Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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