Linguistics Today)

Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistic...

Author: Prof.Dr. Abdelkader Fassi Fehri

115 downloads 1968 Views 17MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

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


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


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


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.:" 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 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.


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


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).


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).


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.


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).


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.


(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


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


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.


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.


(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


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.


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


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.


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


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 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


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.


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:


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.


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.


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.


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 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, 320-32 289 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

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)

Linguistics Today)