Parameters and micro-parameters in Arabic sentence structure

<p>My thesis deals with dependency relations in the structure of sentences in Arabic and how properties of verbal morphology and associated lexical items dictate how sentences are derived. I adopt the probe-goal-Agree Minimalist view that variation between languages (even those that are closely related, such as Standard Arabic and Tunisian Arabic) is due to the 'feature structure' of functional elements that enter into the derivation. In particular, the essential architecture of sentences expressing the dependency relations verbs and associated elements have with the 'functional' portion of sentences (i.e., tense/modality properties) is universal in that these dependency relations will be expressed on the basis of the same feature structure cross-linguistically. However, this architecture still allows for the kind of parametric variation that exists even between closely related languages. In this context, I am interested in the status of subject-verb agreement configurations, in both VSO and SVO word orderings, and wh- and other A’-dependencies in Standard Arabic (with comparisons to some modern spoken varieties of Arabic, where appropriate). The analysis is shown to extend to other V-raising languages of the Semitic/Celtic type with ‘basic’ VSO word ordering. A possible extension of the analysis to the V2 phenomenology is also discussed and the major role played by the raising of V-v to T and the raising of T to Agr(s) or T to Fin is highlighted. An important aspect of my analysis is a proper understanding of the dependency relations involved in the derivation of the relevant sentences where the role of the CP domain projections, verb-movement, feature identification and/or feature valuation along with clause type is essential for interpretation at the interface at the output of syntax. In this feature-based analysis of parametric and micro-parametric variation, I show that variation between typologically similar and typologically different languages is minimal in that it is limited to the interaction of feature combinations in the derivation of sentences. These feature combinations concern the feature structure of the T-node in relation to the position where T is spelled out at the interface. In particular, T raises to Agr(s) or to Fin in some languages and/or structures. Such raising processes are important in subject-verb agreement configurations cross-linguistically involving combinations of T-features and D-features, which would differ in interpretability (i.e., interpretable vs. uninterpretable) as the basis for feature valuation. Similar feature combinations also drive the raising processes in wh-dependencies with some F-feature (mainly related to ‘focus’) interacting with the T-features of Fin. I propose that two modes of licensing of these feature combinations are at work. The first mode of licensing is the basic head-head agreement relation. This agreement relation is the basis for verb-movement to the functional field above vP/VP in V-raising languages. The second mode of licensing is the Spec-head agreement relation, brought about by the Merge (internal or external) of D(P) elements in A-dependencies and the Merge of wh-elements in A’-dependencies. In dependency relations other than subject-verb agreement and wh-dependencies, I propose that the licensing of these feature combinations is strictly a question of ‘identification’ via head-head agreement whereby a feature on a functional head does not need to be valued, but it still needs to be ‘identified’ for the well-formedness of the C-(Agr[s])-T dependency. This is the case of the interpretable D-feature of the Top node in Topic-comment structures and the interpretable F-feature of the two functional head nodes, Mod(al) and Neg, in relation to the T-features of Fin in a V-raising language like Standard Arabic.</p>

Parameters and micro-parameters in Arabic sentence structure

<p>My thesis deals with dependency relations in the structure of sentences in Arabic and how properties of verbal morphology and associated lexical items dictate how sentences are derived. I adopt the probe-goal-Agree Minimalist view that variation between languages (even those that are closely related, such as Standard Arabic and Tunisian Arabic) is due to the 'feature structure' of functional elements that enter into the derivation. In particular, the essential architecture of sentences expressing the dependency relations verbs and associated elements have with the 'functional' portion of sentences (i.e., tense/modality properties) is universal in that these dependency relations will be expressed on the basis of the same feature structure cross-linguistically. However, this architecture still allows for the kind of parametric variation that exists even between closely related languages. In this context, I am interested in the status of subject-verb agreement configurations, in both VSO and SVO word orderings, and wh- and other A’-dependencies in Standard Arabic (with comparisons to some modern spoken varieties of Arabic, where appropriate). The analysis is shown to extend to other V-raising languages of the Semitic/Celtic type with ‘basic’ VSO word ordering. A possible extension of the analysis to the V2 phenomenology is also discussed and the major role played by the raising of V-v to T and the raising of T to Agr(s) or T to Fin is highlighted. An important aspect of my analysis is a proper understanding of the dependency relations involved in the derivation of the relevant sentences where the role of the CP domain projections, verb-movement, feature identification and/or feature valuation along with clause type is essential for interpretation at the interface at the output of syntax. In this feature-based analysis of parametric and micro-parametric variation, I show that variation between typologically similar and typologically different languages is minimal in that it is limited to the interaction of feature combinations in the derivation of sentences. These feature combinations concern the feature structure of the T-node in relation to the position where T is spelled out at the interface. In particular, T raises to Agr(s) or to Fin in some languages and/or structures. Such raising processes are important in subject-verb agreement configurations cross-linguistically involving combinations of T-features and D-features, which would differ in interpretability (i.e., interpretable vs. uninterpretable) as the basis for feature valuation. Similar feature combinations also drive the raising processes in wh-dependencies with some F-feature (mainly related to ‘focus’) interacting with the T-features of Fin. I propose that two modes of licensing of these feature combinations are at work. The first mode of licensing is the basic head-head agreement relation. This agreement relation is the basis for verb-movement to the functional field above vP/VP in V-raising languages. The second mode of licensing is the Spec-head agreement relation, brought about by the Merge (internal or external) of D(P) elements in A-dependencies and the Merge of wh-elements in A’-dependencies. In dependency relations other than subject-verb agreement and wh-dependencies, I propose that the licensing of these feature combinations is strictly a question of ‘identification’ via head-head agreement whereby a feature on a functional head does not need to be valued, but it still needs to be ‘identified’ for the well-formedness of the C-(Agr[s])-T dependency. This is the case of the interpretable D-feature of the Top node in Topic-comment structures and the interpretable F-feature of the two functional head nodes, Mod(al) and Neg, in relation to the T-features of Fin in a V-raising language like Standard Arabic.</p>

Verb-second and the verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis debate

Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis (VPE), when a verb is stranded outside of the VP-sized ellipsis site in which it originated, has been identified in a number of languages (Irish, McCloskey 1991; Hebrew, Doron 1991, Goldberg 2005; Greek, Merchant 2018; Uzbek, Gribanova 2019, i.a.), and has been invoked productively in analyses investigating the position to which verbs move and the timing of verb movement in the grammar. Recently, Landau (2018, 2019, to appear) proposes a phase-based negative licensing condition on head-stranding ellipsis that precludes verb-stranding VPE altogether. He claims that apparent verb-stranding VPE must be reanalyzed either as Argument Ellipsis (Oku 1998; Kim 1999; Takahashi 2008), or a clause-sized ellipsis that strands main verbs (Gribanova 2017). This article approaches this debate through an analysis of head movement and head-stranding ellipsis in the Indic verb-second (V2) language Kashmiri, arguing that Landau’s phase-based approach encounters empirical challenges in accounting for variation in the presentation of ellipsis in V2 languages and requires an unconventional approach to V2, at odds with recent accounts of Kashmiri V2 (Bhatt 1999; Munshi and Bhatt 2009; Manetta 2011) and mainstream views of V2 generally (e.g. Holmberg 1986; Travis 1991; Vikner 1995; Zwart 1997). While the present article argues in favor of the standard account of ellipsis (Merchant 2001, 2008), we affirm the important contribution of Landau’s work in identifying challenges facing any account of head-stranding ellipsis licensing. At issue is the larger question of whether and how verb-stranding ellipses can be used to better understand head movement.

Negation and Pronoun Position as a way of investigating verb movement and the emergence of do support during Early Modern English

This paper presents an analysis of the rise of do support and the gradual loss of verb movement during the period of Early Modern English. The analysis focuses on studying the structures in which do support was first used as an alternative to verb raising to I. It takes into consideration the analysis of the relationship between the position of the negation marker not in negative interrogative structures and the position of the subject and the object pronouns in these structures. The analysed structures are negative interrogatives taken from Shakespeare’s works in the period of Early Modern English. The results of the data analysis show that in most cases, there is do support when the subject pronouns are above negation, while there is no do support when object pronouns appear above negation. This suggests that do was first inserted here to avoid object raising with the verb to I or to C to avoid putting object and subject pronouns in subsequent positions.

French as a third language in Norway: The influence of the prior languages in the acquisition of word order

The present study investigated the acquisition of verb movement in L3 French by L1 speakers of Norwegian with English as their L2. To investigate the impact of previously learned languages in L3 acquisition, we looked at two sentence types with lexical verbs where Norwegian, English, and French differ in systematic ways: a) non-subject initial declarative main clauses and b) subject-initial declarative main clauses with a short sentence-medial adverbial. Students completed acceptability judgment tasks in both the L2 and the L3. Results did not indicate a privileged status for either language as a source of transfer. Rather, there were indications that both prior languages may influence L3 French. We argue that the partially overlapping surface word order with French in each prior language may cause non-target transfer into the L3. Furthermore, higher L2 proficiency was associated with less evidence of L2 transfer in the L3.

Variable V2 in Norwegian heritage language

This paper discusses possible attrition of verb second (V2) word order in Norwegian heritage language by investigating a corpus of spontaneous speech produced by 50 2nd–4th generation heritage speakers in North America. The study confirms previous findings that V2 word order is generally stable in heritage situations, but nevertheless finds approximately 10% V2 violations. The cases of non-V2 word order are argued to be due to lack of activation of the heritage language grammar, making it vulnerable to crosslinguistic influence from the speakers’ dominant language. This crosslinguistic influence does not simply replace V2 by non-V2, but is argued to operate more indirectly, affecting (a) the distribution of contexts for V2 word order, and (b) introducing two new distinctions into the heritage language, one (indirectly) based on a similar distinction in the dominant language (a difference between adverbs and negation with respect to verb movement), the other based on frequency of initial elements triggering V2 in non-subject-initial declaratives. Together, these findings also indicate that crosslinguistic influence affects different contexts of V2 differently, providing support for analyses that treat V2 word order as the result of many smaller rules.

The position of subjects in Germanic and Romance questions

This chapter discusses a difference between Germanic and Romance languages in the syntax of subjects: While in Germanic wh-questions, full subjects can occur in the canonical, preverbal position (English: where has John gone?), in Romance, this is impossible, in either order (Italian: *dove è Gianni andato? / *dove Gianni è andato?). The same restriction holds in the Romance languages with overt subject pronouns. Verb – subject inversion is not allowed with full subjects but only with pronouns (French: *où est Jean allé? vs. où est-il allé?). Furthermore, full subjects cannot precede the verb when it does not raise across the subject; only pronouns can (French: *où Jean est allé? vs. où il est allé?). The difference between Germanic and Romance languages is attributed here to the interaction between verb movement and subject placement. In Germanic, the verb/auxiliary raises to C in wh-questions and makes subject movement to Spec-Subj necessary to satisfy the Subject Criterion. In Romance, the verb/auxiliary raises to lower positions, which makes the movement of full subject DPs impossible in wh-questions. Deficient pronouns are exempted from the Subject Criterion, which makes them possible in wh-questions in all languages.

Evaluating the contact hypothesis for Old French word order

This volume revisits the classic and oft-repeated claim that Old French shows a raft of ‘Germanic’ grammatical properties due to contact with Frankish in the early medieval period. These properties include Verb Second, scrambling, Stylistic Fronting, and the loss of the null subject property. Drawing on a mixture of historical, formal syntactic, and acquisitional arguments it is suggested that the hypothesis is extremely problematic and suffers from major empirical and theoretical flaws, alongside major challenges in terms of dating. An alternative scenario is outlined in which left-peripheral verb movement and XP-fronting, middlefield scrambling, Stylistic Fronting, and progressive restrictions on null arguments are natural progressions of the syntactic system attested in late Latin. Finally, it is proposed that the core morphosyntactic parallels between early Germanic and Romance can be captured by their common syntactic inheritance from Proto-Indo-European.

Verb movement and the lack of verb-doubling VP-topicalization in Germanic

In the absence of a stranded auxiliary or modal, VP-topicalization in most Germanic languages gives rise to the presence of a dummy verb meaning ‘do’. Cross-linguistically, this is a rather uncommon strategy as comparable VP-fronting constructions in other languages, e.g. Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese, among many others, exhibit verb doubling. A comparison of several recent approaches to verb doubling in VP-fronting reveals that it is the consequence of VP-evacuating head movement of the verb to some higher functional head, which saves the (low copy of the) verb from undergoing copy deletion as part of the low VP copy in the VP-topicalization dependency. Given that almost all Germanic languages have such V-salvaging head movement, namely V-to-C movement, but do not show verb doubling, this paper suggests that V-raising is exceptionally impossible in VP-topicalization clauses and addresses the question of why it is blocked. After discussing and rejecting some conceivable explanations for the lack of verb doubling, I propose that the blocking effect arises from a bleeding interaction between V-to-C movement and VP-to-SpecCP movement. As both operations are triggered by the same head, i.e. C, the VP is always encountered first by a downward search algorithm. Movement of VP then freezes it and its lower copies for subextraction precluding subsequent V-raising. Crucially, this implies that there is no V-to-T raising in most Germanic languages. V2 languages with V-to-T raising, e.g. Yiddish, are correctly predicted to not exhibit the blocking effect.