In:Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXVII: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Bloomington, Indiana, 2013
Edited by Stuart Davis and Usama Soltan
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 3] 2016
► pp. 59–74
Verbal and nominal plurals and the syntaxmorphology interface
Published online: 26 July 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.3.03ben
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.3.03ben
One of the assumptions of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995, and subsequent work within the program) is the idea that (narrow) syntactic derivations are driven by the interaction between formal features. However, one key aspect of formal features that drives their syntactic activity is the lack of interpretability. Thus, non-interpretable agreement features on temporal and verbal heads must be paired with interpretable matching features on nominal elements such as subjects and objects. There is compelling morpho-phonological evidence from Arabic that this dichotomy is plausible and has far reaching consequences for the syntax-morphology interface. The critical argument comes from cases of nominal and verbal plurals where the plural feature is spelled-out differently depending on whether it is interpretable or non-interpretable on its immediate host.
Keywords: Arabic, nominal plurals, syntax-morphology interface, Verbal plurals
References (35)
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Sportiche, D. (1994). Agreement and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 195–220.
Aoun, J., & Benmamoun, E. (1999). Gapping, PF merger, and patterns of partial agreement. In S. Lappin & E. Benmamoun (Eds.), Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping (pp. 175-192). New York: Oxford University Press.
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L. (2010). Arabic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bat-El, O. (1994). Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 571-596.
Benmamoun, E. (1999). Arabic morphology: The central role of the imperfective. Lingua, 108, 175–201.
. (2000). The Feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2003). Reciprocals as plurals in Arabic. In Lecarme, J., J. Lowenstamm, and U. Shlonsky (Eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic grammar (pp. 53-62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benmamoun, E., Bhatia, A. & Polinsky, M. (2009). Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 9, 67–88.
Benmamoun, E., Abunasser, M., Al-Sabbagh, R., Bidaoui, A., & Shalash, D. (2014). The location of sentential negation in Arabic varieties. Brill's Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 5, 83-116
Bobaljik, J. (2008). Where’s phi? agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In D. Harbour, D. Adger & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules (pp. 295–328). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition, 81, 65–92.
Durie, M. (1986). The grammaticalization of number as a verbal category. In
Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society
, 335-369.
Greenberg, J. (1991). The Semitic "intensive" as verbal plurality. In Alan S. Kaye (Ed.), Semitic studies In honor of Wolf Leslau (pp. 577-587). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111-176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Idrissi, A., Prunet, J., & Béland, R. (2008). On the mental representation of Arabic roots. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(2), 221–259.
Lorimor, H. (2007). Conjunctions and grammatical agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.
Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark, and A. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 201–225), University of Pennsylvania.
. (1993). Templatic form in prosodic morphology. In Proceedings of FLSM III. In Laurel Smith Stvan et al. (Eds.),
Papers from the Third Annual Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America Conference
(pp. 187-218), Indiana University.
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 209-283.
Mithun, M. (1988). Lexical Categories and the Evolution of Number Marking. In M. Hammond and M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical Morphology (pp. 211-234). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (pp. 262-294). Amsterdam: John Benjmains.
Prunet, J., Béland, R. & Idrissi, A. (2000). The mental representation of Semitic words. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 609–648.
Ratcliffe, R. (1997). Prosodic templates in a word-based morphological analysis of Arabic. In M. Eid & R. Ratcliffe (Eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics X, (pp. 147–171). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (1998). The 'broken' plural problem in Arabic and comparative Semitic: Allomorphy and analogy in Non-concatenative morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Soltan, U. (2007). On Formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of Standard Arabic morphosyntax. Ph.D dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
E. Watson, Janet C.
Davis, Stuart
2019. Are there transfer effects in the Arabic comparative?. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXX [Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 7], ► pp. 33 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.