Bok 3A978 94 017 1986 5

ISSUES IN THE STRUCTURE OF ARABIC CLAUSES AND WORDS
Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
VOLUME 29
Managing Editors
Joan Maling, Brandeis University

James McCloskey, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ian Roberts, University of Wales, Bangor
Editorial Board
Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice

Jane Grimshaw, Brandeis University
Michael Kenstowicz, M l T, Cambridge
Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles
Howard Lasnik, University of Connecticut at Storrs
Alec Marantz, M.l.T., Cambridge
John J. McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.
ABDELKADER FASSI FERRI
Department of Arabic Linguistics and Literature,
Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco
ISSUES IN THE STRUCTURE

OF ARABIC CLAUSES
AND WORDS
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Fass1 Fehr1, Abdelkader.

Issues 1n the structure of Arable clauses and words I Abdelkader
Fass 1 Fehr1.
p. em.-- IStud1es 1n natural language and l1ngu1stlc theory
v. 29)
Includes lndex.
ISBN 978-90-481-4228-6 ISBN 978-94-017-1986-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-1986-5
1. Arable language--Grammar, Generat1ve. 2. Government-blnding
theory IL1ngu1Stlcs) I. T1tle. II. Ser1es.
PJ6303.F25 1993
492 ·. 75--dc20 92-41379
ISBN 978-90-481-4228-6
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved

© 1993 Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1993
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1993
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE XI
TRANSCRIPTION Xlll
CHAPTER I I PRINCIPLES, PARAMETERS, AND MODULES

1.1. UG and Parametrization
1.2. The model 3
1.3. X' theory 4
1.4. Arguments and thematic theory 6
1.5. The Case module 7
1.6. Government and structural relations 8
1.7. Binding 10
1.8. Predication 11
1.9. The movement module 11
1.1 0. Morphology 12
Notes 15
CHAPTER 2 I WORD ORDER, AGREEMENT, AND CASE 16

2.1. Verb and Subject movements in Arabic clauses 19
2.1.1. VSO and V-to-I raising 19
2.1.1.1. Basic VSO 19
2.1.1.2. Configurational asymmetries 23
2.1.1.3. Against V raising to C 26
2.1.2. Subject raising and SVO structures 27
2.1.2.1. Referential properties of topics and subjects 28
2.1.2.2. Distributional properties of subjects and
topics 30
2.1.2.3. Subject raising 31
2.2. Agreement 34
2.2.1. Regulating AGR configurations 34
2.2.2. Poor agreement 38
2.2.2.1. On the inadequacy of the expletive
hypothesis 38
2.2.2.2. Licensing (postverbal) agreement (under)-
specification 42
2.3. Cases of subjects 45
2.3.1. Accessible and non-accessible subjects 45
2.3.1.1. SVO and nominal sentences 45
2.3.1.2. VSO and VOS 47
v
VI TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3.2. Protectors and Minimality 47

2.3.3. Nominal AGR 49
2.3.3.1. Nominative 49
2.3.3.2. ECM structures 50
2.3.3.3. Auxiliary structures 51
2.4. Further consequences and discussions 53
2.4.1. Expletive licensing and EPP 53
2.4.1.1. Basic distributions and forms 55
2.4.1.2. Contexts with no expletives 59
2.4.2. Giving content to VS and SV typology 62
2.4.3. Extraction 64
2.4.3.1. Extraction over preverbal subjects 64
2.4.3.2. [That t] Filter revisited 66
2.4.4. Extensions to the Wh system 67
2.4.4.1. Some descriptive background 67
2.4.4.2. Deriving the doubly filled Comp Filter 68
2.4.5. Further motivation for V raising 68
2.4.5.1. Against subject adjunction 69
2.4.5.2. Additional tests for V raising 71
2.5. Summary and conclusion 75
Appendix 1 Forming Arabic words 76
1. An apparent argument for lexicalism 76
2. Bracketing in the Arabic word 77
3. Forms of Arabic X" syntactic categories 78
4. A general model of word formation 79
5. !-Categories and their order 82
Notes to Appendix 1 85
Appendix 2 Inflection in Nominal sentences 87
1. Tense 87
2. AGR 88
Notes to Appendix 2 89
Notes 89
CHAPTER 3 I PRONOUNS, INCORPORATION, AND FEATURE

SPECIFICATION 96
3.1. Interface between pronominal and agreement systems 97
3.1.1. On the existence of bound pronominal forms 98
3.1.2. INCA 102
3.1.3. Nominative alternations and INCA 106
3.1.4. INFLA 109
3.1.5. Complementary distribution revisited Ill
3.1.6. On 'pronominal' agreement 113
3.2. Functional ambiguity and specification in the grammar 116
3.2.1. Functional ambiguity of free forms 117
TABLE OF CONTENTS vn
3.2.1.1. Personal pronouns and copulas 117

3.2.1.2. Expletives 118
3.2.2. Ambiguity of bound forms and pronoun ingredients 120
3.2.3. The Pronominal AGR Parameter 124
3.2.4. Specification and feature hierarchy 125
3.2.4.1. Feature hierarchy 125
3.2.4.2. A consequence for poor agreement 126
3.3. Further consequences and discussions 127
3.3.1. Is there an AGRO in Arabic? 127
3.3.2. Two reasons to incorporate nominative affixes 130
3.3.2.1. Subject agreement distribution 130
3.3.2.2. On AGRS licensing 132
3.3.3. Further extensions of INCA 133
3.4. Summary and conclusion 135
Notes 136
CHAPTER 4 TEMPORAL, ASPECTUAL, AND MODAL

CATEGORIES 141
4.1. Tense puzzles and their solutions 142
4.1.1. Preliminary temporal and aspectual distinctions I 42
4.1.1.1. Aspect 142
4.1.1.2. Tense 144
4.1.2. Ingredients of the Arabic temporal system 145
4.1.2.1. Tense contrasts 145
4.1.2.2. 'Aspectual' oppositions 147
4.1.2.3. Anchoring complex tenses 149
4.1.3. Mood distinctions and Modality 150
4.1.4. Statives and the expression of tense 152
4.1.5. Copula visibilty 155
4.2. Bi-inflectional structures and negative constructions I 56
4.2.1. On bi-inflectional structures of clauses 156
4.2.1.1. Auxiliary structures 157
4.2.1.2. Modals 159
4.2.1.3. An INFL Split analysis? 160
4.2.1.4. Further uses and (under)specification 161
4.2.2. Neg constructions I 62
4.2.2.1. A typology of Neg markers I 63
4.2.2.2. Distributional and selectional properties 166
4.2.3. Further properties and interactions 170
4.2.3.1. Anteriority 170
4.2.3.2. Modality and illocutionary force 171
4.2.3.3. Modals and Tense 174
4.3. Participles, adjectives, and verbs 175
4.3.1. Types and prototypes of adjectives and participles 176
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.3.2. Aspectual distinctions 178

4.3.3. Tense distinctions 181
4.3.4. Encoding contingency 184
4.3.5. Categorial properties 186
4.4. Further discussions and consequences 190
4.4.1. Finiteness 191
4.4.2. Participles and adjectives revisited 194
4.4.2.1. Thematic and aspectual preservation 194
4.4.2.2. Partitive Case 198
4.4.2.3. APs as stative categories 201
4.5. Summary and conclusion. 203
Notes 204
CHAPTER 5 I INFLECTIONAL PROJECTIONS IN NOUN

PHRASES 213
5.1. N and NP raising in the D system 215
5.1.1. A preliminary DP analysis 215
5.1.2. Complementarity distributions in noun phrases 216
5.1.3. The possessor role 220
5.1.4. Genitive marking 220
5.1.5. Extraction, mutual licensing, and scrambling 222
5.1.6. Agreement in Definiteness parametrized 225
5.1.7. Possessor's extraction 226
5.1.8. Deriving the variation 227
5.1.9. Agreement typology 231
5.2. Ma~dars and their formation 232
5 .2.1. Characteristic properties 233
5.2.2. Thematic properties of affixation 235
5.2.3. Level of category conversion and Genitive 239
5.2.4. Accusative and the Poss role 240
5.2.5. Genitive objects 242
5.2.6. Pronominal possessives 245
5.3. The prepositional strategy and analytic genitives 246
5.3.1. Arabic 247
5.3.2. Romance 251
5.3.3. Extraction 253
5.4. Subject nominals and the Projection Principle 257
5.4.1. Subject nominals 258
5.4.1.1. Categorial properties 258
5 .4.1.2. Thematic and selectional properties 260
5.4.2. The Projection Principle revisited 266
5.5. Consequences and extensions 269
5.5.1. Agreement and Case checking 270
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
5.5.2. Case checking vs. Case assignment and Case

realization 271
5.5.3. Specificity requirement on Genitives 272
5.5.4. Possessor and nunation 273
5.6. Conclusion 274
Notes 274
CONCLUSION 281
BIBLIOGRAPHY 284
INDEX OF NAMES 297
ANALYTIC INDEX 301

TRANSCRIPTION
~ r (glottal plosive)
,_, b
.::..,
,_, (unvoiced interdental)
t
t J (as in "joke")
<: I) (pharyngeal)
t X (velar fricative)
;;;, d
~ g (voiced interdental)
J r
J z
(.)" s
(.)" s (like sh in "english")
<..r' ~ (emphatic s)
<..r' <;I (emphatic voiced dental)
1. (emphatic unvoiced dental)
.b q (emphatic voiced interdental)
t c (pharyngeal fricative)
t g (voiced velar fricative)
._j
f
..
<.;! q (velar glottalized plosive)
.!.)
k
0 n
h
J w
~ y
Vowels:
central open: a
front closed:
back closed (rounded): u
long vowels: aa, ii, uu.
X
PREFACE
This study has a twofold goal. First, it investigates the internal structure
of words and clauses in Standard Arabic (SA), in the light of recent
developments of Government and Binding Theory (GB). Second, it argues
for a specific theory of typology, and proposes a particular view of how
parametrization can be construed and executed.
SA is a language used throughout the Arab world, in contrast to specific
local dialects which are limited to a particular area. The language has a
number of features which make it particularly suitable for cross-linguistic
comparative morpho-syntax, as well as research in different modules of
the theory of grammar. SA morphology is essentially non-concatenative,
though a rich analytic affixation system makes word formation hierarchical.
Word order in SA is basically VSO, but the language has alternative SVO
structures as well. Sentences can be 'nominal' (i.e. with no verb or copula
realized at surface structure), or verbal. Arguments can be left syntacti-
cally unexpressed (i.e. SA is a null argument language). SA is an agreement
language, with a rich and complex agreement system interacting with word
order, pronominal incorporation, and expletive structures. It also has a
productive morphological case system. Tense, Aspect, Modal, and Negation
properties interact in intriguing ways. Finally, SA's DP system exhibits
interesting complementary distributions between overt determiners, genitive
complements, and possessive markers. It also uses different licensing
strategies for Genitive Case marking.
These properties are shared only to some extent by those languages which
have been extensively studied in the GB literature (in particular Romance
and Germanic). It would thus be an important contribution to linguistics
to describe the salient properties of a language which seems to have no
real analogue among languages which have been extensively described:
by doing so one could confront the results reached with the views
established in the field. As it turns out, our treatment of the problems of
SA on 'its own terms' provides new insights for the investigation of similar
or parallel phenomena in other languages, including typologically different
languages like English. Since SA has been poorly studied, the method
adopted here is to focus on its properties as a point of departure for more
general and theoretical issues. This does not preclude cross-linguistic
comparison, nor the examination of theoretical consequences.
Two additional points are in order here. First, Arabic traditional gram-
matical thought is rich in informal ideas about SA, although it is coercive
and has had damaging consequences for the development of modern
XI
XII PREFACE
linguistics. Since I have grown up in this environment, and mastered this

thought, I shall be comparing traditional and modern ideas to help clarify
the issues. Second, although the issues addressed are framed within the
GB model, I have tried to avoid unnecessary technicalities (as far as
possible). It is hoped then that the book will be accessible to people broadly
interested in general and Semitic linguistics, in addition to the growing
GB field. It seems to me that many of the solutions proposed to the problems
raised are not necessarily internal to any particular model or theory, but
can be executed (with some variation in formal machineries) in different
grammatical models or theories.
The view of the theory of language (or Universal Grammar, UG) and
variation across languages adopted in this work follows in broad lines the
one proposed by Chomsky (1989c). UG defines an invariant system of
principles and a set of parameter specifications. The latter are taken to
refer to properties of lexical items (or categories of lexical items). Thus
the burden of learning is placed on the lexical component, which is
idiosyncratic, and has to be learned for every language. Moreover, I assume,
essentially following Borer ( 1983 ), that the functional component (her
inflectional component) is a privileged target of language acquisition. Within
these general lines, I propose a system of Multi- Valued Functional
Parametrization (MVFP henceforth), based on the following guidelines:
(a) Languages may vary with respect to how each of their F systems
(AGRP, CP, DP, TP, etc.) is parametrized.
(b) Different 'morphemes' within the same F system may trigger different
choices for the same parameter.
(c) Different strategies may interact within the same F system.
MVFP receives support throughout this work.
A primary focus of attention in this book is categories. In essence, lexical
words in English are categorially labelled as N, V, and A. From a mor-
phological point of view, basic lexical categories are atomic (or
non-decomposable) stems, which subsequently undergo derivational or
inflectional affixation processes. The picture is totally different in SA.
Lexical forms are not stems, but only consonantal roots. Moreover, they
may be categorially unspecified in the lexicon (in the unmarked case),
and may inherit category labels only when they enter into syntax. Affixes,
in contrast, are categorially specified, although some affixes may be
categorially neutral.
Among the issues addressed in this study is how the word is built up
in SA, and how categories are formed at different levels of the derivation
through early or late affixation. Another parallel issue is why the order of
affixes within words mirrors that of constituents within phrases and clauses.
These questions are answered within a theory of categories which supposes
clauses and phrases to be headed by functional categories. The list of
functional categories examined includes: C(omplementizer), T(ense),
PREFACE X111
Asp(ect), Mood, Mod(ality), AGR(eement), Neg(ation), and D(eterminer).

It is shown that head movement processes occur in the syntax to form words,
and that both derivational and inflectional processes are syntactic. It is
argued that lexicalism is inadequate for capturing the right generaliza-
tions.
The book is organized as follows. Chapter I provides an introduction
to the GB theory and its modules. Arabic clausal structure is examined in
Chapter 2, as well as word formation. It is argued that both V and Subject
raisings may occur in clauses, giving rise to either VSO or SVO order.
Moreover, a canonical clausal structure is motivated. On the other hand,
nominal sentences are argued to have a fully fledged functional structure
(including T and AGR). Finally, word formation is shown to occur in the
syntax. Chapter 3 analyzes agreement, incorporation, and pro drop in null
argument structures. Two parameters are proposed to account for pronom-
inal incorporation, as well as the different types of agreement: the
pronominality parameter and the nominality parameter. Only languages in
which AGR is pronominal allow syntactic pronominal incorporation.
Nominal AGR is correlated with SVO order. Interaction between agreement
types and referentiality is also examined. In Chapter 4 I analyze temporal
and aspectual properties of categories, including verbs, adjectives, par-
ticiples, negation morphemes, and modals. It is shown that the aspect theory
of verbal inflection is incorrect. Properties of Neg, Mod, and T and their
interaction are discussed. Chapter 5 presents an investigation of N and
NP raisings in the DP system, especially in synthetic genitives. I also
examine a number of complementary distributions, contexts for Genitive
assignment, as well as the role played by D and AGR in Case and order
licensing. Possessor extraction is parametrized according to AGR proper-
ties. The derivation of so-called masdars (i.e. gerunds), agent, and patient
nominals is accounted for by making use of the mechanism of theta
identification proposed by Higginbotham ( 1985).
A number of people have contributed to the development, improve-
ment, and clarification of the ideas brought out in this work. Professor
Ken Hale, of MIT, deserves a special mention. I have benefited from his
very illuminating ideas, as well as his permanent encouragement and support
during my visits to MIT. I would also like to thank Professors Noam
Chomsky, Joe Emonds, Joan Bresnan, Richie Kayne, Jim Higginbotham,
Driss Seghrouchni, and Bernard Pottier for stimulating discussions, and
constant help. Thanks are also due to Marie-Therese Vinet, Charles
Ferguson, Richard Larson, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, Jean-Yves Pollock,
Morris Halle, Jacqueline Gueron, Luigi Rizzi, Alain Rouveret, Esther
Torrego, Alec Marantz, Anna Maria Di Sciullo, K.P. Mohanan, Mary
Laughren, Tom Wasow, Sylvain Bromberger (as well as many others) for
helpful remarks and discussions. Joan Maling, Andrew Radford, Ken Hale,
and Howard Lasnik, deserve special thanks for their thorough reading of
XIV PREFACE
the early manuscript, and for suggesting a number of editorial improve-

ments. Thanks are also due to two SNLLT reviewers for their helpful
remarks and suggestions, and to Teun Hoekstra for fruitful comments.
Naima and Fahd have been constantly patient and encouraging during
the preparation of this work, and Saqr's birth while I was revising it was
a source of happiness and inspiration.
CHAPTER 1
PRINCIPLES, PARAMETERS, AND MODULES
1. UG AND PARAMETRIZATION
Since its inception, the generative programme has been concerned with
issues centering around the knowledge of language, hence contributing to
the development of what has been termed the cognitive revolution. Among
the significant issues addressed are the following:
(a) what is the nature of linguistic knowledge?
(b) what is the origin (or source) of this knowledge?
(c) how is this language used?
Humans, unlike other creatures, can attain knowledge of languages like
English, Japanese, or Arabic. It is reasonable to take this knowledge to
represent a real state of the mind/brain, or a mental 'organ' with a specific
structure and properties. Linguistic theory shares with other cognitive
sciences the view that a number of characteristics of the mind/brain can
be approached as computational systems, with rules forming and modi-
fying representations, and used to execute actions or interpretations. By
studying natural languages, generative grammarians have contributed to
clarifying the nature of the systems of knowledge, belief, understanding,
interpretation, etc., and helped to develop elaborate formal and computa-
tional systems (see Chomsky, 1986a, and 1989b and c).
The knowledge of language, or its development/learning, can be thought
of in terms of transitory mental states. The initial state (which is part of
the biological endowment), often called language faculty, evolves under
normal conditions of interaction with (limited) social experience to a steady
state at a maturational stage, via intermediate states. These states repre-
sent the forms of the language acquired, or the knowledge of a particular
language.
The knowledge of a language is represented by a particular generative
grammar, or a theory of the state of the mind/brain at a given stage. As
for Universal Grammar (UG), this is construed as a theory of the initial
state, or a language acquisition device which interacts with a limited
linguistic experience to attain the knowledge of a particular language.
What generative grammar means is a grammar which explicitly enumer-
ates the forms and expressions of the language. The language, in this view,
is a particular generative procedure which associates with every expres-
sion of a language La representation of form and meaning in L. Generative
grammars are more concerned, however, with intensional aspects of
language (i.e. with what Chomsky (1986a) calls the !-language) than with
2 CHAPTER I
the external product or the different aspects of behaviour, or even the set
of expressions in the language (i.e. the E-language in Chomsky's termi-
nology; see Chomsky, 1989b and c)
It is by now, I hope, clear that a study of a particular language cannot
be carried out while ignoring the issues mentioned, and without taking
account of the results of comparative, general, and psychological linguis-
tics. The description of a particular language is a description of the
judgments of the speaker-hearer about the expressions which he can produce
or interpret. In the 'learning' process, the external experience plays only
a minor role, due to the poverty of stimulus, or to what Chomsky calls
Plato's problem. 1 The speaker basically 'knows' the language he is
'learning', being innately equiped with a system of linguistic principles
and constraints which limits the set of possible languages. He then fixes
the parameters on the basis of limited empirical evidence. 2
On this view, a language is a set of specifications for parameters (or
variants) in an invariant system of principles of UG. The constructions to
be studied in a particular language (or cross-linguistically) can be regarded
as largely epiphenomenal, but more interestingly, as taxonomic instantia-
tions of the interaction of variant and invariant principles of grammar
(cf. Chomsky, l989a). Consequently, any approach to a particular language
is simultaneously concerned with the following two problems:
(d) manifestations of the general language faculty.
(e) systematic differences among languages, i.e. instantiations of the
particular language faculty acquired.
Two views of grammatical parametrization have produced fruitful results
in recent years. First, a parameter has been viewed as essentially a corre-
lation of grammatical properties. As a corollary, fixing the value of a
parameter one way or another would trigger the existence or absence of
all the clustered properties. The pro drop parameter, for example, has been
thought of in this way (work by Rizzi, 1982, Kayne, 1983, and Chomsky,
1981 essentially illustrates this line of research; see also White, 1985 for
applications to language acquisition). Second, parameters of UG can be
thought of as being typically lexical. Thus " ... each parameter refers to
properties of specific lexical items of the lexicon, or to categories of lexical
items ... ". Consequently, " ... there is only one human language, apart
from the lexicon, and language acquisition is, in essence, a matter of
determining lexical idiosyncracies" (Chomsky, 1989a). Moreover, the
functional component, as mentioned earlier, plays an important role in
determining how language learning proceeds. The latter view is adopted and
elaborated throughout this work in what I have called a Multi-Valued
Functional Parametrization system (see in particular Chapters 2 and 3 for
details).
The Principles-and-Parameters model proposed by Chomsky (1981 and
passim) is an advanced form of the generative programme which started
PRINCIPLES, PARAMETERS, AND MODULES 3
in the 'fifties. In addition to its content and subtheories and modules, the
model can be characterized by its philosophical/conceptual foundations
and methodological aims. It is expected that metalinguistic scientific
discourses would vary according to these foundations, and to the tradition
of epistemology and linguistic thought in one cultural area or another. These
variations would be a source of enrichment for conceptual, methodolog-
ical, and empirical inquiry. Thus it is enriching for modern Arabic linguistic
research to integrate a number of informal ideas and generalizations found
in traditional Arabic thought. However, a caveat is in order here: although
it might be reasonable to think that the history of thought and science has
to be linear, continuous, and cumulative, modern linguistic research is
concerned with traditional questions only to a minor extent. When tradi-
tional questions are asked, they are not posed in the same form. Hopefully,
we have made enough progress in linguistics to know that we are not
concerned with objects, questions, or methodologies of traditional thought.
Consequently, a 'compromise' with traditionalists can only be a weak one. 3
Traditionalists tend to think that almost every idea or analysis can be found
in texts written by our ancestors of the eighth or tenth centuries. Indeed,
an 'epistemological cut' with this kind of discourse is necessary, other-
wise we will contribute to the aggravation of what Chomsky calls Orwell's
problem. 4
2. THE MODEL
The grammatical model adopted in this work consists of a number of com-

ponents, or levels of representation, organized as in (1 ):
(1) Lexicon
I
D-structure
I
S-structure
~
PF LF
D-structure is generated according to phrase structure schemata constrained
by principles of X' theory. Lexical items are projected at this level from
the lexicon (with their thematic and selectional specifications). General
principles govern the mapping from the lexicon to the syntax, so that lexical
specifications and relations will match syntactic constituency configura-
tions. S-structure is derived by applying the general transformational rule
Move-a to D-structure representations, the latter being subject to parame-
trization.
The lexicon is a set of lexical entities, each instantiating small subsets
of features belonging to complex and articulated systems. Each lexical entry
4 CHAPTER I
specifies idiosyncratic properties of lexical units, in particular phonetic,

semantic, as well as syntactic information. Redundant specification is
omitted from entries, however. 5
S-structure is interpreted both logically and phonetically. LF is a level
of representation at which logical relations are represented. The mapping
from S-structure to LF is mediated by rules like Quantifier Raising, Focus
Interpretation, or Wh-movement (at LF), etc. The mapping to PF may be
mediated via 'stylistic rules' of the sort proposed by Rochemont (1978),
or 'scrambling' rules (as in e.g. Ross, 1967, Saito, 1985, or Fassi, 1981
for Arabic).
The Projection Principle (PP) and the Principle of Full Interpretation
(PFI) are among the representational principles which play an important role
in relating the representations found in the different components, or licensing
these representations. The PP is formulated in Chomsky (1981) as follows:
(2) Repres, ntations at each syntactic level (i.e. D-structure, S-
structure, and LF) are projected from the lexicon, in that they
observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items.
The Extended Projection Principle adds the stipulation that all clauses
have subjects (cf. Chomsky, 1982).
Chomsky ( 1986a) proposes a general principle of licensing, he names
PFI, which states the following:
(3) At PF and LF, every element must be licensed by appropriate
interpretation.
The interpretation can be achieved via subcategorization (for complements),
predication, modification, etc. PFI accounts (among other things) for the
deviation of constructions like (4 ):
(4) * Who John saw Mary?
In this construction, one of the extra object NPs is not licensed.
3. X' THEORY
Concerning the nature of syntactic categories, a distinction is made between

lexical (or thematic) and non-lexical (or functional or inflectional)
categories. In Chomsky (1974, 1986b), lexical categories are composed from
the set of features{+ N, + V} (see also Stowell, 1981). The traditional
categories N(oun), V(erb), A(djective), and P(repostion) are replaced by
feature matrices: [+ N,- V], [- N, + V], [+ N, + V], and [- N,- V],
respectively. This system of categorial features raises a number of problems,
however, as we will see. With regard to inflectional or functional categories,
Bresnan ( 1970, 1972) has introduced the category C(omplementizer), and
Fassi (1980) has shown that it heads a CP (which replaces the traditional
PRINCIPLES, PARAMETERS, AND MODULES s
S'). On the other hand, Chomsky (1981) has introduced the category
I(nflection), which projects as IP, and Abney (198S, 1987) the category
D(eterrniner), which projects as DP. Lexical and functional categories project
in the syntax according to the following general schemata:
(S) a. X"~ Y"* X'
b. X' ~X Y"*
where X and Yare categorial variables, the primes (or bars) represent the
number of syntactic projections, and the star means a finite number of
projections. These requirements are supposed to hold at D-structure, but not
at other syntactic levels (in particular at levels where adjunction takes place).
A number of relations can be defined within these schemata. For example,
X is said to be a head of X', and X' a head of X", in (Sb) and (Sa),
respectively. Y" is a complement of X in (Sb), and a specifier of X' in
(Sa). Similarly, if Y" is a NP, we can say that it is subject of X' in (Sa),
and object of X in (Sb).
Kayne ( 1984) has proposed that the number of occurrences of Y" (in
(S)) should b~ limited to 0 or 1, the branching being binary at most. This
proposal has found widespread adoption in the literature, especially when
faced with the analysis of the structure of double object constructions (see
e.g. Larson, 1988). On the other hand, languages vary according to where
the head of the projection is located, with respect to other constituents. Some
linguists have proposed to parametrize headness (head-first, as e.g. in
Arabic; head-last, as e.g. in Japanese). Others have proposed to derive
this order from the theta marking parameter, so that the head would be
first if theta marking is to the right, and last if theta marking is to the left
(see Travis, 1984 and Koopman, 1984 on these proposals).
The X' system is assumed to extend to functional categories (see Fassi,
1980, Chomsky, 1986b, and Abney, 1987, among others). But clearly, the
feature system based on the set {± N, ± V} is not that significant for an
account of the various properties (and intricacies) of functional categories.
On the other hand, very recent work has questioned the atomicity of the
I category. The latter is further decomposed into T(ense), AGR(eement),
Asp(ect), etc. (see Pollock, 1989a; Fassi, 1988b; and Chomsky, 1989a;
see also Chapters 2, 3, and 4). Similarly, D is taken to be further decom-
posable into D, AGR, and Poss (see Chapter S).
In general, this work contributes to defining and clarifying the nature
of categories, and the relations within the X' system. It will become clear
that if (S) are the general schemata for phrase structure relations, the
questions of the nature of categories, their number, and the features from
which they can be deduced, remain open and problematic. I will explore the
hypothesis that syntactic categories are canonical realizations of notional
types (as in Hale and Keyser, 1991), and that their Case and thematic
properties are side effects of this inherent nature.
6 CHAPTER I
Some notational observations are in order. I will use interchangeably

the traditional symbols NP, VP, AP, and the system based on primes: V',
N", etc. I also use VP not only to designate the traditional projection headed
by V (with a possible complement), but also the 'clausal' projection which
equally contains the subject (following the proposal of Kuroda, 1986;
Zagona, 1988; and Koopman and Sportiche, 1988, among others). On the
other hand, I sometimes use the inflectional projection (DP, IP, TP, AGRP,
etc.), to designate traditional phrases like NP, AP, S, etc., and at other
times more traditional symbols, when the specification is not needed. The
latter are not as accurate as the new symbols, but they may be convenient
to shorten trees, when the more expanded version is not necessary.
4. ARGUMENTS AND THEMATIC THEORY
Predicates differ with respect to how many and which arguments they select,
depending on whether they are transitive or intransitive, whether they take
NP, PP, or S as complements, etc. The list of arguments and their internal
organization has been termed either predicate argument structure (PAS;
see e.g. Bresnan, 1982c), or thematic grid (see Stowell, 1981). This has
led to terminological confusion in the literature: some linguists call
arguments what others call theta roles, and vice versa. Conceptually,
argument structure and thematic structure are distinct objects. For example,
verbs like darab 'beat' and caraf 'know' both have a PAS with two
arguments, but the subject is an 'agent' with the former, and an 'experi-
encer' with the latter. There are various proposals concerning the nature
of roles and their origins, how they are linked to arguments, etc. I limit
myself to the discussion of a single problem here, namely theta
assignment.
The PAS of a lexical item representing its arguments may take the form
of a configurational tree projected from a more remote lexical conceptual
structure in which arguments are represented by variables (along the lines
suggested by Hale and Keyser, passim). The Theta Criterion proposed
by Chomsky (1981) requires arguments to be realized by appropriate
constituents (NP, S, etc.) in the syntax. The mapping beween arguments and
constituents is bijective in the argument domain of a head. The Theta
Criterion has different formulations, among which is the following (original)
one:
(6) Each argument bears one and only one theta role, and each theta
role is assigned to one and only one argument.
The mechanism of theta assignment establishes a relation between the
constituents occupying positions in the syntax and variables found in
the PAS of the lexical item. For example, the verb assigns a role to its
complement, the preposition mediates the assignment of a role, the VP
assigns a role to the subject, etc. There is reason to think, however, that
the Theta Criterion is true of chains (a chain consists of a number of
positions), and not of single positions (see the formulation of the Chain
Condition proposed by Chomsky, 1986a in Section 5, below).
In Williams' (1980, 1981) theory of argument structure, VP assigns a
role to the NP subject only via predication. In this view, the latter is
generated outside the VP projection: it is an external argument. Other
arguments are inside VP, hence their designation as internal arguments.
GB linguists sometimes use the expressions 'internal' and 'external' roles
and 'internal' and 'external' arguments interchangeably.
Positions in which NPs receive theta roles are called theta positions,
others are non-theta or theta-bar positions. All arguments are supposed
to occur in theta positions at D-structure, if the latter is a 'pure' represen-
tation of thematically relevant grammatical relations (as claimed by
Chomsky, 1986a). This view is further sharpened by the Uniformity of Theta
Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), proposed by Baker (1988):
(7) UTAH. Identical thematic relationships between items are
represented by identical structural relationships between those
items at the level of D-structure.
The set of theta markers might be limited to lexical categories (Vs, As,
and Ps in particular). Chomsky (1986a) assumes that N s are theta assigners
just like verbs, but Emonds (1985) questions such a view. According to
Emonds, Ns theta assign only indirectly (usually via prepositions). On the
other hand, there are reasons to think that functional categories play also
a role in theta assignment. Theta theory is then revised along the lines
proposed by Higginbotham (1985 and 1986). The mapping between
arguments and roles can be achieved through three different mechanisms
of theta assignment: theta marking, theta identification, and theta binding.
These mechanisms are discussed at length in Chapter 4.
5. THE CASE MODULE
Case is assigned to NPs (and other categories like APs and adverbial
phrases) by a governor. Case is abstract in the sense that it may be
morphologically realized or not. The Case Filter, given in (8), plays an
essential role in the Case module because it forces NPs to receive Case:
(8) *NP, if NP is lexical (has phonetic content) and has no Case.
This filter applies only to NPs in Chomsky's formulation. It has to be
generalized, however, to APs and AdvPs, as the Arabic facts suggest. 6
Case assigners in Chomsky (1981) are essentially [-N] categories, i.e.
V and P, and also I. Chomsky (1986a) adds N and A to the list, but
distinguishes two types of cases: structural Case (which is assigned by virtue
8 CHAPTER I
of a structural relation), and inherent (or thematic) Case (which is assigned

by virtue of a thematic relation). Thus the assignment of Case by V to a
complement of it or by I to its Spec is structural, but the assignment of Case
by N, A, or P is inherent. Structural Case is assigned at S-structure, while
inherent Case is assigned at D-structure. Moreover, the inherent Case is
subject to the Uniformity Condition proposed by Chomsky (1986a):
(9) If A assigns inherent Case, then B receives a theta role from A if

and only if B receives Case from A.
I will make use of the distinction between these two Case mechanisms.
In addition to these two types, there is a default Case mechanism (see
Chapter 2). On the other hand, I show that Genitive is a structural Case
in possessive constructions, contrary to Chomsky's ( 1986a) view. Moreover,
the distinction between Case assignment and Case realization drawn by
Chomsky ( 1986a) is criticized in favour of a Case Checking mechanism
(see Chapter 5). Nominative is shown to be assigned by T, though it may
also be assigned by AGR (see Chapter 2)
As with theta assignment, Case assignment is taken to be a property of
chains, rather than a property of a single constituent. The Chain Condition
found in Chomsky (1986a) states both requirements
(10) =
If C (a 1, ••• , an) is a maximal chain, then an occupies its unique
theta-position, and a 1 its unique Case-marked position.
6. THE GOVERNMENT MODULE AND STRUCTURAL RELATIONS
The concept of government plays an important role in GB theory. This

structural concept has numerous formulations in the literature. Chomsky
formulates the notion as follows:
(11) a governs gin
[... g ... a ... g .. .]b
where
- a= xo;
- where b is a maximal projection, if b dominates g, then b
dominates a;
- a c-commands g.
The notion of c-command can be defined as in (12), after Reinhart (1976):

(12) A node A c-commands a node B if neither A nor B dominates
the other, and the first branching node which dominates A also
dominates B.
Proper government is defined as follows:
(13) A properly governs B iff

- A governs B and
- A is lexical
- or A and B are coindexed.
Chomsky ( 1986b) introduces two new notions of government: antecedent
government and theta government. Antecedent government is adopted from
Lasnik and Saito (1984):
(14) A antecedent governs B if
- A and B are coindexed
- There is no C ( C = NP or S) such that A c-commands C,
and C dominates B (unless B is the head of C).
Theta government is formulated as follows:
(15) A theta governs B iff
- A is an xo and theta marks B
- A and B are sisters.
These two notions are used for reformulating proper government as follows:
(16) A properly governs B if A theta governs B, or antecedent governs
B.
Among the principles based on the notion proper government is the
Empty Category Principle (ECP), which constrains the occurrence of traces:
(17) [e] must be properly governed.
Chomsky (1986b) reformulates government in the Barriers' framework
as follows:
(18) A governs B iff A m-commands Band there is no C, C a barrier
forB, such that C excludes A.
The notion m-command is close to c-command, but the relevant nodes are
maximal projections:
(19) A m-commands B iff A does not dominate B and every C
(C a maximal projection) that dominates A dominates B.
Then 'exclusion' is as in (20):
(20) A excludes B if no segment of A dominates B.
The notion of segment of a category, proposed in May ( 1985) and adopted
in Chomsky (1986b), refers essentially to dominant relations in adjuntion
structures. Thus, in a structure like (21 ), the category C is said to have
two segments represented by the. bracketed constituents both labelled by
C:
10 CHAPTER
(21) ... d . .. [c a [c ... b ... ]]

In this configuration, C does not exclude a because one segment of C
dominates a.
The notion of 'barrier' is defined as in (22), using the 'blocking category'
notion given in (23):
(22) Cis a barrier forB iff (a) or (b):
(a) C immediately dominates D, D a Blocking Category forB;
(b) Cis a blocking category forB, C :t= IP.
(23) Cis a Blocking Category(= BC) forB iff Cis not L-marked, and
C dominates B.
Then L-marking is stated as follows:
(24) Where A is a lexical category, A L-marks B if A theta-marks B or
B agrees with the head of C that is theta governed by A.
The notion of theta government states the following:
(25) A theta governs B iff A is a zero level category that theta marks
B, and A and Bare sisters.
7. BINDING
NPs can be associated with an antecedent in a local structural context,

depending on their referential nature and the configuration in which they
are found. The following principles are supposed to take care of possible
binding relations:
(26) Principle A. An anaphor (i.e. a reflexive or a reciprocal) is bound
in its governing category.
(27) Principle B. A pronominal is free in its governing category.
(28) Principle C. An r-expression (i.e. a non-pronominal non-
anaphor) is free.
A category A is said to bind a category B if B is coindexed with and
c-commanded by A. A governing category for C may be defined as the
minimal category containing C, a governor of C, and an accessible subject
(for further discussion and elaboration see Chomsky, 1981). These condi-
tions are shown to be insufficient (see Chapter 2). Furthermore, precedence
is argued to play a role in defining antecedent-pronominal relationships
(for elaborations see Reuland and Koster, 1990).
8. PREDICATION
Williams (1980) postulates a level of predication structure onto which

S-structure is mapped. Predication is essentially a coindexing mechanism
which relates a subject and a predicate. Williams ( 1980) proposes the
(universal) rule of predication formulated in (29):
(29) Coindex NP and X.
The rule is constrained by the following c-command requirement:
(30) If NP and X are coindexed, then NP c-commands X or a variable
in X.
Rothstein (1983) argues that the function of predication is to saturate
the theta grid of a predicate. She proposes a new formulation of the rule,
renamed Predicate Linking:
(31) Predicate Linking:
(a) Every non-theta-marked XP must be linked at S-structure
to an argument which it immediately c-commands and which
immediately c-commands it.
(b) Linking is from right to left.
Predication holds not only of canonical subjects and predicative VPs, as
in (32a), but also of non-canonical predication pairs, as in (32b ):
(32) a. John hammered the nail.
b. John hammered the nail flat.
In (32b), the AP is predicated of the object of hammer.
Predication plays a general role in licensing (see the Principle of Full
Interpretation). It is also suggested that it licenses the occurrence of AGR
(see Chapter 3).
9. THE MOVEMENT MODULE
The Move-a rule applies freely, with no constraints on its application, but
its outputs are constrained by various principles belonging to different
modules and subtheories, including bounding theory, the theory of empty
categories, Case theory, and Theta theory. At first glance, there appear to
be constraints on movement, but a closer examination reveals that they
can be derived from independently motivated principles.
Consider first the type of movement which is a substitution. Chomsky
(1986b) provides the following general properties of substitution:
(33) a. There is no movement to the complement position.
b. Only xo can move to the head position.
c. Move-a applies to xo or to xmax.
12 CHAPTER I
(33a) can be derived from the Theta Criterion, since the latter limits
movement only to non-theta positions. The complement position being a
theta position, a movement to it would yield a chain with two theta
positions, an option barred by the Theta Criterion. As for (33b) and (33c),
Chomsky proposes deriving them from the Structure Preserving Constraint
of Emonds (1976). 7
There are a number of movements which can count as substitutions.
Among these is NP movement in passives, from object to subject position
(as in standard accounts), or movement of the thematic subject from Spec
V to Spec T, and Spec AGR, to become an inflectional subject, or even
movement of the wh-phrase to Spec C (see Chapter 2). Considerations of
Case, scope, and morphology motivate or force these movements.
Let us turn now to adjunction. The movement of V to T, and to AGR,
is a case of adjunction. It is motivated by morphology, since the V is a
root which has to attach to a vocalic (inflectional) support. The movement
is head-to-head, which is constrained by the Head Movement Constraint
(HMC) proposed by Travis (1984) (see also Chomsky, 1986b). Baker (1988)
formulates HMC as follows:
(34) xo can only move to yo which properly governs it.
Chomsky (1986b) proposes the derivation of this constraint from ECP.
In sum, the Move-a rule applies freely, but its outputs observe general
well-formedness principles at play in different modules and components
of the grammar (syntax, lexicon, PF, LF, etc.).
10. MORPHOLOGY
Morphology is concerned with formal properties of word formation, or more

precisely with the appropriate characterization of morphological objects (and
principles governing their combination). In practice, this means that we have
to determine which structures of the type xo are well-formed, and which
morphological and phonological rules apply to these words, before actual
phonetic forms are reached.
There is a continuing discussion in the literature on whether morphology
is an autonomous component, or whether it can be absorbed altogether by
syntax and phonology. The view adopted in this work is that there is an
autonomous morphological component, and that morphological rules
mediate the mapping from S-structure to PF (see Chapter 2).
I will adopt a number of ideas on the matter developed in work by
Williams (1981a and b) and Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) (DSW), as
well as some proposals by Selkirk (1982), Halle (1989), and Seghrouchni
(1989).
The following assumptions are among those made in DSW's work (see
also Selkirk, 1982):
(35) a. Words have heads, in the same way that syntactic phrases have
heads. The features of the head are inherited by the complex
form, and become properties of the whole.
b. Affixes (and especially suffixes) head words.
c. Affixes (like content words) are lexical categories. They are
categorially labelled as N, V, A, etc.
d. Affixes have predicate argument structures.
e. Affixes have whatever properties stems or words have, except
that they are bound morphemes.
f. There is no (principled) distinction between derivational and
inflectional morphology. Derivational morphology can be inte-
grated into inflectional morphology.
Selkirk (1982) has proposed that word formation rules take the form
of phrase structure rules, which operate concatenation of morphological
classes (of components). Applied to Arabic, this apparatus yields the
following rules:
(36) a. root ~ root root
b. root ~ af root
c. root ~ root af
d. stem ~ root af
e. word ~ stem af
(af = affix).
Observe that Arabic has no productive rule like (37), which concatenates
two words:
(37) word ~ word word
This rule forms compounds in French like coffre-fort, chou-fleur, rouge
gorge, etc. It is also productive in English (as in heart broken, living room,
school teacher, etc.). The process is not regular in Arabic, however. What
is found is so-called naht 'shaping' by traditional grammarians, that is,
the formation of a root from two (or more) roots. As for compounding, it
is very marginal, and is only found in proper names like baC[a-bakk or
hadra-mawt (two names of Arabic cities), etc. It is also found in some
particles like qalla-maa 'rarely-that' ka)fa-maa literally 'how-that', meaning
'however, whatever', etc.
DSW argue that identifying morphological heads is different from
identifying syntactic heads. The latter are determined by their categorial
label and their type (or the number of primes or bars). Thus it is easy to
say that V or V' is a head of V" in (38), for example, but it is difficult to
do so in (39):
14 CHAPTER I
(38) V"
~
N" V'
~
V N"
(39) a. N b. v
~ ~
N N V N
DSW propose the following contextual definition of morphological heads:

(40) The head of a word is the rightmost member of the word.
However, this definition does not apply in all cases, nor in all languages,
and has to be relativized, as DSW themselves have observed.
I will take the principles governing the formation of words (including
the position of the head) to be (essentially) syntactic. Many words are
formed by the application of the Move-a rule, which moves one head to
another. The output can be different, depending on whether the movement
is a substitution or an adjunction, how canonical government is defined
in the language (if canonical government takes directionality into account,
as proposed by Kayne, 1984 ), what are scopal properties of words, etc.
All these properties are syntactic (in the broad sense), and it will be
arbitrary to take them as constraints on morphological rules. This is due
to the fact that the formation of words is essentially syntactic. The Mirror
Principle of Baker (1985a) (MP) states that morphological derivations
have to mirror syntactic derivations (and vice versa). The MP cannot be
valid in a pure morphological approach.
A distinction is made between concrete and abstract morphemes. Some
morphemes have concrete phonological forms to which phonological rules
apply directly. Other morphemes have only abstract forms, which need
spelling rules in order to have concrete forms. Readjustment rules are also
needed to operate on forms, changing one form to another. These two
types of rules form the core of the morphological component which operates
on outputs of syntax, before pure phonological rules apply (see Chapter 2
for details).
These, then, are some characteristics of the components and modules
assumed in this work, as well as the constraints and principles which operate
within the grammar as conceived here. Elaborations and details will be
proposed in the various chapters.
NOTES
Plato's problem is the following: 'why do we know so much, given that we have such
limited evidence?' A similar question has also been raised by Bertrand Russell. The poverty
of stimulus (that is, the fact that the language learner faces in his environment only very
limited linguistic experience, yet he manages to 'learn' all the properties of his language)
is behind most generative apporaches to UG.
2 Some psychologists, by contrast, defend the view that humans acquire language by using
'generalized learning' mechanisms or 'overlearning'. Language is conceived as a system of
habitual dispositions, which is covered by available experience. Producing or interpreting new
forms is effected by analogy. The problem of the poverty of stimulus, however, shows that
overlearning cannot be the correct approach. See Chomsky (1986a and 1989b).
3 The position of Chomsky ( 1966) with respect to traditional thought has often been
misinterpreted as acknowledging that our ancestors are precursors of modern scientific issues,
and that the medieval issues are directly relevant to modern linguistic thought. I interpret
that position as a weak compromise, aiming mainly to rehabilitate (globally) previous research
in the field, against the attacks of structuralists. This cannot mean, however, confusing the
conceptual, methodological, and empirical aims of different traditions and schools.
4 Chomsky characterizes Orwell's problem as follows: 'why do we know so little given
that we have so much evidence?' The pure traditionalist position, which is strong in the
Arab world, is often one of the greatest obstacles to knowledge. According to this view,
only ancestors 'know' in the first place, and only they have the right answers.
5 This view contrasts with lexicalist views, which require lexical entries to be fully expanded,
and hence to contain redundant information. Cf. Halle (1973), Jackendoff (1975), and Bresnan
(1982a) on the matter and, for a criticism, see Chapter 2.
6 Chomsky (1986a), following a suggestion by Aoun, proposes deriving the Case Filter from
the Visibilty Condition given in (i):
(i) An NP position which is the head of a chain (i.e. the last position of a moved category)
can only bear a theta-index if it receives Case.
An SNLLT reviewer has pointed out that the conditions in (33) apply equally to movement
as adjunction (in some cases vacuously). This observation appears to be true, although the
derivation of these constraints differs depending on which type of movement is involved.
For example, a substitution which involves the Camp position violates the Theta Criterion,
but an adjunction to the same position does not (as far as I can tell).
CHAPTER 2
WORD ORDER, AGREEMENT, AND CASE*
In this chapter I address three important and related issues in the theory
of Arabic clause structure: (a) word order, (b) verb agreement patterns,
and (c) Cases of subjects. I establish that Arabic is essentially a VSO
language, although it also seems to belong to a 'mixed' VSO/SVO type.
This typology correlates with properties of inflectional categories heading
clauses, in particular the properties of AGR(eement) morphemes. I claim
that AGR in VSO languages is both poor (in that it is specified at most
for Gender), and weak (in that it does not play a role in Nominative Case
assignment and/or checking). But although some AGR morphemes in these
languages are rich (in that they exhibit Number specification (NUM), in
addition to Gender (GEN)), as is the case in Arabic, AGR remains weak.
It is unable to protect subjects in SVO structures from external governors,
and it does not play a (significant) role in Nominative assignment and/or
checking. It is argued that this weakness of the inflection in VSO lan-
guages (even of the mixed type) is traceable to a parametric categorial
property of AGR: AGR is nominal in some languages, and non-nominal
in others.
As regards syntactic rules involved in constituency characterization, I
assume that the grammar of Arabic instantiates a canonical phrase struc-
ture like (I):
(1) IP
~
I'
~
I VP
~~ V NP
In this structure the subject is base-generated in Spec of VP. The unmarked

VSO order is derived at S-structure by raising V to I. The subject may
also raise to Spec of IP, which results in an SVO structure. Thus both V-
to-I raising (an instance of head-to-head movement) and Subject raising
(an instance of Spec-to-Spec movement) may take place at S-structure.
V-to-I raising is motivated by morphological as well as conceptual
considerations. As for Subject raising, it is triggered by the occurrence of
16
WORD ORDER, AGREEMENT, AND CASE 17
rich AGR on the verb. Poor agreement prevents such an operation from
taking place, thus resulting in a VSO structure. Part of this chapter is devoted
to investigating how and why this correlation between word order and
agreement types holds. Moreover, cross-linguistic distribution of rich and
poor AGR is analyzed, together with the distribution of thematic subjects
in preverbal or postverbal positions. I propose a principle regulating the
positioning of subjects with respect to the AGR inflection, as well as their
feature sharing relationship, which I name the AGR Criterion.
The two raising operations postulated have fairly standard properties, and
pose no particular problem for movement theory. 1 The base-generation of
the subject inside VP has gained quite wide acceptance, although some
GB grammarians still assume that D-subjects are generated in Spec of IP. 2
Let us suppose that Chomsky's ( 1986a) Principle of Full Interpretation is
to generalize to D-structure, and that the occurrence of NPs at D-struc-
ture positions is licensed only by virtue of a thematic relationship, then a
thematic NP subject would occur in Spec of VP at D-structure, not in
Spec of IP. If that is true, then the analysis based on the configuration in
(1) and the raising operations postulated are conceptually preferable. 3
The conceptual merits of this canonical approach are not shared by a
number of recent analyses proposed for VSO languages (and/or struc-
tures). Here are some claims and hypotheses made in the literature: 4
A. The subject is in Spec of IP at D-structure and
(a) lowers to adjoin to V at S-structure or
(b) lowers to adjoin to VP.
B. The subject is in Spec of VP at D-structure, and V raises to adjoin to
IP.
These analyses are illustrated in (2), (3), and (4), respectively:
(2) IP
~
(NP) I' (NP)
~
I VP
~
v
~
v
18 CHAPTER 2
(3) IP
~
(NP) I' (NP)
(~
~ VP
~
V NP
(4) IP
~
V IP
~
I VP
~
NP V'
~
V NP
Adjunctions in (2) and (4) are not canonical. In Chomsky (1986b ), adjunc-
tion of xo is limited to X 0 , and adjunction of XP to XP. In other words,
the two constituents of an adjunction structure created by movement have
to be of the same bar level. As Chomsky points out, this requirement can
be interpreted as an instance of the Structure Preserving Constraint proposed
by Emonds (1976). The adjunction in (3) is canonical but costly, assuming
Chomsky's Principle for the Economy of Derivations. 5 The raising and
canonical approach (as described) thus appears to be conceptually favored,
compared to other proposals made in the literature. Furthermore, it is also
preferable on empirical grounds, as I will argue.
Note that one feature of the structure proposed in (1) is that the inflec-
tion has a Spec position. The existence of this position will be motivated
against the widely spread view that VSO languages (especially Celtic)
generate no Spec of IP positions. 6
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1 I first examine the
properties of VSO order, and argue that it derives from a configurational
IP and VP structure in which V raises to I. I then argue for the existence
of SVO structures (as distinct from left dislocated structures), and motivate
the rule of Subject raising. In Section 2 I analyze how subjects can (or
cannot) undergo raising, depending on the properties of AGR, and in con-
formity with what I call the AGR Criterion. I then turn to the problem of
licensing poor agreement, and argue against the view that it is licensed under
direct Spec-head agreement with an expletive. I also examine the various
distributions of expletive forms cross-linguistically, and show that their
features depend on the properties of AGR, although the reverse is not true.
In Section 3 I discuss the variety of Cases assigned to Arabic subjects,
and how they are licensed and checked. I investigate why subjects are
uniformly Nominative in postverbal positions, and why they are (normally)
non-nominative in SVO contexts. In Section 4 I analyze some consequences
of the analyses adopted for the Extended Projection Principle, expletive
licensing, VS and SV order typology, extraction, and Case assignment. I
also discuss further motivation for V-to-I raising.
1. VERB AND SUBJECT MOVEMENTS IN ARABIC CLAUSES
In this section I argue that two raising operations may take place to derive
the S-structure of Arabic clauses: (a) an xo raising of V to I (to derive
VSO structures), and (b) an XP raising of the NP subject from Spec of
VP to Spec of IP (to derive SVO).
1.1. VSO and V-to-1 Raising
The unmarked surface order of constituents within an Arabic sentence is

VSOX (where X ranges over other complements and adjuncts). Assuming
that D-subjects originate in Spec of VP, surface word order is derived by
head moving V to I. This operation is an adjunction of a head to another
head, and is subject to general principles of head movement. 7 The verb raises
to I which contains T(ense) and AGR. The latter being bound morphemes,
the motivation for movement can be morphological if we assume Lasnik's
(1981) Filter, which requires bound morphemes to be supported at S-
structure.8 On the other hand, a general V-to-C raising is shown to be
descriptively inadequate. Other alternatives are dismissed on theoretical
grounds.
1.1.1. Basic VSO
VSO is the unmarked word order in Arabic sentences. 9 It is the order

found in so-called pragmatically neutral contexts, i.e. in sentences which
require fewer mechanisms of interpretation or derivation. It occurs in both
root and embedded sentences, in intransitive and transitive constructions,
etc. Here are some examples:
(5) kataba r-rajul-u r-risaalat-a haagaa
wrote the-man-nom the-letter-ace this
~-~abaai)-a
the-morning-ace
The man wrote the letter this morning.
20 CHAPTER 2
(6) ?arad-tu ?an y-uqaabil-a r-rajul-u 1-mudiir-a

wanted-! that 3-meet-subj the man-nom the director-ace
I wanted the man to meet the director.
These constructions exhibit two properties of order:
(a) S(ubject) precedes O(bject).
(b) V(erb) precedes both S and 0.
The statement in (a) reflects both deep and surface order, given that S is
generated as Spec of VP, and 0 as complement of V. The statement in (b)
has to be a S-structure description, if V is located in I as a consequence
of raising from its D-position.
Support for (a) is provided by constructions in which morphological case
marking of subject and object NPs is not overt. In these contexts, only
SO order is possible (regardless of the position of the verb), though a shift
to OS is usually possible. The restriction is valid for simple declaratives,
as in (7), interrogatives, as in (8), or topicalized constructions, as in (9):
(7) ntaqada 'iisaa muusaa
criticized clisaa Muusaa
'Iisaa criticized Muusaa.
(8) man ntaqada muusaa

who criticized Muusaa?
(9) ciisaa ntaqada muusaa

ciisaa criticized Muusaa.
In these sentences, the OS interpretation is excluded. In contexts where cases
are overt, OS order raises no problem, as the following sentences show:
(10) ?ayy-a rajul-in intaqada muusaa
which-ace man-gen criticized Muusaa
Which man has Muusaa criticized?
(11) zayd-an intaqada muusaa

Zayd-acc criticized Muusaa
Zayd, Muusaa has criticized.
( 12) sakaa zayd-an haagaa r-rajul-u lla<;!ii t-araa

complained Zayd-acc this the-man-nom that you-see
(There) has complained about Zayd this man that you see.
In these sentences, 0 is 'scrambled' to a position where it precedes S,
independently of the position of V. In (1 0), Move-a has shifted the
interrogative 0 outside IP (presumably to Spec of CP). Since the wh-word
WORD ORDER, AGREEMENT, AND CASE 2I
carries morphological case, no ambiguity arises in the interpretation of

the NP preposed. The same is true of the topicalized NP in (II). As for ( 12),
the subject NP there has been shifted to the right of the object because it
is heavy, but the grammatical relation borne by the NP is recoverable through
case marking. The distribution of overtly vs non-overtly case-marked NPs
can be captured if we assume that in non-overtly Case-marked contexts,
NP objects have to remain in situ (i.e. where they are base-
generated), due to the fact that their (abstract Case) is recoverable only from
their D-structure position. As for subjects, the fact that they can scramble
preverbally, although they do not carry morphological case, suggests that
their relation to the predicate is recoverable at S-structure, whatever the
position of the verb is. 10
A relatively strict SO order is also observed with pronominal expressions.
Thus the order for interpreting pronouns is S 01 02, independently of the
fact whether pronouns are affixes, as in (13a), or a mixture of affixes and
independent pronouns, as in (13b):
(13) a. ?a"t;ay-ta-nii-hi
gave-you-me-it
You gave it to me.
b. ?a"t;ay-ta-nii ?iyyaa-hu
gave-you-me it
You gave it to me.
If pronominal affixes are pronouns incorporated onto the verbal governor
(as we will see in Chapter 3), then these facts can be captured if we assume
that the incorporation process preserves basic order.
There are contexts in which pronominalization forces the shift from basic
order, hence providing a clue for recovering it. Consider the following
examples:
( 14) a. sakaa 1-walad-a ?abuu-hu
complained the-boy-ace father.nom-his
(There) has complained about the boy his father.
His father has complained about the boy.
b. * sakaa ?abuu-hu 1-walad-a

complained father.nom-his the-boy-ace
(15) a. daxala maktab-a-hu haagaa r-rajul-u lladii t-araa
entered office-ace-his this the-man-nom that you see
(There) has entered his office this man that you see.
22 CHAPTER 2
(15) b. rajaca ?ilaa bayt-i-hi <aalim-u-naa 1-kabiir-u

returned to house-gen-his scholar-nom-our the-great-nom
(There) returned to his house our great scholar.
Constraints on antecedent-pronoun relationships in Arabic are statable in
terms of the notion precedence. The construction (14b), in which the
antecedent is linearly preceded by the pronoun is ungrammatical, whereas
(14a), in which linear precedence is met in the right order, is grammat-
ical. The grammaticality of the constructions (15), however, suggests that
the matter is more complex. According to traditional grammarians, the
pronoun precedes the antecedent in ( 15) only in surface order. It does
not do so in basic order. Thus antecedent-pronoun relations observe the
following condition:
( 16) An antecedent must precede a pronoun either at surface or deep
order.
Assuming this disjunctive statement to be essentially correct, an improve-
ment of its formulation is possible. Suppose that the NP subject in (15)
has been shifted to the right of the object, leaving a trace in its basic position.
Then the chain formed by the movement (which includes the antecedent
of the pronoun) has at least one member that the pronoun does not precede.
Let us define a notion of C-precedence (i.e. Chain precedence) as follows:
(17) C-precedence. A chain Cl C-precedes C2 iff every member of
Cl precedes every member of C2.
Using this notion, a more accurate condition on antecedent-pronoun
relations can now be stated:
( 18) A pronoun cannot C-precede its antecedent.
The above facts can be reanalyzed by making use of the condition (18).
In (14a), assuming SO order to be basic, the pronoun belongs to a chain
of two NP members, only one of which precedes the antecedent. Hence
the pronoun does not C-precede its antecedent. By contrast, the pronoun
in (14b) C-precedes the antecedent. On the other hand, the pronoun in
(15) linearly precedes its antecedent, but it does not C-precede it, assuming
that the trace heading the chain of the shifted subject precedes the NP
containing the pronoun.
In addition to the evidence introduced so far, which indicates that S
precedes 0 at D-structure, further binding properties of subjects and objects
provide evidence for an asymmetrical configurational structure in which the
subject is configurationally higher than the object. The latter forms a single
constituent with V (i.e. a verb phrase), before it becomes linearly
separated from V by the subject at S-structure. A 'flat' V-initial D-struc-
ture cannot capture these asymmetrical properties. It is rejected in favour

of a hierarchical configurational structure, as argued in the next sub-
section.
1.1.2. Configurational Asymmetries
In a language where NPs occupy asymmetric structural positions, the

different properties of these NPs can be traced back to the structural or
configurational asymmetries. Relations like government and c-command
have played an important role in identifying and characterizing these
asymmetries. I concentrate here on some binding properties of subjects
and objects.
Consider first anaphors. Principle A of BT states that an anaphor must
be bound in its governing category (basically NP or S). Let us examine
the following judgments about reflexives:
(19) a. qatala r-rajul-u nafs-a-hu

killed the-man-nom self-ace-his
The man killed himself.
b.* qatala nafs-u-hu r-rajul-a
killed self-nom-his the-man-ace
*Himself killed the man.
c. ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i nafs-a-hu

annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man-gen self-ace-his
The man's criticizing of himself annoyed me.
In (19a) and (19c), the reflexive is bound within Sand NP, respectively. The
ungrammaticality of ( 19b) can be explained if we assume that the reflexive
subject asymmetrically c-commands its antecedent. As a consequence, the
former cannot be bound by the latter, and the structure ( 19b) violates
principle A of BT. Structure (19b) also violates Principle C, since a name
is bound, while it should be free. Let us turn now to embedded contexts,
as in (20):
(20) a. qanna r-rajul-u nafs-a-hu gabiyy-an
thought the-man-nom self-ace-his silly-ace
The man thought himself to be silly.
b. *qanna r-rajul-u ?anna nafs-a-hu gabiyy-un

thought the-man-nom that self-ace-his silly-nom
*The man thought that himself (is) silly.
24 CHAPTER 2
c. qanna r-rajul-u ? anna-hu gabiyy-un

thought the-man-nom that-him silly-nom
The man thought that he is silly.
The sentence (20a) contrasts in grammaticality with (20b), as indicated.
In (20a), the governing category of the reflexive is the matrix clause, and
it is there that the antecedent is located. But the governing category of
the reflexive in (20b) is the embedded sentence, where no antecedent is
found. Only a pronominal is possible in this context, as (20c) illustrates.
Similarly, the NP containing the reflexive in (21a), and counting as its
governing category, contains no antecedent for it. Only a pronominal is
possible in this case (hence the grammaticality of (21 b)): 11
(21) a. *y-ul)ibb-u r-rajul-u ?ustaacj-a nafs-i-hi
3-like-indic the-man-nom teacher-ace self-gen-his
*The man likes himself's teacher.
b. y-ubibb-u r-rajul-u ?ustaacj-a-hu
3-like-indic the-man-nom teacher-ace-his
The man likes his teacher.
Note that if the structure of the clause were flat, then no possible dis-
tinction could be made between the structure of ( 19a) and that of ( 19b) in
terms of c-command. That the appropriate relation has to be characterized
in terms of c-command, and not precedence, is clearly indicated by the
ungrammaticality of (22):
(22) * qatala r-rajul-a nafs-u-hu
killed the-man-ace self-nom-his
The fact that the reflexive construction (22) is ungrammatical (whereas
its counterpart with a pronominal is grammatical; compare with (14a) above)
indicates that linear precedence does not regulate antecedent-anaphor
relationships.
Consider now binding of pronominals. In (20c), the pronoun is an affix
attached to C at S-structure. It is free in its governing category CP, in
conformity with BT. Similarly, the pronoun is free in NP in (21b). Note
that the pronoun in (20c) and (21b) may be 'neutrally' coindexed (with
respect to BT) with a NP outside its governing category, hence the possible
coreferential reading in the latter constructions. 12
Let us reexamine the pair of examples given in (14), and repeated here
as (23):
(23) a. saaka 1-walad-a ?abuu-hu
complained the-boy-ace father.nom-his
(There) has complained about the boy his father.
b. *saaka ?abuu-hu 1-walad-a

complained father.nom-his the-boy-ace
In both constructions, the pronoun is predicted to have a coreference reading,

being free in the NP containing it, and possibly coindexed in S. But,
surprisingly, this is not the case. Why then is there a difference in
grammaticality between the two sentences (under the coreference reading)?
As far as I can tell, nothing in BT as it stands can distinguish (23a) from
(23b). The reason is that the essential asymmetry which BT is capturing
is formulated only in terms of c-command (within a minimal domain: the
governing category). In order to account for this difference, precedence must
play a role in constraining antecedent-pronoun relationships, as I have
suggested earlier.
Further evidence for the relevance of precedence comes from the gram-
maticality judgments in the following constructions (under the coreference
reading):
(24) a. *t-ul)ibb-u-hu ?umm-u zayd-in

f3.-like-indic-him mother-nom Zayd-gen
Literally: likes him Zayd's mother.
b. ?umm-u zayd-in t-ul)ibb-u-hu
mother-nom Zayd-gen 3.f -like-indic-him
Zayd's mother likes him.
c. *wajad-tu jaar-a-hu cinda zayd-in
found-/ neighbour-ace-his with Zayd-gen
Literally: I found his neighbour with Zayd.
d. wajad-tu cinda zayd-in jaar-a-hu
found-/ with Zayd-gen neighbour-ace-his
I found with Zayd his neighbour.
The construction seen in (24b) is the only possible counterpart to the English
sentence John's mother likes him, where the possessor is coreferential with
him. The pronoun here, though coindexed with Zayd, is not bound to it in
the BT theoretic sense, because it is not c-commanded by the antecedent.
It is just neutrally coindexed. But if the same neutral coindexation applies
in (24a) or (24c), there is no way to exclude the result as far as the present
form of BT is concerned. In order to do this, the grammar should be allowed
to make use of notions other than c-command, to be able to define the
domain of coindexation negatively. As proposed earlier, precedence has
to play a roleY
Summarizing, I have shown that both c-command and precedence are
26 CHAPTER 2
relevant notions for constraining antecedent-pronoun relationships, while

only c-command is relevant for reflexive anaphors. This suggests that a
configurational structure like that given in (1) above is descriptively more
adequate than a flat structure. 14 S-structure is then derived via raising V
to I, under the assumption that the subject is base generated in Spec of
VP. Alternatively, the subject is base generated in Spec of IP, and V raises
(a) either to C or (b) adjoins to IP. While the (b) hypothesis can be
dismissed on theoretical grounds (with regard to adjunctions allowed by
the theory, see Section 4 below), the (a) hypothesis can be rejected on
empirical grounds, as will be argued in the next subsection. 15
1.1.3. Against V Raising to C
V-to-C raising has been proposed essentially to account for so-called V

second phenomena in Germanic languages. The motivation for this rule is
basically that T in these languages is located in C, and the verb is forced
to move there to support T. 16 While V-to-C raising may be the correct
approach for deriving word order in Germanic, there is evidence that the
Arabic V does not (usually) move to C in VSO structures. This conclu-
sion can be reached if we take into account the distribution of inflectional
constituents in Arabic sentences. Typically, the complementizer occurs in
front of a number of inflectional constituents (including Modality and
Negation particles), which in turn appear in front of the VSO constituents.
This is illustrated by the following examples:
(25) ?a-laa y-a?tii zayd-un

Q-not 3-comes Zayd-nom
Isn't Zayd coming?
(26) ?-uriid-u ?an laa y-a?tiy-a zayd-un
1-want-indic that not 3-comes-subj Zayd-nom
I want Zayd not to come.
(27) zacam-a ?an gad laa y-a?tii zayd-un
pretended-3.s.m. that may not 3-comes Zayd-nom
He pretended that Zayd may not come.
In these sentences, the verb precedes the subject in order, but a number
of categories precede the verb, and follow the complementizer. In (27),
for example, the embedded C is followed by the modality particle qad
(which expresses probability), and the Neg particle laa. These inflectional
categories (namely Mod(ality) and Neg) can be treated as heading their own
projection, if we split the traditional category I into different categories
(along the lines proposed by Pollock ( 1989a) and Fassi (1988b); see
Appendix 1 and Chapter 4 for details about the split INFL issue). The
verb raises to T and AGR (which are lower than the other inflectional
categories), to support these affixes morphologically. There is no reason,
however, to think that the inflected verb moves to Mod and Neg, and that
all these segments move further to C. Mod and Neg constituents are not
(generally) bound morphemes and, as far as I can tell, there is no reason
for them to move. The S-structure of the embedded sentence in (27) is
then presumably (28), where I contains T and AGR, and V has moved to I:
(28) CP
~
C ModP
I~
?an Mid ~
qad Neg IP
I~
laa I VP
I~
ya?tii NP V'
I
Zayd
This structure accounts in a straightforward manner for the distribution of
inflectional constituents, without postulating any (unmotivated) movement
of Neg and Mod. 17 There are further descriptive reasons to think that V
raising occurs even in Arabic SVO structures (preceded) by C, and that V
stops in I. These questions are dealt with in the next
subsection.
1.2. Subject Raising and SVO Structures
Having argued that Arabic is a VSO language, I turn now to the task of
showing that it also exhibits structures which are best characterized as
instantiating SVO order. Such constructions have often been analyzed as
cases of left dislocated structures, but we will see that this view cannot
be maintained. 18
Consider the following sentence:
(29) al-?awlaad-u jaa?-uu
the-children-nom came-3.m.pl.
The children, they came. The children came.
As the translation indicates, this sentence is ambiguous in a way that neither
(30) nor (31) are:
28 CHAPTER 2
(30) al- ?awlaad-u garab-tu-hum

the-children-nom beat-1-them
The children, I beat them.
(31) a. baqarat-un takallam-at

cow-nom spoke-3.s.f.
A cow has spoken.
b. jaasuus-un ? aqbal-a calay-naa
spy-nom appeared-3.s.m. on-us
A spy has appeared to us.
In (30), the preverbal NP is a 'topic' or a left dislocated element
occupying a position which is external to IP (probably adjoined to CP).
In (31 ), the NP is internal to IP. It is presumably located in Spec of IP
(or Spec of AGR, if I is split), and functions as a subject. Sentence (29)
is ambiguous: it can have a topic reading or a subject reading. The
structures involved are given in (32a) and (32b), respectively:
(32) a. CP b. AGRP
~ ~
?awlaad CP ?awlaad AGR'
C
~
AGRP
~
~
The next subsection is devoted to analyzing the properties of these two
structures as well as their distribution.
1.2.1. Referential Properties of Topics and Subjects
Preverbal subjects and topics (in the intended sense) have referential
properties which set them apart. For example, Arabic topics are neces-
sarily definite (as in (30)), whereas preverbal subjects can be indefinite
(as in (31)). Indefinite preverbal subjects cannot be non-specific, however.
They have to be specific, generic, or bound by a quantifier, as in the
following examples: 19
(33) a. laa jund-a y-astatiic-uu-na duxuul-a 1-macrakat-i
no soldiers-ace 3-can-pl.m.-indic entering-ace the-battle-gen
No soldiers can enter the battle.
b. kull-u rajul-in y-al)tarim-u haagaa

every-nom man-gen 3-respect-indic this
Every man respects this.
The specificity requirement can be clarified by comparing (31) with (34):

(34) marra rajul-un bi-?al)mad-a
passed man-nom with-Ahmad
A man passed by Ahmad.
In (31), the preverbal NP has to be specific, but this is not so in (34). The
latter can have both specific and non-specific readings.
Topics must then be definite or 'strongly referential', preverbal subjects
can be quantificational or 'weakly referential' indefinite NPs (with a specific
or generic interpretation), but they cannot be pure indefinite 'non-referen-
tial' NPs. As for postverbal subjects, they can be non-referential or
referential. That topics cannot be indefinite, unlike subjects (as in (31)
and (33)), is shown by the ungrammaticality of the following examples: 20
(35)a.*? baqarat-un dabal)-tu-haa
cow-nom cut.throat-1-her
* A cow, I cut its throat.
b.*? laa ?ahad-a ntaqad-tu-hu
no one-ace criticized-1-him
* No one, I criticized him.
c.*? kull-u rajul-in ?-ahtarim-u-hu
every-nom man-gen 1-respect-indic-him
* Every man, I respect him.
How are these constructions to be ruled out? Suppose that a resumptive
pronoun requires a referentially strong antecedent, as stated in the following
condition: 21
(36) The antecedent of a resumptive pronoun has to be referentially
strong.
One way to interpret (36) is that it is a uniformity condition on any refer-
ential chain formed by an antecedent and a resumptive. It states that the
antecedent has to agree with the resumptive in definiteness (assuming the
latter to be inherently definite). If (36) is true, then it will enable us to
account for the ill-formedness of constructions (35).
On the other hand, given (36), preverbal indefinite NPs in (31) and
(33) cannot be treated as topics. If they were so, then the verbal inflec-
tion would have to be interpreted as a pronominal subject, functioning as
a resumptive pronoun for the preverbal (topic) NP. But (36) rules out this
possibility. Consequently, the non-ambiguity of (31) is derived, because
AGR there can only be an agreement marker, not a pronominal affix (see
Chapter 3.)
30 CHAPTER 2
That topics cannot be weakly referential or quantificational appears to be

true in other languages as well. Consider e.g. the following contrasts in
French:
(37) a. Une vache a parle.
b. *Une vache, elle a parle.
(38) a. Tout homme peut faire cela.
b. *Tout homme, il peut faire cela.
c. Aucun homme ne peut faire cela.
d. *Aucun hom me, il ne peut faire cela.
These judgments are exactly parallel to those found in Arabic. Subjects
can be referentially weak, but topics cannot be. 22
1.2.2. Distributional Properties of Subjects and Topics

Apart from their referential properties, preverbal subjects differ from topics
with respect to their structural properties. As mentioned earlier, subjects
occur within the domain of IP, whereas topics are outside this domain. In
this regard, subjects pattern like fronted objects. Compare (31) and (33) with
(39):
(39) a. baqarat-an saahad-tu
cow-ace saw-/
A cow, I saw.
b. laa ? a!} ad-a ntaqad-tu
no one-ace criticized-/
No one, I criticized.
c. kull-a rajul-in ?-al}tarim-u

every-ace man-gen 1-respect-indic
Every man, I respect.
In these constructions, objects are fronted preverbally in the same way
that subjects are in (31) and (33). The landing position in both cases is inside
IP. A number of tests support this view.
Unlike English or French, negation in Arabic selects an IP constituent.
Inside this IP, either the verb is initial, as in (25) above, or a fronted
subject or object may surface preverbally, as in the following examples:
(40) maa ?ai)ad-un facal-a haagaa
not one-nom did-3.s.m. this
(It is) no one (that) did this.
(41) maa baqarat-an saahad-tu

not cow-ace saw-/
(It is) not a cow (that) I saw.
By contrast, a topic cannot occur inside a Neg phrase, as the ungrammat-

icality of (42) indicates:
(42) *? maa zayd-un raray-tu-hu
not Zayd-nom saw-1-him
* (It is) not Zayd (that) I saw him.
Similarly, a complementizer can precede a fronted subject or object, as
in the following examples:
(43) a. ?a zayd-un qaal-a haagaa
Q Zayd-nom said-3.s.m. this
(Is it) Zayd (who) said this?
b. ?a zayd-an ra?ay-ta
Q Zayd-acc saw-you
(Is it) Zayd (that) you saw?
But a complementizer cannot precede a topic:
(44) *? ?a zayd-un ra ?ay-ta-hu
Q Zayd-nom saw-you-him
* (Is it) Zayd (that) you saw him?
These judgments suggest that C selects an IP, not a CP. They also confirm
the analysis postulated in (32a) for topics.
1.2.3. Subject Raising
Having established that preverbal NPs in (31) are subjects, not topics, it
is reasonable to think that they have raised from their base position (in Spec
of VP) to a Spec of IP position at S-structure (or Spec of AGR, as dia-
grammed in (32b) above). Facts about agreement and Case marking of
subjects support this view.
There is evidence based on agreement facts which indicates that subjects
may move to Spec of AGR at S-structure. Subject verb agreement is limited
to GEN when the subject is postverbal (call it poor AGR), but must involve
NUM (and PERS(on)) when the subject is preverbal (call it rich AGR). Thus
the following contrasts obtain: 23
32 CHAPTER 2
(45) a. daxal-at n-nisaa? -u makaatib-a-hunna

entered-! the-women-nom office.pl. -acc-their.f
The women have entered their offices.
b.* daxal-na n-nisaa?-u makaatib-a-hunna

entered-fpl. the-women-nom office. pl. -acc-their.f
(46) a. n-nisaa? -u daxal-na makaatib-a-hunna
the-women-nom entered-fpl. office.pl.-acc-their.f
b.* n-nisaa?-u daxal-at makaatib-a-hunna

the-women-nom entered-fs. office.pl. -acc-their.f
In (45a) and (46b) the verb agrees with the subject only in GEN, whereas
it also does so in NUM in (45b) and (46a). These judgments indicate that
a thematic NP subject cannot raise to Spec of AGR when AGR is poor,
while it must raise to it when AGR is rich. An account of these judgments
will be provided in Section 2.
Note that rich AGR is also required with extracted interrogative subjects,
as shown by the following contrast:
(47) a. ?ayy-u rijaal-in jaa?-uu
which-nom men-gen came-J.pl.m.
Which men came?
b.* ?ayy-u rijaal-in jaa? -a

which-nom men-gen came-J.s.m.
In these sentences, the wh-subject raises to Spec C (presumably through
Spec AGR), and the verb to C (after T and AGR). Thus a Spec-Head
configuration obtains for agreement checking.
In addition to agreement, facts about case also support the view that
Arabic subjects raise. In SVO sentences like (31 ), subjects receive nomi-
native case, but in other sentences they must receive a case assigned by
an external governor:
(48) a. ?inna baqarat-an takallam-at
that cow-ace spoke-J.s.f
A cow spoke.
b. l)asib-tu baqarat-an takallam-at

thought-/ cow-ace spoke-J.s.j
I thought that a cow spoke.
Accusative case assigned by C or the matrix verb is the only case
available to the subject here. No nominative is possible. Thus it seems

that nominative is the last resort case for preverbal subjects, and that when
another case is available the subject must take it. It is striking that Arabic
subjects receive nominative case only when they are protected from an
external governor by I. I return to this problem later on. Nominative occurs
as a last resort on topics, as in (30) above, subjects of verbless sentences,
as in (49), and ungoverned predicate adjectives, as in (50):
(49) a. rajul-un fii d-daar-i
man-nom in the-house-gen
A man is in the house.
b. fii d-daar-i rajul-un
in the-house-gen man-nom
There is a man in the house.
(50) r-rajul-u mariic;l-un
the-man-nom sick-nom
The man is sick.
When these constructions are embedded, the governor can assign case to
both the subject and the adjective: 24
(51) a. ?inna rajul-an fii d-daar-i
that man-ace in the-house-gen
b. Q.asib-tu r-rajul-a mariid-an
thought-/ the-man-ace sick-ace
I thought the man to be sick.
In these constructions, C or the matrix V take IP as complement. The subject
has raised to Spec of AGR, and becomes accessible to Case marking by
Cor V.
It is remarkable that the case assigned to the subject in the embedded
sentence of (48b) contrasts with that assigned to the English subject. In
English, only nominative is possible, as the following pair shows:
(52) a. I believe he does not eat.
b.* I believe him does not eat.
The embedded subject is 'protected' from the external governor in English,
but not in Arabic. An account of this difference is proposed in Section
3.
Summarizing, I have shown that verbs must raise to I at S-structure (in
finite clauses), and that subjects may also raise to Spec of I. Subject raising
34 CHAPTER 2
correlates with agreement and case properties. These two issues will be dealt
with in the next two sections.
2. AGREEMENT
In this section I investigate various patterns of verbal agreement which

are found with different orders of subjects with respect to verbs. I show
that phi feature or AGR specification can only be licensed by argumental
(or referential) subjects. I then argue for a general principle regulating
agreement relationships which I name the AGR Criterion. I also examine
the properties of expletive subjects in connection with specification of AGR
features, and show that they are not sufficient licensers of these features,
although they may play an indirect role in the grammar of agreement, in
particular in poor agreement configurations.
2.1. Regulating AGR Configurations

Consider again the agreement contrasts illustrated by (45) and (46), repeated
here as (53) and (54), for convenience:
(53) a. daxal-at n-nisaa? -u makaatib-a-hunna
entered-! the-women-nom office.pl.-acc-their.f
b.* daxal-na n-nisaa?-u makaatib-a-hunna
entered-fpl. the-women-nom office. pl. -acc-their.f
(54) a. n-nisaa?-u daxal-na makaatib-a-hunna
the-women-nom entered-fpl. office.pl.-acc-their.f
b.* n-nisaa?-u daxal-at makaatib-a-hunna
the-women-nom entered-! office. pl. -acc-their.f
These contrasts are amenable to the following generalizations: (a) when
AGR is rich, the thematic or argumental NP subject must be located
preverbally, i.e. in Spec of AGR (hence the contrast between (53b) and
(54a)); (b) when AGR is poor, the argumental subject must stay lower
than AGR, i.e. postverbally (hence the contrast between (53a) and (54b)).
In order to regulate these correlations, I propose the following tenta-
tive principle which I name, following current phraseology in the literature,
the AGR Criterion: 25
(55) AGR Criterion. Rich AGR is licensed by an argumental NP in
its Spec, and an argumental NP in Spec AGR is licensed by
rich AGR.
The first clause of (55) accounts for the ill-formedness of (54a) since
AGR there is not licensed. The second clause accounts for the ungram-
maticality of (54b) since the thematic NP there is not licensed in Spec of
AGR.
The principle (55), which accounts for the Arabic facts, has a wider
cross-linguistic application than it appears at first sight. Consider, e.g.,
the following constructions in French:
(56) a. II est venu trois enfants.
b.* lis sont venus trois enfants
c.* Est venu trois enfants.
d.* Sont venus trois enfants.
(57) a. Trois enfants sont venus.
b.* Trois enfants est venu.
Leaving aside the problem that French (unlike Arabic) is not a null subject
language (hence the ungrammaticality of (56c) and (56d)), the opposition
(56a)-(56b) is parallel to that in (53a)-(53b), and the opposition in (57)
is parallel to that in (54). The two clauses of the AGR Criterion will then
account for the French judgments in the same way. 26
North Italian dialects also exhibit similar contrasts. According to Brandi
and Cordin ( 1989), Trentino (T) and Fiorentino (F), like standard Italian,
allow so-called subject inversion with any type of verb (ergative or not),
and with any type of subject (definite or not). Unlike Italian, however, verbs
do not agree with postverbal subjects in NUM, while they do with preverbal
subjects. The following examples show that only poor agreement is possible
with postverbal subjects in T and F:
(58) a. Gli e venuto delle ragazze (F)
b. E' vegm1 qualche putela (T)
is come some girls
Some girls have come.
(59) a. Gli e venuto la Maria (F)

b. E' vegm1 la Maria (T)
ts come the Maria
Maria has come.
(60) a. Gli ha telefonato delle ragazze (F)

b. Ha telefomi qualche putela (T)
has telephoned some girls
Some girls have telephoned.
When rich agreement is used in these contexts, outputs are excluded:
36 CHAPTER 2
(61) a.* Le son venute delle ragazze (F)

b.* L' e vegnuda qualche putela (T)
they are come some girls
(62) a.* L'e venuta Ia Maria (F)
b.* L' e vegnuda Ia Maria (T)
she is come the Maria
Maria has come.
(63) a.* L'e hanno telefonato delle ragazze (F)
b.* L'ha telefona qualche putela (T)
they have telephoned some girls
These facts parallel those found in Arabic in that structures with postverbal
(thematic) subjects do not exibit rich agreement. They contrast with
(apparent) VS contexts in standard Italian data, where agreement in NUM
with postverbal subjects is required:
(64) Sono venute delle ragazze
are come some girls
(65) E' venuta Maria
is come Maria
Maria has come.
(66) Hanno telefonato delle ragazze
have telephoned some girls
On the other hand, poor agreement is also widely common in VSO
languages. In Celtic, for example, verbs show either null or only GEN agree-
ment with postverbal subjects. Raising the thematic subject has to be
mediated by a complementizer, suggesting that subjects never raise to Spec
of AGR in these languages, AGR there being limited to the poor option.
The following Welsh contrast is from Rouveret (1991): 27
(67) Darllenodd y plant y llyfr
read-past-3s the children the book
The children read the book.
(68) * Darllenasant y plant y llyfr
read-past-3pl the children the book
The children read the book.
It seems then that the use of poor or null agreement with postverbal subjects
is widely spread among languages, and that VSO languages make essen-
tial (or exclusive) use of this option. I return to licensing conditions of
poor agreement in the next subsection. 28
In addition to poor agreement, languages may also make use of rich
agreement morphology, its distribution being regulated by the AGR
Criterion. There are languages, however, in which agreement patterns on
predicates do not vary depending on whether subjects are placed before
or after predicates. This situation seems to pose a serious problem for the
above version of the AGR Criterion, since, in both contexts, AGR is rich
(involving NUM specification). Standard Italian is one instance of those
languages, as we have seen earlier, and Moroccan Arabic (MA) is another
instance. In MA, the verb must agree in NUM with the thematic subject,
be it preverbal, as in (69), or postverbal, as in (70):
(69) 1-ulad ja-w
the-boys came-pl.
The boys came.
(70) ja-w 1-ulad

came-pl. the-boys
*There came the boys.
Constructions with poor agreement are ungrammatical:
(71) * ja 1-ulad
came the-boys
It is striking that constructions with poor agreement are ungrammatical even
when the preverbal expletive is in the singular form:
(72) * ra-h ja 1-ulad
see-it came the-boys
A plural thematic subject imposes a plural NUM, independently of the NUM
of the expletive. As shown by the following pair, when the thematic subject
is plural, an expletive may occur either in plural or singular forms:
(73) ra-hum ja-w 1-ulad
see-them came-pl. the-boys
(74) ra-h ja-w 1-ulad

see-him/it came-pl. the-boys
These contrasts suggest that expletives do not play a direct role in licensing
38 CHAPTER 2
AGR feature specifications. They also indicate that a revision of the AGR
Criterion (which would extend to those cases) is necessary.
In order to account for these systematic differences, we first need to allow
rich AGR to occur with postverbal subjects. Let us then revise the first
clause of the AGR Criterion as follows:
(75) Rich AGR is licensed by
(a) an argumental NP in its Spec, or
(b) by a chain of which one member is an argumental NP.
As revised, this clause makes rich AGR licensing possible either through
argumental NPs, or through expletive chains (of which one member is
argumental). It follows that constructions like (70), (73), and (74) in
languages like MA (and presumably Italian) are regulated. The following
question, however, remains to be answered: why can null or poor agreement
not be generated with postverbal subjects in those languages, i.e. why are
cases like (71) and (72) ruled out? This question is dealt with in the next
subsection.
2.2. Poor Agreement
There are essential questions that arise with respect to regulating null or
poor agreement patterns:
(a) how are these patterns licensed?
(b) why are they possible (or required) with postverbal argumental subjects
in Arabic, French, and North Italian dialects, but impossible in MA
or Standard Italian?
(c) why is GEN specification allowed as an instance of poor agreement
in some languages (e.g. Arabic and Celtic), but not in others (e.g. French
or North Italian)?
An answer to (a) which has been frequently provided in the literature
is that poor agreement arises as a result of a Spec-head agreement with
an expletive subject. Since the latter is specified (by default) as singular
masculine, then AGR on the verb must have the same default values. This
proposal, which will be referred to as the expletive hypothesis, has been
advanced by e.g. Mohammad ( 1990) and Fassi (1988c) for Arabic, and
Pollock (1983, 1985) for French. There are serious reasons to think that this
hypothesis cannot be maintained.
2.2.1. On the Inadequacy of the Expletive Hypothesis
Mohammad (1990), who takes Arabic to be essentially an SVO language,

claims that " ... VSO sentences in Arabic contain two subjects: the 'real'
subject and an expletive subject". Moreover, "it is this expletive subject that
'dictates' the agreement features on the verb" (p. 98).
In Fassi (1988c), Arabic is analyzed as a VSO language, but it is observed

that VS structures may be preceded by expletive topics, as in (76):
(76) ?inna-haa laa t-a"maa 1-? ab~aar-u
that-her not 3f-blind the-eyesight.pl.-nom
Eyesights do not become blind.
Furthermore, these expletives are shown to be only in singular forms,
although they may be masculine or feminine, as the following contrasts
illustrate:
(77) a. ? inna-hu zaar-a-nii talaat-u saa0 iraat-in
that-it visited-me three-nom poets.f-gen
It visited me three poets.
b. ? inna-haa zaar-at-nii talaat-u saa0 iraat-in

that-her visited-f-me three-nom poets.f-gen
(78) * ? inna-hunna zur-na-nii talaat-u saa0 iraat-in

that-them.f visited-pl.f-me three-nom poets-gen
In order to correlate the possible values of AGR in VS sentences like

(57 a) above and those found in expletive constructions like (77), I proposed
the postulation of an empty expletive pro in the former structures which
would license the AGR values there. Although this analysis is similar to
Mohammad's, in that it postulates an empty expletive in preverbal position,
it differs from it in some important respects. 29
Whatever the details of the two analyses, however, they both rely on
the crucial claim that it is the expletive which 'dictates' or (more formally)
licenses the pattern of agreement in VS sentences. Given this approach, poor
agreement is operating in a Spec-Head configuration where the Spec is
an expletive. If this is true, then we would expect poor agreement not to
differ in any significant way from rich agreement. This expectation is
incorrect, as we will see. Moreover, the Spec-Head approach of poor AGR
relies crucially on a further stipulation: it rather arbitrarily limits the list
of expletives to the one needed, i.e. the list of forms which has no NUM
(or has a singular default value for NUM). Such a stipulation has been made
by Pollock (1983, 1985) for French 'il', in order to exclude cases like (56b).
I will show that this stipulation is both undesirable and unnecessary.
Consider first the stipulation needed for the expletive hypothesis to
operate. The list of pronominal expletives needs to be limited to some
arbitrary sublist of pronominal (third person or non-person) singular forms.
Is there independent evidence that this is so, and why should the lists of
40 CHAPTER 2
Arabic and MA differ in this respect, given differences in agreement

patterns? Alternatively, why can't the list be exactly the one of third (or
non-person) pronominal forms; and if some limitations are there, don't
they have to follow from something else, in particular contextual limitations
on expletive configurations?
In analyzing the pronominal expletive system of Arabic, it is easy to show
that the above limitation of the list of expletives is descriptively unsup-
ported. Expletives are of different NUM and GEN values in various contexts,
although they are limited to some values in VS structures. For example,
expletives in so-called nominal sentences exhaust the list of third person
pronominal forms. In particular, there is no limitation on their NUM, as
the following examples illustrate:
(79) hum 1-junuud-u
they.m. the-soldiers-nom
It is the soldiers. That's soldiers.
(80) hunna n-nisaar-u
they.f the-women-nom
It is the women. That's women.
In these sentences, the expletive functions as an S-structure subject, although
it may have originated as a predicate at D-structure, as in Moro's (1991)
analysis of There constructions in English. 30 At any rate, the expletive being
in a Spec-Head configuration (presumably in Spec of I) carries the same
value of GEN and NUM as does the thematic subject. The occurrence of
a singular expletive form in these contexts is excluded: 31
(81) * huwa 1-junuud-u
he/it the-soldiers-nom
It is the soldiers. That's soldiers.
I assume that feature values on those expletives are licensed in the right
Spec-Head configuration through coindexation with the thematic subject.
Similarly, non-singular expletive forms are allowed in SVO contexts,
as in the following construction:
(82) hum 1-junuud-u xaraj-uu lH-~alaat-i
they the-soldiers-nom went.out-3.pl.m. to-prayer-gen
It is the soldiers (who) went out to pray.
These data show clearly that plural expletives are available in the language,
and that it is incorrect to limit the list of expletives to singular pronom-
inal forms. 32
Let us turn now to the crucial claim that expletives license AGR feature
values on predicates. Clearly, this claim has content only if we extend it
to both GEN and NUM values. If it is correct, then we expect the

expletive to be feminine when the verb carries feminine GEN, and vice
versa, since bidirectional feature sharing is one property of Spec-Head
agreement patterns. We also expect the grammaticality contrasts found in
Spec-Head agreement to obtain here. The data show that these expecta-
tions are not borne out. Consider the following pair of constructions:
(83) 1-bint-u jaa? -at
the-girl-nom came-f
The girl came.
(84) * 1-bint-u jaa?-a
the-girl-nom came-m.
The girl came.
The difference in grammaticality between (83) and (84) indicates that
Spec-Head configuration patterns check not only NUM values, but also GEN
values. There is no variation reported in the literature in such contexts.
However, variation in GEN is amply documented with lexical expletives,
as well as VS contexts. The following example is from Ibn Yaciis (see
also Wright, 1974):
(85) ?inna-hu ?amat-u llah-i gaahib-at-un
that-it/him slavej-nom Allah-gen going-f-nom
It is Allah's slave going.
In (85) the expletive has the masculine form, whereas the subject (forming
an agreement chain with it) is feminine. Similarly, variation in GEN between
AGR and the postverbal subject is amply documented: 33
(86) a. gahab-a saacat-un mina 1-layl-i
passed hour.f-nom from the-night-gen
It has passed an hour of the night.
b. qaal-a niswat-un fii 1-madiinat-i

said women-nom in the-city-gen
Some women in the city said ...
In these examples, the verb carries no feminine marker, although the subject
is feminine. These data indicate that the form of the expletive is not a
(crucial) trigger for AGR values.
That the expletive is not a crucial trigger for AGR values is also
supported by MA data with regard to NUM licensing. As observed earlier,
lexical expletives may or may not be of plural forms when AGR is plural,
as (73) and (74) above indicate. This pair is repeated here as (87) and
(88), for convenience:
42 CHAPTER 2
(87) ra-hum ja-w 1-ulad

see-them came-pl. the-boys
(88) ra-h ja-w 1-ulad
see-it came-pl. the-boys
Similarly, expletives may occur in SV contexts, and may or may not agree
in GEN (when singular), as shown by the following examples:
(89) ra-haa blima waqfa
see-her Hlima standing
It is Hlima standing up.
(90) ra-h blima ja-t
see-him/it Hlima came-f
It is Hlima (who) has come.
In (89) the expletive is feminine in form, agreeing with the subject. In
(90) this is not so. This variation is correlated with 'stylistic' effects: (89)
is viewed as conveying emphasis on the subject, while (90) does not.
Whatever the treatment of these effects, however, the data discussed
support the view that AGR on the predicate does not necessarily agree
with the form of the expletive (which is in its Spec), while it does so with
the postverbal argumental subject.
In sum, these data support the view that AGR on the predicate does
not necessarily agree with the form of the expletive (which is in its Spec),
while it does so with the postverbal argumental subject. While feature values
on the expletive have to be licensed by the AGR content, the reverse is
not true. Indeed, AGR values are licensed only by argumental subjects,
as we will see. 34
2.2.2. Licensing ( Postverbal) Agreement (Under )specification
As explained earlier in connection with MA and Italian, expletive config-

urations do not necessarily imply null or poor agreement patterns. For the
latter to obtain, AGR features should not be activated through postverbal
thematic subjects. As observed earlier, too, there are three degrees of
activation: (a) no activation of GEN or NUM (as in French, North Italian,
or some Arabic constructions, resulting in null agreement); (b) activation
of GEN only (as in Arabic and Celtic, yielding poor agreement); and (c)
activation of both GEN and NUM (as in MA and Standard Italian, the
latter case being indistinct from rich agreement). Activation of NUM is
impossible with SA postverbal subjects, but is obligatory with MA ones.

Activation of GEN only is most frequent in Arabic, but impossible in French
or MA. Moreover, activation of GEN correlates with activation in NUM
in MA.
In French and North Italian, AGR in expletive constructions is null,
i.e. it has no specified values. As such, it may not need to be licensed and/or
checked. Alternalively, we can think of null AGR as being licensed by
default, in the absence of a mechanism which could have linked it to the
postverbal argumental subject. The fact that AGR is totally unspecified
suggests that no chain is formed. If it were otherwise, then AGR features
would have been activated. In these languages then, specified AGR and rich
AGR appear to be equivalent, since they do not distinguish between rich
and poor AGR specification. Specified AGR behaves exactly like rich
Arabic AGR in that it is licensed only in true Spec-Head configurations.
In those configurations, GEN and NUM are activated. The fact that plural
expletives and plural AGR are not allowed with postverbal subjects follows
from the AGR Criterion. The fact that there are no feminine singular exple-
tives or AGRs in those contexts can be explained if one assumes that there
is no dissociation of GEN and NUM values of AGR in those languages.
Moreover, argumental subjects are allowed in postverbal positions, provided
AGR is not activated, i.e. AGR is null. 35
MA (like Italian) is at the other extreme. In this language, the occurrence
of either null or poor agreement with argumental subjects is impossible.
Why is this so? It seems that the presence of an argumental subject always
leads to activation of AGR. The latter takes place through Spec of AGR
directly, or through an expletive chain involving the Spec of AGR position
and a postverbal position. The fact that feminine singular AGRs or
expletives do not occur with plural postverbal subjects indicates that there
is no dissociation of AGR feature specification (as in French or Italian). 36
In total, AGR specification is fully accounted for through the AGR
Criterion, although two configurations are made use of. MA, French, or
Italian data exhibit only a specified/unspecified AGR distinction. The
specified pattern involves NUM and GEN, and the unspecified one is null.
Standard Arabic, however, is half-way between MA (or Italian) and French.
On the one hand, rich AGR (involving NUM specification, in addition to
GEN) is only licensed through direct Spec-Head sharing. On the other hand,
poor AGR (specified only for GEN) is triggered/licensed through postverbal
chain linkage. The intriguing behaviour of poor AGR is that it shares with
rich AGR the property that its specification has to be licensed by an
argumental NP, although it behaves like null AGR in that the argumental
NP cannot be licensed in its Spec.
This variation can be captured along the following lines. Suppose that
specified values of AGR features are licensed only by virtue of a partic-
ular configurational relationship with argumental NPs or chains. Since the
44 CHAPTER 2
term 'argument' is used ambiguously in the literature, I will use the

expressions R-NPs or R-chains to designate constituents which are not of
'pure' expletive nature. 37 One problem to be solved in this context is the
following: how do subjects of R-chains and AGR feature specifications
interact?
Recall that the languages examined instantiate the following possi-
bilities:
(a) When AGR is specified (and rich), an R-NP must be located in its Spec,
to license it (as in French, non-standard Italian, etc.).
(b) When AGR is specified (and rich), either an R-NP or an R-chain must
license it (MA, Standard Italian).
(c) When AGR is specified, it must be licensed:
- (i) by a R-NP in its Spec, if it is rich (Arabic).
- (ii) through an R-chain, if it is poor (Arabic, Celtic).
As for subject R-NP licensing with respect to AGR (or AGR chains), the
following descriptive statements hold:
(d) R-NP subjects are licensed only if coindexed with specified AGR (MA).
(e) R-NP subjects are licensed by coindexation with specified or un-
specified AGR.
It appears from these statements that a form of the AGR Criterion
regulates specified AGR relationships, whereas null (or unspecified) AGR
is found cross-linguistically only with pure expletive subjects. Expletive
chains which are instances of R-chains may or may not allow null AGR
(as MA and Italian data indicate). The mutual licensing of R-chains and
specified AGR can be stated in the following (revised) form of the AGR
Criterion:
(91) AGR Criterion (revised).
a. A specified AGR is licensed only by
- (i) a R-NP in its Spec or
- (ii) an R-chain of which one member is in its Spec.
b. A R-NP in Spec of AGR is licensed only by rich AGR.
Following Chomsky (1986a, p. 144), I assume that the binding relation
established in this case is not subject to binding theory. 38 Languages vary
depending on whether features in AGR chains are licensed directly through
Spec-Head feature sharing, or indirectly through R-chains. Languages like
MA and Italian use both options under (91 a). Languages like Arabic
distinguish the two options. Option (i) applies only to rich AGR, while
(ii) is valid only for poor AGR. On the other hand, Celtic exclusively uses
option (ii), with poorly specified AGR. 39
Summarizing, I have shown that the AGR Criterion adequately regu-
lates feature sharing between AGRs and subject NPs, as well as their
positioning with respect to each other.
3. CASES OF SUBJECTS
This section deals with the variety of Cases assigned to Arabic subjects.
While subjects of VSO and VOS structures are marked with Nominative,
under government by internal I, Cases of subjects found in SVO struc-
tures indicate that the latter are accessible to external governors, which
assign them non-nominative Case. In this respect, they behave like subjects
of verbless (or so-called nominal) sentences. These properties correlate with
the occurrence of rich AGR in these constructions. The latter is shown to
be nominal in character. It is also weak, in the sense that it does not act
as a protector for the subject, in contrast to what happens in languages
like French or English, in which AGR is strong and non-nominal, as I
will explain.
3.1. Accessible and Non-accessible Subjects
3.1.1. SVO and Nominal Sentences

As mentioned above in Section 1, subjects in SVO sentences receive default
nominative only in the absence of external governors. Otherwise, they
receive specific structural cases from the latter. In (48), repeated here as
(92) for convenience, the only available case is Accusative, which is
assigned by the complementizer or the matrix verb, respectively:
that cow-ace spoke-3.s.f
A cow has spoken.
b. basib-tu baqarat-an takallam-at
thought-/ cow-ace spoke-3.s.f
I thought that a cow has spoken.
Nominative is excluded in these contexts, as the ungrammaticality of (93)
shows:
(93) a.* rinna baqarat-un takallam-at
that cow-nom spoke-3.s.f
A cow has spoken.
b.* basi b-tu baqarat-un takallam-at
thought-/ cow-nom spoke-3.s.f
Similarly, preverbal subjects may be assigned genitive, as in the following
construction:
46 CHAPTER 2
(94) y-uqliq-u-nii kawn-u [zayd-in <;laraba camr-an]

3-annoys-me being-nom Zayd-gen beat Amr-acc
It annoys me that Zayd has beaten Amr.
In this context, the subject of the embedded IP receives genitive from the
external noun in an ECM context, where the two nouns become members
of a possessive construction (or a 'construct state'; see Chapter 5).
Thus the situation of SVO subjects is similar to that of nominal sentence
subjects in that both of them are accessible to governors which are external
to the IP where they are found. Consider the following examples:
(95)a. ?inna rajul-an fii d-daar-i
that man-ace in the-house-gen
b. ?inna fii d-daar-i rajul-an
that in the-house-gen man-ace
There is a man in the house.
In these sentences, subjects must surface with accusative case. How is
case assigned here? As regards (95a), an analysis similar to that proposed
for (48)/(92) carries over, without adding anything specific. The case of
(95b) is more problematic because the case-marked NP is not linearly
adjacent to C. Assuming that NP is extraposed from a Spec of PP position
(where it is generated at D-structure) to some higher position in the tree,
the question is how high it raises, especially for the purposes of Case
assignment (and/or checking). Ideally, the subject would be located in an
adjoined position to I, as diagrammed in (96):
(96) CP
~
C IP
I~
?inna I' NP
~ ~
I PP rajul-an
~
e P'
~
fii d-daar-i
As argued in Appendix 2 below, verbless sentences, like verbal ones, are

also headed by (abstract) T and AGR. Given that the introduction of I
here is motivated, the extraposed NP in (95b) would receive Case in a
position which is configurationally equivalent to the NP in (95a), linear order

aside. 40
It is clear, then, that the subject of nominal sentences is not 'protected'
from external governors by I. This contrasts with the situation of VSO
and VOS subjects, which are protected, and receive Case from it.
3.1.2. vso and vas

VSO or VOS constructions have two properties which set them apart from
SVO structures: (a) AGR there must be poor (or null); and (b) subjects must
be marked with Nominative. Thus the VOS construction (97) with poor AGR
is grammatical, while (98) with rich AGR is not:
(97) daxal-a makaatib-a-hum haa?ulaa?i r-rijaal-u
entered-3.s.m. office.pl.-acc-their these the-men-nom
These men have entered their offices.
(98) * daxal-uu makaatib-a-hum haa?ulaa?i r-rijaal-u

entered-3.p.m. office.pl. -ace-their these the-men-nom
Likewise, the construction (99), in which the subject surfaces with non-
Nominative case is also excluded:
(99) * qanan-tu daxal-a maktab-a-hu zayd-an
thought-/ entered office-ace-his Zayd-acc
The ungrammaticality of (98) can be accounted for by appealing to the
Spec-Head agreement checking mechanism embodied in the AGR Criterion,
as discussed earlier. Since Spec of AGR does not contain an NP which
licenses AGR, the construction is ill-formed. But what about (99)? Why
can't the subject there surface as accusative, just as it does in the nominal
sentence (95b )? How does I there manage to protect the subject from
external governors? The crucial difference between (95b) and (99) seems
to be due to the fact that inflectional categories are lexically supported in
the latter, but not in the former. I elaborate on this Iexicalization process
in the next subsection. 41
3.2. Protectors and Minimality
One way to prevent Accusative case from being assigned in VOS (and VSO)
is to appeal to the Minimality Condition proposed by Chomsky (1986b).
In essence, Minimality is a locality condition on government, preventing
a governor from governing inside the domain of another governor. The
contrast between subjects of verbless sentences and those of VSO and
VOS indicates that I (or more precisely T in I) counts as a head governor
for Minimality, provided it is lexically supported. In verbal sentences, it
48 CHAPTER 2
is supported by V, while in verbless sentences it is not. Let us define a

(simplified) notion of head-government, as in (100), and a Minimality
Condition as in (1 01 ): 42
(100) X head-governs Y iff

(a) X E {±N, ±V, T}
(b) X m-commands Y
(c) no barrier intervenes
(d) Minimality is respected.
( 101) Minimality:
X governs Y only if there is no Z, such that
(a) Z is a potential governor for Y.
(b) Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X.
The lexical requirement on head governors can be embedded m the
definition of potential head governors as follows:
(102) Z is a potential head governor for Y only if Z is a head

m-commanding Y, and Z is lexical.
Thus, given these locality requirements on government, T (when supported

by V) would qualify as the closest head governor of the NP subject. The
latter is adjoined either to IP or to TP, and lexical I is strong enough to
protect the subject from government and Case marking by C or the external
V. Consequently, the subject surfaces with Nominative case. I assume that
Nominative is licensed as follows:
(103) Nominative is licensed if it is governed by T.
In contrast, T in nominal sentences like (95b) does not qualify as a
protector, being lexically unsupported.
The question now is: what happens in SVO sentences? Why are their
subjects not protected by I, even though the latter is lexically supported?
Why do they not behave like SVO subjects in English and French, which
receive only Nominative, and are not accessible to external governors?
Recall the contrasts (48) and (52) above, repeated here as ( 104) and ( 105),
for convenience:
that cow-ace spoke-3.s.f
A cow has spoken.
b. i)asib-tu baqarat-an takallam-at

thought-/ cow-ace spoke-3.s.f
( 105) a. I believe he does not eat.

b. *I believe him does not eat.
I will argue that these judgments follow from a conjunction of an extended
version of the Case Resistance Principle proposed by Stowell (1981),
together with the assumption that Arabic (rich) AGR is nominal in char-
acter.
3.3. Nominal AGR

There seems to be converging evidence that Arabic AGR in SVO
sentences is nominal in character, unlike AGR in English or French.
Evidence is based on Nominative assignment/checking, ECM configura-
tions, and auxiliary structures.
3.3.1. Nominative
It has been argued by a number of researchers that Nominative Case in SVO

languages is assigned/checked in Spec of IP or Spec of AGR at S-
structure (see e.g. Chomsky (1981) and Kayne (1982), among others). In
contrast, Nominative in VSO languages in not assigned/checked in Spec
of AGR or IP. For instance, Fassi (1987a) claims that Nominative is assigned
to the subject located in Spec of VP, under government by I, and Rouveret
(1991) assumes that it is assigned in Spec of TP in Welsh, Spec of AGR
being an A' position. Given that the subject in Arabic (unlike Welsh) raises
to Spec of AGR, it is not clear why it does not receive Nominative there,
and why AGR does not protect its subject, as is the case in English or
French. In fact, given that AGR is presumably nominal in character in all
languages, the right question to ask turns out be the following: why aren't
English and French subjects accessible, just like Arabic ones?
Note that the categorial nature of I containing AGR has always been
problematic. Chomsky (1981) acknowledges that AGR, the governing
element which assigns Case in INFL, is nominal in character, hence
[+N, -V]. Since [+N, -V] categories are not Case assigners, he proposes
that the theory of Case be extended" ... so that [+N, -V, +INFL] is a
Case assigner along with [-N], regarding [+INFL] as basically 'verbal', if
we take AGR to be nominal. INFL governs the subject if it contains AGR,
then assigning nominative Case by virtue of the feature [+INFL]" (p. 52).
Let us assume that the intuition contained in this text is essentially correct,
i.e. the fact that AGR as part of INFL is responsible for Nominative assign-
ment in SVO languages like English and French. If this is so, then we
have to know how INFL becomes 'basically verbal' in those languages, and
why such a process does not extend to VSO languages like Arabic, which
possess rich AGR (and exhibit SVO structures).
50 CHAPTER 2
Let us assume that languages vary according to the following para-

meter:
(1 06) I is ± nominal.
Given the fact that I contains both T and AGR, and assuming that AGR
is nominal whereas T is not, we can think informally of this parametriza-
tion as basically favouring T or AGR so that it becomes the dominant
category which imposes its nature on I. 43
It is possible to test the content of such a parametrization. For instance,
if I (or AGR in I) is nominal, then AGR, like other nominal categories,
has to receive Case. In the same vein, if I is not nominal, then it is
presumably a Case assigner, like other [-N] categories. Consequently, a
non-nominal AGR cannot receive Case, assuming Stowell's (1981) Case
Resistance Principle (CRP), which is stated as follows:
(107) Case cannot be assigned to a Case assigning category.
The expectation that non-nominal AGR cannot receive Case is borne out
in ECM and auxiliary structures.
3.3.2. ECM Structures
Consider again sentences like (1 04 ). How is accusative assigned to the

embedded subject there? It is reasonable to think that the matrix verb first
discharges its case on the AGR heading the sentence, and that the subject
inherits this case from AGR via Spec-Head transmission. 44 If this is true,
then the fact that such structures are possible in Arabic, but not English
or French, is a direct consequence of the nominal parameter stated in
(106). In other words, these judgments can be accounted for if I in English
and French is treated as non-nominal or strong (in the intended sense),
whereas it is nominal and weak in Arabic.
Let us turn now once again to the construction (99). Assuming the
embedded sentence there to be headed by AGR, the question that arises
is: why does its derivation fail? Since AGR there is not rich, there is no
reason to think that it is able to nominalize I, or to discharge the Case of
the matrix verb. In other words, I is non-nominal there (or strong), and
resists Case. The accusative there has no source, and the result is rejected.
Consider now the following sentences:
(1 08) *danan-tu daxal-a maktab-a-hu zayd-un
thought-/ entered office-ace-his Zayd-nom
(1 09) * ?inna daxala zayd-un maktab-a-hu
that entered Zayd-nom office-ace-his
These constructions differ minimally from those in (104) in that the subject
in the embedded sentence receives Nominative and surfaces in a postverbal

position (yielding VOS and VSO, respectively). The question then is: why
are those structures ungrammatical? That is, why is a VSO or VOS
structure embedded under V or C excluded? It is reasonable to think that
these structures are excluded for Case reasons, I there being non-nominal
or strong.
In a language like French, even counterparts of (104b) are excluded,
as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (110):
(11 0) *Jean croit Marie dort.
This is so because I here is uniformily non-nominal. But the distinction is
operative and turns out to be crucial for Arabic. In (104), for example, AGR
is rich and nominal. As such, it is able to discharge Case assigned by C
or V. In (108) and (109), however, AGR is poor and presumably unable
to 'nominalize' I. The latter is a Case licenser or assigner of Nominative.
In observance of the CRP, it is unable to discharge the Case assigned by
Cor V.
Suppose, then, in parallel to the Theta Criterion regulating thematic
discharge (as in Higginbotham, 1985), there is a Case Criterion, regulating
Case discharge. The latter can be formulated as follows:
( 111) Every Case must be discharged.
The Case Criterion states in essence that if a Case assigner has a Case to
assign, then it must do so, otherwise the result is rejected. This principle
will then account for the ill-formedness of (108) and (109), since the
embedded IP there is unable to satisfy the Case requirements of C or V. 45
If this is true, then the embedded IP in those constructions is not licensed,
being neither Case-marked nor Tense-marked (see below). But in (1 04),
IP is licensed by virtue of being able to receive Case. These observations
support the distinction made in terms of nominality of I.
3.3.3. Auxiliary Structures

Further support for the parameter ( 106) is provided by properties of aux-
iliary structures. In these constructions, two inflected verbs are found, and
both are carrying finite T and AGR. Consider the following sentences:
(112) qad t-akuun-u 1-banaat-u ?akal-na
may 3.f-be-pres.-indic. the-girls-nom eat-perf-3.fp.
The girls may have eaten.
(113) kaan-at 1-bint-u lam t-a?kul
be.past-3.f the-girl-nom not.perf 3.f-eat
The girl had not eaten.
52 CHAPTER 2
In (112), the prefix on the auxilliary verb marks PERS and GEN, the suffix
marks Mood, and the internal vowels Tense or Aspect; in the thematic
verb, the suffix marks AGR, and the internal vocalic pattern Tense and
Aspect. The construction (113) shows that Negation can be placed inside
the functional domain in which the thematic verb is included, suggesting
that the latter is tensed. 46
It appears, then, that a sequence of two finite verbs is possible in Standard
Arabic. In this language, there are no bare verbs, no verbal (non-finite)
participles, and no infinitives (see Chapter 4 for details). The construc-
tions given here thus provide a serious base for the existence of a structure
with two finite verbs. The question then is: why are these structures found
in Arabic, but not cross-linguistically? For example, the English or French
counterparts of these constructions are ungrammatical:
(114)a.*John had ate.
b. John had eaten.
(115)a.*Jean avait mangeait.
b. Jean avait mange.
A traditional answer to this question has been something like the state-
ment in (116):
(116) An auxiliary verb selects a VP.
Gueron and Hoekstra (1988), for example, assume the following
functional definition of auxiliaries:
(117) An auxiliary verb governs a verbal projection [a VP; FF]; a
non-auxiliary verb governs either a nominal projection or a
verbal projection.
While statements like these might be correct for English or French, they
are not general enough to carry over to Arabic. 47
Anticipating somewhat the argument to be presented in Chapter 4, I
will assume that auxiliaries select inflected VPs or IPs, not bare VPs.
Moreover, an auxiliary licenses its IP complement by T(ense)-marking it
(as in Zagona, 1988; Fabb, 1984; and Gueron and Hoekstra, 1988, among
others). This is the case in English or French, where VPs can have non-
finite morphology. This possibility is not available in Arabic, however.
The closest counterpart to the English (114a) or the French (115a) is ungram-
matical in Arabic, as the following construction shows:
(118) *kaan-a ?akal-a r-rajul-u
was ate the-man-nom
The man had eaten.
How is such a structure to be excluded? A quite straightforward solution
is to correlate the ungrammaticality of this construction to that of ( 108)

and (109) above, i.e. to suppose that IP is not licensed in this position. Since
(the embedded) IP is (internally) tensed, noT-marking appears to be possible
(to license it). 48 Suppose T-marking and Case-marking are grouped together
in a single general mechanism we label Kase marking (following ideas
by Fabb, 1984 and Zagona, 1988), then it is possible to restate a more
general CRP, which would apply to Kase, as follows:
(119) Kase Resistance Principle (KRP). Kase cannot be assigned to
a Kase assigning category.
The ungrammaticality of sentences like (108), (109), and (118) can now
be seen as a direct consequence of KRP. More precisely, tensed or non-
nominal IP would resist T-marking, and the IP there would not be licensed.
The only possibility left in such cases is then to 'nominalize' IP via rich
AGR, and to license the whole IP as a nominal argument of the auxiliary
(see Chapter 4 for details).
Summarizing, I have shown that, unlike French or English subjects, which
are uniformly Nominative in finite clauses, Arabic subjects may be non-
Nominative, as well as Nominative, depending on the properties of AGR
in I. When the latter is non-nominal (and hence strong), subjects are marked
as Nominative. When AGR is nominal (and hence weak), subjects are
non-Nominative. Differences of behaviour in ECM and auxiliary struc-
tures are also traced back to AGR nominality.
4. FURTHER CONSEQUENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
In previous sections I have shown that Arabic VSO structures exhibit

different properties from those found in SVO configurations, in particular
agreement and Case properties. The analyses postulated to account for
this variation (if correct) have further interesting theoretical and empirical
consequences. In this section I explore some of these consequences for
expletive licensing, the interpretation of the Extended Projection Principle
(EPP), word order typology, extraction, and Wh movement. In the last
part I discuss further motivation for deriving VSO through V raising to I,
and argue that alternatives proposed in the literature are inadequate.
4.1. Expletive Licensing and EPP
In Section 2 I observed that R-NPs are licensed in Spec of AGR posi-

tions, in conformity with the AGR Criterion. In addition, expletives are also
licensed in this position. Taken in conjunction, these distributions seem to
exhaust the effects of EPP proposed in Chomsky (1982). Informally, the
latter states the following: 49
54 CHAPTER 2
( 120) Every clause must have a subject.

While this requirement appears to be empirically motivated (e.g. by the
existence of expletive pronominal subjects), its exact formulation and
interpretation remain open questions.
One way to reformulate EPP is as follows:
(121) Every clause must have an AGR-subject.
If the subject relation is a Spec-Head relation at S-structure, and if (121)
is correct, then it can be dispensed with if the AGR Criterion is suitably
extended to expletives. In particular, the AGR Criterion would require a
subject for AGR, whether argumental or not (expletive). If, on the other
hand, (121) is incorrect or the subject relation does not necessarily involve
a Spec-Head configuration (as in Borer, 1986), then the AGR Criterion
cannot be generalized to S-structure. These alternatives offer different
ways of analyzing cross-linguistic word order types, in particular VSO
and SVO.
Suppose the first option is correct, i.e. suppose that the generalized
AGR Criterion holds for VSO as well as SVO types at S-structure. Checking
AGR relations will then amount to checking how rich AGR is, and how
referential or argumental is the NP in its Spec (or the member of the R-
chain which is located in its Spec). In VSO languages there will be no
referential subject located in Spec of AGR, because AGR there is not rich
(Celtic is a prototype of such a situation). The only option left, then, is to
postulate the existence of an empty expletive in VSO sentences. Such an
existence is forced by EPP (as construed), or the generalized AGR Criterion.
But is there evidence for such an option?
In Section 2 I suggested that the expletive hypothesis is suitable for
the purpose of GEN checking. Clearly, this solution is empirically optimal,
since it limits the domain of specified AGR checking (whether GEN or
NUM) to Spec-Head configurations. The expletive, which heads an R-chain,
is located in Spec of AGR, and acts as a mediator between the referential
NP and specified AGR. This is true of NUM configurations (e.g. in MA and
Italian), and extends naturally to GEN in Arabic. As observed, however,
not all languages allow the option of licensing specified AGR through
expletive mediators. For example, expletives cannot function as mediators
for NUM licensing in Arabic. Likewise, mediators for licensing referen-
tial AGR are hardly acceptable in French. Thus languages differ with respect
to whether they allow expletives to mediate phi feature licensing or
not.
The situation appears to be different when no specified AGR features are
involved. The occurrence of third person singular masculine AGR forms
on predicates appears to be justified by whatever justifies the occurrence
of AGR in clauses (see Chapter 3), in addition to the fact that the latter is
an affix (on predicates). Since this affix has no specified morphological

content, it is reasonable to assume that it does not need to have (nor can
it have) a licenser. This suggests that pure VS structures with default
AGR license no Spec of AGR, and hence no expletive subject is located
there.
If expletives are not licensed as subjects of morphologically null AGR
in VS languages, why are they then licensed in SV languages in precisely
those configurations? The most natural and straightforward answer that I
can think of relies on Case theory, rather than agreement theory. In SV
languages expletives are needed to carry (or support) Nominative Case.
Since the latter is assigned/checked in Spec of AGR, an expletive (in the
absence of an argumental NP) must be placed there, otherwise the Case
Criterion would not be satisfied. In contrast, we know that Nominative is
not checked in Spec of AGR in VS languages. Consequently, no exple-
tive is needed (or even allowed) there. In the next subsection I examine
the distribution of expletives in Arabic. The results of this investigation
support the view that expletives serve two different roles in the grammar:
(a) they mediate the formation of R-chains or agreement chains (and are
licensed by AGR); and (b) they support or realize Case. These results enable
us to derive EPP effects from two different principles (and modules): the
AGR Criterion and the Case Criterion. The effects of the EPP that fall under
the former principle have been examined earlier. I turn here to an analysis
of contexts that fall under the Case Criterion.
4.1.1. Basic Distributions and Farms
A close examination of the distribution of Arabic expletives reveals that

they share a common core of properties with expletives found in SV
languages like French or English. The two types of languages differ
crucially, however, in that in the former (unlike the latter) expletives do
not serve as Case dischargers of Nominative assigned by AGR to its Spec.
Furthermore, there are contexts in which expletives are allowed in French
or English, but not in Arabic, particularly in some extraction contexts. These
distributional differences follow from the parametric traits of AGR argued
for earlier. Recall that AGR in Arabic, but not French or English, is weak
in the sense that it does not have the capacity to be a Case assigner.
Arabic pronominal expletives occur in various contexts, and in various
forms. Lexical expletives are either bound or non-bound. As for null
expletives, postulating their existence in some structures is not as a straight-
forward matter as it might seem at first glance.
Non-bound expletives appear normally as (surface) subjects of identifi-
cational sentences, as discussed in Section 2 above. The following example
illustrates this use:
56 CHAPTER 2
(122) huwa 1-kasal-u

he/it the-laziness-nom
It is laziness.
Dropping the pronoun in this context leads to ungrammaticality:
(123) *1-kasal-u
the-laziness-nom
In predicative nominal sentences, no independent pronoun is normally used,
as in (124):
(124) a. mustal)iil-un ?an n-attafiq-a yawm-an
impossible-nom that we-agree-subj day-ace
It is impossible for us to agree some day.
b. laysa mustal)iil-an ?an n-attafiq-a yawm-an

not impossible-ace that we-agree-subj day-ace
It is not impossible that we will agree some day.
The introduction of the pronoun renders the sentence awkward:
(125)?? huwa mustal)iil-un ?an n-attafiq-a yawm-an
he/it impossible-nom that we-agree-subj day-ace
As a first attempt I will assume that the expletive pronoun is normally

null when it can be identified by the agreement marker on the predicate.
Otherwise it has to be overt, as in identificational sentences.
Non-overt expletives can also be postulated in raising or modal con-
structions, as in ( 126):
(126)a. badaa ?anna r-rajul-a qaliq-un
seemed that the-man-ace nervous-nom
It seemed that the man (was) nervous.
b. y-anbagii ? an t-aquul-a 1-l)aqq-a

]-should that you-tell-subj the-truth-ace
Literally: it should that you tell the truth.
You should tell the truth.
As in English, an expletive pronoun functions as a subject of the matrix

verb. But unlike the situation in English, the expletive is non-overt, on
the one hand, and it may be taken (like other pronouns) to be located
postverbally, on the other. 50
The occurrence of non-bound pronominal expletives is excluded, both

postverbally, and preverbally:
(127) *y-anbagii huwa ?an t-aquul-a 1-l).aqq-a
3-should it/he that you-tell-sub} the-truth-ace
(128) *huwa y-anbagii ?an t-aquul-a 1-l).aqq-a

he 3-should that you-tell-sub} the-truth-ace
The ungrammaticality of (127) is expected, given the fact that governed
pronouns have to be incorporated into their governors. The situation of
the expletive here is no different from that of a referential pronoun. Both
must be incorporated in this position, as the ungrammaticality of (129)
indicates (see Chaper 3 for details):
(129) jaa?-a (*huwa)
came (*he)
He came.
The ungrammaticality of (128) is not expected, however. Personal pronouns
are allowed in preverbal position, as (130) shows:
(130) huwa jaa?-a
he came
(It is) he (who) came.
Why, then, does this difference occur, and what licenses a referential
pronoun in this position, and bars a non-referential one? Let us observe
that referential pronouns in these contexts are focused, and hence licensed
by focus interpretation. In contrast, we might reasonably think that
expletives cannot be focused, and hence cannot be licensed in these contexts.
If this is true, then we can conclude that AGR is not a sufficient licenser
for a lexical expletive (in its Spec). 51
Consider now the case of bound expletive pronouns. The latter are
found in a position preceding that of the predicate, i.e. precisely in the
context in which non-bound pronouns are barred. This is illustrated by
the following pair of sentences:
(131) ? inna-hu y-u? sif-u-naa ? an n-uciid-a nafs-a
that-it/him 3-regret-indic-us that we-repeat-sub}. same-ace
1-kalaam-i
the-speech- gen
It is regrettable that we (have to) repeat the same speech.
58 CHAPTER 2
(132) l)asib-tu-hu jaa?a ?axuu-ka

thought-l-it/him came brother-your
Literally: I thought it came your brother.
I thought that your brother came.
In (131), the preverbal expletive has been incorporated into the comple-
mentizer, and in (132) into the matrix verb. Note that omitting the expletive
here leads to ungrammaticality:
(133) *(inna y-u?sif-u-naa ?an n-uciid-a nafs-a
that 3-regret-m.s.-us that we-repeat-sub}. same-ace
1-kalaam-i
the-speech-gen
(134) *l)asib-tu jaa?a ?axuu-ka
thought-/ came brother-your
There are two (related) Case reasons why these sentences are ill-formed.
First, the embedded IP, being non-nominal, is not licensed in a position
for a Case assignee. Second, C or V do not discharge their Case.
Consequently, we might view the introduction of the expletive as being
entirely due to Case considerations. AGR does not play a (significant)
role in licensing the expletive here, just as it does not do so in (128).
The occurrence of bound expletives in predicative nominal sentences
might also be obligatory, as in the following examples:
(135) ?inna-hu mustal)iil-un ?an n-attafiq-a yawm-an
that-it impossible-nom that we-agree-sub}. day-ace
(136) ( -aqunn-u-hu min gayr-i 1-laa ?iq-i (an
/-think-it of no-gen the-convenient-gen that
t-aquul-a haagaa
you-say-sub}. this
I think it is not convenient that you say this.
In these contexts, too, expletives must be overt for Case reasons.
It is clear, then, that a non-nominative Case (assigned by an external
governor) is a sufficient licenser for the occurrence of (lexical) expletives.
In contrast, Nominative (in preverbal position) does not require such a
lexicalization. These observations suggest that there are no true Nominative
preverbal subjects in Arabic (including preverbal expletives), in the sense
that the latter Case is not assigned/checked under Spec-Head agreement with
AGR. As a consequence, the EPP, as construed in (121), cannot be correct.
Let us turn now to thematic properties of expletives. Consider again
sentences like (132). In the latter, expletives cooccur with thematic subjects.
It is then clear that the position in which the expletive occurs is not
theta-marked. To see this, consider the D-structure of (132), given in (137):
(137) IP
~
I VP
~
Spec V'
I~
u.
-tu V IP
-b~
I VP
~
?axuuka V
I
jaa?a
In this structure, both the lower and higher verbs move to I, to support T
and AGR in I. The expletive is generated in Spec of AGR, and raises from
there to incorporate onto the higher verb.
Given this picture, it is clear that the expletive does not occur in a
theta-marked position, nor is it assigned a theta-role. It might be suggested
that the latter, though not receiving a theta-role, does belong to a chain which
receives one. If the expletive and the postverbal subject were coindexed and
form a chain, then the former would belong to a theta-marked chain, in
which the 'foot' of the chain (?axuuka). is theta-marked by V'. Note,
however, that this chain cannot be a well-formed chain, assuming Chomsky's
( 1986a) General Condition on Chains to be valid. The latter states the
following:
(138) If C = (a 1, • • • , a") is a maximal Chain, then an occupies its
unique theta-position, and a 1 its unique Case-marked position.
By this condition, only one member of the chain is able to receive Case.
In the S-structure of (132), however, the expletive is Case-marked by the
matrix V as Accusative, and the thematic embedded subject receives
Nominative (presumably under government by T). This indicates that the
expletive and the thematic subject do not belong to the same chain, and
that the former does not belong to a theta-marked chain.
4.1.2. Contexts with No Expletives

There are other contexts in which expletive subjects are found in lan-
guages like French or English, but not Arabic. Such distributions provide
60 CHAPTER 2
further evidence that French and English have preverbal (AGR) subjects,
but Arabic does not.
Consider first a problem that arises with respect to subject extraction
in Arabic, but not in French or English. As explained earlier, when a subject
is questioned or topicalized, rich agreement on predicates is required. Poor
agreement leads to ungrammaticality, as the following contructions show:
(139) * ?ayy-u rijaal-in jaa?-a
which-nom men-gen came-J.s.m.
Intended to mean: Which men came?
(140) *r-rijaal-u jaar-a
the-men-nom came-J.s.m.
Intended to mean: The men came.
In these contexts the subject presumably moves to Spec C. Agreement
here looks like a case of long distance agreement in the sense of Kayne
( 1987). The latter is broken up into strictly local configurations, yielding
the desired results. Regarding these constructions, the following questions
arise: why can't an (empty) expletive appear there (e.g. in Spec of TP or
AGRP), and hence license the poor agreement on the verb? Why can't
Arabic have constructions exactly like French ones, in which the thematic
subject is extracted over an expletive subject, as in (141):
(141) Combien de filles est -il venu?
Consider first the problem of locality in agreement. Kayne has argued that
in cases of 'long' parti.ciple agreement like (142), the chain of movement
contains a number of empty categories:
(142) Je me demande combien de tables Paul a
I wonder how many of tables Paul has
repeint-e-s
repainted-/-pi
I wonder how many tables Paul has repainted.
If that is true, then there is a more strongly local agreement relation than
it first appears, as is represented in (143):
(143) [... ] combien de tables, Paul a [el AGR, repeint-e-s [el
Kayne assumes that the participle is headed by AGR, and that the trace
which is adjoined to AGR makes agreement local (see his paper for details).
Adopting Kayne's idea of locality, we can say that the NP moving from
subject position has to move either to Spec of AGR, or to a position adjoined
to AGRP, hence ensuring that its trace would c-command AGR in a local
configuration. Note, however, that this does not ensure that a poor AGR
would not appear there, yielding the ungrammatical (139) and (140). In
order to avoid this we have to ensure that subjects would never be 'directly'
extracted from postverbal position. The movement to Spec of C must
occur through Spec of AGR, triggering rich AGR, in conformity with the
AGR Criterion. If the movement is not through Spec, but by adjunction
to AGR, then nothing forces AGR to be rich. When objects are extracted,
they are presumably adjoined to AGR, but verbs do not agree with them.
As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that rules of Adjunct Head
agreement exist, along with Spec Head agreement rules. On the contrary,
there is reason to think that when AGR is rich (and hence nominal), adjunc-
tion to it is not allowed, as we will see. Given these considerations, we
might want to limit configurational agreement to NPs located in Spec or
Camp positions, in line with recent work by Chomsky (1989) and Rizzi
(1990 and 1991). 52
The analysis of more complex cases of extraction also supports the
strict locality requirement on AGR, built in the AGR Criterion. Consider
the following examples:
(144)a. ?ayy-u rijaal-in t-aqunnu ?anna-hum jaa?-uu
which-nom men-gen you-think that-them came-3.pl.m.
Which men do you think that (they) came?
b.*?ayy-u rijaal-in t-aqunnu ?anna-hu jaa?-uu
which men you-think that-it/him came-3.pl.m.
c.* ?ayy-u rijaal-in t-aqunnu ?anna-hu jaa? -a
which men you-think that-it/him came-3.s.m.
The fact that (144b) is ruled out suggests that the wh-word cannot bind
the agreement marker (and/or pronominal) on the verb because it is not
'close' enough, and the pronoun on the complementizer does not agree with
the wh-word. It also shows that if the embedded topic there is an exple-
tive, then it would prevent the binding from being local. The grammaticality
of (144a) shows that the topic pronoun makes the binding local. As for
(144c), it is ruled out because there is no agreement between the wh phrase
and the verb, suggesting that movement has not operated in stages through
specifiers, or that expletive agreement has taken place.
Let us turn now to the fact that preverbal subject expletives cannot
occur with questioned or topicalized Arabic subjects, unlike the situation
in French, for instance. In this language expletives are licensed by
Nominative, and thematic subjects have some inherent Case which they pre-
sumably carry when they move. The situation in Arabic is different.
Expletives are not independently Case marked by AGR. As such, they are
not licensed in preverbal position. Moreover, the movement of the subject
preverbally forces the activation of AGR features (through local agree-
ment links), in conformity with the AGR Criterion.
62 CHAPTER 2
4.2. Giving Content to VS and SV Typology
The hypotheses argued for in this chapter enable us to give content to VS

or SV typology. If we classify Arabic and Celtic as VS languages, as I
have done, then a core of unprecedented properties of these languages
emerges. The latter centers around the properties of AGR, whether it is
able to assign Case or not, and whether it is able to receive Case or not.
Consider the properties of subjects. In VS constructions, it is clear that
the thematic subject does not surface in Spec of AGR. How, then, does it
receive Nominative Case? It is possible to think that the latter is checked
in Spec of T, under government by T. If that is true, then Nominative
checking would be universally under government by T (as in Chomsky,
1980; cf also Koopman, 1984), although both AGR and T contribute to
Nominative checking in SV languages. Alternatively, we might assume
that VS subjects stay in Spec of VP at S-structure. Nominative checking
would then take place in Spec of T only at LF, assuming that its licensing
takes place (universally) in a Spec-Head relation to an inflectional category.
It is generally assumed that VS subjects are in Spec of VP at S-structure
{see e.g. McCloskey, 1990 for Irish, Rouveret, 1990 for Welsh, and Fassi,
1987a for Arabic). Rouveret (1991) has also postulated that Welsh subjects
might be in Spec of T.
Whatever the position of the thematic subject, however, it is clear that
this position is not as important for characterizing the VS type as it might
seem. Thematic subjects are found postverbally in many languages, after all
(e.g. English, Romance, MA, Germanic, etc.), but these languages are not
classified as VS languages. Furthermore, Arabic subjects can be located
preverbally as well as postverbally, as I have shown, and this does not appear
to affect the typological status of this language (i.e. its being VS). I have
argued that it is the role of AGR in Case licensing and discharging which
is the determining factor. In SV languages AGR licenses and discharges
Case through the NP in its Spec; in VS languages this is not so. As a
corollary, AGR cannot be nominal in the latter languages, and it acts as a
protector for the subject. Furthermore, Spec of AGR has necessarily to be
filled in SV languages by an NP (whether referential or non-referential),
otherwise AGR would not discharge its Case, in violation of the Case
Criterion. If my conjecture is correct, such a requirement is not a property
of VS languages.
This approach to word order makes specific predictions about variation
to be found in languages, as well as the nature of the triggers for the
parametrizations proposed. In essence it relies on the properties of
individual inflectional categories to derive the specifics of structural
configurations. Crucially, no unique phrase structure is derived for the whole
language, but different phrase structures, depending on the properties of
inflectional categories involved. For example, phi features encoded on AGR
may or may not trigger Subject raising to Spec of AGR at S-structure.

Consequently, NP movement at S-structure is not exclusively motivated
by Case considerations. Moreover, subjects have different Case proper-
ties, depending on whether they occur in V initial structures, or in SV
ones.
These claims differ significantly from those made in the literature to
characterize VS languages. For example, Travis (1984) and Koopman
(1984), among others, have proposed that parametrization of direction-
ality of Case assignment is the appropriate mechanism to derive word
order in languages. Thus it is claimed that in VS languages Case is assigned
uniformly to the right (see e.g. Sproat, 1985 for Celtic, and Fassi, 1987a
for Arabic). But this parametrization can be descriptively adequate only
if there is no subject raising to a preverbal position in clauses. Indeed,
Rouveret (1990) has argued that Welsh lacks NP raising, and consequently,
has an inflectional structure which lacks Spec of IP. Likewise, Guilfoyle
(1990) reaches identical conclusions for Irish, and she claims that the lack
of Spec of IP can be derived from Case directionality.
There are reasons to think that such approaches are not on the right track.
First, it is important to know what the correct descriptive generalizations
are. Is it true, for example, that Celtic languages lack both NP movement
and Wh movement?53 Suppose (for the sake of argument) that they do;
then nothing about the properties of VS languages follows, because this
negative statement is not true of all VS languages, as Arabic and Chamorro
data indicate. 54 Second, fixing phrase structure (either by stipulation or by
Case directionality) in order to derive only VS structures excludes the
possibility of having alternative SV structures (in the same language), i.e.
it precludes the existence of 'mixed' types like Arabic. The latter fall
under Greenberg implicational universal No. 6, stated in (145): 55
(145) All languages with dominant VSO order have SVO as an alter-
native or as the only alternative basic order.
While this universal may not be true of all VSO languages, it appears to
have some descriptive truth to it. 56 More generally, word order variation
within the same language is documented cross-linguistically, and fixing
phrase structure for the 'language', rather than the 'construction' runs into
serious empirical problems.
Now consider Case. I have essentially been making use of mechanisms
of Case discharge and Case checking, rather than Case assignment. A theory
of Case which is committed to the latter mechanism may run into problems
when faced with Cases of Arabic subjects. Recall that the latter vary
depending on where the subject is found at S-structure. If Case assign-
ment were to operate, then in sentences like ( 104) above, INFL would assign
Nominative to the NP trace of the subject, and C or the matrix V would
assign Accusative to the preverbal NP. The chain formed would end up with
64 CHAPTER 2
two cases, in clear violation of the condition (138) on chains. Such a

problem may not arise with Case checking, since the latter mechanism would
take into account only the Case found in S-structure configurations.
4.3. Extraction
4.3.1. Extraction over Preverbal Subjects
Consider the condition (150) stated in Fassi (1981) in order to account

for the ungrammaticality of constructions like (151) and (152):
(150) No constituent may be extracted over a topic.
(15l)a.*man r-rajul-u 9arab-a
who the-man-nom beat
Who has the man beaten?
b.*mataa ?anta ?atay-ta
when you came-2.s.m.
When did you come?
(152) *man ?inna r-rajul-a 9arab-a

who that the-man-ace beat
Who (is it that) has the man beaten?
Under a left dislocated reading of these constructions, they are ruled out
if ( 150) holds. In fact, these sentences are ruled out in Fassi ( 1981) as
Subjacency violations. The topic is generated as Spec of S", and both S'
and S" are assumed to be bounding nodes. Observe, however, that if
preverbal NPs in these sentences are interpreted as subjects, as we have
shown earlier, (150) cannot account for the grammaticality judgments.
The extraction over preverbal subjects is predicted to be possible, but it
is not.
Note also that extraction over subjects in nominal sentences is possible.
In these constructions, subjects precede predicates, as the following
examples indicate:
(153) a. man ?anta muntaqid-un
who you criticizing
Who are you criticizing?
b. mataa ?anta ? aatin
when you coming
When are you coming?
In (153a), an object has been extracted, and in (153b), an adjunct is

extracted, without posing any problem.
Second, extraction over preverbal subjects found in embedded sentences
is also possible, as the following examples show:
(154)a. man basib-ta (?anna) r-rajul-a Qarab-a
who thought-you (that) the-man-ace beat
Who did you think that the man has beaten?
b. mataa }Jasib-ta (?anna) r-rajul-a ?ataa
when thought-you (that) the-man-ace came
When did you think that the man came?
Whether C surfaces there or not does not affect the grammaticality judg-
ments. These contrasts establish that extraction over preverbal subjects is
possible, even when preceded by complementizers. We then have to ask
why constructions like these are ruled in, while (151) and (152) are ruled
out.
Let us first see what distinguishes (151) from (153). In (151), AGR is
rich and nominal. Suppose it also qualifies as a head governor. Then the
movement of the object or the adjunct in (151) can be construed as an
ECP violation. If movement through Spec or by adjunction are the only
possibilities by which AGRP can be made transparent for antecedent
government purposes, then both possibilities are presumably not available
in (151). On the one hand, Spec of AGR is filled by the subject, so that
no movement through Spec is possible. On the other hand, the movement
by adjunction to AGR may not be allowed, either, if AGR is nominal in
character, and adjunction to nominal projections are excluded. 57 In (153),
on the contrary, AGR has no (nominal) specification, and the subject is
not necessarily in Spec of AGR. Thus movement by adjunction or through
Spec of AGR is not precluded, and the grammaticality of (153) is accounted
for.
Let us now turn to the contrast between (152) and (154). Suppose the
subject is in Spec of AGR in all these constructions. One difference between
the two pairs of sentences is that there is a verb which L-marks the
embedded CP or AGRP in (154), but there is no such L-marker in (152). 58
If L-marking is the appropriate notion to characterize the difference, then
when AGRP is not L-marked, as in (152), it acts as a barrier for extrac-
tion and government, whether C is there or not; hence the ungrammaticality
of (152). When AGRP is L-marked, extraction is possible; hence the
grammaticality of (154). This accounts for the difference in grammati-
cality judgments, while confirming the prediction that extraction over
preverbal subjects is permissible.
Note that condition (150) will still be valid for topics. Consider extrac-
66 CHAPTER 2
tion of a subject over a topic (coindexed with a resumptive object), as in

(155):
( 155) *? ayy-u rijaal-in J:!asib-ta ?anna 1-walad-a
which-nom men-nom thought-you that the-boy-ace
<;larab-uu-hu
beat-3.pl.m. -him
Literally: Which men did you think that the boy they beat him?
The construction (156) is its counterpart without extraction:
(156) J:!asib-ta ?anna 1-walad-a <;larab-a-hu r-rijaal-u
thought-you that the-boy-ace beat-J.s.m.-him the-men-nom
You thought that the boy the men beat him.
Suppose that left dislocation is generated via recursion of CP, and that the
topic occurs inside the lower CP. Then even if the higher CP is L-marked
by V, the lower one is not, and will still count as a barrier. Condition
(150) will then be derived from the barriers theory.
4.3.2. [That t] Filter Revisited
Let us turn now to extraction over complementizers. The two Arabic Cs ?an
and ?anna behave differently with respect to the traditional [C e] filter.
While ?an can be adjacent to a trace of a subject, ?anna cannot:
(157)a. ?ayy-u rijaal-in J:!asib-ta ?an jaa?-uu
which-nom men-gen thought-you that came-3.pl.m.
Which men do you think that came?
b.* ?ayy-u rijaal-in J:!asib-ta ?anna jaa?-uu

which-nom men-nom thought-you that came-3.pl.m.
Which men do you think that came?
Note that even if the wh-word surfaces in the accusative (i.e. the case
assigned by ?anna), the construction is still ungrammatical.
This contrast indicates that the complementizer Filter is descriptively
incorrect. There are different ways to derive the difference in grammati-
cality between the two constructions. We can explore a difference between
the two Cs in terms of Case assigning properties: ?anna is a Case assigner,
and ?an is not. The Case that ?anna discharges seems to require that its
bearer be governed by ?anna at S-structure, in order for it to be checked.
This is not true of ?an. Note that the same analysis can be extended to
exclude (152), given that ?inna there is a variant (in root clauses) of the
complementizer ?anna. But the construction is also excluded because AGRP
is not L-marked, as we have seen. In sum then, extraction over preverbal

subjects and complementizers is possible, although not in cases prohib-
ited as ECP violations. 59
4.4. Extensions to the Wh System
I examined earlier a number of contexts in which wh constituents raise to

Spec of CP at S-structure. In this subsection I will investigate how the
distribution of wh morphemes interacts with the inflectional structure of
questions. I show that it is possible to derive various word orders in ques-
tions, in particular C XP and XP C, by appealing to the agreement properties
of wh words.
4.4.1. Some Descriptive Background

Arabic has two particles (hal and ?a) which usually appear in front of
yes-no questions, as in the following sentences:
(158)a. hal jaa?-a r-rajul-u?
Q came the-man-nom
Has the man come?
b. ?a zayd-un jaa?-a
Q Zayd-nom came
Is (it) Zayd (that) came?
There are differences in distribution between the two particles that do not
concern us here (for details, see Fassi, 1981). Arabic can also form
yes-no questions by making use of intonation only, as in (159):
(159) t-ul)ibbu-haa?
you-like-her
You like her?
On the other hand, Arabic not only has simple wh questions, as seen above,
but also multiple wh questions, as in (160):
(160) man <;!arab-a man bi-maagaa?
who beat who with-what
Who beat whom with what?
Arabic has also so-called 'echo' questions, where the wh word may remain
in situ, as in (161):
(161) jaa?-a man
came who
68 CHAPTER 2
Let us assume that question particles are generated as heads of C, and

that wh words move to Spec of C at S-structure or LF (from their original
D-structure position inside the clause). In the case of multiple questions,
only one wh word is allowed to move. Its movement creates a wh-island
from which another movement is not possible, due to the Wh-island
Condition of Chomsky (1964) and Ross (1967), which is observed in Arabic.
This accounts for the distribution of the constructions examined so far.
4.4.2. Deriving the doubly filled Camp Filter
There are a number of other combinations, however, which do not occur.

For example, the co-occurrence of the particle and the wh word is excluded,
independently of whether the wh word raises at S-structure or not. This is
illustrated by the following examples:
(162) *man ?a jaa?-a
who Q came
(163) *?a jaa?-a man
Q came who
In (162) we have a case of so-called doubly filled Comp. One way to
exclude it is to postulate that it violates ECP. Suppose C there is not an
agreeing element, then it prevents the wh word from governing its trace (see
Rizzi, 1990 for a similar solution). The fact that (163) is also excluded
suggests that, if the agreement solution is to carry over to this case, then
wh agreement has to be checked at LF, rather than S-structure. If this is true,
then the complementary distribution between the particle and the wh word
can be attributed to the impossibility of having both the Spec and the
Head of C filled, because C will agree with its Spec, just in case it is not
filled. Parallel complementarities are found in the DP system, and they
can also be traced to agreement incompatibilities (see Chapter 5).
4.5. Further Motivation for V Raising

In Section 1 (and especially Subsection 1.4) I provided motivation for V-
to-I raising on morphosyntactic grounds. I would like to elaborate here
on the syntactic aspects of this rule.
I have conjectured earlier that if D-subjects are located in Spec of VP,
then the only viable mechanism for deriving VSO order is via raising V
to I (assuming that raising to C is dismissed on descriptive grounds). There
could be an alternative route to VSO via lowering, where I lowers to V,
and the subject also lowers to adjoin to V, to its right (as proposed by Chung,
1990a for Chamorro). This alternative is theoretically too costly, however.
On the one hand, lowering rules are theoretically marked (they result in ECP
violations, violate the Economy Principle, etc.). 60 On the other hand, adjunc-
tion of a maximal projection to a head is not canonical. Furthermore, no

empirical motivation can be provided for such a move. For example, there
is no reason to think that the verb and the subject in VSO structures form
a single word (embedded under X 0 ) , as the subject adjunction to V suggests.
In fact, there is evidence which supports the contrary.
4.5.1. Against Subject Adjunction

As said earlier, pronominal affixes when incorporated on the verb preserve
the basic word order, namely S 0, as the following contrast shows:
(l64)a. <;larab-tu-hu
beat-1-him
I beat him.
b. *<;larab-hu-tu
beat-him-/
*I beat him.
(164b) is ungrammatical because the object affix precedes the subject. Now,
when the object is affixal, and the subject is not, the object must precede
the subject:
(165) <;laraba-hu r-rajul-u

beat-him the-man-nom
The man beat him.
Given the possibilty of adjoining the subject to V (and forming an xo adjunc-

tion structure which would include the NP subject, it is not clear why the
object affix attaches obligatorily to the verbal stem, but not to the complex
xo (including the subject), as one would expect if xo adjunctions to V
preserve basic order. The following construction instantiates the expected
structure:
(166) *<;laraba r-rajul-u-hu

beat the-man-nom-him
The man beat him.
In this structure the object affix adjoins to the right of the complex xo
adjunction, which includes the subject, but the result is (surprisingly)
ungrammatical.
It might be suggested that a distinction can be made between affix-like
elements (which are phonologically dependent) and clitic-like elements
(which are relatively independent). But even if this distinction can be
supported, it is easy to show that Arabic subjects do not behave like adjoined
clitics.
70 CHAPTER 2
Pronominal affixes attach to prepositions just as they attach to verbs

and nouns. When prepositions are 'light', they have to move with the affix
attached to them 'close' to the verb. They cannot be left in their original
position. Thus in (167), where the preposition is heavy enough, the PP stays
in situ, but in (168), the pronominal PP has to cliticize to the verb:
(167) jaa?-a rajul-un maca-hu
came man-nom with-him
A man came with him.
(168) a. badaa I-ii rajul-un

appeared to-me man-nom
A man appeared to me.
b. marra b-ii rajul-un

passed by-me man-nom
A man passed by me.
The constructions ( 169), in which light PPs have not been moved, are
very marginal:
(169)a.*?badaa rajul-un I-ii
appeared man-nom to-me
A man appeared to me.
b.*? marra rajul-un b-ii

passed man-nom by-me
A man passed by me.
If we treat the postverbal subject like a clitic, then it is difficult to see
how these differences in grammaticality can be accounted for, and how
heaviness (or lightness) can play a role in constraining syntactic derivations.
Another significant difference between subjects and clitics in VSO
structures also points to the conclusion that subject adjunction cannot be
correct. Subjects can be separated from V by parentheticals, but clitics
cannot be:
(170) a. jaa? -a -wa llah-i- rajul-un
came -in the name of Allah- man-nom
A man-1 swear-came.
b.*? badaa -wa llah-i- I-ii rajul-un
appeared -in the name of Allah- to-me man-nom
A man-1 swear-appeared to me.
c. badaa 1-ii -wa llah-i- rajul-un

appeared to-me -in the name of Allah- man-nom
A man-! swear-appeared to me.
The fact that the light PP cannot be separated from the verb (even by a
parenthetical) suggests that it may have been adjoined to V and forms an
xo constituent with it. The parenthetical will then have to occur outside
this X 0 , hence the only possibility is (170c). In contrast, the subject being
outside the xo in which the verb is located can be separated from the verb
by both the light PP and the parenthetical, as (170a) and (170c) show.
4.5.2. Additional Tests for V Raising
There are a number of tests originally put forth by Emonds (1978) to

characterize some structural differences between English and French clause
structures, and used by Pollock (1989) as general diagnoses for V raising,
or I lowering. 61 Among those are the distributional properties of negation,
adverbs, as well as so-called floating quantifiers. The tests are not blindly
applicable to Arabic, as will become clear.
The placement of Arabic Neg is neutral with regard to the question
whether V has raised to I, or I lowered to V. The reason is that Neg is
not generated in an intermediate position between I and VP, but rather in
front of IP. That is, Arabic Neg selects an IP, not a VP. A brief examina-
tion of the distribution of Neg enables us to reach this conclusion. The
following examples illustrate the fact that Neg precedes an inflected verb
phrase, be it in SVO, as in (17la), in VSO (as in (171b), or in VOS (as
in 17lc):
(17l)a. r-rajul-u laa y-arkul-u t-tuffaal)at-a
the-man-nom not 3-eat-indic the-apple-ace
The man does not eat the apple.
b. laa y-arkul-u r-rajul-u t-tuffaal)at-a
not 3-eat-indic the-man-nom the-apple-ace
The man does not eat the apple.
c. maa daxala maktab-a-hu zayd-un
not entered office-ace-his Zayd-nom
Zayd has not entered his office.
As we have seen earlier, Neg can precede a preverbal subject or object,
as in (40) and (41), repeated here as (172) and (173):
72 CHAPTER 2
(172) maa ?al)ad-un facal-a haagaa

not one-nom did-3.s.m. this
(It is) no one (that) did this.
(173) maa baqarat-an saahad-tu

not cow-ace saw-/
(It is) not a cow (that) I saw.
Moreover, when there is an auxiliary followed by a lexical verb. both
verbs are inflected for AGR and T, and Neg may (in general) be placed
in front of either verb:
(174) a. maa kaan-a r-rajul-u y-a?kul-u t-tuffaal)at-a
not was the-man-nom 3-eat-indic the-apple-ace
The man was not eating the apple.
b. kaan-a r-rajul-u laa y-a?kul-u t-tuffaal)at-a
was the-man-nom not 3-eat-indic the-apple-ace
The man was not eating the apple.
These constructions do not seem to have any real counterparts in the
English/French-type systems. For example, there is no counterpart of (174a)
in English or French, as the ungrammaticality of (175) shows:
(175)a.*John not does eat.
b. *Not John does eat.
c.* Jean (ne) pas a mange.
d.* Pas Jean a mange.
On the other hand, since Neg selects IP, and has no adverbial-like
character, as in French or English, we do not expect it to behave like adverbs
in occurring after the inflected verb, and before the object NP, as in the
following French example:
(176) Jean (ne) mange pas la pomme.
The fact that similar constructions do not occur in Arabic do not argue
for I-to-V lowering. There is no context in which one can show that Neg
takes only a bare verb phrase as complement, as in the following English
example:
(177) John does not eat.
Distributional properties of Arabic Negs can be naturally captured only if
Neg is generated higher than IP, not lower than it (as in English and
French). 62
Arabic adverbs have a similar behaviour to those of French. They can
be placed in front of objects and after the inflected verb. This suggests
that V-to-1 has taken place, leaving the adverb in its original position (i.e.
adjoined to VP):
( 178) a. 1-fuqahaa?-u y-aquul-uu-na caadat-an maa laa
the-scholars-nom 3-say-pl.m.-indic usually what not
y-afcal-uu-na
3-do-pl.m.-indic
Religious scientists usually say what they do not do.
b. *1-fuqahaa?-u caadat-an y-aquul-uu-na maa laa
the-scholars-nom usually 3-say-pl.m. what not
y-afcal-uu-na
3 -do-pl. m.-indic
In (178a) the adverb precedes the (free relative) object, and follows the
inflected verb, while it precedes the verb (and the object) in the ungram-
matical ( 178b). These judgments parallel those found in French, as in the
following contrast:
(179) a. Jean mange sou vent des pommes.
John eats often apples
b.* Jean sou vent mange des pommes.
They indicate that the verb has raised over the adverb, although it has
originated lower than the latter at D-structure.
The distribution of floating quantifiers may also be suggestive. Arabic
quantifiers are heads of the NPs they quantify, as shown in Fassi (1981).
They behave in every respect like a nominal head. Thus like nominal heads,
they receive case, bear definite or indefinite articles, head genitive
constructions, as in the following examples:
(180)a. jaa?-a 1-kull-u
came the-all-nom
Everybody came.
b. caad-a kull-un ?ilaa manzil-i-hi
came.back every-nom to house-gen-his
Everybody came back to his house.
c. jaa?-a kull-u 1- ?awlaad-i

came all-nom the-children-gen
All the children came.
Unlike quantifiers in French, which seem to be adjoined to NPs (like adverbs
adjoin to VPs), Arabic Qs are heads. 63 However, quantifiers may also appear
74 CHAPTER 2
postnominally, in a position where (adjectival) modifiers will normally

appear. In this case, they obligatorily carry a pronominal affix coindexed
with the head noun, as illustrated by (181 ):
(18l)a. sum-tu kull-a s-sahr-i
fasted-/ all-ace the-month-gen
I fasted the whole month.
b. sum-tu s-sahr-a kull-a-hu
fasted-/ the-month-ace all-ace-it
I fasted the whole month.
In (18la), the quantifier is heading the NP, while it is a modifier in (181b).
Consider now the following sentences:
(182)a. qara?-a n-naas-u kull-u-hum r-risaalat-a
read-3.s.m. the-people-nom all-nom-them the-letter-ace
All the people read the letter.
b. n-naas-u kull-u-hum qara?-uu r-risaalat-a
the-people-nom all-nom-them read-3.pl.m. the-letter-ace
c. n-naas-u qara?-uu kull-u-hum r-risaalat-a

the-people-nom read-3.pl.m. all-nom-them the-letter-ace
In (182a), the QP modifier is adjacent to the subject NP, and presumably
both occur in their D-structure position, i.e. in Spec of VP. In (182b ), both
the NP modified and the QP modifier have raised to form an SVO
structure. But QP floats in (182c). What, then, is the structure of (182c)?
It is unlikely that the NP subject there has raised from a modified-modifier
configuration. When an NP is modified by an adjective, for example, the
former cannot be extracted alone, leaving behind the modifiee, as illustrated
by the following contrast:
(183) a. jaa? -a 1-walad-u 1-jamiil-u
came the-boy-nom the-pretty-nom
The pretty boy came.
b.* 1-walad-u jaa?-a 1-jamiil-u

the-boy-nom came the-pretty-nom
Note that (183b) superficially parallels (182c) in that in both cases the
modifiee appears to be stranded. The ungrammaticality of (182b), however,
indicates that extracting the modified NP, while stranding the modifier, is
not possible. It suggests that the QP in (182c) is a subject base generated

there, presumably in Spec of VP, while the preverbal NP (functioning as
a subject of AGRP, and licensing rich agreement on the verb) may have
originated there. Note that QP, which occupies the thematic subject position,
contains an incorporated pronoun which is condexed with the preverbal
NP. If this is true, then the position of the QP indicates that the verb has
raised to I (over the subject), although the NP preverbal subject may have
been base generated in a pre-inflectional position. 64
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter I have given content to the VS word order typology by

analyzing and comparing Nominative Case, AGR, and expletive systems.
I have shown that Nominative is assigned/checked in Spec of AGR
for SV languages, which is strong enough to do so, and to protect AGR
subjects from external governors. In contrast, AGR, which is weak in VS
languages, is not a Case assigner/licenser, nor a possible protector. 65
Richness of AGR specification has been shown to motivate the exis-
tence of the AGR Criterion. As a corollary, Subject raising is triggered.
There is a general tendency for AGR in VS languages to be poor or null
(in the 'pure' VS type; e.g. Celtic), although it can also be rich (in the mixed
VS/SV type, as in Arabic). Moreover, rich AGR in VS languages (when
it occurs) is only nominal in character, unlike AGR in SV languages,
which becomes non-nominal in finite (tensed) sentences. Thus an AGR
nominality parameter is proposed and motivated.
As for expletives, they have been shown to be licensed cross-linguisti-
cally by Case (which they realize). As such, and given Case assigning
differences of AGR in SV and VS languages, expletives are forced in Spec
of AGR positions in the SV type (when no argumental NP is there), but
not in VS languages. On the other hand, expletives may play the role of
mediators in R-chains' formation, even in VS languages, to enable the AGR
Criterion to extend to appropriate cases, given the right parametrizations.
The general approach has relied on fairly standard assumptions in X'
theory and movement theory. It has also made essential use of structural
notions like c-command and C-precedence. Typological differences between
VS and SV languages have been traced back to the parametrization of
properties of individual inflectional categories, and in particular AGR
properties. Other problems remain to be solved. Among these is how
specification of AGR features proceeds, and what principles govern it.
This issue (and others) will be dealt with in the next chapter.
76 CHAPTER 2
APPENDIX 1: FORMING ARABIC WORDS
The analysis of clauses developed so far has relied on an implicit theory of Arabic word
formation. My purpose in this Appendix is to make explicit the general model which accounts
naturally for Arabic word properties while being compatible with the theory of clause struc-
ture adopted. Verb formation is taken to be illustrative of how words are internally organized,
and how their combinatorial properties parallel (to a large extent) those of clauses. 1 Whatever
'mirroring' effects and syntactic organization there are in internal word structure, it seems
unlikely that they can be captured naturally in a strictly lexicalist (or 'redundantist') view
of word formation processes. 2 The same is true of a theory in which words are only manip-
ulated in a completely autonomous morphological component. 3
In Section 1 I discuss and reject an apparent argument for a lexicalist approach to Arabic
word formation. In Section 2 I argue for internal bracketing in Arabic words. In Section 3
I examine the question whether Arabic syntactic xo categories are lexically filled by stems
or by roots. I then provide the form of a general model of Arabic word formation in Section
4. Finally, I analyze how inflectional categories (i-categories) are articulated once we assume
an INFL split theory.
1. An Apparent Argument for Lexica/ism

At an informal level of discussion it is possible to distinguish two types of morphological
systems: (a) analytic or concatenative and (b) synthetic, fusional, or non-concatenative. French
morphology, for example, is essentially concatenative. Internal bracketing of words in (1)
indicate their concatenative nature:
(!) a. [[[petit] e] s]
b. [[[chant (e)] r] ons]
In (la), the adjective is formed from a stem [petit], linearly followed by the discrete feminine
suffix [e], followed in turn by the segment for number, [s]. Similarly, the conjugated verb
is formed from the stem [chant], representing the bare verb, the affix [r] for tense, and the
affix [ons] for person and number. Arabic, by contrast, instantiates a nonlinear or non-
concatenative morphology in a substantial number of conjugations of words. Thus the plural
of daar 'house' is duur or diyaar. The vocalic information in the singular form is com-
pletely lost in the plural, and the derivation of the plural cannot be linear. 4 The same
phenomenon can be observed in inflected verbs. In Arabic, there is no bare (stem) form of
the verb with which T and other i-morphemes can concatenate to form a conjugated verb.
When a verbal stem is formed, it is already inflected for T, Aspect, as well as Voice. The
most simple stem daxal 'entered', for example, is a conjugated verb, expressing past T and
active voice; the prefixed form y-adxul '3-enters' (with a different vocalism) expresses the
non-past imperfective; dxul 'enter' stands for the imperative mood, etc. Word formation is
highly 'non-cumulative', especially with respect to vocalism. Derivations of words from
one another (if there are any) have to be root-based, because the vocalism of the stem is
dropped.
This state of affairs seems to have motivated an essentially 'redundantist' view of Arabic
word formation. McCarthy (1979), for example, takes the lexicon to be fully specified with
all forms, including inflections. Morphological rules are conceived of as lexical redundancy
rules, by means of which the cost of predictibilty is computed. Derivational relationships
between words cannot be determined by internal proper bracketing of forms, because, as
McCarthy argues, "every property of the source except its root is ignored in the form of
the derived binyan". Thus McCarthy denies the existence of any bracketing in 'allam 'to
teach', which is derived from 'alim 'to know', or kaqqab 'to take as a liar' from kaqib 'to
lie', or kaatab 'to correspond with' from katab 'to write', or ?ajlas·'to seat' fromjalas 'to
sit', or stawjab 'to necessitate' from wajab 'be necessary', etc. His essential argument is
that the vocalic pattern has no relevance for the derivation. 5
But despite the fact that vocalic information may be lost in the process of deriving
phonological forms of words, it seems unlikely that Arabic words (including those provided
by McCarthy) have no internal bracketing. The fact that the mapping from morphological
structure to phonological form is not one-to-one does not preclude internal bracketing, as
will become clear. Moreover, there are serious descriptive and theoretical problems with
redundantism (or lexicalism), which make it undesirable.
2. Bracketing in the Arabic Word

A strong lexicalist view of Arabic word formation appears to be unrealistic. If words are
absolute atoms from the point of view of syntax, then words like fa-l-walad-u 'and-
the-boy-nom' (and the boy), bi-quluub-i-him 'in-hearts-gen-their' (in their hearts),
la-sa-t-ajid-u-nna 'indeed-will-you-find-indic-emph' (you will find indeed), ?a-wa-jalas-ta
'Q-and-sat-you' (and have you sit?) have to be taken as unanalyzable syntactic constituents. 6
These words contain a number of operators and connectives such as question, coordination,
intensification markers, determiners, tenses, etc. If all these combinations occur in the
lexicon, then the latter is indeed huge, and virtually all the grammar would have to be in
the lexicon (including ordering and scopal rules). And even if these combinations can be
shown to be non-recursive, the resulting lexicon would be, in practice, equivalent to a non-
finite object. 7
Besides, this view of the lexicon is incompatible with the general framework adopted.
For example, in the system of phrase structure assumed, lexical categories project at dif-
ferent levels of the tree from inflectional ones, and the principles regulating their occurrences
are different. The strong lexicalist hypothesis provides no way to keep them separate.
A general problem for lexicalism has to do with syntactic conditions on word formation.
Consider the following examples:
(2) sa-ya-<;lrib-uu-na-hu
Jut. -3 -beat-pl.m.-indic-him
They will beat him.
(3) ? -uxrij-tum
make-go.out.pass. -you
You have been moved out.
From the point of view of morphology, these two examples contain two well-formed words,
but syntactically they form two sentences. At S-structure, each sequence must occur under
an xo projection, and it would constitute a syntactic unit to which morphological rules
apply. On the other hand, every word there must be analyzable so that it will provide the
elements which are interpreted as a sentence. Thus the morpheme [sa] in (2) expresses
future tense, [uu] is a pronominal subject (third personwiural masculine), [na] stands for
indicative mood, and [hu] is a pronominal object. Moreover, the form [y-adrib] is a merger
of the root [drb] and a vocalic form expressing imperfective aspect and active voice, etc. It
is striking that most of these affixations are cumulative or concatenative, and it is possible
to linearly attach one concrete form to another, once the verbal stem [<;!rib] is formed. If
we abstract away from the elements forming this stem, then clearly the other constituents
of the word do not occur in any random order. This suggests that the word has a configu-
rational structure (which can be represented by using bracketing). The contextual
characterization of each affix then becomes possible. Consequently, inappropriate sequences
can be ruled out: *y-at;lrib-uu-na-sa-hu, *y-at;lrib-uu-na-hu-sa, etc. The latter are semantically
and phonologically well-formed, but their syntax is incorrect. In short, these sequences
78 CHAPTER 2
must have internal bracketing, and they must be subject to syntactic well-formedness
principles.
A question that comes to mind then is whether bracketing is necessary in every part of
the word, or only partially so, i.e. limited to the concatenative part, whereas the non-
concatenative part (i.e. the stem) has no internal bracketing. Considerations of how Arabic
stems are formed seem to suggest that bracketing does not depend on the concatenative vs
non-concatenative nature of morphemes, as will be shown in the next subsections.
3. Forms of Arabic xo Syntactic Categories

An important question which relates to the observations made earlier is the following: What
is the morphological nature of Arabic xo lexical categories like V, A, and N? Are they
stems, or mere roots?
In a language like English, the question raised seems to have a straightforward answer.
When we say John works or John worked, there is no doubt that the form of the lexical
category V is the stem work. Then the affixes [s] and [ed], which belong to the inflectional
part of the word, attach to the stem in syntax, if they are generated under INFL. Thus the
D-structure of John works is something like (4), following in essence Chomsky (1981) and
(1986a), and the affix for T and AGR under I is lowered onto V at S-structure, enabling
the inflected verbal word to be formed:
(4) IP
~
NP I'
I~
John I VP
I I
v
I
work
Consider now the following Arabic sentences:
(5) a. kataba r-rajul-u
wrote the-man-nom
The man wrote/has written.
b. y-aktub-u r-rajul-u
3-write-indic the-man-nom
The man writes/is writing.
c. kutiba d-dars-u
wrote.pass. the-lesson-nom
The lesson was written.
None of the forms of verbal stems in these sentences, i.e. katab in (5a), ktub in (5b), and
kutib in (5c), is an atomic lexical counterpart of the English stem work, which can be
inserted under V in the syntactic tree. The reason for this is that these forms are already
inflected forT/Aspect and Voice. Inflectional information is encoded through internal vowels,
and no vowel of the stem is part of the form of the lexical category only. In the perfective
passive kutib, for example, no vowel of the active is preserved. Whatever vowel is there in
the stem belongs to the form of the inflection, and not to the lexical category. Consequently,
if an atomic category V is to exist as a separate form at all, it would consist of merely root
consonants. The question is then: what form is projected in the syntactic tree? Is it the
consonantal root ktb or the (inflected) stem katab? Each choice has different consequences
for phrase structure, and for word structure as well. 8
Suppose it is the stem which is projected, then it should occur under a joint projection
of V and I in the syntax. It would be incorrect to insert katab under V only, because the
latter form expresses also the perfective T/Aspect and the active voice. The same observa-
tion applies to kutib, ktub, etc. Suppose, on the other hand, that only the consonantal root
is projected, then i-categories like T and Voice would be adjoined to it in the syntax, and
the stem would be formed (depending on this information) only in the phonology. General
syntactic considerations (throughout the book) as well as conceptual ones will lead us to
generate T, Asp, and Voice in the syntax, not in the lexicon. Among these considerations
is the fact that standard X' theory does not allow multiple heads. Moreover, these heads
have different properties (compare, for example, the properties of T with those of AGR or
those of passive Voice, etc.). Finally, if these i-categories are merged with the root in the
lexicon and projected as such, then it is difficult to separate their syntactic properties from
those of the lexical category they merge with.
4. A General Model of Word Formation

Arabic words are then largely formed in syntax, making important use of the head-to-head
version of Move-a. The latter raises lexical roots through heads, adjoining one head to another.
V lands in AGR or Mood, and does not move forward to C in the general case. The adjunc-
tion creates a bracketed structure, which is subsequently manipulated by morphology. 9 While
forming words, morphological rules have to distinguish constituents which are merged in
one segment of the word from constituents which represent independent morphemes, ordered
with respect to each other. Moreover, a distinction has to be drawn between concrete mor-
phemes (i.e. morphemes which have a relatively fixed phonological form) and abstract ones
(which need to be spelled out or realized phonologically). For example, the causative
morpheme [st] in stawzara 'to appoint as a minister' is concrete, whereas the morpheme
for plural or mood is more abstract and may take different forms. To realize abstract mor-
phemes, we have to go through spelling and readjustment rules of the type proposed by
McCarthy and Prince (1988), Halle (1989), and Seghrouchni (1989). Halle has argued that
these rules are at the core of the morphological component. Based on some of his observa-
tions, as well as Seghrouchni's (1989) work, I propose the following general model for
(Arabic) word formation:
80 CHAPTER 2
(6)
Lexicon:
- roots, stems, affixes
- move-alpha (head-to-head)
phrase structure syntax
~
D-str-uctur-e
transformational move-head-to-head
~
8-str-uctur-e
morphology:
- readjustment
- spelling
- derivation of binyanim
~
mor-pfw(m;ttcaL for-m
phonological rules
photwttc Jor-m
Details of the morphological and phonological components do not concern us here (see
Seghrouchni, 1989 on the matter), but the general picture is quite clear.
Consider a word like yustawzaruuna 'they are appointed as ministers'. The consonantal
root [stwzr] is complex. It is formed by raising the basic root [wzr) to the causative prefix
[st] in the lexicon (see Hale and Keyser, 1989 on the application of Move-a in the lexicon).
At D-structure, only the complex causative root is projected (with no further internal
structure). Thus the causative construction (7) has a D-structure like (8):
(7) st-awzara zayd-un r-rajul-a
made-minister Zayd-nom the-man-ace
Zayd has appointed the man as minister.
(8) VP
~
NP V'
I~
zayd V NP
I
stwzr
I
r-rajul-a
The structure in (8) is presumably the representation of the verb's thematic structure in the
lexicon. But it arises only as an output of the rule forming causative verbs in the lexicon,
from an underlying structure of the form given in (9):
(9) VP
~
V'
V
~VP
I~
st V'
~
V NP
I
wzr
I
r-rajul
In this structure, the intransitive verb wzr has no thematic subject, and the affix [st] is a
causative verb. The embedded verb raises to incorporate into the higher one, and unneces-
sary nodes are dispensed with (or pruned by convention), along the lines suggested for
conflation rules by Hale and Keyser (1989). As a result, the structure given in (8) is formed,
and subsequently projected in syntax.
In the syntactic component, the verbal root is inserted in a structure which contains various
inflectional constituents. These morphemes merge together at the phonological level, but
bracketing operates in syntax, as previously described. As a consequence, an internal struc-
ture like (10) is generated:
(10) Mood
~
AGR Mood
~I
T AGR [na]
T
~I
V [uu]
~
y-ustawzar
This structure is the input to morphology, on which readjustment and spelling rules operate,
followed by purely phonological rules. The rule which affixes the causative morpheme rep-
resents the general model of affixation to a root in the lexicon. The affixation of inchoatives,
reflexives, reciprocals, etc. follows the same pattern, along the lines proposed in Fassi ( 1986b ).
Not only does the rule Move-a apply in the lexicon to merge a root with an affix, it
also applies to merge a root with another root. The phenomenon, called na/Jt 'dressing' by
traditional grammarians, is a particular form of compounding which operates solely on
roots. It merges a triliteral root with another triliteral or biliteral root, as in basmal 'to utter
the invocation: in the name of God', formed from bism 'in the name of' and llah 'God'.
Then the extra consonants are 'cut' or lost in order to keep only a quadriliteral form, which
is the maximal canonical number of root consonants. The consonant reduction here recalls
82 CHAPTER 2
what happens with plurals of words containing more than four consonants. For example,
the plural of <andaliib 'nightingale' is <anaadil, the plural of safarjal 'quince' safaarij, etc.
Thus apart from quadriliteral roots in which the last consonant is reduplicating the third
one, as in jalbab 'to clothe in a garment', most of the complex roots are formed by the
rule Move-a, which adjoins a root to another root, or to an affix, in the lexicon. The rule
applies equally in the syntax. allowing further adjunctions to T, Asp, AGR, etc. A number
of morphemes are abstract, as we have mentioned, and they may or may not be realized
separately in the morphology. For example, the so-called third form CaaCaCa, which expresses
reciprocality, is usually formed from triliteral roots, and the abstract morpheme, which is
manifested by lengthening, is only spelled out correctly in the morphology. 10
5. /-Categories and Their Order

Among the issues in the structure of clauses is the appropriate characterization of the nature
and number of i-categories which function as their heads, how they are projected (and/or
merged), and how they are ordered with respect to each other, at D-structure and S-struc-
ture. Since a number of these i-categories are merged with the verbal root at surface structure,
it is important to examine to what extent the order of these bound morphemes within the word
can be mirrored by syntactic structures.
If we replace the traditional INFL category by a more elaborate list of i-categories, then
a descriptive set would include the following: C(omplementizer), Mod(ality), Neg(ation),
Mood, T(ense), AGR, Asp(ect), and Vo(ice). Let us see how this list is to be structured.
( 11) ? a-maa ra? ay-ta r-rajul-a
Q-Neg saw-you the-man-ace
Haven't you seen the man?
(12) a. za<am-a ? an sa-y-aJ:tdur-u
pretended-3.s.m. that will-3-is.present-indic
He pretended that he will be present.
b. za<am-a ? an qad J:tac;Iar-a
pretended-3.s.m. that indeed came-3.s.m.
He pretended that he did come.
(13) a. y-uriid-u ?an laa y-aJ:tqur-a
3 -wants-indic that not 3 -is.present-subj
He wants not to be present.
b. sawfa laa y-aJ:tqur-u
will not 3-is.present-indic
He will not come.
Clearly C, whether interrogative, as in (II), or declarative, as in the other examples, precedes
all other i-categories. The existence of C as an autonomous category was first argued for
by Bresnan (1970) and (1972). In Fassi (1980), it is proposed that the traditional S' should
be analyzed as a CP, headed by C (following an original idea by Ken Hale). Order of the
other categories is in the simple case as follows: Mod Neg V-Vo/Asp/T-AGR-Mood.
Modality is instantiated by particles like qad and sawfa (or the equivalent prefix sa-, as
in (12a)). These particles modify the temporal meanings of verbs, and they are in comple-
mentary distribution with each other and with other modals, suggesting that they belong to
the category Mod, rather than T. Modal qad expresses certainty of completion or effective
happening, when occurring with perfect verbs (equivalent to 'indeed' in English or to the
emphatic modal 'do' in 'John did go'). It also expresses probability or uncertainty with imper-
fective verbs. On the other hand, sawfa (like sa-) is used to specify future meaning, but it
has also the modal connotation of certainty or effective happening. That the two particles
are in complementary distribution is illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (14):
(14) * qad sawfa y-al:l(Jur-u
may will 3-is.present-indic
*He may will come.
These modality particles occur after C, as shown in (12), and before Neg, as in (13). Neg
follows Mod, after C, but it precedes AGR and T, as in the above sentences. 11
C, Mod, and Neg, have a different status from other items of the list. They are not normally
incorporated onto the verb, though some of them might be bound to the verb (like the prefix
sa-). This class of i-categories contrasts significantly with the class of elements which are
merged within the stem of the word, or are even necessary to make it pronounceable. The
latter class is represented by the complex stem V.Vo.Asp.T-AGR-Mood (Vo = Voice, and
Asp = Aspect; I use dots to separate categories which form the stem, and dashes between
the different concrete segments of the word). Thus Vo, Asp and T are merged together in
one morpheme. AGR is another morpheme, as is Mood. It should be born in mind, however,
that a single morphological unit does not necessarily correspond to a single syntactic category.
T, Asp, and Vo might represent more than one syntactic category, as we will see in other
chapters, but all these categories are nevertheless merged into one morphological unit.
The distinction between Mod and T is based both on morphological and syntactic evidence.
Tense markers are either vowels merged in the stem of the verb, or prefixal or suffixal con-
sonants which are strictly internal to the word. Modals, in contrast, are usually non-bound
morphemes, and they precede (and govern) verbs. An exception to this appears to be
sa-, but even in this case there is no context of true 'fusion' in the sense of Bybee (1985),
and the modal has to precede the prefix tense marker on the verb. For example, the internal
(vocalic) morphology of passives extends to the prefix tense marker, but not the modal, as
shown in (15):
(15) sa-y-u9rab-u
will-3 -beat. pass. -indic
He will be beaten.
If the sa- was a Tense marker, then as far as I can tell, nothing will stop the passive vocalic
morphology from 'spreading' to it. The result will then be the ill-formed *su-y-u{irab-u. There
are other differences between Tense markers and modals which keep them distinct. For
example, T is a Case assigner of Nominative, whereas Mod may assign Mood or be neutral
with respect to this process (see Chapter 4).
We can adopt a maximalist general strategy of decomposing the traditional constituent I
into different categories, and assume that Asp and Mood, like T and Mod, head their own
inflectional projections.
Asp, where grammaticalized in verbal morphology (as in Greek and Slavic perfective or
imperfective) can be easily distinguished from T. But Asp is not encoded by a specific
morphology on the Arabic verb, at least if the perfect/imperfect distinction is not seen as
the basic interpretation of this morphology (but see the controversy on this problem in Chapter
4; see also the references cited there). Likewise, Mood can be separated from Modality,
although this distinction is more difficult to support than the former one. In Arabic, the
distinction between the two is grammatically clear, despite the fact that semantically and
conceptually, there might be some confusion and overlapping. Mood is an inflectional element
which is suffixed to the verb, and merges with its stem, whereas Mod is usually expressed
by particles, which are not part of the verb. The perfect form of the verb is almost exclu-
84 CHAPTER 2
sively used for the indicative Mood (presumably by default), while the imperfect form has
different endings, depending on whether it expresses the jussive as in (16), the subjunctive,
as in (17), the conditional as in (18), or the energetic, as in (19):
(16) li-t-axruj
let-you-go
You go!
(17) ? -uriid-u ? an t-ar tiy-a
1-want-indic that you-come-sub}
I want you to come.
(18) (in t-adxul 1-qaa'ata
if you-enter the room
(19) la-t-adxul-u-nna
you-enter-2.pl. -indeed
You will enter indeed.
The attachment of the Mood suffix precedes the attachment of pronominal affixes on the verb.
Modal morphemes, by contrast, do not have the same nature, nor the same distribution.
They are usually non-bound particles or verbs. Their semantics includes 'probability', 'pos-
sibility', 'necessity', etc. Here are some examples:
(20) qad ? -a'uud-u rilaa faas
probably 1-retum-indic to Fez
I will probably return to Fez.
(21) sawfa ?-a'uud-u ?ilaa faas
will 1-retum-indic to Fez
I will return to Fez.
(22) la'alla-hu gaa? ib-un
maybe-him absent-nom
He may be absent.
(23) yajibu (an t-aquul-a haagaa
is.necessary that you-say-sub} this
It is necessary that you say this.
It is true that there is an overlap in meanings expressed by Mod and Mood, which may suggest
that the two inflections realize only one semantic category, but it is not that obvious. The
question merits further research. 12
Given the order discussed, then if these constituents are X0 heads of their syntactic
projections. their order might be a reflection of either deep or surface constituent relations
within the tree. Since T is apophonic, i.e. it forms (part of) the internal vocalic structure of
the stem, prior to any possible prefixation or suffixation, it is natural to think of it as the
lowest element in the tree adjoined to the root. On the other hand, AGR is higher in the
tree structure than T, since it is suffixal or prefixal, and does not belong to the stem. As
for Mood, it follows AGR. Taking these observations into account, I propose that the sentence
in (20) has the following D-structure:
(24) ModP
Mod
~MoodP
I~
qad Mood AGRP
I~
[u] AGR TP
~
T VP
~
Spec V' V'
I
Pro
I
V
I
?a
I
cuud
As mentioned earlier, Move-a applies at S-structure, raising V toT, then V-T to AGR,
then V-T-AGR to Mood, thus deriving the right internal order of morphemes within the word,
before phonological rules apply. 13
NOTES TO APPENDIX l
1 Baker (1985a, 1988) defends a view of morphology based on the Mirror Principle.
2 The redundancy view has originally been developed by Jackendoff (1975), on the bases
of observations made by Chomsky (1970) and Halle (1973). Redundancy rules are descrip-
tive in nature. They relate lexical entries in the following manner:
(i) [x ... ] H [y ... ]
where x and y are variables for integers numbering the entries, and the dots stand for the
phonological, syntactic, and semantic information. There are almost no limits or constraints
on these rules. Redundantists aknowledge the fact that there are syntactic expressions listed
in the lexicon (namely idioms) which are not words, and there are 'possible' words in the
language which are not listed in the lexicon (namely neologisms). But this paradoxical
situation has not managed to convince them to give up their view, as Di Sciullo and Williams
( 1987) observe.
3 For a recent defense of an autonomous morphological component, see Di Sciullo and
Williams (1987).
4 These observations apply to so-called broken plurals. Sound plural formation is essentially
concatenative (see McCarthy, 1981).
5 According to McCarthy (1979, p. 388), a lexical entry of a form w-referred to as L(w)-
is a directed graph whose root is w. "That is, a lexical entry is a rooted, n-ary branching
tree. For any b which is dominated by a in L(w), we say that b is derived from a. If a and
b are both dominated by some w in L(w), then we say that a is morphologically related to
b". The evaluation metric is conceived as follows: "any relationship of immediate domina-
tion in a lexical entry that can be predicted by any morphological rule is without cost. [The
optimal morphological system] ... will have only the value of the sum of the values of all
root nodes of lexical entries plus the sum of the values of all morphological rules." (See
p. 390.)
6 On strong lexicalism, see Lapointe (1981). A recent and elaborated version of the thesis
of atomicity of words, incompatible with syntacticism (though not lexicalism) can be found
in Di Sciullo and Williams (1987).
7 Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) argue that morphological rules are recursive, quoting Halle
86 CHAPTER 2
(1973) for the series of words anti-missile missile, anti-anti-missile missile missile, and so
on " ... an infinite series of words, each with a determinate meaning different from that of
all the others" (p. 7). In their view, the lexicon is limited to the set of listemes, that is, the
list of memorized objects. Furthermore, listedness is no more intrisincally characteristic of
words than it is of phrases. On the other hand, the authors correctly reject the view that the
rules of morphology are essentially redundancy rules over a set of objects (i.e., words).
"To us, this makes no more sense than to say that VP ~ V NP is a redundancy rule over
the sets of VPs, most but of course not all of which have zero redundancy." (Seep. 4.) On
the other hand, productivity has been used as a criterion for separating what is in the syntax
(or the grammar) from what is in the lexicon (see Chomsky, 1970; Selkirk, 1982; and Fabb,
1984, among others). Di Sciullo and Williams correctly observe that productivity does not
determine the representational level. It merely determines the contextual restrictions for words.
8 It might be that the introduction of abstract citation forms of stems (like CaCaC) is
equivalent to the introduction of roots. The point is neutral with regard to the two options.
On the other hand, the question arises whether these consonantal roots are categorially
specified in the lexicon, or they inherit their categorial specification in the syntax (assuming
that categorially unspecified words project a default XP schema, which has to be licensed
by D-structure principles). In order to answer this question properly further research is needed
to determine how notional 'types' in the sense of Hale and Keyser (1991 ), such as events,
entities, and properties are associated with categories such as V, N, and A. If the associa-
tion occurs universally in the lexicon, then the roots will be categorially specified. If the
association is a matter of variation (occurring in the syntax or the lexicon, depending on
languages), then no categorial specification is necessary. For ease of exposition, I will assume
the specification view. Thanks are due to an NLL T reviewer for helping me clarify this
point.
" An alternative to bracketing is to claim that i-elements are features (which are realized
on roots), following a proposal made by Anderson (1988). Spelling rules would then have
to take care of ordering the different i-elements. This option appears to be stipulative. however.
For criticism, see Halle (1989).
10 I think that nominals like kitaab 'book', ?asad 'lion', rajul 'man', etc. are listed as
such in the lexicon, and projected as stems, at least when they are ordinary nouns. Roots
of these forms, however, do exit in the lexicon to form broken plurals, causative verbs, etc.
No derivation of these words from stems is possible. Plurals of these nouns (kutub 'books',
?usud 'lions', rijaa/ 'men') do not contain any of the vowels of the singular noun. The
same is true of verbs which have the same roots (?aktab 'to make write', ista?sad 'to
become a lion', raj}at 'to change to a man', etc).
11 It is worth pointing out, however, that medals and Neg particles are in complementary
distribution when the latter are Mood assigners, as the ungrammaticality of the following indi-
cates:
(i) *?sawfa ian y-ai)qur-a
will Neg.fut. 3-is.present-subj
He will not be present.
See Chapter 4 for an analysis of this complementarity.
12 For some informal suggestions, see Lyons (1977) and Palmer ( 1985), among others;
see also Chapter 4.
13 An SNLL T reviewer has objected to the decision for generating T lower than AGR on
a number of grounds. He pointed out, for example, that if ?an in constructions like (23) is
treated as a Mood marker or a T element equivalent to English infinitival marker to (rather
than C), then Mood or T would be higher than Neg, and Neg would be higher than AGR
carried by the verb. That Neg is higher than AGR seems also to be supported by the fact
that in Neg clauses, Tense is realized on Neg particles, while agreement is realized on the
verb. Furthermore, morphological evidence is not conclusive in deciding whether T or AGR

is higher.
While I agree that the issue is complex, I think that there are reasons suggesting that my
approach is on the right track. Although ?an may have mood assigning properties, I see no
reason not to treat as a C. Its status is not that different from that of ?inna, the latter being
a C and a Case assigner. The fact that no (preverbal) NP can separate ?an from the verb is
probably due to an adjacency requirement on Mood checking, and cannot be taken as arguing
that ?an is located in I, rather than C, as suggested by the reviewer. On the other hand,
there is no reason to think that Neg selects AGR (or a bare VP) rather than T. On the contrary,
as will be shown in Chapter 4, Neg particles differ precisely with respect to which tensed
verbal form they may or may not select, thus indicating that Neg is higher than T (see Chapter
4 for further arguments).
APPENDIX 2: INFLECTION IN NOMINAL SENTENCES
So-called nominal sentences seem, at first glance, to resist an analysis in which they are
assigned a fully expanded inflectional structure. Unlike sentences headed by a verb to which
T and AGR are attached, this type of sentences contain no (visible) verb and hence, no (visible)
T and AGR. But there is evidence that these sentences are headed by essentially the same
i-components which head verbal sentences, including T and AGR, contrary to what a small
clause analysis of these constructions would predict. 1
1. Tense
In Fassi (1981 ), it is proposed that the D-structure of a nominal sentence like (I) is iden-
tical to that of a copular sentence like (2):
(I) r-rajul-u marii9-un
The man is sick.
(2) kaana r-rajul-u marii9-an
was the-man-nom sick-ace
The man was sick.
The copular verb, which is present at D-structure in both cases, fails to surface when it
bears an unmarked T feature, namely [-past]. By contrast, the [+past] T forces the copula
to be present at S-structure. One claimed advantage of this analysis is that it unifies the under-
lying structure of superficially verbal and non-verbal sentences. In Fassi (1987a), I have
adopted an analysis in which I heads nominal sentences, though no copular verb is present
at D-structure. The essential motivation of both analyses is that nominal sentences do contain
T.l
There is empirical evidence supporting this view. Temporal adverbs locate the event in
time, and depending on their temporal specification, they may or may not be compatible
with the tense morphology encoded on the verb. The contrast in grammaticality between
(3a) and (3b) is due to this compatibility requirement:
(3) a. yaakulu r-rajul-u 1-?aan-a
eats the-man-nom the-now-ace
The man eats now.
b. * yaakulu r-rajul-u ?amsi
eats the-man-nom yesterday
88 CHAPTER 2
Similar contrasts obtain in nominal sentences, pointing clearly to the fact that their inflec-
tional structure contains a non-past T:
(3) a. r-rajul-u mariic;l-un 1-? aana
the-man-nom sick-nom now
The man is sick now.
b. * r-rajul-u mariic;l-un ? amsi

the-man-nom sick-nom yesterday
Thus the temporal adverb test supports the view that nominal sentences contain T.
suggesting that the small clause analysis cannot be correct.
2. AGR
Verbless sentences like (1) seem at first glance to contain no sentential (or tensed) AGR.
The only visible agreement there is phrasal AGR, which shows up on the adjective. There
is evidence, however, that these sentences do contain sentential AGR. Thus, although
sentential AGR is not usually realized in nominal sentences, it does show up in some negative
contexts, as will be explained. Consider the following sentence:
(5) lays-at hind-un mariic;lat-an
Neg-.s.f Hind-nom sick-s.f-acc
Hind is not sick.
There is reason to think that the position of the Neg morpheme laysa in (5) is not its D-
structure position. Like a copular verb (and unlike other Neg morphemes), laysa assigns a
(morphological) accusative to the adjective. This case is presumably assigned (under
adjacency) by the negative. The latter is generated lower than AGR and T. Then laysa head
moves first to T. then to AGR. The D-structure for (5) can be diagrammed as follows:
(6) AGRP
~
AGR TP
~
Spec T T'
~
T ~
Neg AP
I~
laysa NP A
I
hind
I
marii~at
It is interesting to note that the form of AGR that /aysa supports is identical to the form which
appears on verbs. This is why traditional grammarians treat laysa as a verb. The occur-
rence of the right form of agreement on lays a can be ensured if we assume that the structure
of the sentence contains a sentential or a tensed AGR (which is different from phrasal AGR
that occurs on adjectives). Then laysa incorporates T and AGR, ensuring that the right form
of agreement is attached to it.
NOTES TO APPENDIX 2
1 Mouchaweh (1986) has adopted a small clause analysis for Arabic nominal sentences,
based on a proposal in the same vein made by Kayne (1983). See also Rapaport (1987) for
a similar view applied to Hebrew.
2 Further research is needed to determine under what (morphological) conditions the copula
is visible, keeping in mind the initial idea of Fassi (1981) that the copula is 'there', but it
may or may not surface. In languages like English and French, the verbal copula is realized
whatever its tense and aspect. This is not so in Arabic, where it is not realized with unmarked
tense and aspect. On the other hand, a predicate nominal or an adjective receives morpho-
logical accusative Case only when the copula surfaces, indicating that lexicalization of the
copula is a necessary requirement for Case assignment (see Chapter 4 for a more extensive
discussion).
NOTES
* This chapter is an expanded version of part of the material contained in Chapter 2 of

Fassi (1989b) and (1989c), the latter being based in turn on Fassi (1985a) and (1987a).
1 Early generative accounts of VSO order have adopted a version of Emonds' ( 1980) original
proposal that V in V-initiallanguages originates as a head of VP in a basic SVO structure,
and then fronted (see Koopman, 1984; Travis, 1984; Emonds, 1985; Sproat, 1985a; and Fassi,
1985a, 1987a, among others). But although Emonds' fronting rule is not structure pre-
serving, most subsequent authors have postulated that the V's landing site is I. suggesting that
the rule is structure preserving.
2 A number of people, including Kuroda (1986), Zagona (1988), Kitagawa (1986), and
Koopman and Sportiche (1988), have proposed that subjects are generated inside VPs. The
question whether the subject is a Spec of VP or adjoined to it will not be addressed here.
3 Informally, the Principle of Full Interpretation (Fl) might be stated as follows:
(i) Every element must be licensed by some grammatical principle at the level at which it
is introduced.
A question which arises in connection with this formulation is whether Spec of IP is gen-
erated at D-structure or only introduced later in the derivation. This problem will not be
addressed in this work.
4 The analysis in (2) has been adopted by Chung (1990a) for Chamorro, following Choe's
(1985) proposal for Berber. Shlonsky (1987) and (1990) assumes versions of (3) and (4),
respectively.
5 Given the Economy principle, lowering operations are taken to be costy, compared to
raising rules, since the former (unlike the latter) have to be followed by raising at LF, and
hence involve two-step derivations, instead of one step. See Chomsky ( 1989a) for discus-
sion.
6 The absence of Spec of IP is commonly assumed for Celtic (see in particular Rouveret,
1990 for motivation). The following structures, proposed for Welsh and Irish. share this view:
(i) s
~
I NP VP
~
V NP (Sproat, 1985a)
90 CHAPTER 2
(ii) s
~
I S
~
NP VP
~
V NP (McCloskey, 1990)
(iii) s
~
I VP
~V'
NP (Rouveret, 1990)
7 On the formal properties of head movement rules, including the Head Movement
Constraint, see in particular Travis (1984), Chomsky (1986a), and Baker (1988).
8 Alternatively, we might adopt a logicosyntactic motivation for V raising a Ia Pollock
(1989a), in which V raises to I, to enable the latter to bind the E variable in V. See note
61.
9 For additional arguments, see in particular Fassi (1981) and ( 1987), and Bakir ( 1980).
Abdo (1983) argues that SVO is the neutral order.
10 This fact can be derived, in turn, if the subject is taken to have moved to an A-position
(through specifiers), since movement to an A-bar position does not preserve basic order.
As will be shown, the subject there has to move to Spec of AGR (and then eventually to
Spec of C), as in Rizzi (1991a).
11 Joan Maling pointed out to me that the exact counterpart to (21) is perfectly grammat-
ical in languages with possessive reflexives (e.g. in Scandinavian). A crosslinguistic
comparison of bound anaphora constraints and parameters is beyond the scope of this work.
12 The expression 'neutral coindexation' is used in the sense of Reinhart (1983).
13 Barss and Lasnik (1986), among others, have proposed that precedence plays a role in
the grammar of binding. See also Evans (1980) for pronominal binding. Reinhart (1983)
suggests that precedence belongs to the theory of 'pragmatics', rather than to the grammar
proper.
14 Among the arguments usually provided to establish subject/object asymmetries is idiomatic
interpretation. Objects are claimed to form idioms with V 'easier' than subjects do. See
Chomsky (1981) and Marantz (1984) for the form of the argument, and Bresnan's (1982)
criticism of it. See also Mouchaweh (1986) on similar argumentation for Arabic. Note that
Chung ( 1983) and McCloskey (1984) have claimed that there is no subject/object
asymmetry in terms of government in Chamorro and Irish, respectively.
15 Note that additional problems arise in the context of precedence with regard to Crossover.
Arabic observes both Weak and Strong Crossover constraints on pronominal binding, as shown
by the ungrammaticality of (i) and (ii) on one hand, and that of (iii) on the other hand:
(i) *man ?al).abb-at zawjat-u-hu
who loved-! wife-nom-him
*Who did his wife love?
(ii) * haa<jaa huwa r-rajul-u lla<.!ii ntaqad-at zawjat-u-hu
this he the-man-nom who criticized-f. wife-nom-him
*This is the man who his wife criticized.
(iii) * maktab-a zayd-in daxa1-a
office-ace Zayd-gen entered-3.s.m.
* Zayd' s office, he entered.
All these examples are ruled out under the coreference reading. Assuming that Weak Crossover
effects are observed only when scrambling is to an A-bar position, as proposed by Mahajan
(1990), and that the same is true of Strong Crossover in (iii), this suggests that the condi-
tion (18) is not sufficient to regulate the distribution of A-bar pronouns.
16 This is conditioned by the non-existence of an overt complementizer in C, so that the
basic motivation might be viewed as being the complementarity of V2 and overt Cs. This
analysis is originally due to Hans den Besten (1977), later published as (1983). For an
elaborated version of V movement in Germanic, see Platzack and Holmberg (1990).
17 The V -to-C-analysis incorrectly establishes a similarity between the inflectional struc-
ture of Arabic and that of verb second Germanic languages, which exhibit a number of
different and intriguing properties. For a critical review of these properties, see Weerman
(1989). See also note 16 and references cited there.
18 The Arabic dominant grammatical tradition of Basrah (Iraq) has denied the subject
interpretation. According to this tradition, a preverbal NP is always interpreted as a 'topic',
i.e. a constituent in an A-bar position (see e.g. Sibawayhi, 8th century). Previous genera-
tive work has adopted (incorrectly) the Basrian's view (see e.g. Bakir, 1980; Fassi, 1981;
and Ayoub, 1982 among others). The Kuufa's tradition admits the existence of preverbal
subjects, but without convincing arguments (see e.g. Ibn Madaa?). It is then an important
contribution to Arabic linguistics to show that this view, which was dominant for centuries,
is inaccurate. Furthermore, it is equally of great interest to theoretical linguistics to assess
the existence of mixed type languages, as described here. Note also that Arabic is crucially
not analyzed as an SYO language (as in Abdo, 1983 or Mohammad, 1990 among others),
but essentially as VSO.
19 Non-Arabists might wonder why 'jund-a' is Accusative here, although it is a subject.
In fact, the so-called generic negation marker 'laa' (by traditional grammarians) is assigning
morphological Accusative to the noun in this case. That assignment takes place inside the
subject NP. On Case assigning properties of negative markers, see Chapter 4.
°
2 Chafe (1975) claims also that topics must be definite, and he attempts an explanation
of this requirement from a funtional perspective.
21 See Cinque (1984), who proposes a similar condition.
22 Howard Lasnik (personal communication) informed me that quite the same judgments are
valid in English. On the other hand, the requirement that raised subjects must (at least) be
weakly referential has to follow from the referential properties of AGR. It is rich AGR
which seems to force (weak) referentiality, as the facts suggest. On the correlation between
specificity, AGR, and Case, see En~ (1990), Mahajan (1990), and Moltman (1990), among
others. On referential properties of AGR, see Gueron (1989). See also Chapter 3.
23 As will be shown in Chapter 3, PERS is not necessarily specified in Spec-Head agree-
ment, but NUM is. Moreover, licensing conditions for this feature might be different (see
Rouveret, 1991 and Chapter 4). Matters of specification are more complex than the taxonomy
rich/poor might suggest. In affirmative imperatives, for example, the suffix marker on the
verb encodes GEN and NUM, as illustrated by (i):
(i) dxul-na 1-l)arb-a
enter-pl.f the-war-ace
Enter (you women) the war 1
When the imperative is negated, the prefix encoding PERS must be introduced:
(ii) laa t-adxul-na 1-l)arb-a
not 2-enter-p/.f the-war-ace
Do not enter (you women) the war!
This seems to suggest that prefixes on imperfective verbs carry PERS feature, and that poor
AGR (at least with imperfectives) carries PERS as well as GEN. If this is true, this would
92 CHAPTER 2
mean that Spec-Head agreement triggers only agreement in NUM. The facts are complex,
however, and will be elaborated in Chapters 3 and 4.
24 It is worth observing that Accusative 'spreads' in (Sib), in which there is a govern-
ment by a verb. but not in the counterpart of (50). when governed by C, as in (i):
(i) ? inna r-rajul-a mariic.J-un
that the-man-ace sick-nom
The man is sick.
In this case, only the subject is accusative. but the predicate adjective must be nominative.
The ungrammaticality of (ii) indicates that case spreading is not possible in this case:
(ii) * i' inna r-rajul-a mariic.J-an
that the-man-ace sick-ace
The man is sick.
In fact, all four logically possible combinations (of nominative and accusative) are avail-
able in Arabic data. See Fassi ( 1987a) for analysis of these distributions. On case spreading,
as well as an analysis of case predicate APs agreement, see Yip, Jackendoff, and Maling
(1987). Thanks are due to Joan Maling for having helped me clarify these data.
25 Compare in particular with Rizzi's (l99lb) Wh Criterion.
10 As will be explained, however, French exhibits only two patterns of agreement: null
(or unspecified) and rich (or specified). It has no poor AGR, which is specified, but poor.
See below.
n For similar data in Breton. see Anderson ( 1982). and in Irish, see McCloskey and Hale
(1984). and Hale (1987a).
28 Ferguson ( 1984) points out that some Arabic SVO dialects exibit instances of null or poor
agreement when the subject is postverbal. The following examples. taken from Ferguson
and Barlow (1988), belong to Syrian Arabic:
(i) i'ijaa-ni makatiib
came.3.m.s.-me letters
I got some letters.
(ii) i'ijit-ni makatiib
came.3.fs.-me letters
I got some letters.
In (i). there is null agreement with the thematic subject, and in (ii). agreement in GEN only.
On the other hand, a SNLLT reviewer has observed that what I have termed rich agree-
ment is also found in VS contexts in languages usually classified as VSO, such as Chamorro
(see e.g. Chung. 1990), or Berber (as in Ouhalla, 1988). These facts (if correct) have to
wait for more exhaustive and detailed studies of these differences.
:;q Despite the dominant literature on the matter. Mohammad ( 1990) assumes, without
argument, that Arabic is SVO. not VSO. Moreover. he establishes no correlation in his
work between the agreement patterns found in VS and expletive contexts. For example, he
overlooks the fact that expletives can be feminine singular and that this is also true of AGR
in VS constructions, as pointed out in Fassi (1988b). On the contrary, he treats the crucial
GEN feature as being something he can do without, when he states: " ... I have nothing to
say about gender assignment in VS orders; so I will ignore it throughout the paper and
concentrate on the number feature" (p. 98). But although he promises to deal with the
number feature, he does not deal with the problem of why a VS sentence with a plural number
agreement is ungrammatical in Standard Arabic, while it is grammatical in e.g. MA or Standard
Italian.
30 Basically, Mora claims that There raises from a small clause in which it functions as a
predicate. Sentences like (79) and (80) would then be 'inverse' copular sentences in Mora's
sense, and not 'canonical' ones. See his paper for details.
31 Note that it is possible to say:
(i) hiya 1-junuud-u
she the-soldiers-nom
It's soldiers.
This is due to the specific rule which treats broken plurals as feminine singular (see Fassi,
1984). For more data instantiating the same phenomenon, see Roman (1990).
32 A similar conclusion can be equally reached for French, although through a more complex
route. If we follow Kayne (1989) and Rizzi and Roberts (1989) in postulating the existence
of subject clitic expletives in complex subject inversion in French, then it cannot be true
that the expletive list is limited to singular masculine forms. The fact, then, that the exple-
tive is limited to the singular masculine form in the right context has to follow from the
fact that AGR there cannot be specified, otherwise its features would not be licensed.
33 For these data, see Wright (1974), Blachere and Demombynes (1952), Fassi (1984),
and Roman (1990), among others.
34 Constructions like (82), (89) and (90) indicate that expletives can be licensed as topics,
and not necessarily as subjects. Expletive topics have also been documented in Icelandic
(Zaenen, 1980), and Germanic (see Platzack, 1983 and Maling, 1988, among others).
35 See Pollock (1983) for some suggestions to account for French data.
36 Null agreement is used in MA only in contexts where there is no thematic subject, as
in (i):
(i) <.Jhar li belli layla ja-t
appeared me that Lay/a came-f
It appeared to me that Layla has come.
In this example, the matrix carries no specified form of agreement.
37 R-chains establish referential dependence between members of the chain, of which one
member is an R-NP, and another member is an expletive. R-chains are counterparts of CHAINs
in Chomsky's (1986a) system, although they do not seem to obey Chomsky's General
Condition on chains (formulated in (138) below)
38 This assumption is based on earlier work by Rizzi ( 1982).
39 I have assumed throughout that there is no counterpart of the AGR Criterion applying
to non-specified AGR, or expletives (with no specified features). See the observations made
in subsection 4.1.
40 It might be suggested that the extraposed subject inherits Case by transmission from an
empty expletive located in Spec of I. This claim cannot be supported, however. When an
expletive surfaces there, the only available Case for the extraposed subject is Nominative,
even though the expletive is marked with accusative, as the following example shows:
(i) ? inna-hu fii d-daar-i rajul-un (*rajul-an)
that-it in the-house-gen man-nom (*man-ace)
There is a man in the house (literally: there is in the house a man).
In general, the Case transmission hypothesis seems to have no motivation in the grammar
of the language. On the contrary, it makes the wrong predictions (see note 41).
41 Note that if we were to hypothesize an empty expletive in Spec of I, together with Case
transmission, nothing would stop the ungrammatical construction. As with C, whenever an
expletive surfaces there, the subject must be marked with Nominative case:
94 CHAPTER 2
(i) hasib-tu-hu jaa? -a ? axuu-ka (*? axaa-ka)

thought-l-it came-3.s.m. brother.nom-your (*brother.acc-your)
Literally: I thought it your brother came.
I conclude, then, that the Case transmission claim is incorrect. For arguments based on English
facts pointing to the same conclusion, see Lasnik (1989b).
42 These formulations are simplified versions of those found in Rizzi (1990).
43 As formulated, (106) is neutral with respec to the INFL split issue. A less neutral for-
mulation is the following:
(i) AGR is ± nominal.
Nothing crucial hinges on either version at this point, as far as I can tell.
44 A similar proposal has been made by Reuland (1983) and Raposo (1987) for different
applications.
45 The principle (111) is due to Fukui and Speas (1986). These authors subsume both case
discharge and thematic discharge under the more abstract notion of Kase discharge. See
also Vergnaud ( 1985). The case principle can be interpreted as belonging to the class of general
principles forming legitimate objects. Thus an object which has not discharged features it
must discharge (including theta and Case features) would not be legitimate (Chomsky, MIT
Class Lectures 1990).
46 For Negation as a diagnostic for the existence ofT, see in particular Laka (1990).
47 In recent unpublished work, Hoekstra and Gueron have worked out analyses for French
and English auxiliaries in which they select inflection phrases, rather than VPs. They thus
reach conclusions in the same spirit as mine.
48 The following question arises: how is IP licensed in (112) and (113)? Given that the
embedded IP receives Nominative, and not Accusative, it is clear that it behaves as an
!-subject of the higher I. This indicates in turn that I-subjects (in the sense of Borer, 1986)
are obligatory in clauses, and that a revision of the EPP in this direction is suitable. See below,
Subsection 4.1.
49 The so-called EPP amounts to a stipulation that every clause must have a structural subject.
It is designated in Relational Grammar as the Final-1-Law (see Perlmutter and Postal, 1983).
A similar principle is also found in Arabic traditional grammar, which requires the presence
of a subject in so-called verbal sentences. A topic is required in nominal sentences (see
Sibawayh, Vol. I for details).
50 Arabic traditional grammar postulates no pronoun in these cases. It treats the postverbal
sentence itself as a subject. In the traditional view, too, CPs have Case and can therefore carry
the Case to be discharged by I. Note that traditional grammar assumes that !-subjects are
required in every clause, as in Borer (1986).
51 Lexical expletives may occur optionally in some nominal sentences, as in the following
one:
(i) ? a huwa mustal:lill-un ? an n-attafiq-a yawm-an
Q it impossible-nom that we-agree day-ace
Is it impossible for us to agree some day?
The independent expletive pronoun is allowed here. I leave an exhaustive account of these
distributions for further research.
52 In Rizzi (199Ia), configurational AGR positions are taken to be A positions.
53 In fact, McCloskey (1984, 1985) and Chung and McCloskey (1987) argue for the
existence of NP and Wh movement in Irish. See also Hendrick (1990) for Breton. Very
recent work by Rouveret (1991) argues that Welsh makes use of NP and Wh movement
(although the range of this use is limited).
54 On Wh movement in Chamorro, see Chung (1983).
55 Note that this alternation was at the heart of Emonds' proposal (1980) to derive VSO
from an underlying SVO, via V fronting.
56 According to Chung (1990a), Chamorro's alternative order is VOS. As we have seen,
Arabic exhibits also VOS order.
57 This is in line with Chomsky's (1986b) theory of adjunction. Chomsky assumes that
adjunction to a maximal projection is possible only if the latter is non-argumental. Adjunction
to VP is allowed, but not to NP or CP (when they are argumental). Keeping the essential
insight, I propose that adjunction is limited to [-N] categories.
58 Recall that Chomsky (1986b) defines L-marking as follows:
(i) Where a is a lexical category, a L-marks b iff b agrees with the head of y
that is theta-governed by a.
As for theta-government, it is defined as follows:
(ii) a theta-governs b iff a is a zero-level category that theta-marks b. and a, b
are sisters.
59 The non-agreeing C in (157b) will prevent the trace of the Wh word in Spec of CP
from acting as antecedent governor for the trace in Spec of AGRP. In contrast, antecedent
government is not blocked in (157a). See Rizzi (1990) for proposals in the same spirit, and
Kenstowicz (1989) for discussion of similar facts in some Arabic dialects.
60 Joan Maling pointed out that it is not strictly true that lowering rules violate the Economy
principle. Because of ECP, they lead to derivations which do so.
61 Pollock ( 1989a) has provided another syntactic reason for V raising. Basically, he takes
T to be an operator (located in I in some languages) which has to bind a syntactic variable.
V to I is treated as an A-bar movement which leaves such a variable. Pollock then proposes
to implement this idea within Higginbotham's (1985) theory of saturation, making use in
particuclar of the Davidsonian E position in the theta-grid of verbs (which functions as a
variable).
62 For arguments that Neg may be generated as a head selecting an IP, see Laka (1990)
and Zanuttini (1989).
One might wonder why there are so many negative forms in Arabic, as illustrated in the
various examples, and what are their distributional properties. Answers to these questions
are proposed in Chapter 4.
63 See Sportiche (1988) for some recent proposal along these lines for French and English,
based on the seminal work of Kayne (1975).
64 These observations indicate that Arabic Qs should be treated like normal N heads.
65 In SV sentences, like in nominal ones, I assume that Nominative is licensed only by
default.
CHAPTER 3
PRONOUNS, INCORPORATION, AND

FEATURE SPECIFICATION*
Forms encoding so-called phi-features (including independent or bound

pronouns and inflectional forms) pose challenging problems for linguistic
theory. Typically, bound forms occur in configurations in which null
arguments are found. One important question which arises with regard to
this situation concerns the origin of these bound forms. Two answers to
this question have been provided in the literature:
(a) Bound forms are generated as inflections, although they carry 'rich'
agreement specification which enables us to recover the content of
argumental empty categories (taken to be pros).
(b) Bound forms are generated as arguments, and later incorporated into
governors.
Variants of the inflectional analysis (INFLA henceforth) described in (a)
have been proposed, for example, for Italian by Chomsky (1982) and Rizzi
(1982), and extended notably to Celtic by McCloskey and Hale (1984 ).
Versions of the incorporation analysis (INCA) outlined in (b) are defended
in Anderson (1982) and Pranka (1982) for Breton, Fassi (1984) for Arabic,
Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) for Bantu, Hale (1987) for Irish, Baker
and Hale (1988) for a variety of languages. The list of references is not
exhaustive. Old seeds for INCA are documented in Arabic and Semitic
traditional grammars, where the pronominal (and argumental) nature of
bound forms is not disputed.
In the GB literature, special attention has been paid to contrasts between
languages like Italian, in which pronominal subject NPs of tensed clauses
are optionally null, and languages like English, where this is not
(phonetically) so. Despite differences, however, the bound form on the
verb is treated in both types of languages as an inflectional agreement
marker. The difference is that in so-called pro drop or null subject languages
like Italian, the agreement marker is 'rich enough' to license an empty
(subject) pronoun, whereas in non-pro drop languages like English, this is
not so. 1
Languages like Arabic offer a completely different picture. Pronominal
NPs are not optionally null; they must be so (in the relevant contexts).
Furthermore, there is evidence that some bound forms are naturally treated
only as pronouns, not as agreement markers. Null argument structures
do not result from the co-occurrence of empty pro's and agreement
inflections: they involve pronominal incorporation, i.e. a process by which
a (phonetically realized) bound pronoun is generated in an argument position
at D-structure, and later incorporated into a governor at S-structure. As a
96
PRONOUNS, INCORPORATION, AND FEATURE SPECIFICATION 97
corollary, empty categories in Arabic and Italian appear to be of different

nature and origin, and different mechanisms are involved in their deriva-
tion. It is proposed that the pronominality parameter is behind this variation. 2
On the other hand, Arabic pronominal and agreement systems interact
in significant ways. Specifically, a number of forms are morphologically
ambiguous. Their pronominal or inflectional nature is only determined in
context. An adequate description of the properties of the two systems and
an appropriate solution to the ambiguity problem become available only
when pronoun and agreement forms are not approached in isolation.
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section I I outline some basic
distributional properties of free and bound forms of pronouns in Arabic.
I first argue that non-nominative bound affixes are best analyzed as
incorporated pronouns. The alternative analysis, which treats the latter as
pure inflections, is shown to be inadequate. I then turn to nominative affixes,
and show that they can be treated either as pure agreement markers or as
incorporated argumental pronouns, depending on whether they attach to
adjectives, or to finite verbs. In Section 2 I discuss morphological
relationships between independent and bound pronouns, on the one hand,
and pure agreement forms, on the other hand. I then propose to account
for their common source through a system of decomposition of phi
feature forms. I also analyze how functional ambiguity (characteristic of
nominative affixes) can be accounted for. A mechanism of feature
(under)specification is used to derive pronoun/inflection alternations.
Moreover, AGR is parametrized with regard to Pronominailty, to distinguish
null subject from non-null subject languages. In Section 3 I examine some
further consequences of the analysis adopted for AGR licensing,
incorporation of nominative affixes, and other extensions of incorporation
theory.
1. INTERFACE BETWEEN PRONOMINAL AND AGREEMENT SYSTEMS
The Arabic pronominal system consists of two sets of independent and

bound forms. The pronominal (and argumental) nature of the latter is not
called into question by traditional Arabists or Semiticists. The issue arises
only in the context of early versions of GB grammars (such as Chomsky,
1981, 1982), which are based on a specific formulation of the Projection
Principle (regulating the mapping from lexical structure to D-structure),
without including head movement rules a Ia Baker ( 1988). In that frame-
work, bound forms of pronominals are treated as inflections or agreement
forms (as in INFLA described above). However, in more recent literature,
the bound nature of arguments is not only non-problematic, it is expected.
Bound forms can be generated as (heads of) DPs, and later incorporated
into their governor (as in INCA). In contrast, some affix forms are purely
inflectional. They cannot be confused with bound arguments in the simple
98 CHAPTER 3
cases. In other cases, there are alternative uses of the same forms as
pronouns or inflections. Syntactic context becomes then important for
solving the problem of specification, as we will see. 3
1.1. On the Existence of Bound Pronominal Forms
Arabic traditional grammars used to classify pronouns depending on their

morphological status and forms. They can be free, or independent, and hence
occur in NP positions. They can also be bound, or affixed to their gover-
nors (at S-structure). Pronouns also vary according to Cases assigned
to them. There is a binary Case distinction between pronominal forms:
nominative and non-nominative. These various forms alternate, depending
on contexts where they are found.
First consider subject pronouns. Nominative free forms are normally
found as subjects of nominal sentences, as in (1 ), or preverbal subjects,
as in (2):
(1) (anta mariic;l-un

you sick-nom
You are sick.
(2) huwa jaa?-a

he came-3.s.m.
He came.
When these sentences are embedded in contexts where the pronoun is
(lexically) governed, incorporation must take place, and a non-nominative
bound form is used, as the following constructions illustrate:
(3) ?inna-ka mariic;l-un

that-you.acc sick-nom
You are (indeed) sick.
(4) l}asib-tu-hu jaa?-a

thought-1-him came-3.s.m.
Literally: I thought him came.
I thought he came.
In these contexts, pronouns cannot surface as independent forms, be they
nominative, as in (5), or accusative, as in (6):
(5) * l)asib-tuhuwa jaa(-a

thought-/ he came-3.s.m.
I thought he came.
(6) * ?inna ?iyyaa-ka marii<_i-un

that you-ace sick-nom
You are sick.
Nominative subject pronouns may also be used in bound forms, as in (4).
I return to this issue in Subsection 1.3.
Similarly, non-nominative pronouns may surface either in free or bound
forms. For example, if a verb has a pronominal object, and governs it,
then the pronoun is necessarily bound, as shown by the form -hu in (7):
(7) ntaqada-hu r-rajul-u
criticized-him the-man-nom
The man criticized him.
The construction (8), in which the pronoun is free, although governed, is
ungrammatical:
(8) * ntaqada r-rajul-u ?iyyaa-hu
criticized the-man-nom him-ace
The man criticized him.
Non-subject pronouns can surface as free forms in contexts where they
are not lexically governed, or more precisely canonically governed. For
example, when a pronominal object is fronted preverbally (as a focus or
topic), the independent form of the pronoun (? iyyaa-hu) must be used:
(9) ?iyyaa-hu ntaqada r-rajul-u
him-ace criticized the-man-nom
Him, the man criticized.
To account for the use of the free pronoun here, we have to appeal to the
notion of canonical government (proposed by Kayne, 1984). The latter
includes the direction of government, which I assume (following Arabic
traditional grammar) to be to the right of the governor in Arabic. Thus
although the pronominal NP here may be governed by some projection of
the inflected verb, it is not canonically governed by it. Canonical govern-
ment is also necessary to account for the distribution of nominative bound
forms, as we will see later on.
It appears, then, that independent and bound forms can be seen as surface
realizations of pronouns which alternate and enter into complementary
distribution. A descripitive statement of this distribution can be formu-
lated as follows:
( 10) Arabic pronouns are bound to their canonical governors (general
principles permitting). Otherwise, they are free.
This statement accounts for the contrasts (1)-(9) above, i.e. the fact that
100 CHAPTER 3
the pronoun must be affixed to its governor e.g. in (4), but not in (5), etc.
Given general principles banning unsupported bound forms, in particular
Lasnik's (1981) Filter, the descriptive content of this statement amounts
to claiming that bound pronouns (contrary to appearances) instantiate the
regular case, whereas independent forms are either regular or 'last resort'
instances. This view is corroborated by a number of further observations,
as we will see.
An examination of the lists of non-nominative forms provides straight-
forward support for this view. It is striking that independent non-nominative
forms consist of bound forms plus the ?iyyaa support. The latter, which
has no (synchronic) meaning, combines with the bound pronoun just in case
the pronoun finds no governor to support it. Compare the forms given in
Tables 1 and 2 here:
Table 1. Bound non-nominative forms.
PERS GEN SG DUAL PL
I -11 -naa
2 Masc -ka -kumaa -kum(uu)
Fern -ki -kumaa -kunna
3 Masc -hu -humaa -hunna
Fern -haa -humaa -hunna
Table 2. Free non-nominative forms.
PERS GEN SG DUAL PL
?iyyaa-ya ?iyyaa-naa
2 Masc ?iyyaa-ka ?iyyaa-kumaa ?iyyaa-kum(uu)
Fern ?iyyaa-ki ?iyyaa-kumaa ?iyyaa-kunna
3 Masc ?iyyaa-hu ?iyyaa-humaa ?iyyaa-hum(uu)
Fern ?iyyaa-haa ?iyyaa-humaa ?iyyaa-hunna
It is clear, then, that a (simple) derivational relationship can be established

between the two lists, which would account for the bound/free alterna-
tion. In this process, bound forms appear to be basic, and independent
ones are composed of the latter preceded by the ?iyyaa support."
Note, in contrast, that the nominative/non-nominative alternation of
independent forms cannot be accounted for by a derivational mechanism.
If we compare the lists of the previous tables with that of nominative
forms in Table 3, no transparent morphological relationship emerges: 5
Table 3. Free nominative forms.
PERS GEN SG DUAL PL
?anaa narynu narynu

2 Masc ?ant a ?antumaa ?antum(uu)
Fern ?anti ?antumaa ?antunna
3 Masc huwa humaa humuu
Fern hiya humaa hunna
To complete this basic descriptive background, let us observe that bound

or affixal forms occur in various categorial contexts. As shown in (11 ),
pronominal subjects and objects are affixed to the verb:
(11) a. intaqad-tu-hu
criticized-1-him
I criticized him.
b. ?actay-ta-nii-hi
gave-you-me-it
You gave it to me.
Pronominal affixes can also attach to prepositions:
( 12) iltaqay-tu bi-hi
met-/ with-him
I met him.
They can incorporate into a noun in a genitive complement construction,
as in the following example:
(13) intaqad-tu mu?allif-a-hu
criticized-! author-ace-his
I criticized its author.
Finally, they can also be affixal complements of adjectives:

(14) zayd-un J:tasan-u 1-wajh-i wa ?anta qabiiJ:t-u-hu
Zayd-nom nice-nom the-face-gen and you ugly-nom-it
Zayd has a nice face, and you have an ugly one.
These data support the binary Case division of affixes. They also indicate
that non-nominative affixes do not select any particular category to affix
to, i.e. they are category neutral. As will be seen below, this is not a property
of nominative affixes, which are limited to (inflected) verbal forms.
Summarizing, I have shown (following traditional grammar) that there
are reasons to think that the pronominal system includes not only free forms
102 CHAPTER 3
(like those listed in Tables 2 and 3), but also bound forms (those of Table
1). In the next subsection, I turn to the question of how structures containing
the latter are derived. I will argue that incorporation is the appropriate
mechanism involved in this derivation.
1.2. INCA
If the list of pronouns includes the tables given, then all forms contained
there can be hypothesized to originate as pronouns in argument positions.
When they are bound, they must move, in order to be morphologically
supported. Following Hale (1988), I assume that pronouns originate as
bareD (determiner) heads of noun phrases, taken to be DPs (as in Abney,
1987). 6 Bound pronouns must then head move to lexical governors, to which
they adjoin (see Travis, 1984 and Chomsky, 1986a on the formal proper-
ties of head-movement rules, as well as the illuminating work by Baker,
1988 and Hale, 1988 on incorporation processes). To take a simple example,
consider the incorporation of the pronoun to the preposition in (12). The
D-structure of the PP is (!Sa), and the output of pronominal incorpora-
tion is (15b):
(15) a. pp b. PP
~ ~
P DP P DP
I I ~I
bi D pD I
I
-hi
I
bi
I
-hi
e
I
'
(The dash points to the bound morphological nature of the pronoun.) D
incorporates into P, leaving a trace there.
INCA straightforwardly accounts for two essential facts in Arabic. First,
it explains why the occurrence of a syntactic NP argument is incompat-
ible with that of a bound pronominal on the governor. This incompatibility
is instantiated by the ungrammaticality of ( 16): 7
(16) *<;iarabtu-hu 1-walad-a
beat-1-him the-boy-ace
*I beat him the boy.
This construction cannot be generated if the bound pronoun here were to
originate as a head of a DP. This would amount to the generation of two
DPs in the same argument position. Consequently, the construction (16)
would have no viable source.
Second, INCA describes in a straightforward manner the distribution
of (non-nominative) pronominal affixes on prepositions, nouns, verbs, etc.,
as in ( 1)-(9) above. A natural assumption is that the bound forms are
pronouns in these contexts. The alternative- that is, taking them as agree-
ment markers - has no motivation, whether theoretical or empirical, as
far as I can see. From a 'concrete' perspective, there is no reason to think
that Arabic instantiates morphological agreement with nouns, prepositions,
or even verbal objects. 8
Third, the importance of INCA also stems from its predictions with
respect to the forms of pronominals. Recall that according to INCA, a
pronoun is predicted to be bound to a governor, unless other requirements
(and/or principles) ban the incorporation process. Among the latter are
the Head Movement Constraint and the Minimality Condition. I will
show that depending on contexts, INCA can be either (a) obligatory or
(b) impossible. I will also provide cases of optional incorporation. These
alternations provide further support for the analysis of forms as pronouns.
Consider contexts of obligatory incorporation. As mentioned above,
canonical government is a necessary requirement for INCA. The obliga-
tory nature of INCA is illustrated by the following pair:
(17) a.* ra?ay-tu ?iyyaa-ka
saw-/ you-ace
I saw you.
b. ra?ay-tu-ka
saw-1-you
I saw you.
In these constructions, the verb canonically governs the object. The use
of the free form of the pronoun results in ungrammaticality, as the ill-
formedness of (17a) indicates.
However, although canonical government is necessary, it is not sufficient.
Thus there are situations in which canonical government is satisfied, but
incorporation is impossible. Consider the following examples:
(18) a. maa ra?ay-tu ?illaa ?iyyaa-ka
not saw-/ except you-ace
I did not see but you.
b.* maa ra?ay-tu-ka ?illaa
not saw-1-you except
In example (a) there is an exclusive particle which prevents the pronoun
from incorporating into the verb (although governed in the right direc-
tion). Assuming this particle to be a governing head, then Minimality can
account for the ill-formedness of example (b).
Another context in which incorporation is prohibited is conjunct struc-
tures. When a pronoun is conjoined to another NP, its incorporation leads
to ungrammaticality, as the following contrast shows:
104 CHAPTER 3
(19) a.* ra?ay-tu-ka wa zayd-an

saw-1-you and Zayd-an
I saw you and Zayd.
b. ra ?ay-tu ? iyyaa-ka wa zayd-an

saw-/ you and Zayd-an
I saw you and Zayd.
The incorporation in (19a) violates the Coordinate Structure Constraint of

Ross (1967), or more generally ECP (see Chomsky, 1981 ). No incorpora-
tion takes place in ( 19b ), although the object pronoun is canonically
governed. 9
An intriguing case in which incorporation cannot operate involves
contexts in which the Person Constraint (proposed by Fassi, 1984) is
violated. The Person Constraint applies to non-nominative affixes, and basi-
cally states the following:
(20) If two non-nominative pronouns x and y are incorporated onto

a governor (in that order), then PERSx < PERSy (where
1 < 2 < 3).
The Person Constraint accounts for the ungrammaticality of the following

examples:
(21) a.* ?actaa-hu-ka 1- ?ustaag-u

gave-him-you the-teacher-nom
The teacher gave him you.
b.* ?actaa-ka-nii 1- ?ustaag-u

gave-you-me the-teacher-nom
The teacher gave you me.
c.* ?actaa-hu-nii 1- ?ustaag-u

gave-him-me the-teacher-nom
The teacher gave him me.
In these examples, the PERS of the first affix is lower in the hierarchy
than that of the second one, which leads to a violation of the Person
Constraint. In contrast, the following examples do not violate the latter,
and the results are grammatical:
(22) a. ?actay-tu-ka-hu
gave-l-you-him
I gave you him.
b. ?actaa-nii-ka
gave-me-you
He gave me you.
c. ?actay-ta-nii-hi
gave-you-me-him
You gave me him.
When affixation does not observe the Person Constraint, the recourse to
the independent strategy becomes necessary. The grammatical counter-
parts of (21) are the following: 10
(23) a. ?actaa-hu 1- rustaag-u riyyaa-ka
gave-him the-teacher-nom you-ac
The teacher gave him you.
The teacher gave you to him.
r r
b. ?actaa-ka iyyaa-ya 1- ustaag-u
gave-you me the-teacher-nom
The teacher gave me to you.
c. ?actaa-hu ?iyyaa-ya 1- ?ustaag-u
gave-him me the-teacher-nom
The teacher gave me to him.
The Person Constraint not only applies to object affixes, as in the above
examples, but also to non-nominative subjects of deverba1 nouns (so-called
masdar's by the Arabic tradition) as in (24):
(24) * <,iarb-u-hu-ka ?aqlaq-a-nii
beating-nom-him-you annoyed-me
His beating you annoyed me.
The grammatical counterpart of the latter must also use the independent
pronoun strategy: 11
(25) <,larb-u-hu ? iyyaa-ka ?aqlaq-a-nii
beating-nom-him you-ace annoyed-me
His beating you annoyed me.
In addition to contexts where the independent strategy is obligatory, there
are contexts in which pronominal affixation is optional, but not prefer-
able. One case is instantiated by affixation of double objects. Both
independent and bound forms are allowed, as in (26), although Modern
Standard Arabic (unlike Classical) tends to use the free form for the second
non-nominative pronoun more often:
106 CHAPTER 3
(26) a. ?ac~ay-tu-ka-hu
gave-l-you-him
I gave you him.
b. ?actay-tu-ka ?iyyaa-hu
gave-l-you him
I gave you him.
Likewise, the second non-nominative pronoun used with transitive masdar's
is usually expressed as a free form, as in (27b), although (27a) is also
grammatical:
(27) a. Q.arb-u-ka-hu ? aqlaqa-nii

beating-nom-you-him annoyed-me
Your beating him annoyed me.
b. Q.arb-u-ka ?iyyaa-hu ?aqlaqa-nii

beating-nom-him you-ace annoyed-me
Your beating him annoyed me.
The generalization regulating this optionality is that the second non-

nominative pronoun surfaces preferably as an independent form.
These facts and others provide striking support for INCA. Pronominal
forms in Arabic have free and bound variants, depending on a number of
factors, as I have explained. The difference in morphological nature is
regulated by the statement in (10), and the execution of the latter relies
crucially on incorporation, as defined.
1.3. Nominative Alternations and INCA
In previous subsections I have shown that the distribution of bound non-

nominative pronominals is naturally derived through INCA. In this
subsection I argue that nominative forms can have bound pronominal
alternates.
As a first approximation of basic distinctions in nominative pronom-
inal forms, we can repeat essentially what has been established for
non-nominative forms. Specifically, the free/bound distinction can be carried
over to nominative forms. Moreover, alternations are also regulated by (10).
To take a simple and straightforward illustrative example, consider the
following pair of constructions:
(28) a.* jaa?-a hum

came they.m.
They (m.) came.
b.* jaa?-at hunna

came-f. they.f.
They (f.) came
(29) a. jaa?-uu
came-3.pl.m.
They (m.) came.
b. ji?-na
came-3.pl.f.
They came.
In (28), the pronoun appears in a free form, although, it is canonically
governed by the inflected verb. The results are ungrammatical, as expected.
Only (29), in which the pronoun is bound to its governor, are grammat-
ical. I assume that INCA appropriately derives the two judgments.
Note, however, that in contrast to non-nominative affixes, nominative
bound forms vary, too, depending on the Tense/Aspect morphology of the
verb they attach to. With perfect/past verbs, the subject affix is only
suffixing. With imperfect/non-past verbs, it is a discontinuous affix, which
is prefixing and suffixing at the same time. These forms are listed in Tables
4 and 5 (dashes follow prefixes, and precede suffixes)Y
Table 4. Bound perfect/past nominative.
PERS GEN SG DUAL PL
1 -tu -naa
2 Masc -ta -tumaa -tum(uu)
Fern -ti -tumaa -tunna
3 Masc -a -aa -uu
Fern -at -ataa -na
Table 5. Bound imperfect/non-past nominative.
PERS GEN SG DUAL PL
?- n-
2 Masc t- t-aa t-uu
Fern t-ii t-aa t-na
3 Masc y- y-aa y-uu
Fern t- t-aa t-na
Recall that non-nominative forms are invariably suffixes, and they are
neither sensitive to Aspect/Tense distinctions, nor to the category of the
governor.
108 CHAPTER 3
Leaving Case and Aspect/Tense sensitivity aside, it seems natural to

hypothesize the existence of nominative bound pronoun constructions in
Arabic, and that their derivation is taken care of by INCA. If this is true,
then we expect the same distributional constraints as are exhibited with non-
nominative forms to be found here, too. These expectations are borne out.
Consider the test of complementarity in distribution between bound
pronouns and syntactic NPs. If bound forms on verbs are treated as
pronouns, rather than inflections, then the ungrammaticality of the following
constructions is expected:
(30) * ji ?-na 1-banaat-u
came-J.pl.f the- girls-nom
Literally: They came the girls.
(31) *ji?-na hunna
came-J.pl.f they.f
Literally: They they came.
Thus the complementary in distribution of bound forms with syntactically
expressed subjects is accounted for by INCA, along the lines mentioned
earlier for non-nominative cases. 13
Similarly, in order to account for the contrast between (28) and (29), I
have assumed that incorporation is obligatory in canonical government con-
figurations. There are contexts, however, where the subject pronoun is
prevented from incorporating. Those contexts are exactly parallel to those
discussed earlier in connection with non-nominative incorporation. They
involve violation of Minimality, the Coordinate Structure Constraint, etc. In
(32), for example, the pronoun is prevented from affixation by the inter-
vening governor:
(32) a. maa ?ataa-nii ?illaa ?antum
not came-me except you. pl. -nom
Only you came to me.
b.* maa ?atay-tum-nii ?illaa
not came-you-me except
Only you came to me.
Likewise, the coordinated pronominal subject cannot incorporate, hence the
following contrast:
(33) a. jaa ?-at hiya wa camr-un
camej she and Amr-nom
She and Amr came.
b.* jaa? -at wa camr-un

came-fs.3. and Amr-nom
She and Amr came.
Given these observations and contrasts, it seems reasonable to assert the

existence of bound nominative pronouns, which parallel non-nominative
ones. The morphology of subject affixes requires a merger of Tense/ Aspect
information and phi feature specification to generate appropriate phono-
logical forms. But this difference aside, the extension of INCA to these
forms appears to be widely motivated. 14 In the next subsection I discuss
INFLA (a variant of which is the so-called pro drop analysis), which
represents a logically possible alternative to INCA. I argue that although
this analysis may be supported for languages like Italian or Moroccan
Arabic, it is not adequate for Standard Arabic. 15
1.4. INFLA
Bound forms on verbs may also be analyzed (and generated) as inflec-

tional agreement markers (under AGR or I). As such, they serve to identify
empty (pro) arguments. Two variants of this approach to bound forms (which
I have named INFLA) are proposed namely by Chomsky ( 1981, 1982)
and Rizzi (1982, 1986) for so-called Pro drop (or null subject) languages
like Italian. INFLA may equally extend to languages like Moroccan Arabic
(MA), as we will see.
In Italian, both pronominal and nominal subjects can co-occur with (rich)
inflection on the verb. When no syntactic subject surfaces, as in (34), the
affix on the verb is also taken to be an inflectional element (the subject
being an empty pro):
(34) a. (io) ho trovato il libro

(I) found the book.
b. ha mangiato (Giovanni)
(He) ate (Giovanni ate).
A similar situation obtains in MA, were the bound form encoding NUM,
PERS, and GEN features can co-occur with the syntactic subject, as in (35a),
suggesting that the subject in (35b) is an empty pro:
(35) a. ja-w 1-ulaad

came-3.pl. the-boys
The boys came.
110 CHAPTER 3
b. ja-w
came-3.pl.
They came.
The rationale behind INFLA is that the treatment of the inflection has to
be uniform. It is assumed that the difference between (35a) and (35b) is
not in terms of the nature of the inflection (in both cases it is identified
as an agreement marker), but rather in terms of the phonetic content of
the argument. In (35a), the argument is phonetically realized, but in (35b)
it is empty (pro).
Chomsky (1982) characterizes the Pro drop parameter in terms of Case.
More specifically, AGR is postulated to have Case in pro drop languages
(like Italian), and to lack Case in non pro drop languages (like English).
Furthermore, a strict feature matching requirement between AGR and pro
must be met, banning pro in non pro drop languages, where AGR is claimed
to have no Case and hence does not match pro features (in terms of Case). 16
Rizzi's (1986) theory of pro (based on Rizzi, 1982) treats licensing and
recoverability conditions separately. It consists essentially of the licensing
principle (36), with a built-in parametrization of licensing heads, and the
convention (37) for the recovery of the content of pro:
(36) Pro is governed by X~
(37) Let X be the licensing head of an occurrence of pro, then pro

has the grammatical specification of the features on X coindexed
with it.
(Y is the type of the head. In Italian, I and V belong to the licensing class
of heads, in French, V and P, and in English, the class is empty.)
I will not attempt in this chapter to motivate any specific version of
INFLA. Whatever version of it is correct, it seems descriptively adequate
to account for Italian and MA, as opposed to English. Given INFLA, the
subject argument is then an empty pro, and the bound form a manifesta-
tion of AGR. But INFLA cannot be adopted for the Arabic data examined,
without missing significant generalizations. As I have argued above, INCA
is the only motivated approach to non-nominative bound forms. The latter
are treated as bound incorporated pronouns. There is no support for the
alternative INFLA, as far as I can tell. Since quite the same line of argu-
mentation extends to nominatve forms, INCA has to carry over to the
derivation of these forms. There are typical problems, however, which
arise in the derivation of nominative forms, but not that of non-nomina-
tive ones. Essentially they concern the complementarity of distribution
and the function of independent pronouns in postverbal positions. I discuss
these problems in the next two subsections.
1.5. Complementary Distribution Revisited

Consider again the complementary distribution problem. As I have explained
earlier, if the bound form on the verb in (29) above, for example, were
treated as an AGR marker, agreeing with a pro (as in Chomsky, 1982 and
Rizzi, 1982, 1986), then we predict that, when the subject argument is
phonetically overt, the same AGR marker should be found. The expecta-
tion is incorrect, as shown by the ungrammaticality of the constructions
in (30) and (31) above. The constructions (29) are repeated here as (38),
for convenience:
(38) a. jaa ?-uu
came-3.pl.m.
They (m.) came.
b. ji ?-na
came-3.pl.f
They came.
As noted in Chapter 2, only a poor AGR marker is compatible with the
presence of a syntactic subject. This is illustrated by (39):
(39) a. jaa? -at 1-banaat-u
came-! the-girls-nom
The girls came.
b. jaa?-a 1-?awlaad-u
came the-boys-nom
The boys came.
The complementary distribution between a rich bound form and the syn-
tactic subject can be interpreted as evidence that both forms are argumental,
and that only INCA is motivated to derive (38). There are problems,
however, that need to be solved for the argument to go through. 17
First, as argued in Chapter 2, preverbal NPs can be analyzed as subjects
in sentences like (40):
(40) hunna ji?-na
theyj came.3.fpl.
They came.
b. 1-banaat-u ji ?-na
the-girls-nom came-plj
The girls came.
112 CHAPTER 3
These constructions have at least one reading in which the preverbal NP

is interpreted as subject, and the bound form as a rich inflectional AGR
marker. Recall that AGR here is licensed by the AGR Criterion. The latter
is restated in (41 ):
(41) (Rich) AGR is licensed by a NP in its Spec, and a NP in Spec
AGR is licensed by (rich) AGR.
Recall also that constructions like (30) and (31) are both ruled out by the
latter principle, because AGR there is not licensed. Thus given INFLA
and the AGR Criterion, the complementary distribution observed can be
adequately accounted for.
So far so good. The problem arises, however, with the analysis of null
subject structures like (38). Suppose we extend INFLA to the bound form
here, construing it as an AGR marker, in the same way as we did for (40).
Then the subject has to be a syntactic empty argument (i.e. pro). At
S-structure, pro is located either preverbally, in Spec of AGR, or postver-
bally, in Spec of VP.
If pro is located in Spec of AGR, then it licenses AGR, in conformity
with the AGR Criterion. Then the only motivation for the introduction of
pro here is to license agreement specification. Since pro is empty, this
may not be suitable. That is, it may not be suitable to appeal to phoneti-
cally empty elements to license the content of phonetically realized
elements. Intuitively, the contrary appears to be true. If this reasoning
is correct, then AGR specification cannot be licensed by pro (or more
generally by empty categories). Note that this conclusion appears to be in
the same spirit as what has been repeatedly claimed in the literature, namely
that AGR 'identifies' or 'recovers' pro features (not the other way around).
Observe too that, in Chomsky's (1982) theory, pro is essentially inserted
in the structure to receive a theta-role and discharge the Case of AGR, which
it carries in pro drop languages. As argued in Chapter 2, however, although
it might be reasonable to think that (strong) AGR in SVO languages like
Italian discharges Case in its Spec, this does not apply to (weak) AGR in
Arabic, which has no such Case to discharge, and does not protect its
Spec. Consequently, one cannot hypothesize that pro in Arabic is licensed
in Spec of AGR by Case (recall too the discussion of expletive licensing
in Section 2 of Chapter 2). If pro is not licensed in Spec of AGR by Case
theory or agreement theory, then I see no way to license it here. The only
option left is to turn to postverbal positions.
The situation of postverbal pro appears to be better. The introduction
of pro there can be licensed by a conjunction of the Projection Principle and
the Theta Criterion. But these principles can be equally satisfied through
an analysis by incorporation; hence no advantage can be claimed for INFLA.
The superiority of INFLA can be established only if it can be shown that,
contrary to appearances, (rich) AGR and subject pronouns can (or must)
co-occur in postverbal positions, despite the fact that rich AGR and non-
pronominal syntactic arguments are truly incompatible. In other words,
we can try to pursue the idea that (30) and (31) are not ruled out for the
same reason, and that verbs agree differently with (postverbal) subjects,
depending on whether they are pronominal or non-pronominal. This problem
is dealt with in the next subsection.
1.6. On 'Pronominal' Agreement
As has already been observed, when subjects are postverbal, verbs agree
with them only in GEN. It might be suggested, however, that this limita-
tion is true only of non-pronominal subjects. It does not carry over to
pronominal ones. With the latter, verbs agree in all phi-features, hence the
ungrammaticality of (42):
(42) * jaa?a-thunna
came-f they.f
(Intended to mean: They (f.) came).
If this true, why then is (31), in which the verb agrees with the pronoun,
excluded?
Suppose that nothing is wrong with agreement in (31), and that the
ungrammaticality of the latter is due to something else. Assume, for
example, that an independent pronoun is licensed only when it is focused,
and that non-focused pronouns cannot be phonetically realized, in confor-
mity with Chomsky's (1981) 'Avoid pronoun' principle. Indeed, when
pronouns in postverbal position are focused, their grammaticality is not
disputed. This is illustrated by (43):
(43) jaa?-uu hum Iaa xuddaam-u-hum
came-3.pl.m. they.m. not servants-nom-their
They came, not their servants.
If that is true, then the complementarity in distribution is only apparent, and
INFLA (or pro drop) cannot be rejected as quickly as it might seem. 18
Upon closer examination, however, the claim that verbs agree differ-
ently with pronouns than they do with nouns is not supported. First, as
pointed out above, when the subject pronoun cannot be incorporated, the
verb does not agree with it in all phi-features, contrary to what INFLA
predicts. This is exemplified by (44):
(44) lam y-a?ti ?illaa hum
not.past 3-come except they.m.
There came noone but them.
Here the agreement is limited to the poor option (in the simple case).
114 CHAPTER 3
Second, an analysis of examples like (43) needs a more elaborate theory

of pronominal forms than at first appears. The form contained in (43) seems
to parallel exactly 'parenthetical' or 'appositive' pronouns found in other
contexts in the language, as in the following examples:
(45) ?-as?al-u can xabar-i-ka ? anta laa can xabar-ii
/-inquire about news-gen-you you not about news-me
I am inquiring about your news, not about mine.
(46) marar-tu bi-hi huwa laa bi-?axii-hi

passed.by-1 with-him he not with-brother-his
I passed by him, not by his brother.
(47) ?-antaqid-u-ka ?anta

1-criticize-ind-you you
I criticize you.
These forms, as well as that found in (43), have been analyzed as

'corroborating' pronouns (tawkiid) by Arabic traditional grammarians. They
can be designated informally as 'strong pronouns'. The latter are necessarily
focused, have (normally) nominative forms, and 'double' weak forms of
pronouns. They are best treated as kinds of parentheticals, foci, topics,
etc., but not as arguments. Note that, as the examples indicate, the two
co-occurrences of pronouns do not agree in Case (one being non-nomina-
tive and the other nominative), suggesting that there are two different Case
sources for the argumental (incorporated) pronoun and the non-argumental
one.
It is reasonable to think that these non-argumental strong pronouns belong
to a different class of forms from that of pronouns which function as
(non-focused) arguments. The latter can be classified as 'weak' forms.
Strong and weak forms of pronouns are regulated differently. For example,
weak forms, unlike strong ones, do not resist the 'attraction' of (canon-
ical) governors. We may then have a three-layer division (or three grades
of strength) of pronominal forms: strong, weak, and affixal. 19
It appears, then, that weak pronouns cannot occur as postverbal subjects,
whatever the richness of verbal inflection. This situation contrasts with
that of subject pronouns in nominal sentences or those found in preverbal
positions. In these contexts, pronouns are weak. Recall examples ( 1) and
(2) above, repeated here as (48a) and (48b):
(48) a. ?anta marii9-un

you sick-nom
You are sick.
b. huwa jaa?-a
he came-J.s.m.
He came.
In those contexts, pronouns are not (necessarily) focused or strong. They
contrast with strong pronouns in examples (45) to (47) above, or more
directly, with the stressed pronoun in topic position found in (49):
(49) hunna laa y-ubaalii ?-ai)ad-un bi-hinna
they.f not 3-care one-nom about-them.f
As for them (f.), nobody cares about them.
Here the pronoun is a focused dislocated topic anaphorically related to
the incorporated resumptive pronoun on the preposition. Thus, despite a
formal resemblance, pronouns in (48) on the one hand, and (49) on the other,
do not have the same feature content, nor the same behaviour. The differ-
ence can be tested through the ability of incorporating into a governor. When
embedded in a context where they are governed by a lexical governor, weak
(subject) pronouns must incorporate. Recall examples (3) and (4), repeated
here as (50a) and (SOb):
(50) a. ?inna-ka marii<;l-un
that-you.acc sick-nom
You are (indeed) sick.
b. i)asib-tu-hu jaa? -a
thought-1-him came-3.s.m.
Literally: I thought him came.
I thought he came.
But a strong pronoun does not incorporate. It can only double a pronom-
inal affix, as the following examples show:
(51) ?inna-ka ?anta 1-mas?uul-u
that-you you the-responsible
You are the responsible indeed.
(52) ?inna-hu huwa ?a-maata wa ?a-i)yaa
that-him he make-die.past and make.alive-past
It is He (= God) who kills or who makes (people) alive.
Note that this behaviour is predictihle if strong pronouns are generated

only in non-argument positions, and incorporation is limited only to argu-
ments.
It seems. then, that once the distribution of subject pronouns with respect
to their governors is examined. and in particular the role played by inter-
116 CHAPTER 3
venors in shaping their form, subjects turn out to have free and bound
weak forms, depending on contexts. Moreover, strong forms that occur in
postverbal positions in conjunction with a rich inflection on verbs are hardly
analyzable as subjects. The subject is the inflection, seen as an incorpo-
rated pronoun, but the strong pronoun is doubling the subject. If this line
of analysis is correct, then it has a number of interesting consequences.
In particular, verbal inflectional markers now appear to be morphologi-
cally ambiguous, since they can function as 'pure' inflections or as
pronouns. We turn to this problem in the next section.
2. FUNCTIONAL AMBIGUITY AND SPECIFICATION

IN THE GRAMMAR
In this section I provide ingredients for an elementary theory which would

account for the morphological relationship between agreement markers
and pronouns, on the one hand, and the variation of their uses, on the
other. I will focus, in particular, on one aspect of variation, which I will call,
following Bresnan and Mchombo ( 1987), functional ambiguity. The latter
notion describes a situation in which the same forms are used either as
'pure' inflectional (agreement) markers, or as pronouns. I establish that
functional ambiguity is a general property of Arabic forms encoding
phi-features. It is not only true of bound forms, but of free forms as well.
I show that this state of affairs can be accounted for only if both so-called
pronouns and inflectional markers are integrated in one system of forms.
Once morphological and syntactic elements making up pronouns or
agreement markers are analyzed, it turns out that these forms share the
phi feature (or AGR) component, but the former differ from the latter
essentially in being able to occur in argument (or DP) positions. Moreover,
they may or may not incorporate into their governor, depending on their
bound or free nature. It is thus proposed that an AGR Pronominality
Parameter distinguishes incorporating from non-incorporating languages.
According to this parameter, a phi-feature form (which is morphologically
identical to AGR) is generated internal to DP (and later incorporated into
clausal IP) if and only if it is pronominal. Thus the AGR pronominality
parameter translates the ability of a bound form to occur as a pronoun (or
referential expression). The fact that there is an asymmetry between subject
and non-subject forms with respect to functional ambiguity is also examined.
It is shown that while object incorporation is motivated only by morpho-
logical boundedness, subject incorporation follows from a conjunction of
the need to check agreement for subjects, and to provide support for them.
This section is organized as follows. In Subsection 2.1 I show that
independent pronouns can be ambiguously used as inflections, copulas, or
personal pronouns. In Subsection 2.2 I discuss morphological bases for
inflection/pronoun alternations, and propose a decomposition of pronoun
internal constituents. In Subsection 2.3 I define the AGR Pronominality

Parameter, which distinguishes languages like Arabic from those like
English. Finally, I turn to solve the problem of (under)specification of
phi-features in Subsection 2.4.
2.1. Functional Ambiguity of Free Forms
In this subsection I show that independent third person pronoun forms

like huwa 'he', hiya 'she', hunna 'they.f.', etc. (H forms henceforth) are
three-way ambiguous. Thus depending on their phi-feature (under)specifi-
cation, they may function as personal pronouns, as (pronominal) copulas,
or as expletives. A unified treatment of the distribution of these forms
suggests that only part of their specification is lexical. The other part
depends on syntactic context.
2.1.1. Personal Pronouns and Copulas

Consider the following sentence:
(53) huwa gakiyy-un
he clever-nom
He is clever.
In (53), the H form is interpreted as a personal pronoun (3 m.s.). These
feature values contrast with those carried by other personal pronouns (e.g.
?antunna, 2.pl.f.). It is reasonable to think that specification of the H form
is forced here by context. Since the latter is the only candidate to
discharge the (external) theta-role borne by the adjective, it has to be an
argument. If it were underspecified, then it would have been unable to
function as a referential (and/or saturated) expression, and the result would
have lead to a violation of the Theta Criterion. 20
Consider now the following examples:
(54) 1-junuud-u hum 1-mas?uul-uun
the-soldiers-nom they the-responsible-pl.nom
The soldiers are the responsible.
(55) ?anta huwa 1-mas?uul-u

you he the-responsible-nom
You are the responsible.
In these constructiuons, the occurrence of the pronoun is optional. Moreover,
the pronoun agrees with the subject in NUM and GEN, but not in PERS,
as (55) indicates. Note that this pronoun cannot be specified for PERS
(e.g. 1 or 2), as the ill-formedness of (56) shows:
118 CHAPTER 3
(56) * ?anta ?anta 1-mas?uul-uu

you you the-responsible
You are the responsible.
I assume that H is generated in this context under I (or under AGR in I).
NUM and GEN specification is licensed under standard Spec-Head
relationship. As for PERS, it is not activated here, since its activation
requires government by lexical Tense (Mood, or Aspect; see Chapter 4 ).
If this is true, then H forms generated under I, and functioning as pronom-
inal copulas, do not bear a specified value for PERS. In contrast, when
interpreted as personal pronouns, these forms are generated in DP positions,
and they are necessarily specified for PERS values.
2.1.2. Expletives
H forms are also used as expletives. In this use, they can be specified
for no feature. But they can also be specified for GEN, or NUM and GEN,
but not PERS.
Like English it (or French ce), the H form can appear as a surface subject
of an identificational sentence, as in the following examples:
(57) huwa 1-kasal-u
he the-laziness
It is laziness.
(58) hiya 1-l)ayaat-u

she the-life-nom
It is life.
But unlike English it (or French ce), H cannot be a subject of a predica-
tional sentence, as the ungrammaticality of (59) shows:
(59) a.* huwa gariib-un
he/it strange-nom
It is strange.
b.* huwa ?ustaacj-un

he professor-nom
It is a professor.
These facts indicate that English it can function as quasi-argument in a pred-

icative sentence, but H cannot. They recall the behaviour of French expletive
il, which is also barred in these contexts:
(60) a.* II (elle) est la paresse.
b.* 11 (elle) est rna voisine.
In order to solve this problem, I assume that H in (57) and (58) originates
in predicate position, and move to subject at S-structure (see Chapter 2).
On the other hand, predicative H agrees with the thematic subject in NUM
and GEN, as illustrated by the following contrast:
(61) a. humu 1-falaasifat-u
they the-philosophers-nom
It is philosophers.
b.* huwa 1-falaasifat-u

he/it the-philosophers-nom
It is philosophers.
There is, however, no agreement in PERS, as the grammaticality of the
following construction indicates:
(62) ?inna-hu ?anaa
that-it/him I
It is me.
These properties appear to be similar to those of copular H. But the two
uses exhibit differences which call for a separate treatment.
A distributional difference between the two uses is that a pronominal
copula is not incompatible with a verbal copula, but a predicative H is. Thus
constructions with two copulas are well-formed:
(63) kaan-a 1-junuud-u hum 1-mas?uuliin
was the-soldiers-nom they the-responsible-pl.acc.
The soldiers were the responsible.
In contrast, the use of predicative H with the copula is not possible. Thus
there is no Arabic counterpart of the English example:
(64) It was my friend.
In a sentence like (65), the (empty) subject pronoun is necessarily inter-
preted as a referential personal pronoun:
(65) kaan-a ~adiiq-ii
was friend-me
He was my friend.
Predicative H, then, differs from English it in that it cannot occur as a subject
of a verbal copula. The same is true with pronominal copulas:
(66) *huwa huwa 1-kasal-u
he he the laziness-nom
It is laziness.
120 CHAPTER 3
These facts suggest that predicative H should not be treated as a copula.

Moreover, agreement properties holding here are those that hold between
a subject and a predicate in so-called nominal sentences. In the latter, no
PERS is involved, only NUM and GEN are. Note that (66) is grammat-
ical if the first pronoun is interpreted as referential. If we assume that
the latter is located in Spec of AGR at S-structure, then the fact that the
expletive is excluded here indicates that agreement in NUM requires a
referential subject to be licensed, in conformity with the AGR Criterion.
I have shown then that ambiguity is a property of free forms encoding
phi features, in particular H forms. The latter can be analyzed as inflections,
thus parallelling the behaviour of bound forms. I turn to the distribution
of the latter in the next subsection. 21
2.2. Ambiguity of Bound Forms and Pronoun Ingredients
Consider again the forms presented in the tables given in Subsection 1.1.
A quick comparison reveals the existence of a transparent morphological
(and presumably etymological) relationship between the non-nominative
forms in Tables I and 2, on the one hand, or between nominative forms
in Tables 3-5, on the other. Apart from a few idiosyncracies, free/bound
pairs are almost identical in form, with the sole difference that there is a
formative which serves as a support for the pronominal morpheme in the
independent form (?iyyaa for accusative forms, ?an for some nominative
forms, depending on the person involved, etc.). Moreover, there are close
similarities between nominative and non-nominative forms, though case
differences sometimes make them less directly transparent. To illustrate,
consider the pronominal forms in the following pairs:
(67) a. ji?-tumaa
came-you. dual
You two came.
b. ? antumaa mariic;l-aani
you.dual sick-dual.nom
You two are sick.
(68) a. ntaqada-hum r-ra?iis-u

criticized-them the-president-nom
The president criticized them.
b. ?iyyaa-hum qa~ad-tu
them meant-!
It is them who I meant.
It is clear that each independent pronoun is composed of a form identical

to the bound form plus a support (which does not have any known meaning).
The form of the support varies depending on Case, although the latter may
also yield a variation in bound forms (compare e.g. -kumuu and -tumuu
for second person plural, accusative and nominative, respectively). 22
As explained earlier, non-nominative bound forms are best analyzed as
pronouns, and there is no support for their analysis as inflections. 23 In
contrast, bound nominative forms are homonymously ambiguous between
a pronoun and an inflection interpretation. Consider, for example, the bound
form [-at] in sentence (39a), repeated here as (69), as well as the construction
(70):
(69) jaa?-at 1-banaat-u
came-f the-girls-nom
The girls came.
(70) jaa?-at
came-3.s.f
She came.
In (69), [-at] functions as an AGR marker, specified only for the GEN
feature (feminine). In (70), [-at] is a pronoun (which is incorporated). As
such, it has to be specified for PERS (third) and NUM (singular). If the
two uses of the form are to receive a unified treatment, then it is clear
that PERS and NUM values are specified only contextually, and they receive
a default interpretation. Only GEN is specified lexically as feminine. This
situation parallels that of ambiguity described with H forms, and can be
solved along similar lines (see Subsection 2.4). But the latter solution is
applicable only if pronouns and AGR markers are integrated into a single
system of forms, in which they can alternate, depending on context.
Before engaging in an analysis of these alternations, let us compare these
forms with others which do not alternate. For example, AGR markers on
adjectives cannot be ambiguously analyzed as bound pronouns. These
affixes encode NUM and GEN, but no PERS. Their forms usually occur
as inflections on nouns, but not on verbs, although a few historical remnants
relate these forms to those of imperfective verb affixes (e.g. the dual
nominative [aa], or the nominative 'sound' plural [uu]). But in general,
nominal inflections have different forms from those of verbs. The former
depend on whether nouns are 'broken', 'sound', inflected for one case or
another, etc. 24
With adjectives (as with nouns), agreement and morphological case are
normally merged in one indivisible affix. For example, the [aa] on the adjec-
tive in the following sentence represents both nominative case and dual
(masculine) agreement: 25
122 CHAPTER 3
(71) r-rajul-aa-n waaqif-aa-n

the-man-dual.nom-n standing-dual.nom-n
The men are standing.
But the affix on the adjective cannot be used as a pronoun, as the ill-formed-
ness of the following construction shows:
(72) *(hum) waaqif-uun
(they) standing-nom.m.pl
They are standing.
If the pronoun is omitted in (72), the result is excluded. Adjectival agree-
ment markers (unlike bound forms on inflected verbs) do not vary according
to person. Because they do not encode this feature, they are not 'rich
enough' to be interpreted as pronouns. To account for this distribution, it
is necessary to assume that phi-feature matrices of verbal inflections include
PERS, NUM, and GEN, but those of adjectival inflections include only
the latter two. 26
Let us now turn to an inspection of how elements of pronouns can
be analyzed, and relationships between forms established. Assume,
essentially following Abney (1987), that (some) pronouns are (D heads
of) DPs. What, then, is their internal structure? If pronoun ingredients
parallel those of noun constituents, then we may think that they can be
factored into three components (be they constituents or sets of features):
(a) a D (determiner) component, containing a definiteness feature (DEF);
(b) a pronominal support (if there is one), paralleling the nominal (or N)
part; and (c) an inflectional or phi-feature component (which includes GEN,
NUM, and PERS, and parallels AGR in nominal constituency; see Chapter
5). These components are not necessarily represented by a sequence of
separate bound morphemes, nor are they projected as separate syntactic
heads. They may be fused morphologically, or may even be phonetically
unexpressed.
With overt pronouns, whether free or bound, the only necessarily overt
part is the AGR component. Pronominal support is not part of the
structure of bound forms. Since some of them (e.g. non-nominative forms)
are necessarily pronominal, we might wonder how this is to be accounted
for. One possibility is that they are marked (inherently) with the feature pro.
The latter can be taken as (an empty) counterpart of the naming part (or
N) of noun phrases. As for DEF, it is not overt in Arabic personal pronouns,
although it is (syntactically) active. and presumably part of their
structure. To test the definite nature of personal pronouns, consider the
following contrast:
(73) ?anaa 1-lacjii baayac-tu mul)ammad-an

I the-that made.allegeance-1 Muhammad-acc
laa ?-an;laa bi-haadaa
not /-satisfy with-this
Me who has made allegeance to Mohammad am not satisfied with this.
(74) ?anta 1-muwaqqic-a ?asfal-a-hu t-altazim-u bi-hacjaa
you the-signer-ace down-ace-it 2-commit with-this
You who have signed down here are committed to this.
In both contexts the pronoun is modified by an adjective or a relative clause
which has to agree in definiteness with the pronoun. That agreement is
manisfested by the occurrence of the definite article /- on the adjective,
as in (73), or the definite relative marker lladii, as in (74) (see Fassi, 1976,
and Chapter 5 for details).
Given that personal pronouns are (syntactically) definite, how is their
definite nature to be accounted for? If these pronouns are DPs, then we
can speculate that D receives a DEF interpretation in association with PERS
interpretation. The latter is of deictic nature, in particular in the case of 1
and 2 persons. D filled with a DEF feature will act as a binder of the
empty position in pronominal support (or pro) to saturate it. Being
saturated, pronominal DP can now function as a referential expression (as
in Higginbotham's theory of saturation and reference). If this is true, then
it provides support for the idea that at least some pronouns are DPs. 27
To illustrate how pronominal components are articulated, I provide in
(75) the internal (lexical) structure of the form in (67b), and in (76) that
of (67a):
(75) D
~
D AGR
I~
[+<lef] N AGR
I
?an
I
tumaa
[+pro]
(76) D
~
D AGR
[+def] ~
N AGR
I
[+pro]
I
tumaa
124 CHAPTER 3
Likewise, the structure of the inflection in e.g. (46) is the following:

(77) AGR
I
na
Given these structures, pure AGR and incorporated pronouns differ in terms
of the presence or absence of two components: the D component and the
pronominal base. These two components may fail to be phonologically
realized, however, and the form of the pronominal affix turns out to be
indistinguishable from that of pure A GR. It is then no surprise that pronom-
inal forms are often interpreted as pure agreement markers, although their
structure is the same as that of independent pronouns. If both forms are
taken as AGRs, then we can designate the pronominal affix as pronom-
inal AGR, and the agreement marker as non-pronominal AGR. In the next
subsection, I propose an account for the ambiguous nature of Arabic AGR.
2.3. The Pronominal AGR Parameter
To be concrete, let us assume that ambiguous AGR functions essentially

like ambiguous free H forms, described earlier in Subsection 2.1. It can then
be generated in two different positions: (a) under an inflectional projec-
tion of the clause, i.e. I or AGR; or (b) under an inflectional projection
of a noun phrase, i.e. D (or AGR in D), if noun phrases are DPs. If AGR
is generated within a DP, then the pronominal base would have an open
internal position which is saturated internally via binding, assuming
Higginbotham's (1985) theory of theta discharge. The DP being saturated
is then a referential expression, which is assigned a theta role, by virtue
of the Theta Criterion. As a consequence, the fact that pronominal AGR
can discharge thematic positions within predicates is derived. If AGR is
generated under I, then it is not pronominal nor does it discharge any
position in the predicate argument structure, although it may play another
role in the grammar, as I shall explain. 28
Note, however, that not all pronouns are referential or DP expressions.
In particular, expletives cannot be so analyzed. The latter have AGR
features, but no DEF. It appears then that the common core unifying
expletive and referential pronouns in incorporation is the AGR compo-
nent. Consequently, a simple conception of the so-called null subject
parameter emerges. The latter can be viewed as the ability of a language
to generate AGR in an argument position (inside nominal AGRPs or DPs),
and then incorporate it into clausal AGR. This ability depends in turn on
the pronominal nature of AGR, discussed earlier. Languages then differ with
respect to the following parameter:
(78) AGR may or may not be pronominal.
In non-incorporating languages like English, AGR is only non-pronom-

inal. In languages like Arabic or Irish, AGR can be pronominal. As for
Italian, if we believe Rizzi's (1982) analysis, it does not seem to possess
a pronominal AGR in the intended sense, i.e. an AGR which is generated
in a DP position and incorporated. 29
Note that AGR (whether pronominal or not) is a bound form.
Consequently, morphological well-formedness conditions require it to attach
to another form. If AGR is under D. then it either incorporates onto the
pronominal support, or onto a governor (P, N, V, I, etc.). Incorporation is
a head-to-head movement rule, subject to standard constraints on this type
of rule. If it heads AGRP, then the verb raises to it (as described in Chapter
2), hence providing the required support.
Our analysis of the difference between languages like English (and
Italian) and those like Arabic is then characterized by the parameter (78).
The syntactic rule of incorporation is triggered by lexical properties of AGR.
Pronominal AGR is generated under DP, _31.nd later incorporated into IP.
/
2.4. Specification and Feature Hierarchy
In preceding subsections I have shown that both bound and free forms
can be used ambiguously, depending on how their feature values are
specified. Specification of forms can be null, partial (e.g. limited to GEN),
or complete, depending on lexical entries and syntactic contexts. In this
subsection I examine how specification is divided between lexicon and
syntax. I also show that specification observes a feature hierarchy in which
a specification for a feature implies the specification of all features lower
than it in the hierarchy.
2.4.1. Feature Hierarchy
Among pronominal forms, only H forms (normally used as third person

forms) are not lexically specified for PERS values. As observed earlier,
when used as expletives or copulas, these forms have no PERS value, neither
in the lexicon nor in the syntax. I will represent absence of specification
with variables (a, b, g), specification of PERS by ±1, ±2, of GEN by ±,
and of NUM by ± also.
In this system, H forms encode PERS as follows:
(79) H: [a PERS]
As for other features, they receive different values, depending on pronom-
inal entries in the lexicon:
(80) huwa: [a PERS, b NUM, g GEN]
(81) hiya: [a PERS, b NUM, + FEM]
126 CHAPTER 3
(82) hum: [a PERS, + PL, - GEN]

These specifications contrast with those of first and second person forms,
which have positive values for PERS, although GEN values may be (in some
cases) neutralized (neutralization is represented by 0 here):
(83) a. ?anaa: [lPERS,- PL, 0 GEN]

b. nahnu: [lPERS, + PL, 0 GEN]
c. (anti: [2PERS, - PL, + FEM]
d. ?antum: [2PERS, + PL,- FEM]
GEN can be neutralized in some pronominal forms, although it is active
in AGR forms. In adjectival agreement, for example, GEN is activated:
(84) a. ?anaa <;Jakiyy-un
I clever-nom
I am clever (m.).
b. ?anaa gakiyy-at-un
I clever-f-nom
I am clever (f.).
These facts suggest that specification of features is hierarchically ordered.
A phi feature hierarchy can be stated as follows:
(85) PERS < NUM <GEN.
2.4.2. A Consequence for Poor Agreement

An interesting consequence of the feature hierarchy is that it helps us
determine the exact content of poor agreement. I have been postulating
that this type of agreement involves GEN only, but not NUM or PERS.
But why can't poor agreement be interpreted as specifying PERS (i.e. 3
PERS), in addition to GEN?
If the hierarchy (85) is correct, then the absence of NUM specification
implies that of PERS specification. Thus in sentences like (69) above,
repeated here as (86), the verb is not specified for PERS: 30
(86) jaa?a-t 1-banaat-u
came-f the-girls-nom
The girls came.
This state of affairs is compatible with the fact that poor AGR may have
an expletive subject, as in (87):
(87) ? innahaa jaa? a-t 1-banaat-u

that-her/it came-f the-girls-nom
There came the girls.
When a verbal morphology is clearly marked for PERS (be it first or
second), its subject cannot be expletive, as shown by the ungrammati-
cality of (88):
(88) * ?inna-hu ji ?-tum
that-him/it came-you.m.pl.
There came you.
Only a referential pronoun is allowed here:
(89) ?inna-kum ji?-tum
that-them came-you.m.pl.
There came you.
Summarizing, I have shown that phi feature forms, be they free or bound,
have alternate uses as inflections or pronouns. I have proposed an AGR
Pronominality Parameter to distinguish incorporating from non-incorpo-
rating languages. Moreover, I have discussed how (under)specification in
lexicon and syntax plays a role in alternations, and how a feature hier-
archy determines the possible content of that specification. In the next
section I turn to an analysis of further consquences of this view.
3. FURTHER CONSEQUENCES AND DISCUSSIONS
In this section I examine further consequences of my general approach to

inflection and pronoun forms in Arabic. In the first part I establish that there
are no non-nominative AGR forms, nor are there alternative uses of these
affixes (in contrast to nominative forms). I also question the hypothesis
that there is an AGR O(bject) in Arabic (or more generally non-subject
agreement). In the second subsection I discuss why there are two reasons
to incorporate nominative bound forms (but not non-nominative ones). In
the third part I analyze some consequences of incorporation theory pointed
out by Baker and Hale ( 1988), as well as additional problems for INFLA.
3.1. Is there an AGRO in Arabic?

As has been observed earlier, there are clear cases of bound forms which
have been analyzed as subject AGRs, be they verbal or adjectival AGRs.
Moreover, verbal bound forms have been shown to be ambiguous in their
morphological paradigm, and they can be used as either pure inflections
or as pronouns. The question that I want to raise here is the following:
128 CHAPTER 3
are there pure object AGR types or ambiguous object forms in Arabic;
or, more generally, are there non-nominative ambiguous forms? The question
is important given Chomsky's ( 1989a) conjecture that there is an AGRO,
wich parallels AGRS(ubject), and also work on Celtic proposing that
there are agreement conjugations of non-verbs (in particular prepositions;
see in this regard McCloskey and Hale, 1984, and Rouveret, 1991, and
references cited there).
It is striking that there is no object (or non-nominative) AGR. Clearly,
there is no case of poor agreement with objects (or non-subjects). For
example, when a verb or a preposition governs a syntactic NP, no agree-
ment form is attached to the governor as a mark of the object. This is
illustrated by the following constructions:
(90) a. ntaqad-tu r-rajul-a
criticized-/ the-man-ace
I criticized the man.
(91) ltaqay-tu bi-r-rajul-i

met-! >vith-the-man-gen
I met the man.
There is no (obvious) sense, as far as I can tell, in which we can postu-
late an abstract (and phonetically unrealized) poor object agreement on
the verb in (90), or on the preposition in (91 ).
Let us now turn to rich AGRO. Here too we observe that governors of
objects show no rich agreement (in the strict sense) with their arguments.
Consider cases which could be interpreted as instances of rich agreement
with objects, as in the following examples:
(92) a.* ntaqad-tu-hu r-rajul-a
criticized-1-him the-man-ace
*I criticized him the man.
b.* r-rajul-a ntaqad-tu-hu

the-man-ace criticized-1-him
*The man I criticized him.
In (92a) I have constructed an example in which the object is postverbal
(paralleling the postverbal subject in (86) above), and in (92b) an example
of a preverbal object (paralleling the preverbal subject in (40) above). If
the ill-formedness of (92a) is expected (because it violates the AGR
Criterion), that of (92b) is not. The latter construction would have instan-
tiated a Spec-Head agreement configuration of an object. Note, incidentally,
that both examples are well-formed sentences as right and left (accusative)
dislocations, respectively (with an intonation break after the DP object;
see Fassi, 1981); but this is irrelevant to our problem. Note also that similar
judgments are found with prepositions or nouns. These facts suggest that
there is no descriptive reason to postulate the existence of an AGR object
in Arabic.
If this reasoning is correct, then bound non-subject forms which occur
on verbs, prepositions, nouns, etc., are best analyzed as incorporated
pronouns (not inflections), along the lines discussed earlier. The following
examples (Nos. (11)-(13) above), illustrating instances of incorporation, are
repeated here for convenience:
(93) intaqad-tu-hu
criticized-1-him
I criticized him.
(94) ltaqay-tu bi-hi
met-/ with-him
I met him.
(95) ntaqad-tu mu? allif-a-hu
criticized-/ author-ace-his
I criticized its author.
As has already been mentioned, the internal structure of these pronominal
affixes is identical to that of their independent counterparts (listed in Table
4), except that they lack an overt pronominal support. Recall, too, that
one feature of non-nominative pronominal incorporation is that it is not
sensitive to the nature of the governor. As instantiated by the examples here,
the same form [-hu] functions as object of a tensed verb, complement of
a preposition, or of a possessor. This state of affairs contrasts significantly
with that of nominative AGR forms. The latter vary depending on whether
the governor is an adjective or an inflected verb, and depending on
Tense/Aspect carried by the inflected verb.
These features translating the morphological autonomy of non-nomina-
tive bound affixes indicate that these forms are not incorporated into
(clausal) inflection, unlike nominative affixes. The latter are best thought
of as incorporated into I, as we have seen (see also below, Subsection
3.2). If this is true, then this suggests that the sole reason why non-nomi-
native pronominal forms have to incorporate relates to their bound
morphological nature. As a corollary, we expect that when these forms
are prevented from incorporating into their governor, no AGR form would
appear on it, unlike what happens with nominative forms. This expecta-
tion is borne out, as has been amply demonstrated above. The fact that
non-nominative affixes do not incorporate into inflection strongly supports
their non-inflectional nature.
130 CHAPTER 3
If non-nominative affixes in the constructions examined are pronouns,

then the ill-formedness of (92a) and (92b) can be attributed to a violation
of the Theta Criterion. The AGR Criterion cannot be operative here pre-
cisely because grammaticality judgments do not change from (92a) to (92b).
If the object affix were an AGR marker, then it would have been properly
heading an AGR projection. Moreover, the AGR head would have been
suitably licensed by the NP object contained in its Spec in (92b), but not
in (92a). The situation observed supports strongly the conclusion that object
affixes cannot be analyzed as inflections.
On the other hand, object incorporation is necessary whenever possible.
Recall, for example, the contrast in grammaticality of the pair in ( 17) above,
repeated here as (96):
(96) a.* ra ?ay-tu ?iyyaa-ka

saw-/ you-ace
I saw you.
b. ra? ay-tu-ka
saw-1-you
I saw you.
How is incorporation forced in this case? One possibility is to think of
non-nominative bound affixes as being the regular forms of pronouns,
whereas free forms are last resort morphs. If this is true, then the incor-
poration of object pronouns becomes necessary whenever it can apply.
This situation is not essentially any different from the one of subject
pronouns, although there are other factors in the latter case which make it
more complex. I turn to an analysis of subject incorporation in the next
subsection.
3.2. Two Reasons to Incorporate Nominative Affixes
In the previous subsection I discussed some distributional differences

between nominative and non-nominative affixes. I now turn to providing
an account of these differences.
3.2.1. Subject Agreement Distribution
As observed earlier, agreement morphology is obligatory with subjects

(be it poor or rich), but there is no agreement of governors with non-subjects.
Moreover, subject agreement (whether poor or rich) appears to be in total
complementary distribution with postverbal subject pronouns. Recall the
ungrammaticality of both (28b) and (31), repeated here as (97) and (98),
respectively:
(97) *jaa?-athunna
came-! they.f
They (f.) came
(98) *ji?-na hunna

came-3.pl.f they.f
Literally: They they came.
Given that the affixes in the two constructions can be interpreted as AGR
markers, the incompatibility of the latter with postverbal subject pronouns
has to be accounted for. The ill-formedness of the agreement configura-
tion in (98) can be derived straightforwardly from the AGR Criterion.
As for (97), the only way to derive it is to make pronoun incorporation
obligatory in this context.
How is this idea to be executed? In order to reach this goal, we have
to ensure that no other source of derivation is available for (97). In
particular, we have to answer the question why (97) cannot be generated
as an expletive construction, in which an expletive pro in Spec of AGR
functions as a mediator in licensing the GEN value through the postverbal
subject. In other words, if it were possible to form an expletive chain (or
an R-chain in the sense of Chapter 2) including the postverbal pronoun,
along the lines in which expletive chains are formed with postverbal non-
nominal subjects, then we see no reason why this construction cannot have
a felicitous grammatical derivation. The solution to this puzzle lies precisely
in the fact that referential pronouns resent forming chains with expletives
(as observed in Chapter 2). Recall the ungrammaticality of examples like
(88) above. The latter indicates that when a chain is formed, the occur-
rence of both positive values of PERS (1, 2, or 3) and a negative value
(or non-PERS, dictated by the expletive) leads to ungrammaticality. Thus
the ill-formedness of examples like (98) can be attributed to a mismatch
of PERS values in the chain formed. Only (89), in which there is PERS
matching, is grammatical.
Alternatively, we might think that the feature PERS (encoded on the
verbal finite morphology) is necessarily activated when subjects are pronom-
inal (presumably as a result of coindexing pronominal subjects and verbs).
As I have demonstrated earlier, PERS value is necessary for pronominal
reference. But there is no reason to think that the reference of non-pronom-
inal NPs involves PERS specification. Only NUM and GEN are involved.
Consequently, no activation of PERS is necessary (or even possible). If
coindexation implies PERS activation, then if the phi feature hierarchy
proposed in (85) holds, activation of NUM becomes necessary. But note
now that this configuration for agreement checking violates the AGR
Criterion. In order to avoid this violation, the subject pronoun has to move
preverbally to Spec of AGR, to meet the requirements for rich agreement
132 CHAPTER 3
checking. Alternatively, the pronoun subject may incorporate completely

in AGR, preventing any mismatch in features, and in fact obviating the need
for phi feature checking.
It appears, then, that since agreement checking with subjects is neces-
sary, and since expletive chain formation is not an option for personal
pronoun subjects, the grammar offers another means for the governor
to incorporate features of the subject. This is done through complete
incorporation of the subject into the inflected verb. As a corollary, there
is no need for AGR checking or AGR licensing in this case, because there
is no occurrence of pure AGR, which is dissociated morphologically from
the subject. The AGR used in this context (which is pronominal) is the
subject, incorporated into the verb. If this is true, then it suggests that a
linkage of a predicate to a subject (of the 'agreement' or phi feature nature)
can be manifested in either of two ways: (a) through marking the
predicate with phi features of subjects (via so-called agreement markers),
or (b) by incorporating the subject into the predicate (or more precisely
into AGR, which will be affixed to the predicate). Note that these two
manifestations of subject predicate 'agreement' seem exactly parallel to
those of Case, as discussed by Baker (1988). According to this author, an
NP can satisfy Case requirements either: (a) by being assigned Case by
its governor; or (b) by incorporating into it. In my proposal, incorpora-
tion appears to do the same job for agreement purposes. 31
On the other hand, if PERS checking is a form of rich AGR checking,
as implied by the phi feature hierarchy, and if the latter type of AGR is
checked only under a Spec-Head relationship, and in conformity with the
AGR Criterion, then the co-occurrence of AGR and pronouns in postverbal
position is barred. Thus the complementary distribution mentioned at the
beginning of the subsection is derived.
To sum up, I have shown that a pronoun cannot occur as a postverbal
subject (with a poor AGR on the verb) because an expletive cannot be
used to mediate the formation of an R-chain which would include the
postverbal pronoun as a member, and would make phi feature checking
possible. I have conjectured that coindexation of AGR and pronominal
subjects activates PERS, which is then specified for a value, and which
has to be checked. The PERS feature (which is part of AGR) cannot be
an inert non-person, as is this case with non-pronominal subjects.
Consequently, no poor AGR option is available with pronouns.
3.2.2. On AGRS Licensing
Consider now the asymmetric properties of subject and non-subject affixes,

with regard to ambiguity, inflection, etc. I have established earlier that
non-subject affixes cannot be interpreted as pure AGRs, while subject affixes
can. If we take morphological manifestation as a necessary condition for
postulating the existence of AGR, then the Arabic data provide evidence
for the existence of AGRSs in Chomsky's (1989a) sense, but not for
AGROs. The question then is: why? Why do we have agreement mani-
festations of subjects, but not of non-subjects? How are AGR markers
licensed?
A possible answer is that the licensing mechanism for inflectional AGR
is predication. 32 Since the subject is a member of a predicate relationship,
but the object is not, inflectional AGR is available with subjects, but not
objects. Let us then suppose that a correlation holds between inflectional
AGR and predication, in conformity with the following principle:
(99) If A is predicated of B, then A agrees with B.

Other minimal conditions for agreement might be stated as follows:
( 100) A agrees with B only if
(a) A governs B
(b) there is a phi-feature F; such that if B contains F;, then A also
contains F;.
The principle (99) infers a correlation between the existence of predica-
tion and the occurrence of AGR. 33 In general, there is no predication relation
between a preposition and its object, nor between a verb and its object.
We therefore expect no agreement marking in this case. 34
3.3. Further Extensions of INCA
Hale (1987, 1988) has observed some very interesting properties of

incorporation. First, he conjectures that object incorporation is abundant
cross-linguistically, while subject incorporation is very limited: in fact being
limited to VSO languages. What is more, subject incorporation is limited
to pronouns, even in the latter type. Baker and Hale (1988) proposed the
derivation of both asymmetries from ECP.
Consider the first limitation. Hale argues that the V fronting process
which derives VSO order from an underlying SVO (in Celtic, for example)
causes the verb to govern its subject (or more precisely, the subject
incorporated into the verb governs its trace). In contrast, the inflected verb
does not properly govern the subject in an SVO structure. Thus Hale insight-
fully derives the fact that subject incorporation is possible in VSO, but
not in SVO.
Note, however, that if VSO and SVO constructions originate from
identical structural sources, as is now commonly assumed, then we see
no reason why the pronominal subject would not incorporate in SVO
languages, just as it does in VSO ones. This is so because an SVO language
is also VSO (in some relevant sense). The comparison of English and
134 CHAPTER 3
Moroccan Arabic (MA), both of which are SVO languages, reveals that
incorporation is possible in MA, but not in English.
English is an SVO language which does not instantiate incorporation
of subjects nor that of objects. As postulated earlier, English simply has
no pronominal AGR, by virtue of having fixed the AGR pronominality
parameter that way. Moreover, there is no evidence that pronouns are
of affixal nature in this language. These two factors converge to bar
incorporation in English. Turning now to MA, we observe that pronom-
inal objects are (normally) affixed onto their governors, as illustrated by
(101) and (102):
(101) r-rajl kla-h
the-man ate-him/it
The man ate it.
(102) r-rajl ja mca-h
the-man came with-him
The man came with him.
In (101) the object of the verb must be a bound pronominal form. The
same is true of the object of the preposition in (102). Note that the
occurrence of an incorporated form is incompatible with that of a syntac-
tically realized DP, as the ungrammaticality of (103b) shows:
(103) a. kla 1-xubz
ate the-bread
He ate the bread.
b.* kla-h 1-xubz
ate-him/it the-bread
In (103a) the syntactic DP object is expressed, while it is incorporated in
(101). Co-occurrence of both forms is excluded, as (103b) shows.
MA has null subject constructions, as (104) indicates:
(104) ja-w
came-3.pl.
They came.
In Subsection 1.4 above I have hypothesized that the subject in these con-
structions is a null pro, thus parallelling similar Italian cases analyzed by
Rizzi (1982). The idea behind this approach is that the AGR marker on
the verb is best treated as a pure inflection because it can co-occur with syn-
tactically expressed subjects, as in ( 105):
(105) ja-w 1-ulaad

came-3.pl. the-boys
The boys came.
It is possible to think that MA, like Italian, has a base-generated, rich
inflection which allows the identification of pro in the subject position
(in accordance with INFLA). But given that MA object pronouns are bound
and incorporated, the question arises as to why subjects should not be treated
in the same way. As a matter of fact, there is no way to motivate this
limitation. On the contrary, it is natural to think that the subject affix in
( 104) is a bound pronoun which has been incorporated from an argument
position. Keeping Hale and Baker's insight, we might reasonably assume
that the subject pronoun does not incorporate from a position wich would
lead to an ECP violation (e.g. Spec of AGR). But the subject is free to
incorporate from Spec of V or Spec ofT, and its trace there will be properly
governed. If this is true, then MA is an SVO language which incorporates
subjects (in addition to objects). Given the bound nature of pronouns and
the use of the incorporation mechanism to derive structures in which they
are contained (hence INCA), the use of INFLA becomes superfluous, and
needs extra motivation. As far as I can tell, no evidence can be provided
for this move. 35
In this chapter I have provided reasons for integrating pronominal and AGR
forms into one general system, and I have proposed mechanisms to derive
their different alternations and uses. On the one hand, close morpholog-
ical (and etymological) relationships between independent or bound
pronominals and pure agreement markers have been established. Phi feature
forms have been decomposed into three components: a D component, a
pronominal support, and an AGR component. Some forms have been shown
to be lacking some of these components, although they all share the AGR
component. On the other hand, the AGR pronominality parameter accounts
for the existence of null subject constructions, as well as alternative uses
of subject affixes as pronouns. The functional ambiguity of forms has
also been accounted for through the elements of a theory of (under)-
specification of phi feature forms. Moreover, the latter has been shown to
observe a hierarchy. Free and bound forms have been generated (and
interpreted) in different functional positions: under DPs, or under IPs. Other
differences between nominative and non-nominative affixes, or between
languages have been analyzed.
136 CHAPTER 3
NOTES
* An earlier version of this chapter has circulated in a manuscript form as Fassi (1989a).
Part of this work was presented in a GLOW talk (Spring 1990, London), and in various lectures
at the University of Paris VIII, SOAS (London), the International Linguistic Institute of
LSM at the University of Rabat (Summer 1990), UQAM (Montreal) and MIT (Spring 1989).
Thanks to audiences for helpful comments.
1 On 'richness' of INFL as a trigger of null argumenthood, see Taraldsen ( 1978). On various
approaches to pro drop, see especially Chomsky (1981, 1982), Rizzi (1982, 1986), and Jaeggli
and Safir (1989).
2 The term 'pronominal' here is not to be confused with that used by Rizzi (1982) to
characterize the !NFL of null subject languages like Italian. See Section 2 for detailed
clarifications.
3 Note that our treatment of bound forms is neutral with respect to the issue whether the
grammar is derivational, as in e.g. Baker (1988), or representational as in e.g. Rizzi (1987).
4 On diachronic evidence that Piyyaa pronouns have been formed from bound roots via a
sort of 'excorporation' at a later stage in the history of the Arabic language. See Bravman
(1971 ).
5 See note 22, however.
6 On the structure of DPs, see Chapter 5. Postal (1966) has argued that English pronouns
should be treated as articles. See also Hale ( 1988), who proposes taking pronouns as Ds. In
Section 2 personal pronouns are analyzed as DPs, and expletives as AGRPs (with no D
projection).
7 The construction is grammatical as a right (accusative) dislocation, but this is irrelevant
here. See Fassi (1981) on the matter.
8 A highly abstract approach to the matter is possible, but I see no significant conse-
quences of it. See Subsection 3.1, below, for a discussion.
9 This construction is grammatical if the NP after wa is taken as an 'accompaniment' adjunct.
The relevant translation is then the following: 'I saw you with Zayd'.
10 Note that other readings are possible here. For example, (23a) can have also the following
interpretation: 'I gave him to you'. Thus the use of a mixture of free and bound pronouns
renders the order of object 1 and object 2 without importance, although the order is totally
strict when only affixes are used (see Chapter 2).
11 Note that the Person Constraint does not apply to (nominative) subject affixes. The
following example illustrates this fact:
(i) <;Iarab-uu-ka
beat-3.pl.m. -you
They beat you.
We will see, on the other hand, that nominative affixes, unlike non-nominative ones, incor-
porate into the clausal INFL. This observation suggests that the Person Constraint must
take this difference into account.
12 I will not discuss the properties of these forms exhaustively here. See Fassi ( 1984) for
detail.
ll This is in line with Hale's (1988) argumentation for incorporation in Irish.
14 Here, too, canonical government is necessary, though not sufficient. Consider the fol-
lowing pair of constructions:
(ii) ?a t:Iasan-un huwwa
Q nice-nom he
Is he nice?
*?a l).asan-u-hu
Q nice-nom-him
Is he nice?
In (i), the subject pronoun is independent, although governed by the adjective. The construction
(ii), in which the subject pronoun is incorporated into the adjective, is ungrammatical. Only
non-nominative pronouns can incorporate into adjectives, as in (14) above. Nominative
pronoun incorporation is limited to finite verbs. Since the latter carry Tense, and since
bound pronominal subjects are inherently marked for Nominative Case, we might assume
that in order for Case to be checked (after incorporation), the presence of Tense (on the
incorporating governor) is necessary. Because adjectives do not bear Tense, the incorpora-
tion of a subject on adjectives will not satisfy Case requirements, and Nominative checking
cannot be felicitous. The only option then left for the subject pronoun is not to incorporate,
and to have its Case checked under government by clausal T.
15 One potential problem for INCA pointed out by Radford (personal communication) is
that, given this analysis, one would normally expect bound pronouns to be 'phonetically
consistent', in the same way as eli tics are. The latter show only minimal morphophonolog-
ical variation in form, so that e.g. Italian gli becomes glie before lo, etc. This is not true of
Arabic incorporated pronouns, however. These forms are sensitive to perfect/imperfect
distinctions, and they exibit discontinuity. These observations assess the lack of a (rela-
tively) consistent homogeneous form, which appears in turn to be a mark of inflection rather
than that of an incorporated pronoun. I think that Radford's observations do not necessarily
undermine INCA, because Arabic is a highly fusional language at the morphological level,
and there is no necessary one-to-one mapping between syntax and morphology. INCA being
a syntactic process, it may or may not be motivated on syntactic grounds. As for (concrete)
morphology, it is clear that it does not mirror syntactic relationships (see Appendix 1 of
Chapter 2, and references cited there).
16 For a thorough discussion and criticism of this variant of the Pro drop analysis, see
Fassi (1984).
17 McCloskey and Hale ( 1984) have adopted a Pro drop approach of inflection in Irish,
but Hale (1987, 1988) argues convincingly that a variant of INCA is more convenient for
Celtic and other languages.
18 Note that I have assumed that the Avoid pronoun principle will rule out the cases
discussed, although, as formulated, it is not clear how it does so.
19 The strong/weak distinction is found in traditional grammar. It has been made use of in
recent literature. See e.g. Holmberg (1991) and Rouveret (1991), among others.
20 See Higginbotham (1985) for discussion.
21 Note that first and second PERS free pronouns are used only as arguments. Bound
forms of first and second PERS, however, are (morphologically) ambiguous in that they
can be interpreted as inflections, or as incorporated pronouns. These idiosyncracies have to
be stipulated in the lexicon.
22 The morphological relationship is more transparent with first and second PERS than
with third. With the latter, [hum], [hun] or [h] may function as a support with third PERS
nominative, although it is part of the bound form with the accusative (see Table 2). Some
third PERS forms might be historically related to adjectival agreement affixes (see Russell,
1984). It is clear, however, that the former are functionally different from adjectival affixes.
One important difference already mentioned is that third pronominal affixes license null
anaphora, but adjectival affixes do not. See note 28.
23 From this perspective, they share a common core of properties with Romance clitics,
and are presumably derived through the same mechanism.
24 In Arabists' terminology, 'sound' plurals designate plurals which are formed from the
stem of the singular by adding a suffix (e.g. -uun) concatenatively. In contrast, broken
plurals are not formed from the stem, but only from the consonantal root. Their morphology
138 CHAPTER 3
is non-concatenative, and the vocalic information of the singular is lost in the plural (see
Wright, 1974 and McCarthy and Prince, 1988, among other references).
25 The [n] ending on the adjective is a (abstract) mark of possession. See Chapter 5 on
this matter.
26
NUM and GEN license null arguments with imperatives. Consider the following examples:
(i) dxul-uu
enter-pl.m.
Enter (pl.m.)!
(ii) dxul-ii
enter-fs.
Enter (f.s.)!
In these verbal forms, the prefix element (which usually appears on imperfect verbs to mark
PERS) is missing. Only NUM and GEN are encoded, and second PERS is inferred from
the mood (imperative). I assume that the bound form here is an agreement marker, not a
pronoun, and that the necessary PERS feature to license null arguments is provided by the
context.
Likewise, constructions like (iii) are grammatical in appropriate discourse context:
(iii) ?a waaqif-uun?
Q standing-m.pl.nom.
Are you standing?
The contextual value of PERS here should also be 2.
27 DEF is phonologically realized in the guise of a definite article with demonstrative and
relative pronouns like lladii (where [I] is the definite article followed by a demonstrative
support).
28 We still have to explain how the ambiguity is allowed, and which one is allowed. Consider
again the system of forms given so far. There are ingredients of regularity which suggest
that the system is further decomposable. For example, in perfective affixes, [a], [aa], and
[uu] stand for singular, dual, and plural respectively (though the latter is necessarily
masculine). The last two forms are also found in other systems, including adjectival and
noun systems. [t] is for 2 PERS usually, although it is also used in 1 PERS of the perfect,
and as feminine of 3 PERS, etc. Clearly, however, the system cannot be decomposed in
any straightforward transparent fashion. It is highly idiosyncratic from the synchronic point
of view, and some forms allow no decomposition at all. For example, [?-] is [lPERS, S.,
IMPERF], and unspecified for GEN; [n-] has basically the same specification, except that
it is PL.; [t-] is ambiguous between 2 PERS and 3 PERS. If it is 2PERS, it is M. and S.
by default; if it 3 PERS, it is also F. and S. by default. [t] and [y] in the imperfect give
rise to different NUM and PERS, depending on the suffix combined with them. For example,
[y] occurs with the PL.F. suffix [-na], but not with the dual F. [t-aa].
Thus segmentation of the forms of affixes is not possible. Moreover, it has no impact
on the functioning of the system, as far as we can tell. The same is not true of the
decomposition of affixes into features, especially in comparison with other affixes. In
particular, (under)specification of a form may give rise to ambiguity, thus accounting for
the ambivalent behaviour of the affix. Consider, for instance, perfect affixes for 3 PERS
S., i.e. [-a] and [-at]. If we compare the internal structure of 3 PERS form suffixes with
that of non-3 PERS suffixes, we realize automatically that the first consonant which stands
for PERS ([t] or [n]) is missing here (except in PL.F.). That is, the form of the affix tells
us that there is no specification of PERS. Bare vowel [a] cannot be taken as a specification
of S., as opposed to long [aa] for the dual, or long [uu] for plural. This is so because when
GEN and NUM are separated in the affix, GEN comes first, followed by NUM, as in
[at-aa] which is [F.-DUAL]. If this is true, then [a] has no grammatical specification. Its value
is only negative. If 3M. S. are default specifications, then [a] expresses them, in the absence
of positive marks. As for [-at], it is only marked for GEN, as feminine. In the optimal case
then, a representation of a perfect affix, for example, is the following:
(i) [-- PERS GEN NUM] rertect
Dashes preceding the specification point to the suffixing character of the form. Note that
no affix instantiates this (ideal) decomposition by three discrete segments. Affix forms, if they
allow decomposition at all, have no more than two segments. Others merge all these
categories in a single non-divisible segment.
It is possible, hopefully, to undertand how ambiguity arises, especially in the least
specified forms of the pronominal/agreement system. A form like [a] has no specified values
of its features. The latter can receive default interpretation, and hence 'license' null anaphora,
as in (ii):
(ii) jaa? -a
came·3.s.m.
He came.
This form can also occur with syntactically expressed subjects, as we have seen. In this
case, only GEN is specified at best. See note 30.
29 There is obviously a distinction to be made between Italian, a null subject language,
and English, which is not. Our purpose here is mainly to characterize the difference between
incorporating and non-incorporating languages. As for Italian, if we maintain the spirit of
Chomsky's (1982) and Rizzi's (1982) analyses, then it has to be accounted for via a variant
of INFLA. The problem which arises then is to know whether both INCA and INFLA are
needed. It is possible that the latter can be dispensed with, if Italian is treated like Moroccan
Arabic. See below, Subsection 3.3.
30 In order to distinguish finite verb inflection from adjectival inflection, it is necessary to
assume that the feature matrix of the former, but not that of the latter, includes a PERS feature,
even though this feature may be unspecified. The occurrence of this feature will be licensed
by Tense (Mood, or Aspect), as we will see in Chapter 4.
31 Cross-linguistically, the descriptive situation might be complex. In Welsh, for example,
verbs and prepositions seem to behave alike in that both can carry rich inflection (when
subjects of verbs or objects of prepositions are pronouns). In order to account for this
behaviour, Rouveret (1991) proposes a variant of INCA, in which only NUM incorporates
in the case of subjects, but the whole pronoun does in prepositional cases. Note, however,
that there is no incorporation of object pronouns. In other words, there is no 'synthetic'
form of the verb for objects, as there is one for subjects. On the other hand, independent
pronouns may appear as objects of 'analytic' prepositions, suggesting that incorporation is
not necessary. The fact that incorporation of objects is either not permissible or optional.
but not obligatory (as in the subject case) is expected given (a) the non-affixal nature of object
pronouns and (b) the absence of the need of agreement checking in the case of objects.
32 On predication, see Williams (1980) and Rothstein (1983).
33 The question remains open whether coindexation in Chinese and Japanese- which lack
overt subject predicate agreement- involves AGR in addition to T. or just T. See Kitagawa
( 1986) for a discussion.
34 As a matter of fact, the cases treated by Chomky (1989a) as object AGRs (or AGRO's)
occur in participle phrases, but not within VPs. Participles have indeed an inflectional AGR
projection, though verbs and their objects do not. Agreement in participial phrases is exactly
parallel to Spec-Head agreement in adjectives, which is a form of AGRS, as shown in Fassi
(1988b) and Mahajan (1989). What would be surprising, though. is to find a verb which agrees
with its object, as represented in a configuration like (i):
140 CHAPTER 3
(i) AGRP
~
Spec AGR'
~
AGR VP
~
v 0
In that configuration, it is hard to see what structural relation can be established between AGR
and 0. The latter is not in the domain of AGR. as far as I can tell.
Verbs tend to agree with their objects (or more generally with their arguments) in so-called
non-configurational languages (see Hale, 1988 and Alexander, 1990). In these languages, it
may be hypothesized that the verb has incorporated all its arguments in the form of
(referential) AGR markers. As for syntactic NP constituents, they stand in an adjunction
relation to these incorporated AGRs. Thus these AGRs function as true arguments, and
syntactic NPs are in some sense 'doubling' them. In these languages, agreement markers
may be discharging theta-roles (see Alexander, 1990 for suggestions).
35 It might be objected that languages such as Italian provide motivation for INFLA. Note,
however, that the situation of this language does not appear to be different from that of
MA.
On the other hand, there are languages. like Standard French, which allow only SVO order,
but in which pronominal subject clitics presumably incorporate into the verbal complex.
This state of the matter might seem problematic, as pointed out by an SNLLT reviewer. It
is not clear, however, why it would be so. Observe that both subject clitics and syntactic
subjects co-occur in Subject-Aux inversion in Standard French, as in Jean a-t-il mange?
(see also non-standard French where they co-occur freely). This indicates either that two
subjects originate in different argument positions (and that the clitic incorporates from one
of them), or that the latter is base generated under !NFL. Whatever the solution, it is not
necessarily problematic (for a recent analysis of subject inversion in French, see Rizzi and
Roberts, 1989).
CHAPTER 4
TEMPORAL, ASPECTUAL, AND MODAL CATEGORIES*
In this chapter I provide ingredients for characterizing Aspect, Tense, Mood,

and Modal relations and categories in Arabic sentences. Verbs, adjectives,
and participles, as well as negative and modal morphemes belong to
the set of categories which participate in locating time, and expressing
aspectual and modal relations. Verbless (or nominal) sentences also express
situated tenses, and their interpretation raises the problem of how the copula
visibility is to be parametrized.
The literature on tense and aspect in Arabic has been dominated by the
dispute on whether verbal inflection expresses Tense or only Aspect. On the
one hand, Arabic traditional grammarians claim that the inflection stands
for (deictic) Tense, including past and non-past (present and future). On
the other hand, most western Semiticists and philologists have construed
the Arabic binary opposition of verbal forms in terms of Aspect, not Tense.
According to the German philologist Caspari (1859) (translated in Wright,
1974), for example, the so-called perfect form of the verb expresses
" ... a finished act, one that is done and completed in relation to other acts",
whereas the imperfect form expresses " ... an unfinished act, one that is
just commencing, or in progress". "A Semitic Perfect or Imperfect has, in
and of itself, no reference to the temporal relations of the speaker [... ].
It is precisely these relations which determine in what sphere of time (past,
present, or future) a Semitic perfect or Imperfect lies, and by which of
our tenses it is to be expressed . . . ". Thus tense is at best only a
secondary 'function' of the form, or it is "in the sentence", as Fleisch (1958)
puts it. 1 The dispute on whether Arabic is a 'tense language' or an 'aspect
language' has obscured many issues, and made it difficult to reach a
consensus about the right descriptive generalizations in the Arabic temporal
system. 2
This chapter is intended to clarify the tense/aspect issue, addressing
the question of how aspectuo-temporal relations are expressed and
categorized, through verbal and adjectival (or participial) morphology. It
is shown that the Arabic verbal inflection must be construed as having
not only T(ense) and A(spect) content, but M(ood) value as well. TMA
oppositions may or may not be activated, depending on uses and contexts.
It is proposed that a system of (under)specification of a three-valued TMA
morphology (paralleling the AGR feature system described in Chapter 3)
is appropriate to account for these various uses. These ideas contrast with
the one-valued Aspect view of verbal inflection, which has dominated
Semitic and Arabic western philology, or the equally one-valued Tense view
141
142 CHAPTER 4
defended by early Arabic grammarians, and more recently by Kurylowicz

(1973) for Semitic.
On the other hand, I argue that tense distributions support a (revised)
Reichenbachian model of Tense. Arabic clauses exhibit a hi-inflectional
structure in which both auxiliaries and main verbs carry finite morphology.
The fact that such structures are well-formed in Arabic, but not English,
is attributed to the AGR nominality parameter. Correlatively, Arabic
auxiliary verbs (unlike English or French ones) are shown to be Case
assigners. Furthermore, it is argued that an INFL split analysis of auxil-
iary distributions is not adequate. Negative constructions are treated like
modal structures, thus providing no grounds for a split INFL.
In a third part, I investigate how participles and adjectives contribute
to temporal expression, and how they differ from finite verbs in that they
are marked only for Aspect, not Tense (contrary to what has been proposed
in the literature). Moreover, the aspectual content of adjectives or partici-
ples is shown to differ from that of inflected verbs.
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 1 I analyze the proper-
ties of simple, complex, and dependent temporal expressions. I argue that
the aspect view is untenable, and provide an account of the distribution
of temporal morphology in terms of anteriority relations. I also investi-
gate under what conditions the copula becomes visible. In Section 2 I
examine instances of hi-inflectional structures, including auxiliary, modal,
and negative constructions, and provide motivation for rejecting an INFL
split analysis. I also discuss how various categories contribute to temporal
expression. In Section 3 I investigate the inflectional structure of adjec-
tives and participles, and show that they contrast with present verb forms
in not being headed by Tense, unlike the latter. Other general problems in
the theory of participles and adjectives are also addressed.
I. TENSE PUZZLES AND THEIR SOLUTIONS
In this section I deal with the issue of how Arabic temporal morphology
is to be construed. After discussing some preliminary assumptions about
how Tense and Aspect are articulated in a theory of temporal relations, I
provide supporting evidence for the TMA view of verbal inflection.
1.1. Preliminary Temporal and Aspectual Distinctions
1.1.1. Aspect
Sentences can be viewed as denoting kinds of situations or states-of-affairs.

The latter differ depending on whether they are: events, i.e. they hold
in an interval of time with a beginning and a terminating endpoint (or
bound); states, with no endpoints; or processes, with an inception, but no
TEMPORAL, ASPECTUAL, AND MODAL CATEGORIES 143
termination. The following examples illustrate these three types, respec-

tively:
( 1) John ate the pizza.
(2) John is sick.
(3) John ran.
The nature of this classification is usually thought of as being one of
'Aktionsart', 'lexical aspect', or what Smith (1991) calls 'situation aspect'.
The distinctions are seen as parts of the characterization of verbs which head
clauses, although situation aspect is known to be compositional, with
arguments, adverbs, and other constituents entering into consideration (on
this point, see especially Verkuyl, 1972 and Dowty, 1979).
Sentences also denote how speakers view the internal temporal struc-
ture of situations (see, e.g., Comrie, 1976). Smith (ibid.) classifies these
denotata in what she calls viewpoint aspect. At the core of the latter is
the perfective/imperfec tive distinction. Comrie defines perfectivity as
indicating " . . . the view of a situation as a single whole, without
distinction of the various separate phases that make up that situation
... ", while imperfectivity " ... pays essential atttention to the internal
structure of the situation". Smith observes that "perfective viewpoints
include both endpoints of a situation [. . . whereas] imperfective
viewpoints focus on stages that are neither initial nor final, excluding
endpoints ... ".In English, the imperfective viewpoint is normally expressed
via the progressive, whereas the perfective is the (unmarked) simple form.
Thus the English simple past perfective in (1) contrasts with the imperfective
(progressive) in (4):
(4) John was eating the pizza.
In order to distinguish states (and progressives) from events, Parsons (1990),
using an event notation a La Davidson ( 1966) (see also Higginbotham
(1985)), introduces the notions holding (Hold) and culminating (Cui). Where
e is an eventuality in the sense of Bach ( 1981) (i.e. the equivalent of what
we have termed situation), the notation 'Cui (e,t)' means that e is an event
that comes to an end or culminates at time t. In (I), for example, there is
a development portion of the event in which John is eating the pizza, and
there is a time at which John finishes eating (or the pizza is finally eaten),
the time of culmination. Not every event has a culmination, as illustrated
by the progressive in (4). An eventuality or a situation is said to hold at t
(and is notated as 'Hold (e, t)') when e is a state, and e's subject is in
state e at t, or e is an event which is in progress (in its development
portion) at t.
Using an underlying e notation of logical forms, where the verb stands
for an e, and the roles or participants are defined as predicates on e's,
144 CHAPTER 4
a stative sentence like Mary knows Fred can have the following
notation:
(5) (3 e) [Knowing (e) & Subject (e, Mary) & Object (e, Fred) &
Hold (e, now)].
This notation reads as follows: there is a knowing that has Mary as its
subject, has Fred as its object, and hols now. In contrast, an event sentence
like (1) will have the following logical form:
(6) (3 t) [t now & (3 e) [Eating (e) & Subject (e, John) & Object
(e, the pizza) & Cui (e, t)]].
As for the progressive, it is treated in Parsons' system basically like a

state. Thus a sentence like (4) will have the following logical interpretation:
(7) (3 t) [t now & (3 e) [Eating (e) & Subject (e, John) & Object
(e, the pizza) & Hold (e, t)]].
It is important to emphasize at this point that although the definitions

of perfective and imperfective differ from one author to another with respect
to what is viewed as the core notion, there is a (sort of) consensus that
this dichotomy is central to grammatical Aspect. On the other hand,
languages differ with respect to whether aspect dichotomies are gram-
maticalized or not, and how they are grammaticalized. Arabic does not
grammaticalize the perfective/imperfective distinction, nor does it have
any particular progressive morphology. This is a paradoxical situation in
view of the fact the language has been classified as aspectual. The content
of this term will be clarified in Subsection 1.2.
1.1.2. Tense
Tense inflections on predicates, like temporal adverbials, locate situations

in time. Ordering relations between times (i.e. anteriority, posteriority, and
simultaneity) are expressed by past, future, and present, respectively. Most
languages, however, encode only a binary distinction (past/non-past or
future/non-future) in their inflectional system. The future is often expressed
by a modal, as in Arabic and English.
When tense specification relates the reference time to the utterance time
(taking the present moment as a deictic orientation point), Tense is said
to be absolute. When it is anchored to a time in the sentence (normally
different from utterance time), it is designated as relative. Perfect and
pluperfect tenses can be seen (along the lines originally proposed by
Reichenbach, 1947) as having two anchoring points: the primary anchor
(for the auxilliary) is the speech (or utterance) time, and the secondary
anchor (for the lexical verb) is the past or present time of the auxiliary
(the so-called reference time). Arabic tenses can be used both deictically
and non-deictically, as we will see. Non-deictic uses of temporal morphology

has often been misconstrued as aspectual.
Languages differ with respect to what degree their tense and aspectual
systems are autonomously expressed. Unlike English, in which the imper-
fective/perfective dichotomy and the past/non-past distinction are normally
encoded by separate morphemes on the verb (although not always (see
e.g. Smith, 1991 on the matter), a number of languages (including Arabic)
infer both types of relations from the same morphology. 3
1.2. Ingredients of the Arabic Temporal System
Verbal inflection, copular and auxiliary verbs, periphrastic verbal expres-

sions, modal and negative particles, as well as temporal adverbs, contribute
to locating situations in time. Any characterization which does not take
this variety of ingredients into account will necessarily be incomplete, and
will presumably lead to unsupported conclusions.
1.2.1. Tense Contrasts
Arabic traditional grammarians view inflected verbs as tensed. According

to them, the latter combine the meaning of process nominals (or ma!jdar's),
which stand for (kinds of) situations, with that of temporal adverbs, which
locate situations in time. Consider the following sentences:
(8) katab-a r-rajul-u r-risaalat-a ?amsi
wrote-3.s.m the-man-nom the-letter-ace yesterday
The man wrote the letter yesterday.
(9) a. y-aktub-u r-rajul-u s-saacat-a

3-write-m.s.indic the-man-nom now-ace
The man writes/is writing now.
b. y-aktub-u r-rajul-u gad-an

3-write-m.s.indic the-man-nom tomorrow-ace
The man writes/is writing tomorrow.
In (8), the inflected verbal stem katab expresses not only the lexical meaning
of the verb (which can be associated with the consonantal root ktb ), but also
past tense (as well as active voice). In (9a) and (9b), the verbal form
expresses non-past; the vocalic suffix stands for indicative mood as well
as agreement. Note that the tense morpheme in both cases is rather abstract.
Two kinds of contrasts contribute to the identification of temporal
morphemes: the internal vocalic pattern, on the one hand, and the position
of the agreement morpheme, on the other. With past forms, the agreement
146 CHAPTER 4
(with the subject) is exclusively suffixing. With non-past forms, the

agreement is both prefixing and suffixing."
Given the traditional view, tense specifications on verbs must be
compatible with temporal adverbs. Consequently, the ungrammaticality of
the following constructions is expected:
(1 0) a.* katab-a r-rajul-u r-risaalat-a gad-an
wrote-J.s.m. the-man-nom the-letter-ace tomorrow-ace
The man wrote the letter tomorrow.
b.* y-aktub-u r-rajul-u ? amsi

3-write-s.m.indic the-man-nom yesterday
The man writes the letter yesterday.
The above contrasts can be derived on the assumption that verbal inflec-
tion expresses T, basically [+Past] in the example (a), and[- Past] in the
example (b). The grammaticality judgments in (6)-(1 0) reflect the com-
patibility or incompatibilty of the deictic temporal adverb with the inflection
on the verb. If the temporal adverb is establishing an anterior, posterior,
or simultaneous relation between the utterance time and some other
moment/interval which can be the event denoted by the verb, then that
relation must be compatible with that denoted by the inflection. The ungram-
maticality of ( 10) then results from the incompatibility of the two
(modifying) relations borne by T and the adverb.
The adverbial test enables us to assess a binary inflectional system
based on the opposition between a positive member (katab ), which expresses
anteriority (a past or a preterite), and a negative-neutral member (y-aktub ),
which denotes non-anteriority (a present or non-preterite). This Tense
characterization of Arabic verbal inflection is in line with traditional thought,
which distinguishes a past tense (the positive marked member) and a
non-past (see e.g. Sibawayhi's kitaab). It is also defended in Kurylowicz's
( 1973) insightful work on Semitic.
In its simplified version, however, this view faces a number of quite
complex problems, including the appropriate characterization of what can
be seen as aspectual oppositions. Some of these problems have been thought
of as favoring the Aspect view, because Aspect is often given a negative
content ('if not Tense, then Aspect'). But, as will be explained, these
problems can receive adequate solutions only within an elaborated theory
of Tense and Aspect. Moreover, it will be shown that aspectual opposi-
tions in inflected verbs are not grammaticalized separately from tense
oppositions. In this respect, both the tense view and the aspect view prove
to he inadequate. Only a dual tense-aspect characterization or verbal inflec-
tion is viable.
1.2.2. 'Aspectual' Oppositions

In the constructions examined so far the anchoring point for Tense is speech
time (S). Often, however, the temporal morphology does not establish a
relation between S and event time (or E), but rather between E and another
reference interval provided in the sentence or text (which is different from
S) - call it R. The denotatum of the relation between R and E has been
termed time reference, relative tense, or (improperly) relative aspect (see
Comrie, 1976 and Dahl, 1985, among others). Whether the anchoring point
for T is S or R depends on the context. Traditional western comparatists
have taken this anchoring fact as evidence that Arabic is an 'aspectual
language' (see, for example, Caspari's text above, Meillet, 1917, and Cohen,
1924, among others; for a recent similar view, see Cohen, 1989). This
view can hardly be supported, however, as we will see.
Arabic lexical verbs are anchored to speech time only in the absence
of auxiliaries, modal or negative particles, etc., in the same local tense
domain. In a number of contexts, the relation to S is not inferred
from the temporal morphology on the lexical verb, but from that of the
auxiliary, or that of another verb. I limit myself here to the examination
of two cases of temporal dependence to make explicit the line of
reasoning which has motivated the aspect view: (a) adjunct clauses and
(b) complex tenses.
(11) jalas-a y-asrab-u 1-xamr-a
sat-3.s.m. 3-drink-s.m.indic the-wine-ace
He sat, drinking wine.
(12) rajac-a wa huwa y-abtasim-u
came.back-3.m.s. and he 3-smile-m.s.indic
He came back smiling.
In these sentences, the verb in the adjunct clause is a finite verb, inflected
for T and agreement in the same way as it is inflected in independent
clauses. Observe that, in English, the verb in the adjunct clause is a non-
finite progressive. The latter morphology is usually construed as aspectual
(see e.g. Baker, 1989 and Smith, 1991). The T of the Arabic adjunct is
understood as simultaneous to the action of the matrix verb, which is a
past action. It is dependent on the T of the matrix verb, and cannot be
interpreted as a deictic non-past. Thus the tense of the matrix verb serves
as the anchoring point for the T on the adjunct.
That the T of the embedded verb is dependent on that of the upper verb
is even more striking with complex tenses. The latter are formed by com-
bining an inflected auxiliary with an inflected lexical verb, as in the
following examples:
148 CHAPTER 4
(13) kaana 1-walad-u y-alcab-u

was the-boy-nom 3-play-s.m.indic
The boy was playing (but literally: the boy was he plays).
(14) sa-y-akuun-u 1-walad-u (qad) lacib-a
will-3-be-m.s.indic the-boy-nom (already) played-3.m.s.
The boy will have (already) played.
In these sentences, the inflection on the thematic verb establishes a relation
only between E and R. That temporal relation needs to be further anchored
with respect to S. This is achieved through the inflected auxiliary, which
is interpreted as locating R with respect to S. 5
It is striking that the ordering relation denoted by the verbal inflection
between R and E (i.e.anterior/non-anterior) is expressed in Arabic by the
same morphology which expresses the ordering relation between S and
R. That relation cannot be construed as aspectual. The confusion arises from
the fact that, in parallel to this relation, that morphology behaves like
non-finite (participial) morphology in English or French, which is often
construed as expressing what is (somewhat improperly) termed the perfect/
imperfect aspect (or the 'inaccompli/accompli' in French terminology).
By this distinction it is usually meant that the speaker is viewing the process
as interrupted (although it has not necessarily come to an end, i.e. is not
an event in the sense defined above). For example, the process denoted
by the thematic verb in (12) can be seen as imperfect/inaccompli, whereas
it is perfect/accompli in (13). Being an internal description of the process,
and not an ordering relation of its time with respect to another time, the
perfect/accompli dichotomy can then legitimately belong to the study of
Aspect. But this observation does not suffice to conclude that the 'primary
function' of the Arabic inflection is exclusively aspectual, having no T
content, as claimed by Semiticists. 6
The (exclusive) Aspect view suffers from a number of (quite obvious)
drawbacks. First, given this view, it is unclear how alternations in the
interpretation of finite Arabic inflection will be accounted for. As observed
earlier, finite morphology can express deictic or relative Tense. In both cases,
the verbal inflection denotes an ordering relation between two temporal
events. Conceivably, the ordering relation is invariant, although its
arguments may vary (being S, R, or E), giving rise to 'absolute' T (when
S is involved) or 'relative' T (when S is not involved). As a matter of
fact, this theory has to extend even to finite inflection in languages like
English or French, to account for the interpretation of dependent or
narrative tenses. Under the Aspect view, there is no natural way to relate
aspectual and tense alternations of the inflection. 7
Second, the Aspect view offers no interesting way to account for the
interpretation of complex tenses like past perfect, future perfect, or imper-
feet past, exemplified above. In Arabic, these tenses are 'hi-inflectional'

in the sense that two temporal (finite) morphemes are contributing to their
formation. Moreover, the interpretation of the complex T depends on the
two ordering relations established by each T separately, although the two
relations have to 'share' one argument (namely R), which functions as the
anchoring point for the lower T.
1.2.3. Anchoring Complex Tenses
In order to help implement these observations in a theory of tense I will

adopt a (slightly modified) Reichenbachian model of tenses. In this model,
tenses are defined relative to three temporal intervals: E, S, and R, as
described above. The interpretation of [± Past] or [± Future] tenses in
languages derives from relations between these times. Two essential
operations define these relations: associativity (represented by a comma','),
and linearity (represented by the symbol '_',defining left or right linearity).
In Reichenbach's view, R functions as a necessary intermediate locating
point for E, and it is in turn located with respect to S. The introduction
of R permits a straightforward description of so-called complex tenses (seen
as 'past in the past', 'future in the past', etc), as well as simple tenses.
Thus core tenses might be defined as follows:
( 15) a. simple present: S, R, E
b. simple past: E, R _ S
c. simple future: S _ R, E
d. present perfect: E _ R, S
e. past perfect: E _ R _ S
f. future perfect: S _ E _ R
With simple tenses, R and E are contemporaneous, and the ordering relation
between R and E is not transparent, if relevant at all. The latter becomes
important, however, in perfect tenses, where E is anterior to R, and R is
positioned with respect to S. Reichenbach proposes classifying the ordering
between E and R as anterior, simple, and posterior, and that between S
and R as past, present and future. He then renames perfect tenses as anterior
present, anterior past, and anterior future.
In English, there seems to be a distinction in complex tenses between
the form of verbal inflection encoding linearity and associativity relations
of S and R, and that encoding R and E relations. The former is (normally)
finite, whereas the latter is not. In Arabic, by contrast, no such distinction
is made. The [± anterior] relation, which enters into the definition (and
decomposition) of both [± Past] and [± Anterior] traditional tenses, is
150 CHAPTER 4
expressed by finite morphology in both cases. The inflection encodes only

the relation between times, which is of the same nature, without taking
into account the nature of its arguments (S or R). I return to this problem
in Section 2.
Summarizing, I have proposed that Arabic verbal inflection encodes a
[± Anterior] dichotomy, which is temporal in nature, in addition to a [±
Perfect] distinction, which is aspectual (as construed). Anteriority is a Tense
notion, assuming that tenses are time ordering relations, predicated of events.
Then the fact that verbal morphology expresses deictic or relative Tense
in appropriate contexts is predicted. Moreover, complex tenses are accounted
for. On the other hand, verbal inflection may also have an Aspect inter-
pretation, seen as a description (by the speaker) of internal temporal
properties of situations. Thus inflected verbs alternate Tense and Aspect
uses. In addition to these oppositions, verbal inflections exhibit Mood
distinctions. I turn to this question in the next subsection.
1.3. Mood Distinctions and Modality
As observed in Chapter 2, the distinction between Mood and Modality is

supported by the grammar, although there might be some overlap between
the two categories on semantic and conceptual grounds. Mood is an
inflectional mark carried by imperfect verb forms, whereas perfect forms
are not conjugated for Mood. As for Modality morphemes, they do not have
the same categorial or grammatical manifestation, nor the same distribution.
Modality is usually expressed by particles. The latter are independent from
verbs, and they govern and/or license verbal moods.
(16) qad ?-acuud-u ?ilaa faas
may 1-return-indic to Fez
I may return to Fez.
(17) sawfa ?-acuud-u ?ilaa faas

will 1-return-indic to Fez
I will return to Fez.
The semantics of these particles includes 'probability', 'possibility', 'neces-
sity', etc. Modality can also be expressed through modal verbs, although
the latter do not govern (directly) other verbs, unlike the case of English
modals. From this respect, Arabic modal verbs behave like those of French,
as the following example illustrates:
(18) y-ajibu ?an t-aquul-a 1-haqq-a
3-is.necessary that you-tell-sub) the-truth-ace
It is necessary that you tell the truth.
In this construction, the intervention of a complementizer between the modal

and the embedded verb is necessary, as is the case in the French counter-
part: II jaut que tu dises Ia verite.
Mood is essentially a suffix on the verb, which merges with the verbal
stem. Imperfect verb forms have different endings, depending on their Mood
(indicative, subjunctive, jussive, conditional, energetic, etc.). The nature and
number of Mood forms vary also according to AGR markers they are
combined with. For example, masculine singular imperfect verbs have three
endings (in addition to the energetic): [u] for indicative, [a] for subjunc-
tive, and [~] for jussive. These oppositions in singular forms are exemplified
in (19):
(19) a. ?-aktub-u
1-write-indic
I write.
b. ?-uriid-u ?an ?-aktub-a

!-want-nom that 1-write-subj
I want to write.
c. li-t-aktub-~
let- 2- write-juss
Let you write!
On the other hand, feminine singular, dual, or plural forms have only two
conjugations: indicative, marked by [n], and non-indicative, marked by
[~]. This binary distinction is illustrated by the following dual forms:
(20) a. t-aktub-aa-ni
2-write-dual-indic
You (dual) write.
b. ?-uriid-u ? an t-aktub-aa-~
1-want-indic that 2-write-dual-subj
I want you two to write.
c. li-t-aktub-aa-~
let- 2- write-dual-juss
Let you two write.
Note that the Mood mark on the verb follows the AGR marker. 8
This brief description enables us to assess a 'moodal' opposition between
imperfect and perfect forms: the former are marked for Mood, while the
latter are not. 9 Moreover, imperfect forms stand in opposition to each other
with respect to Mood marking. Mood completes the three-dimensional
152 CHAPTER 4
distinction manifested through verbal inflection. The TMA view, as

described, receives further support when we examine: (a) how Tense is
expressed with stative predicates and (b) under what conditions the verbal
copula is realized in copular constructions. These issues are dealt with in
the next two subsections.
1.4. Statives and the Expression of Tense

Stative predicate constructions provide reason to think that past is the
positive member of the inflectional opposition. When denoting a state
located in the present tense, clauses are verbless or 'nominal', in the sense
that they contain no verbal copula or no verb. Only a stative adjective
surfaces there as a predicate. But when these states are located in the past,
the use of a verbal copula carrying past tense inflection becomes obligatory.
This contrast in terms of the 'visibility' of the copula is illustated by the
following examples:
(21) r-rajul-u marii<;l-un
The man is sick.
(22) kaana r-rajul-u waaqif-an
was the-man-nom standing-ace
The man was standing up.
The same observation extends to locative predicates, as the following pair
of constructions indicate:
(23) a. r-rajul-u fii d-daar-i
the-man-nom in the-house-gen
The man is in the house.
b. kaana r-rajul-u fii d-daar-i
was the-man-nom in the-house-gen
The man was in the house.
In these contexts the appearance (or non-appearance) of the copular verb
is motivated in terms of the tense opposition. The marked member (the past)
forces the copula to be visible, whereas the unmarked member (the present)
does not. There is no significant sense in which this visibility can be char-
acterized in terms of Aspect.
Note that the future can hardly be seen as a (positive) tense requiring a
copula to lexicalize it. As a matter of fact, there are grounds to think that
there is no future tense in Arabic. On the one hand, the particle sawfa,
expressing future meaning, and forcing the occurrence of the copula, as
in (24 ), is best treated as a modal, rather than a tense:
(24) sawfa *(y-akuun-u) r-rajul-u waaqif-an

will is the-man-nom standing-ace
The man will be standing up.
Its behaviour is exactly parallel to that of other modal particles, which
also require the presence of a copula. For example, the modal qad behaves
in the same way, as exemplified by (25):
(25) qad *(y-akuun-u) r-rajul-u waaqif-an
may is the-man-nom standing-ace
The man may be standing up.
In general, modals select verb constituents headed by Mood markers (i.e.
Mood phrases), and their selectional requirements are not satisfied if there
is no such Mood phrases.
On the other hand, the behaviour of participles supports the view that
what is at stake in the former constructions is the problem of
Mood/Modality, not of (future) Tense. Thus although participles can have
future interpretation, unlike pure stative adjectives which cannot, the former
have no tense inflection. The future reading must then be attributed to some-
thing other than inflection, as I will show.
Let us compare the temporal interpretation ofthe stative adjective in (21)
with that of process participles in (26):
(26) a. 1-walad-u ?aakil-un t-tuffai}at-a
the-boy-nom eating-nom the-apple-ace
The boy is eating the apple.
b. ?anaa musaafir-un
I travelling-nom
I am travelling.
In (21), the predicate is necessarily interpreted as being located in the
present. The state described there cannot be situated in the future. This
can be assessed by the fact that the predicate there is incompatible with
future adverbs (such as gad-an 'tomorrow'). In contrast, process partici-
ples in (26) admit both present and future readings. Moreover, they are
compatible with future adverbs. These data indicate that future meaning
is sensitive to lexical or situation aspect. It does not depend on inflection.
The unmarked temporal relation which is borne by stative nominal clauses
is the present (or simultaneity relation). As for posteriority (or future), it
is either inferred through a modal, or through a processive predicate (be
it a finite verb or a participle). Moreover, only those cases can be combined
with future adverbs. If this is true, then despite the fact that the future (or
posterior) interpretation appears to be marked, compared to the present, it
cannot be attributed to the existence of an inflectional (future) Tense.
154 CHAPTER 4
Moreover, that interpretation does not force the phonetic visibility of the
copula, only Modality does, as I have explained.
Note that the interpretation of stative and processive finite verbs
corroborates also the view that the present reading is unmarked. As the
interpretation of (9) indicates, a processive present can have either
simultaneous or posterior readings. But a stative verb in the present is
compatible only with a simultaneous reading, as the following examples
show:
(27) a. ? -afham-u kalaam-a-ka (1-?aan-a, *gad-an)
/-understand saying-ace-your (now, *tomorrow)
I understand what you are saying.
b. hal t-a"rif-u 1-jawaab-a (1- ?aan-a, *gad-an)?
Q you-know the-answer-ace (now, *tomorrow)
Do you know the answer?
In order to obtain the future reading with stative verbs, a modal like sawfa
must be introduced, as is the case with stative adjectives (although no copula
is necessary here).
Observe that, unlike the future, the interpretation of the past (or anterior
relation) does not depend on the aspectual nature of predicates or
situation types described by the latter. Whether the predicate is a pure stative
as in (22) above, an inchoative stative as in (28a), or a processive, as in
(28b), the inflected form uniformly describes a situation (a state or a process)
which is anterior to the utterance time:
(28) a. mari<;i-a r-rajul-u
became.sick the-man-nom
The man became sick.
b. tajawwal-uu
walked-3.pl.m.
They walked.
This independence of Past vis-a-vis situation aspect reinforces its status
as the positive member of tense oppositions. In contrast, the existence of
present and future with positive tense values cannot be so established. On
the contrary, the distribution of the present form of the copula indicates
that its visibility is not regulated by tense characteristics, but only by
modal and aspectual considerations. This conclusion will be systematized
in the next subsection.
1.5. Copula Visibility
As we have seen earlier, the visibility of the copula is forced by past tense
(with stative predicates). This is not true of future or present interpretations.
As observed, processive participles express future (or present) without
introduction of the copula. The presence of the latter is required only with
stative adjectives located in the future. Although participles carry no finite
(tense) morphology, they behave like finite (processive) verbs in allowing
both future and present interpretations. The future interpretation is not
available, however, to stative predicates, indicating that future is sensitive
to the type of states of affairs. In order for future interpretation to obtain
with stative verbs, a modal must be introduced. The latter, in turn, forces
the introduction of a copular verb (if no other verb is there), to satisfy its
selectional requirements.
There are other aspectuo-temporal and modal conditions which require
the appearance of the copula. For example, the copula occurs when a stative
adjective or locative conveys a general or habitual meaning, as in the
following examples:
(29) cindamaa *(y-akuun-u) r-rajul-u marii9-an
when is the-man-nom sick-ace
fa- ?inna-hu laa y-ubaalii
then-that-him not 3-cares
When the man is sick, he does not care.
(30) Q.iina ?-akuunu fii d-daar-i ?-akuun-u murtaal)-an
when l-am in the-house-gen l-am relaxed-ace
When I am at home I am relaxed.
It also occurs in complex tenses such as present or future perfect:
(31) t-akuun-u ?axta?-ta 1-hadaf-a
you-are missed-you the-goal-ace
You (will) have missed the goal.
Another context marked for Mood in which the copula must appear is imper-
ative or so-called prohibitive (negated imperative), as in the following
constructions:
(32) kun ?ustaag-an naajil)-an
be.m.s. professor-ace successful-ace
Be a successful professor!
laa t-akun gabiyy-an
not 2-be.m.s. silly-ace
Do not be silly!
156 CHAPTER 4
These observations can be summarized by stating that the copula is

phonetically realized in what might be taken as specified moods, tenses,
or aspects. Taking these observations into account, I postulate the following
spelling out rule for the copula: 9
(34) Spell out the copula as kwn when Mood, Aspect, and/or Tense
are specified, otherwise spell it out as zero.
The existence of the rule (34) serves the purpose of providing lexical support
for specified temporal inflection. This rule is only language specific since
languages like English and Romance realize the copula even in unmarked
contexts. If this is correct, then it corroborates the view that verbal
inflection is best treated as three-dimensional, involving Mood, Aspect, and
Tense oppositions. Only under a TMA view of inflection would a rule
like (34) be natural.
Summarizing, I have shown that the (exclusive) Aspect and Tense
analyses of Arabic finite inflection proposed in the literature are descrip-
tively inadequate. An appropriate characterization of the latter is only
provided by a TMA approach. In the next section I will show how the TMA
view accounts for temporal combinations in hi-inflectional structures and
negative constructions.
2. BI-INFLECTIONAL STRUCTURES AND

NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
In this section I argue that Tense, Aspect, and Mood distributions are best
treated by associating verbal inflection with a matrix of TMA features,
paralleling AGR feature matrices, which may or may not be (under)-
specified. Correlatively, a hi-inflectional temporal structure is postulated
to account for auxiliary structures and modal or negative constructions.
Moreover, it is shown that a mono-inflectional structure in which TMA
are taken to be split heads of different syntactic projections within a unique
(local) domain is inappropriate to describe internal structures of those
constructions.
2.1. On Bi-inflectional Structures of Clauses

In this subsection I provide further support for the view that (at least some)
structures of Arabic clauses are temporally hi-inflectional in the sense that
two temporal (or TMA) heads are generated and interpreted in the same
clause. This view contrasts with a mono-inflectional structure, which is
typically characterized by generating only one tensed INFL (or AUX)
projection in the same clause. In general, the latter view has stemmed
from an analysis of English clauses, including those containing modals or
auxiliary verbs, and it has been implicitly (or explicitly) generalized to other
languages. Since Arabic and English constructions exhibit significant dis-

tributional differences, there is no way in which the mono INFL thesis
can be extended to Arabic. The two competing structures are represented
in (35) and (36), respectively: 10
(35) IP
~
I VP
[p,n,g; t,m,a] ~
V IP
~
I VP
[p,n,g; t,m,a]
(where TMA and PNG morphology can be underspecified. T = Tense,
M =Mood, A= Aspect, P =Person, N =Number, G =Gender).
(36) TP
~
T AGRP
~
AGR VP
2.1.1. Auxiliary Structures

As explained earlier, in Subsection 1.2, auxiliary constructions like (13) and
(14) above are naturally analyzed as hi-inflectional. Thus their structure
is presumably that given in (35). Consider further instances of these con-
structions:
(37) qad t-akuun-u 1-banaat-u ?akal-na
may 3.f-be-pres.-indic the-girls-nom eat-perf.-3.fpl.
The girls may have eaten.
(38) kaan-at 1-bint-u lam t-a ?kul

be.past-3.f the-girl-nom not.perf. 3.f-eat-f/J
The girl had not eaten.
(39) kaan-a 1-junuud-u laa y-a?kul-uu-na
be.past-(3.s.m.) the-soldiers-nom not 3-eat-m.pl.-indic
The soldiers were not eating.
(40) lam y-akun r-rajul-u (qad) hadar-a
Neg.past 3-be (juss) the-man-nom (already) came-3.m.s.
The man had not already come.
In these constructions, two inflected verbs are found. Both of them carry
158 CHAPTER 4
finite AGR (as argued in Chapter 2), and finite T, if the analysis proposed
in Subsection 1.2. is correct. In (37), for example, the prefix on the
auxilliary verb marks PERS and GEN, the suffix marks Mood, and the
internal vowels Tense or Aspect; in the thematic verb, the suffix marks AGR
features, and the internal vocalic pattern Tense and Aspect. Both (38) and
(39) show that Neg(ation) can be placed inside the functional domain in
which the thematic verb is included, whereas Neg in (40) is in the domain
in which the auxiliary is found. This distribution of Neg suggests that
both domains are tensed. 11
In languages like English or French, auxiliary verbs are usually taken
to select (or govern) VPs, not IPs. Consequently, constructions like the
following are excluded:
(41) *John had ate. (John had eaten.)
(42) *Jean avait mangeait. (Jean avait mange.)
It is important to note that, in this view, only one INFL is assumed to be

projected, and it is finite. That is, a mono-inflectional structure like (36)
is usually assumed. But whatever the adequacy of the mono-inflectional
model for those languages, it cannot be applied to Arabic in any natural
way.l2
In Arabic, there are no bare verbs, no non-finite participles, and no
infinitives. As seen in the auxiliary structures examined, both verbs carry
finite morphology. Obviously, the question arises as to why these
structures do not seem to be found cross-linguistically, e.g. in English or
French. In Chapter 2 I attributed this distributional difference to an I
Nominality parameter. According the latter, I may or may not be nomi-
nalized through AGR. Consequently, the Kase Resistance Principle is
respected in Arabic, but violated in English or French. Recall that this
principle bars tensed projections (among other things) from occurring as
(immediate) complements of verbs (being licensed there neither by Tense
marking nor by Case marking). 13 Correlatively, Arabic auxiliary verbs -
unlike those of English or French - appear to license their (IP) complements
through Case marking, given their nominal character, and not through Tense
marking, as seems to be the case in English or French. In other words,
constructions like those in (37)-(40) are not that different from copular con-
structions like those in (32) or (33), repeated here as (43) and (44), in which
the copula assigns (morphological accusative) Case to the nominal or adjec-
tival predicate:
(43) kun rustaad-an naajih-an
be.m.s. professor-ace successful-ace
Be a successful professor!
(44) laa t-akun gabiyy-an

not 2-be.m.s. silly-ace
Do not be silly!
The case of the copula here is discharged/checked on either the adjective
or the predicate. In (37)-( 40), the copula there also discharges its case,
but the complement is a nominal IP. If this is true, then the treatment of
kaan verbs is unified. In their auxiliary or copular uses, they are Case
assigners. In contrast, auxiliary verbs in English or French are Tense
assigners. Moreover, the constructions analyzed provide serious bases for
the existence of a structure like (35). 14
2.1.2. Modals
Now consider modal structures: it has been pointed out by Emonds (1985),
among others, that English modal verbs are best analyzed as instances of
the general inflectional category AUX (commonly replaced by INFL in
recent literature). Emonds argues that modals are not verbs, but inflections. 15
Moreover, Emonds' analysis points to two properties of English modals.
First, they are in complementary distribution with tenses, as illustrated by
the following rules:
(45) AUX ~[±TENSE,± PAST]
(46) [- TENSE, + PAST] ~ {would, could, might, ... }
(47) [-TENSE,- PAST] ~ {will, can, may, ... }
Second, AUX is in construction with a bare VP, since in his system AUX
is a Spec of VP. Other recent studies have taken AUX (replaced by INFL)
to be heading the sentence, and selecting a bare VP (see e.g. Chomsky, 1981,
1986b).
Are these two properties true of Arabic modals? Arabic modal verbs
do not govern IPs nor VPs. They are necessarily followed by what appears
to be a CP, as in (48):
(48) y-ajib-u ?an ?-aktub-a
]-want-nom that 1-write-subj
I want to write.
In other words, modals do not appear to belong to the same inflectional
domain as that of the thematic verb. At any rate, they can hardly be seen
as the exclusive instantiater of INFL.
The closest categories to be compared with English modals are parti-
cles, not verbs. Like English modal verbs, modal particles select verbal
projections, not CPs. But Arabic modals, unlike those of English, govern
160 CHAPTER 4
verbal projections which are inflected for TMA (in addition to AGR).
Thus these projections are, in fact, IPs (or TPs), not VPs, despite the fact
that Arabic modals, like their English verbal counterparts, can be shown
to express both modal and temporal meanings.
Modal qad, which expresses 'certainty' or 'effective happening' when
used with past forms of the verb, is also used to convey 'near past' temporal,
as in (49): 16
(49) qad qaam-at ~-~alaat-u
in fact came-f the-prayer-nom
a. The (time of) prayer has in fact come.
b. The (time of) prayer has just come.
With non-past form, qad (which is said to be 'expectative'), according to
traditional grammar, implies future referenceY
(50) qad y-a?kul-u
may 3-eat-m.s.indic
He may eat.
Similarly, the modal sawfa (which means 'procrastination') forces future
reference with non-past verb forms, although the latter morphology is neutral
with respect to the future/present distinction:
(51) sawfa y-a?kul-u
will 3-eat-m.s.indic
He will eat.
These facts (and others) can be accounted for along the following lines.
Modal particles are generated as heads of a Mod(al) projection, and they
select a finite projection headed by TMA. Both Mod and TMA contribute
to temporal meaning, but there is no sense in which Mod and T can be
treated as complementary in distribution, as would be the case in English.
Moreover, there is no sense in which modals can be taken as selecting/
governing bare VPs. If this is true, then Arabic modal structures can be seen
as bi-temporal (or bi-inflectional) in the sense that both Mod and T, which
are viewed as temporal, project in the same functional domain.
2.1.3. An !NFL Split Analysis?

A potential alternative analysis to that proposed for auxiliary structures
and modal constructions can be a version of that diagrammed under (35).
Three variants of this approach are possible: (a) T there selects a VP, as
indicated, or (b) a projection of AGRO, as in Chomsky (1989), or (c) an
Aspect phrase (containing VP), Aspect being a functional head which is
separated and different from T. None of these analyses is viable.
As observed earlier, auxiliaries and modals govern inflected verb pro-

jections. This indicates that the (a) version on (35) cannot be descriptively
adequate. The (c) version cannot be supported either. I see no reason why
the inflectional morpheme which is labelled here as Aspect would be
labelled otherwise as T or Mood. In other words, the characterization of
the inflection in the morphological paradigm is not uniform. Moreover, there
is a mark of Mood on imperfect forms which must be checked, showing
clearly that the latter carries at least Mood, in addition to Aspect. Third,
thematic verbs in auxiliary constructions carry Tense, locating E with respect
to R, as I have explained. If the theory of complex tenses adopted earlier
is correct, then it is not true that the inflected thematic verb does not carry
T morphology. Consequently, (c) does not appear to describe the wide range
of uses of the same inflectional forms, is not able to force Mood checking,
and fails to account for the interpretation of tenses. Finally, the (b) version
of (35) does not do better. It suffers from basically the same problems raised
with respect to (c). In addition, it does not account for aspectual interpre-
tation.
The problems raised indicate clearly that an INFL split solution to the
distribution and interpretation of inflection in auxiliary constructions is
far from being adequate. The same is true of modal structures. If we compare
(49) and (50), for example, then the modal in both cases may have temporal
meaning, as I have shown, although the verb is also marked for TMA. These
considerations are adequately taken into account only under a TMA view
of inflection, coupled with a hi-inflectional analysis.
2.1.4. Further Uses and (Under)specification

If a hi-inflectional structure like (36) is the only viable alternative for
auxiliary and modal constructions, then the following question arises: how
are the various uses to be accounted for? In particular, how can we account
for what traditional philologists call 'neutral' or 'neutralized' uses of
inflection, i.e. contexts where the inflection appears to have no particular
Aspect or T content (see e.g. Kurylowicz, 1973)? Neutral uses are
exemplified in the following constructions:
(52) bada? a r-rajul-u y-aktub-u
started the-man-nom 3-write-indic
Literally: the man started (he) writes.
The man started writing.
(53) lam y-aktub-0
not.past 3-write-juss
He did not write.
In (52), the thematic verb does not appear to have any specific Tense inter-
162 CHAPTER 4
pretation, nor any significant Aspect content. Note, however, that it is

marked for Mood. The same is true of the form of imperfect in (53). It
seems, then, that the TMA content of imperfect forms can be 'bled' to
M. Likewise, T bleeding takes place in past imperfect exemplified in (39)
above. The thematic verb there has no (positive or negative) T specifica-
tion. Other forms of TMA bleeding are discussed below.
Bleeding and distributions of TMA morphology can be accounted for
by appealing to the mechanism of (under)specification already used to
account for AGR distributions and ambiguity in Chapter 3. Under-
specification extends naturally to TMA in the following way: (a) imper-
fect forms are specified necessarily for Mood (indicative, subjunctive,
jussive), and (b) perfect forms are necessarily specified for Tense, as
construed in Subsection 1.2. (i.e. as [+ Anterior]). Other interpretations of
TMA can be seen either as (a) contextual or provided by default, or (b)
supplied by redundancy rules. For example, a present or future interpreta-
tion of imperfect forms is provided through (a). A perfect aspectual
interpretation is presumablly provided through (b). At any rate, the use of
features to account for TMA distributions wiii prove to be more adequate
than that a solution in which each of these elements would be heading its
own syntactic projection. 18
To sum up, I have shown that TMA morphology is best treated as a
system of features which bleeds, according to contexts. A hi-inflectional
structure has also been defended as a source of auxiliary and modal
constructions. In the next subsection I wiii examine how Neg morphemes
interact with the temporal system, and how the mechanisms and structures
used here can be extended to Neg constructions.
2.2. Neg Constructions
Negative markers interact in significant ways with temporal and agree-

ment inflections. Some Neg markers behave like modal particles in that they
contribute to temporal expression, and are inflected for TMA. Other Neg
markers behave like auxiliaries, being inflected for both AGR and TMA.
A third kind appears to be neutral with respect to inflection.
An adequate description of the rich system of Arabic Neg forms must
take into account not only their differences in terms of inflectional
properties, but also their government and selectional requirements. In par-
ticular, modal Negs must govern imperfect forms which carry appropriate
Mood, needed to discharge the kind of Mood that they assign, whereas
auxiliary Negs must discharge their (accusative) Case on adjective or
nominal predicates.
2.2.1. A Typology of Neg Markers

Arabic has a rich system of Neg forms. Three types of Negs can be
distinguished, depending on whether: (a) they entertain a specific governing
relation with (inflected) verbal projections; (b) with nominal or adjectival
predicates; or (c) they do not. In the first two cases Neg morphemes govern
either verbal or nominal predicates, and they assign kinds of Cases to
them.
Cases assigned to verbal projections are manifestations of what is usually
termed Mood in the literature. That verbs receive a form of Case is a
common idea in traditional Arabic grammars (see e.g. Sibawayhi and
Wright, 1974). In the GB literature, Zagona (198211988), Fabb (1984),
and Roberts (1985), among others, have proposed that verbs receive Cases.
I will call the latter Temporal Cases (or TCases for short). Cases assigned
to predicate nominals or adjectives have the same forms as those assigned
to normal NPs, and will be termed Nominal Cases (or NCases for short).
A third class of Neg morphemes has a neutral relation with the constituents
of the clause, and assigns neither TCase nor NCase. Other important
distinctions correlate with this typology.
Consider first the governing and selectional properties of type (a), which
assigns TCases to verbs. Since only non-anterior verb forms carry TCases
(or Mood), it follows that only these forms can be selected by type (a),
because only the latter qualify as TCase dischargers. Anterior verb forms
are ungrammatical with TCase assigners, even when the process is located
in the past, because TCase requirements of Negs are not satisfied by these
forms (which are non-sensitive to TCases). Compare the following pair
of examples:
(54) a. lam ?-adxul 1-qaacat-a
not.ant. !-enter the-room-ace
I did not enter the room.
b.* lam daxal-tu 1-qaacat-a
not.ant. entered-! the-room-ace
I did not enter the room.
The anteriority (Past or Perfect) in these constructions is expressed through
an inherent temporal property of Neg. The non-anterior form of the verb
basically functions (neutrally) as a carrier of TCase or Mood, without any
particular tense specification. Such a behaviour is expected, given that
that form of the verb receives only a default tense specification. The ungram-
maticality of the construction (54b) can be explained if the Case Criterion
(argued for in Chapter 2) can be suitably generalized to TCases. 19
As observed earlier, there are three morphological TCases with singular
non-feminine verb forms: [u], which stands for so-called indicative Mood,
164 CHAPTER 4
and which has the same form as nominative Case in nominals; [a], which
stands for so-called subjunctive, and which has the same form as accusative
in nominals; [0] or absence of ending which stands for so-called jussive.
I will follow traditional grammarians in taking the first TCase to be assigned
by default (thus paralleling Nominative in the nominal system), whereas
other cases are assigned/checked under government. In (52), the embedded
verb is marked with [u], the indicative. In (53), the absence of ending marks
the jussive. In (55), the [a] ending expresses subjunctive:
(55) Ian y-a?kul-a
not-jut. 3-eat-subj
He will not eat.
Note that the Neg marker is temporally specified (as posterior or future),
unlike the case with neutral Neg, as we will see.
Other distributional properties of modal Negs can be accounted for along
similar lines. For example, these Negs do not occur in nominal sentences,
as shown by the ungrammaticality of (56):
(56) *Ian zayd-un mariic;l-un
not.fut. Zayd-nom sick-nom
Intended to mean: Zayd will not be sick.
If a verbal copula is inserted, carrying the appropriate TCase or Mood,
then the sentence becomes grammatical:
(57) Ian y-akuun-a zayd-un mariic;l-an
not.fut. 3-is-subj Zayd-nom sick-ace
Zayd will not be sick.
This behaviour recalls that of other modals, which must govern inflected
verbs, needed to support Mood.
Another property of this type of Negs is that they do not occur with
SVO structures, as the ungrammaticality of the following construction
indicates:
(58) *Ian zayd-un y-a ?tiy-a
not.fut. Zayd-nom 3-come-subj
Intended to mean: Zayd will not come.
It seems then that adjacency is required for TCase checking. The
adjacency effect can in fact be derived on grounds of principle. Recall
that SVO structures are nominal projections, because I there is nominalized.
I in SVO can then be seen as an NCase carrier, not a TCase (or Mood)
carrier. Consequently, Mood requirements of Neg are not satisfied, and
the construction is ungrammatical. Note that this situation recalls also that
of other Mood markers. The complementizer ?an, for example, which marks
the verb with subjunctive is incompatible with SVO order. 20
A second type of Neg is instantiated by laysa. The latter behaves like
a copular verb in assigning accusative Case to the predicate nominal or
adjective, as exemplified in the following construction:
(59) lays-at hind-un ?uxt-a 1- ?ustaad-i
not-fs. Hind-nom sister-ace the-professor-gen
Hind is not the professor's sister.
Like a copular verb, too, Neg merges with sentential AGR. It heads either
a nominal sentence, as in (59), or an SVO sentence, as in the following
construction:
(60) lays-at hind-un t-adrii maa 1-camal-u
not-f Hind-nom f-know what the-doing-nom
Hind does not know what to do.
These properties have led traditional grammarians to treat this type of Neg
as a verb. I will adopt this essential idea here.
A third type of Neg can be seen as neutral. It is instantiated by maa.
This morpheme can occur in both verbal and nominal sentences, as
illustrated by the following examples:
(61) maa daxal-a r-rajul-u 1-qaacat-a
not entered the-man-nom the-room-ace
The man did not enter the room.
(62) maa ?anaa qaadir-un calaa haagaa
not I capable-nom of this
I am not capable of this.
It is found with VSO order, as in (61), or SVO, as in (63):
(63) maa ?anaa qul-tu haagaa
not I said-/ this
I did not say this (or: it is not me who said this).
It is also neutral with respect to whether the verb is in the anterior form,
as in (63), or the non-anterior form, as in (64):
(64) maa ?abad-un y-asukk-u fii qawl-i-ka
not one-nom 3-doubt-s.m. in saying-gen-you
No one is questioning what you said.
These distributions indicate that maa is not merged with inflection, and
that it does not have any Case marking or Mood marking properties.
166 CHAPTER 4
In sum, three types of Negs have been distinguished: a modal Neg, a

copular Neg, and a neutral Neg.
2.2.2. Distributional and Selectional Properties
Arabic Neg morphemes select a clausal inflectional projection, not a bare

VP (as in English or French). This observation is quite straightforward
with modal and neutral Negs. With the former it is reasonable to assume
that the surface position of Neg is its D-structure position (i.e. in front of
IP, which it selects). The verb moves from its D-structure position to T
and AGR, and becomes adjacent to Neg, satisfying requirements of TCase
assignment and/or checking. As for neutral Neg, the null hypothesis is to
think that it also originates where it surfaces (i.e. in front of IP). There is
no evidence that Neg has moved from a lower position than its surface
position.
With regard to copular Neg, the following analysis appears to be
plausible. Suppose that Neg like an Arabic auxiliary or a copular verb selects
an IP complement. The Case assigned by Neg is first assigned to this
nominal IP, then it percolates down to the nominal or adjectival predicate.
Moreover, Neg (like a copula) raises to merge with T and AGR, and
becomes appropriately inflected.
Implicit in this reasoning is the fact that Neg morphemes are treated as
heads of syntactic Neg phrases (in line with recent work by Pollock, 1989a).
Being heads, they can be attributed the right selectional properties, and their
complement is an IP, not VP (see Laka, 1990; Zanuttini, 1989; and Ouhalla,
1990, for parametrization of Neg selection along similar lines). The headness
of Neg is strongly supported by its governing and Case assigning proper-
ties when it is a modal or a copula. As for neutral Neg, its headness can
also be established. First, like other Negs, neutral Neg selects an inflectional
clause (an IP). Second, being a head, it can affix to other heads (by head
movement). Thus Neg may move to support the interrogative C, as in the
following example: 21
(65) ?a-maa ra?ay-ta r-rajul-a ?
Q-not saw-you the-man-ace
Haven't you seen the man?
Neutral Neg, however, differs from other Negs in its extraction proper·
ties. On the other hand, extraction over neutral Neg is ungrammatical,
whereas the same operation over other Negs is possible. Thus a pre-verbal
subject can precede laysa (an inflected Neg), for example, but not maa:
(66) a. mul;lammad-un lays-a y-adrii
Muhammad-nom Neg-3.s.m. 3-know-s.m.
Muhammad does not know.
b.* mul).ammad-un maa y-adrii

Muhammad-nom Neg-3.s.m. 3-know-s.m.
Muhammad does not know.
On the other hand, extraction of NP objects or PPs over Negs yield the same
contrasts:
(67) zayd-an lam ?-ara
Zayd-acc not-past /-see
Zayd, I have not seen.
(68) haacjaa 1-kalaam-a laa (*maa) ?-aqbal-u
this the-speech-ace not 1-accept-indic
This speech, I do not accept.
(69) fii haacjaa 1-makaan-i Ian t-ajid-a maa
in this the-place-gen not-Jut you-find-sub) what
t-uriid-u
you-want-indic
In this place, you will not find what you want.
(70) * fii haacjaa 1-makaan-i maa t-ajid-u maa
in this the-place-gen not you-find-indic what
t-uriid-u
you-want-indic
In this place, you do not find what you want.
If we consider that NPs or PPs in the above examples have moved across
Negs, then these judgments can be unified in the following statement:
(71) Neutral Negs block extraction, inflected Negs do not.
That the problem has to do with extraction, and not with a root vs non-
root distinction, is confirmed by the fact that maa can occur in embedded
contexts, as in the following constructions:
(72) a. zacam-a ?an maa l).adat-a say?-un
pretended-3.s.m. that not happened-m.s. thing-nom
He pretended that nothing has happened.
(73) zacam-a ?anna-hu qacad-a wa maa btasam-a
pretended-3.s.m. that-him sat-3.s.m. and not smiled-3.s.m.
He pretended that he sat and has not smiled.
If the statement (71) is correct, then how can it be accounted for? It looks
as if the version of Rigid Minimality (as proposed in Chomsky, 1986b) is
168 CHAPTER 4
relevant to the treatment of these differences. In particular, if Neg is taken

as a head governor in both cases, then it will act as an intervener between
the trace and its antecedent. The ungrammaticality of (66b) and (70) is
then expected. In contrast, these facts appear to be problematic for
Relativized Minimality. Recall that the core generalization to be captured
by the latter makes the blocking effect of an intervening governor relative
to the nature of the government relation involved. If head government is the
relation involved, only (potential) head governors will qualify as interveners,
and if antecedent government is what is involved (as is the case here)
only (potential) antecedent governors will qualify as interveners. Thus
Relativized Minimality cannot rule out the ungrammatical cases of extrac-
tion over neutral Neg if Neg is a head, as I have argued. Note that in these
cases, the trace of the moved XP is both head governed and antecedent
governed, and Relativized Minimality is respected. A solution a la Rizzi
(adopted for other languages) will be to assume that particles which do
not allow extraction are A' specifiers, while others are heads. This solution
does not seem to have independent motivation, however. Furthermore, other
heads also block extraction. In particular, head complementizers block short
distance movement, i.e. within the same CP (although they do not block
long distance movement, as discussed in Chapter 2, Subsection 4.3). This
is illustrated by the following examples:
(74) zayd-an (*?inn-ii) ra?ay-tu
Zayd-acc that-me saw-/
Intended to mean: It is Zayd that I saw.
(75) zayd-an (*hal) ra?ay-ta

Zayd-acc Q saw-you
Intended to mean: Is it Zayd (that) you saw?
In these constructions, the topicalization of the object, which presumably

involves adjunction to CP (be it via Wh movement or through direct
extraction of the NP object), cannot occur over a C. Since Cs are well-known
to be heads, not specifiers (see Fassi, 1981, and Chapter 2 for arguments),
a unified analysis of these facts and those of Negation is called for.
If Rigid Miminality is made use of, as I have suggested, then it will
exclude not only the ungrammatical cases, in which heads are not inflected,
but also the grammatical ones, in which heads are inflected (e.g. (67)-(69)).
In order to distinguish those two cases, I propose that the notion of
government projection proposed by Kayne (1983) be integrated in the theory
of grammar.
Intuitively, Kayne's idea (also found in traditional grammar) is that the
grammar must provide some mechanism by which the government relation
which holds between a governor and and a governee at D-structure can
also hold (although in a modified form) at S-structure. The relation holds

only when the members of the chain through which government is trans-
mitted govern (appropriately) each other. To put it in other terms, the
extracted element must be in a g(overnment)-projection of the original
governor, in Kayne's (1983) sense. Kayne defines g-projection as follows:
(76) Y is a g-projection of X iff
(a) Y is a projection of X (in the usual sense of X' theory) or
of a g-projection of X or
(b) X is a structural governor and
Y immediately dominates W and Z, where Z is a maximal
projection of a g-projection of X, and W and Z are in a
canonical government configuration.
Canonical government configuration is defined as follows:
(77) W and Z (Z a maximal projection, and W and Z immedialtely
dominated by some Y) are in canonical government configura-
tion iff
(a) V governs NP to its right in the grammar of the language
in question and W precedes Z.
(b) V governs NP to its left in the grammar of the language in
question and Z precedes Y.
I would like to extend Kayne's insight to the Arabic data, and to the
kind of heads which are inflected and allow extraction. In consonance
with Rigid Minimality, I take head governers to be potential interveners
in antecedent government. But with the kind of heads mentioned, antecedent
government does not appear to be blocked. This suggests that the extracted
constituent in these cases belongs to the same g-projection as that of
its original governor, and by extension to that of the g-projection of
the inflected negative head. If this is true, no Minimality violation
occurs. 22 ' 23
Summarizing, I have shown (in particular) that modal Negs behave
exactly like other modal particles in having inherent temporal specifica-
tion. Thus a Neg morpheme like lam, for example, which I assume to be
heading a NegP, selects a present form of the verb (which is theM carrying
form), and assigns jussive M (a TCase) to it, marked by a zero suffix.
Moreover, it has inherent TA features which may have as value Past or
Perfect. Likewise, other Negs like lan may have posterior specification, and
it assigns subjunctive Mood to the verb it governs.
It might be thought that in those contexts the merger of TA with Neg
is syntactic, and that the thematic verb is carrying only AGR, the idea being
that Neg selects an AGRP, and T (which is higher) selects a NegP. In
other words, such an analysis would extend to Arabic the approach adopted
by Pollock for French, i.e. a variant of the INFL Split analysis discussed
170 CHAPTER 4
in Subsection 2.1.3. A proposal which assumes an AGR/T split (together

with a syntactic merger of Neg and T) cannot be supported, however, despite
appearances. 24 First, there is no evidence that Neg selects an AGRP (rather
than an IP). The verb after Neg has PERS morphology, and the latter
inflection can be licensed only if it is associated with TMA morphology,
as argued earlier. Second, it is clear that the thematic verb after Neg has
at least M morphology. Third, there is no evidence that Neg has any raising
properties that the merger analysis needs to postulate. Neg behaves in
every respect like modal particles. The latter govern inflected verbs, which
may have a particular Mood, but they have no moving properties. Moreover,
it is not clear how a merging analysis would account for the different modal,
temporal, and illocutionary properties of the rich Arabic Neg system.
2.3. Further Properties and Interactions
In this subsection I provide additional clarification on how modals, Neg

morphemes, and other temporal markers interact.
2.3.1. Anteriority
As indicated earlier, Neg morphemes differ with respect to whether they are
compatible with both anterior and non-anterior forms of the verb, or with
only one of these forms. This has been illustrated by comparing maa with
other Negs, which are TCase assigners. Some morphemes, however,
although not (necessarily) Mood assigners, select only non-anterior forms.
This is illustrated by the following grammaticality judgments:
(78) maa l)a~ala haagaa
not happened this
This has not happened.
(79) * laa })a~ ala haagaa

not happened this
(80) *lay sa })a~ ala haagaa
not happened this
Both faa and faysa are incompatible with Past or Perfect forms. In order
to account for these jugments, non-anteriority should be encoded as a selec-
tional feature of these Negs.
But although non-anteriority is shared by faa and laysa, and the verb
occurs with an indicative marker in both cases, the two morphemes must
be distinguished in that the former, but not the latter, is not compatible
with nominal sentences. In this respect, laa contrasts also with maa:
(81) maa ?anta marii<;i-un

not you sick-nom
You are not sick.
(82) * laa ?anta marii<;i-un
not you sick-nom
The fact that laa must govern an imperfect verb suggests that it should
be treated as a Mood assigner, although it occurs with an unmarked Mood.
2.3.2. Modality and lllocutionary Force

There are other differences between negative morphemes that have to
be accounted for. They concern the interaction of Negation with Mood,
Modality, and more generally illocutionary information. This section is
merely observational, and a complete account of these differences is far
beyond the scope of this work.
Some Negs are compatible with conditionals, others are not:
(83) ?in lam t-adxul
if not-ant you-enter
If you do not enter, . . .
(84) *?in maa daxal-ta
if not entered-you
(85) *?in Ian t-adxul-a
if not.fut. you-enter-subj
(86) *?in laa t-adxul
if not you-enter
Similarly, some Negs, like laa, can occur with unrealistic moods like wishes,
commands, etc. As observed earlier, laa does not occur with the past form
in a negated declarative, as shown by the ungrammatical (79). But the
same construction (though with a different intonation), repeated here as (87),
is grammatical when interpreted as a wish:
(87) laa ba!1ala haagaa
not happened this
May this not happen!
On the other hand, laa can occur with so-called prohibitive Mood, i.e.
negated imperative. In this case, the present form of the verb has jussive
Mood:
172 CHAPTER 4
(88) laa t-adxul

not you-enter
Do not enter.
None of these moods (or illocutionary acts) are possible with maa or other
Negs.
These facts indicate that a theory of compatibility between Mood,
Modality and Neg is needed. It is plausible to think that the conditional
morpheme (in (83), for instance) is a head which assigns Mood to the tensed
verb. Moreover, Neg is specified for Mood, and it agrees with the condi-
tional. On the other hand, there are Negs which are themselves Mood
assigners, such as lan in (85) or laa in (86). They assign 'subjunctive'
and 'prohibitive', respectively. When two different Mood assigners are
heading the construction, the structure is ruled out, as in (85) and (86). When
a non Mood assigning Neg is used with a Mood assigner, the construc-
tion is grammatical, as is the case of (89):
(89) ?-uriid-u ?an laa t-adxul-a
/-want that not you-enter-subj
I want you not to enter.
A reasonable biuniqueness requirement on Mood assignment or TCase
(similar to that assumed to rule out NCase conflict) is sufficient to rule
out contructions instantiating Mood conflict.
Neg morphemes also differ with respect to their compatibility with
modality particles. For example, the 'assertive' or 'expectative' modal qad
can occur with lam and laa, as shown by the following examples:
(90) qad lam y-a?ti
may not.past 3-comes
He may not have come.
(91) qad laa y-a?tii
may not 3-comes
He may not come.
But this modal cannot co-occur with maa, tan, or lammaa:
(92) *qad maa y-a?tii
may not 3 -comes
He may not come.
(93) * qad Ian t-adxul-a
may not.fut you-enter-subj
It is probable that you will not enter.
(94) *qad lammaa y-a?ti

may not.yet 3-comes
He may not have come yet.
Similarly, the future modal sawfa can occur with laa, but not with maa: 25
(95) sawfa laa (*maa) y-al)~ul-u haagaa
Jut. not 3-happen-indic this
This will not happen.
In order to account for these interactions between Neg and Modality, a
checking mechanism is needed here, to ensure that the different modal
and temporal (inherent) specifications of these constituents do not conflict.
Additional aspectuo-temporal properties of Neg morphemes remain to
be characterized. Consider the following pair:
(96) lam y-a?ti r-rajul-u
not.past 3-comes the-man-nom
The man has not/did not come.
(97) lammaa y-a?ti r-rajul-u
not.past.yet 3-comes the-man-nom
The man has not come yet.
Both Negs select non-anterior forms of verbs, and both convey (inherent)
anterior interpretation. The two Negs differ, however, in that the second,
but not the first, allows only perfect tense interpretation. No simple past
meaning is possible in example (b), although it is possible in (a). This
difference might be due to the complex morphological nature of the second
morpheme. 26
On the other hand, although both maa and laa can occur with the present
form of the verb, their aspectual interpretation is not the same. With the
second morpheme, the interpretation is that of a habitual present, whereas
the first one triggers the actual present interpretation. The following pair
illustrates this:
(98) laa ?-u~allii
not !-pray
I do not pray.
(99) maa ? -u~allii
not !-pray
I do not pray.
Both sentences are interpreted as negation of the present. But whereas
174 CHAPTER 4
(99) negates performing the prayer at the time of utterance, (98) is rather
a negation of the habit of praying.
2.3.3. Modals and Tense
As I have explained earlier, Tense specification is inferred from the verbal

inflection on lexical verbs only in 'temporally simple' contexts, i.e. in the
absence of temporal negatives, modal particles, auxiliary verbs, etc. The use
of modal particles may also affect the interpretation of the reference time
denoted by the verbal inflection. For example, anterior forms are used
with conditional particles to express anteriority in a hypothetical situation
in the future, not in the past, as exemplified in (100):
(100) ?in qum-ta Ia- ?-aquuman-na
If stood-you emph.-1-stand-emph.
If you stand up, I will certainly stand up.
It is equally used in so-called 'instigative' (ta1]4iir/) sentences like (101),
which do not denote a past action:
(101) hallaa qum-ta
why.not stood-you
Why don't you stand up.
In all these modal conditioned uses, and others, the anterior form is said
to emphasize the asserted truth of the event, or its realization. But clearly
the deictic T cannot be past. The tense borne by the verbal inflection is inter-
preted only within the context of the modal, which is irrealistic.
In the same vein, non-anterior forms can be used with modalities of
wishes, as in (102), or with conditionals, as in (103):
(102) a. layta r-rajul-a y-a?kul-u
may the-man-ace 3-eats-indic
May the man eat.
b. lacalla r-rajul-a y-a?kul-u
may the-man-ace 3-eats-indic
The man may be eating.
(103) ?in t-aghab ?-aghab
if you-go /-go
If you go I go.
Finally, note that there are some so-called 'rhetorical' uses of verbal
inflections. Thus in the following examples, the anterior form has future
meaning, not past:
(104) a. bi0 -tU

sold-/
I will sell.
b. ?ataa ?amr-u llaah-i
came order-nom God-gen
The order of God will come.
In the hypothetical situation described by (104a) the speaker is asserting
that the action of 'selling' would be achieved (provided his requirements
are met). The same is true of (104b), in which the anterior is used as a mode
of assertion. The anterior form may also be used to express a wish:
(105) gafara 1-laah-u la-hu
forgave God-nom to-him
May God forgive him.
These modal uses of tenses have been often taken as indicating that the
Arabic inflection does not express Tense (see, e.g., Cohen, 1989). But modal
uses of tenses are widespread phenomena, and these facts call for an
elaborate theory of Modality and Tense interaction. It is clear, however, that
they appear to be very natural within the TMA view of verbal inflection
adopted in this chapter, and quite akward within a split view. 27
Summarizing, I have shown that it is reasonable to think that chains of
bi-temporal and modal members are formed in clauses to denote times
and modalities. I have relied on a binary Reichenbachian model of tenses,
which finds support in auxiliary, modal, and negation structures. I have also
defended a three-valued TMA view of inflection.
In my treatment of verbal inflection, I have essentially focused on the
positive member of the dichotomy, namely past/anterior tense. I have also
shown that the non-past/non-anterior form can have aspectual, tense, and
moodal content, especially in the case of the copula. This member of the
pair can then have positive, negative or neutral value, as explained. In the
next section I turn to adjectives and participles, and examine how they
contribute to aspectuo-temporal reference. Their temporal characteristics are
contrasted with those of finite present forms.
3. PARTICIPLES, ADJECTIVES, AND VERBS
The morphological, categorial, and functional characteristics of Arabic

participles and adjectives set them apart from finite non-anterior verbs. In
contrast to the widely spread view (in traditional grammar or compara-
tive philology), participles and present verb forms differ significantly in
their aspectuo-temporal properties. I will show, in particular, that simul-
taneity, the essential relation denoted by the present form, is not expressed
176 CHAPTER 4
by participles. Moreover, habitual, generic, and iterative meanings are not

available for participles either. In contrast, participles stand for contingent
states and enter into the imperfective/perfective dichotomy. Imperfective
is also expressed by present forms, as we will see.
On the other hand, participles and adjectives differ not only whith respect
to their categorial internal structure (participles being internally 'more
verbal' than adjectives), but also with respect to their aspectuo-temporal
characteristics. The latter are pure statives, whereas the former stand either
for non-stative meanings, or non-contingent states. But despite these internal
categorial and aspectual differences, both categories share external 'adjec-
tival' (and non-finite) properties, including the ability to receive Case,
and to support adjectival agreement markers.
Part of this section is devoted to the derivation of adjectives and
participles, and to examining how they relate to verbs. I argue (contra the
traditional view) that only participles are deverbal, whereas adjectives are
not derived from verbs, although they might be non-basic lexical categories.
In this respect, Arabic adjectives differ from those of English (e.g. tall
and sick) in that they are not atomic entities in the lexicon, although both
of them share the property of being the category par excellence which
stands for states. Differences between adjectives and participles will be
attributed to aspectual properties of the different affixes, and their deriva-
tional sources. Moreover, the scope of the affixation process (i.e. whether
lexical or syntactic) plays a role in deriving categorial differences between
the same forms of participles.
Affixes operating categorial conversion combine their aspectual prop-
erties with those of lexical roots to yield active participles, passive
participles, or absolute statives. Gaps in the paradigms result from require-
ments on these combinations. In particular, the aspectual notion of
contingency plays an important role in predicting the gaps, and character-
izing which root can or cannot yield some form of participle or adjective.
3.1. Types and Prototypes of Adjectives and Participles

In a language like English, adjectives represent a class of words specified
categorially as 'adjectives' in the lexicon, just like verbs and nouns are
so specified. 28 Basic prototypical adjectives express colour (black, yellow,
red, etc.), dimension (big, short, narrow, thick, ... ), age (old, young),
physical property (hard, soft, light, rough, ... ), speed (fast, slow, ... ),
etc. These adjectives are lexically atomic (or basic) in the sense that they
cannot be derived from other lexical forms. Moreover, they have no verbal
counterparts, to which they can be derivationally related. Unlike the case
of Arabic, there are no verbs in English like: :Jfarr 'to be/become yellow',
kabur 'to be/become big', (aal 'to be/become tall', IJ,azin 'to be/become
sad', etc. In other words, basic adjectives are in total complementary
distribution with (stative) verbs in the English lexicon. 29 I assume that

these adjectives are categorially marked as As in the lexicon, and that the
latter category is associated with the elementary notional type 'state', which
I symbolize by s (following Hale and Keyser, 1991; see also Fassi, 1987b
and Parsons, 1990 for similar insights). A stative predicate like John is
sick will then have the following interpretation:
(106) (3s) [s is a state of being sick & Subj (s, John) & Hold (s,
now)]
In addition to these atomic adjectives, English has, of course, a large
number of non-atomic adjectives (including so-called participles). The latter
are formed by affixation either in the lexicon, or in the syntax. Adjectives
like helpful, harmful, beautiful, delicious, ridiculous, etc. are presumably
formed in the lexicon, from nominal sources. In contrast, adjectives like
surprising, puzzling, tempting or known, broken, and believed are formed
from verbal sources, either in the lexicon or in the syntax, depending on
their thematic and Case properties. 30
Arabic has no real atomic adjectives like those of English. Adjectives,
like other categories, are formed from consonantal roots (or citation forms)
to which adjectival affixes are attached. For example, mariir) 'sick', l;aziin
'sad', tawiil 'tall', baliid 'stupid', r)aciif 'weak', etc. are the exact coun-
terparts to the English atomic adjectives, yet they are derived by merging
roots with the CaCiiC skeleton. Since most (if not all) adjectives in Arabic
have verbal counterparts, traditional grammar has assumed that they are
derived from verbal roots (represented in their system by ma~dar's; see
e.g. Sibawayhi (VIII Cent.) and Chapter 2). According to the tradition,
inflected verbs also derive from the same roots: marir)a 'to become/be sick',
l;azina 'to become/be sad', taala 'to become/be tall', baluda 'to become/be
stupid', and r)acufa 'to become/be weak', etc. But, as we will see, there
are problems with treating these adjectives as deverbal. 31
In addition to these forms, which broadly parallel English basic adjec-
tives, there are highly regular forms which parallel English active or passive
participle forms. Theoretically, a root can yield three adjectival forms: (a)
a 'pure' adjectival form, as in mariir) 'sick'; (b) an active participle form,
as in naafic 'helping'; and (c) a passive participle form, as in macruuf
'known'. 32
Not all forms, however, are available for any given root. Some roots yield
only adjectives, others active or passive participles, yet others yield any
combination. Thus there are no forms *maarir) (literally 'sicking') or
*qaabil; (literally 'uglying') from marir)a 'to (be) sick' and qabul;a 'to
(be) ugly', but just mariir) 'sick' and qabiil; 'ugly'. On the other hand,
there is no adjective *fasiid 'bad' from fasuda 'be/become bad', *waqiif
'standing' from waqafa 'to stand', nor *r)ariib from daraba 'to beat'. Only
active participle forms like faasid 'becoming/being bad', waaqif 'standing',
178 CHAPTER 4
{laarib 'beating' are possible. In contrast, a verb like salima 'to (be) safe'
yields both forms: both saalim and saliim mean 'safe' in English, but there
is a subtle difference in meaning between the two, to which I shall return.
It is sufficient to note at this point that there are distributional differences
and gaps in the occurrence of participial and adjectival forms. Under optimal
conditions, we expect these differences and gaps to follow from a princi-
pled account. In English, the dividing line between prototypical adjectives
and less prototypical ones is between basic and derived forms, but in Arabic
the dividing line is to be characterized in other terms. Aspect appears to
be the natural base for drawing the right distinctions.
3.2. Aspectual Distinctions

Traditional grammarians have contrasted the temporal and aspectual
properties of pure adjectives and those of participles. First, adjectives are
taken to be describing a permanent and enduring situation (tubuut), while
participles express something happening and contingent (f}uduut). Second,
active participles in independent nominal clauses are seen as having a verbal
function expressing present or future (but not past). Thus according to many
authors, the active participle is equivalent to the imperfective present form
of the verb (see e.g. Wright, 1974; Cantarino, 1975; Cohen, 1989, but also
traditional Arabic grammars). We will see that the first observation is
correct, whereas the second is not.
Consider first the contingent (or transitory) vs. permanent distinction.
There are two questions that arise here. First, does the distinction relate
to the stative/dynamic or state/process dichotomy, and how? Second, does
it relate to categorization (in particular the verb/adjective distinction)?
Answers to both questions appear to be positive, although a number of
refinements and details of implementation are needed.
Adjectives are pure statives, whereas participles appear to be non-stative,
processive, or dynamic. Pure stative lexical roots do not form active
participles, but provide a source only for deriving adjectives. We can say
kariim 'generous', but not *kaarim, IJ.asan 'nice' but not IJ.aasin, nasii{
'active'' sabiih 'similar'' matiil 'similar'' {awiil 'tall'' kabiir 'big'' ~af}ii/:t
'true', baciid 'far', labya{l 'white', lafJ.maq 'fool', etc. No participle forms
are available for any of these lexemes. In contrast, event and processive
verbs form participles, but not stative adjectives: see e.g. laakil 'eating',
malkuul 'eaten' (but not *lakiil), {laarib 'beating', ma{lruub 'beaten' (but
not *{iariib), etc. In general, stative verbs of the forms CaCuC or CaCiC
have adjectival counterparts, but no participle form_s~ only non-stative roots
have participle counterparts. The stativity of_ the "lexical base seems to be
incompatible with the non-stative character of participle formation, while
it is compatible with pure stative adjectival affixation. The converse is
also true. One way to implement the distinction between the two cate-
gories is to assume that even participles are stativized (being externally

adjectives, as will be shown), and that the difference (in which we are
interested at this point) is that the input to affixation with participles is a
process or event (which I represent by e), whereas it is a state (s) with
adjectives, as symbolized by the rules in (107):
(107) a. e --* s.
b. s--* s.
Moreover, I assume (following Hale and Keyser, 1991) that e is the notional
type associated with V, whereas s is associated with A. Consequently, only
participles are deverbal, whereas pure adjectives are not.
So far so good. There are participle forms, however, that can be easily
classified as stative. The latter include intransitive participles like ~aaliiJ
'good, right' ,faasid 'bad, corrupting', tjaa?iq 'narrowing, confined', (aahir
'clean, pure', baa(il 'false', ?aamin 'safe, secure', etc. There are also
transitive stative forms expressing cognition (caarif or caalim 'knowing',
jaahil 'ignoring' ,faahim 'understanding') or perception (saamic 'hearing'),
affective verbs (kaarih 'hating', mu!Jibb 'loving'), etc. These participles
derive from predicates that can be classified as stative by using some
classical tests. 33 They cannot be conjugated in the imperative (* #u/:1 'be
right!', *fsud 'be wrong!', *crif 'know!'). They do not occur with manner
adverbs such as camdan 'deliberately' (*yacrifu l-jawaaba camdan 'he knows
the answer deliberately'). They do not serve as complements of control verbs
like ?aqnaca 'to persuade' (*?aqnactuhu bi-?an yacrifa l-jawaaba 'I
persuaded him to know the answer'). They do not appear in pseudo-cleft
constructions (*ma facala huwa ?annahu ~alul:za, carafa l-jawaaba 'What
he did is be right', 'What he did is know the answer').
It is clear, however, that these operations are intended to test agency
(or volitional control), rather than only stativity: the imperative requires
volition; the subordination to some predicates requires an agent control-
ling the event; some manner adverbs require agency, etc. The do test in
pseudo-clefts assesses agency in activities. Agency implies that a
situation is dynamic, but agency is not the only test for dynamicity. The
progressive can test dynamicity of situations which are not (necessarily)
actions or activities. For example, the sentence in (108) describes a dynamic
situation, yet there is no implied agency here:
(108) d-damc-u haamir-un
the-tear-nom flowing-nom
Tears are flowing.
The use of the progressive as a test for non-stativity becomes problem-

atic, however, in cases where the verb is classified as stative, but can form
participles. The problem is illustrated by the following examples:
180 CHAPTER 4
(109) a. ?aanaa caarif-un 1-jawaaba

I knowing the answer-ace
I am knowing the answer. I know the answer.
b. ? anaa faahim-un kalaam-a-ka
I understanding-nom saying-ace-you
I am undestanding what you are saying. I understand what you
are saying.
These predicates are not (necessarily) agentive (or volitional), nor dynamic,
at least in one reading. In that reading the participle form is basically
equivalent to the simple present, as the translation indicates. When the
meanings of the two forms are contrasted, however, they are not equivalent.
The present form appears to be aspectually neutral, whereas the participle
is not. It does seem to express some in-progress meaning (especially with
the agentive reading). It also means that a state holds at some time t, but
may not hold at some other. Forms like $aalif:z and baatil confirm this
view. Although these forms describe states, they do not do it in the same
way that (awiil 'tall' (as opposed to the impossible *taawil) or ?abyaq
'white' (opposed to the impossible *baa?i4) do. The former describe
contingent states, whereas the latter do not. Contingency of states (often
correlated with in-progress meanings) is then a value of participles.
In the light of these observations, I conclude that the stativity/dynamicity
dichotomy (as usually construed) is not appropriate to characterize participle
formation. Indeed, well-known statives (by classical tests) like understand,
know, hate form good active and passive participles. In order to be able
to distinguish stative adjectives from active and passive participles, on the
one hand, and finite verbs, on the other hand, we have to distinguish
different kinds of states, depending on their derivational sources, and the
scope of affixation processes. In order to so, I will make use of the notion
of contingency. A state-of-affairs is viewed as contingent or temporally
restricted or transitory, or non-contingent, absolute or permanent (tempo-
rally unrestricted). Thus adjectives like J;,asan 'good', gariiq 'drowned',
sajiin 'imprisoned, prisoner' are describing states for which temporal
duration or location in time is irrelevant. The situation is homogeneous,
continuous, and unchanging throughout its duration. This is not so with
active and passive participles like gaariq 'drowning', or masjuun 'impris-
oned', respectively. In these cases, temporal contours are relevant. They
may be momentary or enduring, but the event starts at some point in time,
and will end up at another. If you use the term gaariq, you mean that
someone is drowning, but may not be after a while. You may also mean that
someone is entering in the state of being drowned (an inceptive aspect). But
if you use the term gariiq, the point of view of the speaker is to describe
being in a state, without attention to the expression of its temporal exten-
sion or to its inception. Although participles are stativized (see below),

and treated as syntactic adjectives, they do not describe states in the same
way. Participles share with finite verbs a contingency meanit~g, which
becomes redundant when they denote processes and events (the latter
situations being contingent by definition). However, contingency is essen-
tial to distinguish different kinds of states. Processes, events, and contingent
states are therefore unified (in participle and finite verb morphology) through
this notion. The perfective/imperfective (or progressive) interpretation,
which is acquired or encoded by passive vs. active participles is only
relevant to contingent situations (see Fassi (1988b) on the matter).
Traditional grammarians do not exclude any kind of verb (including
statives) from forming participles. The sole condition they impose on the
form is that it expresses a contingent state of affairs, not a permanent one.
According to their logic, even pure stative verbs are allowed to have
contingent readings, and hence form participles. The actual data suggest,
however, that this is not true. Verbs of the typically stative form CaCuC
do not normally form active participles (i.e. *l:wasin 'good', *jaamil
'beautiful', *qaabi~ 'bad', ... ). The same is true of most intransitive
statives of the form CaCiC. If we follow the traditional reasoning, then
the fact that these forms do not occur is simply accidental. Similarly, the
fact that there are no forms like *lakiil, *cariif, etc. is also accidental. On
the other hand, the fact that even processive verbs may form stative
adjectives (as is the case with sajiin, qatiil, gariiq, etc), which contrast
with participle forms (masjuun, maqtuul, gaariq, etc.), seems to support
the view that the lexical aspect of the root does not constrain adjective or
participle formation. I return to these problems in Subsection 3.4.
3.3. Tense Distinctions
The second observation made by the tradition is supposed to attribute T

properties to participles. It is based on the following contrast:
(110) camr-un c,laarib-un zayd-an 1-?aan-a (gad-an)
Amr-nom beating-nom Zayd-acc now (tomorrow)
Amr is beating Zayd now.
(111) * camr-un<;iaarib-un zayd-an ?amsi
Amr-nom beating-nom Zayd-acc yesterday
*Amr is beating Zayd yesterday.
The participle in these sentences is supposed to carry a non-past T
specification, hence accounting for the ungrammaticality of (111 ). Note,
however, that nominal sentences (including these) have been shown to be
headed by an abstract T specified as [- Past] (see Chapter 2, Appendix
182 CHAPTER 4
2). This specification makes nominal clauses incompatible with temporal

adverbs referring to the past, hence the ungrammaticality of (Ill). That
the temporal specification is a property of the inflectional projection of
the sentence, not that of the participle, becomes clear in nominal sentences
headed by pure stative adjectives, as in (112), or locative PPs, as in (113): 34
(112) a. camr-un marii<;i-u-n I-raan-a
Amr-nom sick-nom now
Amr is sick now.
b.*camr-un marii9-un ?amsi

Amr-nom sick-nom yesterday
Amr is sick yesterday.
(113) a. camr-un fii d-daar-i 1- raan-a

Amr-nom in the-house-gen now
Amr is in the house now.
b. *camr-un fii d-daar-i ?amsi

Amr-nom in the-house-gen yesterday
Amr is in the house yesterday.
Thus the non-past requirement (an unmarked specification of verbless
clauses) cannot be taken as a characteristic value of participle inflection. 35
That participles do not bear Tense is further confirmed when their
interpretation is contrasted with that of present verb forms. First, partici-
ples do not form complex tenses with auxiliaries, in the sense that there
is no tense denoted by the participle, and anchored in the time specified
by the auxiliary. Consider the following examples:
(114) a. kaana zayd-un y-ajlis-u cindamaa daxal-tu
was Zayd-nom 3-sit-m.s. when entered-!
1-qaacat-a
the-room-ace
Zayd was (in the process of) sitting when I entered the room.
b. kaana zayd-un jaalis-an cindamaa daxal-tu
was Zayd-nom sitting-ace when entered-/
1-qaacat-a
the-room-ace
Zayd was (in the state of) sitting when I entered the room.
The sentence (114a), which contains a present form of the verb, is
ambiguous in a sense in which (114b) is not. The interpretation of (114b)
is that Zayd has enjoyed the position or state of being sitting before I entered
the room (a result state reading). The construction (114a) can also have
this interpretation, but crucially, it has a simultaneous process reading.
That is, Zayd's sitting was taking place during the interval of my entering.
On the other hand, present forms denote habitual or iterative meanings,
but participles do not. Compare the following pair:
(115) a. kaana r-rajul-u y-aftaJ:!-u faa-hu kull-a
was the-man-nom 3-open-indic mouth-his every-ace
marrat-in
time-gen
The man was opening (used to open) his mouth every time.
b. kaana r-rajulu faatiJ:!-an faa-hu
was the-man-nom opening-ace mouth-his
(*kulla marrat-in)
every-ace time-gen
The man was (in the state of) opening his mouth.
Similarly, present forms of passive verbs can express a generic middle
meaning, but passive participles cannot. Thus the passive participle in (116)
can only have an actual non-generic interpretation, although the present form
of the passive in ( 117) does have a middle generic reading:
(116) s-saay-u masruub-un bi-duun-i sukkar-in
the-tea-nom drunk-nom without sugar-gen
The tea is (now) drunk without sugar.
(117) y-usrab-u s-saay-u bi-duun-i sukkar-in
3-pass.drink-s.m. the-tea-nom without sugar-gen
The tea is (usually) drunk without sugar.
This contrast can be explained if we assume that present forms (by virtue
of carrying an unmarked T) can have two readings: (a) a temporal
(non-past) reading which becomes explicit if one uses a temporal adverb
like l-?aana 'now' or gadan 'tomorrow' and (b) an atemporal, habitual,
or generic reading which is not located in any particular time, and which
arises when an unspecified Tense is bound (by default) by a habitual
operator. On the other hand, the non-availability of a generic interpreta-
tion for participles follows from the absence of T in their inflection. 36
This view is further supported by the fact that passive participles cannot
be iterative or habitual, unlike present passives. Consider the following
pair of sentences:
184 CHAPTER 4
(118) kaana 1-walad-u y-u<;lrab-u kull-a laylat-in

was the-boy-nom 3-beat.pass.-s.m. every-ace night-gen
The boy was beaten every night.
(119) kaana 1-walad-u ma<;lruub-an kull-a laylat-in

was the-boy-nom beaten-ace every-ace night-gen
The boy was (in the state of being) beaten every night.
The construction (118) has an iterative process interpretation, whereas (119)
describes the state of the child every night. The habitual reading is
associated with the present tense form on the embedded verb in (118).
But, since there is no T on the participle in (119), the non-availability of
such a reading is expected.
These contrasts, and others, suggest that Arabic participles are closer
to adjectives than to they are to (finite) verbs. They stand basically for states,
although these states differ in aspectual properties. I have used the notion
of contingency to account for these differences. In contrast, present forms
of verbs denote simultaneity or non-anterior relations. Moreover, their
aspectual characteristics can be viewed as being complementary to tense
properties, in a system of inflection which I have construed as being both
temporal and aspectual. 37
3.4. Encoding Contingency
Consider once again such pure adjectives as hasan, tawiil, labyafj, etc.
The formation of these adjectives on one pattern or another is, if not
idiosyncratic, limited to some semantic/conceptual class. Suppose that these
subregularities (and idiosyncrasies) are lexical, and that the formation of
these adjectives takes place in the lexicon. Suppose moreover, that the
non-contingent requirement imposed on their formation is a property of both
the lexical root and the affix. In prototypical cases, the lexical root and
the affix match in being non-contingent states. This can be symbolized as
in (120):
(120) s+s~s
The affixation may also apply in non-standard cases to processive lexical

roots. I assume that the formation of pure stative adjectives from proces-
sive lexical roots applies (also) in the lexicon. Moreover, it operates a change
in the situation aspect of the word, as symbolized in (121 ):
(121) e+s~s
These adjectives express a permanent or inherent property. When these

adjectives are inserted in complex aspectual configurations in syntax, they
may or may not be in conflict with other aspectual or temporal elements
present in sentences. For example, there are adverbials that determine the
telic/atelic property of processes, i.e. whether they may come to a termi-
nating point (or end) or not. Adjectives are normally atelic, and this can
be attributed from their non-contingent nature. Consequently, they are
incompatible with telic adverbs. This is illustrated by the following contrast:
(122) katab-tu d-dars-a fii saacat-in
wrote-/ the-lesson-ace in hour-gen
I have written the lesson in an hour.
(123) * ?anaa marii9-un fii saacat-in
I sick-nom in hour-gen
*I am sick in an hour.
The construction (123) is ungrammatical because the temporally bounded
PP there is incompatible with the non-bounded nature of the adjective.
Let us turn now to participles. Suppose that the contingency require-
ment is (normally) met by both the lexical root and the participle affix. I
will represent contingency by sc. Moreover, I assume that verbs are
necessarily associated either with e or sc, and that participles are also e's
or so's (at some point in the derivation), by virtue of being verbs. Verbs
usually classified as stative like fahima 'understand' or carafa 'know' are
associated with sc, and hence eligible to participle formation in Arabic.
Participle formation, which I assume to be syntactic, can be symbolized
as follows:
(124) Sc + Sc ~ Sc
All languages (as far as I know) allow participle formation from e's. They
differ (quite fuzzily) in whether they allow total or only partial (or non
standard) participle formation from s/s.
If this is true, then some problems remain to be solved. One of them is
how to prevent participle formation from verbs like marirja, fJasuna, taala,
etc., i.e. how to preclude forms like *maarirj, *l}aasin, *taawil, etc. Recall
that these verbs have inchoative readings, i.e. they do not normally have the
pure stative reading, and can thus qualify as sc's. These verbs differ,
however, from other statives, in that their contingency value (unlike other
verbs) can be thought of as derived, rather than basic. One informal way
to put it is to assume that these verbs originate as adjectives, while others
(like fahima) originate as verbs. This can be represented as follows:
(125) mariga: A (= s) ~ V (= sc)
( 126) fahima: V ( sJ =
Suppose this is true, then a generalization about participle formation
emerges: verbs which originate as adjectives cannot form participles. This
186 CHAPTER 4
generalization leads to the right descriptive results. Contrary to the tradi-

tional view, only non-derived verbal bases are eligible for participle
formation. This fact cannot be taken as purely accidental.
In essence, the approach adopted relies on a matching requirement
between lexical aspect and affixal aspect. The matching hypothesis faces,
however, the problem of doublets. Some stative verbs form both adjec-
tives and participles, as with saalimlsaliim 'sound, safe' from salima 'be
sound, safe', ?aaminl?amiin 'secure, safe' from ?amina 'be secure, safe',
etc.). But doublets are not available for all verbs. This limitation might
be due either to incompatibility in meaning (between the root and the affix),
or to accidental gaps. For example, we say baa(il 'false' or faasid 'cor-
rupted' (using forms of participles), but not *ba(iil or *fasiid (with forms
of pure adjectives). In contrast, we say jamiil, but not *jaamil, (awiil, but
not *(aawil, etc. I assume that these options arise simply as differences
between lexical roots that are only Vs (associated withe or sc types), only
As (associated with pure s types), or both. Further research is needed to
discover why aspectual alternations are available for some lexical roots,
but not others. But in general, I think that I have managed (at least partially)
to move toward a more principled approach to these paradigmatic distrib-
utions.
3.5. Categorial Properties

An examination of the distributional and selectional properties of adjectives
and participles suggests that they differ 'internally', but not 'externally'.
Participles, unlike pure adjectives, exhibit a 'dual' categorial nature. They
are internally verbal, and externally adjectival. Consider the following
examples: 38
(127) camr-un <;laarib-un zayd-an bi-siddat-in
Amr-nom beating-nom Zayd-acc with-violence-gen
Amr is beating Zayd violently.
(128) camr-un saalib-un zayd-an maal-a-hu
Amr-nom depriving-nom Zayd-acc money-ace-his
Amr is depriving Zayd of his money.
(129) camr-un muumin-un bi-maa y-aquul-u
Amr-nom believing-nom in-what 3-say.s.m.
Amr is believing in what he says.
In (127), the object of the participle (like objects of verbs) is assigned
Accusative, and in (128) the two objects of the participle are both assigned
objective Case. The construction (129) illustrates the fact that the
participle selects exactly the same type of prepositional complement that

the verb selects. Moreover, the participle is modified by a manner adverb
in (127), a verbal modifier, and cannot be modified by an adjective, a
nominal modifier. 39 These properties are accounted for if the participle is
treated as a V. The context of objective Case is simplified if verbality is a
sufficient requirement for objective Case assignment. Selectional and
argumental properties of the participle also induce its verbal nature given
that nouns do not generally project 'complete' argument structures such
as those. As for modification, I will follow Higginbotham's (1986) proposal
that manner adverbs modify the E (event) position in the theta grid of the
verb. Consequently, the ability to occur with manner adverbs is a diagnostic
for the verbal nature of the controller of the adverb, and the occurrence
of the adverb in (127) induces its verbality. 40
With respect to their external properties, however, participles are not that
different from adjectives. Participle phrases, like APs, receive Case. The
Case they bear varies, depending on their governor. Participial phrases,
like APs, agree with their subject in GEN and NUM. The agreement marker
they are merged with is an adjectival agreement suffix, not a verbal one (see
Chapter 3 for details). Moreover, participles have essentially the same
distribution as that of APs. For example, they can be predicates in nominal
sentences, as in ( 129) above, or complements of copular verbs like kaan
'be', as in (130):
(130) kaana camr-un muumin-an bi-maa y-aquul-u
was Amr-nom believing-ace in-what 3-say-s.m.
Amr was believing in what he says.
They can also be adverbial adjuncts, or reduced relative clauses, as in the
following examples:
(131) daxala zayd-un 1-bayt-a mumta\iy-an l)i~aan-an
entered Zayd-nom the-house-ace riding-ace horse-ace
Zayd entered the house riding a horse.
(132) haagaa huwa 'hlaarib-u zayd-an
this he the-beating-nom Zayd-acc
This is the one who is beating Zayd.
In (130), the participle is a complement of kaan and, as such, receives
what looks like an objective case. In ( 131 ), it is an adverbial adjunct bearing
the case of adverbials (the accusative). In (132), it belongs to a reduced
relative clause.
These external properties of participles can be taken as evidence that
verbal predicates have been converted to APs. The inflectional category
which heads the grammatical projections of APs and participles has been
188 CHAPTER 4
labelled i ('small' inflection) in Fassi (1987a). Small i contains adjectival

AGR and a specification of Aspect. It is the recipient of the Case assigned
to the entire phrase (by percolation). Here I simply use the more tradi-
tional label A (for adjective) to replace i, although I will assume that AP
is further dominated by a projection of AGR, which heads participles or
adjective phrases. Thus the D-structure of a sentence like (127) will be
the following: 41
(133) IP
~
I AGRP
~
AGR'
~
AGR AP
~
A'
~
A VP
I~
[aa-il DP V'
I~
camr V DP
I
qrb
I
zayd
As proposed in Chapter 2, the nominal sentence is headed by an I containing

an empty (non-past) T. The participle phrase, like an AP, is headed
externally by AGR and A. At D-structure, the participle is 'split' into two
heads: a consonantal verbal base (with no vocalic content), heading the
internal VP, and a vocalic morpheme. which is the participle affix [aa-i].
The latter is assumed to have an adjectival nature, and is generated under
A. At S-struture, V head-moves to A and then to AGR, to support (and
merge with) both affixes. The trace of V assigns Accusative to Zayd, but
the subject cAmr has to move from Spec V' (a caseless position) to Spec
I, to receive Nominative there. The complex [[[V]A]AGR], formed by
adjoining V to A, and VA to AGR, is 'adjectival'. It receives nominative
Case assigned (by default) to AP, which percolates down to A.
There are two main features of the approach adopted here. First, the
participle is only a V consonantal root at D-structure, and its formation takes
place only at S-structure (see Chapter 2). Second, affixation takes place only
at the inflectional level, thus enabling the participle to have a 'complete'
clausal VP structure internally. Consequently, the participle will have
whatever syntactic, thematic, and Case properties a clausal VP has. But
externally, the participle is converted to an A, a category which I assume
to be of aspectual nature (contingent or non-contingent state). It is the

affix which is operating the conversion. The latter will have (134) as a partial
lexical entry, with the aspectual requirement encoded:
(134) [aa-i]: a. (V, A)
b. [A contingent]
In (a), I have encoded the categorial change, and in (b), the aspectual
characteristic of the affix.
It is crucial to the present approach that affixation only takes place high
in the structure, at the inflectional level. When affixation takes place, the
participle, which originates as a verb, 'changes' to an adjective. If the cat-
egorial change takes place early in the derivation (e.g. at the xo thematic
level), then V is converted to A at that level, and the participle formed
will not be able to assign accusative Case. The thematic object of the par-
ticiple is then Case marked only with the help of a dummy preposition,
as in the following construction:
(135) camr-un <;laarib-u-n li-zayd-in bi-siddat-in
Amr-nom beating-nom to-Zayd-gen with-violence-gen
Amr is beating Zayd violently.
The construction (135) exhibits all the properties associated with (127)
above, except the ability of the participle to assign structural Case to its
object. In particular, the participle has the same selectional and thematic
properties (including an E position). If transitive verbs are required to assign
objective Case to their thematic object, then the form governing the thematic
object in (135) cannot be a V. This suggests that the participle starts out
as a V in the derivation, but an early affixation has taken place, converting
V to A, and precluding direct Case assignment. The D-structure of (135)
is then something like (136):
(136) IP
~
I AGRP
~
AGR AP
~
NP A'
I~
camr A KP
~~
V A K NP
I
Qrb
I
[aa-i]
I
li
I
zayd
190 CHAPTER 4
If affixation applies, as indicated, to different targets in the tree, then the

difference in Case assignment between (127) and (135) is accounted for.
In (135), the category conversion obtains at the lexical xo level. The
emerging category, being A, is unable to assign accusative to the comple-
ment, because adjectives are not accusative assigners. The thematic object
is assigned Case by the prepositional case marker li. This case marker heads
the phrase which I have labelled KP (Kase phrase), to keep it distinct
from a thematic PP, in which the preposition has a thematic function.
If this is true, then the difference in Case assignment between the two
participles is accounted for in terms of the 'scopal' properties of affixa-
tion, along the lines proposed by Abney (1987) for the gerundive -ing in
English. Unlike the aspectual property of the affix discussed earlier, the
categorial conversion property is scopal in the sense that it affects the
syntactic properties of the predicate at the level in which it applies. Both
participle constructions describe contingent situations, though categorial
change occurs in different configurational spaces.
Summarizing the results of this section, I have shown that although
both adjectives and participles are non-basic lexical words, only the latter
are deverbal, whereas adjectives originate as As. Adjectival affixation selects
(normally) pure states, whereas participle affixation selects either non-states
or contingent states. Moreover, active participles express imperfective (or
progressive) meaning, without carrying tense specification. In contrast,
present verb forms express simultaneous, habitual, or generic tense. This
establishes the fact that these forms are specified for tense, and suggests,
as pointed out by Kurylowicz (1973), that " ... there is aspect inhering
as a non-distinctive feature of tense forms [. . . ] The present tense
referring to the moment of speaking is by itself imperfective or linear, the
preterite and the future are by themselves perfective or punctional". In
fact, it might be, as indicated earlier, that the verbal inflection receives
a dual aspect-tense specification, but the participial inflection is solely
aspectual. There are other problems in the characterization of participle
formation, to which I return in Section 4, but I hope I have provided here
the essential properties of this category, in particular its aspectuo-temporal
characteristics.
4. FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES
This section will be devoted to two main questions. In the first part I discuss
further the content of the notion of finiteness, which is needed to charac-
terize languages. Finiteness has been thought in recent literature as being
a property of Tense, and finite Tense (equated with[± Past]) has been treated
as a (syntactic) operator, binding a variable (left by V raising, as in Pollock,
1989a). This syntactico-semantic view of finiteness is shown to be less
adequate than a morphologically based one. In the second part, I investi-

gate further thematic, aspectual, and Case properties of participles and
adjectives. I also examine some adjective theories, and argue that adjectives
are essentially aspectual in nature.
4.1. Finiteness
The appropriate notion of finiteness to characterize language differences
is not straightforward. Morphological, syntactic, and semantic criteria have
been used in the literature to characterize finiteness. These criteria are not
of the same nature, which often leads to confusion and inconsistency.
Quirk et al. (1985), for example, provide the following description for finite
verb phrases:
(137) (a) Finite verb phrases can occur in independent clauses.
(b) They have tense contrast, i.e. distinction between present
and past tenses.
(c) There is person and number concord between the subject
of the clause and the finite verb phrase.
(d) They contain a finite verb which may be an operator or a
simple present or past form.
(e) They have mood (which indicates the factual, nonfactual,
or counterfactual status of the predication).
These criteria are of various kinds, and they do not define a unified notion
of finiteness.
In languages like English and French, verbs are usually classified as finite
or non-finite depending on their inflectional declensions. The latter include
agreement, tense, and mood. Finite morphology is often thought of as
being correlated with what has been called finite T, or so-called absolute
(or referential) T (basically [± Past]). In contrast, non-finite morphology
expresses either Aspect (with participles) or non-finite T (in infinitives
(see Stowell, 1983). In other words, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between [± finite] morphology and [± absolute] T.
Even if this picture can be defended for English and French (we will
see that it cannot), it is hardly adequate for Arabic. In this language the
finite morphological form of the verb covers both contexts. As explained
earlier, a past perfect tense, for example, is expressed in English by using
a finite auxiliary followed by a non-finite participial form of the lexical
verb, as in (138):
(138) He had eaten.
But a sequence of two finite verbs is used in Arabic, as in (139):
192 CHAPTER 4
(139) kaan-a ?akal-a

was-3.s.m. ate-3.s.m.
He had eaten (but literally: 'he was he ate')
Similarly, English uses a finite auxiliary followed by a progressive non-
finite participle to express a past progressive, but Arabic uses two finite
verbs, as the following contrast indicates:
(140) He was eating.
(141) kaan-a y-a?kul-u
was-3.s.m. 3-eat-m.s.indic
He was eating (literally: 'he was he eats').
As noted earlier, too, although Arabic has active and passive participles, the
latter are not usually used in periphrastic progressive or perfect tenses. Only
the present finite form of the verb is used in such contexts.
Limiting the comparison to past perfect in (138) and (139), we can say
that although Arabic and English complex temporal expressions differ
morphologically (in that only one finite verb is tolerated in English complex
tenses), a bi-inflectional structure is needed in both languages. I assume that
two Ts are there, one on each verb, and presumably two T projections in
syntax. They only differ in morphological expression of tenses. Recall the
discussion in Section 1 above.
Baker's (1989) meticulous description of English perfect tenses supports
this view. Baker provides a number of contexts where, according to him,
"Perfect HAVE subsitutes for a forbidden past-tense form". The following
pairs of examples are his:
(142)a.*John should took the shirts to the cleaners yesterday.
b. John should have taken the shirts to the cleaners yesterday.
(143 )a.* Harry appears to took the wrong bus last night.
b. Harry appears to have taken the wrong bus last night.
(144)a.*It may was raining yesterday.
b. It may have been raining yesterday.
Observe that, in all these contexts, Arabic uses a finite verb. Baker suggests
that: "We can think of the past perfect as consisting of two parts: the past
tense inflection and HAVE. The past tense is interpreted as shifting the time
of its verb phrase to an earlier time, typically the time of the primary
events being narrated. We do not now have the option of using another
past tense to shift the time even further back, since the rules of English word
formation do not allow forms like *changeded (CHANGE + Past + Past).
Here HAVE makes its usefulness felt by imposing another shift in an earlier
direction." These observations corroborate the view that the past perfect
is 'a past of the past', a fact totally transparent in the Arabic case. The
difference between the two languages is then a matter of variation in
'spelling out' the embedded past under modals or auxiliary verbs, by making
use of either finite or non-finite morphology.
In Fassi (1989c), I have taken T expressions to be (basically) referen-
tial verbal expressions, parallelling D (determiner) expressions, which are
referential nominal expressions. I have adopted Higginbotham's (1985)
proposal that saturation is a condition on referentiality. A constituent is
saturated iff every role (or position) in the grid associated with its head
is saturated. If NPs and VPs have a Davidsonian E position in their grids,
then they are necessarily not saturated, and hence cannot be referential.
Higginbotham assumes that E in « ... the thematic grid of the verb is
discharged at the point where VP meets lnfl. The interpretation is existential
generalization over the £-position, as in Davidson (1966) . . . ». The
discharge of E in V is operated via the mechanism of theta-binding, T being
the binder, like D in nominals (see Chapter 5).
It is reasonable to think that T expressions bear a referential index
(R-index), in the same way that D expressions do. In a fairly standard GB
view, R-indices are assigned to nominal expressions by a predicate (see
e.g. Stowell, 1981 ). If this is so, then the R-index is assigned to the maximal
functional projection, and inherited by the functional head. It might be
that R-indices can be assigned freely to verbal expressions (IPs or CPs),
especially in matrix clauses. T, being an operator, is binding an E position
in the argument grid of V (its natural 'scope bearer', as in En~t. 1987). I
assume that only a referential T (i.e. a T bearing an R-index) can dis-
charge the E position of the verbal expression, thus saturating the expression.
Referential T expressions might be compared to pronouns, being deictic
or anaphoric, as in Partee (1973, 1984). 42 There are also cases of anaphoric
Ts, as in subjunctive Tense. The latter are assumed to have no R-index,
and have to look for an antecedent (to inherit an R-index from it) if it is
to refer. Given this framework, it is possible to define a local or 'autonomous
domain' (CP?), and to associate with it only one referential tense (as in En~t.
1987, or Bennis and Hoekstra, 1988)," ... which is interpreted as a function
of the time of utterance". Otherwise it is 'anaphoric', i.e. included in the
domain of an R-tense (see En~t. 1987 on anchoring conditions for tenses). 43
Inspired by this view, can we think of finiteness as an S-structure and/or
LF phenomenon (as in Pollock, 1989a), rather than a morphological property
(as I have proposed earlier)? Pollock argues that V raising (in languages
like French) is necessary at S-structure, to enable finite T (taken to be a
syntactic operator) to bind the variable left by V (see also Platzack and
Homlberg, 1990, who extend this idea to Germanic). If finiteness is a
semantico-syntactic phenomenon, then a sequence of two finite tenses in
the same local domain (as in the Arabic case) will have to be ruled out
by quantification theory. This is so given that there can be only one finite
194 CHAPTER 4
T in, for example, auxiliary structures because there is only one possible
E variable (which is created by the movement of the thematic verb; see
Pollock, 1989a for details). 44 But there is no evidence supporting the
uniqueness requirement on tenses. On the contrary, the model of tenses
which I have argued for earlier is binary, and a sequence of two tenses is
expected to be grammatical by the theory. Consequently, finiteness has to
be construed as morphological, rather than logical.
Since finiteness is morphological, crosslinguistic variation in its mani-
festation is expected. Thus the fact that some languages (like Arabic) allow
two finite tenses in the same local domain, while others (like English) do
not, is attributed to a parametric property of I (i.e. nominality). Such a
variation is not generally aknowledged at LF.
4.2. Participles and Adjectives Revisited
4.2.1. Thematic and Aspectual Preservation
In this subsection I analyze adjectives that are morphologically identical

to active participles, but which contrast significantly with those examined
earlier in terms of selectional, thematic, and Case properties. As has already
been observed, participles can be thematically transitive or ditransitive,
but these adjectives are necessarily intransitive. Participles do not head
construct states, while these forms do. (On properties of construct states,
see Chapter 5.) Participles may denote processes, but these forms denote
only states. In the light of the categorial conversion operated by the affix,
the problem posed by the derivation of these intransitive adjectives is to
know: (a) whether the intransitivity is carried over from the verbal base,
or (b) whether it results from lexically altering the theta-grid of a
transitive verb. The first hypothesis will be defended.
One salient property of affixation in participial formation observed earlier
is that it preserves the thematic and aspectual properties of the verbal base.
Only case properties may be affected by categorial conversion. Thus a
verb like mana/; 'to give' might be transitive or ditransitive, depending
on whether it has or does not have a dative object. Similarly, the participle
counterpart is bivalent or trivalent, as in ( 145) and (146):
(145) zayd-un maanil)-un 1-maal-a
Zayd-nom giving-nom the-money-ace
Zayd is giving the money.
(146) zayd-un maanil)-un hind-an 1-maal-a

Zayd-nom giving-nom Hind-ace the-money-ace
Zayd is giving Hind the money.
The construction (147), in which both objects have been omitted, is ungram-
matical:
(147) * zayd-un maanii)-un
Zayd-nom giving-nom
* Zayd is giving.
The construction (147) can be ruled out as a violation of the Projection
Principle, because internal arguments have not been projected. Thus (147)
is excluded for the same reason that the verbal construction (148) is:
(148) * manal)a zayd-un
gave Zayd-nom
*Zayd gave.
There are other [aa-i] adjectival forms, however, which do not seem to
preserve the thematic properties of the verbal base. Consider the following
pair of constructions:
(149) zayd-un naafic-u-n ?abaa-hu
Zayd-nom helping-nom father-his
Zayd is helping his father.
(150) zayd-un naafic-un
Zayd-nom helping-nom
Zayd is helping.
In (150), the adjective has no object, whereas it does have one in (149).
Yet (150) is well-formed. Other adjectival forms which can be used
intransitively (as well as transitively) are: jaahil (ignoring), caalim
(knowing), tjaalim (doing wrong), etc. They derive normally from stative
or experiencer verbs. The question then is: why is (147) excluded, whereas
(150) is not?
I have observed that the verbal source for the pair (146) and (147) is
unique, and that the syntactic alteration of the thematic properties is not
allowed by the Projection Principle. But the situation of (150) is different.
In this case, the adjective either has a different verbal source from that in
(149), or if the source is unique, the alteration of the valency of the verb
in (150) is allowed. If the latter option is correct, it suggests that the
affixation in (150) occurs in the lexicon, and the adjective (which is formed
there) is projected with no arguments in the syntax. In contrast, the adjec-
tive in (149) is verbal, and projected with a complete theta-grid in the syntax.
As it turns out, there are two different verbal sources for (149) and (150),
and no alteration of their grids to derive participial forms is necessary. These
verbs are exemplified in the following pair:
196 CHAPTER 4
( 151) nafa<a zayd-u-n ? abaa-hu

helped Zayd-nom father-his
Zayd has helped his father.
(152) nafa<a zayd-u-n
helped Zayd-nom
Zayd has helped.
If the intransitive adjective in (150) is related to the verbal intransitive in
(152), and not to the transitive (151), then the affixation process forming
the adjective is preserving the selectional and thematic properties of the
verbal source. Consequently, adjectival formation is syntactic, and the
adjective is a verb at the lexical xo level in syntax.
Not all transitive verbs allow transitive and intransitive alternations,
and hence not all participles can be transitive or intransitive. For instance,
we have intransitivejaahil (ignor-ing), caalim (know-ing), naafi" (help-ing),
daalim (doing wrong),faahim (understand-ing), but not intransitive *waahib
(donat-ing), *caarif (know-ing), *{iaabit (putting in order), etc. If it was
the case that the verbal source for the two adjectives were unique, then
the fact that some verbs allow both adjectives, and some do not, will be
simply accidental. But the existence of intransitive adjectival forms is related
to that of intransitive verb forms. Thus we have jahila r-rajulu 'the man
acted as ignorant', calima 'he has been cognisant, had knowledge', nafaca
'he helped, acted for the benefit of people', (jalama 'he did wrong'; but
we do not equally have *wahaba rrajul-u 'the man donated', *carafa
'he knew', *{iabata 'he put into order'. Further research is needed to
determine which class of verbs allows the transitive/intransitive alterna-
tion, and which does not.
There are aspectual (and/or semantic) differences between transitive
and intransitive forms. For example, intransitives are usually interpreted
as acts (see Fabb, 1984). In this case, the derived intransitive adjective
may function as active participle (although it may also be interpreted as
absolute stative). Thus there are two interpretations for a construction like
(150). It might mean that (a) Zayd is helping (as indicated in the gloss),
or (b) Zayd is helpful. In the (a) reading the adjective is a participle, in
the (b) reading it is a 'pure' adjective. By this, I mean that it could have
taken any form adjectives take, and not necessarily the participle form. This
suggests, in turn, that at least in the (b) reading the derivation must take
place in the lexicon. 45
There are clear tests for distinguishing participles from adjectives (in
the intended sense). For example, participles (like verbs) can be modified
by manner adverbials, but adjectives cannot. These modification proper-
ties are illustrated by the following examples:
(153) a. zayd-un naafic-un (?abaa-hu) bi-katrat-in

Zayd-nom helping-nom father-his with-abundance-gen
Zayd is helping (his father) a lot.
b. *zayd-un marii<;l-un bi-katrat-in
sick-nom with-abundance-gen
* Zayd is sick a lot.
On the other hand, adjectives can take degree adverbials, indicating that
they are gradable, as the following example illustrates:
(154) zayd-un marii<;l-un jidd-an
sick-nom very-ace
Zayd is very sick.
In contrast, participles cannot take degree modifiers:
(155) * zayd-un naafic-un ?abaa-hu jidd-an
helping-nom father-his very-ace
* Zayd is very helping his father.
The ambiguity of some intransitive forms is corroborated by the fact that
either modification is acceptable:
(156) a. zayd-un naafic-un jidd-an
helping-nom very-ace
Zayd is very helpful.
b. zayd-un naafic-un bi-katrat-in

helping-gen with-abundance-gen
Zayd is helping a lot.
The gradable adjective is an absolute stative that does not reflect the
aspectual properties of the verbal counterpart. Since the syntactic process
of [aa-i] affixation requires the verbal source to be [+contingent], it is likely
that absolute adjectives with [aa-i] forms are simply formed in the lexicon,
and acquire the absolute stative meaning there. Observe that not all intran-
sitive verbs have stative adjectival counterparts. For example, verbs like
?aka! 'to eat', qatal 'to kill', l)alaq 'to shave', etc., can be used intransi-
tively (as well as transitively), and they have active intransitive participle
counterparts. Yet they don't have any absolute stative adjectives.
Consequently, gradable constructions with these forms are ungrammat-
ical: *?aakil jidd-an 'very eating', *qaatil jidd-an 'very killing', *l)aaliq
jidd-an 'very shaving', etc. These verbs denote acts or processes, but cannot
denote pure states, nor can their participle forms acquire non-contingent
198 CHAPTER 4
stative meanings. In contrast, participial forms of verbs mentioned earlier

can acquire (result) state meaning. Indeed, forms like jaahil, caalim, naafi",
rjaalim can stand for pure stative interpretation and read as: 'ignorant',
'scholar', 'helpful' or 'unfair', respectively.
As I have suggested earlier, aspectual and argumental differences between
adjectives and participles can be translated in terms of distinct deriva-
tions. In a sentence like (150), the structure of the adjective phrase can
be either (157a) or (157b), depending on its interpretation:
(157) a. A' b. A'
~ ~
A A
~
V [aa-i]A
This difference in the 'scope' of affixation (i.e. the level of the tree at
which it applies) correlates with differences in aspectual and thematic
properties, as well as modification.
4.2.2. Partitive Case

I have already examined some Case differences between adjectives and
participles. In this subsection I concentrate on the ability of adjectives to
assign a kind of partitive Case. The latter has the same form as the genitive. 46
First consider participles. It has been observed by traditional grammar-
ians that active participles cannot occur in the construct state, and that
none of the arguments of the participle can be marked with Genitive directly,
without the mediation of a (dummy) preposition. This characteristic holds
true independently of the level at which affixation takes place. Thus although
both (158) and (159) are grammatical, neither (160) nor (161) are:
(158) (a maanil:l-u-n zayd-un 1-maal-a
Q giving-nom Zayd-nom the-money-ace
Is Zayd giving the money?
(159) (a maanil:l-u-n zayd-un li-1-maal-i
Q giving-nom Zayd-nom of-the-money-gen
(160) *(a maanil).-u zayd-in 1-maal-a
Q giving-nom Zayd-gen the-money-ace
(161) *(a maanil).-u zayd-in li-1-maal-i
Q giving-nom Zayd-gen of-the-money-gen
In all these constructions the participle has been preposed to create a

configuration for Genitive assignment. The last two constructions, in which
the subject of the participle is assigned Genitive, are ill-formed. Note that
the suffix [n] (called nunation by traditional grammar) which occurs on
participles in (158) and (159) is suppressed in the last two constructions,
due to the requirements of construct state formation. (See Chapter 5 for
the properties of construct states.) Similarly, the construction (162), in which
the thematic object is assigned Genitive, is equally ill-formed as a participial
construction: 47
(162) * zayd-un maanil)-u 1-maal-i
Zayd-nom giving-nom the-money-gen
* Zayd is giving of the money.
Clearly then, participles cannot assign Genitive, either to their subject, or

to their object.
Unlike participles, however, pure adjectives can assign Case. The latter,
which has the same form as the genitive, cannot be assigned to the subject,
as the following examples illustrate:
(163) a. ?a naafic-un zayd-un
Q helping-nom Zayd-nom
Is Zayd helpful?
b. ?a marii9-un zayd-un
Q sick-nom Zayd-nom
Is Zayd sick?
(164)a.*?a naafic-u zayd-in

Q helping-nom Zayd-gen
b.* ?a marii9-u zayd-in

Q sick-nom Zayd-gen
In all these constructions the adjective has been fronted to a pre-subject
position, in order to create an appropriate government relation for the adjec-
tive to assign genitive. But only the constructions (163), in which the subject
is not forming a construct state with the adjective, are well-formed.
In fact, the only context in which the adjective can assign Case is a
context in which the complement to the adjective is a kind of modifier
bearing a specific relation to the subject of the adjective, as in (165):
(165) a. zayd-un l)asan-u 1-wajh-i

zayd-nom nice-nom the-face-gen
Zayd has a nice face.
200 CHAPTER 4
(165) b. zayd-un naafiC-u 1- ?ab-i

zayd-nom helping-nom the-father-gen
Zayd has a helpful father.
The relation between the two members of the construct state is a body-
part or kinship relation. Thus the case assigned here can be thought of as
an inherent specificational partitive, licensed in situ by the adjective. If
this is true, then a sentence like (165b) will have the following D-struc-
ture:
(166) IP
~
I AP
~
zayd A' NP
I
A
I
?ab
I
naafic
Such a structure parallels that of an AP with an internal accusative adjunct,

as exemplified by (167):
(167) zayd-un l}asan-un wajh-an
zayd-nom nice-nom face-ace
Zayd has a nice face.
These adjuncts are usually limited to relational terms, which have to be
understood as being referentially bound by the subject. If they were subjects
generated in Spec A', then the constraints on their reference will not be
understandable, because no such constraints apply to subjects. But if
these constituents are taken to be modifying adjuncts, receiving a sort of
partitive case licensed by (some projection of) A, then these restrictions
are expected.
Note that modifying partitives do not occur with participles. Correlatively,
participles do not occur with accusative adjuncts either. These two limita-
tions are illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the following pair of
constructions:
( 168)a. *zayd-un cjaahib-u 1-? ab-i
zayd-nom going-nom the-father-gen
* Zayd has a going father.
b.* zayd-un cjaahib-un ?ab-an

zayd-nom going-nom father-ace
* Zayd has a going father.
This corroborates the view that adjectives which occur in these construc-
tions must be describing an inherent property of the subject or the modifying
complement. Participles are excluded from this context because they do
not denote properties, but only actions or processes.
To sum up, I have shown that intransitive [aa-i] adjectives are ambiguous
between a participle structure, in which they are Vs at pre-Xo syntactic level,
and a pure adjective structure, in which they are just As at that level. Each
category has Case, thematic, and aspectual properties that are compatible
with the analysis adopted. The scope of affixation accounts for the depth
of internal verbality or its absence, in the syntax or the lexicon. But at
the external level, participles are APs. In the next subsection I argue that
adjectives and participles are essentially of stative (aspectual) nature.
4.2.3. APs as Stative Categories

In this subsection I discuss two theories of adjectives proposed in the
literature: (a) Chomsky's (1974) decomposition of the category A into a
feature matrix [+N, +V], and (b) Abney's (1987) analysis of APs as degree
phrases (DegPs). I show that both theories are inadequate.
The system of categorial features proposed by Chomsky (1974, 1981)
and Stowell ( 1981) is supposed to account for combinatorial properties of
categories, and define natural classes among them. Thus the natural class
defined by [+N], for example, includes only categorial phrases to which
the of insertion rule can apply. Similarly, the [-N] class includes (exclu-
sively) Case assigners, the [-V] feature defines the class of constituents
which appear as foci in cleft constructions, etc. On the other hand, [+N]
is interpreted as a feature of argumenthood, [+V] as one of predicatehood
(see e.g. Grimshaw, 1981 and Chomsky, 1986a). Moreover, V assigns struc-
tural Case, whereas N does not (it assigns only inherent Case). N and V
are both theta-markers in Chomsky (1986a), but Emonds (1985) takes only
V to be a theta marker in the strict sense, whereas N theta marks only
indirectly, via a preposition.
Although the literature on the matter is confusing, there is a sense in
which the definition of the classes of categories through this feature system
is based essentially on thematic and Case asymmetries between N and V.
In particular, V is a case assigner, whereas N is not. N is an argument (or
a head of an argument) and receives a theta role (or saturates a position
in a theta grid), while V has a theta grid and assigns or licenses theta
roles. Consequently, if a category were to be attributed both [+N] and
[+ V] features, the prediction is that it will have conflicting properties. It
is unclear how both values of these features can be interpreted. For example,
V requires the category to be a predicate expression, but N requires it to
be an argument. V requires it to assign Case, but N requires it not to
assign it, etc. 48
202 CHAPTER 4
These problems suggest that the essential nature of adjectives cannot

be captured through N and V feature values. It is conceivable that adjec-
tives are essentially statives, as suggested above. What deverbal adjectival
affixation does then is simply add an aspectual specification, which basi-
cally converts the verb to a stative. If it is true that the adjective conversion
from V to A is essentially aspectual, then we can replace A by Asp (aspect),
and AP by AspP (for this view, see Fassi, 1988b, in which diathetic prop-
erties of adjectives and participles are analyzed). 49
In order to accomodate the variety of adjectival specifiers which occur
in English phrases like (169) under a two X-bar schema, Abney (1987)
proposes that traditional APs be headed by the inflectional category Deg
(degree):
( 169) a. so big, too big, that big, how big, big enough
b. six feet tall, six miles too far, quite as nice, far too permissive
Abney adds that " ... the semantics of adjectives [is] similar to that of
mass nouns: tall denotes a certain quantity of tallness, in the way that rice
denotes a quantity of rice" (p. 308). According to him, all APs are headed
by Deg, be it lexically filled or empty.
Abney himself notes some problems with the generalized Deg hypoth-
esis. For example, some adjectives, like those in (170), resist all degree
words:
(170) Everyone here [AP tested for drugs] has come up negative
a.* as tested for drugs as anyone else
b. *too tested for drugs
c.* more tested for drugs than me
These adjectives, he observes, rather consistently appear to be participles,
although he could not come up with an explanation for this incompati-
bility (p. 303). But given that participles are APs in his system (as they
are in ours), the problem is even more dramatic. If participles and pure
adjectives are unified, then Abney's approach to the problem raised is not
consistent.
The Deg hypothesis might be applicable to some Arabic gradable
adjective phrases, but it is not obvious how it can generalize to bare adjec-
tives (even when they are potentially gradable). Consider the following
adjectival constructions:
(171) zayd-un marii\f-un

Zayd-nom sick-gen
Zayd is sick.
(172) zayd-un jidd-u marii<;l-in

zayd-nom very-nom sick-gen
Zayd is very sick.
(173) zayd-un marii<;i-un jidd-an
Zayd-nom sick-nom lot-ace
Zayd is very sick.
It is only in (172) that one can clearly argue that the adjectival construc-
tion is headed by the degree word. As a head, the latter receives the Case
of the whole phrase which percolates down to it, and the adjective is
assigned Genitive as complement (in a construct state configuration). In
(173) the degree word is an adverbial which does not function as a head
of the adjectival phrase. On the contrary, it is the adjective which heads
the construction, while the degree adverb is external to AP. This analysis
is supported by the kind of cases they carry (structural nominative and
adverbial accusative, respectively). Finally, turning to (171 ), no degree
interpretation of the AP is necessarily involved there. A gradable (or
quantity) interpretation is possible, but a pure state reading temporally
located in the present is also possible.
On the other hand, participles are adjectives themselves, as argued earlier,
but they do not allow degree adverbs nor degree heads, as observed.
Temporal interpretation is the only option available for participles. If
participles and adjectives belong to the same category (at least externally),
then they must be treated as aspectuo-temporal, or more precisely as heading
a projection of Asp.
In this chapter I have analyzed various types of categories and structures

in the light of their aspect, tense, and modal properties. I have argued that
the aspect view of Arabic verbal morphology (which has dominated Western
philologist literature) cannot be supported. Arabic inflection has been
construed as expressing anteriority relations between times, as encoding
specific aspectual distinctions (habitual, iterative, imperfective, etc.), but
also as having Mood values. Underspecification of TMA features has also
been examined. Moreover, the (in)visibility of the verbal copula has been
investigated, in the context of specification of viewpoint aspect, tense, or
mood characteristics of predicates.
In a second section I have provided grounds for thinking that Arabic
auxiliary, modal, and Negation structures are bi-temporal. I have discussed
essential properties of the rich Arabic Neg system, and how Neg morphemes
differ in selectional, governing, and extraction properties. I have also
proposed a typology of Negs, depending on whether (a) they behave like
204 CHAPTER 4
modals (especially in assigning Mood), (b) like auxiliaries or copulas (in

assigning Case), or (c) they are neutral with respect to these processes.
In a third section I have analyzed the temporal content of (non-finite)
participle morphology. I have contrasted the latter with that of present
verb forms, and shown that participle inflection has no tense value, although
it has an aspect content. The relevant aspect notion has been shown to be
that of contingency, a notion which has been argued to be more general
and :nore adequate than the dynamic/static dichotomy.
Particular attention has been paid to the derivation of adjectives and
participles, what properties they share, and how they differ. I have argued
that adjectives are associated with (pure) states in the lexicon, and they
are not deverbal. In contrast, participles (like verbs) are associated with
processes, events, or contingent states. Moreover, they are deverbal, and
their categorial properties vary according to the level at which their
stativization and/or adjectivalization takes place. This approach has been
inspired in part by Abney's (1987) treatment of English -ing phrases, and
by recent research on the lexicon elaborated by Hale and Keyser (1991).
NOTES:
* This chapter is a revised version of Fassi (1989c), as well as Chapter V of Fassi (1989b).
Part of this material was presented in the form of various lectures at the University of Paris
VIII and the CNRS (Fall 1989 and Spring 1990), SOAS (London) and the University of Essex
(Spring 1990), the International Linguistic Institute of LSM at the University of Rabat
(Summer 1990), as well as UQAM (Montreal) and MIT (Fall 1990). I would like to thank
the audiences at these talks for stimulating remarks.
1 To my knowledge, this description of the Arabic temporal system, which has become quite
standard, is originally due to Caspari, whose grammar was translated by W. Wright in 1859,
and has subsequently undergone a number of revisions. Reckendoff (1898) adopts basically
the same approach. Among similar later developments is Cohen's (1924) monograph, based
on ideas contained in Meillet (1917).
2 See Meillet (1917) for this terminology.
3 In French, for example, the so-called imparfait expresses an imperfective past, the passe
simple a perfective past, etc.
4 For details about verbal morphology, see Wright (1974), McCarthy (1979), Fassi (1984)
and Chapters 2 and 3. For Voice morphology, see Fassi (1988b).
5 For various approaches to dependent and narrative tenses, see Partee (1973, 1984), Kamp
(1979), Kamp and Rohrer (1989), Lo Cascio (1985), and Bartsch (1989). On the depen-
dence of tenses, their scope, and various syntactic mechanisms in GB, see Higginbotham
(1985), Enc; (1987), Pollock (1989a), Picallo (1984), Jakubowicz (1985), Raposo (1985-1986),
Zagona (1988), Gueron and Hoekstra (1988), Bennis and Hoekstra (1988), and Rouveret
(1989), among others.
6 The French terminology accompli/inaccompli is used to designate an interrupted or
uninterrupted process. It is often equated with the perfect/imperfect distinction. See Marouzeau
(1951) and Wright (1974), among other references.
7 Comrie (1976) proposes a 'relative tense' approach to the Arabic temporal system which
is intuitively close to ours, although the terminology of perfective/imperfective he uses to
designate the two members of the opposition is confusing. Cohen (1989), on the other hand,
analyzes only the two forms of lexical verbs (katab/yaktub), without taking into account
auxiliaries, and concludes that the opposition in only aspectual, in terms of accompli!
inaccompli, i.e. the equivalent to perfect/imperfect distinction. Moreover, he overlooked
the importance of the temporal adverb test used by early Arabic grammarians, as well as
that of the contrasts pointed out by Cohen (1924).
Anteriority, or time reference, is conceptually closer to absolute Tense than to the ('genuine'
aspectual) category of perfectivity/imperfectivity. The latter denotes the internal time of the
event, and can be separately encoded in verbal morphology, as in Slavic or Greek. It is not
concerned with external temporal location, nor with ordering events.
8 See Wright (1974) for details, as well as Section 2 below. Other moods discussed in the
traditional literature are: the conditional, the imperative, and the energetic. The conditional
has the same mark as the jussive, as illustated in (i), the energetic is manifested by adding
a [n] suffix (geminated or not) to the verb, as in (ii):
(i) ? in t-adxul-!ll 1-qaa'ata
if you-enter the room-ace
(ii) la-t-adxul-u-nna
will-you-enter-2.pl. -indeed
You will enter indeed.
As for the imperative, it loses its prefix mark (encoding PERS normally), at least when it
is declarative:
(iii) dxul-!ll 1-qaa'ata
enter the room-ace
Enter the room!
Note that there is no Mood marking with the past form, as exemplified by (iv):
(iv) katab-tu
wrote-/
I have written.
This distribution of Mood can be captured by redundancy rules like the following:
(v) Perfect/Past ~ Ill M
(vi) Imperfect/Nonpast ~ +M
9 Note that the present form of the copula has also 'pure' modal uses, as in the following
construction:
(i) ? -akuun-u sa'iid-an bi-liqaa? -i-ka
1-am-indic happy-ace with-meeting-gen-you
I would be happy to meet you.
The politeness use here forces the occurrence of the copula. The simple present reading obtains
without a copula, as in (ii):
(ii) ? anaa sa'iid-un bi-Iiqaa? -i-ka
I happy-nom with-meeting-gen-you
I am happy to meet you.
10 The INFL split view has been championed by Pollock (1989a). The bi-inflectional view
is tacitly assumed in a large literature. It is explicitly proposed in e.g. Fassi ( 1987 a) and
Dobrovie-Sorin (1991). A more neutral position is found in Kayne (1989). Chomsky (1991)
proposes a bi-AGR structure (designated by AGRS and AGRO), but he does not seem to
assume two temporal projections within the same clause.
206 CHAPTER 4
11 See Laka (1990) for arguments that Neg must be c-commanded by Tense. The presence
of Neg might then be seen as a diagnosis for the presence of Tense.
12 A traditional answer to the ungrammaticality of (41) or (42) has been often posed in terms
of auxiliary selection, as stated in (i):
(i) An auxiliary verb selects a VP.
Gueron and Hoekstra (1988), for example, assume the following:
(ii) An auxiliary verb governs a verbal projection [a VP; FF], a non-auxiliary verb
governs either a nominal projection or a verbal projection.
This solution is inadequate, since it does not carry over to Arabic. In very recent unpub-
lished work, these authors reach conclusions about auxiliary selection which are similar to
mine.
13 On Temporal marking, see in particular Zagona ( 1988), who proposes the following
definition (p. 94):
(i) A Temporally-marks B if A assigns a Temporal role (S, R, or E) to Bas a lexical
category.
Note, on the other hand, that if English auxiliary structures are bi-AGR structures a La
Chomsky (1991), then the question arises as to why these structures are not nominal, as in
the Arabic case. Auxiliary verbs in English or French appear to be Tense markers, rather
than Case markers. For a functional definition of categories which is compatible with my view
of auxiliaries, see Gueron and Hoekstra (1988).
14 Joan Maling pointed out to me that the fact that copular verbs assign Case to predicate
adjectives or nouns appears to be intriguing, especially from the point of view of Indo-
European (IE) languages, where the case of the NP subject spreads to the predicate. This
difference suggests that the Arabic copula is more 'verbal' than its IE counterpart. At this
point, I have no convincing analysis of why case spreading operates in some languages,
but not others. On case spreading, see Yip, Jackendoff, and Maling (1987), as well as
Maling (1991).
15 A number of generative studies, starting with Chomsky (1957), and including Emonds
(1976, 1978), and Akmajian, Steele, and Wasow (1979), among others, have argued that modal
auxiliaries in English are not verbs, but rather realizations of the category AUX (taken in
Emonds, 1985, to be an inflectional Spec of V). Their arguments center around the idea
that English modals do not undergo verbal rules (see Emonds, 1985, pp. 210-213 for a
recent illuminating discussion; see also Emonds, 1976, pp. 205-211, as well as references
in Heny and Richards, 1983). Other studies have maintained the verbal analysis of modals,
even for English. For example, Schachter (1983) questions the thesis " ... that modals lack
any [verbal] inflections whatsoever" and he argues that " ... although modals do not inflect
for number, there is evidence that they do inflect for tense" (p. 147). For the problematic
nature of the AUX analysis of modals, see below, in particular the fact that the AUX analysis
of modals is not general enough to account for crosslinguistic variation in expressing
modalities.
16 For an attempt to unify the semantics of modal qad, see Dahl and Talmoudi (1987).
17 It is possible that the finite form of the verb there is unspecified with respect to the
value of anteriority. This neutral value of the form is further corroborated by its use in
command or prohibitive statements:
(i) li-y-adxul
let-3-enter
Let he enter.
(ii) laa t-adxul

not you-enter
Do not enter.
On temporally neutral uses of inflection, see also Subsection 2.1.4.
18 Note that the two temporal inflections may form aT-chain (or temporal chain) in the sense
of Gu6ron and Hoekstra (1988), or equivalently a T-connection as defined in Bennis and
Hoekstra (1988). Here I extend this chain formation to Aspect and Mood. The features
contained in a TMA chain are then interpreted and licensed depending on: (a) their
morphological specification and (b) the syntactic context.
19 If we unify TCase and NCase under the general notion Kase, then a generalized Kase
Criterion might be stated as follows (recall the discussion of similar matters in Chapter 3):
(i) Every Kase must be discharged.
Zagona (1982) and Fabb (1984) have proposed that verbs receive cases, and Zagona (1988)
that they are assigned T(ense) roles. Moreover, Zagona assumes that tense marking is
equivalent to theta marking. For parallels between Case marking and Tense marking, see
also Gueron and Hoekstra (1988).
20 It is interesting to note that such adjacency is not observed in e.g. French, as illustrated
by (i):
(i) II veut que Jean parte.
Assuming that the complementizer licenses the subjunctive marker on the verb, the inter-
vening subject between the two constituents does not bar such a licensing. This indicates
clearly that adjacency is just an effect, and that the probem is whether I is nominalized or
not, as explained.
21 On the one hand, maa, unlike other Negs, cannot negate the embedded verb in a complex
tense, but can only occur in front of the auxiliary, as the following contrasts illustrate:
(i) maa kun-tu ? -alcab-u
not was-/ 1-play-indic
I was not playing.
(ii) * kun-tu maa ? -alcab-u
was-/ not 1-play-indic
I was not playing.
(iii) kun-tu laa ? -adxul-u 1-qaacat-a
was-/ not 1-enter-indic the-room-ace
I used not to enter the room.
(iv) kun-tu lam ? -adxul 1-qaacat-a
was-/ not.past /-enter the-room-ace
I had not entered the room.
(v) kun-tu lammaa ? -adxul 1-qaacat-a
was-/ not.yet /-enter the-room-ace
I had not yet entered the room.
I have no analysis for this distribution at this point.
22 Traditional grammarians offer a general criterion to distinguish three types of Negs,
and why some of them are governors, and some are not. According to their view, proper
government is correlated with what they call ixtisaas 'specialization'. A category C 'spe-
208 CHAPTER 4
cializes' in some category (N or V), iff it governs (and/or selects) only that category, not
another. Thus modal Neg specializes in V, copular Neg in N (or A), and neutral Neg does
not specialize, since it occurs with both. By virtue of this relational property, only the first
two types of Negs are Case assigners, and proper governors. Note that this notion is less
stipulative than selection. Baker (1988) defines selection as follows:
A selects B iff:
- (i) A assigns a theta role to B or
- (ii) A is of category C and B is its IP
- (iii) A is of category I and B is its VP.
23 For further motivation of the notion g-projection, see Kayne (1983) and Pesetsky (1982).
Note that traditional grammar distinguishes 'strong' head governors (like verbs), with can
govern to their left (in addition to their right) and 'weak' governors, with cannot (preposi-
tions, Ns, etc.).
An alternative to the g-projection analysis is to assume that the verbal head is incorpo-
rated into the other heads (including Neg) at LF, and that Case and government are checked
at LF via Baker's (1988) Government Transparency Corollary, stated in (i):
(i) A lexical category which has an item incorporated into it governs everything
which the incorporated item governed in its structural original position.
24 See Ouhalla (1990) and Benmamoun (1990) for such claims.
25 This restriction is further corroborated by the fact that maa is not generally compatible
with future interpretation. When it occurs with the non-anterior form of the verb, the inter-
pretation is limited to the present tense, as shown by its incompatibilty with future adverbs:
(i) maa ? -aakul-u (1-? aana, *gad-an)
not 1-eat-indic (now, *tomorrow)
I do not eat (now, *tomorrow).
Other differences aside, this behaviour is shared by laysa. Moreover, the latter does not
occur with the anterior form of the verb, and its interpretation is necessarily non-anterior
present, as shown by the following contrasts:
(ii) lay sa r-rajul-u y-a? kul-u
not the-man-nom 3-eat-indic
The man does not eat (now).
(iii) *lay sa r-rajul-u ?akal-a
not the-man-nom ate-3.s.m.
(iv) * laysa r-rajul-u y-a? kul-u gadan
not the-man-nom 3-eat-indic tomorrow
26 Another difference between the two Negs is illustrated by the fact that one is compat-
ible with conditionals, but the other is not:
(i) ? in lam y-a?ti
if not.past 3-come
If he does not come.
(ii) *?in lammaa y-a?ti
if not.yet 3-come
Furthermore, lam is compatible with the modal qad, which expresses uncertainty and expec-
tation, whereas lammaa is not. These differences can be accounted for only in a general theory
of illocutionary force, which must distinguish 'assertive' Negs from (potentially) hypothet-
ical Negs.
27 The use of modal particles also affects the interpretation of reference time denoted by
verbal inflection. For example, past/perfect forms are used with conditional particles to express
anteriority in a hypothetical situation in the future, not in the past, as exemplified in (i):
(i) ? in qum-ta la-?-aquuman-na
If stood-you emph.-1-stand-emph.
If you stand up, I will certainly stand up.
It is equally used in so-called 'instigative' (ta}Jr.iiirj) sentences like (ii):
(ii) hallaa qum-ta
why.not stood-you
Why don't you stand up.
In all these modal conditioned uses, and others, the anterior form is said to emphasize the
asserted truth of the event, or its realization. But clearly the deictic T cannot be past. The
tense borne by the verbal inflection is interpreted only within the context of the modal,
which is irrealistic.
In the same vein, non-anterior forms can be used with modalities of wishes, as in (iii},
or with conditionals, as in (iv):
(iii) layta r-rajul-a y-a?kul-u
may the-man-ace 3-eat-indic
May the man eat.
(iv) ? in t-ac;Jhab ? -adhab
if you-go /-go
If you go I go.
Third, it is well-known that tenses have modal uses. For example, past tense often denotes
a hypothetical situation as in the following examples:
(v) I wish I had a car.
(vi) Deux minutes de plus et !'OM gagnait (!'OM n'a pas gagne).
These uses and interactions provide additional support for the three-valued TMA view of
temporal inflection adopted.
28 I use the traditional term 'adjective' (abbreviated as A) to designate the category
discussed. In Chomsky (1974) and (1981), A is replaced by a feature matrix, i.e. [+N, +V].
Abney (1987), on the other hand, has proposed that the traditional AP is headed by a Deg(ree)
P. See Section 4 for criticism of these views.
29 Radford (personal communication) has pointed to me that English has sentences like
the following:
(i) He sicked up his food.
(ii) Her hair yellowed in the sun.
Clearly, the readings here are processive and inchoative, respectively, and cannot be pure
stative. Moreover, it is natural to think that these verbs are derived from adjectives, rather
than basic. See below for similar cases in Arabic.
30 On properties of English adjectives and participles, see Fabb (1984), Abney (1987), Borer
(1984), Sproat (1985b), and Levin and Rapaport (1986), among others.
31 There are other forms of adjectives which are derived from triliteral roots: IJasan 'nice',
?abyad 'white', fari/J 'glad', and <a.tsaan 'thirsty' are instances of the most productive
forms. The latter are often predictible from the meaning of the root, though not always.
210 CHAPTER 4
32 This is true of triliteral roots only. With non-triliteral roots, there is no counterpart to
(a), and deverbal formation is limited only to regular participle forms.
33 Some philologists have proposed that participles are freely formed from transitives, but
are subject to a non-stative constraint when intransitives (see e.g. Wright, I, pp. 131-132).
This is incorrect, however. On the one hand, there are intransitive statives which form good
participles (~alu}Ja 'to be/become good', batula 'to be/become false', etc.). On the other hand,
there are transitive statives which do not form participles freely. For example, the transi-
tive ?asbaha 'to resemble' does not form the passive participle *musbah 'resembled'.
34 Some grammarians claim, contrary to fact, that constructions like (ll2a) are ill-formed.
For example, l:fasan, III, p. 281, rejects the following example:
(i) 1-mutasaabiq-u batii? -u 1-l}arakat-i I-? aana
the-runner-nom low-nom the-movement-gen now
The runner is slow now.
l:fasan observes that the adjective expresses an inherent property or a permanent state which is
not construed as being true only in the present, the past, or the future. This property has to be
true at all times at once, not at one particular time. Given this view, the ungrammaticality of (i)
is expected. In contrast, the participle can express a meaning only at a definite point of time
reference, hence the grammaticality of (110), for instance (p. 295). I think that f:lasan's position
arises from a confusion between the 'inherent' aspectual properties of the adjective or the
participle (the former being stative whereas the latter is not) and the temporal properties of the
construction (which is interpreted as past or non-past). f:lasan himself quotes ~abbaan, who
argues that the adjective can occur in a context in which it indicates only past, present, or
future, as in the following examples (ibid., p. 280, n. 2):
(ii) kaana zayd-un l}asan-an fa-qabul}a
was Zayd-nom good-ace then-became.bad
Zayd was good and then became bad.
(iii) sa-y~iiru l}asan-an
will-become good-ace
He will become good.
(iv) huwa 1-? aana l}asan-un
he now good-nom
He is now good.
Clearly, there is no incompatibility here between the inherent aspectual property of the
adjective and the temporal specification of the construction. If l:fasan's objection were true,
then all adjectives would have been individual level predicates in the sense of Kratzer
(1989), but this is obviously not true.
35 Note that the contrast between participles and adjectives cannot be construed in terms
of durativity. Participles can express continuous or durative aspect. Consider the following
sentence:
(i) <arnr-un <Jaarib-un zayd-an
Amr-nom beating-nom Zayd-acc
Arnr is beating Zayd.
In this construction, the process does not come to an end; it is continuous. The participle is
also understood as progressive. If the progressive is made of non-stativeness and continu-
ousness (or durativity), then the only distinction involved is between something homogeneous
throughout its duration, and something in which there is a breaking point (see Comrie,
1976).
36 En~ (1991) proposes that there is no present tense form in English, but clearly these
differences cannot be accounted for if there is no such a form.
There are further differences between process and state verbs. For example, the former,
but not the latter, exhibit a difference in interpretation depending on whether the order of
the sentence is VSO or SVO. In VSO, the verb is neutrally interpreted as habitual:
(i) y-a? kul-u r-rajulu
3-eat-indic the-man-nom
The man eats.
In SVO, the sentence can be ambiguous, but it is neutrally interpreted as located in the present:
(ii) r-rajul-u y-a? kul-u
the-man-nom 3-eat-indic
The man is eating.
The construction (i) can be interpreted as specific present only in some marked contexts
like reportive use, or when a present adverbial shifts the orientation point appropriately. Stative
verbs, by contrast, do not seem to have a habitual reading, nor are they sensitive to order
differences in the clause.
37 For various arguments supporting the dual aspect-tense view of temporal systems, see
Smith (1991), Descl~s (1989), Guentcheva (1990), and also Dahl (1985) and Comrie (1976),
among others.
38 As is well known, the active participle has different forms, depending on whether it is
bound to a triliteral consonantal root, or to a non-triliteral root. With a triliteral, it is [aa-i],
with a non-triliteral, it is [u-a-i]. This is exemplified in (i) and (ii), respectively:
(i) zayd-un qaatil-un s-saJun-a
Zayd-nom killing-nom the-prisoner-ace
Zayd is killing the prisoner.
(ii) zayd-un muqaatil-un s-saJun-a

Zayd-nom fighting-nom the-prisoner-ace
Zayd is fighting the prisoner.
39 For example, the counterpart of (127) with a modifying adjective is ungrammatical:
(i) * <amr-un !;laarib-un sadiid-un zayd-an
Amr-nom beating-nom violent-nom Zayd-acc
40 Higginbotham (1986), following in broad lines Davidson (1966), assumes that".
reference to events is incorporated in English and other languages in a very specific way,
namely by argument positions ...". Moreover, " ... ordinary predicates, including stative
verbs and adjectives, [have] an 'E position' in their thematic grids", and E is modified by
adverbs. I will assume, however, that pure statives have no Davidsonian E, although they may
have s (for state) as an argument. See below.
41 The adjective has also the external characteristic of receiving the article and/or comple-
mentizer when definite, and the suffix [n] (called nunation) when indefinite (see Chapter 5).
42 Parallelisms brought up by Partee (1984) concern indefinite antecedents, bound variable
interpretation, and 'donkey' sentences, as in the following pairs:
(i) a. Pedro owns a donkey. He beats it.
b. Mary woke up sometime during the night. She turned on the light.
(ii) a. Every woman believes that she is happy.
b. Whenever Mary telephoned, Sam was asleep.
212 CHAPTER 4
(i) a. If Pedro owns a donkey, he beats it.

b. If Mary telephoned on a Friday, it was (always) Peter that answered.
43 Following En~ (1987), I assume that Tense in unspecified with respect to Definiteness.
In Kamp's (1981) and Heim's (1982) theory of reference, definites and indefinites refer to
abstract discourse referents. The Familiarity Condition on Definites and the Novelty Condition
on indefinites do not apply to Tense. As in En~. the latter " ... either introduce a new
interval or pick out an interval already introduced into the domain". See Fassi (1989c) for
other details.
44 This is true if, as argued by Chomsky (1982) and Koopman and Sportiche (1982), every
operator has to bind a variable, thus prohibiting vacuous quantification. In order for this to
be true, we have to assume that auxiliaries, semi-auxiliaries, or light verbs, have no E position.
Alternatively, they may have an E, but the latter can only be identified, as in Fassi (1989c).
Higginbotham conjectures, however, that undesired cases are banned by the Theta Criterion,
provided it is suitably generalized. The case of double tenses suggests, however, that the
following requirement is necessary:
(i) If a position P in a constituent Cis discharged by X, then P cannot be discharged
*
by Y (where X Y).
In verbal expressions, it is reasonable to think that all positions are discharged within VP
(including the subject position), except E. E is discharged by one referential D or T, but
not by two. Note, however, that (i) may not be necessary once a theory of referential indices
is elaborated. Double quantification will yield a referential expression with two distinct indices.
A uniqueness requirement on indexation is sufficient to rule out the outcome.
45 An SNLLT reviewer has suggested to me that (150) and (152) may have an implicit,
possibly arbitrary object, a Ia Rizzi (1986). If this is true, then thematic preservation is
observed in these cases. A problem remains, however, to know why the apparent intransi-
tivity is possible with some verbs, but not others (as in e.g. (148)).
46 On partitive Case, see Belletti (1988).
47 The construction can obviously be interpreted as an agent nominal (see Chapter 3), but
this is irrelevant here.
48 It might be objected that it is [-N] which defines the class of case assigners, [+ N] that
of case assignees, etc. The system is nonetheless opaque, and a difference between a verb,
an adjective, and a participle, for example, is far from clear.
49 There are other distributional differences between adjectives and participles. In nominal
(or copular) sentences, adjectives cannot have indefinite subjects (order irrelevant):
(i) * rajul-un
gakiyy-un
man-nom intelligent-nom
*A man is clever.
(ii) * rajul-un
naafi'-un
man-nom helful-nom
*A man is helpful.
In this respect, they behave like predicate nominals, which also lead to ungrammatical results:
(iii) * rajul-un
?ustaag-un
man-nom professor-nom
*A man is (a) professor.
But participles are well-formed in this case:
(iv) jaasuus-un muqbil-un
spy-nom coming-nom
A spy is coming.
CHAPTER 5
INFLECTIONAL PROJECTIONS IN NOUN PHRASES*
In this chapter I examine the internal structure of Arabic noun phrases in

the light of the proposal found in Abney (1987), according to which
traditional NPs are DPs (determiner phrases), with an inflectional struc-
ture paralleling that of sentences. 1 Once the DP analysis is adopted, and
N raising (to D) motivated, a number of questions arise with regard to
S-structures of nominal phrases. How many inflectional projections are
involved in their derivation? And what mechanisms account for cross-
linguistic variation in word order, Case, extraction, thematic, and referen-
tial properties of these constituents?
Arabic genitive constructions (in which the possessor is marked by
genitive Case) typically reflect word order properties of VSO structures,
and seem to exhibit no counterpart of SVO (OVS, or VOS) structures found
in sentences. That is, their structure is basically limited to NSO, excluding
any (significant) scrambling or extraction of the subject or the object. For
ease of reference, I will call these constructions synthetic genitives or
construct states, following traditional usage. In contrast, so-called analytic
genitives, free, or absolute states, in which the possessor is Case marked
by a (dummy) preposition, exhibit quite different properties, including more
freedom in scrambling and extraction possibilities. 2 The properties of Arabic
analytic possessives differ from those found in Romance languages- which
almost exclusively use the analytic strategy- and also from those of English.
Thus, although English has a mixed synthetic/analytic system like that of
Arabic (which shares a number of properties with it), it differs from Arabic
in two important ways: (a) it has a different order in synthetic genitives
(SNO instead of NSO), and (b) it allows more extraction with preposi-
tional possessors.
These various properties of nominal phrases are derivable from para-
metric differences in the properties of inflectional categories heading these
expressions in languages, and triggering the variation. In particular, AGR
and D(eterminer) are shown to play a crucial role in deriving word order
options, and the AGR Criterion operates in DPs in the same way that it does
in IPs. Some languages (like Arabic and English) can be characterized as
having poor (or null) AGR in nominal constructions. Consequently, no
DP is allowed to raise to Spec of AGR in these languages, and no extrac-
tion of the possessor is possible, since these processes are triggered/licensed
by rich AGR heads. In contrast, languages like Hungarian and Chamorro
have rich systems of AGR and D, and they typically exhibit obligatory
NP internal raising, and allow the extraction of synthetic possessors. On
213
214 CHAPTER 5
the other hand, some languages (like Arabic) have obligatory N raising
(to D) at S-structure, due the affixal nature of D, whereas others (like
English) do not, resulting in different orders in nominal phrases (NSO vs.
SNO, respectively).
The properties of analytic genitives interact with those of synthetic
genitives in interesting ways, but the two strategies are different. For
example, analytic genitives exhibit no complementary distribution between
the possessor and the article, and no agreement in Definiteness between
the possessor and the possessee. They allow NP raising and extraction of
NPs only when D and AGR are rich, echoing the requirements on NP raising
and extraction of sentential subjects. These properties (and others) are
missing in Romance, because the latter (almost exclusively) use the analytic
(or prepositional) strategy. Analysis is available in Arabic and English as
well, but the range of its use is limited. Part of my concern is to derive
the various outcomes of the interaction of the two strategies across
languages. It is argued that synthetic genitives are regulated by Spec-Head
agreement principles (in Spec-oriented languages or constructions) applying
to AGR or D projections (and categories), whereas analytic genitives are
regulated by Head-Comp licensing principles (in Camp-oriented languages
or constructions).
The problem of theta-marking possessors is also investigated. It is argued
that the possessor is not generated in Spec of NP, but in Spec of Poss.
Poss is hypothesized to be a functional licenser for possessors. Similarly,
the properties of deverbal process nominals (called mCJ.$dars in the Arabic
tradition) are examined, as are those of subject nominals (the latter are closer
to, but not identical with, agent nominals in English, as we will see). In
order to derive the 'mixed' categorial nature of ma~dars (the fact that they
are internally verbal, and externally nominal), and their categorial differ-
ences across constructions, it is proposed that they are formed in the syntax.
A nominalizing affixation process converts the verbal root to N, at
different stages of the derivation. On the other hand, the thematic proper-
ties of process and subject nominals are shown to be problematic for the
current version of the Projection Principle (which is too strong). A weaker
version of this principle is proposed.
This chapter is organized as follows. In the first section I investigate N
and NP raisings in ordinary noun phrases, and especially in synthetic
genitives. I establish and discuss a number of 'complementary distributions'
in the DP system. I also examine the contexts of genitive Case assign-
ment, and the role played by AGR and D in Case and order licensing. I
close the section with a typology of AGR and D properties. In Section 2
I turn to the treatment of ma~dars, how they are derived, and how their
thematic structure is satisfied by making use of Higginbotham's (1985)
mechanism of theta identification. In Section 3, I investigate the preposi-
tional strategy used thoroughly in Romance, but also in Arabic and English.
INFLECTIONAL PROJECTIONS IN NOUN PHRASES 215
Distributional differences between these languages are analyzed, espe-

cially with respect to licensing NP extraction. In Section 4 I extend the
approach adopted to subject nominals, and propose a revision of the
Projection Principle. In Section 5 I discuss some general consequences of
the theory of nominal structure defended, in particular for agreement and
Case licensing, specificity, as well as Poss marking.
1. N AND NP RAISING IN THE D SYSTEM
In this section I investigate the inflectional properties of nominal expres-

sions, and focus on movement within and out of nominal projections. First,
I provide preliminary motivation for a DP analysis. Second, I examine the
nature of internal nominal constituents, and describe their distributional
characteristics. Third, I discuss theta marking and Case marking proper-
ties of possessives. I then turn to the problem of movement in and out of
DPs, and show that their scrambling and extraction possibilities depend
on the richness of AGR (which occurs in DPs). I also discuss variation in
Definiteness between the possessor and the possessee, and propose to derive
this variation, as well as that of extraction, from a conjunction of D and
AGR properties.
1.1. A Preliminary DP Analysis
Consider nominal phrases in the following constructions:

(I) daxal-tu d-daar-a
entered-/ the-house-ace
I entered the house.
(2) ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i li-1-masruuc-i
annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man-gen of-the-project-gen
The man's criticizing of the project annoyed me.
In (I) the NP object is headed by an 'ordinary' noun, and carries a definite
article [1] which is prefixed to it (and assimilated by the first consonant
of the noun). In (2) the head of the NP is a deverbal process nominal
(ma~dar) taking an agent and a theme as arguments. In order to account
for the distribution of these constituents within the nominal phrase, I assume
a DP structure for noun phrases, as in (3):
216 CHAPTER 5
(3) DP0
~
D NP
11 D~~ N DP2
L___ _ _ ____JI
Given this configuration, the article in (1) is generated under D, and

the head noun under N. N then raises to D at S-structure, given the affixal
nature of the article. As for (2), the DP subject and object are generated
in Spec of N, and Comp(lement) of N, respectively. N then raises to D,
giving rise to NSO order. 3 The motivation for raising in this case can be
equated with that in the previous context, provided D is there (and D is
an affix), although it has no phonetic content. If this derivation is correct,
then it will be parallel to that of V raising to I in the structure of clauses,
with the difference that inflectional morphology is overt in the latter case,
but not in the former. This simple picture, obviously, needs subtantial
elaboration and refinement. I turn to this matter in the next subsections.
1.2. On Some 'Complementary Distributions' in Nominal Phrases
Arabic nominal phrases exhibit a number of properties that appear (at least
superficially) to be in total complementary distribution. As we have just
seen, one of the combinatorial properties of nouns is their ability to occur
with the definite article. But note that the article is missing in the indefi-
nite NP in (4):
(4) daxal-tu daar-a-n
entered-/ house-acc-n
I entered a house.
The noun here carries no (indefinite) article, although it carries another
affixal form which is suffixed to the noun (but is missing in (1)). It is the
[n] form which is termed tanwiin in the Arabic tradition, and nunation by
Western philologists. The nature of nunation has been (and is still) a real
puzzle for Arabic grammarians. Most of them treat this form in (4) as an
indefinite article, but this view is hardly tenable. 4 It is true that common
singular nouns carrying the article lack this form, as ( 1) indicates, but proper
nouns may carry it, as illustrated by (5):
(5) a. hind-u-n
Hind-nom-n
Hind.
b. mul).ammad-u-n
Muhammad-nom-n
Muhammad.
On the other hand, definite dual or plural common nouns carry both the
article and the [n] form, as shown by (6): 5
(6) a. r-rajul-aa-n
the-man-dual-n
The two men.
b. 1-muslim-uu-n
the-moslem-pl. -n
The moslems.
These contrasts indicate that both nunation and the article can occur on
definite nouns, but only nunation occurs on indefinite nouns (and some
proper nouns). Moreover, indefinite nouns have no (overt) article.
On the other hand, genitive NP complements can carry neither nunation
nor the article, as illustrated by (7):
(7) daxal-tu daar-a r-rajul-i
entered-/ house-ace the-man-gen
I entered the man's house.
These restrictions on genitive possessive constructions are further illustrated
by the ungrammaticality of the following constructions:
(8) a.* daxal-tu d-daar-a r-rajul-i
entered-/ the-house-ace the-man-gen
I entered the house of the man.
b.* daxal-tu daar-a-n r-rajul-i
entered-/ house-acc-n the-man-gen
I entered a house of the man.
In these constructions the head noun can bear neither the article nor
nunation, be it definite (as in (8a), or indefinite, as in (8b)). That the head
noun loses both combinatorial possibilities can be seen more explicitly when
a noun like that in (6b) is constructed with a genitive, as in (9):
(9) muslim-uu 1-madiinat-i
moslem-nom.pl. the-city-gen
The Moslems of the city.
Note that the lack of articles is a property of nominal genitive con-
structions only, and does not extend to adjectives heading genitive
218 CHAPTER 5
constructions. For example, a predicate adjective like that in (10) carries

nunation:
(10) hind-un basan-at-u-n
Hind-nom nice-f-nom-n
Hind is nice.
But an adjective in a genitive construction lacks nunation, as (11) shows:
(11) hind-un basan-at-u 1-wajh-i
Hind-nom nice-f-nom the-face-gen
Hind has a nice face.
On the other hand, modifying adjectives agree in definiteness with modified
nouns, and they carry definite articles even in genitive constructions. This
is illustrated by (12):
(12) saahad-tu 1-bint-a 1-hasana-t-a 1-wajh-i
saw-/ the-girl-ace the-nice-f-ace the-face-gen
I saw the girl with the nice face.
These observations indicate that only nunation is lacking in adjectival
genitive constructions, while both nunation and the article are lacking in
nominal ones. 6
In addition to these two 'negative' properties, the head noun of the
genitive construction can be shown to agree in definiteness with the
possessor. Thus although the head noun is not carrying a definite article,
it behaves as if it were carrying one. First, with regard to its interpreta-
tion, a sentence like (7) means 'the house of the man', and not 'a house
of the man', indicating that the head noun is definite. Second, with respect
to adjectival and relative modification, the behaviour of the noun heading
the genitive construction is exactly like that of a head noun carrying a
definite article. It requires the modifier to agree with it in definiteness.
Consequently, the modifying adjectival phrase must bear the definite article
in (13), in the same way that it bears one in (12) above:
(13) daxal-tu daar-a r-rajul-i 1-waasicat-a
entered-/ house-ace the-man-gen the-large-ace
I entered the large house of the man.
When the adjective does not agree in definiteness with the head noun, the
structure is ruled out:
(14) * daxal-tu daar-a r-rajul-i waasicat-a-n
entered-/ house-ace the-man-gen large-acc-n
I entered a large house of the man.
These observations point to the conclusion that the head noun inherits the
same value of definiteness that the genitive noun has. When the genitive
NP is indefinite, the head N is also indefinite, and the modifying adjec-
tive cannot bear the article, as the contrast in (15) shows:
(15) a. daxal-tu daar-a rajul-i-n waasicat-a-n
entered-/ house-ace man-gen-n large-acc-n
I entered a large house of a man.
b.* daxal-tu daar-a rajul-i-n 1-waasicat-a
entered-/ house-ace man-gen-n the-large-ace
I entered the large house of a man.
The facts of relative clause modification corroborate this view. When the
head noun of a genitive construction is modified by a relative clause, the
relative complementizer (which is inherently definite) may or may not
head the relative clause, depending on whether the head noun is definite
or not, as in the following examples:
(16) a. daxal-tu daar-a r-rajul-i 1-latii l}.taraq-at
entered-/ house-ace the-man-gen the-that-f. bumed-3.fs.
I entered the man's house which burned.
b. daxal-tu daar-a rajul-i-n l}.taraq-at
entered-/ house-ace man-gen-n bumed-3.fs.
I entered a man's house (which) burned.
c.* daxal-tu daar-a r-rajul-i l}.taraq-at
entered-/ house-ace the-man-gen bumed-3.fs.
d.* daxal-tu daar-a rajul-i-n 1-latii l}.taraq-at
entered-/ house-ace man-gen-n the-that-! bumed-3.fs.
The relative complementizer in these constructions behaves like the article
with adjectives: it must occur with definite head nouns, and cannot occur
with indefinites. Note that the modification is a modification of the head,
not of the possessor, although there is inheritance of definiteness from the
latter. This inheritance of definiteness is one of the important properties
of Arabic genitive constructions that needs to be accounted for. 7
Summarizing, I have shown that nominal phrases may or may not bear
definite articles and/or nunation, and that the head noun in genitive con-
structions lacks these affixes. Moreover, there is a matching requirement
in definiteness between the head noun and the genitive NP.
220 CHAPTER 5
1.3. The Possessor Role
In genitive constructions like (2) the role assigned to the NP subject

compositionally by the event nominal and its complement does not seem
to be fundamentally different from that assigned by a V' to a NP in Spec
of VP. Thus the occurrence of DP 1 in (3) within the lexical NP projection
can be licensed by whatever mechanism licenses the occurrence of a subject
inside VP. This is not true of the genitive in nominal phrases like (7),
however. There is little reason to believe that daar 'house' projects a subject,
and theta-marks it. Ordinary or result nominals are not theta markers,
under standard assumptions. 8 One way to avoid this problem is to postu-
late that the genitive NP receives a 'possessor' role in a position outside
the lexical projection of N, from an abstract (functional) theta marker, call
it Poss. Pass can be conceived of as a relational (functional) category which
incorporates N, and enables it to 'indirectly' theta-mark the possessor, in
the same way that a preposition does. 9 N will then move to Pass, to allow
lexical theta marking of the NP in Spec of Pass. The latter mechanism
will solve the problem of how the possessor acquires a theta-role. 10
1.4. Genitive Marking
Turning to Case marking of the possessor, there are a number of options

that suggest themselves, depending on Case theoretic assumptions. Suppose
that Genitive Case assignment takes place in a Spec-Head configuration,
where the head has a functional nature." Then we face basically the same
problem raised in Chapter 2 with regard to Nominative Case in VSO
structures. Recall that there were two options there, depending on the level
at which Case assignment/checking takes place. If Nominative is checked
at S-structure, then the NP subject will be located in Spec of T (to be in
Spec-Head relation with T, which is the Nominative assigner). If Nominative
is checked at LF, then assuming that it is checked (universally) under a
Spec-AGR relation, the subject will remain in Spec of VP at S-structure,
and it will move only at LF, in one step, to Spec of AGR. Let us explore
both options for Genitive.
Suppose that Genitive is a structural case, i.e. it is not assigned by
virtue of a thematic relationship (nor is it a so-called inherent Case, as in
Chomsky, 1986a). This assumption is supported by the fact that object
raising nouns like dann 'believing' assign genitive to the raising NP from
an embedded clause, as in the following construction:
(17) qann-u r-rajul-i gakiyy-an xata?un
believing-nom the-man-gen clever-acc-n error-nom-n
(Literally: the man's believing clever (is) an error.)
Believing that the man is clever is an error.
In this structure, r-rajul bears no thematic relationship to c;fann, yet it

receives Genitive from it by virtue of a structural relationship. Similarly,
the nominalized counterpart of the auxiliary kaan 'be' assigns Genitive to
the pre-verbal subject in (18), although they do not enter in any thematic
relationship:
(18) kawn-u r-rajul-i ntaqad-a n-niqaam-a
being-nom the-man-gen criticized the-regime-ace
xatar-un calay-hi
danger-nom on-him
(Literally: the man's being he criticized the regime is a danger
for him.)
The fact that the man has criticized the regime is a danger for
him.
These facts indicate that Poss (if it is construed as a theta marking
head) cannot be the Genitive Case assigner. This suggests in turn that if
the possessor NP is to receive Case at S-structure, it will have to move to
a Spec of another functional category. The natural candidates are either Spec
of AGR or Spec of D. If D and AGR are heads in the nominal system
projecting separate syntactic inflectional projections, then D can be filled
by the definite article, and AGR, in (the limited) contexts where it is overt,
will realize only gender. In (19), for example, the interrogative word (which
is the head of the genitive phrase) agrees with the genitive NP in GEN:
(19) ?ayy-at-u J:tukuumat-in qarrar-at haagaa?
which-f-nom government.f-gen decided-3.fs. this
Which government has decided this?
Numerals provide another context in which agreement in GEN is realized
within noun phrases, although its manifestation is of a complex nature.
(20) a. talaat-at-u rijaal-in
three-fern-nom men- gen
Three men.
b. talaat-u nisaa?-in
three-nom women-gen
Three women.
With these numerals, the agreement is 'privative'. That is, when the genitive
noun is masculine, as in (20a), the numeral bears a feminine marker, but
when the noun is feminine, as in (20b ), the numeral bears no mark of the
feminine. 12
222 CHAPTER 5
At any rate, agreement in these instances is limited to GEN. If AGR is

to project here, then this situation recalls that in VSO order, in which the
AGR content is limited to GEN. If VSO and NSO are significantly parallel
structures, then if AGR is projected higher than T in the clause, AGR is
also projected higher than D, assuming that D and Tare parallel. If subjects
move to Spec ofT in VSO, to receive Nominative there, then presumably
possessors move to Spec of D, to receive Genitive. The S-structure of the
DP in (7) will then be something like (21):
(21) AGRP
~
AGR DP
I~
daar rajul D'
~D~sP
\ ~ss'
~o~P
~~
If AGR is projected higher than the functional projection where the
subject is located at S-structure - i.e. DP -then we can derive NSO order,
as well as its agreement properties. Assuming that AGR in Arabic nominal
phrases is limited to the poor option, we can account for both the non-
availability of SNO order and the non-extractability of possessor NPs. The
fact that (almost) no scrambling options are available in genitive co1
structions can also be derived. 13 Ordering possibilities are examined in the
next subsection.
1.5. Extraction, AGR Criterion, and Scrambling
Possessors cannot be extracted outside the nominal projection, as the

following examples indicate: 14
(22) *man qara? -ta kitaab-a?
who read-you book-ace
Whose did you read book?
(23) * r-rajul-i zur-tu ?umm-a
the-man-gen visited-/ mother-ace
The man's I visited mother.
Suppose that these constructions are ruled out as ECP violations. The reason
can be that since AGR is poor in this case, it does not license an NP in
its Spec, and antecedent government cannot go through. The impossibilty
of extracting in this case recalls the impossibility of extracting a subject
in VSO, without moving through Spec of AGR, and without triggering
rich AGR. That amounts to extracting from an SVO structure. But there
is no rich AGR in DPs. We know this because the language has N raising,
but no surface SNO structure, as the ungrammaticality of (24a) indicates.
Only (24b) is possible:
(24) a.* zur-tu r-rajul-i ?umm-a
visited-/ the-man-gen mother-ace
I visited the man's mother.
b. zur-tu ?umm-a r-rajul-i
visited-/ mother-ace the-man-gen
I visited the man's mother.
I have argued in Chapter 2 that (rich) AGR must be checked at S-
structure, and that only rich AGR licenses a NP in its Spec. Poor AGR,
on the other hand, is not a Spec-Head agreement. Furthermore, rich AGR
not only licenses a NP in its Spec, but requires it, otherwise AGR itself
is not licensed.
I have suggested that this bidirectional requirement is regulated by the
AGR Criterion, which states essentially the following:
(25) AGR Criterion. (Rich) AGR is licensed by a NP in its Spec,
and a NP in Spec of AGR is licensed by (rich) AGR.
The AGR Criterion rules out NP raising to Spec of AGR in Arabic
noun phrases. Consequently, extraction of possessors to Spec of CP (or to
adjoin to CP), as in (22) and (23), will have to be a 'long movement',
hence violating the antecedent government requirement on traces.
The absence of (significant) scrambling possibilities within NPs can be
derived by appealing to quite standard assumptions. Consider the following
contrast:
(26) a. ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u zayd-in camr-an
annoyed-me cntzczzmg-nom Zayd-gen Amr-acc
Zayd's criticizing Amr annoyed me.
b.* ( aqlaqa-nii camr-an ntiqaad-u zayd-in
annoyed-me Amr-acc criticizing-nom Zayd-gen
Different reasons can be advocated to rule out this construction. If NP is
an inherent barrier, and adjunction is limited to[- N] categories (as proposed
224 CHAPTER 5
in Chapter 2), then the movement there is precluded. On the other hand,
if NP is not a barrier (on the assumption that all lexical projections are
not), then the structure can still be excluded if we assume that PossP is
of nominal nature, and that adjunction to nominal projections is not allowed.
One way or another, we derive the fact that ONS order, the counterpart
of OVS order which is permitted in clauses, is ruled out here. 15
Likewise, scrambling of the possessor to a postnominal position (to yield
NOS) is also excluded, as indicated by the ungrammaticality of (27):
(27) a.*? aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u camr-an zayd-in
annoyed-me criticizing-nom Amr-acc Zayd-gen
b. *?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u camr-in zayd-un
annoyed-me criticizing-nom Amr-gen Zayd-nom
In these constructions the possessor has been shifted to the right of the
object. The grammatical judgments are the same, whether the shifted subject
surfaces with Nominative or with Genitive, and whether the object surfaces
in Accusative or Genitive. It is possible to exclude (27) by assuming, as I
have done earlier, that the adjunction to PossP (to the right), which is needed
to shift the subject, is not licit. 16
The structure in (21) seems then to account for the distributional and
movement possibilities in nominal phrases. It suggests that the DP system
is parallel to that of IP. The introduction of an AGR node in the structure
of possessives is not without motivation. It is realized as 'rich' AGR in
possessive constructions in Hungarian, Chamorro, and Turkish, for example
(encoding number and person features). In contrast, AGR in Arabic is
limited to the poor option. 17
There are problems, however, which cast doubt on the adequacy of
(21). First, in a number of languages (including Hungarian and Chamorro),
DP can be shown to be higher than AGRP, rather than the other way around,
suggesting that DP parallels CP, not IP. Second, in languages (like
Hungarian) in which an overt rich agreement is present, both NSO and SNO
structures are possible, but the possessor in NSO is in Spec of AGR at
S-structure, not Spec of DP. Third, the possessor and the article are not in
complementary distribution in these languages, nor does the possessor agree
in Definiteness with the possessee. Fourth, the extraction of the possessor
NP is allowed. In the following subsections I compare the Hungarian and
Chamorro type of languages (which have the properties mentioned) with
Arabic and English (which do not). I argue that the DP inflectional system
mirrors that of CP, and that the two types of languages have basically the
same nominal inflectional structure, except that AGRP in the Arabic and
English type appears to play no (significant) syntactic role.
1.6. Agreement in Definiteness Parametrized

Agreement in Definiteness between the two members of the possessive con-
struction discussed earlier is true of some languages (e.g. Arabic and
English), but not others. For example, Chamorro, a VSO Austronesian
language (described by Chung, 1990b ), does not have this property. In order
to construct a definite possessive in this language, both nouns have to be
marked as definite, as in (28):
(28) i kumplianos-na i Impiradot
the birthday-3.s. the Emperor
The Emperor's birthday.
When only the possessive is marked as definite, the whole nominal con-
stituent functions as indefinite. This can be seen by using it in an existential
context, as in (29b), which excludes definite noun phrases:
(29) a. guaha kareta-nniha i famalaoan
INFL(s)-exist car-3.pl. the women
There were cars of the women (the women had cars).
b.* guaha i famalaoan

!NFL( s )-exist the women
* There were the women.
Likewise, there is no complementary distribution between the possessor and
the article in Hungarian. Both the article and the possessor occur in the
possessive construction, as (30) illustrate (these examples are from
Szabolcsi, 1989):
(30) a. A te-O titk-od
the you-nom secret-Poss.2.s.
Your secret.
b. A Peter hang-ja
the Peter-nom voice-Poss.3.s.
Peter's voice.
c. Peter-nek a hang-ja
Peter-dat the voice-Poss.3.s.
Peter's voice.
These data show that there is no cross-linguistic complementary distribu-
tion between possessors and articles. Recall that in order to capture this
distribution in English, articles used to be treated as specifiers of NPs in
the standard account, and this was seen as one of the important advan-
226 CHAPTER 5
tages of the latter. 18 But this treatment cannot extend to bnguages like
Chamorro and Hungarian, nor in fact to Romance languages (where the
article and the possessor cooccur, as we will see).
Note incidentally that interpretively, the possessor is distinct from the
article. In Higginbotham's (1985) thematic theory, for example, the article
saturates (via binding) an open position in N (an E position a la Davidson,
or an R position a la Williams, 1981). But the possessor bears a relation
R to N, which is different from E (or R of Williams). Thus although
Higginbotham treats syntactically the article as a specifier of NP, he has
to state the relation of the article to the noun and the relation of the
possessor to the noun as two different interpretive relations, as shown in
(31) (see Higginbotham, 1983):
(31) [the x: N (x) & R (x, NP)]
In (31 ), the article is binding the position x in N (the equivalent of the
Davidsonian E), and R is establishing a relation between x and another
NP. Suppose R is a theta role relation (borne by Pass), i.e. Pass' theta-marks
NP, as I have suggested, then R cannot be equated with the function of
operator that the article is performing. 19
1.7. Extraction of NP Possessors

Another difference between languages like Arabic and English, and lan-
guages like Hungarian and Chamorro is that the latter allows possessor
extraction, unlike the former. Hungarian allows quite freely possessor extrac-
tion, as the following examples (from Szabolcsi, 1989) indicate:
(32) Peter-nek akarom bogy halljad a hang-jat
Peter-dat. want-/ that hear-you the voice-poss.3.s.acc
Peter, I want you to hear the (his) voice.
(33) Ki-nek akarod bogy halljam a hang-jat
who-dat. want-you that hear-/ the voice-poss.3.s.acc
Who do you want me to hear the (his) voice?
Similarly, Chamorro also allows this extraction, although it is not as
free as in Hungarian, as we will see. The following example is from Chung
(1990b):
(34) Hayi un-yulang [munika-na t]
who lnfl (2s)-break doll-Agr (3s)
Whose doll did you break?
Interestingly enough, the possibility of extraction in Hungarian correlates
with other facts. Hungarian has two possessive constructions, with dif-
ferent orders and different cases. The possessor may either precede or follow
the article. When the possessor is after D, it must bear Nominative case,
which is assigned under Spec-Head agreement with AGR (at S-structure).
When the possessor precedes D, then it must bear dative case, which we
assume to be assigned by D, under Spec-Head agreement with D (compare
(30b) and (30c) above). In contrast, the extracted possessor can bear only
Dative case, not Nominative, as the following examples show:
(35) Akarom bogy halljad a · Peter hang-ja-t
want-! that hear-you the Peter-nom voice-poss.3s.acc
I want you to hear Peter's voice.
(36) *Peter akarom bogy halljad a hang-ja-t
Peter-nom want-! that hear-you the voice-poss.3s.acc
Peter, I want you to hear (the) his voice.
These facts provide a motivation for hypothesizing that AGR and D are
playing separate roles in Case assignment in Hungarian. Moreover, they
show that possessor extraction has taken place from Spec of DP, and not
Spec of AGRP. There are no facts of this kind in Arabic or English.
1.8. Deriving the Variation
How can we account for this variation between the two types of languages?
I will pursue the idea that the structure of noun phrases is identical in
both types. The variation can be captured either (a) in terms of the absence
vs. presence of some functional projections, or (b) the content of these
projections (correlated with morphological differences between languages).
The latter solution is more compatible with our general strategy which
minimizes phrase structure differences between languages.
In order to execute this solution I rely on differences between AGR
and D systems in languages. I claim that the properties of these systems
regulate NP raising and possessor extraction. Only languages with mor-
phological Spec-Head AGR agreement allow internal NP raising. They
also allow (potential) extraction of possessor NPs, the properties of the D
system permitting. A prototypical instance of languages with NP raising
at S-structure and extraction is Hungarian. An instance of non-NP raising
at S-structure and non-extraction is Arabic.
Let us suppose that the inflectional structure of DPs has three layers,
DP, AGRP, and PossP. The possessor is generated in Spec of Poss, assuming
that it is licensed there by thematic principles. It can then raise to Spec
of AGR, at S-structure, and stop there. Because DP is higher than AGRP,
the Hungarian (30b) is generated. The possessor there is Nominative, and
Case checking will require it to be a sister of AGR at S-structure. The
possessor may also raise higher, to Spec of D. The case it receives there
is different, as (30c) illustrates. I assume that Dative in this context is
228 CHAPTER 5
assigned under Spec-Head relation. The Spec-Head D relation is checked

at S-structure in Hungarian. This relation, which can be thought of as an
instance of an (abstract) agreement, licenses NP raising to Spec of D at
S-structure. As for extraction of the NP higher (to Spec of C, for example),
it is legitimate because the movement is licensed in every local step, and
no principles or rules are violated (in particular, ECP).
Let us tum now to Arabic and English. Possessor extraction is not allowed
in either language. In Arabic, NP raising is not possible, as has already been
established. This option is barred by the AGR Criterion in the following
way. Arabic has no rich AGR, and it may or may not project a syntactic
AGRP in nominal expressions. If AGRP is projected, then no raising is
licensed, in conformity with the AGR Criterion. But if AGRP is not
projected, then NP raising to Spec of D (at S-structure) can be blocked
only if we assume that D counts as a poor head, and that the AGR Criterion
extends to it (although in an abstract way). One way or another, NP raising
to Spec of D in Arabic (but not Hungarian) is not legitimate. Since the
passage through Spec is not allowed, any extraction would lead to viola-
tion of standard principles (ECP, Subjacency, and Minimality). I shall return
later on to the issue of whether AGRP is or is not projected in Arabic,
although I assume from now on that it is.
Turning to English, let us suppose that it shares with Arabic the property
that its possessor stays in PossP at S-structure. The difference between
the two languages is that English has no N to D raising at S-structure. We
know this because the article is not affixal in English. If that is true, then
any extraction of the possessor in English will yield an ECP violation.
Thus we can derive the fact that non-agreeing type languages (in the
intended sense), such as English and Arabic, do not allow possessor extrac-
tion. Note that the latter property correlates with the absence of NP raising.
That English has no possessor extraction and no NP raising is illustrated
by (37) and (38), respectively: 20
(37) * Who(se) did you read book?
(38) a.* The city's destruction of

b.* Marlyn's portrait of
If the possessor does not raise at S-structure, how does it receive Case?
I have excluded as inadequate the idea that Genitive Case is assigned by
N or by Poss. If we assume either that there is no AGR around in these
English possessives, or that there is a null AGR, but it is not able to Case
mark, then the only remaining option is that Genitive is assigned/checked
through D. Let us then assume that D assigns Genitive to the Possessor.
If the suitable configuration is Spec-Head, then the latter obtains only at LF,
assuming that the possessor must raise to Spec of D at LF (as originally
proposed in Fassi Fehri, 1987a). The possessor would then receive only
an LF-visible Case. We know that it is an LF 'agreement' because the

possessor has to move to Spec of D for another reason. Recall that D is
empty (and in fact, must be empty, as we will see). I assume that it has
no Definite feature at S-structure. If D is not specified for definiteness,
then the DP constituent will stay 'open', and hence cannot be interpretable
as an argument, under the assumption that only saturated constituents are
interpretable as arguments. The structure is then rejected by the Theta
Criterion. Since the possessor moves at LF to Spec of D, it will provide
the necessary features for D to be specified (as a last resort to save the struc-
ture). Another possibility is that D has features, and there is an agreement
checking mechanism to ensure feature sharing. It is by virtue of this agree-
ment that D Case marks the possessor.
Then what about the complementary distribution of the article and the
possessor? If D is filled at S-structure, then the only reason left for the
possessor to raise to Spec of DP (in both Arabic and English) is Case. If
articles in Arabic and English are not agreeing elements, then they cannot
license NP raising at S-structure. If they are inserted at S-structure, and
NP raising occurs at LF, the result will presumably be rejected for agree-
ment reasons. In other words, I claim that if a formant does not agree at
S-structure (and/or license NP raising), it cannot agree at LF (and/or license
NP raising). The structure is then rejected by Case theory. A consequence
of this view is that only empty elements can agree at LF, because only empty
elements can receive (semantic) specification at LF. 21
Note that AGR agreement between the possessor and the head noun
does not (necessarily) correlate with D agreement. Interestingly, Chamorro
has an AGR agreement with possessors, but does not allow agreement
with D filled by an article. Consequently, the language does not allow any
extraction of the possessor of the kind allowed by Hungarian, as the ungram-
maticality of the following example indicates: 22
(39) *Hayi mas maolik [memorias-mu t]
who most lnfl(s).good memories-Agr (2s)
Who do you have the best memories of?
(Literally: Who are your memories of t the best?)
Chamorro, however, does allow possessor extraction when the head noun
is indefinite, as shown by the grammaticality of (34) above, repeated here
as (40):
(40) Hayi un-yulang [munika-na t]
who lnfl (2s)-break doll-Agr (3s)
Whose doll did you break?
Note that in Chamorro, indefinites have no articles, as in Arabic. I inter-
pret the contrast between (39) and (40) as indicating that when the head
230 CHAPTER 5
D is empty, Spec-Head agreement can take place. The extraction is thus

not blocked by ECP. 23
If extraction is allowed with an empty D in Chamorro, why can't it be
allowed in Arabic? That is, why can't the moving NP escape through the
Spec of empty Din constructions like (22) and (23) above, or (41):
(41) *man zur-ta daar-a
who visited-you house-ace
*Who did you visit house?
If an empty D licenses the movement in the Chamorro example (38), then
nothing will stop the same licensing mechanism to allow movement through
Spec of D in Arabic. I think that the difference between Chamorro and
Arabic (with respect to extraction possibilities) can be derived only if we
assume that AGR is also projected in Arabic DPs, and that AGR is checked
at S-structure. AGR will then assume the role of blocking NP raising to
Spec of AGR, and precluding any further NP movement. The same obser-
vation carries over to English. If the English possessor NP (in e.g. John's
book) were to reach Spec of D, then nothing would stop its extraction
from there (yielding the ungrammatical *Who did you see book?). This
suggests that AGRP has to be projected in Arabic and English nominal
phrases. Being poor or null, it blocks NP raising and extraction through
Spec of D (via Spec of AGR).
Summarizing, I have managed to link together a number of properties
of nominal expressions which do not seem to correlate at first glance. The
analysis adopted has explored different agreement and Case properties of
languages. It is based on a universal schema for inflectional nominal struc-
ture like (42):
(42) DP
~
D'
~
D AGRP
~
AGR'
~
AGR PossP
~
Poss'
~
Poss NP
I
N
These results will be systematically analyzed in the next subsection.
1.9. Typological Classes of Agreement
Building on these observations it is now possible to define four classes of

languages (in fact of constructions within languages) depending on their
agreement properties in the AGR and D systems, by using two features
(AGR, D), with two values (+ or-). I will use the positive value of AGR
or D to characterize a morphology which manifests a 'rich' realization of
one feature or the other at S-structure, and a negative value for 'poor' or
null realization. A taxonomy using these features will yield the following
classes:
(43) a. [+ AGR, + D]
b. [+ AGR,- D]
c. [- AGR, + D]
d. [- AGR,- D]
Hungarian is an instance of class (43a), English and Arabic instantiate (43d),
and Chamorro (43b). It is hard to tell whether there is a language of type
(43c). Such a language would have an agreeing D and a non-agreeing AGR.
If the structure (42) is universal, then we predict that the existence of type
(43c) is excluded in principle because D checking can take place at
S-structure only if AGR checking can do so.
At any rate, our typology (which is based on existing morphological
triggers in languages) accounts for the facts and variation which have been
examined. It builds on an idea which can be traced back to Abney's (1987)
work on English DPs, as well as extensions of the same idea due to Rizzi
(1990). In order to account for the complementary distribution between
the possessor and the article in English, Abney assumes that Genitive is
assigned by (an empty) AGR, generated under D (in the same way that
sentential AGR is generated under I). When Dis filled by an article, no AGR
can occur there, by virtue of the following condition:
(44) AGR in D does not occur with lexical determiners.
The condition (44) precludes the configuration for Genitive assignment when
an article is present. In Abney's theory, the complementary distribution
between the possessor and the article in English is translated into a comple-
mentarity between the occurrence of (empty) AGR and that of lexical D.
On the other hand, Rizzi (1990) has established a parallel to this
situation in the domain of CP. He observes that when C is filled by a com-
plementizer (in English), there is no agreement between C and its Spec,
and government is blocked by the intervening head C. Thus given the
requirements of government, the [that t] Filter can be derived from ECP,
assuming a rule for C like (45), which, in essence, parallels the condition
(44):
(45) C ~ {that, AGR}
232 CHAPTER 5
The doubly filled Camp Filter can be derived in the same fashion (see Rizzi,
1990 for other details).
The analysis proposed derives the effects of Abney's condition as well
as Rizzi's rule, while accounting for a wide variation among languages,
and correlating a number of observed properties. It also corroborates the
conclusion reached by other researchers (although with different motiva-
tion): that D in the nominal system is parallel to C, at least in some
languages (see Horrocks and Stavrou, 1987; Horrocks, 1987; and Szabolcsi,
1989; who argue that Spec of D is an 'escape hatch'). The parallelism
between D and C has been generalized here to all languages, and the
escape hatch property derived, rather than stated.
To sum up the results of this section, I have analyzed how distribu-
tional, Case, thematic, agreement, definiteness, as well as extraction (and
scrambling) characteristics of Arabic nominal phrases can be accounted for.
I have shown that Arabic instantiates N raising to D at S-structure, although
it does not instantiate Spec to Spec DP raising nor extraction of DP
possessors. These limitations have been attributed to poorness of AGR
and D. In contrast, languages with rich AGR and D do not exhibit these
limitations. On the other hand, it has been argued that Genitive is
licensed/checked in Spec of D at LF. The agreement in Definiteness between
the possessor and the possessee has also been analyzed. Finally, three
functional layers have been motivated in the structure of DPs, including
PossP. DP Possessors are base generated and theta marked in Spec Pass.
In the next section I examine the internal structure and properties of deverbal
process nominals (ma$dars), and how they behave with respect to the
mechanisms involved in the derivation of ordinary noun phrases analyzed
in this section.
2. MA~DARS AND THEIR FORMATION
In this section I investigate various properties of ma~dars, in particular

categorial, Case, thematic, and order shifting properties. Ma~dars are
nominals formed from a verbal source to express a process (or event), or
a result. Compared to English, a ma~dar can be a gerund, a (nominal)
infinitive, or a derived nominal. A brief comparison between ordinary
nominals and ma~dars reveals that their structures and properties differ in
a number of ways, but also share a common core of features. The internal
structure of ma~dars exhibits verbal properties, whereas their external
structure is nominal. Ma~dars, like verbs, assign Accusative to their objects,
select (and theta mark) the same complements that the verb selects, and take
adverbial modifiers. By contrast, ordinary nominals do not assign Case,
do not select or subcategorize for argumental complements, and take only
adjectives (or relative clauses) as modifiers. On the other hand, ma~dars
share with ordinary nominals the distributional property of occurring where
arguments (not predicates) occur. They function as subjects, objects, prepo-

sitional objects, etc. They can carry determiners (including articles and
demonstratives), head genitive possessives, etc. 24
How, then, can we distinguish ma~dars from 'ordinary' nominals, and
unify them at the same time? How can we treat ma~dar constructions
which have different properties? Combinatorial, thematic, and other
properties of ma~dars will only receive an appropriate account once we have
figured out how they are formed, and what their (different) internal
structures consist of. Suppose the ma~dar is a verb (i.e. a verbal root)
which is converted to a noun at different layers of the tree, depending on
its categorial properties. To form a ma~dar, a verbal root has to merge
with a ma~dar affix. In this view, the ma~dar is a syntactically derived entity
(not a basic one), in the same way that inflected verbs and active or passive
participles are. Unlike the latter categories, however, which have either a
unique form or few forms, ma~dars have a subtantial number of forms.
Further research is needed to determine morphological subregularities and
semantic/aspectual classes of verbs which take one form or the other. 25
But the variety of ma~dar forms does not prevent us from hypothesizing
an abstract affix. I label the latter E-af (E for event). The affix nominal-
izes the consonantal verbal base by a regular affixation process. Actual
phonological forms of ma~dars require various morphological and phono-
logical rules, but the situation is equivalent to that of plural noun formation,
if not simpler. Different plural nominal forms are regulated by phonolog-
ical and (partially) semantic requirements, but only one (abstract) morpheme
of plural is postulated (see Appendix 1 to Chapter 2).
If this line of reasoning is correct, then we can investigate the syntactic
properties of different ma~dar constructions, leaving aside their variation
in form. A number of those properties will turn out to be properties of
the deverbalizing process. If the E-affixation converts a verb to a noun, then
it will have different effects, depending on the level of the tree at which
it takes place. Our analysis is inspired by the treatments of deverbaliza-
tion proposed by Abney (1987) and Sproat (1985b). 26 In Subsection 2.1 I
outline some significant properties of ma~dar constructions. In Subsection
2.2 I analyze the thematic properties of the E-affix. In Subsection 2.3 I
characterize the relevant levels of the structure at which the categorial
conversion takes place, and solve some problems for thematic and Case
assignment of ma~dar's subjects. In the last subsection I investigate the
requirements for pronominal affixation to process nominals.
2.1. Some Characteristics

Despite their diversity, ma~dar constructions have a unique external
categorial nature: that of noun phrases. They occur where regular NPs
occur, and are headed by a nominal which bears Case. However, their
234 CHAPTER 5
internal categorial nature is far from unique. Consider the following

examples:
(46) ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i 1-masruuc-a
annoyed-me cntzczzmg-nom the-man-gen the-project-ace
The man's criticizing the project annoyed me.
(47) ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i
annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man-gen
li-1-masruuc-i (=(2))
to-the-project-gen
In this pair of constructions the nominal expresses an event. In both cases
it appears with whatever arguments appear with a regular (inflected) verb.
It can also be modified by a manner adverb. These argumental properties
suggest that the ma~dar is internally verbal. The two ma~dar constructions
differ (minimally), however, in that the object receives Accusative in (46),
but Genitive in (47) (through a preposition). This suggests that the former
is more verbal than the latter. Transitive verbs assign Accusative to their
objects (directly), and their internal argument cannot be Case marked
through the li preposition.
In addition to differences in terms of Case and categorial properties,
ma~dars also differ in terms of their semantics. For example, (49) is
ambiguous between a process and a result interpretation, whereas (48) has
only the result interpretation. As a result the ma~dar in (48) is incompat-
ible with the occurrence of an adverb, but this is not so in (49):
(48) ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u-hu (*bi-siddat-in)
annoyed-me criticizing-nom-his (with-violence-gen)
His criticism (*with violence) annoyed me.
(49) ?aqlaqa-nii 1-intiqaad-u (*bi-siddat-in)
annoyed-me the-criticizing-nom (with-violence- gen)
The criticizing (with violence) annoyed me.
Further tests for distinguishing process from result nominals will be
examined later on. 27
Another important difference between ma~dars has to do with thematic
preservation. Some ma~dars preserve the thematic structure of the verb,
whereas others do not. Thematic preservation is not a property of all process
nominals, as the contrast between (46) and (49) shows. In (46), the ma~dar
has no object and no subject, although it is interpreted as a process nominal
(at least in one reading). We will see how the thematic preservation require-
ment can be reconciled with these facts.
2.2. On the Thematic Properties of the Affix

An important question in characterizing ma~dar formation is the following:
what is the semantic/thematic contribution of the affix to the thematic
structure of the word? Let us start with process nominals. Suppose that
the ma~dar affix selects a thematic position which is discharged under
thematic identification (a la Higginbotham, 1985 and 1986) with a position
in the theta grid of the verbal base. The question then is: what position
does the affix identify? A reasonable candidate is the E position. Traditional
grammarians have argued that the ma~dar can refer to an event (l.zadat),
but not to an individual or a thing (qaat). Only 'pure' nouns can refer to
things or individuals. Ma~dars like (47) name events and as such, are
modified by adverbs. The lexical entry of the ma~dar affix in these cases
can be the following:
(50) E-af: a. (af. (E))
b. (V, N)
The (a) part of the entry specifies the thematic structure of the affix, and
the (b) part the categorial conversion property. Given this lexical entry,
thematic discharge in process nominals like (47) will proceed as in (51),
irrelevant details omitted:
(51) DP(1*, 2*, E*)
~
D NP(1*,2*,E)
~
DP N' (1, 2*, E)
I~
rrajul N (1, 2, E) KP
~ ~
V (1, 2, Ei) N (Ei) li-1-masruuc
I
ntqd
I
[E-af.]
In this structure the ma~dar is taken to be verbal at the pre-X0 level, and
nominal at the X0 level. Since nouns do not assign Case to their comple-
ments, the fact that the latter are KPs, as in (51), is predicted. KP is a
constituent containing an internal Case marker which licenses the NP
there (as in Fukui and Speas, 1986). The E role carried by the affix is
identified with the E of the verbal base. It is discharged under binding by
D (as in Higginbotham, 1985). The other operations of thematic discharge
proceed through theta assignment.
Note that the selectional and thematic properties of the verb are preserved
here, and they are normally preserved with process nominals. This obser-
vation can be obscured, however, by the fact that the same nominal form
236 CHAPTER 5
can be used as a process or result nominal. Result nominals (whether

concrete or abstract) do not theta mark arguments, while process nominals
are usually assumed to do so (see Grimshaw, 1986; Anderson, 1983; and
Sproat, 1985b, among others). A number of other properties correlate
with the result/process distinction. For example, result nominals can be
conjugated in the dual or plural, but process nominals cannot, hence the
ungrammaticality of (52b):
(52) a. ctiraaf-aat-u-hu gayr-u muqnicat-in
confessing-fpl.-nom-him not-nom convincing-gen
His confessions are not convincing.
b.* tamm-at ctiraaf-aat-u-hu bi-g-ganb-i
happened-! confessing-fpl.-nom-him with-the-crime-gen
His confessions of the crime have taken place.
c. tamma ctiraaf-u-hu bi-g-ganb-i
happened confessing-nom-him with-the-crime-gen
His confession of the crime has taken place.
He came to confess the crime.
Result nominals can be conjugated in diminutive forms, but process
nominals cannot:
(53) a. haagaa nuqayd-un gariib-un
this criticism.diminutive-nom strange-nom
This is a (little) strange criticism.
b.* nuqayd-u zayd-in hind-an gariib-un

criticism.diminutive-nom Zayd-gen Hind-ace strange-nom
Zayd's (little) criticism of Hind is strange.
Process nominals, but not result nominals, can be complements in a struc-
ture of control:
(54) a. Q.aawala r-rajul-u t-tacbiir-a can ra?y-i-hi
tried the-man-nom the-expressing-ace on view-gen-his
The man tried to express his view.
b.* i).aawala r-rajul-u t-tacaabiir-a
tried the-man-nom the-expressions-ace
*The man tried the expressions.
Result but not process nominals can be preceded by demonstratives:
(55) a. haagaa 1-ictiraaf-u gariib-un

this the-confession-nom strange-nom
This confession is strange.
b. l}aawala (*haagaa) 1-ictiraaf-a
tried this the-confessing-ace
He tried (*this) to confess.
These tests (and others) enable us to distinguish result from process
nominals. But how are the contrasts to be derived? If the derivation of result
nominals is lexical, and that of process nominals syntactic, then their
thematic and Case differences can be derived in a quite standard way. Result
nominals will project as Ns in the early syntax, will have no Case marking
ability, and no thematic structure. If, on the contrary, even result nominals
are formed by a deverbalizing syntactic process (taking place at the lexical
xo level in the tree structure), then we have to solve the thematic problem.
That is, we have essentially to answer the question why the positions in
the theta grid of the verb do not percolate up the tree, as they do with process
nominals.
I think that this problem can be solved by appealing to properties of
the affix. In result nominals the masdar is simply a nominalizer, with no
argument structure, and no E position to discharge. In other words, the entry
for the ma~dar affix in this case is reduced to the (b) part of (50).
Consequently, no process of theta identification is involved, and no
percolation takes place. Affixation is limited only to category conversion. 28
Since result nominals have no argument structure it is not surprising that
they are modified like 'pure' nouns by adjectives (not adverbs), or that
they undergo whatever processes the latter undergo, like pluralization, for
example. In contrast, process nominals have an argument structure which
licenses verbal modifiers, and precludes pure nominal processes such as
pluralization.
Having reviewed a number of tests that enable us to distinguish result
from process nominals, let us consider again the internal argument test. It
is true that result nominals do not occur with 'internal' arguments. But is
the opposite also true? That is, is it possible to infer from the non-occur-
rence of arguments with a nominal that it is a result nominal? Some authors
have answered positively (see Anderson, 1983; Sproat, 1985b; and
Grimshaw, 1986, 1990). But this move is not supported by the Arabic
facts. The examination of the structure of Arabic process nominals shows
that internal arguments need not be present. This is true not only of deverbal
nominal correspondents to optionally transitive verbs like qatala/qatl 'to
kill/killing', ?akala/Pakl 'to eat/eating' etc., but also of almost any transi-
tive verbal base. Thus although it is odd to say (56), there is no oddity in
saying (57):
238 CHAPTER 5
(56) a. ntaqad-tu.
criticized-/
I criticized.
b. nabbah-tu
call.attention.past-1
I called (someone's) attention to.
(57) a. laa ?-uriidu 1-intiqaad-a
not /-want the-criticizing-ace.
I do not want to criticize.
b. ? -uriidu t-tanbiih-a faqatt

/-want the-calling.attention only
I want only to call attention (to the matter).
Examples (57) (and many others) indicate that it is possible to omit internal
complements of the verbal base, but the nominal is still interpretable as a
process. This suggests that the nominal is verbal at the pre-X 0 level, and
it has projected only the E position. The latter seems to be the only role
that the verb cannot 'omit', presumably because it is the role that the process
nominal is naming. All tests and diagnoses for process nominals examined
earlier apply to the nominal in (57). In particular, the nominal cannot
pluralize, or be modified by a demonstrative or an adjective:
(58) a.* ?-uriidu 1-intiqaad-aat-i
/-want the-criticizing-pl-ace
*I want the criticizings.
b.* ?-uriidu 1-intiqaad-a s-sadiid-a

/-want the-criticizing-ace the-violent-ace
*I want the violent criticizing.
c.*? -uriidu haagaa 1-intiqaad-a

/-want this the-criticizing-ace
*I want this criticizing.
In all these examples, the nominal occurs in a structure of control, and hence
has an argument structure. This is incompatible with pure nominal modi-
fication, such as modification by an adjective or a demonstrative (as in (58b)
and (58c)), or pure nominal conjugation such as pluralization, as in (58a).
It is compatible with adverb modification, however, as the grammaticality
of (59) shows:
(59) r-uriidu 1-intiqaad-a bi-labaaqat-in

/-want the-criticizing-ace with-courtesy-gen
I want to criticize with courtesy.
In this sentence the nominal is singular (the unmarked case) and it is
modified by a manner adverb, usually taken to be a modifier of the event.
If I am right, then, a crucial thematic difference between result and
process nominals is not the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the arguments
that the verb selects. It is essentially the presence or absence of the event
role in the theta grid of the nominal. Both the verbal base and the affix
project an E role, but the two Es have to be identified (with one another).
I assume that the verbal base projects only the E argument in this case,
and that no other arguments are projected. This looks like a real violation
of the Projection Principle. The latter requires theta positions in the theta
grid to be reflected in syntactic projections. Thus for every theta position
in the grid there must be a corresponding position at all levels of
syntactic representation (see Chomsky, 1981 ). In Section 4 I will propose
a revision of the Projection Principle which will accommodate these facts,
as well as similar facts in subject nominals.
2.3. Level of Category Conversion and Genitive Case

Ma~dars have been shown to differ in thematic properties, essentially,
depending on whether they express an event or a result. Event m~dars differ
with respect to their Case properties. Consider again the contrasting pair
of examples (46) and (47) above, repeated here as (60a) and (60b), respec-
tively:
(60) a. r aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i 1-masruuc-a
annoyed-me cnttcmng-nom the-man- gen the-project-ace
The man's criticizing the project annoyed me.
b. raqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i li-1-masruu"-i
annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man-gen to-the-project-gen
In order to account for differences between the members of the pair, I will
assume that ma~dar affixation applies at different levels of the tree. I have
proposed earlier that (60b) (= 47) has the structure shown in (51). In this
structure, the ma~dar is thematically and categorially verbal, but its
conversion to N takes place at a low level in the tree. Consequently, the
lexical head of the construction which projects it is N (not V), and no VP
is projected. As a corollary, the head has no Case marking capability, and
a Case marking preposition has to be inserted, to avoid a Case theory
violation.
240 CHAPTER 5
In contrast, the ma~dar in ( 46)/(60a) has a verbal Case marking

capibilty. It assigns Accusative to the object, whereas the subject is marked
as Genitive. In order to account for this 'mixed' behaviour I propose that
the ma~dar projects a VP structure. The V is nominalized only 'high' in
the tree, after it moves to merge with the E-affix heading a nominal
projection, as the diagram (61) shows:
(61) DP(l*, 2*, E*)
~
D NP
~
N VP(l *, 2*, E)
I~
[E-af.] DP V' (1, 2*, E)
I~
rrajul V (1, 2, E) DP
I I
ntqd 1-masruuc
At S-structure, the consonantal V head moves to N, to host the affix, and
it is only at this level that the structure is nominalized. N then moves to
D, to support the article, among other things. But, this difference aside,
the structures of the two constructions are alike. Genitive case is assigned
to the thematic subject by D in both cases, and their thematic structure is
basically the same.
There are a number of questions that arise with this approach: (a) is there
evidence that Accusative is assigned by V? (b) Is there a Poss projection
in the structure of ma~dars? (c) If the answer to (b) is positive, what role
does Poss play? These questions are addressed in the next subsection.
2.4. Accusative Case and the Pass Role
Consider the following contrast:

(62) a. ? aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i bi-stimraar-in
annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man- gen with-persistence-gen
haagaa 1-masruuc-a
this the-project-ace
The man's criticizing of the project with persistence annoyed me.
b. ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i 1-mustamirr-u
annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man- gen the-persistent-nom
li-1-masruuc-i
of-the-project-gen
The man's persistent criticizing of the project annoyed me.
In (62a), the deverbal noun is modified by an adverb, while in (62b) it is

modified by an adjective. It is worth noting, however, that the theme in
(62b) cannot be Accusative, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (63):
(63) *? aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i 1-mustamirr-u
annoyed-me criticizing-nom the-man-gen the-persistent-nom
1-masruuc-a
the-project-ace
*The man's persistent criticizing of the project annoyed me.
Why can the deverbal Accusative assigner not be modified by an adjec-
tive? If the lexical projection of the ma~dar in (62a) is a VP, and that of
(62b) a NP, the contrast can be derived, provided we assume that
adjectives modify only NPs, while VPs are modified only by adverbs.
Now consider the order in those structures. Observe that, in both cases,
the modifier occurs between the agent and the object, recalling one of
Emonds/Pollock's diagnostical tests of head movement. Suppose that the
modifier (whether adjectival or adverbial) is adjoined to the left of NP or
VP, as in (64):
(64) XP
~
Modifier XP
Then, in order to derive the right order, not only has N to move to D, as
I have explained earlier, but the 'agent' (if generated inside NP or VP)
must also move higher than the modifier, to yield the correct order. The
potential position where it surfaces is presumably Spec of Poss. Note,
however, that if the subject were to move from Spec of NP or VP to Spec
of Poss, then the chain created will receive two theta roles (Agent and Poss),
resulting in a theta Criterion violation. If that is true, then the only way
to avoid this problem is to assume that subjects of deverbal nouns receive
only Poss roles (compositionally). That suggests that the subject has not
been generated lower than the adverb, and then raised to Spec of Poss,
but that it has originated there. There are different ways to derive this
fact. One of them is to assume that external roles (among which is the
Poss role) are not discharged inside VP or NP, but only under government
by a functional category. 29
Summarizing, I have proposed that nominal conversion takes place either
at the V level, or at the VP (or V") level, giving rise to different catego-
rial properties. Result nominals are derived syntactically from a verbal
source at the xo level, but they differ from process nominals formed at
the same level in that the nominalizing affix has no argument structure. This
takes care of differences between result and process nominals, on the one
hand, and various process nominals, on the other hand. However, there is
242 CHAPTER 5
a more complicated case to solve: it concerns the structure of m~dars having

a thematic object marked with Genitive case.
2.5. Genitive Objects

Consider the following constructions, which seem to involve a thematic
object marked with Genitive: 30
(65) a. y-uriidu ntiqaad-a r-rajul-i
he-wants criticizing-ace the-man-gen
He wants to criticize the man.
b. y-uriidu ntiqaad-a nafs-i-hi
he-wants criticizing-ace self-gen-his
He wants to criticize himself.
In both constructions, the matrix verb controls the subject of the process
nominal (presumably a PRO), and the object surfaces with genitive case.
In (65b) the thematic object is reflexive, which suggests that the construction
cannot be a kind of passive. If it were, and the anaphor were a surface
subject, then it will not be bound in its governing category (i.e. the deverbal
DP containing it), thus yielding a violation of BT.
If the subject there is PRO, and the reflexive is a thematic object, how
does the latter receive Genitive case, and why can it not receive Accusative?
Suppose the internal structure of the nominal is verbal. That is, the
D-structure of the nominal in (65b) is something like (66), with unneces-
sary details omitted:
(66) DP
~
D NP
~
N VP
I~
[E-af.] DP V'
I~
PRO V DP
I
ntqd
I
nafsi-hi
In this structure, the subject and object are VP internal. At S-structure,
ntqd moves toN, then to D. As for argumental DPs, they may or may not
move at S-structure, depending on the level at which Case is checked/
assigned. Suppose Genitive is checked only at LF, as I have assumed earlier.
Suppose also that PRO is caseless, and that the thematic object has to
move to Spec of D at LF, to discharge Case assigned by D. Then nafs cannot
stay in situ, or the Case Criterion will be violated. That the reflexive
cannot stay in situ (and receive Accusative) is established by the ungram-
maticality of the following examples:
(67) a.* y-uriidu ntiqaad-a-n r-rajul-a
he-wants criticizing-ace the-man-ace
He wants to criticize the man.
b.* y-uriidu ntiqaad-a-n nafs-a-hu
he-wants criticizing-ace self-ace-his
He wants to criticize himself.
In the same vein, a NP with an article cannot occur in an accusative
configuration, as (68b) shows:
(68) a. tamma hadm-u 1-madiinat-i
achieved destroying-nom the-city-gen
The city's destruction has been achieved.
b.* tamma 1-hadm-u 1-madiinat-a
achieved the-destroying-nom the-city-ace
In order to account for the ill-formedness of (68b) and (67), I propose the
following condition on Case discharge:
(69) Object Case is discharged only if subject Case is discharged.
In essence, this condition prohibits predicates which discharge cases from
discharging the case of the object, without discharging that of the subject.
Given this condition, and assuming that PRO (being caseless) does not
absorb Genitive case, we can ensure that the thematic object in (65) will
surface in Genitive, not Accusative. 31
Another possibilty is that V is nominalized early in the derivation, at
the X 0 level, and projects only a NP structure. Then N (at the low level
of the tree) can be thought of as assigning Genitive to the object in situ.
That will solve the Genitive problem. There are other problems which
arise with this solution, however.
Consider the class of Genitive case assigners. Conceptually, Ds and
prepositions are relational, and seem to assign Genitive by virtue of this
property, but N is not. If N were a Genitive case assigner then it is diffi-
cult to see what would unify the class of Genitive assigners. Descriptively,
this option also raises problems. If Genitive were (directly) assigned by
N to its complement, and by D to its Spec, then we expect that, in the context
of a transitive N, two (directly) assigned Genitives would occur. The expec-
tation is not borne out. In the context of a derived nominal, for instance,
244 CHAPTER 5
only the subject is assigned Genitive (without the help of a preposition).

The thematic object can be marked as Genitive only by a preposition. This
is illustrated in (70):
(70) a. tamma hadm-u 1-caduww-i li-1-madiinat-i
achieved destroying-nom the-enemy-gen to-the-city-gen
The destruction of the city by the enemy has been achieved.
b.* tamma hadm-u 1-caduww-i 1-madiinat-i
achieved destroying-nom the-enemy-gen the-city-gen
The ungrammaticality of (70b) is not expected if N is a Genitive case
assigner. If both N and D were Genitive assigners, then double genitive
constructions like (70b) should be ruled in.
Another problem for this approach arises with respect to the comple-
mentary distribution of articles and possessors. As shown above, the
possessor can be case marked only if D is empty. The contrast in gram-
maticality between the following pair can then be accounted for by Case
theory:
b.* tamma 1-hadm-u 1-madiinat-i

achieved the-destroying-nom the-city-gen
However, if it were the case that Genitive was assigned by N to its
complement, independently of D, then nothing would rule out (71b). Thus
although D is filled, the nominal can assign Genitive to its complement.
Finally, consider the agreement in Definiteness between the possessor
and the possessee discussed above. Clearly, the same mechanism used
there has to extend to ma~dars, to account for the same agreement effects.
For example, relative modification shows that the head of the construc-
tion is definite in (72):
1-ladii xanata la-hu 1-caduww-u
the-that planned for-it the-enemy-nom
The city's destruction which has been planned by the enemy
has been achieved.
b.* tamma hadm-u 1-madiinat-i

xana\a la-hu 1-"aduww-u
planned for-it the-enemy-nom
The city's destruction *(which) has been planned by the enemy
has been achieved.
The construction (72a) contains a definite relative clause, whereas (72b)
contains an indefinite relative clause. Agreement in Definiteness is required,
hence the ill-formedness of (72b). In our system, the possessor has to be
Spec of D (at some level of the grammar, which I assume to be LF), both
to transmit Definiteness to the head, and to receive Genitive. If the Genitive
DP is a complement, however, then it is difficult to see how it can transmit
its Definite feature to the head noun.
I conclude, then, that both conceptually and descriptively, the Genitive
cannot be assigned by N. It is uniformly assigned by D to the DP in its Spec.
But this configuration for Genitive checking obtains only at LF for the
Arabic case, because AGR and D are not rich, and they do not license
DP raising to Spec of D at S-structure. Consequently, the genitive DP is
never located before the ma~dar. The ma~dar raises to D, leaving the genitive
DP behind it. On the other hand, ma~dar affixation operates at different
levels in the tree structure (subject to general principles of the grammar),
and it has different effects on Case and thematic structure, depending on the
level of category conversion.
2.6. Pronominal Possessives
Let us turn now to pronominal affixation. Consider the following examples:

(73) ?aqlaqa-n-ii ntiqaad-u-hu zayd-a-n
annoyed-me criticizing-nom-his Zayd-acc
His criticism of Zayd annoyed me.
(74) a.* (aqlaqa-n-ii ntiqaad-u-hu zayd-i-n
annoyed-me criticizing-nom-his Zayd-gen
Intended to mean: Zayd's criticism of him annoyed me.
b.* (aqlaqa-n-ii ntiqaad-u-hu zayd-u-n
annoyed-me criticizing-nom-his Zayd-nom
In (73) the pronominal affix is interpreted as agent, and the NP object as
theme. In (74) the theme is supposed to attach to the head noun, leaving
246 CHAPTER 5
the agent behind, but the result is ruled out. Whether the subject is marked
as Nominative or Genitive does not affect the judgment. The question, then,
is why affixation over a thematic subject is possible with inflected verbs,
as (75) shows, but is not possible with process nominal constructions
(above):
(75) ntaqada-hu zayd-u-n
criticized-him Zayd-nom
Zayd criticized him.
Note that, since the affixation process in (75) 'violates' the Specified Subject
Condition of Chomsky ( 1973), it is unlikely that the ungrammaticality of
(74) can be attributed to this condition.
There are two ways to derive the ungrammaticality of (74). The latter
can be construed either as a Case theory violation, or as an ECP viola-
tion. First, it is possible to think of (74) as a Case theory violation. If the
affix on the process nominal is Case marked as Genitive, then the only Case
left to assign is Accusative. Second, if the pronominal affix were to move
in one step to the head noun in D, then its trace will not be properly
governed, assuming that either NPs or PossPs are barriers. On the other
hand, the movement cannot proceed via adjunction to nominal projections,
by hypothesis.
Summarizing, I have discussed how various ma~dar constructions are
formed, as well as Case, thematic and argumental properties of ma~dar
affixes. In the next section I turn to investigating the characteristics of
analytic genitives.
3. THE PREPOSITIONAL STRATEGY AND ANALYTIC GENITIVES
In addition to regulating the distribution of NPs by using the Case/agree-

ment strategy discussed in connection with the Poss system (in so-called
synthetic genitives), languages make also use of prepositions (in so-called
analytic genitives) to regulate the occurrence and extraction of various
arguments in and out of NPs (including possessors). The analytic strategy
is found in many languages, including Romance, Germanic, and Arabic, but
with interesting and intricate differences. Although the agreement/Case
system and the prepositional system interact in interesting ways to derive
the distribution and movement of NP and P-NP, the two strategies have
different properties, as will be shown, and are regulated by quite different
principles and conditions. Whereas the Arabic system is essentially
synthetic, and makes a limited use of analysis, Romance languages are
almost completely analytic, and participate only marginally in the
synthetic system, as we will see. English, on the other hand, is mixed.
The hypothesis that Spec of Pass is used as an escape hatch with the analytic
strategy (e.g. in Romance) is called into question.
3.1. Arabic
Arabic makes use of prepositions as Case marks of NPs. The preposition
li, which has the same form as the dative one, may be used (as an alter-
native to accusative Case; see (73)) to Case mark the direct object of a
monotransitive deverbal predicate, as in the following construction:
(76) ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i li-1-masruuc-i
criticizing-nom the-man-gen to-the-project-gen
The man's criticism of the project.
The same form of the preposition is also used with a dative object of a
ditransitive predicate, as in (77):
(77) bay"-u r-rajul-i 1-kitaab-a li-zayd-in
selling-nom the-man- gen the-book-ace to-Zayd- gen
The man's selling of the book to Zayd.
I think, however, that the dative preposition is different from the 'objective'
one, although they have the same form. While the dative preposition is a
theta marker, the objective one is only a Case marker. Evidence for this
comes from the fact that the dative preposition cannot Case mark the first
object of non-dative ditransitive nominals. For example, with salb the
preposition used must be min, and cannot be li, as the following contrast
shows:
(78) a. salb-u zayd-in r-rajul-a maal-a-hu
depriving-nom Zayd-gen the-man-ace money-ace-his
Zayd's depriving the man of his money.
b.* salb-u zayd-in maal-a-hu li-r-rajul-i
depriving-nom Zayd-gen money-ace-his of-the-man-gen
Literally: Zayd's depriving his money of the man.
c. salb-u zayd-in maal-a-hu mina r-rajul-i
depriving-nom Zayd-gen money-ace-his from the-man-gen
Literally: Zayd's depriving from the man his money.
The preposition min theta marks the 'source', and the preposition li
the beneficiary or goal, hence the ungrammaticality of (78b). Note, by
way of comparison that the same case patterns obtain with inflected
verbs.
Another important difference between the two prepositions is that the
dative preposition occurs with verbal predicates, whereas the objective
preposition occurs only with nominal ones. Consider the following
examples:
248 CHAPTER 5
(79) baac·a li-r-rajul-i kitaab-an

sold-3.s.m. to-the-man-gen book-ace
He sold a book to the man.
(80) a.* ntaqad-a li-r-rajul-i
criticized-3.s.m. of-the-man-gen
He criticized (*of) the man.
b. ntaqad-a r-rajul-a
criticized-3.s.m. the-man-ace
He criticized the man.
Thus, in the presence of an inflected verb li can 'demote' a dative object,
but not a direct one. As a corollary, the objective preposition can be used
as a test to identify the categorial nature of the predicate head, because
only nominals can be used with the objective li.
Further support for this nominal character comes from an examination
of the following contrast:
(81) bay"-u r-rajul-i 1-kitaab-a li-zayd-in
selling-nom the-man- gen the-book-ace to-Zayd-gen
The man's selling of the book to Zayd.
(82) *bay"-u r-rajul-i zayd-an li-1-kitaab-i
selling-nom the-man- gen Zayd-acc of-the-book-gen
Why is (82) ungrammatical? If li were like any other preposition, (82)
should have been grammatical because the dative object there is marked
with the accusative, while the direct object is marked with li. I think that
(82) is ruled out because of 'categorial conflict'. The accusative on the dative
object requires the predicate to be verbal, but li requires a nominal governor.
There are two 'nominal' options for ditransitive verbs. Either the first object
is omitted, as in (83), or the two objects co-occur but are both case marked
with prepositions, as in (84):
(83) bay"-u r-rajul-i li-1-kitaab-i
selling-nom the-man-gen of-the-book-gen
The man's selling of the book.
(84) salb-u r-rajul-i li-1-kitaab-i min zayd-in
depriving-nom the-man-gen of-the-book-gen from Zayd- gen
Zayd's depriving the man of his book.
There is additional evidence for the thesis that li is a nominal objective
marker. The latter preposition cannot Case mark a possessor, as the
following contrast shows:
(85) a. daar-u r-rajul-i

house-nom the-man-gen
The man's house.
b.* d-daar-u li-r-rajul-i
the-house-nom of-the-man-gen
*The house of the man.
To the extent that (85b) is grammatical, it does not mean 'the man's house',
but 'the house is (belongs) to the man'.
Observe also that the preposition li can equally occur with object of
picture nouns, as in (86):
(86) saahad-tu ~uurat-a zayd-in li-hind-in
saw-/ picture-ace Zayd-gen of-Hind-gen
I saw Zayd's picture of Hind.
To complete the picture, consider the following example:
(87) salb-u zayd-in li-1-kitaab-i
depriving-nom Zayd-gen of-the-book-gen
Zayd's depriving of the book.
In this construction the gerundive nominal is interpreted as monotransi-
tive, Zayd being the subject and kitaab the object. It cannot be interpreted
as a 'passive' ditransitive, however, with Zayd as first object, and kitaab
as second object. That is, the interpretation cannot be the nominal coun-
terpart of the passive suliba zayd-un l-kitaab-a 'Zayd was deprived of a
book'. Then the question is: why is that interpretation excluded? I think that
the reason has to do with categorial conflict, as well as theta marking. If
the head of the thematic projection is V, then it theta-marks Zayd (and
case marks it as well), but the nominal governor which regulates the
occurrence of li is not available. If the head is N, as required by li, then
Zayd cannot be theta marked, on the assumption that nouns do not theta
mark their complements directly, but only via prepositions, as argued by
Emonds (1985). It is significant that when a preposition occurs with the first
object, as in (88), the result is grammatical:
(88) s-salb-u min zayd-in li-1-kitaab-i
the-depriving-nom from Zayd-gen of-the-book-gen
The depriving of the book from Zayd.
It appears then that the reason why the object cannot become subject of
the passive in (87) has to do with theta marking as well as Case marking.
If nouns cannot theta mark their objects directly, then the ditransitive inter-
pretation is ruled out for (87). Moreover, the view that the objective li
preposition must be governed by a nominal receives further support.
250 CHAPTER 5
Note that there is no change in grammaticality when the possessor is

'heavy', or when the possession is inalienable, or inanimate, as the following
examples show:
(89) * d-daar-u li-r-rajul-i llagii laqii-tu-hu
the-house-nom of-the-man-gen that met-1-him
1-baarii).at-a
yesterday-ace
The house of the man that I met yesterday.
(90) * 1-qawaa?im-u li-Haawilat-i
the-legs of-the-table
The legs of the table.
The translations of these sentences are good in English (see Giorgi and
Longobardi, 1987-1991), but the Arabic sentences are ungrammatical. The
English constructions have been derived by appealing to rightward
movement of the possessor (see Anderson, 1983 for details), but Arabic
lacks this kind of movement entirely.
Likewise, the Arabic constructions are not licensed by whatever
mechanism licenses the genitive possessor in post-verbal position in English,
as in (91):
(91) The book of John's.
Thus (85b) cannot be analyzed as a counterpart of (91). It seems, then,
that Arabic possessors (or agents) can be Case marked only by D, whereas
English possessors may be Case marked by the preposition (under quite
strict conditions).
But, these differences aside, English seems to pattern essentially like
Arabic in not allowing agents and possessors to be Case marked by of
For example, constructions like (92) have only the object reading, and
cannot have the subject one:
(92) a. The portrait of John.
b. The criticism of Mary.
Similarly, the following nominal phrase is ruled out, because the only
available reading with 'of' (the object reading) cannot be felicitous in this
case:
(93) *The house of John.
However, languages like Arabic and English contrast sharply with
Romance languages. Typically, the latter allow with prepositions deldi
readings that are not allowed with li or of As will be shown, this distrib-
utional difference of Case marking prepositions can be derived in a
principled way. 32
3.2. Romance
Consider the following examples from French:
(94) Le portrait de Marie de Rembrandt.
the portrait of Mary of Rembrandt
Rembrandt's portrait of Mary.
(95) Le portrait de Rembrandt de ce collectionneur.
the portrait of Rembrandt of this collector
This collector's portrait by Rembrandt.
As argued by Milner (1977-1982) for French, Cinque (1978-1980) and
Giorgi and Longobardi (1987-1991) for Italian, and Torrego (1988) for
Spanish, there is a hierarchical structure of de-di NPs in Romance, where
the possessor is generated higher than the agent, which is in tum higher than
the theme, according the following hierarchy:
(96) Poss < Agent < Theme.
On the other hand, a NP like (97) is three way ambiguous, unlike the
situation I have described for Arabic and English:
(97) Le portrait de ce collectionneur.
The portrait of this collector
This collector's portrait.
Observe that there are two problems here: theta marking and Case marking
(see Emonds, 1985). The differences with Arabic (and English) can be
described by stating that the preposition is inserted only between N and
its sister complement in Arabic, but extend to complement of N' and of
Poss' in Romance. That is, I assume the following structure for Romance
NPs:
(98) DP
~
D PossP
I~
le Poss' de ce collectionneur
~
Poss NP
I~
portrait N' de Rembrandt
~
N de Marie
I
e
252 CHAPTER 5
In this structure, the head noun has moved to Poss, and NPs are gener-
ated as complements of N, N', and Pass', respectively, in conformity with
the hierarchy in (96). Given this structure, the conditions under which the
preposition is inserted appear to be uniform: it is inserted under head gov-
ernment by N or any of its extended projections in the sense of Grimshaw
(1991). 33 The alternative will be that these positions are Spec positions to
the right (as in Torrego, 1988, and Giorgi and Longobardi, 1991). I return
to this problem later on, but it is tempting, in order to account for the
distribution of of prepositions in a uniform manner to take these NPs to
be simply Comp(lement)s, not Spec(ifier)s.
Given the differences outlined, the question is: why can't Arabic (and
English) prepositions have the same distribution? Why can't the preposi-
tion be inserted higher in the tree, just like the Romance one? There is
another set of differences between the Arabic and Romance D systems
which, if correlated with the prepostion marking system, can help us
characterize the variation described. As I have explained earlier, Arabic (and
English) Genitive is assigned via agreement with D. In Romance, by
contrast, there is no (straightforward) sense in which D can be taken as
assigning Case to the possessor (or the agent). First, there is no agree-
ment in Definiteness between the possessor and the possessee, as the
following example shows:
(99) Le chapeau d'un gar9on.
Second, there is no complementary distribution between the possessor and
the article. Third, there is no evidence for NP raising in NP, be it at
S-structure, or at LF.
These properties differ from those of the Arabic system. In the latter,
D is involved in Case marking and agreement, as I have explained. Suppose
that D in Arabic possessive constructions is a Case assigner (or has a Case
to discharge), whereas Romance D is not. Suppose, too, that of insertion
is a last resort Case mechanism. Then a language can make use of this
mechanism only when no other Case mechanism is available. Since Genitive
case is available for Arabic (and English) through D, then that mecha-
nism has priority over the of one, thus accounting for the ungrammaticality
of (89), (90), and (93). Note that the preposition is a 'Case sign', not a
Case assigner (as in Pollock, 1989b and Borer, 1983). Consequently, it
has to be licensed by a functional category. The licensing category may
be AGR or D in Romance, but we may speculate that these categories do
not prepositionally license case-marked NPs in Arabic (and English) when
they are empty. The latter solution seems to be more attractive than that
which limits insertion of prepositions, without correlating it with other
properties of D and AGR in the nominal system.
As it turns out, this solution makes the right predictions for further data
in Arabic. Possessors can be Case marked by li when the head noun is

indefinite. Consider the following sentences:
(100) saahad-tu ~uurat-an li-zayd-in
saw-/ picture-ace of-Zayd-gen
I saw a picture of Zayd's.
(101) qarar-tu kitaabayni li-1-caqqaad-i
read-/ book-dual of-1-Aqqaad-gen
I read two books of al-Aqqaad.
In (101), the complement of the preposition is the writer (or the 'subject'),
while in (100) it is either the subject or the object. This indicates that the
preposition can Case mark the subject when no article is filling the D
position. Furthermore, there is no agreement between the possessor or agent
and the head noun in this construction, indicating that the former does not
raise to Spec of D at LF. Since there is no D agreement in this case, and
N has raised to D, the preposition is inserted before the possessor, the agent,
or the patient, to save this structure, in the same way that de/di is inserted
in Romance.
It is interesting that li can be inserted on possessors only when the head
of the construction is indefinite. That suggests that either there is no D in
these constructions, or if there is one, it does not have to agree. Since
there is no agreement, there is no Case available, and every NP can receive
Case from li in complement position. This mixed system, available for
Arabic (and English, although in slightly different ways) is not available for
Romance. Our assumption, then, is that Romance languages lack the AGR
system in D. This seems to run counter to the (repeated) proposal in the
literature that Romance extraction operates through Specs, and that ECP
is observed because there is a local agreement that enables antecedent
government to proceed as desired (see e.g. Rizzi, 1990, among others). In
the next subsection, I turn to the problem of extraction, and argue that extrac-
tion of NPs which are Case marked by prepositions is regulated by different
principles than those regulating Case marked possesives.
3.3. Extraction
As is well known, extraction of de-NP from within NPs is possible in
French, although it appears to be subject to the following limitation (on
this matter, see Ruwet, 1972; Milner, 1977-1982; Pollock, 1989b; and
Godard, 1990):
(102) Only de-NP which can surface as a possessive pronoun can be
extracted.
254 CHAPTER 5
The following examples (taken from Pollock, 1989b) illustrate this

condition:
(103) a. Mme de Pompadour, j'aime son portrait.
b. Mme de Pompadour, dont j' aime le portrait, defendait les arts.
(104) *Mme de Pompadour, j'aime son portrait de Chardin.
(1 05) * Mme de Pompadour, dont j' aime le portrait de Chardin, defendait
les arts.
In (103), the possessive pronoun can (ambiguously) refer to the subject
or the object of the painting. The relativization poses no problem in this
case. But given that the portrait is of Mme de Pompadour, and the painter
is Chardin, both (104) and (105) are ill-formed sentences. These judg-
ments can be accounted for if we assume that possessive pronominalization
and relativization observe the thematic hierarchy (96). Cinque (1978) and
Milner (1977) attempt to derive these facts by treating the possessive
pronoun as subject, and they postulate that Wh movement is subject to
the Specified Subject Condition (SSC). Chomsky (1973) has also analyzed
the following examples in the same way:
(106) Which city haven't you forgotten the destruction of?
(107) *Which city haven't you forgotten the Germans' destruction's of?
Wh movement has been shown since then to obey no SSC (see, e.g., Rizzi,
1982). Moreover, as observed by Pollock (1989b ), there are cases where
extraction from NP clearly violates SSC. Pollock provides the examples
(1 08a and b) (from Kuno, 1987), as well as (1 09) and (110):
(108) a. This is the story that I haven't been able to get Mary's version
of.
b. This is the event that I liked CBS's reporting of best of all.
(109) Which symphony do you hate Karajan's interpretation of?
(110) a. La symphonic dont j'aime !'interpretation de Karajan, c'est Ia
neuvieme.
b. L'histoire dont je n'ai jamais pu avoir Ia version de Marie, c'est
celle-Ht.
c. Les evenements dont j' ai apprecie le compte rendu du Monde,
c'est ceux-la.
Furthermore, Pollock observes correctly that there is no NP movement
(internal to NP) in English, and he proposes to rule out internal NP move-
ments like those in (Ill) as theta theory violations:
(lll)a. *The city's destruction of.
b.*Marilyn's portrait of.
Pollock then argues for a theory of extraction from NP in which Wh

movement is not mediated by Spec N' positions. His theory relies on an
extension of the notion of a 'segment of category' (proposed by Chomsky,
1986b), Frampton's (1987-1990) Head Government Constraint on
Adjunctions, assumptions about thematic properties of nouns, the thematic
hierarchy, as well as a reanalyzing rule of (under)specification for (English)
prepositions. The latter, formulated in (112}, enables Pollock to derive the
contrast between English and French, exemplified in (113):
(112) [-V, -N] ~ [-V, UN]
(113) a. Which politician did you vote against?
b.* Quel politicien votes tu contre?
Going into details of this analysis or others is beyond the scope of this
chapter. What is important, however, is that despite the very complexity
of the facts (on this matter, see especially Torrego, 1988), Pollock provides
a viable alternative to the 'escape hatch' theory of de-NP through Spec.
There are Arabic facts which support keeping the two strategies separate.
As we have seen, extraction of a synthetic genitive is totally impossible, but
extraction of li-NP is allowed in some contexts, but not others. For example,
the extraction over a definite head noun is impossible, but the extraction
over an indefinite possessor is possible:
(114) a. li-man saahad-ta ~uurat-a-n
of-who saw-you picture-acc-n
Of whom did you see a picture?
b.*?li-man saahad-ta (haagihi) ~-~uurat-a
of-who saw-you (this) the-picture-ace
Of whom did you see the picture?
(115) a. li-man qara?-ta maqaal-a-n can 1-?al)daat-i
of-who read-you article-acc-n on the-events-gen
Of whom did you read an article on the events?
b.*?li-man qara?-ta 1-maqaal-a can 1-?al)daat-i
of-who read-you the-article-ace on the-events-gen
Of whom did you read the article on the events?
These constructions can also have a sort of 'benefactive' reading which
slightly improves their grammaticality status. But, clearly, there is a sharp
contrast between the two pairs.
In the first pair, the extracted li-NP is an object of the head noun, and
in the second one a subject, but there is no difference in grammaticality
between the two pairs. The crucial factor is the presence vs. absence of
256 CHAPTER 5
the article on the head noun. When the article is present, extraction is
blocked. In the case of (115b), where the NP is the subject, we can derive
this result from Case theory by appealing to the 'elsewhere' requirement
advocated earlier, which forces the subject to pick the Genitive from D,
rather than from li. In the case of (114b ), if the extracted element is the
object of 'picture', the solution does not seem to carry over in a straight-
forward way. There are two options that are already available, and which
suggest themselves. The first one is to derive the ungrammaticality of (114b)
from Case theory, in the same way that we did for (85b). The second one
is to derive it from agreement theory. In both cases the extracted object
has to be treated on a par with a (derived) subject. The issue is whether it
escapes from a post-N position (call it Comp), or from a pre-N position (call
it Spec).
Note that, given the assumptions we have made so far, either alterna-
tive will be descriptively adequate. The question is only to favour one option
over the other. Suppose li-NP were to move through Spec of D, then we can
account for the ungrammaticality of (114b) as a result of the failure of
agreement between the article and the subject, as we did for other cases
discussed earlier. But a number of problems arise with this solution,
however.
First, if raising through Spec were allowed, then we are left with no
explanation of why neither li-NP nor genitive NP can surface in Spec.
That is why a construction like (24a), for example, repeated here as (116),
is excluded:
(116) * zur-tu r-rajul-i ?umm-a
visited-! the-man-gen mother-ace
*I visited the man's mother.
A surface filter to rule out this outcome can hardly be motivated. 34
A second problem arises with regard to extraction from indefinite noun
phrases. As observed earlier, li-NPs are extractable in this context, but
genitive NPs are not, as the ungrammaticality of the following example
indicates:
(117) *rajul-in btaraq-at daar-u
man-gen burned-! house-nom
*A man, a house burned.
A third problem arises with respect to scrambling. We have seen above
that scrambling of the different arguments in synthetic gentive constructions
is impossible, but it is possible with analytic li-NP:
(118) a. qara?-tu maqaal-an la-ka can 1-?abdaaH
read-! article-ace of-you on the-events-gen
I read an article of yours on the events.
b. qara?-tu maqaal-ayni can 1- ?al).daat-i

read-/ article-dual-ace on the-events-gen
li-~adiiq-i-ka
ofjriend-gen-you
I read two articles on the events of your friend.
These contrasts (and others) have no natural account if both Genitive
NP and li-NP use Spec as an escape hatch, and if extraction of li-NP is taken
to be licensed by agreement in AGR or D. On the other hand, if the 'one-
swoop' movement a la Pollock (1989b) were to derive the extraction in
analytic genitives, then it is hard to see how the idea that (114b) is ruled
out because li-NP is, in some sense, a derived subject there can be
implemented. Assuming the latter intuition to be correct, then only
'successive' cyclic movement will be suitable to derive the relevant effect.
Recall that, in order to exclude (85b), I had to appeal to a mechanism which
bars the co-occurrence of a definite head noun and a li-NP interpreted as
a subject. I have assumed that these constructions are ruled out because
li cannot be inserted as 'high' as the subject (at the Comp side). If the
extraction of the object is successive cyclic, then the object can become a
subject by appearing high enough to fall under the requirement which
prohibits the subject from occurring with the article. That complementary
distribution can then be captured by a 'Comp escape hatch theory', which
is different from a 'Spec escape hatch theory' .35
Note that a 'one swoop' movement a la Pollock (1989b) may still be
necessary for a language like English, which allows the extraction over a
definite article, as example (106) shows. These facts and others are too
complex, however, to be dealt with here in details.
It seems then that languages make different uses of the positions to the
left (Spec) or to the right (Comp). NPs which appear in Comp positions may
be (uniformly) Case marked by a preposition like of in English, li in Arabic,
or deldi in Romance. NPs which occur in Specs receive Case directly
(without the help of prepositions). The two subsystems of Case marking
in NPs interact in interesting ways, but only NPs which appear in Spec
can trigger Spec-Head agreement effects. Other effects are triggered by
post-head positions (or Comps) in ways which remain to be understood
in detail, but the two strategies have sufficiently distinct properties which
make them autonomous. The two strategies parallel traditional distinction
between synthetic and analytic genitives.
4. SUBJECT NOMINALS AND THE PROJECTION PRINCIPLE
In this section I investigate the structure of subject nominals, and the

problem posed by their derivation for the Projection Principle (PP). This
problem is similar to that raised earlier with regard to the projection of
258 CHAPTER 5
process nominals' arguments. Its solution requires a weak version of the

PP.
4.1. Subject Nominals
There are Arabic nominal forms which correspond roughly to the English
agent nominals formed by suffixing er to the verbal stem (as in driver).
These nominals have been misleadingly termed agent nominals by some
Western scholars (see e.g. Wright, 1951 ). As will become clear, however,
the role they name is not necessarily the agent (nor that of the actor, as
proposed by Marantz, 1984 and Sproat, 1985b for English). They simply
refer to the subject of an active verb. It is more appropriate to call them
subject (or active) nominals, after traditional grammarians. Their form is
identical to that of active participles (see Chapter 4). 36 Syntactically,
however, they are nouns, and their behaviour is close to that of English agent
nominals, although they differ from the latter in thematic characteristics,
as we will see. In this section I examine their essential properties, and
how they are derived.
4.1.1. Categorial Properties

Subject nominals have the external syntactic properties of ordinary nouns.
They take articles, are modified by adjectives, or constructed with a genitive
complement. They also carry Case. Consider the following examples:
(119) jaa? a qaatil-u s-saJ!lll-1
came killing-nom the-prisoner-gen
The killer of the prisoner came.
(120) saqata s-saa?iq-u 1-maahir-u
fell the-driving-nom the-skillful-nom
The skillful driver has fallen.
I have used the English (active participle) ing form in the gloss to
emphasize the fact that the Arabic affix there is (thematically) closer to
the latter than to the English er. Moreover, it has the same form that the
active participle has. In the following sentence, for example, the form
saa?iq is an active participle, and not a subject nominal:
(121) zayd-un saa ?iq-u-n s-sayyaarat -a
Zayd-nom driving-nom-n the-car-ace
Zayd is driving the car.
The properties of active participles have been examined in detail in Chapter
4. A number of contrasts between nominals and participles can easily be
established, despite the fact that the two categories are morphologically
indistinguishable. The participle has none of the combinatorial and
categorial properties illustrated by (119) and (120). In (119) the subject
nominal heads a genitive construction. It also inherits Definiteness from
the genitive NP, as in possessive constructions, although the genitive NP
is thematically a complement. Moreover, the subject nominal is assigned
Nominative by virtue of being subject, and not predicate (unlike the
participle). In ( 120), the subject nominal bears a definite article, and
functions exactly like any regular definite NP. Participles can also bear a
definite article (as adjectives do), but they function only as predicates.
On the other hand, the subject nominal in (120) is modified by an
adjective. It does not allow modification by (manner) adverbs, as shown
by the ungrammaticality of (122):
(122) *jaa? a
qaatil-u s-saJnn-1 bi-watlsiyyat-in
came killing-nom the-prisoner-gen with-brutality-gen
* [The killer of the prisoner brutally] came.
The construction ( 122) is deviant in the reading whereby the killing was
rapid, thus indicating that adverbial modification of subject deverbal nouns
is ruled out.
A further important nominal property of subject nominals is that they can
form broken plurals. The latter form of plurals is exclusively nominal, unlike
so-called sound plurals which can be adjectival as well as nominal. Thus
nominals like caamil 'working/worker', {iaabit 'officiating/officer', taajir
'trading/trader'' ~aanr 'making/maker' pluralize as cummal 'workers''
{iubbaat 'officers', tujjaar 'traders', ~unnaac 'makers, artisans', etc., when
taken as nouns. Broken plurals are non-concatenative. When taken as
participles, however, these forms concatenate with a plural suffix, forming
a 'sound form' (see e.g. Wright, 1974). Plurals of these forms are then:
caamil-uun 'working-pl.', {iaabit-uun 'controlling-pl.', taajir-uun 'trading-
pl.', ~aanic-uun 'making-pl.', etc. In fact, the plural number is part of the
AGR marker heading the participle construction (as has been argued in
Chapter 4). These properties (and others) can be used to test whether the
form is nominal or participial/adjectival.
Now consider some properties that seem to push in the other direction,
i.e. to distinguish these forms from ordinary nouns. First, subject nominals,
unlike ordinary nominals, may assign accusative Case to their second object
(the first being marked as Genitive), as in the following example:
(123) jaa?a waahib-u s-saJnn-1 1-maal-a
came donating-nom the-prisoner-gen the-money-ace
The donor of the money to the prisoner came.
Second, subject nominals exhibit dative alternations. The dative object
260 CHAPTER 5
can be marked with Genitive, and the direct object with accusative, as in
(123), or the direct object is marked with Genitive, and the dative object
marked with the dative li preposition, as in (124):
(124) jaa?a waahib-u 1-maal-i li-s-sajiin-i
came donating-nom the-money-gen to-the-prisoner-gen
These Case and thematic properties recall similar properties of deverbal
event nominals (and participles as well; see Chapter 4). In order to account
for the latter I have postulated there that the lexical X0 head of the
construction is V, although it is later converted to N. A similar analysis
can be adopted for the nominalizing process here. But before providing such
an analysis I have to examine in more detail the thematic and selectional
properties of the nominal.
4.1.2. Thematic and Selectional Properties

The formation of subject norninals (like that of active participles) is highly
regular, and the semantics is predictible from that of the verbal base. This
semantics is not limited to the expression of the agent or the actor meaning,
as is the case with the English er. 37 On the contrary, the active nominal
has whatever role the active subject has. In particular, unaccusatives can
form active nominals. Some of these nominals have lexicalized meanings
but, pending listed idiosyncracies, the process of formation is regularly
compositional. Some non-agentive active norninals are listed in (125) (I give
first the compositional gloss, followed by the idiomatic meaning, if any):
(125) saa?il 'leaking' (liquid), baa~in 'hiding' (hidden, interior), qaahir
'appearing' (what is apparent, manifest), baaqii 'remaining'
(rest), naatij 'resulting' (result), saakin 'leaving, residing'
(resident), caalim 'knowing' (scholar, scientist), mutalaqqii
'receiving' (recipient), mutacallim 'learning' (learner), saacir
'saying poetry' (poet), l).aa~il 'happening, resulting' (result,
conclusion), mumkin 'being possible' (the possible), mustal).iil
'being impossible' (the impossible).
In these cases (and many others), the role to which the nominal refers is
a theme or an experiencer. It is not actorial in any sense. Obviously, there
are active nominals that stand for agent, cause, source, or intrument, as in
the following list:
(126) kaatib 'writing' (writer), saa?iq 'driving' (driver), laacib 'playing'
(player), mu?arrix 'history writing' (historian), naasir
'publishing' (publisher), l).aaris 'guarding' (guard), baal).it
'searching' (researcher), baa?ic 'selling' (seller), mussaric
'legislating' (legislator), baaci! 'sending' (sender), mutajawwil

'walking around' (walker around), mu~awwir 'photographing'
(photographer), xaaliq 'creating' (creator), mubtadi? 'beginning'
(beginner), waarit 'inheriting' (inheritor), mustamic 'listening'
(listener), baaci! 'instigating' (instigator, motive), baafiz
'instigating' (instigator, motive), baajiz 'seizing, obstructing'
(obstacle), mubiid 'exterminating' (exterminator), daaxil
'entering' (interior, inside), xaarij 'going out' (exterior).
There seems to be practically no thematic constraint on the role of the

active nominal, and any active verb is able to give rise to a derived nominal.
The sole constraint that I can think of is that of 'pure' stativity, which is
equally observed in the formation of active participles (see Chapter 4). Thus
it is not possible to say l)aasin 'being nice' nor (aawil 'being tall' to name
an entity, just as it is not possible to use these forms as active participles.
But there are a number of thematic characteristics of the nominal that
make it different from the participle, even though they share some other
properties.
An essential thematic difference between the two has to do with what
might be called their 'external reference'. Suppose the external reference
of an expression is the last role to be discharged to saturate the expres-
sion. For example, the external reference of a sentence is E (an event) in
the sense of Higginbotham (1985), whereas that of a nominal is the R of
Williams ( 1981) or, as we will see, any role (E, 1 or subject role, 2 or object
role). If that is true, then the external reference of active participles like that
in (121) is E, just like that of sentences headed by inflected verbs. The
role of the subject (1 or 2, depending on whether it is unergative or
unaccusative) is presumably discharged within an internal clausal VP (before
the participle is converted to an adjective, as has been explained in Chapter
4), in the same way that the subject of an inflected verb is.
The external reference of a subject nominal is different, however. The
last position to be discharged is notE, it has to be 1 (or 2). This is so because
it is the latter position which is 'used up' as reference of the entity denoted
by the construction. The subject role is the 'external argument' of the
nominal in the sense of Williams ( 1981) and Di Sciullo and Williams ( 1987).
In Higginbotham's theta theory, it is the position that has to be bound
by D.
One consequence of this approach is that unergative subject nominal con-
figurations have no thematic subject position, and unaccusative ones have
no thematic object position. This follows from (Higginbotham's version
of) the Theta Criterion, suitably generalized to Ds. If Ds are saturators of
external positions in NPs, and if subject roles of NPs are discharged through
internal theta marking, then there will be no position left for D to bind,
resulting in the violation of Theta Theory. That subject nominal construe-
262 CHAPTER 5
tions have no thematic subject position is supported by examining

adverbial modification and control in purpose clauses. Consider the
following contrast:
(127) a. zayd-un qaatil-un camr-an camd-an
Zayd-nom killing-nom Amr-acc deliberately
Zayd is killing Amr deliberately.
b. zayd-un qaatil-un camr-an li-? iscaar-i
Zayd-nom killing-nom Amr-acc to-alerting-gen
n-naas-i
the-people-gen
Zayd is killing Amr to alert the people.
(128)a. *zayd-un qaatil-u camr-in camd-an
Zayd-nom killing-nom Amr-gen deliberately
* Zayd is the killer of Amr deliberately.
b.* zayd-un qaatil-u camr-in Ii- ?iscaar-i
Zayd-nom killing-nom Amr-gen to-alerting-gen
n-naasi
the-people-gen
*Zayd is the killer of Amr to alert the people.
In (127) the agent role of the participle controls the agentive position in
the adverb, or the PRO subject in the purpose clause. This is not possible
with subject nominals. In (128) there is no structural agent role which can
control the position mentioned, hence the ungrammaticality.
Another difference between the two parts of speech has to do with
thematic and selectional preservation. In the examples (119), (123), and
(124) above, the nominal preserves the thematic structure of the verbal
source. Subject nominals, however, can be used with or without the
arguments that the verb selects. The omission of arguments does not
(significantly) affect their interpretation, unlike what happens with their
active participle counterparts. The latter preserve strictly the thematic
structure of the verbal source. Consider the following examples:
(129) zayd-un saa?iq-un
Zayd-nom driving-nom
Zayd is driving/a driver.
(130) zayd-un Q.aaris-un
Zayd-nom guarding-nom
Zayd is guarding/a guard.
(131) zayd-un qaatil-un

killing-nom
Zayd is killing/a killer.
In these examples (and others), the deverbal form is ambiguous between
a nominal reading and a participle reading. Moreover, the form is used
intransitively, although the verbal source is normally transitive. This seems
to suggest that even participles do not preserve the thematic structure of
the verb. Further examination of these examples, however, shows that this
is not true. As observed by Fabb (1984), multivalent verbs may be used
intransitively only when they express a characteristic act. The theta grid
of the intransitive verb is then carried over unchanged from the verb to
the participle. Note, however, that omitting the arguments is not possible
with any verb. The prediction then is that the corresponding participle
will behave alike in not allowing that omission. This prediction is borne
out. If the construction (132b) is ruled out by the Projection Principle,
then (133b) will be ruled out for the same reason:
(132) a. wahaba zayd-un camr-an kitaab-an
donated Zayd-nom Amr-acc book-ace
Zayd donated a book to Amr.
b.* wahaba zayd-un
donated Zayd-nom
Zayd donated.
(133) a. zayd-un waahib-un camr-an kitaab-an
Zayd-nom donating-nom Amr-acc book-ace
Zayd is donating a book to Amr.
b.* zayd-un waahib-un
Zayd-nom donating-nom
Zayd is donating.
The subject nominal reading is possible in (133b) (the latter can mean:
'Zayd is a donor'), but the participle reading is excluded. Note that the
semantics of the nominal here is not (essentially) different from its
semantics when it occurs with internal arguments. But the situation described
by the participle changes from one type of state-of-affairs to another,
depending on whether it is intransitive or not (e.g. from an action to an
act; compare 'eating an apple' and 'eating'). This is not so with the nominal
because it does not describe a state-of-affairs, but simply names an entity.
A third difference related to theta grid preservation has to do with
adverbial and adjunct modification. As observed earlier when discussing the
264 CHAPTER 5
ungrammaticality of (122), repeated here as (134) for convenience, subject

nominals (unlike participles), cannot be modified by adverbials:
(134) * jaa? a qaatil-u s-saJHn-I bi-wal)siyyat-in
came killing-nom the-prisoner- gen with-brutality-gen
*[The killer of the prisoner brutally] came.
Since these adverbials are modifiers of the E (event) position in the theta
grid of the predicate, the ungrammaticality of (134) is interpreted as an
indication that subject nominals (unlike participles) have no E position.
Support for this view also comes from cognate modification. In Fassi
(1988b ), I took the cognate object to be either a constituent that realizes
the E position (in its argumental use), or a modifer of E (in its adverbial
use). If this is true, and if subject nominals have no E position, then we
expect them to be incompatible with cognate modifiers. This expectation
is borne out. The construction (135), in which a cognate modifies the subject
nominal, is ungrammatical:
( 135) * rajaca saa? iq-u s-sayyaarat-i siyyaaqat-an
came.back driving-nom the-car- gen driving-ace
laariqat-an
convenient-ace
*[The driver of the car a convenient driving] came back.
This behaviour contrasts once again with that of participles, which have
an E position. Consequently, cognate modification of the participle poses
no problem:
(136) jaara saariq-an s-sayyaarat-a siyyaaqat-an
came.3.s.m. driving-ace the-car-ace driving-ace
laariqat-an
convenient-ace
He came driving the car conveniently.
Up till now, I have argued for the following thematic properties of subject
nominals:
(a) they do not discharge the subject role internally;
(b) they do not have an E position;
(c) they do not obligatorily project their internal arguments.
To be complete, let us observe that the choice in the projection of arguments
is neither free nor random. For example, subject nominals can occur with
no argument at all, as observed earlier. But if they are to occur with argu-
ments, they occur obligatorily with all arguments which are lower than
the subject in the configurational structure. 38 Consider the following
examples:
(137) zayd-un waahib-u 1-maal-i li-camr-in

Zayd-nom donating-nom the-money-gen to-Amr-gen
Zayd is the donor of the money to Amr.
(138)a. zayd-un waahib-u maal-in

Zayd-nom donating-nom money-gen
Zayd is a donor of money.
b.* zayd-un waahib-u camr-in
Zayd-nom donating-nom Amr-gen
* Zayd is the donor to Amr.
c. zayd-un waahib-un
Zayd-nom donating-nom
Zayd is a donor.
( 139) zayd-un mursil-u kitaab-in ?ilaa camr-in

Zayd-nom sending-nom book-gen to Amr-gen
Zayd is the sender of a book to Amr.
(140) a. zayd-un mursil-u kitaab-in
Zayd-nom sending-nom book-gen
Zayd is a sender of a book.
b.* zayd-un mursil-un ?ilaa camr-in
Zayd-nom sending-nom to Amr-gen
Zayd is a sender to Amr.
c. zayd-un mursil-un
Zayd-nom sending-nom
Zayd is a sender.
These examples clearly show that the distribution of internal arguments
in active nominals is not arbitrary. In fact, apart from the constructions
(138c) and (140c), in which no internal argument occurs, the occurrence
of internal arguments here seems to be exactly parallel to that of verbs.
For example, the subject nominal in the dative construction cannot occur
with the dative only, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (138b) and
(140b). This is exactly what happens with tensed verbs or active participles,
differences in Case assignment aside. 39 How can these facts be accommo-
dated?
266 CHAPTER 5
4.2. The Projection Principle Revisited

The selectional requirements of (tensed) verbs are usually viewed as a
consequence of the PP, which forces the syntactic structure to match the
lexical theta grid of a predicate. Verbs are commonly assumed necessarily
to protect their argument structure in syntax, and either their thematic
requirements are met, or a violation of the PP results. Nominals, by contrast,
are claimed not to obey the PP as rigidly as verbs do. For example, thematic
subjects are necessary with verbs, but not with nominals (see e.g. Grimshaw,
1986/1990, and Safir, 1987 on the matter). I will show, however, that both
verbs and nominals observe the same version of the PP.
Consider event nominalizations once again. Although the latter observe
some conditions on thematic preservation, they do not seem to obey the
current formulation of the PP. Event nominals, examined in Section 2,
project their internal arguments only optionally. The same is true of subject
nominals, as we have just seen. Moreover, subject nominals do not project
an E position. This is not a property of any nominal, since event nominals
project E.
On the other hand, Arabic patient (or object) nominals are expressed
by the same forms which are used for passive adjectives (or participles).
Forms like muwat!4af'employed' (employee), maxluuq 'created' (creature),
muntalaq 'inch.departed' (point of departure), etc. can be used either as
passive participles or patient (or object) nominals. They exhibit exactly
the same contrasts examined earlier with respect to active/subject forms,
except that they externalize the 2 position when they are nominals.
These observations receive a natural account only if the PP is appro-
priately revised. The mapping from the lexicon to the syntax appears to
be governed by the following disjunctive principle:
(141) A lexical item either projects a sole argument from its argument
structure, or it projects any number of arguments from bottom
to top.
Let us call (141) the Ascendant Preservation Principle (APP). The APP
is a weak version of the PP, which is not disjunctive. It states that if a
nominal projects more than one argument in the syntactic structure, then
it must project that number of arguments from bottom to top, and not in
any random order. I assume that predicate argument structure is hierarchical
(following Hale and Keyser, 1987, 1991; Grimshaw, 1990; and Zubizaretta,
1987, among others). Given a hierarchical configuration of arguments which
forms part of the lexical characterization of a predicate, the most internal
argument appears as the lowest in the tree. Projection proceeds according
to APP, i.e. giving priority to the most internal arguments. As a result,
there can be no predicate projecting an agent and a goal without projecting
a theme, as in (137b), because the projection there does not observe APP.
Thus the APP accounts for the facts of thematic preservation in subject
and event nominals. The question is then whether it generalizes to verbs,
and how. We will see that it does, although at first glance the facts seem
to suggest the contrary. I return to this problem after I provide an account
of how the subject nominal is formed, and how its thematic structure
composed.
To begin with let us characterize the [aa-i] affix, which forms active
nominals by combining with a verbal root. An adequate lexical entry for
this affix will necessarily include the following information:
(142) [aa-i]: a. (af. (1))
b. (V, N)
Part (a) of the entry provides the argument structure of the affix, and (b)
its categorial properties (namely the fact that it converts V to N). I have
labelled the subject role with 1 in (a). Where the semantics is compositional,
the subject nominal is formed (in syntax), by affixing [aa-i] to V. Thematic
marking proceeds via theta identification. As with event nominals, the
different Case properties are accounted for via the 'scope' of affixation.
There are different ways to execute these ideas. For example, when the
internal structure of the nominal is verbal, we can take the nominalizing
affix to head a separate projection, and the role it identifies not to be
assigned within the clausal VP. To illustrate, consider again the construc-
tion (123), repeated here as (143):
(143) jaa?a waahib-u s-saJnn-1 1-maal-a
came donating-nom the-prisoner-gen the-money-ace
The nominal phrase there presumably has the following structure:
(144) DP
~
D'
~
D NP
~
N'
~
N VP
~ /~
V1 N sajiin V'
whb
I I~
[aa-i] Vo DP
I
e
I
maal
268 CHAPTER 5
I take the double object structure of the nominal to be internally verbal,

to allow the internal verb to assign Accusative to the object. The upper
VP, however, is nominalized by the affix. Consequentely, the NP in the Spec
of the lower VP cannot be assigned Case there. It has to move to Spec of
D, to receive Genitive. V 0 moves to V 1, and is nominalized there, before
it moves to D, where it heads the genitive construction. The definiteness
value of the head noun is obtained via the usual mechanism of inheri-
tance.
As for thematic structure, note that Zayd is generated outside the nominal,
because it is not theta marked by it. The interpretation of the sentence is
identificational, not predicational. Hence the subject nominal has to be
saturated, presumably because identificational phrases (unlike predicational
ones) have no open position. It is reasonable to think that the (most) external
role in nominals (or the R position of Williams) is that identified by the
nominalizing affix. In event nominals it is E, in subject nominals it is 1, and
in patient (or object) nominals it is 2. 40 If that is true, then no E is pro-
jected with subject nominals. In (144), three positions are projected for
the causative verb: 1 (the agent), 2 (the theme), and 3 (the goal). The 2
and 3 are discharged in the internal VP, but 1 cannot be discharged before
identification takes place. Moreover, since there is no E projection, and
since D has to bind a position (in the same way that T binds a position in
a clause), then the 1 position cannot be discharged internally, via regular
theta assignment. Otherwise, the Theta Criterion will be violated. The 1
position, being the most external, has to be bound by the determiner.
Now consider (138a). The analysis just provided can basically be carried
over to this construction, except that there are differences in the thematic
and internal structure of the nominal that have to be taken into account.
The nominal here has only two positions: 1 and 2. Position 1 is satisfied
by D, and position 2 is satisfied via theta marking by the head. Since the
object is assigned Genitive, it is reasonable to think that the categorial
change has applied 'early' in the derivation, as the following structure
indicates:
(145) DP
~
D NP
~
N'
~
N DP
~I
V1 N maal
I
whb
I
[aa-i]
Because N is not a Case assigner, the DP object is forced to move to Spec

of D, at S-structure, where it receives Genitive. Note, incidentally, that if
the li preposition is inserted in this configuration, then no movement is
necessary. This is illustrated by the following sentence:
(146) zayd-un huwa 1-waahib-u li-1-maal-i
Zayd-nom he the-donating-nom of-the-money-gen
Zayd is the donor of the money.
These structures conform to the second part of the APP. As for the first part,
it is instantiated by the nominal in sentences like (138c). In this case, V
projects only the 1 argument. Since this position is the position that has
to be externalized, then it is not available for theta marking. Only its theta
binding by D is possible.
We can now see how the APP extends to verbs, just as it does for
norninals. In our approach event, subject, and object nominals are verbs
nominalized in the syntax. Consequently no (essential) categorial difference
can be claimed between these parts of speech and inflected verbs to justify
a different behaviour with respect to the APP.
The syntactic formation analysis of subject nominals accounts for its
semantic transparency on the one hand, and its thematic preserving prop-
erties on the other. Note that, until quite recently, the answer to the question
of where nominals like these are formed seemed warranted, especially under
the influential spirit of Chomsky's (1970) 'Remarks on Nominalizations'.
There, the dividing line was between derivational and inflectional processes.
The latter are syntactic, while the former are lexical. Since agent (or subject)
nominal formation is derivational, then it has to be lexical. However, I
have established significant grounds for questioning such a view. The
thematic properties of the word enable us to tell whether its formation is
syntactic or lexical, as I have explained earlier. If we follow the logic
adopted, then the derivation of event, agent/subject, or patient/object
nominals is syntactic. Moreover, the traditional derivational/inflectional dis-
tinction has no appealing basis, as our analysis of various processes of
categorial conversion indicates.
5. CONSEQUENCES AND EXTENSIONS
In this section I place the descriptive results reached earlier in a more the-
oretical context, in particular within a principled approach to D and AGR
agreements. I also reexamine the parallelism between systems D and C, and
provide a way to derive the specificity requirement on indefinite geni-
tives. Finally, I speculate on Poss realization.
270 CHAPTER 5
5.1. Agreement Licensing and Case Checking

Let us recapitulate and examine in detail the principles and conditions
assumed in previous sections for licensing agreement and Case configura-
tions. Recall that the latter fall into two types: Spec licensing and Camp
licensing.
Among the conditions regulating Spec-Head agreement is the following
requirement:
(147) (Spec-Head) AGR agreement must be checked at S-structure.
I have assumed that only rich AGR licenses a NP in its Spec. In other words,
so-called poor AGR is not a Spec-Head agreement and hence does not
fall under (147). Moreover, I have provided further motivation for the
AGR Criterion, repeated here as (148) for convenience:
(148) AGR Criterion. (Rich) AGR is licensed by a NP in its Spec,
and a NP in Spec of AGR is licensed by (rich) AGR.
I have assumed that poor (or null) AGR acts as a head governor, and
blocks NP raising.
As for D agreement, the following condition regulates the occurrence
of a NP in its Spec:
(149) A NP is licensed in Spec of D only if D agrees with it.
D agreement, I have suggested, has two manifestations: (a) agreement in
(in)definiteness between the possessor and the possessee; and (b) Case
assignment of the possessor. Both instances appear to be checked only at
LF (at least for Arabic and English). Languages with synthetic genitives and
no rich AGR in nominal expressions have DP raising to Spec of D at LF,
whereas languages with rich AGR may or may not have DP raising to
Spec of D at S-structure, depending on whether D agrees morphologically
with its Spec or not (compare Hungarian and Chamorro). In other words,
the following correlation appears to be (descriptively) correct:
( 150) Only languages with rich AGR have DP raising to Spec of D
at S-structure.
On the other hand, differences in analytic genitives between languages
can be accounted for if we parametrize OF-NP licensing (where OF = of,
de/di, li, etc.). Recall the ungrammaticality of (85b) in Arabic or (93) in
English, and the well-formedness of their French counterpart. These data
are repeated here in (151 ), for convenience:
(151)a.*d-dar-u li-r-rajul-i
the-house-nom of-the-man-gen
The man's house.
b. *The house of the man.

c. La maison de l'homme.
What is the nature of this difference? Suppose that the OF-NP possessor
in (151c) surfaces in Comp position to Din Romance, but it cannot do so
in English or Arabic, hence the ungrammaticality of (151 a) and (151 b). If
this is correct, then the variation may be stated along the following lines:
(152) OF-NP may or may not be licensed at the D-level.
Assuming that OF is a Case sign (as in Borer, 1983, and Pollock, 1989b),
and that it is subject to Case checking like other cases, then the variation
across languages can be derived in the following way. Since the use of
OF-NP to Case mark any object in situ in all languages that use the analytic
strategy, while this is not so with the subject or the possessor, it is reasonable
to assume that OF-NP is licensed by a governing N cross-linguistically,
and by D only in some languages. That is, OF-NP is licensed freely by
D in Romance, but not Arabic or English. In the latter languages the
occurrence of OF-NP appears to obey an Elsewhere requirement (which
applies at LF):
(152) OF-NP is licensed by D only if NP is not licensed in Spec of
D.
These principles and conditions combined with ECP and Minimality
enable us to derive the fact that extraction obeys the hierarchy stated in (96),
or the successive cyclic effect. Suppose, for example, that we were to extract
an object OF-NP over a possessor or a subject, then that movement cannot
be strictly local or 'successive cyclic' since Spec of NP or Spec of Poss
will be filled. If these projections count as barriers, then antecedent
government of the trace left would be blocked, hence yielding a violation
of ECP. Moreover, Minimality is not respected in this case, since the
potential antecedent governor of the trace is the DP located in these Specs.
5.2. Case Checking versus Case Assignment and Case Realization

The theory of Case I have developed makes essential use of the mecha-
nism of Case checking (see Jaeggli, 1982, and Brody, 1984, among others,
for discussion; see also recent unplished work by Chomsky). This view
of Case contrasts with that found in Chomsky (1986a), where Genitive Case,
for example, is taken to be assigned by N (at D-structure), but realized in
Spec of N (Spec of D here) or Comp of N positions (at S-structure), as in
the following pair:
(153) a. The city's destruction.
b. The destruction of the city.
272 CHAPTER 5
Observe that the latter view depends crucially on the idea that Genitive is
'inherent'; that is, it is assigned by virtue of a thematic relationship. I
have provided reasons to think that Genitive case is structural, and that
the two Case marks belong to different strategies. The latter are checked
under different relations, and are subject to different licensing principles.
One advantage of this view is that it enables us to parametrize the distri-
bution of the two strategies across languages by making use of the Elsewhere
licensing requirement stated in (152).
Another important advantage of the Checking view is that it accounts
more accurately for the fact that a possessor may have different cases
depending on whether AGR is involved, or D is involved. As we have
seen, Hungarian possessors, for example, can be marked either as Dative,
or as Nominative, depending on where they are located. Likewise, Arabic
subjects can be genitive (see above), Nominative, or Accusative. By analogy,
I have taken Genitive and OF to be different Case marks, checked under
different conditions. This view is more in line with recent proposals made
by Chomsky.
Observe that the typology I have established takes account of AGR and
D properties, and their effects on order and Case. What looks like SNO
order, then, can be three-way ambiguous: (a) base generated as it is (with
no movement); (b) N has moved to AGR, and the subject to Spec of AGR
(and D is empty); (c) N has moved to D, and the subject to Spec of D.
Similarly, NSO can be the result of moving N to AGR and to D, and either
leaving the subject in situ, or moving it to Spec of AGR. Most of these
possibilities (if not all) have been shown to be instantiated in languages.
Moreover, they seem to indicate that the Case checking theory is on the
right track.
5.3. The Specificity Requirement on Genitives

Indefinite synthetic genitives are required to be specific, and cannot be non-
specific. Thus although post-verbal subjects can be non-specific (see Chapter
2), the only available reading for the subject in (154) is the specific one:
(154) cytaraqat daar-u rajul-in
burned house-nom man-gen
A man's house burned.
In the same vein, Woisetschlaeger (1983) has observed that English noun
phrases like an old man's book only has a definite reading. Since the
definiteness that this author is dealing with appears to be 'semantic', rather
than syntactic, and given that the NP in (154) cannot be modified by a
(syntactically) definite modifier, as we have seen earlier, the appropriate
notion needed turns out be specificity, rather than definiteness.
Milner (1982) observes that the head noun of a genitive in French must
carry a definite article. He conjectures that examples (155) are marginal
or excluded as genitives (although they may have a partitive reading), and
those in (156) are canonical genitives:
(155)a.*Un fils d'un voisin
b. ?Un fils du voisin
(156) a. Le fils du voisin
b. Le fils d'un voisin
If Milner's judgments are correct, then specificity in French will be
expressed by the definite article, and it will be a (possible) property of
analytic genitives as well.
In Chapter 2 I have treated specificity in clauses as a property of a weakly
referential chain, one member of which being a rich agreement marker. In
the case discussed here, the rich member (in the absence of rich AGR) is
D, which agrees with its Spec, as I have suggested earlier. The latter result
confirms the thesis that D is an agreeing category. Note that checking D
agreement occurs at LF. It does not need to take place at S-structure.
5.4. Possessor and Nunation
Throughout this chapter I have defended the idea that Poss projects as a
separate category. The motivation of this projection has been essentially
thematic. We have also seen the role it plays in word order. Let us turn
now to a puzzling problem raised at the beginning of the chapter with respect
to the nature of nunation. At this stage, we can hypothesize that nunation
is a realization of Pass. Nunation realizes Pass just in case the Possessor
is not present. If this is correct, then it will have (at least) two advan-
tages: (a) it will account for the complementary distribution of Poss marking
and nunation; and (b) it will keep Definiteness and Pass marking separate.
Recall that both marks are lacking in nominal genitives, whereas only
nunation is lacking in adjectival genitives.
This view of Pass marking is further supported by the existence of
languages which distinguish between 'absolute' (or 'free') forms of nouns
and 'construct' forms which occur in possessives. For example, in Uta-
Aztecan (Northern Paiute) as described by Langacker (1982), nouns are
marked with absolutive, which" ... effectively marks unspecified possessor"
when they are not possessed. When they are possessed, they have a different
marking, indicating that Poss marking may be (overtly) grammaticalized
in languages. 41
274 CHAPTER 5
6. CONCLUSION
In this chapter I have provided an account of various intricate problems

in the structure of nominal phrases. The latter turns out to have different
internal categorial properties, correlating with different Case and thematic
properties. The formation of deverbal nominals depends on the scope of
affixation, and on which role the affix is identifying.
As far as the predicate argument structure of nominals is concerned, I
have shown that it is no different from that of verbs, but that their external
role has to be discharged under Poss marking. I have suggested that the
current version of the Projection Principle is too strong to account for the
variation in projecting arguments. A weaker version of the PP has been
proposed and renamed the Ascendant Preservation Principle.
I have also investigated the inflectional structure of nominal phrases, and
shown that they project three functional layers: PossP, AGRP, and DP.
Properties of these inflectional projections interact with those of lexical
projections to yield actual word orders, Case configurations, and distribu-
tions of determiners, possessors, and potential Case markers.
Two strategies have been proposed for use in genitives, with different
properties, depending on AGR and D systems of languages. Moreover,
the analytic strategy is available for subject genitives only if no synthetic
strategy is.
The analyses adopted are based on the structure provided in (42) above,
which has proved to be adequate for both VSO and SVO languages. This
structure endorses the DP hypothesis, and it assumes that DP is parallel
to CP. 42 Moreover, the transformational operations assumed in derivations
are canonical. Other proposals in the literature have either proposed that
synthetic genitives are NPs (not DPs), or proposed some non-canonical
movement operations, such as lowering the possessor, or adjoining it to
N at S-structure. 43 Given the NP hypothesis, there is no natural way to
account for agreement in Definiteness between the possessor and the pos-
sessee, nor is there a way to account for other interactions between the
presence of D (or its absence) and Case marking. As for possessor lowering
to N, this is an adjunction operation which raises the same problems already
discussed with respect to subject adjunction to V in Chapter 2. Furthermore,
our approach has the advantage of accounting for cross-linguistic varia-
tion in minimal terms.
NOTES
' Part of this materi1 is contained in Chapter 4 of Fassi (1989b and c), which is in turn
based on Fassi (1%7a). Another part has been presented as a lecture in Paris VIII (Winter
1990) entitled: 'Quels chemins pour NSO?'.
1 The idea that D is the head of nominal phrases is originally due to Brame (1982). Abney
has elaborated on this idea within GB.
2 On this terminology, see Marouzeau (1951). On construct states in Hebrew, see Borer
3 The preposition li introduced in (2) is a Case mark, as will be explained later on. In
Fassi (1985b) and (1987a), I have proposed deriving the order in Arabic NPs via N fronting,
generalizing Emonds' (1980) original V fronting rule. Ritter (1987/1988, 1991) has worked
out a DP analysis for deriving Hebrew NP structure which differs in essential ways from mine.
See notes 21 and 28, in particular, for comparison.
4 Traditional grammarians have also pointed out that nunation is a mark of tamakkun, that
is of 'complete nominality'. Some nouns do not have such a property (see Sibawahyi, 800,
and Wright, 1974, on the matter).
5 This [n] form occurs only on so-called sound plurals, and duals. Broken plurals do not
carry [n] when they are definite. Traditional grammarians make a distinction between this [n],
which they call nuun (i.e. a simple n), and tanwiin (nunation). The distinction is simply
graphic, in my view. The two [n] are unified here, and provided a single treatment.
6 Vocatives share the lack of these two marks with genitive constructions. The following
examples illustrate this fact:
(i) yaa xaalid-u
0 Khaled-nom
0 Khaled!
(ii) yaa rajul-u
0 man-nom
0 man!
(iii) * yaa r-rajul-u
0 the-man-nom
*0 the man!
(iv) yaa bn-a ? ax-ii
0 son-ace brother-me
0 son of my brother'
7 On the properties of Arabic modification, see Fassi (1976 and 1981). See also Fassi (1987a)
for tests of Definiteness.
8 On this view, see e.g. Grimshaw (1987-1990) and Zubizaretta (1987). According to
Emonds (1985), nouns theta mark their arguments, but only indirectly. In contrast, Chomsky
(1986a) assumes that nouns and verbs do not differ in theta marking capacities, but only in
Case marking properties. I will adopt Emonds' proposal in this work.
9 See Anderson (1983) and Chomsky (1986a) on a similar idea, though linked to Genitive
Case marking. On indirect theta marking in the same spirit, see Marantz (1984) and more
recently Pollock (1989b). Traditional grammarians have observed that there is a sort of
predication (they call it nisba 'attribution') within the genitive construction. If the subject role
is to be assigned by virtue of predication, then the possessor role would be, too. I think,
however, that theta role assignment and predication are different mechanisms.
10 An analysis of the complementary distribution of Poss marking and nunation will be
proposed in Subsection 5.4 below.
11 Other alternatives are either that Genitive is assigned to the Possessor by D in an ECM
configuration (as proposed by Fassi, 1987a), or by N to its complement. Both options will
be shown to be inadequate.
12 On the intricacies of the Arabic numeral system, see Fassi (1981 ), and for numeral
agreement, Fassi (1984).
13 One might wonder why AGR in Arabic nominal phrases should be limited to the poor
276 CHAPTER 5
option, while this is not so in clauses, as pointed out to me by a SNLL T reviewer. The
way I think of this problem at this point is that this limitation is simply accidental (and/or
lexical). AGR nominal morphemes are not specified for NUM in Arabic, while they are so
in other languages (Chamorro, Turkish, Hungarian, etc.).
14 Note that these structures can be 'saved' if a resumptive affix is attached to the NP, as
shown in (i):
(i) man qara? -ta kitaab-a-hu
who read-you book-ace-his
Literally: Who did you read his book?
Whose book did you read?
There is no reason, however, to equate pronominal affixation with rich agreement. On
significant differences, see Chapter 3.
15 Similar facts are ruled out in Romance. For an analysis, see Giorgi and Longobardi (1991).
16 The only scrambling possibility that we know of with synthetic genitives is to place an
adverb between the possessor and the object, as in (i):
(i) ntiqaad-u-ka 1-yawm-a 1-? ustaag-a ? a'jaba-nii
criticism-nom-you today-ace the-teacher-ace pleased-me
Your criticism today of the teacher pleased me.
A modifying adjective of the head cannot be scrambled between the possessor and the
object. Only the analytic strategy is used in this case, as in (ii):
(ii) ntiqaad-u-ka 1-waarid-u li-1-? ustaac;!-i (*1-?ustaag-a)
criticism-nom-you the-relevant-nom of-the-teacher-gen (*the-teacher-ace)
Your relevant criticism of the teacher.
See below for an anlysis of these judgments.
17 See Abney (1987) on agreement in DPs. On Hungarian, see Szabolsci (1989) and Maracz
(1989), on Greek, Horrocks and Stavrou (1987), and on Turkish, Underhill (1976). In Fassi
(I 989c), D is taken to be the counterpart ofT, and AGR in the noun phrase the counterpart
of AGR in the sentence. There are other properties of D and T which make them parallel.
For example, both T and D may be deictic. They can be treated as 'binders', in the sense
that both of them discharge a position in a theta grid of a predicate via theta binding (see
Higginbotham, 1985, 1986 for details). As for AGR, it seems peculiar, at first glance, to
hypothesize that it heads the genitive construction, given the fact that nouns do not usually
bear agreement markers, the latter occurring only with predicates. The hypothesis is supported,
however, by empirical as well as theoretical evidence, as we will see.
18 In Jackendoff (1977), for example, the head noun is generated under N, and the article
as Spec of N'.
19 It remains to be seen whether R is a predication or modification relation. The latter
view has been defended by Grimshaw (1990), who treats possessors as argument-adjuncts.
20 I take (38) to be an instance of NP raising in 'active' nominals, following an idea of
Pollock (1989b). In contrast, I think that the genitive NP in constructions like The city's
destruction may be base generated as a possessor, or treated as a 'passive' possessor. I assume
that passive raising is regulated by different principles than AGR or D raising (see Fassi,
1988b for details).
An SNLLT reviewer wonders why (37) is not grammatical in English, but is perfectly well-
formed in Hungarian. The explanation I have provided is that AGR and D in Hungarian
are rich, and hence license Spec to Spec movement. In English, by contrast, these struc-
tures violate the AGR Criterion.
21 In order to handle the facts of complementary distribution in Hebrew construct states,
Ritter (198711988) proposes that the D position is filled by an article which is lowered onto
the constituent following it. Thus, in ordinary DPs, the definite Hebrew marker ha- is prefixed
to the head noun, but in construct states it is attached to the genitive. According to her,
"This accounts for the fact that ha- is realized on the genitive phrase in a CS but on the
head noun otherwise" (p. 17). But this lowering operation has no independent motivation,
as far as I can tell. Since the head noun and the possessor can bear different articles, it is
unclear why there should be only one article on the head noun in the CS, lowering onto
the genitive.
22 As will be explained later on, any extraction is in fact blocked in the context of an
article. It is not clear from the data whether the possessor can raise to Spec of AGR, nor is
it clear how the internal structure of nominals is derived in Chamorro. Chung ( l990b) proposes
that at D-structure, Spec of D (which is to the right of the head) hosts the possessor. The latter
is then lowered to adjoin to the head N at S-structure, in the same way that the subject in
IP lowers to adjoin to V. This proposal raises a number of theoretical and descriptive problems,
as observed in Chapter 2. See also Section 6, below.
23 I assume that (in)definiteness is a necessary semantic property of nominal expressions,
and that D has to be there for interpretive reasons. For an overview of different approaches
to (in)definiteness, see Reuland and ter Meulen ( 1987). If D is filled by an article, it will count
as a head and will block antecedent government when it does not agree.
24 Ibn as-Sarraaj, an Arabic grammarian of the 11th century, defines the noun as 'what
expresses a single meaning, and this meaning might be an individual or a non-individual.
Examples of individuals are: rajul 'man', faras 'horse', f;ajar 'rock', balad 'country', 'Amr,
and Bakr. Non-individuals are: (i.arb 'beating', ?akl 'eating', qann 'thinking', 'ilm 'knowing',
l-yawm-a 'today', l-laylat-a 'tonight', and s-saa'at-a 'now;. See Al-?u,wul, Vol. 1, p. 36.
He then adds: "I said that it expresses a sole meaning because I want to distinguish it from
the verb, since [the latter] expresses some meaning and time, and time is either past, present,
or future. You might object that among nouns are 'today', 'tonight', and 'now', and these
are times. What is then the difference from verbs? Our answer is that the verb is not solely
time, in the same way that 'today' is solely time. 'Today' has only a time meaning, and it
does not convey any another meaning. The verb is [also] divided according to three times
[... ]. Hence if the word expresses time only, it is a noun. If it expresses a meaning and a
situated tense (mu/l~al), it is a verb" (Ibid., p. 37).
On the other hand, Siiraafii defines the noun as "a word which expresses a meaning by
itself, without been associated with a situated tense". See Ibn Ya'iiS, Vol. 1, p. 22. In the
traditional trichotomy of parts of speech (verb, noun, and particle), only verbs and nouns
express meanings by themselves, while the particle expresses a meaning 'with' the noun or
the verb. Moreover, only (inflected) verbs are associated with tense. Thus nouns and masdars
are grouped together as not being associated with so-called situated tense. Nouns stand not
only for individuals, but also for events (?af;daat). As observed by Ibn as-Sarraaj, " ...
events denote vague (mubham) tenses, because an event can only be in a certain tense.
Verbs denote a determined tense (ma'luum), be it past or non past" (Ibid., p. 22).
Beside these definitions, grammarians have gathered 'the things by which the noun is
identified', that is, its properties and marks. Among these is the ability to take a definite article,
to receive nunation (when indefinite), to be constructed with a genitive complement, to
pluralize, to be able to have a broken plural, to undergo diminutive formation, to be modified
by an adjective, etc. Suyuutii provides more than thirty nominal marks and features in
Al-?asbaah wa n-nadaa?ir (Vol. 2, p. 9). Obviously, these properties, distributions, and marks,
are not realized in every case. Take, for example, masdars, which are classified as nouns,
according to the tradition. As is well known, this class of nouns does not allow pluraliza-
tion, nor diminutive formation. Or take their definition of verbs as necessarily expressing a
'situated' tense. This requirement excludes infinitive verbs in English or French from the
category of verbs, and we have to classify them as nouns.
25 For some concrete proposals, see Seghrouchni (1989).
26 For a different theoretical approach to Hebrew nominalizations, see Hazout (1990).
278 CHAPTER 5
27 Traditional grammarians claim that having the ability to be constructed in the vocative
is the nominal property par excellence, because the noun in the vocative is assimilated to
an object both grammatically and semantically (see Suyu\ii, Ham', Vol. 1, p. 5). But ma~dars
are odd in the vocative, as illustrated by (i):
(i) * yaa duxuul-a d-daar-i'
0 entering-ace the-house-gen
28 Following Sproat ( 1985b ), I assume that " ... thematic grids are required to percolate
from stems to dominating nodes of a different category only when the grids are associated
with (the grids of) the affixes by some regular method of discharge such as theta marking,
theta binding, or theta identification" (p. 188). Sproat states the following convention (which
I assume):
- Cross-Categorial Theta Grid Percolation Convention. In a structure [A (A, B)h, where
A is a lexical item of category A, (A, B) an affix forming words of category B from
lexical items of category A, and the whole structure is thus of category B, the theta grid
of A is only required to percolate to B where A and (A, B) are associated by some regular
process of thematic discharge.
This convention enables us to generate both result and process nomina1s in the syntax, although
the percolation takes place only in process nominal formation.
29 If discharge of the external role is licensed only under a predication relation, and if the
latter obtains only under government by a functional category, then the NP subject will receive
a theta role only in the context mentioned.
On the basis of similar facts in Hebrew, Ritter (1991) argues that the subject of the deverbal
noun has to raise to the specifier of a functional category she identifies with Number. I
think, however, that the latter analysis makes incorrect predictions with respect to raising, and
extraction, as well as agreement. As I have already explained, languages like Arabic (as
well as Hebrew) have no raising and no extraction because a NP is not licensed in the Spec
of their functional projections at S-structure.
30 The non-Arabist reader might wonder why the possessive pronoun in naf>i-hi is hi rather
than hu. The form hi is a surface realization of hu when it is immediately preceded by an
[i] vowel.
31 Yip, Maling, and Jackendoff (1987) as well as Maling (1991) have proposed that
(grammatical) cases form an autonomous Case tier, and they are mapped onto arguments
(or GFs) by principles analogous to those of autosegmental phonology. Following Zaenen,
Maling and Thn:iinsson (1985), Maling (1991) assumes the following mapping principle:
(i) The highest GF is assigned NOM case, the next highest ACC.
Consequently, NOM is assigned before ACC. See also Kiparsky (1985) and Fassi (1986a)
for arguments that Case assignment observes a hierarchy in which Nominative is the highest.
32 As pointed out to me by Joan Maling, the thematic restrictions on the use of li might
be taken to indicate that it is a theta-marker, in addition to being a Case marker. She also
observes that the use of English of is thematically restricted, as illustrated by (i):
(i) Our help to/*of the poor
33 Grimshaw defines the notions of extended head and projections as follows:
x is the (extended) head of y and y is an (extended) projection of x iff: y dominates x;
x and y share all categorial features and all nodes intervening between x and y share all
categorial features; and the value of [F] for y is greater than for x.
F is a multivalued feature assigned to lexical and functional projections. It can have the
following values: (a) [Fl] is assigned to lexical categories (V and N), [F2] to functional
categories (0 and 1), and [F3] to what she calls super-functionals (C and P).
34 In order to rule out similar outcomes in Italian, Giorgi and Longobardi (1991) appeal
to an S-structure Filter (labelled the Consistency Principle), which they claim to be

independently motivated. The latter states the following:
(i) An XP immediately expanding a lexical category on the non-recursive side is
directionally consistent in every position.
By non-recursive side, they mean the opposite side of the head on which internal
arguments or complements occur. This solution does not appear to be optimal. For example,
I see no reason why such a filter would apply to DPs, but not to IPs. Recall that NP raising
can occur in clause structure. However, as seen in Chapter 2, rich agreement is required to
license subject raising. The agreement solution extends naturally to DPs, as argued for on
independent grounds (especially when we take into account cross-linguistic variation instan-
tiated by e.g. Hungarian and Arabic). See also note 35.
35 Note that the ungrammaticality of (116) cannot be ruled out by ECP, especially if the
latter is based on the notion m-command, and Relativized Minimality is adopted. In my
approach, these cases are excluded by agreement theory.
36 As is well-known, the affix has different forms depending on whether it is bound to a
triliteral consonantal root, or to a non-triliteral root. For example, with a triliteral, it is
the infix [aa-i], with a non-trilitera1, it is [u-a-i]. This is exemplified in (i) and (ii),
respectively:
(i) zayd-un qaatil-u s-sajiin-i
Zayd-nom killing-nom the-prisoner-gen
Zayd is the killer of the prisoner.
(ii) zayd-un muqaatil-u s-saJun-1
Zayd-nom fighting-nom the-prisoner-gen
Zayd is the fighter of the prisoner.
I am postulating one abstract morpheme with various phonological spell outs, along the
lines proposed by Sproat (l985b) for English derived nominals.
37 On the properties of the English er forms, see Fabb (1984), Sproat (1985b), and Roeper
38 Most (if not all) ditransitive verbs can be used monotransitively, by dropping the goal
argument, and keeping the theme, as the examples illustrate. However, as Joan Mating has
pointed out to me, there are some well known exceptions to this hierarchy. For example,
with the English feed, it is the theme rather than the goal which is optional, as shown by
the following contrast:
(i) I fed the children (their supper).
(ii) *I fed their supper.
These problematic examples call for a more fine-grained thematic hierarchy than that implicit
here.
39 There seems to be a tendency to drop PPs or NPs with agentive nominals. See, for
example: 1-mustamic 'the-hearer' (instead of mustam{ ?ilaa 'listener to'); see also: al-waahib-
u ?ahamm-u mina l-mawhuub 'the donor is more important than the donated'.
40 As already indicated, my analysis is close to Sproat's (1985b) treatment of er nominals
in English. It owes also to Abney's (1987) appealing analysis of English nominal -ings.
41 Likewise, nouns in Luisefio occur in two forms: absolute and construct. Absolute forms
are marked with suffixes, called absolutives, and construct forms without these suffixes.
See Kroeber and Grace (1960) for details. On construct and absolute states in Berber, see
Ouhalla (1988).
42 The DP/CP parallelism is further supported by the existence of languages (such as
Siouan and Athabaskan) in which complementizers of relative and factive clauses are
280 CHAPTER 5
homophonous with determiners of nominal phrases, as pointed out to me by Ken Hale. Joan
Maling (personal communication) has also observed that this fact is quite common. In English,
French, and Welsh (among a number of other languages), complementizers of relative and
factive clauses are homophonous.
43 Variants of the NP hypothesis have been proposed for Hebrew by Borer (1983, 1988),
Hazout (1990), and Shlonsky (1990). Possessor lowering has been advocated by Chung
(1990b) for Chamorro. I think, however, that the analysis adopted here is descriptively more
adequate, in addition to being theoretically preferable.
CONCLUSION
In this book I have examined various aspects of Arabic syntax and

morphology, and argued for a specific theory of variation.
Unlike recent proposals for deriving VSO structures, I have shown that
Arabic clauses are assigned a canonical IP structure, and that S-structure
order is derived by fairly canonical transformations (namely Spec-to-Spec
raising and Head-to-Head raising). Moreover, the existence of Spec
positions for Arabic inflections is motivated (contrary to the view that
VSO languages do not instantiate such positions). Typological word order
variation has been accounted for by appealing to properties of inflectional
categories heading sentences (in particular AGR characteristics). AGR
triggers different orders, depending on its feature content. The AGR
Criterion regulates agreement types, as well as their (under)specification.
The view that poor AGR in VS structures is a form of Spec-Head
agreement with an expletive has been discussed and rejected. Expletive
characteristics and their interaction with word order, agreement, and Case
have been thoroughly investigated.
The analysis of clauses developed has been coupled with a theory of
Arabic word formation. Mirroring effects and syntactic properties of words
have led me to reject lexicalist and autonomist approaches to Arabic
morphology. Moreover, late readjustment and spelling rules have been
shown to be necessary for PF interpretation.
Bound forms encoding phi-features have been shown to give rise to
null argument structures through two different mechanisms (incorporation
and pro drop), depending on whether they are analyzed as pronouns or
agreement markers. Close morphological relationships between Arabic
bound pronominals and AGR markers have been taken into account by
integrating them into one general system of forms. These forms are
generated in two different functional positions (DP or AGRP), thus
providing a natural account of functional ambiguity. A pronominality
parameter of AGR specification has been motivated. It licenses the occur-
rence of AGR forms as heads of DPs, and triggers pronominal incorporation.
AGR feature content has been shown to depend on structural requirements
and word order, as well as kinds of sentences.
Various types of categories and structures have been analyzed in light
of their aspectual and tense properties. The aspect view of Arabic verbal
morphology has been shown to be incorrect. Verbal finite inflection has been
construed as expressing anteriority relations between times, but also as
encoding specific aspectual distinctions, and modal oppositions.
281
282 CONCLUSION
It has been argued that auxiliary, modal, and negation structures are
bi-temporal. The properties of the rich Arabic Neg system have been
investigated. A typology of Neg morphemes has been proposed, depending
on whether they are mood assigners, Case assigners, or neutral. It has
been argued that Neg morphemes are heads, and their extraction proper-
ties have lead me to adopt a rigid version of Minimality, together with a
version of ECP a La Kayne ( 1984), based on the notion of g-projection.
Participle inflection has been shown to carry no tense. Moreover, its
aspectual value has been characterized in terms of contingency, a notion
which has proved to be more adequate than the dynamic/static dichotomy.
Tense inflections have been shown to be sensitive to categories, and to
interact with situation aspect and mood characteristics of predicates. The
(non)visibility of the copula has been investigated in this context. Particular
attention has been paid to the derivation of adjectives and participles, what
properties they share, and how they differ. I have proposed that adjectives
are associated with (pure) states in the lexicon, and that they are not
deverbal. In contrast, participles (like verbs) are associated with processes,
events, or contingent states. Moreover, they are deverbal, and their cate-
gorial properties vary according to the level at which their stativization
and/or adjectivalization takes place.
I have also investigated the inflectional structure of nominal phrases, and
argued that they project three separate functional layers: PossP, AGRP,
and DP. Both N and NP raisings have been motivated in the grammar of
Arabic DPs. The properties of AGR and D in Arabic nominals account
for the fact that their order is essentially limited to NSO (excluding any
significant scrambling or extraction of the subject or the object). The two
strategies used in genitive constructions have been shown to correlate with
different AGR and D properties. Synthetic genitives (like their analytic coun-
terparts) have been analyzed as DPs, not NPs. It is proposed that the
Principle of Elsewhere Licensing regulates the distribution of synthetic
and analytic options. DP raising and possessor extraction depend on whether
AGR is rich or not, and legitimate options observe the AGR Criterion. N
(to D) raising at S-structure has been motivated for Arabic, while DP raising
is precluded. A number of complementary distributions in the DP system
have been parametrized. Furthermore, the derivational properties of deverbal
process and subject nominals have been dealt with in the syntax. A nominalizing
affixation process converts a verbal root toN, at different levels in the tree.
Throughout the book I have defended a multi-valued functional view
of parametrization. According to this view, languages vary depending on
the properties of their various inflectional morphemes. The properties of
one morpheme may trigger a particular value of the parameter involved,
while those of another morpheme may trigger another value. One conse-
quence of this view is that languages may instantiate either the positive
value of a parameter, its negative value, or both. The latter option is
CONCLUSION 283
available because nothing precludes the co-occurrence in the same language
of inflectional morphemes having opposite triggering properties. Arabic, for
example, has been shown to have both pronominal and non-pronominal
AGR, as well as nominal and non-nominal AGR, depending on construc-
tions.
The rise of functional ambiguity has been analyzed as another con-
sequence of this view. In this case the same morpheme receives different
specifications (depending on contexts), and it triggers different gram-
matical options.
I have also shown that different strategies are used within the same
functional system, and that the choice of one strategy over another is neither
free nor arbitrary. On the contrary, it is regulated by general principles
like the Elsewhere Licensing Principle.
Clearly, this view of variation within the same language and across
languages may have significant consequences for language learning. The
picture which emerges is that languages exhibit a substantial variety of
options which arise from the acquisition of properties of inflectional
categories. But these options appear to be very limited indeed, especially
when faced with the potential 'vastness' of languages.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdo, Daud: 1973, ?ab!Jaaf!ii l-luga l-'arabiyya, maktabat lubnaan, Beyruth.

Abdo, Daud: 1983, '1-binya d-daaxiliyya li-1-jumla 1-fi'liyya fii 1-'arabiyya', al-?abiJaal 31,
pp. 37-54.
Abney, Steven: 1985, 'Functor Theory and Licensing Conditions: Toward the elimination
of the base', ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Abney, Steven: 1987, The English Noun Phrase In Its Sentential Aspect, Ph.D., MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Afarli, Tor A.: 1989, 'Passive in Norwegian and in English', Linguistic Inquiry 20:1,
101-108.
Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele and Thomas Wasow: 1979, 'The Category AUXin Universal
Grammar', Linguistic Inquiry 10:1, 1-64.
Alexander, Matthew J.: 1990, Agreement Configurations: Grammatical Relations in Modular
Grammar, PH.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Anbaarii, Abuu-1-barakaat: 12th century, ?asraar 1-'arabi)ya, Bahjat Baytaar (ed.), Damascus,
1957.
Anderson, Mona: 1983, 'Prenominal Genitive NPs', The Linguistic Review 3:1, 1-24.
Anderson, Stephen R.: 1982, 'Where's Morphology', Linguistic Inquiry 13:4, 571-612.
Anderson, Stephen R.: 1988, 'Inflection', in Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.),
pp. 23-43.
Aoun, Joseph: 1985, A Grammar of Anaphora, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Aoun, Joseph and Dominique Sportiche: 1983, 'On the Formal Theory of Government',
The Linguistic Review 2, 211-236.
Astarabaadii, Ragiyy-u-d-diin: 12th century, Sar/:1 al-Kaafiya, daar aHibaa'a 1-'ilmiyya,
Beyruth, 1976.
Ayoub, Georgine: 1982, Structure de la phrase verbale en arabe standard, Third Cycle Thesis,
Paris VIII-Vincennes.
Ayyuub, Abderrahman: 1957, diraasaat naqdiyya fii n-naf:tw l-'arabii, matba'at 1-?angluu-
mi~riyya, Cairo.
Bach, Emrnon: 1981, 'On Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics', in
Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 63-81.
Baker, Lee C.: 1989, English Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Baker, Mark: 1985a, 'The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation', Linguistic
Inquiry 16:3, 373-415.
Baker, Mark: 1985b-1988, Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Baker, Mark and Ken Hale: 1988, 'Pronoun and Anti-Noun Incorporation', ms., McGill Univ.
and MIT.
Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts: 1989, 'Passive Arguments Raised', Linguistic
Inquiry 20:2, 219-251.
Bakir, Murtadaa: 1980, Aspects of Clause Structure in Arabic, Indiana University Linguistics
Club, Bloomington.
Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik: 1986, 'A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects',
Linguistic Inquiry 17:2, 347-354.
Bartsch, Renate: 1989, 'Tenses and Aspects in Discourse', Theoretical Linguistics 15:112,
133-194.
284
BIBLIOGRAPHY 285
Barwise, John and Robin Cooper: 1981, 'Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language',
Linguistics and Philosophy 4:2, 159-219.
Beedharn, C.: 1982, The Passive Aspect in English, German, and Russian, Gunter Narr Verlag,
Tiibingen.
Belletti, Adriana: 1982, "'Morphological" Passive and Pro Drop: The Impersonal Construction
in Italian', Journal of Linguistic Research 2:4, 1-24.
Belletti, Adriana: 1986/1988, 'Unaccusative as Case Assigners', Lexicon Project Working
Papers 8, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi: 1988, 'Psych Verbs and Theta Theory', Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 6:3, 291-352.
Benmamoun, Abbas: 1990, 'Inflectional Morphology', ms., USC, CA.
Bennis, Hans and Teun Hoekstra: 1988, 'The Tense Connection', GLOW Newsletter, Faris,
Dordrecht.
Benveniste, Emile: 1950, 'Actif et moyen dans le verbe', in Problemes de linguistique
generale, Gallimard, Paris, 1966, pp. 168-175.
Benveniste, Emile: 1952, 'La construction passive du parfait transitif', in Problemes de
linguistique generate, Gallimard, Paris, 1966, pp. 176--186.
Besten, Hans den: 1977-1983, 'On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical
Deletive Rules', in Werner Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Synt(IJC of Westgermania, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 47-131.
Blachere, Regis and Godefroy Demombynes: 1952, Grammaire de l'arabe classique, Adrien-
Maisonneuve, Paris.
Borer, Hagit: 1983, Parametric Synt(IJC, Faris, Dordrecht.
Borer, Hagit: 1984, 'The Projection Principle and Rules of Morphology', in Charles Jones
and Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of NELS, Amherst,
pp. 16--33.
Borer, Hagit: 1986, '!-subjects', Linguistic Inquiry 17:3, 375-416.
Borer, Hagit: 1988, 'On the Morphological Parallelism Between Coumpounds and Constructs',
ms., Univ. of California, Irvine.
Bouchard, Denis: 1984, On the Content of Empty Categories, Faris, Dordrecht.
Brame, Michael: 1970, Arabic Phonology, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Brame, Michael: 1982, 'The Head-Selector Theory of Lexical Specifications and the
Nonexistence of Coarse Categories', Linguistic Analysis 10:3, 321-327.
Brame, Michael: 1983, 'Bound Anaphora Is Not a Relation Between NPs: Evidence for
Local Word Grammar (Without Trees)', Linguistic Analysis 11:2, 139-165.
Brandi, Luciana and Patricia Cardin: 1989, 'Two Italian Dialects and the Null Subject
Parameter', in Oswaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (eds.), pp. 111-142.
Bravman, Meyer: 1971, 'The origin of the Arabic object pronouns formed with ?iyyaa',
Journal of Semitic Studies, XVI: I pp. 50-52.
Bresnan, Joan W.: 1970, 'On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement
types', Foundations of Language 6, pp. 297-321.
Bresnan, Joan W.: 1972, Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, Ph.D., MIT.
Bresnan, Joan W.: 1980, 'Polyadicity', in Teun Hoekstra et al. (eds): Lexical Grammar,
Faris Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 97-121.
Bresnan, Joan W.: 1982a, 'Control and Complementation', Linguistic Inquiry 13:3,343-434.
Bresnan, Joan W. (ed.): 1982b, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Bresnan, Joan W. and Sam A. Mchombo: 1987, 'Topic, Pronoun, and Agreement in
Chichewa', Language 63:4, 741-782.
Brody, Michael: 1984, 'On Contextual Definitions and the Role of Chains', Linguistic Inquiry
15:3, pp. 355-380.
Burzio, Luigi: 1986, Italian Synt(IJC, A GB Approach, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Bybee, Joan L.: 1985, Morphology, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
286 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bybee, Joan L. and Osten Dahl: 1990, 'The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the
Languages of the World' ms., Univ. of Goteborg and Suny at Buffalo.
Carlson, Greg N.: 1987, 'The Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences', ms.,
Univ. of Iowa.
Carter, Richard: 1984, 'Lecture Notes', ms., MIT.
Chambelland, Galves Charlotte: 1990, 'V movement, levels of representation, and the
structure of S', Paper delivered at the GLOW Conference, Cambridge-London.
Choe, Hyon-Sook: 1985, 'An SVO analysis of VSO languages and parametrization: A Study
of Berber', ms., MIT.
Chomsky, Noam: 1966, Cartesian Linguistics, Harper and Row, New York.
Chomsky, Noam: 1970, 'Remarks on Nominalizations', in Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter A.
Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass,
pp. 184-221.
Chomsky, Noam: 1973, 'On Wh Movement', in Peter Culicover et al. (eds.), Formal Syntax,
Academic Press, New York, pp. 71-132.
Chomsky, Noam: 1974, The Amherst Lectures, Documents Linguistiques, Universite de Paris
VII.
Chomsky, Noam: 1980, 'On Binding', Linguistic Inquiry 11:1, 71-132.
Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Faris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Binding, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam: 1986a, Knowledge of Language, Praeger Publications, New York.
Chomsky, Noam: 1986b, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, No am: 1989a/1991, 'Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation',
MIT WPL 10. Also in Robert Freidin (ed.): 1991, Principles and Parameters in
Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 417-454.
Chomsky, Noam: 1989b, 'Linguistics and Adjacent Fields: the State of the Art', ms.,
MIT.
Chomsky, Noam: 1989c, 'Prospects for the Study of Language and Mind', ms., MIT.
Chung, Sandra: 1982, 'Unbounded Dependencies in Chamorro Grammar', Linguistic Inquiry
13:1, 39-77.
Chung, Sandra: 1983, 'The ECP and Government in Chamorro', Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 1:2, 207-244.
Chung, Sandra: 1990a, 'VPs and Verb Movement in Chamorro', Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 8:4, 559-619.
Chung, Sandra: 1990b, 'Functional Heads and Proper Government in Chamorro', ms., Cowell
College, UCSC.
Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake: 1985, 'Tense, aspect, and mood', in Timothey Shopen
(ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 202-258.
Chung, Sandra and James McCloskey: 1987, 'Government, Barriers, and Small Clauses in
Modern Irish', Linguistic Inquiry 18:2, 173-237.
Cinque, Guglielmo: 1978-80, 'On Extraction from NP in Italian', Journal of Italian Linguistics
5:1, 47-99.
Cinque, Guglielmo: 1984, 'A-bar Bound pro vs. Variable', ms., Univ. of Venice.
Cinque, Guglielmo: 1991, Types of A' Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cohen, David: 1989, L'aspect verbal, PUF, Paris.
Cohen, Marcel: 1924, Le systeme verbal semitique et /'expression du temps, Paris.
Comrie, Bernard: 1976, Aspect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dahl, Osten: 1979, 'A Typology of Sentence Negation', Linguistics 17, 79-106.
Dahl, Osten: 1985, Tense and Aspect Systems, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Dahl, Osten and Fathi Talmoudi: 1987, 'Qad and laqad, Tense, Aspect, and Pragmatics in
Arabic', ms., Univ. of Goteborg.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 287
Davidson, David: 1966, 'The Logical Form of Action Sentences', in David Davidson (1980),
pp. 105-122.
Davidson, David: 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Dechaine, Rose Marie: 1991, 'Bare Sentences', ms., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Demirdache, Hamida: 1989, 'Nominative NPs in Modern Standard Arabic', ms., MIT.
Descles, Jean Pierre: 1989, 'State, Event, Process, and Topology', General Linguistics 29:3,
159-198.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Edwin Williams: 1987, On the Definition of Word, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Dixon, R.M.W.: 1970, 'Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?' And Other Essays in Semantics
and Syntax, Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen: 1991, The Syntax of Romanian, to be published by Foris, Dordrecht.
Dowty, David: 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Emonds, Joseph: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure
Preserving, and Local Transformations, Academic Press, New York.
Emonds, Joseph: 1978, 'The Verbal Complex V'-V in French', Linguistic Inquiry 9:2,
151-175.
Emonds, Joseph: 1980, 'Word Order in Generative Grammar', Journal of Linguistic Research
1:1, 33-54.
Emonds, Joseph: 1985, A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.
En~. Miirvet: 1985, 'Temporal Interpretation', ms., USC.
En~, Miirvet: 1987, 'Anchoring Conditions for Tense', Linguistic Inquiry 18:4, 633-657.
En~. Miirvet: 1990, 'The Semantics of Specificity', Linguistic Inquiry 22:1, 1-25.
En~, Miirvet: 1991, 'On the Absence of the Present Tense Morpheme in English', Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Ettougani, NaYma: 1989, Aspect and Arabic passive participles, Third Cycle Thesis, Univ.
of Casablanca II.
Evans, Gareth: 1980, 'Pronouns', Linguistic Inquiry 11:2, 337-362.
Fabb, Nigel: 1984, Syntactic AffiXation, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1976, 'Relatives et adjectifs en arabe: le probleme de Ia determi-
nation', Lingua 38, pp. 125-152.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1980, 'Some Complement Phenomena in Arabic, the Complementizer
Phrase Hypothesis and the Non-Accessibility Condition', Analyse!Thiorie, Universite
de Paris-VIII Vincennes, 54-114.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1981, Linguistique arabe: forme et interpretation, Publications of
the Faculty of Letters, Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1984-1988, 'Agreement, Binding and Coherence', in Michael Barlow
and Charles Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language, Approaches, Theories,
Descriptions, CSLI, Stanford, pp. 107-158.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1985a, 'Word order variation in Standard Arabic', Lecture
delivered at MIT, McGill Univ., and the Univ. of Utah.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1985b, l-lisaaniyaat wa lluga 1-<arabiyya, Tubqal Publishers,
Casablanca.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1986a, l-mu<jam f.Carabii, Tubqal Publishers, Casablanca.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1986b, 'Anti-Causatives in Arabic, Causativity and Affectedness',
Lexicon Project Working Papers 15, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1986c-1988, 'A propos du conceptuel et du grammatical', Hommage
a Bernard Pottier, Klinksieck, Paris.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1987a, 'Case, Inflection, VS Word Order and X' Theory',
Proceedings of the First International Conference of the Linguistic Society of Morocco,
Vol. 1, Oukad Publishers, Rabat, pp. 189-221.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1987b, 'Category changing affixes and Homonymy', ms., Faculty
of Letters, Rabat.
288 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1988a, 'Cognate objects as arguments', ms., Faculty of Letters, Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1988b, 'Arabic Passive Affixes as Aspectual Predicates', ms.,
MIT, Cambridge, & Faculty of Letters, Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1988c, 'On Pleonastics in Arabic', in Jochen Pleines (ed.), La
linguistique au Maghreb, Oukad Publishers, Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1989a, 'Agreement, Incorporation, Pleonastics, and VSO-SVO order',
ms., MIT.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1989b, al-binaaP l-muwaazii, Oukad Publishers, Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1989c, Inflectional Categories in Arabic, ms., Faculty of Letters,
Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1989d, 'Temporal reference, finiteness, and the internal structure
of S in Arabic', ms., Faculty of Letters, Rabat.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader: 1990, 'Arabic AGR, Incorporation, and Null Anaphora', Paper
delivered at the GLOW Workshop, Cambridge/London.
Ferguson, Charles A.: 1984, 'Grammatical Agreement in Classical Arabic and the
colloquial dialects', Paper presented at the meeting of the Middle Eastern Studies
Association of North America.
Ferguson, Charles A. and Michael Barlow: 1988, 'Introduction', in Michael Barlow and
Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), pp. 1-22.
Fleisch, Henri: 1958, 'Etudes sur le verbe arabe', Melanges de l'Universite Saint-Joseph,
Beyruth, pp. 153-181.
Foley, Wiliam A. and Robert van Valin: 1984, Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Frampton, John: 1990, 'Parasitic Gaps and the Theory of Wh-Chains', Linguistic Inquiry 21:1,
49-77.
Fukui, Naoki: 1986, A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications, Ph.D., MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas: 1986, 'Specifiers and Projections', MITWPL 8, pp. 128-176.
Giorgi, Alessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi: 1987/1991, The Syntax of Noun Phrases,
Givan, Talmy: 1976, 'Topic, Pronoun, and Grammatical Agreement', in Charles N. Li (ed.),
Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York, pp. 149-188.
Givan, Talmy: 1984, Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Godard, Danielle, 1990, 'Extraction out of NP in French', to be published by Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory.
Greenberg, Joseph: 1966, 'Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the
order of the meaningful elements', in Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp.73-113.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1979, 'Complement Selection and the Lexicon', Linguistic Inquiry 10:2,
279-326.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1981, 'Form, Function, and the Language Acquisition Device', in Lee Baker
and John McCarthy (eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1986-1988, 'Adjuncts and Argument Structure', Lexicon Project Working
Papers 21, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1987, 'Psych Verbs and the Structure of Argument Structure', ms., Brandeis
University.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1990, Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Grimshaw, Jane: 1991, 'Extended Projection', Glow Newsletter 26, Faris Dordrecht, pp.
20-21.
Gruber, JeffreyS.: 1965-1976, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland,
Amsterdam.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 289
Guentcheva, Zlakta: 1990, Temps et aspect: l'exemple du bulgare contemporain, Editions

du CNRS, Paris.
Gueron, Jacqueline: 1989, 'Subject, Tense, and Indefinite NPs', NELS 19.
Gueron, Jacqueline: 1992, 'Phrases copulatives'. Talk delivered at the University of Paris
VIII.
Gueron, Jacqueline and Teun Hoekstra: 1988, 'T-chains and the constituent structure of
auxiliaries', Paper presented at the GLOW Conference, Venice 1987.
Guilfoyle, Eithne: 1990, Functional Categories and Phrase Structure Parameters, Ph.D.,
McGill Univ., Montreal.
Haegeman, Liliane: 1986, 'INFL, COMP and Nominative Case Assignment in Flemish
Infinitivals', in Peter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and Projections,
Foris, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Haider, Hubert and Martin Prinzhorn (eds.): 1985, Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic
Languages, Foris, Dordrecht.
Hale, Kenneth: 1984, 'Preliminary Remarks on Configurationality', ms., MIT.
Hale, Kenneth: 1987a, 'Incorporation and the Irish Synthetic Verb Forms'. ms., MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Hale, Kenneth: 1987b, 'Expaining and constraining the English Middle', ms., MIT.
Hale, Kenneth: 1988, 'Agreement and incorporation in Athabaskan and in General', ms.,
MIT.
Hale, Kenneth: 1989, 'Subject Obviation, Switch Reference, and Control', ms., MIT.
Hale, Kenneth and Jay Keyser: 1986, 'Some Transitivity Alternations in English', Lexicon
Project Working Papers 7, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Hale, Kenneth and Jay Keyser: 1989, 'On Some Syntactic Rules in the Lexicon', ms., MIT.
Hale, Kenneth and Jay Keyser: 1991, On the Syntax of Argument Structure, to be published
by MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Halle, Morris: 1973, 'Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation', Linguistic Inquiry 4: I,
3-16.
Halle, Morris: 1989, 'On Abstract Morphemes and Their Treatment', ms., MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Hammond, Michael and Michael Noonan (eds.): 1988, Theoretical Morphology, Approaches
in Modern Linguistics, Academic Press, New York.
Harlow, Steven: 1981, 'Government and Relativisation in Celtic', in Frank Heny (ed.), Binding
and Filtering, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hasan, Abbas: 1961-1964, n-na}Jw l·waafii, daar al-macaarif, Cairo.
Hazout, Ilan: 1990, Verbal nouns: Theta-theoretic studies, Ph.D., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Heim, Irena: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D., Univ. of
Mass., Amherst.
Hendrick, Randall: 1990, 'Breton Pronominals, Binding, and Barriers', in Randall Hendrick
(ed.), pp. 121-165.
Hendrick, Randall (ed.): 1990, The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages, Academic Press,
New York.
Heny, Frank and Barry Richards (eds.): 1983, Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related
puzzles, 2 Vol., D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht.
Higginbotham, James: 1983, 'Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals', Linguistic Inquiry 14:3,
395-420.
Higginbotham, James: 1985, 'On Semantics', Linguistic Inquiry 16:4, 547-593.
Higginbotham, James: 1986, 'Elucidations of Meaning', Lexicon Project Working Papers
7, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Higginbotham, James: 1991, 'The Imperfective Paradox', ms., MIT.
Hoekstra, Teun: 1986a, 'Passives and Participles', in Frits Beukema and Aafke Hulk (eds.),
Linguistics in the Netherlands 1986, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 95-104.
Hoekstra, Teun: 1986b, 'Deverbalization and Inheritance', Linguistics 24, 549-584.
290 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Holmberg, Andreas: 1991, 'The Distribution of Scandinavian Weak Pronouns', ms. Univ.
of Uppsala.
Hornstein, Norbert: 1981, 'The Study of Meaning in Natural Language: Three Approaches
to Tense', in Norbert Hornstein and David Lightfoot (eds.), Explanation in Linguistics,
Longman, London, pp. 116-151.
Hornstein, Norbert: 1990, As Time Goes By, Tense and Universal Grammar, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Horrocks, Geoffrey: 1987, 'Movement rules within "Noun Phrases'", Proceedings of the First
International Conference of the Linguistic Society of Morocco, Vol. I, Oukad Publishers,
Rabat, pp. 97-105.
Horrocks, Geoffrey and Melita Stavrou: 1987, 'Bounding theory and Greek syntax: evidence
for wh-movement in NP', Journal of Linguistics 23, 77-108.
Huang, James: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D.,
MIT.
Ibn 'Aqiil, Bahaa?-u-d-diin A.: 14th century, Sar/J ?alfiyyat Ibn Maalik, daar al-fikr, Cairo,
1979.
Ibn Ma9aa?, Abuu-1-'Abbaas A., 12th century, Kitaab r-radd 'alaa n-nu/Jaat, Shawqi I;>ayf
ed., Cairo, 1947.
Ibn as-Sarraj, Abuu Bakr M.: 9th century, ?usuul n-nafJw, Fatii, M. (ed.), mu?assasat
ar-risaala, Beyruth, 1985.
Ibn Ya'm, Abuu-1-baqaa? M.: 12th century, SarfJ al-mufaHal, daar Hibba'a 1-muniiriyya,
Cairo.
Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1975, 'Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon',
Language 51:4, 639-671.
Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1977, X' Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jackendoff, RayS.: 1983, Semantics and Cognition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jaeggli, Oswaldo: 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Jaeggli, Oswaldo: 1986, 'Passive', Linguistic Inquiry 17:4, 587-622.
Jaeggli, Oswaldo and Kenneth Safir (eds.): 1989, The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Jakubowicz, Celia: 1985, 'Do Binding Principles Apply to !NFL?', Proceedings of NELS
15, 188-206.
Kamp, Hans: 1979, 'Events, Instants, and Temporal Reference', in Rainer Bauerle et al. (eds.),
Semantics from Different Points of View, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 376-471.
Kamp, Hans: 1981, 'Ev6nements, repr6sentation discursive et r6f6rence temporelle', Langages
64, 39-64.
Kamp, Hans and Christian Rohrer: 1983, 'Tense in Texts', in Rainer Bauerle et al. (eds.),
Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, W. de Gruyter, Berlin, 250-269.
Kamp, Hans and Christian Rohrer: 1989, 'A Discourse Representation Theory of Tense in
French', ms., Univ. of Stuttgart.
Kayne Richard: 1975, French Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kayne, Richard: 1984, Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
Kayne, Richard: 1987-1989, 'Facets of Romance past participle agreement', in Paola
Beninca (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 85-
103.
Kayne, Richard: 1990, 'Romance Clitics and PRO', NELS 20:2, Carnegie Mellon Univ. and
Univ. of Pittsburg, pp. 85-103.
Keenan, Edward L. and Jonathan Stavi: 1986, 'A Semantic Characterization of Natural
Language Determiners', Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 253-326.
Kiefer, Ferenc: 1982, 'The Aspectual System of Hungarian', in Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Hungarian
Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 291
Kiparsky, Paul: 1985, Morphology and Grammatical Relations, ms., CSLI, Stanford
University.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa: 1986, Subjects in Japanese and English, Ph.D., Univ. of Mass.,
Amherst.
Koopman, Hilda: 1984, The Syntax of Verbs, Foris, Dordrecht.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1982, 'Variables and the Bijection Principle', The
Linguistic Review 2, 139-160.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche: 1988, 'Subjects', ms., UCLA.
Kuno, Susumo: 1987, Functional Syntax, Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy, The Univ. of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, 'Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates', ms., Univ. of Mass.,
Amherst.
Kroeber, A.!. and George W. Grace: 1960, The Sparkman Grammar of Luiseno, Univ. of Calif.
Press, Berkley and LA.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki: 1986, 'Whether We Agree or Not', Linguisticae Investigaciones 12:1,
1-47.
Kurylowicz, Jerzy: 1973, Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics, Curzon Press,
London.
Laka, Itziar: 1990, Negation in Syntax, Ph.D., MIT.
Langacker, Ronald: 1969, 'On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command', in David A.
Reibel and Sanford A. Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 160-186.
Langacker, Ronald: 1982, Studies in Uteco-Aztecan Grammar, Vol. 3, Publications of the
Summer Institute and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Lapointe, Steven: 1981, 'General and restricted agreement phenomena', in Michael Moortgat
et al. (eds.), The scope of lexical rules, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 125-159.
Larson, Richard K.: 1988, 'On the Double Object Construction', Linguistic Inquiry 19:3,
335-391.
Lasnik, Howard: 1976, 'Remarks on Coreference', Linguistic Analysis 2:1, 1-22.
Lasnik, Howard: 1981, 'Restricting the Theory of Transformations: A Case Study', in Norbert
Hornstein and David Lightfoot (eds.), Explanation in Linguistics, Longman, London,
pp. 152-173.
Lasnik, Howard: 1987, 'Subjects and the Theta Criterion', Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 6:1, 1-17.
Lasnik, Howard: 1989a, Essays on Anaphora, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Lasnik, Howard: 1989b, 'Case and Expletives', ms., Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamuro Saito: 1984, 'On the Nature of Proper Government', Linguistic
Inquiry 15:2, 235-289.
Levin, Beth (ed.): 1985, 'Lexical Semantics in Review', Lexicon Project Working Papers
1, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Levin, Beth and Maika Rapaport: 1986, 'The Formation of Adjectival Passives', Linguistic
Inquiry 17:4, 623-661.
Lieber, Rochelle: 1983, 'Argument Linking and Compounds in English', Linguistic Inquiry
14:2, 251-285.
LoCascio, Vincenzo: 1985, 'Temporal Deixis and Anaphor in Sentence and Text: Finding
a Reference Time', in Vincenzo Lo Cascio and Co Vet (eds.), Temporal Structure in
Sentence and Discourse, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 229-249.
Lyons, John: 1977, Semantics, 2 Vol., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mahajan, Anoop K.: 1989, 'Agreement and Agreement Phrases', MITWPL 10, Cambridge,
Mass.
Mahajan, Anoop K.: 1990, The A/A-Bar Distinction And Movement Theory, Ph.D., MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Maling, Joan: 1988, 'Variations on a Theme: Existential Sentences in Swedish and Icelandic',
292 BIBLIOGRAPHY
McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax,

pp. 168-191.
Mating, Joan: 1991, 'Of Nominative and Accusative: The Hierarchical Assignment of
Grammatical Case in Finnish', to appear in A. Holmberg and U. Nikanne (eds.), Case
and Other Topics in Finnish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.
Mating, Joan and Annie Zaenen (eds.): 1989, Modern Icelandic Syntax, Academic Press,
Orlando, Florida.
Manzini, Rita: 1987, 'On Italian Si', in Hagit Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics,
Academic Press, N.Y, 241-262.
Manzini, Rita and Kenneth Wexler: 1987, 'Parameters, Binding Theory, and Learnability',
Maracz, Laslow: 1989, Asymmetries in Hungarian, Doctoral Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit,
Groningen.
Marantz, Alec: 1984, On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambrige, Mass.
Marantz, Alec: 1985, 'Lexical Decomposition vs. Affixes as Syntactic Constituents', CLS
21:2, 154-181.
Marouzeau, M.: 1951, Lexique de la terminologie linguistique, Paul Geuthner, Paris.
Maxzuumii, Mal)muud: 1986,.fii n-nal]w /_carabii, naqd-un wa-tawjiih, daar r-raa?id al-'arabii,
Beyruth.
May, Robert: 1985, Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
McCarthy, John: 1979, Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology, Ph.D., MIT,
Cambridge. Mass.
McCarthy, John: 1983, 'A Prosodic Account of Arabic Broken Plurals', in I. Dihoff (ed.),
Current Trends in African Linguistics 1, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 299-317.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince: 1988-1990, 'Foot and Word in Prosodic Morphology:
The Arabic Broken Plural', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:2, 209-283.
McCloskey, James: 1984, 'Raising, subcategorization, and selection in Modern Irish', Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 1:4, 441-485.
McCloskey, James: 1986, 'Case, movement, and raising in Modern Irish', WCCFL 4, 190-
205.
McCloskey, James: 1990, 'Resumptive Pronouns, A-bar Binding, and Levels of Representation
in Irish', in Randall Hendrick (ed.), pp. 199-248.
McCloskey, James and Ken Hale: 1984, 'On the Syntax of Person-Number Inflection in
Modern Irish', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:4, 487-533.
Meillet, Antoine: 1917, 'De !'expression du temps', Bulletin de Ia Societe de Linguistique
de Paris XX:2, pp. 137-141.
Milner, Jean Claude: 1977, A propos des genitifs adnominaux en fran~ais, in Milner: 1982.
Milner, Jean Claude: 1982, Ordres et raisons de langue, Le Seuil, Paris.
Milsark, Gary L.: 1976, Existential Sentences in English, IULC, Indiana, Bloomington.
Mohammad, Mohammad A.: 1990, 'The Problem of Subject-Verb Agreement in Arabic:
Towards a Solution', in Mushira Eid (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics I, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Moltmann, Friedericke: 1990, 'Scrambling in German and the Specificity Effect', ms., MIT.
Moortgaat, M.: 1984, 'A Fregean Restriction on Metarules', in Proceedings of NELS 14,
pp. 307-325, GLSA, Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Moro, Andrea: 1991, 'The Raising of Predicates', MITWPL 15, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.,
pp. 119-181.
Mouchaweh, Lubana: 1986, De Ia syntaxe des petites propositions, Third Cycle Thesis,
Paris VIII.
Ostler, Nick D. M.: 1979, Case Linking: A Theory of Case and Verb Diathesis Applied to
Classical Sanskrit, Ph.D., MIT.
Ouhalla, Jamal: 1988, The Syntax of Head Movement, A Study of Berber, Ph.D., University
College, London.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 293
Ouhalla, Jamal: 1990, 'Sentential Negation, Relativized Minimality, and the Aspectual
Status of Auxiliaries, The Linguistic Review 7:2, pp. 183-231.
Quirk Randolph et al. (eds.): 1985, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language,
Longman, London.
Palmer, Frank R.: 1985, Mood and Modality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Partee, Barbara Hall: 1973, 'Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in
English', The Journal of Philosophy 10, 601-609.
Partee, Barbara Hall: 1984, 'Nominal and temporal anaphora', Linguistics and Philosophy
7:2, 243-286.
Parsons, Terence: 1990, Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Pelletier, F. J. and L. K. Schubert: 1987, Three Papers on the Logical Form of Mass Terms,
Generics, Bare Plurals, and Habituals, ms., Univ. of Alberta, Canada.
Penner, Zvi: 1988, The Grammar of the Nominal Sentence, Institut fiir Sprachwissenschaft,
University of Bern.
Perlmutter, David: 1978, 'Impersonal Passive and the Unaccusative Hypothesis', BLS 4, Univ.
of CA, 157-189.
Perlmutter, David and Paul Postal: 1983, 'Some Proposed Laws of Basic Clause Structure',
in David Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Perlmutter, David and Paul Postal: 1984, 'The !-Advancement Exclusiveness Law' in David
Perlmutter and Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Pesetsky, David: 1982, Paths and Categories, Ph.D., MIT.
Pesetsky, David: 1985, 'Morphology and Logical Form', Linguistic Inquiry 16:2, 193-
246.
Pesetsky, David: 1987, 'Binding Problems with Experiencer Verbs', Linguistic Inquiry 18:1,
126-140.
Picallo, Carme: 1984, 'The Infl Node and the Null Subject Parameter', Linguistic Inquiry
15:1, 75-102.
Platzack, Christer: 1983, 'Existential Sentences in English, Swedish, German, and Icelandic',
in F. Karlsson (ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics,
Helsinki, pp. 80-100.
Platzack, Christer and Andreas Holmberg: 1990, 'The Role of AGR and Finiteness in some
VO Languages', ms. Univ. of Lund and Uppsala.
Pollock, Jean Yves: 1983a, 'Sur quelques propri~t~s des phrases copulatives en fran~ais',
Langue Franr;aise 58, pp. 89-105.
Pollock, Jean Yves: 1983b, 'Accord, chaines impersonnelles et variables', Linguisticae
Investigationes VII:l, pp. 131-181.
Pollock, Jean Yves: 1988, 'Extraction from NP in French and English: A Case Study in
Comparative Syntax', ms., Univ. de Rennes 2.
Pollock, Jean Yves: 1989a, 'Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP',
Pollock, Jean Yves: 1989b, 'Opacity, Genitive Subjects, and Extraction from NP in English
and French', Probus 1:2, 151-162.
Postal, Paul: 1966-1969, 'On So-Called Pronouns in English', in David Reibel and Sanford
Schane (eds.), pp. 201-224.
Pottier, Bernard: 1974, Linguistique generate: theorie et description, Klinksieck, Paris.
Pranka, Paula: 1982, Syntax and Word Formation, Ph.D., MIT.
Radford, Andrew: 1988a, Transformational Syntax, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Radford, Andrew: 1988b, 'Small Children's Small Clauses', Transactions of the Philological
Society 86, 1-46.
Radford, Andrew: 1990, Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: the Nature
of Early Child Grammars of English, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
294 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rapaport, Tova: 1987, Copular, Nominal, and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew,
PH.D., MIT.
Raposo, Eduardo: 1985-6, 'Some asymmetries in the binding theory in Romance', The
Linguistic Review 5:1, 75-110.
Raposo, Eduardo: 1987, 'Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: the Inflected Infinitive in European
Portuguese', Linguistic Inquiry 18:1, 85-109.
Reckendorf Hans: 1895, Die syntaktischen Verhiiltnisse des arabischen, Leiden.
Reichenbach, Hans: 1947, Elements of Symbolic Logic, Macmillan, New York.
Reinhart, Tanya: 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Ph.D., MIT.
Reinhart, Tanya: 1983, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, The University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland: 1990, 'Anaphors and Logophors: An Argument Structure
Perspective', in Jan Koster and Eric Reuland (eds.), Long Distance Anaphora, to be
published by Faris, Dordrecht.
Reuland, Eric: 1983, 'Governing -ing', Linguistic Inquiry 14:1, 101-136.
Reuland, Eric and Jan Koster: 1990, 'Long Distance Anaphora: An Overview', in Jan Koster
and Eric Reuland (eds.).
Ritter, Betsy: 1987-1988, 'A Head Movement Approach to Construct State Noun Phrases',
Linguistics 26:6, 909-929.
Ritter, Betsy: 1988, A Case Study in the Syntax of Agreement: Hebrew Noun Phrases and
Benoni Verb Phrases, Ph.D., MIT.
Ritter, Betsy: 1991, 'Evidence for Number as a Nominal Head', Paper delivered at the GLOW
conference, Leiden.
Rizzi, Luigi: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Faris, Dordrecht.
Rizzi, Luigi: 1986, 'Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro', Linguistic Inquiry, 17:3,
501-557.
Rizzi, Luigi: 1987, 'On Chain Formation', in Hagit Borer (ed.), pp.65-95.
Rizzi, Luigi: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, Luigi: 1991a, 'Proper Government and the Definition of A Positions', Paper
delivered at GLOW, Leiden.
Rizzi, Luigi: 199lb, 'Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion', Technical Reports in
Formal and Computational Linguistics, Universite de Geneve.
Rizzi, Luigi and Ian Roberts: 1989, 'Complex Inversion in French', Probus 1:1, 1-30.
Roberts, Ian: 1985 The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects, Doctoral
dissertation, USC, LA.
Rochemont, Michael: 1978, A Theory of Stylistic Rules, Ph.D., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Roeper, Tom: 1986, 'Implicit Arguments and Implicit Roles', ms., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Roeper, Tom: 1987, 'Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Selection', Linguistic
Inquiry 18:2, 267-310.
Roman, Andre: 1990a, Grammaire de l'arabe, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Roman, Andre: 199Gb, 'De !'accord et du pseudo-accord du feminin en arabe', Annates
Islamologiques 25, pp. 27-56.
Ross, John R.: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Rothstein, Susan: 1983, The Syntactic Forms of Predication, Ph.D., MIT.
Rouveret, Alain: 1989, 'Cliticisation et Temps en portugais europeen', Revue des langues
romanes XCIII:2, 337-371.
Rouveret, Alain: 1990, 'X-Bar Theory, Minimality, and Barrierhood in Welsh', in Randall
Hendrick (ed.), pp. 27-79.
Rouveret, Alain: 1991, 'Functional Categories and Agreement', ms., Paris VIII Saint Denis
(to appear).
Rouveret, Alain and Jean Roger Vergnaud: 1980, 'Specifynig Reference to Subject', Linguistic
Inquiry 11:1, 97-202.
Russell, Robert A.: 1984, 'Historical aspects of subject-verb agreement in Arabic',
BIBLIOGRAPHY 295
Proceedings of the 1st Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Ohio State Univ.,
Columbus, pp. 116-127.
Ruwet, Nicolas: 1972, Thiorie syntaxique et syntaxe du franrais, Le Seuil, Paris.
Ruwet, Nicolas: 1982, Grammaire des insultes et autres etudes, Le Seuil, Paris.
Saad, George N.: 1982, Transitivity, Causation and Passivisation, Kegan Paul International,
London.
Safir, Kenneth: 1986, 'On Implicit Arguments and Thematic Structure', NELS 16.
Safrr, Kenneth: 1987a, 'Subject Clitics and the Nom Drop Parameter', in Hagit Borer (ed.),
The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 333-356.
Safir, Kenneth: 1987b, 'The Syntactic Projection of Lexical Thematic Structure', Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 5:4, 561-601.
Saito, Mamuro: 1985, Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications,
PH.D., MIT.
Samarra?ii, Ibrahim: 1968, n-na}Jw ar-<arabii, naqd-un wa-binaa?, daar as-saadiq, Beyruth.
Schachter, Paul: 1983, 'Explaining Auxiliary Order', in Frank Heny and Barry Richards (eds.),
pp. 145-204.
Selkirk, Lisa: 1982, The Syntax of Words, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Seghrouchni, Driss: 1989, Les schemes verbaux en arabe, ms., Faculty of Letters, Rabat.
Shlonsky, Ur: 1987, Null and Displaced Subjects, Ph.D., MIT.
Shlonsky, Ur: 1990, 'Construct State Nominals and Universal Grammar', Paper delivered
at the GLOW Workshop, London.
Siibawayhi, Abuu Bi§r Q.: (8th century), al-kitaab, Bulaaq, Cairo, 1938.
Smith, Carlota: 1986, 'A Speaker-Based Approach to Aspect', Linguistics and Philosophy
9, 97-115.
Smith, Carlota: 1991, The Parameter of Aspect, to be published by Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sobin, Nicholas J.: 1985, 'On Case Assignment in Ukrainian Morphological Passive
Constructions', Linguistic Inquiry 16:4, 649-662.
Speas, Margaret: 1986, Adjunctions and Projections in Syntax, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Sportiche, Dominique: 1988, 'A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for
Constituent Structure', Linguistic Inquiry 19:3, 425-450.
Sproat, Richard: 1985a, 'Welsh Syntax and VSO Structure', Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 3:2, 173-216.
Sproat, Richard: 1985b, Deriving the Lexicon, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Stowell, Tim: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Stowell, Tim: 1982, 'The tense of infinitives', Linguistic Inquiry 13:3, 561-570.
Suyuu\ii, Jallal-uddiin: 15th century, ham< al-hawaami", daar al-buiJuu\ al-<ilmiyya, 1977.
Suyuu\ii, Jallal-uddiin: 15th century,l-?Sbaah wa-n-nat}aa?ir, daar 1-kitaab al-<arabii, Beyruth,
1984. .
Szabolcsi, Anna: 1987, 'Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase', in lstvhn Kenesei (ed.),
Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 2, Jate Szeged, Institute for Science Management and
Informatics, Budapest, pp. 167-189.
Szabolcsi, Anna: 1989, 'Noun Phrases and Clauses: is DP analogous to IP or CP?', to
appear in John Payne (ed.), Proceedings of the Colloquium on Noun Phrase Structure,
Mouton, The Hague.
Taraldsen, Tarald: 1978, 'On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-trace filiter',
distributed by Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.
Tellier, Christine: 1990, 'Underived Nominals and the Projection Principle', NELS 20, pp.
472-486.
Tenny, Carol: 1987, Grammatical Aspect and Affectedness, Ph.D., MIT.
Torrego, Esther: 1984, 'On Inversion in Spanish and Some of its Effects', Linguistic Inquiry,
15:1, 103-130.
Torrego, Esther: 1988, 'Evidence for DPs', ms., Boston Univ., Mass.
296 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Travis, Lisa: 1984, Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Ph.D., MIT, Cambridge,
Mass.
Underhill, Robert: 1976, Turkish Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Vendler, Zeno: 1967, Linguistics and Philosophy, Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.
Vergnaud, Jean Roger: 1985, Dependances et Niveaux de Representation en Syntaxe, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Verkuyl, Henk J.: 1972, On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, D. Reidel Publishing
Co., Dordrecht.
Vinet, Marie-Therese: 1987, 'Empty pleonastics and a parametrized INFL', ms. University
of Sherbrooke.
Vinet, Marie-Therese: 1991, 'Observations theoriques sur les expletifs: le cas du creole
ha'itien', Revue quebecoise de linguistique 20:1, pp. 195-213.
Vlach, Frank: 1981, 'The Semantics of the Progressive', in Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie
Zaenen (eds.): Tense and Aspect, Academic Press, N.Y., pp. 271-292.
Wasow, Thomas: 1979, Anaphora in Generative Grammar, Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.
Weerman, Fred: 1989, The V2 Conspiracy, Foris, Dordrecht.
Wehrli, Eric: 1987, 'On Some Properties of French Clitic Se', in Hagit Borer (ed.), pp.
263-283.
Williams, Edwin: 1980, 'Predication', Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1, 203-238.
Williams, Edwin: 1981, 'Argument Structure and Morphology', The Linguistic Review I: 1,
81-114.
Williams, Edwin: 1985, 'PRO and Subject of NP', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
3:3, 297-315.
Woisetschlaeger, Eric F.: 1976, A Semantic Theory of the English Auxiliary System, Indiana
Univ. Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.
Woisetschlaeger, Eric F.: 1983, 'On the Question of Definiteness in "An Old Man's Book"',
Wright, William: 1858/1974, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, third edition, 2 Vols.,
Yafei, Li: 1990, 'On V-V Compouds in Chinese', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
8:2, 177-207.
Zaenen, Annie: 1980, Extraction Rules in Icelandic, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, Garland
Publishing Co., New York.
Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Hoskuldur Thrainsson: 1985, 'Case and Grammatical
Functions: The Icelandic Passive', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:3, 441-483.
Zagona, Karen: 1982/1988, Verb Phrase Syntax, A Parametric Study of English and Spanish,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Zajjajii, Abuu-1-qaasim A.: lOth century, al·?iidaah fii cilal-i n-nal]w, daar n-nafaa?is,
Beyruth, 1979.
Zanuttini, Raffaella: 1989, 'The structure of negative clauses in Romance', NELS 20, pp.
517-530.
Zribi-Hertz, Anne: 1982, 'La construction se-moyen du fran~ais et son statut dans le triangle:
moyen, pass if, reflechi', Linguisticae Investigationes VI:2, pp. 345-401.
Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa: 1987, Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax,
Faris, Dordrecht.
INDEX OF NAMES
Abdo, D. 90n9, 91n18 95n57~58,96,97, 102,104,109,

Abney,S. 5, 102,122, 190,209n28~30, 110,111,112,113,128,133,
213,231,232,233,274n1, 136n1, 139n29~34, 159, 160,
279n41 167,201,205n10, 206n13~15,
Akmajian, A. 206n15 212n44, 220,239,246,254,255,
Alexander, M. 140n34 269,271,272,275n8~9
Anderson, M. 235, 237, 250, 275n9 Chung,S.68,89n4,90n14,92n28,
Anderson, S. 86n9, 92n27, 96, 236,237, 94n53~54,95n56,225,226,
250 277n22,280n43
Aoun, J. 15n6 Cinque, G. 91n21, 251, 254
Ayoub, G. 91n18 Cohen, D. 147, 175, 204n7
Cohen, M. 147, 204n1~7
Bach, E. 143 Comrie, B. 202, 203, 279n7, 282n15,
Baker, L. 96, 97, 147, 192 283n17
Baker, M. 7, 12, 20, 85n1, 90n7, 102, Cordin, P. 35
127,132, 136n3,208n22~23
Bakir, M.J. 90n9, 91n18 Dahl, 0. 147, 206n16, 211n37
Barlow, M. 92n28, 361n20 Davidson, D. 55, 143, 193, 211n40
Barss, A. 90n13 Demombynes, G. 93n33
Bartsch, R. 204n5 Descles, J.P. 2lln37
Belletti, A. xiii, 212n46 Di Sciullo, A.M. xiii, 12,13, 14,
Benmanoun, A. 208n24 85n2~3~6~7, 93n2~3, 94n6~7.
Bennis, H. 193, 204n5, 207n18 261
Besten, H. den, 91n16 Dodrovie-Sorin, C. 205n 10
Blachere, R. 93n33 Dowty, D. 143
Borer, H. xii, 54, 94n48~50, 209n30,
252,271,275n2,280n43 Emonds, J. xiii, 6, 12, 18, 71, 89n1,
Brame 274nl 90n9, 91nl8, 92n24~29,
Brandi, L. 35 93n31~33, 159,201, 206n15,
Bravmann,M. 136n4 241,249,251,275n3~8
Bresnan, J. xiii, 4, 6, 15n5, 82, 96, 116 En~,M.91n22, 193,204n5,211n36,
Brody, M. 271 212n43
Bromberger, S. xiii Evans, G. 73n11, 90n13
Cantarino 175, 178 Fabb,N.52,53,86n7, 163,196, 208n19,

Caspari 141, 147n1 209n30, 263,279n37
Chafe, W. 91n20 Fassi, F.A. 4, 5, 16, 26, 38, 39, 49, 62,
Choe, H.S. 89n4 63,64,67, 73,80, 82, 87, 89n1,
Chomsky, N. xii, xiii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 90n9, 91n18, 92n24~29,
9, 10, 11, 12, 15n2~3~6, 18, 44, 93n31~33, 104, 123, 129, 136n7,
49,53,61,62,68,85n2,86n7, 137n16, 139n34, 168, 177, 181,
89n5,90n7~14,93n37,94n45, 188, 193,202,204n4,205n10,
297
298 INDEX OF NAMES
212n43&t44,228,264, Kamp, H. 204n5, 212n43

275n3&t7&t11&t12, 276n17&t20, Kayne, R. xiii, 2, 5, 14, 49, 60, 89nl,
278n31 93n32,95n63,99, 168,169,
Ferguson, C. xiii, 92n28 205nl0, 208n23
Fleisch, H. 141 Kenstowicz, M. 95n59
Frampton, J. 255 Keyser,J.5,6,80,81,86n8, 177,179,
Fukui, N. 94n45, 235 204,266,280n42
Kiparsky, P. 278n31
Giorgi, A. 250, 251, 252, 276n15, Kitagawa, Y. 71, 89n2, 364n30
279n34 Koopman, H. 5, 6, 22, 62, 63, 89nl&t2,
Godard, D. 253 212n44
Grace, G.W. 279n41 Koster, J. 9, 22
Greenberg, J. 62 Kratzer, A. 2l0n34
Grimshaw, J. xiii, 201, 236, 237, 251, Kroeber, A.I. 279n41
252,266,275n8,276nl9,278n33 Kuno,S.254
Guentcheva, Z. 2lln37 Kuroda, Y. 6, 89n2
Gueron, J. xiii, 50, 9ln22, 94n47, 204n5, Kurylowicz, J. 142, 146, 161, 190
206nl3,207nl8&tl9
Guilfoyle, E. 63 Laka,I. 94n46.95n62, 166,206nl1
Langacker, K. 273
Hale, K. xiii, 5, 6, 80, 81, 82, 86n8, Lapointe, S. 85n6
92n27,96, 102,127,128,133, Larson, R. xiii, ~
136n6&tn13, 137n17, 140n34, Lasnik, H. xiii, 9, 19, 90nl3, 91n22,
177, 179,204,266,280n42 94n41, 100
Halle, M. xiii, 12, 15n5, 79, 85n2&t7, Laughren, M. xiii
86n9 Levin, B. 280n10
Hasan, A. 210n34 LoCascio, V. 204n5
Hazout, I. 277n26, 280n43 Longobardi, G. 250, 251, 252, 276nl5,
Heim, I. 212n43 279n34
Hendrick, R. 94n53 Lyons, J. 86n12
Heny,F.206n15
Higginbotham, J. x, xi, 7, 51, 95n51, Mahajan, A. 91n15&t22, 139n34
124, 137n20, 143, 187,204n5, Maling, J. xiii, 90n 11, 92n24, 93n34,
211n40,212n44,215,226,235, 95n60, 206n14, 278n31&t32,
266,276nl7 279n38,280n42
Hoekstra, T. xiv, 52, 94n47, 193, 204n5, Maracz, L. 276n17
206n13,207n18&t19 Marantz, A. xiii, 90n14, 258, 275n9
Holmberg, A. 34, 91n16, 193 Marouzeau,M. 204n6,275n2
Horrocks, G. 232, 276n17 May, R. 9
McCarthy, J. 76, 77, 79, 85n4&t5,
Ibn Madaa? 91n18 138n22,204n4
Ibn Sarraaj 277n24 McCloskey, J. 61, 62, 90n6&t14, 92n27,
Ibn YaCiis 277n24 94n53,96, 128, 137n17
Mchombo, S. 96, 116
Jackendoff, R. 15n5, 85n2, 92n24, Meillet, A. 147, 204n1&t2
206nl4,276n18,278n31 Meulen, A. ter, 277n23
Jaeggli, 0. 136nl, 271 Milner, J.C. 251, 254, 275n2
Jakubowicz, C. 204n5 Mohammad, M. 38, 91n18, 92n29,
INDEX OF NAMES 299
361n21,364n26 Rouveret, A. xiii, 36, 49, 62, 63,

Mohanan, K.P. xiii 89-90n6,91n23,94n53, 128,
Moltmann, F. 9ln22 139n31, 204n5
Moro, A. 40, 93n30 Russell, B. 15n1
Mouchaweh,L.89n1,90n14 Russell, R. 137n22
Ruwet, N. 253
Orwell3, 15n4
Ouhalla, J. 92n28, 166, 208n24, 279n41 Safir, K. 136n1, 266
Saito, M. 4, 9
Palmer 86n 12 Schachter, P. 206n15
Parsons, T. 143, 144, 177 Seghrouchni, D. xiii, 12, 79, 80, 277n24
Partee,B.H. 193,204n5,211n42 Selkirk, L. 12, 13, 87n7
Perlmutter, D. 94n49, 364n27 Shlonsky, U. 89n4, 194n38, 362n21
Pesetsky, D. 208n23 Sibawayh,A.91n18,94n49, 163,275n4
Picallo, C. 204n5 Siraafii, A. 277n24
Plato 2, 15n1 Smith, C. 143, 144, 147, 21ln37
Platzack, C. 34, 193 Speas,M.94n45,235
Pollock, J-Y. xiii, 5, 26, 38, 39, 71, 89n8, Sportiche, D. 6, 89n2, 95n63, 212n44
93n35,95n61, 166,169,190,193, Sproat, R. 63, 89n1&6, 209n30, 233,
194,204n5,205n10,241, 276n20 236,237,258,278n28,
Postal, P. 94n49, 136n6 279n36&37&40
Pottier, B. xiii Stavrou, M. 232, 276n17
Pranka, P. 96 Steele, S. 206n15
Prince, A. 79, 138n22 Stowell, T. 4, 6, 49, 50, 191, 193,201
Suyuutii, J. 277n24, 278n27
Quirk, R. 191 Szabolcsi, A. 225, 226, 232, 276n17
Radford, A. xiii, 209n29 Talmoudi, M. 206n16

Rapaport,M.209n30 Taraldsen, T. 355nl
Rapaport, T. 89n1 Tenny, C. 76n19
Raposo,E.94n44,204n5 Thrainsson, H. 278n31
Reichenbach, H. 144, 149, 175 Torrego, E. xiii, 251, 252, 255
Reinhart, T. 8, 90n12&13 Travis, L. 5,12, 63, 89n1, 102
Reu1and,E. 9,22,94n44,277n23
Richards, B. 206n15 Underhill, R. 276n17
Ritter, E. 275n3, 276n21, 278n29
Rizzi, L. xiii, 2, 61, 68, 90n10, 92n25, Vergnaud, J.R. 94n45
93n32&38, 94n42&52, 95n59, Verkuyl, H.J. 143
109, 110, 111, 125, 134, Vinet, M.T xiii
136n1&2&3, 139n29, 168,
212n45, 231,232,253,254 Wasow, T. xiii, 206nl5
Roberts, I. 93n32, 163, 140n35 Weerman, F. 91n17
Rochemont, M. 4 White, L. 2
Roeper, T. 279n37 Williams, E. 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 85n2&3,
Rohrer, C. 204n5 94n6&7, 139n32, 226,261,268
Roman, A. 93n31&33 Woisetsclaeger, E. 272
Ross, J.R. 4, 68, 104 Wright, W. 93n33, 138n24, 141, 163,
Rothstein, S. 11, 139n32 175, 204n1&4&6, 205n8, 211n37,
300 INDEX OF NAMES
258,259,275n4 Zanuttini, R. 95n62, 166

Zubizaretta, ~.L. 266, 275n8
Yip,~.92n24,206n14,278n31
Zaenen, A. 93n34, 278n3l

Zagona,K.6,52,53,89n2, l63,204n5,
206nl3, 207nl9
ANALYTIC INDEX
A position 94n52 chain 41, 44, 55

A' movement 95n61 checking 16, 32, 47, 54, 117, 131,
position 90n10&15, 95n61 132, 139n31
pronoun 90n15 configuration 32, 34, 38, 39, 131
Specifier 168 Criterion 17, 18, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43,
Absolute 144 44,47,53,55,61, 75,93n39,
state 213 112, 118, 120, 128,130, 131,
tense 193, 205n7 132
Abstract Definiteness 245, 252, 274
citation form 86n8 feature 38, 41, 43, 44, 61, 91n23, 124,
morpheme 14, 79, 82,233 156
tense 46, 181 head 130
see also Case Inflectional 97, 133
Accessible subject 10 licensing 97, 132, 133, 270, 271
Accompli 148, 204n6, 205n7 marker, marking 29, 56, 61, 96, 97,
Accusative rase 45, 47, 59, 63, 91nl9, 102, 109, 110, 116, 121, 122,
92n24,94n48 124, 133, 138n26
Act 141 , 172, 198 Nominal xiii, 16, 45, 53, 61, 62, 65,
Action 179, 196,201,214,224,272 75,94n43
Active Nominality Parameter xiii, 49-50
nominal 258, 260, 267, 276n20 Non-nominal 16, 44, 50, 51, 53, 58,
voice 145 75
see also Participle Non-pronominal124
Activity 179 object, AGRO 127-130, 133, 139n34,
Actor 258, 260 160,205n10
Adjective, A 141, 175-190 phrase, AGRP 125, 136n6
phrase, AP 201-203 Poor 16, 17, 18, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37,
Adjunct 61, 65, 147 38,44,47,51,60, 75,91n23,
modification 263, 276n19 92n26, 111,126-128,132
Adjunction, adjoined 12, 14, 61, 68, 69, projection 130, 139n34
81,82,94n51,95n57,223,224, Pronominal113-116, 124, 125, 134
241,274 Pronominali ty Parameter 116, 117,
Subject 69, 71 124-125, 127, 134
Affix, affixation xii, 13, 21, 24, 27, 55, Pure 124, 132
69, 70, 77, 78,81, 186,219,233, raising 276n20
234,235,239,241,258,267,268, Rich 16, 17,31-51,53,60, 61, 65,
274,279n36 75, 91n22&23, 92n26&28, 96,
Pronominal21, 30, 69, 70, 74,84 112, 128
Agenti ve 179, 180 Spec-head 128, 139n34
AGR, agreement 97, 109, 110 Specification 96, 112
affix 137n22 Strong45, 112
agreement 227, 228, 270 subject, AGRS 128-133, 139n33&34,
301
302 ANALYTIC INDEX
205n10 preservation 194--198

system xi 97-116, 138n28 view 142, 201, 207, 208, 214, 215,
Weak 16, 50, 53, 55, 75, 112 276
Aktionsart 143 Associativity 149
Ambiguity 97, 138n28 Asymmetrical 23
Functional 97, 116-127 c-command 23
Morphological 97, 116, 137n21 configuration 23
Analytic xi Atelic 185
genitive 213, 214, 245, 257, 270, 273 Athabaskan 280n42
morphology 76 Atom 77,78
strategy 246,271, 276nl6 Atomic xii
Anaphor 10,23,24,26,90nl1 adjective 177
Anchor, anchored 144, 182 category 78
Anchoring point 144 Atomicity 85n6, 96
Antecedent 10, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29 Austronesian 225
government 9, 65, 95n59 Autonomous
governor95n59, 168,223,224,253, component 12, 76,85n3
271,277n23 AUX 156, 206n15
Anterior, Anteriority 142, 144, 170-171, Auxiliary verb 51, 53, 94n47, 142, 174,
205n7,206nl7 206n12
future 149
past 149 Bantu 96
present 149 Barrier9,40,48,65,66
Arabic vii, x, xiii, I, 3, 5, 16, 19, 22, Basic
26-33,35-45,49-55,58-63, adjective 177, 178
66-72,75,77,78, 83,89n2, word order 16, 17, 19, 26, 53, 63, 67,
91n14&15&17&18, 75
92n24&28&29, Basrah 91n18
95n56&59&62&64, 96-99, Beginning endpoint 142
102-112,116,117,122-128,133, Berber 89n4, 92n28, 279n41
134, 136n4, 137nl5, 141-15~ Bi-AGR structure 205n10
156, 158-163, 166, 169, 170, Hi-inflectional 142-160, 205n1 0
175-178,184,185,191-194,202, Bi-temporal 160
204n1&7, 209n12&13&14, 213, chain 160
214,216,219,223,231,237,246, Binding 10,22-24,44,61, 90n13&15,
250,253,255,257,258,266,270, 276n17
272,275n3&13, 277n14,278n29, theory, BT 44, 243
279n34 Variable 226,235,261, 268, 276nl7
Argument, argumental xi, 6, 7, 96, 111, see also Theta
136n1 Bleeding 162
position 97, 102, 115-124, 134, Bound
140n35 anaphor23,25,90n11
Aspect, Asp, Aspectual xi, xii, xiii, 76, argument 97
78, 83, 141, 176, 178-181 expletive 337-355
Grammatical 144 form 96-98, 103, 105, 108-112, 116,
language 141 120, 121, 125, 127, 129, 130,
lexical 143, 186 134,279n36
phrase, AspP 160, 202 free alternation 100
ANALYTIC INDEX 303
morpheme 19, 27, 55, 57, 82-84 realization 55, 271

pronominal, pronoun 96-102, Resistance Principle 49, 50
106-108, 121, 135 sign 252, 271
variable 28, 190 spreading 92n214
variant 106 theory 55, 63, 229, 239, 244, 246
Bounding 11, 64 tier 278n31
Bracketing 76-79, 81, 90n9 transmission 93n40, 94n41
Breton 92, 94n53, 96 Categorial214, 233, 234, 241, 249, 259,
Broken plural85n4, 86n10, 93n4&31, 267,268,274,278n32
137n24,259,275n5,277n24 change 189, 268
conflict 249, 250
Canonical18, 52, 69 conversion 167, 233, 235, 237, 239,
clause structure xiii 16, 17, 93n30 245
derivation 74, 185 feature 272, 276
genitive 182, 273 specification xii, 86n8
government 99, 103, 104, 107, 108, Category xii, 16, 49, 50, 214, 234, 239,
136n14, 169,296,303-305 252,259,273,278n28
governor 114, 296 Causative 79, 80, 81, 86nll
member92 C-command 8, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 48, 60,
sentence 93n30 75, 206nll
Case 16, 19, 32, 33, 45, 46, 49, 51, 98, Celtic 17, 36, 38, 42, 44, 54, 89n6, 96,
110, 114, 120, 131, 213, 214, 220, 128, 133, 137nl7
221,230,232-236,239,240,242, Chain 8, 22, 29, 38, 43, 59, 60, 64
245,247,248,253,257,258,260, Condition 8
267,272,274,275n3&9,278n31 see also Maximal
Abstract 21 Chamorro 52, 63, 69, 80n36&38, 89n4,
agreement 148, 246 90n14,92n28,94n54&56,213,
agreement strategy 148, 246 224,225,226,229,230,231,270,
assignment 7, 8, 16, 19, 46, 50, 55, 277n22,280n43
63,214,220,227,265,271 Checking 16, 46, 49, 54, 62, 63, 64
checking 8, 16, 46, 49, 54, 62, 63, 64, Chinese 139n33
137nl4, 159,220,228,242, Cognate
270, 271, 273 modification 264
configuration 270, 274 object 264
Criterion 51, 55, 62, 143, 163,243 Coindexation 9, 10
default mechanism 8 Complement, Comp
directionality 62, 63 position 61, 68
discharge 51, 55, 62, 63, 112, 159, Complementary distribution 99, 108,
242,252 110--113, 130, 106, 107, 109, 120,
Filter 7 121, 126, 129, 145, 155, 162, 183,
Inheritance 93n40&41 187n9, 189nl8,296,302,311
licensing xiii, 62, 75, 214, 215 Complementizer, C 44, 65, 67, 74n15
mark 51, 228, 246, 247, 248, 272, Filter 67
275n3 phrase, CP xii
marked 8, 21, 59,213,245,250 Completed process 141
marking 31, 33, 48, 53, 158, 165, 235, Complex tense 147, 149-150, 156-159,
239,247,250,252 182
Nominative 137n14 Compositional aspect 143
304 ANALYTIC INDEX
Compounding 19, 81 Derivation 102, 108, 110, 136n3

Concatenation 13, 76, 78, 85n4 step 89n5
Concrete morpheme 14, 77, 79, 83, 236 Derivational xii, xiii
Conditional84, 151, 171, 172, 174, mechanism I 00
205n8,208n26,209n27 morphology 13
Configurational asymmetry 23-26 Derived
Conflation rule 81 adjective 178
Consistency Filter 279n34 nominal232, 243, 260, 263, 274,
Construct state 194, 198-200, 203, 213, 278n29
275n2,276n21 subject 255, 257
Contemporaneous 149 Determiner, D 213, 216, 221, 222, 227,
Contingency 176-180 231,232,235,240,246,250,252,
Contingent 178 253,257,261,268,274n1,
situation 181 275n11, 276nl7&20, 277n23,
state 176, 181, 189, 190 279n42
Continuous aspect 180, 21 On35 agreement 215, 227,228, 253, 270
Coordinate structure constraint I 08 phrase, DP see DP
Copula, copular 87, 88, 89n2, 96, 97, 98, raising 276n20
116-119 ,175 De verbal
pronoun 116,117-119,125 adjective 176
sentence 87, 93n30 nominal214, 215, 237, 240, 260, 263,
verb 87, 119, 145, 206n14 274,278n29
visibility 89n2, 141, 152, 155-156 Deverbalization 233, 237
see also Neg Direction, Directionality 14, 63, 103
Coreference, coreferential 24, 25, 91 n 15 of government 99
C-precedence 22 Dislocation
Cross-Categorial Theta-Grid Percolation Left 128
Convention 278n28 Right 128, 136n7
Crossover 90n15 Doubling see pronoun
Strong 90&91n15 Doubly filled Comp 68, 69
Weak 90&9ln15 DP xi, xii, xiii, 213,214,215,220,222,
Culminating, Cul143 223,224,227,229,232,242,245,
Cumulative 84 269,274
D-structure 97, 102, 242, 271, 277n22
Default Dummy preposition 213
tense 163 Durative aspect 180, 210n35
Definite 40, 77n21 Dynamic situation 178-180
article 321
Definiteness 122, 138n27, 214,225,228, ECP, empty category principle 64, 67,
232,244,245,252,259,274, 68,69,95n61, 104,223,228,230,
275n7 231,246,249,253,271,279n35
Degree, Deg 202 Economy
Deictic of derivation 18
adverb 146 Principle 69, 89n5, 95n60
orientation point 144 Empty
tense 141-74 category II, 60
Dependent Category Principle see ECP
T 142, 147, 148, 204n5 expletive 39, 54, 60, 93n40&41
ANALYTIC INDEX 305
Endpoint 142 58, 75

Enduring situation 178 Extraction 19, 32, 53, 55, 60, 61,64-67,
Energetic 84, 151, 205n8 74,213,215,222-224,227,246,
English 96, xi, xii, I, 25, 30, 33, 40, 45, 253,271,277n22
49,50,52,53,55, 56,60,62, 71,
72,84,86nl3,89n2,9ln22, Familiarity Condition 212n43
94n41,94n47,95n63, 110,117, Feature 96
118, 119, 125, 133, 134, 136n5, AGR 109, 124
139n29, 142-150, 156-160, 163, Definiteness, DEF 122, 123
176-178,191-194,202,204, discharge 94n45
206n13&15, 209n29&30, hierarchy 125-127
211n36&40,213,214,224,231, matching 110
232,246,250,252,254,257,260, sharing 17,41, 44
270,272,277n24,279n36&37, specification 34, 38, 43, 44, 75,
279n40 93n39,96,97, 110
Event, E 142, 178, 179, 181, 130, 134, Final
167,168,174,176,232,233,235, stage 143
261,266,268 Fina1-1-Law 94n49
affix, affixation 233, 239 Finite 158
argument 239 inflection 148
nominal214, 215,220,246,260,261, morphology 142, 158
266,269,277n24 tense 191, 193
nominalization 266 verb 142, 210,218, 226, 230,
position 187-189, 235, 238, 239, 264, 257-260,286n29,352, 356n6,
266 363n24
projection 268 Finiteness 190-194
role 235, 239, 261 Flat
time, E 147-149 structure 22, 24, 26
Eventuality, e 143 Floating quantifiers 71, 73,74
Expletive xi, 37, 38, 42-44, 55-60, 62, Focus 237
92n29, 93n32&34&37&39&40 doubling 297
agreement 61 Free 11, 23, 24, 97, 98, 100, I 01, 103,
Bound 58 105, 106, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127,
chain 38, 41, 44, 131 135
configuration 40 form98,99, 106,107,116-118,130,
Empty 93n40&41 135
hypothesis 38, 42 pronoun 136n10, 137n21
Lexical41, 42, 57, 94n51 state 213
pro 131 variant 106
topic 39, 61 French 30, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45,
Extended 48-55,60,61, 71-74,89n2,
head 278n33 92n26,93n32&35,94n47,95n63,
projection 252, 278n33 110, 118, 140n35, 142, 143, 150,
Projection Principle, EPP 19, 53, 151, 158, 159, 169, 191, 193,
94n49 204n3,206n13,207n20,251,253,
External 255,273,277n24
argument 7 Fronting 30, 31, 89n 1, 95n55
governor 16,32,33,45,46,47,48, Functional, F
306 ANALYTIC INDEX
ambiguity 116-127 present 173

category xii, 4, 5 Head 13, 54, 68, 69, 73, 74, 79, 82, 83,
domain 148 84,87,89nl,95n58&62&64,215,
projection 222, 227, 278n29&33 217,219,221,229,232,245,248,
Fusion 76, 81, 83 249,253,259,267,274nl,
Future 276nl6&17, 277n22&23, 279n34
perfect 148 government 48, 65, 252, 270
reference 160 Government Constraint on Adjunc-
tense 152 tion 255
movement 19,88,90n7,241
Gender, GEN 16, 31, 32, 36, 40, 41, 42, Movement Constraint, HMC 12, 90n7
43, 52, 92n28&29, 109, 117, 118, noun 217,219,229,245,252,253,
138n26 255,256,268,273,277n21
activation 43 Head-Comp licensing 214
agreement 92n28&29 Headness 5, 215, 233, 239,259, 261
checking 54 Head-to-Head
specification 38, 43 movement 16, 79
Generic 28, 29, 91n19, 178, 183 Hebrew 89nl, 278n34, 280n43
tense 190 Holding, Hold 143
Genitive 45, 73, 198, 199,213,214,221, Huduut 178
222,232,242,243,250,252,256, Hungarian 213, 224,229, 270, 272,
268,270,272,273,275n9, 276nl7,279n34
276n16
complement 277n24 !-lowering 68, 71
marking xi, xiii I Nominality Parameter 158
Germanic xi, 26, 47, 62, 9ln16&17, Illocutionary force 171
93n34,246 Imperative mood 76, 91n23, 155, 171,
Gerundive nominal249 179,205n8
Goal247,266,268,279 Imperfect 83, 84, 141, 148, 149-150,
Governing 151, 162,205n7
category 10, 23-25, 243 past 148
Government 9-10, 33, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52, Imperfective 76, 9ln23, 143, 144, 176,
57,59,62, 70nl4,92n24,99, 110, 178, 181-190,204n7
116, 128, 133 aspect 77, 83
Head 103 viewpoint 143
Lexical98, 115 Imperfectivity 143, 205n7
percolation 248 lnaccompli 147, 204n6, 205n7
projection, G-projection 168, 169 Inception 142, 181
see also under canonical lnchoative 91
Government Transparency Corollary affix 297, 320
208n22 stative 154
Governor 7, 10, 21, 23, 33, 46, 47, 57, Incorporation 21, 58, 59, 69, 75, 81, 97,
96,98,99, 100,102-104,107, 112, 115, 116, 139n21
115, 129, 130, 132, 134, 137n14 analysis, INCA 96, 97, 102-110
Intervening 108 Object 116
Greek 83, 205n7 Obligatory 103
Optional I 03
Habitual155, 176, 183, 190 Pronoun 96, 101, 102, 106, 108, 109,
ANALYTIC INDEX 307
110 Kase 53
Subject 116 Criterion 207n 19
Incorporating discharge 94n45, 207n19
language 116, 125, 127, 139n29 phrase, KP 190, 207n19
Indefinite 216, 219, 225,245,253, 255, Kase Resistance Principle 53, 158
256,269,277n24 Kinds
Indicative of sentences 180, 181
mood 145, 151, 153, 164, 170 of situations 145
Individual level predicate 210n34
Inflection, I, INFL 96, 97, 98, 108, 110, Language
116, 117, 121, 122, 124, 127, 130, acquisition xii, 2, 15n2
137n15&17&21, 142, 161 faculty 1
Pure 97, 116, 134 learning 15n1&2
pronoun alternation 97 Lasnik's Filter 19, 100
Rich 109, 122, 135, 139n31 Left
Split analysis 142, 205n10 dislocation 27, 28, 40, 64, 66
Inflectional Legitimate object 94n45
AGR 133 Lexical 48, 72
agreement 96 aspect 143, 186
agreement marker 96, 109, 112 category xii, 4, 5, 7, 10, 77, 78, 79,
analysis, INFLA 96, 97, 109-116, 95n58,279n34
127, 135, 139n29, 140n35 expletive 41, 57, 58
category, i-category 5, 26, 27, 47, 62, head 239, 260
75,79,82-84,213 projection 220, 241, 274, 278n29
projection 5, 124, 213, 274 redundancy rule 76
structure 142, 230, 274 root 79, 184
subject 12 support 47, 48, 156
support 12 Lexicalism xiii, 76-77, 85n6
Inherent Lexicalization 47, 58, 89n2, 152
case 8, 61, 200 Licensing 17, 18, 19, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41,
Initial stage 143 42,43,44,48,51,52,53,62, 74,
Interval 75,86n8,89n5,91n23,
oftime 142, 146 93n32&34,94n48,214,215,220,
Invariant system xii 223,228,229,235,250,252,257,
Irish 62, 63, 89n6, 90n14, 92n27, 94n53, 270,271,278n29,279n34
96, 125, 136n13, 137n17 Expletive 19, 40, 53-61
!-subject 94n48&50 strategy vii
ltalian96,97, 109,110,112,125,134, Light 54, 70, 71
135, 136n2, 137n15, 139n29, Linear 149, 190
140n35,251,279n34 morphology 76
Iterative 176, 183 order45
process 184 precedence 22
Ixtisaas 207n22 Listedness 86n7
L-marking 10, 65, 66, 67, 95n58
Japanese 1, 5, 139n33 Local
Jussive 84, 151, 161, 164, 169, 172, domain 156
205n8 tense domain 147
Location 141
308 ANALYTIC INDEX
Locative 152, 182 movement

Logical Form, LF 3-4, 62, 68, 89n5 Afubham 277n24
agreement 228-229 Afuhsal 277n24
visible 228 Multi-Valued Functional Parametriza-
Lowering 68, 71, 72, 78, 89n5, 95n60 tion, MVFP xii, 2
Luisefio 279n41
Narrative tense 148, 204n5
Afa~dar145,214,215, 232,277n24, NCase see nominal Case
278n27 Negation, Neg 30, 71, 72, 73, 82, 83,
Maximal 86n118o13, 88, 91n19, 95n62,
chain 8, 12 158, 162-171, 173
projection 8, 9, 12, 52 copular 165, 166, 208n22
M -command 9, 48 marker 241
Merger 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 169, 170 Modal 163-166,208n22
Minimal domain 25 Neutral 163-166, 208n22
Minimality Condition 47, 48, 271 phrase, NegP 166, 169
Mirror Principle, MP 14, 81, 85n1 selection 166
Modal viii, 82, 83, 84 Negative member 146
Modality xiii, 82, 83, 150, 171 Neologism 85n2
Modem Standard Arabic 74n17 Neutral
Modification 218, 219, 234, 235, 237, coindexation 25, 90n12
238,241,244,258,259,262, member 146
263,264,272, 275n7,276n19 Neg 161, 163-168,208n22
Modifier 74,218,232,237,241,264, order 90nl0
272 Neutralized inflection 161
Mono-inflectional 156 Nisba 275n9
Mood xiii, 83, 84, 85 Nominal141
checking 87n13, 161 agreement see AGR
conflict 172 Case, Nease 163, 207n19
marking 86nl1, 151, 153, 165, 205n8 clause xi, xiii, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48,
phrase, MoodP !53 49-53,56,58,64,94n49,
Moroccan Arabic, MA 37, 38, 39, 41, 95n65, 188
42,43,44,54,62,92n29, INFL49, 50
93n36, 109,110,134,135, phrase,NP 106-114,117,119,127,
139n29, 140n35 153, 175, 184, 186nl, 194n37,
Morphological 17, 19, 77, 83, 85 322
agreement 36 projection 52, 65
case 20, 21, 88, 91n19 Nominalization 174, 191 n23
component76, 79,80,85n3 Nominalized 115, 131, 176, 177
object 12-14 Nominalizer 136, 139, 142, 144, 166,
rule 77, 85 175, 176
support 27, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, Nominative
120, 121 Case 32, 33, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
Move alpha 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 53,58,62,63,95n65,99, 101,
Movement 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 31, 102, 106-109, 120, 121, 122,
60,61,64,65,68, 70, 75,90n10, 127, 128, 130, 135, 136n11
91n16,94n538o54,95n61 affix 97, 98
see also NP movement, Wh assignment 50, 54
ANALYTIC INDEX 309
checking 49, 54, 55, 62, 75, 137n14 Parameter xi, xii, 2
discharge 55 see also Argumental, Nominal, Null
Non-anterior 170, 184 subject, Pronominal
Non-concatenative 82 Participant 143
Non-contingent state 176 Participle xiii, 141, 142, 175-190,
Non-cumulative 82 194-203
Non-finite 158 Active 177-181, 191, 192, 194-203,
morphology 191 2lln40
object 83 Passive 176-178, 183, 184, 194-203,
T 191 210n33
Non-linear 82 Partitive case 198-201
Non-nominative 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, Passive 183, 184, 276n20; see also
110,120-122,12- 130, 135n11, Participle
137nl4 Past 141, 144-147, 152-155, 159-163,
Non-past 141, 144, 145, 147, 181 169-171, 174, 175, 181, 182, 191,
Non-preterite 146 193,205n8,209n2 7
Non-stativity 176, 179 imperfect 148, 162, 205n8
Northern Paiute 273 imperfective 204n3
Notional type 86n8, 179 perfect 83, 84, 141, 148, 191, 192,
N-to-D raising 213, 216, 222 209n27
Noun, N 299, 329, 359nl8 perfective 143, 204n3
Noun phrase, NP progressive 192
movement 12, 62, 63 tense 149-150, 192
raising xiii, 213,215,223,227 ,228, Patient nominal 266, 268, 269
252,270,276n20 Perfect 141, 144, 148, 151, 162, 169,
Novelty Condition 212n43 170, 173,205n7
NSO 213, 216, 222, 224, 276 tense 149
Null Perfective 76, 78, 83, 91n23, 143, 144,
anaphor 137n22, 139n28 176, 181, 190, 204n7
argument 96, 97, 109, 112, 114, viewpoint 143
136n1&9, 138n26 Perfectivity 143, 205n7
argument language xi, 136n2 Permanent
subject 96, 112 property 184
subject language 96, 97, 109, 136n2, situation 178, 180
139n29 state 210n34
Number, NUM 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, Person, PERS 31, 52, 91n23, 104, 109,
42,43,93n23, 109,117,118, 117-127, 131, 132
l38n26 activation 132
activation 43 checking 132
licensing 41, 43 Constraint 104-105
specification 16, 37, 43 matching 132
Nunation 216, 219, 273, 275n4&5&10, specification 126, 131
277n24 Personal pronoun 57, 116-119, 122, 123,
132, 204n6
ONS 223 Phi-feature 96, 97, 113, 116, 120, 122,
Operator 95n61, 190, 193 135
ovs 213,223 checking 132
hierarchy 131
310 ANALYTIC INDEX
specification I 09, 117 Principle C 23

Phonetic Form, PF 3, 4, 12 Principle of Full Interpretation, PFI 4,
Pluperfect 144 11, 89n3,
Poor Principle for the Economy of Derivation
AGR 213, 222, 224, 228, 229, 231, 19
270,272 Principles-and-Parameters modell-15
0230 Pro 109-112, 122, 123, 134
Head 227 drop 114, 136nl, 137n16&17
Positive drop analysis 109
tense member 146, 152 drop language 97, I 09, 110, 112, 113
Possessee 214, 224, 244, 252, 273, 274 drop parameter 11 0
Possession 249 Expletive 130
Possessive 224, 226, 232, 252, 254, 259, identification 135
273 Process, processive 142, 154, 178, 181
Possessor, Poss 213,215,218,220,231, nominall45, 232,238,241,242,245,
244,246,248,253,255,270,272, 257,278n28
273, 275n9&10, 276nl6&19&20 participle 153
extraction 226-232 Progressive 143, 181, 190
licensing 215 morphology 144, 181
role 220 Prohibitive mood 155, 171, 172 155,
Posteriority 144, 149, 154, 169 172,212,251,286n29
Post verbal Projection 27, 52, 65
agreement 36, 37, 41-44 Maximal69, 95n57
position 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 44, Projection Principle, PP 4, 97, 112, 195
59, 70 Pronominal xiii, 10, 96, 124
subject 112,113,114,130,131,132, affix 100, 101, 106, 124
209n28 AGR 124
Potential AGR Parameter 124--125
govemor48 agreement 113-116
head governor 48 base 123
intervener 169 copula 117-119
Poverty of stimulus 15n I incorporation xi, 96
Precedence 10, 20, 22, 24, 25, support 122, 123, 125
206nl3&15 system 97
Predicate argument structure, PAS 6, Pronominality parameter xiii, 97-116,
118,124 134, 137n21
Predication II, 133 Pronoun 96, 131, 136n6, 137n14
Predicational sentence 118 Appositive 114
Prepositional Argumental 114
strategy 246-257 Bound 97, 98, 102, 114, 116, 122,
Present 141, 142, 144, 146, 149, 134
152-155, 160, 162, 173, 175-179, Corroborating 114
181-184 doubling 114, 115, 116
perfect 149, 150 Focused 113, 115
Preterite 146 Free 97,99
Preverbal subject 27-38,45-47, Ill, 112 Incorporated 97, 110, 124
Principle A 23 Independent97, 105,110,120
Principle B 23 inflection alternation 97
ANALYTIC INDEX 311
Overt 122 aspect 144, 147

Persona1117, 118, 119, 122 tense 144, 147, 204n7
Referential 119, 120, 124, 134 Relativized Minimality 168, 279n35
Resumptive 115 Result nominal 220, 232-242, 278n28
Strong 115, 116 Resumptive 115, 276n14
Weak 115, 116 Rich
Proper AGR96
government 9,12 D 106,214
noun 216,217 INFL 122
Protected 16, 33, 47, 62,75 Rigid Minimality 167, 168
Protector 45, 47-49, 75 Romance viii, 156, 251, 253, 271
Prototype 176 Root 76-82, 84, 85n5, 86n8&9&10
Pure stative 154, 176, 181, 182, 190 sentence 19, 66
Quantifier 28, 73,74 Saturation 11, 95n61, 117, 123, 124, 193
Floating 71, 73 Scandinavian 90n11
Quasi argument 118 Scope 12
Question 64, 65, 67,68 of affixation 176, 267, 274
bearer 193
Raising 17, 18, 56, 59, 89n5, 213,216, Scrambling 20, 21, 90nl5, 119,213,222,
220,227,228,250,270,278n29, 223,256,276nl6
279n34 Selection 158, 159, 208n22
Subject 17, 18,27-34,62,75 Semitic 96, 141, 142
V 16,19-27,68, 71,85,90n8,95n61 Sequence of tense 192, 193, 194
Reciprocal 81 , 82 Simple
Recursion 77, 85n7 future 149
Redundancy past 143, 149
rule 76, 86n7 present 149, 179
view 85n2 tense 142, 149, 174
Redundantism 76, 77 Simultaneity 144, 146, 147, 153, 154,
Reference 175, 183, 184, 190
time 144, 174 Siouan 280n42
Referentia140, 41, 105, 123, 182, 193 Situated tense 141
agreement 341, 364n30 Situation 142, 143
chain, R-chain 21, 37, 44, 54, 55, 75, aspect 143, 184
93n37 determiner 286n30
dependence 93n37 Slavic 83, 205n7
expression, R-expression 10, 44, 53, Small
117 clause analysis 87, 88, 89nl, 93n30
index, R-index 193 SNO 213, 222, 224, 272
NP, R-NP 44, 53, 93n37 Sound plural 137n24, 259, 275n5
tense, T, R-tense 193 Spanish 251
Referentiality Specific 28, 40
strong 29, 114 Specification 16, 34, 37, 38, 42, 44, 75,
weak 29, 30, 9ln22 86n8, 96, 109, 112, 116-127, 141,
Reflexive 81, 90nll 144, 146, 161-162, 163, 169, 173,
Relational Grammar 94n49 174,181,182,190,229
Relative Specificity 29, 9ln22, 215, 269, 272, 273
312 ANALYTIC INDEX
Specified configuration 62
Mood 156 Structure Preserving
tense 156 Constraint 12, 19
Specified Subject Condition, SSC 246, Subjacency 64
254 Subject 19,27-34,213,214,216,220,
Specifier, Spec 5, 16, 17, 20, 28, 31, 32, 224,232,234,239,243,246,249,
34,36,44,62,63,89n6 250,253,254,255,272,277n22,
licensing 272 278n29
position 18 adjunction 70, 274
Spec-Head case 45-53, 243
agreement 47, 58,223,227,229,231, Genitive 274, 276n16
257,270 nominal214, 238, 269
relation 19, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 54, 62, raising 16, 18, 27-32, 62, 75
220 role 226, 275n9
sharing 43, 44, 91n23 Subjunctive 84, 151, 153, 164, 169, 172,
Speech time, S 144, 147 173,207n20
Spell out 79, 82 Substitution 12, 14
Spelling rule 79, 81, 86n9 Support 116, 121, 164
Split svo
head 156 language 16, 112, 133, 134, 135
INFL 142, 160-161 order xi, xiii, 16, 18, 19, 27-32,
S-structure 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 45-47, 133, 140n35, 213, 274
26,27,31,33,40,49,62,63,68, Synthetic
193,213,214,216,220,224,227, genitive 213, 214, 246, 255, 256, 257,
228,229,242,252, 269,277n22, 270,272,274,276nl6
278n29 strategy 246, 274
Stage 143 system 213, 246
Standard Arabic, SA xi, xii, 109 Syrian Arabic 92n28
State 142, 143, 176, 178, 180
State-of-affairs 142, 155, 180 Tamakkun 275n4
Static 276 T -Case see temporal
Stative 144,152-156,177,179, 180, Telic 185
181, 185, 186 Temporal
Absolute 176, 183 adverb 97, 144, 145, 146, 182, 183,
Pure 175, 178, 179, 181, 182,184 205n7
Stati vity 179, 180 Case, TCase 163, 164, 169, 172,
Stati vization 179, 181 207nl9
Stem xii, 13, 75, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, Case assignment 163, 166, 170, 172
86n8&10 Case checking 164, 166
Strategy 246, 255, 257, 272, 274 dependence 147
Strong discharge 163
Crossover 90-91 n 15 event 148
INFL 48, 50, 51, 53, 75, 77, 85n6 extension 181
1exicalism 77, 85n6 interval 149
referentiality 29 location 205n7
Strongly referential41 Tense, T 141, 142-146, 147-150,
Structural 152-156, 158, 159, 162, 174-175,
case 8, 45 181-184
ANALYTIC INDEX 313
Absolute 144, 148, 204n7 241,246

Anaphoric 193 theory 11, 254, 261
bleeding 162 Theta bar position 7, 12
chain 207nl8 Time 141, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149, 150,
Complex 147, 148, 149-150, 155, 175, 180
159, 182, 190, 192, 193 of culmination 143
connection 207n18 Event, E 147
deictic 148 Reference, R 144, 145, 147, 174
Dependent 148,204n5 Speech, S 144
domain 147 shifting 192
Finite 155, 156, 191, 194 Utterance 144,154,174
language 141, 147 TMA152
marking 158, 206nl3, 207nl9 bleeding 162
morphology 107, 145 features 156
Narrative 148, 204n5 view 175
phrase, TP xii, 49, 60, 160 Topic 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 39, 60,
Referential193 61,64,65,66,91nl8&20,93n34,
Relative 144, 148, 204n7 94n49
specification 190 TP see Tense
view 146 Trace 22, 23, 60, 63, 66, 68, n59
Terminating Transitory 178, 180
bound 142 Tubuut118
endpoint 142 Turkish 224, 276n17
Termination 142 Type 176-178
Theme 215,241,246,260,266, 279n38 Typology xi, 16, 53, 62, 63
Thematic xiii, 51,214, 220, 225, 227,
232,233,234,241,245,262,264, Underspecification 141, 156
268,272,273,274 Uniformity Condition 8
assignment 6,7, 235, 268 Uniformity of Theta Assignment
binding 7, 269, 277nl7, 278n28 Hypothesis, UTAH 7
Criterion 6, 7, 12, 51, 241 Uninterrupted process 204n6
discharge 235, 278n28 Universal Grammar, UG xii, 1, 15n1
government 9, 95n58 Unrealistic mood 171, 174
grid 6, 186,234, 237, 238, 263, 264, Uto-Aztecan 273
266,276nl7,278n28 Utterance time see time
hierarchy 251, 254
identification xii, 7, 214,237, 267, Variable 90n8, 95n61
278n28 Variation 41, 44, 53, 62, 213,227,234,
index 15n6 252,271,274,279n34,292
marking 5, 7, 10, 207nl9, 214, 220, V-to-C raising 19, 26, 91n17
221,242,243,249,251,261, V-to-1 raising 16, 19, 68,73
268, 269, 275n8&9 Verb, verbal, V 141, 175-190
marking Parameter 5 copula 87, 119, 152
position 7, 12, 239, 262 fronting 133
preservation 266, 269 inflection 141,148, 174
role 6-7, 226, 241, 275n9, 278n29 raising 17, 18, 26, 27, 53,68-75,
subject 12, 17, 58, 59, 60, 62, 75, 90n8,95n61
92n28, 93n36&40, 94n42, 119, second language 9lnl7
314 ANALYTIC INDEX
second phenomena 26 Weak

sentence 47, 87, 94n49 crossover 90--91 n I 5
Verbless sentence 33, 45, 46, 48, 87-89 referentiality 30, 9In22
Viewpoint aspect 143 see also Agreement
Visibility 87, 88 Welsh 36, 49, 62, 63, 89n6, 94n53,
Condition 15n6 139n31
Vocalic Wh
information 76, 77 constituent 95n58
morphology 83 Criterion 92n25
pattern 52, 77, 84 island constraint 68
Vocalism 82 movement II, 12, 53, 63
Vocative 278n27 system 67-68
Volition, volitionall79, 180 Word
VOS viii, 47, 48, 51, 95n56, 213 formation xi, xiii, 12-14, 76-85
vso order xi, 16, 17, 17, 26, 53, 62, 64,69
language 16, 18,27,36,37,49,63, order typology 54, 75
9lnl8,92n28 X' theory 4-6, 75, 79
order xi, xiii, 17, 19-27,47,49,51,
68,89nl
structure 38, 45, 47, 53, 70, 213, 220,
222,223,225,274
Managing Editors
Joan Maling, Brandeis University
James McCloskey, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ian Roberts, University of Wales, Bangor
Publications
1. L. Burzio: Italian Syntax. A Government-binding Approach. 1986.
ISBN Hb 90-277-2014-2; Pb 90-277-2015-0
2. W.D. Davies: Choctaw Verb Agreement and Universal Grammar. 1986.
ISBN Hb 90-277-2065-7; Pb 90-277-2142-4
3. K. E. Kiss: Configurationality in Hungarian. 1987.
ISBN Hb 90-277-1907-1; Pb 90-277-2456-3
4. D. Pulleyblank: Tone in Lexical Phonology. 1986.
ISBN Hb 90-277-2123-8; Pb 90-277-2124-6
5. L. Hellan and K. K. Christensen: Topics in Scandinavian Syntax. 1986.
ISBN Hb 90-277-2166-1; Pb 90-277-2167-X
6. K. P. Mohanan: The Theory of Lexical Phonology. 1986.
ISBN Hb 90-277-2226-9; Pb 90-277-2227-7
7. J. L. Aissen: Tzotzil Clause Structure. 1987.
ISBN Hb 90-277-2365-6; Pb 90-277-2441-5
8. T. Gunji: Japanese Phrase Structure Grammar. A Unification-based Ap-
proach. 1987. ISBN 1-55608-020-4
9. W. U. Wurzel: Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. 1989
ISBN Hb 1-55608-025-5; Pb 1-55608-026-3
10. C. Neidle: The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. 1988 ISBN 1-55608-042-5
11. C. Lefebvre and P. Muysken: Mixed Categories. Nominalizations in Quechua.
1988. ISBN Hb 1-55608-050-6; Pb 1-55608-051-4
12. K. Michelson: A Comparative Study of Lake-Iroquoian Accent. 1988
ISBN 1-55608-054-9
13. K. Zagona: Verb Phrase Syntax. A Parametric Study of English and Spanish.
1988 ISBN Hb 1-55608-064-6; Pb 1-55608-065-4
14. R. Hendrick: Anaphora in Celtic and Universal Grammar. 1988
ISBN 1-55608-066-2
15. 0. Jaeggli and K.J. Safir (eds.): The Null Subject Parameter. 1989
ISBN Hb 1-55608-086-7; Pb 1-55608-087-5
16. H. Lasnik: Essays on Anaphora. 1989
ISBN Hb 1-55608-090-5; Pb 1-55608-091-3
17. S. Steele: Agreement and Anti-Agreement. A Syntax of Luisefio. 1990
ISBN 0-7923-0260-5
18. E. Pearce: Parameters in Old French Syntax. Infinitival Complements. 1990

ISBN Hb 0-7923-0432-2; Pb 0-7923-0433-0
19. Y.A. Li: Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. 1990
ISBN 0-7923-0500-0
20. H. Lasnik: Essays on Restrictiveness and Learnability. 1990
ISBN 0-7923-0628-7; Pb 0-7923-0629-5
21. M.J. Speas: Phrase Structure in Natural Language. 1990
ISBN 0-7923-0755-0; Pb 0-7923-0866-2
22. H. Haider and K. Netter (eds.): Representation and Derivation in the Theory of
Grammar. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1150-7
23. J. Simpson: Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax. A Lexicalist Approach. 1991
ISBN 0-7923-1292-9
24. C. Georgopoulos: Syntactic Variables. Resumptive Pronouns and A' Binding
in Palauan. 1991 ISBN 0-7923-1293-7
25. K. Leffel and D. Bouchard (eds.): Views on Phrase Structure. 1991
ISBN 0-7923-1295-3
26. C. Tellier: Licensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps. 1991
ISBN 0-7923-1311-9; Pb 0-7923-1323-2
27. S.-Y. Kuroda: Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Collected Papers. 1992
ISBN 0-7923-1390-9; Pb 0-7923-1391-7
28. I. Roberts: Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. A Comparative History of English
and French. 1992 ISBN 0-7923-1705-X
29. A.F. Fehri: Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. 1993
ISBN 0-7923-2082-4
K.luwer Academic Publishers - Dordrecht I Boston I London

Bok 3A978 94 017 1986 5

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Bok 3A978 94 017 1986 5

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ISSUES IN THE STRUCTURE OF ARABIC CLAUSES AND WORDS

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Joan Maling, Brandeis University

Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice

ISSUES IN THE STRUCTURE

SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.

Fass1 Fehr1, Abdelkader.

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved

CHAPTER I I PRINCIPLES, PARAMETERS, AND MODULES

CHAPTER 2 I WORD ORDER, AGREEMENT, AND CASE 16

2.3.2. Protectors and Minimality 47

CHAPTER 3 I PRONOUNS, INCORPORATION, AND FEATURE

3.2.1.1. Personal pronouns and copulas 117

CHAPTER 4 TEMPORAL, ASPECTUAL, AND MODAL

4.3.2. Aspectual distinctions 178

CHAPTER 5 I INFLECTIONAL PROJECTIONS IN NOUN

5.5.2. Case checking vs. Case assignment and Case

INDEX OF NAMES 297

ANALYTIC INDEX 301

linguistics. Since I have grown up in this environment, and mastered this

Asp(ect), Mood, Mod(ality), AGR(eement), Neg(ation), and D(eterminer).

the early manuscript, and for suggesting a number of editorial improve-

PRINCIPLES, PARAMETERS, AND MODULES

The grammatical model adopted in this work consists of a number of com-

specifies idiosyncratic properties of lexical units, in particular phonetic,

Concerning the nature of syntactic categories, a distinction is made between

Some notational observations are in order. I will use interchangeably

4. ARGUMENTS AND THEMATIC THEORY

5. THE CASE MODULE

of a structural relation), and inherent (or thematic) Case (which is assigned

(9) If A assigns inherent Case, then B receives a theta role from A if

6. THE GOVERNMENT MODULE AND STRUCTURAL RELATIONS

The concept of government plays an important role in GB theory. This

The notion of c-command can be defined as in (12), after Reinhart (1976):

(13) A properly governs B iff

(21) ... d . .. [c a [c ... b ... ]]

NPs can be associated with an antecedent in a local structural context,

Williams (1980) postulates a level of predication structure onto which

9. THE MOVEMENT MODULE

Morphology is concerned with formal properties of word formation, or more

DSW propose the following contextual definition of morphological heads:

WORD ORDER, AGREEMENT, AND CASE*

In this structure the subject is base-generated in Spec of VP. The unmarked

1. VERB AND SUBJECT MOVEMENTS IN ARABIC CLAUSES

1.1. VSO and V-to-1 Raising

The unmarked surface order of constituents within an Arabic sentence is

1.1.1. Basic VSO

VSO is the unmarked word order in Arabic sentences. 9 It is the order

(6) ?arad-tu ?an y-uqaabil-a r-rajul-u 1-mudiir-a

(8) man ntaqada muusaa

(9) ciisaa ntaqada muusaa

(11) zayd-an intaqada muusaa

( 12) sakaa zayd-an haagaa r-rajul-u lla<;!ii t-araa

carries morphological case, no ambiguity arises in the interpretation of

b. * sakaa ?abuu-hu 1-walad-a

(15) b. rajaca ?ilaa bayt-i-hi <aalim-u-naa 1-kabiir-u

ture cannot capture these asymmetrical properties. It is rejected in favour

1.1.2. Configurational Asymmetries

In a language where NPs occupy asymmetric structural positions, the

(19) a. qatala r-rajul-u nafs-a-hu

c. ?aqlaqa-nii ntiqaad-u r-rajul-i nafs-a-hu

b. *qanna r-rajul-u ?anna nafs-a-hu gabiyy-un