Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:29:45.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘believe’-construction in Standard Arabic1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

RASHID AL-BALUSHI
RASHID AL-BALUSHI*
Affiliation:
Sultan Qaboos University
*
Author’s address: Department of English Language and Literature, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O. Box: 42, 123-Alkhoudh, Omanrash5222@squ.edu.om
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis for the ‘believe’-construction in Standard Arabic (SA). The analysis proposed here assumes the Visibility Condition, whereby structural Case is necessary to render arguments visible at LF for θ-role assignment (Aoun 1979, Chomsky 1981). The earlier approaches are untenable because they do not make proper provision for the Case-visibility requirements of the complement clause of ‘believe’. Thus, they are not extendable to SA since they ignore the Case-visibility requirements of the CP complement of ð̣anna ‘believe’, assuming that CPs require Case for visibility (Uriagereka 2006, 2008). These requirements can be satisfied if we assume the distinction between structural Case and lexical case established in Al-Balushi (2011: 126–157) based on SA data, where structural Case is licensed on arguments and lexical case is assigned to non-arguments, nominals merged in A-bar positions. I thus propose that the Acc-marked DP (embedded subject/matrix object) does not receive structural Acc Case from the matrix v*0, but rather lexical Acc case from the matrix predicate ð̣anna, as a lexical element, reserving the structural Acc Case for the CP argument. I also argue that this DP is an A-bar element, co-indexed with an empty category argument pro in the embedded clause.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 01 March 2016 , pp. 1 - 36
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

Adger, David & Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34.3, 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Balushi, Rashid A.2011. Case in Standard Arabic: The untraveled paths. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Al-Balushi, Rashid. 2012. Why verbless sentences in Standard Arabic are verbless. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57.1, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Balushi, Rashid. 2013. Verbal and nominal case suffixes in Standard Arabic: A unified account. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 5.1, 35–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2006. Are we in agreement? In Boeckx (ed.), 13–39.Google Scholar
Alboiu, Gabriela & Hill, Virginia. 2011. The case of A-bar ECM: Evidence from Romanian. In Stefan Keine & Shayne Sloggett (eds.), North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 42.1, 25–39.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2010. Clitic climbing in archaic Chinese: Evidence for the movement analysis of control. In Hornstein, Norbert & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Movement theory of control, 149–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Nadiri, Muhammad. 1997. naHw al-luGah l-‘rabiyya [Arabic language syntax]. Beirut: Al-maktabah al-‘asriyyah.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph. 1979. On government, case-marking and clitic placement. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25.2, 195–220.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bahloul, Maher. 2008. Structure and function of the Arabic verb. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2010. On parameters of agreement in Austronesian languages. In Mercado, Raphael, Potsdam, Eric & Travis, Lisa (eds.), Austronesian and theoretical linguistics, 345–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark & Barrett, Leslie. 2002. The null content of null case. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 1998. Object position and predication forms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.3, 541–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Massam, Diane. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2.2, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1992. Functional and inflectional morphology: Problems of projection, representation, and derivation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1995. The derivation of the imperative in Arabic. In Eid, Mushira & Parkinson, Dilworth (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics IX, 151–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1999. Spec–Head agreement and overt case in Arabic. In Adger, David, Pintzuk, Susan, Plunkett, Bernadette & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist approaches, 110–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2008. Clause structure and the syntax of verbless sentences. In Freidin et al. (eds.), 105–131.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2007. Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives. In van der Wurff, Win (ed.), Imperative clauses in generative grammar, 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where is ${\rm\phi}$? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric(ed.). 2006. Agreement systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1995. Case properties of clauses and the Greed Principle. Studia Linguistica 49.1, 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5.3, 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against ${\rm\phi}$-(in)completeness. Syntax 4.3, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Oniga, Renato. 2004. A challenge to null case theory. Linguistic Inquiry 35.1, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11.1, 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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 (ed.), 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8.3, 425–504.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 506–569. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. The geometry of interpretable features: Infl in English and Spanish. Language 81.1, 10–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth & Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The morphosyntactic manifestations of modality. In Milica Radišić (ed.), Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA).http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/∼cla-acl/actes2007/actes2007.html.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel A. J.1984. Syntactic affixation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, David. 2010. A Minimalist account of the French double object construction. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA).Google Scholar
Frampton, John & Gutmann, Sam. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. Ms., Northeastern University.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.). 2008. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. & Uriagereka, Juan. 2007. Sub-extraction from subjects: A phase theory account. In Camacho, José, Flores-Ferrán, Nydia, Sánchez, Liliana, Déprez, Viviane & Cabrera, María José (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), 155–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2000. Conflation. In Martín, Ana Bravo, Berenguel, Carlos Luján & Jiménez, Isabel Pérez (eds.), Cuadernos de Lingüística VII 2000, Documentos de Trabajo. Lingüística Theórica, 39–76. Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2004. Symmetry in structure building. Syntax 1.1, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defect intervention constraint. In Matushansky, Ora & Gurzoni, Elena (eds.), 1st MIT–Harvard Joint Conference (HUMIT2000) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40), 67–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2002. Facets of case: On the nature of the double-o constraint. In Otsu, Yukio (ed.), 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP 2002), 139–163. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishers.Google Scholar
Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions, and varieties. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Holy Qur’an. http://quran.com/.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntley, Martin. 1980. Propositions and the imperative. Synthese 45.2, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakab, Edit. 2002. Two cases of disagreement in Russian: Contrastive imperatives and root infinitives. In Burelle, Sophie & Somesfalean, Stanca (eds.), Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA), 132–144.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9.4, 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael(ed.). 2001. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22.4, 811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 335–391.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21.4, 589–632.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Dobrin, Lise, Nichols, Lynn & Rodriguez, Rosa (eds.), The Twenty-seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 27), 324–343.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyeran. 2007. A raising-to-object analysis of English ECM constructions. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 15.3, 109–139.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Shik. 2005. Null Comp as case drop. Studies in Generative Grammar 15.2, 251–264.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the Projection Principle. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Mauck, Simon, Pak, Miok, Portner, Paul & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2005. Clause typing in imperatives: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Brandstetter, Corinne & Rus, Dominik (eds.), Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 135–152. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, Mohammad A. 2000. Word order, agreement and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Introduction. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1993. Negation, focus and tense: The Arabic maaand laa. Revisita di Linguistica 5.2, 275–300.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pak, Miok, Portner, Paul & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Agreement and the subjects of jussive clauses in Korean. In Elfner, Emily & Walkow, Martin (eds.), North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37, vol. 2, 127–138.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, Simin, Samiian, Vida & Wilkins, Wendy K. (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 2002. Abstract agreement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5.2, 116–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plann, Susan. 1986. On case marking clauses in Spanish: Evidence against the Case Resistance Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 17.2, 336–346.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2003. Agreement and null subjects. Nordlyd 31.2, 326–355.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer & Holmberg, Anders. 1989. The role of Agr and finiteness in Germanic VO languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 51–76.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20.3, 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Backward object control in Malagasy: Against an empty category analysis. In Baumer, Donald, Montero, David & Scanlon, Michael (eds.), 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 25), 328–336. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree & Merge. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian G.1985a. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1985b. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.1, 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. The government of infinitives. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey T.1995. Noun phrase licensing and interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey T. 2006. Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions. Syntax 9.2, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, Laura M.1999. Aspects of the syntax of English imperatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4.3, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siibawayhi, Abuu Bishr. 1990. Al-Kitaab [The book]. Cairo: MaTba‘at Bulaaq. [First written in the 8th century.]Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in Minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Tomoyuki. 2005. C, T, and case/agreement: A unified analysis of finite and nonfinite clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1, 91–105.Google Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1995. Visibility, complement selection and the case requirement of CP. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4.4, 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2006. Complete and partial Infl. In Boeckx (ed.), 267–298.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2008. Syntactic anchors: On semantic structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1982. Dependances et niveaux de representation en syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Universite de Paris VII.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and Control’. In Freidin et al. (eds.), 3–15. [First published in 1977.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Complementation. In Maiden, Martin & Parry, Mair (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 171–178. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1998. On the grammar of inflected nonfinite forms (with special reference to Old Neapolitan). Copenhagen Studies in Language 22, 135–158.Google Scholar
Wratil, Melani. 2005. Die Syntax des Imperativus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, William. 1896. A grammar of the Arabic language, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [First printed in 1859.]Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1982. Government and proper government of verbal projections. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation: A comparative study of Romance languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zidani-Eroğlu, Leyla. 1997. Exceptionally case-marked NPs as matrix objects. Linguistic Inquiry 28.2, 219–230.Google Scholar