Distributing Features and Affixes in Arabic Subject Verb Agreement Paradigms

Fehri, Abdelkader Fassi

doi:10.1075/cilt.202.05feh

“…—Nevins proposes that perfective and imperfective verbs raise to different heights: imperfectives stop at T 0 , so that Person 0 is realized to its left, prefixally, and number to its right, suffixally; perfectives, by contrast, stop at Person 0 , so that Person and Number are located in a single complex head and can be realized as a single fused suffix. Ideas similar in nature have been suggested or pursued by Banksira (2000), Benmamoun (2000), Julien (2002), Tourabi (2002), Fassi Fehri (2003), and Linn and Rosen (2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Against PersonP

Harbour¹

2007

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He maintains that the "subject" DP is a Topic base-generated in [Spec, TP] co-referential with a referential pro in [Spec, VP]. 25 Thus, with the exception of Soltan (2006), who argues that the Topic DP is base-generated in the highest Spec position in the IP domain (i.e, it is base-generated in [Spec, TP], co-referential with a resumptive pro in [Spec, VP]), Fassi Fehri (1993Fehri ( , 2000 and Akkal & Gonegai (2000) argue that "topicalized" subject DPs are merged within a TopP projection in the CP domain, but according to different assumptions.…”

Section: Arabic Svo Word Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Irrespective of the specificities of the standpoints reviewed in section 2. 1.2.3.2 above as regards Topic DPs in SVO sentences (schematically represented in Table 2.1 above), my hypothesis is that the parametric difference that sets the modern spoken dialects of Arabic apart from SA in the projection of the IP domain (in its relation to the CP domain) may prove to be a question of whether the initial "subject" DP is in the IP domain (i.e., a subject DP moved to [Spec, IP] in the spirit of the VISH), as Mohammad (1989) and Benmamoun (1992a) argue, or a topicalized/left-dislocated position to the left of IP in [Spec, TopP] with a referential pro in [Spec, IP], as in Fassi Fehri (1993Fehri ( , 2000. In this conception, SA and the modern Arabic spoken dialects essentially differ in relation to where initial subjects in SVO sentences are representationally located in sentence structurei.e., whether the subject is in [Spec, TopP] (which would be the case in SA) or within the IP domain (which would be the case in the modern spoken dialects).…”

Section: Arabic Svo Word Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters and micro-parameters in Arabic sentence structure

Jouini¹

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>My thesis deals with dependency relations in the structure of sentences in Arabic and how properties of verbal morphology and associated lexical items dictate how sentences are derived. I adopt the probe-goal-Agree Minimalist view that variation between languages (even those that are closely related, such as Standard Arabic and Tunisian Arabic) is due to the 'feature structure' of functional elements that enter into the derivation. In particular, the essential architecture of sentences expressing the dependency relations verbs and associated elements have with the 'functional' portion of sentences (i.e., tense/modality properties) is universal in that these dependency relations will be expressed on the basis of the same feature structure cross-linguistically. However, this architecture still allows for the kind of parametric variation that exists even between closely related languages. In this context, I am interested in the status of subject-verb agreement configurations, in both VSO and SVO word orderings, and wh- and other A’-dependencies in Standard Arabic (with comparisons to some modern spoken varieties of Arabic, where appropriate). The analysis is shown to extend to other V-raising languages of the Semitic/Celtic type with ‘basic’ VSO word ordering. A possible extension of the analysis to the V2 phenomenology is also discussed and the major role played by the raising of V-v to T and the raising of T to Agr(s) or T to Fin is highlighted. An important aspect of my analysis is a proper understanding of the dependency relations involved in the derivation of the relevant sentences where the role of the CP domain projections, verb-movement, feature identification and/or feature valuation along with clause type is essential for interpretation at the interface at the output of syntax. In this feature-based analysis of parametric and micro-parametric variation, I show that variation between typologically similar and typologically different languages is minimal in that it is limited to the interaction of feature combinations in the derivation of sentences. These feature combinations concern the feature structure of the T-node in relation to the position where T is spelled out at the interface. In particular, T raises to Agr(s) or to Fin in some languages and/or structures. Such raising processes are important in subject-verb agreement configurations cross-linguistically involving combinations of T-features and D-features, which would differ in interpretability (i.e., interpretable vs. uninterpretable) as the basis for feature valuation. Similar feature combinations also drive the raising processes in wh-dependencies with some F-feature (mainly related to ‘focus’) interacting with the T-features of Fin. I propose that two modes of licensing of these feature combinations are at work. The first mode of licensing is the basic head-head agreement relation. This agreement relation is the basis for verb-movement to the functional field above vP/VP in V-raising languages. The second mode of licensing is the Spec-head agreement relation, brought about by the Merge (internal or external) of D(P) elements in A-dependencies and the Merge of wh-elements in A’-dependencies. In dependency relations other than subject-verb agreement and wh-dependencies, I propose that the licensing of these feature combinations is strictly a question of ‘identification’ via head-head agreement whereby a feature on a functional head does not need to be valued, but it still needs to be ‘identified’ for the well-formedness of the C-(Agr[s])-T dependency. This is the case of the interpretable D-feature of the Top node in Topic-comment structures and the interpretable F-feature of the two functional head nodes, Mod(al) and Neg, in relation to the T-features of Fin in a V-raising language like Standard Arabic.</p>

show abstract

“…Adopting a "checking" view of verbal inflectional morphology, I follow Fassi Fehri (1993Fehri ( , 2000 in the assumption that the morphemes attached to the form [y-aDrib], in (27a), have to be derived in the syntax, each with its own inflectional projection. As for the form y-aDrib "3-beat", it could be assumed that this form represents a morphological merger inserted in the syntax as it is.…”

Section: Arabic Svo Word Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The derivation of such a structure goes as follows: Person is a pure expression of Tfeatures (Fassi Fehri 2000: 88, footnote 19) and it fuses with T forming a complex T which is realized as one node to which the verb raises. So bracketing in the syntax gives the morphological complex V-[Person-T] headed by T. Finally, the whole complex V-[Person-T] moves to AGR, which for Fassi Fehri (2000) is the realization of Number. The end product is the formation of the verbal inflectional complex V-[Person-T]-AGR, which at the interface/Spell Out is V-Person-Number.…”

Section: Arabic Svo Word Ordermentioning

confidence: 99%

Parameters and micro-parameters in Arabic sentence structure

Jouini¹

2

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>My thesis deals with dependency relations in the structure of sentences in Arabic and how properties of verbal morphology and associated lexical items dictate how sentences are derived. I adopt the probe-goal-Agree Minimalist view that variation between languages (even those that are closely related, such as Standard Arabic and Tunisian Arabic) is due to the 'feature structure' of functional elements that enter into the derivation. In particular, the essential architecture of sentences expressing the dependency relations verbs and associated elements have with the 'functional' portion of sentences (i.e., tense/modality properties) is universal in that these dependency relations will be expressed on the basis of the same feature structure cross-linguistically. However, this architecture still allows for the kind of parametric variation that exists even between closely related languages. In this context, I am interested in the status of subject-verb agreement configurations, in both VSO and SVO word orderings, and wh- and other A’-dependencies in Standard Arabic (with comparisons to some modern spoken varieties of Arabic, where appropriate). The analysis is shown to extend to other V-raising languages of the Semitic/Celtic type with ‘basic’ VSO word ordering. A possible extension of the analysis to the V2 phenomenology is also discussed and the major role played by the raising of V-v to T and the raising of T to Agr(s) or T to Fin is highlighted. An important aspect of my analysis is a proper understanding of the dependency relations involved in the derivation of the relevant sentences where the role of the CP domain projections, verb-movement, feature identification and/or feature valuation along with clause type is essential for interpretation at the interface at the output of syntax. In this feature-based analysis of parametric and micro-parametric variation, I show that variation between typologically similar and typologically different languages is minimal in that it is limited to the interaction of feature combinations in the derivation of sentences. These feature combinations concern the feature structure of the T-node in relation to the position where T is spelled out at the interface. In particular, T raises to Agr(s) or to Fin in some languages and/or structures. Such raising processes are important in subject-verb agreement configurations cross-linguistically involving combinations of T-features and D-features, which would differ in interpretability (i.e., interpretable vs. uninterpretable) as the basis for feature valuation. Similar feature combinations also drive the raising processes in wh-dependencies with some F-feature (mainly related to ‘focus’) interacting with the T-features of Fin. I propose that two modes of licensing of these feature combinations are at work. The first mode of licensing is the basic head-head agreement relation. This agreement relation is the basis for verb-movement to the functional field above vP/VP in V-raising languages. The second mode of licensing is the Spec-head agreement relation, brought about by the Merge (internal or external) of D(P) elements in A-dependencies and the Merge of wh-elements in A’-dependencies. In dependency relations other than subject-verb agreement and wh-dependencies, I propose that the licensing of these feature combinations is strictly a question of ‘identification’ via head-head agreement whereby a feature on a functional head does not need to be valued, but it still needs to be ‘identified’ for the well-formedness of the C-(Agr[s])-T dependency. This is the case of the interpretable D-feature of the Top node in Topic-comment structures and the interpretable F-feature of the two functional head nodes, Mod(al) and Neg, in relation to the T-features of Fin in a V-raising language like Standard Arabic.</p>

show abstract

Distributing Features and Affixes in Arabic Subject Verb Agreement Paradigms

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Against PersonP

Against PersonP

Parameters and micro-parameters in Arabic sentence structure

Parameters and micro-parameters in Arabic sentence structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About