Department of English, Unaizah Community College
Vol.4 No.1 (Serial No.4) 2016
52-79
2016-06-01
Unlike matrix verbs, the verb in subjunctive complements in Standard Arabic lacks tense; nonetheless, it inflects for agreement and mood. The subject of subjunctive verbs is Case-marked accusative if it surfaces in a preverbal position; and nominative if it appears in a postverbal position. In addition, the subjunctive verb shows agreement asymmetry with its subject, depending on the position of the subject. Subjunctive complements appear in tenseless contexts in this language, i.e. control structures, ECM-like structures, and obviative structures. In this paper, I provide a new analysis for subject-verb agreement asymmetry in these complements and account for the different Case markers that appear on their subject. In particular, I argue that feature-specification on the inflectional head T triggers the verbal agreement asymmetry in subjunctive complements. I also argue that formal features and nominative Case in these complements can be valued by a defective probe. Crucially, I argue that the defective probe can establish agreement and assign nominative Case in-situ, without resorting to A-movement, and the subsequent movement of the embedded subject to a preverbal position is triggered by the EPP feature on the Φ-complete T. The corollary of this investigation lends support to the assumption that the Case-agreement system in this language is not contingent on tense.
subjunctive complements, defective probes, agreement, case, Standard Arabic
doi:10.26478/ja2016.4.4.4
Amritavalli, R. & Jayaseelan, K.A. 2005. Finiteness and negation in Dravidian [A]. In G. Cinque & R.S. Kayne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 178-220.
Benmamoun, E. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cantarino, V. 1975. The syntax of Modern Arabic prose [M]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework [A]. In R. Martin, D. Micheals, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik [C]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89-156.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase [A]. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language [C]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1993. Principles and parameters theory [A]. In J. Jacobs, A. Von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research [C]. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 506-569.
Costa, J. 2001. Postverbal subjects and agreement in unaccusative contexts in European Portuguese [J]. The Linguistic Review, 18 (1):1-17.
Dalmi, G. 2005. The role of agreement in nonfinite predication [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words [M]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harbert, W. & Bahloul, M. 2002. Postverbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of agreement [A]. In J. Ouhalla & U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,45-70.
Ibn Aqiil, Bahaa-u-ddiin A. 14th century[1979]. Sharh alfiyyat Ibn Maalik [M]. Cairo: Daar Al-fikr.
Kayne, R. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO [J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 22:647-686.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery [A]. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281-337.
Rizzi, L. 2004. On some properties of subjects and topics [Z]. Ms.,
Ryding, K.C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siibawayh, Abu Bishr Q. 8th century[1938]. Al-kitaab [M]. Bulaaq, Cairo.
Soltan, U. 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax [D]. PhD thesis.
Tallerman, M. 1998. Understanding syntax [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Terzi, A. 1997. PRO and null case in finite clauses [J]. The Linguistic Review, 14:335-360.
link: