In:Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXX: Papers from the annual symposia on Arabic Linguistics, Stony Brook, New York, 2016 and Norman, Oklahoma, 2017
Edited by Amel Khalfaoui and Matthew A. Tucker
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 7] 2019
► pp. 79–92
On complex adjectival phrases in Standard Arabic
Published online: 8 July 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.7.05ald
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.7.05ald
In this paper, we present three puzzling observations concerning a class of adjectival constructions in Standard Arabic: (i) pleonastic definiteness, where an instance of definite morphology is semantically transparent, (ii) required resumption, where the absence of a resumptive pronoun leads to deviance, and (iii) case and agreement misalignment, where the domain for structural case assignment does not coincide with that for agreement marking. We then propose a resolution for these puzzles. Our proposal takes seriously the idea that semantics is purely interpretive, i.e. that the truth condition of the sentence is to be computed compositionally from its syntactic structure. The proposal includes two generalizations about case and agreement which turn out to concur to a large degree with widely accepted views on syntactic relations concerning these phenomena. The generalizations are (i) that arguments of 2-place predicates receive Accusative case and arguments of one-place predicates receive Nominative case, and (ii) that sentential nodes are barriers for agreement. Another conclusion of our proposal is that indices on pronouns can undergo movement which results in predicate abstraction and which exhibit properties of Ᾱ-movement.
Keywords: adjectives, case, agreement, definiteness, resumption
Article outline
- 1.Presenting three puzzles
- 1.1Pleonastic definiteness
- 1.2Required resumption
- 1.3Case and agreement misalignment
- 2.Resolving the puzzles
- 2.1Accounting for pleonastic definiteness
- 2.2Accounting for required resumption
- 2.3Accounting for case and agreement misalignment
- 3.Deriving CG and AG
- 4.Extending the analysis to transitive predicates
Notes References
References (17)
Abrusán, M. 2007. Contradiction and grammar: The case of weak islands (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In Philosophy, Language, and Artificial Intelligence (pp.241–301). Springer, Dordrecht.
Bobaljik, J. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In D. Habour, D. Adger, and S. B ́ejar: Phi- theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules (pp.295–328). Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, G. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry 37(4), (pp.535–590).
Fox, D., & Hackl, M. 2006. The universal density of measurement. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(5), (pp.537–586).
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. (Doctoral dissertationUniversity of Massachusetts, Cambridge).
1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim v. Stechow & D. Wunderlich: Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen forschung
, (pp.487–535 ) De Gruyter.
Krifka, M. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic analysis 25(3–4), (pp.209–257).
Pesetsky, D. & Esther T. 2011. Case. In C. Boeckx: The Oxford Handbook of Linguistics Minimalism, Chapter 7. Oxford University Press.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge).
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Al-Raba’a, Basem Ibrahim Malawi
2023. Is morphological case a feature of individual nominal elements?. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXXIV [Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 12], ► pp. 125 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.
