Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXVI: Papers from the annual symposium on Arabic Linguistics. New York, 2012
Edited by Reem Khamis-Dakwar and Karen Froud
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 2] 2014
► pp. 9–28

The development of future participles and future tense markers from motion predicates

Semantic, morphosyntactic and structural reduction

| University College Dublin

In this paper I outline an analysis for the development of the Moroccan Arabic motion participles ġadi ‘going’ and maši ‘going’ into future participles and future tense markers, and explore the implications of this process for the nature of the lexicon and word-derivation. The analysis is framed in the context of the approach to grammaticalization outlined in Ouhalla (2012a & b), which assumes that words are derivational constructs with no existence outside the sentence-contexts that include them. This approach entails a principled distinction between grammaticalization and lexical change: the former targets selected word forms such as the participle in sentence-contexts, while the latter targets roots in isolation and is reflected in all the words based on the root. I will argue for a distinction between Lexicon, that may consist of abstract semantic and morphosyntactic primitives that are uniform across languages, and vocabulary, consonantal roots and functional morphemes with phonological features. Instances of grammaticalization of the type discussed here affect vocabulary rather than Lexicon.

Published online: 30 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.2.02ouh
References
Benmamoun, E
(2000) The feature structure of functional categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A
(2003) Children’s lexical innovations: Developmental perspectives on Hebrew verb structure. In J. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of semitic, root-based morphology (pp. 243–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N
(1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B
(1976) Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D
(2000) Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 185–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., & Noyer, R
(2007) Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand, & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A
(1993) Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A
(1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, & S.J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Closs Traugott, E
(2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R
(1985) Multiple subcategorization and the Theta Criterion. Natural Language and Linguisitic Theory, 3, 271–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel structure. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A
(1995) Stage level and individual level predicates. In G.N. Carlson, & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–175). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
McCarthy, J
(1979) Formal problems in semitic phonology and morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
(1981) A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373–418.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M
(1992) The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. In I.M. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: Its role in grammar (pp. 247–269). Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D
(1999) The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J
(2011) Categorization and the interface levels. In R. Folli, & C. Ulbrich (eds.) Interfaces in linguistics: New research and perspectives (pp. 116–134). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012a) Lexical change and the architecture of the lexicon. In E. Torrego (Ed.), Of grammar, words and verses (pp. 41–66). New York and Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) The development of future markers in root-frames and satellite-frames: Arabic and French GO(ING) versus English and Berber GO(ING)+TO. To appear in Journal of Semitic Studies, Supplement on Grammaticalization in Semitic.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B
(2010) Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure(pp. 21–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, F.A., & Sa’id, M.F
(1960) Eastern Arabic. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Reprinted in 2005.Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A
(2003) Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U
(1997) Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative syntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Ouali, Hamid
2022. The imperfective verb and the progressive aspect in Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXXIII [Studies in Arabic Linguistics, 11], ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. 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.