Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T20:27:15.200Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Record your Agree: A case study of the Arabic complementizer ʔinn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2018

MARWAN JARRAH
MARWAN JARRAH*
Affiliation:
The University of Jordan
*
Author’s address:Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Foreign Languages, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordanm.jarrah@ju.edu.jo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research investigates the morpho-syntactic behaviour of the Arabic complementizer ʔinn in a range of Arabic varieties (Modern Standard Arabic, Jordanian Arabic, and Lebanese Arabic). It essentially argues that this complementizer shares (not donates or keeps, pace Ouali 2008, 2011) its unvalued $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-features with its complement $\text{T}^{0}$, something that makes ʔinn and $\text{T}^{0}$ separate agreeing heads. An inflectional suffix attached to ʔinn is treated as a PF reflex (i.e. an overt morphological realization) of valuation of ʔinn’s unvalued $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-features or lack thereof. This research also argues that the occurrence of such an inflectional suffix is ruled by the postulated Agree Chain Record, an interface condition that demands an Agree relation to have a PF reflex, called a Record (i.e. an overt Case marking on the goal or, if not, a $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-affix on the probe). This way, we account for the complementary distribution of overt Case and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}$-Agree in Arabic. We also show how a host of other phenomena, including word order agreement asymmetries in Modern Standard Arabic and lack of such asymmetries in Arabic vernaculars, fares well with this view.

Keywords

AgreeArabiccomplementizer agreementfeature inheritance
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2019 , pp. 83 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am deeply indebted to Professor Kersti Börjars, the editor of Journal of Linguistics, and the three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their significant feedback that improved the work considerably and helped me put the argument on a more solid footing. I use the following abbreviations: 1, 2, 3 $=$ first, second, third person; acc$=$ accusative; as.prt$=$ assertion particle; asp$=$ aspect; comp$=$ complementizer; def$=$ definite; dl$=$ dual; f$=$ feminine; gen$=$ genitive; impf$=$ imperfective; m$=$ masculine; neg$=$ negative; nom$=$ nominative; p$=$ present; pl$=$ plural; prog$=$ progressive; prt$=$ particle; pst$=$ past; sg$=$ singular.

References

Ahmed, Amer. 2015. On agreement affixes, incorporated pronouns, and clitics in Standard Arabic. SKY Journal of Linguistics 28, 67–102.Google Scholar
Ahmed, Hossam Eldin. 2015. Verbal complementizers in Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah.Google Scholar
Al-Balushi, Rashid A.2011. Case in Standard Arabic: The untraveled paths. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Al-Ghalaayyini, Mustafa. 1981. Jami’ ad-duruss al-’arabiyya [A comprehensive guide to Arabic lessons], 3 vols. Beirut: Al-Maktaba l-’asriyya.Google Scholar
Al-Horais, Naser. 2012. Minimalist Program and its fundamental improvements in syntactic theory: Evidence from Agreement Asymmetry in Standard Arabic. Pragmalingiuistica 20, 8–40.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 569–597.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 195–220.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph & Choueiri, Lina. 1999. Modes of interrogation. In Benmamoun (ed.), 7–26.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Choueiri, Lina & Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371–403.Google Scholar
Ayoub, Georgine. 1981. Structure de la Phrase Verbale en Arabe Standard. Paris: Analyses Theorie.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1999. External possession in Mohawk: Body parts, incorporation and argument structure. In Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel (eds.), External possession, 293–323. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakir, Murtadha. 1980. Aspects of clause structure in Arabic. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, van der Auwera, Johan, Bennis, Hans, Boef, Eefje, De Vogelaer, Gunther & van der Ham, Margreet. 2006. Dynamische syntactische atlas van de Nederlandse dialecten (DynaSAND). Amsterdam: Meertens Institut. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/, 22 January 2018.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3, 209–274.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structure, vol. 2, 52–75. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1993. Null pronominals in the context of NP and QP. In Mead, Jonathan (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 11), 32–43. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas(ed.). 1999. Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XII. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23, 757–807.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian & Sheehan, Michelle (eds.). 2009. Parametric variation: Null subjects in Minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Branigan, Phil. 2011. Provocative syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the role of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 195–236.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric(ed.). 2006. Agreement systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bolotin, Naomi. 1995. Arabic and parametric VSO agreement. In Eid, Mushira (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics VII, 9–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997. Fronting wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian. In Lindseth, Martina & Franks, Steven (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting, 86–107. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5, 167–218.Google Scholar
Brustad, Kristen. 2000. The syntax of spoken Arabic: A comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and Kuwaiti dialects. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 319–355.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2003. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 393–412.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2016. Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of Goal features, “Upward” Complementizer agreement, and the mechanics of Case. Syntax 19, 1–42.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos & Luisa Zubizarreta, Maria (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33–49.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of Ā-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1987. Null objects in universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 597–612.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1993. Agreement. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2, 1235–1244. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Devlin, Megan, Folli, Raffaella, Henry, Alison & Sevdali, Christina. 2015. Clitic right dislocation in English: Cross-linguistic influence in multilingual acquisition. Lingua 161, 101–124.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael. 2013. Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 357–407.Google Scholar
Duarte, Inês & Matos, Gabriela. 2000. Romance clitics and the minimalist program. In Costa, João (ed.), Portuguese syntax: New comparative studies, 116–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
EI-Yasin, M. K. 1985. Basic word order in classical Arabic and Jordanian Arabic. Lingua 65, 107–122.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2012. Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2004. Complementizer agreement and pro-drop in Bavarian. In Fuß, Eric & Trips, Carola (eds.), Diachronic clues to synchronic grammar, 59–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement: A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2014. Complementizer agreement (in Bavarian): Feature inheritance or feature insertion. In Grewendor, Günther (ed.), Bavarian syntax: Contributions to the theory of syntax, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between $\text{C}^{0}$ and $\text{T}^{0}$ . Linguistic Inquiry 43, 441–454.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne & Bahloul, Maher. 2002. Post verbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of agreement. In Ouhalla, Jamal & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, 45–70. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 535–566.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric & Smits, Caroline. 1997. Vervoegde voegwoorden in de Nederlandse dialecten [Complementizer agreement in Dutch dialects]. In Hoekstra, Eric & Smits, Caroline (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden [Inflected complementizers], 6–30. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 533–564.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2009. Null subject parameters. In Biberauer et al. (eds.), 88–124.Google Scholar
Ibn Al-Anbari, Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad. 1961. Al-Insaf fi masa’il al-khilaf [Justice in controversial issues]. Cairo: Alkhanji Library.Google Scholar
Jarrah, Marwan. 2017. A Criterial Freezing approach to subject extraction in Jordanian Arabic. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 62, 411–448.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 2002. Agreement, clitics and focus in Egyptian Arabic. In Ohalla, Jamal & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, 71–89. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. & Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2014. A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145, 276–302.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 647–686.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506–515.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. On the function of agreement. In Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), Agreement in natural language, 55–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mahfoudhi, Abdessatar. 2002. Agreement lost, agreement regained: A minimalist account of word order and agreement variation in Arabic. California Linguistic Notes 27, 1–28.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger. 1999. Case, the Extended Projection Principle, and minimalism. In Epstein, Samuel David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, 1–25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Mohammad A. 1988. Nominative case, I-subjects and subject–verb agreement. In Brentari, Diane, Larson, Gary & MacLeod, Lynn (eds.), Proceedings of CLS Parasession on Agreement and Grammatical Theory, 223–235. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Mohammad A. 1990. The problem of subject–verb agreement in Arabic: Towards a solution. In Eid, Mushira (ed.), Perspectives in Arabic linguistics I , 95–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Mohammad. 1999. Checking and licensing inside DP in Palestinian Arabic. In Benmamoun(ed.), 27–44.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Mohammad A. 2000. Word order, agreement and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moutaouakil, Ahmed. 1989. Pragmatic functions in a functional grammar of Arabic. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Musabhien, Mamdouh. 2009. Case, agreement and movement in Arabic: A Minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Omari, Osama & Branigan, Phil. 2014. Fin, Force, and Complementizer Agreement in Arabic. Presented at the 28th Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T 𝜙-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In D’Alessandro, Roberta, Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn & Fischer, Susann (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2011. Agreement, pronominal clitics and negation in Tamazight Berber: A unified analysis. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1989. Clitic movement and the ECP: Evidence from Berber and Romance languages. Lingua 79, 165–215.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1994. Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In Lightfoot, David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Verb movement, 41–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1997. Remarks on focus in Standard Arabic. In Eid, Mushira & Ratcliffe, Robert R. (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics X: Papers from the Tenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, 9–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 2001. Parasitic gaps and resumptive pronouns. In Culicover, Peter W. & Postal, Paul M. (eds.), Parasitic gaps, 147–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Owens, Jonathan. 1988. The foundations of grammar: An introduction to Medieval Arabic grammatical theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 495–538. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo P. 1986. On the null object in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Silva-Corvalan, Carmen (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics, 373–390. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, 281–337. Dortrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2009. A deletion analysis of null subjects. In Biberauer et al. (eds.), 58–87.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, Case, and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. Agreement in Comp. Linguistic Review 11, 351–375.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject–verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Boeckx(ed.), 239–265.Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in Minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & van Koppen, Marjo. 2002. The locality of agreement and the CP-domain. Presented at GLOW 2002, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van Haeringen, C. B. 1958. Vervoegde voegwoorden in het oosten [Coordinate constructions in East Dutch]. Driemaandelijksche Bladen 10, 115–124.Google Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe – two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2000. Feature Copying and Binding: Evidence from Complementizer Agreement and Switch Reference. Syntax 3, 159–181.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2006. Local agreement. In Boeckx(ed.), 317–339.Google Scholar