Chapter four

Word Order in MSA

6a. CP (b)

C

10

NP C

IP

NP?z-zewaar

HaDar-uu

IP

P

HaDar-uu

8)a IP

Spec I’

I VP

NP V’

V NP

t

b IP

Spec I’

I VP

NP V’

t

V NP

t

11

12

Chapter five Contrasts in the lexical system of English and MSA

possessive DPs / TPs

The main cases I am going to discuss here are represented in

examples (1) and (2), taken from ENG and MSA respectively:

(1) a . Here is [ Talal’s car ] b . [The enemy’s attack ] on the peaceful village was condemned by the government

(2) a . sami ’-tu ?ila [Hadiith Talaal ] albaariHa listened-I to speech talaal yesterday ‘I listened to Talal’s speech yesterday’

b . zaara-t [Qasra al-malik] fi al-madiina visited-she place the-king in the-city ‘she visited the king’s placein the city’

Two contrasts become evident from juxtaposing the above structures in

ENG and MSA. The first of these contrasts reflects a contrast in word-

order restrictions. From the above examples, we see that possessors

occupy a prenominal position in ENG, whereas they occupy postnominal

position in MSA. In other words, whereas ENG is a SN (subject + noun)

word- order language, MSA is a NS word-order language.

Two different mechanisms are at play in deriving the surface subjects

word-orders in (1) and (2) above. The two word-orders are derived via

the application of two types of movement. More particularly, the ENG

word-order in (1) is derived by the application of a SSM , whereas the

Arabic order in (2) is derived by apply a HHM.

___________________________________________________________SSM spec. to spec. movements HHM head to head movements

13

Under X-bar theory, possessors (in both ENG and MSA) are generated in

the same structural position underlyingly viz., the [spec. NP] position,

mainly for theta-marking purposes.

So, we can represent the underlying structure of the ENG example in (1b)

as in (3), and represent the structure of the MSA example in (2a) as in (4):

(3) DP

D’

D NP

DP N’

S’ N

Enemy

14

attack

(4) TP

T’

T NP

TP N’

AGR N

Talaal Hadiith

However, the possessive phrase enemy in (3) is later moved to the [spec.

DP] position in order to be case-marked by D to its left. This movement

can be explained in terms of the DCAP. According to one of the values of

this parameter, case in ENG is assigned rightward by lexical categories

and leftward by functional categories. This in turn means that the only

available position in which the possessive phrase enemy can receive case

from D is the [spec. DP] position. Consequently, this possessive DP is

raised to the [spec., DP] position, and as a result, we get a Specifier-to-

Specifier movement in ENG. This movement is from the [spec., NP ]

position into the [Spec., DP] position. As a result of this SSM, we have

the subject+noun word-order in (1). We can represent this movement in

schematic form in the following diagram:

15

5. DP

DP D’

D NP

enemy

DP N’

S’ N

attack

In MSA, on the other hand, no SSM is necessary. The directionality of case

assignments (DCAP) which specifies that in MSA, case is assigned

rightward uniformly by both lexical and functional categories

presupposes that possessive TP Talaal in

(4) can receive its case from T in the [Spec., NP] position. However, the

NS word- order is derived by HHM when the head N Haddith moves to T

in order to provide morphological support for T. this HHM can be

illustrated as follows:

16

CASE

(6) TP

T’

T NP

TP N’

AGR N

CASE t

Hadiith Talaal

HHM

The second contrast between ENG and MSA relating to their possessive

phrases can also be accounted for in terms of one of the parameters of

Case Theory Viz., the RCAP. More precisely, we assume that whereas in

ENG the range of case-assigners include such determiners as the ‘s

genitive case-assigner which assigns case to possessive DPs (see diagram

3 above), in MSA, by contrast, there is no such determinter and the

genitive case of possessors is assigned by an empty AGR in T (see figure

4 above).

At surface–structure ‘ the ENG.’s determiner is cliticised to the

possessive DP’ resulting in forms like the following :

(7) a . this is [Mary’s hat ]

b . [ The actor’s suicide ] shocked me .

In MSA by contrast’ the genitive case is realised morphologically by a

zero morpheme i , as is shown in the following examples :

17

(8) a . [ riHlat al-fariiq - i ] ?ila pariis trip the-team to paris ‘the team’s trip to paris’

b . zur-tu [ bayt nabiil-in al-jadiid] visited-I hourse Nabiil the-new ‘I visited nabil’s new house’

Complement DPs / TPsENG differs from MSA in that in MSA, a head N can be directly followed by a

complement TP at surface-structure, whereas a head N in ENG can not do so at

surface structure, as is illustrated by the following examples respectively:

(9)a. ?aQlaQa-ni [tadmiir al-madiina] annoyed-me destruction the city ‘the city’s destruction worried me’

b. ra?ai-tu [ suurit ziad al-jadiida ] saw-I picture Ziad the-new ‘ I saw Ziad’s new picture’

(10)a. [ * Imprisonment the actor ] was unexpected b. have you seen [*picture Mary with silver frame]The corresponding well-firmed structures to the ENG examples in (10)

are the following:

11.a. [The actor’s imprisonment ] was unexpectedb. Have you seen [ Mary’s picture with silver frame ? ]

Within the framework of X-bar syntax, the structures in (10) and (11)

above would essentially have the same underlying structure. For example,

given our arguments above, then a MSA noun phrase like (9a) would

have the following underlying structure:

18

(12) TP

T’

T NP

N’

AGR

N TP

tadmiir

al-madiina

Given that (i) complements are theta marked elements and (ii) that a head

N can only mark its sister complements, then the TP complement l-

madinna must originate as a sister of the head N in order to be theta-

marked by N in this position.

Similarly, following Chomsky (1970), the ENG noun phrase in (11a) are

well-formed at DS. Under the NP /DP- analysis of noun phrases, the

corresponding DS to the ENG noun phrse in (11a), for example, would

have the following schematic form:

19

(13) DP

D’

D NP

N’

e

N DP

Imprisonment Theta-marking

The actor

From the above diagram, we see that the complement DP the actor

originates as a DS direct object without of on a par with the direct object

of the verbal counterpart of the above nominalisation (i.e. ‘imprison the

actor’). It is generated as a sister of N in order to get its theta role from N

in this position.

However, what makes the structures in (9) and (11) differ at surface-

structure is ascribable to differences in movement rules between the two

languages. The MSA structures in (9) involve two different movements,

whereas their ENG counterparts in (11) involve one movement only.

To be less abstract, given the RCAP, which specifies that in MSA nouns

are not direct case-assigners, it follows that in (12), the complement TP

al-madiina ‘ the direct city’ has to be moved to a position in which it is

able to receive case. Furthermore, given the DCAP, which specifies that

in MSA case is assigned rightward by all categories, it follows that the

only available position for the TP al-madiina to receive case is the [Spec.,

NP] position where it will be case-marked by AGR in T under

government. This CSM of the complement al-madiina together with a

20

HHM of the head N tadmiir to the head T-position in order to provide

lexical supprot to T, will have as a result the derivation of the surface

MSA NO word order in (9/a). these CSM and HHM are represented in

the following diagram:

(14) TP

T’

T NP

AGE TP N’ Case

Tadmiir Al-madiina N TP

The RCAP also specifies that nouns in ENG are not direct case-assigners,

which means that in (13), the complement DP the actor is caseless and

thus violates the CFC. In order to avoid the violation of the CFC, this DP

is moved into a position in which it can receive case. Given the DCAP,

which specifies that case in ENG is assigned rightward by lexical

categories and leftward by functional categories, it follows that the only

available position for the complement DP the actor to be case-marked is

the [Spec., DP] position in which it will be assigned case by the genitive

‘s determiner to its left. Consequently, we have a CSM (complement-to-

specifier movement), which will derive the ON word-order in (11/a). We

can represent this movement in a schematic form as follows:

21

(15) DP

DP D’

The actor D NP

Case N’

S’ N DP

imprisonment

CSM

In sum, the MSA surface NO word-order in (9) is derived via the

application of two movements namely, a CSM and a HHM, whereas the

ENG ON word-order by the application of a CSM involved in the

derivation of the ENG structures in (11) is different from the CSM

responsible for the MSA forms in (9). In ENG, the CSM moves the

complement DP form its underlying position as a sister of N into the

[Spec., DP] position, whereas in MSA, the CSM moves the complement

TP / DP to the [Spec., NP] position. As was discussed above, this

difference in the CSM between the two languages is attributable to the

DCAP, and results in the difference in their word-ordering of

complement TPs / DPs.

My analysis of ENG and MSA complement DPs / TPs will also predict

an instance of +TR on part of the Palestinian learners of ENG. This

positive prediction is based on the grounds that nouns in both languages

22

can case-mark their complement DPs / TPs indirectly via a dummy

prepositions, compare respectively:

(16) a. [ the imprisonment of the actor ] was unexpected

b. This is [ a picture of Mary with silver frame ]

(17) a. ?aQlaQa-ni [ al-tadmiir al-‘aniif li-l-madiina]

worried-me the-destruction the-severe to-the-city

‘ the sever destruction of the city worried me’

b. ghassaan [ al-mudarrib al-jadiid li-fariiq ]

Ghassaan the-manager the-new to-the-team

‘Ghassaan is the new manager of the team’

The intervention of the dummy case-assingers of and li is obligatory

when the whole DP / TP is headed by an overt determiner. In (16/a), for

example, the overall noun phrase is headed by the definite article, as will

be seen from the following diagram:

(18) DP

D’

D NP

N’

the

N DP

Imprisonment the actor

Given that the is not itself a case-assigning determiner, it follows that, if

moved to the [Spec., DP] position, the complement DP the actor will be

23

unable to receive case and a result, it violates the CFC. In order to avoid

violating this condition, an of is inserted. The function of of is to assign

case directly to the complement phrase the actor, thus satisfying the CFC

on of insertion, see Chomsky, 1970).

In MSA likewise, the use of the dummy case-marker li, which

corresponds to of in ENG, becomes inevitable when the head T-position

of the matrix noun phrase is filled by the article. To take a concrete

example, I represent the underlying structure of the example in (17/a) as

in (19):

19.

TP

T’

T NP

N’

al

AP N’

Al-‘aniif N TP

Tadmiir al-madiina

In (19), the presence of the non-case-assigning determiner al will block

that of the case-assigning category AGR in this position. This in turn

blocks the CSM of the complement al-madiina, since any TP moved to

the [Spec., NP] position will be caseless thus violating the CFC. The

insertion of li which assigns case directly to the complement phrase al-

madiina will satisfy the relevant condition.

24

Adjectival Phrases

Within the framework of X-bar, Aps were analyzed (in both MSA

and ENG) as N-bar syntactic adjuncts, that is as elements which

recursively expand an N-bar into another N-bar.

A number of contrasts arise between MSA and ENG in relation to

this type of nominal modifier. The first of these contrasts stems

from a difference in word-order restrictions. An AP in MSA

follows the noun it modifies, whereas in ENG it occurs in

prenominal position in the majority of cases, cf. Respectively:

(20) y-a’mal Jamiil fi [ma’mal daXm ]

he-works Jamil in factory big

‘ Jamil works in a big factory’

(21) He built [ a nice villa ] beside the seaside

the respective structures of (20) and (21) are as depicted in (22)

and (23) below :

TP

T’

T NP

N’

[-def]

ma’mal AP N’

A’ N

DaXm

HHM

25

(23)

DP

D’

D NP

N’

a

AP N’

A’

A N’

Nice villa

Within the framework of X-bar syntax, we can interpret the above

disparity between ENG and MSA in the linear ordering of their

APs in terms of the Head-periphery principle, which is a universal

principle which accounts for the distribution of ‘heads’ in relation

to other constituents within phrases (see originally Stowell, 1981 in

Radford, 1988). The examples in (20) suggests that noun phrases in

MSA are head-first structures in which the head N precedes its

modifying APs. Further support for the claims that noun phrases in

MSA are head_first structures comes from the fact that the head N

also precedes other types of nominal modifiers such as complement

and possessive TPs/DPs and PPs.

The analysis of noun phrases in MSA as head-first constructions

harmonizes with other analyses of other phrases in MSA. Consider

for example the linear ordering of the heads of phrasal structures

such as APs and VPs in (24) and (25) respectively:

26

(24) kaana al-TaQs [ baarid jiddan ] albaariHawas the-weather cold very yesterday‘ the weather was very cold yesterday’(25) [ lam ya-takallam kathiiran ‘an al-mawDuu’ ]not he-spoke much about the-subject‘ he did not speak much about the subject’

As the examples in (24) and (25) show respectively, both the

head A barrid and the head V yatakallam are positioned before the

degree phrases modifying them. What these examples suggest, is

that MSA exhibits a maximal structural symmetry across phrasal

categories in so far as the relative distribution of their head

constituents is concerned.

On the other hand, the ENG examples in (21) suggest that noun

phrases in ENG are not head-first structures. In ENG, the

distribution of the head N in relation to its modifiers varies

considerably. Thus, whereas N precedes complement and adjunct

PPs, postposed genitive phrases and APs, it follows other

constituents like complement DPs, possessive DPs, some APs and

numerals.

Another contrast arises between MSA and ENG in relation to this

type of modifier. This contrast is related to the fact that APs in

MSA copy down grammatical features such as Number, Gender

and Definiteness from the modified head N, as is shown by the

following examples:

(26) talaal wa samiir [ awlaad azkiyaa?]

Talal and samir boys clevers

‘ Talal and samir are clever boys’

(27) [al-walad al-Tawiil ] huwa ?aX-i‘ the tall boy is my brother ’

27

By contrast, APs in ENG do not inflect for definiteness, number or

gender, hence the ungrammaticality of the following examples:

(28) a. Have you seen [ * the huge the skyscraper ] on TV ?

b. I like [ * reds flowes ]

Another contrast arises between MSA and ENG as a result of the

postulation that MSA is a head-first language whereas ENG is not

rigidly a head first language. In more concrete terms, given the

UDBC which requires premodifiers to be head-final constituents, it

follows that since APs in MSA are postnominal modifiers, it

follows that they can have their own complements in this position,

as is illustrated in the following sentences:

(29) a. Jamaal [ walad faXuur bi-?abii-h ]Jamal boyproud in father-his‘Jamal is a boy proud of his father’

b. ya-skun fi [ bayt mujaawir li-bayt-I ]he-lives in house next to-house-my‘He lives in a house next to mine’

By contrast, the fact that APs in ENG occur in prenominal position

entails that they cannot have a complement in this position, as the

ungrammaticality of the following examples shows:

(30) a. He made [ a similar to mine suggestion

b. He stayed in [ * the next to mineroom ]

The ungrammaticality of the ENG examples in (30) is due to the

fact that these sentences violate the UDBC. On the other hand,

28

there is no violation of this constraint in phrases containing

postnominal APs like the ones in (29) above.

The UDBC can be violated by extraposing the PP complement of

the AP into postnominal position as in:

(31) He made [a similar proposal to mine].

When extraposed, this PP is probably adjoined to whole DP as is

shown in figure (32) below:

32.

DP PP

D’ to

mine

D NP

N’

a AP N’

A’ N

A PP

Similar proposal

However, an important similarity can be identified here between

ENG and MSA. As was mentioned earlier, in the marked case,

there are instances in ENG in which an AP follows the noun it

modifies and therefore, it can be followed by its complement PP in

this position. The following are examples:

29

33.a. She bought [a dress similar to mine]

b. She is [a woman proud of her son]

Chapter six

The syntactic derivation of Double object construction in Arabic

the dative sentence has a DO and an IO, and that

the IO in Arabic is preceded by the preposition /i 'to' as appears in the

examples, of S

initial structures in (1) :

)1a) zayd-un ?a9Taa kitaab-an li-hind-in

Zayd-nom gave book-acc to-Hind-gen

'Zayd gave a book to Hind'

b? zayd-un ?a9Taa li-hind-in kitaab-an

Zayd-nom gave to-Hind-gen book-ace

c* zayd-un ?a9Taa li-hind-in

Zayd-nom gave to-Hind-gen

d?? zayd-un ?a9taa kitaab-an

Zayd-nom gave book-ace

30

e zayd-un ?a9taa hind-an kitaab-an

Zayd-nom gave Hind-ace book-ace

'Zayd gave Hind a book'

Based on (1), the general properties of datives can be immediately

established.

First, the dative construction exhibits a DO + pp complement structure as

appears in

the well-formed (1a). Secondly, sentences with the alternative PP+DO

structure. are

not fully accepted (1b). Third, the ill-formed sentence in (1c) shows that

the deletion of the DO is not tolerated and (44d) is marginal due to the

absence of the PO.

The well-formed sentence in (1e) represents the DOC where the IO

precedes the DO. .

To account for the derivation of datives and DOCs, I will suggest that the

former is derived from the latter. This proposal requires two assumptions.

The first is

that the IO is a PP in all positions, and that the prepositional head of the

PP is null in

DOCs, i.e., is not realized phonologically, if and only if the PP is

governed by a Case assigning verb. Second, the derivation of datives

relies on the lexical preposition preceding the IO and on Larson's notions

of V' -reanalysis and complex predicate' as will be illustrated in Section

5.5. To clarify how the DOC is derived, we first assume the partial D-

structure in

(2):

31

VP

PP V'

P• NP V NP

IO DO

Of course, this is incompatible with the word order of the DOC unless we

assume an empty verb position to the left of the pp (IO) at D-structure;

then we can derive the S- initial word order by movement. I therefore

propose (3) below as the D-structure representation of DOCs and datives,

and assume that the surface word order of DOCs is derived by the

movement of the verb to a position to the left of the IO which is base

generated as the head of a higher VP. Assuming also that the subject is

base generated in the specifier of the higher VP (c! Kitagawa, 1986;

Kuroda, 1988; Koopman and

Sportiche, 1988), (3) yields (4) following Verb raising (ultimately to I)

and subject

movement:

32

3.

IP

I"

I VP

NP V'

zayd

V• VP

PP V'

P• NP V NP

IO ?a9Ta DO

hind kitaab

33

4.

IP

NP I'

zayd

I

?a9Taa VP

NP V'

t

V VP

tj

PP V'

P• NP V NP

IO tj DO

hind kitaab

34

The D-structure of DOCs in (4 ) can be motivated in various ways. First,

the Theme is realized as an 'inner' DO lower in the tree. Plausibility for

this view can be. derived from the fact that this object has an intuitively

'closer' semantic and syntactic relation to the verb than does the IO in

both DOCs and datives, as is indicated by the observation that the latter

can be omitted in some cases (due, we suppose, to a lexical property of

specific verbs), but not the former. By way of illustration consider the

sentences in (5) and (6) below:

5a hal baa9-a zayd-un hind-an kitaab-an?

Q sold Zayd-nom Hind-ace book-ace

'DtdZayd sell Hind a book?'

b hal baa9-a zayd-un kitaab-an?

Q sold Zayd-nom book-ace

'Did Zayd sell a book?'

c* hal baa9-a zayd-un hind-an?

Q sold Zayd-nom Hind-ace

6a hal arsal-a zayd-un risaala-tan li-hind-in

Q sent Zayd-nom letter-ace to-Hind-gen

'Did Zayd send a letter to Hind?'

b hal arsal-a zayd-un risaala-tan

Q sent Zayd-nom letter-ace

'Did Zayd send a letter?'

c* hal arsal-a zayd-un li-hind-in

35

Q sent Zayd-nom to-Hind-gen

Due to the occurrence of the two objects, (5a) and (6a) are grammatical.

In 5b) and (6b) the sentences are grammatical even though the IO is

omitted, whereas 5c) and (6c) are deviant because of the deletion of the

DO.

Second, (5) clearly involves a claim that the IO as a pp appears in

specifier position and the DO appears as a complement. In this section we

shall see how this analysis enables us to produce a straightforward

account of how DOCs work.

Third, we assume that although there are two sorts of Case (structural and

inherent), these Cases are assigned in the same configuration. In (5), we

have a situation of a single Case assigner and two arguments which need

Case. These arguments are in different positions, therefore they cannot

both be in the right configuration. Consequently, it must be the case that

the verb can move so' that it appears in two different configurations, each

of which is appropriate for one of the arguments and it is the empty verb

position that creates this possibility. Of course, the IF contains another

head position which allows the verb to move in a further step to get tense

and agreement from INFL which assigns Nominative Case to the subject

under spec-head agreement. The subject moves from its base position to

the higher spec of IP to yield the S-initial word order and to be assigned

Nominative Case under spec-head agreement.

Case assignment

After outlining the derivation of the DOC, we move to investigate

precisely how Case is assigned to the two objects in this construction.

As noted, the S-structure of the DOC in (6) poses a problem for Case

theory in that there are two NPs which must receive Case in order to pass

36

the Case Filter. We suppose that verbs in MSA and Palestinian Arabic

(PA), however, can as in most languages only assignstructural Case to

one NP (Chomsky, 1981; Larson, 1988; Baker, 1988b; Ouhalla,

1994, among others). The obvious question is: what about the other NP?

The issue raised is of course identical to that of how the second NP in an

English DOC like (7) is assigned Case:

7. John gave Mary a book

According to the proposal of Chomsky (1980), some verbs can assign

another type of Case, Inherent Case, in addition to structural Case.

Extending this idea to Arabic ditransitive verbs will provide them with

enough Case assigning potential to ensure that their arguments satisfy the

Case Filter. Next, we have to consider the issue of which object receives

the structural Case, and which object has the Inherent Case in the DOC

and why. Before investigating this matter, it is crucial to note that

Inherent Case is assumed to differ from structural Case in one very

important respect. Following Baker (1988b) (also Chomsky 1986b;

Ottosson, 1991; Belletti, 1988), we suppose that the former is assigned

under government at D-structure, and the assigning head must theta mark

the relevant NP. By contrast, the latter is assigned under government at S-

structure, and there need not be any direct thematic relationship between

the assigning head and the NP. Modifying this, we might suppose that

structural Case can be assigned at S structure or at intermediate levels in a

derivation. We can then suggest that the verb, in its base generated

position assigns Inherent Accusative Case to the DO at D-structure.Then

it raises to the empty verb position, and discharges its structural Case in

the empty verb position to the IO via the empty preposition. Finally, it

raises to I to be inf1ected and then, following Koopman and Sportiche

37

(1991), Ouhalla (1991), among others, the external argument is assigned

structural Nominative Case from I under spec-head agreement.

The DO which is always base generated in the lower complement

position in ditransitive clauses of MSA and PA cannot be promoted under

passivization

If we suppose that Inherent Case is retained under grammatical processes,

we now have an account of this asymmetry.

Given this analysis, Case assignment to the subject and the two objects in

(8 a) can be structurally represented as in ( 8 b)

8a)zayd-un ?a9Taa hind-an kitaab-an

Zayd-nom gave Hind-acc book-acc

'Zayd gave Hind a book'

38

IP

NP I'

zayd

nom. Case

I

?a9Taa VP

NP V'

t

V VP

tj

structural Case PP V'

P• NP V NP

IO tj DO

hind kitaab

inherent Case

This schema indicates clearly how the analysis is consistent with some

common assumptions about Case assignment. First, the verb's structural

Case is assigned to the most adjacent' object hind, where 'adjacency' is

39

computed during the derivation or at S-structure. This leaves only

Inherent Case available which is assigned to the argument of the verb

kitaab at D-structure. Second, the structurally Case marked

intervenes between the Inherently Case marked NP and the verb.

Having formulated a proposal as to how arguments are assigned Case in

DOCs, we move next to consider theta role assignment

.Theta -role assignment

Ditransitive verbs have three theta-roles to assign. In this section we shall

consider how this process occurs. In pursuing this, echoing to some

extent Falk (1990). we shall assume a theta theory

based on (9)

9. Theme: assigned directly by the verb

Possessor: indirectly assigned via a higher

projection of the verb.

Goal: assigned directly by a governing preposition

Agent: assigned compositionally by verb + Theme + Possessor (or Goal)

We shall first see how (9) works in a completely mechanical fashion.

Then we shall look for some evidence for it.

According to the proposed theory, and in line with Falk (1990), the verb

in the lower position directly assigns Theme to the DO which is base

generated in the complement position and is canonically governed by this

verb. Diverging from Falk's proposal, the PO which is base generated as

part of the PP in [spec, VP] is assigned Possessor theta-role

compositionally via a higher projection (V') of the lower verb. This theta

role is directly assigned via the next highe\ projection (the lower V')

under sisterhood to the PP and then it is transmitted via the empty

preposition, which is not a theta-role assigner, to the IO. The process of

40

transmission through the null preposition entails that this theta-role is

assigned indirectly..

Theta-role assignment in datives

According to (9) above, in datives, the DO is assigned Theme theta-role

directly by the verb at D-structure, whereas the PO is assigned Goal

theta-role by the lexical preposition preceding it; unlike the null

preposition, the lexical preposition has an inherent theta-role to assign,

and the question of having the theta-role assigned compositionally does

not arise. We therefore maintain that, although the DOC and

dative construction have the same syntactic configuration at D-structure,

the choice of lexical versus empty preposition actually triggers a different

mode of theta-role assignment in the two cases; the theta-role of the

complement of the lexical PP must be licensed by a strategy different

from that licensing the IO in DOCs above and we assume this to be the

dative preposition li..

Datives in Hebrew

Hebrew offers no motivation for a productive relationship between DOCs

and dative constructions. According to Givon (1984)

there is no dative shifting via which an indirect (prepositional, object (IO)

may lose its semantic Case. Accordingly, only the DO can appear as a

bare accusative (cf also Belletti and Shlonsky, 1995). Consider (10) and

(11) :

. 10a . Zayd natan sefer la-hind

Zayd gave book to-Hind

41

'Zayd gave a book to Hind'

b zayd natan la-hind sefer

Zayd gave to-Hind book

'Zayd gave to Hind a book'

c* zayd natan hind sefer

Zayd gave Hind book'

11a. ha mone hesbiir it ha-oi9uur la talmiid

The teacher explained acc the-lesson to-the-pupil

b ha mone hesbiir la talmiid it ha-oi9uur

The teacher explained to the pupil acc the-lesson

c* ha mone hesbiir it ha-oi9uur talmiid

The teacher explained acc the lesson the pupil

As these examples show, Hebrew,. unlike Arabic, does not accept the

DOC, and this raises the question of why this language does not accept

this construction while Arabic does. This question has been answered in a

variety of ways in the literature. Larson (1988) connected the availability

of DOCs with P-stranding. His generalisation, following Kayne (1984), is

that languages which accept dative shift also accept P-standing, and not

vice versa. As Hebrew does not have either DOCs or P-stranding, it is

consistent with this generalisation. However, as we have seen, the

generalisation is directly contradicted by Arabic which in spite of

fallowing dative shift does not accept P-stranding. Obviously a

generalisation which is so blatantly falsified cannot form the basis for an

explanation.

42

Another attempt to deal with the same phenomena appears in Tremblay

(1990).

He claims that the possibility of having dative shift is directly related to

the possibility of having head-final NPs [NP N] languages which have

head-final NPs accept dative shift while languages which do not have

head-final NPs do not accept dative shift. Illustrative examples from

English and French are from Tremblay (1990: 552)

12a Jean gave Mary a book

b Mary's book

13a * J eanne a donne Marie un livre

b* Mane livre

Again, this correlation is confounded by Arabic and so can hardly be used

to explain the absence of DOCs in Hebrew. Although the two Semitic

Languages have head initial NPs, Arabic allows DOCs while Hebrew

does not. Possessive NPs in Arabic and Hebrew are exemplified in (14)

and (15)

14 kitaab-u hind-in

book-nom Hind-gen

'Hind's book'

15 sefer ha-saxkan

Book the actor

'The actor's book'

43

On the basis of the above, it is necessary to find another strategy to

account for the presence of DOCs in Arabic and English and their

absence in Hebrew and other languages. Patterning to the account

developed in this chapter, we might suggest that

Hebrew, French and other languages lack the option of an empty

preposition strategy for syntactically realising a Possessor argument. In

other words, having or not having an empty preposition strategy is

entirely equivalent to having or not having a DOC in a language. To the

extent that this is plausible, it has the consequence that the Hebrew

verb natan lacks the full semantic potential of English give and Arabic ?

a9Taa.

Dative and Double object constructions in English

Regarding the dative alternation, English has three categories of verbs

like those of Arabic investigated above. This immediately entails the

conclusion that the analysis developed for Arabic above can be applied to

English without significant modification. To remind the reader, many

verbs

display a productive relationship between DOCs and dative constructions.

Ditransitive

verbs generally have alternate forms with the IO in a pp as shown in (16-

17),

16a She gave him a book

b* She gave to him a book

c She gave a book to him

d * She gave a book him

17a John threw Mary the ball

44

b* John threw to Mary the ball

c John threw the ball to Mary

d* John threw the ball Mary

18a He paid her one pound

b* He paid to her one pound

c He paid one pound to her

d* He paid one pound her

As can be seen, the structure of the sentences above are identical in the

relevant. respects to their counterparts in Arabic, and this yields a

straightforward application of the analysis developed in this chapter.

However, the memberships of the three categories of verbs are not

identical across the two languages, and it is necessary to address these

differences before concluding this chapter.

Semantic constraints

It has been claimed that the range of verbs that participate in the DOC is

relatively narrow in Arabic, whereas English has a wide range of verbs

which appear in this construction. Thus, in comparing the English verbs

which participate in DOCs with their near synonyms in Arabic, we find a

lack of correspondence across the two languages. For convenience,

consider the English and Arabic verbs listed in (5) (6) and (7) below:

List 5): alternating verbs in English and Arabic

Alternating verbs

English Arabic

give pass ?a9Taa 'gave'

pay post ?9aar-a 'borrowed'

kick feed? saIl am-a 'handed'

45

trade? e-mail wahab-a 'granted'

promtse hand baa9-a 'sold'

Telephone buy nawal-a 'handed'

throw get manaH-a 'granted'

flick bring ?qraD-a 'borrowed'

lend radio ?hdaa 'gifted'

grant offer wa9ad-a 'promise'

assIgn sell

WIre serve

Teach satellite

tell send

toss make

loan telegraph

6)

verbs participating in only DOCs in English and Arabic

Verbs allowing only DOCs

English Arabic

cost kallaf-a 'cost'

ask sa?a/-a 'asked'

bet kasaa 'bought clothes for someone

save ? axbar-a 'told'

deny razaq-a'sustained'

charge kafa?-a'rewarded'

refuse da9aa 'named'

spare kanaa 'named'

fine waqaa 'avoided'

forgive

7)

46

verbs participating in only datives in English and Arabic

Verbs accepting only datives

English verbs Arabic verbs

donate &rraH-a 'explained'

contribute ?r&rd-a 'guided'

distribute qaddam-a 'offered'

say katab-a 'wrote'

push ?rsa/-a 'sent'

carry ?aHDar-a 'brought'

report wajjah-a'directed'

pull ram a 'kicked'

lift naqa/-a 'carried'

ease DabaH-a'slaughtered'

?abraq-a'telegramed'

tabara9-a 'donated'

?a9aad-a'returned'

zawwaj-a 'marry a female to male'

xaTab-a 'have a female engaged to male'

The lack of correspondence between the verbs appearing in the tables

above gives rise to the question of how is the variation between the two

languages to be accounted for?

Regarding this question, we propose that the variation between the two

languages in the number and identity of verbs which either alternate or do

not hinge on rather subtle semantic issues. Both languages have the null

preposition option, so the differences cannot be due to the major syntactic

choice. We propose, then, that some verbs allow the options of both

47

nulll1exical preposition (the alternating verbs). and others do not. This, in

turn, comes down to the lexical entry of verbs, with some verbs

allowing only the Goal or Possessor theta-role in one or other language.

That is, there are relatively slight differences in the meaning potentials of

cognate verbs in the two

languages, a not unexpected conclusion in the light of cross-linguistic

investigation. of semantic fields. This possibility for variation between

English and Arabic in the number of verbs which alternate, could, in

principle, be investigated in terms of a more structured set of semantic

classes These may include: possessional verbs whose Goal is an animate

(e.g., give), animate control verbs (e.g., pass), verbs with an informational

dimension with an animate Goal (e.g., tell), and positional verbs such as

throw (Gruber, 1992, Lefebvre, 1994). Following Lefebvre's account of

Fongbe in spirit, the counterpart verbs in Arabic might be limited to. the

possessional verbs (e.g., ?a9Taa) and verbs with an informational

dimension, (e.g., wa9ad-a) and this might account for the limited number

of verbs which either alternate or only accept DOCs in Arabic.

48

Part TwoIntroducing English Semantics

By

Charles W. Kreidler

1998

London

49