubammad-u-n (*muf:tammad-u) came Muhammad-NOM-N Muh-ammad came.

Third, a similar distribution is found with indefinite adjectives, which can be bare or pseudo-bare: (46)

a

r-rajul-u

zatwal-u

min-ka (*za(wal-u-n)

the-man-NOM taller-NOM than-you The man is taller than you.

b.

r-rajul-u

tawiil-u-n (*tawiil-u)

the-man-NOM taller-NOM-N The man is tall. However, there are other pure bare N s, which are not interchangeable with pseudobares in some contexts. One class is represented by heads of contruct states(= CS; class (d)). The head must be pure-bare, and cannot be a pseudo-bare: (47)

Zilaa bayt-i

r-rajul-i (*bayt-i-n)

to house-GEN the-man-GEN to the man's house.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 195

But this class of pure-bares contrasts with that of pure-bares in (c), in at least three properties. The first one is that they are not 'complete: in the sense that they cannot function as an argument (or DP) by themselves, but are only part of a larger constituent. Second, the head of a CS can 'inherit' definiteness from the possessor, but in (c) a bare common noun is invariably indefinite, and a bare PN is definite. Third, with respect to case marking, the head of a CS can be (morphologically) genitive, but that of class (c) cannot. Therefore, the pure-bare in (c) is not interchangeable with the pure-bare in CS. Furthermore, the (in)definite property suggests that pure-bares in the CS and in the free environment (c) do not have the same structure, nor the same interpretation (cf. Fassi Fehri (1993) for detail). Pure bares and pseudo-bares can also be contrasted in vocative contexts, where a pure-bare is interpreted as individuated, but a pseudo-bare is not: ( 48)

a.

yaa rajul-u 0 man-NOM Ohman!

b.

yaa rajul-a-n 0 man-ACC-N Ohman (among other men).

A similar subtle contrast is found also with proper names: 16 (49)

a.

yaa zayd-u 0 Zayd-NOM OhZayd!

b.

yaa zayd-a-n 0 Zayd-Acc-N Oh Zayd (among other Zayd's).

The PN is supposed to be individuated in (a), but not in (b). At any rate, it is reasonable to rely basically on the interchangeability of pseudo-bare common Ns (in class b) and pure-bare common Ns (in class c) in indefinite contexts (where they are in fact in complementary distribution), to take the two cases to be equally bare (as far as (in) definiteness is concerned). This situation parallels (in relevant terms) the distribution found in Arabic dialects, where no morphological pure-bare/pseudo-bare distinction is found. Indefinites are pure-bare (or just bare), and definites carry a prefixed article, as in the following Moroccan contrast:

t6.

Cf. Fassi Fehri (1999, 2006) for detaiL

196 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(SO)

a.

ja

weld

came boy A boy came. b.

2.3.2

ja 1-weld came the-boy The boy came.

The Numeml Parameter

In Arabic, Number appears in all its manifestations (as singular, dual or plural) to correlate with weak quantity (sm) and/or weak cardinality (one, two, or more-than-two) interpretations. In English, Pl correlates with weak sm, but not weak cardinality, and Sing does not correlate with either, hence the obligatory realization of a. These properties can be accounted for if we assume that all manifestations of Number in Arabic confl.ate with weak sm and weak Num. The compatibility of telicity and the Arabic Pl could then be attributed to its Num character. The same account would extend to wide scope and opacity properties (described in subsection 1.3 above), which are normally thought of as an exclusive property of the indefinite singular (in English), but which extend in fact to dual and plural BNs in Arabic. Thus the data point to another variety of bareness found in Arabic, but not English and Romance, that is the bareness correlated with Num. Weak Num occurs on (bare) Ns in Arabic, but external toN in English or Romance. In tact, Number (which occurs also on Ns) appears to play both the role of Number and that of (weak) Numeral. We think that the conflation of Number and Numeral provides a source of another kind of bareness. Let us call it Nmr bareness. In Arabic, BNs can be Nmr bares, but in English and Romance, they cannot. We then postulate a Nmr Bare Parameter that we state (tentatively) as follows: (51)

The Nmr Bare Parameter A language L has Nmr BNs only ifNum conflates with Nmr in L.

I think of (51) as correlating the scope properties of Plural and the bareness of Singular. If both bares are Nmr, then they are expected to have the same scope properties if the latter are connected to (cardinal) numerality. In English, Plural can be a weak Q, but not a Nmr, in French it is neither, and in Arabic it is both Q and Nmr. If a or un are analyzed as both Q and/or Num, and Number in Arabic conflates these values on BNs, then the latter is expected to behave like these functional heads, which it does. 17

I leave aside here the precise formulation of the parametrization, which can be split into Sm and Nmr, to distinguish Ls of the English-type and the Arabic-type from the Romance-type.

17.

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 197

Further discussion

3· 3.1

Gen contexts

Dobrovie-Sorin (2002b) argues for distinguishing two kinds ofindefinite generics: (a) 'true' gene1·ic indefinites, which are selectively bound by a Q-adverb (directly) from (b) pseudo-generic indefinites, which are (indirectly) bound by a Q-adverb (which selectively quantifies over events). The contrast is illustrated by (52)-(54): (52)

A bird flies.

(53)

*A dog is tired.

(54)

A dog is rarely tired.

According to this view, generic SLP sentences like (52) must contain two generic operators, a binary (relational) Gen operator quantifying over individuals, and a unary Hab (habitual) operator binding the time-variable. The proper LF representation of (52) must then be (52"), and not (52'): (52')

Genx (xis a bird) [x flies]

(52")

GENx (xis a bird) [HABt [x flies at t]

The ungrammaticality of (53) would then be attributed to the absence of the Hab operator, which leaves the time-variable unbound, if the LF representation of (53) is the following: (53')

*GENx (xis a dog) [xis tired att)

Likewise, the Hab operator can be supplied through a frequency Adv, and the sentence then becomes acceptable, as in (54), represented as in (54'): (54')

GENx (xis a dog) [FEWt [xis tired at t]

Assuming this partition to be correct, we can then say that in (54) above, the Q-adv quantifies over the event in the when-clause, and only indirectly over the individuals, which then qualify as pseudo-generic. On the other hand, the quantification should be construed as limited to the NP/DP in (53), which must be read as 'true' generic and, for reasons that remain to be determined, the Q-adverb is not sufficient to make the indefinite NP a true generic. Generic

It is also conceivable that the process is similar to that of Gen, in that it involves N movement to Sm/Q and Nmr. See the discussion in subsection 2.2.

198 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

indefinite sentences such as (52) are generally agreed to rely on a default Gen operator, which is assumed to be a silent adverb of quantification (interpreted as usually or generally). Gen quantifies over an individual-variable supplied by the indefinite (see e.g. Heim (1982), Diesing (1992), Dobrovie-Sorin (2002a), among others). 3.2

Modification and D-binding

In the Arabic example (33), Habitual is supplied by the imperfective aspect of the verb, and the addition of a frequency adverb does not resume the relevant Gen interpretation. The minimal contrast with (34) enables us to identify the source of unavailability of Gen. Given that such a variable is available in contexts like (34), on the one hand, and (13) or (16), on the other hand, the distinct behaviour of BNs can be captured by postulating that there are two distinct potential sources (or domains) for Gen binding: (a) binding within DPs (D-binding), and (b) binding within the 'sentence' (S-binding), through event or propositional structure. We can then say that Arabic D-binding of Gen requires modification of N, butS-binding of Gen does not. The role played by internal modification in supplying the appropriate variable for Gen is crucial in Arabic, in the absence of another potential source, namely the indefinite article. Note that cardinals do not play the role of overt indefinites in Arabic, and the Gen interpretation remains unavailable: (56)

talaatat-u kilaab-in qallamaa t-anbafJ-u three-NOM dogs-GEN-N rarely 3-bark Three dogs rarely bark.

These facts suggest that Arabic indefinite nominals are determinerless (even when they occur with cardinals), or they have silent determiners which can only be Ex when nothing relevant activates their silent D. Therefore, the following distinction should be made between Arabic and Romance BNs (with BNs including bare singulars in Arabic, but not Romance): (57)

3·3

a.

Within DP, Arabic and Romance unmodified BNs must be weak.

b.

Within S, modified BNs and overt indefinites can be strong. Without receiving extra specification or being in a special context, a BN can be only weak (Ex), but an overt indefinite can be strong.

Modalized contexts

Arabic bares can be read as Gen in other contexts than modification. One such a context is when/if/whenever clauses (or the like), which normally express the frequency of occurrence of the event, as in (58):

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 199

(58)

kullamaa. daraa

rajul-u-n

mrazat-a.-n

whenever invited man-NOM-N woman-ACC-N

statJ.bala-haa bi-wardat-i-n received-her with-fl.ower-GEN-N Whenever a man invites a woman, he receives her with a flower. (59)

rindamaa y-anbal;t-u kalb-un

t-ajirru

l-qita~-u

when 3-bark dog-NOM-N f-run.away the-cats-NOM Whenever a dog barks, cats run away. In (58), three bare indefinite NPs are found in subject, object, and prepositional complement positions, and they read as Gen. The construction (59) provides a further example of a Gen subject, which contrasts minimally with the subject in (43). Modalized contexts then provide reason to think that a BN is an indefinite which introduces a variable bound by Ex or Gen operators, depending on the S context. Other cases of Arabic BNs do allow Gen interpretation, as illustrated by the following pair of examples: (60)

a.

ra~aa~at-u-n

(qublat-u-n)

(qad) t-unhii barb-a-n

bullet-NOM-N (kiss-NOM-N) (may) f-end A bullet (a kiss) ends (may end) a war.

b.

war-ACC-N

batJ.ara.t-u-n (qad) t-unfiS-u qaryat-a.-n COW-NOM-N (may) t:.revive village-ACC-N A cow revives (may revive) a village.

These contexts are also modalized, and they make available a Gen reading. According to Dobrovie-Sorin (2002a: 11), the legitimate LF representation of comparable sentences in French is one in which the indefinite is indirectly bound by a Q-adverb that selectively quantifies over events/situations. She dismisses the LF representation in which Gen quantifies over atomic individuals. If this is correct, then the case of (58) should be taken as a case of VP/S-binding (or Event/S binding), rather than IndividuaVD-binding. Moreover, Gen is provided through placing N higher in the structure (in lines with Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis). 18

18.

Diesing's (1992) Mapping hypothesis may read as follows: (i) (ii)

English BNs outside VP : SLP : Ex/Gen ; ILP : Gen English BNs inside VP : Ex (normally)

Longobardi (200 1b) claims that he has provided confirmation for (ii) in the Romance domain: Gen BNs and overt indefinites actually occur VP-externally in Italian. But some apparent

200

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

3·4

Definite and indefinite generics

Summarizing the contextual and interpretational requirements discussed so far, the following descriptive statements appear to apply to Definite and Indefinite Generics found in Arabic: (61)

Kind-denoting Gen are expressible only through overtly definite DPs, and are likely to be referential arguments (kind names).

(62)

Object-denoting Gen are expressible through various sorts ofindefinite DPs, bound (unselectively) by Gen operators; they are necessarily quantificational arguments.

(63)

Gen operators (providing for characterizing environments) are: Habitual Aspect, Q-Adverbs, and appropriate Ps.

This description is strikingly similar to Longobardi's (2001b) description of Romance, modulo the differences already discussed. 19

4·

BNs and PNs

In English, PNs behave like common BNs in that they occur determinerless, and they remain in normal post-adjectival position. In Romance, PNs in (argument positions) are always introduced by a phonetically expanded D: they either

problems arise for the hypothesis, given that it is too strong for English, and too weak for Romance (see his (48) cases):

(iii)

English BNs can be Gen in Obj positions with all sorts of Ps, typically episodic Ps and KLPs.

(iv)

Italian BNs cannot be Gen in Subj positions with all sorts of Ps (*episodic, *KLPs, ~pure stative ILPs).

However, the first problem is solved by admitting possible referential genericity for English BNs (which does not involve quantification). The second problem is settled by adopting the characterizing/episodic distinction, and restricting the definition of Gen operators to the former type of environments. 19.

Longobardi (2001b: 349) construes the following contexts as characterizing: (i) (ii) (ill)

SLPs with Habitual Aspect; ILPs with Habitual Aspect; Adverbs with generalizing quantification.

For more on the definite/indefinite distinction, see Gerstner & Krifka (1987) and for further clarifications, see Carlson & Pelletier (1995, Introduction).

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs occur after an overt D (an 'expletive' article), or they are moved to D (crossing over adjectives). This syntax contrasts with that of common Italian BNs, which is essentially the same as that of English. The picture is basically as follows (e for empty category): (64)

a.

English BNs & PNs: [e (A) N]

b.

Romance BNs: [e (A) N]

c.

Romance PNs: [D (A) N]; [N (A) t]

To account for this contrast, Longobardi (1994, 1996) proposed the following typological generalization (rephrased here for convenience): (65)

PNs may occur without a phonetically filled D iff Gen BNs (Pl or mass) may do so in all environments.

Thus although English and Romance PNs differ in their syntax, and English and Romance BNs in their semantics, the two differences are related: if the semantics of BNs is of the E-type, the syntax of PNs will be of the E-type as well, and vice versa. The association in (65) can be translated as follows (E for English, R for Romance): (66)

a.

E BNs & PNs: [e (A) N]

~

Quant

Ref

~Quant

b.

R BNs: [e (A) N]

c.

R PNs: [D (A) N]; [N (A) t]

~Ref

In some languages, the referential feature of the D position is strong/visible, in others it is weak. Moreover, referential readings may affect nominal items not overtly associated with D. What is at the core is whether the constant or variable status of D is encoded at PF or not. In Romance, an empty D at PF always gives rise to a variable, in Germanic it needs not In Romance, an expletive article or N-to-D prevents an empty D from achieving a quantificational reading. As for Arabic, it has no kind-referring BNs, and hence by (64-66) should not allow PNs with empty D, much like what happens in Romance. This appears to be true if we take the [N (A) t] as a test:

(67)

a.

bagdaad-u l-qadiima.t-u Bagdad-NOM the-old- NOM The old Bagdad.

b.

l-qaahirat-u l-qadiimat-u the-Cairo-NOM the-old-NOM The old Cairo.

101

202

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar But the positioning of the adjective in (67a) cannot be taken as a decisive diagnostic in Arabic, since attributive adjectives are post-nominal even with Ex indefinites. Furthermore, the insertion of a definite expletive is not used in (67b) because of modification. We are then in need of other tests to see whether PNs and BNs in Arabic behave syntactically like those of Romance, and whether the kind of syntax/semantic split (and/or correlation) postulated by Longobardi (2001 a & b) for Romance holds for Arabic as well. Evidence can be found in the distributional behaviour of the article with PN s. PNs may bear an (expletive) article or they may not, as in the (67) pair: Bagdad does not, but Cairo does. In contrast, common definite Ns must bear an article. When modified by adjectives, articleless PNs cannot bear a definite article, although the adjective bears one, as in (67a). It is possible to use a definite article with a PN form, but the expression is no longer interpreted as a PN; it behaves only like a common noun: (68)

l-bagdaad-u

llatii r_araftu

the-Bagdad-NOM that knew-1 The Bagdad that I knew. Likewise, in construct state ( CS) constructions, the expletive article of the PN must disappear: (69)

qaahirat-u s-sabfiiniyyaat-i Cairo-NOM the-seventies-GEN (The) Cairo of the seventies.

The introduction of an overt article (or D) in (68), and presumably an empty D in (69), turns theN from referential to quantificational (which is then interpreted as Ex or Gen, depending on contexts). A quantificational D is not an option for a PN. The article is either an overt expletive, as in (67b), represented by the first configuration in (66b), or the PN has to move to the empty D (if there is one), as in the second configuration of (66c). As in Romance, Arabic PNs fall in the (c) configurations, and Arabic BNs in (b). The order of the adjective with respect to N is relevant for Romance, but not so for Arabic. With Arabic common Ns, D is either realized. when Def (or Gen), or not realized when Indet~ Empty D provides an indefinite variable, which is interpreted as Ex or Gen, depending on contexts.

5·

Mass specification

Consider finally mass Ns, and how they are supposed to correlate with plurals in terms of bareness or non-bareness. Referential generics (naming

Chapter 7. Bare, generic, mass, and referential DPs 203

kinds) and generic masses are both bare in English, pointing to the existence of an empty expletive D, as in (64a). If referential generics in Arabic and Romance have an expletive filled article (more like some PN s do), then generic masses also have to be overt DPs. This appears to be the case, as the mass/ count contrast exemplified by (5) and (6) above shows. We repeat the latter examples here, as well as the generic kind illustrated by (3), as (70) to (72), respectively: (70)

staray-tu z-zayt-a bought-! the-oil-Ace I bought (the) oil.

(71)

staray-tu zayt-a-tt bought-! oil-ACC-N I bought an oil.

(72)

a.

b.

al-kalb-u y-anbah-u the-dog-NOM 3-bark-IND The dog barks. al-kilaab-u. t-anbal;t-u the-dogs-NOM 3f-bark-IND The dogs bark (Dogs bark).

Recall that the generic kind is not necessarily a plural, and can be a singular, as in (72a) . If so, then the mass/plural correlation found in English has no cross-linguistic counterpart in Arabic (or Romance), contrary to expectation. If it were cross-linguistic, then we would expect it to be true of all generic DPs, whether the expletive is overt or covert, and the singular would be excluded. But there is no significant plural/mass correlation in Arabic, at least the way it is perceived in the literature on BN s (cf. e.g. Chierchia ( 1998 a & b), Longobardi (2001b)). The internal organization of the mass/count phenomenology is then in need of refinement. In fact, the correlation is rather accidental in English, if not misleading . 20

10. Fassi Fehri (2003b) argues for the inadequacy of the count/mass distinction on both conceptual and grammatical grounds. He proposes instead a binary feature classificatory system (based on [a atomic] and [~collective] values), which accounts namely for distinctions between kind and mass behaviours. Cf. also Jackendoff (1991) binary conceptual system, which encodes differences between objects and substances (in terms of 'boundedness' and internal structure'). For a more recent treatment of the matter, see Chapter 5.

204

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

6. Conclusion In this article, I have analyzed some significant internal processes and structures of Arabic DPs, with a special interest in the syntax/semantics interface, and within a broad typological perspective. I established that Arabic BNs behave more like Romance indefinites than English BNs. I examined various flavors of bareness, and motivated a computational process ofN -to-Gen movement, an Indefinite Gen Parameter, and a Bare Numeral Parameter, to account for the various properties of indefinite and bare DPs. It is hoped that this work will contribute to refine the theoretically oriented description of Arabic DPs. but also make it a significant contribution to comparatively oriented research.

CHAPTERS

Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia*

Although the history of Semitic linguistics has been dominated by a strong tradition of historical and geographical comparative approaches which succeeded (at least partially) in paving the way for establishing genealogical and areal branches in the Semitic family, little has been done in current formal descriptions of specific languages/dialects for exploring these results, or establishing firm typological syntactic criteria, which would be instrumental in characterizing both innovation and variation in syntactic changes. 1 If syntax/computation is the essential locus of parametric conservativity and changes affecting cognate languages (as defended in Guardiano & Longobardi (2003)), rather than morphology or lexicon, as is generally assumed in (most) early and current historical Semitic linguistics, then accurate formal descriptions of current languages or dialects should be telling us more about history than normally expected. At the same time, bridging the gap between diachrony and synchrony in Semitic linguistics would be beneficial not only for diachronic linguistics, but also for synchronic descriptions as well, i.e. those concerned with syntactic computation and interpretation, and interSemitic variation. 2 The aim of this contribution is to investigate one acknowledged syntactic domain in which Semitic typically exhibits salient properties, namely the nominaVdeterminer domain(= DP henceforth), and show that the 'peculiarities' of such a domain can be more perspicuously characterized, leading to principled

*

The material contained in this Chapter was presented at various occasions, typically as an invited talk at DIGS 9, organized by Pino Longobardi and Paola Crisma at the University of Trieste, and partly as a talk in WECOL 6. It appeared in Proceedings of NACAL 35, Charles Haberl (ed), 149-182.2007. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. The list includes Brockelmann (1910), Meillet (1925), Meillet & Cohen (1924), Kurylowicz (1973), Moscati (1964), and Hetzron (1997), among others. See further references in Footnote 3.

1.

1. Moreover, such an integration is expected to help us solve Ullendortf's (1958) problem, i.e. that of examining"... the criteria which usually impel us to call a language 'Semitic'':

206

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

diachronic and synchronic typologies. The term diglossia is used (unconventionally) here to refer to two kinds oflanguages: (a) those which reflect robust properties and changes of the Semitic core, and (b) those which reflect variation and changes of some specific dialect, fitting into innovation, interference/ borrowing, or periphery.3 Some internal properties of DPs in the various Semitic languages should then make some DPs more Semitic than others, and in fact, various features attributed to Semitic in the literature will turn out to be properties of some specific dialect, rather than those of the common historical core. The methodology adopted here is based on parametric comparative linguistics, building on available partial descriptions and data, especially from Central Semitic (including Classical and Modern Arabic, Arabic dialects, and Classical and Modern Hebrew), in the absence of exhaustive historical corpora, statistics, and exhaustive descriptions. 4 The best source to reconstruct history then is to rely on adequate identification of features of present-day languages, as well as

3· Innovation is emerging from various external sources (substrata, adstrata, foreign contacts), or general change of the system, which may (or may not) be internal to the core (e.g. the general change to analyticity in urban dialects). Diachrony establishes various stages at which innovation, change, or grammaticalization are introduced. Changes might be related to various statuses of languages (natural, pidginized, creolized, or decreolized languages), with various learning processes (11, 12, or 'mixed' acquisition). For example, the distinction between Old Arabic and Neo-Arabic has been equated with the distinction between Standard and Modern Arabic dialects, although properties of Old Standard (or koinl!) and Modern Standard differ in various ways, and the same is true of Old and Modern dialects (see e.g. Vollers (1906), PUck (1950), Ferguson (1959), Versteegh (2001), among others, for discussion). Alternatively, differences (e.g. between standard and dialect) might be neutrally identified as just variational, in which case no necessary implications for history are drawn. For general discussion of internal and external changes, see e.g. Lightfoot (2003, 2006). 4· The traditional and 'popular' subgrouping of Semitic languages is based on geography and culture, and supported mainly by patterns of (morphonological) innovations (Brockelmann (1913), Bergsttitsser (1923), Moscati (1964)). It branches as follows: i.

a. b.

East Semtic: Akkadian West Semitic - Northwest: -- Canaanite: Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite --Aramaic - Southwest: -- Arabic -- Southeast Semitic: Modern South Arabian, Ethio-Sabean (Old South Arabian)

Faber (1997), in Hetzron (1997), proposed a model based on Hetzron's (1976) shared morphological innovations, which branches differently:

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 207

available partial descriptions of remote languages. Material needed for such a reconstruction, however, suggests that current available descriptions should be seriously reconsidered to provide adequate clues for diachrony. This contribution builds mainly on relevant comparative work on N-to-D movement by Longobardi (1994, 2005, 2006), Borer (1989, 2005), and Fassi Fehri ( 1999, 2002, 2006 a&b ), among other references, associating D with its 'referential' content (its CI, conceptual/intentional side), rather than its PF properties (as in e.g. Siloni (2000)). We investigate the Semitic DP cartography (along the lines of Cinque (1999, 2003, 2006)), and construe variation in terms of Merge, Agree, and Move, as in Chomsky (1995, 2008). I argue that properties of overt determination make use of two interpretable features on D: Individuation and Person. The former is notably realized by an 'indefinite' article, and the latter by a 'definite' article. Individuated vocatives are argued to be 'double bares: with two non-overtly realized D features. The variation examined provides firm grounds for developing a computationally based parametric historical linguistics, in the spirit of Guardiano & Longobardi (2003).

1.

Indefinites

Indefinites are poorly described in Arabic and Semitic. One important issue to address is whether simple indefinites are true bare nouns, or just pseudo-bare. 5 If the former is true, then there is no mark of indefiniteness on N. If the latter is true, then the mark of indefiniteness can be -n or -m suffix on the noun,

ii

a. b.

East Semitic: Akkadian West Semitic - Central Semitic --Arabic -- Northwest --- Ugaritic --- Canaanite: Hebrew, Phoenician, Moabite ---Aramaic - South Semitic -- Eastern: Soqotri, Mehri, ... --Western: Old South Arabian, Ethiopian Semitic, etc.

In this model, Arabic and Hebrew are grouped closer, in Central Semitic. I adopt the grouping tentatively, but clearly the subgroupings are in need of reconstruction and refinements according to syntactic criteria. 5· This issue was first explicitly brought up by Fassi Fehri (2002, 2006a &b) for SA and MA; see also Borer (2005) for Hebrew.

208

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

traditionally termed nunation or mimation. 6 Three views have been expressed in the literature with regard to the latter suffixation. The most traditional one is that it is devoid of syntax/semantics content, being just a morphological mark of nouns. Such a view has been originally proposed by Arabic grammarians, and echoed by Moscati (1964) and Greenberg (1968), among others. Moscati radically states (desperately) that it is "impossible to identify any Proto-Semitic means of expressing definiteness or indefiniteness~ and that "there existed a mimation of nouns INDEPENDENT [my emphasis; FF] of any semantic function as regards definiteness or indefiniteness': This non-contentful usage is reflected, according to him, in the most Ancient Semitic material (p. 100). Brockelmann (1910), on the other hand, defends an indetermina-tion view. A third treatment is put forth by Kurylowicz (1950), according to whom mimation expresses general determination. In the spirit of Brockelmann's treatment, I provide evidence in favour of a DP analysis of indefinites in which nunation contributes essentially a form of indetermination. The analysis is framed in minimalist terms and a general theory of (in)determination that I elaborate throughout the article? 1.1

N moves over indefinite quantifier

Consider first what corresponds to some indefinites in English. In CA and SA, maa. "what': the counterpart of English 'some' must occur post-nominally: (1)

jaa.za rajul-u.-n

maa.

came man- NOM-N some Some man came. In this structure, the indefinite pronoun maa behaves syntactically like an adjective. Indeed, one of the most robust properties of Semitic first established by Fassi Fehri (1997-1999) for Arabic (standard and dialects) is that adjectives (in free states) must surface post-nominally, even when they are non-intersective: (2)

l-mudii1'-U.

s-saa.biq-u

the-director- NOM the-former- NOM the former director

It is agreed that mim.ation developed into nunation in some languages such as Arabic and Aramaic, as m > IL The two terms refer to the same phenomenon, and would be used interchangeably here.

6.

7. Due to lack of space, I refer the reader to Fassi Fehri (2002, 2006) for details and support of such an analysis. The following abbreviations are used throughout the text: CA for Classical Arabic, SA for Modern Standard Arabic, DA for Dialectal Arabic, MA for Moroccan Arabic, and EA for Egyptian Arabic.

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia

Properties of constructions such as (2) led me to establish the generalization in (3), which has been extended to Hebrew by Shlonsky (2004): 8 (3)

NA generalization All adjectives must surface in post-N positions (in the relevant cases).

The generalization in (3) applies to the maa counterpart of'some' in CA/SA, once it is treated as an adjective/specifier. It does not apply to the Arabic dialects (DA) counterpart, as shown by the behaviour of MA Si, the reduced form of SA say1 "thing': which can only precede N: (4)

ja rajel ("tajel si) si came some man Some man came.

I interpret these distributions as follows. Assuming that maa is merged as Spec of np inCA/SA, more like adjectives, then n/np moves past this 'quantifier: presumably to D. In MA, by contrast, si is generated as a head H, and np as its complement, and no movement occurs. As we will see, the Spec/H distinction, coupled with movement vs. its absence, instantiates a wide-spread micro-variation found in the Semitic family. 9 Note in passing that indefinite determination here is associated with either an indefinite wh-pronoun (maa), or an indefinite noun (si). This provides a natural source for what corresponds to 'some' indefinites in English. The variation observed between SA and MA is represented in (5) and (6), respectively: (5)

[nprajul-un [D. lnp maa [Npe]]])

(6)

[DP [D' Si [nprajel]]]

8. Another important generalization discovered there is the mirror image order (MIO) generalization, whereby Semitic APs occur in a MIO compared to their Germanic/Romance counterparts: (i)

MIO generalization Post-NAP's are found in MIO with regard to their pre-N counterparts. Le. the order is N>A3>A2>A1

Shlonsky (2004) generalizes these findings to Hebrew, contra Gilnert (1989); see Fassi Fehri (1998) for discussion, and Chapter 6. 9· A parallel variation has been established for Romance; see e.g. Crisma (1996) for discussion, as well as well as references given there.

209

:no Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

1.2

N movement to indefinite D

Consider now the counterpart of English a indefinites, i.e. indefinites which originate through association with a cardinal numeral. Such indefinites have no real equivalents in remote Semitic as far as we can tell. In fact, simple indefinites (normally) marked with nunation/mimation express general indetermination. The 'referential' /'non-referential' duality of indefinites is established in CA and SA, as is their quantificational interpretation. This is illustrated by (7) and (8) from CA/SA: (7)

a.

kalb-u-n

y-anbaf:t-u

dog-NOM-N 3-bark-IND A dog is barking. b.

kilaa.b-u-n

t-anba/:l-u

dogs-NOM-N F-bark-IND Some dogs are barking. (8)

lam "l-a.qra.z kitaab-an

Neg > 3 or 3 > Neg

not 1-read book-Ace I did not read a book. Constructions (7) instantiate a referential (though 'non-kind') use of singular and plural indefinites, whereas (8) illustrates scope variability of existential indefinites, among other properties of Arabic (and in fact Semitic) indefinites. 10 In line with Brockelmann (1910), it is reasonable to think that mimation/nunation is a mark of indefinite determination, and that -nl-m suffixes are reduced forms of maa.

to. Further examples and contrasts involve wide and narrow scope ambiguity in (i), scope with opacity predicates in (ii), and telicity in (iii): (i)

kull-u

rajul-ln

1akala samak-at-an

every-NoM man-GBN ate Every man ate a fish. (ii)

1-urlid-u

'if>3or3>V'

fish-unit-Ace

1an ?-atazawwaj-a mra?at-an

want > 3 or 3 >want

1-want-IND that 1-marry-suBJ woman-Ace I want to marry a woman. (iii)

1akala samak-at-an fii saarat-ln ate fish-unit-ACC in hour-GBN He ate a fish in an hour.

Typical to SA/CA, however, is the absence of a mass/kind use of these forms. This situation lends support to the indetermination view first defended in Fassi Fehri (2002, 2004). It also questions Kurylowicz's (1950) general determination thesis of Semitic mimation, for which no dear evidence has been found.

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia

Assuming then that the affix -n realizes the head D (see Fassi Fehri (1993)), then N incorporates into D via N-to-D movement. In minimalist terms, we can say that N has an uninterpretable D feature, the indeterminate feature, which is only interpretable on D. The unvalued feature then prompts N-to-D movement inCA/ SA. If -n/-m realizes the indeterminate feature in the head D, and maa is realized in a Spec, then the change is a known one, i.e. a reanalysis from Spec to H (leading to a form of 'decay' in Keenan's (2006) sense): (9)

Spec~

H

This process of reanalysis has taken place in CA and remote stages of (Central) Semitic. It is generally agreed that remote stages of marking (in)determination were characterized by mimation only. to the exclusion of definiteness, which was introduced only as a late innovation. If so, then Semitic indefinites are more remote than their definite correlates.U Indefinite determination is then realized as a head affix in CA/SA, but such a head is either empty in MA, or a full (quantifier) head in the si 'some' case.U The 'some' quantifier is a specifier in CA/SA. The Spec/H alternation is then firmly established as a Semitic micro-variation. 1.3

Adjective movement and movement over adjectives

Common to Semitic is the property that adjectives surface (only) post-nominally, even with simple indefinites, in consonance with (3). This is instantiated by MA and Hebrew, (10) and (11) respectively: (10)

ktab kbir (*kbir ktab) book big a big book

u. Moscati claims that "in the historical development of the Semitic languages, new and special means of indicating definiteness made their appearance in a number of different guises [... ] Where definiteness is expressed by a prefix, it may bring about a modification in the use of mimation or nunation, that is it may become a means of indicating indefiniteness ... by contrast ...': Note that this appears to run counter to what happened in e.g. Romance or Germanic, where definite articles were introduced first, followed by indefinites; see e.g. Vincent ( 1997) for Romance and Philippi (1997) for Germanic, as well as Crisma (1999) and Lyons ( 1999). Interesting questions arise concerning the historical evolution of overt realization of articles in the classes of languages described by Dryer (2005), and how they come to develop first indefinite or definite articles, then the other member of the pair. I are aware of no work dealing with such distinctive developments. 12.

The same is likely to be true of Hebrew (see e.g. Borer (200 5) ).

111

212

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (11)

ha-dira ha-gdola (*ha-gdola ha-dira) the-house the-big the big house

As for CA/SA, I observed in early work that two kinds of movement in DP are motivated: A(djective) movement and N movement, both to D (see Fassi Fehri (1999)). Both Nand A have an uninterpretable (formal) D feature, and must move to DP to check it. If A moves to D, then N moves to Spec D. Both Nand A compete for movement to D or its Spec. There is reason to think that adjectives move in Semitic to check their D-features (but not in Romance or Germanic). If adjectives are treated as DPs in Semitic, then alternations in terms of Case, (poly)definiteness, and free and construct states can be explainedP

1.4

Semitic overt indetermination

There is an innovation in DA and Hebrew, not found in CA/SA, which confirms the view that Semitic has an indeterminate DP, and tends to express indetermination overtly. MA uses the numeral wabed to express indefiniteness, normally construed as 'specific': (12)

a.

ja

wabed l-weld

came one the-boy One specific boy came.

b. ja-w

waf:ted l-wlad

came-PL one the-boys Some specific boys came. Likewise, Hebrew and Aramaic exhibit various patterns of grammaticalization of 'one' as an indefinite article: 14 (13)

a.

boor zebaad stone one a hole

(Biblical Hebrew)

b.

zeben f:tadaa

(Biblical Aramaic)

stone one a stone

13. See Fassi Fehri (1999, 2006) for a DP analysis of adjectives. and various movements involved in DP structure, including Adjective movement. For alternative views. see Cinque (2003, 2006), Borer (2005), Sichel (2002), Shlonsky (2004), among others. 14.

Examples (13a & b) are from Rubin (2005), and (13c) from Giv6n (1981).

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 213 c.

is-xad (street Hebrew) man-one a specific man

This form of grammaticalization of overt indefiniteness is not found in SA/ CA. What is common to Semitic, however, is the tendency to develop an overt system of indetermination, in parallel to that of determination. I return to this double system in Section 3. Suffice it to note now that even though Semitic has introduced definite articles, it has kept its indefinite articles, or even developed new ones. To sum up, a list of properties of Semitic indefinites emerge. The indefinite article is overtly realized as an affix on N. It originates as an indefinite pronoun. N moves to D, past A, and/or past the indefinite quantifier. The formation of a 'numeral' definite is more recent, and occurs in languages like Modern Hebrew or MA, where nunation/mimation is only residual. The Spec/H variation, found in expressing indefiniteness, is also associated with movement vs. its absence. 15

2.

Definites

Historical studies of Semitic definites have often focused on forms of the article (within the word), rather than its syntax. Dialectal forms of the prefixed article vary between old Eastern al- and Western am- in the Arabic peninsula (Rabin (1951)), or the ha.l/han allomorphy put forth by Beeston ( 1981 ), in addition to Hebraic ha-. With regard to its syntactic origin, the article's ancestor in Semitic is presumably a demonstrative, which underwent gradual grammaticalization as aD, much in line with the birth of the article in Romance or Germanic. 16• 17 Modern studies of

Common to Semitic is the affixal nature of the article (see Borer (2005) for a treatment). There is also variation as to whether the article is prefixal, as in Arabic or Hebrew, or suffixal, as in Aramaic or Old South Arabic. This variation recalls that found in Romance between prenominal French le loup, Spanish ellobo or Italian illupo, and enclitic Rumanian lup-ul "'the wolf' (see Rubin (2005)). But mimation or indefinite affixation is uniquely suffixal, as far as I can tell. Such a placement dissymmetry mirrors that found in perfective/imperfective affix placement (see Fassi Fehri (1996/2000) for a treatment of the latter).

15.

Testen (1998) advances a different view, according to which the article has its origin in the emphatic la-, but this proposal is hardly tenable for Arabic, and more generally Semitic. For a recent demonstrative view, see e.g. Zaborski (2000 ).

16.

17.

See Giusti (1995, 200 1), among others, as well as references in Footnote 11.

214 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Hebrew or Arabic definites often stress the purely 'formaf nature of definiteness. Borer (1989; see also Siloni (2000), and Danon (2001), among others) based such a view mainly on (a) the 'optionality' of the article with the demonstrative, and (b) the occurrence of the article on modifiers in Hebrew. Borer claimed that the definite article in Semitic is a feature on N, rather than a D feature. 18 The formal nature of both the definite and the indefinite articles (in the relevant contexts) is presumably not disputable. 19 But a more appropriate and precise characterization of the distribution of articles is still needed. For example, the 'optionality' of the article is not a shared property of most varieties of Semitic. Second, the fact that the article does contribute 'semantic' definiteness in simple definites remains to be accounted for. I propose to extend my treatment of indefinites to definites, taking N to be bearing a formal definite feature, which is valued in D.20 Consider first the situation in CA and SA. Demonstratives precede nouns which must be formally marked for definiteness. Moreover, Demonstrative and N agree necessarily in case and number, as exemplified by (14): (14)

haa4-aani l-walad-aani this-dual.NOM the-boy-dual.NOM these two boys

These properties are best accounted for if Dem is in Spec of D, and N with the prefixed article is in D (i.e. has moved to D). The obligatory formal agreement excludes proper names(= PNs) from such a position: (15)

""ha.a4_aa zayd-un this Zayd-NOM

The Dem -1-N requirement is avoided only if the proper name is moved higher to Spec D: (16)

zayd-un haadaa

The same limitations apply to definite construct states (= CSs), which cannot co-occur with a preceding demonstrative: (17)

"ha.a4_aa bayt-u r-rajul-i This house-NOM the-man-GEN

t8. More recently, Borer (2005, p. 39) proposes that definiteness in Hebrew is a head feature assigning range to (e)d, and as such requires movement of theN-head to be realized

19.

For a recent formal analysis of Arabic articles, see e.g. Roman (2001).

10.

For a detailed motivation, see Fassi Fehri (2006).

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 215 (18)

bayt-u r-rajul-i haadaa house-NOM the-man-GEN this This house of the man

If Dem is in Spec D, and D must exhibit overt definite agreement with Dem in such a position, then these contrasts can be accounted for. The obligatory overtness of the definite article with the demonstrative is a property of CA/SA, but not of modern DA or Hebrew. For example, MA realizes the article with common nouns and Dem obligatorily, as in (19), but PNs and (definite) CSs are accepted when preceded by Dem, without overtly expressing definiteness: (19)

had l-weld this the-boy this boy

(20)

had /:Jmed this Hmed

(21)

had bent j-jiran this daughter the-neighbours this neighbours' daughter

Note, however, that these distributions appear to correlate with other properties of MA. First, the demonstrative has a different form in pre-nominal and postnominal position: (22)

bent j-jira.n ha.di daughter the-neighbours this this neighbours' daughter

Second, MA exhibits a double demonstrative phenomenon, whereby the second demonstrative acts as a 'reinforcer' of the first demonstrative: (23)

had l-weld hada this the-boy this this boy here

To account for the variation observed between SA and MA, I assume that the first demonstrative is merged in a head position, and the second in a Spec position. The H Dem and its D complement behave like a CS. When they are merged as H of a Dem configuration, movement is needed to the left of Dem. If so, then Dem can be either H or Spec in MA, and only Spec in SA. As a consequence, double demonstrative reinforcement is found in MA, but not SA (contrast (23) with (24)): (24)

*haadaa l-walad-u haadaa this the-boy this

216

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Consider now Hebrew. The basic facts (from Borer (1996)) are the following: (25)

ha-yalda ha-zot tikra zet ha-sir the-girl the-this will-read OM the-poem This girl will read the poem.

(26)

yalda zot tikra. "let ha-sir girl this will-read OM the-poem This girl will read the poem.

Given these facts, Hebrew demonstratives appear obligatorily as post-nominal (or even DP final), with no alternative orders. Furthermore, the article appears either on both Demand N, or none. In other words, what appeared to be allowed in Hebrew is a fully inflected Dem following a (formally) definite N in (25), and a non-inflected N followed by a non-inflected Dem in (26). Such distributions are totally different from those found in CA/SA and DA. They are in need of an account, but they are certainly not common properties of Semitic.21 Partly shared, though, by Semitic is definite agreement between Demand N. Variation centers around CS and FS alternations, as well as order. SA/CA shares with DA word order alternations, and with Hebrew the property that only FS variants of Dem Art-N are found. SA/CA and DA differ from Hebrew, however, in that no omission of the definite article on N is possible. Even Egyptian, which appears to have no pre-nominal Dem like Hebrew, differs from the latter in this respect: (27)

el-walad da the-boy this this boy

(*walad da)

More research is needed to account for such a micro-variation. But as noted, Hebrew distributions are peculiar compared to those of other Semitic variants, notably CA/SA and DA. In the next section, I investigate further properties of Semitic definites, in contrast to indefinites.

3·

Double (in)determination in Semitic

Semitic, like a class of other languages, tends to grammaticalize overtly two distinct ingredients of nominal discourse reference, found at the periphery of DPs, and normally associated with 'definite'(= DEF) and 'indefinite'(= INDEF)

11. See Shlonsky (2004) for some suggestions. For more on reinforcers, see Bernstein (1997), among others.

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 217

markings.22 The semantic/pragmatic content of DEF includes, among other things, personal (or locational) deixis, uniqueness, familiarity, anaphora, genericity, etc.23 INDEF is used as existential, non-specific or 'vague: specific or referential. novel, etc. All these contents are discourse oriented, and they can be represented as 'discourse featureS, in the sense of Chomsk-y (2008), but they have grammatical (formal) realizations which are uninterpretable features on D. Like C, D hosts various features of the periphery. Basically, it hosts: (a) 'personal' speech role relations that we represent by a Person feature, and (b) modes of individuation, represented by an Individuation feature. DP computation then involves [± Pers] and [± Indiv], which take part in Probe-Goal valuations of n and D features, via Agree and/or Move. The two features act as 'type shifters' for the sake of semantic typing. There is reason to think that N moves to Din Arabic, to value the [Indiv] feature (with indefinites, definites, and construct states), and it further moves to D (but less often), to value [Pers] (with vocatives, superlatives, and other cases). As amply documented in the literature, languages make use of various modes of individuation in referring to individuals (or entities of type (e)), and determiners (merging in D) play a crucial role in shaping such individuating modes. Among the most discussed cases are: (a) definite DPs, (b) indefinite DPs, and (c) so-called bare nouns (BNs or null headed DPs), all of which are assumed to exhibit some form of determiner morphology. Longobardi (1994, 1996) treats proper names and the (c) case as strictly parallel. If D is an 'expletive' in the latter cases, then it is null in e.g. Germanic (with covert movement), and it prompts overt PN movement to Din e.g. Italian. But if D has content (e.g. is a 'type shifter'), then PNs and BNs would not be fundamentally different from definites and indefinites (Longobardi (2005, 2006)). I examine in this section two significant modes of individuation. One case concerns pure bare vocatives,

12. See Dryer (2005) for a statistical survey of 'double article' languages. The statement endorsed here is at least true at a late historical stage of Semitic. Conceivably, three stages can be postulated:

i. ii. iii.

no article 'indefinite' article/mimation 'definite' (and indefinite) article

I have no material establishing stage (i), despite Moscati's speculation that the mimation stage is in fact that stage. As extensively argued in Fassi Fehri (2002, 2004, 2006a&b), nouns bearing

nunation never exhibit the behaviour of true (kind) bare nouns. 13. Other ingredients discussed in the literature are inclusiveness, salience, maximality (see e.g. Lyons 1999).

218 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

which arguably have no expletive determiner morphology, trigger N -to-D movement, and designate a clearly identifiable addressee. The second case concerns definite DPs which have the peculiar propertyofbearing 'indefinite' morphology. I argue that such a double marking is neither contradictory nor complementary. In fact, one interpretable ingredient is the [Pers] feature, which is 1, 2, 3, or lacking. The second ingredient is the [Indiv] feature. An individuated nominal designates a clearly identifiable referent in discourse or context (ultimately making it 'unique'), in which case it will be positively marked as [ + Indiv], or it can fail to do so, leaving the referent vague or wide (in the speaker's mind), in which case it can be marked as [0 Indiv]. Individuation and Person markings are not complementary, as illustrated by the case of doubly marked DPs, or pure bare vocatives which are 'double bares: in the sense that they characteristically lack overt realization of both Person and Indiv. 24 3.1

Definites and indefinites are not complementary

Consider first the determiner morphology of common nouns (CNs). In (28a), the prefix l- attaches toN, and the DP is interpreted as definite (unique or familiar). In (28b), the suffix -n attaches toN, and induces indefinite interpretation of the DP, either specific or non-specific (l-and -n are in bold faces, for convenience):

(28)

a.

jaa.za l-walad-u came the-boy-NOM The boy came.

b.

jaaza walad-u-n came boy-NoM-N Aboycame.

This gives the impression that [±Def] valuation would account for such a contrast. But such a characterization is in need of justification. For example, it is not compatible with a theory of markedness in which only one member of the pair is marked, rather than both, such as Jakobson's (1957). But even if such a theory is not adopted (see e.g. Halle (1997)), one has to establish that the two determiners are indeed complementary. There is in fact evidence that there are not, given e.g. that they can co-occur on the same noun: (29)

l-musUm-uu-n

(SA)

the-muslim-PL.NOM-N the moslems

14. See Fassi Fehri (2006) in particular for the details of such a system. On the expletive determiner analysis, see in particular Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992).

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia (30)

l-wald-ii-n

(MA)

the-parent- PL- N the parents In these examples, the 'sound' plural form of the noun appears with both marks. Therefore, the incompatibility in (31) and (32) cannot be attributed to an absolute complementary distribution: (31)

*l-muslim-u-n

(SA)

the-muslim-NOM-N the moslem (32)

*l-waled-n

(MA)

the-parent-N the (parent) tather Note that such a limitation applies only to singulars. Why is it then so? As a first approximation, I take l- to be inducing uniqueness/familiarity, whereas -n induces non-uniqueness/novelty, being compatible with the plural case, but not with the singular case. Then the ungrammaticality of (31)/(32) follows from contradictory values on the same N. But such a mismatch will also exclude (29) and (30) for the same reason, although they are not ungrammatical. If we use uniqueness (familiarity, maximality, salience), or whatever positive feature value associated with DEF to characterize l-, then such features cannot be used negatively for -n. Since the two morphologies are non-complementary, we are in need of a more perspicuous characterization of their content. As for l-, there is little doubt that its semantics is basically equivalent to that of English 'the: and we will see more arguments for that. As for -n, it has no strict equivalent in English; e.g. 'a is singular, and it has no plural version. The closest equivalent to-n in Indo-European in 'un-' in Spanish, which is compatible with different values of Number and Gender (cf. un-o, un-a, un-os, un-as; un = -n). Observe that -n is compatible with both specific and non-specific interpretations, as in (28b) above. But since the definite also allows such an ambiguity, specificity/non-specificity does not appear to be the relevant grammaticalized feature on -n, as illustrated by the following parallel uses and meanings of -n and 1-: (33)

wajad-u.u

jutt.at-an fii n-nahr-i

(specific)

found-they body-Ace in the-river-GEN They found a body in the river. (34)

baqarat-un t-unriS-u qaryat-an COW-NOM F-live-indic village-ACC A cow (may) make a village alive.

(generic)

219

:uo Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(35)

lam z-a.ra raju.l-an

ba.rd-u

(non-specific)

not 1-see man-Ace after-NOM I did not see any man afterwords. (33')

wajad-uu

l-juttat-a

fli 1Htahr-i

(specific)

found-they the-body-Ace in the-river-GEN They found the body in the river. (34')

l-baqarat-u

t-unris-u

l-qaryat-a

(generic)

the-cow-NOM F-live-indic the-village-Ace The cow makes alive the village. (35')

lam n-ajid

r-rajul-a

l-mu.naasib-a

(non-spedfic)

not we-find the-man-Ace the-convenient-Ace We did not find the convenient man. 3.2

Searching for minimal (in) definite pairs

If -n and 1- do not form (morpho-syntactically speaking) a minimal pair, an alternative to explore is that N -n is in contrast with a pure bare N, and forms a minimal pair with it. The convenient candidate is the BN version of N-n, which occurs in individuated vocatives, as in (35): (36)

a.

yaa rajul-u Hey man-NOM Heyman!

b.

yaa mul;zammad-u Hey Muhammad-NOM Hey Muhammad!

The BN is necessarily interpreted as pointing to an individuated addressee. By contrast, the N-n is not so individuated (see the pair (50) and (51) below). It can denote a non-individual, or a predicate, but also refer to a vague individual. If we take the bare case to be the specific (and positive) member of individuation, then -n can be seen as the elsewhere member which includes mainly the negative member, but does not exclude the positive one. If so, then -n marks non-individuation, and the relevant basic contrasting pair is N/N -n, rather than 1-N/N-n, keeping in mind that N-n is not in direct contrast with 1-N, but rather with N.25

15. Such a situation is comparable to the masculine member of Gender, as described by Jak.obson (1957).

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia

Consider now another minimal pair: (37)

a.

l-muslim-uu-n the-muslim-PL.NOM-N the moslems

b.

muslim-uu-n muslim-PL.NOM-N moslems

The first member has l-, whereas the second member lacks it, but both have-n. If determination is compositional, and the combination of the two determiners is not an oddity, then we expect the two members to share the non-individuation reading. The expectation appears to be borne out. To see this, consider again the non-referential readings of examples (33)-(35) above, which are found with both indefinites and definites. As we have seen, l- and -n in tact share both referential/ individuating and non-referential/non-individuating readings. Suppose individuation is the relevant notion, rather than reference. If -n marks the negative value of individuation in both cases, then [+ Indiv] can be seen as the unmarked case, realized as 0. If so, we can account for-non plurals and singular indefinites. As for singular definites, the disappearance of their -n (morphologically) may or may not be significant Let us assume that it is not. If -n contributes non-individuation in both definites and indefinites, what is then the contribution of l-? The latter cannot contribute [+ Indiv], or else we end up having two opposite values on the same np/dp. Suppose l- contributes Pers (either 3rd or some unmarked form), taking into account its anaphoric and pronominal properties, in analogy with pronouns. If so, then l- is expected to disappear with vocatives, since they are addressees and require 2nd Pers. I return to this case in Section 4. If so, then a l-1-n split is established: -n marks (non-) individuation, whereas l- marks Pers. The unmarked counterparts in both cases are not morphologically realized.26 3·3

PNs are not indefinite

Consider now determiner morphology on PNs which occur in argument positions. While, it is natural to encounter bare PNs like (38), having in mind Partee's (1986/2004) 'natural' basic typology (see also Chierchia (1998), and

16. Crisma (1999), followed by Longobardi (2005), adopts the view that indefinite realization is encoding a [± count] feature. It is hard to adopt such a view due to considerations discussed at length in Fassi Fehri (2004), but also in Chapter 5. Note also that -n is blind to the count/mass distinction, since it applies to any class of nouns, like the indefinite article.

221

222

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar Longobardi (2006)), and less natural although conceivable to get those like (39) with an 'expletive' definite article presumably (but not necessarily; see e.g. Burge (1973)), the cases in (40) and (41) are totally unexpected: (38)

jaa:za yaziid-u came Yazid-NOM Yazidcame.

(39)

jaaza l-zazraq-u came the-blue-NOM Al-Azraq came.

(40)

jaaza mu/:lammad-u-n came Muhammad-NOM-N Muhammad came.

(41)

jaa.za ra.bd-u

llah-i

came slave-NOM God-GEN Abdullah came. Leaving (41) aside, (40) is totally unexpected in an analysis in which -n is treated as an 'indefinite' marker. Indeed, and contrary to such an expectation, (40) behaves like a definite DP in triggering definite agreement on modifying adjectives, rather than 'indefinite' agreement: (42)

mu/:lammad-u-n

l-kabiir-u

(*kabiir-u-n)

Muhammad-NOM the-big-NoM the big Muhammad The definite/indefinite contrast of agreeing modifiers can be more clearly observed with CNs: (43)

a.

saay-u-n

~unuy-u-n

tea-NOM-NN Chinese-NOM-N a Chinese tea b.

l-kitaab-u

l-kabiir-u

the-book-NOM the-big-NOM the big book There are various ways to interpret (42). One possibility is to assume that agreement with PNs is uniformly definite, independently of their form. Hence the definite agreement in (42) maybe a kind of'semantic' agreement But such an analysis, even if correct, does not tell much about the determiner morphology found there. Why is it activated and appears on 'commonized' PNs in examples like (44) and (45), and it disappears in vocatives like (36b) above or (46) here:

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 123 (44)

jaa.z-a. yaziid-u-n

zu.r-tu-hu

zamsi

came Yazid-NOM-N visited-1-him yesterday A Yazid I visited yesterday came. ( 45)

jaa.za l-mu"l;tummad-u. llad.ii zur-tu. came the-Muhammad that visited- I The Muhammad I visited came.

(46)

yaa zazraq-u Hey Azraq Hey Azraq!

Note that PNsin (44) and (45) are shifted to CNs by using determiner morphology, -11 and l-, respectively. The relative clause then agrees in (in)definiteness with the head noun, either by using a definite relative marker or having none. We can see then that the morphology is 'inactive' on argumental PNs in e.g. (39) and (40), but active in other cases. These contrasts suggest that the expletive hypothesis should be extended to the PN argument cases, a solution hardly workable if -11 is interpreted as semantically 'indefinite'. If so, then (40) can be taken as another case in which -11 and definiteness are not incompatible. When Dis active in PN, then -11 in (40) may contribute (non-) individuation, and l-in (39) (formal or semantic) definiteness (or Pers). Both features are compatible with PN interpretation (depending on how -11 can be coerced, as another instantiation of the elsewhere value)P

4·

Bare determination

CA and SA, but also DA, provide interesting instances of bare determination. In some of the cases examined here, two features (rather than one) are involved in the bare structure: [Pers] and [Indiv]. 4.1

Individuating and non-individuating vocatives

Vocatives present another case of interest for the overt/covert issue of determination. CA/SA vocative phrases come in two flavours with regard to D structure. One form, call it Vocl, is exemplified in (47)-(48): (47)

a.

yaa rajul-u Hey man!

17. Classical cases reported notably by Kurylowicz (1950) to undermine the indetermination view of -n find a natural solution here; for example,gad-a-n "tomorrow-acc-n~ a name for a particular future time, is treated like a PN.

224 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

b.

c.

(48)

yaa samak-u hey fish-NOM Hey fish! yaa rijaa.l-u hey men-NOM Hey men!

a.

yaa mubammad-u Muhammad-NOM Hey Muhammad!

b.

yaa 1azraq-u Azraq-NOM Hey Azraq!

Vocl has the following properties: (49)

a. b. c. d.

itis a 'pure bare' N (whether a common noun or a PN); it bears nominative case; it is interpreted as holding of a designated unique addressee; it can have no restrictive modifier.

Property (a) can be accounted for by assuming N-to-D movement. If D hosts [2Pers] and[+ Indiv], then property (c) can be derived. Property (d) is compatible with the bare character of the np. As for property (b), it can be accounted for by taking into account case syncretisms.28 A second type of vocatives, found in CA/SA, call it Voc2, is illustrated by the following examples:

(SO)

yaa rajul-a-n gayr-a mu1addab-in man-ACC-N not polite Hey impolite man!

(51)

yaa yaziid-a-n sagur-a-n yazid-ACC-N little-ACC-N Hey little Yazid!

In contrast to Vocl, it has the following properties: (52)

18.

a. b. c. d.

the vocative is not a pure BN, is indefinite (and cannot be definite); it bears accusative case; the addressee is not designated/described as individuated/unique; the noun can be modified by a restrictive phrase or a clause.

This is beyond the scope of this chapter. For relevant descriptive statements, see e.g.

Wright (1858/1971).

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia

What is interesting in this case is that [2Pers] does not go hand in hand with [ + Indiv]. Rather, the description is conceived as non-individuated. This split of determinacy can be accounted for if the descriptive N (and its modifier) has not moved to D, unlike what happens in Vocl. A further instantiation of vocatives, call it Voc3, is found in MA. Here the vocative phrase comes only as definite: (53)

za-l-weld

(*za-weld)

Hey-the-child (54)

za.-l-ezreq

(*za-zreq)

Hey-1-Ezreq Here too, there appears to be a split. [2Pers] is in D, whereas the definite np is presumably low (in dp ), in analogy with what happens in SA Voc2. These distributions prompt the generalization in (55), and the descriptive statement (56) for vocatives in CA/SA: (55)

Vocative phrases are DPs.

(56)

a. b.

np moves to D (individuated vocative), or np stays low in dp (non-individuated vocative).

But what about vocatives in MA? Why is definiteness obligatory there? Is it a case of (a) or (b) in (56)? Upon examination, we will see that none is true. Consider again determiner morphology in MA. There, -n is not used generally. It is not used on singulars, whether definite or indefinite. It is only used on sound plurals with more limitations than CA/SA, in fact a marginal use. In this language, l-and its absence in indefinites (which are bare) can be seen as the general minimal pair: (57)

a. b. c. d.

l-weld weld le-wlad wlad

"the boy" "a boy" "the boys" "boys"

This language, therefore, has no 'indefinite' or non-individuating determiner in these cases. Instead, l- appears to play precisely that role in individuated and/or specific contrasts. Non-specificity is marked with si "some': whereas specificity uses wahed l- "one-the~ as indicated above: (58)

a.

ja

wa/:ted l-weld

(*weld)

came one the-boy One (individuated) boy came.

115

:u6 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

waf:red l-wlad b. ja-w came-PL one the-boys Some (individuated) boys came. (59)

ja si weld (*l-weld) came some boy Some (non-identified) boy came.

As shown by the ungrammaticality of (60), the fully specific form cannot be used in vocatives (neither is the non-specific): (60)

ya ( ..si) (""wal:red) l-weld Hey theboy Hey boy!

These distributions can be accounted for if we take l- in MA to be marking [ + Indiv]. If individuation is positively marked through l- (and non-individuation is 0), then its disappearance in individuated vocatives is not called for. Moreover, its compatibility with [2Pers] interpretation suggests that it has no Pers value, contary to l-in SA/CA.29 If so, we have the following variation: (61)

Move to Din individuated vocatives is a. overt (SA), or b. covert (MA).

(62)

IfD has Pers, then (a), otherwise (b).

4.2

'Unique' superlatives

Superlatives exhibit a uniqueness (iota) property, normally associated with the superlative morpheme and the definite determiner. CA/SA exhibit interesting bareness in this case as we will see. Definite superlatives in English have been analyzed as 'absolute' (strong definite), or 'comparative' (weak indefinite):30 (63)

The highest mountain is covered with snow.

Superlatives in Arabic (at least when singular) are always syntactically indefinite (the plural definites are rather read as partitives). They can be interpreted, however, as unique/absolute:

29. This appears to be the situation for most innovating Semitic dialects such as DA or Hebrew. In the latter, ntimation has been marginalized essentially like what happened to nunation in MA. For more on vocatives, see e.g. Portner (2004). 30.

See Szabolcsi (1986), Heim (1994), Kayne (2004), Cinque (2006), among others.

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 227

(64)

za.kba.r-u jabal-i-n biggest-NOM mountain-GEN-N the biggest mountain

They also alternate with definite superlatives, and there they cannot be indefinite: (65)

l-jabal-u l-zakbar-u the-mountain -NOM the-biggest-NOM the biggest mountain

(66)

*zakbar-u l-jabal-i biggest-NOM the-mountain-GEN

(67)

*l-1akbar-u (*l-)*jabal-i the-biggest-NOM the-mountain-GEN

Here, there is no indefinite interpretation corresponding to 'some: unlike English (see Herdan & Sharvit (2006)): ( 68)

The dean praised the best student

(69)

The dean praised a best student

Their modifier, however, must be indefinite: (70)

1akbar-u jabal-in 1ifriiqii (*l-ifriiqii) biggest-NOM mountain-GEN Mrican the biggest African mountain

This mixed behaviour of superlatives with respect to (in)definiteness can be accounted for if we can think of traditional (semantic) definiteness as expressed through two distinct features: individuation and uniqueness. Superlatives can then be reasonably thought of as undergoing A to D movement, basically looking for (semantic) uniqueness and/or individuation, independently of formal definiteness: 31 (71)

Superlative moves to D, to get its 'unique'/individuated interpretation.

In other terms, superlative A has uninterpretable Indiv and Pers features, which are valued in D. more like what happens with vocatives, formal (in)definiteness on modifiers aside.

31.

Ordinals also induce uniqueness/individuation in the same way: (i)

taalit-u

1ugtziyyat-in third-NOM SODg-GEN the third song

:us Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 5·

Account and summary

In this chapter, I provided bases for a computational history of determination. I claimed that various stages of evolution of Semitic can be accounted for once two features are admitted as essential to the characterization of the D system: the Pers feature and the Indiv feature. In this section, I recapitulate some of the key points of such an analysis. 5.1

The computational history of determination

I have shown that Semitic has been characterized at some early stage by a monodetermination overt marking, namely mimation. 32 The latter presumably resulted from an enclisis of a reduced indeterminate pronoun (-mi-n), a reduced form of ma.a, as in Brockelmann (1910)), associated essentially with 'indefinite' meaning. It can be paraphrased by French 'quelconque' (Pellat (1951)), or English 'whatever' if one is to stress its non-determinate (non-specific) reading (as did Brock.elmann). However, the same morpheme can be interpreted as 'a certaiO, 'a specific'. 33 But such distributions cannot be construed as limited to 'indefinite' interpretation (ambiguously specific or non-specific), because it leaves no room for interpreting -n on proper names, dates, etc. If e.g. gada-n "tomorrow is treated like proper names (see mu]Jammad-u-n) referring to a constant, then -n should be treated as an 'expletive' occurring in a 'determinate' constant chain. Such a determinacy cannot be taken as definiteness, as Kurylowicz (1950) has it. 34 It is then reasonable to think that -n is placed in D as [a Indiv], and that in

32. In contrast, no stage of Semitic is documented which can be described as no-article stage, or a pure bare stage, contra e.g. Moscati (1964). In other words, there is no Latin or Chinese style Semitic which can be reasonably postulated. 33· Cantarino (1975) gives examples of indefinite maa, where it is interpreted as a 'free choice item' like 'any' or French 'quelconque: but also cases where it is translated as 'certain'!specific' (see also Pellat 1951): (i)

li-1amr-in

maa

for-reason-GRN what for some (unknown) reason (ii)

sa11J-un

maa

concern-NoM what a specific concern 34· In other words, I see no reason to think that -n was covering only the upper sphere of D, as he proposed in his schema (i) (in p. 326), and get a change of this schema to (iv) or (v), gradually, where -n moves from definite to an indefinite. Kurylowicz wants to place -n

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia 229

early stages the determinacy feature (in fact Pers) was not specified. Such absence of specification provides it its capacity to function with proper names, dates, etc. We are then led to a novel approach of old mimation, according to which the latter is an overt expression of individuation, rather than indefiniteness/indetermination or definiteness/determination. This new approach solves the problems raised by the three traditional views of mimation summarized in Section 1. The introduction of a 'definite' article l- is a valuation of an already present feature of D, namely (a determinate) Pers, which is presumably 'inactive' with indefinites. Pers is associated with uniqueness. when it came to be specified at a later stage of development in Semitic DPs.35 Most approaches of article grammaticalization differ from ours in being lexical rather than computational, in the sense that they trace evolution of articles to the evolution of a particular lexical (or vocabulary) item. For example, it is commonly proposed that the definite article arises from a weakening of a demonstrative specifier to a head D/Def (see e.g. Guisti (1995, 2001), Lyons (1999)). Likewise, the indefinite article evolves from a weakening of a cardinal specifier to a general indefinite article, as in Heine's (1997) 'cycle' (72): (72)

I numeral> II presentative> III specific> N non-specific> V generalized article

These approaches hardly take into account the interaction of the two markings, as well as the birth of a second marking, which 'reorganizes' and refines D marking.

in the same positioning as 1-, and then get it go down in the tree by weakening its expressive power. He postulates the following evolution schemata (where 1, 2, and 3 stages are construed as determinate, generic, and individualized functions; I have rearranged numbers and other material for convenience; see his p. 326): i. ii. iii.

iv. v.

1 nunation > 2 zero > 3 zero 1 nunation > 2 nunation > zero 1 1- > 2 nunation > 3 zero 1 1- > 2 nunation > 3 nunation 11- > 21- > 3 nunation

(common Semitic)

(CA)

But these evolution stages, while potentially possible, are not supported by available evidence. 35· Looking at languages broadly, there are languages which have only a definite article, which is presumably specified for the 'upper' feature, or determinacy, and languages which are specified for the lower feature, individuation, and languages that get both features specified It is difficult to conceive that both ends of 'definiteness' are matked, as in Kurylowicz IV. In fact, such a configuration is easy to interpret if two features are involved, and both of them are realized.

230

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

If the D computation system is based on two features, as I have postulated, then the 'vocabulary' may include one or two articles, at different stages, in addition to other determiners. 36 5.2

Two features in computation

Inspired by Crisma's (1997, 1999) analysis of vocatives as DPs, Longobardi (2006) postulates the following Denotation Hypothesis: 37 (72)

Individuals are denoted in D (N-to-D chain/CHAIN iff reference to individuals).

Observing that with respect to pronouns, English and Italian cease to contrast (pronouns being in Din both languages), Longobardi supposes that the head D (in addition to being available as "a checking position for interpretive properties like Definiteness and Count") is also "the only position where interpretable exponence of Person morphology is admitted cross-linguistically': D then consists minimally of the Person feature, hence the statement (73): 38 (73)

Dis the Person head

Longobardi then restates (72) as (74): (74)

Denotation hypothesis Individuals are denoted through the Person feature.

Thus, denotation of individuals basically consists of associating lexical material (i.e. individual-naming content of nouns) with Person specification (or grammatical Person), hence the head Person is required to search the ontology for an

36. These two positions can be thought of as parallel to T and C in the clausal domain. See Fassi Fehri (1996) for a treatment 37· This form of mapping is intended to replace that of Szabolcsi (1994)/Stowell (1991)/ Longobardi (1994): i.

A 'nominal expression' is an argument only if it is introduced by a category D.

38. Pronouns must merge in that position or move to it. The exponence of Person on pronouns is itself an overt phenomenon. See Vycichl (1957) for arguments that the definite article -u in Amharic is a specific use of the 3rd Pers. Thus beet-u can mean either 'his house' or 'the hous~ Bernstein (2005) claims that th- in English is a third Pers marker, and that D is associated with Pers more generally. Th- never occurs with vocatives.

Chapter 8. Determination parameters in the Arabic and Semitic diglossia

individual to be denoted. Properties are inherently personless, and Person acts as a 'type shifter: hence turning properties into individuals. 39 My system dissociates Person from Individuation. I claim that indefinites are typically associated with Indiv, and they (normally) lack Pers specification. Nonindividuation can be informally described as in (75), in lines with }avez & Tovena (2005): 40 (75)

Non-individuation Information conveyed by a sentence containing an indefinite is rather 'non-referential' (or quantificational), or non-reducible to a situation where the DP refers to an individual.

Person specification is present with definites, which are not incompatible with individuation specification. The basic architecture of the (split) DP system then turns out to be as follows: 41 (76)

DP (Pers/Def) > DP (Indiv/Indef)> NumP > ClP > np

39· The system looks then dose to that of Chierchia's (1998), where D is basically a type shifter. Chierchia (2005) postulates two distinct modes of type shifting for definites and indefinites: i. il.

Definites are free variables (over individuals or choice functions). + DEF shifts freely. Indefinites are 3 closed variables (over individuals or choice functions).- DEF shifts via 3 closure.

40.

Jayez & Tovena (2005, p. 26) provide the following definition of Individuation :

i.

"Given a restriction P and a scope Q, referential individuation consists in selecting an individual or a set of individuals through the kind of property used, in a unique world, to describe such an individual with respect to P and Q~

41· Num = Number; Cl = Classifier; np is the counterpart of vp. See Fassi Fehri (2005a & b) for further motivation.

231

PART III

Clausal structure, silent pronouns, and Agree

CHAPTER9

Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretability of inflection*

Recent growing literature on the interpretation of linguistic expressions articulated in sentential architecture strongly suggests that clauses must be anchored in discourse contexts through temporal/spatial indexicals, including tenses, time adverbs, distal or proximal PPs, deictic or logophoric pronominals, etc. The CP layer is identified as the logophoric center of the clause (Bianchi (2003), Sigurdsson (2004)), or the locus of the Speaker's coordinates (Giorgi (2010), Higginbotham (2009)). Besides, Illocution devices identify sentences as types of speech acts (Rizzi (1997), Cinque (1999)), whereas Modality (epistemic, deontic, etc.) modifies their content (Hengeweld (2004)). Furthermore, relevant temporal information is contributed not only by eventualities (confined to vP), tense/mood/aspect (= TMA) projections (headed by inflection, auxiliaries, or particles), or time adjuncts/adverbs, i.e. time entities (= Tm), but also by arguments or roles across structure layers which are spatial entities(= Sp). While dealing with the design of temporal structure in syntax and discourse, this chapter mainly focus on manifestations of Tm and Sp interactions in the grammar of temporal (and pronominal/anaphoric) reference, and variation of its expression in languages. The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1, I investigate how CP can be taken as the relevant domain for syntactico-semantic finiteness (or clausal 'completeness'; cf. Chomsky (2005, 2006), Rizzi (1997), Platzack (1996), Holmberg and Platzack (1995), among others), or the logophoric/deictic centre of the clause

The material contained here is based on two talks: i. ii.

Finite time inflection and double access construal. Invited talk. Postgraduate Conference at the Univ. ofNewcastle. June 2007. Finiteness, logophors. and double access construal in Arabic. Talk delivered at NACAL 36. March 2008. Chicago.

I would like to thank the audiences there, and acknowledge helpful comments by Anders Holmberg, Nasser el-Horrais, and Charles Haberl.

236 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(Bianchi (2003)). I examine how personal pronouns and temporal adverbs receive a deictic interpretation, and show that logophoric pronouns and double access construal of tenses exhibit parallel characteristics, in the same domain, namely CP (Giorgi (2006), Fassi Fehri (2007d)). A classification of complementizers (Cs) is proposed, to account for their various behaviours. In Section 2, dedicated to Finiteness, the irrelevance of Subject properties for identifying finite clauses is established. Constructions which traditionally exhibit forms of syntactic non-finiteness are examined, namely auxiliary, ECM, raising, and control structures, to see if there is evidence for truncation at TP or vP level (once Cis absent; Adger (2007), Landau (2004)). I show that each of these constructions behaves differently with respect to the relevant properties. For example, auxiliary complements are truncated temporally, but ECM structures are not. control complements are CPs. but ECM constructions are not, etc. In Section 3, tense structures are analyzed, in view of the placement of Person and its temporal interpretation, the cartography of temporal projections, and the Move attraction of v toT (or C), or local Agree.

1.

CP anchoring, double access tenses, and logophors

Tenses and pronouns manifest similar syntactic and semantic behaviours that cannot be accidental (see e.g. Partee (1973); Fassi Fehri (1990) for Arabic). For example, double access construal of tenses and pronouns are found in the same domain of interpretation, and they exhibit parallel characteristics, an unsurprising situation if both Tm and Sp coordinates or features are anchored inC (and/or D). Likewise, pronominal or anaphoric Tense or Inflection both depend on the (non-) logophoric nature ofC (Fassi Fehri (2007d), Giorgi (2010)). In this section, I examine the conditions under which CP can be taken as 'complete!, 'finite: or pronominal, in view of the interpretability of Tense and Subject features (along the lines of Chomsky (2008), and Bianchi (2003), among others). I show that completeness/ finiteness in this sense cannot be strictly cartographic, but rather depends on C features, typically the logophoric feature. The basic idea is stated in (1): (1)

C (if complete) introduces a deictic (or logophoric) Tm (or Tense, liT) and a deictic (or logophoric) Sp (or Person, DeiP).

In simple terms, a semantically complete or finite clause must contain a deictic T and a deictic Person. A phase probe-goal version of the latter statement is (1 '): (1')

Cis complete only if a. its Tm feature is interpretable, and b. its Sp feature is interpretable.

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabllity of infiection 137 1.1

Person double access

As observed by Siewierska (2004), most utterances in discourse are egocentric, in the sense that the situation depicted is presented from the point of view of the speaker. In verbatim reports of utterances of others (i.e. direct speech), the egocentric point of view shifts from that of the current speaker to that of the speaker of the relevant utterance (the utterer), as in the following construction: (2)

Brian said to me yesterday: "I will see you tomorro~

Even in indirect speech reports, it is possible to discern two points of view, that of the current speaker, and that of the utterer of the reported utterance: (3)

Brian said to me yesterday that he would meet me today.

Me is the current speaker. Today reflects the time of the report of the utterance by the speaker, not the time when it was uttered. The point of view of the utterer is discerned in the temporality of would. In English, the dominant perspective in regard to deixis is that of the (current) speaker. Yet in other languages, there is the possibility of changing to that of the utterer of the utterance being reported. The grammatical marking of such a second ego is called logopho1·icity, a term introduced by Hagege (1974). Among several means of expressing logophors, the most common is the use of special pronominal or person forms. The use of long distance reflexives is also strongly reminiscent of logophoric person markers. Given logophoric phenomena, two first persons or egos are (often) involved in the interpretation of the sentence, the person of the matrix speech, and the person of the reported/embedded speech, or that of the non-current speaker. Consider the following Arabic pair of sentences: (4)

qaala-t l-ii

lfataat-u

zinna-nii 1-u/:libb-u-ka

said-F to-me the-girl-NOM that-1 The girl said to me that she likes me. (5)

1a.:-cbara-t-nii

lfa.taat-u

1-like-IND-you

za.nna-haa. t-ul;tibb-u-nii

informed-F-me the-girl-NOM that-her The girl intormed me that she likes me.

F-like-IND-me

In (4), the agent of the matrix speech event (i.e. the first person or ego) is distinct from the agent of the embedded event, whereas the first person in the embedded uttered event in (5) is identical to that of the speech event. As we can also see in the above pair, a different complementizer is used, depending on whether or not a 'direct speech' or ego is uttered in the embedding. For example, with verbs like 'saY, 1inna is used in the relevant sense. Call it a 'logophoric complementizer'.

238 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar The complementizer 1anna, in contrast, is non-logophoric, hence the ungrammaticality of the following construction (which is parallel to (5)): (6)

*zaxbara-t-nii

ljataat-u

1inna-nii z-ul;&ibb-u-ka

informed-F-me the-girl-NoM that-me 1-like-IND-you 1.2

Time double access

The interpretation of so-called deictic (or positional) temporal adverbs also depend on situating their time with respect to the speaker or the utterer. Thus a time adverb like gadan can have a different location in time, depending on whether it is accessing two egos, or just the ego of the speaker, as illustrated by the following pair of constructions: (7)

qaala-t l-fataat-u

zamsi

1inna-haa t-aztii

gadan

said-F the-girl-NoM yesterday that-her 3-come tomorrow The girl said yesterday that she will come tomorrow. (8)

qaala-t l-fataat-u

zamsi

1inna-n-ii z-aztii

gadan

said-F the-girl-NOM yesterday that-1 1-come tomorrow The gir~ said yesterday that li will come tomorrow. In (7), the 'deictic' adverb 1amsi locates the time of the event of 'saying' BEFORE that of the speech event (it is interpreted as now). In (8), however, gadan cannot be so interpreted. The embedded sentence (or CP) has its own first person, and the adverb can only mean TOMORROW, or after the speech event. 1.3

Arabic as a DAR language

Consider the following English and Italian constructions (from Giorgi (2006)), illustrating double access reading(= DAR): (9)

a.

Gianni said that Maria is pregnant

b. Gianni ha detto che Maria e incita. In DAR, the state of pregnancy must stretch from the time of Gianni's saying to the present moment, and the embedded present T must express simultaneity with respect to both the matrix event and the UT event. Thus in order to be

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabllity of infiection 239

located in time, the embedded event accesses both the UT and the matrix ET. According to Giorgi (2010), DAR depends on two syntactically represented features: a bearer-of-attitude feature, and a speaker feature. In most cases, the bearer of the two coordinates is a (superordinate) subject, and this is obligatorily so in English and Italian. DAR is obligatory in English and Italian in view of the fact that (9) "... cannot mean that Mary was pregnant at the time John said it, but that she is no longer pregnant at the utterance time': In non-DAR languages (such as Romanian or Chinese), such an interpretation is available (ibid, p. 13). The obligatoriness of DAR is further corroborated by taking into account the contrast between the interpretation of (10) and the deviancy of (11): ( 10)

a. b.

Gianni said that Maria was pregnant. Gianni ha detto che Maria era incita.

( 11)

a. b.

*Two years ago. Gianni said that Maria is pregnant. *Due anni fa, Gianni ha detto che Maria eincita.

In (10), in addition to a past-under-past interpretation (whereby pregnancy precedes saying), the pregnancy may extend to the present (liT) in the absence of further specification (although not necessarily so). In (11), by contrast, the temporal adjunct specification cannot be compatible with the span of pregnancy (which cannot extend over two years), and the deviancy of the sentence finds its source in the obligatoriness of DAR, requiring that the embedded eventuality be doubly evaluated. In non-DAR languages, the simultaneous reading is possible in both (9) and (10), but not obligatory. To establish that Arabic is a DAR language in Giorgi's sense, a similar reasoning can be adopted. Consider the following contrast (12)

qaala r-rajul-u

Zinna l-marzat-a

l;zaaamiil-un

said the-man-NOM that the-woman-Ace pregnant-NOM The man said that the woman is pregnant. (13)

qaala r-rajul-u

Zinna l-marzat-a

kaana-t l;zaaamiil-an

said the-man-NOM that the-woman-Ace was-F The man said that the woman was pregnant. (14)

""qa.bla sanat-ayni qaala r-rajul-u before year-dual

l-marza.t-a

said

pregnant-Ace

'linna.

the-man-NOM that

l;zaaamiil-un

the-woman-Ace pregnant-NOM Before two years, the man said that the girl is pregnant. In (12), the pregnancy stretches from the moment of saying to now, and it can also extend to now in (13). The construction (14) is deviant because the

240 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

simultaneous reading is obligatory, but there is an incompatibility with the temporal adjunct. 1 1.4

Double access and Mood

As also noted by Giorgi, DAR is sensitive to Mood. With subjunctive, no DAR effects are possible. Consider the following contrasts: (15)

Gianni crede/

*credeva che Maria parta

Gianni believes/ *believed that Maria leaves (16)

Gianni

m~deva

(PRES SUB])

che Maria.

Gianni believed that Maria

partisse (oggi/ieri!domani) left

(PAST SUBJ; today/yesterday/tomorrow).

The contrast indicates that the presence of a present vs. a past subjunctive in an embedded clause depends on the tense of the superordinate clause. It is a form of morphological agreement. There is no DAR. and no temporal relation to be independently interpreted. Giorgi (2006) then appeals to a split C hypothesis to account for the difference: (17)

a. b.

A low C, related to the presence of an embedded subjunctive (called MOOD), is associated with the bearer of attitude coordinate. A high C, appearing with indicative Mood, is associated with the speaker's coordinate.

The proposal accounts for the peculiar semantics of DAR, and the indicative vs. subjunctive distributions. However, it cannot be applied to Arabic as it is, as I will explain. As a first illustration of mood contrasts, consider the following Arabic pair of constructions: (18)

(zamsi)

tamannay-tu. zan t-ugaadir-a gadan

(zamsi, l-za.ana)

(yesterday) hoped- I that 2-go-SUBJ tomorrow (yesterday, now) (Yesterday) I hoped that you (would) go tomorrow. (19)

*tamannay-tu zan d_ahab-ta hoped-[

that went-you

t. Observe that in (13), the embedded T can be interpreted as past, both with respect to Now, the UT, and with respect to the matrix 'saying' event.

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabllity of infiection 241

In (18), the embedded 'moodal' CP has no specified temporality, since it is compatible with any temporal adjunct, locating the leaving as taking place TOMORROW. TODAY, or YESTERDAY. In contrast with (12)-(14) above, the temporal adjunct (as well as T) needs not be evaluated twice, otherwise the construction would have been deviant, due to the incompatibility of the two indexical adjuncts. Note that the ungrammaticality of (19) indicates that there is no 'past agreement' with the subjunctive (or no Sequence of Tense phenomena; SOT) of the kind found in Italian. 2 But even though the subjunctive form is not temporally specified, it supports a distinct temporal adjunct from that of the matrix clause. The locus of deictic anchoring is unique, however, since only the matrix C can be thought of as a logophoric center. In this case, the CP headed by 1an can be thought of as logophorically dependent. But there are contexts where the 'moodal' CP containing 1an is not so dependent. Consider the following form of 'indirect' imperatives, where the speaker is distinct from the utterer of the embedded sentence: (20)

naada-t 1an (u)dxul called- F that come.in She called: "come in".

Note that 1an here is followed by an imperative verbal form. The second Person in the embedding is interpreted only with respect to the embedded ego, which is the utterer. This is not so in the equivalent (21), in which only one ego is involved: (21)

naada-t 1an y-adxul-a called- F that 3-come.in- SUBJ She called him to come in.

Thus, contrary to what Giorgi's statements in (17) seem to suggest, the logophoric dependence of the modal C cannot be simply deduced from cartographic structure. In the next subsections, I will provide some ingredients on which the interpretation ofC depends (being a locus ofTm and Sp features).

2. The deviance is presumably due to the non-satisfaction of the complementi.zer selection, which requires a Mood inflected vP as a complement. See Fassi Fehri (1993, 2005a). Incidentally, a grammatical equivalent of (19) uses another complementizer, which is compatible with the past:

(i)

tamannay-tu law d.ahab-ta 1amsi (''gad-an) hoped-! if went-you yesterday (*tomorrow) I hoped that you would have gone yesterday.

242 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

1.5

Root and logophoric Cs

Giorgi's correlation of the (cartographic) distinction of indicative and subjunctive clauses and temporal dependence is based on the fact that the former are independent (or root), while the latter are non-dependent (or embedded). But as we have seen, the correlation is questionable. First, a distinction can indeed be established between Cs that head root clauses, and those that do not. For example, in Standard Arabic, 1inna is a root C, whereas zanna and its derivatives are not (22)

zinna-n-ii z-u.f:libb-u-ka. that-I 1-lik.e-IND-you Indeed, I like you.

(23)

"""lanna-haa. t-uf:libb-u-n-ii that-her 3-like-IND-me That she likes me.

(24)

*zan (u)dxul that come.in

Likewise, ra is a root C in Moroccan, but belli is not: (25)

ra-ha

ta-t-"/:lebb-ttii

that-her imperf-F-like-me She indeed likes me. (26)

*belli ta-t-"/:lebb-nii that imperf-F-like-me

As observed earlier, the logophoric/non-logophoric distinction is to be kept separate from the root/non-root distinction, as illustrated by the contrast in (20) and (24), with respect to zan. But Zinna differs from zan (and its derivatives) in that it can be root, as in (22), and when embedded, it can be logophoric, as in (8), or non-logophoric, as in (7). A third distinction for complementizers in Arabic has to do with their ability to assign/select either Mood, or Case. Hence the following contrasts between zan and 1anna (and/or 1inna): (27)

zaraada 1an y-a1tiy-a

r-rajul-u

wanted that 3-come-SUBJ the man-NOM He wanted the man to come. (28)

f:lasib-tu

1anna n-nisaa1-a

daxal-na

makaatib-a-hunna

thought-! that the-women-Ace entered-F.PL offices-Ace-their I thought that women entered their offices.

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabillty of infiection 243 (27')

..zaraada zan r-rajul-u y-aztiy-a (ya.ztii) wanted that the man-NOM 3-come-SUBJ (3-come)

(28')

"'/:lasib-tu

zanna. daxala.-t

thought-! that

n-nisa.az-u

makaa.tib-a-hunna

entered-F the-women-NOM offices-Ace-their

A tentative (partial) qualification of these differences can be made in terms of features (log= logophoric; R = root; +M =mood; -M = Case), and stated as follows: (29)

a.

[+log, 0 R, -M]: ?inna;

b. [+log,- R, +M]: ?an; c.

[-log,- R, -M]: ?anna;

The structural difference in terms of cartography of the two CPs is basically as in (30) and (31); (32) recalls the generally assumed cartography of the clause (see especially Rizzi (1997) and Cinque (1999)): (30)

CP

[[Czan] TP [T y-azti-y-ai] vP [[r-rajul-ui]

(31)

CP

[[Czanna]

( 32)

ForceP > TopP 1> FocP > Top P2 > FinP > TP 1> TP 2> vP > VP

FocP

([n-nissaz-ai)

TP [

vP

[DP [ei] v [ei]]]]]

T daxal-nai) vP [ DP [ei] v [ei] ... ]]]]]

Observe that our reasoning was based on the following essential assumptions: (33)

a. b.

Pers(on) and T(ense) are interpreted on C(omplementizer). Pers and T are interpretable ('deictic'), or formal ('anaphoric: or agreement marker).

The definition of Agree is repeated here, for convenience: (34)

2.

Agree (a, ~)if a. a, ~ have matching features b. a closely c-commands ~ (i.e. there is no y with matching features such that a commands y, andy c-commands ~).

Finiteness

Finite verbs has two basic properties: (a) the ability to license a referential subject (usually reduced to the ability to license Nominative), and (b) the ability to have a full or absolute Tense interpretation (not a relative one; Bianchi (2003)). Syntactically, finite inflection is represented in Fin, the lowest head of CP (as in Rizzi (1997); see (32) above), and it encodes the logophoric/deictic information (or features) which anchor both tenses and pronouns. Finite tense is crucially distinguished from non-finite tense by the presence/absence of the Speech Event (or Tm) features on the Fin head. Fin may bear uninterpretable features for tense

244 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

and agreement, responsible for Subject licensing, the eftects of which can be seen when Cis removed, truncating the clause at TP (or vP; (Landau (2004), (Adger (2007)). As a matter of fact, the uninterpretable features of Fin should be divorced from its interpretable features (divorcing morphology from semantics). 3 Deixis can be relativized to internal centres, as in the case of logophoric pronouns. In Arabic, verbs are always morphologically finite. They inflect for tense/mood and subject features. There are no real infinitives, and no participles, but only finite forms which are syntactically ambiguous: they are used in contexts where non-finite forms would occur in Indo-European, in addition to finite contexts. In Indo-European, the finite/non-finite verb inflection is a reliable indicator of the distinction between absolute and relative tenses (Comrie (1985), Eide (2007)). In parallel, it also plays a prominent role in explaining occurrences of overt subjects, expletives, pro, and PRO, and the distribution of referential. anaphoric, or silent types, depending on the occurrence ofboth Subject and Tense, which make a finite clause opaque, or 'complete' (Chomsky (2008)). Fin gives rise to specific interpretation effects in terms of anchoring with respect to event and participant features (Platzack (1996), Holmberg and Platzack (1995)). In Rizzi's (1997) cartography, Fin heads a syntactic node, at the low CP level, which Bianchi (2003) takes to be the locus oflogophoric anchoring. However, finite verbs in Arabic/Semitic are not always syntactically or semantically finite, for the sake of both Sp and Tm anchoring. Verbal inflection is not directly relevant for licensing Subject case, agreement, or overtness. It does not dichotomize Tense/Aspect, or Absolute/Relative T. It does not directly bear on the interpretation of deictic temporal adverbs. Yet syntactic and semantic criteria can be used to identify a finite domain (in addition to morphology), depending on how they are anchored into the distinct C types. logophoric and double access readings being strong finite indicators, whereas Subject properties are weak indicators (at best). 2.1

Subject properties

Various subject properties (case, agreement, overtness) are irrelevant for singling out subjects of finite clauses (including root clauses). Finite subjects can be non-nominative, and subject agreement is not limited to Nominative subjects. The clearly Nominative position is not a complement of C, the standard position

3·

Nicolaeva (2007) proposes that non-finite structures fall in the following types:

a. null subject clauses, including control and raising structures; b. ECM contexts: the subject receives its Case from the main verb; c. Overt non-nominative sub}ects, where Case comes from the complementizer; e.g. 'fof.

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabillty of infiection 145

satisfying the EPP. Furthermore, subject expletives if there are any, cannot be overt (see Chapter 10, and subsection 2.1.4 below). 2.1.1

Cases of subjects

The case of the subject is not an indication of the finiteness of the clause. A number of subjects in independent clauses are non-nominative. They are case-marked by C (as accusative, for example): (35)

zinna r-r-ajul-a.

saqata

that the-man-Ace fell Indeed, the man fell (36)

zinna fiii d-daa.r-i

rajul-a.n

that in the-house-GEN man-Ace Indeed, there is a man in the house. In ECM contexts, the subject of a finite verb is not nominative either; it can be genitive, or accusative: (37)

ka.wn-u

zayd-in

sa.qat-a zaqlaqa-nii

fact-NOM Zayd-GEN fell made.nervous-me The fact that Zayd fell made me nervous. (38)

f:aasib-tu

zayd-an

daxala l-qaa.rat-a

thought-! Zayd-Acc entered the-room-Ace I thought Zayd entered the room. Nominative is essentially confined to a post-verbal position: (39)

saqata r-rajul-u fell the-man-NOM The man fell.

Thus a finite clause does not require a Nominative subject. Moreover, Nominative is not correlated with the verb finiteness. In a CP, the subject is Nominative only with a null declarative C, as in (40): (40)

r-rajul-u

saqata

the-man-NOM fell The man fell. But LD (left dislocated) constituents are also Nominative, although they are not subjects, as in (41): (41)

r-rajul-u

zaqlaq-tu-hu

the-man-NOM made.nervous- I-him The man, I made him nervous.

246 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Nominative then appears to be a 'default case: rather than a case akin to (finite) subjects. 2.1.2

Positions ofsubjects

Subjects occur in post-verbal (or v complement) positions, as in (39), or preverbal (Spec TP. or C complement) positions, as in (40). The only position which is consistently Nominative is complement of v, as observed, and complement of C is only accidentally Nominative. The Nominative and the C-T connection appears then to be clearly associated in Indo-European SVO order (which satisfies EPP), but not in Arabic SVO (which is not necessarily formed to satisfy EPP). Rather, Nominative in Arabic is associated with the C-T connection only through the complement of v (when the order is VSO). This difference is stated in (42): (42)

a.

b.

In Indo-European, Nominative is a complement of C-T. In Arabic, Nominative is a complement of v (which is a complement ofC-T).

As already observed earlier, root clauses, as well as embedded ones, can exhibit non-nominative subject case, although they have subject agreement. 2.1.3

Subject agreement

The agreement of the finite verb with the subject does not make the clause finite, as can be illustrated by the following inchoative structure: (43)

badaza-t l-banaat-u

y-aktub-na

started-F the-girls-NOM 3-write-PL.F The girls started writing. In this construction, the light verb badai-a.t agrees with the post-verbal subject only in Gender, whereas the lower thematic verb agrees with the preverbal in Number (in addition to Gender). But although the upper clause is presumably finite, the lower clause lacks important ingredients of finiteness, as we will see in auxiliary structures. 2.1.4

Expletive subjects

Subject (silent) expletives may or not be postulated in a number of (apparently) VSO constructions (see Chapter 10 for a thorough discussion). Among those, are modal verb constructions: (44)

y-anbagii zan t-aquul-a

l-l:taqq-a

3-prefer that 2-tell-sUBJ the-truth-Ace It is preferable that you tell the truth.

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabillty of infiection 247

Other candidates include raising verb or psych verb constructions: (45)

y-abduu zanna-ka raa4in 3-seem that-you happy It seems that you are happy.

( 46)

raara-nii

zan y-al:uiut.-a

haad.aa

threatened-me that happens-SUBJ this It threatened me that this happened. It is to be noted that no expletives can be postulated with weather verbs, which are typically personal: (47)

za.mtara-t s-samaaz-u rained-F the-sky-NOM It rained.

Pronounced expletives are typically found in 'topic' positions: (48)

Zinna-hu kaana

y-u-tax~amu

Zilaa lA.bii Bakr-in

that-it was 3-PAss-complain to One used to complain to Abii Bakr.

Abii Bakr-GEN

In general, no overt expletive is forced to appear in Subject position to satisfy formal requirements, namely EPP (See Chapter 10 for more detail and interpretation). 2.2

Truncated structures

2.2.1

Raising

Raising occurs when the subject is raised only from a clause which contains no finite verb, hence the following contrast: (49)

bada.a

zayd-zm

qaUq-an

appeared Zayd-NOM nervous-Ace Zayd seemed nervous. (50)

*badaa

zayd-un

y-alrab-u l-kurat-a

appeared Zayd-NOM 3-play

the-ball-Ace

I tentatively interpret this state-of-affairs as meaning that only a CP containing no finite verb can be truncated: (49')

badaa.

(zanna) zayd-a.n

qa.liq-un

appeared that Zayd-Acc nervous-NOM It seemed that Zayd (was) nervous. (SO')

badaa

*(zanna) zayd-an

y-alrab-u l-kurat-a

appeared that Zayd-Acc 3-play It seemed that Zayd plays football.

the-ball-Ace

248 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Due to this requirement, raising constructions are not the optimal context to diagnose truncation properties. 2.2.2

Auxiliary (complex tense) structures

Complex tense structures are formed by using two (or more) finite forms, contrary to their English (or Romance/Germanic) counterparts: (51)

kun-tu katab-tu r-risaalat-a was-I wrote-I the-letter-Ace I had written the letter. But literally: 'I was I wrote the letter'.

(52)

kun-tu z-aktub-u

r-risaalat-a

was-I I-write-IND the-letter-Ace I was writing the letter. Literally: 'I was I write the letter' But although these constructions can be analyzed as hi-clausal (see Fassi Fehri (1993) for arguments), there are reasons to think that the lower clause is truncated to a TP. First a complementizer cannot show up in the lower clause: (53)

kaana r-rajul-u

(*zan) y-aktub-u

r-risaalat-a

was the-man-NOM that 3-write-IND the-letter-Ace The man was (*that) writing the letter. Compare with constructions in which kaada. appears, and requires its complement to be headed by C: (54)

kaada

r-rajul-u

zan

y-a.ktub-a

r-risaalat-a

was.about the-man-NOM that/to 3-write-SUBJ the-letter-Ace The man was about to write the letter. Second, the lower clause cannot support an independent temporal modifier: (55)

kun-tu zamsi

z-aktub-u.

r-risaa.la.t-a

(•gadan)

was-I yesterday I-write-IND the-letter-Ace I was yesterday writing the letter (*tomorrow). This suggests that complex tenses exhibit a clear case of truncation to TP (or vP) in syntax. 4

4· Temporal chains are established in languages via 'agreeing' tenses. In fact T2 (or Aspect) instead of having a non-finite morphology (thereby creating a dependent due to the lack of realization of features) has finite morphology, which is nonetheless dependent The T2/Aspect complexity and dependency is expressed through agreement and anaphoridty. One way to make such finiteness viable is to allow T/Agr to be an anaphor. It is also conceivable that the subject raises from Spec Asp to Spec T on the upper verb, and that T is not found on the

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabillty of infiection 249 2.2.3

ECM

C deletion occurs productively with finite verbs in ECM contexts: (56)

l:aasib-tu

(zanna) zayd-an

daxala l-qaarat-a

thought-! (that) Zayd-Acc entered the-room-Ace I thought Zayd entered the room. Unlike what happens in English, the subject of a finite verb raises to become the object of the upper verb. Contrast the following pair of constructions: (57)

l:aasib-tu-hu

da.xala l-qaara.t-a

thought-I-him entered the-room-Ace I thought he entered the room. (57')

*I thought him entered the room.

But although the embedded clause appears to behave like an infinitive with regard to the subject Case, the lower clause can support an independent temporal modifier: (58)

za.msi

f:zasib-tu

1'-rajul-a

y-aktub-u

yesterday thought-! the-man-Ace 3-write-IND

r-risaalat-a

gadan

the-letter-Ace tomorrow Yesterday, I thought the man will write the letter tomorrow. This suggests that two CPs are involved in the interpretation, contrary to what happens with complex tenses, in e.g (55). I assume that ECM constructions start their derivation with two CPs (one of which is later deleted), while complex tenses have only one CP at the start (of significance in this regard is Kayne's (1993) analysis of ECM and auxiliary structures). 2.2.4 Control In Standard Arabic, obligatory control appears to be limited to deverbal nouns: (59)

z-uriid-u d-duxuul-a I-want the-entering-Ace I want to enter.

lower verb. Auxiliary structures (or complex tenses) may also instantiate truncated structures. The lower verb cannot extendedly project as CP, as diagnosed by the inability to merge distinct temporal adverbs, to modify each verbal projection discriminately.

250

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar When a CP is used, the control is not obligatory, and C deletion is impossible: (60)

a.

b.

1-uriid-u zan 1-adxul-a I-want that I-enter-sUBJ I want to enter. *1-uriid-u 1-adxul-a (1-adxul-u) I-want I-enter-SUBJ (I -enter-IND)

We thus have no clear case of truncation in control structures in Standard Arabic. In Moroccan Arabic, however, a form of a truncated imperfective vP!fP, which is neither C, nor a free TP, is required for obligatory control (note that a past/perfective form is impossible here): (61)

bgi-t n-edxul (*dxal-t) wanted-! I-enter (*entered-!) I wanted to enter.

The structure of Tense

3·

Tense can be conceived as a relational Tm (ordering) predicate which licenses two temporal arguments or Zeit phrases (Zagona (1990), Stowell (1993), among others). Complex tense arises either through two TP projections, TPl and TP2 (as in Giorgi & Pianesi (2007), Stowell (2007)), in addition to one AspP (or vP) projection. Alternatively, it projects only a one TP projection and one AspP projection (as in Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2007), after Klein (1992, 1994)). In both cases, the two temporal projections have basically the same structure, and the same content, although the nature of the temporal arguments differ (basically Event time, EvT, or Reference time, ReiT, which is either Assertion time, AstP. or Utterance time, UT). In essential, both the time event and the time participants are needed to establish the various interpretations (modifiers aside). It is striking that Person is doubly interpreted both with respect to participant roles (e.g. Sp reference), and temporal roles (e.g. Tm reference). For the former, deixis can involve the speaker, the hearer, or a third party (which is neither); for the latter, UT identifies the time of the speaker. Person is then at the juncture of both nominal Person and temporal Person interpretations. 3.1

Tense on T and Person

In Arabic, it is Person placement which essentially distinguishes Present from Past, or Imperfect from Perfect. Person is placed first in one case, and final in the other: (62)

ka.tab-tu r-risa.alat-a. (zamsi) wrote-I the-letter-Ace (yesterday) I wrote the letter.

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabillty of infiection (63)

1-aktub-u r-risaalat-a (l-1aan-a, gadan) I-write-IND the-letter-Ace (now, tomorrow) I am writing the letter.

Person is interpretable when it occurs on finite ('absolute') Tense, because such a specification is needed to locate the evT with respect to the speech T, or UT. But its occurrence on embedded vP/TP in analytic tense constructions is not necessary for such interpretation: (64)

kun-tu katab-tu r-risaalat-a was-I wrote-I the-letter-Ace I had written the letter.

(65)

kun-tu 1-aktub-u r-risaa.la.t-a was-I I-write-IND the-letter-Ace I was writing the letter.

The embedded verbs carry 'relative tense' or 'aspect, which has no autonomous tense interpretation from that of the matrix tense. In this case, Person can be thought of as a bound anaphor, or an agreement marker on the thematic verb, which is not interpreted as establishing a distinct temporal relation with the speaker. But relative Tense does involve a relation between two temporal arguments (although they are not directly located with respect to the speech event), hence the complexity of interpretation of analytic tenses. 3.2

Synthetic. and analytic temporality

The present perfect, although presumably temporally complex. is synthetic, as exemplified in the following construction: (66)

katab-tu r-risaalat-a (l-1aan-a; *gadan) wrote- I the-letter-Ace (now; *tomorrow) I have written the letter (now).

As a matter of fact, (66) is ambiguous between a simple past and a present perfect interpretation; it can be represented in Reichenbachian terms as follows:

(67)

a.

b.

PAST: (ET,) RT < UT PRESENT PERFECT: (ET <) RT, UT

In contrast, the future prefect, as is well-known, cannot be synthetic. It rather combines with an overt present form of the copula, as illustrated in (68): (68)

1-akuunu katab-tu r-risaalat-a gadan l-am wrote-I the-letter-Ace tomorrow-Ace I will have written the letter tomorrow.

251

251

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Consider now another case of synthesis. namely that of the present perfective, exemplified in (69): (69)

jur-tu hungered- I I am hungry.

Assume that these various temporal meanings are hierarchically interpreted in the structure, as represented in (70); note that relative tense projects as TP2, and perfective as AspP. vP being dedicated to telicity: (70)

CP

~

TPl (±Past)

~

TP2 (±Perf)

~

AspP (± Pfv)

~

vP (±Tel)

How can the same form of the (temporally inflected) verb be Past, Present Perfect, or Present Perfective, as we observed? Suppose that the differences are due to the effects of the Move/Agree relations of v with respect to Tl, T2, or Asp. Suppose that in order to get the [±Past] interpretation, v has to move to Tl; if it moves to T2, it is interpreted as Perfect(± Perf); and if it moves to Asp, it is associated with ± Pfv. Note that Present is a default (zero valued) interpretation of Tl. The three essential structures are then tentatively sketched as follows: (71)

Simple past Tl

~

T2

kataba

~

vP

(72)

Present perfect T1

~

0

T2

~

kataba

vP

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabllity of infiection 253

(73)

Present perfective T1

~

0

~

juttu

vP

Three distinct configurations are then found. With simple tenses, the verb is moved to Tl, past T2, whereas with complex verbs, the thematic verb stays in T2, and the auxiliary raises to Tl. With synthetic present perfect, the thematic verb could be staying in T2, but it is involving agreement with an empty Tl, more like what happens with the analytic present perfect. The two verbs may bare different aspects, as evidenced by the overt present perfect, compared to the covert present perfect, yet they cannot be thought of as involving different tenses, as evidenced by deictic adverb collocation. Person there can then be seen as carrying no distinct information, and it is anaphoric with the subject. The Person anaphoricity can be diagnosed through the ungrammaticality of the following complex tense construction, in which two positional adverbs are in conflict: (74)

kun-tu zamsi 1-aktub-u r-risaalat-a (*gadan) was-I yesterday I-write-IND the-letter-Ace I was yesterday writing the letter (*tomorrow).

For more detail on the analysis of tenses, see Chapters 1 & 4. For the sake of this Chapter, I have established the following (partial) descriptions: (75)

a. b.

3·3

distinct values ofTMA features are encoded on v-T chains, and associated via Agree or Move; TMA features are (at least partially) cartographically distributed.

V movement

As already noted, v or T (or more generally TMA) are endowed with Tm and Sp features that can be (un)interpretable on v or C (the sole phase heads in Chomsky's (2008) computation system). Verb classifiers attach to verbs, as noun classifiers attach to nouns, but they are often thought of as (formal) D-class features (Sp in our terms), that are uninterpretable on v (Benedicta (2002), Fassi Fehri (2005b )). Likewise, Number features are often taken to be nominal (or Sp) features, which are uninterpretable on verbs. Such a spread view is disputable, however, once the role of countability/boundedness (associated with ClassifierP), and plural quantity of verbal phrases (associated with NumP or #P) are taken into account. Indeed, strict parallels have been established between nominal and verbal Aktionsart, and nominal and verbal plurality and/or quantity

254 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(cf. Rijkhoff (2002), Fassi Fehri (2011), Laca et al. (2006), Gueron (2008), among others). Furthermore, if Sp and Tm are conceived as architecturally alike, then it is easy to account for the dual role played by Person in the same language for both Tm and Sp anchoring, or as the sole discourse anchor in languages without tense (Ritter & Wiltschko (2008), Wiltschko (2010)). Historically, verb movement has been attributed to two types of "richness" of the inflection. One that dates back to Taraldsen (1979) has it that the richness is nominal (related to phi features), and it correlates basically with null subjects. In the other, richness is in tense ((Rizzi (1982), Vikner (1985)). More recently, Bobaljik & Thrainson (1998) argues for a complex D-T formation for null subject languages (but see also Fassi Fehri (993) on subject pronoun incorporation, as well as Chapter 10), and Biberauer & Roberts (2008) for a complex V-T formation dominated by T (rather than V). Italian has both V movement to rich 'temporal' T, and D movement to rich 'nominaf T, and so are generally subject pro-drop languages (Greek. Spanish, or Arabic, which allow no expletive subjects; see Chapter 10 on more). French has only V to rich 'temporal' T, and noD-to-T, as evidenced by the obligatoriness of expletives in constructions like (76): (76)

*(11) y a une licorne dans le jardin.

English has neither rich nominal nor temporal inflection, and hence no verb or subject Move, but only local Agree. 5• 6 TMA ingredients in Arabic appear on verbs. But there is evidence that v (or V) is displaced (higher) in VSO clauses, past the subject, even when the nominal inflection is poor. The attraction is presumably due to the 'rich' temporal inflection,

5· In Germanic V2, there is an "impoversished tense inflection': although with V -to-C movement in the relevant "root" environments (Roberts (2008) ). Assuming that V-to-C is a further aspect of the V-T Agree relation, let us suppose that the V-component of V2 is triggered by aT-related feature of C. Full V2 involve a "hybrid" C, which is also the locus of Tense (den Besten ( 1983), Vlkner ( 1995) ). The XP movement component is triggered by an Edge Feature (Chomsky (2008)). V2 has then two components (Bibauer & Roberts (2004)). V-to-C has to "pass through" T (by Head movement to C; Holmberg & Platzack (2005)). V2 then entails V-to-T, as an intermediate move (which is derivative; see Chomsky (2008)). V-to Tis unavailable independently ofV2, Germanic V being either in V or inC, but never in T. V2 is automatic when rich T is in C, because both types of richness are involved (as in Bantu; Carstens (2006)). 6.

Note that Emonds' (1978) rule for Aux combines Mood and Tense

i. Aux ~[±Tense, ±Past] ii. [-Tense, +Past]~ {would, could, might, ... } iii. [-Tense,- Past]~ {will can, may, ... }

Chapter 9. Time/space anchors, logophors, finiteness, and (un)interpretabllity of infiection 255

i.e. tense or aspect marked by Person placement, and mood marked by various suffixes on imperfective forms. But V-TMA is interpreted differently, as Aspect, Tense, or Mood with or without Tense, depending on where it raises. A tensed v raisesto Tl for Past interpretation, to T2 for Perfect, to Asp for Perfective, or to C for Illocution or Mood (as in the imperative), etc. But in general, V raises to TMA in Arabic, rather than to C (see Fassi Fehri (1993) for motivation). Moreover, NPs can also raisepre-verbally; past v-T, to a Spec position lower than C. As far as the Past/non-Past, or the Perfect/Imperfect interpretations are concerned, they are basically associated with T, but absolute interpretation is anchored inC, as we have seen. The temporal content of C then interacts with that ofT, but Tis not 'complete' (in the sense of Chomsky (2008)). Even C can be non-complete, in a number of cases. We then separate interpretability; which applies to features, from completeness, which is a property of a category; of which all features are interpreted. Both C and T have temporal features, which may or may not be interpretable. Moreover, Mood can be introduced as distinct information from Tense, which anchors the latter in a 'realis' or 'irrealis' world. I take the subjunctive/indicative/ jussive marking as an additional mark of richness which potentially triggers movement associated with different semantic interpretations. There are then two different reasons to move v/V toT (or C): one for Sp interpretation (the null pronoun subject case, discussed in Chapter 10), and one for Tm interpretation, discussed here. In both cases, the movement is motivated by semantic, rather than formal features, and TIC acts a probe bearing the interpretable feature, whereas vN (or Din) is a goal, having an unvalued feature ofT (or D). The local interactions between v and T, or T and C can also be satisfied through Agree, without Move. For example, v-T interacts in Arabic with C, through Agree, for the Case assigned to the Subject in VSO, and C interacts with v-T for the Case assigned to the Subject in SVO (see Fassi Fehri (2005a) for detail). In Arabic, C is very often opaque/complete for the sake of temporal interpretation, contrary to Romance, where subjunctive (or infinitive) Cis transparent. Arabic C assigns Mood toT, or Case to DR its complement The Case-Agree relation of C and the NP is not Nominative, basically the case ofT, but rather a typical case of C, different from that ofT, namely "accusative':7

7. Recall that Person is at the juncture of both nominal Person and temporal Person interpretation. Person is doubly interpreted both with respect to participant, and temporal roles. Gueron (2008) postulates the existence of two persons in transitives, which she qualifies as spatial and temporal, depending on whether they are found in vP or TP (her psychological domain). There are then two layers of participants involved: a thematic layer, and a speech layer. In fact, the two layers are participant layers in the 1ocal' setting in Sigursson's (2004) sense, rather than in the 'time' setting.

256

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 4·

Summary and conclusion

In this Chapter, I have investigated how space and time information contribute to temporal interpretation and structure, and how the various categories make use of interpretable and/or uninterpretable features. First, I have established that Arabic is a DAR language, that Person and Time can be doubly accessed (in embedded clauses), and that rootness and logophoricity only partially overlap. Second, I have discussed the dual behavior of finite verbs, which may or may not be heading (semantically) finite clauses, or truncated structures. Finally, I have analyzed the structures of tenses and aspects, in terms of Person placement and interpretation, the past/perfect/perfective ambiguities, as well as the motivation ofv toT (or C) movement in terms of (semantic) time interpretation and v-T synthesis. The role of Cas a logophoric centre of the clause (as well as it completeness), CP and vP phasehood, probe-goal valuation, Move/Agree alternations, and cartographic ingredients have been used to implement the analysis postulated.8• 9

8. Appealing contrasts in Mandarin binding contexts are brought in by Giorgi (2010) as an illustration of long distance anaphor anchoring, which mkror similar behaviour in temporal anchoring: (i)

Wo1 dan:tin

Zhangsani hui piping

zlji111

I am worried that Zhangsan will criticize me/himself (ii)

Zhangsan 1 danxin wo/nij hui piping ziji.111 Zhangsan is worried that I/you will criticize myself/yourself/""him.

9· Sigurdsson (2004) observes, on the basis of the following widely observed contrast in tense interpretation of indicatives vs. subjunctives in Icelandic (his (34)) that Mood selection is syntactic by the same standards as pronoun selection: (i)

(ii)

Eg sa al1 hUn f6r. I saw that she left.IND.PAST I saw that she was leaving. Eg vonal11 al1 hUn ftri. I hoped that she left.SUBJ.PAST I hoped that she was leaving/would leave.

He then proposes his model of interpretation based on the computational principle (iii): (iii)

Computation Principle Grammar computes/interprets (propositional) event features (EF) in relation to (p. 7) speech (event) features (SF).

He also postulates grammatical features (GF), which mediate the computation, as schematized in (iv): (iv)

EF ~ GF ~ SF

CHAPTER 10

Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice*

Null subject languages (including Arabic, Italian, or Irish) are known to exhibit a typical 'richness' of their finite inflection, which is associated with a 'pronoun droP, or a silent (non-pronounceable) subject. Standard analyses of this phenomenon take the subject category to be a DP containing a silent pronoun (or pro), although they diverge with regard to which of the two associates (the pro or the I/T inflection) bears the most contentful or interpretable features (see Rizzi (1982, 1986) and Holmberg (2005) for two opposed views). 1 As amply documented in the literature, pro in these constructions is 'referentiaf, or 'definite, in the sense that it is interpreted as a 1, 2, or 3 Person argument. What is striking, though, is that generic or arbitrary ('indefinite') pro interpretations are not available in these null subject languages (NSL), when the 3rd person singular inflection is used. The latter association is rather characteristic of so-called partial NSL, such as Finnish, Hebrew, Brazilian, etc. (see Holmberg (2007)). If the lack of generic pro interpretation in consistent NSL (like Arabic) is not accidental, then it is tempting to establish a (negative) correlation between the consistent NSL property and the

This work has been presented at various occasions, including the Newcastle Leverlhume Lecture series (February 2008), the York Lecture series (February 2008), NACAL 36, Chicago (April 2008), as well as the Linguistic Society of Morocco (Rabat, December 2007). I would like to thank the audiences at these various events, and express my deep gratitude to Anders Holmberg for many fruitful discussions and remruks, and for having contributed actively to create the right environment for linguistics at the University of Newcastle. Thanks are also due to Nadia Amiri, Nasser el-Horrais, Suzan Bardeas, Bernadette Plunkett, and George Tsoulas for helpful remarks. Errors are mine. t. Holmberg (2005) discusses Rizzi's (1986) view of pro, in which pro has (basically) no content, but is rather 'identified' by whatever features are on 1/T, and rejects it in favour of a view in which pro has significant contentful features, which value the uninterpretable features on I/T, rather than the other way round In this Chapter, I follow Holmberg's reasoning. Note that both treatments rely on leading proposals by Chomsky (1982). A competing analysis for pro is the I -subject hypothesis proposed by Borer (1989 ), in which the subject is incorporated! merged onto 1/T. I will not discuss this view here (but see Alexiadou & Agnostopoulou (1998) fora defense of this option; see also Fassi Fehri (1993) for Arabic, as well as Holmberg's recent proposal in which D incorporates into T).

258 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

availability of a generic pro subject. Or conversely. because a partial NSL has a generic (3rd person singular) pro subject. it has no definite pro subject counterpart Note, however, that such a correlation is true only of active sentences. Indeed, generic pro occurs as a 'passive' subject in NSL. What is then needed in practice is to refine the exact nature of the correlation, and provide an integrated account of both 'definite'/'referential' pro (in the sense of Rizzi (1986)) and 'indefinite' (generic or arbitrary) pro (cf. Cinque (1988)). 2 In this chapter, I investigate the nature of the definite/indefinite pro correlation as instantiated primarily by Arabic null subject varieties. I present an analysis of silence which crucially depends on Person specification and licensing. I propose that pro in NSL merges as a 'topic' Spec endowed with a Person specification which values the person feature on inflection. The properties of inflection then reflect the hidden features of the silent pronouns, and deficient pronouns are not pronounced. Moreover, pronominal deficiency is shown to be the core property of (passive) Voice, and impersonal passive differs from personal passive in requiring a Spec of Voice. The analysis assumes a minimalist probe-goal framework (Chomsky 2001, 2008). In Section 1, I examine the referential/non-referential pro correlation. In Section 2, I discuss some properties of non-referential pronouns. In Section 3, I present an analysis of referential pro. In Section 4, I provide an account of passives and impersonals. In Section 5, I address the issue of expletives and EPP. Finally, I turn to some consequences and predictions in Section 6.

1.

The referentiaVnon-referential correlation

NSL like Arabic are known to make massive use of silent subject pronouns when the inflection on the verb is rich enough to induce the right pronominal interpretation. Hence in (1)-(3), the verbal inflection (in bold) is associated with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd personal pronoun, respectively. although the pronoun there is not pronounced: (1)

z-a.ktub-u.

r-risaalat-a.

1-write-IND the-letter-Ace I am writing the letter.

1. Various terminologies are used to designate the dichotomy: referential/non-referential, definite/indefinite, or personal/impersonal. I will use these terms interchangeably, although none of them are satisfactory, as we will see.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 159

(2)

t-aktub-u 2-write-IND You are writing.

(3)

y-aktub-u 3-write-IND He is writing.

What is less known, however, is the fact that the inflection of the 3rd person, supposedly a non-person, must ONLY be associated with a referential or definite pronoun, and cannot be non-referential or generic: (4)

y-azkul-u hunaa He is eating here ... One eats here.

It cannot mean something like English 'one: or French 'on': (5)

On mange ici.

Thus the third person inflection on the verb cannot be associated with an interpretation of an indefinite pronoun. For concreteness sake, I assume that the referential 3rd person is a specified person, which I identify as +3R (R for referential), or more simply 3. I interpret 3 as combining the negative values given in (6): (6)

3=[-1,-2]

As for the generic third person pronoun in (5), it is typically not specified for any person (contrary to the third pronoun in (4)). It is not a (designated) 3, 1, or 2. Let us associate it with [0 Person], or more simply 0. In consistent NSL, third person inflection can be associated only with 3, not 0 pronouns. Holmberg (2007) has observed that in languages like Finnish, which are only partial (or non-consistent) NSL, the subject third person pronoun can be null in precisely the contexts in which it cannot be in Arabic, contexts like (7): (7)

Tiissii istuu mukavasti here sits comfortably One can sit comfortably here.

In these constructions, the interpretation is limited to that of a generic pronoun, basically [0] in my system.3

3· Holmberg (p.c.) provided me with an even striking minimal pair to instantiate the contrast, found in Brazilian and European Portuguese, respectively(= BP and EP): (i)

Assim que faz

o

doce.

is thus that makes the sweet

26o

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Hohnberg attempted to relate the two kinds of pronoun deficiency observed in consistent NSL and partial NSL through an inverse or negative correlation between the occurrence of referential pro, (my [3 Pers]), and that of generic pro, (my [0 Pers]), as follows: (8)

a. b.

If a language has a null3rd person referential subject, it does not have a null generic one. If a language has a generic null subject, it does not have a null3rd referential one.

This correlation which establishes a complementarity of the two null subjects is essentially correct, and it accounts nicely for the distribution of silent pronouns in NSL. It straightforwardly captures e.g. the difference in interpretation between Arabic and Finnish third person pros, or between European and Brazilian Portuguese silent pronominals. But the correlation is in need of refinement. In languages like Arabic, it is not true that the silent generic or arbitrary pro is not found. Rather, it is conditioned by the use of a passive form of the verb, as in (9): (9)

y-u-jlas-u. hunaa wa.qt-a l-istiraal;aat-i 3-PASS-sit-IND here time-ACC the-brake-GEN One sits here at brake time.

The construction (9) is structurally equivalent to (7). It does not support a byphrase, and its hypothesized syntactic indefinite pro subject has the properties described above (see also Section 4 below for more properties). But this kind of pro interpretation is found only with passive forms. If this is so, then Hohnberg's correlation in (8) is in need of refinement. Thus it is not the case that consistent NSL do not have a generic (or arbitrary) pro. They do, although only in the passive Voice. Consequently. (8) cannot be read with an inverse value, in a bi-directional way. as in (10): (10)

IfL has [a ref pro]++ L has[~ GEN pro], where a,~ have+ or- values, and a*~·

a. b.

BP: This is how onef*he makes the dessert. EP: This is how he/*one makes the dessert.

Note that in order to express the generic meaning, EP will use the overt impersonal pronoun se: (ii)

Assim que se faz o doce.

These contrasts shed light on the Arabic case. Arabic exhibits distributions like those found in EP, which differ significantly from BP patterns.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 261

This is so because there is another part of the description which is missing here, which has to account for the 'on' use of passive in Arabic, more like what is happening with French 'on: or Finnish 3rd sing inflection. Likewise, in a consistent NSL like Irish, a form of passive, termed the autonomous form, is also dedicated to the indefinite pro (McCloskey 2007):

( 11)

Gaeilge a labhartar

anseo

Irish c speak[PRES-AUT] here It is Irish that people speak here. In order to account for referential and non-referential pro distribution and variation, we then need to articulate a complex theory of silent pronouns which investigates how the licensing of pro depends not only on Tense, but also on Voice. As I will show, this theory is partly based on the following assumptions:

( 12)

a.

b.

Definite/referential pros in consistent N SL arise as 'topics' (re-)Merged to a 'rich' T, which they Agree with. T carries an unvalued{± 1, ± 2} Pers. Indefinite/non-referential pros in consistent NSL arise as 'topics' (re-) Merged to a 'rich' Voi(ce). Voi carries an unvalued [0Pers].

The chapter will make use of Agree as a probe-goal relation, construed as follows: 4 (13)

Agree (a,~) if a, ~ have matching features a closely c-commands ~(i.e. there is no y with matching features such that a commands y, andy c-commands ~); or~ closely c-commands a a and/or~ has unvalued F.

Impersonals/indefinites

2.

2.1

Arabic

Generic (impersonal) meanings can be expressed via 'we' 1pl (inclusive), 'you' 2sg (non-exclusive or potentially inclusive), 2pl (exclusive), and 3pl (exclusive): (14)

barda l-xusfab-i

t-ajid-u

zanna l-zasraar-a

rtafara-t

after the-speeches-GEN 2-find-IND that the-prices-Ace went.up-F After speech, you will find that the prices have gone up.

4· For the relevance of closest c-comrnand for Agree, see especially Chomsky (2000) and Carstens (2005). See also Fassi Fehri (2005a). For the bidirectional part, see Baker (2008b).

262

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(15)

fii Nahraaz-i y-ui:Jibb-u.u-na. s-saay-a

l-muJ;tallaa

in the-sahara 3-lik.e-PL-IND the-tea-Ace the-sugared In the Sahara, they like sweet tea. (16)

mina l-xafa.z-i

zan n-astashil-a

l-1;tuluul-a

of the-mistake to we-easy-subj the-solutions-Ace It is a mistake to think that the solutions are easy. The meaning of the pronoun is basically 'people in generaf (I and you included, or excluded). The use of lsg or 3sg is notably excluded in this interpretation. The 3sg generic (impersonal) is expressed only via a form of passive: (17)

y-u-tax~amu

(18)

y-u-sba"l;tu

Zilaa zabii bakr-in 3-PASS-complain to Abii Bakr People complain to Abii Bakr.

hunaa bi-duuni muqaabil-in

3-PAss-swim here without counterpart One swims here without paying. The following descriptive statements are then true of Arabic: (19)

a. b.

Active 3rd sg inflection cannot be associated with a generic pronoun. Only passive 3rd sg inflection can be associated with a generic pronoun.

Due to the variation observed above in interpreting the various generic pros, it is reasonable to think that passive 3sg inflection is associated with the most general pro, interpreted as general number, general person, and general clusivity. Assuming that generality is a specification which has a [0] value, we can confidently propose that the inflection in (17), basically [y-u], is associated with a generic pro, which has the following description:5 (20)

Generic pro ([y-u]): [0 Number, 0 Pers, 0 Clusive].

5· The complex [y-u], which associates the phi part [y-] and the passive part [-u-], is used here for the generic inflection, to avoid confusion with the simple 3rd person infl.ection [y-], found with actives. Clusivity refers essentially to a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first -person pronouns. E.g. inclusive 'we' includes the addressee (it means "you and 1"), while exclusive 'we! excludes the addressee (although it can mean "'he/she and I"). See Cysouw (2003), 101-165, among others, for detaiL

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 263 Note that in addition to the previous intransitive uses which induce 'impersonal' generics, transitive impersonals are also found: (21)

wa.-y-u-xraj-u

la-hu

yawm-a. l-qiyaama.t-i

kita.ab-an

and-3-PASs-bring-IND to-him day-Ace the-resurrection-GEN book-Ace And someone will bring to him a book the day of the resurrection. Moreover, the use of the passive inflection with episodics yields a quasi -existential reading: 6 (22)

gu.nir-a

bi-naa

trapped-PASS-3 with-us Someone trapped us. We were trapped. (23)

y-u-nta4aru

za.n y-urla.n-a

ran

3-PASS-e.xpect that 3-PASS-announce-subj on

taJkiil-i

l-f:tukuumat-i

formation the-governrnent-GEN People expect that the formation of the government will be announced. Note also that the construction is also used for middle and modal readings: (24)

a.

sayz-un

laa

y-u-~addaq-u

thing-NOM not 3-PASs-believe It is an unbelievable thing.

b.

f:tarr-un

laa y-u-(.aa.q-u

heat-NOM not 3-PASS-bear It is an unbearable heat. The article will concentrate on the generic 3sg interpretation only, leaving the other interpretations aside?

6. Arbitrary meaning is expressed by 3pl only (see (15)). It means basically 'some people' (excluding participants). 2sg cannot be arbitrary (the generic including the addressee), 1pl can be generic inclusive like 'orf, and 2pl is exclusive: (i)

barda 1-xutab-i t-ajid-uuna 1anna 1-zasraar-a rtafar-at after the-speeches-GEN 2-find-PL that the-prices-Ace went.up-fem Contrary to what officials claim, prices constantly raise up.

7. Middle interpretation may not require the actual presence of a pro subject, as might be the case in (24). On middles, see Hale & Keyser (1987).

264 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

2.2

Comparison with French, Finnish, Irish, and Italian

Egerland (2003) distinguishes three distinct readings of the French impersonal on, he calls generic, arbitrary, and specific, respectively: 8 (25)

a.

On doit

travailler jusqui:l

ON must work b.

On a

two

(generic)

of 65 years.

travaille pendant deux mois

ON has worked for

le

lage de 65 ans.

until the age

pour resoudre

months to

solve

probleme.

(arbitrary)

the problem. c.

Hier

soir

on

Yesterday evening ON

a ete congedie.

(specific)

was fired.

In (25a), the reading of on is roughly 'people in general'. In (25b ), the intended reading is roughly 'some people: and in (25c) it is 'we. In English, the generic reading is encoded by one or you, the arbitrary reading by they, and the specific reading by we. Finnish does not have an overt generic pronoun corresponding to English one, French on, German man, or Italian si. The Finnish counterparts to English, German, etc. constructions with a generic pronominal subject have no overt indication of a subject at all, as in (7) above. The counterparts to the three readings of 'on' are distributed over two impersonal constructions that Holmberg (2007) calls the generic subject construction, GSC, and the (so-called) passive. The GSC has only the generic reading, while the passive has arbitrary or specific reading. (26)

Taallii saa tyi:ita jos puhuu saksaa here gets work if speaks German You get a job here if you speak German.

(generic)

(27)

Tiiiillii puhutaan saksaa here speak-PASS German German is spoken here/They speak German here.

(arbitrary)

(28)

(Me) puhutaan saksaa we speak-PASS German We speak German.

(specific)

8. Note that this terminology differs from that of Cinque (1988). Egerland's generic and arbitrary readings correspond to two readings of 'arbitrary pro' (pro arb) in Cinque's terms: the quasi-universal and the quasi-existential readings, respectively.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 265

In Irish, the three readings are also found. In (11) above, the autonomous inflection is associated with a quasi-generic reading, in (29) with an existential reading, and in (30) with a quasi-specific reading (see McCloskey (2007)): 9 (29)

Leriodh

drama.i leis

san

Abbey

produce[PAST-AUT] plays by-him in-the Abbey Plays of his were produced at the Abbey. (30)

Bhi se an-deireanach faoim am was it very-late

ar fagadh

an

by-the time c leave[PAST-AUT] the

Castle agus a ndeaachthas

abhaile

Castle and c go[PAST-AUT] home It was very late by the time people left the Castle and went home. As for Italian, it clearly exhibits consistent NSL properties. For example, it uses an impersonal pronoun si, to designate an unspecified group of people, whereas the 3rd pers inflection is exclusively associated with a silent definite subject (see Cinque (1988), and Rizzi (1982); examples from D'Alessandro (2004), p. 2; glosses adjusted by me): (31)

Si mangia troppo ON eat-3 too much People eat too much.

(32)

Mangia troppo eat-3 too much He/ she eats too much.

Leaving aside the various distributions of readings in these languages, what is important is that Arabic, unlike Finnish or French (and more like Irish and Italian), has no generic or arbitrary reading of the 3rd Person, without appeal to the passive Voice. Irish clearly patterns with Arabic, since the autonomous 3rd sing form, traditionally analyzed as a passive, is dedicated to these arbitrary/generic uses. Italian shares with Arabic the non-availability of generic interpretation with 3rd Person singular inflection.1o

9· In fact, a more accurate translation would be: 'Some people produced plays of his at the AbbeY. to. Although D'Alessandro (2004) assumes that si has a 3rd person feature (see e.g. p. 42), she proposes to treat si with a 'disjunctive value: in the sense of Weschler & Zlatic (2001), which is equivalent to my [0] value. This valuation of si is in line with Cinque's (1988) proposal that si holds a generic person feature, that is a [0Pers] in my system, rather than 3. See Footnote 29 for further discussion.

266 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar 2.3

The human feature

One feature of meaning which typically distinguishes impersonal from personal passives is the feature [+ human]. And although the traditional terminology uses the term 'impersonal passive' to designate these constructions, it is not clear that the construction is impersonal or passive. 11 For example, so -called impersonal passives require in their interpretation the presence of an indefinite human agent, rather than a subject which the passivised intransitive predicate would select semantically (such as 'canine' for 'bark'): (33)

Zapukano-no

do drzwi

bark-PASS. part[ +hum] at door There was barking at the door. (34)

An der Tur

(Polish; Frajzyngier (1982))

wzmle gebellt

at the door was barked At the door there was a human barking. (German; Abraham & Leiss (2006)) (35)

Qui si abbiaa tutto il

giorno

here SI barks all the day Here people bark all day long. (36)

ruqi~-a.

(Italian; D~essandro (2004))

hunaa.

danced.PASS here Some people (*bees) have danced here

(Arabic; Fassi Fehri (1998b))

Likewise, the new impersonal passive of Icelandic described by Maling (2006) exhibits similar properties, and refers to a human participant: (37)

Pa.d var flautalJ it was whistled People whistled.

Maling (2006, p. 216) observes that "The understood agent of the impersonal passive can only be interpreted as a human. Even though the subject of the verb 'whistle' can be many things, including teakettles or trains': A similar constraint is reported by Engdahl (2006) for Swedish (morphological) s-passives (see Siewierska (2005) for more coverage, as well as Haspelmath (1990)).

u. The issue is amply discussed in e.g. Frajzyngier (1982), Blevins (2003), and Abraham and Leiss (2006), among others, who reach equivalent conclusions, although their frameworks are different from mine.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 267

In contrast, personal passives are not so restricted: (38)

zukila

kull-u

t-tuffaal;l. -i

ate.PASS all-NOM the-apples-GEN All apples were eaten (dogs may have eaten the apples).

It is presumably the case that the [+human] value is a default (range) associated with Person. Cardinaletti & Starke (1999) provide a detailed discussion of this feature value, and motivate its default character. They observe that generics, but not impersonals, can occur in the strong form of pronouns, as in the following French contrast (their (32 a & b), p. (157): 12 (39)

a.

(*Eux) ils

m' ont

vendu des

(They) they me-have sold liV1"eS

ecornes.

books rotten b.

some

Les temporaires, (eux) ils

(impersonal 3PL)

me vendent toujours

The temporaires (they) they me sell

always

des livres tcornes. books

rotten

Temporary staff always sell me damaged books. They then conjecture that generics and referential pronouns share some property/ range associated with the subject, as in (40), (their (34) adjusted): (40)

Generic and referential subjects are always associated with a range restriction (impersonals and expletives never).

Not being associated with a range seems to be the appropriate formulation ofbeing referentially (and structurally) deficient. Strong pronouns bear their own range restriction, whereas deficient pronouns are rangeless (or associated with the range restriction of an element prominent in the discourse). They then speculate that [+human] reference is the feature always associated with strength. It is also the default range of human language. I concur here (at least partly) with their results. 13

The generic/impersonal terminology distinction made here might be confusing. In (39a), 'ils' extend to some unspecified people (a kind of existential reading), whereas ils in (39b) is generic, in the sense that any 'temporaire' is included

12.

Structurally, the referential features attributed to the highest functional projection of noun phrases (which they take to be CP) are referential indexes. Deficient, but not strong pronouns, lack CP and thus lack a referential index. The exclusion of strong pronouns from expletives and impersonals follows. Having no C, deficient pronouns contain no [+human] specification, and are thus free to co-refer with any antecedent. C needs not contain two

13.

:168 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Referential pro

3·

3.1

A topic approach

Consider the following sentences: (41)

t-aktub-na 2-write-F.PL You (f pl) write.

(42)

zantunna t-aktub-na you.F.PL 2-write-RPL You (f pl) write.

I claim that (41) has basically the same structure as (42), except that the topic pronoun is not pronounced in the former. 14 The topic shows up again when it is attached to a complementizer: (43)

linna-kunna t-aktub-na that-you.RPL 2-write-F.PL Indeed, you (f pl) write.

distinct sets of features: index/range and human. InC, a [±human] feature can be seen as part of the features which constitute range. In fact, [+human] is a default range feature (pp. 158-9). C still contains two distinct features: index and case, K. In fact, index is not a feature beside.s K inC, but rather i11dex is the interpretation of K. (pp. 187-190). Cardinaletti & Starke take the interpretation of impersonals to be always arbitrary, associated with a default set of features, including [+human] cross-linguistically (a range in the present assumptions). Arbitrary has both range and theta-role, expletive neither. Bearing a theta-role implies having range. If the deficient arbitrary has a theta-role, but no range in syntax, a default range is inserted at the (post -syntactic) semantic interface: [+human] (n. 59, p. 225). I reinterpret Cardinaletti & Starke's observations about range by stating that pro impersonals, arbitrary and generic have C/D (and hence range), and their human value is assigned by default. Strong pronouns have specified C/D. The [+human] value, I assume, is associated with [ +Pers], which bears a theta-role. But contra C & S, strength is not a property of generics, as evidenced by the behaviour of Arabic silent generics. 14. I use the term 'topic' here tentatively. The latter occupies a pre-verbal Jr. position which may not be dedicated only to the discourse function 'topic' (see Fassi Fehri (1993) for evidence that this position is not limited to standard topics). As a matter of fact, the pronoun in (42) may be a (unstressed) topic, or a (stressed contrastive) focus. On the other hand, it may sound awkward to think of expletives as topics in terms of information structure. In the worst case, topic is a cover term for whatever nominal constituent shows up pre-verbally, and satisfies a form of EPP, hence requiring T to have a Spec. But see Section 5 below for an alternative analysis.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 269

The ungrammaticalityof (44) confirms that there must be a silent pronoun in (41), satisfying a form of EPP, since an expletive cannot be inserted in this context: ( 44)

*Zinna-hu t-aktub-na that-it

2-write-F.PL

Note that an expletive topic is compatible with a generic pro, as in (45): (45)

Zinna-hu

y-utax~amu

Zilaa zabii bakr-in

that-it 3-PAss-complain to Abii Bakr Indeed, people complain to Abii Bakr. These contrasts suggest that the referential pro in (41) is higher than T, not lower, as in the case of non-pronominal VS subjects: ( 46)

jaa:za-t l-banaa.t-u came-F the-girls-NOM The girls came.

I assume that the lexical subject here does not satisfy EPP. Hence an expletive topic can be inserted there: (47)

Zinna-hu jaaza-t l-banaat-u that-it came-F the-girls-NOM Indeed, the girls came.

The expletive topic in (47) does not agree with the subject in (almost) any feature, except (optionally) Gender. No Definiteness Restriction (DR) is observed there, contrary to what is found normally with subject expletive chains. In (42), the pronoun has either moved or re-merged, after having first merged as Spec of vP, and the agreement/resumption is spelled out on T/L The same is true when a lexical subject is merged as a topic in Spec TP: ( 48)

l-banaat-u

y-aktub-na

the-girls-NOM 3-write-F.PL The girls write. The outer position (Spec T) has been taken to be an A' -position by Fassi Fehri (1981, 1988a), in a sort of CLD (clitic left dislocation). If that analysis is correct, DP or pro there is satisfying a form of EPP, contrary to the subject in VSO. That preverbal subjects in NSLinvolve CLD has been notably argued by Barbosa ( 1995) and Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998). 15

15. DR amounts to a restriction that the thematic subject of a sentence beginning with an expletive like there be an indefinite noun phrase (or a weak noun phrase). Relevant gramm.aticality contrasts are well-known. Chomsky (1995) makes the proposal that DR can be

270

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

One relevant test for CLD has to do with the positioning of adverbs. In a SVO language like French, a number of adverbs cannot intervene between S and V, unlike the situation in Arabic: (49) (SO)

*Jean probablement a rencontre Marie.

r-rajul-u

galibammaa y-a.ktubu s-sirr-a

the-man-NOM often-that 3-write The man often writes poetry. (51)

*y-aktubu galibammaa r-rajul-u 3-write

(52)

r-rajul-u

often-that

the-poetry-Ace

s-sifr-a.

the-man-NOM the-poetry-Ace

y-aktub-u ramd-an

s-sifr-a

the-man-NOM 3-write deliberately-Ace the-poetry-Ace The man deliberately writes poetry. The ungrammaticalty of (51) confirms the validity of the adjacency requirement of V and Sin Arabic, rather than Sand V. The fact that SV adjacency does not hold, as in (50), suggests that the preverbal constituent there does not behave as a subject. A second test is that indefinites in preverbal position receive an unambiguous interpretation, compared to those in post-verbal position: (53)

baqarat-un t-unriS-u

kull-a

qaryat-in

cow-NOM 3-mak.e.alive every-Ace village-Ace A cow makes alive every village. (54)

t-unris-u baqarat-un kull-a qaryat-in

In (54), the indefinite can be non-specific and distributive, while the indefinite is rigidly specific (and collective) in (53). The unambiguous scope is a property of CLD topics, not of subjects. Note that a subject can be sandwiched between two inflected verbs, hence providing an antecedent for the rich inflection when in a complex tense configuration, as in (55): (55)

ka.ana-t l-banaa.t-u y-aktub-na was-F the-girls-NOM 3-write-F.PL The girls were writing.

accounted for via a split syntax of D and its (post -verbal) nP associate. See subsection 5.1 for more discussion. As for EPP, I assume that it is satisfied only by a constituent (overt or covert) which is placed in Spec Iff.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 271

In this case, rich inflection occurs only on the lower verb, as a consequence of the subject being preverbal. The rich inflection can also double on the two verbal heads, as in (56): (56)

kun-tunna

t-aktub-na

were-you P.PL 2-write-F.PL You were writing. I assume that pro here has re-merged twice, to value the Person features of both Ts. 16 3.2

A Probe-Goal implementation

Following a quasi-general consensus, let us assume that constructions such as (41) have syntactically projected null subjects or pros. According to Rizzi (1986), pro is inherently unspecified for feature values. Its distribution is regulated by a licensing condition and a recovery (or identification) condition. But as observed by Holmberg (2005), such a theory of pro cannot be maintained in current minimalist theory, which makes essential use of the distinction between interpretable and uninterpretable features (ct~ Chomsky (1995)). He then hypotheses that the null subject is specified for interpretable features, values the uninterpretable features of I/T, and moves to (or re-merges in) Spec IP/TP, just like any other subject. The nullness of the subject is then essentially a phonological matter: it is a pronoun that is not pronounced. In line with this reasoning, I propose that the basic structure for a construction like (41), containing a silent referential pro, is as follows (i for interpretable, u for uninterpretable): TP

(57)

~

Proi iPers

T'

~ T vp uPers ~ Proi

VP

~

t-aktub-na

t6. See Fassi Fehri (1993; Chapter 3, and 2007) for discussion of complex tenses, as well as Chapters 1 & 4. For adverb placement, see Alexiadou (1997), among others.

272

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

In this structure, pro is merged first in its theta-position, as Spec vp, andre-merged as a topic in SpecTP. It is the latter pro which values the unvalued Pers feature on

TP This structure comes close to the structure assumed by Holmberg (2007, p. 7), according to whom a subject in a consistent NSL is a
TP

~

T U

vp

~


TP

~

~

T 3sg D

vp

~


The important difference is that T in (57) has no interpretable pronominal feature. Rather, Pers (or Din Holmberg's analysis) appears as unvalued on T. Moreover, the valuation is downward, rather than upward, compared to that in (58), where

Shlonsky (2008) observes that the implication of taking the phi-features on T to be uninterpretable is, as Holmberg (2005) pointed out, that these features cannot be used to license or identitY the features of a null subject (e.g. in the sense of Rizzi (1986) ). Indeed, the minimalist perspective on T's phi features has the consequence of reversing the licensing relationship: one should now ask how the features ofT are valued by a null subject, and not how T licenses or assigns values to the features of the (null) subject.

17.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 173

who adopt her approach, assume that it applies more generally to consistent NSL. and that the matching relation between the null topic and the null subject crucially involves the F-features ofT. The topic then values the uD-feature ofT, and uD copies the referential index of the topic, hence making the nominal category definite (assuming that a referential index is what makes the category definite). My analysis concurs in essentials with the new analysis of Holmberg's et al., given that both analyses postulate a higher antecedent for whatever unvalued feature on Tis relevant (D or Pers). Details of implementation aside, the two analyses differ with regard to the identity of the salient feature involved: is it D or Pers? I will persist in assuming that it is Pers and its scale of (under)specification which provides room for the variation involved. 18

'Passive', 'impersonal: 'indefinite'

4·

No significant attempt is available in the literature to provide a unified (or even partially unified) treatment of impersonal and personal passives. Recently, Collins (2005) proposed a new version of the 'Case absorption' thesis to treat the personal passive: 19 (59)

a.

active: - v assigns external theta-role & - v checks accusative

b.

passive: - v assigns external theta-role & -Voice checks accusative

This sort of analysis deals essentially with the 'promotion' part (of the object), as a consequence of the absorption of the accusative case by Voice. The 'demotion' part of the passive, which is the common denominator of impersonal and personal passives, is not taken into consideration.

The issue whether it is Pers or D which is behind the distinction or variation is not easy to set up. For example, one issue is whether third person pronouns are really 3rd person, as conceived here, or only definite pronouns, with no person (see Kratzer (2007), Benveniste (1966) for the latter view, and Heim (2007, 2008), Nevins (2007) for the former). It is possible that the Number/Person syncretism found in pronouns (of the sort discussed in e.g. Weschler (2004)) can be easily accounted for if pronouns are treated as Pers, rather than Ds, since no such syncretism is found with non-pronominal DPs. See Footnote 31 for furtherdiscussioiL

18.

The case absorption theory of passive has been defended by Jaegli (1986) and Baker, Johnson, & Roberts (1989). The theory of Voice developed here has an early origin in Fassi Fehri (1988b). See also Ouhalla (1991) for a similar treatment. The theory is not based on case absorption. 19.

274 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

If impersonal and personal passives are treated on a par, then the characterization of Passive cannot depend essentially on absorption of (accusative case) as a core property, since impersonal transitives do not share such a property. As a matter of fact, Passive involves, after all, a weakening of the 'referentiality' of the subject pronoun, which is encoded on Voice inflection. Assuming that passive Voice has a subject pro (which remains unpronounced), the latter must be carrying only a weakly specified Person. But the Person specification with 'impersonal' passive must be stronger, compared to that of 'personal' passive, since an impersonal construction prevents the promotion of the object (hence giving rise to transitive impersonals). But Pers there is not strong enough, to check EPP, or to prevent expletives from surfacing as topics, as is the case with referential pro (see the contrasts (44) and (45) above). I assume then that impersonal passives has a pro which is marked as [0 Pers], in lines with the proposals made above. If a silent pronominal subject is to be postulated in the syntactic structure of passives (see Baker, Johnson, & Roberts (1989)), then such a pro is syntactically more active in impersonal than in personal passives. In the former case, it has more 'referential' content, and hence can bind anaphors: (60)

y-u-tasa.llalu. fard-an fard-a.n rabra l-f:rawaajizi 3-PASs-infiltrate individual-Ace individual-Ace across the-barriers dafimiina bar4-un barfan supporting-PLAce each-NoM each-Ace People will infiltrate through barriers, supporting each other.

Here the silent pro binds the reciprocal. It also controls the secondary predicate (which is plural. Further examples of control of secondary predication are given in (61) and (62): (61)

y-u-n(alaqu rukuub-an min hunaa 3-PASS-depart riding.PL-ACC from here People will depart riding (horses) from here.

(62)

kaana y-u-ltaa lilayhi furaadaa wa-jamaaraatin was 3-PAss-come to-him individuals and-groups People were joining him, as individuals and as groups.

Furthermore, impersonal passives can control internal anaphora. Thus an internal reflexive can be made impersonal but it remains controlled by the subject pro: (63)

y-u-g-t-asal-u hunaa 3-PASS-ref-wash-IND here One washes oneself here.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 275

Such properties are not found with personal passives. For example, their silent pronoun cannot control secondary predication: (64)

*? y-u-zkal-u t-tuffaal;r.-u furaadaa wa-jamaaraatin 3-PAss-eat the-apples-NOM individuals and-groups Personal passives cannot bind anaphors either:

(65)

y-u-gsal-u *nafs-u-hu/*nafs-a-hu hunaa 3-PAss-wash-indic self-NoM-him/self-Ace-him here Intended to mean: "it washed himself here".

Although it has been proposed that the implicit argument in personal passives has properties akin to arbitrary PRO (see Baker, Johnson, & Roberts (1989)), it is clearly referentially weaker than the pro involved in impersonals, as we have seen by various tests. Moreover, it does not (normally) have the human property, nor any of the clusivity interpretation amply attributed to the impersonal in the literature (see e.g. Moltmann (2006), Holmberg (2007), Cabredo Hofherr (1999, 2006)). The differences in interpretation can be taken into account if we assume that the impersonal in Arabic is a pro specifier ofVoi(ce), whereas the personal passive is a complement pro of Voi(ce ). The impersonal passive then has basically the following structure:20 (66)

a.

VoiP

b.

~ Voi uPers

~

..!!:'

/ Pro 0Pers

VoiP

~

VP

Proi 0Pers

Voi'

~ Voi vp 0Pers

~

Proi

VP

Passive merges as a head, then triggers re-Merge of pro (when impersonal). I assume that Voice has an unvalued Pers, which prompts re-Merge. Valuation takes place downward, as in the case of topic agreement. This form of Agree with Voice, I assume, is limited to languages with 'impersonaf passives, which in tact involves a Pers, although of a special value, i.e. [0 Pers]. As for personal passive, its silent pronoun has presumably no [0 Pers], as evidenced by its defective behaviour with respect to binding anaphors and secondary predicates. Its status is comparable to that of a non-referential pro in Finnish, which surfaces in a rather low position, notin Spec ofTP, but rather Spec vp (see Holmberg (2007)). A somewhat similar treatment can be proposed for

Voice is assumed to project above v and lower than T (see e.g. Fassi Fehri (1988b), Ouhalla (1991), and Collins (2005), among others). For more elaboration, see Wunderlich (2001).

10.

276 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

personal passive, except that pro in vP is a complement ofVoi (rather than T). If 'personal' Voi has in fact no Pers feature to be valued by pro, then there is a room for the DP object to be 'promoted: that is, to Agree with Voi, when it (re-) merges in Spec Voi. The basic configuration to which such operations apply is roughly the following: VoiP

(67)

~

Voi

vp

~

Pro

VP

~

V

DP

In such a configuration, Voi is probing the object DP, rather than pro, unlike what happens in 'impersonal' passives, in which it is pro which acts as a goal for Voi.21 If so, we have a clear parallel in VoiP/vP to what is found in TP /CP. In the latter case, pro can merge as a Spec topic in TP, or as a Camp (non-topic) ofT (e.g. in SVO and VSO configurations). In the former case, impersonal passive merges a 'topic' pro in Spec Voi, whereas personal passive merges a (non-topic) pro as Camp of Voi (in vP).

5·

Expletives and EPP

Expletive pronouns are found in non-thematic positions, where their occurrence is most often formally licensed. One commonly acknowledged formal licensing device for expletives in subject positions is EPP, which requires a D-feature of T to be valued by some Specifier (or subject), normally located in Spec T. But Arabic pronominal candidates are normally found in positions which qualify as 'topic~ rather than subject positions. On the other hand, these topics, even if they are taken as expletives. have the role of 'backgrounding: in the sense of Hopper (1979). Moreover, I see no evidence for postulating the existence of subject expletives (and especially silent ones). The non-existence of expletive pros in Arabic is consistent with the view that (3rd person) T in this language is strongly personal as discussed above in Section 1.

11. Which ingredient probes for the DP object, rather than the DP subject, must find its origin in weakness of Person specification, rather than (absence ot) Case, as in the traditional case absorption hypothesis.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 277 5.1

Arabic. expletives

Consider first sentences with non-human pro as referent, found in e.g. Italian: (68)

piove rains It rains.

(69)

e

costoso

is expensive It is expensive (around here). Such cases, in which pro can be reasonably taken as (quasi-)argumental (rather than expletive), have no Arabic counterparts. First, atmospheric predicates have lexical, rather than pronominal subjects: (70)

a.

zamtara-t s-samaaz-u rained-P the-sky-NOM It rained.

b.

saqata t-fa.ij-u fell the- snow-NOM It snowed.

c.

tahubbu r-rii"/:&-u blows the-wind-NOM It is windy.

Second, Arabic has no close counterpart of (69). To express such a meaning, Arabic may use a demonstrative, rather a pronominal: (71)

haa4aa mukallif-un this expensive-NOM This is expensive.

But whatever the differences between Arabic and Italian in expressing these meanings, they have to do with the lexical range of what can qualify as a third referential pro (or pronoun) in each language, rather than with expletives. Let us look now at more standard cases of expletives. Among those are constructions which involve an expletive preverbal subject and a post-verbal NP/DP associate, the English there-type, or the French il-type: (72)

There arrived a man, *the man, *every man.

(73)

Il est arrive un homme, *l'homme, *tout homme.

As illustrated here, one striking property of the NP/DP associate is the DR effect. Chomsky (1995) proposes a syntactic analysis of DR effects, where the expletive in Spec AGRS has the D categorical feature, and its NP complement associate is

278

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

left as non-specific. But as amply observed in the literature (see e.g. Alexiadou & Agnastopoulo (1998) and references cited there), DR effects are systematically absent in NSL. Thus if a sentence like (74) is taken to be an 'inverted' construction, along the lines of Rizzi ( 1982, 1986), then no DR effect is found there: (74)

w~ala

l-mu1tamir-u.una

arrived the-congressmen-NOM The congressmen arrived. More importantly, there is no independent evidence for expletive pro Merge in the structure of this construction. Since an element included in the numeration has an effect on PF and/or LF, expletive pro cannot be included in the derivation of such a case, having no effect on PF, and none on LF, as evidenced e.g. by the non-existence of DR effects, and in fact any LF effect that can be associated with the empty expletive. This becomes dear once the semantics of such constructions is compared with that of constructions in which an overt expletive pronoun is found. 22 Consider the following constructions: (75)

huwa. l-laah-u

rabb-ii

he Allah-NOM lord-mine It is Allah my Lord. (76)

hiyya l-I;Jayaat-u she the-life-NOM It is life.

These sentences are headed by a pronoun which is traditionally termed cjamiir

s-sa1n 'pronoun of matter' (or 'importance'). This pronoun is used to introduce or announce a salient event or entity, which comes after the pronoun. Let us call it a 'backgrounding pronoun', given that the event may be taken as the foreground. Backgrounding pronouns may take a strong form of the pronoun, and they inflect for Number and Gender, typically when they are used in verbless sentences such as (75) and (76), as a kind of expletives. I take them to be expletives because they have no definite or indefinite content. Another form of such pronouns, I assume, but in a weak (clitic) form which does not inflect for Number, is when they are used in front of a VSO structure, as in the following embedded sentences:

11. One might wonder how expletives can have LF motivation. If Chomsky's (1995) analysis of the expletive chain is correct, then the expletive bears some LF content, leaving its associate without any interpretable D feature. Likewise, backgrounding expletives, which will be discussed below, have presumably some discourse content, which makes its interpretation distinct from contexts in which it is absent. See Footnote 24 for further discussion.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 279 (77)

1-u#akkir-u.-ka. 1a.nna-hu tamma l-ittifaaq-u !-remind-you that-it achieved the-agreement-NOM I remind you that the agreement has been achieved.

(78)

1-u#akkir-u-ka 1anna.-hu w~ala kull-u l-mu.1tamir-iina. !-remind-you that-it arrived all-NOM the-congressmen-GEN I remind you that all the congressmen arrived.

In such contexts, the overtness of the expletive is obligatory, basically because the complementizer assigns accusative case, which the topic expletive satisfies. The expletive is then at least formally licensed. As for the backgrounding interpretation, it is still detectable, once we compare e.g. (78) to its close synonym (79), where no such interpretation is found: (79)

1-udakkir-u-ka 1anna kull-a l-mu1tamiriina wa~al-uu !-remind-you that all-Ace the-congressmen arrived-PL I remind you that all the congressmen arrived.

The question now is whether the backgrounding topic pronoun can be empty, once we use a simple verb-first sentence like (74), or whether the structure there does not support any silent pronoun. As far as I can tell, such sentences do not yield a foregrounding interpretation, and hence an LF motivation for such a pro is lacking.23 Let us turn now to other standard cases where it is tempting to postulate null expletive subjects. The latter include modal constructions such as the following: (80)

y-anbagii 1an t-aquul-a l-"/:laqq-a 3-prefer that you-tell-Ace the truth-Ace It is preferable that you tell the truth.

23. If such pronouns count as expletives, although they have at least some informational content, then what could unify expletives is that they have no interpretable phi features, and notably no person. Note that the expletive can inflect for gender, as in (76), or in Number, as in (i) and (ii):

(i)

humu 1-junuud-u they the-soldiers-NoM It is soldiers.

(ii)

hiyya r-rijaal-u she the-men-NoM It is men.

In (ii), the feminine singular acts as a collective pronoun, backing the 'men' (see Siibawayhi, 8th century; Fassi Fehri (199 3) ). As far as I can tell, this is no problem for expletive theory, as long as the phi-features on expletives are not interpretable.

28o Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(81)

y-u-/:ltamal-u

zan ta.timma. muraaja1a.t-u d-du.stuur-i

3-PASS-probable that happens revision-NOM the-constitution-GEN It is probable that the constitution will be revised. It also includes raising constructions with seem verbs: (82)

y-abduu za.nna-ka raa4in 3-seem that-you happy It seems that you are happy.

(83)

tabayyana

1anna-ka raaqin

became.clear that-you happy It became clear that you are happy. Psych verb constructions such as the following also seem to need such a null subject: (84)

raara-nii

za.n yal;uiuJa. haa4aa

threatened-me that happens this It threatened me that this happened. Finally, 'tough' constructions are usually included in such a list: (85)

musta/:liil-un zan n-attafiq-a impossible that we-agree-Ace It is impossible for us to agree.

In all these constructions, there is no overt pronominal subject, only a CP sentence following the verb, which functions as a (post-verbal) subject. In these constructions, I see no reason to postulate a pre-verbal pro. It cannot be a backgrounding pro, in line with the argumentation constructed above. In tact. there is a clear interpretive contrast between (85), in which no overt pronoun is found and no foregrounding interpretation is available, and (86), in which the backgrounding interpretation is obligatory (from Fassi Fehri 1988a, 1993): (86)

za huwa musta/;liil-un 1an n-attafiq-a yawm-an Q he impossible that we-agree-Ace day-Ace Is it impossible for us to agree some day?

Once such constructions are taken into account, we can conclude safely that Arabic has no covert expletives. Overt expletives, on the other hand, are typically found in topic (backgrounding) positions.24 The conclusion reached here is in fact compatible with the general view I adopted, namely that in NSL, T is strongly personal (or

14. Benmamoun (1998) claims that hunaaka in sentences like (i), which he takes to be existential, is an expletive like 'there' in English:

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice

referential). IfPers inTis strong, then there could be no expletive subject, because it lacks Pers, a situation that would leave the Pers feature on T unvalued. If so, we can establish the following statement: (87)

Consistent NSL have no subject expletives.

We are then left with the only option of(overt) topic expletives, which are licensed either formally or informationally. as we have seen.25 5.2

Pronouns and EPP

As widely reported in the literature (see e.g. Fassi Fehri (1993), Mohammad ( 2000), Harbert & Bahloul (2002)), topic expletives are incompatible with personal pronouns. This is true in active as well as passive constructions:

(i)

kaa11a hunaaka taalib-u11 fii 1-};!adiiqati was there student in the-garden There was a student in the garden.

In this reading, the expletive must follow the auxiliary, and it is (assumed to be) merged in Spec IPffP, whereas the auxiliary is higher (in a Foe head). Unfortunately, such sentences are essentially locative, due to the presence of hunaaka. Pure existential clauses have no hunaaka, and the thematic subject is rather post-posed as in (ii): (ii)

kaana fii l-};!adiiqati taalib-un was in the-garden student There as a student in the garden.

Since there is no context in which the occurrence of hunaaka is dictated by structure (interfacing with either PF or LF), or by EPP, I see so reason to analyze it as an expletive rather than a normal locative. A wider comparison of the limited use of hunaaka, which is always semantically interpreted, compared to the more extensive (rather formal) use of 'there' provides further motivation for its non-expletive status. This is also corroborated by the fact that Arabic has no counterpart to structures like English (72), in addition to the non-relevance of DR, as already pointed out. 15. Fassi Fehri (1988a) presents a precursory analysis in which he assumes the existence of pro expletive subjects and topics. He takes the structure of (74) to be strictly parallel to that of the embedded CP in (78), but see Fassi Fehri (1993) for a criticism. See also McCloskey (1996) for arguments that 'inverted' orders in Irish (which also lack DR effects) do not involve expletives. Mohammad (2000) maintains that Spec TP projects in Arabic VS sentences like (74), with an expletive pro located there, and that the parallel structure in (78), where a complementi:zer must be followed by an expletive, provides 'direct evidence' for this claim He also maintains that the expletive hypothesis is behind the 'poor' agreement patterns found in VSO structures. Unfortunately, any evidence for a silent expletive is lacking, as I explained above. See Alexiadou & Agnostopoulou (1998) for further general objections to such a kind of approach for other verb initial structures. See also Plunkett (1993) on the various subject positions in Arabic.

281

282 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

(88)

*zinna-hu qtanar-tu that-it convinced-!

(89)

zinna-nii qtanar-tu that-me convinced-! I became convinced.

(90)

*zinna-hu sa-t-u-qtal-uu-na that-it FUT-2-PASS-ki.ll-PL-indic

(91)

zinna-kum sa-t-u-qtal-uu-na that-you.PL FUT-2-PASS-kill-PL-indic Indeed, you will be killed.

With impersonal passives, the topic expletive cannot antecede the implicit agent: (92)

zinna-hu gurrira bi-naa that-it betrayed.PASS with-us We were betrayed.

This suggests that the indefinite person subject cannot check EPP. The situation is unlike that of the referential pro, which checks EPP, hence suggesting that the latter is high in the structure (in Spec ofT, and complement of C). We can then establish the following descriptive statement: (93)

Personal pronouns are licensed inSpecT (as complements of C).

Likewise, expletives are licensed only in contexts in which no Persis present on T, in conformity with the following statement:26

26. According to Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1998), VSO languages have the property that pronominal subjects can always be dropped, and these languages have no overt expletive subjects. They"... satisfy EPP via verb raising because they have verbal agreement morphology with the categorical status of a prononllnal element': "From this it follows that: (i) preverbal subjects are not in anA-position, and (ii) VSO orders never involve a covert expletive" (p. 494). Moreover, in some VSO type languages like Arabic and Celtic, subjects are in Spec TP, external to VP. Typology then depends on an EPP/AGR parameter and a Spec TP parameter. VSO types lack Spec AGR. In Chomsky (1995), the EPP is reformulated as involving a categorical D feature checking in I. The reference set, which determines whether the derivation is optimal or not is set up by the numeration. If a language is shown to lack Move/Merge XP, then it qualifies as no/weak EPP language. Two minimalist analyses can account for the VSO patterns:

(i)

VSO involves a pro expletive in Spec IP (as in Rizzi (1982)). Then these languages qualify as strong EPP languages. SVO then involves driven EPP Move (Case and Agreement checked as free riders). The prediction is that English and preverbal Subjects in verb-initial languages would behave alike, which they don't.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 2.83

(94)

Expletives agree with Conly when T has no Person.

The two statements are applicable to a consistent NSL like Arabic, but not to a partial NSL like Finnish. In the latter, expletives are incompatible with personal subject pronouns only in some configurations, as we will show in the next subsection. 5·3

Finnish

In Finnish, the covert generic pronoun does not satisfy the EPP. For that reason the preverbal position of a generic construction must generally be filled by a nonsubject category, often a locative phrase, or the expletive sita. The following examples illustrate the contrasts: (95)

*Istuu mukavasti sits

(96)

Tass a istuu mukavasti here

(97)

tassa

comfortably here sits

comfortably

Sita istuu mukavasti

tassa

Exp sits comfortably here One can sit comfortably here. The fact that the generic pronoun is phonetically null is not in itself a sufficient reason for this. Finnish is a partial pro-drop language, where 1st and 2nd person subject pronouns can always be null (more commonly in formal registers), and 3rd person subject pronouns can be null in embedded clauses if they have a close enough antecedent (see Holmberg et al. (2008)). As discussed in Holmberg (2005), these definite null pronouns do satisfy the EPP, and are consequently incompatible with the expletive (as first noted by Hakulinen (1975), quoted after Holmberg): (98)

(Mina) istu-n

mukavasti

tiissa

I sit-lsG comfortably here I'm sitting comfortably here. (99)

--sita istun

mukavasti

tiissii

Exp sit-lsG comfortably here

(ii)

VSO does not involve expletive pro. Greek and Arabic then qualify as no/weak EPP Ls (Case and Agreement checked covertly), and SVO has an X subject. Or alternatively, EPP is strong, as they propose, but it is satisfied differently.

Evidence is available that in SVO, the subject is in CLD, and VSO lack an expletive. But I leave their strong interpretation of EPP in VSO languages for further study.

:184 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

According to Holmberg & Nikanne (2002), the EPP in Finnish requires a topic in the sentence-initial position (referred to as Spec TP). 27

6. Some consequences In this chapter, I investigated the nature of referential and non-referential correlation in pro distribution found in consistent NSL, compared to partial NSL. The scale of Person specification and the configuration in which it is licensed were shown to play a crucial role. I summarize here some of the results reached, and assess some of the consequences which can be drawn with respect to pro variation, typology, and Voice. 6.1

Variation around Person

Consistent NSL like Arabic are endowed with the entire set of null referential pro, namely, 1, 2, 3. The three persons are all assumed to be specified, with a simple combinatorics that I recapitulate in (100):28

(100)

a. b. c.

1: [+1, -2] 2: [-1, +2] 3: [-1, -2]

The entire referential set is licensed with active TIC. The weaker (under)specification of third person which gives rise to generic pro is also found in Arabic ([0Pers]), but conditioned by passive inflection.

A 1st or 2nd person pronoun can co-occur with the expletive if the pronoun is not in Spec IP, but in a focus position, either a low focus position as in (i) or a high one (Spec CP), as in (li); see Holmberg (2005) and Holmberg & Nikanne (2002), PCL = particle: 27.

(i)

Sitii istun

miniikin mukavasti

tiissii.

Exp sit-lso me-too comfortably here I too, can sit comfortably in this chair. (ii)

Minahan sitii

istun aina

tiissii tuolissa.

I-PcL Exp sit always this chair-ine Me, I always sit in this chair. For impersonals and generics in Icelandic, see SigurlJsson & Egerland (2009). 18. 1 can be interpreted as a speaker feature, 2 as the addressee, and both 1 and 2 as participant features. I assume that Number and Person are syncretic, and they define a longer list than 1, 2, 3 persons, to account e.g. for clusivity interpretations. See Weschler (2004), Kratzer (2007), Harley and Ritter (2002), Platzack (2004), Sigu~sson (2004), Bianchi (2003), and Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea (2008), among numerous authors, for various views of the Person/ Number syncretism, as well as the interpretation of third person. See also Footnote 18.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 2.85

Partial NSL like Finnish or Hebrew notably lack (lOOc), the specified third person, although they license forms like (lOOa) and (lOOb). Gutman (2004) provides the following contrasts for Hebrew and Finnish, respectively: (101)

a.

nixSalti

ba-mivxan be-historia.

failed-1ST-SG in-the-test in-history I failed the history test

b.

ni:xSalta

ba-mivxan be-historia

failed-2ND-SG-M in-the-test in-history You failed the history test. c.

*nix5al!nixsela.

ba-mivxa.n be-historia.

failed-3RD-M-SG/F-SG in-the-test in-history He/She failed the history test (102)

a.

repu.tin

historian kokeessa

failed-1ST-SG history's in-test I failed the history test

b.

reputit

historian kokeessa

failed-2ND-SG history's in-test You failed the history test. c.

*reputti

historian kokeessa

failed-3RD-SG history's in-test He/She failed the history test Partial NSL license, instead, an underspecified third person (i.e. [0Pers]) with active T, as we have seen earlier with Finnish (see Shlonsky (2008) for more data on Hebrew). These distributions and correlations can be described via the following variational statements: (103)

Pers variation on TIC a. b.

(104)

In consistent NSL, TIC is 'strongly personal, with a non-interpretable [± 1,2]. In partial NSL, TIC can be 'weakly' personal, with a non-interpretable [0 Pers].

Voice variation In consistent NSL, Voi (passive) can be [0Pers].

(105)

Pro 1'a.riation a. b.

Consistent NSL: pro can be {1, 2, 3, 0} (the superset) Partial NSL (Finnish type): pro can only be {1,2, 0}, but not [3]. 29

19. Shlonsky (2008) adopts Kayne's (2000) view that "an agreement suffix having the properties of a pronoun can only be first or second person~ and that a covert pronoun can

:186 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

6.2

Topicality and Person

My classification of pros depends essentially on how their Person feature is valued, with respect to a 'topic'/Spec feature, a configurational EPP feature: (106)

Silent pros are [± Top/Pers] a. CIT pros (topics); b. Voi pros (topics); v pros (non-topics).

It is also based on the value of Pers itself: (107)

Pers can be a. 'definite':[± 1, ± 2]. b. 'indefinite': [0].

In fact, a better conceptually based system would rather use 'speaker' and 'participant' features, to replace 1 and 2. Then we have the following distribution of values over the various personal pronouns: (108)

a.

b. c.

d.

[+Spk. + Part] = 1 [ -Spk, + Part] = 2 [- Spk.- Part]= 3 [0 Spk, 0 Part] = 0 'impersonaf generic.30

only be third. According to him, Hebrew has three finite T heads: one which contains Person and Number, one only Number, and one which lacks all features. They characterize eyn Neg, past/future, and present, respectively. The covert null subject lacks inherent Person. It cannot occur with eyn (which has unvalued Pers, while pro lacks it), it occurs with Tense. It cannot be interpreted referentially, lacking Person. Hebrew 1 and 2 are syntactically encoded by means of a functional category. There is no pro there, no covert first or second person, only ditics which appear on the verb head. In this mixed approach, 1 and 2 are incorporated pronouns, whereas 3 is an agreement marker. There is no room for treating all of them as agreement markers, or all as pronouns. In Kayne (2000), even 3 lui behaves differently from 1,2 moi, toi. See his contrast (20)-(27): Jean connait *MOl,? LUI, or (69)-(70) with tous: elle a tous commence ales insulter, a*vous/nous insulter. There is pro with les, but not nous/vous ( p. 174). The gradiance observed with respect to the behaviour of 1 and 2 vs. 3 can be integrated in my system, as far as I can see. It appears to be independent of the issue whether 3 can be treated as a pronoun or not, although we have seen reason to take 3 as pronominal, even when it is not strong. This system is equivalent to that of Nevins (2007), who uses the feature 'author: instead of'speakei, following in broad lines Halle's (1997) system of features. Nevins also uses a [0] value for impersonals, since they are compatible with any person interpretation. See his (44)

30.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice :187

If Person specification is the essential feature behind the distribution of pros and their variation (Person being presumably the most prototypical feature of pronouns), then I see no reason to model their essential variation on (ingredients of) DP architecture, given that the salient property of the latter is type shifting (from N to D), a property which can be hardly seen as salient for the interpretation of pronouns, or their deficiency. In the nominal domain, for example, the definite/indefinite distinction is not necessarily associated with the presence of D vs. its absence (see e.g. Longobardi (2006) and Chierchia (2005) for relevant discussion). Recall also the discussion of verb initial constructions like (74) above. In such contexts, the definiteness of the DP does not force re-Merge, although a referential pronoun must remerge, as in e.g. (42). 31 The deficiency scale is then more naturally accounted for in terms of Person, as well as the configurational requirements for its licensing. Furthermore, the typology of

and (96) characterizations (pp. 19 and 43, respectively). The [0] value of a feature is equivalent to a 'disjunctive' value, as proposed by Weschler & Zlatic (2001), and D'Alessandro (2004, p. 28) for Italian impersonal si: (i)

A disjunctive feature is a feature that includes all the possible values for that feature.

Holmberg's (2007) analysis makes a crucial use of D variation. For example, consistent NSL are characterized as having an unvalued D ([uD] feature), (incorporated) in their T /I, unlike other languages. This should exclude generic as well as expletives from subject positions, assuming that they are not DPs. My analysis is rather based on Pers variation. Note that D, when construed as essentially a type shifter (taking into account e.g. definiteness), is typically combined with nouns. Holmberg's view of deficiency is compatible with a typology of pronouns/pros like that of Dechaine & Wiltschko (2002), who propose a configurational DP modelled typology of pronouns, based on a form of 'del inking' in the DP architecture:

31.

(i)

a. b. c.

D-pronouns/pros; Phi-pronouns/pros; N -pronouns/pros.

But in fact, a crucial contrast between the behaviour of generic uses of specified pronouns for Pers and Number, like (14)-(16) above, and that of 0 generics like (17)-(18) above, is thatthe former, but not the latter, can be used in topic positions, as (ii): (ii)

1inna-ka t-ajid-u 1anna l-1asraar-a rtajar-at that-you 2-find that the-prices-Ace went.up-fem You will indeed find that the prices have gone up.

In the right context, the sentence (ii) can be interpreted as generic. This behavior, if spread cross-linguistically, favors the Pers view over the definite view.

:188

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

pronouns appears to depend more on their Pers specification than their other features such as definiteness. 32 6.3

A new approach to Voice

I have provided a new approach to Voice, based on the scale of strength/weakness of Pers, rather than any form of Case absorption: (108)

a.

Passive is a Person (under )specification for Voi.

b. Impersonal passive Voi agrees with a [0Pers] pro. Passive probes for a pro subject, which is deficient. Its specification is vague/ indefinite, and pro has to be indefinite or vague, or more precisely [0Pers]. Two Person specifications are found on the two temporal heads, C/T and Voice/v. The passive/active alternation found in consistent NSL turns out to be natural. Once (active) TIC is specified as strongly personal, there can be no room for pro uses which are less specified. The only option left is then the use of a form of passive voice, the salient property of which is the subject person deficiency. Silent pronouns may arise through incorporation into inflection via Agree/ Move. Two heads emerge as natural probes: T/C and v/Voice, the phase heads. A deficient pronominal (or pro) 'incorporates' into these heads, depending on its content. Pro incorporating into TIC has a specific Person value (a 'definite' Person), but pro incorporating into v/Voice has an 'indefinite' general Person. Passive voice is typically viewed as a deficiency/decline of the subjct Person value, which is sharper with personal than impersonal configurations. In 'personal' passive, Voi does not Agree with the pro subject. The object argument can then advance to Agree with T. Comparison with Finnish, Italian, Hebrew, Irish, and French has been brought up to shed light on the nature of variation involved. The approach adopted provides new ways to tackle the mixed behaviour of some voices, like the impersonal passive, which involves a demotion/decline of the person subject, but no promotion of the object. I have associated the impersonal passive with a topical Voice, and the personal passive with a non-topical

See Longobardi (200 5, 2006) for the importance of Person in the structure of DPs. For a very relevant discussion, see also Bf.lring (2007) and Kratzer (2007), among others. Recall that I concur with the general view of deficiency adopted notably by Cardinaletti & Starke and Holmberg. The deficiency is taken not only to be phonological but also semantic. My view differs, however, from Cardinaletti & Starke in that it is a Person, rather than a human feature, which drives the deficiency.

32.

Chapter 10. Arabic silent pronouns, person, and voice 289

Voice. Such an alternation in Agree orientation is widely documented cross-linguistically, and it has been the focus of a very recent illuminating study by Baker (2008b).33 The approach adopted also makes predictions about the lack of silent expletives in consistent NSL. 34

33· Baker (2008b) argues in particular for a generalization in natural languages he names SCOPA, the Structural Condition on Person Agreement, which is stated in (i): (i)

F can agree with XP in +1 or +2 only if a projection ofF merges with a +1 or +2 element and F projects.

The salient property of SCO PAis that it distinctively makes the valuation of Person dependent on an 'upward' controller, basically a Spec, whereas other forms of agreement are licensed 'downward: i.e. have a Comp as their controller. My topic feature comes dose to SCOPA, although a detailed comparison of the two approaches will not be attempted here. Note that SCOPA is true of any Pers specification, including 3 and 0. 34· If only [+Pers] pros are licensed in Spec TIC, as I argued, and only [0 Pers] pros in Spec Voi, then an 'argumental' or A expletive has no place in this system, in conformity with (87). Topic expletives are (normally) found inA' positions, and whatever structure can be proposed for foregrounding expressions. What license their occurrence belongs more to discourse/informational structure than inflectional structure. See also Ritter & Wiltschko (2008) on the polyfunctionality of a category, namely INFL.

CHAPTER 11

Plural verbs and Agree* 1.

Introduction

Recent literature on nominal and verbal syntax and semantics often assumes rather strong architectural parallels, following leading views by Abney (1987), Partee (1984), Bach (1986), and Krifka (1992), among others. But a thorough investigation of the behaviour of Plural/Number on the two categories points to some rather significant differences. Both verbs and nouns may have an interpretation associated with a general number, which induces plural (and singular) interpretations. But nouns are functionally distinct from verbs in that nouns can extendedly project Plural/Number (above Classifier) on their nominal or D heads, while verbs do not appear to do so. In fact, plurality and classification of verbs are most often built on their nominal dependents (arguments, complements, adverbs, etc.). That is, semantic PI( ural) is most often not interpretable on verbal heads, but rather induced from arguments, or adverbs. The PI on verbs then behaves either as a mere agreement (formal) marker (controlled by the argument/dependent), or as an adverbial modifier. But note that verbs can be (internally) inflected with 'intensive~ repetitive, or pluractional morphemes, which return a set of plural events. Likewise, reciprocal interpretation, which entails at least two events (the agent and the theme of each event being distinct, but drawn from the same group consisting of at least two members), may appear in the form of a plural or a pluractional morpheme on the verb, in addition to a reflexive (see e.g. Durie (1986), Newman (1990), Fassi Fehri (2003), Faller 2007, among others).

• The material included here was notably presented as part of a keynore address delivered at the 23th Meeting of the Arabic Linguistics Society, Wisconsin University at Milwaukee, April 2009, and as a contribution in the second wmkshop on Nominal and verbal Plurality. organized by ParisVIII, CNRS UMR 7023, November 2009. I would like to thank the audiences there, and in particular Hamid Ouali, Partida Cabredo-Hofherr, Brenda Laca, and three anonymous reviewers of the volume edited by Patricia and Brenda for their fruitful remarks and suggestions.

292

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Furthermore, a distinction can be drawn between an internal Pl (limited to vP or nP), and an external/phrasal one (interpretable only outside nP /vP; see e.g. Sauerland (2003, 2008), Kratzer (2008)). The internal/external distinction is semantically and syntactically supported. For example, cumulative/distributive (or repetitive) interpretations are potentially available through lexical/internal plurality, but at least some cumulative/distributive readings require external/phrasal plurality (i.e. a structurally conditioned Pl or star operator, ''"), compared to singular DPs which fail to distribute in the relevant cases. Likewise, whenever an inflectional Pl pluralizes a verbal projection, it finds its interpretive source only in an external DP (along the lines of Kratzer (2008)). This behaviour is in a sharp contrast with that of the inflectional nominal Pl which is interpreted only internally. Consequently, the verbal/nominal parallelism with respect to Pl has to be reshaped, accordingly. As a matter of fact, empirical evidence provides motivation for establishing a more fine-grained four-layered distinction: (a) a basic root Pl (b) a morphologically complex root Pl, (c) an internal inflectional Pl over nP /vP, and (d) an external phrasal Pl. The (a) case is instantiated by general nouns or verbs which are 'born' as plural, (b) by geminated verb roots, (c) by pluralized nouns or verbs, and (d) by phrasal Pl in SVO structures. Not all types are interpretable on verbs, or on nouns, as we will see. The chapter investigates various ldnds of Arabic verbal plurality, and provides an analysis of the distinct patterns in minimalist terms, malting use of Agree as an essential mechanism for establishing probe-goal relations (see e.g. Chomsky (1995) and (2008)). The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 2, I examine salient properties of nominal Number. In Section 3, I investigate properties of morphologically complex root Number, which are behind the behaviour of pluractional verbs, as well as properties of external/phrasal Pl. In Section 4, I provide an analysis of reciprocity; and its various levels of expression and interpretation. Section 5 summarizes the results reached in previous sections.

2.

Nominal Number

Grammatical nominal Number(= Num) has various manifestations in terms of form or function, as well as placement in the hierarchical architecture of a DP. My purpose here is not to give an exhaustive treatment of the phenomena, but rather build on what could be a significant fragment of the grammar of nominal Number. The latter would then allow me to establish desired parallels with verbal Number. It is often stated in traditional and orientalist literature that there are three kinds of nominal Number: singular, dual, and plural (see e.g. Wright (1974), Hasan (1971)). This ternary system is exemplified by the following patterns:

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 293 (1)

a.

b.

c.

mudarris-u-n teacher-NOM-N "a teacher" mudarris-aa-n teacher-dual.NOM-N "two teachers" mudarris-uu-n teacher-PL.NOM-N "(some) teachers"

But observe that only the dualis systematically 'sound: in the sense that it is formed from the singular by the concatenative vowel lengthening [aa]. In the normal case, a nominal plural is rather 'broketi, as illustrated in (2) and (3): 1 (2)

a.

b.

c.

(3)

a.

b.

c.

rajul-u-n man-NOM-N "a man" rajul-aa-n man-dualNOM-N "two men" rijaa.l-u-n men-NOM-N "(some) men" kaatib-u-n writer-NOM-N "a writer" kaatib-aa-n writer-dual.NOM-N "two writers" kuttab-u-n writers-NOM-N "(some) writers"

The sound/broken terminology is standard in the Arabist tradition, compared to the more technical concatenative/non-concatenative distinction. 'Broken' basically means that the vocalic pattern of the singular is lost or not carried over in a derivation of a plural, although the latter form can be related to the former through a morphological process of a more abstract sort, as in McCarthy & Prince (1990). E.g. the plural rijaal in (2c), being broken, does not preserve the vowels of the singular rajul in (2a), whereas the dual in (2b), being sound, does. t.

294 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

The concatenative *rajul-uun and *kaatib-uun in (4), however, are unattested nominal plurals:2 (4)

a.

*rajul-uu-n man-PL.NOM-N

b.

*kaatib-uu-n writer-PL.NOM-N (some) writers

Indeed, it is the broken plural which constitutes the essential manifestation of nominal plurality. Moreover, some of these sound forms are accepted as pluralized agentive adjectives, as is the case of kaatib-uu "writing-pi" in (5), although broken plurals are also productive with adjectives, as illustrated by (6): (5)

hal zantum kaatib-uu-na li-l-maqaal-i Q you.PL writing-PL-N of-the-article-GEN Are you going to write the article?

(6)

a.

b.

nabiil-u-n nubalaaz-u nabiil-uu-n nadl-u-n zanda.al-u.-n *nadl-uu-n

'noble-NOM-rl 'noble.PL-NOM' 'noble-PL.NOM-tf

broken plural sound pluraL (not often used)

'jerk-NOM-tf 'jerk.PL-NOM-tf 'jerk-PL.NOM-tf

broken plural sound plural

What (6) shows is that nabiil can have both broken and sound forms of plural. But nadl does not have a sound form. For the purpose of this study, I will leave aside the peculiarities of the dual, which are not relevant for the issues I am concerned with here.3

For the non-arabist reade:t; it might be useful to indicate that the long vowel [-aa] or [-uu] fuse both number information and case information (i.e. nominative). With non-nominative case, the dual is rather [-ay],and the plural [-ii]. The [-n] ending that! use in the glosses (called tanwiin or nunation in traditional grammars) is difficult to translate, because of its disputed identity. It has been wrongly identified as an indefinite marker (see Kouloughli (2007) for a recent defense of this thesis). It is rather a head of Poss(essive) phrase, which marks the absence of the possessor constituent, or absence of individuation. Indeed, it disappears from nouns heading a construct state, or individuated vocative nominals (see Fassi Fehri 1993, 2006).

:1.

3· The dual and the singular, unlike the plural, can be thought of as manifestations of both Number and Numeral. Indeed, the normal way to express 'one' or 'two' in the nominal structure is to use singular or dual Num, without expressing the Numeral(= Nmr),as in (i):

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 195

2.1

Where is number?

In the case of pairs such as rajul!rijaal "man/men~ kalb!kilaab "dog/dogs': vowel lengthening can be associated with a plural structure and interpretation. Various syntactic tests can be used to assess the plurality of the noun. For example, the plural verbal agreement in (4) depends on the plurality of the noun: (7)

r-rijaal-u jaaz-uu ("jaaz-a) the-men-NOM came-PL (*came-sa) The men came.

More complexity arises in coordinated structures, where the conjoined nP members can exhibit distinct numbers, and another distinct (and rather abstract) number must be postulated for the whole DP. The verb then agrees with that DP Num, as illustrated in (8): (8)

a.

hind-un wa-bakr-un jalas-aa mar-an Hind-NOM and-Bakr-NOM sat.down-dual together-Ace Hind and Bakr sat down together.

(i)

a.

fii n-11ahr-i

samak-at-un

in the-river-GEN fish-unit-NOM In the river, there is a/one fish.

b.

fii n-nahr-i

samak-at-aa-nl

in the-river-GEN fish-unit-dual.NOM In the river, there are two fish.

c.

"fii n-nahr-1

waahlldat-u samak-at-in

in the-river-GEN one-NOM

d.

*fil n-nahr-1

tnataa

fish-unit-GEN

samak-at-aynl

in the-river-GEN two-NOM fish-unit-dual.GEN

'two:

In other words, to express 'one' and the numeral cannot be used in a pre-nominal position, the standard position for numerals. Alternatively, the numeral can appear as a postnominal modifier, but it then has a different status, being a sort of emphatic 'reinforcer, as in the following examples: (ii)

a.

fii n-nahr-i

samak-at-un

waahiidat-un

in the-river-GEN fish-unit-NOM one-NOM In the river, there is a single fish.

b.

fii n-nahr-i

samak-at-aa-ni

itnataani

in the-river-GEN fish-unit-dual-NOM twO.NOM In the river, there are two fish. See Fassi Fehri (2006, 2007a) for more detail on the fusion ofNum and Nmr in (i), and its parametrization. For Arabic numeral distributions and alternations, see Fassi Fehri (1999).

296

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

b.

hind-un

wa.-r-rajul-aa.ni

jalas-u.u

mar-an

Hind-NOM and-the-man-dual satdown-PL together-Ace Hind and the two men sat down together. In (Sa), the verb carries dual number, whereas both conjuncts are singular. In (8b), one conjunct is singular, the other dual, and the verb plural. It is presumably the case that the resolution of the Num value (as dual or plural) occurs at the higher DP level, and it is that value which is carried over to the verb. Another complex case is found in measure constructions. Here the verb agrees with the nominal (which is plural), or with the measure head, which is singular, as illustrated by the contrast in (9): (9)

a.

nisju

r-rijaal-i

"/:la4ar-uu

half-NOM the-men-GEN came-PL A half of the men were present

b.

nisju

r-rijaa.l-i

hada1'-a

half-NOM the-men-GEN came-sing A half of the men was present Let us look now at numeral constructions. With 'low' numerals (from 3 to 10), the plural is manifested on the noun (which is a genitive complement of the numeral). The verb occurs also in the plural, by virtue of agreeing with the nominal, or the whole DP, as illustrated in (10): (10)

za.rbara.t-u. rijaal-in

jaa1-uu.

four-NOM men-GEN came-PL Four men came. But with 'high' numerals (i.e. 11 or more), there is no (internal) plural agreement between the noun and the numeral (since the latter selects only a 'singular' noun), although the verb must be plural: (11)

1alj-u

rajul-in

(*rijaal-in)

jaaz-uu (*jaa1-a)

thousand-NOM man-GEN (""men-GEN) came-PL (*came-sa) A thousand men came. In this case, there is no plural on the noun, nor on the numeral, and the plural agreement on the verb (which is obligatory) may be thought of as 'semantic: rather than purely formal (see Sauerland (2003) and Weschler (2004), among others, on the formal/semantic distinction). But in fact, the agreement here is also syntactic, despite apperances. 4 On the whole, these contrasts indicate that Num is 'mobile'

4· Conceivably, P1 can be thought of as an abstract syntactic feature on the DP. This is so because agreement in such cases is sensitive to order. Thus in verb initial sentences, the verb

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 297

in the nominal architecture, in the sense that it may be associated with difterent categorical positions, e.g. n, Num, D, etc. To complete the picture, note that Num can be part of the nominal root (= R), or n, rather than above n (as is the case when a noun is pluralized). For example, a noun unit formed by a Classifier (= Cl) like [-ii] can have a plural form as its input: (12)

zarraab-ii bedouin.Arab-Cl A bedouin Arab

In terms of form, za.fmab can be thought of as a plural of ramb "ArabS: but this is not what it really means. It means a special socio-ethnic category of Arabs, the Bedouin Arabs. The plural form is then treated as a sort of basic (or lexical) collective noun, like ramb, yunaan, or yahuud, which are (potentially) plural roots. A singulative noun can then be formed from these roots through affixation (see Fassi Fehri (2004) for various properties of singulatives): (13)

a.

~

zarraab

zarraab-ii

bedouin Arab-Cl bedouin Arab bedouin Arabs; a bedouin Arab b.

rara.b

~

rarab-ii

Arab-Cl Arab Arabs; an Arab c.

yunaa.n

~

yunaa.n-ii

Greek-Cl Greek Greeks; a Greek d.

yahuud

~

yahuud-ii

jew-Cl jew Jews; a jew In this case, the plural can only be thought of as integrated in the nominal root, to which the Cl attaches. The absence of plural interpretation of the relevant sort in

must be singular: (i)

jaa1-a (""jaa?-uu) ?alf-u rajul-in came-sG (*came-PL) thousand-NoM m.an-GEN A thousand men came.

See Section 3 below for more detail on VS/SV variation in terms of Number.

298

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

the nominal structure can then be accounted for. Clearly, not Pl morphologies are manifestations of Pl Num.5 Building on the previous chapters, I provide here the relevant hierarchical architecture of the DP; I assume that Pl is associated with any of these categories: (14)

DP

~

NmrP

~

NumP

~

ClP

~

nP

~

RootP

~

Root

5· I postulate the existence of a suffix [ -ii], which functions as CL Cl derives a singulative noun from a collective form, as exemplified here. This function is distinct from that of [-ii] in nisbah "attribution': which derives an attributing adjective from nouns that are not (necessarily) collective. To illustrate, consider the following examples of adjective attributes: (i)

(ii)

faas Fes "'city of Pes" falsafah philosophy

~

~

Jaas-ii Pes-attributive "citizen of Fes" falsaf-ii philosoph-ical

In none of these derivations can the basic noun be thought of as a collective, nor can the derived form (which is an adjective, and not a noun) be thought of as a singular unit of a basic whole. The two pairs in the classifier derivation and the nisbah derivation are then different, and hence cannot be confused. As correctly pointed out by a reviewer, [-II] for nisbah attaches to n, rather than just R. The latter then undergoes a category change (from n to an adjective). But the Cl [-II] does not operate any category change. Furthermore, the Pl (in ( 13a)) has no semantic (quantity) interpretation, but is rather part of n or R. Likewise, the Pl in attributive forms (as in (iii)) may have a similar status, being part of n (orR), and not higher: (iii)

1imaar-aat

Emirate-PL "Emirates"

~

1imaaraat-ii

'Emirates-attributive: "citizen of Emirates':

See Holes (2004, 161 ). For more on the singulative derivation, see Fassi Fehri (2004, 2009b & c).

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 299

This answers the where question. As for the how, we have to wait for the following subsections, to see how Pl is attached or manifested either as a feature or a category, as a head or a modifier, etc. 6 2.2

Non-human plurality

In (7) above, the plural masculine agreement marker [-uu] on the verb matches a human subject. When the subject is non-human, plural agreement takes another form, a feminine singular: (15)

kilaa.b-u.n nabal;aa-t (*naba.l:r-uu) dogs-NOM barked-F (*barked-PL) Some dogs barked.

It is rather misleading, obviously, to think of this marker as being truly singular in terms of semantics, as can be shown by various plurality tests (including reciprocity; see below, Section 3), or feminine, since kilaab is a plural of kalb, which is masculine. Hence feminine singular is just an approximation in terms of form, not content (see Fassi Fehri (1988a) for a precursory treatment). 2.3

Lexical collectives

The feminine singular marker on the verb occurs with collective nouns, which suggests that it can be seen as a form of collective agreement. In fact, collectives vary as to whether they are associated with this form of agreement (a) obligatorily, (b) optionally, or (c) whether they are incompatible with it: 7 (16)

l-xayl-u

t-a.rrif-u

mkbaan-a.-haa (""y-a.rrif-u)

the-horse-NOM 3F-know-IND riders- ACC- her (*3M-know-IND) Horses know their riders. (17)

a.

n-nal:ll-u taara-t the-bee fl.ew-F The bees flew.

In this structure, only Num counts as a (dedicated) category head for the placement of Pl in line with Ritter's (1991) original proposal. Pl can also be seen as adjunct to other (nonNum) heads, or as a (phi) feature of heads, etc. See Fassi Fehri (2004, 2009), among other references, for a defense of this architecture. 6.

7. The following abbreviations are used: f = feminine, m = masculine, sg = singular, pl = plural, nom= nominative, gen = genitive, ace = accusative, ref\ = reflexive, rec = reciprocal ind =indicative.

300

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

b.

(18)

n-na.l;ll-u taara the-bee flew.3msg The bees flew.

l-fariiq-u jtamara (*jtamara-t) the-committee met (*met-F) The committee met.

In these collectives, one can distinguish groups from singulative collectives or kinds (see Fassi Fehri (2004) for these distinctions). For example,fa1·iiq "team" is a masculine group, and lajnah "committee" is a feminine group; xayl "horses" and 1ibil "camels" are feminine collectives/kinds, while naml "antS: nal;ll "bees~ baqar "cows, cattle" are rather ambiguous in terms of gender, etc. In a significant number of these cases, the feminine/masculine distinction appears to be conventional/ formal rather than semantic. That is, not all lexically collective nouns trigger collective (or 'feminine singular') agreement, although this state of affairs would have been semantically motivated. The differences in gender marking of collectives are often only lexical (i.e. a property of roots), and the masculine/feminine distinction must be interpreted as variation in conventional gender, rather than collective plurality. 8 More important, however, is the fact that lexical collectives enter syntactic configurations in which they control two distinct forms of agreement, associated with two distinct semantics: (a) a normal plural agreement in the form of a plural masculine, and (b) a collective agreement in the form of feminine singular. Consider the following pair of constructions: (19)

a.

n-naas-u t-~allii li-rabb-i-haa the-people-NOM 3F-pray to-god-GEN-her People pray to their God.

b.

n-naas-u y-u~all-uu-na li-rabb-i-him the-people-NOM 3-pray-PL-IND to-god-GEN-their People pray to their God.

The semantics of the two constructions varies. In (19a), the DP is conceived as a group, and the action is seen as collectively performed by such a group. In

8. This is in fact just an approximation. It is presumably the case that some collectives are lexically marked for a collective 'gender, whereas others are not. Collective marking appears to be strikingly distinct from gender. For example, jams 'she-horse' is traditionally only feminine, and its masculine counterpart is h~aan 'he-horse: thus instantiating a sex-based gender distinction, althoughfaras is used recently as masculine as welL See Roman (1990) for an excellent survey, as well as a discussion of gender/collective confusions. See also Wright (1974) and Hachimi (2007), among others, for Arabic gender intricacies.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 301

(19b), neither the DP nor the vP are interpreted as collective. The subject is rather a sum of separate or disparate people, and the action is performed distributively, with no collective responsibility. The existence of such alternations suggest that naas, the controller of agreement, has in fact no real lexical specification for Number or Gender, since it is feminine in one case and masculine in another, or plural in one case and singular in another. Other collective nouns like rarab "Arabs~ barben· "Berbers~ funtu.b-iyy-at "bedouin Arabs~ Su.ruubiyy-at "non-Arab moslem nationalists~ n(l$aar-aa "Christians': etc. behave in the same way. Their form is not a plural form, derived from a singular form through some additional plural morphology, although they can trigger plural agreement In this respect, they differ from the collectives described in the next subsection, which I call 'syntactic collectives'.9 2.4

Syntactic collectives

I call syntactic collectives plural DPs which are interpreted collectively (as collections or groups) in the syntax. Like lexical collectives. their plurality is manifested in agreement or anaphoric relations, and their interpretation is either normal plurality, or collective plurality. But unlike lexical collectives, they are morphologicallyplural, and they do not name a collection through their lexical base (or root), but rather through a pluralized (derived) form. Consider the following examples: (20)

a.

hiyya r-rijaal-u she the-men-NOM That is men.

b.

ljalaasifat-u t-aquul-u haa4aa the-philosophers-NOM 3F-say-IND this Philosophers say this.

c.

hum r-rijaal-u they the-men-NOM That is men. ljalaasifat-u y-aquu.l-uu-na haaqa.a the-philosophers-NOM 3-say-PL-IND this Philosophers say this.

d.

In (20a), rijaal, the plural of rajul, reads as a group, and in (20b),folaasifat, plural of faylasuuf, has the same reading. The group interpretation arises through the collective (feminine singular) pronoun in (20a), or the collective agreement

9· It is possible that suruub-iyy-at, for example, is formed from the plural 5uruub "peoples': the individual affix [-iyy], and the unit -sum affix [-at], which derives the collective.

302

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar marker [-t] on the verb in (20b). In (20c), on the other hand, the pronoun is plural, and the sentence has a normal plural reading. Likewise, the DP reads as a normal plural in (20d), while the verb is marked with the masculine plural. Observe that this situation differs from that oflexical collectives like e.g. xayl "horses" in (16), which is inherently collective, and cannot occur with a plural (masculine) agreement on the verb. It is also different from the situation of rarab "Arabs': or barbar "Berbers~ in that the latter are not plural forms, but rather singulative collectives. Furthermore, the collective meaning is not contributed by the broken plural form. In the case of the broken plurals given in (20), however, the same broken nominal form is compatible with a collective or a distributive reading, depending mainly on clausal syntax. 10 As a first approximation, let us assume that both collective and non-collective plurals are dominated byNum in (20), and that the two plural types are in complementary distribution (under Num). But other properties lead us to think that the two plurals do not occupy the same position. For example, collective agreement is not sensitive to VSO/SVO order alternations, but the non-collective is. The following VSO sentences are the counterparts of the SVO sentences in (20b ). Observe that the collective agreement is invariantly feminine singular in both orders, whereas the normal (non-collective) agreement is variant (it appears only in the masculine singular form in the VSO order; (20b) is repeated here for convenience): (20)

b. ljalaasifat-u

t-aquul-u

haa4aa

the-philosophers-NOM 3F-say-IND this Philosophers say this. (21)

a.

t -aquul-u l-fa.laasifat-u

haa4aa

3P-say the-philosophers this Philosophers say this.

b. y-aquul-u ljalaasifat-u

haaqaa (*y-aquul-uu-na)

3-say-IND the-philosophers this Philosophers say this.

(*3-say-PL-IND)

to. Note that although these alternations appear to be limited to broken plural forms, examples of collective agreement with sound plurals are documented in the literature. Roman (1990, p. 47) provides, after N5ldeke, the following (part of a) verse attributed to the poet Al-1aXtal (see also Sibawayhi, II, p. 55 for more examples): (i)

... wa-1-muslim-ii-na 1i4aa maa qamma-haa 1-jumar-u and-the-Moslem-PL.ACC-N when if gathered-her the-Fridays-NoM and the Moslems when they gather on Fridays.

Here the collective pronoun 'her' is used to refer back to Moslems, which is a sound plural.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 303

c.

qaa.la.-t n-nasaaraa.

l-masiih-u

bn-u

lla.h-i

said-F the-christians the-Messiah-NOM son-NOM Allah-GEN The Christians said: Messiah is the son of Allah. (Co ran)

d.

qaala n-nasaaraa

haarja.a (*qaal-uu)

said the-christians this The Christians said this.

(*said-PL)

In (21b & d), the [-uu-] Pl is excluded. Since the generalization on asymmetric agreement patterns (observed in these contrasts) appears to be simpler ifitis stated in terms of absence of the Number projection, then the collective is better treated as a Classifier, rather than Number. Cl agreement then would not be sensitive to VSO/SVO orders in the relevant respect. 11 If collective is placed under Cl, then two possibilities arise: Cl is higher than NumP if falaasifat is under NumP (it then acts as an external Cl), or Cl is over nP, and Pl is part of nP. But there is reason to think that both Cl and Pl occur higher, i.e. in DP. Consider the following constructions: 12 (22)

l-xayl-u

wa-l-kilaab-u raa.da.-t

the-horses and-the-dogs came.back-F The horses and the dogs came back. (23)

l-xayl-u

wa-r-rijaal-u raad-uu

(*raada-t)

the-horses and-the-men came.back-PL(m) (came.back-F) The horses and the dogs came back.

u. Zabbal (2002) provides similar alternations but construes them as essentially morphosemantic,dependingon the broken/sound plural interpretations. The datahe uses (unfortunately) confuses Lebanese and Standard Arabic. But dearly, the broken/sound distinction plays only a minor role in this system. The latter depends essentially on syntax (see e.g. the behavior of naas, which has no morphology). Likewise, it is not the case that the collective/distributive interpretations crucially depend on the broken/sound distinction, since the sound system is rather marginal for nouns, as we have seen above, and collective marking is not incompatible with sound forms (see Footnote 10 above, and also Acquaviva (2008) on a similar point). For more on the agreement variation, see Belnap & Shabaneh (1992), Ferguson (1989). 12. The starred agreement in parentheses is infelicitous in normal contexts. But in (24), the plural masculine is possible if horses are 'personalized~ For example, in the Coranic text (XXVI, 18), when naml is treated as an addressee, then it becomes possible to use a plural masculine imperative form:

(i)

qaala-t 11aml-at-un said-F

yaa 1a)l)'-u-haa n-11aml-u

ant-unit-NOM oh

you

masaakin-a-kum lodgingss-Ace-your An ant said: Oh ants, enter your lodgings!

dxul-uu

the-ant-NOM enter-PL

304 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (24)

l-xayl-u raada-t (*raad-uu) the-horses came.back-F (came.back-PL) The horses came back.

What these contrasts show is that a conjoined DP can control a collective agreement (when it includes no human agent), suggesting that the relevant Num is at the DP level. In (23), the conjoined DP is human, by resolution, although one member is non-human. In (22) and (24), the DP is non-human, and the normal plural is ill-formed. These patterns can be accounted for only if the relevant Num is on the (maximal) DP, rather than on its members, which have their own NumP, as sketched in the representation (25), for the DP in (23):

----------

(25)

DP [+pl, +m]

DP[+f, +sg]

~ 1-xayl-u

ConjP

~

wa

DP [+pl. +m]

~ r-rijaal-u

Note that the resolution is in 'favour' of the human DP. But in any case, the conjoined DP has different number and gender values from what results from a union of the feature values of its members.B Further variation in Num is instantiated by the following constructions: (26)

n-naml-u y-asku.nu l-baraariy-a wa-l-xaraab-aa.t-i the-ant-NOM 3-inhabit the-deserts-Ace and-the-ruins-Ace Ants inhabit deserts and ruins.

(27)

qaala-t n-naml-u li-bar4-i-haa bar4-un said-F the-ant-NOM to-some-GEN-her some-NOM dxul-uu masaakina-kum enter-PL lodgings-your The ants said to each other: enter your lodgings!

Observe that non-human singular conjuncts, for example, are not unified as 'feminine singular'; they rather yield masculine plural:

13.

(i)

kalb-un

wa-qiff-un

wa-hamaam-at-un

daxal-uu

d-daar-a

dog-NoM and-cat-NOM and-pigeon-unit-NOM entered-PL the-house-Ace A dog, a cat, and-a pigeon entered the-house. (ii)

*kalb-un wa-qiff-un wa-hamaam-at-un daxala-t d-daar-a dog-NoM and-cat-NOM and-pigeon-unit-NOM entered-F the-house-Ace

Singular and dual forms of non -human nouns behave then like human in this case.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 305

(28)

qaala-t l-za.rra.ab-u

zaaman-naa

said-F the-bedouin.Arabs believed-we The Bedouin Arabs said they became faithful.

(Coran 49, 14)

In (26)-(28), naml, a collective name, varies as to whether it behaves as a singular (masculine or feminine) with respect to verbal agreement, or as a plural (masculine) in the imperative. Likewise, it varies depending on whether it controls a feminine bound anaphor, or a plural masculine pronominal. In (28), the subject agreement is feminine singular with the first verb, and masculine plural with the second verb. Clearly. such a variation cannot be lexically handled by any property of the subject DP. In the next subsection, I deal with double plurals, duals of plurals, plurals of abundance, etc. the treatment of which provides additional motivation for the fine-grained picture of plurality I have elaborated. 2.5

Plurals of plurals and similar matters

As shown in Fassi Fehri (2003, 2005b) and Fassi Fehri and Vinet (2007), various plurals can re-pluralize: 14 (29)

a.

~

qawl "saying"

~

b. farq "difference"

rajul

~

Kman"

1aqwaal

~

"sayings"

1aqaawiil "a lot of sayings"

furuuq

~

"differences"

rijaal "men"

~

furuuq-aat "a lot of differences"

rijaal-aat "collections of men"

However, the new formed plural (via vowel lengthening in (29a), or concatenative suffixation in (29 b & c) is not stricto sensu 'a plural of a pluraf in the sense that a new sum is formed from discrete sums taken as atomic entities, more like what happens e.g. with the plural of groups. In other words, it is not a 'multiplier' Pl, or a double sum (**star) Pl. It is rather interpreted as either (a) a 'taxonomic pluraf, i.e. a plural that pluralizes sorts or kinds, or (b) an 'intensive plural: in the sense

The examples given here are from Standard Arabic. But as faras I can tell, similar contrasts are found in the various colloquials. In some cases, the sound plural is used as a second plural instead of (or in addition to) the broken. as in the following Moroccan Arabic examples:

14.

(i) (ii) (iii)

qawl "saying" raj/ "man"

~ ~

qwaal "sayings" rjaal"'men"

tmer "'dates"

~

tmuur, tmuur-at

~

~

qwaal-at "a lot of sayings" rjaal-at "'collections of men" "a lot of dates ; many kinds of dates"

3o6 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar that it increases the amount or quantity of the entities involved. Thus 1aqaawiil in (29a) has one of the two following interpretations: (30)

a. b.

"many-many sayings; a lot of sayings, (intensive) Kkinds-of-sayings" (taxonomic)

Note that these meanings are found when nouns naming collectives/kinds are pluralized (as observed in the references cited above): (31)

a. b. c.

xayl "horses,---,). xuyuu.l "a lot of horses; many kinds of horses, sama.k "fish" ---,). zasmaak "a lot of fish; many kinds of fish" tamr "dates" ---,). tumuur "a lot of dates ; many kinds of dates"

These plurals also mean either (a) differents sorts/kinds of horses, i.e. they are taxonomic, or (b) many-many dates, fish, i.e. they have the so-called intensive or abundant quantity reading. Likewise, mass nouns like maa1 "water': 1athaath "furniture" can be pluralized. When they do, their plural does not behave like a normal multiplier/sum plural, but rather like either the intensive or the taxonomic plural. Thus miyyaah "waters" means either "a lot of water" (intensive), or "many sorts of water" (taxonomic). In sum, the 'plural of the pluraf of count nouns appears to behave more like the plural of names for kinds or masses. The latter are non-atomic entities, or [0 atomic]. Their plural is different from the (inflectional) plural of individuals or groups, which forms a[- atomic] sum from[+ atomic] entities, as in e.g. Link (1983, 1998). Let us now see in more concrete terms how these 'plural of plural: 'second plural; plurals of masses, etc. can be syntactically represented. In its intensive reading, I take 1aqaawiil to have two numbers, which are generated under Num: one Num acts as a pluralizing head (meaning basically 'not-one' or 'many'; = Pll), and a second Num is an adjoined modifier, which contributes the intensive (or big quantity) reading(= Pl2) as follows (slashes are used at the bottom of the tree to avoid more detail of the structure): (32)

NumP

~

NumP [Pl2]

NumP

~ Num [Pl1]

nP

~ 1aqaawiil

In its taxonomic reading, I take 1aqaawiil to be headed by a taxonomic classifier Clr which is pluralized via a Num head, as in the following:

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 307

In the two structures, the two plural forms are assumed to be part of syntax, fulfilling the positions and the functions indicated, building on ideas by Krifka (1995), Borer (2005), and Wiltschko (2008), among others. Let us turn now to plurals of collectives/kinds in (31), or masses like miyyaah "waters=' In their taxonomic reading, it is reasonable to think that their structure is quasi-identical to that of (33), except that the C~ is 'hidden: rather than expressed, and there is only one Pl expressed, rather than two: (34)

NumP

~ Num [Pl]

ClP

~ C~

nP

~ miyyaah

As for the 'intensive' reading of masses or kinds, I assume (tentatively) a parallel structure to (32), in which Num (meaning basically 'a lot' or 'much') is adjoined to nP, rather than its head:l5 (35)

nP

~

NumP [Pl]

nP

~

miyyaah The analysis combine atomistic pluralization, modification by a quantity plural

like 'many' or 'much~ taxonomic classification, etc. 16

15. NumP here is similar to #P in Borer (2005), but a comparison of the two systems will take us too far afield The double plural effect is due to the fact that samak or maa1 may be construed as lexical plurals in the sense of Chierchia (1998), in line with his representation of the lattice for 'furniture:

t6. Due to lack of space, I would not be able to compare such an analysis with others, nor to motivate it in detail. See Fassi Fehri (2009c) for detail, and more motivation

3o8 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

Note that the syntactic status of the taxonomic plural in (33) can be made parallel to that of the 'dual of the plural' found in Classical Arabic: ( 36)

a.

rijaal-aan 'men-dual'; "two collections/categories of men"

b. jimaal-a.an 'camels-d uaf; "two collections/kinds of camels" Contrary to the 'plural of the plural: the dual of the plural has only one reading, namely the taxonomic reading. It roughly means 'two sorts/kinds/collections of men, camels'. It is reasonable to think that the dual here is a head, inserted under Num, whereas the first plural functions as a Cl, exactly like what is represented in (33) for the double pluralP The head status of the taxonomic plural finds also support in its distinct behavior with high or low numerals, as illustrated by the following contrast: (37)

a.

zaif-u

rijaal-in

(*rijaal-aat-in)

thousand-NOM men-GEN (*men-PL-GEN) A thousand of collections of men b.

talaatat-u rijaa.l-aat-in (*rijaal; in the intended reading) three-NOM men-PL-GEN Three (different) categories/collections of men

In both constructions, there is a counting of collections of things (collections of men, or of differences), rather than the things themselves. To express such a meaning, the low numeral 3 must take the 'plural of the plural' as a complement, whereas the high numerallOOO takes a simple plural only. I assume that the first plural functions as a Cl in both cases, and the second plural in (38) as a mere agreement marker on the noun (with the numeral), strictly parallel to the plural marker on the noun in (10), compared to (11) above. 18 In sum, plurality arises at various levels of structure in the grammar and lexicon. A clear illustration was provided by collective plurality; which exhibits

For the Cl status of plural (in e.g. English), see e.g. Borer (2005), and the references cited there, as well as Doetjes (2008).

17.

t8. Note that no intensive reading is available for these constructions. The complementarity of numerals and intensive plurality is expected if they have the same quantificational function. Thus many/much cannot appear beside a numeral (at least with small numerals), as pointed out to me by a reviewer. For relevant reflections on the matter, see Zamparelli (2000, 2001), as well as Borer (2005), among others. For a precise implementation, see Fassi Fehri (2009c ).

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 309

distinct properties at RootP, np, NumP, or DP levels. Second, double Plural manifestations and readings have been sorted out, depending on whether Pl is a head under Cl or under N urn, or an adjunct modifier. 19

Verb plurality

3·

Verbs can be born as plural (in the lexicon). An activity like raq~a 'dance' can denote a plurality of dancing events (in addition to a singular event of dancing). It can be conceived as a counterpart of a noun naming a kind. 1his plural character can be assessed in various ways. For example, one can measure the number of times that the event occurred, as in (38), or the number of cognate event units, as in (39): (38)

raqa.fa r-rijaal-u.

talaat-a

ma.rraat-in

danced the-men-NOM three-Ace times.PL-GEN The men danced three times. (39)

raqa.fa r-rijaal-u. talaaJ-a

raqa.f-aat-in

danced the-men three-Ace dance-unit.PL-GEN The men danced three dances. Sentences like (40) and (41) also support the view that the event denoted by the verb is plural: (40)

raq~a

r-rijaal-u zakJar-a

min raq$-at-in

danced the-men more-Ace than dance-unit-GEN The men danced more than one dance. (41)

r-raq~-u

kanaa jayyid-an

the-dancing-NOM was The dancing was good.

good-Ace

The first sentence put a lower bound on the dancing by using a cognate unit event, and the second sentence uses a kind event nominal to refer to the several event units, involved in (more than one) dancing. Repetitive and cumulative readings of

I leave aside here many questions of execution or description. For example, I have not discussed when Pl counts as a feature or a category, although it should be easily transparent. Second, the important point made is not the non -existence of 'plural of plural: but rather that such an existence must be mediated by Cl. See Zabbal (2002) for relevant discussion of interpretive issues, and Roman (1990) and Hachimi (2007) for various patterns of Gender. See also Schwarzschild (1996) on various properties of pluralities.

19.

310

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

( 40) and (41) are then expected. Likewise, both collective and cumulative readings of the event can be involved in interpretations of the following sentence: (42)

raq~a

zarbarat-u rijaal-in

talaaJa

danced four-NOM men-GEN three Four men danced three dances.

raq~aatin

dances

In fact, the three event units of dancing may have been performed collectively, or distributively, by one to four men, and in each dance, 1 to 4 men may have participated. What matters is that the sum of dances has to be 3, and the sum of participants in all the 3 dances is neither more nor less than 4. The numbers are then reached repetitively or cumulatively (e.g. you cannot have four different men for each dance). I assume that predicates such as these are lexically cumulative, the lexical root being the source of collective, repetitive, or cumulative meanings. Following Kratzer (2008), I also assume that as far as grammar goes, no distinction is made between distributive, cumulative, collective, or iterative interpretations. These predicates fall under Krifka's (1992) cumulative universal, which states that "simple predicates in natural language typically are cumulative~ Kratzer (2008) further argues that verbs have the characteristic property of taking arguments, and there are transitive and unaccusative verbs which are inherently relational (rela.te, connect, 1·esemble, su1pass, outdo, depend, hinder, cause, etc). It is essential that these verbs characterize kinds of eventualities by relating them to (at least one of) their participants. If denotations of verbs and thematic role predicates are cumulative from the start, the effortless availability of a cumulative interpretation for sentences like (42) above is expected.20 It is then reasonable to think that verbs, like nouns, have (as roots) an interpretation of a kind, or general number, which induces plural (and singular) interpretations from the start (as argued e.g. in Fassi Fehri (2005, 2009c), Rullman & You 2006); see also Corbett (2000) for general number). 21

20. In other words, the plurality is a characteristic of the lexical root. Indeed, the kind of event described varies depending on the kind of direct internal argument in erratic ways, and it would be hard to account for this dependency if a verb's argument structure is always syntactically constructed If a large group of verbs are inherently relational, then verb roots might be predicative from the start, and they fall under Krifka's (1992) cumulative universaL Furthermore, if external and applicative arguments are not true arguments of their verbs, but are added in the syntax, we need thematic role predicates like agent or goal to introduce them (see Kratzer (2008) for a logic along these lines, and Krifka (1992) for thematic role predication). 11. Landman (1996) proposes that basic predicates (of the metalanguage) are singular predicates which get pluralized by a *operator. The latter maps sets that come with a sum operation to their smallest cumulative superset. See also Kratzer (2008).

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 311

3.1

Pluractional morphology

In Arabic, productive morphology of pluractionality involves consonant gemination, (partial) reduplication, or vowel lengthening. These internal morphological operations apply to basic roots, to form complex roots, and they induce various pluractional interpretations, including so-called repetitive/intensive, 'interaction/ participation', or 'attenuative' readings (see Fassi Fehri (2000, 2003), and Chapter 2 for varieties of these meanings): (43)

jawwal-a

r-rajul-u

walked.intens the-man-NOM The man took a lot of walks. (44)

jaa.tla.ba

r-raju.l-u

l-marzat-a

pulled.PL the man-NOM the-woman-Ace The man shared pulling with the woman. (45)

a. b.

xanna "to speak through the nose; nasalize" xanxana "to nasalize smoothly and repeatedly"

Consider the transitive intensive found in the following construction: ( 46)

jarraha

l-jundiyy-u

l-zaifaal-a

wounded.intens the-soldier-NOM the-children-Ace i.

ii.

The soldier inflicted many wounds to the children. The soldier wounded many children.

Such a construction is ambiguous. The consonant gemination (a form of reduplication) tells us (a) how repetitive is the suffering of the children from the event of wounding, whereby many wounds are inflicted to the children (call it the event reading, termed usually the intensive), or (b) it tells us how high is the quantity of children who were wounded, whereby a very many of the children were wounded (call it the participant reading). Suppose we translate 'many' (a big quantity) by Pl and that Pl in each case is interpreted as 'abundant' double Pl. In the event reading, Pl pluralizes the already lexically plural event. In the participant (object) reading, the noun is already Pl, and the gemination induces a secondary pluralization, from which the 'abundance: or increase in quantity of the already plural noun can be induced. Let us then take gemination on the verb in the latter case to play the role of a second plural which affects the (already plural) DP (in line with Sauerland's (2003) and Kratzer's (2008) DP pluralization). This is so because the first plural in NumP over nP (and under DP) internally pluralizes the nominal phrase, and the plural postulated over DP (although visible only on the verb) counts as the second

312

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar plural of the phrase. Note in passing that the two readings are available just in the case the object is plural but not when it is singular (hence indicating that the internal plural on the vP cannot pluralize a single DP object). Suppose we use Agree to account for the two readings. In the event reading, the morphological Pl is interpreted on the (verbal) root head, and the intensive event reading may result from adjoining Pl to the root, as (an adverb-like) modifier. Modifying a (lexically born) plural root by a Pl gives the effect of plural intensification. The object DP is irrelevant for the interpretation in this case. In the object/participant reading, by contrast, the morphological Pl on the verb is not interpreted on the verb. Rather, it is reflected as a (second) pluralization on the DP (object). I will then assume that Pl in this case is uninterpretable on the head root, and interpretable on the DP. DP is now endowed with two Pl heads, one internally interpreted on the nP (or NumP over nP), and one externally interpreted on the DP. It is the latter (interpretable) Pl which values the uninterpretable Pl on the verb, the latter then acting as a mere agreement marker with regard to the upper Pl on the DP. The DP plural which qualifies as a second (semantic) plural. has either a taxonomic or an intensive reading, as explained above. I then tentatively provide the following (simplified and pruned) structures for the event and the participant readings of (46), respectively (i for interpretable, u for uninterpretable, R for root): (47)

Eventreading RP

---------------

R

DP

~

R

[iPl]

~

D

I

jarra~

NumP [iPl]

~

Num

nP [uPl]

~

1-?atfaal-a

( 48)

Participant reading RP

-------------

R

DP [iPl]

~

[uPl]

R

~

D

NumP [iPl]

~

Num

nP [uPl]

~

l-1atfaal-a

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 313

In (48), the [uPl] on R is valued by the external [iPl] on the DP, and the internal [iPl] on NumP (always) values the [uPl] on nP. As for the adjoined [iPl] toR in (47), it is interpreted on the root, by virtue of being a modifier, and it requires no probe-goal relation.22 The event or participant readings are both instances of plurality, and in both instances, it is the verb which is morphologically marked. Plurality of verbs can be built on their nominal dependents (arguments, complements, adverbs, etc.), and Pl marking on verbs is either interpretable, or only a formal (agreement) marker with a DP dependent. Pl may act as a head of the root, or as its modifier.23 3.2

Collective and distributive plural

Consider the following (apparently equivalent) pair of sentences (49)

ja"aba zarbarat-u junuud-in tift-an wounded.intens four-NOM soldiers-GEN child-Ace Four soldiers wounded intensively a child.

(SO)

zarbarat-u junuud-in jan-al;t-uu tift-an four-NOM soldiers-NOM wounded.intens-PL child-Ace Four soldiers wounded intensively a child.

In (49), the plural individual paired with the event is collectively involved in that event, in conformity with Landman's (1996) Collective Criterion. The singular indefinite fails to distribute. There is one (minimal) event involved, or a series of identical sub-events, performed by the same subject participant, and one child involved. The event is collective (or weakly distributive). The interpretation is that 4 soldiers collectively or cumulatively inflicted many wounds to a single child. In (SO), the SVO version of (43), the distinctive interpretation (in addition to those found in (49)), is significantly distributive. It can mean that each of the four soldiers has wounded one child. The outcome would then be up to four children

See W!ltschko (2008) on the head/modifier status of Pl, as well as the logic of this reasoning.

22.

13. Fassi Fehri (2000a, 2003b) qualifies the event and participant readings as collective and distributive, respectively. Verb classification is also built along the same event/participant alternations, and often on nominal constituents (arguments, complements, adverbs, etc.), rather than on verbal heads. When a verbal classifier appears on the verb, it may or may not be interpretable on it. Thus the complexity and incrementality involved in the verb classification may be operated either through a related series of verbs (as in Chinese), or through a composition of verbs and their dependents (see Fassi Fehri (2005b), Huang (2004), and Fassi Fehri & Vmet (2008)).

314 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

intensively wounded. The strong distributive interpretation finds presumably its origin in the pluralization of vP, which is manifested by the plural inflection on the verb. 3·3

Semantic. Pl in SVO

Arabic SVO and VSO alternations in word order and agreement have been traditionally treated as either formal (see Harbert & Bahloul (2002) for an overview, as well as Bahloul (2007)), or discourse based alternations (see e.g. Fassi Fehri (1988a)). But, as we have seen above, there is a sense in which such alternations have in fact a semantic source. In VSO, the vP trP is not pluralized, and its D P subject presumably lacks the Pl projection at the DP level. In SVO, by contrast, both the vP/TP and the (external) DP are pluralized. As a consequence, VSO and SVO orders are not semantically (nor morpho-syntactically) equivalent: Pl of vP (and its interpretation) is present in SVO, but lacking in VSO. Consider again the following alternating constructions: (51)

daxxana zarbarat-u rijaal-in sijaarat-ayni smoked four-NOM men-GEN cigarette-dual Four men smoked two cigarettes.

(52)

zarbarat-u rijaal-in daxxan-uu sijaarat-ayni four men smoked-PL cigarette-dual Four men smoked two cigarettes.

The VSO order has no Pl/Num agreement. Its interpretation is basically collective/cumulative. It means that four men collectively (or cumulatively) smoke two cigarettes in total and not more. In the SVO (52), there is a distributive reading of the event whereby for each smoking of two cigarettes, there is an agent/participant who could be 1, 2, or 3 (but not 4). The outcome is that 4 to 8 cigarettes may have been smoked. As explained earlier, this result can be reached by assuming that the vP is pluralized, and its DP subject too (at a DP level). In other words, the Pl which is marked on the verb (or vP/TP) has a matching counterpart on the DP. But what about interpretability of such a Pl? Can it be interpreted on both projections (through e.g. some mechanism of value sharing), or interpreted on only one projection (through a mechanism of valuation of the sort I used earlier)? One important question to answer in this context is whether Pl can ever function as an interpretable head of vP, or only as a modifier, or a non-interpretable head, with an agreement status. I will show that the SVO configuration introduces a semantic Pl interpretation, which is absent from VSO. Such a Pl is rather interpreted on the DP subject, and the marking on the vP has a formal/agreement status.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 315

There is evidence that the subject DP in VSO has no (external) number (or Pl), and that the verb (or vp) is not pluralized either (or has no Number). With simple plural DPs, the verb manifests no PI marking, as in (49) above. Even the first conjunct does not agree in Number with verbs when it is nominal: (53)

ba4ara rajul-aa-ni wa-zanta (*ba4ar-aa 'came-duaf) came man-dual and-you Two men and you were present

This suggests that with nominal conjoined D Ps, the DP has no (external) Number in VSO. But when the subject is pronominal, the verb appears to agree in Number with the first conjunct (54)

f:w.tja.r-tumaa 1antum-aa. wa-1anaa came-2.dual you-dual You and I were present

and-I

Observe, however, that there is no Number (or Person) resolution in this case, although there is resolution in the SVO counterpart (where Person is 1. rather than 2, and Number is Pl, rather than dual): (55)

1antum-aa wa-1anaa "/:la4ar-naa you-dual and-I came-lPL You and I were present

I take phi feature resolution phenomena to be a diagnostic for vP pluralization through a plural DP (externaVinflectional/phrasal Pl). Since there is no Number or Person resolution with respect to the whole DP in (54), it is reasonable to think that the (conjoined) DP has no Number or Person features. Agree is then with nP, which has Person, but not Number. Presumably, v-T has also a Person feature in VSO, but no Number. Valuation/ Agree then proceeds with Person of the first conjunct, but not Number, since the vP is not pluralized. The first conjunct requirement follows if the two members of the conjunct are asymmetrically configured. Furthermore, a pluralized vP has to be c-commanded by a plural DP. When vasymmetrically c-commands DP, DP cannot transmit its Number to it, or no Agree relation is possible between the two constituents.24 Kratzer (2008) notes that subject distributivity is hard to get when the subject is left in a low (post-verbal) position in German:

14. See Fassi Fehri (2009a) and references cited there for more discussion of agreement configurations.

316

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar (56)

Am

Nebentisch ra.uchten vier Manner eine Zigan·e.

at+the next table smoked four men a cigar At the next table, four men were smoking a cigar. The sentence (56) basically means that the four men were sharing a single cigar. She proposes that these low subjects lack the higher plural projection, in which case they would not be able to pluralize their sister constituent on her account. In Arabic, the same is true of VSO vs. SVO configurations. SVO has Number, but VSO does not. My analysis of VSO in Arabic is inspired by hers, and reaches similar conclusions. To summarize, I have shown that SVO and VSO configurations are not simply formal alternations in terms of word order, or formal phi features. They can rather be alternations of semantic plurality. The Pl marker on the verb is then interpreted as a semantic Pl on the DP subject. and as a mere formal agreement on the vP. Moreover, I have found no evidence that Pl can ever be interpreted as a semantic head of the vP. Bianchi (2006) argues that Number can be interpretable when it is specified on verbs, just like when it is so on nouns. Thus verb number agreement is semantically relevant in a well-defined set of cases, and its semantic import is event pluralization. Her evidence is based on the behaviour of the Italian reciprocal modifier uno dopa l'altro ("one after the other").25 Bianchi thenproposes a parallel structure (to Pl nP), in which the Pl selects the vP. and is interpreted on it, as in the following structure (which I simplified): (57)

PIP [Pl vP]

In (57), the vP denotes (the characteristic function of) a set of shooting events, and PIP a set of plural shooting events, where Carl is Agent in Carl shot three times. But in The soldiers shot one after a.nother, we do not want to obtain a set of plural events each of which has all the soldiers as the Agent. but rather a plurality of events each of which has an individual part of the denotation of [DP the soldiers] as its Agent. This can be obtained by pluralizing a relation between individuals and events via the double star operator (as in Sternefeld (1998), or Beck (2001)). I have not made use of double stars here, but more importantly I have found no crucial evidence to

15. The modifier (which is related to an antecedent) expresses a temporal serialization of a set of events. Current analyses of reciprocals involve a semantically plural antecedent, due to their inherent distributivity. But Bianchi argues that the antecedent is not only semantically, but also syntactically plural Evidence comes from quantifiers that feature a mismatch between syntactic and semantic number (e.g. 'more than one nP' is semantically plural, but syntactically singular, and hence cannot antecede that modifier, whereas other Qs, which trigger plural agreement on the verb do).

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 317 think that such a configuration does exit as an (internally) interpretable Pl projection. If such a configuration is not semantically interpretable, then this constitutes a rather clear-cut asymmetry in terms of plurality between nouns and verbs. 26 3·4

Kinds of plural agreement: Collective and non-collective

Consider again the pair of sentences in (19) above, repeated here for convenience: (19)

a.

n-naas-u t-~allii li-rabb-i-haa the-people-NOM 3F-pray to-god-GEN-her People (as a group) pray to their God.

b.

n-naas-u y-u~all-uu-na li-rabb-i-him the-people-NOM 3-pray-PL-IND to-god-GEN-their People pray to their God.

In one reading, both constructions are interpreted as denoting a collective (or a group) event. The subject controls the verb and the pronoun, and both agree with it in 'gender'. Collective/classifier agreement has, in fact, a collective/group (rather than feminine) feature, which is interpretable as a singleton plurality. or a sum-unit. It is presumably the subject naas that has an interpretable group value, and the group/Cl morphology on the verb is uninterpretable. Clearly, naas is not 'feminine' per se, as demonstrated by its occurrence with a masculine (singular) agreement in (19b), or its ability to control a plural masculine pronoun or anaphor in (58): (58)

a.

y-U$allii n-naas-u li-raabb-i-him 3-pray the-people-NOM to-god-GEN-their People pray to their God.

b.

y-u~allii

mara barcj-in n-naas-u barcj-u-hum 3-pray the-people-NOM some-NOM-them with some-GEN People pray with each other.

If masculine is unmarked, then the verb there does not agree with the subject in 'gender: Note also that the SV alternate of (58a) cannot be feminine (plural) either: (59)

*n-naas-u y-usall-ii-na li-rabb-i-hinna the-people-NOM 3-pray-PL.F-IND to-god-GEN-their.F People pray to their God.

16. Along the same lines of my approach to verbal/nominal peculiarities, Doetjes (2008) argues that the roles played by numerals, number, and classifiers, are distinct in nominal and verbal structures.

318 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar As explained above, the alternations in (58)-(59) exhibit different patterns of (normal) plural agreement In the SV configuration, the controller of the pronoun must be plural masculine, as in (57b); it cannot be 'fem'-pl as in the ungrammatical (59). Clearly then naas is plural distributive in some sense, and cannot be singular, although its plurality has two manifestations (as sums, or as groups). The two available plural readings exclude the singular reading. To broaden the picture, it is important to note that (58a) is the VS alternate of the SV construction (19b) in that both constructions are compatible with a distributive subject interpretation. But the VS alternate of the collective (19a) cannot (58a). It rather preserves the collective marker, as in (60): (60)

t-z~aUii

n-naas-u

li-rabb-i-haa

3F-pray the-people-NOM to-god-GEN-her People (as a group) pray to their God. With the collective, the word order has no impact on the form of the marker on the verb. It is presumably the case then that not only the verb is 'collectivized: but also the D P, in both orders. It also appears that the collective (or group) feature is interpreted on the DP, and it is formal on the vP.

4·

Reciprocity

Reciprocal constructions (= RC) exhibit a plurality behavior in various ways. Reciprocity involves symmetric predication as well as subject/antecedent plurality, which may be discontinuous. Reciprocals are also three-way hierarchized, as: (a) lexical/basic, (b) morphologically complex, or (c) syntactic, depending on their morpho-syntax and semantics. Lexical reciprocals (LR) are found in English, but are hardly instantiated in Arabic. Reciprocal expressions or pronouns (RE) appear freely with basic root verbs, to form syntactic reciprocals (SR). Morphological reciprocals (MR) forbid the occurrence of RE, at least when they are arguments. RE vary depending on whether they are argumental comitative, or modifier. Plural agreement on verbs play a role in interpreting reciprocity, but RE do not always require an antecedent which is both semantically and syntactically plural. That is, subjects of RC are semantically plural, but they may or may not be syntactically plural. 4.1

Lexical reciprocals and symmetric events

Symmetric predication is prototypical in expressing reciprocity. A two-place predicate is symmetric if exchanging its two arguments always preserves truth

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 319

values. Thus x met y is symmetric, but x saw y is not, although RC are felicitous with either one: (61)

a. b.

The boys met (each other). The boys saw each other.

In the case where there can be no event of John meeting Bill without that same event of Bill meeting John, we can talk about irreducibly symmetric predicates in the sense ofDimitriadis (2008, p. 378, adapted):

(62)

A predicate Pis irredudbly symmetric if a. b.

P expresses a binary relationship, and P's arguments have identical participation in the event described by P.

In fact, reciprocity can be true of a relation between members of a set A if the following holds (see Konig & Kokutani 2006):

(63)

Vx,y E A (x:t:y--)> R(x,y)) (A a subset of the domain D of individuals).

Konig & Kokutani (2006) provide the following list of what they take to be basic symmetric predicates in English (and I have provided a parallel list of Arabic counterparts):

(64)

meet, differ, agree with, argue with, make love to, marry, dance with, adjoin, fight with, date, resemble, join, compete with, speak with, separate y from z, etc.

(64')

laqiya (ltaqaa bi) "meet': xtalafa "differ': t-tafaqa mara "agree with~ nakal;Ja, "make love with, marry': tazawwaja "mar~ raq~a mara "dance with~ labiqa bi "join~ naazara/tanaazara "compete with~ saabaha/talaabaha "resembltf. tal;Jaddata lilaa "speak with~ f~ala ran "separate from:'

It is also possible to regard verbs in (65) as instances of symmetric predicates, since they are prototypically used in symmetric situations, (although their basic use may denote a certain asymmetry of power, control initiative or involvement): (65)

kiss, embrace, divorce, greet, hug, split up with, share y with z, collide with, etc.

(65')

qabbala "kiss~ raanaqaltaraanaqa "hu(, taUaqa "divorce~ taqaasama! qaasama. "share with~ saa-tara. "split up with~ baadala!tabaadala "exchangtf. staraka jii "share X with ~ xtala(.a "m~ saafaf:ta/ta~aafaf:ta "shake hands~ xaa~ama!taxa~ama "quarrel, dispute with~ tabaaraa "to compete with': faaxaraltafaaxara "to pride/ glory (in, with)': tabaaf:tata "to investigate (with)."

320

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

What is striking, though. is that when we try to establish the Arabic counterparts of these lists, as I did with the translations given in (64') and (65'), it appears that there are no basic verbs expressing directly a reciprocal action. For example, meet, hug, resemble have no Arabic basic counterparts, which are reciprocal. The forms used are rather derived, by adding some reciprocal morphology to roots (rec =reciprocal):27 (66)

ltaqaa l-walad-aani metREc the-child-dual The two children met each other.

(67)

ta-raanaqa l-faazizu.una REc-hug the-winners The winners hugged each other.

(68)

ta.-saaba.ha-t l-l_tu.luu.l-u REC-resembled-F the-solutions The solutions resembled each other.

Most often, reciprocity is expressed by Form VI of the verb (t-aCaaCaCa), but also by Form VIII (CtaCaCa). Both forms have the reflexive/ reciprocal [-t], as a prefix in the first case, and an infix in the second case. In the case of Form VI, however, it looks as if reciprocity is a composition of pluractionality and reflexivity. But in every case, a morphological marker is normally needed on the verb, to express reciprocity. The [-t] morpheme, which is necessary; is a reflexive/reciprocal (in addition to other functions, such as anti-causativizer). Put simply, it appears that Arabic, unlike English, has no lexical reciprocals, but only morphological and syntactic reciprocals. 4.2

Morphological reciprocals

The subject of the MR verb must be plural (a plural DP, or a conjunct of singular DPs):

27. K5nig & Kokutani (2006) also list adjective and noun reciprocals, which I have translated here, for the sake of comparison:

(i) (i')

similar to, different from, parallel to, analogous to, equivalent to, adjacent to, engaged to. sabilh bi, muxtalifran, muwaazin li, mumaatllli, mutakaaft? mara, muhaadin 11,

murtabit bi. (ii) (ii')

relative of, friend ot: opposite of, partner ot: mirror image of, counterpart of, etc. qariib li, ~adiiq 11, cjidd 11, Iariik li, ~urah markuusah 11, muqaabilli, etc.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 321

(69)

a.

ta-xaa~ama r-rijaalu. REC-disputed the-men The men quarreled with each other.

b.

ta-xaa~ama zayd-un wa-ramr-un REc-disputed Zayd and-Atnr Zayd and Amr quarreled with each other.

It cannot be singular: (70)

*ta-x~ama

zayd-un REc-quarreled Zayd-NOM

A 'comitative' phrase can also be used to 'pluralize' the subject: (71)

ta.-xaa~ama zayd-un ma.ra ramr-in REC-disputed Zayd with Amr Zayd and Amr quarreled with each other.

In tact, the subject here might be taken to be a discontinuous constituent, which associates the nominative phrase and the comitative expression. I return to properties of the latter construction in subsection 4.3 on discontinuity. Note that in all these cases, the verb has no inflectional plural marker, and hence is not syntactically plural. With MR. the verb is normally detransitivized and, as a consequence, RE cannot occur in a case-marked argument position (such as accusative object position). Compare (72) and (73): *ta-x~ama

(72)

r-rijaal-u bar4-u-hum bar4-an REc-quarreled the-men-NOM some-NOM-their some-Ace Intended to mean: The men quarelled with each other.

(73)

x~ama r-rijaal-u bar4-u-hum bar4-an quarreled the-men-NOM some-NOM-their some-Ace The men quarreled with each other.

But an RE is not totally excluded with a MR. It can occur, for example, as a discontinuous constituent: (74)

ta-x~ama r-rijaal-u bar4-u-hum mara bar4-in REc-quarreled the-men-NOM some-NOM-their with some-GEN The men quarreled with each other.

The RE here might be taken as a modifier of the subject, rather than argument of the verb. In (73), the RC involves Form III, which is not symmetrically reciprocal per se, although, in some cases, it expresses a sort of partnership (or commitment) of both the Subject and the Object in performing the role of Agent of the action.

322 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

This shared participation or partnership may imply also a competition (or dispute) in performing the action (termed mughaalabah by traditional grammar), which is present in the interpretation of the following constructions (I gloss the internal vowel [aa] as plural):28

(75)

a.

raa.qa~a-hu.

danced. PL. 3sG-him He shared/ competed in dancing with him. b.

maazaha-hu j oked.PL. 3SG-him He shared/ competed in joking with him.

c.

saatama-hu gossiped.PL.3SG-him He gossiped (competed in gossiping) with him.

d.

maaf-aa.-hu walked.PL.3SG-him He walked (shared/competed in walking) with him.

Although the vowel lengthening [aa.] involved in the form does not always have this kind of interpretation (and it is rather polysemous), it is reasonable to think that its interpretation in the relevant cases is due to the fact that the event is collectively or distributively performed by a distributive plural agent, which surfaces in two argument positions, as subject and object, hence the transitivity. Suppose then that [aa] on the verb root expresses (distributive) Pl, then Zayd and Amr in (69b) should be taken as two members of the subject set (which is a nonatomic sum). But the role associated with the set is split in subject and comitative positions in (71), hence complying with distributive interpretation (see Fassi Fehri 2000, 2003 on distributed transitivity). Turning now to the reciprocal/reflexive Vlth Form, in which [t] is reciprocal/ reflexive, and [aa] is plural, there is a sense, at least in some core cases, that the reciprocity is morphologically compositional. It associates plurality (or distributivity) and reciprocity/reflexivity (a form of symmetry). This appears to be true in the following instances: (76)

a.

ta-raaqfl$-aa REC-danced.PL-dual They shared dancing with each other.

18. As pointed out by a reviewer, this rather interesting construction exhibits similarities with the English out-V derivation. To 'outrun someone' means to compete with him (and surpass him) in running. Like the Arabic derivation, it turns a monadic activity predicate V with argument X into a dyadic complex predicate 'V-in-relation -with where X is the object.

x:

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 323

b.

ta-maasay-aa REC-walked.PL-dual They shared walking with each other.

c.

ta-maazah-aa REC-jok.ed.PL-dual They shared joking with each other.

d.

ta-naa-taf:r-aa. REC-butted.PL-dual They butted at each other.

Note finally that distinctness of members within the A set, stated in (63b), is necessary to distinguish reflexive from reciprocal readings.29 Dimitriadis (2008) has argued that the comitative/discontinuous phrase, such as that found in the RE of (71), is possible only with predicates denoting irreducibly symmetric events. The discontinuous phrase can, in fact, be contrasted with a true comitative with phrase, which is added rather freely to sentences, as in (77): (77)

zakal-tu mara zayd-in ate-I with Zayd-GEN I ate with Zayd.

But there are important distinctions between the comitative phrase and the discontinuous one. For example, the comitative phrase can be freely dropped, while the discontinuous phrase does not allow omission. Second, while the comitative phrase is an adjunct, the discontinuous phrase is in some sense, an argument, whose participation in the event is on par with that of the syntactic subject. The analysis of the properties of the comitative partner is beyond the scope of this study, but I will take it as an important property of the R.E, which contributes to

29. This suggests that the two morphological components available are to be interpreted as 'distributor' for the plural [aa], and 'reciprocator' (like 'other' in 'each other') for [t], rather than reflexive. Faller (2007), for example, analyzes the compositionality of reciprocals along the above lines, illustrated by examples like (i), the counterpart of which is the Arabic (ii): (i)

hayt'a-na-ku-n-ku

(Cuzco Quechua)

kick-Pl-REFL.3-PL They kick each other. (ii)

ta-xa~ama

zayd-un

wa-ramr-un

(Arabic)

RRC-PL.quarreled Zayd-NoM and-Ainr-NoM Zayd and Amr quarreled with each other. See subsection 4.4 below for an analysis of morphological reciprocals along that of syntactic reciprocals, involving a reciprocator component, as in Heim, Lasnik, and May (1991 ).

324 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar its plurality. I leave its exact syntax for further study (see e.g. Siloni (2008) and the references cited there for discussion and elaboration). 4·3

Syntactic. reciprocals

SR exhibit various properties which set them apart from MR and LR. Contrary to the latter, it can be argued that (a) their event is normally non-symmetric (or weakly symmetric), (b) they do not admit a comitative phrase as their subject, (c) their REoccupies an argument position, in addition to the fact that (d) the reciprocal construction is necessarily transitive, (e) its subject must be plural, and (f) reciprocity is not marked on the verb, but rather on the arguments. Finally, (g) verbal Number must be plural in some cases. A simplified syntactic structure ofSR is proposed (inspired by Heim, Lasnik. and May (1991)'s analysis), and compared to that of MR. Consider an instance of SR like (78), compared to another form of RE, a MR like (79): (78)

xa~ama

r-rijaal-u

kull-u-n

l-zaaxar-a

quarreled the-men-NOM each-NOM the-other-Ace The men quarreled with each other. (79)

a.

ta-xaa~ama

r-1ijaal-u

REe-quarreled the-men-NOM The men quarreled with each other. b.

ta-naata{Ja l-kabs-aani REe-butted the-sheep-dual The two sheep butted at each other.

In the SR, the subject is plural, the verb is inflectionally singular, and the RE bears two distinct cases, a nominative and an accusative. The grammatical tradition thinks of the first member of RE as a 'substitute' modifier (of the subject), whereas the second is the object. Let us adopt this modifier/argument view of the two RE members. In the spirit ofHeim, Lasnik. and May (1991), I take the modifier to be a distributor, and the argument to be a reciprocator. The subject DP, which is plural, represents the group/collective antecedent (to which the distributor is attached as a modifier). Finally, the verb (which is lexically or internally plural) does not play an important role in expressing reciprocity. A simple representation is given here: (80)

TP!vP{xa~ama

{groupfr-rijaal-u} distibutor{kull-u-n]} reciprocatarfl-zaaxar-a}

Clearly, the verb in such constructions is non-symmetric. In a sentence like: (81)

x~ama.

zayd-un

ramr-a.n

JalaaJ-a

ma.m~at-in

quarreled Zayd-NOM Amr-Ace three-Ace times-GEN Zayd quarreled with Amr three times.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 315

Zayd may have quarreled with Amr, but Amr may not have quarelled. But more importantly, it can be shown that the verb in MR like (79) must be symmetric, whereas it may be non-symmetric in SR like (78). In the SR (81), the number of disputing events may vary from 3 symmetric events of disputing to 6 nonsymmetric events, each of which performed separately by each participant. In the case of MR, however, the interpretation is limited to three symmetric events:30 (82)

x~ama zayd-un wa-ramr-un kull-un l-zaaxar-a quarreled Zayd-NOM and-Amr-NOM each-NOM the-other-Ace

talaat-a ma.rraat-in three-Ace times-GEN Zayd and Amr quarreled with each other three times. (83)

ta.-xaa~ama zayd-un wa.-ramr-un fa.laa[-a. marraa.t-in REC-quarreled Zayd-NOM and-Amr-NOM three-Ace times-GEN Zayd and Amr quarreled with each other three times.

The event being non-symmetric in (82), it is expected that the verb would not admit a comitative/discontinuous phrase as its subject. Contrast (82) with (84): (84)

*xa~ama

zayd-un mara ramr-in quarreled Zayd-NOM with Amr-GEN

As pointed out earlier, the discontinuous construction is possible only with predicates denoting irreducibly symmetric events. I have proposed (80) above as a structure for SR. Suppose now that MR structure (for (79b )) is as follows: (85)

TP/vP

------------

T/v

DP

~

T

~ 1-k.abS-aani

rec/v

~

ta-

v

~

iPl

I

[aa]

30.

R

I

natah.

See Siloni (2008) for similar contrasts in Hebrew.

326 Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar

In this structure, [aa] is a plural distributor acting as a modifier ofvP. [t] is a reciprocator acting as a head (and having v/vP as its complement), hence 'reciprocizing' the vP. In this structure, the reciprocated event is what is relevant for the counting of the number of times the event occurred. The event is a 'group' or a 'collective' event (with a collective/group agent). In the RC (81), by contrast, the event can be distributive with respect to the two roles, as well as collective. To put it in simple terms, the MR structure explains why when we add an adverb like 'three times' the sentence still refers to maximally 3 events (each one 'reciprocal: or collective), or 3 mutual-butting events. The SR structure instead has no 'reciprocated' vP, and hence, it is possible to have each of A and B butting the other 3 times. The result is then 6 events: A did it 3 times, and B did it 3 times. 31 It is striking that the Arabic counterparts of English verbs like meet have various forms, which are taken to be equivalent in traditional dictionaries, although they are not total synonyms. Potentially, all of them can be symmetric, hence their apparent equivalence. But clearly, laqiya. ltaqaa, laaqaa, talaaqaa can be contrasted by taking into account their morpho-semantic composition. Only ltaqaa and talaaqaa can be truly symmetric reciprocals (by virtue of their reciprocal [t] affix), and only laaqaa and talaaqaa share the interpretations of morphologically pluralized verbs (by virtue of their long vowel plural affix).

5·

Summary and conclusion

This Chapter pointed to significant differences in the status and behavior of Plural in the verbal and nominal domains. I provided an analysis of various nominal and verbal plural patterns, and how they are interpreted, depending essentially on their internal and phrasal syntax. In the nominal domain, Pl is projected in Num, or attached (as a feature or category) to various category projections in the nominal architecture. It is (internally) interpreted on the root phrase, or nP. and it functions as Num or Cl, as head or modifier, etc. It leads to taxonomic or intensive interpretation with double plurals. It is also externally interpreted on the DP. In the latter case, it enters into an Agree relation with vP/TP. Similar behaviors are equally found in the verbal/ temporal domain, in parallel configurations, although

It would seem, as pointed out by a reviewer, that MR correspond to an English structure modified by 'mutuallY, while SR are akin to complex structures involving 'one with the othef, 'each with the other, or 'one anothef, but not 'each othef, which doesn't isolate the 'other' as a separate DP.

31.

Chapter 11. Plural verbs and Agree 327

verbal plurality is more transparently interpretable at the internal level, involving various forms and interpretations of double pluralization. There is no clear case in which Pl is semantically interpreted at the vP or TP level, rather than being a mere formal (agreement) marker. Phrasal plurality of vP!fP, as instantiated by verb pluralization in SVO, for example, is also interpreted on the DP. In a parallel fashion, differences in interpretation of syntactic, morphological and lexical reciprocals have also been investigated.

References Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth. 2006. Personal and impersonal passives. Transactions of the Philological Society 104(2):259-296. Abush, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics & Philosophy 20: 1-50. Ackema, Peter. 1999. Issues in Morpho syntax [Linguistik AktuellJLinguistics Today 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2007. Plurality and the conceptualization of ontology. Ms. University College Dublin I Universitat Konstanz. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals. Oxford: OUP. Adger, David 2007. Three domains of finiteness: A Minimalist perspective. In Finiteness, Irina Nikolaeva (ed), 23-58. Oxford: OUP. Adger, David, Pintzuk, Susan, Plunkett, Bernadette & Tsoulas, George (eds). 1998. Specifiers. Oxford: OUP. Alkhenvald, Alexandra. 2001. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: OUP. Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement [LingulstikAktuell/Linguistics Today 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2000. Deriving words and categories. Paper delivered at GLOW 23, Vittoria. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. Possessors and indefiniteness. Lingua 115: 787-819. Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539. Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan & Sells, Peter (eds). 1997. Complex Predicates. Stanford CA: CSLI. Amiri, Nadia. 2008. Tarkiib Nifaat fti l-lugah 1-rarabiyyah: diraasah muqaaranah jadil.dah. Casablanca: Toubqal Publishers. Anderson, Stephen. 1992. A-Mnrphous Mnrphology. Cambridge: CUP. Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The Syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: CUP. Arad, Maya. 1999. On "Little v': M I TW P L 33:1-25. Astarabadii, Radiyyuddiin. (12th century) 1979. Sarb al-kaaftyyah. Beyrouth: Daar al-kutub al-rilmiyyah. Ayoub, Georgine. 1996. La question de la phrase nominale en arabe litteraire: Predicats, figures, categories. Doctorat d'Etat, University of Paris VII. Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5-16. Badawi, Elsaid, Carter, Michael & Gully, Adrian. 2004. Modern Written Arabic, A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Bahloul, Maher. 2007. Agreement. In Encyclopedia ofArabic Languages and Linguistics 1, Kees Versteegh (ed), 43-48. Leiden: Brill Bahloul, Maher. 2008. Structure and Function of the Arabic Verb. London: Routledge. Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: 0 UP.

330 References

Baker, Mark. 2006. On the types of simple and possessed noun phrases. Ms, Rutgers University. Baker, Mark. 2008a The macroparameter in a mtcroparametric world In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik AktuelULinguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed), 351-373. Amsterdam: John Benjamtns. Baker, Mark. 2008b. Ihe Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. Baker, Mark., Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive argwnents raised Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219-251. Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Bardeas, Suzanne Mahmoud 2009. The Syntax of Arabic DP. Ph.D. dissertation, University of York. Barner, David & Snedeker, Jesse. 2005. Quantity judgements and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97:41-66. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology. Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Beard, Robert. 2001. How morphological asymmetry predicts the analytic-synthetic continuum. Paper presented at the UQAM Conference on Asymmetry, Montreal. Beck, Sigrid 2001. Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9:1-69. Beedham, Christopher. 1982. The Passive Aspect in English, German, and Russian. Thbingen: Gunter Nan: Beeston, Alfred F.L. 1981. Languages of Pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabica 28: 181-6. Beghelli, Filippo & Stowell, Tim. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways ofScope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed), 71-107. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Belnap, Kirk & Shabaneh, Osama 1992. Variable agreement and non-human plurals. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 85], Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid, & John McCarthy (eds ), 245-262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benedicto, Elena. 2002. Verbal classifier systems: the exceptional case ofMayangna auxiliaries. UBCWPL 10: 1-14. Benmamoun, El-Abbas. 1998. Spec-Head agreement and overt case in Arabic. In Specifiers. Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett & George Tsoulas (eds), 110-125. Oxford: OUP. Benmamoun, El-Abbas. 2000a Agreement asymmetries and the PF interface. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 202], Jaqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 23-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Benmamoun, El-Abbas. 2000b. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. Oxford: OUP. Benveniste, Emile. 1950. Actif et moyen dans le verbe. In Problemes de lingulstique generale, 169-175. Paris: Gallimard Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problemes de linguistlque generale. Paris: Gallimard Bergstrasser, Gotthelf 1923[1983]. Introduction to the Semitic Languages, translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns. Bernstein, Judith. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic. Lingua 102:87-113. Bernstein, Judith. 2005. English th- forms. Ms, William Patterson University. Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2001. On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: The 'perfective-telic' confusion. In Semantic Interfaces, Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 177-210. Stanford CA: CSLI.

References 331 Bianchi. Valentina. 2003. On Finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue/ Tense and Point of Vlrn•, Jacqueline Gueron & Liliane Tasmovskl (eds ), 213-246. Nanterre: Untversite Paris X. Bianchi. Valentina. 2006. Nwnber agreement and event pluralization. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 213-235. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2004. Evidence that V2 involves two movements. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1: 41-62. Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2008. Subjects, tense and verb movement in Germanic and Romance. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4:28-43. Blachere, Regis & Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Maurice. 1939. Grammaire de l'arabe dassique. Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose. Blau, Joshua. 1972. On the problem of the synthetic character of classical Arabic as against Judeo-Arabic. jewiSh Quarterly 63: 29-38. Blau, Joshua. 1977. The Beginnings of the Arabic Diglossia: A Study of the Origins ofNeo-Arabic. Malibu: Undena. Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals.]ournal ofLinguistics 39:473-520. Bobaljik. Jonathan & Thrainson, Hoskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren t always better than one. Syntax 1:37-71. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1-34. Borer, Hagit 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In The Null Subject Parameter, Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth Safir (eds ), 69-109. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Borer, Hagit. 1996. The construct in review. In Studie.s in Afroasiatic Grammar [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 202], Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 30-61. The Hague: HAG. Borer, Hagit. 1998. Deriving passive without theta roles. In Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Steven Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds), 60-110. Stanford CA: CSLI. Borer, Hagit. 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Beyond Principles and Parameters, Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts (eds), 43-89. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense. In Name Only, Voll. Oxford: OUP. Borer, Hagit & Ouwayda, Sarah. 2010. Count plural vs. cardinal plural in Arabic. Handout. BAALL Conference, University of Paris VI I. Bouchard, Denis. 2003. Les SN sans determinant en f~ais et en anglais. In Essals sur la grammaire comparee du franfals et de l~nglals, Philip Miller & Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds), 55-95. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In 1he Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.), 3-86. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Brockelmann, Karl 191 0. Freels de linguistlque semitique,translated by William Mar¢s & Marcel Cohen Paris: Geuthner. Brockelmann, Karl. 1913/1961. Grundrlss der 1•ergleichenden Grammatick der semitlschen Sprachen. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Bruge, Laura. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In Functional Structure in DP and IP, 1he Cartography of Syntactic Structures 1, Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), 15-53. Oxford: OUP. Brustad, Kristen E. 2000. The Syntax ofSpoken Arabic. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

331 References Bi.irlng, Daniel 2007. Pronouns. Ms, UCLA. Burge, 'JYler. 1973. Reference and proper names. IJngulstlcs & Philosophy 70: 425-439. Bussman, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary ofLanguage and Linguistics. London: Routledge. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia. 1999. Two German impersonal passives and expletive pro. Catalan Working Papers In Linguistics 7:47-57. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia 2006. fubitrary' pro and the theory of pro-drop. In Agreement and Arguments, Peter Ackema, Maaike Schoorlemmer & Fred Weerman (eds), 230-258. Oxford: OUP. Cantarino, Vicente. 1975. Syntax of MiJdern Arabic Prose, 3 Vols. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press. Cardinalettl., Anna & Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitic and Other Functional Categorie.s in Eupopean Languages, Henk van Riemsdijk (eel), 145-233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Carlson, Greg. 1977a. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Carlson, Greg. 1977b. A unified analysis of English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:413-58. Carlson, Gregory 1980. Reference to kinds in English. New York: Garland. Carlson, Greg. 1991. Kinds. In Semantik. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 370-398. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Carlson, Gregory. 2003. Weak Indefinites. In From NP to DP: On the Syntax andPragma-Semantics ofNoun Phrases, Martine Coene & Yves D'Hulst (eds), Vol1: 195-210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carlson, Greg. 2003. Weak indefinites. In From NP to DP. Vol1 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 55], Martine Coene & Yves D'hulst (eels), 195-210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carlson, Greg & Pelletier, Francis (eels). 1995. The Generic Book. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Carstens, Vicki 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23:219-279. Caspari, Carl Paul. 1848/1859. Grammatik des arabischen Sprache fUr Academische Vorlesungen. Leipzig: Verlag. Cheng, Lisa & Sybesma, Rint 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509-542. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Individual level predicates as inherent generics. In Greg Carlson & Francis Pelletier (eels), 176-223. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998a Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter. In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (eel), 53-103. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998b. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339-405. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2005. Definites, locality, and intentional identity. In Reference and Quanttftcation. The Partee Flfect, Greg Carlson & Francis Pelletier (eels), 143-178. Stanford CA: CSLI. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness, and semantic variatioiL Synthese 174: 99-149. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of a Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

References 333 Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries. MITOPL 15. Cambridge MA: MIT. Chomsky, Noa.m. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax In Honor ofHoward Lasnlk, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89-156. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1999/2001. Derivation by Phase. MITOPL 19. Cambridge MA: MIT. (Also in Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1-59. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press). Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MITOPL 20. Cambridge MA: MIT. Chomsky, Noam. 2005/2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freid.in, Carlos Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizaretta (eds ), 133-166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2006/2007. Approaching UG from Below. In Interface.s + Recursion = Language?, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gartner (eds), 1-29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Choueri, Lina. 2005. Determiners. In Encyclopedia of Arabic LanguagE and Linguistics, Vol. 1, Kees Versteegh (ed), 579-83. Leiden: Brill. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb. Linguistic Inquiry 19:521-581. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Paths Thwards Universal Grammar. Studies in Honor ofRichard S. Kayne, Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Ratfaella Zanuttini (eds ), 85-110. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. The ~ntisymmetric' Programme: Theoretical and typological implications. journal ofLinguistics 32: 447-64. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2003. Greenberg's universal 20 and the Semitic DP. In Grammatik i fokus/ Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack, VoL II, Lars-OlofDelsing, Cecilia Fa]k, Gunlog Josefsson & Halld6r A. Sl.gur(jsson (eds ), 243-251. Lund: Wallin & Dalholm. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol4. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, David 1989. I.bspect verbal. Paris: Presses Universitatres de France. Cohen, Marcel. 1924. Le systeme verbal semitique et l~ression du temps. Paris: Leroux. Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to passives. Syntax. 8(2): 81-120. Comrie, Bernard 1976. Aspect Cambridge: CUP. Comrie, Bernard 1985a. LanguagE Unh•ersals and Linguistic 'I}'pology: Syntax and Morphology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Comrie, Bernard 198Sb. Tense. Cambridge: CUP. Comrie, Bernard 1985c. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In LanguagE 'I}'pology and Syntactic Description III, Tim Shopen (ed), 309-348. Cambridge: CUP. Corbett, Grevllle. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. Corriente, Federico. 1971. On the functional yield of some synthetic devices in Arabic and Semitic morphology. Jewish Quarterly 62: 20-50. Crisma, Paola 1996. On the configurational nature of adjectival modification. In Grammatical Theory and Romance LanguagES [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 133], Karen Zagona (ed), 59-71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crisma, Paola. 1997. I.:articolo nella prosa inglese antica e la teoria degli articoli nulli. Ph.D. dissertation, Universita di Padova.

334 References Crisma, Paola. 1999. Nominals without the article in Germanic languages. Rivlsta di GrammaNca GeneraNva 24:105-125. Cysouw, Michael 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure ofPerson Marking. Oxford: OUP. D"Alessandro, Roberta. 2004. Impersonal si Constructions: Agreement and Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Suttgart. Dahl, Osten & Talmoudi, Fathi 1979. Qad and laqad- Tense/aspect and pragmatics in Arabic. In Aspectology: Papers from the 5th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Thore Fettersson (eel), 51-58. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wlksell. Danon, GabL 2001. Syntactic definiteness in the grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6): 1071-116. Dayal, Veneeta. 1992. The singular-plural distinction in Hindi generics. SALT II: 39-58. Dechaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschk.o, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33:409-442. Delfitto, Denis. 2002. Genericity in LanguagE. Allessandria: Edlzioni d.ell'Orso. den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, Werner Abraham (eel), 47-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria 1999. The local Asymmetry Connection. MITWPL 35: 25-47. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Dimitrladis, Alexis 2008. Irreducible symmetry in redprocal constructions. In Reciprocals and Rejlexive.s, Ekkehard Konig &Volker Gast (eds), 375-409. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? The Hague: Mouton. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2002a. From DPs to NPs: A bare phrase structure account of genitives. Ms, University of Paris 7. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2002b. Adverbs of quantification and generidty: From DPs to NPs. Ms, UniversityofParis 7. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Laca, Brenda. 2003. Les noms sans determinant dans les langues romanes. In Syntaxe des languages romanes, Danielle Godard (eel), 235-281. Paris: CNRS. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Giurgea, Ion. 2008. Possessives and feature uniqueness. Ms, University of Paris VII. Doetjes, Jenny 2008. Counting and degree modification. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 37: 139-160. Dolinina, Inga B. 1999. Distrlbutivity: More than aspect In Tense-Aspect, Transitivity, and Causativity. Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov, Werner Abraham & Leonid Kukikov (eds ), 184-205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel Dressler, Wolfgang. 1968. Studien zur 1•erbalen Pluralitiit. Wien: Bohlau in Kommission. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005a Definite articles. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, MatthewS. Dryer, David Gll & Bernard Comrie (eds). Oxford: OUP. Dryer, MatthewS. 200Sb. Indefinite articles. In The World Atlas of LanguagE Structures, Martin Haspelmath, MatthewS. Dryer, David Gll & Bernard Comrie (eds). Oxford: OUP. Durie, Mark. 1986. The grammaticalization of number as a verbal category. BLS 12: 355-370. Egerland., Verne.t: 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71:75-102. Eide, Kristin. 2007. Finiteness and infiection: The syntax your morphology can afford. (http:!ling. Aufnet/l.ingBu:zz/000545).

References 335 Eisle, John. 1990. Time reference, tense, and for mal aspect in Catrene Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics 1 [Current Issues In Linguistic Theory 63], Mushtra Eid (ed.), 173-212. Amsterdam: John Benjamlns. Eksell Harning, Kerstin. 1980. The Analytic Genitive In the Modern Arable Dialects. GOteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Embick, David 1998. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. MITWPL 32:41-72. Embick David 2000a Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185-230. Embick David 2000b. Participial structures and participial asymmetries. Ms. MIT. Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex V'-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2): 157-172. Emonds, Joseph. 1980. Worder order in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1(1): 33-54. Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Foris: Dordrecht Emonds, Joseph. 2000. Lexicon and Grammar: Ihe English Syntacticon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eru;:, Miirvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18:633-657. Eru;:, Miirvet. 1991. On the absence of the present tense morpheme in English. Ms, University ofWISconsin, Madison. Engdahl, Elisabet. 2006. Semantic and syntactic patterns in Swedish passives. In Demoting the Agent [Linguistlk Aktuell/Linguistks Today 96], Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 21-45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Espinal, Maria Teresa & McNally, Louise. 2007. Bare singular nominals and incorporating verbs. Ms, UAB & UPF. Faller, Martina 2007. The ingredients of reciprocity in CU2Co Quechua Journal of Semantics 24:255-288. Fassi Fehri, .Abd.elkader. 1981/2. Linguistique arabe: Forme et interpretation. Rabat: Publications of the Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences. Fassi Fehri, Abd.elkader 1988a Agreement, binding, and coherence. In Agreement in Natural Language, Michael Barlow & Charles Ferguson (eds), 107-158. Stanford CA: CSLI. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1988b. Arabic passive affixes as aspectual predicates. Ms, MIT & Faculty of Letters, Mohammed V University, Rabat Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1990. Thmporal reference, finiteness, and the inllectional structure ofS in Arabic. Ms, MIT & Mohammed V University, Rabat. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1991/1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkade.t: 1993/1996a Nominality, VS/SV alternations, and generalized checking. Linguistic Research 1(1): 34-60. Rabat: IERA. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1996b. Configurations and transitivity splits in the Arabic lexicon. In Configurations, Anna Maria DiSciullo (ed), 53-78. Sommerville MA: Cascadilla Press. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkade.t: 1996c/2000. Distributing features and affixes in Arabic subject verb agreement paradigms. Linguistic Research 1(2): 1-30. (Also in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar 4 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 202], Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 79-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1998a Layers in the distribution of Arabic adverbs and adjectives and their licensing. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XI [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 167], Elabbas Benmamoun, Mushira Eid & Niloofar Haeri (eds), 9-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

336 References Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1998b/2000. Typological ingredients of Mediteranean adjectives. In Languages in the Mediteranean Area, Sonia Cristofaro & Ignazio Putzu (eds), 83-104. Milano: Franco Angeli. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1999a. Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures. Studia Lingulstlca 53(2): 105-154. Fassi Fehri., Abdelkader. 1999b. iani t-tawaaruti fii 1-l;tuduudi wa-baiQ.i x~aa:l~ t-taswiir-i 1-kullii (On Inheritance in determiners and properties of universal quantification). In Al-murakkabaat l-ismiyah wa-1-l;!addiyyah fti llisaaniyyaat 1- muqaaranah, Abdelkader Fassi Fehri et al. (eds). 9-46. Rabat: IERA. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2000a. Transitivity as plural number. Linguistic Research 5: 1-46. Rabat: IERA. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2000b/2002. Preliminary notes on genericity and Arabic bare NPs. IERA Reports & Documents 5:1-23. Rabat: IERA. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2000c/2004. Temporal/aspectual interaction and variation across Arabic heights. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecame (eds), 235-257. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2001a/2003a. Synthetic/analytic asymmetries in voice and temporal patterns. Linguistic Re.search 6(2): 11- 56. Rabat: IERA. (Also in Asymmetry in Grammar 2 [Ltnguistik Aktuell/Ltnguistics Today 58], Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed..), 95-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fassi Fehrl, Abdelkader. 2001b/2003b. Causativity, transitivity, and iterativity as pluralities. Linguistic Re.search 6(1), 7-80. Rabat: IERA. (Also in Research in Afroasiatic Grammar 5 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 202] Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 131-185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2003c. Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert, & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 69-100. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter. Fassi Fehri Abdelkader. 2003/2004. Nominal classes and parameters across interfaces and levels, with a particular reference to Arabic. Linguistic Research 8.2. Rabat IERA Publications. (Also in Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 41-108 Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Fassi Fehr!, Abdelkader. 2005a The Arabic case for a CP phase. Ms, MIT. Fassi Fehr!, Abdelkader. 2005b. Verbal and nominal parallelisms. Documents & Reports 8: 1-22. Rabat: IERA. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2006. Individuation, person, and determiner morphology. Paper delived at WECOL 6, Fresno State University & Harvard University Colloquia. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2007a. Bare, generic, mass, and referential Arabic DPs. In Phrasal and Qausal Architecture. In Honor of Joseph Emonds [Linguistlk Aktuell/Lingutstics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samian & Wendy Wilkins (eds), 40-65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2007 b. Determination parameters in the Semitic diglossia Proceedings ofNACAL 35, 149-182. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2007c. Intersective and non-intersective Arabic and Semitic modifiers: Why are they post-nominal? Salford Workshop on 'Relatives Clauses and Attribution in Semitic, University of Salford. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2007d.. Finite time infiection and double access construal. Invited talk. Postgraduate Conference at the Vnh• ofNeY.•castle, and NACAL 36.

References 337 Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2009a Arabic silent pronoWlS, person, and voice. Brill:S Annual of Afroasiatlc Languages and Linguistics 1: 1-38. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2009b. Kinds of nwnber (and gender). International Workshop on Nominal Systems across Languages. Barcelona: UAB. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2009c. Weys of counting and numbering. Workshop on Nominal and Verbal Plurality. Paris: CNRS & University of Paris VIII. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2011. Serial parametrization Talk presented at the Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation, University Autonoma de Madrid Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader & Vinet, Marie-Therese. 2007. Number and classifier distributions in Arabic and Chinese. In Architecture.s, Rule.s, and Preference.s, Variations on 1heme.s by Joan Bresnan, Annie Zaenen Jane Simpson, 1racy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling & Chris Manning (eds), 163-197. Stanford CA: CSLL Fassi Fehri, Abd.elkader & Vinet, Marie-Therese. 2008. Verbal and nominal classes in Arabic and Chinese. Recherches Linguistlque.s de Vincennes 37: 55-83. Ferguson, Charles. 1959a The Arabic k.oine. LanguagE 35(4): 616-630. Ferguson, Charles. 1959b. Diglossia. Word 15:325-340. Ferguson, Charles. 1989. Grammatical agreement in classical Arabic and the modern dialects. Al-rArab!)'ya 22:5-17. Fleisch, Henri. 1974. Sur l'aspect dans le verbe en arabe classique. Arabica XXI: 11-19. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1982. Indefinite agent, passive, and the impersonal passive: A functional study. Lingua 58: 267-290. Frascarell!, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691-734. Flick, Johann 1950/1955. rArab!)'ya. Recherche sur l'histoire de la langue et du style arabes, translated by Claude Denizea\L Paris: Didier. Gerstner, Claudia & Krifka, Manfred 1987. An outline of genericity. SNS-Bericht, 87-23. University of'Jtibingen. Gil, David 1996. Universal quantification in Hebrew and Arabic. In Studies in Afroasiatlc Grammar 1, Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 105-122. The Hague: HAG. Gil, David 2005. Numeral Classifiers. In WALS, Martin Haspelmath &al. (eds), 226-229. Gillon, Brendan. 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 597-640. Gilnert, Lewis. 1989. The Grammar ofModern Hebrew. Cambridge: CUP. Giorgi, Alessandra 2006. From temporal anchoring to long distance anaphors. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(4): 1009-1047. Giorgi, Ales sandra 2010. About the Speaker. Towards a Syntax ofI ndexicality. Oxford: OUP. Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio 1991. Toward a syntax of temporal representation Probus 2:187-213. Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio. 1995. From semantics to morphosyntax: The case of the imperfect. In Temporal Reference, Aspect, and Actlonality, VoL 1, Pier Marco Bertinetto. Valentina Bianchi, James Higginbotham & Mario Squartini (eds), 341-363. Milano: Rosenberg & Selller. Giorgi, Alessandra & Planes!, Fabio. 1997. Tense and Aspect. Oxford: OUP. Giorgi, Alessandra & Planes!, Fabio. 2001. Weys of terminating. In Semantic Interfaces, Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 211-277. Stanford CA: CSLL

338 References Giusti, Giuli.ana 1995a A unified structural representation of (abstract) case and article: Evidence from Germanic. In Studies In Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen &Steven Vikner (eds), 77-93. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Giusti, Giuli.ana 199Sb. Heads and Modifiers among Determiners: Evidence from Rumanian. In Advances In Roumanian LinguisNcs, Guglielmo Cinque & Gullana Giusti (eds), 103-125. Amsterdam: John Benjamtns. Giusti, Gi.uliana 2001. The birth of a functional category. From Latin ILLE to the Romance article and personal pronoun. In Current Studie.s in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eels), 157-171. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Giv6n. Talmy. 1981. On the development of the numeral 'one' as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica II(1): 35-53. Golovk.o, Evgeniy. 1993. On non-causative effects of causativity in Aleut. In Causattve.s and Thmsitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 23], Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eels), 385-390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Greenberg, Joseph. 1968. An Afro-Asiatic pattern of gender and number agreement. JAOS 80:317-21. Greenberg, Joseph. 1972. Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress ofLinguists, 17-37. Bologna: Sodeta editrice il Mulino. Greenberg, Joseph. 1991. The Semitic intensive as verbal plurality. In Semitic Studies in Honor of WolfLeSlau II, Alan Kaye (eel), 577-587. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Grimshaw, Jane & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1998. Optimal subjects and language universals. In Is the Best Good Enough? Pilar Barbosa Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eels), 193-219. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Grinevald, Colette. 2004. Classifiers. In Morphology: a Handbook on inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 2, Article 97, Christian Lehmann. Geert Booij & Joachim Mugdan (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Guardiano, Cristina & Longobardi, Pino. 2003. Parametric syntax as a source of historicalcomparative generalisations. Ms, University ofPisa & University of Trieste. Gueron. Jacqueline. 1995. Chaines temporelles simples et structures auxiliaires. In Rencontres: Etudes de syntaxe etde morpho/ogle, Paul Boucher &Jacqueline Gueron (eds), 43-77. Paris: University of Paris X, Nanterre. Gueron. Jacqueline. 2008. On the difference between telicity and perfectivity. Lingua 118:1816-1840. Gueron. Jacqueline & Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Constituent Structures, Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Giuliana Giusti (eds), 35-100. Dordrecht: Foris. Guerssel, Mohammed & Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. Ablaut in Classical Arabic Measure 1 active verbal forms. In Research In Afroasiatic Grammar, Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 123-134.1he Hague: HAG. Gutman, Eynat. 2004. Third person null subjects in Hebrew, Finnish, and Rumanian: An accesslbility theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 40: 463-490. Hachimi, Atiqa 2007. Gender. In Encyclopedia of Arabic Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 1, Kees Versteegh (eel), 155-164. Leiden: Brill. Hagege, Claude. 1974. Les pro noms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Soc lite de Linguistique de Paris 69:287-310.

References 339 Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Jay Keyser (eds), 111-176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Jay. 1997. On the complex nature of simple predicators. In Complex Predicates, Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan & Peter Sells (eds), 29-65. Stanford CA: CSLI. Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Jay. 1999. Bound features, Merge & transitivity alternations. MITWPL 35:49-72.

Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Jay. 2002. Prolegomena to a Theory ofArgument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The Vzew from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain BrombergET, Kenneth Hale & Jay Keyser (eds), 111-176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the Intuface, Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), MITWPL 30: 425-449. Cambridge, Mass. Harbert, Wayne & Bahloul, Maher. 2002. Postverbal subjects and the theory of agreement. In Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax, Jamal Ouhalla & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 45-70. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Harbour, Daniel 2007. Mmphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Springer. Harley, Heidi 1995. Subjects, Events, and Licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Harley, Heidi 1999. Denominal verbs and Aktionsart. MITWPL 35: 73-86. Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78:482-526. Hasan, Abbas. 1971. an-Nabw 1-Waafti. 4 Vols. Cairo: Daar al-Ma~aarlf. Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14:25-70.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Explaining article-possessor complementarity. Language 75(2): 227-43.

Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard 2005. The World Atlas of Linguistic Structures [WALS]. Oxford: OUP. Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit In Handbuch der Semantik, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 487-534. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heim, Irene. 1994. Comments on Abusch's theory of tense. Ms, MIT. Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Ms, MIT. Heim, Irene. 2007. Person and number on bound and partially bound pronouns. Ms, MIT. Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi Theory: Phi-Features across MDdules and Intufaces, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Bejar (eds), 35-56. Oxford: OUP. Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik & Robert May. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 63-101.

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries:Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: 0 UP. Hengeweld, Kees. 2004. Illocution, mood and modality. In Morphology: An Intunational Hilndbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol 2, Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds), 1190-1201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

340 References Herdan. Simona & Sharvit, YaeL 2006. Definite and non-definite superlatives and NPI licensing. Syntax 9(1): 1-31. Hetzron, Robert 1976. Two principles of genetic reconstructioiL Lingua 38:89-104. Hetzron, Robert. 1978. On the relative order of adjectives. In Language Universals, Hansjakob Seiler (ed.), 165-184. ltibingen: Gunter Nar.t: Hetzron, Robert (ed). 1997.The Semitic Languages. London: Routledge. Heycock, Caroline & ZamparelU, Roberto. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure ofDP. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 201-270. Higginbotham, James. 2000. Why sequence of tense obligatory? Ms, USC. Higginbotham, James. 2004. The English progressive. In The Syntax of Time. Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecame (eds), 329-358. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Higginbotham, James. 2009. Tense, Aspect, and Indexicality. Oxford: OUP. Holes, Clive. 2004a. Modern Arabic: Structure.s, Functions, and Varieties. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Holes, Clive. 2004b. Tanwiin in the Arabic dialects of Eastern and South Eastern Arabia. Estudios de Dialectologia Norteafricana y Andalusi 8: 89-97. Holisky, Dee A. 1985. A stone's throw from aspect to number in Tsova-Thsh. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 51(4):453-4. Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 533-564.

Holmberg, Anders. 2007. Null subject parameters. Paper delivered at the University of Trieste. Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: OUP. Holmberg, Anders & Sandstrom, Gorel. 1996. Scandinavian possessive constructions from a Northern Swedish viewpoint. In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 139], James Black & VIrginia Motapanyane (eds), 95-112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Holmberg, Anders & Nikanne, Urpo. 2002. Expletives, subjects, and topics in Finnish. In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (ed), 71-105. Oxford: OUP. Holmberg, Anders & Odden, David 2003. The Izafe and NP structure in Hawrami. Ms,University of Durham & Ohio State University. Holmberg, Anders & Platzack, Christer. 2005. The Scandinavian languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds), 420-458. Oxford: OUP. Holmberg, Anders, Nayudu, Aarti & Sheehan, Michele. 2008. Control of null subjects in finite clauses in three partial null subject languages. Ms, Newcastle University. Hopper, Paul, 1979. Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. In Syntax and Semantics, Talmy Giv6n (ed), 12:213-241. London &New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul & Thomson, Sarah. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251-299.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Huang, James. 2004. Chinese Syntax. Ms, University of Harvard Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorskl. Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning ofthe perfect. In Ken Hale: A life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 189-238. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Inagaki., Shunji & Barner, David 2009. Countability in absence of count syntax: Evidence from Japanese quantity judgments. Studies in Language Sciences 8: 111-125.

References 341 Ingham, Bruce. 1994. Najdi Arabic, Central Arabian [London Oriental and African Language Library 1]. Amsterdam: John Benja.mins. Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41:9-45. Jaegli. Oswaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 587-622. Jaegli. Oswalso & Safir, Ken 1989. The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, Oswaldo Jaegli & Ken Safir (eds),1-44. Dordrecht: Reidel. Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II, RomanJakobson (ed), 130-147. The Hague: Mouton. Jayez, Jacques & Tovena, Luda. 2005. Free choiceness and non-individuation. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 1-71. Jelinek. Eloise. 1998. Voice and transitivity as functional projections in Yaqui. In The Projections ofArguments, Miriam Butt & Will Geuder (eds), 195-224. Stanford CA: CSLI. Joseph. Brian & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm. Kamp, Hans. 1975. Two theories about adjectives. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Edward Keenan (ed), 123-155. Cambridge: CUP. Kayne, Richard 1994. The Antisymmetry ofSyntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, Richard 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: OUP. Kayne, Richard 2003/2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds), 3-69. Oxford: OUP. Kayne, Richard S. 2004. Some preliminary comparative remarks on French and Italian definite articles. Ms, NYU. Keenan, Edward 2006. Linguistic theory and the historical creation of English reflexives. Paper presented at DIGS 9. Khalfaoui. Amel 2006. A cognitive approach to analyzing demonstratives in Tunisian Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 290], Mustafa Mughazy (ed), 169-186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525-552. Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. Klein, Wolfgang. 1999. Wie sich das deutsche Perfekt zusammensetzt. Zeitschrift fUr Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistl.k 113: 52-85. Konig, Ekkehard & Kokutani, Shigehiro. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44: 271-302. Kouloughli. DjameL 200 l. Sur le statut linguistique du tanwiin. Arabica 48: 20-50. Kouloughli. Djamel. 2007. Sur la valeur du tanwiin: Nouvelle contribution al~tude du systeme determinatif de l'arabe. Arabica 54: 94-131. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Gueron & Jacqueline Lecame (eds), 389-423. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kratzer, Angelika. 2007. Making a pronoun. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Kratzer, Angellka. 2008. On the plurality of verbs. In Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, Johannes Dolling, Tatjana Heyde- Zybatow & Martin Shafer (eds ), 269-300. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Krifka, Manfred 1989. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantlk von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Miinchen: Wilhelm Fink.

342 References Krifka, Manfred 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Le.dcal Matters, Ivan Sag & Anna Szabolsci (eds), 29-53. Stanford CA: CSLI. Krifka, Manfred 1995. Common nouns in Chinese and in English. In The Generic Book, Greg Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 398-411. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Krifka, Manfred 2008. Different Kinds of Count Nouns and Plurals. Ms. Berlin: ZAS and Humboldt. Kullkov, Leonid. 1993. The 'second causative': A typological sketch. In Bernard Comrie & Marla Polinsky (eels), 121-154. Kullkov, Leonid. 1999. Split causativity. In Werner Abraham & Leonid Kuklkov (eds), 21-42. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1950. La mimation et I'article en arabe. Archiv Or ientalni 18: 323-8. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1972. Studie.s in Semitic grammar and Metrics. London: Curzon Press. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1973. Verbal aspect in Semitic. Orientalia 42: 114-120. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 811-877. Landman, Fred. 1996. Plurality. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed..), 425-457. Oxford: IDackwell. Larcher, Pierre. 1996. Valeur expositive de la forme 1aftala de l'arabe dassique. ZFAL 31: 7-26. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335-391. Larson, Richard. 1995. Olga is a beautiful dancer. Ms, Stony Brook University. Larson, Richard & Yamakid.o, Hiroko 2008. Ezafe and the deep position of nominal modifiers. In Adjectives and Adverbs, ~vntax, Semantics. and Discourse, Louise McNally & Chris Kennedy (eels), 43-7. Oxford: OUP. Lasersohn, Peter. 2008. Mass Nouns and Plurals. Ms. University of Illinois. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DdkZDcON/massandplural. pdf Laycock, Henry. 2005. Mass nouns, count nouns, and non-count nouns: Philosophical aspects. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. Levin, Beth & Rapaport, Maika 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 623-661.

Lewis, David 1975. Adverbs of Quantification. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Edward Keenan (ed..), 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Fengxiang. 1991. An examination of causative morphology from a cross-linguistic and diachronic perspective. CLS 27: 344-359. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lidz, Jeffrey L. 1999. Causativity, late insertion, and the projection of vP. MITWPL 35: 117-136. Lightfoot, David. 2003. Grammatical approaches to syntactic change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 495-508. Oxford: Blackwell. Lightfoot, David 2006. Hw.· New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: CUP. Link, Godehard.. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning. Use, and Interpretation of Language, Rainer Bauerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim van Stechow (eds), 303-323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Link, Godehard 1998. Natural Language and Algebraic Semantics. Stanford CA: CSLI. Lobner, Sebastian. 2002. Is the German perfeld: a perfect perfect? In Sinn & Bedeutung VI, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft fUr Semantik, Graham Katz. Sabine Reinhard & Philip Reuter (eds), 255-273. Osnabriick: University ofOsnabriick. Longobardi, Guiseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609-665. Longobardi, Guiseppe. 1996. The syntax ofN- raising: A minimalist theory. OTS Working Papers, University of Utrecht.

References 343 Longobardi, Gutseppe. 2001a. The structure ofDPs: Some principles, parameters and problems. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 562-603. Oxford: BlackwelL Longobardi, Gutseppe. 2001b. How comparative is semantics? Natural Language Semantics 9:335-369. Longobardi, Gutseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift fUr Sprachwlssenschaft 24: 5-44. Longobardi, Gui.seppe. 2006. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. Ms, University of Trieste. Lyons, John. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. Magri, Giorgio. 2003. Plurals and groups. Ms. University ofM!lan-Bicocca Maling, Joan. 2006. From passive to active. Syntatic change in progress in Icelandic. In Demoting the Agent [Linguistlk Aktuell!Linguistks Today 96], Benjamin Lyngfelt & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 191-223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marantz. Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax. In Upenn WPL 4(2):201-226. Univertsty of Pennsylvania. Marantz. Alec. 1999. Creating words above and below little v. Ms, MIT. Marantz. Alec. 2000. Reconstructing the lexicon domain with a single generative engine. Ms. MIT. Marantz. Alec. 2001. The universality of root and pattern morphology. Ms, MIT. Maslova, Elena S. 1993. The causative in Yukaghi.t In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), 271-285. Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistlc Theory 8:209-283. McCawley. James. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles Fillmore & Donald Langendoen (eds), 96-113. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & WinstoiL McCloskey. James. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages, Robert Borsley & Ian Roberts (eds ), 241-283. Cambridge: CUP. McCloskey. James. 2007. The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistlc Theory 25( 4): 825-854. McCoard, Robert. 1978. The English Perfect. Amsterdam: North- Holland Meillet, Antoine. 1910. De fexpression du temps. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistlque de Paris XX(2): 137-141. Meillet, Antoine. 1925. La methode comparative en linguistlque historique. Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine & Cohen, Marcel. 1924. Les langues du MiJnde. Paris: ChampioiL Mittwoch, Anita. 1988. Aspects of English aspect. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203-254. Mohammad, Mohammad. 2000. Word Order, Agreement, and Pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moltmann, Frederike. 1997. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. Oxford: OUP. Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary pro. and the first persoiL Natural Language Semantics 13:257-281. Moravcslk, Edith. 1978a. Reduplication constructions. In Universals of Human Language Ill, Joseph Greenberg (ed), 297-334. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Moravcslk, Edith. 1978b. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45:233-279.

344 References Moscati, Sabatino. 1964. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of Semitic Languages. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Musan, Renate. 2001. The present perfect construction in German: Outline of its semantic composition. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 355-401. Musan, Renate. 2003. Selt-adverbials in perfect constructions. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arni.m von Stechow (eds), 253-276. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nairn, Samia. 2008. Possession. In Encydopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics 3, Kees Versteegh (ed), 671-676. Leiden: Brill Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for Person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273-313. Newman, Paul1990. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris. Nikolaeva, Irina 2007. Introduction. InFiniteness, Irina Nikolaeva (ed), 1-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogihara, Toshiro. 1995. Tense, Attitudes, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academk. Ojeda, Almerindo 1992. The semantks of number in Arabic. In SALT II: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Chris Barker & David Dowty (eels), 303-325. Columbus OH: Ohio State University. Ojeda, Almerindo. 1993. Linguistic Individuals. Stanford CA: CSLI. Ojeda,Almerindo 2005. The paradox ofmass plurals. InPolymorphousLinguistics: JimMcCawley:S Legacy, Salikoko Mufwene, Elaine Francis & Rebecca Wheeler (eds), Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1998/2009. Possession in sentences and noun phrases. In Relative Clauses and Genitive Constructions in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 25, Jan Retso & Janet Watson (eds), 195-215. Oxford: OUP. Owens, Jonathan. 1998. Case and Proto-Arabic. Part II. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61(2): 215-27. Owens, Jonathan. 2000. The structure of Arabk grammatical tradition. History of the Language Sciences, Vol. 2, Sylvain Auroux (ed), 293-301. Berlin: Walter de Gruyte.t: Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics ofEnglish. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal ofPhilosophy 70: 601-609. Partee, Barbara Hall. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora Linguistics and Philosophy 7:243-286.

Partee, Barbara Hall. 1986/2004. Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Compositionality in Formal Semantics, Barbara Hall Partee (ed), 203-230. Oxford: Blackwell. Paslawska, Alia & von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Perfect in Russian and Ukrainian. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 307-362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pellat, Charles. 1951. La determination et findetermination en arabe. GLECS V: 88-90. Philippi, Julia 1997. The rise of the article in the Germanic languages. In Parameters of Mmphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 62-93. Cambridge: CUP. Platzack Christer. 1996. The initial hypothesis of syntax: A minimalist perspective on language acquisition and attrition. In Generative Perspectives on Acquisition [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 14], Harald Clahsen (ed ), 396-414, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Platzack, Christer. 2004. Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 73: 83-112. Lund: Department of Scandinavian languages, Lund University.

References 345 Plunkett, Bernadette. 1993. On the position of subjects In Arabic. In Perspectives In Arable Linguistics III [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 101], Mushira Eid & Clive Holes (eds), 231-260. Amsterdam: John Benjamlns. Portner, Paul. 2004. Vocatives, topics, and imperatives. Ms, Georgetown University. Pylkkanen, Lil.na 1999. Causation and external arguments. MIT W P L 35:161-183. Rabin, Chaim, 1951. Ancient West-Arabian. London: Taylor's Foreign Press. Ramchand, GUL 2003. First phase syntax. Ms, University of Oxford Reckendorf. Hermann 1895. Die syntaktlschen Verhiiltnisse des Arabischen. Leiden: BrUL Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York NY: The Free Press. Retso, Jan. 1997. Diathe.sis in the Semitic Languages: A Comparative Morphological Study. Leiden: Brill Rijkhoff, Jan. 1991. Nominal Aspect. Journal of Semantics 8:291-309. Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: OUP. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Syntax and Semantics 25, Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Susan Rothstein (ed), 37-60. New York NY: Academic Press. Ritter, Elizabeth & Wlltschko, Martina. 2008. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. Ms, McGill University & UBC. Rivero, Maria Luisa 1990. The location of nonactive voice in Albanian and Modern Greek. Linguisticlnquiry 21(1): 135-146. Rizzi. Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Forts. Rizzi. Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:501-557. Rizzi. Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Roman, Andre. 1990. De l'accord et du pseudo-accord du fem.inin en arabe. Annales Islamologiques 25 : 27- 56. Roman, Andre. 200 l. Systematique de Ia langue arabe. Beyrouth: Kaslik University. Rothstein, Susan. 2007. Counting and the mass-count distinctioiL Ms, Bar- Han University. Rouveret, AlaiiL 1994. La syntaxe du gallois. Paris: CNRS. Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winola Lake PA: Eisenbrauns. Rullmann, Hotze & You, Aili. 2006. General number and the semantics and pragmatics of indefinite bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese. In Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, Klaus von Heusinger & Ken P. Thrner (eds), 175-196. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ryding, Karin. 2005. A Reference Grammar ofMiJdern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: CUP. Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. Proceedings of SALT 13:258-275. Sauerland, Uli. 2008. On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Bejar (eds), 57-82. Oxford: OUP. Schaden, Gerhard 2010. Southern German Indefinites. Ms. Universite Lille 3, CNRS STL. Schmitt, Cristina 2001. Cross-linguistic variation and the present perfect: The case of Portuguese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 403-453. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic. Oxford: OUP. Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form ofSemitic noun phrases. Lingua 114:1465-526. Shlonsky, Ur. 2008. Hebrew as a partial null subject language. Ms, University of Geneva Sibawayhl. Amr. (8th century) 1938. al-Kitaab, 2 Vols. Cairo: Buulaaq. Sichel, Ivy. 2002. Phrasal movement in Hebrew adjectives and possessives. In Dimensions of MiJvement. From Features to Remnants [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 48] Artemis

346 References Alexiadou, Elena Anagstopoulou, Sjef Barblers & Hans-Martin Gartner (eds), 297-339. Amsterdam: John Benjamlns. Siegel, Mutfy. 1976. Capturing the Adjective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: CUP. Siewierska, Anna. 2005. Passive constructions. In WALS, 434. Si.gur(jsson, Halld6r Armann 2004. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica 16:219-251. Si.gur(jsson, Halld6r A. & Egerl.and. Verner. 2009. Impersonal null-subjects in Icelandic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63:158-185. Siloni, Tal. 1977. Noun Phrases and Nominalizatlons. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Siloni, Tal 2000. Prosodic case checking domain: The case of constructs. Ms, Tel-Aviv University. Siloni, Tal. 2001. Construct states at the PF interface. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 229-66. Siloni, Tal 2008. The syntax of reciprocal verbs: An overview. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (eds), 451-498. Sproat, Richard & Shih, Chinlin. 1988. Prenominal adjectival ordering in English and Mandarin NELS 18: 465-89. Sproat, Richard & Shih, Chinlin. 1990. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjectival ordering restrictions. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S- Y Kuroda, Carol Georgopoulos & Roberta Ishihara (eds ), 565-593. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Sternefeld, Wolgang 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 6: 303-337. Stowell, Tim. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. In VIews on Phrase Structure, Katherine Leffel & Denis Bouchard (eds), 37-56. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Stowell, Tim. 1993. The syntax of tense. Ms, UCLA. Stowell, Tim. 2007. The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua 117: 437-463. Sultan, Usama 2006. On the individual property contrast in free state possessive nominals in Egyptian Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 290], Mustafa Mughazy (ed), 71-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. MI1WPL 8: 245-266. Szabolcsi, Anna 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In Approaches to Hungarian, Vol2, IstvanKenesei (ed.), 167-190. Budapest: Jate Szeged. Szabolcsi, Anna 1994. The noun phrase. In The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian, Ferenc Kiefer & Katalln Kiss (eds), 179-274. New York NY: Academic Press. Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1965. Unorthodox views of tense and aspect. Archivum Linguisticum 17:161-171. Taraldsen, Tarald 1979. The theoretical implications of a class of marked extractions. In Theory of markedness in generati1•e grammar, Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi & Luigi Rizzi (eds ), 475-516. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Testen, David 1998. Parallels in Semitic Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. Tsimpli, Ianthi Maria. 1989. On the properties ofthe passive affix in Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 235-162. Tsoulas, George. 2007. On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek. Workshop on Greek Syntax and Semantics, MIT. Ullendorff, Edward 1958. What is a Semitic language? Orientalia 27: 66-75.

References 347 Vergnaud, Jean Roger & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 595-652. Verkuyl, Henk. J. 1993. A Theory ofAspectuality. The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Versteegh, Kees. 2001. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Vyctchl, Werner. 1957. Trois notes de linguistiq ue amharique. Annales d'Fihiopie 2: 167-176. Vikner, Sten. 1985. Reichenbach revisited: 0 ne, two or three temporal relations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19:81-98. Vincent, Nigel 1997. The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds),149-169. Vlach, Frank 1993. Temporal adverbials, tenses, and the perfect Linguistics and Philosophy 16:231-283. Vollers, Karl 1906. Volkssprache und Schriftsprache im Alten Arabien. Strasburg: Triibner. von Fintel, Kai & Sabine Iatridou. 2005. Since -si:nee. Ms, Cambridge MA: MIT. von Stechow, Arniln. 2002. German seit "since" and the ambiguity of the German perfect. Ms. University of1iiblngen. Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal Syntax, Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds), 327-360. New York NY: Academic Press. Watanabe, Akira 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24:241-306. Watanabe, Akira 2010. Vague quantity, numerals, natural numbers. Syntax 13:37-77. Weschler, Stephen. 2004. Number as person. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 5, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eels), 255-74. Paris: CNRS. Weschler, Stephen & Zlatic, Larisa 2001. A theory of agreement and its application to SerboCroatian. Language 76( 4): 799-832. Wiese, Helke. 2009. Collectives in the Intersection of Mass and Count Nouns: A Cross-Linguistic Account. Workshop on Mass and Count Nouns. University of Toronto. Wiltschko, Martina 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguist Theory 26(3):639-694. Wiltschko, Martina 2009. Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it Ms, UBC. Wiltschko, Martina 2010. The composition ofiNFL: An exploration of tense, tenseless languages and tenseless constructions. Ms. UBC. Wright, William. 1858/1971. A Grammar ofthe Arabic Language. Translation from Caspar!, with edition, corrections, and additions, 3rd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Participle, perfect, and passive in German [Arbeiten des SFB 282]. Iheorie des Lexikons 99, University ofDiisseldorf. Wunderlich, Dieter. 200 l. Prelexical syntax and the voice hypothesis. Studia Grammatica 52:487-513. Zabbal, Youri. 2002. The Semantics of Number in the Arabic noun phrase. MA thesis, University of Calgary. Zaborskl, Andrzej. 2000. Inflected article in Proto-Arabic and some other West Semitic languages. Asian and African Studies 9(1): 24-35. Zaborskl, Andrzej. 2002. On the interplay of tense, aspect, and aktionsart in Semitic languages. In Sprich Doch Mit Deinen Knechten Aramaisch. Festrschrift Otto Jastrow, Werner Arnold & Hans Bobzin (eds), 869-876. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

348 References Zagona, Karen. 1990. Times as temporal argument structure. Ms, Univerlsty of Washington. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland. Zamparelli, Roberto. 2001. Definite and bare kind-denoting noun phrases. Ms, University of Bergamo.

Index

analysis 63-65, 68-76, 78-80,

A

a indefinite 210 Abney, Steven 176, 179, 291 Abraham, Werner 266 absolute tense 243 absorption 273-274, 276, 288 Abush, Dorit 14, 97 accompli 6, 114 accusative 46,49-51,88,107, 224·245,255,273-274

achievement 111, 114 Ackema, Peter 81-83 Acquaviva, Paolo 141,143,303 actionality 4> 12, 18, 24 Adger, David 236, 244 adjacency 81, 270 adjectival voice 65 adjunct, adjoined 14. 82-83. 122, 146-147· 239-241.

299.

306, 309, 323

adverbial mod.Jfier 291 Adro-~atic

27,32

agentive causative 30 agglutinative 62 Agr split 64, 67-69, n. 75-76, 81

Agree 68, 122, 207, 217, 236, 243. 275-276, 283, 288-289, 291-292, 312, 315. 317, 319.326 agreement marlrer 132, 137, 143. 150, 243. 251, 286, 299. 301, 308, 312 Aikhenvald, Alexandra 144 Aktionsart 100, 109-110, 185,253 Albanian 71.75-76 Aleut 43-44 Alexi.adou, Artemis 30, 175, 257. 269, 271. 278, 281-282 Amiri, Nadia 164. 179, 257

Anagnostopoulou, Elena 69,269,282

22,

82-84> 91· 95. 97. 102, 106, 161-162, 212, 21
synthesis analytic perfect 9, 79 analytic possession 153 analytic strategies 63 analytic tense 251 analytic variation 5, 153. 177 anaphoric Agr 71 Ancient Greek 49, 61, 64. 81 Anderson, Stephen 61 anteriorlty 4> 7, 12-13. 18-19, 99

anti-causative 31, 51-52, 114 anti-transitive 51 Aoun, Joseph XVI Arabic 3-6, 8-16, 18-19, 22-25, 27-28, 32, 36-37. 41-.P., 45-46. 48. 53. 55-59.64-76, 79-81, 84-87, 89, 93-95. 97-99. 104> 108, 113-114> 121-122, 124,127, 130-132, 134-136, 143. 145· 152-157. 160-164> 166-167, 170, 172, 175, 177, 180-189, 191-193. 195-196,198-210, 213-214> 217, 226, 235-240, 242. 244, 246,249-250,254-262, 265-266, 268, 270, 275-277, 280-284,291-292,295,300, 303. 305. 308, 311, 314> 316, 318-320, 322-323. 326 Arabic dialect 32, 36, 76, 79, 154> 160, 164, 195. 206, 209 Arad, Maya 30 Aramaic 170, 206-208, 212-213 arbitrary pro, PRO 26o, 264. 275 Armenian 44> 132, 149 Arozio, Fabrizio 109 aspect 3-7, 9, 13, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 27, 29-30. 47-50, 59. 6J, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73. 75-76,

87-89, 94> 96, 99-100, 103, 110-112, 145-146, 184-185, 187, 198, 200, 235, 244> 248, 251, 254-255 aspectless 3, 24 AspP 101, 112, 250, 252 assembled plurality 40 Assertion time, AstP 250 Astarabadii, Radiyyuddiin 329 atelic 21-22, 108-110;

see: telic atomic 122-123,128-132, 134-136, 138-141, 147. 149. 152, 165, 199. 203, 305-306, 322 atomic domain 122, 134. 138-140 atomistic 123, 134, 136, 138-141, 307 atomless 122, 134. 136, 138-140 attenuative 59, 311 attributive 164-166, 202, 298 augmentative 32, 55 autonomous inflection 265 Aux. auxiliary 75-76, 84> 93,254 Ayoub, Georgine 183 B

Bach, Emmon 291 back.grounding pro 280 Badawi, Elsaid XVI Bahloul, Maher 281, 314 Bahraini Arabic 161 Baker, Mark 71, 174, 177, 261, 273-275, 289 Bantu 254 Barbosa, Pilar 269 Bardeas, Suzanne 257 bare determination 223 bare noun 124, 132, 160, 162, 170, 180, 207, 217

350 Index Bare Numeral Parameter lllo, 204 bare vocative 217, ZI8 bareness 161, 171, 179-180, 183,193.196,202, 204>226 Barner, David 128, 140 Beard, Robert 61 bearer of attitude 240 Beck, Sigrid 316 Beedharn, Christopher 71 Beeston, Alfred ZI3 Beghelli, Filippo 39 Belnap, Kirk 303 benefactive 52-53 Benmamoun, El-Abbas 78, 155. 159. 280 Benveniste, Emile 50-51, 68,273 Bergstrasser, Gotthelf 2o6 Bernstein, Judith 216, 230 Bertinetto, Pierre 22 Bianchi, Valentina 235-236, 243-244> 284> 316 Biberauer, Theresa 254 Biblical Aramaic 170, 212 Biblical Hebrew 170, 212 Blachere, Regis xvt Blau, Joshua 153 Blevins, James 266 Bobaljik, Jonathan 254 Bolinger, Dwight 165 Borer, Hagit 50, 86, 122, 1J2, 134> 143-144> 146, 149-151, 155-156, 207, 211-214, 216, 257. 307-308 Bouchard, Denis 63, 181 Bouma Fijian 43 bound anaphor 251, 305 boundedness 4> 203, 253 Brazilian Portuguese 26o Bresnan, Joan 71, 86 Brockelmann, Karl 161, 205-206,208,210,228 broken plural 137, 145, 148-151, 294> 302 Bruge, Laura 331 Brustad, Kristen 78 Burge, Tyler 222 Biiring, Daniel 288 Bussman, Hadumod 62

c C feature 236 Ctype244 Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia 275 Cantarino, Vicente 228 Cardinaletti, Anna 267-268, 288

Carlson, Greg 18:;, 186, 200 Carstens, Vicki 254 261 Carter, Michael xvt, 329 cartographic, cartography 207, 236, 241-244> 256 Caspari, Carl 3, 20, 32 category forming property 31 causativity 27, 44, 48, 50, 57 c-command 52, 243, 261, 315 Central Semitic 206-207 Cheng, lisa 144 Chiercbia, Gennaro 122-123. 134-135· 138-143. 152, 184> 203, 221, 231, 287, 307 Chinese 128, 152, 163-164. 185, 222,228, 239.313 Chomsky, Noam 9, 27-30, 46, 69, 122, 148, 176, 179. 207, 217, 235-236, 244> 253-255. 257-258, 261, 269, 271, 277-278, 282, 292 Choueri, Li.na 161 Cinque, Guglielmo 6:;, 71, 100, 163-166, 169, 179. 20], 212, 226,235,243,258,264-265 Classical Latin 64, 72, 79-80,84 Classical Nahuatl 44-45 classifier 25, 121-123.130-131, 139, 144> 147-148, 150-152, 180, 231, 2gl, 297-298, 303. 306, 31J, 317 classifier agreement 317 classifier marking 25,121-122, 130-131 classifier marking language 112 classifier neutral 131 classifier property 121, 123 CLD (diticleft dislocation) 269 CLD topic 270 cognate event unit 309 Cohen, David J, 5, 205 Cohen, Marcel 3. 5, 205 collection 145, 151, 301

collective 27-28, 31, 35-36, 39-40, 44> 55· 122-124, 128,130,134-138,145-146, 148,150-151,20J,270,279, 297-305,3o8,310,313-314. 317-318, 324> 326 collective agreement 151, 299-302, 304 Collective Criterion 313 collective event 326 collective gender 136 collective marking 300, 303 collective noun 297 collective plurality 35, 300-301, 308 collective responsibility J01 Collins, Chris 273.275 collocation 6, 93. 253 comitative (phrase, position) 318, JZl-325 complementizer selection 241 completed 10, 17, 99, 105 completeness 4, 235-236, 255-256 complex tense 8, 13. 16,70-71, 81,88-89,105,248,250,253. 270 complexity property 31 computation 205, 217, 230, 253,256 computational history 228 computational process 179-180, 191,204 Comrie, Bernard 13. 17, 19-20, 23, 48, 62, 100, 113, 244 consistent NSL 257, 259-261, 265,272-273,281,283-285, 287-289

construct state 125, 191, 202, 294 continuous 77, 98, 134-135 control 51, 87, 138, 236, 244, 249-250,274-275,300,304 317. 319 controller 289, 301, 318 conventional gender 136, 300 Copanaila Zoque 44 copula 8-9, 14> 66-69, 82, 84, 86, 89, 97-98,10,5,107, 1]2, 184, 251 Corbett, Greville 128, 143. 310 core mass 122, 128, 134. 139

Index 351

Corrlente, Federico 153 count 89,104, 119,121-12.8, 132. 134-136,138-147,149-152, 175, 182, 185, 188, 203, 221, 2.30,279.306 count determiner 12.1 count grammar 12.2 count noun 1.22., 12.4> 144 count nP 12.1 count quantifier 12.5-12.6 count/measure ambiguity 126 countable, countability m-122, 12.8-130, 133, 135-136, 145> 253 counting ut-t:z.z, U4> u6-u7, 132, 134> 139-140,149-151, 182,308,32.6 covert present perfect 253 Cree 44 Crisma, Paola 163, 179, 205, 209, 211, 221, 230 C-T connection 246 culminate 2.1 cumulative 40, 46, 49, 61-62, 140-141, 2.92, 309-310, 314 cumulative universal 310 current speaker 237 Cysouw, Michael 262 D D movement to T 254 D'Alessandro, Roberta 122, 2.65-266,287 Dahl, Osten 9 4amiir s-sa1n 278 Danon, Gabi 156, 214 DAR language 238-239, 256 Dayal, Veneeta 142 D-binding 198-199 D-dass feature 253 Dechaine, Rose-Marie 287 declarative C 245 default interpretation (correlation, set) 3> 24. 128, 198, 246, 252 default range 267-268 deficient pronoun 258, 268 definite 108, no, 154, 156-157. 162, 169,171-172, 180-182, 185, 188, 191, 194-195. 200, 202, 207, 211, 2.13-22.0,222.-230,257-259.

261, 265, :z.7J, 278, 283, :z.86-:z.88 definite pro 258 definiteness spreading 172. deictic adverb 2.53 deictic anchoring 241 deictic Person 236 deictic T 236 Delfitto, Denis 179, 189 demotion 27J, :z.SS dependence, dependent 5-6, 10, 13-15, 98, 117, 179. 241-242,248,289,2.9~313

derivative 131, 133, 254 Dl Sciullo, Anna Maria 27, 61,63 Diesing, Molly 191, 193. 198-199 diglossia 205-2o6 Dimitriadis, Alexis 319, 323 discontinuous phrase J2.J, 32.5 discourse anchor 2.54 disjunctive 63, 2.65, 287 displacement 24. 40 distal 235 distributed action 32. Distributed Morphology 28, 61 distributed plurality 31, 33 distributive, distributivity 27-28, 31. 33-36. 39-40, 42-44, 48-51, 55-56, 58,135. 270, 292, 302-303, 310, 313-316, 318, 322, 326 distributive agent, subject 318 distributor 32.3-324. 326 Dixon, Robert 43> 49, 163 Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen 181, 189-190, 197-199. 2.84 Doet;jes, Jenny 122, 149, 152, 308,317 Dolinina, Inga 28, 41, 44-45, 47-48 double access construal 235-236 double bare 207, 218 double causation 42.-43 double plural 143. 307-309 double sum 305 Dowty, David 3, 102 DP synthesis 177 DR effect 277-278

Dressler, Wolfgang 411 Dryer, Matthew 211, 217 D-to-T 254 dual number 48, 121, U9, 144, 2.92-:z.g6, 304> 308 dual of plural 144. JOO duality 50-51, 94-95. 142. 210, 254> 256 duration 13 Durie, Mark 2.91

E EK:M 236,244-245,249 edge feature 254 Egerland, Verner 264> 284 ego 237-2.38,241 egocentric 237 Eg}'ptian Arable 167, 208 Eide, Kristin 244 Eisle, John 16, 25 Eksell HarDing, Kerstin 153.174 embedded ego 241 Embick, David 30, 47, 50, 71, 74> 83, 86-87, 90 Emonds, Joseph 179, 254 En'j. Miirvet 67 Engdahl, Elisabet 266 EPP 245-247, 258, 268-270, 274> 276, 281-284> 286 ergative case (diathesis, language) 49-55 ergative number 33, 55, 58; see: unergative number Espinal, Maria Teresa 121, 142. European Portuguese 259 Evenki 44 event plurality 32. 45, 47-48, 55 event reading 311-312 Event Time, ET 4> 100, 250 event unit 309, 310 eventive 47, 50, 57, 71, 73, 86-88, 90-91, 113, 185 eventualities 10-11, 235, 310 exclusive 261-263; see inclusive expletive chain 278 expletive determiner 157, 217-218,22.2 expletive pronoun (pro) 201-203. 217-218, 22.2-2.23, 228, 246-247> 254, :z.67-:z.69,:Z.76-:z.84,289

351 Index exponence 61, 230 expositive causative 53 extended event 4> 10, 17, 53. 99. 102, 110, 122 extended exponence 61 extended projection 57, 249.291 extended-now;XN 102, no external plural 292, 296, 31.2; see: internal plural F Faber, Alice 206 factual present u, 22 Faller, Martina 291, 323 familiarity 217, 219 feature valuation 122 Ferguson, Charles 206, 303 finite clause (verb, tense, inflection), finiteness 24> 66, 81, 87, 94> 235-236, 242-249. 257 finite subject 64> 244> 246 Finnish 49, 257, 259-261, 264-265,275,283-285,288 fissioning 40-41, 59, 70, 84 Fleisch, Henri 114 foreground 278 formal agreement (feature) 132, 143, 150-151, 214> 243, 253, 255, 296, 313-317 Formal Complexity 51, 64> 79,91 formal definiteness 168, 212, 214> 216, 223, 227 Formal Disjunctivity 63. 79, 91 formal gender 136, 149, 300 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 266 Frascarelli, Mara 272 French 6, n, 13, 16, 18, 63, 65-67, 72, 83-86, 97, 107, 114> 16), 168, 191, 196, 199. 213, 228, 254> 259, 261, 264-265, 267,270,277,288 Fii.ck, Johann 206 fusionallanguage 62 future prefect 251

G Gast, Volker 334, 336 Gaudefroy-Dernombynes, Maurice XVI

gemination 28, 32-34, 36-40, 59.311 Gen operator 197-198 gender marking 300 gender/collective confusion 20 general atomicity 129-130 general classifier 122 general clusivity 262 general countability 122, 12.8 general determination 208, 210 general number 122, 130, 132, 145, 262, 291, 310 general person 122, 145, 262,288 generic 122, 169, 179-183, 191, 197, 20), 219-220, 229, 257-265,267-269,283-284> 286-287 generic pro 257-258, 26o, 262, 269,284 generic third person 259 genitive 153-154> 158, 175, 195, 245.296,299 GenP 190-191 German 3, 5-6, 11, 15-18, 93, 96,98,103-105,107-108,142, 264, 266, 315 Germanic 11-12, 18, 67, 70, 79> 82-84, 96, 164, 201, 209, 211-213, 217,248, 254 Gerstner, Claudia 200 Gil, David 127, 144 Gilnert, Lewis 209 Giorgi, Alessandra 4> 72, 96, 98-100, 109, 235-236, 238-242, 250, 256 Giurgea, Ion 284 Giusti, Giuliana 213 Giv6n, Talrny 212 Golovko, Evgeniy 43-44 grammatical numbering 121 grammatical Tense 3 Greek 3, 5-6, 13. 18, 49, 61, 64> 71. 74> 81, 83, 140, 163, 171, 254,283,297 Greenberg, Joseph 28, 32-33, 41, 122, 128, 134, 161, 208 Grimshaw, Jane 272 group 123, 134, 136-140, 145, 150-151, 265, 300-301, 305, 317-318, J24, 326 group event 48, 317

group value 317 Guardiano, Cristina 177, 205,207 Gueron, Jacqueline 4-6, 9, 11-12, 67, 254-255 Guerssel, Mohammed 37 Gully, Adrian XVI, 329 Gutman, Eynat 285

H habitual1o, 13, 21-22, 69-70, 77-78,86,96,109,184-185, 187,193. 197-198, 200 Hachimi, Atiqa 300, 309 Hagege, Claude 237 Hale, Kenneth 27-31, 46-47, 61, 86, 179. 263 Halle, Morris 28, 61, 72, 179, 218,286 Harbert, Wayne 281, 314 Harley, Heidi 30, 47, 284 Hasan, Abbas 292 Haspelrnath, Martin 171, 266 Hawrami 161 head movement 83, 254 hearer 250 Hebrew 3. 14 18-19, 69, 97,127,156,164,169-170, 206-207,209,211-216,226, 257,285-286,288,325 Heirn, Irene 101, 189-190, 198, 226,273.323-324 Heine, Bernd 79, 229 Hengeweld, Kees 235 Herdan, Simona 227 Hetzron, Robert 163. 165, 205-206 Heycock, Caroline 176 Higginbotham, James 6, u, 14> 61, 97. 139. 235 high numeral 3o8 historical core 206 Hoekstra, Teun 5 Holes, Clive 161, 298 Holisky, Dee 50 Holmberg, Anders 153. 161, 179. 235. 244> 254> 257. 259-260,264, 271-273, 2]5, 283-284> 287-288 Hopper, Paul 49, 276 Hornstein, Norbert 4 Huallaga Quechua 42

Index 353 Huang, James 313 hwnan agent 266, 304 hwnan feature 266, 288 hwnan subject 299 hwnan value 268 Hunsib Daghestan 42

I Iatridou, Sabine 22, 61, 69, 102-103 Ic:elandic: 256,266,284 ffioc:ution 235, 255 imparfait 13, 16, 66, 84> 9/. see: imperfect imperative 241,255, 303, 305 Imperfect 4-5, 10, 12-1.8, 20-23, 66, 70, 73-74> 80-81, 89, 95, 97-99, 250, 255; see:

imparfait, imperfetto Imperfect Past 15, 23, 66, 98 Imperfective, imperfec:tivity 4-5,10-13, 15-24. 49· 65, 83-86, 89, 95-96, 98-100, 105-106, 110, 112, 117, 185, 198, 213, 250, 255 Imperfective passive 85-86 imperfetto 97 impersonal passive 258, 266, 275-276, 288 implicit argwnent 275 Inagaki, Shunji us inc:hoative 29, 40, 76, 78, 84, 246 inclusive 261-263 indefinite 107-108, 110, 142, 154> 156-157> 160-161, 169-1]2, 180, 182-184, 187-188, 190-200, 202, 204> 207-214> 216-218, 221-229, 231, 257-261, 266, 269-270, 273, 278, 282, 286-288, 294> 313 Indefinite Gen Parameter 180, 191,204 indefinite pronoun 208, 213,259 indetermination view 208, 210,223 indicative Mood 240 indirect imperative 241 indirect speech 237 individual 76, 137, 139, 142, 146, 150, 162, 175-176, 180,

183-1.84> 187, 198-199> 220, 23Q-231, 274> 301, 313. 316 individual level predicate 183-184> 332 individuated vocative 225, 294 individuation 145, 152. 157, 182, 207, 217-21.8, 220-221, 223, 226-227, 229. 231, 294 Indo-European n6, 219, 244> 246 Indonesian 44 inflection 19, 65, 81-83. 122, 132, 143-146, 148-151, 235-236, 243-244, 254· 257-259. 261-263, 265, 270-2]1, 274> 284,288,314 inflectional Pl 292 Ingham, Bruce 160 innovation 153, 156, 205-206, 211-212 intensive 27, 29, 32-43. 48-49, 54-55. 57-59. 143· 147· 151, 291, 305-3o8, 311-312, 326 intensive plural 305 intemalanaphora 274 internal Pl 292 interpretability of Tense 236 interpretable feature 255 intersective 165-167, 174, 2o8 inter-Semitic: 205 Irish 257. 261, 264-265, 281, 288 irrealis 77-78, 255 irreducibly symmetric: predicate 319 isolating language 62, 70 Italian 12-13, 15-17, 21, 72> 84> 97-99. 109, 143> 163, 171, 1.83-185, 187, 189, 199-201, 213, 217, 230, 238-239, 241, 254> 257. 264-266, 2]2, 277. 287-288, 316 iterative 43-44> 48-49, 58-59, 96,310 Izvors.ki, Rownyana 22, 69, 102 J Jac:kendoff; Ray 141, 145, 203 Jaegli, Oswaldo 177, 273 Jakobson, Roman 218, 220 Japanese 14> 44> 55-57, 97, 128 Jayez, Jacques 231

Jelinek, Eloise 50 Johnson, Kyle 71, 273-275 Joseph, Brian 74> 179

K Karnp, Hans 11, 165 Kayne, Richard 27, 57, 67-69, 177,179,22.6,249,285-286 Keenan, Edward 211 Keyser, Jay 28-31, 46-47, 179,263 Khalfaoui, Amel 160 kind 45-46. 58, 63, 76, 79. 114, 124-128, 130, 140, 151, 164> 166, 169, 176, 182-183, 1.85, 188-189,196, 200-20), 210, 217, 222, 231, 241, 26o, 267, 278, 281, 309-310, 322 kind event nominal 309 kind level predicate 183 kind-denoting 182,188, 200 kinds of perfect 93, 110 Klein, Wolfgang 100-101, 104, 106,250 Kokutani, Shigehiro 319-320 Konig, Ekkehard 319-320 Kouloughli, Djamel 161, 294 Kratzer, Angelika 29-31, 50, 71. 87-88, 122, 132, 139, 273, 284> 288, 292, 310-311, 315 Krifka, Manfred 122, 134> 139, 142-143,200,291,307,310 Kulikov, Leonid 28,41-43, 48-49 Kurylowicz, Jerzy 3, 5, 18-19, 24> 37. 161, 205, 208, 210, 223, 228-229 L Laca, Brenda 121, 189, 254. 291 Landau, Idan 236, 244 Landman, Fred 132, 137, 140, 310, 313 Larcher, Pierre 35 Larson, Richard 28-29, 31, 161, 166,176 Lasnik, Howard 323-324 Latin 6, 13, 18, 61, 64> 69, 72-75. 79-80, 83-84> 87, 228 Leiss, Elisabeth 266 lengthening 37, 293, 295, 305, 311,322

354 Index Levin, Beth 71, 86 Lexeme-based morphology 61 lexical collective 1,36, 297, 300-302 lexicalredprocal 318, J20, 327 lexical/internal plurality 292 Li, Fengxiang 48 licensing condition 271 Lidz, Jeffrey 57 Lightfoot, David 206 Link. Godehard 83-84> 122, 138, 14(), 306 Lobner, Sebastian 103, 106-107 logophor, logophoridty xx, 235-238, 241-244> 256 logophoric C, complementizer 235, 237, 241,256 logophoric center 235, 241 logophoric pronoun 2,36, 244 logophorically dependent 241 long distance anaphor 256 Longobardi, Guiseppe 156, 177, 179-181, 183-185, 189, 191, 199-203, 205, 207, 217, 221-222,230, 287-288 low numeral 148, 308 Lowenstarrun, Jean 37 L-syntax 28, 30-31, 51, 55 Lyons, John 211, 217, 229

M macro-parametric 153, 177 Maling, Joan 266 Mandarin 122, 130-132,152, 256 Mansi Vogul 42 Marantz, Alec 27-28, 30, 47, 61-62, 69, 87, 90, 179 Maslova, Elena 43 mass 119, 121-128,131, 134> 136, 138-144> 146-147> 151-152, 169, 175-176, 179-182, 201-203, 210,221, 306 mass noun 124-127, 139-140, 144> 146 mass syntax 146 matching feature 243. 261 matrix speech event 237 matrix tense 251 Matthews, Peter 61 maxlrnality 217,219 May, Robert 323-324 McCarhty, John 39, 293

McCawley, James 102 McCloskey, James 261, 265, 281 McCoard, Robert 102 McGinnis, Martha 338-339 McNally, Louise 142 measure 122-123, 126-127, 139, 296.309 Meillet, Antoine 3. 205 merger 154 micro-parametric 153. 156, 177 middle 50-51, 53. 131, 263 minimalist grarrunar 9, 28, 122, 208, 211, 258, 271-272> 282,292 Mittwoch, Anita 102 mixed theory of parametric variation 153 modal 7-8, 70-71, 77, 83> 90, 94> 104-106, 116, 180, 241, 246, 263, 279 modality 4, 235 Modern Greek 71, 74> 171 modifier 121-122, 124> 135, 142-143> 146-147> 154> 189, 192, 224-225, 227, 248-249> 291.295.299.306,309. 312-314> 316, 318, 321, 324. 326 Mohammad, Mohammad 281 Mokilese 45 Moltmann, Friederike 48, 141, 275 Mood 4-5, 63, 71, 75-78, 89-90, 235, 24()-244> 254-256 Mood selection 256 Moravcsik, Edith 28, 41-42. 45.51 Moroccan Arabic 56, 76, 153, 157. 208, 250, 305 morphological redprocal 318, 323 Moscati, Sabatino 161, 205-206, 2o8, 211,217, 228 Moses Columbian 44 Move 83. 103. 169, 191, 202, 207,212,217,226,230,236, 252-256, 2]2, 282, 288 multiplier Pl 305 Musan, Renate 96, 104. 106-107, 110

N Nairn, Samia 174 Najdi 160

natural ergativity 32-33. 55 Nayudu, Aarti 340 Neo-Arabic 2o6 neo-Reichenbachian 4 Nevins, Andrew 122, 273. 286 Newman, Paul 291 Nikanne, Urpo 284 Nikolaeva, Irina 329, 344 nisbah 298 Nominal Agr 64, 69 nominal architecture 179-180, 297.326 nominal aspect 144 nominal feature 83 nominal number, plurality 39, 292,294 nominal Person 250, 255 nominal root 297 nominal split 71 nominal synthesis 153-155, 176 nominative 51, 224> 243-246, 255. 294> 299. J21, 324 non-intersective 65-167, 174> 208,336 non-anterior 4> 13. 18 non-divisive 140 non-human plurality 299 non-individuating vocative 223 non-individuation 152, 157, 22Q-221, 226, 231 normal plurality 301 novelty 219 nP 30, 119, 121, 129-131, 140, 143. 146-147> 155. 169, 176, 180-181, 191, 197. 209, 221, 224-225, 231, 255· 270, 277, 292, 295. 303. 307. 309. 311-313, 315-316, 326 N-to-D movement 154,171, 179> 191, 207, 211, 218,224 N-to-Gen 180,190-191,204 null subject language 254. 257, 340.345 Num theory 27-28, 31, 45, 57· 59 Number feature 253. 339 Number marking language 122 Number neutral 131 Number projection 303 number property 121 numeral adverb 125

Index 355

Numeral Bare Parameter 196 numeralmodifier 121-122, 124,135 numeral property 121 numeral verb 125 nunation 16o--161, 208, 210-211, 213, 217, 226, 229.294

0 object -denoting 182, 188, zoo; see: kind-denoting obligatory control 249-250 Odden, David 161, 340 Ogihara, Toshiro 14. 97 Ojeda, Almerindo 134, 1.P., 145 Old Arabic 153. 167, 206 opacity predicate 186, 210 Ouwayda, Sarah 144 Ouhalla, Jamal 71, 82-83, 176-177, 273, 275 overt generic pronoun 264 overt indetermination 212 overt present perfect 253 Owens, Jonathan 153-154 p

parallel plural 36 parametric comparative linguistics 2o6 Parsons, Terence 114-115 part-whole see: whole Partee, Barbara 101, 221, 236,291 partial NSL 257-258, 26o, 283-285 participant feature 244. 284> 286 participant reading 311-312 participant role 250 participation 38-40, 311, 319, 322-323 participle 25, 64. 67-69, 71-73. So, 82, 85-87, 94 101, 104 partitioned plurality 40 partitive numeral 124 Paslawska, Alla 102 passato remote 97, 109 passe simple 84, 97 passive participle 71-72, So, 86 Past 3-10, 12-24, 43. 45, 49· 65-66, 68, 70-77, 79-81,

84-87,89-90,93-101, 103-117, 189, 191, 209, 213, 239-241,250-256,265,286 Past Imperfect 14-15, 17, 20, 70,99 Past imperfective 21, 96, 98,106 Past perfective 7, 17 Past progressive 13. 17, 66, 84,97 Past split 96 Past subjunctive 240 Past-under-past 239 paucity plural 41 Pellat, Charles 161, 228 Pelletier, Francis zoo Perfect 3-10, 13-18, 20, 22, 49, 64-66, 70-77, 79-84> 89-90, 93. 95-97· 99-102, 104-106, 110, 112-n4, n6, 250-253. 255-256 perfect tenses 4> 7, 65, 75-76,79 perfective, perfectivity 3-7, 9-1J, 15-20, 22-24, 49-50, 89, 93. 95-100,111-112, ll7, 213, 250, 252-253. 255-256 perfective/terminative 16, 18 Persian 161 Person 5, 9, 44, 70, 122, 145, 165-166, 207, 217-218, 23o--231, 236-238, 241, 250-251,253-260,262, 265, 267, 271-274> 276, 279. 282-289, 315 Person double access 237 Person placement 5, 9, 250, 255-256 personal passive 258, 273. 275-276, 288 phase head 253. 288 Philippaki-Warburton, Irene 74 Philippi, Julia 211 phrasal plurality 292, 327 Pianesi, Fabio 4, 72. 96, 98-100, 109, 250 Platzack, Christer 235, 244. 254,284 Plunkett, Bernadette 257, 281 pluractional 291-292, 311 plural 27-28, 32-33, 35-38, 4o-- .p., 43. 45. 50, 56-58,

121-122, 129-133.136-151, 156-157· 170, 180, 183, 186-187, 196,20J,210,ll9,226,253. 274· 291-297, 299-318, 320-32<~. 326 plural action 32 plural event 3n plural Merge 28 plural of abundance 37, 142. 305. 311 plural of mass 142, 147 plural of plural 138, 3o6, 309 plural of the singular 133, 186 polyfunctionality 94> 289 Portner, Paul 226 Portuguese 6,96,259-260 positional adverb 103. 106-108, no, 253 Poss phrase 154. 169,294 possessive synthesis 154 possessor placement 174 post-state 112-115 predicative adjective 165 predicative numeral 125 Present 4-6, 8-16, 18-19, 21-24,49.52.64-67,69, 72-86,88-89,94-95. 97-98, 101, 103-104, 1o6, 110, ll3, 179, 183, 192, 206, 22), 229, 231, 238-240, 25o--25J, 258, 268, 282, 286, 296, 314-315, 322 present perfect 6, 8-9, 64-66,]2-77.79-80,82,106, 251-253 present perfective 252-253 present-under-past 14-16, 98 Prince, Alan 39, 175, 293 pro 177, 244, 254> 257-258, 26o--264, 268-269, 271-2]2, 274-286, 288 PRO 177, 244> 254. 257-258, 26o--264, 268-269,271-272. 274-286,288 probe-goal relation 261, 313 promotion 273-274, 288 pronoun drop 257 pronoun of matter 278 proper name 180, 214 pseudo-bare 194-195, 207 pure bare 194,217-218,220, 224> 228 Pylkklinen, Liina 57

356 Index

Q

Romance 10-12,18,56,67,

quantificational .p, 45-46,48,

70, 72, 79· 82-84, 86-87, 89, 96, 164, 180, 183, 186-193. 196,198-204,209, 211-213, 248,255 Romanian 239

102, 170, 180, 183-184, 186, 189, 20o--2o2, :no, 231, 308 quantity plural 307

quasi-argwnental quasi-existential 263-264 quasi-generic 265 quasi -specific 265 quasi-universal 153. 163. 264

R raising 236, 244. 247-248, 280, 282

Ramchand, Gill 57 Rapaport, Maika 71, 86 realis 77-78, 255 redprocal construction, RC 324 redprocator 323-324> 326 redprodty 135, 141, 292, 299, 318-)20, 322, 324

recovery condition 271 reduplication 28, 32,34-35, 40-42, 44-47· 59. 311

Reference Time. RT 4, 18, 25, 99-100,250

referential pro correlation 258 referential index 267, 273 referential subject 243. 260 reflexive causative 52 Reichenbach, Hans 4, 99, 100,251

relative Tense 100,251-252 re-Merge 275, 287 repetitive 27, 29, 32-33, 40-41,48.50,55·57.291-292, 309-311 reported speech 237 requestive causative 42, 53 resolution 296, 304> 315 Retso, Jan 153

rich nominal T rich temporal T Rijkhott: Jan 48, 145,254 Ritter, Elizabeth 156, 254. 284, 289,299

Rivero, Marla Luisa 71, 74-76 FU22i,Luigi 235,243-244. 254> 257-258, 265, 271-272, 278,282 Roberts, Ian 71, 254. 273-275 Roman, Andre 161, 214. 300, 302,309

rootC 242 root clause 242. 244, 246 root phrase 326 Rothstein, Susan 123. 140, 145 Rouveret, Alain 164 Rubin, Aaron 170, 212-213 Rullmann, Hotze 128-129 Ryding, Karin XVI

s Safir, Ken 177 salience 217, 219 Samek-Lodovid, Vierl 272 SandstrOm, Gorel 179 Sauerland, llli 122, 292, 296,311

Schmitt, Cristina 96 Schwarzschild, Roger 309 SCOPA 289 scope 164 167, 170, 186-187, 196, 210, 224> 231, 270, 323

second ego 237 second plural 305-306, 308,311

secondary predication 274-275 semantic plurality 316 semantic type 164 semantic definiteness 214. 223,227

Semitic :;, 5, 18, 27-28, 32, 41, 61, 70, 153-156, 162, 177, 179,205-214,216-217,226, 228-229, 244 Semitic core 206 Semitic diglossia 205 Separation Hypothesis 61 Sequence of Tense, SOT 5, 241 serialization of adjectives 163 Shabaneh, Osama 303 Sharvit, Yael 227 Sheehan, Michele 272, 275, 283 shifting tense 7 Shih, Chinlin 163-166 Shlonsky, Ur 25, 156, 164, 169, 209,212,216,272,285 Snedeker, Jesse 140 Sibawayhl, Amr 10, 134. 302 Sichel, Ivy 156, 164, 169, 212

Siegel, Mutfy 165 Slewierska, Anna 237, 266 Sigur 324-325

simple past 10, 15-17, 23. 66, 75. 84, 96-99. 108, 111-113, 116,251-252 simultaneous 11, 13-16, 18, 22, 97-98, 101, 239-240 single Merge 28 singleton plurality 317 singular event 309 singulative affix 124 singulative atomidty 130 singulative collective 300, 302 singulative noun 126, 297-298 some indefinite 208, 209 SOW1d plural 149, 294, 302-303.305 Spanish 213, 219, 254 spatial entities 235 speaker feature 239, 284 Spec distribut:ivity 40 Spec of Voice 258 specific 129, 162, 169-170, 212-213, 217-220, 225-226, 228-230,264-265,270, 278,288 specific Person 288 speech event 11, 237-238, 243,251 split C hypothesis 240 splitting analysis 83-84, 91 Sproat, Richard 163-166 stage level predicate 183. 18 7 Standard Arable 32, 36, 89, 156,208,242,249-250, 303.305 star operator, " 292, 316 Starke, Michal 267-268, 288 stative 10, 14. 18, 23, 30, 36, 50, 54> 71. 78, 86-91, 97. 109, 11), 185,200 Sternefeld, Wolgang 316 Stowell, Tim 4> 39, 156, 181, 230,250 strictly adjacent 154 Subject agreement 67, 244> 2¢,305 subject expletive 269 subject pro-drop language 254

Index 357

subject/antecedent plurality 318 subjunctive 77, 18o, 24Q-2.p., 255 Sultan, Usama 174 swn 122, 135, 137, 141-143. 145-146, 149. 213, 301, 305-306, 310, 317. 322 swn of participants 310 swn plural 145, 306 swn-unit 317 Sundanese .p., 45 179> 2¢,255.270,276, 282-283, 292, 302-303. 313-316, 327 Sybesma, Rint 144 symmetric event 318, 323> 324-325 symmetric situation 319 symmetrically reciprocal 321 syntactic change 205, 342, 344 syntactic collective 301 syntactic computation 205 syntacticfeature 296 syntactic group 1)6, 138,145 syntactic non-finiteness 236 syntactic reciprocal 318, 320, 23-324 synthesis 5, 63-64> 71-73> 76, 82-83, 95, 153-156, 168, 176-177, 252, 256 synthetic article 156-157 synthetic core 155 synthetic indefinite 169-171 synthetic possession 153. 171 synthetic temporality 251-253 synthetic/analytic asymmetries 61 Syrian Arabic 167 Szabolcsi, Anna 68, 156, 181, 226,230 Szemerenyi, Oswald 3

svo

T Tagalog 122, 152 Talmoudi, Fatbi 9 tanwiin 161, 182, 192, 29 21-23, 110-111, 186-187,196,210,252 telos 11, 20-21 temporal adjunct 239-241

temporal adverb 99, 117 temporal anchoring 256 temporal argument, role 4> 250-251, 255 temporal chain 71, 76, 79 temporal complexity 76 temporal dependence 242 temporal ordering 4 temporal person 250, 255 temporal repetition 32-34 temporal split 81 temporal/aspectual 3> 18, 69,93 temporal/spatial 235 temporally complex 73, 251 Tense language 5 tenseless 3, 24 Tepetotula Chinantec 45 terminated 10, 17, 21, 99, m terminativlty 4, 21-22 Testen, David 213 thematic role predicate 310 third person inflection 259 Thomson, Sarah 49 Thrainson, Hoskuldur 254 time adjunct 235 time adverb 9, 238 time double access 238 time entities 235 time participant 250 time reference 6-7, 19-20, 23-25 time/space anchor xv, xx Tiwi 45 TMA feature 253 topic agreement 275 topic expletive 279, 282 Tovena, Lucia 231 TPl 243> 250 TP2 243. 250, 252 transitive, transitivity 27, 29-Jl, 34-36,39-42, 45-47> 49-52. 54-55. 57-59.91,263,274> 310-311,322, 324 transitivity theory 29 transitivizer 35, 46 transitivizing property 34-36 truncation 2)6, 248, 250 Tsimpli, Ianthi 71 Tsoulas, George 140, 257 Tunisian Arabic 160 Thrklsh 43-44> 132, 149 'fuvan 43

u llliendorff; Edward 205 unambiguous scope 270 unergative Nurn 55, 58 unergative v 30; see: ergative uninterpretable (feature) 122, 150, 211-212,217, 227, 243-244> 253. 256-257, 271-2j'2, 312, 317 unique superlative 226 uniqueness 173. 217, 219, 226-227, 229 unvalued feature 211, 255, 272-273 Utterance Time, UT 4> 99, 239,250 uttered event 237 utterer 237-238, 241

v V movement 253-254 V2 254 vague domain 122, 134 vague quantity 122 valuation 122, 218, 229,256, 265, 272, 275, 289, 314-315 valued feature 272 variation 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 27, 33> 40, 56-57. 59. 63-64> 68, 74-76, 83-84> 91, 140, 153, 156, 176-177, 179-180, 183, 191-192, 205-207, 209, 211, 213, 215-216, 226, 235,261-262, 27J, 284-285, 287-288, 297> 300, 303-305 Vendler, Zeno 3 verb classifier 253 verb pluralization 327 verbal Akti.onsart 253 verbalallliliary 66-6h69 verbal number 292, 324 verbal plurality 27, 32. 35, 39, 41, 57. 59. 121, 253. 291-292, 327 verbal voice 86 verbal/nominal parallelism 292 verbalization 27, 33> 46 verbalizer 46-47 verbalizing property 30, 34> 47 Vergnaud, Jean Roger 218 Verkuyl. Henk 48 Versteegh, Kees 153, 206 Vlkner, Sten 100, 254

358 Index Vincent, Nigel 211 Vinet, Marie-Therese 23, 305.313

Vlach, Frank 102 voice 29, 31, 50-51, 53-54. 59, 61, 63-67, 70-76, 79, 81, 84, 86-91. 258-261, 273-275· 284-285, 288-289 voice variation 285 VoiP 276 Vollers, Karl 206 von Fintel, Kai 103 von Stechow, Arnin1 93, 100,102 vP 28-31, 47, 50, 75-76, 91, 101, 103, 176, 191, 199, 231, 235-236, 241, 243-244, 248, 250-252, 255-256, 269, 272, 275-276, 282, 292,

301. 312. 314-316, 318, 324> 326-327 vso 179. 246. 254-255. 26g, 276, 278, 281-283, 302-303, 314-316 V-to-C 254 Vydchl, Werner 230

w Wasow, Thomas 86 Watanabe, Akira 122, 144-145 Weschler, Stephen 265, 273. 284,287,296

Western Semitic 18 whole (part-whole) 123,130, 141,152

Wiltschko, Martina

122,

128, 145. 152, 254> 287, 289, 307.313

Wright, William 3, 5-6, 10, 13, 17-20, J2, 134· 192, 224, 2g2,JOO Wunderlich, Dieter 102, 275

y

Yamakido, Hiroko 161, 176 You, Aili 126, 128-130 Yukaghir 43

z Zabbal, Youri 129, 303. 309 Zaborski, Andrzej 16, 19,213

Zagona, Karen 4. 250 Zamparelli, Roberto 176, 308 Zeit phrase 250 Zlatic, Larisa 265,287 Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 218