The syntactic derh:ation of DOCs in Arabic

Chapter four

Word Order in MSA

6a. CP

(b)

C

8)a

IP

Spec I’

I

VP

NP V’

V NP

t

b

IP

Spec I’

I

VP

NP

V’

t

V NP

t

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

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

(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:

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:

(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 :

(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 / TPs

ENG 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 unexpected

b. 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:

(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:

(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 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:

(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 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-tadmiiral-‘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 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

Tadmiiral-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.

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

(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:

(24) kaana al-TaQs [ baarid jiddan ] albaariHa

was 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-waladal-Tawiil ] huwa ?aX-i

‘ the tall boy is my brother ’

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, 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:

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

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):

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:

3.

IP

I"

I VP

NP V'

zayd

V• VP

PP V'

P•

NP V NP

IO ?a9Ta DO

hind kitaab

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

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

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 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 (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'

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 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 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

'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 monehesbiirit 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.

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'

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

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

givepass ?a9Taa 'gave'

paypost ?9aar-a 'borrowed'

kickfeed? saIl am-a 'handed'

trade?e-mail wahab-a 'granted'

promtse handbaa9-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

tellsend

tossmake

loantelegraph

6)

verbs participating in only DOCs in English and Arabic

Verbs allowing only DOCs

EnglishArabic

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)

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 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.

Part Two

Introducing English Semantics

By

Charles W. Kreidler

1998

London

CASE

attack

HaDar-uu

HaDar-uu

IP

IP

P

NP

?z-zewaar

NP C

?z-zewaar

PAGE

13