Complementizer Agreement and the T⁰‐Φ Parameter in Jordanian Arabic

Abstract

Contra Chomsky (2007, 2008), this paper argues that there is no Φ‐dependency between C0 and T0 in Jordanian Arabic (JA) grammar. C0 and T0 are independently endowed with uΦ‐content, something that turns them into active probes, which are shown to not necessarily agree with the same goal. This provides evidence for a proposal where T0 and C0 have distinct uΦ‐features (Haegeman & van Koppen 2012). The study also shows that C0 in JA, unlike T0, may agree with a goal whose structural Case is already valued. We account for this variation following Oxford's (2017) microparametric proposal where the Activity Condition is a property of a particular functional head, rather than a property of the language as a whole. With respect to T0's Φ‐endowment, this study proposes that such endowment is a consequence of setting a positive value of the postulated T0‐Φ Parameter, which distinguishes languages where T0 is endowed with Φ‐features from those where it is not. This accounts for the observation that T0 is always inflected for Φ‐agreement in JA, even in situations where C0 is not projected.

Complementizer Agreement in Jordanian Arabic is Agree-based: Evidence from Fronted Objects

“…Before we conclude Section 2, one point is in order. The analysis of CA that we are presenting for JA here is in variation with Jarrah (2019bJarrah ( , 2020. Jarrah (2019bJarrah ( , 2020 argues against the involvement of structural Case in CA in JA.…”

Evidence for constraints on probing dynamics: A case study of adjectival concord

“…16 Indeed, complementizer agreement in Jordanian Arabic (which shares similar nominal concord facts with SA) shows that C 0 ʔinn can agree with the subject that is assigned (abstract) nominative case or with the object that is assigned (abstract) accusative case, depending on closer c-command. This can be seen in the examples in (35), from Jarrah (2020) 'My father believed that the car, the men stole. ' Jarrah 2020: 154 In (35a), ʔinn agrees with the subject ʔilwalad 'the boy', as evidenced by the fact that the inflectional suffix that ʔinn bears (i.e., -uh [3SG.M]) is the same Φ-content as the subject.…”

“…DP-internal concord, including noun-adjective agreement (i.e., adjectival concord) in ɸ-features (i.e., number and gender), case, and definiteness, in Arabic, Hebrew and other Semitic languages has attracted the attention of many syntacticians (Fassi Fehri 1993Siloni 1997;Borer 1999;Kremers 2003;Shlonsky 2012;AlQahtani 2016;Jarrah et al 2020, among many others). 1 The Standard Arabic (henceforth SA) constructions in ( 1) are examples of this phenomenon whereby the modifying adjective inflects for the number, gender, case and definiteness of the modified noun.…”

Narrow-syntax and post-spellout movements: evidence from the syntax of idiomatic expressions in Arabic varieties

“…Jordanian Arabic (JA) is an Arabic dialect with unmarked SVO word order (El-Yasin, 1985;Abusalim, 2016;Jarrah, 2017Jarrah, , 2020 The examples in (14-16) show that idiomaticity in JA holds when the word order is SVO; when the VSO word order is used, idiomatic readings are deemed not available by our JA informants.…”

“…predominate) word order used. In MSA, the unmarked word order is, as widely assumed in the related literature, the VSO word order (see Bakir, 1980;El-Yasin, 1985;Fassi Fehri, 1993;Jarrah, 2020; among many others), whereas the SVO word order is the predominate word order in JA which shares this property of word order with almost all other Arabic vernaculars (see Aoun et al, 1994 for Lebanese Arabic; Mohammad, 2000 for Palestinian Arabic; Benmamoun, 2000 for Egyptian Arabic;Fassi Fehri, 1993 for Moroccan Arabic; see also Jarrah, 2017Jarrah, , 2019a for more discussion about word order in JA). 2 However, although the two varieties are different regarding the selection of the predominate word order, they are mutually intelligible.…”