Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIX: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2015
Edited by Hamid Ouali
[Studies in Arabic Linguistics 5] 2017
► pp. 181–204

Chapter 7
Arabic first conjunct agreement and the interaction between constraints on agree & movement

| Stanford University
I argue that Arabic first conjunct agreement (FCA) is the result of interaction between independently motivated constraints on the operation agree and on movement. This analysis compares favorably to recent proposals of FCA that must stipulate that particular syntactic operations may occur late in syntactic derivation. The current proposal renders such assumptions about late operations unnecessary, while also demonstrating that analyses that rely on such operations fail to account for cases in which FCA and full agreement are realized on distinct inflection-bearing elements within the same clause. The analysis presented here is based primarily on data from Lebanese Arabic, although thoughts are also offered on the applicability of the analysis to Standard Arabic.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.First conjunct agreement in Lebanese Arabic
    • 2.1Theoretical assumptions
    • 2.2Assumptions about Arabic clause structure and coordination
    • 2.3The general structure of the analysis
    • 2.4Clauses with no auxiliary
    • 2.5Clauses with an auxiliary
  • 3.Late operations analyses
    • 3.1Overview of “Late Operations” analyses
    • 3.2Late operations and mixed agreement
  • 4.Conclusion
    • 4.1First conjunct agreement in standard Arabic
    • 4.2The cross-linguistic perspective
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.5.08cro
References (52)
References
Abdou, A. (2012). Arabic Idioms: A Corpus-Based Study. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ackema, P. & Neelman, A. (2003). Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, (21)(4), 681–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Agreement weakening at PF: A reply to Benmamoun and Lorimor. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(1), 75–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Sportiche, D. (1994). Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(2), 195–220.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L. (2010). The Syntax of Arabic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, C. and Pullum, G. K. (1990). A Theory of Command Relations. Linguistics & Philosophy, 13(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Barker, C. (2012). Quantificational Binding Does Not Require C-Command. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(4), 614–633.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. (2000). The Feature Structure of Functional Categories. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Bhatia, A., & Polinsky, M. (2009). Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. In Van Craenenbroeck, J. and Rooryck, J. (Eds.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook (Vol. 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E. and Lorimor, H. (2006). Featureless expressions: When morphophonological markers are absent. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. and Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(4)L 951–1013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. (2008). Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., & Béjar, S. (Eds.) Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and inferfaces (pp. 295–328). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž (2007). On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(4), 589–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27(3), 455–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, J. (Eds.) The view from building 20 (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Linguistics (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, E. (2000). VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. Modern Hebrew. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (Eds.) The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages (pp. 75–96). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1978). The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(2), 151–175.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the Structure of Arabic Clauses and Words. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. & Nissenbaum, J. (1999). Extraposition and scope: a case for overt QR. In Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J., & Norquest, P. (Eds.) Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. and Bahloul, M. (2002). Postverbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of agreement. In Ouhalla, J. & Shlonsky, U. (Eds.) Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax (pp. 45–70). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2009). A Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Koppen, M. (2005). One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects (Doctoral dissertation). Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap, Utrecht.Google Scholar
(2008). Agreement with coordinated subjects. A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7, 121–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The distribution of phi-features in pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(1), 135–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, B. (2013). Arabic conjunct-sensitive agreement and primitive operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(4), 611–631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of grammar (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
LeTourneau, M. (2003). Interpretability, feature strength, and impoverished agreement in Arabic. In Parkinson, D. & Farwaneh, S. (Eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics (Vol. 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. (1986). Inflection and conjunction in modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 245–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. (2011). Aleut case matters. In Yuasa, E., Bagchi, T., & Beals, K. (Eds.) Pragmatics and Autolexical Grammar: In honor of Jerry Sadock (pp. 382–411). Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, M. (2000). Word Order, Agreement, and Pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
(1999). First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 643–668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. (2004). Derivations without the activity condition. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49 (pp. 287–310). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ouali, H. (2014). Multiple agreement in Arabic. In Khamis-Dakwar, R. & Froud, K. (Eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics (Vol. 26). New York: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., & Wilkins, W. (Eds.) Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation in honor of Joseph E. Emonds (pp. 262–294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollack, J. -Y. (1989). Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(3), 365–424.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. (2014). Agreement and Its Failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Soltan, U. (2007). On Agree and postcyclic merge in syntractic derivations: First conjunct agreement in Standard Arabic. In Benmamoun, E. (Ed.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics (Vol. 19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). On issues of Arabic syntax: An essay in syntactic argumentation. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Language and Linguistics, 3, 236–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tucker, M. (2011). The morphosyntax of the Arabic verb: Toward a unified syntax-prosody. In Morphology at Santa Cruz: Papers in Honor of Jorge Hankamer. Santa Cruz, CA: Linguistics Research Center Publications.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2002). Pure adjuncts. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Walkow, M. (2013). When Can You Agree with a Closest Conjunct? In Santana-LaBarge, R. (Ed.) Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. (2010). There is only one way to agree. Paper presented at the 33rd GLOW Colloquium. Wroclaw, Poland.
Zoener, C. (1995). Coordination: The Syntax of &P (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar