- Email: [email protected]
Agreement parallelism between sentences and noun phrases
Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua
Agreement parallelism between sentences and noun phrases: a historical sketch Elabbas Benmamoun Department of Linguistics, University of Illinoins at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA Received 23 December 2001; received in revised form 2 October 2002; accepted 2 October 2002
Abstract This paper deals with a parallelism between sentences and noun phrases in Classical Arabic. The parallelism in question concerns the distribution of the number feature on the verb in the verb subject (VS) sequence and the (in-)definiteness feature on nouns in the N+NP sequence, the so-called semitic construct state (CS). In both cases, the verb and the head noun do not carry number and (in-)definiteness features respectively. Previous syntactic analyses have treated these two problems as two separate phenomena, thus denying any parallelism between the two constructions. This paper argues that this parallelism is genuine and is due to the verb in the VS sequence being historically a nominal element in a CS relation with the subject. # 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Agreement; Classical Arabic; Construct state; Moroccan Arabic; Semitic; Parallelism; VS sequence
1. Introduction In this paper, I discuss an agreement parallelism between sentences and noun phrases in Classical Arabic. The parallelism in question concerns the distribution of the number feature on the verb in the verb subject (VS) sequence and the (in-)definiteness feature on nouns in the N+NP sequence, the so-called semitic construct state (CS). In both cases, the verb and the head noun do not carry number and (in)definiteness morphemes respectively. Previous syntactic analyses have relied on
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Benmamoun). 0024-3841/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00127-4
748
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
abstract movement and diacritic features to account for these two problems. Moreover, these accounts treat the two agreement patterns as two separate phenomena, thus denying any parallelism between the two constructions. This paper argues that this parallelism is due to the verb in the VS sequence being historically a nominal element in a CS relation with the subject. The relation between the VS and N+NP constructions with respect to the distribution of number and (in)-definiteness features is further supported by the parallel change they have undergone in the evolution from Classical Arabic to the Modern Arabic dialects. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, I give a brief survey of how syntactic and morpho-syntactic parallelisms have been dealt with within the GB/ Minimalist framework. In Section 2, I discuss the parallelism between VS sentences and genitive construction with respect to the distribution of the number and (in)definiteness morphemes. In Section 3, I attempt an explanation for this parallelism by relating it to the fact that the verbal predicate in the VS sequence being originally a nominal predicate. In Section 4, I turn to the distribution of the number and (in)definiteness morphemes in Moroccan Arabic and discuss the change that took place from Classical Arabic to the modern Arabic dialects.
2. The parallelism between noun phrases and sentences: a brief survey One of the long debated topics in syntax concerns the structural parallelism between sentences and noun phrases. The purpose of this section is to present previous accounts of this parallelism in Arabic. All the accounts that have recognized the parallelism in Arabic have captured it within the GB framework. In the GB framework, it is argued that the fact that sentences and phrases may display some structural parallelism is the result of their both using the same basic configurational schema and word order parameters. Thus, Abney (1987) argues that on a par with sentences which have an inflectional head Infl (Inflection of tense and agreement), noun phrases also have a functional category DP, carrying (in)-definiteness features. In this respect, both noun phrases and sentences consist of lexical projections dominated by functional projections. Rudimentary representations are given in (1) (putting aside other possible functional projections).
(1) a. Noun phrase
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
749
b. Sentence
In the context of Arabic, the idea that both constituents contain additional nodes occupied by functional categories opened up the way for what appears to be a simple analysis of the parallelism between noun phrases and sentences with respect to word order. Starting with sentences, the configuration in (1b) together with the assumption that the subject is generated within the lexical projection (the VP) allowed for an account for the VS order. Consider the following sentence (2) and its underlying representation in (3). (2)
naama T-Taalib-u sleep.past.3ms the-student-nom ‘The student slept’
(3)
Given that the subject T-Taalib-u is in the VP, and given the assumption within the theory that a verb can move to I to join with its inflectional features, the VSO order is derived by moving the verb naama to I and leaving the subject in situ (Fassi Fehri, 1989, 1993; Mohammad, 1988, 1989; Benmamoun, 1992).1
1 There have been various refinement of the analysis of the VSO order with some analyses involving more functional projections. However, the basic idea is still the same, namely that the VSO order is due to movement of the verb to a projection higher than the projection that dominates the subject.
750
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(4)
With respect to noun phrases, one well-known construction in semitic is the socalled construct state (CS). (5)
kitaab-u T-Taalib-i book-nom the-student-gen ‘The student’s book’
In the CS, the head noun precedes the genitive noun and assigns genitive Case to it. Ritter (1987, 1991) and Mohammad (1988) propose an analysis that basically duplicates the structure for sentences. They propose that in the CS in (5), the first member is generated as a head of the lexical projection NP while the genitive noun is generated as specifier of the NP projection (6). (6)
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
751
Assuming the representation in (6), the parallelism with sentences can now be accounted for. On a par with sentences, the possessee/possessor order in the CS can be derived by moving the possessee (the head noun), e.g., kitaab, to the head of DP leaving the possessor (the genitive) within the lexical projection. (7)
Thus, the N+NPgen and VS orders can now both be captured by head movement to the functional head dominating the lexical projection. The word order parallelism between noun phrases and sentences is consequently reduced to the theories of phrase structure and movement. In this paper, I argue that there is another so far unrecognized parallelism between noun phrases and sentences in Classical Arabic. The parallelism in question involves similar patterns of agreement between the verb and the subject in sentences and the head noun and the genitive NP in Construct State noun phrases. However, instead of a purely syntactic account, the explanation of this parallelism will rely crucially on the historical relation between the VS sequence and the CS, particularly the idea that the verb in the V sequence evolved from a nominal element. Thus, the same constraints on the distribution of the features on noun phrase members of the CS apply to the VS sequence.
3. Another parallelism: agreement in number and (in)-definiteness The CS displays one fundamental property that has received extensive attention (see Aoun, 1978; Borer, 1988, 1996; Fassi Fehri, 1989, 1993; Mohammad, 1988, 1989; Ouhalla, 1991; Ritter, 1991; Siloni, 1997; Benmamoun, 1998, 2000), namely that the definiteness feature is spelled out only on the last member of the CS, as shown in (8). (8) a. kitaab-u T-Taalib-I l-zˇadiid-u book-nom the-student-gen the-new-nom ‘The boy’s new book’
752
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
b. * l-kitaab-u T-Taalib-i l-zˇadiid-u the-book-nom the-student-gen the-new
The resulting structure is given in (9): (9)
Ni
NP[+Def]
Adji[+Def]
Borer (1988) and Siloni (1997) argue that (in)-definiteness is an agreement feature, since that it is part of the agreement relation involving nouns and their adjectival modifiers. In (8), the noun kitaab does not carry the definiteness morpheme, yet it is interpreted as definite, as shown by the fact that the adjective that modifies it carries the definiteness marker. The same facts obtain in the context of the indefiniteness feature, since the first member of the CS depends for its indefiniteness interpretation on the second member. The adjective, on the other hand, does carry the indefiniteness morpheme. (10) a. kitaab-u Taalib-i-n zˇadiid-u-n book-nom student-gen-indef new-nom-indef ‘A student’s new book’ b. *kitaab-u-n Taalib-i-n zˇadiid-u-n book-nom-indef student-gen-indef new-nom-indef
Thus, in both (8) and (10) the two members of the CS agree in (in)-definiteness, yet this feature is spelled-out on the last member only. In other words, there is a complementary relation between the (in)-definiteness morpheme and the genitive NP. Interestingly, this complementary distribution within the CS parallels the complementary distribution of the number feature within the VS sequence. As is well known, in Classical Arabic, number agreement is not realized when the subject follows the verb as in (11). On the other hand, if the subject precedes the verb, the number suffix must be realized, as in (12). (11) a. ?akal-at T-Taalibaat-u eat.past-3fs the-students.fp-nom ‘The students ate’ b. *?akal-na T-Taalibaat-u eat.past-3fp the-student.fp-nom (12) a. T-Taalibaat-u ?akal-na the-student.fp-nom eat.past-3fp ‘The students came’ b. *T-Taalibaat-u ?akal-at the-student.fp-nom came-3fs
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
753
The relevant structures can be schematized as in (13): (13) a. Verbsingular Subjectplural b. Subjectplural Verbplural The same facts are obtained when the predicate is a participle, as the following examples from Ayoub (1991) illustrate. (14) a. Zaydun ¶aarifun ?axawaa-hu l-xabara Zaid knowing.s brother.d-his the-news ‘The two brothers of Zaid know the news’ b. hal madruubun ?axawaa-hu Q beaten.s brother.d-his ‘Are his two brothers beaten?’ In (14), the participles, on a par with the verbal predicate in (11a), do not agree with the subjects that follow them in number. This parallelism between CS noun phrases and VS sentences has gone unnoticed within Arabic syntax and morphology. Previous accounts of the distribution of number agreement and (in)-definiteness consider them to be different syntactic phenomena though the analyses draw on the same theoretical assumptions using the configurations in (3–4) and (6–7). With respect to the VSO sequence, the idea is that for the number feature to be morphologically realized on the verb, it must be in a Spec-head configuration with the subject (probably the Spec of IP in 4). Thus, the absence of the number morpheme in the VSO is attributed to the verb and the subject not being in a Spec-head configuration at the point of Spell-out as seems to be the case in (4). The same idea is implemented in various ways to account for the absence of the (in)-definiteness morpheme on the head of the CS. At the point of Spell-out, the two members of the CS are not in a Spec-head relation, as illustrated in (7).2 As pointed out in Benmamoun (1998, 2000) these purely syntactic analyses suffer from three major problems. First, the verb and the subject, on the one hand, and the head noun and genitive NP, on the other, are in a Spec-head relation prior to Spellout. The subject is generated in the Spec of VP and the genitive NP in the Spec of NP, as clearly illustrated in (3) and (6) respectively. Therefore, it is not at all clear why the verb and the noun cannot acquire (or, in minimalist terms, check) number and (in)-definiteness features prior to their movement past the subject and the genitive. Second, adjectives carry the marker of (in)-definiteness without the requirement that they be in a Spec-head relation at the point of Spell-out. In fact, adjectives carry the marker of (in)-definiteness even when the NP they modify does not do so 2 For accounts of (in)-definiteness agreement in the CS, see Borer, 1988, 1996; Ritter, 1991; Fassi Fehri, 1993; Siloni, 1997). For analysis of the agreement asymmetries in sentences see Mohammad (1988, 1989), Fassi Fehri (1989, 1993), Benmamoun (1992), Bahloul and Harbert (1993), Aoun et al. (1994), and Roberts and Shlonsky (1996) among others. None of these analyses make the link between agreement in (in)-definiteness in NPs and agreement in number in sentences.
754
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
morphologically.3 Third, a simple noun, in a non-CS configuration, can carry the marker of (in)-definiteness without being in a spec-head relation with an NP. This shows clearly that the Spec-head configuration has nothing to do with the distribution of the (in)-definiteness feature. With these problems in mind, Benmamoun (1998, 2000) provides a different but unified analysis for the two constructions. He argues that the complementary distribution between the subject and the number feature in the VS sequence, and between the (in)-definiteness feature and the genitive NP in the CS, is due to the formation of a prosodic unit (a compound) combining the members of the VS sequence and the N+NP sequences. The formation of a prosodic unit results in one member depending for its features on the other member.4 In both cases, we have an instance of the second member of the sequence in complementary relation with a morpheme on the first member. (15)
a. b.
V Subject N NP
The idea that that the members of the CS form a prosodic unit is well motivated phonologically. The members display word-level phonological processes (Borer, 1988; Benmamoun, 2000). For example, Borer (1988: 47–48) gives one piece of evidence from Hebrew to show that the CS is prosodically a single word. Consider the following example:5 ha-ca¶ı´f (shel ha-yalda) the-scarf of the-girl ‘The girl’s scarf’
(16)
The vowel /a/ of the word ca¶if is not reduced because the following syllable is stressed. On the other hand, the vowel /a/ gets reduced in (17) because it is not adjacent to the stressed syllable. c@¶ifı´m scarves
(17)
3 The agreement in definiteness between the head of the CS and the adjective that modifies is illustrated in (i):
(i)
a.
b. 4
kitaab-u T-Taalib-i l-zˇadiid-u book-nom the-studen-gent the-new-nom ‘The new book of the student *kitaab-u T-Taalib-i zˇadiid-u book-nom the-student-gen new-nom
This dependence could be captured by allowing the features to percolate from the righthand member (Borer, 1996) or by taking this member as itself an exponent of the relevant feature (i.e., spell-out by periphrasis). See Benmamoun (2000) for discussion of both alternatives. 5 The examples are presented as transcribed in Borer (1988: 47).
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
755
Interestingly, in the CS in (18), it is the second member that gets stressed. In this instance, the vowel /a/ on the first member is reduced. (18)
c@¶if ha-yalda´ scarf the-girl ‘The girl’s scarf’
Borer (1988; 47) takes this fact to suggest that ‘‘phonologically, construct state nominals are words’’.6 A different type of phonological evidence exists in Moroccan Arabic and other dialects. In Moroccan Arabic, the coda consonant /t/ of the feminine marker /at/ deletes word finally (19). (19)
a.
b.
c.
(l)-m@dras-a(*t) (the)-school ‘The/a school’ (l)-m@dras-a(*t) (zˇ)-zˇdiid-a(*t) (the)-school (the)-new ‘The/a new school’ l-qiSS-(*t) dyal nadia the-story of Nadia ‘Nadia’s story’
/t/ cannot, however, delete if followed by a bound element, such as the genitive clitic, as illustrated in (20). (20)
m@dras-*(t)+i school+1s ‘My school’
Interestingly, the only other context where deletion does not take place is the CS, as illustrated in (21). (21)
m@dras-@*(t)+ nadia school Nadia ‘Nadia’s school’
Similar facts are obtained in the context of the nasal ending of the plural suffix (the so-called nunnation) in Classical Arabic. Generally, in word plus free word phrasal combinations, the-n of the plural suffix cannot delete, as illustrated in (22). 6 See also Moscati et al. (1964: 100–101) who state that ‘‘. . .the nomen regens [the head of the CS] merges with the nomen rectum [the genitive] in a single complex whose principal stress falls on the rectum, i.e. the ‘‘genitival’’ element.’’ They discuss various instances of phonological changes that effect the head of the CS due to its merger with genitive. Similar facts and conclusions are discussed in O’Leary (1969; 198–200).
756
(22)
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
zˇaa?a l-mu¶allim-uu*(n) l-zˇudud-u come.past.3ms the-teacher-pl.nom the-new-nom ‘The new teachers came’
However, when the plural noun is followed by a bound element, the genitive clitic for example, the –n does delete, as illustrated in (23). (23)
mu¶allimuu(*n)-hu teacher-pl.nom-his ‘His teachers’
Moreover, in the CS, the-n deletes (24), suggesting the CS is prosodically a word. (24)
mu¶allim-uu(*n) T-Taalib-i teacher-pl.nom the-student-gen ‘The teachers of the student’
This patterning between CS and words has been taken as evidence for treating it prosodically as a word. Furthermore, the VS sequence, in that it patterns with CS with respect to agreement, might be taken as an instance of CS, and thus as a prosodic word. The idea that the VS sequence may also be an instance of the CS is well motivated within Afroasiatic syntax. In fact, the CS status of the VS sequence is clearer in Berber. In this language, nouns can occur in two forms, the so-called free state and the so-called CS. The main contexts where a noun can occur in the CS are when it is a postverbal subject, complement of a preposition, and in genitive constructions. A preverbal subject or a postverbal object cannot occur in the CS. The CS in Berber refers to alternations affecting the number vowel a in masculine and feminine singular nouns. To illustrate, words such as afrux (boy) and amzzian (small) surface as ufrux and umzzian in the CS, as the following examples from Ouhalla (1994) show. (25) a. y-zra ufrux aqzin 3ms-see boy dog ‘The boy has seen the dog’ b. afrux y-zra aqzin boy 3m-see dog ‘As for the boy, he has seen the dog’
In (25a), the subject is in the postverbal position and thus is in the CS. In (25b) by contrast, the subject is topicalized and, therefore, is not in the CS. Similarly, in (26a), the genitive is in the post-nominal position, in which case it is in CS. In (26b), by contrast, the same word (meaning small) is used as a predicative adjective, in which case it is not in the CS.
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(26)
a.
b.
757
axxam umzzian room small ‘Amzzian’s room’ axxam amzzian room small ‘The room is small’
In brief, in Berber, subjects and genitives pattern together in that both occur in the CS. Though this parallelism is manifested in a different way from Classical Arabic, it does nevertheless point to the close relationship between sentences and noun phrases within Afroasiatic languages. I suggest that the VS sequence and the CS in noun phrases pattern together in Classical Arabic for the same reason that they pattern together in Berber, namely because they are in the CS, i.e., they form a prosodic unit. If the subject and the verb are in the CS, it would not be surprising that the same constraints on the distribution of features that hold in one do hold in the other as well. The problem remaining, though, to deal with is the origin of this parallelism. In the next section, I attempt a historical sketch of this parallelism by advancing the hypothesis that the reason why the VS sequence patterns with the nominal CS is that because the predicate in the VS sequence was historically a nominal element in CS relation with the subject.
4. Origin of the parallelism To understand the origin of the parallelism between the CS and the VS order we need to understand the history of verbal forms in Arabic. There are two main verbal paradigms in Arabic: the perfective and imperfective. The perfective paradigm (27a) is characterized by its exclusively suffixal agreement pattern. The imperfective paradigm (27b), on the other hand, realizes its agreement by both prefixes and suffixes. The prefixes carry mainly, but not exclusively, person, while the suffixes carry mainly number and gender. The two paradigms are illustrated below using the verb katab (write). (27) a. Person 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 1
Perfective Number Singular " " " " Dual " " Plural
Gender F/M M F M F M/F M F M/F
Affix -tu -ta -ti -a -at -tumaa -aa -ataa -naa
Verb+Affix katab-tu katab-ta katab-ti katab-a katab-at katab-tumaa katab-aa katab-ataa katab-naa
758
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
2 2 3 3
" " " "
M F M F
-tum -tunna -uu -na
katab-tum katab-tunna katab-uu katab-na
b. Person 1 2 2 3
Imperfective (indicative) Number Singular " ‘‘ " " Dual " Plural " ’’ ‘‘ ‘‘
Gender M/F M F M F M/F M/F M/F M F M F
Affix ?atata-iina yatata- - -aani ya- - -aani nata- - -uuna ta- - -na ya- - -uuna ya- - -na
Affix+verb ?a-ktubu ta-ktubu ta-ktub-iina ya-ktub-u ta-ktubu ta-ktub-aani ya-ktub-aani na-ktubu ta-ktub-una ta-ktub-na ya-ktub-uuna ya-ktub-na
2 3 1 2 2 3 3
The perfective form is used mainly with past tense interpretation while the imperfective is used in the context of non-past tenses, sometimes in the company of modal particles and tensed negative particles.7 The consensus in historical semitic studies is that the perfective form evolved from deverbal adjectives, participles, and gerunds (see for example, Wright, 1890: 164; Kurylowicz, 1962: 67; Moscati et al., 1964: 133 among others).8 This is shown by the fact that the same range of vocalic melodies in the second syllable of the adjectival forms is found in the second syllable of the perfective forms. Thus, adjectives can have either a, u, or i as stem vowel (Wright, 1890: 161). (28)
a. b.
batal -h asan
brave handsome
(29)
a. b.
danis ¶azˇil
dirty quick
(30)
a. b.
yaquD fatun
awake clever
This same range of stem vowels is displayed by the perfective verb. 7
For very informative surveys of the various views on tense/aspect in Arabic see Eisele (1988) and Bahloul (1994). 8 Fleish (1979: 207–226) provides a detailed review of the history of the debate about the origin of verbal forms in semitic.
759
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(31)
a. b.
waqafa kataba
stood wrote
(32)
a. b.
sˇ ariba la¶iba
drunk played
(33)
a. b.
kabura hasuna
grew become handsome/nice
Due to this close association between the perfective verb and adjectival and participial forms, most students of Semitic languages agree that the former evolved from the latter. Another argument that supports the theory of the nominal origin of the perfective is that adjectives and perfective verbs have the same singular feminine suffix-at (Kurylowicz, 1962).9 (34) a. T-Taalib-at-u mariid-at-un the-student-fs-nom ill-fs-nom ‘The student is ill’ b. T-Talib-at-u marid-at the-student-fs-nom ill.past-fs ‘The student got ill’ Finally, there is also evidence that, on a par with genitive constructions, the perfective form favors the VS order rather than the SV order. The main argument comes from idiomatic expressions or what Ferguson (1993) calls ‘God-wishes’. These expressions are peculiar in the sense that when the verb is in the perfective it displays the VS sequence but when it is in the imperfective it displays the SV sequence. (35) Perfective a. zˇaazaa-ka llah reward.past.3ms-you God ‘May God reward you’ b. baarak llahu fii k bless.past.3ms God in-you ‘May God bless you’ (36)
9
MA
Imperfective a. llah y-zˇazi-k God 3m-reward-you ‘May god reward you’
The perfective also differs from the imperfective in that it does not carry mood markers. Moscati et al. (1964, 133) suggest that this maybe due to the nominal origin of the perfective.
760
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
b.
llah y-barik fii-k God 3m-bless in-you ‘May God bless you’
Taking idioms as elements that preserve old traits that may have changed elsewhere or have been masked by other properties in the language, we see that the perfective verb displays the same order as the CS nouns, namely the VS sequence.10 This fact is straightforwardly accounted for if the perfective was originally a nominal predicate in CS relation with its subject.11 If this hypothesis is on the right track then the agreement parallelism between the VS sequence and CS NPs is due to the former itself being a CS complex. The lack of agreement then follows from the observed tendency for one member of a prosodic unit to spell-out or realize the features of the other members. In the next section, I show that the above account is also more consistent with the parallel loss of the Classical Arabic agreement pattern and the CS in the modern Arabic dialects.
5. Agreement in sentences and noun phrases in the modern Arabic dialects In the modern Arabic dialects, there is no agreement asymmetry relative to word order as far as verbs and subjects are concerned. In Moroccan Arabic, number agreement must be realized by an affix regardless of word order. (37) a. kla-w l@-wlad eat.past-3p the-children ‘The children ate’ b. l@-wlad kla-w the-children eat.past-3p ‘The children ate’ c. *kla l@-wlad eat.past-3ms the-children The analysis suggested for Classical Arabic leads us to say that combining with the postverbal subject is not an option to retrieve the number feature in Moroccan Arabic. But if that is the case, is this specific to sentences or is this a more general property? If we consider noun phrases, at first blush it would appear that the parallelism with sentences breaks down because Moroccan Arabic does have the construct state but does not manifest the same number agreement pattern as Classical Arabic. 10 See Benmamoun (2000) for a detailed discussion of the syntactic contrasts between perfective and imperfective verbs. 11 Notice that adjectives in Arabic do agree with the nouns they modify in number thus ruling out any alternative that would attribute lack of number agreement in the predicate subject order to the absence of number agreement morphology in the language.
761
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(38)
ktab l-w@ld zˇ-zˇdiid book the-boy the-new ‘The new book of the boy’
However, a closer look at noun phrases in Moroccan Arabic reveals that the CS is more restricted in this language than in Classical Arabic. While in Classical Arabic, almost any two nouns can be in the CS, in Moroccan Arabic it is usually restricted to inalienable possessions and possessives. Moreover, plural nouns do not in general occur easily in the CS as singulars. (39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
Inalienables a. yad l-w@ld hand the-boy ‘The boy’s hand’ b. yadu t-taalib-i hand the-student-gen ‘The student’s hand’ Numerals a. x@msa d-l@-ktuba five of-the-books ‘Five books’ b. *x@msa ktuba five books c. xamsat-u kutub-in five-nom books-gen ‘Five books’ Quantifiers a. l@-wlad k@ll-hum the-children all-them ‘All the children’ b. *k@ll l@-wlad all the-children c. kull-u T-Tullaab-i all-nom the-students-gen ‘All the students’ Adjectives a. *qsir l-qama short the-size b. qasiir-u l-qaamat-i short-nom the-size ‘Short of size’
MA
CA
MA
MA CA
MA
CA
MA CA
762
(43)
(44)
(45)
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
Plurals ending in vowels a. *ktuba l-w@ld books the-boy b. l@-ktuba d- l-w@ld the-books of-the-boy’ ‘The boys’s book’ c. mu¶allimii T-Taalib-i teachers the-student-gen ‘The student’s teachers’ Adverbs a. *sba l-yum morning the-day b. l-yum f-s-sbah the-day in-the-morning ‘Today in the morning’ c. sabaah l-yawm-i morning the-day-gen ‘Today in the morning’ Deverbal nouns a. *q@ll@q-ni drib l-w@ld xu-h bothered-me hitting the-boy brother-his b. ?aqlaqa-nii darb-u l-walad-i ?axaa-hu bothered-me hitting-nom the-boy-gen brother-his ‘The boy’s hitting his brother bothered me’
MA
CA
MA MA
CA
MA CA
As these facts show, the CS is more restricted in Moroccan Arabic than in Classical Arabic. In most noun phrases, Moroccan Arabic prefers the free state where every noun has its (in)-definiteness feature spelled out by a morpheme. In this respect, noun phrases do pattern with sentences. In both cases, features are spelled out by affixation of a morpheme rather than retrieving them from the following NP. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the change that took place from Classical Arabic to Moroccan Arabic and other dialects involved the gradual weakening of the process that combines verbs and nouns on one hand, and subjects/possessors on the other hand, to form CS sequences where features are spelled-out on the righthand member.12 Historically, it appears that the change that led to the agreement pattern in the modern Arabic dialects started with the verb subject sequence and then extended to the NP in the Construct State. Thus, use of the number affix in the context of the VS sequence is well documented by the traditional Arab grammarians early in the 8th 12 It is of course debatable as to whether the modern dialects are the direct descendants of Classical Arabic or from dialects that co-existed with Classical Arabic. What is crucial to the present paper is that Classical Arabic represents the old state of affairs of the relation between the CS and VS sentences.
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
763
century (see Bohas and Al-Qaadiiri, forthcoming). This, in turn, could explain why even in Classical Arabic other elements can intervene between the verb and the subject. (46) a. ?akala t-tuffaa@ata l-?awlaadu eat.past.3ms the-apple the-children ‘The children ate the apple’ b. ?iltaqaa bi-l-mu¶allim-i T-Tullab-u meet.past.3ms with-the-teacher-gen the-students-nom ‘The students met the teacher’ This indicates that at this stage the verb and the subject no longer form a CS complex. In other words, by allowing other elements to intervene, Classical Arabic VS sequence ceased to be an instance of the CS which later led to the agreement pattern in the colloquial dialects where number agreement is realized by a morpheme regardless of word order.13
6. Conclusion In this paper, I have argued that the distribution of the (in)-indefiniteness marker on nouns and the number marker on verbs is governed by the same mechanism, namely that these features can be retrieved from the genitive noun and the subject that form a prosodic unit with the noun and the verb respectively. I have attributed this parallelism between the N–NP and VS sequences to the nominal origin of the later. That is, the VS sequence behaves likes the N–NP sequence because the verb used to be a nominal element in a Construct State relation with the subject.
Acknowledgements Thanks to Hans Hock and Brian Joseph for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References Abney, Steve, 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Aoun, Joseph, 1978. Structure interne du syntagme nominal en Arabe: l’?idafa. Analyses Theorie 2, 1–40. 13 It is also very plausible that the development of the perfective verb into a full fledged tensed predicate led to the breadown of the CS relation between the perfective and the subject. In current syntactic terms, the development of the perfective into a past tense verb forced it to undergo movement to a higher tense projection. This in turn allowed for other elements to intervene between the verb and the subject, thus destroying the adjacency relation that is a prerequisite for CS formation.
764
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas, Benmamoun, Sportiche, Dominique, 1994. Agreement and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 195–220. Ayoub, Georgine, 1991. The nominalite du nom. Arabica xxxviii, 151–213. Bahloul, Maher, Harbert, Wayne, 1993. Agreement asymmetries in Arabic. In: Mead, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL. Vol. 11. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 15–31. Bahloul, Maher, 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Taxis, Aspect, Tense and Modality in Standard Arabic. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca. Benmamoun, Elabbas, 1992. Inflectional and Functional Morphology: Problems of Projection, Representation and Derivation. PhD thesis, USC, Los Angeles. Benmamoun, Elabbas, 1998. Spec-head agreement and overt case in Arabic. In: Adjer, David, Pintzuk, Susan, Plunkett, Bernadette, Tsoulas, George (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, pp. 110–125. Benmamoun, Elabbas, 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bohas, Georges, Al-Qaadirii, A. Des faits, des grammariens et des linguists. Arabica (in press). Borer, Hagit, 1988. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In: Booij, G., van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 45–65. Borer, Hagit, 1996. The construct in review. In: Lecarme, J., Lowenstamm, J., Shlonsky, U. (Eds.), Studies In Afroasiatic Grammar. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague, pp. 30–61. Eisele, John, 1988. The Syntax and Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Time Reference in Cairene Arabic. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader, 1989. Generalized IP structure, case, inflection and VS word order. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 75–113. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader, 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrect. Ferguson, C., 1983. God wishes in Syrian Arabic. Mideteranean Language Review 1, 65–83. Fleisch, Henri, 1979. Traite´ de Philologie Arabe. Librairie Orientale, Beyrouth. Kurylowicz, Jerzy, 1962. L-Apophonie en Se´mitique. Mouton and Co ‘S-Gravenhage. Mohammad, Mohammad, 1988. On the parallelism between IP and DP. In: Borer, H. (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL VII. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 241–254. Mohammad, Mohammad, 1989. The Sentence Structure of Arabic. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Sabatino, Moscati, Spilater, Anton, Ullendorf, Edward, Von Soden, Wolfram, 1965. An introduction to Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. O’Leary, DeLacy, 1969. Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Philo Press, Amsterdam. Ouhalla, Jamal, 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. Routledge, London. Ouhalla, Jamal, 1994. Genitive subjects and the VSO order in Berber (Unpublished manuscript). Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University. Ritter, E., 1987. NSO Noun phrases in modern Hebrew. In: McDonough, J., Plunkett, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 17. GSLA, Amherst, pp. 521–537. Ritter, Elizabeth, 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics 25, 37–62. Roberts, Ian, Shlonsky, Ur, 1996. Pronominal enclisis in VSO languages. In: Borsley, R., Roberts, I. (Eds.), The Syntax of the Celtic Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Siloni, T., 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalization: The Syntax of DPs. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Wright, William, 1890. Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Philo Press, Amsterdam.
Agreement parallelism between sentences and noun phrases: a historical sketch Elabbas Benmamoun Department of Linguistics, University of Illinoins at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA Received 23 December 2001; received in revised form 2 October 2002; accepted 2 October 2002
Abstract This paper deals with a parallelism between sentences and noun phrases in Classical Arabic. The parallelism in question concerns the distribution of the number feature on the verb in the verb subject (VS) sequence and the (in-)definiteness feature on nouns in the N+NP sequence, the so-called semitic construct state (CS). In both cases, the verb and the head noun do not carry number and (in-)definiteness features respectively. Previous syntactic analyses have treated these two problems as two separate phenomena, thus denying any parallelism between the two constructions. This paper argues that this parallelism is genuine and is due to the verb in the VS sequence being historically a nominal element in a CS relation with the subject. # 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Agreement; Classical Arabic; Construct state; Moroccan Arabic; Semitic; Parallelism; VS sequence
1. Introduction In this paper, I discuss an agreement parallelism between sentences and noun phrases in Classical Arabic. The parallelism in question concerns the distribution of the number feature on the verb in the verb subject (VS) sequence and the (in-)definiteness feature on nouns in the N+NP sequence, the so-called semitic construct state (CS). In both cases, the verb and the head noun do not carry number and (in)definiteness morphemes respectively. Previous syntactic analyses have relied on
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Benmamoun). 0024-3841/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00127-4
748
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
abstract movement and diacritic features to account for these two problems. Moreover, these accounts treat the two agreement patterns as two separate phenomena, thus denying any parallelism between the two constructions. This paper argues that this parallelism is due to the verb in the VS sequence being historically a nominal element in a CS relation with the subject. The relation between the VS and N+NP constructions with respect to the distribution of number and (in)-definiteness features is further supported by the parallel change they have undergone in the evolution from Classical Arabic to the Modern Arabic dialects. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, I give a brief survey of how syntactic and morpho-syntactic parallelisms have been dealt with within the GB/ Minimalist framework. In Section 2, I discuss the parallelism between VS sentences and genitive construction with respect to the distribution of the number and (in)definiteness morphemes. In Section 3, I attempt an explanation for this parallelism by relating it to the fact that the verbal predicate in the VS sequence being originally a nominal predicate. In Section 4, I turn to the distribution of the number and (in)definiteness morphemes in Moroccan Arabic and discuss the change that took place from Classical Arabic to the modern Arabic dialects.
2. The parallelism between noun phrases and sentences: a brief survey One of the long debated topics in syntax concerns the structural parallelism between sentences and noun phrases. The purpose of this section is to present previous accounts of this parallelism in Arabic. All the accounts that have recognized the parallelism in Arabic have captured it within the GB framework. In the GB framework, it is argued that the fact that sentences and phrases may display some structural parallelism is the result of their both using the same basic configurational schema and word order parameters. Thus, Abney (1987) argues that on a par with sentences which have an inflectional head Infl (Inflection of tense and agreement), noun phrases also have a functional category DP, carrying (in)-definiteness features. In this respect, both noun phrases and sentences consist of lexical projections dominated by functional projections. Rudimentary representations are given in (1) (putting aside other possible functional projections).
(1) a. Noun phrase
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
749
b. Sentence
In the context of Arabic, the idea that both constituents contain additional nodes occupied by functional categories opened up the way for what appears to be a simple analysis of the parallelism between noun phrases and sentences with respect to word order. Starting with sentences, the configuration in (1b) together with the assumption that the subject is generated within the lexical projection (the VP) allowed for an account for the VS order. Consider the following sentence (2) and its underlying representation in (3). (2)
naama T-Taalib-u sleep.past.3ms the-student-nom ‘The student slept’
(3)
Given that the subject T-Taalib-u is in the VP, and given the assumption within the theory that a verb can move to I to join with its inflectional features, the VSO order is derived by moving the verb naama to I and leaving the subject in situ (Fassi Fehri, 1989, 1993; Mohammad, 1988, 1989; Benmamoun, 1992).1
1 There have been various refinement of the analysis of the VSO order with some analyses involving more functional projections. However, the basic idea is still the same, namely that the VSO order is due to movement of the verb to a projection higher than the projection that dominates the subject.
750
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(4)
With respect to noun phrases, one well-known construction in semitic is the socalled construct state (CS). (5)
kitaab-u T-Taalib-i book-nom the-student-gen ‘The student’s book’
In the CS, the head noun precedes the genitive noun and assigns genitive Case to it. Ritter (1987, 1991) and Mohammad (1988) propose an analysis that basically duplicates the structure for sentences. They propose that in the CS in (5), the first member is generated as a head of the lexical projection NP while the genitive noun is generated as specifier of the NP projection (6). (6)
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
751
Assuming the representation in (6), the parallelism with sentences can now be accounted for. On a par with sentences, the possessee/possessor order in the CS can be derived by moving the possessee (the head noun), e.g., kitaab, to the head of DP leaving the possessor (the genitive) within the lexical projection. (7)
Thus, the N+NPgen and VS orders can now both be captured by head movement to the functional head dominating the lexical projection. The word order parallelism between noun phrases and sentences is consequently reduced to the theories of phrase structure and movement. In this paper, I argue that there is another so far unrecognized parallelism between noun phrases and sentences in Classical Arabic. The parallelism in question involves similar patterns of agreement between the verb and the subject in sentences and the head noun and the genitive NP in Construct State noun phrases. However, instead of a purely syntactic account, the explanation of this parallelism will rely crucially on the historical relation between the VS sequence and the CS, particularly the idea that the verb in the V sequence evolved from a nominal element. Thus, the same constraints on the distribution of the features on noun phrase members of the CS apply to the VS sequence.
3. Another parallelism: agreement in number and (in)-definiteness The CS displays one fundamental property that has received extensive attention (see Aoun, 1978; Borer, 1988, 1996; Fassi Fehri, 1989, 1993; Mohammad, 1988, 1989; Ouhalla, 1991; Ritter, 1991; Siloni, 1997; Benmamoun, 1998, 2000), namely that the definiteness feature is spelled out only on the last member of the CS, as shown in (8). (8) a. kitaab-u T-Taalib-I l-zˇadiid-u book-nom the-student-gen the-new-nom ‘The boy’s new book’
752
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
b. * l-kitaab-u T-Taalib-i l-zˇadiid-u the-book-nom the-student-gen the-new
The resulting structure is given in (9): (9)
Ni
NP[+Def]
Adji[+Def]
Borer (1988) and Siloni (1997) argue that (in)-definiteness is an agreement feature, since that it is part of the agreement relation involving nouns and their adjectival modifiers. In (8), the noun kitaab does not carry the definiteness morpheme, yet it is interpreted as definite, as shown by the fact that the adjective that modifies it carries the definiteness marker. The same facts obtain in the context of the indefiniteness feature, since the first member of the CS depends for its indefiniteness interpretation on the second member. The adjective, on the other hand, does carry the indefiniteness morpheme. (10) a. kitaab-u Taalib-i-n zˇadiid-u-n book-nom student-gen-indef new-nom-indef ‘A student’s new book’ b. *kitaab-u-n Taalib-i-n zˇadiid-u-n book-nom-indef student-gen-indef new-nom-indef
Thus, in both (8) and (10) the two members of the CS agree in (in)-definiteness, yet this feature is spelled-out on the last member only. In other words, there is a complementary relation between the (in)-definiteness morpheme and the genitive NP. Interestingly, this complementary distribution within the CS parallels the complementary distribution of the number feature within the VS sequence. As is well known, in Classical Arabic, number agreement is not realized when the subject follows the verb as in (11). On the other hand, if the subject precedes the verb, the number suffix must be realized, as in (12). (11) a. ?akal-at T-Taalibaat-u eat.past-3fs the-students.fp-nom ‘The students ate’ b. *?akal-na T-Taalibaat-u eat.past-3fp the-student.fp-nom (12) a. T-Taalibaat-u ?akal-na the-student.fp-nom eat.past-3fp ‘The students came’ b. *T-Taalibaat-u ?akal-at the-student.fp-nom came-3fs
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
753
The relevant structures can be schematized as in (13): (13) a. Verbsingular Subjectplural b. Subjectplural Verbplural The same facts are obtained when the predicate is a participle, as the following examples from Ayoub (1991) illustrate. (14) a. Zaydun ¶aarifun ?axawaa-hu l-xabara Zaid knowing.s brother.d-his the-news ‘The two brothers of Zaid know the news’ b. hal madruubun ?axawaa-hu Q beaten.s brother.d-his ‘Are his two brothers beaten?’ In (14), the participles, on a par with the verbal predicate in (11a), do not agree with the subjects that follow them in number. This parallelism between CS noun phrases and VS sentences has gone unnoticed within Arabic syntax and morphology. Previous accounts of the distribution of number agreement and (in)-definiteness consider them to be different syntactic phenomena though the analyses draw on the same theoretical assumptions using the configurations in (3–4) and (6–7). With respect to the VSO sequence, the idea is that for the number feature to be morphologically realized on the verb, it must be in a Spec-head configuration with the subject (probably the Spec of IP in 4). Thus, the absence of the number morpheme in the VSO is attributed to the verb and the subject not being in a Spec-head configuration at the point of Spell-out as seems to be the case in (4). The same idea is implemented in various ways to account for the absence of the (in)-definiteness morpheme on the head of the CS. At the point of Spell-out, the two members of the CS are not in a Spec-head relation, as illustrated in (7).2 As pointed out in Benmamoun (1998, 2000) these purely syntactic analyses suffer from three major problems. First, the verb and the subject, on the one hand, and the head noun and genitive NP, on the other, are in a Spec-head relation prior to Spellout. The subject is generated in the Spec of VP and the genitive NP in the Spec of NP, as clearly illustrated in (3) and (6) respectively. Therefore, it is not at all clear why the verb and the noun cannot acquire (or, in minimalist terms, check) number and (in)-definiteness features prior to their movement past the subject and the genitive. Second, adjectives carry the marker of (in)-definiteness without the requirement that they be in a Spec-head relation at the point of Spell-out. In fact, adjectives carry the marker of (in)-definiteness even when the NP they modify does not do so 2 For accounts of (in)-definiteness agreement in the CS, see Borer, 1988, 1996; Ritter, 1991; Fassi Fehri, 1993; Siloni, 1997). For analysis of the agreement asymmetries in sentences see Mohammad (1988, 1989), Fassi Fehri (1989, 1993), Benmamoun (1992), Bahloul and Harbert (1993), Aoun et al. (1994), and Roberts and Shlonsky (1996) among others. None of these analyses make the link between agreement in (in)-definiteness in NPs and agreement in number in sentences.
754
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
morphologically.3 Third, a simple noun, in a non-CS configuration, can carry the marker of (in)-definiteness without being in a spec-head relation with an NP. This shows clearly that the Spec-head configuration has nothing to do with the distribution of the (in)-definiteness feature. With these problems in mind, Benmamoun (1998, 2000) provides a different but unified analysis for the two constructions. He argues that the complementary distribution between the subject and the number feature in the VS sequence, and between the (in)-definiteness feature and the genitive NP in the CS, is due to the formation of a prosodic unit (a compound) combining the members of the VS sequence and the N+NP sequences. The formation of a prosodic unit results in one member depending for its features on the other member.4 In both cases, we have an instance of the second member of the sequence in complementary relation with a morpheme on the first member. (15)
a. b.
V Subject N NP
The idea that that the members of the CS form a prosodic unit is well motivated phonologically. The members display word-level phonological processes (Borer, 1988; Benmamoun, 2000). For example, Borer (1988: 47–48) gives one piece of evidence from Hebrew to show that the CS is prosodically a single word. Consider the following example:5 ha-ca¶ı´f (shel ha-yalda) the-scarf of the-girl ‘The girl’s scarf’
(16)
The vowel /a/ of the word ca¶if is not reduced because the following syllable is stressed. On the other hand, the vowel /a/ gets reduced in (17) because it is not adjacent to the stressed syllable. c@¶ifı´m scarves
(17)
3 The agreement in definiteness between the head of the CS and the adjective that modifies is illustrated in (i):
(i)
a.
b. 4
kitaab-u T-Taalib-i l-zˇadiid-u book-nom the-studen-gent the-new-nom ‘The new book of the student *kitaab-u T-Taalib-i zˇadiid-u book-nom the-student-gen new-nom
This dependence could be captured by allowing the features to percolate from the righthand member (Borer, 1996) or by taking this member as itself an exponent of the relevant feature (i.e., spell-out by periphrasis). See Benmamoun (2000) for discussion of both alternatives. 5 The examples are presented as transcribed in Borer (1988: 47).
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
755
Interestingly, in the CS in (18), it is the second member that gets stressed. In this instance, the vowel /a/ on the first member is reduced. (18)
c@¶if ha-yalda´ scarf the-girl ‘The girl’s scarf’
Borer (1988; 47) takes this fact to suggest that ‘‘phonologically, construct state nominals are words’’.6 A different type of phonological evidence exists in Moroccan Arabic and other dialects. In Moroccan Arabic, the coda consonant /t/ of the feminine marker /at/ deletes word finally (19). (19)
a.
b.
c.
(l)-m@dras-a(*t) (the)-school ‘The/a school’ (l)-m@dras-a(*t) (zˇ)-zˇdiid-a(*t) (the)-school (the)-new ‘The/a new school’ l-qiSS-(*t) dyal nadia the-story of Nadia ‘Nadia’s story’
/t/ cannot, however, delete if followed by a bound element, such as the genitive clitic, as illustrated in (20). (20)
m@dras-*(t)+i school+1s ‘My school’
Interestingly, the only other context where deletion does not take place is the CS, as illustrated in (21). (21)
m@dras-@*(t)+ nadia school Nadia ‘Nadia’s school’
Similar facts are obtained in the context of the nasal ending of the plural suffix (the so-called nunnation) in Classical Arabic. Generally, in word plus free word phrasal combinations, the-n of the plural suffix cannot delete, as illustrated in (22). 6 See also Moscati et al. (1964: 100–101) who state that ‘‘. . .the nomen regens [the head of the CS] merges with the nomen rectum [the genitive] in a single complex whose principal stress falls on the rectum, i.e. the ‘‘genitival’’ element.’’ They discuss various instances of phonological changes that effect the head of the CS due to its merger with genitive. Similar facts and conclusions are discussed in O’Leary (1969; 198–200).
756
(22)
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
zˇaa?a l-mu¶allim-uu*(n) l-zˇudud-u come.past.3ms the-teacher-pl.nom the-new-nom ‘The new teachers came’
However, when the plural noun is followed by a bound element, the genitive clitic for example, the –n does delete, as illustrated in (23). (23)
mu¶allimuu(*n)-hu teacher-pl.nom-his ‘His teachers’
Moreover, in the CS, the-n deletes (24), suggesting the CS is prosodically a word. (24)
mu¶allim-uu(*n) T-Taalib-i teacher-pl.nom the-student-gen ‘The teachers of the student’
This patterning between CS and words has been taken as evidence for treating it prosodically as a word. Furthermore, the VS sequence, in that it patterns with CS with respect to agreement, might be taken as an instance of CS, and thus as a prosodic word. The idea that the VS sequence may also be an instance of the CS is well motivated within Afroasiatic syntax. In fact, the CS status of the VS sequence is clearer in Berber. In this language, nouns can occur in two forms, the so-called free state and the so-called CS. The main contexts where a noun can occur in the CS are when it is a postverbal subject, complement of a preposition, and in genitive constructions. A preverbal subject or a postverbal object cannot occur in the CS. The CS in Berber refers to alternations affecting the number vowel a in masculine and feminine singular nouns. To illustrate, words such as afrux (boy) and amzzian (small) surface as ufrux and umzzian in the CS, as the following examples from Ouhalla (1994) show. (25) a. y-zra ufrux aqzin 3ms-see boy dog ‘The boy has seen the dog’ b. afrux y-zra aqzin boy 3m-see dog ‘As for the boy, he has seen the dog’
In (25a), the subject is in the postverbal position and thus is in the CS. In (25b) by contrast, the subject is topicalized and, therefore, is not in the CS. Similarly, in (26a), the genitive is in the post-nominal position, in which case it is in CS. In (26b), by contrast, the same word (meaning small) is used as a predicative adjective, in which case it is not in the CS.
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(26)
a.
b.
757
axxam umzzian room small ‘Amzzian’s room’ axxam amzzian room small ‘The room is small’
In brief, in Berber, subjects and genitives pattern together in that both occur in the CS. Though this parallelism is manifested in a different way from Classical Arabic, it does nevertheless point to the close relationship between sentences and noun phrases within Afroasiatic languages. I suggest that the VS sequence and the CS in noun phrases pattern together in Classical Arabic for the same reason that they pattern together in Berber, namely because they are in the CS, i.e., they form a prosodic unit. If the subject and the verb are in the CS, it would not be surprising that the same constraints on the distribution of features that hold in one do hold in the other as well. The problem remaining, though, to deal with is the origin of this parallelism. In the next section, I attempt a historical sketch of this parallelism by advancing the hypothesis that the reason why the VS sequence patterns with the nominal CS is that because the predicate in the VS sequence was historically a nominal element in CS relation with the subject.
4. Origin of the parallelism To understand the origin of the parallelism between the CS and the VS order we need to understand the history of verbal forms in Arabic. There are two main verbal paradigms in Arabic: the perfective and imperfective. The perfective paradigm (27a) is characterized by its exclusively suffixal agreement pattern. The imperfective paradigm (27b), on the other hand, realizes its agreement by both prefixes and suffixes. The prefixes carry mainly, but not exclusively, person, while the suffixes carry mainly number and gender. The two paradigms are illustrated below using the verb katab (write). (27) a. Person 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 1
Perfective Number Singular " " " " Dual " " Plural
Gender F/M M F M F M/F M F M/F
Affix -tu -ta -ti -a -at -tumaa -aa -ataa -naa
Verb+Affix katab-tu katab-ta katab-ti katab-a katab-at katab-tumaa katab-aa katab-ataa katab-naa
758
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
2 2 3 3
" " " "
M F M F
-tum -tunna -uu -na
katab-tum katab-tunna katab-uu katab-na
b. Person 1 2 2 3
Imperfective (indicative) Number Singular " ‘‘ " " Dual " Plural " ’’ ‘‘ ‘‘
Gender M/F M F M F M/F M/F M/F M F M F
Affix ?atata-iina yatata- - -aani ya- - -aani nata- - -uuna ta- - -na ya- - -uuna ya- - -na
Affix+verb ?a-ktubu ta-ktubu ta-ktub-iina ya-ktub-u ta-ktubu ta-ktub-aani ya-ktub-aani na-ktubu ta-ktub-una ta-ktub-na ya-ktub-uuna ya-ktub-na
2 3 1 2 2 3 3
The perfective form is used mainly with past tense interpretation while the imperfective is used in the context of non-past tenses, sometimes in the company of modal particles and tensed negative particles.7 The consensus in historical semitic studies is that the perfective form evolved from deverbal adjectives, participles, and gerunds (see for example, Wright, 1890: 164; Kurylowicz, 1962: 67; Moscati et al., 1964: 133 among others).8 This is shown by the fact that the same range of vocalic melodies in the second syllable of the adjectival forms is found in the second syllable of the perfective forms. Thus, adjectives can have either a, u, or i as stem vowel (Wright, 1890: 161). (28)
a. b.
batal -h asan
brave handsome
(29)
a. b.
danis ¶azˇil
dirty quick
(30)
a. b.
yaquD fatun
awake clever
This same range of stem vowels is displayed by the perfective verb. 7
For very informative surveys of the various views on tense/aspect in Arabic see Eisele (1988) and Bahloul (1994). 8 Fleish (1979: 207–226) provides a detailed review of the history of the debate about the origin of verbal forms in semitic.
759
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(31)
a. b.
waqafa kataba
stood wrote
(32)
a. b.
sˇ ariba la¶iba
drunk played
(33)
a. b.
kabura hasuna
grew become handsome/nice
Due to this close association between the perfective verb and adjectival and participial forms, most students of Semitic languages agree that the former evolved from the latter. Another argument that supports the theory of the nominal origin of the perfective is that adjectives and perfective verbs have the same singular feminine suffix-at (Kurylowicz, 1962).9 (34) a. T-Taalib-at-u mariid-at-un the-student-fs-nom ill-fs-nom ‘The student is ill’ b. T-Talib-at-u marid-at the-student-fs-nom ill.past-fs ‘The student got ill’ Finally, there is also evidence that, on a par with genitive constructions, the perfective form favors the VS order rather than the SV order. The main argument comes from idiomatic expressions or what Ferguson (1993) calls ‘God-wishes’. These expressions are peculiar in the sense that when the verb is in the perfective it displays the VS sequence but when it is in the imperfective it displays the SV sequence. (35) Perfective a. zˇaazaa-ka llah reward.past.3ms-you God ‘May God reward you’ b. baarak llahu fii k bless.past.3ms God in-you ‘May God bless you’ (36)
9
MA
Imperfective a. llah y-zˇazi-k God 3m-reward-you ‘May god reward you’
The perfective also differs from the imperfective in that it does not carry mood markers. Moscati et al. (1964, 133) suggest that this maybe due to the nominal origin of the perfective.
760
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
b.
llah y-barik fii-k God 3m-bless in-you ‘May God bless you’
Taking idioms as elements that preserve old traits that may have changed elsewhere or have been masked by other properties in the language, we see that the perfective verb displays the same order as the CS nouns, namely the VS sequence.10 This fact is straightforwardly accounted for if the perfective was originally a nominal predicate in CS relation with its subject.11 If this hypothesis is on the right track then the agreement parallelism between the VS sequence and CS NPs is due to the former itself being a CS complex. The lack of agreement then follows from the observed tendency for one member of a prosodic unit to spell-out or realize the features of the other members. In the next section, I show that the above account is also more consistent with the parallel loss of the Classical Arabic agreement pattern and the CS in the modern Arabic dialects.
5. Agreement in sentences and noun phrases in the modern Arabic dialects In the modern Arabic dialects, there is no agreement asymmetry relative to word order as far as verbs and subjects are concerned. In Moroccan Arabic, number agreement must be realized by an affix regardless of word order. (37) a. kla-w l@-wlad eat.past-3p the-children ‘The children ate’ b. l@-wlad kla-w the-children eat.past-3p ‘The children ate’ c. *kla l@-wlad eat.past-3ms the-children The analysis suggested for Classical Arabic leads us to say that combining with the postverbal subject is not an option to retrieve the number feature in Moroccan Arabic. But if that is the case, is this specific to sentences or is this a more general property? If we consider noun phrases, at first blush it would appear that the parallelism with sentences breaks down because Moroccan Arabic does have the construct state but does not manifest the same number agreement pattern as Classical Arabic. 10 See Benmamoun (2000) for a detailed discussion of the syntactic contrasts between perfective and imperfective verbs. 11 Notice that adjectives in Arabic do agree with the nouns they modify in number thus ruling out any alternative that would attribute lack of number agreement in the predicate subject order to the absence of number agreement morphology in the language.
761
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
(38)
ktab l-w@ld zˇ-zˇdiid book the-boy the-new ‘The new book of the boy’
However, a closer look at noun phrases in Moroccan Arabic reveals that the CS is more restricted in this language than in Classical Arabic. While in Classical Arabic, almost any two nouns can be in the CS, in Moroccan Arabic it is usually restricted to inalienable possessions and possessives. Moreover, plural nouns do not in general occur easily in the CS as singulars. (39)
(40)
(41)
(42)
Inalienables a. yad l-w@ld hand the-boy ‘The boy’s hand’ b. yadu t-taalib-i hand the-student-gen ‘The student’s hand’ Numerals a. x@msa d-l@-ktuba five of-the-books ‘Five books’ b. *x@msa ktuba five books c. xamsat-u kutub-in five-nom books-gen ‘Five books’ Quantifiers a. l@-wlad k@ll-hum the-children all-them ‘All the children’ b. *k@ll l@-wlad all the-children c. kull-u T-Tullaab-i all-nom the-students-gen ‘All the students’ Adjectives a. *qsir l-qama short the-size b. qasiir-u l-qaamat-i short-nom the-size ‘Short of size’
MA
CA
MA
MA CA
MA
CA
MA CA
762
(43)
(44)
(45)
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
Plurals ending in vowels a. *ktuba l-w@ld books the-boy b. l@-ktuba d- l-w@ld the-books of-the-boy’ ‘The boys’s book’ c. mu¶allimii T-Taalib-i teachers the-student-gen ‘The student’s teachers’ Adverbs a. *sba l-yum morning the-day b. l-yum f-s-sbah the-day in-the-morning ‘Today in the morning’ c. sabaah l-yawm-i morning the-day-gen ‘Today in the morning’ Deverbal nouns a. *q@ll@q-ni drib l-w@ld xu-h bothered-me hitting the-boy brother-his b. ?aqlaqa-nii darb-u l-walad-i ?axaa-hu bothered-me hitting-nom the-boy-gen brother-his ‘The boy’s hitting his brother bothered me’
MA
CA
MA MA
CA
MA CA
As these facts show, the CS is more restricted in Moroccan Arabic than in Classical Arabic. In most noun phrases, Moroccan Arabic prefers the free state where every noun has its (in)-definiteness feature spelled out by a morpheme. In this respect, noun phrases do pattern with sentences. In both cases, features are spelled out by affixation of a morpheme rather than retrieving them from the following NP. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the change that took place from Classical Arabic to Moroccan Arabic and other dialects involved the gradual weakening of the process that combines verbs and nouns on one hand, and subjects/possessors on the other hand, to form CS sequences where features are spelled-out on the righthand member.12 Historically, it appears that the change that led to the agreement pattern in the modern Arabic dialects started with the verb subject sequence and then extended to the NP in the Construct State. Thus, use of the number affix in the context of the VS sequence is well documented by the traditional Arab grammarians early in the 8th 12 It is of course debatable as to whether the modern dialects are the direct descendants of Classical Arabic or from dialects that co-existed with Classical Arabic. What is crucial to the present paper is that Classical Arabic represents the old state of affairs of the relation between the CS and VS sentences.
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
763
century (see Bohas and Al-Qaadiiri, forthcoming). This, in turn, could explain why even in Classical Arabic other elements can intervene between the verb and the subject. (46) a. ?akala t-tuffaa@ata l-?awlaadu eat.past.3ms the-apple the-children ‘The children ate the apple’ b. ?iltaqaa bi-l-mu¶allim-i T-Tullab-u meet.past.3ms with-the-teacher-gen the-students-nom ‘The students met the teacher’ This indicates that at this stage the verb and the subject no longer form a CS complex. In other words, by allowing other elements to intervene, Classical Arabic VS sequence ceased to be an instance of the CS which later led to the agreement pattern in the colloquial dialects where number agreement is realized by a morpheme regardless of word order.13
6. Conclusion In this paper, I have argued that the distribution of the (in)-indefiniteness marker on nouns and the number marker on verbs is governed by the same mechanism, namely that these features can be retrieved from the genitive noun and the subject that form a prosodic unit with the noun and the verb respectively. I have attributed this parallelism between the N–NP and VS sequences to the nominal origin of the later. That is, the VS sequence behaves likes the N–NP sequence because the verb used to be a nominal element in a Construct State relation with the subject.
Acknowledgements Thanks to Hans Hock and Brian Joseph for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References Abney, Steve, 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Aoun, Joseph, 1978. Structure interne du syntagme nominal en Arabe: l’?idafa. Analyses Theorie 2, 1–40. 13 It is also very plausible that the development of the perfective verb into a full fledged tensed predicate led to the breadown of the CS relation between the perfective and the subject. In current syntactic terms, the development of the perfective into a past tense verb forced it to undergo movement to a higher tense projection. This in turn allowed for other elements to intervene between the verb and the subject, thus destroying the adjacency relation that is a prerequisite for CS formation.
764
E. Benmamoun / Lingua 113 (2003) 747–764
Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas, Benmamoun, Sportiche, Dominique, 1994. Agreement and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 195–220. Ayoub, Georgine, 1991. The nominalite du nom. Arabica xxxviii, 151–213. Bahloul, Maher, Harbert, Wayne, 1993. Agreement asymmetries in Arabic. In: Mead, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL. Vol. 11. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 15–31. Bahloul, Maher, 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Taxis, Aspect, Tense and Modality in Standard Arabic. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca. Benmamoun, Elabbas, 1992. Inflectional and Functional Morphology: Problems of Projection, Representation and Derivation. PhD thesis, USC, Los Angeles. Benmamoun, Elabbas, 1998. Spec-head agreement and overt case in Arabic. In: Adjer, David, Pintzuk, Susan, Plunkett, Bernadette, Tsoulas, George (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, pp. 110–125. Benmamoun, Elabbas, 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bohas, Georges, Al-Qaadirii, A. Des faits, des grammariens et des linguists. Arabica (in press). Borer, Hagit, 1988. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In: Booij, G., van Marle, J. (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 45–65. Borer, Hagit, 1996. The construct in review. In: Lecarme, J., Lowenstamm, J., Shlonsky, U. (Eds.), Studies In Afroasiatic Grammar. Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague, pp. 30–61. Eisele, John, 1988. The Syntax and Semantics of Tense, Aspect, and Time Reference in Cairene Arabic. PhD thesis, University of Chicago. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader, 1989. Generalized IP structure, case, inflection and VS word order. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 75–113. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader, 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrect. Ferguson, C., 1983. God wishes in Syrian Arabic. Mideteranean Language Review 1, 65–83. Fleisch, Henri, 1979. Traite´ de Philologie Arabe. Librairie Orientale, Beyrouth. Kurylowicz, Jerzy, 1962. L-Apophonie en Se´mitique. Mouton and Co ‘S-Gravenhage. Mohammad, Mohammad, 1988. On the parallelism between IP and DP. In: Borer, H. (Ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL VII. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 241–254. Mohammad, Mohammad, 1989. The Sentence Structure of Arabic. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Sabatino, Moscati, Spilater, Anton, Ullendorf, Edward, Von Soden, Wolfram, 1965. An introduction to Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. O’Leary, DeLacy, 1969. Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Philo Press, Amsterdam. Ouhalla, Jamal, 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. Routledge, London. Ouhalla, Jamal, 1994. Genitive subjects and the VSO order in Berber (Unpublished manuscript). Queen Mary and Westfield College, London University. Ritter, E., 1987. NSO Noun phrases in modern Hebrew. In: McDonough, J., Plunkett, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 17. GSLA, Amherst, pp. 521–537. Ritter, Elizabeth, 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics 25, 37–62. Roberts, Ian, Shlonsky, Ur, 1996. Pronominal enclisis in VSO languages. In: Borsley, R., Roberts, I. (Eds.), The Syntax of the Celtic Languages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Siloni, T., 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalization: The Syntax of DPs. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Wright, William, 1890. Lectures on the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages. Philo Press, Amsterdam.