Download A Distributed Morphology based appraoch to Present Participle and

1
XXXV Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Feb. 26-28, 2009
A Distributed Morphology based approach to Present Participle and Null
Copula nominal sentences in Arabic
Nicola Lampitelli
University of Paris VII
[email protected]
1. Theoretical Background
•
•
•
(1)
Distributed Morphology: Halle & Marantz (1993, 1994); Marantz (1997).
CVCV.. Phonology: Lowenstamm (1996), Bendjaballah & Haiden (2008).
A model of Phonology-Syntax interface: Lowenstamm (2008); Piggott & Newell (2006).
Basic structures:
a. Nouns
DP
D
numP
num
nP
n
b. Verbs
CP
C
T
√
TP
aspP
asp
vp
v
(CV) (CV)
(CVCV..)
(CV) (CV) (CV)
•
(2)
√
(CVCV..)
Syntax of Copular sentences: Moro (1988, 1997, 2000, 2006); Matushansky (2008).
A copular sentence (Raising Analysis)
a.
TP
[NPe]
T’
T
SC
NP
NPi
(subj)
predicate
b.
TP
T
PredP = Small Clause
DP
Pred’
(subj) Pred
xNP
predicate
The copula is the morphosyntactical spell out of Tense features (Moro 1988)
The verb ‘to be’ doesn’t have any argument positions (Moro 1988, 2006)
T assigns NOM to DP; Pred assigns PRED case to xNP (Matushansky 2008)
2
2. Standard Arabic (SA) data
•
(3)
•
(4)
SA null copula nominal sentences (present tense):
a. ?anaa ?ustaað-un
I teacher.NOM
‘I’m a teacher’
c. rašiid-u ?ustaað-un
Rashid teacher.NOM
‘Rashid is a teacher’
SA copular sentences (past and future tenses):
a.
b.
c.
d.
•
(5)
al-?ustaað-u
*(kaana)
fi l-bayt-i
the teacher.NOM
be.PAST.3S
at home.OBL
‘The teacher was at home’
al-?ustaað-u
*(sayakuunu) fi l-bayt-i
the teacher.NOM
be.FUT.3S
at home.OBL
‘The teacher will be at home’
rašiid-u *(kaana)
?ustaað-an
Rashid be.PAST.3S teacher.ACC
‘Rashid was a teacher’
rašiid-u *(saykuunu)
?ustaað-an
Rashid
be.FUT.3S
the.teacher.ACC
‘Rashid will be a teacher’
SA doesn’t allow a pronominal copula as Hebrew does (cf. Doron 1986):
a. ?aš-šažarat-u (*hiyya) xaḍraa
the.tree.NOM (she) green
‘the tree is green’
•
(6)
b. al-?ustaað-u
fi
l-bayt-i
the.teacher.NOM at home.OBL
‘The teacher is at home’
d. rašiid-u al-?ustaað-u
Rashid the.teacher.NOM
‘Rashid is the teacher’
b. šažarat-un (*hiyya) xaḍraa-n
tree.NOM (she) green.NOM
‘a tree is green
SA active participles (henceforth: actPart):
a.
b.
?anaa
I
ðaahib-un
?ilaa l-bayt-i
go.actPart.NOM
to the home.OBL
‘I’m going home’ / ‘I go home’
?anaa kaatib-un
risaalat-an
I
write.actPart.NOM letter.ACC
‘I’m writing a letter’ / ‘I write a letter’
3
•
(7)
SA maṣdar (deverbal nouns):
a.
(?anaa)
I
?awaddu
l-kitaabat-a
like.Pres1S
maṣdar (to write).ACC
‘I like to write’
b.
ḍarb-u
ražul-in
mar?at-an
xaṭa?-un
maṣ.(to hit).NOM man.OBL woman.ACC wrong.ACC
‘It’s wrong for a man to hit a woman’ (Kremers 2003: 130)
•
(8)
Finite verbal forms can replace deverbal nouns:
a.
b.
c.
d.
(?anaa) aðhabu
?ilaa
l-bayt-i
I
go.Pres1S
to
the home.OBL
‘I’m going home’ / ‘I go home’
(?anaa) ?aktubu
risaalat-an
I
write.Pres1S letter.ACC
‘I’m writing a letter’ / ‘I write a letter’
(?anaa) ?awaddu
?an ?aktuba
I
like.Pres1S that write.Pres1S
‘I like to write’
(??) yaḍribu
ar-ražul-un al-mar?at-a
hit.Pres3S man.NOM woman.ACC
‘The man hits the woman wrongly’
xaṭa?an
wrongly
3. Some Previous Accounts
3.1 On null copula nominal sentences:
•
Bahloul (2008) proposes a Mod(ality)P which takes NP, PP or VP as a complement (cf.
Copular Sentences structures: (2)).
•
Fassi Fehri (1993) proposes a “Spell out rule” disallowing the copula to surface whenever
Tense, Mood and/or Aspect are unspecified.
3.2 On Participles
•
Kremers (2003) notes that there is a similarity between actPart and finite verbal forms and
that “[this] suggests that we must analyze them (actPart) as verbal projection where at some
point a nominal or adjectival functional head is projected”.
•
Fassi Fehri’s (1993) proposal:
4
(9)
a.
ʕamr-un
ḍaarib-un
b.
Amr.NOM hit.actPart.NOM Zayd.ACC with violence.OBL
‘Amr is beating Zayd violently’
[IP[AGRP[AP[A’[A (aa-i)][VP[DP ‘amr][V’[V Drb][DP zayd]]]]]]]
zayd-an
bi-šiddat-in
4. Analysis
Assuming Kremers’ (2003) and Fassi Fehri’s (1993) works on participles and building on Guerssel
& Lowenstamm (1990), Lowenstamm (1996, 2004, 2008) and Bendjaballah & Haiden (2008), I
propose the following:
4.1 ActPart analysis:
In (10), (11) and (12), I show how to build the actPart in SA.
(10)
SA template (Guerssel & Lowenstamm 1990; Lowenstamm 2004)
[CV] CV1 [infCV] CV2CV ..
(11)
SA syntactic terminals Spell outs (cf. Bendjaballah & Haiden 2008)
a.
v
→
3 consonants: e.g. ðhb ‘idea of going’
b.
v
→
CV2
c.
asp
→
/a i/
d.
(12)
n
ActPart structure
a.
nP
n’
n
asp
CV1
[infCV]
→
[infCV]
CV1
ðaahib-un
‘the one who goes’
aspP
vP
v
√
CV2
a i
ðhb
b.
ðhb
ðhb
ðhb
ðhb
→ CV2 → [infCV]CV2 → CV1[infCV]CV2 + (CV) → [ðaahib]
a i
a
i
5
•
A CV unit must be inserted to support the root consonant /b/. If the Syntax doesn’t provide a
CV unit for each root consonant, then Phonology does it, as in this case.
•
I don’t account for Case in the structure.
4.2 Null copula nominal sentences (NP + actPart) analysis:
(13)
?anaa
nP
?anaa ðaahib-un ?ilaa l-bayt-i
(example in (6.a))
n’
n
AspP
Asp
vP
subj
CV1
v’
[infCV]
PP
v
?ilaa l-bayt-i
√
v
CV2
ðhb
•
The complex head [v v] moves up to n passing through Asp.
•
•
Why the root cannot take the form of the Imperfective template?
This is because of the lack of TP, which is responsible of such a template:
(14)
agrP
agr
(?anaa) ?aðhabu ?ilaa l-bayt-i
(example in (8.a))
TP
T
AspP
Asp
vP
[preCV]
subj
[infCV]
v’
PP
v
?ilaa l-bayt-i
√
v
ðhb
CV2
•
The template is built by the structure: each terminal adds its spell out.
•
The template of the imperfective is [preCV] + C1C2VC3 + [VCV], the V between C1 and C2
being always empty. (Imperfective and perfective forms have been analyzed by Guerssel &
Lowenstamm 1990 and Lowenstamm 2004)
6
4.3 Null copula nominal sentences (NP + NP/AP/PP) analysis:
(15)
nP
?anaa ?ustaað-un
(example in (3.a))
n’
?anaai
n
AspP
Asp
CV1
vP
[ti]
v’
[infCV]
SC
v
•
•
•
(16)
•
√
v
kwn
CV2
NPi NP
?ustaað
Cf. Moro (1988, 1997, 2000 & 2006) & Matushansky (2008) among the most relevant ones.
The root kwn which corresponds to the copula kaaana may not surface. I claim that this is
possible due to the lack of arguments to be checked (Hale & Keyser 1993 for argument
structure).
Following Hale & Keyser’s Theory on argument structure, I claim that the root kwn
instantiates a different lexical argument structure which is:
[vP[v’[v[vkwn] [v]] SC]]
Note that the head Pred in Matushansky (2008) (cf. (2.b)) must be empty to account for
Russian null copula sentences.
5. Conclusions
1.
2.
(17)
3.
(18)
4.
This work shows that the Syntax-Phonology interface plays an important role in word
formation.
The structure in (15) accounts for the agrammaticality of the following:
*?anaa
?akuunu
?ustaað-an/un
I
am
teacher.ACC/NOM
‘I’m a teacher’
On the other hand, the structure in (15) predicts that (18) is possible (although not obligatory):
?anaa
kaa?in-un
?ustaað-an
I
be.actPart.NOM
teacher.ACC
‘I’m a teacher’
Finally, the structure (13) predicts that a sentence formed by NP + copula + actPart is
agrammatical: this is the case.
7
6. References
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Stavrou, M. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Arbaoui, N. 2007. “Les formes participiales en arabe classique”. Ms. Univeristé Paris 7.
Aoun, J., E. Benmamoun & D. Sportiche. 1994. “Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some
varieties of Arabic”. Linguistic Inquiry. 25:195-220.
Bahloul, M. 2008. Structure and Function of the Arabic Verb. New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. & N. Vinokurova. 2008. “On agent nominalizations and why they are not like event
nominalizations”. Ms. Rutgers University and Research Institute of Humanities.
Bendjaballah, S. & M. Haiden. 2008. “A Typology of Emptiness in Templates”. The Sounds of
Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology, ed. by Hartmann J., V. Hegedus & H.
van Riemsdjik. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Benmamoun, E. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories. A Comparative Study of
Arabic Dialects. Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” Readings in English Transformational
Grammar, ed. by R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, 184-221. Waltham, Massachusetts: Blaisdell
Publishing, 1970.
Doron, E. 1982. Verbless predicates in Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Doron, E. 1996. “The Predicate in Arabic”. Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. J. Lecarme, J.
Lowenstamm & U. Shlonsky eds. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 77-87.
Eid, M. 1983. “The copula function of Pronouns”. Lingua 59, 197-207.
Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Guerssel, M. & J. Lowenstamm. 1990. “The derivational morphology of the Classical Arabic verbal
system.” Ms. UQAM and University of Paris VII.
Hale, K. & S. J. Keyser. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic
Relations”. The view from the Building 20. Hale K. & S. J. Kayser eds. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection”. The view
from the Building 20. Hale K. & S. J. Kayser eds. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Julien, M. 2005. “On the Relation between Morphology and Syntax”. Ramchand, G. & C. Reiss eds.
The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press.
Kremers, J. 2003. The Arabic noun phrase. A minimalist approach. Utrecht: LOT.
Lampitelli, N. In progress. Morphosyntaxe nominale. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris VII.
8
Lowenstamm, J. 1996. “CV as the only syllable type”. Current Trends in Phonology: Models and
Methods, ed. by Durand J. & B. Laks 419-441. Manchester: Salford.
Lowenstamm, J. 2004. “Deconstructing the Binyan” Ms. University of Paris VII.
Lowenstamm, J. 2008. “On little n, nP and v”. The Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax
and Phonology, ed. by Hartmann J., V. Hegedus & H. van Riemsdjik. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Marantz, A. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Our
Lexicon”. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers on Linguistics 4.2.
Marantz, A. 2001. “Words” Ms. MIT.
Matushansky, O. 2008. “A Case Study of Predication”. Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics.
Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5, ed. by Marušič, F. & R.
Žaucer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (213-239).
Moro, A. 1988. “Per una teoria unificata delle frasi copulari” Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 13:
81-110.
Moro, A. 1997. “Aspetti della predicazione in linguistica cognitiva: le frasi copulari e la teoria dei
costituenti”. Atti del Convegno SLI: Linguaggio e Cognizione 37, ed. by Carapezza, M., D.
Gambarara & F. Lo Piparo. Roma: Bulzoni.
Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Series 38. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Moro, A. 2006. “Copular Sentences”. The Blackwell Companion to syntax, Vol - II. Ed. by Everaert,
M. & Van Riemsdik, H. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ouhalla, J. & U. Shlonsky (eds.) 2002. Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Piggott, Glyne & Heather Newell. 2006. “Syllabification, stress and derivation by phase in Ojibwa”.
McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20:1.
Shlonsky, U. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic. An Essay in
Comparative Semitic Syntax. Oxford University Press.